- #1715182Hero42 March 25, 2019 at 4:59 pm
Following on from the point of unqualified writers supporting a cause, while we wait for your list of unqualified climate scientists I thought I would share this list of unqualified climate change deniers.
There are a lot of informative links but always good to know who not to quote as they breach your own standard of being qualified.
Cheers 🙂#1715188Hero42 March 25, 2019 at 5:10 pm
You quote higher levels of CO2 and ice ages and yet you don’t actually report the full picture, possibly because you don’t do your research to see why such a thing could happen. or possibly the full picture doesn’t support your contention or the contention of whichever website you took that from.
So for you education and enlightenment here is the full story.
Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as “glaciations.” One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that’s just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, “Heaven and Earth”, pp165:
“The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations…If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2.”
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let’s start with the CO2.
Plimer’s stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner’s GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that “exact values of CO2… should not be taken literally.”
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn’t occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.
When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it’s the only factor; ignore the other elements and you’ll most likely get the story wrong.
Cheers 🙂#1715195henriMemberMember since: April 18, 2017
Replies: 152henri March 25, 2019 at 5:35 pm
Thanks for the writers to avoid.
The difference between us and Mommabear is we want to know how and why something should hapoen when it seems the opposite should happen.
We research but Mommabear just believes what they read without thinking about it
😎#1715245paulinemMemberMember since: July 8, 2006
Replies: 814paulinem March 25, 2019 at 9:07 pm
What are we doing to prevent Global warming…. a good way I believe to help prevent GW or Climate change is to encourage electric vehicles on our roads. BUT unfortunately there is a problem with the cost of these vehicles to buy.
My brother in law an ex traffic cop under the MOT some years ago , decided now he was retired and getting older etc, he wanted to buy a new vehicle that in his older years would run cheaply would last in wear and tear etc and thus have little up keep etc He looked into the reports of all cars on the new market and what he saw with electric car vehicles, he saw it was all good with an expected long years of low cost usage.
BUT when looked at the cost to buy a new electric car he was horrified at how expensive they were to buy in comparison to petrol cars. Basically the cost of buying an electric car in NZ he found to be far too expensive, so he felt he had no choice but to buy a new petrol car as it was within his budget.
This is where I see we as a country need to look at with Global Warming or climate change as to how we can, get our electric run cars at a cost to buy that New Zealanders can afford to pay?#1715246jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7577jens March 25, 2019 at 10:02 pm
Yes paulinem – and perhaps we should also be prepared for more compulsory solar panels on our homes – and if so, then do we not need much more savings for the capital needed to invest in all that –
and does that not make participation along the Third Way upwards for all in wealth creation and ownership a basic and urgent priority for the whole human race, overcoming potentially unconstructive (i.e. destructive, and stagnant) racist and religious prejudice, and “have-not” poverty ?#1715277Hero42 March 26, 2019 at 12:40 pm
Electric vehicles have a high up front cost due to the cost of the battery, but battery costs are dropping and the technology is changing so costs will continue to come down
It is the running costs that are important. Someone travelling the NZ average of 12,500km every year would spend about $2500. If they were driving an electric car they’d pay only about $500.
So the break-even point depends on what type of petrol engined car you replace an electric car with.
Cheers 🙂#1715287cook222MemberMember since: December 23, 2018
Replies: 34cook222 March 26, 2019 at 1:28 pm
Just interested…..what does it cost to charge an electric car?#1715298Hero42 March 26, 2019 at 4:17 pm
There are a lot of variables. To charge the car completely will depend on the capacity of the battery, the electricity plan you are on and possibly when you do the charging if you have an off peak plan. There is also the fast charge option.
This information which seems to cover those different charging options from https://driveelectric.org.nz/individuals/the-cost-of-an-ev/
If you drive an average of 25-30km a day (like most Kiwis), the cost of charging an EV is equivalent to paying 30c per litre for petrol.
You can charge your EV while you sleep for about $3.00 per 100km, depending on the model. A fast charge can cost up to $10 for 100km, and takes about 20 minutes.
For an average daily drive you won’t be using all your battery power, so it could cost $1.00 to recharge the next night. That’s $15 a fortnight – or less.
They didn’t cover if you have solar which would be even cheaper if solar has the power to charge an electric vehicle.
Cheers 🙂#1715299Hero42 March 26, 2019 at 4:24 pm
The other thing to consider with Electric vehicles is maintenance.
A fully electric EV engine has only around 20 moving parts. It doesn’t need oil or grease, and it hardly ever needs servicing.
A vehicle with an equivalent combustion engine (one powered by fossil fuel) has approximately 2,000 moving parts, all of which need oil and/or regular servicing.
A vehicle with an internal combustion engine (ICE) is far more complex. It has a clutch and gears, plus special oil if the system is automatic. It needs regular servicing.
An EV doesn’t have a clutch or gears to service.
Cheers 🙂#1715406Hero42 March 27, 2019 at 4:17 pm
A new report reveals 42% of global coal capacity is currently unprofitable, and the United States could save $78 billion by closing coal-fired power plants in line with the Paris Climate Accord’s climate goals. This industry-disrupting trend comes down to dollars and cents, as the cost of renewable energy dips below fossil fuel generation.
Also new wind and solar will be cheaper than 96% of existing coal power by 2030.
The Coal Cost Crossover: 74% Of US Coal Plants Now More Expensive Than New Renewables, 86% By 2025. This report shows where in the US coal power stations are more expensive than new renewables:
The effect this is having is that for example, Colorado’s Xcel will retire 660 megawatts (MW) of coal capacity ahead of schedule in favor of renewable sources and battery storage, and reduce costs in the process. Midwestern utility MidAmerican will be the first utility to reach 100% renewable energy by 2020 without increasing customer rates, and Indiana’s NIPSCO will replace 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of coal with wind and solar.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.