Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Genava]

It discredit conventional knowledge that C02 is the cause of global warming, as I said before C02 was the byproduct of the heat causing more carbon to be released & had no apparent effect on climate.

Detection of radioactive carbon point the finger squarely on volcanic activity. The lag in C02 was not due to a lag in the ice holding it.
Geological stratus samples confirm this, & plant carbon has been recorded from fossils, confirming heat came before carbon; typically volcanoes are the cause in 99.9% of the cases.

It cannot be the case in the recent warming because the ratio in stable isotopes of CO2 (13C/12C) shows clearly a decrease (the scale is in reverse in the figure). While volcanic and marine CO2 are closer to the standard (aka zero by definition). Thus if they were the origins of the recent increase in CO2, the ratio should have moved in the other direction. See this link for explanation: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/volcan...xide-addendum/



Good try, but this is a bad idea to use this kind of argument against a geochemist.

[Genava]

Detection of radioactive carbon point the finger squarely on volcanic activity.

I wanted to add my question in my previous message, but the edit function is dead and is not working (probably in relation with the recent server crash I think).

I find you assertion quite strange to talk about the last 800'000 years. Radioactive carbon is the study of the isotope carbon-14 (14C), which has a half-life of around 5700 years. My problem is this method is not suited for dating samples from before the Holocene, the uncertainties are getting bigger and bigger the older the samples are.

Which study and data you are talking about? (title, author, year of publication, if possible).

It discredit conventional knowledge that C02 is the cause of global warming, as I said before C02 was the byproduct of the heat causing more carbon to be released & had no apparent effect on climate.

By the way, no scientist is saying the CO2 is ALWAYS the primary cause of any change in temperature.

The literature says simply that the CO2 has an effect on the temperature proven by dozen of publications from its physical properties:
https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...on-properties/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

The literature says that the glacial and interglacial temperatures variations cannot be explained by only variations in insolation and that adding the effect of the greenhouse gases gives a better explanation of the variations and increase our understanding of the past temperatures.

"The correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a key feature of Quaternary climate cycles. The cycle is characterised by pronounced temporal asymmetry; with rapid increase in both temperature and CO2 at the glacial termination. Here I compare observed climate cycles with results from a simple model which predicts the evolution of global temperature and carbon dioxide over the glacial-interglacial cycle. The model includes a term which parameterises deep ocean release of CO2 in response to warming, and thereby amplifies the glacial cycle. In this model, temperature rises lead CO2 increases at the glacial termination, but it is the feedback between these two quantities that drives the abrupt warming during the transition from glacial to interglacial periods."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2007GL032071

[fkizz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Well, there's at least one Nobel Prize among the first to confirm the greenhouse effect among the CO2 accumulation.

[B. W.]

Reply to post #115. It wouldn't let me post the quote for some reason.

You just listed a whole string of organizations that are literally singing to the choir. Seitz, aside from having a distinguished career, is someone who ought to recognize a scam when he sees one. In the instance you referred to, he did that to get $45 million in research grant funding...a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The whole system is corrupt.

You said that one third of the people one that petition aren't in climate science, that still leaves over 20,000 who are against the 2,000 being paid for AGW work. You lose.

I know you're unaware of this, but there is a presidential panel being formed to investigate the climate science reports for fraud. Keep your pants on because it's going to be a wild ride.

Antone who has been keeping a close eye on this BS knows there have been information not included in the climate models because it tilts away from what the IPCC wants to hear.

[Genava]

You said that one third of the people one that petition aren't in climate science, that still leaves over 20,000 who are against the 2,000 being paid for AGW work. You lose.

Science is not a d*ck contest, this is not the number of graduated people doing nothing related to the field that can decide what is true or not. It is very easy to get signatures from the nearly 1 millions master degrees annually granted in the US. There are plenty of peoples with master degree in engineering that have strong political view, finding several thousands of them is not a hard task.

You have the quantity on your side, the climate scientists have the quality.

I know you're unaware of this, but there is a presidential panel being formed to investigate the climate science reports for fraud. Keep your pants on because it's going to be a wild ride.

Oh my god I am frightened! You should realized that I am not in the US and I will have no advantage in my job if every countries start to cut their emissions. I work in the environmental fields but mainly in risk analysis and management. Thus keep going. The only thing is that I love environments in general, for the sake of the nature. This is my only motivation here.

You are killing the reputation of your own country and you will add a new weight to carry for future western generations. It is a shame that the people loving the most their country are the ones killing it.

[Knight of Heaven]

[Genava]

Senator Lee is funny I admit it but I miss the rational minded America.

The only truth in his speech was that the Green New Deal will not pass. This Federal program proposal is far too much and inefficient. In fact, most of the persons knowing the subject prefer a simple carbon pricing system:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07845-5

The view of Senator Lee that innovation will solve itself the problem of climate change is wrong. First of all, to solve a problem, you need first to recognize it. As we see here, there is a lot of work to meet this condition. Finally, technological innovation are fueled by financing mostly and in the case of carbon neutral technologies, nobody will take the risk to put billions in a technology that can hardly compete economically against coal, gaz and oil. I will take only one example: nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has been developed in the US but it is still a minor source of electricity and nuclear energy never has been competitive against coal even globally. Most of the nuclear industry is saying that a carbon pricing system will promote nuclear energy:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-energy-in-the
https://www.axios.com/nuclear-energy...e8ce17c9c.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[img][/img]

[JP226]

Senator Lee is funny I admit it but I miss the rational minded America.

The only truth in his speech was that the Green New Deal will not pass. This Federal program proposal is far too much and inefficient. In fact, most of the persons knowing the subject prefer a simple carbon pricing system:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07845-5

The view of Senator Lee that innovation will solve itself the problem of climate change is wrong. First of all, to solve a problem, you need first to recognize it. As we see here, there is a lot of work to meet this condition. Finally, technological innovation are fueled by financing mostly and in the case of carbon neutral technologies, nobody will take the risk to put billions in a technology that can hardly compete economically against coal, gaz and oil. I will take only one example: nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has been developed in the US but it is still a minor source of electricity and nuclear energy never has been competitive against coal even globally. Most of the nuclear industry is saying that a carbon pricing system will promote nuclear energy:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-energy-in-the
https://www.axios.com/nuclear-energy...e8ce17c9c.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[img][/img]

Just a bunch of babbling. Nuke can't compete because regulatory costs push the investment windows out decades and drive interest costs up prohibitively. It's a virtual zero marginal cost operation of energy and if global warming were a real problem, Nuke energy would be at the forefront. Instead it's a cash grab for inefficient energy investment.

[Knight of Heaven]

The view of Senator Lee that innovation will solve itself the problem of climate change is wrong.

Its a complex issue. My country in early mid 2000s invested a lot in green energies, mostly wind, but hydraulic and solar too. Still even today it cant compete, nor it is reliable, to the current needs of our population. I dont think it will ever be given the whimsical nature of its sources, and the current demand of our civilization.

With all the flourishing aside, i do think he has a point on this. An innovation and scientific breakthrough it is what is needed to solve this issue. And while it is true, as you pointed out, investment is needed, but it is not enough.
And incomparable to a true engineering revolution on the matter. One that is really credible, and practical.

Im a fan of the nuclear energy, but its not like it isn't without its issues, to be solely dependent on it primarily, is problematic. As i far as i understand it does produce waste as well. Currently i think we just store it, and there is so much space around. One method would be to wait a few centuries or more so we can utilize that waste again as fuel in the nuclear plants. Send it to space, is a no no, Too dangerous. ( a rocket explosion in the atmosphere with radioactive waste, would be disastrous).

Not to mention the vulnerability of this plants in case of natural disasters etc. Even with all assurances on modern tech, we couldn't be sure.

The only truth in his speech was that the Green New Deal will not pass. This Federal program proposal is far too much and inefficient. In fact, most of the persons knowing the subject prefer a simple carbon pricing system:

Yes i m aware. It didn't go over well in France, when they tried it, Paris still burns every weekend or so, up until today.

Anyway it is a complex issue. With no clear cut solution currently in my view. But also i dont think its true that the problem isnt acknowledged, political rhetoric and partisanship aside as well its fringe elements, the EU and US ( and some other developed countries) have a recent history of investing in renewable s and such. And now i hear China is trying to do it too.

[Genava]

Yes i m aware. It didn't go over well in France, when they tried it, Paris still burns every weekend or so, up until today.

The issue is far more complex in France that it is portrayed on the internet. The yellow-jacket movement is not against a climate policy directly. They are tired of bad governments and decreasing quality of life. It should be put in the context of the previous presidencies, aka Sarkozy and Hollande. Moreover, police violence and the refusal to create a new democratic counter-power by the government (référendum d'initiative citoyenne) have increase the radicalization of the movement.

With all the flourishing aside, i do think he has a point on this. An innovation and scientific breakthrough it is what is needed to solve this issue. And while it is true, as you pointed out, investment is needed, but it is not enough.
And incomparable to a true engineering revolution on the matter. One that is really credible, and practical.

Well, when the US government wanted to go on the Moon, they put a considerable amount of money in developing new technologies. This motivation from the State is clearly not here today for the climate. If this is not the government, the money should come from the private sector. And honestly, environmental concern is a bad motivation for private companies. This will be the case only when the effects of climate change will be very present and will have an intense effect on the economy, which is exactly what we want to avoid.

You raised good concerns about nuclear energy. But in this case I was only mentioning it as a good example of an efficient technology that cannot compete against fossil fuels that do not pay the environmental cost. Actually, countries like France have most of their electricity from nuclear. Thus in comparison with the US (which emit by capita third more time than France) they are quite good on this issue.

And nuclear technology is mostly based on the uranium fuel chain for historical and geopolitical reasons. But a development of thorium fission fuel chain could resolve several issues with the waste and the global security.

The issue arise as well about nuclear fusion energy, I have physics books from my mother printed during the 1960s and they were talking about using it for civil application. 50 years after, we are still very late on this technology for one damn reason:

[Knight of Heaven]

The issue is far more complex in France that it is portrayed on the internet. The yellow-jacket movement is not against a climate policy directly. They are tired of bad governments and decreasing quality of life. It should be put in the context of the previous presidencies, aka Sarkozy and Hollande. Moreover, police violence and the refusal to create a new democratic counter-power by the government (référendum d'initiative citoyenne) have increase the radicalization of the movement.

Of course there is always latent issues that comes with it, as most social upheaval event. The thing that brought all this was the discussion on fuel tax. Everything else its latent stuff, which wont go away, that easily.

Public investment is important, in lots of areas actually. How are do you do it, in modern societies that have increasingly public debts to deal with, it is another issue.

I heard about thorium, ( which comes from uranium as i understand) , and heard different opinions, and from what i gather there really isn't a general consensus about its utility. I also dont think it is waste free as stated. But that is another story.

[B. W.]

Some of the arguments presented here by AGW proponents are truly contradictory. The only viable fuel that is virtually free of pollution creation for the fusion process is Helium 3. The nearest location where that substance can be found in quantity is the surface of the moon. Every AGW proponent who has posted on this forum was, and is, a supporter of President Obama. Obama canceled the Constellation Program which would have made it possible to go to the moon in relative safety, as well as economically, and mine the substance. Fortunately, President Trump has restarted the moon quest for obvious reasons. The only sad thing is we will have to do it without the Ares rockets because of Obama's actions and courageous astronauts will eventually die because of it.

So there's leftist logic for you^

As an environmentalist I resent the AGW people who use pollution to further their goal of globalism because when the farce finally is revealed as fraudulent it will do irreparable harm to those of us who seek sensible anti-pollution laws.

[Love Mountain]

Some of the arguments presented here by AGW proponents are truly contradictory. The only viable fuel that is virtually free of pollution creation for the fusion process is Helium 3. The nearest location where that substance can be found in quantity is the surface of the moon. Every AGW proponent who has posted on this forum was, and is, a supporter of President Obama. Obama canceled the Constellation Program which would have made it possible to go to the moon in relative safety, as well as economically, and mine the substance. Fortunately, President Trump has restarted the moon quest for obvious reasons. The only sad thing is we will have to do it without the Ares rockets because of Obama's actions and courageous astronauts will eventually die because of it.

Fusions hasn't been remotely achieved. Neither has commercial space travel. Yet we are hypocrites because Obama cancelled a program that was never adequately funded for its intended goal. But then again, this isn't the first time you've posted very illogical or self-contradictory statements.

So there's leftist logic for you^

As an environmentalist I resent the AGW people who use pollution to further their goal of globalism because when the farce finally is revealed as fraudulent it will do irreparable harm to those of us who seek sensible anti-pollution laws.

Leftist logic makes sense apparently.

[Genava]

Every AGW proponent who has posted on this forum was, and is, a supporter of President Obama.

Actually I am on the other side of the political spectrum. I only don't get in conspiracy and antiscience rhetoric. Conservative persons in Switzerland are different than in the US. I always voted in favor of restrictive immigration policies and against entering the European Union. Seeing the World in black and white is a poor way to think.

The only viable fuel that is virtually free of pollution creation for the fusion process is Helium 3

A good alternative is using deuterium and tritium fusion and producing tritium from lithium neutron-bombardment. Probably both pathways are the best solution to the long term.

As an environmentalist I resent the AGW people who use pollution to further their goal of globalism because when the farce finally is revealed as fraudulent it will do irreparable harm to those of us who seek sensible anti-pollution laws.

The problem is there, everything is overly political on this subject. This is only partisan position. But this is wrong, the climate issue arise in the whole scientific community and was only used by the Left after the 1990s. While the consensus was already built in the 60/70s. Using the political reaction of the society to determine if the science about it is legit or not is clearly a dangerous cliff.

Most of all, there is no need of globalism to solve this issue.

[B. W.]

Reply to post 134: You don't know what you're talking about.

Reply to post 135: Any process involving energy would have to be economically feasible to compete with fossil fuels. Helium 3 is in abundance in the soil on the moon's surface. This was discovered examining the moon rocks from the Apollo missions. I visited the moon rock storage facility many times. They have done some great work there including a process to create a form of super cement from moon dust. Access to that facility is tightly controlled.

[swabian]

Reply to post 134: You don't know what you're talking about.

Reply to post 135: Any process involving energy would have to be economically feasible to compete with fossil fuels. Helium 3 is in abundance in the soil on the moon's surface. This was discovered examining the moon rocks from the Apollo missions. I visited the moon rock storage facility many times. They have done some great work there including a process to create a form of super cement from moon dust. Access to that facility is tightly controlled.

Pure douchebaggery what you're delivering here, after all the brainpower that has been put into responding to your trolling. But go on, you're so successful with it that you actually get seriously interested people to read what your opponents have to say.

[Genava]

Any process involving energy would have to be economically feasible to compete with fossil fuels. Helium 3 is in abundance in the soil on the moon's surface.

There is a huge stock of lithium 6 worldwide because of the nuclear weapons race during the Cold War. This is far less expensive to start the nuclear fusion energy. Mining the Moon regolith (what you call soil) is very expensive because to extract a few grams of helium you need to process millions of tons of regolith. On the Moon directly.

Edit: Frank Close 2007 text "Fears over factoids"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Let me now turn to the helium-3 factoid. At most fusion experiments, such as the Joint European Torus (JET) in the UK, a fuel of deuterium and tritium nuclei is converted in a tokomak into helium-4 and a neutron, thereby releasing energy in the process. No helium-3 is involved, so where does the myth come from? Enter “helium-3 fusion” into Google and you will find numerous websites pointing out that the neutron produced in deuterium–tritium fusion makes the walls of the tokomak radioactive, but that fusion could be “clean” if only we reacted deuterium with helium-3 to produce helium-4 and a proton.

Given that the amount of helium-3 available on Earth is trifling, it has been proposed that we should go to the Moon to mine the isotope, which is produced in the Sun and might be blown onto the lunar surface via the solar wind. Apart from not even knowing for certain if there is any helium-3 on the Moon, there are two main problems with this idea – one obvious and one intriguingly subtle. The first problem is that, in a tokomak, deuterium reacts up to 100 times more slowly with helium-3 than it does with tritium. This is because fusion has to overcome the electrical repulsion between the protons in the fuel, which is much higher for deuterium– helium-3 reactions (the nuclei have one and two protons, respectively) than it is for deuterium– tritium reactions (one proton each).

Clearly, deuterium–helium-3 is a poor fusion process, but the irony is much greater as I shall now reveal. A tokomak is not like a particle accelerator where counter-rotating beams of deuterium and helium-3 collide and fuse. Instead, all of the nuclei in the fuel mingle together, which means that two deuterium nuclei can rapidly fuse to give a tritium nucleus and proton. The tritium can now fuse with the deuterium – again much faster than the deuterium can with helium-3 – to yield helium-4 and a neutron.

So by bringing helium-3 from the Moon, all we will end up doing is create a deuterium– tritium fusion machine, which is the very thing the helium aficionados wanted to avoid! Undeterred, some of these people even suggest that two helium-3 nuclei could be made to fuse with each other to produce deuterium, an alpha particle and energy. Unfortunately, this reaction occurs even more slowly than deuterium–tritium fusion and the fuel would have to be heated to impractically high temperatures that would be beyond the reach of a tokomak. And as not even the upcoming International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will be able to generate electricity from the latter reaction, the lunar-helium-3 story – like the LHC as an Armageddon machine – is, to my mind, moonshine.

[B. W.]

Actually Frank Close was only partly right, which means he was wrong as was demonstrated in 2017:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...es-efficiency/

[B. W.]

It seems there is no way around double posting.

and then there is this from the Green People:

https://www.nuenergy.org/helium-3-fusion-energy/

[B. W.]

I think this research proposal at MIT was what Close was referring to. Obviously, he was wrong and MIT was right:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-...um3_fusion.pdf