Now I am no climate scientist - but
What engine destroying fuel?
Bunker fuel is dirty, but I would wager that even the dirtiest bunker fuel spews less pollution per quantity of goods transferred than the cleanest road transport. Huge container ships are extremely efficient because they transport such a vast quantity of cargo all at once on that one single engine. Can you imagine how much fuel would be consumed and how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks?
What engine destroying fuel?
E15.QuoteBunker fuel is dirty, but I would wager that even the dirtiest bunker fuel spews less pollution per quantity of goods transferred than the cleanest road transport. Huge container ships are extremely efficient because they transport such a vast quantity of cargo all at once on that one single engine. Can you imagine how much fuel would be consumed and how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks?
I don't have a sea harbour in front of my home, locally produced goods and foreign produced goods both go on the lorry. So subsidizing foreign produced goods seems like a bad idea. They might be relatively efficient CO2 wise ... but shipping emits enough sulphur to dwarf cars altogether. It's atrociously dirty.
When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.
Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based on more than just one study:QuoteJ. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
More can be found HERE
It's also a fact that all the major scientific organizations support the tenets of AGW.
Human activity contributes only a tiny amount of the total addition 'green house' gases put out each year (water vapour, CO2, methane, N2O..). Of the annual green house contributing gas - Natural processes over which we have no control or possibility to control account for 99+%. Man made, contribution 0.3% give or take.
Human activity contributes only a tiny amount of the total addition 'green house' gases put out each year (water vapour, CO2, methane, N2O..). Of the annual green house contributing gas - Natural processes over which we have no control or possibility to control account for 99+%. Man made, contribution 0.3% give or take.
This is a false argument. A single straw can break a camel's back.
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous.
Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous.
But it's not designed for anything and it has been metastable at CO2 levels far higher in the past, so it's scientifically very plausible that the biosphere will survive just fine.
Modern civilization might be in trouble, but we're in trouble any way. Overpopulation combined with peak everything ....
Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous.
But it's not designed for anything and it has been metastable at CO2 levels far higher in the past, so it's scientifically very plausible that the biosphere will survive just fine.
For example - add a very small amount of extra heat continuously beyond what a system was designed to dissipate, even if that extra heat is many orders of magnitude below the normal inputs, and the consequences should be obvious.
Or from human physiology - eat just 20 extra calories a day, every day (normal daily intake is around 2000) and in a few years you will be very fat.
Yes, but do we really want to go back there if we can avoid it?
For example - add a very small amount of extra heat continuously beyond what a system was designed to dissipate, even if that extra heat is many orders of magnitude below the normal inputs, and the consequences should be obvious.
The very obvious consequence is the system temperature will increase causing it to dissipate the extra heat. Systems do not have a 'designed' dissipation limit. A heatsink designed to dissipate 100W at 100C does not increase temperature till it melts if you feed it an extra watt.
Or from human physiology - eat just 20 extra calories a day, every day (normal daily intake is around 2000) and in a few years you will be very fat.
No, you will gain enough extra weight to burn an extra 20 calories a day moving it around.
Yes, but do we really want to go back there if we can avoid it?
Back where? What is the ideal global temperature and ideal for who/what? I and most of the life on the planet would rather it got warmer than go back just 11,000 years when much of the currently temperate climes were under kms of ice.
Nevertheless, the principle holds true. A relatively small continuous input of heat beyond what a system can dissipate (regardless of design) will have adverse consequences (and no I'm not talking about melting a heatsink ).
QuoteNo, you will gain enough extra weight to burn an extra 20 calories a day moving it around.Wouldn't it be nice if that were true! We could all eat as much as we want then... Again - I was simplifying but the idea is factually correct. To be more specific - take in just 20 calories more a day than your body burns (by whatever mechanism) and you will gain large amounts of weight over time - despite the extra calories being a small fraction of total caloric intake.
Nevertheless, the principle holds true. A relatively small continuous input of heat beyond what a system can dissipate (regardless of design) will have adverse consequences (and no I'm not talking about melting a heatsink ).It seems to me that the key to this point is the statement "beyond what a system can dissipate" - which begs the question: What IS that figure? Having that would really put some arguments to bed.
But I'm a cynic. Humans won't change enough to make a difference. Eventually we'll burn every bit of fossil fuel we are able to get our hands on.
Anyone remember all the global cooling / new ice age bull crap from the 70s?
To me it seems common sense that if man is causing the warming ('AGW') then we should stop doing it. The money being spent on Iraq/Afghanistan or the F35 would make a great start towards fixing it and the cheap energy that results would probably pay for it in economic terms later on.
Im more concerned about eugenics then one of 6 gases that the UN says is pollution. CO2 is not the problem, the real problem is the rise of eugenics, that to say the push towards the idea, humans are useless eaters. calls for depopulation to be the highest priority. to do it quickly, that equals euthanasia of the useless eaters. to save the world or the planet. for a utopian society.