A Car that runs on Salt Water?

Remove all ads!

That pretty wide margin is not always as wide as some people would like us to believe. Renewable fuel - i.e. ethanol and biodiesel - is definitely not in all conditions more environmentally friendly than petrol and diesel.

They're really big on ethanol in Sweden, but given the local conditions there, they would never be able to grow enough in their own country because the climate is just too cold. So they import the stuff from Brasil, where it grows very well. But considering the energy cost of refining the ethanol from sugar reeds, the transport both in Brasil and to transport it half way across the world make it rather dubious that there actually is much environmental benefit. Especially if you consider that they cut amazon jungle in order to have fields on which to grow the sugar reeds.

The same goes for the case of biodiesel, except the base is typically some form of vegetable oil from palm, rapeseed or soy. Growing these crops, using pesticides of some sort, transporting it, refining it, transporting it again, combine to make this not necessarily very sustainable. To make it competitive on price, it needs to be subsidised, which in turn leads these crops being grown instead of food crops (which isn't typically subsidised), leading to a lack of food in some countries. And of course also cutting woods for growing crops.

It's good to have alternatives to fossil fuel, and we need to keep working on it, but I'm not under the illusion that we are currently at anywhere even close to reaching the point that we actually have viable alternatives. Not with our current energy use (which will only get worse as big countries like India and China get more developed). Unfortunately, we might still in our own lifetimes be forced into the alternatives due to the dwindling supply of liquid fossil fuels.

My knowledge of solar energy numbers might be a bit dated, but the return of investment on a strict energy basis for a solar panel was about 10 years from what I know.

Also, 12 to 64 million birds killed from power transmission lines 0_o
That's staggering.

 

Henkie, I think ethanol and biodiesel are largely a joke, so i'm with you on that one. I neglected to mention those for that reason.

Again I agree, we are in a horrible situation. On one hand we have an enormous and growing energy demand. On the other hand we already have a supply several times bigger than what is largely agreed to be safe to put in the atmosphere. Some countries are already showing us how it's done. In such a position the actions taken should be drastic, or at least somewhat on scale with the problem as we understand it. But it's not.

If all I was giving you were sources with a clear motive I would totally get that attitude. But some of these are government sources, and considering the hugely apathetic response they have taken to the issue I find it hard to wrap my head around the government being environmental advocates.

Do you disagree that fossil fuels have a harsher social and environmental cost, or do you just reject the sources? Because if you "don't like" the additional costs of fossil fuel, there are way more to consider for it than just the bird issue. I don't think the claim that fossil fuel burning causes ill health effects needs to be a claim with plenty of sources. We can bicker about the exact figures, or we can point out the obvious; fossil fuel burning causes lots of pollution and ill health effects. Lots. I can believe some fanatics may put the lives of birds over human lives, but not alpha-skeptic of all things green Blackthorne

 

What do you mean you "don't buy" into social costs? Should we ignore them, despite their obvious presence, on the basis of them not being calculable down to the last decimal point? I highly doubt any numbers, such as the amount of cases of lung disease from smoking, can be totally calculated. I don't see this as being a valid reason not to do anything. I just don't see not buying into them as a choice, I guess. They exist. We can't pretend otherwise.

We need to, because global warming is real. I know you disagree. But there is simply no basis for it. If there was, maybe poll after poll wouldn't find climate change to overwhelmingly be the consensus among scientists, every time. Maybe you wouldn't be able to get research published about how 97% of relevant literature endorses global warming. Maybe if it wasn't real we wouldn't have so many scientific groups willing to say it is.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK


....and so little willing to say it isn't.


I mean, you want to dismiss a comparison of the social costs of fossil fuels and alternatives as propaganda and "advocacy". Isn't it a bit ironic, then, that you take this stance? At least what I am saying is generally accepted information. Global warming denialism is a fringe minority among the people that matter, with very strong incentives to pursue both propaganda and "advocacy".

 

I agree that the question is not "does the climate change". Looking at the history, one can only conclude that the only constant is change. With or without help of humans.

For me, the real question is "how will our society hold up once easy energy runs out?" Liquid fuels are likely the first to run out - estimates vary, but the time is measured in decades, not centuries. More fuel becomes economic to win with fuel prices going up and up, but there's also the consideration that once fuel costs more energy (i.e. fuel) to retrieve than it will yield, it will no longer be cost effective, no matter how high the fuel prices go.

Gas is similarly limited, and the US's strategy to switch more to gas than liquid fuels over the last few years will only result in their gas reserves declining quicker and quicker over the years.

Coal is expected to last a fair time still, between 100 and 200 years, depending on whose estimation you believe, but it will still run out.

What will society do once the easy energy runs out? Living closer to work is a possibility, though only in as far as that I expect people to start using more electric cars (electricity from alternative sources is easier to make and distribute), but I won't expect more people to actually use a bicycle or some such to go to work.

To be fair, the arctic sea ice was never so small (in recorded history) than it was the past few years and there is a fair chance that this or the next few years will mark a completely ice free arctic sea. End of summer, anyway.

 

Live slower. Sailing ships will see a renaissance

Hah!
http://www.mit-dem-rad-zur-arbeit.de/bundesweit/index.php
(for those who don´t understand german that´s the website where all states of Germany combined with a large healthcare company suggest and support people using bike+rail instead of their car in the summer from 01.06. to 30.09. (german dates so DD.MM.) with a giveaway for those who manage at least 20 days

Sure but who cares when Canada and Denmark/Greenland go to war about control of the North-West-Passage?

 

No it isn't.

"Arctic sea ice extent for April 2015 averaged 14.0 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), the second lowest April ice extent in the satellite record. It is 810,000 square kilometers (313,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.0 million square kilometers (6.0 million square miles) and 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) above the previous record low for the month observed in 2007."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


Also I disagree with the notion that expenses don't have to deal with climate change. A better question is if we recognize the expenses related to Global Warming and treat them as such.

If person A trashes person B's car it will probably be expensive for person B or person B's insurance company if nobody figures out person A did it and thus the bill (car repairs or a new car) is never sent that direction.

 

If this past April was the 2nd lowest in terms of sea ice is the past 30 some years then it isn't "increasing year over year".

More importantly I'm not sure if "sea ice anomaly" means what you said it means but I do know what "extent" means (area covered by sea ice). If you go to the link I provided take a look at chart of the "Arctic Sea Ice Extent" you'll see that each of the last 5 years (including this one) has been largely been below average (specifically the 1981-2010 average).


And I'm quoting your response to when henkie mentioned the decreasing sea ice in the Arctic.





As a side point.

I wanted to point out there are sizable expenses related to fossil fuels that companies involved in accessing and using them don't pay but the rest of society (other people & companies) does. So do we accurately recognize just how expensive fossil fuels really are (I'd argue they get a large indirect subsidy that few other types of energy receive).

 

I believe multi-year or "year over year" means year after year, which means more sea ice this year than last and so forth. Yet 2nd lowest 7 or 8 years later means that didn't happen.

Also using 2007 (lowest year in 30 years) as a starting point is questionable because that doesn't compare it to an actual average and any other year (by definition of what "lowest" means) will have more ice. Comparing it to an average is a better indicator of what is happening because it compares what is going on now to a period of time.

Also the graph isn't of "max extent", not that it matters (because we are talking indicators of the amount of Arctic Ice) but average extent each year (& several months in each year).

1. henkie, & yourself when you disagreed with him, mentioned Arctic sea ice in specific.

2. If the anomaly measurement leads one to misunderstand what is happening in the Arctic then perhaps it isn't the best measurement to use.

3. The Arctic & Antarctic sea ice operate in different geographies & different systems. There is more land ice in the Antarctic (on Antarctica) that can start melting and then slide into the ocean (& become sea ice) than there is in the Arctic. So that isn't even a good way to measure the impact of Global Warming because it misses the details of how Global Warming affects each geography/system differently.

 

As you can see henkie referred to the "arctic".

The reply to that point was..

Responded to him by referring to "the Arctic".


After referring to the Arctic you then mentioned the "global sea ice anomaly", about which I pointed out..

..meaning "anomaly" measurements could actually led people to misunderstand what is happening with both Arctic sea ice and Global Warming.


I also pointed out that starting with 2007 is misleading to start with.

A more accurate way is to go over past past few decades and see the downward trend for sea ice.

See "Figure 3" at the link below where it also points out "Monthly April ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Look under the title "April 2015 compared to previous years"



It'll also help with this question.

It is pretty easy to see the extent goes up and down.

The sea ice extent increased even more than after the 1997 (guessing that is the year from the chart) low than it did after the 2007 low and yet that multi-year ice largely melted away.

The ice recovers for a few years after a low for it and then even more than that recovery melts away. So the trend if for there to be even less ice at the end than at the beginning.

And the recovery you referred to after 2007 actually stopped about 2010 or 2011 and was no longer "continuing to increase".

Blackthorne TA, while you thought Arctic multi-year ice was growing that stopped in 2011 and it actually went into a small dip followed by a small recovery and has been in larger decline since about 2012 or 2013.

 

Except. As I already said. If Global Warming interacts with the 2 different polor regions in different ways.

And like, I said before, geography can play into this-and you agreed with me that Antarctica has land ice while the Arctic generally does not. You gave me a "no you're right" (disagreed with me yet gave me a fact I already pointed out which supports my point.)

If Global Warming does interact differently with the 2 regions differently then using it would lead someone to an inaccurate conclusion.

I just got through saying why the anomaly may (and probably is in the short term) a bad and misleading way to measure sea ice. After all it probably helped lead you into the mistake of thinking Arctic sea ice had been increasing when the reverse has been true for the last few years.

As to what time of the year sea ice melts in the Arctic. Don't know what the pattern is that drives it in terms or spring/summer/fall but if you look through the various charts at the website you see there is one.. actually looking at it just now it seams that amount of Arctic Ice does drop as we get closer to summer-look at the chart listed under "Arctic Sea Ice Extent".

It currently shows the extent of ice has been dropping from February to June.