Belief In Climate Change Hinges On Worldview

[DJ Droood]

If anyone is finding your winter too harsh, apparently Canada is becoming the new sun destination:

Warmest, driest winter in Canadian record books, Environment Canada says

Canwest News ServiceMarch 10, 2010

From the balmy Arctic and snowless Western fields to the open water of the St. Lawrence, this winter has been the warmest and driest in Canadian record books, Environment Canada says. Winter 2009/10 was 4C above normal, making it the warmest since nationwide records were first kept in 1948, Environment Canada scientists say. It was also the driest winter on the 63-year record, with precipitation 22% below normal nationally, and down 60% in parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. "It is truly a remarkable situation," David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada, told Canwest News yesterday. Records have been shattered from "coast to coast to coast," he said. While much of Asia, Europe and the United States shivered through freak winter storms, Canada was left on the sidelines, Mr. Phillips said.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... z0hnQ7Qhk0

[Hennie]

The fact that things are getting worse rapidly is not compatible with the almost world wide belief that "things only can get better" or even "the best is yet to come".
It is often observed in people in the last weeks of a chronic disease of which they are suffering, that when they are actual terminal and dying, they just won't believe that death is a reality.

[Merlyn]

the masses are too lazy or lack the tools necessary to have an informed opinion on an issue.

Hi Kernos;

With the real problem at hand, most were getting used to global warming, and did not see the possible result of a winter like this.
When I warned of the coming winter, very few took it as a reality. They do now.

Though the tree rings of decades past show a trend, it is the living trees which show what is to come.

Not many will view this as "an informed opinion".
However, the mass amounts of pine cones did indeed warn me, and I prepared accordingly. So in essence.. I believed in the coming climate change.

We can show that science is right in many ways, that global CO2 is a problem. It is however difficult to say what the ocean, earth and sky will do with it.
This is a complex system, one which has evolved but also evolves past us now.

For the most part, we can say that high levels of CO2 will result in precipitation. That is the way the system works.
This winter did not really result in so much of an increase, as it did result in change in where and how.

The problem with the politics is a different matter in belief.
Politics is plagued by corrupt ways.

It is almost self defeating, or perhaps very so for politics to be involved.
We all shouted STOP POLLUTION! so many years ago.

Now we have a new problem as a result. It is an unsustainable use of fuel. Long ago we made it clear this was coming, and the politicians gladly took our money. Now we do not have enough to "fund" political solutions. We have been ripped off, and now they cry wolf!

We gave the money, still do, yet we are the only ones persecuted for polluting, while the much larger polluters evade every effort to stop it.
So disbelief is something which is expected. We don't believe PAC statements.

Most however will say, yes polluting is bad. If they believe the extreme issue now, is another matter.
Very few if any will say they believe pollution is a good thing.

Global warming as an issue in itself that I consider a result of many issues, and though science puts the blame squarely on CO2
I disagree. Here is where I diverge from the pack. And some scientists agree, that CO2 alone is not the only greenhouse gas or thing responsible for global warming.
I strongly believe that even if we abate CO2, global warming has other causes man made which are as bad or even more so, causing it.

I also believe that global warming is only one factor in climate change, to the extent of what our climate is.
The natural cycles of the ocean and its ability to absorb and emit CO2 is affected by other pollutions and cause for the rise as well. The Ocean IMO is a living thing. It breaths and is the base for all life on earth as the very first part of the food chain.

Getting others to this level is much more difficult. CO2 is a result, as much as a driving factor. Deforestation causes this issue to be even more a problem.
This isn't really in the class of emissions. Cutting trees has been left out of the discussions untill now.

In the more recent re-evaluation of climate change, deforestation is a central issue, as are the many others I have mentioned.

I expect a better insight is coming, one which will point to just about every activity we do as cause to global warming trend, and even possibly other trends yet to be discovered. So far I see that very possibly, global warming may become one of a few different results in our climate.

I don't think we really disagree fundamentally Kernos, but I feel there is much more involved. From my study, we will face much more and the factors involved are more than CO2. Methane and such also, as they say, but the affect of hydrocarbons is much worse than science seems to think.

How this affects us, may make global warming moot...
We may face much more critical problems long before global climate issues matter as much as we may think.

Merlyn

[Kernos]

What do you mean by 'most'? In the US a significant number of people do not 'believe' in anthropogenic global warming. Since the snow storms of this winter, this number has increased. And I would postulate that 'most' of the people in the US are not willing to make the life style changes necessary to halt and reverse the greenhouse effect (if it is not too late). Thus the politicians act as they do so they can get reëlected.

...Getting all the data and interpreting them is hard even for someone who is interested in the matter, as there are so many contradictory statements, and the scandals do not help. For the general population, it is next to impossible to do. What they see is an increase in costs: For gas, for petrol, to insulate your house, for greener energy. In an already strained economic climate, it gets to the point where any notion of climate change gets rejected, just to keep the status quo. And as Kernos says so nicely: Politicians will do what the majority of people wants, so they get re-elected. Unpopular measures, even if they are justified, will see them leave the office at the end of term, unless it can be demosntrated that it was for the greater good. Which will be next to impossible with climate change, as the next 4-8 years will probably not change so drastically as to justify a political decision either way.

Which for me is good evidence against the ability of a democratic system to be making such types of decisions. But, I cannot think of any political system that could do better, unless one could create Plato's philosopher kings.

As such, I can see the value in this study. People always judge and interpret facts by what they know and believe in. Just looking at the Y2K panic should have shown that: There was an apocalyptic premontion that caused widespread alarm and activisim, and for nothing. Just because computers and programs are so far out of the experience of the normal people that they could believe everything. And the belief in the wrong things is very hard to dispel...

A corollary to this, I think, is that even the experts in various fields much guard against subjective bias. The nature of the scientific method, however, will eventually yield results approaching the truth.

[Aelfarh]

Just looking at the Y2K panic should have shown that: There was an apocalyptic premontion that caused widespread alarm and activisim, and for nothing. Just because computers and programs are so far out of the experience of the normal people that they could believe everything. And the belief in the wrong things is very hard to dispel...

But nothing happened because software companies and governments invest a lot of money and work to ensure nothing happened, if they would had act as they are doing with climate change, we would had a collapse in our computer-based world in 2000.

[Merlyn]

Ok, here we do have a denial issue;
It is kind of a paradox in a way.

Cheap fuel has been .. cheap.
Any kind of sustainable energy will not be.
Just like our body, staying healthy requires exercise. So lots of people get fat & lazy, because being healthy is... well... Work!

The paradox comes in when we look at things like solar & wind power, not really new, just different from things like hydro-electric.

Now, think... why don't we have more hydro electric plants? They divert water, require dams and change the environment..
Wind requires more than wind farms. And Solar requires more than "in someone else's backyard thinking".

We are kind of used to seeing the old wind powered well pumps used on farms, or for pumping sea water.
Are we willing to put one in our yard? And for suburbs, cities, the solutions will have to be much more aggressive.

So I see the "disbelief" issue as being lazy.
I very clearly believe that climate is affected, however the focus on CO2 has allowed it to be easy prey.
Making this debatable was a mistake, and now has driven the debate backward. So has the point of warming.
It all got pushed too soon, before the science was really ready, and lots of grants drove it in a politically focused way.

But to say, "I do not believe this article." only demonstrates ignorance or an attempt at political manipulation.

NOW THAT is BS
Sorry Kernos, this article makes conclusions like any other and is an opinion based on a far fetched testing on irrelevant comparisons.
And me not believing it has NOTHING to do with political manipulation on my part. Making the issue of global warming into a psychology issue is a stretch to do just that and make a way to manipulation.

I reserve the right to total skeptical dissection of all facts and reasons, as all I have seen for all my life is a total bunch of idiots grabbing the monkey tail and doing nothing right. Climategate is no exception to this IMO



Merlyn

[Aylyn]

Cheap fuel has been .. cheap.
Any kind of sustainable energy will not be.

That is not necessarily the case. As with everything, things get cheaper as the go into mass production. In the case of solar panels for example, it could get to the point where having them installed is no more expensive than having a normal central heating system. And nobody nowadays would argue this is too much to pay. Where I see the problem atm is in the direct application of renewable energies. I can give yo an example:

I bought a house in North-East Scotland, the house is oriented in a N-S manner. Which means that I have a large roof area looking south. I could install solar panels there, and have already thought about it. However, the basic problem is: Solar panels are currently producing either electricity or hot water. Storing electricity would require a huge battery pack, not particularly environmentally friendly. The other option is to put electricity into the national grid for money, but that does nothing to solve my energy problem. Hot water is equally problematic: I do not use much of it, and while it comes in handy for heating, it is debatable whether the 6 hours of sunlight in winter will make much of an impact on my overall heating bill. In addition, I am usually out of the house during the day for work, and the heating is turned down anyway. So my basic problem is what to do with the energy generated by a solar panel, and how to get it when I really need it (usually at night ). There is no solution for this atm. In addition with the price of solar panels, the idea is nice, but nor really feasible. I am hoping that the research into hydrogen generators will provide a solution for my problem: If the solar panels could generate electricity to separate O2 and H2 from water, I could come home to a nice full storage tank that can be used in the evening to heat my house, with 0 emission. The technology is not that far yet, unfortunately.

As for the windmills: I have thought about it, but it has similar problems as the solar panels, and in addition my neighbours would probably start suing me: Loss of real estate value, too many sounds in the night and so on.

So currently I am still using the old-fashioned gas central heating, just using the most recent technology to get as much gain out of my gas as I can. And following the research to put solar panels up then it becomes feasible.

[Merlyn]

The other option is to put electricity into the national grid for money, but that does nothing to solve my energy problem

.

Hi Aylyn,
A battery storage system would be a problem for full service electric. It requires battery replacement just like electric cars.
And of the solar panel disadvantages, no power at night, if off the grid.

However, roof mounted solar is a good idea if on the grid. It requires however getting the electric consumption of the home down to a lower level.
What this will do is supplement the grid during peak draw times like on hot summer days. Doing this would eliminate the need for additional power plants if all homes were solar. Yes, during the night the grid would feed power. Over-all if done correctly your power bill would be "zero". That = 0 carbon foot print.

True, once installed, the power is free. In looking into this I have been working toward it. The first step for me was to go geothermal. Geothermal supplements the hot water, and I agree, solar hot water is a limited option, only good in summer. Then lighting and so forth is reduced with T-8 and florescent lighting. Some research is required in solar, as some panels last and others do not. To fit my home and integrate it into my electric system and the grid is around $20,000.00 to do. My studio was built so that the roof has a southern exposure. This will be where the system is installed.

There are a few options, panels, solar shingles and even flexible solar panels. My choice so far is standard and easily replaced flat panels. The solar shingle idea has it's good points, but requires a wire job in the roof that is a nightmare. Each shingle must have a wire in series.

I also must then maintain the system myself, and be educated well enough to do so. Once done it will mean no utility bills at all
Already in the interim, I have all electronic equipment on battery back up. If the power goes out, all systems, including the well pump filter system, computers, TV and such stay on. Integrated into the system is a panel so that generator power can take over until the power comes back on.
So, really I am almost there, and just have to install the panels.

On-grid solar is the best solution for existing homes on the grid. Ultimately it would mean no need for additional nuclear power plants, or additional wind farms. This would help eliminate the "hockey stick" of future need for additinal power needs if all present and future homes were solar homes.

Wind power is more subjective to location. If installed it can help, but can be lifeless for weeks if the wind is still. However, it is a good solution for the city buildings. Tall buildings have a natural draft that can be captured and used by mounting smaller arrays of wind mills at the top of the building. So in the most unlikely place, wind is a good solution. This draft is natural and always "on" for a tall building.

I cannot see why a bank would not lend the money for installing on-grid solar. The homeowner is already paying the money needed to install it by paying electric bills. It adds great value to the home, making it much more attractive as a home with no electric bill.

Natural gas has become an expensive problem here, and they doubled the price of natural gas when it was de-regulated and taxed.
It was the best and cheapest solution, but in the late 90's it was no longer so. This is largely due to government deliberately stopping natural gas from being tapped. We have more than enough, and there are many places "ready to go", like my friend who has "gas rights" in place on his property. This is one of the hidden agenda issues surrounding the "new world order" "cap and trade" that requires study to understand.

I could go on about that, but for the sake of time, only if asked.

Bright blessings,
Merlyn

[DJ Droood]

Perhaps a cost effective solution to all this would be to go to bed when it gets dark and get up with the sun. Do physical labour all day to keep warm, and perhaps bundle up in woolen clothing when it is chilly.

[Merlyn]

Living a healthy life, with common sense is by far less expensive, lowers consumption and results in a better quality of life.

How does this "hinge on belief" and the world view?
Very directly.

The largest part of denial is the personal feeling of being helpless in the face of what is being made into an apocalyptic view. This theocratic dogma of science is playing right into religious fundamental fatalism. If you have not made this connection yet.. then awaken to the new age of political manipulation! Pay homage to the carbon god!

So, how does one get from feeling helpless to being a beacon of light?
We don't get there playing video games, drinking ourself silly or working ourselves to death on a treadmill of government mandated cap and trade tax. If the fear mongering hockey stick of doom has its way, and we continue to overpopulate and spend our time living a lie of unsustainable consumption we will indeed hand our children a fudge bucket of impossible odds to survive.

If we want to believe in something of value, and we learned anything from the study of druidism, then it is this; believe in the power of the self. I personally will shed the trappings of culture shock, media hype and fear. Step up to a life of sustenance with vital energy of our own body; and the needs for sucking oil will diminish.

Yes, for crying' out loud, PUT ON A SWEATER, instead of turning up the heat. Get up in the morning and sleep at night, lend a hand to your neighbor instead of playing a stupid video game. A true Celt will keep home and family safe, community involved and lead by example. These are my simple yet very powerful core values.

Here is an experiment for sure that will bring into focus solutions.
Live a "powerless day". Shut off every source of electric power, don't fire up anything powered by gasoline, shut off the gas heat.
"just for one day". Then all of the sudden we find ourselves bringing out the stuff in the closet, those warm cloths, and we survive. And we learn.

We walk to the mail box, to the neighbors house or bicycle into town. And in doing this we learn we can and do change our ways.

If we want to believe we can, we will.

And if we do, the fear goes away, and is replaced with confidence.
We save money for retirement, pay off our home and take the parasite of cheap oil out of our life.
That is how to positively change belief and world view.

I certainly do not want any "shrink" doing it for me

Merlyn

[oaklight]

(SNIP)... I am hoping that the research into hydrogen generators will provide a solution for my problem: If the solar panels could generate electricity to separate O2 and H2 from water, I could come home to a nice full storage tank that can be used in the evening to heat my house, with 0 emission. The technology is not that far yet, unfortunately.

As for the windmills: I have thought about it, but it has similar problems as the solar panels, and in addition my neighbours would probably start suing me: Loss of real estate value, too many sounds in the night and so on.

So currently I am still using the old-fashioned gas central heating, just using the most recent technology to get as much gain out of my gas as I can. And following the research to put solar panels up then it becomes feasible.

Hi Aylyn,

I think that you might be waiting for a technology that may never be feasible for the average consumer. I served onboard a U.S. Submarine for four years in the '80's, and we used oxygen generators to separate oxygen from hydrogen in water for replenishing the oxygen in the boat's atmosphere. It's not that easy or safe. You must first start with de-ionized water; anything less will foul the equipment, and this has to be bought or produced on site, requiring even more equipment, and the electricity to power it. As de-ionized water will not conduct electricity, a chemical, KOH (potassium hydroxide), must be added to the water so it will conduct the required electricity for electrolysis to occur. Then, your solar panels would have to generate about 1070 volts of current just to achieve the process of electrolysis. Once your equipment is up and running, what you end up with is two very dangerous gasses; if they are allowed to re-mingle, they will explode, so the equipment has to be attended at all times when in operation. Additionally, there are pumps for the water purification, compressors so that the gasses can be stored for later use, storage bottle manifolds to store and distribute the gasses, including nitrogen for the required safety purge after every operation cycle. What you're looking at is an enormous amount of equipment just to obtain fuel, which, because of the laws of thermodynamics, cannot be enough to power everything required to produce it, all of which must be serviced frequently, as well. Personally, I like the idea of windmills; you can sell the surplus to the grid, the money to be applied to your electricity bill when needed, and I think they can be rather aesthetically pleasing, as well as simple to operate and maintain. Neighborhood resistance can, theoretically, be overcome with the simplest of local legislation. Likewise, I would also like to see fuel-cell technology, currently used by NASA, developed further toward a consumer friendly application.

Beannacht leat!

[Aylyn]

I think that you might be waiting for a technology that may never be feasible for the average consumer. I served onboard a U.S. Submarine for four years in the '80's, and we used oxygen generators to separate oxygen from hydrogen in water for replenishing the oxygen in the boat's atmosphere. It's not that easy or safe.

Hi Oaklight,

I know that it is neither easy nor safe, but then having a combustible natural gas around is also not very safe, and still we use gas central heating everywhere. And the research into fuel cells has improved a lot since the 80s. There is a lot of research on the inprovement of both solar panel efficacy and fuel cell improvement. I remember reading an article in Nature a few months back about a new form of electrode that creates hydrogen from water with a higher efficiency. Car manufacturers are looking into producing cars with fuel cells. Seems to me the technology is going forward, just not at the stage where it is usable on a daily basis. But with all the global warming debate going on, it might not be too far away, as it is the technology that currently shows the most promise. As for the "You need more energy to produce the gas than it yields on burning": that might be true, but unlike the old system, where we are using fossil fuel to produce hydrogen gas, the solar energy is coming for free and would go unused otherwise, so why not put it to work. It would basically recover energy that would be lost otherwise.

And your post, incedentally, makes Kernos' point: we judge the feasibility of systems from our own experiences. Not that I want to flame you with that, I just find it interesting that we both have so divergent opinions about it.

[Merlyn]

Neighborhood requirements can stop solar.
we faced that recently in Harpers Ferry.

New tech allows for solar panels which can replace old fashioned tin roofing. This would be a new thing, as are solar shingles. These get around that issue.

Hydrogen is a problem of safety and production.
Driving a hydrogen bomb isn't a great idea, seeing as cars need to be as stupid proof as possible.

Natural gas is known for some explosive results, so the smell is actually added in as a warning method.

To go ecotech is no small matter.
We must become ecosavvy.

Merlyn

[DJ Droood]

Neighborhood requirements can stop solar.
we faced that recently in Harpers Ferry.

How are you going to keep all those fudge shops lit up??

[Merlyn]

Glow in the dark fudge

What you don't know is the town has two sides.
One is the historical park. An awesome place for repelling, rafting, hiking, railroad and archaeological digs. Let alone the three rivers.

The other side is where our full service certified (organic farm fed) kitchen and restaurant is. And a nice pub or two

Merlyn

[DJ Droood]

Glow in the dark fudge

What you don't know is the town has two sides.
One is the historical park. An awesome place for repelling, rafting, hiking, railroad and archaeological digs. Let alone the three rivers.

The other side is where our full service certified (organic farm fed) kitchen and restaurant is. And a nice pub or two

Merlyn

lovely area....the only part I didn't understand in that region was the big steam train looking things selling "pulled pork" every couple of miles in the back country. Alternative energy source?

[oaklight]

And your post, incedentally, makes Kernos' point: we judge the feasibility of systems from our own experiences. Not that I want to flame you with that, I just find it interesting that we both have so divergent opinions about it.

I served onboard a U.S. Submarine for four years in the '80's, and we used oxygen generators to separate oxygen from hydrogen in water for replenishing the oxygen in the boat's atmosphere.

The difference is; I've actually used the equipment:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/treadwell-supplies-oxygen-generator-components-for-nuclear-subs-2-04690/

All I'm saying is you really don't want to have to store or use hydrogen in your home; it is a lot more explosive, with a much higher brisance than natural gas or propane. It's the difference between blowing up your own home and a couple of your neighbors', and taking out the entire neighborhood. In your post you didn't seem too keen on solar due to its limitations, I wanted to simply point out the danger, complexity and expense of trying to use it to generate hydrogen from water, for use in the home. Like I said: I like the idea of windmills, I think they're simple as well as picturesque. As for solar, I like what Merlyn wrote:

However, roof mounted solar is a good idea if on the grid. It requires however getting the electric consumption of the home down to a lower level.
What this will do is supplement the grid during peak draw times like on hot summer days. Doing this would eliminate the need for additional power plants if all homes were solar. Yes, during the night the grid would feed power. Over-all if done correctly your power bill would be "zero". That = 0 carbon foot print.

Beannacht leat!

[Aylyn]

Believe me, I have enough knowledge in chemistry to know that hydrogen is highly explosive. Fact is though that the equipment you showed is relatively old. Here is a newer one:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml

clarity_components_shadow_sm.gif

(71.9 KiB) Downloaded 439 times

My take is that a car company does not want the whole motorway to explode anytime a car crashes, so I assume they have found a way of storing hydrogen safely. And unlike cars, my house does not move all that much and is unlikely to get hit, so it should be even easier to store hydrogen safely there. That is what I mean by "technology not yet feasible for daily usage".

The windmills might look nice, in a single environment, but having one on every house is certainly not improving the sight. And then you get the complaints from the neighbours about the sounds they make etc etc. To top that off, the argument of "less peak energy" is not really a good one: Peak energy is usually in the mornings and evenings, less during the day and night. Solar panels are usable during the day, and while they can support energy, they cannot replace power plants. And in the evenings, when the most energy is needed, they are useless. Windmills have the problem that wind is not a plannable option.

So for me, both systems have the basic problem of generating energy when it is not needed, and not being able to store it properly. Hydrolysis would solve that problem nicely, as the electricity used during those times can be converted into hydrogen gas, which is a lot less problematic than large batteries.

[Merlyn]

on-board production of hydrogen gas is fairly simple.
In fact it is already in use. Very little water is needed, however this is a hybrid tech at this point. Crude versions create "browns gas" and double fuel mileage, and also increase aspirated HP. A Harley-custom was built using the browns gas system, and pushes 170 hp (normal HP is around 80)
A more serious look at on-board hydrogen aspiration should be developed and was in the process. However the inventor was at first bought out, and later *vanished*.
Others have picked up on it and working on systems. As an only fuel system, it needs a lot of work, but can be done.

Peak use in the home isn't the issue. Peak use on the grid is. During the day when all those businesses are open is when peak use on the grid would be supported by solar supplementation. In that time you make $$ supplying the grid and this offsets your electric bill.

The pork train is a funny little spot in a used rail car in Harpers Ferry right across from the rail station. This is a busy rail, with metro to DC and all kinds of goods going through the mountain tunnel all day. The old rail is kept for looks, and people to walk along.
The canal is still there in part. It would be an amazing thing to restore.
Our restaurant was built in the 1800's with stone walls 2' thick. Four fireplaces were used originally, then a coal furnace was used, now it uses a heat pump.
I have re-wired most of it already, to accommodate the kitchen equipment. Having it solar would help greatly. We are working on that. The new solar panels which are flexable could be used to from a tin looking roof with ease and not change the building.

This picture shows the studio, with a one side 6-12 pitch roof aimed south for solar.
This is where my home solar system will be installed. This will be with high grade panels.

Shop1.jpg (162.49 KiB) Viewed 661 times

This building is already twice the normal insulation grade, built by me to my spec.

Merlyn

[Kernos]

...
The difference is; I've actually used the equipment:

I suspect we've come a long way since that machine