How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Sat May 03, 2014 8:31 pm

Iamwhomiam » Sat May 03, 2014 8:50 pm wrote:Oh Ben, you're so silly! for goodness sakes, you wrote it yourself!

I and all can see the pixels on our screens, "....spirit is immaterial." It's right there, in front of "is immaterial."

For "spirit," that's about as material as it gets, unless, of course, you print it on paper. Then you could even hold spirit in your hand, if you wanted to.

And if you had a friend with you, someone you trust, you could toss your spirit over to him to feel and juggle about for awhile. 'cause you trust him, he'll give it back when he's done playing with it , just like I do.

Besides, you'll learn you just gotta let go of your spirit someday--- it really doesn't hurt, especially when you're sure it's in good hands.

In a world that is not real, please do not project the surreal. Cause I can do surreal, too. But it gets kinda hard, like 3D chess. In the fifth dimension.

Sorry Iam, it seems I am too silly to understand what exactly the above was meant to convey to me?
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby justdrew » Sun May 04, 2014 9:04 pm

Environmentally friendly solar cell pushes forward the 'next big thing in photovoltaics'

Northwestern University researchers are the first to develop a new solar cell with good efficiency that uses tin instead of lead perovskite as the harvester of light. The low-cost, environmentally friendly solar cell can be made easily using "bench" chemistry—no fancy equipment or hazardous materials.

"This is a breakthrough in taking the lead out of a very promising type of solar cell, called a perovskite," said Mercouri G. Kanatzidis, an inorganic chemist with expertise in dealing with tin. "Tin is a very viable material, and we have shown the material does work as an efficient solar cell."

Kanatzidis, who led the research, is the Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor of Chemistry in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences.

The new solar cell uses a structure called a perovskite but with tin instead of lead as the light-absorbing material. Lead perovskite has achieved 15 percent efficiency, and tin perovskite should be able to match—and possibly surpass—that. Perovskite solar cells are being touted as the "next big thing in photovoltaics" and have reenergized the field.

Kanatzidis developed, synthesized and analyzed the material. He then turned to Northwestern collaborator and nanoscientist Robert P. H. Chang to help him engineer a solar cell that worked well.

"Our tin-based perovskite layer acts as an efficient sunlight absorber that is sandwiched between two electric charge transport layers for conducting electricity to the outside world," said Chang, a professor of materials science and engineering at the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science.

Details of the lead-free solar cell will be published May 4 by the journal Nature Photonics. Kanatzidis and Chang are the two senior authors of the paper.

Their solid-state tin solar cell has an efficiency of just below 6 percent, which is a very good starting point, Kanatzidis said. Two things make the material special: it can absorb most of the visible light spectrum, and the perovskite salt can be dissolved, and it will reform upon solvent removal without heating.

"Other scientists will see what we have done and improve on our methods," Kanatzidis said. "There is no reason this new material can't reach an efficiency better than 15 percent, which is what the lead perovskite solar cell offers. Tin and lead are in the same group in the periodic table, so we expect similar results."

Perovskite solar cells have only been around—and only in the lab—since 2008. In 2012, Kanatzidis and Chang reported the new tin perovskite solar cell with promises of higher efficiency and lower fabrication costs while being environmentally safe.

"Solar energy is free and is the only energy that is sustainable forever," Kanatzidis said. "If we know how to harvest this energy in an efficient way we can raise our standard of living and help preserve the environment."

The solid-state tin solar cell is a sandwich of five layers, with each layer contributing something important. Being inorganic chemists, Kanatzidis and his postdoctoral fellows Feng Hao and Constantinos Stoumpos knew how to handle troublesome tin, specifically methylammonium tin iodide, which oxidizes when in contact with air.

The first layer is electrically conducting glass, which allows sunlight to enter the cell. Titanium dioxide is the next layer, deposited onto the glass. Together the two act as the electric front contact of the solar cell.

Next, the tin perovskite—the light absorbing layer—is deposited. This is done in a nitrogen glove box—the bench chemistry is done in this protected environment to avoid oxidation.

On top of that is the hole transport layer, which is essential to close the electrical circuit and obtain a functional cell. This required Kanatzidis and his colleagues to find the right chemicals so as not to destroy the tin underneath. They determined what the best chemicals were—a substituted pyridine molecule—by understanding the reactivity of the perovskite structure. This layer also is deposited in the glove box. The solar cell is then sealed and can be taken out into the air.

A thin layer of gold caps off the solar-cell sandwich. This layer is the back contact electrode of the solar cell. The entire device, with all five layers, is about one to two microns thick.

The researchers then tested the device under simulated full sunlight and recorded a power conversion efficiency of 5.73 percent.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon May 05, 2014 1:58 am

Ben D » Sat May 03, 2014 8:31 pm wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Sat May 03, 2014 8:50 pm wrote: <Edited to add, in response to Ben's post here>

Oh Ben, you're so silly! for goodness sakes, you wrote it yourself!

I and all can see the pixels on our screens, "....spirit is immaterial." It's right there, in front of "is immaterial."

For "spirit," that's about as material as it gets, unless, of course, you print it on paper. Then you could even hold spirit in your hand, if you wanted to.

And if you had a friend with you, someone you trust, you could toss your spirit over to him to feel and juggle about for awhile. 'cause you trust him, he'll give it back when he's done playing with it , just like I do.

Besides, you'll learn you just gotta let go of your spirit someday--- it really doesn't hurt, especially when you're sure it's in good hands.

In a world that is not real, please do not project the surreal. Cause I can do surreal, too. But it gets kinda hard, like 3D chess. In the fifth dimension.

Sorry Iam, it seems I am too silly to understand what exactly the above was meant to convey to me?


<Sigh!> Never mind Ben, it's immaterial.

It's all immaterial.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby fruhmenschen » Tue May 06, 2014 11:46 am

Last edited by fruhmenschen on Tue May 06, 2014 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5977
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby fruhmenschen » Tue May 06, 2014 11:48 am

http://nca.globalchange.gov

Here is the National Climate Assessment Report that came out today
also see Jeff Masters blog

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.HTML
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5977
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue May 06, 2014 1:42 pm

Fruh, I've a bit to say about your source's plan, but I have to run. Will do later
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed May 07, 2014 8:53 pm

fruhmenschen » Tue May 06, 2014 10:48 am wrote:http://nca.globalchange.gov

Here is the National Climate Assessment Report that came out today
also see Jeff Masters blog

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.HTML


Thanks fruhmenschen. Here's another article on that report.

The Heat Is On: In the U.S., Climate Change Is Here and Now and the Future

By Phil Plait

“Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years.” — From the overview of the National Climate Assessment

The U.S. Global Change Research Program released its third National Climate Assessment today. This report is a huge and staggeringly comprehensive overview of climate change and its effects on the United States.
Image

Fire photo by peasap; Earth photo by NASA; composite by Phil Plait.

The NCA is different from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports; the NCA is focused on the United States, while the IPCC work is global. Three hundred expert climate scientists contributed to the NCA report, and it was extensively reviewed before being released. Reviewers included people from federal agencies as well as members of the very prestigious National Academies of Science.

In other words, this report is legit.

A Grim Litany

The amount of information is actually a bit overwhelming, and I’m glad they broke it down into a series of sections. You can find out how the climate is changing; the effects of climate change on extreme weather, human health, water supply, the oceans; and the impact we already see.

It’s also very clear that climate change is being caused by humans. They go through how we know this, including showing that natural factors cannot account for the warming and effects we are seeing. They show this in an excellent graph:

Image
Natural factors play their part, but human influence trumps all.
Photo from the U. S. Global Change Research Program

The black line shows the global temperature change, clearly going up over the past few decades (if they showed it from even farther in the past, the rise would be even steeper). The green region shows what that expected temperature would be if only natural forces were at work. The purple region is what you expect from both natural and human factors. Clearly, without human influence the temperatures would be far lower, which means the problem is us. We’re doing this to ourselves.

Again, the report concentrates on what’s going on here in the United States:

U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since 1895, and most of this increase has occurred since 1970. The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. … Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.


This temperature change has profound and far-reaching impacts on essentially every aspect of human life and activity:

Sectors affected by climate changes include agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems. … The United States produces nearly $330 billion per year in agricultural commodities. This productivity is vulnerable to direct impacts on crops and livestock from changing climate conditions and extreme weather events and indirect impacts through increasing pressures from pests and pathogens. Climate change will also alter the stability of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion people by 2050.


A lot of what the report covers is familiar, if grim, to people who haven’t had their fingers in their ears for the past few years; ocean levels are rising, the water in those oceans is becoming more acidic, weather patterns are changing, we can expect more torrential rains in some locations and drought in others, and on and on.

Climate Change Is Hitting Where You Live.

The report is incredibly thorough, going through each line of reasoning, each thread of evidence, step by step. But I would say that the part of this report that is of most individual interest—that is, what you personally will want to check out—is the section on regional impact of climate change. Here, you can see how global warming will impact where you live.

I live in Boulder, Colorado, so I went to the section on the Southwest. I already had a pretty good idea about what I would find. Sure enough, the list was a dire roll call, including lower snowfall and streamflow, reduced yield of crops, and increased wildfires.

I can look out my window and see the first part. Even since I moved to Colorado just under a decade ago the reduced snowcaps on the Rockies is obvious. I don’t want to rely on anecdotes, but when I visited Boulder in the 1990s in June, the tops of the mountains had so much snow it actually confused me (being from the East Coast); I couldn’t believe there was snow in midsummer! Now, though, even by midspring the amount there is visibly lower. My experience and observations match what the report shows.

Wildfires, like temperatures, vary year to year, and it can be hard to spot a trend. But shifting rain, less snow, and warmer temperatures all add up to the obvious. Here’s something you may not have known: increased temperatures have affected insects living in the forests on mountains. Many insects have their life cycles tied to the seasons; hatching, eating, breeding, and dying all in a few months. Now, however, with warmer temperatures lasting longer, some insects go through two complete cycles of this in one summer. Many of these insects are pests, eating bark and killing trees. A larger area of dead trees means that much more kindling for wildfires. Again, this is obvious to anyone who has driven through western Colorado.

Image
A normally sedate Boulder Creek became a torrent during the devastating flood of 2013.
Photo by Phil Plait

Ironically, this can all lead to catastrophic flooding as well. Insect damage and wildfires remove trees and plants that help the soil’s ability absorb water. If there’s a heavy rain—and as the report indicates, climate change can mean longer periods of no rain punctuated with very heavy storms—that water runs right down the hills instead of getting absorbed. Last year, I spent an extremely long and scary night frantically bailing a lot of water out of my basement, wondering if Boulder was about to be washed away by a catastrophic flood. I do not wish to go through that again.

The individual effects of climate change can be layered, even subtle, but they add up.

The Impact of Impact

As for the impact of this report, well, we’ll see. I know there is a section of the population that will deny global warming exists right up until the point when coastal cities are underwater. Unfortunately, many of these people are in Congress, and control what we can and cannot do. I know this report will have little influence on them; they have made their firm denial of reality clear. Not only that, but the usual suspects have already been up to their usual shenanigans about the report.

What concerns me greatly is the upcoming election in November. Many people are predicting the Republicans—who overwhelmingly deny climate change even exists; it’s become something of a party plank on the right—may take control of the Senate. If that happens, then you can bet your life’s savings nothing will happen about climate change for at least the next two years.

And we cannot afford to wait even that long.

As the IPCC and NCA reports show, climate change is the single biggest challenge facing us not just as a country, but potentially as a species. The science is more than clear, the effects are already all around us, and the future will only make those impacts more obvious.

Go read the report; see what’s really happening. We can make a difference. Keep that in mind this November.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby smoking since 1879 » Thu May 08, 2014 5:30 am

Time to Wake Up: The Climate Denial Beast

February 4, 2014 - In this speech, Senator Whitehouse reveals the "carefully built apparatus of lies" constructed to deceive the public about the reality of climate change.



Peace
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Thu May 08, 2014 5:53 am

Talk about the boy that cried wolf...sheeeesh....the public aren't scared because they understand that there has been no increase in global warming for the last 17 years....and the AGW fear campaign is a toothless farce...

Having said that..expect a warming spike later this year due to El Nino..you heard it here first...
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Thu May 08, 2014 12:34 pm

Ah, Ben, you're always good value for a laugh. Business As Usual Ben - your slapstick comedy routine is a real crowd pleaser.

'Burn more oil/coal: It's good for your karma!!'

Go, Nuclear, Go: It awakens your chakras!!'

'Claim the planet is impervious to anthropogenic sourced harm: Your kundilini energy will grow like Pinocchio's nose!!'

'It's the Sun, stupid: Om, Shanti, Om'

Namaste
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby slimmouse » Thu May 08, 2014 1:16 pm

When it comes to all these frightening graphs and statistics, I have one particular question.

Why do these trends only go from say 200 years ago, or even less.

Some of them are actually so fucking short its like listening to the opening paragraph of say Tragedy and Hope, compared to reading the entire book.

Any AGW fans got any graphs based upon climate change over a reasonable period of time......you know .....say the last 10 thousand years or so?.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE RAPING THE PLANET.

But we do need to focus on those CEOs and corporations making the billions from both the farce that is manmade global warming via taxation of us , whilst at the same time these self same fuckers rape the planet.

I suspect that that particular Venn Diagram would be almost like a solar eclipse.

The great AGW debate is standard format for the 0.01%. They win either way. They blame us for it, whilst they carry it out.

Anyone know any different?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu May 08, 2014 3:30 pm

slimmouse » Thu May 08, 2014 12:16 pm wrote:When it comes to all these frightening graphs and statistics, I have one particular question.

Why do these trends only go from say 200 years ago, or even less.

Some of them are actually so fucking short its like listening to the opening paragraph of say Tragedy and Hope, compared to reading the entire book.


Tell it to your buddy ben. He's the one that wants to use a 17 year period as indicative that 97 fucking percent of climate scientists are wrong that anthropogenic climate change is real.

They blame us for it, whilst they carry it out.


Well, at least you got that right. The rest is drivel not worth anyone's time. back to ignore now.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu May 08, 2014 3:41 pm

Slim, why don't you fucking read something and learn for yourself, instead of just ignorantly commenting.

How stupid some can be to only share their ignorance.

There are thousands of papers and years of research. This was made simple to read so dumb fucks could understand it.

How blind can one be to support the only concerns they normally mightily mock and rightfully fear, those unbalanced, corporately sustained powers that poison us daily for their personal comfort only who uncaringly watch as millions die, and see their cause as noble?

If they believe in conspiracies, they should wake the fuck up, cause they're so deeply enveloped in one, they can no longer see daylight.

And then there are those who will never wake up, those that live all their life with their head up their ass, crying about how far up it's been shoved, most sadly not realizing their current situation was the result of the only autonomous act of their entire stinking life.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby slimmouse » Thu May 08, 2014 4:00 pm

As a short sharp reply.

Since when has it been scientifcally proven that a 1 part in ten thousand increase in C02 emmssions is enough to influence the globlal climate much more than the best estimates of Solar predictions?

Did I menion that the planetary rape needs to stop?

Peace is just a word.

slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Thu May 08, 2014 4:20 pm

slimmouse » Thu May 08, 2014 10:00 pm wrote:As a short sharp reply.

Since when has it been scientifcally proven that a 1 part in ten thousand increase in C02 emmssions is enough to influence the globlal climate much more than the best estimates of Solar predictions?

Did I menion that the planetary rape needs to stop?

Peace is just a word.


Jesus fucking Christ man. Are you really this dense? Just because you think that 1 part in 10000 sounds small doesn't fucking make it so. Stop using your gut and start using your brain.

Also - you're on the fucking internet! You can look this stuff up for yourself, so how about stop throwing out your god damn lame-ass strawmen and go learn something for yourself. If you're capable, that is.

Key words: Tipping points, Equilibrium, Chaos theory.

PS! Sorry for the language, but sometimes it's justified.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests