Climate report understates threat

[Enrique Corbellini]

Since environmental problems increase, that puts us under the obligation of consider it and explore solutions, at least.
I live in South America. When here, people knew about the australian fire event, many ones started to think climate change was something real, and that we all should care about it, because of the huge of the disaster. That happened because even the australian smoke arrived here some weeks ago. Yes, it crossed all the Pacific Ocean.
I find expectations about studying climate change and the CO2 theory are normal, but I also find that we are humans, before anything else. And as humans, we need to focus on the basic questions, that are:
1- What am I doing to live a non-contaminating lifestyle?
2- Is it possible to live in a correct manner, and in what does it consist?
3- Is it enough to live in a correct manner according to nature, or should we also do an environmental campaign?

Many people start speaking about solutions and environmental facts, without having made their changing the way they live first. Many of these people sincerely believe they are able to do so, because they believe the environmental care is something that has to be done by everyone or by the governments, but not necessarily by themselves.
But the truth is that, when you really start walking an ecological path, you not only find the physical way you live changes, but also your points of view.
For example, right now, about the australian disaster, how many on this site spoke something about solutions? Or, if no big solutions are possible, at least practical ways of helping?

I went living to a small town in my country, near some ecofarm projects to which I give help. Thanks to that, I know a world ecological net exists, and this net can act in difficult situations like australian’s one.
This is not about sending them money (money always help but this is not the principal matter), this is about the net grew in the past and now is able to accept people all around the world, to help building the most diverse projects.
I recommend watching these sites:
wwoof.net - workaway.info - helpx.net

People who live in Australia or is able to travel there, can use those sites to live temporarily in places that improve nature conditions all the time. You may think that’s too little effort, and that the forest won’t be brought back thanks this few people acting. But the importance of this is not about the amount of trees (neither the amount of CO2 at the atmosphere). This is about the saving of your energies, the improvement of your lifestyle…. because this world is made of the amount of individual persons, the add of everyone of us. Your words will become more exact and realistic, you will find there is peace in your heart when you do the right things, and won’t want to discuss theoretical any longer.

[musher0]

Hello again, hydrogen-power enthusiasts!

To make up for the lack of any presentation in English on the web site of UQTR's
Hydrogen Research Institute
-- IMO they should offer at least a summary of what they do in English, given the
tremendous potential -- ,
I found the following on the site of the Delft Technological University in the Netherlands.
This University is a partner of UQTR's Hydrogen Research Institute, for producing
hydrogen cells from electrolysis. (Q.v. a couple of posts up.)

Hydrogen Electric

In a conventional road car, the energy that is stored in fuel is converted to mechanical
energy, by the principle of combustion. The Forze cars however, utilize a different and
far more efficient concept. The fuel cell on board the vehicles converts the energy
stored in its fuel, the hydrogen, to electric energy. This means that the hydrogen fuel
cell system can be used to power an electric drivetrain like a battery.

The efficiency of the fuel conversion is about two to three times higher than a
conventional combustion engine. Furthermore, there are some qualities which set
hydrogen-electric vehicles apart from their battery-electric relatives. The most obvious
would be the time required to recharge/refill and the driving range. Hydrogen tanks can
be refilled within minutes, like a conventional combustion car, whereas batteries
currently need hours to recharge.

This makes hydrogen-electric propulsion ideal for applications where non-stop operation
and/or a long driving range is required.

Source
TUD race car (on youtube)

That I know of, another source of info in English on this subject of hydrogen power is the
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Centre at University of Birmingham, in the UK.

For fun, open the Duck, type "hydrogen-power race car" (without the quotation marks)
and click on the Pictures tab. For more fun, do the same and click on the Videos tab!

What gets me excited about this, is that this fuel comes from water and returns to water
after being used to activate the electric motor. As to safety, the liquid hydrogen
tanks are near indestructible, should there be an accident. We're not in the days of the
Hindenburg anymore.

BFN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. Source of attached pic

[greengeek]

Hi musher,

Hydrogen cars produce water vapour - which is an even stronger "GHG" than CO2.

[musher0]

Hi musher,

Hydrogen cars produce water vapour - which is an even stronger "GHG" than CO2.

Hi greengeek.

You won't like this (hehe):

Carbon dioxide has the greatest impact on temperature raising

Researchers explain that on average water vapor accounts for approximately 60% of
the warming effect. Nevertheless, some say that water vapor does not control our
planet’s temperature. The temperature of the surrounding atmosphere confines the
maximum amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can contain.

When a volume of air features its maximum amount of water vapor, and there is a low
temperature, a certain amount of water vapor will condense and turn into liquid water. In
this way, clouds develop while warm air featuring water vapor increases and cools at
higher altitudes. There, the water condenses, forming the droplets that make up clouds.

Source

IOW, water vapor released in the air eventually condenses and falls back to Earth as
rain. It is a natural phenomenon.

Unlike CO2, which can persist in the air for centuries, water vapour cycles through
the atmosphere quickly, evaporating from the oceans and elsewhere before coming
back down as rain or snow.

Source (2nd paragraph)

Regards.

[musher0]

(...)
Question for the geniuses: Where did all the carbon in our "carbon footprints" come from?

Bonus points: Where did all the carbon in our "feet" come from?

Answer: Smelly feet.

[musher0]

A nice comparison in Forbes magazine, between the effects of CO2 and water vapor on
atmospheric warming:

(...)Professor Adam Sobel of Columbia University provides a nice analogy,
Today In: Science
Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like
saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing
the sound. It's true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived
greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the
warming that they produce.

(Underlining by me)

[greengeek]

... amplifies...

[greengeek]

When here, people knew about the australian fire event, many ones started to think climate change was something real, and that we all should care about it, because of the huge of the disaster. That happened because even the australian smoke arrived here some weeks ago. Yes, it crossed all the Pacific Ocean.

I have noticed some people using Australia's recent forest fire misery as "proof" of global warming - but this is not correct.

Read the reports of the "Black Thursday" fires of 1851 and you will be struck by the descriptions of the Australians who experienced those fires - their descriptions exactly mirror the comments of modern firefighters. And the famous painting of those fires looks exactly like what we saw in Australia recently.

The following link gives a realistic perspective on how similar the 1851 fires were to the most recent fires:
https://davepellowe.com/australias-worst-ever-bushfire/

Apparently aboriginals set fires constantly in order to keep the fuel load in their living zones low so that it was safe and manageable.

When Captain Cook visited Australia in 1770 he referred to it as a "land of smoke".

This is worth a read:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/bushfire ... mu39d.html

Even miles out at sea the heat from the vortex winds was unbearable:

At sea, the weather was even more fearful than on shore. Captain Reynolds reported that, when 20 miles from the Laurences, the heat was so intense, that every soul on board was struck almost powerless. A sort of whirlwind, on the afternoon, struck the vessel, and carried the topsail, lowered down on the cap, clean out of the bolt rope, and had he not been prepared for the shock, the vessel, he had no doubt, would have capsized. Flakes of fire were, at the time, flying thick all around the vessel from the shore in the direction of Portland.

.

[backi]

Death by climate Change canceled.
Fridays for Future stops School Strikes.....Corona was faster .

[musher0]

... amplifies...

Ah? So you agree that there are man-made CO2 emissions after all!

If all vehicles are electric and run on an hydrogen/electrolysis system instead of gas,
the only residual emission is water. We are left with potential rain and/or snow
depending on the season and latitude. There would be no more man-made CO2, no
more volume knob on the "sound" amplifier (to continue the comparison), so there
is nothing to amplify.

Also, since electrolysis gets the hydrogen directly from water and it returns to water,
the natural balance is not broken. Not to be confused with the other way of isolating
hydrogen, from natural gas or propane, IIRC. The latter system would produce CO2
and water, hence amplification.

[ras]

@musher0

What gets me excited about this, is that this fuel comes from water

what are your thoughts on pursuing the development of fusion for nuclear power?

[musher0]

@musher0

What gets me excited about this, is that this fuel comes from water

what are your thoughts on pursuing the development of fusion for nuclear power?

Nil, no thoughts, blank.
Actually very negative thoughts, fusion being less controllable than fission, AFAIK.

[ras]

As I understand it, fusion uses heavy water to create energy with a byproduct of helium (1000% better for you than cesium-137, strontium-90 and iodine-131). The development of the process in a practical manner is the holy grail of energy production, as it has the potential to antiquate fossil fuels and fission reactors
Currenty, there are some canadian fission plants that produce the heavy water, and of course the hope is that fission can eventually be obsoleted and the fuel produced in other ways. Heavy water is also a naturally occurring isotope that can be found in seawater.

More research needs to be done, but anti-nuclear sentiments are an obstacle to public funding and private development requires continual development of existing technology and the industry as a whole.

[musher0]

Thanks for the info, ras.
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion