Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[chrisch]

....
Biofuels alone can't solve the problem. We MUST use less energy than we do today. Internal combustion engine (ICE) technology is overdue for replacement since the energy efficiency of ICEs is abhorrent (30-something percent, a little more for diesels than for gasoline engines). A FCEV has an efficiency of 50-60%, a battery EV has an effiency of 80-90%..

I have no argument with that - no one technology can solve the problem. The current issue in respect of combustion engines is the huge number already in service and the sunk cost of the CO2 used to manufacture them. Biofuel, particularly biodiesel can extend the life of the combustion engine and drastically reduce the lifetime CO2 load by reducing the remaining in service CO2 (or at least the fossil element of CO2 - the bit that matters).

Battery power and hybrid increases efficiency of motor vehicles. You can use the brakes to generate electricity to recharge the battery for example. However my debate is whether the manufacture of the batteries increases the lifetime CO2 or not. I do not know the answer and I would love to get accurate data. Going forward having an electrical element in automotive power is sensible if we can generate that electricity without high CO2 output. That alone makes the technology worth pursuing, but I would take issue with the almost evangelical desire to "ban" diesel engines that are already in service - particularly the new generation Euro 6 engines with NOx reduced technology.

Equally I agree that we must reduce the overall energy consumption of the planet. Given the way we waste energy I don't see this as a very hard thing to do. In sunny places where you need air conditioning in the daytime heat you also have enough solar energy to run the AC. Why is is permissible (anywhere on earth) to build new dwellings or commercial premises that need AC and not include PV on the roof?

The current model of capitalism is centred on wasteful consumption. The developed third of the planet throws away half or more of what it consumes and the bottom third of the world's population starves. There is enough of everything to go round and for all of us to have a good life. The self flagellation model put forward by some people is enough to ensure that ecological concerns are ridiculed. We are - after all - trying to make the world a better place to live in.

All of which is irrelevant for as long as such a powerful lobby group exists that simply denies the problem is there in the first place.

 

[Storker]

However my debate is whether the manufacture of the batteries increases the lifetime CO2 or not.

I'm pretty confident that Daimler's LCA includes the CO2 emissions from battery manufacture. After all, the production emissions for the EV are 80% higher than for the fossil car.

And I, too, regard biofuels as the natural interim solution as we develop an emission-free vehicle fleet. But as far as we know, there just isn't enough available biomass to cover today's consumption of liquid vehicle fuels.

 

[RyanT]

And every non-climatoligist has about as big a chance of getting that right as every non-oncologist has of doing the same thing with cancer research papers.

Right off the bat, yes. But I train my freshmen biology students to understand papers. If they can do it, pretty much anyone can! I'm always happy to walk someone through a paper.

 

[chrisch]

...
And I, too, regard biofuels as the natural interim solution as we develop an emission-free vehicle fleet. But as far as we know, there just isn't enough available biomass to cover today's consumption of liquid vehicle fuels.

I think that is the case if you include aviation. The issue in Europe has been the use of biomass from Brazil (palm oil) that has caused deforestation. I think that globally there are many untapped potentials for biomass, probably enough to supply a very large proportion of road vehicle fuel if not all of it. As you know the EU policy of paying farmers to do nothing means that taxpayer's money is going to subsidise golf courses whilst good farm land stands empty. Also I think the USA has a huge resource of HFCS from growing maize (or corn as they call it). This stuff (which makes people fat) is sold cheaply round the world and has replaced traditional sugar in many drinks and foodstuffs. A lot of it also is from GM maize that has high consumer resistance as a food item.

Nitrate run off is killing the oceans but ironically would "feed" algae that can be used as biomass. Also methane production from human waste that is currently burned (using fossil fuel) and from food waste (the USA wastes 50% of all the food it consumes) would give a lift to overall energy production.

Hand in hand with other measures as well as a program to replace old and high consumption engines with common rail diesels I am sure we can provide enough biofuel for that part of transport that cannot easily be electrified. (What you do about aviation is problematic).

One easy and simple step (currently being looked at) is the driverless truck. By taking the driver out of the vehicle and using automated driving or convoy style multiple vehicles to a single driver it is possible to move to an electrical power plant. Such convoys could move along the freeways to a local distribution point where a conventional biodiesel tractor unit with driver takes over the last part of the journey.

Now is the last chance. Soon it will be too late and the feedback loops will melt the methane locked in the tundra. When that happens it will not be possible to stop global warming even if man-made CO2 is reduced to zero. From that point on we, as a species, must adapt to the new conditions. Most of the world's large cities will face flooding and eventually become uninhabitable. The desertification of agricultural land will cause mass starvation at a biblical level. Half or perhaps two thirds of humans will die. War will break out over habitable land and water resources. The super rich will protect themselves in fenced off places protected by private armies.

That is the legacy we leave the next generation if we do not act. If we do not believe then we will not act. Those who spread the lies in order to make the gullible deny the truth will be guilty of a crime against humanity greater than anything the world has ever seen.

 

[elbig]

"crime against humanity greater than anything the world has ever seen"

Talk about hyperbole. Can we please have a rationale discussion. You claim the science is settled but it is not. Here are a few links from reputable sources.
[URL="http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/"]Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change[/URL]
German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online/

Also please point out a study that shows that if do everything the climate alarmist want that the climate will stop changing or go back to where it was.

My point is that true science allows dissenting opinions and is always testing hypotheses. It gotten to the point that those of us who are not convinced are not even allowed to discuss without vituperation, harassment and ridicule. If the science is sound, it will stand up to scrutiny.

One last point, you mention that greedy big business is behind the climate change skeptics. But there is big money in climate alarmism as well. There are very few grants for climate skeptics. Most all of the grants are to further the climate change agenda.There are careers and reputations at stake so there is money and motivation to further that side of the argument as well.

 

[Storker]

I am sure we can provide enough biofuel for that part of transport that cannot easily be electrified. (What you do about aviation is problematic).

Aviation is a minor problem if you look at available EJ. If you read the peer-reviewed literature, the # of EJ spent on transport is much larger than the # of EJ of biomass available. And that's on an LHV basis, not including the energy spent on converting the biomass to liquid fuel.

Tl;dr: Yes, biofuels will be a vital part of the energy mix that brings us to a carbon-neutral society. No, it just can't be the only solution. There isn't enough of it.

 

[Storker]

There are very few grants for climate skeptics.

If the "climate conspiracy" is so easily debunked as some seem to believe, why aren't we seeing peer-reviewed publications debunking it? Contrarianism is the core quality of science. Hypotheses are challenged on principle. Shooting down an accepted theory will bring you to the forefront of the scientific community, since challenging status quo is the driving force of science.

Occam's razor indicates that it's because the evidence can't be refuted (at least not while adhering to the standards of science)

 

[chrisch]

...
Talk about hyperbole. Can we please have a rationale discussion.....

No, because the denial of plain fact is not rational. If you wish to debate the extrapolation of the current observed phenomena I am happy to do so. However the observed phenomena - the increase in global heat stored in the atmosphere and oceans suggests that there is an almost 100% certainty that the rises following the industrial revolution are correlated to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore the extrapolation of that suggests further CO2 will increase in further warming. Such warming will cause the methane locked in permafrost to be released and as such increase the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The methane is natural as is the CO2 - it has been locked away since the time it was captured by the plants that are now oil and coal.

If you wish to deny that this is happening despite the observable phenomena suggesting that it is the correct theory to explain what we see then you must either prove that the phenomena are the result of some other measurable cause or make the fabrication that the phenomena are not happening despite them being observed independently by the entire world's population.

Since the latter argument seems to be at the centre of the denial movement I fear a rational discussion is not possible. If you accept that fossil CO2 is causing the world to warm up then unfortunately my extrapolation is not hyperbole but the most likely scenario. that said I cannot predict the future any more than any other human being. We know the world will warm up and in doing so cause a shift in areas that can grow current agricultural crops. We know that such warming will, in time, melt water that is currently ice and sea levels will rise, ultimately by more than the present flood capabilities of most of the world's coastal cities.

I am unclear therefore which part you wish to contest. The speed of the events, the cause of the events or my description of the inevitable.

...My point is that true science allows dissenting opinions and is always testing hypotheses.

The hypothesis has been tested over a hundred years ago. The presence of certain gasses in the earth's atmosphere have the effect of reflecting the heat back down and causing the heating of the surface. I am unaware of anyone who holds an opinion contrary to that and would be considered a scientist.

The precise correlation between the degree of effect and the types of gasses remains an area of debate. Current theory suggests that the CO2 released following the industrial revolution and the warming of the planet, counter to it's cyclical trend towards cooling, are correlated to a degree that the statistical analysis is sound. That said the complexity of the feedback mechanisms and the alternation between terrestrial and oceanic warming are enough that some lack of precision must be accepted. Beyond that lack of precision the science is sound and universally agreed.

 

[rjgiddings]

There is usually some science background along the way somewhere - yeah, this is exactly right. Charles Bolden was an astronaut, Mike Griffin was an Electrical Engineer before he became head of Johns Hopkins Physics Lab, was appointed by Bush - and yep, also a Climate Denier. Daniel Goldin had a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering....worked inrobotics @ Neurosciences Institute.

This new guy? Ha...it's a joke. He's just another typical big oil NeoCon. Previous experience : Politician.

 

[The Chairman]

Talk about hyperbole.

Dude... one of those links is from Brietbart. Not a valid source at all.