The history of Climate Change

[Lowell2]

Colorado Permanent Drought Update
Posted on May 25, 2014 by stevengoddard
Leading government and academic experts have warned that Colorado is having a permanent drought, due to an increase of 0.0001 mole fraction CO2 over the past century. These experts tell us that global warming has wrecked Colorado skiing and has made spring snow cover disappear.

.

May 2007:
https://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0705/drought.shtml But according to a sobering new study, the Southwest’s aridity is about to get worse. Published in the April 9 issue of Science, “Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America” predicts that climate change will permanently alter the landscape of the Southwest so severely that conditions reminiscent of the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s could become the norm within a few decades.

“Our study suggests a perpetual arid condition over the American Southwest,” says Jian Lu, a postdoctoral researcher in ASP/CGD who is an author of the study.

2017:

oops. guess that permanent drought wasn't so permanent.

 

[Lowell2]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/06/a-holocene-temperature-reconstruction-part-2-more-reconstructions/

NOTE: chart shows most recent on the LEFT.

showing natural warming trends and natural cooling trends.

 

[Lowell2]

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-low-cost-carbon-dioxide.html Using Earth-abundant materials, EPFL scientists have built the first low-cost system for splitting CO2 into CO, a reaction necessary for turning renewable energy into fuel. The future of clean energy depends on our ability to efficiently store energy from renewable sources and use it later. A popular way to do this is to electrolyze carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, which is then mixed with hydrogen to produce liquid hydrocarbons like gasoline or kerosene that can be used as fuel. However, we currently lack efficient and Earth-abundant catalysts for the initial splitting of CO2 into CO and oxygen, which makes the move into renewable energy expensive and prohibitive. EPFL scientists have now developed an Earth-abundant catalyst based on copper-oxide nanowires modified with tin oxide. The system can split CO2 with an efficiency of 13.4%. The work is published in Nature Energy, and can help worldwide efforts to synthetically produce carbon-based fuels from CO2 and water.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201787

The solar-driven electrochemical reduction of CO2 to fuels and chemicals provides a promising way for closing the anthropogenic carbon cycle. However, the lack of selective and Earth-abundant catalysts able to achieve the desired transformation reactions in an aqueous matrix presents a substantial impediment as of today. Here we introduce atomic layer deposition of SnO2 on CuO nanowires as a means for changing the wide product distribution of CuO-derived CO2 reduction electrocatalysts to yield predominantly CO. The activity of this catalyst towards oxygen evolution enables us to use it both as the cathode and anode for complete CO2 electrolysis. In the resulting device, the electrodes are separated by a bipolar membrane, allowing each half-reaction to run in its optimal electrolyte environment. Using a GaInP/GaInAs/Ge photovoltaic we achieve the solar-driven splitting of CO2 into CO and oxygen with a bifunctional, sustainable and all Earth-abundant system at an efficiency of 13.4%.

note the efficiency of 13.4% is a technological breakthru. Which means a loss of 86.6% . This is the essential problem of "machines". Most are very inefficient --so elimination of multiple steps of power conversion almost always increase available energy on a significant level even if no real "new" technology occurs.

This is one reason why a "home" windmill / solar or other alternative power source is more efficient than "farms" -- the further away, the more difficult it is to transmit the power any distance without significant drop off and why "power storage" is less efficient than using the power directly.

 

[David Vagamundo]

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-low-cost-carbon-dioxide.html Using Earth-abundant materials, EPFL scientists have built the first low-cost system for splitting CO2 into CO, a reaction necessary for turning renewable energy into fuel. The future of clean energy depends on our ability to efficiently store energy from renewable sources and use it later. A popular way to do this is to electrolyze carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, which is then mixed with hydrogen to produce liquid hydrocarbons like gasoline or kerosene that can be used as fuel. However, we currently lack efficient and Earth-abundant catalysts for the initial splitting of CO2 into CO and oxygen, which makes the move into renewable energy expensive and prohibitive. EPFL scientists have now developed an Earth-abundant catalyst based on copper-oxide nanowires modified with tin oxide. The system can split CO2 with an efficiency of 13.4%. The work is published in Nature Energy, and can help worldwide efforts to synthetically produce carbon-based fuels from CO2 and water.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201787

note the efficiency of 13.4% is a technological breakthru. Which means a loss of 86.6% . This is the essential problem of "machines". Most are very inefficient --so elimination of multiple steps of power conversion almost always increase available energy on a significant level even if no real "new" technology occurs.

This is one reason why a "home" windmill / solar or other alternative power source is more efficient than "farms" -- the further away, the more difficult it is to transmit the power any distance without significant drop off and why "power storage" is less efficient than using the power directly.

Thanks Lowell. Exciting developments.

 

[rvsakhadeo]

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-low-cost-carbon-dioxide.html Using Earth-abundant materials, EPFL scientists have built the first low-cost system for splitting CO2 into CO, a reaction necessary for turning renewable energy into fuel. The future of clean energy depends on our ability to efficiently store energy from renewable sources and use it later. A popular way to do this is to electrolyze carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, which is then mixed with hydrogen to produce liquid hydrocarbons like gasoline or kerosene that can be used as fuel. However, we currently lack efficient and Earth-abundant catalysts for the initial splitting of CO2 into CO and oxygen, which makes the move into renewable energy expensive and prohibitive. EPFL scientists have now developed an Earth-abundant catalyst based on copper-oxide nanowires modified with tin oxide. The system can split CO2 with an efficiency of 13.4%. The work is published in Nature Energy, and can help worldwide efforts to synthetically produce carbon-based fuels from CO2 and water.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201787

note the efficiency of 13.4% is a technological breakthru. Which means a loss of 86.6% . This is the essential problem of "machines". Most are very inefficient --so elimination of multiple steps of power conversion almost always increase available energy on a significant level even if no real "new" technology occurs.

This is one reason why a "home" windmill / solar or other alternative power source is more efficient than "farms" -- the further away, the more difficult it is to transmit the power any distance without significant drop off and why "power storage" is less efficient than using the power directly.

Great information, thanks a lot !

 

[deaf tuner]

Firstly:

… …

Thank You a lot for Your posting !
A lot of interesting information (and a lot of time and probity invested by You on it: "chapeau, Monsieur !")

…
note the efficiency of 13.4% is a technological breakthru. Which means a loss of 86.6% . ….

That reminds me a saying (that I believe it's all too often forgotten, be it at some chief-of-state meetings as at the corner pub ones): the cheapest and the least polluting energy is the one You don't use.

A couple of years ago, a regional plan for promoting installing individual solar panels was brought up, and only one party voted against: Greens !

And later they've been proved right: the scientific, human and financial resources invested would have been a lot more effective if allocated to a program promoting insulation, rethinking of installations, construction, domotics of lodging, aso . For example, a normal house has a total annual bill of energy consumption (heating, warm watter, light) around 2000 euros an year, while an equivalent one, what's called around here "passive house", is under 200 euros an year. That difference says it all, IMHO. (Those are actual figures: my house and one of my friend's one, btw)

 

[Lowell2]

one of the oldest construction materials is also one of the most energy-efficient: Adobe as a Sustainable Material: A Thermal Performance
Earthen housing appears to meet the requirements of green construction, Shukla et al. (2009) calculated the energy for construction and maintenance of an adobe house. The entire house was constructed materials such as soil, sand, cow dung and others that are not energy intensive. They found that approximately 370 GJ of energy can be saved per year using these construction materials. The energy payback time for the adobe house was 1.54 years. The mitigation of CO2 in the environment was reduced by 101 tonnes per year. The adobe house was also more environmentally friendly compared to conventional buildings. Chel and Tiwari (2009) also found similar results for a mud-house construction.

Thermal behavior of adobe buildings: Adobe is able to absorb heat during the day keeping the house cool and then release this stored heat at night, warming the interior of the house. This behavior is due to the high specific heat capacity of adobe which is an important factor that allows this material to reduce the thermal gradient of earthen houses (Parra-Saldivar and Batty, 2006). On the other hand, the ability of adobe to conduct heat is highly dependent on its moisture content, with a strong relationship between water content and heat conduction (Rees et al., 2001).

a modern adobe home:

and an old one:

 

[Lowell2]

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart

By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.

Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today

Abrantes et al (below) confirms the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than anything we have experienced in our own era.

it's not that the climate isn't changing (it has in the past, is now and will change again in the future). It's how much it's changing, and if humans have a significant influence on that and IF we can alter the climate, what should we alter it to be?

 

[Lowell2]

an effort to address a common waste problem: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607123941.htm End-of-life vehicles, with their plastic, metal and rubber components, are responsible for millions of tons of waste around the world each year. Now, a team reports that the plastic components in these vehicles can be recycled with coconut oil and re-used as foams for the construction, packaging and automotive industries.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01197

Polycarbonate and polyurethane scraps from end-of-life vehicles were converted into liquid recycled polyols with hydroxyl number around 300 mgKOH·g–1 by using medium chain glycerides of coconut oil. The obtained polyols were used for preparation of low-density rigid polyurethane foams. It was found that up to 50 wt % of the virgin petrochemical polyol can be replaced by the recycled polyols without any negative effect on the foaming process. The obtained foams exhibited the apparent density of 40–44 kg·m–3, the homogeneous cellular structure with a high content of closed cells (>91 vol %) and the beneficially low value of lambda coefficient (∼23 mW·m–1·K–1). The exceptionally high compressive strength (>350 kPa in parallel to foam rise direction) of the rigid PUR foams with 50 wt % of recycled polyol derived from polycarbonate scrap resulted probably from the unique structure of recycled polyol combining rigid aromatic segments together with flexible coconut oil glyceride units. In conclusion, this approach utilizing the renewable coconut oil-derived reagent provides a sustainable recycling solution for two major plastics from automotive waste.

 

[Ighayere]

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart


What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today

Abrantes et al (below) confirms the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than anything we have experienced in our own era.

it's not that the climate isn't changing (it has in the past, is now and will change again in the future). It's how much it's changing, and if humans have a significant influence on that and IF we can alter the climate, what should we alter it to be?

Breitbart? Really?

Anyway, the idea that "58 scientific papers from 2017 say global warming is a myth" is total nonsense.

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?