Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 830539 times)

CWSooner · « **Reply #2968 on:** June 07, 2020, 08:28:33 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on June 07, 2020, 10:10:13 AM

In weather news, it's pretty much summer here, late afternoon showers are becoming common (and welcome), highs in the mid to upper 80s, it can be sunny and an hour later be pouring rain. The area around us has many historical markers, mostly about some brigade moving from here to there in 1864. I try and visualize what any of that was like back then, the weather would have been hot of course as Sherman marched south. It's an interesting campaign as Johnston tried to block Sherman and isolate on one of his corps, but never could pull it off, which suggests to me that it is very difficult to manage an army of 50,000 or so men to get them to do what you want when you want it. Sherman was able to lever Johnston from a prepared line time and time again until Kennesaw Mountain, and after that battle Sherman flanked Johnston again and forced him to fall back, always falling back, which made Jeff Davis angrier.

I don't know what would have happened of course had Johnston been left in charge, probably more falling back, as he really lacked the resources to fight Sherman's army, and could have ended up encircled in Atlanta. Maybe CWS knows. I know it must have been hot.

Sherman IMHO was one helluva general.

Somewhere I have read that Joe Johnston had a reputation as the best shot in the prewar U.S. Army. And he never gave anyone a chance to prove that reputation wrong.

IMO, Johnston was predisposed to avoid decisive battles. His actions--or lack thereof--in the Vicksburg campaign are an example of that. However, I think he did the about best he could with the resources he had against Sherman north of Atlanta. John Bell Hood did worse.

J.E.J. was an honorary pallbearer at Sherman's funeral. It was a cold, rainy day in New York City, and Johnston kept his hat off as a measure of respect. Urged to put on his hat, Johnston replied, "If I were in his place, and he were standing here in mine, he would not put on his hat." He caught a cold that developed into pneumonia and died 10 days later in Washington, D.C.

FearlessF · « **Reply #2969 on:** June 07, 2020, 08:47:42 PM »

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-alternative-cement-recipesa-recipe-eco-concrete.html

It is the most widely used product in the world. Cement is indispensable yet its reputation has become quite tainted in the course of the ongoing climate debate. Mixed with water, sand and gravel, it results in concrete, on which our modern world is built. However, the frugal material is in the limelight primarily because of another property: The production of one ton of cement causes around

700 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is emitted in the atmosphere. This is less than in the case of, say, steel or aluminum production. But it's the sheer quantity that makes the difference. Every year, we produce around twelve cubic kilometers of concrete worldwide, a quantity that could completely fill Lake Lucerne—every year anew. And the trend is rising.

The share of global CO2emissions caused by the cement industry is currently around seven percent. However, this is likely to increase in future, as demand is growing in Asia and increasingly also in Africa, while production in Europe is more or less stable. So it is high time to look for a cement that offers people housing and infrastructure, but still takes environmental aspects into account and can be produced in line with our climate targets. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) also calls for the immediate development and use of new cement-based materials that are more climate-friendly and at the same time cost-effective. Empa researchers are thus working on alternative types of cement and concrete that produce less harmful greenhouse gas or can even bind CO2.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2970 on:** June 07, 2020, 09:15:32 PM »

I don't know quite what to think of Confederate generals. I can admire in some cases their military capacity, much as I might admire say Guderian or Balck or Manstein in the Nazi era.

I can admire Sherman with few reservations. I'm sure he had flaws. We all do. Grant had flaws, Lincoln had flaws, but I'm perhaps more comfortable admiring them than Lee or Johnston. I think Jackson had a certain aura that was special. And jackson of course fell short in the Seven Days.

Herman Balck can be argued as the greatest commander in WW 2 and few remember him at all.

MichiFan87 · « **Reply #2971 on:** June 07, 2020, 09:59:52 PM »

Can we keep the history / military discussion elsewhere?

Cement / concrete production is a big challenge to decarbonize. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but the main strategies are to electrify and/or use hydrogen as the energy source in production while using other less carbon-intensive inputs to produce a more carbon-intensive output (that would sequester it). That said, it does capture carbon through the carbonation process over time.

But this can also be improved from the demand side. More of it should be recycled / reused from demolished buildings / roads / etc. The construction industry as a whole will hopefully start to steadily decline as population growth continues to slow down and commercial real estate declines (due to working from home, online shopping, etc.), and more new construction should be on brownfield sites (eg. vacant lots, abandoned / irreparable buildings).

My understanding is that the technology is mostly there but the economics are not yet.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2972 on:** June 08, 2020, 06:22:27 PM »

https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/14/greening-the-planet-and-slouching-towards-paris/

That is one of the more interesting things I've read in a while. If true, and that is an if, it suggests we're going to green the planet about fast enough to manage this problem with some help.

RCP 2.6 is associated with 2.4⁰C of warming (since preindustrial) by 2100. The goal of the Paris Agreement is to hold warming to two degrees or below. The reduction in warming from the equivalent of 17 years of zero emissions is, of course, spread through the century, but if it took place now (according to the UN’s models) it would reduce 0.5⁰C of the expected warming. The IPCC models have us warming at roughly 0.3⁰C/decade in the near term, but Haverd et al. tell us we will effectively have 1.7 decades of zero emissions thanks to greening.

A little math: 2.4⁰ (the UN’s expected RCP 2.6 warming to 2100) minus 0.5⁰ (the reduction in warming from 17 years of zero emissions) = 1.9⁰C of warming. Thanks to the wonders of photosynthesis on God’s getting-greener earth, we meet the Paris Accord.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2973 on:** June 08, 2020, 06:33:54 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on June 08, 2020, 06:22:27 PM

https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/14/greening-the-planet-and-slouching-towards-paris/

That is one of the more interesting things I've read in a while. If true, and that is an if, it suggests we're going to green the planet about fast enough to manage this problem with some help.

RCP 2.6 is associated with 2.4⁰C of warming (since preindustrial) by 2100. The goal of the Paris Agreement is to hold warming to two degrees or below. The reduction in warming from the equivalent of 17 years of zero emissions is, of course, spread through the century, but if it took place now (according to the UN’s models) it would reduce 0.5⁰C of the expected warming. The IPCC models have us warming at roughly 0.3⁰C/decade in the near term, but Haverd et al. tell us we will effectively have 1.7 decades of zero emissions thanks to greening.

A little math: 2.4⁰ (the UN’s expected RCP 2.6 warming to 2100) minus 0.5⁰ (the reduction in warming from 17 years of zero emissions) = 1.9⁰C of warming. Thanks to the wonders of photosynthesis on God’s getting-greener earth, we meet the Paris Accord.

Yeah, that's widely debunked.

There's a reason she posts on a blog and not peer reviewed papers anymore.

Also, she's on Exxon-Mobil's payroll. Really.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2974 on:** June 08, 2020, 06:43:06 PM »

The innocuously titled paper, “Higher than expected CO₂ fertilization inferred from leaf to global observations”, by Vanessa Haverd (of Australia’s CSIRO) and eight coauthors uses a biophysical model and observed climate to back-calculate global primary productivity (GPP; the net change in standing vegetation per year), and to forward-calculate it using climate model forecasts.

It's a publication by others she is citing. It's not her work. I do realize she has to be castigated severely for her opinions and faulted as being on the payroll of Exxon or whatever. It's a defense mechanism to silence interesting discussion.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950

CWSooner · « **Reply #2975 on:** June 09, 2020, 12:51:10 AM »

It at least makes sense that higher levels of CO2 would stimulate plant growth.

If the Brazilians would stop deforesting the Amazon basin, that would be nice.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2976 on:** June 09, 2020, 06:53:53 AM »

Some think that has been widely debunked, a paper published in February of this year. Widely debunked. Probably paid for by Exxon.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #2977 on:** June 09, 2020, 09:54:05 AM »

Confirmed, likely?

847badgerfan · « **Reply #2978 on:** June 09, 2020, 09:58:16 AM »

Quote from: MichiFan87 on June 07, 2020, 09:59:52 PM

Can we keep the history / military discussion elsewhere?

Cement / concrete production is a big challenge to decarbonize. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but the main strategies are to electrify and/or use hydrogen as the energy source in production while using other less carbon-intensive inputs to produce a more carbon-intensive output (that would sequester it). That said, it does capture carbon through the carbonation process over time.

But this can also be improved from the demand side. More of it should be recycled / reused from demolished buildings / roads / etc. The construction industry as a whole will hopefully start to steadily decline as population growth continues to slow down and commercial real estate declines (due to working from home, online shopping, etc.), and more new construction should be on brownfield sites (eg. vacant lots, abandoned / irreparable buildings).

My understanding is that the technology is mostly there but the economics are not yet.

As much as can be recycled is already being done. The problem lies with steel. Reinforced concrete is extremely difficult to recycle. Nearly all concrete in buildings is reinforced. Roads, not so much, and that is being recycled at a high rate, for use in asphalt bases and such.

As for the second comment, do you really hope for a steady decline in construction? Didn't you get your degree in economics?

MichiFan87 · « **Reply #2979 on:** June 09, 2020, 11:20:32 AM »

I appreciate the input about concrete recycling. Yes, I majored in Economics. The US isn't far behind other developed countries where population has peaked and is declining back to a sustainable level before ending in a steady state. The construction industry isn't going to die (or even shrink as much as coal and oil & gas will), and it will still even grow in developing countries, but with the way the world is going, commercial real estate isn't going to be nearly as important in the future.

Anyway, this article talks about a report that just came out. The short story is that just with existing technologies (no modular nuclear or anything else in R&D), simply shutting down coal, extending existing nuclear and hydro generation to the extent possible and just building wind & solar (no more gas plants) with some energy storage would get us most of the way through the energy transition on the electricity side, without requiring much more transmission infrastructure, either. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/us-could-reach-90-carbon-free-by-2035-bolster-economic-recovery-report-f/579425/. The key missing part, of course, is federal policy, but if Biden gets elected that should get done.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #2980 on:** June 09, 2020, 11:35:14 AM »

Construction in the US hasn't declined at all, and poised to grow even more in the coming years. Decaying infrastructure in this country needs fixing. Band-Aids only work for so long.

We can't have bridges collapsing and dams failing, etc.

MichiFan87 · « **Reply #2981 on:** June 09, 2020, 01:07:12 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2020, 11:35:14 AM

Construction in the US hasn't declined at all, and poised to grow even more in the coming years. Decaying infrastructure in this country needs fixing. Band-Aids only work for so long.

We can't have bridges collapsing and dams failing, etc.

That's all true. I guess my larger point is that new construction should decline. Obviously, a lot of maintenance is long overdue, and a lot of buildings could be renovated / repurposed.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

CWSooner

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MichiFan87

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

CWSooner

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MichiFan87

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MichiFan87

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment