• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

Mikemcc said:
I did the same thing a few years ago and it did convert me from from the 'we're too puny to affect this' camp.

The major sink that would affect what you calculated is how much of the addition CO2 stays in the atmosphere and how much is absorbed the oceans. The 'Atmospheric Fraction'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbo...uld imply a faster increase in atmospheric CO
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I was surprised how close simple maths and google came to the more sophisticated analyses
 
waking up to nuclear is needed
https://time.com/6117041/nuclear-energy-reactors-green/?utm_source=digg

and of course the power needed to pull carbon from the air.

This should be required reading for everyone on the planet

images


and finally a terrific role for block chain

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-coin-climate-change-crypto
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
This is just too funny: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

Captain Obvious tried to post that but is waiting on treatment for the hernia he got laughing when he read it.
Click to expand...
First define 'lifestyle'
A lifestyle typically reflects an individual's attitudes, way of life, values, or world view. Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. Not all aspects of a lifestyle are voluntary. Surrounding social and technical systems can constrain the lifestyle choices available to the individual and the symbols she/he is able to project to others and the self...

..."green lifestyle" means holding beliefs and engaging in activities that consume fewer resources and produce less harmful waste (i.e. a smaller ecological footprint), and deriving a sense of self from holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities
Click to expand...


Captain Obvious wants to point out that those who already have a 'green' lifestyle are perfectly justified in not wanting to change it.


Results of the survey:-

'I would accept stricter rules and environmental regulations' 76% say yes
Click to expand...
76% is hardly a 'few'. Actually I am being too generous - calling 76% 'few' is a lie.

Despite this broad willingness to accept stricter rules and environmental regulations, only a minority considered that changing their own lifestyle was a 'priority'. And why should they? A person's lifestyle is a part of their personal identity. Expecting them to radically change it is asking them to give up their individual identity and live however some 'authority' decides they should. It's not good enough to accept stricter rules and regulations - they must become a completely different person?

Respondents viewed measures likely to affect their own lifestyles, however, as significantly less important: reducing people’s energy consumption was seen as a priority by only 32%, while favouring public transport over cars (25%) and radically changing our agricultural model (24%) were similarly unpopular.

Only 23% felt that reducing plane travel and charging more for products that did not respect environmental norms were important to preserve the planet, while banning fossil fuel vehicles (22%) and reducing meat consumption (18%) and international trade (17%) were seen as even lower priorities.
Click to expand...
Here's where it goes off the rails. None of these measures are inherently necessary to 'save the planet'.

- We have more than enough energy for most people to keep the personal lifestyles they have currently. Whether your electricity comes from coal or renewables has no bearing on your personal lifestyle. This is not something the individual should have to worry about.

- Public transport is not inherently more environmentally friendly than cars. Electric vehicles solve the CO2 problem and are cheaper to run. Electric buses and trains should be cheaper too, but we can hardly expect people to give up their cars and use existing fossil-fueled public transport which is both more expensive and more polluting than an electric car.

- Changing our agricultural model does not mean people have to radically change their personal lifestyles. 'Stop eating meat' they say 'because farming animals for meat destroys the environment!'. But that is a problem for the farming industry to solve, not individuals. Want people to cut down on consumption of unhealthy food? Regulate the industries that are pushing it onto them (76% say they will accept that, remember?).

- Reducing plane travel is not necessary to save the environment. Planes are already more efficient than cars and ships for long distance travel, and will be even more so when powered by renewables.

- International trade is essential for distributing the technology we need to solve environmental problems without radically changing individual lifestyles. We don't have to give up cars or meat, or stop buying products made overseas. We just need to do it in an environmentally friendly manner. And it doesn't even have to cost more. Electric cars are cheaper to own than gas cars, and more convenient. But people can't be expected to change their own lifestyles while watching fossil fuel companies continuing to sell toxic products that are subsidized with our taxes. They can't be expected to seek out and pay more for 'green' products while manufacturers continue to fill the shelves with polluting junk.

People shouldn't have to change their lifestyles in an attempt to make industry change its ways. 76% say doing it with stricter rules and
environmental regulations is acceptable, and I agree. We will choose our individual lifestyles from those that are available. We have the technology to provide a wide range of environmentally friendly choices that will allow most people to keep their lifestyles largely intact.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
A heads up for those in the UK that The Trick, a dramatisation of the Climategate story, is on BBC One at 8.30 tonight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0010s10

From the preview in the Radio Times it looks like being a fair account.
Click to expand...

Listened to this as podcast. Actually very interesting. One of the best bits was an interview with one of the major climate change critics who utilised the leaked emails to attack the climate change science. When he went through the calculations himself he realised that the climate scientists were correct. He then goes on and says when covid started he felt the need to go on-line and challenge the science; but he says he told himself that this time he should leave it to the experts who actually know what they are talking about. So people can learn.

It also flags up the overlap between climate change deniers and anti-vaxx / covid deniers.
 
Planigale said:
It also flags up the overlap between climate change deniers and anti-vaxx / covid deniers.
Click to expand...

There is also considerable overlap with Intelligent Design and\or Creationism and the goldbugs who want to do away with Central Banks.


The political right has been going full on anti-science, anti-expert and anti-academia since the late 90's, at least it has in places where the far right media holds sway.
 
CSIRO in race with Dutch corporate giant DSM to get low emissions cattle feed to market

"The race is on to commercialise a product that will significantly reduce methane emissions in cattle around the world, but can Australia's CSIRO beat the Dutch corporate giant DSM to the punch?"

The world is scrambling to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and over 100 countries have committed to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent in the next decade.

"The prize is to commercialise a feed additive that can cut emissions in cattle and help that industry get to net zero.

"Australia's CSIRO is the Johnny-come-lately, the research minnow competing against a Dutch corporate giant, but they have grand ambitions.

"In collaboration with Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and James Cook University (JCU) they have developed a product that cuts emissions in cows by 90 per cent."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2...chnology-to-reduce-cattle-emissions/100650618
 
Roger Ramjets said:
...76% say doing it with stricter rules and
environmental regulations is acceptable, and I agree...
Click to expand...

You write all that immediately after COP26 has failed?

https://www.dw.com/en/cop26-world-leaders-fail-to-honor-climate-pledge/a-59812348
https://theconversation.com/the-ult...appointment-despite-a-few-bright-spots-171723
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...last-hope-survival-climate-civil-disobedience
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/com...ement-failure-climate-phase-down-coal-2314176

People don't even begin to understand what's required and think governments will act to save the planet, when that's demonstrably incorrect.

Like the majority of the unwashed who give those trite answers, you're deluding yourself.
 
one of those million Manhattan Projects that reducing carbon requires...this is really neat...especially what comes out. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/01/europe/cow-dung-methane-climate-warming-intl/index.html

forgive the title ....

snip
"When we add nitrogen from air to the slurry, it changes the environment to stop methanogenesis basically. So it drops the pH down to just below six and we're catching that early. So it stops the breakdown of those methane microbes that then release the gas to the air," Puttick said, adding their patented technology is the only one of its kind.
What comes out of the machine is an odorless brown liquid, called NEO -- a Nitrogen Enriched Organic fertilizer.
According to N2, their NEO has double the nitrogen content of regular nitrogen fertilizer; one of the most commonly used fertilizers to boost production of corn, canola and other crops.
Puttick said independent tests showed their technology reduces methane emissions from slurry by 99%. It also cuts by 95% the emission of ammonia; described by the EU as one of the main sources of health-damaging air pollution.
On a 200-cow dairy farm this equates to "a reduction of 199 tons of carbon equivalent every year with one machine," said Puttick, adding that they're now looking to scale out the technology across the UK livestock sector, and have recently installed it at a pig farm
Click to expand...

costs about what a tractor does and likely subject to carbon rebates.
 
-

I don't know if global warming is real or even caused by humans if it is, but I'm all for fighting it just in case I'm wrong.

With that said, it does bother me that the deniers don't also think this way, and that just seems stupid to me.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
-

I don't know if global warming is real or even caused by humans if it is, but I'm all for fighting it just in case I'm wrong.

With that said, it does bother me that the deniers don't also think this way, and that just seems stupid to me.

-
Click to expand...

If you don't know something then you can't be "wrong".

If global warming isn't happening then fighting it could result in global cooling which would have harmful effects, therefore deniers would oppose it.
 
-

sphenisc said:
If you don't know something then you can't be "wrong".
If global warming isn't happening then fighting it could result in global cooling which would have harmful effects, therefore deniers would oppose it.
Click to expand...

-

Didn't think of that, but as far as your second comment, if deniers think that fixing it would cool the Earth, doesn't that also kind of prove that we can also warm it by our actions?

-
 
Fox News (also known as Faux News or Fixed Noise) is the worst when it comes to this. Just check out Greg Gutfelds commentary on this. Am I allowed to post links?
 
skepticsalamander said:
Fox News (also known as Faux News or Fixed Noise) is the worst when it comes to this. Just check out Greg Gutfelds commentary on this. Am I allowed to post links?
Click to expand...

Appears not.

Is it this kind of stuff you're talking about?

Climate change is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. I repeat: climate change is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Shush, did you hear that? I think it’s John Kerry’s face melting.
Click to expand...

I'd never heard of him, and he seems to be just a classic short-man syndrome clown playing anti-AGW to an audience of idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom