The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[esldude]

22 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I suppose I am simply so much in agreement with her urgency that I don't take offense at a reasonably accurate criticism that we haven't acted with sufficient urgency to this point.

So what would do to get us to zero carbon emissions by 2050?  

[esldude]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

 

One of the better easily accessible articles I've seen on global cooling. 

 

Like this chart of actual temperatures too.  

 

 

And while it was known earlier that there was a warming trend in data it wasn't linked well to anything until Charles David Keeling began regular atmospheric CO2 measurements in 1958.  Plenty of scientists suspected fossil fuel use would be problematic.   Like this graph too. 

 

Now I'm surprised no one has posted how we get to zero emissions starting in 1970 and reaching it in 2050.  I'm all for it, but I'm not seeing the path yet.  

[esldude]

I'd remembered seeing this video showing CO2 from 2015, but couldn't find it.  Just found it again.  Worth your 90 seconds to watch I think.  From NASA using OCO-2 satellite data. 

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I want our expensive research towards CO2 and other pollution reduction to be given to China, India, and everyone else.

I see the benefit of that, but it highlights the other issues.  After all the Chinese activity to steal intellectual property of western countries how politically viable do you think that is?  Yeah we're all in this together, but............

[esldude]

2 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

I read the article and it leaves me many doubts ...

 

Increase in temperatures of 0.82 Celcius from 1850 to 2015 ...

 

"It is believed" that it is due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... That is, they are not sure ...

 

On the other hand, where on our planet were these measurements taken?

 

Were the measurements taken in 1850 accurate?

 

Being in the milk business for many years I remember an article published about 30 years ago in a prestigious industry magazine, Hoard's Dairyman, where they said that cows were a danger because their high breath in methane could cool the earth. ..!

 

Maybe we need more cows breathing 🤔

 

Roch

Don't know who said methane from cow breath was going to cool things.  Doesn't sound right.  Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon.  Luckily it doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long.  I seem to recall methane remains in the atmosphere just a few years after release.  CO2 stays around far, far longer.  

 

As for where they get temps and the accuracy of measurements there are plenty of articles.  CO2 levels mostly come from ice core samples as far as I know.  

[esldude]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

Pertinent: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/only-2-countries-are-meeting-their-climate-pledges-heres-how-the-10-worst-could-improve

 

Some curious conclusions in that report the article is about.  Over the time period covered China increased emissions of carbon 137%.  China is predicted to slow that to 8% per year.  They currently produce more than twice the USA amount.  China is promoting and actively financing the building of coal power plants in other countries around the world, and still building some in China.  The USA emissions declined during this time period.  It is expected emissions will be level in the near future (though other credible sources expect a gradual decline).  Even with Trump rolling back some regulations the price advantage of natural gas means coal power plants are going to continue being phased out.  Yet China gets a better rating on how they have done than the USA????? Yes China's per capita emissions are lower, but the climate cares not for per capita values only total amounts that get released.  Somehow the conclusion is the USA must get in line and lead or this problem can't be solved.  India has increased emissions greatly too.  And continue to go forward with coal while promising not to do so.  Yet seem to be better rated than USA efforts. 

 

Has always been interesting to me that the goal was 50% reduction worldwide by 2030-2035.  And that beyond that point emissions needed to be a net zero to avoid more than 1.5 degrees warming.  Did anyone really think if we met that 50% reductions target we could in a handful of years drop that right to zero?  We aren't going to meet 50% and definitely aren't going to be at zero by 2035.  All worthy goals, but motivated or not someone needs a new viable timetable.  The one being touted is broken.  Everything that can be done gets us closer and buys at least a little time, but that is a wickedly strict timetable of events.  

 

By one estimate I've seen, if you plant 4 trees per year for each car, and each family home plants 5 trees per year it might come close to balancing out.  Someone better get busy planting those trees.  Lots and lots of trees.  

[esldude]

19 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

That was what they said 30 years ago.  I can not found the article, no internet subscription by that time...

 

But here is a more recent one, with a different explanation:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/cows-beef-farming-reverse-climate-change-global-warming-a8202121.html

 

But maybe you need happy cows.

 

 

 

 

Roch

Seen such a farm and it works. I doubt it is positive in removing carbon. But goes in the right direction vs current practice.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Mass extinction?

 

Unless we artificially induce this even faster than it's happening, it won't reduce carbon until 100 years or so too late.

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It will reduce human carbon emissions very quickly, but will not do much about the carbon already in the atmosphere. The Earth eco-system is self-regulating, and when pushed too far, it will most certainly push back.

 

Which is why I said it is 100 years too late at least for humans and other animals.

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 

Extrinsic factors? Do you mean from outside the Earth? We are in a mostly closed system. Unless you are talking about the sun or a meteor hitting earth, I don't see too many other extrinsic factors.

 

I think he means extrinsic to a given population or ecosystem which would still be on earth.  Though meteors and sun output would qualify as well. 

 

The so called tipping points are the real concern.  Methane release could happen in a big way in a decade or two, and cause really rapid warming.  And while the methane would go away in another decade the warmed earth would tend to stay warmed.  Warmed to the point most of the globe is uninhabitable by humans and many other forms of life. 

[esldude]

Finally the real truth comes out.  And without wgscott's link I would have missed.  Many have thought climate change and sea level rise was a conspiracy of some sorts.  Now, from an unexpected group of conspirators the truth is out. 

 

https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-rising-sea-levels-result-of-expansive-colon-1830752818

[esldude]

Hey, sun shades at the Lagrange point L1 is what I'd suggest.  Get the material from moon mining to build and put it in place.  Much less of a gravitational well operating from the moon.  Blocking 2% of the sunlight will counteract all the carbon increases in the atmosphere.  Best plan to put into place if you aren't some maladjusted fearfully panicked northern European teenage girl.  Maybe someone should point it out to her as a solution.  Our future is so bright we have to wear shades.  We got it made in the shade.

 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

Don't make me lose faith, because we always have Superman !!!

 

 

Roch

 

Actually I do consider moderately long term this is the best idea (the shade at L1).  We know what it would take.  While a massive undertaking so are the other solutions.  It would also stimulate some other technologies.  It would be the most finely controllable of all solutions. We know for sure it would work. 

 

If I'm to believe Democrats in the USA, money is a complete non-issue due to MMT.  Even they have advisers that tell them you can't have an unlimited GDP, but with the place to put excess production  at L1 it should take right off.  

 

Developing the ability to place those shades also likely leaves us well able to have orbiting solar power plants.  Meaning we can quickly stop fossil fuel use.  Is it doable soon enough?  No.  So far neither is anything else proposed short of everyone becoming enlightened world wide and voluntarily living like it was a millennium ago. 

 

Anybody have a better idea?

[esldude]

54 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

a space shade would divert $$ from PV deployment and R&D into carbon capture

 

it does nothing to affect the GHGs in the atmosphere now and consequent effects for the next 40 years)

 

it does nothing to affect ocean acidification

The modeling of the effect I've seen is that 2% shading would maintain temperature with the GHG's already in the atmosphere and likely to be burned in the near term interim.  Carbon capture can then be worked on over a longer time period as the interval until temperature ratchets up has been taken care of.  Eventually taking care of carbon via carbon capture will help with ocean acidification though maybe not before damage is done.  You have to admit the current prospects of controlling ocean acidification are around the slim and none category.  

 

Carbon capture or shade?  Both are too expensive to pursue at once.  Choices have to be made.  PV deployment is likely to proceed thru the sheer economics of it. 

 

Oh well, chances are none of it will be accomplished in time.  Some group of people will in some way adapt to changed conditions and some of the earth may or may not become too hot to inhabit full time.  

[esldude]

https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/arts-entertainment/coldplay-to-stop-touring-until-concerts-are-environmentally-beneficial?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=module&utm_campaign=recirc&utm_content=rightraildailybrief

 

This might be a double win.  Coldplay to stop touring until it is environmentally beneficial.  

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I don't know why he picked it - job offer, schools for his kids, etc.  But he was quite sure it was better than the US - and he is somebody who would know.

Would like to read a short version of his reasoning in this.  It does seem odd to choose Denmark.  

 

I agree with less knowledge about it than you have it seems pretty obvious there no reasonably near term solution to removing enough CO2 to fix it, and close to zero chance CO2 emissions will diminish enough quickly enough for it to fix things.  So the various guidelines from agencies I think suffer a credibility problem even when they are telling the truth.  The IPCC says greenhouse gas emissions must reach net zero by 2050 to limit warming to 1.5 C.  Sorry pals, that isn't going to happen.  It is so close to impossible they shouldn't even discuss it seriously.  

 

 

[esldude]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

Yes, definitely fair to say a 17 year old on the autism spectrum hasn’t managed to instantly halt climate change within the year by herself.

 

Also fair to ask what each of us has accomplished to make progress toward resolving this problem. Even as much as this teenager (publicity and perhaps some political awareness)?

I quit going to work a few years ago.  Isn't that rather like no longer going to school? At a minimum my carbon footprint traveling to and from work disappeared.  If everybody quit going to work (like me) carbon emissions would drop dramatically.  I simply was not so self centered and attention seeking as Greta seems to be.  I'm not as angry either.  I'm not even asking for the Nobel, but if they gift it to me, I'll do some good with the prize. 

[esldude]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

That is good, but what does a declared climate emergency in the EU mandate ?

I won't mandate anything in England now. 

[esldude]

38 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Have you done anything to raise awareness or lobbied for change?

Well I did take an airline flight last month.  I could have maybe picketed the airport for a few days until somebody offered to paddle me up the Mississippi river on a high tech carbon fiber canoe or something.  Then when they flew back home, I could have floated downstream on my own, but I didn't create a fuss about it.  Guess I messed up on that one.

 

I have talked to people, but they didn't listen.  Lobbied for change when I still went to work, and for 20+ years made a difference which reduced employee transportation emissions by 20%.  Involved a couple hundred employees.  Then a new regime took over and decided even though the difference cost nothing, it also made them no money and discontinued the practices.  That is when I left.