News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 722     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.7K     1 

The Climate Change Thread

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills
Companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives.
By Chris Martin
February 5, 2020, 5:00 AM EST


Not the end of the world - and it ain't like coal ash, activated metals, tailings and sour gas that coal, nuclear, tar sands and natural gas produces (beyond C02 emissions) - and it is solvable.

Northern light, I’m a believer in reducing Carbon emissions but as I’ve posted previously there is essentially no way humans are going to meet the set goals. That’s not a reason to throw up our hands. I enjoy challenges and that’s why I’m interested in the subject. Climate change with respect to carbon emissions is a game of part adaptation part meeting stretch goals. Frankly also, carbon emissions are only one of many things we are doing to terraform climate.

By the way you mentioned about moving a billion people. Actually comparatively moving a billion people is a fairly easy task relative to carbon emissions neutrality. Like India will probably urbanize 500 million people to urban areas alone in the next generation. Africa will move more than 1 billion people. Comparatively carbon neutrality is a much more complex and costly endeavour.

Using the word terraform suggests a positive end goal - and call carbon emissions one of many things belittles the scale of the problem. Also, it's a challenge to move a billion people in the best of times - and doing so (provision of new infrastructure) on top of disruption to existing settlement and production patterns is no less a challenge. Let's put it another way - countries are already throwing their hands up with migrations on the order of 100K.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Not the end of the world - and it ain't like coal ash, activated metals, tailings and sour gas that coal, nuclear, tar sands and natural gas produces (beyond C02 emissions) - and it is solvable.



Using the word terraform suggests a positive end goal - and call carbon emissions one of many things belittles the scale of the problem. Also, it's a challenge to move a billion people in the best of times - and doing so (provision of new infrastructure) on top of disruption to existing settlement and production patterns is no less a challenge. Let's put it another way - countries are already throwing their hands up with migrations on the order of 100K.

AoD

Did you know that gasoline used to be considered a waste product from the production of needed kerosene.

From link.

When oil refineries began production in the mid-19th century, the primary goal was the extraction of kerosene to fuel the lamps whose popularity was only superseded by electric lighting decades later. In the meantime, kerosene production resulted in a highly flammable volatile by-product called gasoline. Until the advent of the automobile, gasoline was simply a waste product which was disposed without a second thought.

For almost two centuries prior to the increased demands of the mid-1800s, whale oil was the lamp and lighting fuel of choice for Americans. The difficulty in procuring whale oil and its rising cost made the search for viable alternatives potentially lucrative. Numerous plant and vegetable oils were tried in America, but most suffered from poor light quality. Others, like olive oil, which shined brilliantly, would have required large quantities of imports.

Oil strikes in the United States offered a legitimate competitor to the whale oil industry. For the next several decades, crude oil was refined with the sole intention of producing kerosene. The refining process was as crude as the oil coming out of the ground. Gasoline was either burnt off or allowed to evaporate into the atmosphere, leaving behind its less flammable cousin, kerosene.

Kerosene rapidly became popular with the American public. It’s easy to see why: Kerosene burnt just as brightly as whale oil, but was cheaper. And compared with the alternatives, kerosene was less likely to explode thanks to its high boiling point. Safer and cheaper was a winning combination, and refineries struggled to keep pace with demand. America had caught “kerosene fever.”

In order to increase production, refineries turned to a process similar to distillation. Crude was heated, separated, and condensed into its separate parts. This was a notable improvement over the previous technique of “evaporation,” but the more kerosene they produced, the more highly flammable, unwanted gasoline they ended up with. The oil industry was faced with the difficult problem of disposing of countless barrels of worthless fire hazards. Around oil refineries, the ground became saturated with gasoline from runoff and willful negligence. Several oil companies turned to natural solutions, like simply dumping the gasoline into a nearby stream or river and hoping the toxic waste would . . . disappear. But folks living downstream had a funny way of complaining about their now-flammable water.

Oil companies tried marketing the gasoline to the “paint and varnish trade,” and considered themselves lucky to receive $1 per barrel of gasoline. Even then, there was hardly enough demand for gasoline to make a dent in the endless supply refineries were producing. John D. Rockefeller was one of the first to recognize the oil industry’s waste could be reused as the fuel for its own refining process. It was also Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, among others, which promoted gasoline to the nascent automobile industry at the turn of the century. Cheap, a seemingly never-ending supply, and light, gasoline was far better suited to early autos than kerosene, electricity, or steam.

The oil industry managed to turn its easiest-to-produce, hardest-to-get-rid-of, most worthless by-product into the most highly sought fuel of the following century.
 
Antarctica logs hottest temperature on record with a reading of 18.3C

A new record set so soon after the previous record of 17.5C in March 2015 is a sign warming in Antarctica is happening much faster than global average

Graham Readfearn
Fri 7 Feb 2020 07.59 GMT

 
I just watched the NOVA polar extremes episode on PBS. It’s an interesting look at climate change giving a clear picture of the issue from a scientific rather than political angle.

Basically, it looks at some of the science exploring what the world previously looked like and how it responded when carbon levels historically spiked.

Basically, the conclusion is that we currently live in an icebox world but our carbon emissions have flipped the carbon system switch to a hothouse world. Even if we end all human sources of carbon emissions today it’s already too late because the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is high enough to warm the poles and unlock frozen carbon thereby creating a positive feedback loop. Historically current greenhouse gas concentrations would be associated with a 50-60 foot rise in sea levels. That represents the true current state of the would. There is just a time lag between “taking the frozen lasagna out of the fridge” and when it will thaw. No actions we take today short of artificially recollecting atmosphere greenhouse gases will stop the earth’s climate from flipping to a hothouse equilibrium.

This is maybe the inconvenient truth of climate science. The perhaps hundreds of Trillions of dollars we need to de-carbon the economy isn’t enough. We would also need to purposefully alter the composition of the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
I just watched the NOVA polar extremes episode on PBS. It’s an interesting look at climate change giving a clear picture of the issue from a scientific rather than political angle.

Basically, it looks at some of the science exploring what the world previously looked like and how it responded when carbon levels historically spiked.

Basically, the conclusion is that we currently live in an icebox world but our carbon emissions have flipped the carbon system switch to a hothouse world. Even if we end all human sources of carbon emissions today it’s already too late because the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is high enough to warm the poles and unlock frozen carbon thereby creating a positive feedback loop. Historically current greenhouse gas concentrations would be associated with a 50-60 foot rise in sea levels. That represents the true current state of the would. There is just a time lag between “taking the frozen lasagna out of the fridge” and when it will thaw. No actions we take today short of artificially recollecting atmosphere greenhouse gases will stop the earth’s climate from flipping to a hothouse equilibrium.

This is maybe the inconvenient truth of climate science. The perhaps hundreds of Trillions of dollars we need to de-carbon the economy isn’t enough. We would also need to purposefully alter the composition of the atmosphere.

There is the matter of timescale - the lag so to say - it's one thing to have CO2 levels increase gradually and stay at a relatively elevated level - it is another to have it spike within two centuries - and the effect is cumulative. The longer it stays at that level (or beyond that level, if CO2 emissions increases are not arrested), the quicker the changes will be - it's one thing to commit to a 50ft rise in sea level over say a millennium; it's another to push the environmental conditions so that it happens in a century or two. What's being proposed buys time so that one can adapt - it's not an end point, but a beginning in the effort to de-carbonize the global economy.

For the record:

1581125745203.png



At no time during the last million years was the CO2 level this high.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Well...........this is different..............LOL

A Cambridge academic has proposed a radical new way to solve climate change – letting humanity become extinct.


Nuts. Humanity - being the only sentient species - is the measure of all things and all worth. That's not to say that it is a carte blanche to place all human needs/wants above anything else and justifying wanton destruction - but preservation is kind of meaningless in the absence of us (or sentients) appreciating what's been preserved.

Additionally, humanity has to see it isn’t the single living dominant force - but first, it needs to dismantle an established hierarchy amongst itself. This argument has not received as much disagreement as you might expect.

Sayeth like a true first world academic.

AoD
 
Nuts. Humanity - being the only sentient species - is the measure of all things and all worth. That's not to say that it is a carte blanche to place all human needs/wants above anything else and justifying wanton destruction - but preservation is kind of meaningless in the absence of us (or sentients) appreciating what's been preserved.



Sayeth like a true first world academic.

AoD

I have no problem w/dismantling the argument made by said 'academic'...............

Though....I'm not keen on 'sentience' as a conceptual basis for meaning or superiority.

The problem w/it is something like the problem I have w/vegetarianism as moral superiority because plants don't feel pain/have feelings.

Except, there is increasing evidence they have both; and humans are simply too arrogant to have looked for the evidence until recently.




***

Back to the core of this:



***

None of that distracts from the fact I disagree w/the scientist above..........
 
I have no problem w/dismantling the argument made by said 'academic'...............

Though....I'm not keen on 'sentience' as a conceptual basis for meaning or superiority.

The problem w/it is something like the problem I have w/vegetarianism as moral superiority because plants don't feel pain/have feelings.

Except, there is increasing evidence they have both; and humans are simply too arrogant to have looked for the evidence until recently.




***

Back to the core of this:



***

None of that distracts from the fact I disagree w/the scientist above..........

Don't get me wrong - it doesn't mean I don't think animals don't have some level of self-awareness, intelligence , etc - but Humanity is undeniably special in being the only species having achieve sentience and being able to decode and truly understand and predict the world around it. No other species have achieved that. As such we are literally the measure of all things. Is it anthropocentrism? You bet it is - sentience is a great responsibility/burden because with understanding and knowledge comes the responsibility to preserve.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Alvin, I get your point. It’s not just the atmospheric CO2 levels but the duration of high concentrations that matters.

By the way the program mentioned the last time historical atmospheric carbon dioxide spiked to today’s levels was 3 million years ago, taking it outside the range of most graphs depicting said levels. By the way life was thriving during that era, just differently from today.
 
I just watched the NOVA polar extremes episode on PBS. It’s an interesting look at climate change giving a clear picture of the issue from a scientific rather than political angle.

Basically, it looks at some of the science exploring what the world previously looked like and how it responded when carbon levels historically spiked.

Basically, the conclusion is that we currently live in an icebox world but our carbon emissions have flipped the carbon system switch to a hothouse world. Even if we end all human sources of carbon emissions today it’s already too late because the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is high enough to warm the poles and unlock frozen carbon thereby creating a positive feedback loop. Historically current greenhouse gas concentrations would be associated with a 50-60 foot rise in sea levels. That represents the true current state of the would. There is just a time lag between “taking the frozen lasagna out of the fridge” and when it will thaw. No actions we take today short of artificially recollecting atmosphere greenhouse gases will stop the earth’s climate from flipping to a hothouse equilibrium.

This is maybe the inconvenient truth of climate science. The perhaps hundreds of Trillions of dollars we need to de-carbon the economy isn’t enough. We would also need to purposefully alter the composition of the atmosphere.
Good docu shout-out, that was a nice watch!
 
Current estimates appear to indicate that by 2050 we will have raised atmospheric CO2 levels to 500 ppm from the 410 ppm now. I suspect we will blow by this prediction. That pretty well bakes in a 3 degree average temperature rise for the globe. A base case adaptation scenario short of technological innovations that scrub greenhouse gases from the atmosphere etc. Back of the envelope (I know things are more complicated then this) Toronto has a mean average temperature of 9.4 degrees (P.S. you can see that we truly do live in an icebox world even if we don't think of it that way). If we presume Toronto's mean average temperature rises to 12.4 degrees that would put us in the goldilocks zone of 10-16 degrees that defines the most desirable temperate geography in the world. Factor in that sea-levels are a non-issue there will be a tremendous population pressure over the next hundred years. Even if we keep people out based on our decisions surrounding geopolitical border policy, that pressure will still be felt economically (less people but higher land values). This pressure amplifies all the issues we are discussing around affordability and housing. Affordability will get worse. Inequality will get worse.
 
Alvin, I get your point. It’s not just the atmospheric CO2 levels but the duration of high concentrations that matters.

By the way the program mentioned the last time historical atmospheric carbon dioxide spiked to today’s levels was 3 million years ago, taking it outside the range of most graphs depicting said levels. By the way life was thriving during that era, just differently from today.

LIfe always thrives - but that's pretty meaningless in the context of a civilization dependent on climatic stability to survive. There isn't a globe spanning civilization with 8 billion individuals 3 million years ago.

Current estimates appear to indicate that by 2050 we will have raised atmospheric CO2 levels to 500 ppm from the 410 ppm now. I suspect we will blow by this prediction. That pretty well bakes in a 3 degree average temperature rise for the globe. A base case adaptation scenario short of technological innovations that scrub greenhouse gases from the atmosphere etc. Back of the envelope (I know things are more complicated then this) Toronto has a mean average temperature of 9.4 degrees (P.S. you can see that we truly do live in an icebox world even if we don't think of it that way). If we presume Toronto's mean average temperature rises to 12.4 degrees that would put us in the goldilocks zone of 10-16 degrees that defines the most desirable temperate geography in the world. Factor in that sea-levels are a non-issue there will be a tremendous population pressure over the next hundred years. Even if we keep people out based on our decisions surrounding geopolitical border policy, that pressure will still be felt economically (less people but higher land values). This pressure amplifies all the issues we are discussing around affordability and housing. Affordability will get worse. Inequality will get worse.

Others have already done similar studies pointing to similar ends - and the more problematical issue isn't the physical ability to move people and support them - but the geopolitical implications of that (considering humans are the best at making a bad situation even worse). Said it before - if countries are reacting this badly to relatively small migrations due to conflicts that we have now, how do you think we will handle truly mass scale migrations?

AoD
 
Last edited:
@AlvinofDiaspar, @TrickyRicky Just want to say, thank you to you both for a good discussion/debate on this issue.

I tend to come down more in line with Alvin's views; but that takes nothing away from the excellent exchange of scientific knowledge on the issue.
 
The major problem with fighting climate change is convincing a repugnant regime like the Chinese communist party to get on board as they are by far the greatest single source of pollution, and protecting the environment has never been a priority to them as it would impede their growth of power and influence.
 

Back
Top