|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2019 13:14:42 GMT -5
The insect thing is of interest, yes, of course I was joking. As far as the social forces go, it's true that there's big fossil-fuel industry money with an interest in biasing the narrative. But I'd say the more powerful force against change is a simple everyday-dude's: "what? this now? oh, for f#cks sake!" And you can't tell me that with the 100's of billions of dollars seeking alpha that there aren't hundreds (if not thousands) of powerful people salivating at the thought of tearing up and then rebuilding the energy sector from the top-down -- that's already pretty evident as it is, and would follow the same pattern that led to the monstrosity that is Alphabet: don't wait for the new Carnegie or Rockefeller to show up, START with the monopoly by crushing the competition before it can even emerge. And the social consensus among educated people is that anthropomorphic climate change is real and will be catastrophic. What worries me is that another facet of that consensus is that the size of the world population needs to be controlled. Not that I disagree with that outlook entirely, but social crusaders working toward a goal of a greater good that's contrary to the economic well-being of the average Joe have the potential to be the cause of some major suffering. Is it really true that all the coastal areas are going to flood out in the time frame the simulations predict? Is it really true that there's measurably more energy in the hurricane season every year? Is it really true that the northwest and northeast passages are going to be economically viable shipping alternatives to the longer tropical routes? Since we created this problem over the course of a few hundred years, what would be the overall cost, in human terms, of a crash course off fossil fuels that took 5-10 years instead of gradually planning for it over 20-40, and what would be the marginal benefit to mitigating climate change to doing it faster and who would be the segments of the population that would suffer most by doing it faster? Those are all good questions, and I suspect that we're in agreement about most of the issues involved in climate change. I'm particularly interested because I like technological challenges. I attempted to find out if it's possible for an individual to build anything mnechanical/chemical that could function to offset or reduce total carbon consumption, but I couldn;t find anything on a small scale that could do that. At the moment the best thing that builders can do is super-insulate and design homes that will function using the least amount of energy--LED lights, hi-efficiency heat pumps, etc. Nevertheless, I'll leave this fascinating issue behind so that we can concentrate on the thread of this theme. Perhaps I'll start a new thread later for people who are as interested in this subject as I am. From a spiritual/religious perspective the Pope discussed our poor stewardship of the planet in rather startling terms. He said something about how we're turning our home into the equivalent of a filthy sty, or some such thing (I'm too lazy to look up the quote). The Buddhists also take stewardship of the planet and its species pretty seriously, and Tricycle regularly publishes articles on that subject. And hey, even if we're not in agreement, any solution with any chance of success short of coercion of a major % of the population is going to take dialog between people who differ who can get past those differences to move the ball forward. I can't imagine the topic not being interesting to anyone with even a passing interest in current events/history/culture, etc. It seems to me that it's difficult to have reasonable conversations about an issue like this between people who disagree because of the existential nature of the potential threat involved .. I mean, we all know what's at the root of peeps reactions to .. (*ahem*) .. existential threats.  As far as personal sequestration technology is concerned, what I've noticed (very casual youtube "research"  )are two trends: (1) advances in large-scale carbon-scrubbing technology, and (2) successful commercialization of small-scale rooftop solar .. perhaps if the scrubbing equipment can be scaled down, then powering it renewably would offer the opportunity you're looking for. Short of that, if a carbon-offset market is ever established, then a share-based structure for the industrial installations would also be another option. Personally, my money on the eventual solution is fusion. Now as far as 426 ppm is concerned, let me point out that Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and that one of the gases it's emitting is CO 2. It's precisely this kind of fudging that sets off my skepticism about the folks the "deniers" call the "alarmists".  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 3, 2019 14:42:45 GMT -5
Those are all good questions, and I suspect that we're in agreement about most of the issues involved in climate change. I'm particularly interested because I like technological challenges. I attempted to find out if it's possible for an individual to build anything mnechanical/chemical that could function to offset or reduce total carbon consumption, but I couldn;t find anything on a small scale that could do that. At the moment the best thing that builders can do is super-insulate and design homes that will function using the least amount of energy--LED lights, hi-efficiency heat pumps, etc. Nevertheless, I'll leave this fascinating issue behind so that we can concentrate on the thread of this theme. Perhaps I'll start a new thread later for people who are as interested in this subject as I am. From a spiritual/religious perspective the Pope discussed our poor stewardship of the planet in rather startling terms. He said something about how we're turning our home into the equivalent of a filthy sty, or some such thing (I'm too lazy to look up the quote). The Buddhists also take stewardship of the planet and its species pretty seriously, and Tricycle regularly publishes articles on that subject. And hey, even if we're not in agreement, any solution with any chance of success short of coercion of a major % of the population is going to take dialog between people who differ who can get past those differences to move the ball forward. I can't imagine the topic not being interesting to anyone with even a passing interest in current events/history/culture, etc. It seems to me that it's difficult to have reasonable conversations about an issue like this between people who disagree because of the existential nature of the potential threat involved .. I mean, we all know what's at the root of peeps reactions to .. (*ahem*) .. existential threats. As far as personal sequestration technology is concerned, what I've noticed (very casual youtube "research" )are two trends: (1) advances in large-scale carbon-scrubbing technology, and (2) successful commercialization of small-scale rooftop solar .. perhaps if the scrubbing equipment can be scaled down, then powering it renewably would offer the opportunity you're looking for. Short of that, if a carbon-offset market is ever established, then a share-based structure for the industrial installations would also be another option. Personally, my money on the eventual solution is fusion. Now as far as 426 ppm is concerned, let me point out that Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and that one of the gases it's emitting is CO 2. It's precisely this kind of fudging that sets off my skepticism about the folks the "deniers" call the "alarmists". Well, after I gave up on finding anything that would sequester carbon on a small scale at a reasonable price, I began looking at small scale rooftop mounted windmills because two of the sites where I anticipate some new construction have a fair amount of wind on a regular basis), and the numbers there looked possible. Only one of the sites has good solar exposure, and I may install a small system there just for the fun of it if the price is reasonable enough. Thanks for reminding me that Mauna Loa may be contributing an additional amount of CO2 not in accordance with a worldwide average amount, but from what I've read the CO2 numbers are climbing at a rate that is rather shocking, and it takes a lot of CO2 to change the ph of the ocean even a small amount. I'll do some more research and get back after I have more info. I suspect that most people are just like me--it takes personal experiences to trigger the realization that CC and GW is not a future threat; it's here and now. The abnormal flood and wind events that our company has had to deal with during the last few years is what made me start paying attention to other similar events and suddenly realize that an altered climate future has already arrived. I'm sure that many people in Houston, TX, Paradise, CA, and a dozen other similar places have made the same connection. As I noted earlier, Houston received the highest rainfall ever recorded in the USA--54 inches during Harvey with an average of about 36 inches. From what I've read 20 of the last 30 years have been the hottest on record, and this year appears to be heading in the same direction. The scale of the problem is enormous, and so many trends are exacerbating it. Sometimes a tiny bottle of vitamins will arrive from Amazon in a large cardboard box. When I think about the energy it took to get that tiny bottle of vitamins sent to us (the carboard box manufacturing, the lights in the Amazon warehouse, the transportation of the bottle from the supplier to Amazon, the gas consumed by the UPS delivery truck, etc,) it's rather disheartening. Every aspect of modern life in an industrial country requires energy consumption, and I'm not sure what would be the best way to tackle the issue. Clearly, coal-fired electricity plants are worse than all other types of plants, but I've read that the USA has 400 active plants whereas there are 64,000 such plants worldwide, mainly in China and India. If that's true, it indicates that even if we eliminated all such plants here, the global problem would barely be affected. Needless to say, I'd be interested in any ideas that anyone has related to this subject. Most of the books I've read don;t offer any suggestions that would make a significant dent in total CO2 emissions anytime soon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 16:16:08 GMT -5
And hey, even if we're not in agreement, any solution with any chance of success short of coercion of a major % of the population is going to take dialog between people who differ who can get past those differences to move the ball forward. I can't imagine the topic not being interesting to anyone with even a passing interest in current events/history/culture, etc. It seems to me that it's difficult to have reasonable conversations about an issue like this between people who disagree because of the existential nature of the potential threat involved .. I mean, we all know what's at the root of peeps reactions to .. (*ahem*) .. existential threats. As far as personal sequestration technology is concerned, what I've noticed (very casual youtube "research" )are two trends: (1) advances in large-scale carbon-scrubbing technology, and (2) successful commercialization of small-scale rooftop solar .. perhaps if the scrubbing equipment can be scaled down, then powering it renewably would offer the opportunity you're looking for. Short of that, if a carbon-offset market is ever established, then a share-based structure for the industrial installations would also be another option. Personally, my money on the eventual solution is fusion. Now as far as 426 ppm is concerned, let me point out that Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and that one of the gases it's emitting is CO 2. It's precisely this kind of fudging that sets off my skepticism about the folks the "deniers" call the "alarmists". Well, after I gave up on finding anything that would sequester carbon on a small scale at a reasonable price, I began looking at small scale rooftop mounted windmills because two of the sites where I anticipate some new construction have a fair amount of wind on a regular basis), and the numbers there looked possible. Only one of the sites has good solar exposure, and I may install a small system there just for the fun of it if the price is reasonable enough. Thanks for reminding me that Mauna Loa may be contributing an additional amount of CO2 not in accordance with a worldwide average amount, but from what I've read the CO2 numbers are climbing at a rate that is rather shocking, and it takes a lot of CO2 to change the ph of the ocean even a small amount. I'll do some more research and get back after I have more info. I suspect that most people are just like me--it takes personal experiences to trigger the realization that CC and GW is not a future threat; it's here and now. The abnormal flood and wind events that our company has had to deal durng the last few years is what made me start paying attention to other similar events and suddenly realize that an altered climate future has already arrived. I'm sure that many people in Houston, TX, Paradise, CA, and a dozen other similar places have made the same connection. As I noted earlier, Houston received the highest rainfall ever recorded in the USA--54 inches during Harvey with an average of about 36 inches. From what I've read 20 of the last 30 years have been the hottest on record, and this year appears to be heading in the same direction. The scale of the problem is enormous, and so many trends are exacerbating it. Sometimes a tiny bottle of vitamins will arrive from Amazon in a large cardboard box. When I think about the energy it took to get that tiny bottle of vitamins sent to us (the carboard box manufacturing, the lights in the Amazon warehouse, the transportation of the bottle from the supplier to Amazon, the gas consumed by the UPS delivery truck, etc,) it's rather disheartening. Every aspect of modern life in an industrial country requires energy consumption, and I'm not sure what would be the best way to tackle the issue. Clearly, coal-fired electricity plants are worse than all other types of plants, but I've read that the USA has 400 active plants whereas there are 64,000 such plants worldwide, mainly in China and India. If that's true, it indicates that even if we eliminated all such plants here, the global problem would barely be affected. Needless to say, I'd be interested in any ideas that anyone has related to this subject. Most of the books I've read don;t offer any suggestions that would make a significant dent in total CO2 emissions anytime soon. The way I understand it, it is true. The industrial revolution that the west has already been through is now modernising countries like China and India. Though there is clearly a movement of public pressure in Europe that is unavoidable now. According to the Economist: www.economist.com/business/2019/03/02/troubling-signs-for-the-future-of-australias-giant-coal-industryI think one can register for free to read this and 4 other pages. Then I looked up Glencore's page. www.glencore.com/sustainability/climate-change |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 3, 2019 16:43:39 GMT -5
Well, after I gave up on finding anything that would sequester carbon on a small scale at a reasonable price, I began looking at small scale rooftop mounted windmills because two of the sites where I anticipate some new construction have a fair amount of wind on a regular basis), and the numbers there looked possible. Only one of the sites has good solar exposure, and I may install a small system there just for the fun of it if the price is reasonable enough. Thanks for reminding me that Mauna Loa may be contributing an additional amount of CO2 not in accordance with a worldwide average amount, but from what I've read the CO2 numbers are climbing at a rate that is rather shocking, and it takes a lot of CO2 to change the ph of the ocean even a small amount. I'll do some more research and get back after I have more info. I suspect that most people are just like me--it takes personal experiences to trigger the realization that CC and GW is not a future threat; it's here and now. The abnormal flood and wind events that our company has had to deal durng the last few years is what made me start paying attention to other similar events and suddenly realize that an altered climate future has already arrived. I'm sure that many people in Houston, TX, Paradise, CA, and a dozen other similar places have made the same connection. As I noted earlier, Houston received the highest rainfall ever recorded in the USA--54 inches during Harvey with an average of about 36 inches. From what I've read 20 of the last 30 years have been the hottest on record, and this year appears to be heading in the same direction. The scale of the problem is enormous, and so many trends are exacerbating it. Sometimes a tiny bottle of vitamins will arrive from Amazon in a large cardboard box. When I think about the energy it took to get that tiny bottle of vitamins sent to us (the carboard box manufacturing, the lights in the Amazon warehouse, the transportation of the bottle from the supplier to Amazon, the gas consumed by the UPS delivery truck, etc,) it's rather disheartening. Every aspect of modern life in an industrial country requires energy consumption, and I'm not sure what would be the best way to tackle the issue. Clearly, coal-fired electricity plants are worse than all other types of plants, but I've read that the USA has 400 active plants whereas there are 64,000 such plants worldwide, mainly in China and India. If that's true, it indicates that even if we eliminated all such plants here, the global problem would barely be affected. Needless to say, I'd be interested in any ideas that anyone has related to this subject. Most of the books I've read don;t offer any suggestions that would make a significant dent in total CO2 emissions anytime soon. The way I understand it, it is true. The industrial revolution that the west has already been through is now modernising countries like China and India. Though there is clearly a movement of public pressure in Europe that is unavoidable now. According to the Economist: www.economist.com/business/2019/03/02/troubling-signs-for-the-future-of-australias-giant-coal-industryI think one can register for free to read this and 4 other pages. Then I looked up Glencore's page. www.glencore.com/sustainability/climate-changeInteresting articles. Thanks. I've read that China is highly aware of its pollution issues and coal consumption peaked there in 2013, and has been declining since then. China wants to be the leader in green technology, for obvious reasons, and it's too bad that the USA is so far unwilling to compete with them as a national priority. In India coal usage is still increasing, but one article suggested that its usage may peak in 2025 if renewable technologies sufficiently advance and become more economically competitive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 16:52:49 GMT -5
It's cool, many thanks for the opportunity to go find them. It's heartening  Yeah, China isn't stupid I spoke with a woman today that just came back from there. She'd been visiting her son. She said the country is completely different from the drab place she'd visited 30 years ago. I shall refrain from discussing too much of America's world policy, though if Trump ever does accept the situation, then be warned that everyone will have to believe that he alone saved the planet!! Here's my last link for today. It's another sign up and register one. (2 weeks for free) Though it looks like it may contain more of what you're looking to read about. www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3078232/brazil-posts-new-world-record-low-price-for-solar-power |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 1:51:05 GMT -5
Interesting articles. Thanks. I've read that China is highly aware of its pollution issues and coal consumption peaked there in 2013, and has been declining since then. China wants to be the leader in green technology, for obvious reasons, and it's too bad that the USA is so far unwilling to compete with them as a national priority. In India coal usage is still increasing, but one article suggested that its usage may peak in 2025 if renewable technologies sufficiently advance and become more economically competitive. Haven't read any of the articles yet but I wanted to mention that I recall reading something many years ago that described the typical Chinese coal power plant as far smaller-scale and localized compared to in the U.S., so just comparing number of installations might be apples/oranges. This was years before they started building those huge new cities from scratch and now I'm curious as to how they're powering those. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 2:03:22 GMT -5
The insect thing is of interest, yes, of course I was joking. As far as the social forces go, it's true that there's big fossil-fuel industry money with an interest in biasing the narrative. But I'd say the more powerful force against change is a simple everyday-dude's: "what? this now? oh, for f#cks sake!" And you can't tell me that with the 100's of billions of dollars seeking alpha that there aren't hundreds (if not thousands) of powerful people salivating at the thought of tearing up and then rebuilding the energy sector from the top-down -- that's already pretty evident as it is, and would follow the same pattern that led to the monstrosity that is Alphabet: don't wait for the new Carnegie or Rockefeller to show up, START with the monopoly by crushing the competition before it can even emerge. And the social consensus among educated people is that anthropomorphic climate change is real and will be catastrophic. What worries me is that another facet of that consensus is that the size of the world population needs to be controlled. Not that I disagree with that outlook entirely, but social crusaders working toward a goal of a greater good that's contrary to the economic well-being of the average Joe have the potential to be the cause of some major suffering. Is it really true that all the coastal areas are going to flood out in the time frame the simulations predict? Is it really true that there's measurably more energy in the hurricane season every year? Is it really true that the northwest and northeast passages are going to be economically viable shipping alternatives to the longer tropical routes? Since we created this problem over the course of a few hundred years, what would be the overall cost, in human terms, of a crash course off fossil fuels that took 5-10 years instead of gradually planning for it over 20-40, and what would be the marginal benefit to mitigating climate change to doing it faster and who would be the segments of the population that would suffer most by doing it faster? sadly, this doesn't surprise me. at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2019 2:41:16 GMT -5
Laughter: Apparently scientists think that the Cape Grim CO2 measurements may be the most accurate because the air in Tasmania is exceptionally clean and free of influences that may have a minor effect at other monitoring stations. There are three primary monitoring stations, including Mauna Loa and Cape Grim, as well as dozens of stations around the world that are part of a global air monitoring system. Southern hemispheric CO2 levels are lower than northern hemispheric levels because most carbon emissions are in the northern hemisphere. The general graphs of CO2 rise at all stations has been rising in concert, and even at Cape Grim the CO2 levels are now above 400 ppm. The Cape Grim station has done 3 billion samplings, and it tests for numerous components of the air including methane, nitrous oxide, CO2, etc. It maintains an archive--tanks of air taken during testing--to use for comparing the changes in air composition over time. Because the levels at Cape Grim mirror the levels at Mauna Loa, when adjusted for the difference between levels in the two hemispheres, it doesn't appear that volcanic CO2 is a significant factor in the recent readings at ML.
Climate.nasa.gov and many other websites that deal with climate change, and are all reporting essentially the same thing, has a long list of references, many of which are interesting in their own right, and they deal with the CO2 levels, rise in temperature, acidity of the ocean, etc. Throughout the year CO2 levels change due to the "drawdown effect" that occurs when forests take up more CO2, but the average upward trend is undeniable, and the rate of increase is growing.
From what I had read scientists had thought that the 1000 ppm levels reached in the Permian Extinction event were probably an all-time high caused by the volcanic action of the Siberian Traps, but some of the new extrapolations suggest that CO2 levels of 1500 ppm are possible in the future if the current trend is not significantly reversed, and many climate scientists think that levels of 600-800 ppm are possible as soon as 2100. After reading through many of the papers cited on some of these websites I can see why many researchers think that we are already in the midst of a 6th major extinction event. Not only would increasing GHG's cause sea levels to rise, but crop production would also fall due to the higher temps. The good news is that the German co*kroach made it through the last major extinction event and has been around for more than 100 million years! Those little guys have staying power.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 3:15:26 GMT -5
Laughter: Apparently scientists think that the Cape Grim CO2 measurements may be the most accurate because the air in Tasmania is exceptionally clean and free of influences that may have a minor effect at other monitoring stations. There are three primary monitoring stations, including Mauna Loa and Cape Grim, as well as dozens of stations around the world that are part of a global air monitoring system. Southern hemispheric CO2 levels are lower than northern hemispheric levels because most carbon emissions are in the northern hemisphere. The general graphs of CO2 rise at all stations has been rising in concert, and even at Cape Grim the CO2 levels are now above 400 ppm. The Cape Grim station has done 3 billion samplings, and it tests for numerous components of the air including methane, nitrous oxide, CO2, etc. It maintains an archive--tanks of air taken during testing--to use for comparing the changes in air composition over time. Because the levels at Cape Grim mirror the levels at Mauna Loa, when adjusted for the difference between levels in the two hemispheres, it doesn't appear that volcanic CO2 is a significant factor in the recent readings at ML. Climate.nasa.gov and many other websites that deal with climate change, and are all reporting essentially the same thing, has a long list of references, many of which are interesting in their own right, and they deal with the CO2 levels, rise in temperature, acidity of the ocean, etc. Throughout the year CO2 levels change due to the "drawdown effect" that occurs when forests take up more CO2, but the average upward trend is undeniable, and the rate of increase is growing. From what I had read scientists had thought that the 1000 ppm levels reached in the Permian Extinction event were probably an all-time high caused by the volcanic action of the Siberian Traps, but some of the new extrapolations suggest that CO2 levels of 1500 ppm are possible in the future if the current trend is not significantly reversed, and many climate scientists think that levels of 600-800 ppm are possible as soon as 2100. After reading through many of the papers cited on some of these websites I can see why many researchers think that we are already in the midst of a 6th major extinction event. Not only would increasing GHG's cause sea levels to rise, but crop production would also fall due to the higher temps. The good news is that the German co*kroach made it through the last major extinction event and has been around for more than 100 million years! Those little guys have staying power. Huh, ok, interesting .. my knowledge on the topic is completely casual, the fact that the monitoring station was on an active volcano just piqued my interest. If I stumble on anything that appears sane on the topic from the denier/skeptic-side (as in, potentially scientifically credible) I'll post it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 3:24:44 GMT -5
The good news is that the German co*kroach made it through the last major extinction event and has been around for more than 100 million years! Those little guys have staying power. there's this one bird that I've noticed starting from this spring in my backyard because of his(or her) song. It's like .. really intricate. I mean, this dude's got something to say .. so who knows, maybe if there's another major extinction we'll just sort of flip places with the past masters of the planet, and if you go back to the Cambrian times, that german cockroaches ancestors were the predators because the size difference between invertebrate/vertebrates didn't establish until we hit land -- and even to this day, there's some interesting footage you can find of an octopus predating on a shark in a tank. Octopi, are really really smart. The potential for new intelligence to fill the void if we kill ourselves off is definitely going to be there, 'cause as any new-ager will tell ya', it's really the planet that's alive, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2019 8:48:08 GMT -5
The good news is that the German co*kroach made it through the last major extinction event and has been around for more than 100 million years! Those little guys have staying power. there's this one bird that I've noticed starting from this spring in my backyard because of his(or her) song. It's like .. really intricate. I mean, this dude's got something to say .. so who knows, maybe if there's another major extinction we'll just sort of flip places with the past masters of the planet, and if you go back to the Cambrian times, that german penisroaches ancestors were the predators because the size difference between invertebrate/vertebrates didn't establish until we hit land -- and even to this day, there's some interesting footage you can find of an octopus predating on a shark in a tank. Octopi, are really really smart. The potential for new intelligence to fill the void if we kill ourselves off is definitely going to be there, 'cause as any new-ager will tell ya', it's really the planet that's alive, after all. Yes, octopi are cool. They can recognize humans, make plans, unscrew jar tops, and do all kinds of other interesting things. There's a video of an octopus that gets attacked by a shark, and the octopus plugs the shark's gills with its arms, and does other amazing stuff to make its escape. They don't have localized brains, and apparently their intelligence is distributed through their bodies and arms. In labs, cameras have recorded octopi waiting and watching with their big eyes until the last humans have left the lab before they get out of their tanks to escape. I had never heard of an octopus attacking a shark, so I'd be interested in what methodology it used. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 8:57:26 GMT -5
Even if there's only a ten percent chance of catastrophe, it's radically illogical to not err on the side of caution.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2019 9:34:08 GMT -5
Even if there's only a ten percent chance of catastrophe, it's radically illogical to not err on the side of caution. Absolutely, and most climate scientists think that the chance of catastrophe is a lot higher than 10%. It's already a catastrophe for millions of people, and that number will only grow larger as temps continue to rise. Grains (rice, wheat, corn) are the major source of calories in the world, and grain production drops as temps rise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 10:28:53 GMT -5
Years ago, someone I know asked a question about recapturing CO2 here. That's a good forum and the answers were interesting. Bottom line is that recapturing the carbon is possible, but people usually don't act like that unless it's an immediate "do or die" situation (eg, Manhattan Project). ... also most ideas seem risky too. Who knows what other side effects they would cause ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 11:09:28 GMT -5
From what I had read scientists had thought that the 1000 ppm levels reached in the Permian Extinction event were probably an all-time high caused by the volcanic action of the Siberian Traps, but some of the new extrapolations suggest that CO2 levels of 1500 ppm are possible in the future if the current trend is not significantly reversed I'm having trouble finding solid data on this, but the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Measuring_ancient-Earth_carbon_dioxide_concentration) says something else. I'm happy to learn something new if you've got another source with some details. Quoting that page: ... There is evidence for high CO2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm ... I'm currently not an "alarmist", but I may be moving in that direction. I don't have degrees in the fields, but I've studied a fair amount of sciences and I'm trying to come at this rationally. I open to changing my position. As I'm sure you all know, the CO2 in fossil fuels used to be in the air. Plants fixed it to organic compounds using photosynthesis. This is part of why I haven't felt too scared (yet) - burning fossil fuels is returning CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 that used to be there. However, I do see the point about the rate of change. That CO2 was sequestered over millions of years and we're releasing it in decades. That, among other things, is disturbing. At the moment I think there is zero hope of humanity proactively moving to clean energy in an extreme way. Our only hope seems to be to continue the fast but not immediate move to cleaner energy (and efficient power lines), and then work on ways to protect against or undo global effects if and when they happen and people then have the motive. |
|
)are two trends: (1) advances in large-scale carbon-scrubbing technology, and (2) successful commercialization of small-scale rooftop solar .. perhaps if the scrubbing equipment can be scaled down, then powering it renewably would offer the opportunity you're looking for. Short of that, if a carbon-offset market is ever established, then a share-based structure for the industrial installations would also be another option.
