Excuse me but I have to intervene. PLEASE let's consider the Climate Change issue as a purely scientific problem.
The Climate Change issue has not political color, it's a scientific problem.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
The Climate Change issue has not political color, it's a scientific problem.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Runaway Greenhouse Effect Fully Simulated on Earth For The First Time, And It's "Hell"
Researchers have for the first time simulated all stages of a runaway greenhouse effect, finding that it could turn our green planet into uninhabitable "hell" in coming centuries, they said on Monday.
www.sciencealert.com
Researchers have for the first time simulated all stages of a runaway greenhouse effect, finding that it could turn our green planet into uninhabitable "hell" in coming centuries, they said on Monday.
The Earth would only have to heat up by a few dozen degrees to spur runaway warming, making it as inhospitable as Venus, a planet whose average surface temperature is around 464 degrees Celsius (867 degrees Fahrenheit), according to NASA.
But the study, published in the Astronomy and Astrophysics review, found that "a very small increase of the solar irradiation – leading to an increase of the global Earth temperature of only a few tens of degrees – would be enough to trigger this irreversible runaway process on Earth and make our planet as inhospitable as Venus".
Climate Change is Thawing Frozen Methane in the Ocean Floor
Frozen methane in the ocean floor is vulnerable to melting as the ocean warms due to climate change, releasing the potent greenhouse into the sea.
www.technologynetworks.com
Frozen methane in the ocean floor is vulnerable to melting as the ocean warms due to climate change.
Methane hydrate, also known as fire-ice, is an ice-like structure found buried in the ocean floor that contains methane. Vast amounts of methane are stored as marine methane under oceans. It thaws when the oceans warm, releasing methane into oceans and the atmosphere - known as dissociated methane - contributing to global warming.
Scientists had previously thought this methan hydrate was not vulnerable to climatic warming, but recent studies have shown that some of it is.
The new data clearly show that far larger volumes of methane may be liberated from marine hydrates and we really have to get to understand better the role of hydrates in the climate system.
In particular we have to predict where massive methane seeps are likely to occur as we warm the planet.
As it's known methane (CH4) is a potent GHG 80 times more powerful than Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
The Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry says that methane is responsible for 30% of Current Warming.
Last edited:
Climate Change is Thawing Frozen Methane in the Ocean Floor
Frozen methane in the ocean floor is vulnerable to melting as the ocean warms due to climate change, releasing the potent greenhouse into the sea.
Frozen methane in the ocean floor is vulnerable to melting as the ocean warms due to climate change.
Methane hydrate, also known as fire-ice, is an ice-like structure found buried in the ocean floor that contains methane. Vast amounts of methane are stored as marine methane under oceans. It thaws when the oceans warm, releasing methane into oceans and the atmosphere - known as dissociated methane - contributing to global warming.
Scientists had previously thought this methan hydrate was not vulnerable to climatic warming, but recent studies have shown that some of it is.
The new data clearly show that far larger volumes of methane may be liberated from marine hydrates and we really have to get to understand better the role of hydrates in the climate system.
In particular we have to predict where massive methane seeps are likely to occur as we warm the planet.
As it's known methane (CH4) is a potent GHG 80 times more powerful than Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
The Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry says that methane is responsible for 30% of Current Warming.
Il metano congelato sotto i fondali marini si sta scongelando con il riscaldamento degli oceani, e la situazione è peggiore di quanto pensassimo
Seppellito sotto gli oceani che circondano i continenti, c’è una forma naturalmente congelata di metano e acqua. Talvolta soprannominato “ghiaccio di fuoco”, perché è possibile ac…
gaetaniumberto.wordpress.com
From this article in Italian I also get that marine methane can contribute not only to increase Global Warming but also to worsen the Ocean Acidification issue. These are dangerous circumstances that are responsible for some serious and fast Climate Change disasters that occurred in the past.
A lot of heterogeneity among the United States in CO2 emissions per capita:
That last chart speaks volumes. Those who want to blame China would definitely want to blame Texas for US's high emissions.
This is actually a weird ranking system. Wyoming, at the top, has one of the lowest and least dense populations of any state. To ascribe the carbon footprint on a per capita basis implies that each individual in that state has that huge footprint. But in reality, Wyoming sells its energy, coal, oil and gas to surrounding states, a demand that would not exist without that.That last chart speaks volumes. Those who want to blame China would definitely want to blame Texas for US's high emissions.
So someone in California (or me, in Idaho, if I wasn't a net solar energy exporter) probably is actually using that energy and in reality owns the footprint. On a use basis, Wyoming folks may have a much smaller footprint than the person in LA who is using NG purchased from Wyoming. You really can't tell from this.
Also, since Wyo is so underpopulated, the total amount of CO2 emissions doesn't have to be much to put it high in the rankings. Again, something you can't tell from the graphic. The total for the state may be well below most other states. Possibly not, but again you can't tell.
Not to say that Wyoming isn't filled with nutjobs who would be proud of this ranking.
Last edited:
That's why IMO each single person, Company and Organization should calculate his own Carbon Footprint.
Then the Government should check and reward/punish everybody according to their own behavior with respect to the Carbon Footprint.
This is the way to go IMO.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
And use the money got by the Carbon tax to reward those lowering their own Carbon Footprint.
Last edited:
Not only implies, but that is precisely what it means (for this particular emissions measure).
The effect does inflate Wyoming's numbers somewhat, but the transfer is negligible in places like California whose net energy imports of energy generated from coal and oil are minimal:
2022 Total System Electric Generation
I don't have the EIA data in front of me on this one, but have parceled the State level data in the past including on attributing footprint to generation. Wyoming still has a much higher per capita footprint than California. Due to climate and population density effects, the difference would make Los Angeles look even better.
State totals are listed in the chart (3rd column). Compare Wyoming's similar population to Vermont and the difference in CO2 emissions is stark.
Was trying not to get too heavy into politics, but there is an unmistakably strong correlation between red/blue and State CO2 footprints.
Disclaimer: I posted this graphic because what often gets reported is that a particular country or State generates so much CO2 and that is a lot more misleading and less useful than per capita footprint.
CA/TX are the two most populous States and have the highest total State footprints, as the second graphic shows. But that fact alone misses the big picture and doesn't tell us which locations are actually leaders or laggers.
We need to looks at several useful metrics, like per capita, to see where things are going right/wrong and where most of the work needs to be done.
I am going to push back a little here.
The third column only tells us the state population, not where the energy is used, regardless of where it is used. Wyoming is a large net exporter, Vermont, as far as I know, is not. So you cannot compare the two with this sort of data.
Perhaps I am wrong about California, but I am not wrong about Idaho. Half of Idaho's energy comes from hydro, but the other half (less some wind and even less solar) comes from burning fossil fuels. The state has effectively no coal, oil or NG. So it is imported, and it is Idahoans who are burning fuel either in Wyoming, or purchased and transported from there. You are implying I am wrong about that, but the graphic doesn't account for that at all from what I can tell.
As for imports, your link shows CA imports 83,962 GWH. That may be small on a per capita basis, but it's still a huge chunk of energy.
This image tells us what happens to Wyoming when you go from your graphics to one showing residential use of electricity. Wyo goes from the very top high use, to the same as all of the northwest states including blue states like Oregon and Washington.
Not as good as California, but pretty close to par.
In addition, most Californians live in a much warmer and moderate climate than Wyoming. So when it's -40 degrees F in Wyoming, and the 40 mph wind that never stops wicking away heat from your house, of course they are using more energy than someone in LA, where it is always 72 degrees (I've heard
). That has nothing to do with politics.Not that I disagree about Red State politics, but I think carbon footprint may be more about Rural vs Urban use. Urban is more compact, and therefore efficient, and rural is spread out. A state with large urban centers, or a state that is relatively tiny in geographical size, can be more efficient in power distribution and associated losses and therefore reduce it's footprint through that alone.
According to the EIA, less than a tenth of the energy produced in Wyoming is consumed there.
Again, not saying we all couldn't do better, but the results in your visuals are more nuanced than politics. I agree with @Raffy.Roma that we should be looking at what we as individuals are doing, rather than casting stones.
Population is the 4th column. The 3rd column is labeled "Annual CO2 Emissions" for that given State.
Wyoming is a net exporter of electricity, but that does not necessarily make them a net exporter of CO2 emissions or really help enough to understand their CO2 footprint (see below*). As mentioned, the EIA has the data that accounts for State imports/exports. One can take my word or not (not in a position to pull this back up) - Wyoming per capita still has an enormous CO2 footprint when that is accounted for.
Not sure what that is about. That is not implied by me. Nothing personal here, just enjoy learning and sharing data with others.
Lack of labeling and low resolution here make these charts hard to read, but will take your word that they are measuring residential electricity.
*In the United States, residents use far more energy on average to heat their homes than to cool them and coincidentally a lot more of their carbon footprint comes from that. This is even more exaggerated in cold places like Wyoming and Vermont.
A large part of heating does not come from electricity but from burning fossil fuels in the home. When you add the heating footprint back, the charts look a lot like the ones I posted.
PetroStates of Decline: oil and gas producers face growing fiscal risks as the energy transition unfolds - Carbon Tracker Initiative
Oil and gas producers face growing fiscal risks as the energy transition unfolds
carbontracker.org
Transition risks for petrostates are higher than ever
This report, an update of our 2021 Beyond Petrostates report, finds that petrostates are facing substantial risks from the energy transition, as falling oil and gas demand is set to put downward pressure on commodity prices and place future government revenues in jeopardy.
Luckily it looks like Petrostates are getting troubles. Hope that Petrostates will understand that it's better to invest in Renewables rather than in Fossil Fuels.
Sure. It says nothing about who is consuming it and therefore nothing about what who owns the footprint or where they live.
I could not find anything that separates the whole carbon footprint from the the average from use by an individual resident on the EIA site. Could you please link that?
All I am saying is that if, say, coal is burned in Wyoming, but then transmitted and consumed in Idaho, then the individual in Idaho owns that footprint, not some rancher in central Wyoming. Nothing I have read assures me that that is accounted for in the data, either anything you've posted or what I have found in the EIA site myself.
Sorry you couldn't read my graphic. Here's a link to the article I found:
This graphic from the same article looks at overall energy use (and explains why it is an apples to oranges comparison when you are looking at different states).
You can see from the graphic that although Wyoming residents do use more total energy, they are not at the top of the list the way that your graphic implies. And of course, there are reasons.
It appears to me (I could be wrong) that your post is virtue signaling. By comparing a state like California, with a mild climate, to a state like Wyoming, which is completely different (Average temp 42F) you are, again, making an apples to oranges comparison. Especially when you chose to bring up politics ("Red State").
No matter how much it is, California needs to import energy from other states that may not have the same climate advantages. The graphic you post implies that the people who live outside of California, and who need a bigger carbon footprint just to live there and produce the energy you ultimately need, are somehow lesser. But take those people away and you will have blackouts.
My in-laws who live in the LA area have NO insulation in their home walls and roof. They don't need it. They can let a far greater percentage of their energy to go through the roof and out the windows, because they need almost none. Are they better than someone who lives somewhere that doesn't have that clear advantage? It is BS to compare them to someone who lives on the Wyoming high plains at 7000 feet above sea level.
Again, this is not about politics for me and we probably vote along the same lines. But I will stand by the graphic I posted that shows Wyoming residents do not, on a personal level, have the overwhelmingly huge energy footprint your graphic implies, and where they do, it's due to nature, not politics or attitude.
Last edited:
You continue to attribute all sorts of incorrect motives among several insincere and straw-man tangential arguments. Sorry to have to disengage from this silliness. No further purpose in wasting time here.
This photovoltaic solar power plant in China uses both solar and tidal power to generate electricity, and this way can generate electricity even at night.
OVER 100 MILLIONS KWH GENERATED PER YEAR!
I invite all TMC Members to see the video reported above.
It all started from my thought of wanting to save Florida but I guess that sometimes we can have fun also in this thread
Florida, soon you will be able to charge wireless under water!
Scotland's climate 'changing faster than expected'
Scientists warn that temperatures in some parts are already reaching levels predicted for mid century.
www.bbc.com
Scotland's climate is changing faster than expected, scientists have warned.
A study by the James Hutton Institute in Aberdeen says last February in some areas of Scotland it was already 2.5C warmer while rainfall is at levels forecast for 2050.
They are concerned that the changes could affect food production and efforts to protect peatlands which store carbon.
It comes as the world broke a series of weather records including the hottest year, the hottest month in July and the six months in a row record warmest months.
As I said in a previous post the Temperature Deviation is calculated by averaging Temperatures over the whole year and the Surface of the Earth. In fact the Temperature Deviation is a result of a double integration.
This means that in some areas of the Earth Temperatures can be higher than that calculated after having performed the integration which is the case of Scotland.
Last edited:
I apologize if I misunderstood, and please don't go away. The discussion is interesting.
The first line of the graphic you originally posted was simple arithmetic, taking the total CO2 emissions for Wyoming and dividing them by the state's population.
All I am trying to say is that for a state that exports much more energy than it consumes internally, the carbon footprint should be shared among all of the end users, not just the hapless souls who live within it's borders.
If you can put your hands on better information, please share it.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Advances Commitment to Protect Old Growth Forests on National Forest System Lands | The White House
The Biden-Harris Administration is today taking new and historic steps to implement President Biden’s direction – issued in his Earth Day 2022 Executive Order on Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies – to conserve and restore America’s mature and old growth...
The Biden-Harris Administration is today taking new and historic steps to implement President Biden’s direction – issued in his Earth Day 2022 Executive Order on Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies – to conserve and restore America’s mature and old growth forests. America’s forests are a key climate solution, absorbing carbon dioxide equivalent to more than 10% of U.S. annual greenhouse gas emissions. President Biden is leading and delivering on the most ambitious climate agenda in history, including by already protecting more than 26 million acres of lands and waters, and today’s actions will build on this historic progress.
Similar threads
