$5K? Missed a zero there. Just more exaggerated example to distract.. So the caller agree that doubles gas prices is the way to go? LOL
-
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
$5K? Missed a zero there. Just more exaggerated example to distract.. So the caller agree that doubles gas prices is the way to go? LOL
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Actually I'm sure you can find old SUV's for $5K just as you can probably find an older Nissan LEAF for around that price, though it won't have much range left.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I have a 20 year old Land Rover. Probably worth less than$5k. Engine and transmission need replacement. Not sure about"range". Every time I take it for a drive, I worry about making it home.
jimm01
Member
Computer Models Of Civilization Offer Routes To Ending Global Warming
Scientists who warned of heat waves and rising seas this week also say that it's possible to avoid the worst effects of the warming climate. They're relying on computer models of the world economy.www.npr.org
"It is still possible to forestall most of the dire impacts, but it really requires unprecedented, transformational change," said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The idea that there still is a pathway forward, I think, is a point that should give us some hope."
The good news is that the models found a way to meet that target, at least in scenarios where world governments were inclined to cooperate in meeting their Paris commitments. In fact, according to Keywan Riahi, at the International Institute for Applied Systems, in Austria, they found multiple paths to zero carbon.
Possible, but if past is prologue probable?
"Some people don't like change, but you need to embrace change if the alternative is disaster." ~ Elon Musk
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Yes, discouraging.
It's not just"change". There are rich, powerful, greedy corporations who are fighting change because it will cost them money.
They are winning.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
SciTechDaily: The Waste Product That Could Help Mitigate Climate Change – Locking Carbon in the Soil “For Hundreds to Thousands of Years”. The Waste Product That Could Help Mitigate Climate Change – Locking Carbon in the Soil “For Hundreds to Thousands of Years”
A product made from urban, agriculture, and forestry waste has the added benefit of reducing the carbon footprint of modern farming, an international review involving UNSW has found. Visiting Professor in the School of Materials Science and Engineering at UNSW Science, Stephen Joseph, says the study published in GCB Bioenergy provides strong evidence that biochar can contribute to climate change mitigation. “Biochar can draw down carbon from the atmosphere into the soil and store it for hundreds to thousands of years,” the lead author says. “This study also found that biochar helps build organic carbon in soil by up to 20 percent (average 3.8 percent) and can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soil by 12 to 50 percent, which increases the climate change mitigation benefits of biochar.”
“It found average crop yields increased from 10 to 42 percent, concentrations of heavy metals in plant tissue were reduced by 17 to 39 percent and phosphorous availability to plants increased too,” Prof. Joseph says. “Biochar helps plants resist environmental stresses, such as diseases, and helps plants tolerate toxic metals, water stress and organic compounds such as the herbicide atrazine.”
A product made from urban, agriculture, and forestry waste has the added benefit of reducing the carbon footprint of modern farming, an international review involving UNSW has found. Visiting Professor in the School of Materials Science and Engineering at UNSW Science, Stephen Joseph, says the study published in GCB Bioenergy provides strong evidence that biochar can contribute to climate change mitigation. “Biochar can draw down carbon from the atmosphere into the soil and store it for hundreds to thousands of years,” the lead author says. “This study also found that biochar helps build organic carbon in soil by up to 20 percent (average 3.8 percent) and can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soil by 12 to 50 percent, which increases the climate change mitigation benefits of biochar.”
“It found average crop yields increased from 10 to 42 percent, concentrations of heavy metals in plant tissue were reduced by 17 to 39 percent and phosphorous availability to plants increased too,” Prof. Joseph says. “Biochar helps plants resist environmental stresses, such as diseases, and helps plants tolerate toxic metals, water stress and organic compounds such as the herbicide atrazine.”
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I wonder about the emissions during the creation of bio char. Low oxygen burning seems like it would be a relatively dirty process.
dhrivnak
Active Member
I am told no, as you burn in an oxygen deprived environment so you are left with carbon char. In fact is is being touted as a way to sequester carbon.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think he's wondering about particulate emissions, the type that causes bad (but short-lived) air quality.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Stop the east African oil pipeline now | Bill McKibben, Diana Nabiruma and Omar Elmawi
The fate of a planned line from Uganda to Tanzania will be the first test of whether anyone was listening to António Guterres’ call to end fossil fuels
www.theguardian.com
One of the first tests of whether anyone is paying attention will be if somebody rips up the plans for what would be the world’s longest heated crude oil pipeline – the 1,443km (900-mile) east African crude oil pipeline (EACOP) that will run from oilfields in Uganda to the ocean ports of Tanzania. If it gets built, it’s is a sure sign that the world’s leaders are not listening.
So far, the Chinese national oil company, French oil giant Total, and the governments of Uganda and Tanzania are pressing ahead, apparently putting the money that can be made ahead of the interests of the climate. Even on purely economic terms, it’s a terrible bargain. In 2015, the Ugandan government estimated that climate crisis damages will collectively amount to 2-4% of the country’s gross domestic product between 2010 and 2050.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The Bad Economics of Fossil Fuel Defenders Opinion | The Bad Economics of Fossil Fuel Defenders
Global warming is fake news. Anyway, it isn’t man-made. And doing anything about it would destroy the economy. Opponents of action against climate change have always relied on multiple lines of defense: If one argument for doing nothing becomes unsustainable, they just retreat to another. That’s what we’re seeing now, as conservatives argue against the Biden administration’s push for climate-friendly public investment. As it happens, this push is taking place against a background of unprecedented heat waves, huge forest fires, severe drought in some places and catastrophic flooding in others — phenomena that scientists have long warned would become more common as the planet gets hotter.
Global warming is fake news. Anyway, it isn’t man-made. And doing anything about it would destroy the economy. Opponents of action against climate change have always relied on multiple lines of defense: If one argument for doing nothing becomes unsustainable, they just retreat to another. That’s what we’re seeing now, as conservatives argue against the Biden administration’s push for climate-friendly public investment. As it happens, this push is taking place against a background of unprecedented heat waves, huge forest fires, severe drought in some places and catastrophic flooding in others — phenomena that scientists have long warned would become more common as the planet gets hotter.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The planet is in peril. We’re building Congress’s strongest-ever climate bill | Bernie Sanders
The good news is that the $3.5tn budget resolution that was recently passed in the Senate lays the groundwork for a historic reconciliation bill that will not only substantially improve the lives of working people, elderly people, the sick and the poor, but also, in an unprecedented way, address the existential threat of climate change. More than any other legislation in American history it will transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
Here are some of the proposals that are currently in the bill:
Massive investments in retrofitting homes and buildings to save energy.
Massive investment in the production of wind, solar and other forms of sustainable energy.
A major move toward the electrification of transportation, including generous rebates to enable working families to buy electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances.
Major investments in greener agriculture.
Major investments in climate resiliency and ecosystem recovery projects.
Major investments in water and environmental justice.
Major investments in research and development for sustainable energy and battery storage.
Billions to address the warming and acidification of oceans and the needs of coastal communities.
The creation of a Civilian Climate Corps which will put hundreds of thousands of young people to work transforming our energy system and protecting our most vulnerable communities.
The good news is that the $3.5tn budget resolution that was recently passed in the Senate lays the groundwork for a historic reconciliation bill that will not only substantially improve the lives of working people, elderly people, the sick and the poor, but also, in an unprecedented way, address the existential threat of climate change. More than any other legislation in American history it will transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
Here are some of the proposals that are currently in the bill:
Massive investments in retrofitting homes and buildings to save energy.
Massive investment in the production of wind, solar and other forms of sustainable energy.
A major move toward the electrification of transportation, including generous rebates to enable working families to buy electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances.
Major investments in greener agriculture.
Major investments in climate resiliency and ecosystem recovery projects.
Major investments in water and environmental justice.
Major investments in research and development for sustainable energy and battery storage.
Billions to address the warming and acidification of oceans and the needs of coastal communities.
The creation of a Civilian Climate Corps which will put hundreds of thousands of young people to work transforming our energy system and protecting our most vulnerable communities.
Last edited:
jimm01
Member
The Nature paper, published August 18, found that if production of ozone-depleting substances had continued ticking up 3% each year, the additional UV radiation would have curtailed the growth of trees, grasses, ferns, flowers, and crops across the globe.
www.technologyreview.com
How the world already prevented far worse warming this century
The Montreal Protocol was designed to heal the ozone layer. It may have also fended off several degrees of warming—and a collapse of forests and croplands.
www.technologyreview.com
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Why is life on Earth still taking second place to fossil fuel companies? | George Monbiot
The human tragedy is that there is no connection between what we know and what we do. Almost everyone is now at least vaguely aware that we face the greatest catastrophe our species has ever confronted. Yet scarcely anyone alters their behaviour in response: above all, their driving, flying and consumption of meat and dairy.
The same goes for almost every government. As soon as Joe Biden’s green promises collided with business as usual, they collapsed in a crumpled heap. Since he pledged to ban new drilling and fracking on federal lands, his administration has granted more than 2,000 new permits. His national security adviser has demanded that Opec+, the oil cartel, increase production, to reduce the cost of driving the monstrous cars that many Americans still buy. We were told that Biden’s modest talk concealed an appetite for radical action. But talk sets the boundaries of action, and those who promise low deliver lower.
Unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground, any commitment to stop climate breakdown is merely gestural. The atmosphere does not respond to gestures. It is unmoved by promises, unimpressed by words. It has no factions that can be set against each other, no voters who can be fobbed off and distracted.
No government, even the most progressive, is yet prepared to contemplate the transformation we need: a global programme that places the survival of humanity and the rest of life on Earth above all other issues. We need not just new policy, but a new ethics. We need to close the gap between knowing and doing. But this conversation has scarcely begun.
The human tragedy is that there is no connection between what we know and what we do. Almost everyone is now at least vaguely aware that we face the greatest catastrophe our species has ever confronted. Yet scarcely anyone alters their behaviour in response: above all, their driving, flying and consumption of meat and dairy.
The same goes for almost every government. As soon as Joe Biden’s green promises collided with business as usual, they collapsed in a crumpled heap. Since he pledged to ban new drilling and fracking on federal lands, his administration has granted more than 2,000 new permits. His national security adviser has demanded that Opec+, the oil cartel, increase production, to reduce the cost of driving the monstrous cars that many Americans still buy. We were told that Biden’s modest talk concealed an appetite for radical action. But talk sets the boundaries of action, and those who promise low deliver lower.
Unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground, any commitment to stop climate breakdown is merely gestural. The atmosphere does not respond to gestures. It is unmoved by promises, unimpressed by words. It has no factions that can be set against each other, no voters who can be fobbed off and distracted.
No government, even the most progressive, is yet prepared to contemplate the transformation we need: a global programme that places the survival of humanity and the rest of life on Earth above all other issues. We need not just new policy, but a new ethics. We need to close the gap between knowing and doing. But this conversation has scarcely begun.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
EVs, Solar, & Energy Storage: Ignoring The Science That Will Save Us
Why do people develop and hold onto negative opinions about sustainable technologies in the face of evidence to the contrary?
cleantechnica.com
Ignoring the science that could save Planet Earth is rampant today. People can have empathy, function in society, and survive — even thrive — yet still reject basic premises of scientific climate reasoning. People want to be totally sure, for example, that the changes they make in removing themselves from reliance on fossil fuels, centralized electricity generation, and legacy autos are certain and solid decisions.
Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Science that Will Save Us updates a 2016 first edition book. The revision investigates the psychological factors that lead to self-defeating denial of facts; the authors conclude that normal, evolutionary, and adaptive tendencies act against us. If we extend their argument, the costs of wavering on renewable energy technologies are so enormous that we must make transparent theirs benefits — over and over — if we are to overcome denialism and create a citizenry who can sort out scientific climate facts from hype.
Ignoring the science of sustainable energy technology can often involve examining causality and filling in ignorance gaps, according to Gorman and Gorman. They say that it is highly adaptive to know how to attribute causality but that people are often too quick to do so. People have a difficult time sitting with uncertainty and accepting coincidence. Revealing ways to better comprehend true causality can be done by examining criteria for causal inference — strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. We might apply those criteria to early studies of demand response or smart grids demonstrated the effective matching of supply and demand in a region.Today, to fill in the knowledge gaps, such analyses can be expanded into linkages among carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook | Rebecca Solnit
We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good. But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good. But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.
We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good. But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good. But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.
jimm01
Member
jimm01
Member
CLAIM
There’s too much uncertainty to say whether global warming will continue.
FINDING
FALSE. Climate models provide reliable projections of many aspects of a warming planet over the next century and beyond due to human-caused climate change.
Scientists have been studying climate change for more than 50 years. Climate models have gotten better and better over time.
One way to test how well models perform is to look at older models and see if their predictions came true. A study of 17 climate models going back to the early 1970s found that most of the models did a good job of predicting temperatures in the decades ahead.
In addition to projecting Earth’s climate over long periods, scientists also use models to predict short-term conditions such as weather, the behavior of the jet stream, and events such as El Niño. These predictions have gotten much more accurate over time.
Another way to test models is to see if they can replicate climate changes that occurred in Earth’s past. Models that replicate previous climatic shifts, such as warm periods and ice ages, are considered more reliable. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the future may bring changes that Earth has never experienced before, so past performance can only go so far in guaranteeing reliable model projections for the future.
There’s too much uncertainty to say whether global warming will continue.
FINDING
FALSE. Climate models provide reliable projections of many aspects of a warming planet over the next century and beyond due to human-caused climate change.
Scientists have been studying climate change for more than 50 years. Climate models have gotten better and better over time.
One way to test how well models perform is to look at older models and see if their predictions came true. A study of 17 climate models going back to the early 1970s found that most of the models did a good job of predicting temperatures in the decades ahead.
In addition to projecting Earth’s climate over long periods, scientists also use models to predict short-term conditions such as weather, the behavior of the jet stream, and events such as El Niño. These predictions have gotten much more accurate over time.
Another way to test models is to see if they can replicate climate changes that occurred in Earth’s past. Models that replicate previous climatic shifts, such as warm periods and ice ages, are considered more reliable. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the future may bring changes that Earth has never experienced before, so past performance can only go so far in guaranteeing reliable model projections for the future.
Similar threads
