The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

1. Invest in renewable (or at least cleaner) energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear)
2. Reduce consumption of fossil fuels
3. Increase vehicle fuel efficiency
4. Get more countries to agree to climate treaties
5. Educate people to be more energy efficient, reduce frying
6. Introduce an energy saving standard for appliances, such as the Energy Star standard in the US, Canada & Australia
7. Educate farmers on how to reduce carbon emissions, no till farming, etc.

 

Based on this chart:

 

No argument about any of those suggestions, but by the time they were actually brought in it would be too late. We are being told we have to do something NOW.

 

I see by your chart that electricity is 30%. It should all be replaced by nuclear, which would make it 0%.

Transportation is 26%. All cars should be banned in cities and alternative fueled public transport used instead. Not that many years ago, most people used public transport in cities or used bicycles. There is no "right" to use a personal oil propelled machine to travel in.

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yet, NO human caused C C proponent will ever mention population reduction as a responsible course of action to reduce CO2 production. I wonder why.

 

Then you missed post #88, where I already answered you about this:

 

Quote

[Bill Gates] has advocated reducing the birth rate (through proper sanitation, improved medical facilities in the developing world and the widespread use of vaccines) to reduce stressors on the already overburdened planet.

 

And he has many supporters.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, attrayant said:

 

Then you missed post #88, where I already answered you about this:

 

 

And he has many supporters.

 

Yes I saw that, but I didn't think you were supporting him in his quest to reduce overpopulation, merely pointing out that he does want to.

If I got that wrong and you do support population reduction, apologies.

[maewang99]

COP21 was more than a year ago... and it was the official nonsense...

but even it says the same thing....  

we have already emitted too much GHG... including especially carbon dioxide.  it's all about finding a major breakthrough in negative emissions that would work to scale... using VC money....not public funding such as the US government. 

if we don't... the story here (specific to Thailand) is not just salt water intrusion.

 

veiling is the last resort... and it would mean less temperature variation globally..... which probably means.... no monsoons.... which in SE

Asia reads as "nah phohn" (the rainy seasons).

best read on this, still.... Oliver Morton's The Planet Remade.

 

and most any country could, legally, throw up an effective veiling program... it is not very expensive to do. it doesn't require international agreements.... not at all.   



   

[JimmyJ]

1 hour ago, Ramen087 said:

No. This is a scientific issue that has been politicized by the powers that be, and it's worked very well as the responses in this thread have proved. Science as dogma... it's the religion of the twentieth and twenty first centuries.

A friend (who used to watch Rush Limbaugh and other right wingers) used to say the same thing to me at the beginning of the movement to ban smoking indoors.

And insist that there was no proven link between lung cancer and smoking.

 

Science is not dogma - the facts are clear that Global Warming/Climate Change is real and manmade and dire.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Sorry.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Are those the only two possible outcomes you see? There is a whole range of unwanted outcomes between total annihilation and paradise. How about if half of us die and the other half are made homeless due to flooded coastal cities?  

 

And it would help give your posts some clarity if you could use the term "pro-AGW" (anthropomorphic global warming) or "pro-ACC" (anthropomorphic climate change) instead of "pro man caused C C", which is a little unwieldy and hard to parse.

I was told by a certain person not to use G W on here, just C C, so I have been doing that, but I will use pro ACC, though some may not understand what it means.

 

I certainly believe that mankind can survive a flooded planet by moving onto giant floating platforms and growing seaweed and algae to eat ( humans will have exterminated all the fish by then if they keep on overfishing as they are doing now ), but IMO most will wish they had drowned instead.

[maewang99]

and it's veiling that knocks the crap out of the GOP's (USA republicans) "the USA is not a planet" nonsense.... as well as taking our hands off of the international effort (Trump or should we say.... Steve Bannon).

veiling can be done by any G20 country easily.

the probable implication for the monsoons.. and SE Asia rainy season... was exactly why 1.5 was tacked onto the 2.0 COP21 goal... even though it's obviously silly to have done that.  but that's politics (India is after all, a big country... and this is confirmed all over the place.. i.e. catch the Q&A of a recent interview of Bill Gates at Caltech... who was at COP21.... he can't leave India out of it... because he was there and knows why 1.5 "had" to be put in.. even though we are way past that given the 10 to 40 year lag between emissions of Co2 and it's effect on the biosphere.... because of how deep and big the oceans are and take to affect currents and land based life).

    

[Ramen087]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

A friend (who used to watch Rush Limbaugh and other right wingers) used to say the same thing to me at the beginning of the movement to ban smoking indoors.

And insist that there was no proven link between lung cancer and smoking.

Science is not dogma - the facts are clear that Global Warming/Climate Change is real and manmade and dire.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Sorry.

Interesting perspective on this complicated issue which contains tons of moving parts.  Science is not dogma, but politicizing the issue and creating a political and religious fervor around It makes the issue dogmatic.

Ever since Grog and Greek first documented human activity on a cave wall man has been enamored of his ability to control mother nature. The latest and greatest discoveries are always how it has been, is now and will be forever. Because now we know better.

Keep believing.

Have a nice day....

[attrayant]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I see by your chart that electricity is 30%. It should all be replaced by nuclear, which would make it 0%.

Transportation is 26%. All cars should be banned in cities and alternative fueled public transport used instead.

 

No, no - it's these kinds of extreme "all or nothing" solutions that rub people the wrong way.  Tell people you're going to ban their gas-guzzling SUV and they'll get angry and let their truck idle all day just out of spite.  Don't force change down people's throats.

 

We don't need to ban all cars, but enforcing some kind of emission standard would help reduce the total number of vehicles. Don't take their cars away by legislative fiat, give them an incentive to use other means of transportation.   Subsidize light rail and busses so that they're insanely cheap.  Make the dirty, polluting options more expensive and less attractive and people will gradually make their own decisions to change.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

A friend (who used to watch Rush Limbaugh and other right wingers) used to say the same thing to me at the beginning of the movement to ban smoking indoors.

And insist that there was no proven link between lung cancer and smoking.

 

Science is not dogma - the facts are clear that Global Warming/Climate Change is real and manmade and dire.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Sorry.

Lung cancer is certainly off topic, but briefly- smoking does not always cause lung cancer ( we probably all know someone that smoked till they died in their beds of old age ) best guess is it causes cancer in those genetically predisposed to getting cancer. Same for all cancer, or all men would get prostate cancer and all women breast cancer.

However, statistically, smoking causes cancer.

 

Back to topic. If ACC is indeed real and dire, what does "science" say can be done to reverse it in short order that would be acceptable to all 7 billion people on the planet?

[attrayant]

It doesn't need to be acceptable to all 7B people - not even the majority. It only has to be acceptable to the plurality who will vote on the issue in their local governments.  The rest of us can moan about it on internet forums.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

No, no - it's these kinds of extreme "all or nothing" solutions that rub people the wrong way.  Tell people you're going to ban their gas-guzzling SUV and they'll get angry and let their truck idle all day just out of spite.  Don't force change down people's throats.

 

We don't need to ban all cars, but enforcing some kind of emission standard would help reduce the total number of vehicles. Don't take their cars away by legislative fiat, give them an incentive to use other means of transportation.   Subsidize light rail and busses so that they're insanely cheap.  Make the dirty, polluting options more expensive and less attractive and people will gradually make their own decisions to change.

I don't know how many cars on the planet are not up to any emission standard ( that would be a few zillion at least ), but I give no chance that anyone can force the owners to replace their vehicles with new ones unless someone else pays.

 

IMO you are wrong about forcing people to "do the right thing". If government doesn't force them to they will never do so voluntarily. It's just not in human nature to do so.

 

Look, it's not me saying something has to be done NOW, it's the pro ACC people that are saying that, so it's up to them to make it happen, or by their own statements it will be too late.

Whatever, it's not about rich western countries so much as the poor ones busily overpopulating themselves and then the people emigrating to rich countries so they can have the CO2 emitting car and lots of CO2 produced electricity etc etc.

It would be nice though, if America stopped polluting so much because the 1% wants a few more billion $ in the bank. It's interesting though that Obama proclaimed himself to be a true ACC believer, but in 8 years did very little to stop America polluting so much, other than making a lot of coal miners unemployed.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, attrayant said:

It doesn't need to be acceptable to all 7B people - not even the majority. It only has to be acceptable to the plurality who will vote on the issue in their local governments.  The rest of us can moan about it on internet forums.

Hmmmm. The west is a minority of the planet's population therefore any action only in the west will not be sufficient, IMO.

Also, IMO, most westerners will never vote for anything that takes anything away from them, so good luck with the democratic option.

 

BTW, I'm not "moaning" about it. I'm putting suggestions out there and waiting for someone to come up with better.

I have no desire to live on a polluted planet, even if I don't think it will change the climate back to something "before", so I'm all for banning cars and making electricity by nuclear.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, maewang99 said:

COP21 was more than a year ago... and it was the official nonsense...

but even it says the same thing....  

we have already emitted too much GHG... including especially carbon dioxide.  it's all about finding a major breakthrough in negative emissions that would work to scale... using VC money....not public funding such as the US government. 

if we don't... the story here (specific to Thailand) is not just salt water intrusion.

 

veiling is the last resort... and it would mean less temperature variation globally..... which probably means.... no monsoons.... which in SE

Asia reads as "nah phone" (the rainy seasons).

best read on this, still.... Oliver Morton's The Planet Remade.

 

They already have proven atmospheric CO2 removal technology. The REALLY BIG QUESTION is why the governments are not building enough machines to make a difference.

[attrayant]

Quote

It's interesting though that Obama proclaimed himself to be a true ACC believer, but in 8 years did very little to stop America polluting so much, other than making a lot of coal miners unemployed.

 

During Obama's two terms, democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in congress for only four months.  It was during this tiny window of opportunity that the Affordable Care Act was passed.  With respect to the environment, I wouldn't say he got nothing done, and he certainly had an aggressive plan.  And now, Trump is moving to reverse many of Obama's climate change policies by slashing funding to climate watchdog agencies and getting rid of emissions reduction goals:

 

NYT: Trump Lays Plans to Reverse Obama’s Climate Change Legacy

 

From the article:

Quote

 

Mr. Trump will order Mr. Pruitt to withdraw and rewrite a set of Obama-era regulations known as the Clean Power Plan, according to a draft document obtained by The New York Times. The Obama rule was devised to shut down hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired power plants and freeze construction of new coal plants, while replacing them with vast wind and solar farms.

 

The draft also lays out options for legally blocking or weakening about a half-dozen additional Obama-era executive orders and policies on climate change.

 

 

If Obama had had full democratic control of congress for at least one term, then I'd be a lot more critical of him not getting more done.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

During Obama's two terms, democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in congress for only four months.  It was during this tiny window of opportunity that the Affordable Care Act was passed.  With respect to the environment, I wouldn't say he got nothing done, and he certainly had an aggressive plan.  And now, Trump is moving to reverse many of Obama's climate change policies by slashing funding to climate watchdog agencies and getting rid of emissions reduction goals:

 

NYT: Trump Lays Plans to Reverse Obama’s Climate Change Legacy

 

From the article:

 

If Obama had had full democratic control of congress for at least one term, then I'd be a lot more critical of him not getting more done.

Fair enough.

[Shawn0000]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They already have proven atmospheric CO2 removal technology. The REALLY BIG QUESTION is why the governments are not building enough machines to make a difference.

 

Its a big question with a simple answer.  If they built the tower systems, that suck in air and trap half the CO2, the US alone would need 320 million 6m towers, each consuming 2 megawatts of electricity per year, which is the power generated by 17 of the largest nuclear power stations in the US, the main problems with CO2 capture technology are feasibility and sustainability.  We are better off planting more trees, natures CO2 capture devices, and that is what most forward thinking governments are doing.

[maewang99]

trees?

there's a couple problems with that.

VC money is real.  that's what funding the negative emissions to scale thing.  government's only fund basic research.... plus.. in many countries there is a demographic/public finance issue in play, is there not?

it's VC money only now.  but it does all ride on this. 

catch Bill Gates on it in the Q&A at Caltech a few months ago.

 

this is why Trump does what he does (he ain't really that stupid). it worked (and still works) for him politically... but it doesn't really hurt the COP21 framework at all..... in reality (Donald knows why the Transit Cops are the 2nd or 3rd biggest police force in the USA... and what is lapping up along the sides of that slab of granite his Trump Tower sits on..... BELIEVE IT).

economically.  it's all VC and stuff like that. 

 

which also means not anything little people can, or need, to get in on. 

isn't that wonderful. 

it's also why Al Gore and DiCaprio like to focus us on Greenland.... always and only... but not Larsen C (and what Larsen B told us in 2002... and confirmed by the ACP in March of last year... and was under peer review while Obama and Gates were in closed door conference rooms at COP21).

  
 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Its a big question with a simple answer.  If they built the tower systems, that suck in air and trap half the CO2, the US alone would need 320 million 6m towers, each consuming 2 megawatts of electricity per year, which is the power generated by 17 of the largest nuclear power stations in the US, the main problems with CO2 capture technology are feasibility and sustainability.  We are better off planting more trees, natures CO2 capture devices, and that is what most forward thinking governments are doing.

Meanwhile in Brazil and Indonesia they are busily cutting down vast areas of rainforest. It is a world wide problem, not just one for the west.

The technology I refer to is the one pioneered in Iceland. Don't know the details.

Even if it was the tower system, would it be better to build them or die? Would solve the unemployment problem anyway.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Really? What do you think they breathe out? Is it methane?

The statement was: " and a heard of cows produce more CO2 than an 8 hour traffic jam on the M1. "

 

Cows don't generate more CO2 per unit mass than other warm blooded mammals.  I don't know how many cars in in a typical M1 traffic jam, but I seriously doubt a herd of cows produce more CO2 than these cars, or that George F can back up his ridiculous claim.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree that temperature has risen, CO2 has increased and glaciers have receded.

So I'd love to hear just how it's going to be reversed. So far I have heard nothing from the pro human caused C C side that would actually change anything sufficiently to reverse anything.

I have suggested reducing population and building CO2 removing machines ( already a proven technology ).

So let's hear your suggestions.

"I agree that temperature has risen, CO2 has increased and glaciers have receded."

 

Really? You seem to be challenging that in post 102 and 114.

 

As I pointed out in post 88 (follow-ups on posts 101 and 130) , solving overpopulation and removing greenhouse gases is not simple unless you advocate draconian (genocidal) methods.  It also ignores the fact that the remaining population will strive for the energy and material goods intensive lifestyle that generates these greenhouse gases.

 

What are these CO2 machines using proven technology that operate at a scale that will quickly reduce greenhouse gas levels?

 

This thread started out debating the legitimacy of the conclusions of the original article.  I don't recall any serious poster presenting a viable quick fix.  You certainly haven't.

 

 

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Meanwhile in Brazil and Indonesia they are busily cutting down vast areas of rainforest. It is a world wide problem, not just one for the west.

The technology I refer to is the one pioneered in Iceland. Don't know the details.

Even if it was the tower system, would it be better to build them or die? Would solve the unemployment problem anyway.

Are you referring to this technology?

 

" There are still concerns about whether the technology will prove useful in the fight against global warming. For one thing, it would have to be scaled up enormously. For another, a lot of water is needed — 25 tons of it for every ton of CO₂ — along with the right kind of rock. "   https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/science/carbon-capture-and-sequestration-iceland.html?_r=0 

 

That is an example of technology not proven to be practical on a scale large enough to make a difference.  It can only be applied in places with the correct volcanic rock formations and ample supplies of water.  The article also doesn't mention energy requirements.  Iceland has ample supplies of geothermal (green) energy for this effort, but there may not be enough Icelands in the world.

[pkspeaker]

5 hours ago, DekDaeng said:

SO the conclusion is 'carry on p'lutin, hell ain't full yet!' ??

No, I was just pointing out that the ice studies referred to in the article are real; some people on the thread were claiming 'fake news' on that issue.  It was in a newspaper so there are editors.

[Shawn0000]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Meanwhile in Brazil and Indonesia they are busily cutting down vast areas of rainforest. It is a world wide problem, not just one for the west.

The technology I refer to is the one pioneered in Iceland. Don't know the details.

Even if it was the tower system, would it be better to build them or die? Would solve the unemployment problem anyway.

 

The technology from Iceland is only relevant to things like power stations, it is good but it does not take co2 from the air and lock it up, it works with a massive source of co2 like a coal power station, whereas the tower system is a solution for taking co2 from anywhere, we need to address both issues.

Of course this is a worldwide issue, the point being that it would take 17 of the biggest nuclear power stations in the US just to power enough to equal the current output of the US Co2 emissions, if we were to attempt to use this technology for worldwide emissions the project would be beyond our current means, whereas reforestation is not, and it is sustainable whereas nuclear power is not and is the only viable solution for generating that sort of power without also creating more co2 in the generation than it removes.  So in my opinion the artificial tree solution is not viable unless they can sort out the power consumption.

There is another idea which involves making the sea more fertile to encourage life forms to grow and consume more co2 which has potential, but again is an enormous project, and like all these things, the main thing lacking is an incentive for investment.

[Shawn0000]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are you referring to this technology?

 

" There are still concerns about whether the technology will prove useful in the fight against global warming. For one thing, it would have to be scaled up enormously. For another, a lot of water is needed — 25 tons of it for every ton of CO₂ — along with the right kind of rock. "   https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/science/carbon-capture-and-sequestration-iceland.html?_r=0 

 

That is an example of technology not proven to be practical on a scale large enough to make a difference.  It can only be applied in places with the correct volcanic rock formations and ample supplies of water.  The article also doesn't mention energy requirements.  Iceland has ample supplies of geothermal (green) energy for this effort, but there may not be enough Icelands in the world.

 

I know it says finding the right rock is key, but the right rock is basalt, the most common rock on the planet, the one they make concrete with and roads, hardly difficult to find.  The need for water is also not necessarily an issue, basalt is found below every sea bed, quite a lot of water in the sea.  And the power would come from the power station it is removing co2 emissions from, the idea being specifically designed for dealing with massive co2 outputs from the likes of power stations, so the energy consumption is nor particularly relevant if this proves a viable way to clean up existing power stations, we don't need geothermal energy, that is just what they are using for their experiments, we need a solution for our own power creation, which is still largely fossil fuels.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I know it says finding the right rock is key, but the right rock is basalt, the most common rock on the planet, the one they make concrete with and roads, hardly difficult to find.  The need for water is also not necessarily an issue, basalt is found below every sea bed, quite a lot of water in the sea.  And the power would come from the power station it is removing co2 emissions from, the idea being specifically designed for dealing with massive co2 outputs from the likes of power stations, so the energy consumption is nor particularly relevant if this proves a viable way to clean up existing power stations, we don't need geothermal energy, that is just what they are using for their experiments, we need a solution for our own power creation, which is still largely fossil fuels.

"the power would come from the power station it is removing co2 emissions from..."

 

Only if the power required is significantly less than the power generated.  The article doesn't mention power requirements, but I assume pumping the CO2 gases under pressure deep underground requires power.

 

I'm not opposed to this technology, I'm just pointing out that it is in the early stages and there are a lot of unknowns.  I'm all for pursuing this and other CO2 capture technologies, along with clean energy technologies, energy efficiency, etc.; we shouldn't fixate on one particular miracle solution. 

 

I'm also in favor of population control, especially in poor areas where populations are growing fastest.  However I believe the best solution to population control in these areas is better governance, better education (especially for women), better job opportunities and greater prosperity.  Prosperity is shown to lead to lower population growth, but also to more consumerism.  Since I don't think we should deny the poor a better life, I think it is especially important that we figure out how to generate first world life styles with less, ideally no, adverse impact to the planet.

 

I am opposed to denying there is a problem or that anything needs to be done.

[kannot]

On 3/21/2017 at 4:28 PM, worgeordie said:

The people of the Maldives and other low lying Islands

around the World will be ecstatic at this news,as the 

water laps at their doorsteps.

regards Worgeordie

Yes and I was there in 1990 Meerufenfushi..............guess what....its still there in 2017, 27 years later, shouldnt  it by  now  be underwater? instead whats destroying the Maldives is rampant tourism and population explosion

[aussie11950]

19 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

I agree that there are many interests at play that will try to influence the outcome of scientific studies. However, I believe that over time the 'truth' will come out, as new and more evidence gets collected. By the way, the most comprehensive study to date in the subject of second hand smoke causing cancer found no evidence of a link! https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805/No-Clear-Link-Between-Passive-Smoking-and-Lung

Comprehensive study?

I was done by a university student, and not peer reviewed and with no references. 

You need to look at better quality studies.

CDC https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/

Lancet (5 PHD's)http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61388-8/fulltext

 

 

[Shawn0000]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"the power would come from the power station it is removing co2 emissions from..."

 

Only if the power required is significantly less than the power generated.  The article doesn't mention power requirements, but I assume pumping the CO2 gases under pressure deep underground requires power.

 

I'm not opposed to this technology, I'm just pointing out that it is in the early stages and there are a lot of unknowns.  I'm all for pursuing this and other CO2 capture technologies, along with clean energy technologies, energy efficiency, etc.; we shouldn't fixate on one particular miracle solution. 

 

I'm also in favor of population control, especially in poor areas where populations are growing fastest.  However I believe the best solution to population control in these areas is better governance, better education (especially for women), better job opportunities and greater prosperity.  Prosperity is shown to lead to lower population growth, but also to more consumerism.  Since I don't think we should deny the poor a better life, I think it is especially important that we figure out how to generate first world life styles with less, ideally no, adverse impact to the planet.

 

I am opposed to denying there is a problem or that anything needs to be done.

 

The co2 is mixed with water that is already underground, its just basic pumps, and not particularly powerful, they just need a well dug into the aquifer and pump the co2 into that, the water disperses the co2 into the surrounding rock.

 

But yes, it is in the early stages, but it has far out performed their expectations, so it is looking promising.  And of course we should not be looking at one solution, and this, as I already said, is only a solution for the likes of power stations, we also need to address the accumulative effect of all the small producers of co2, that require completely different solutions.

[dick dasterdly]

33 minutes ago, kannot said:

Yes and I was there in 1990 Meerufenfushi..............guess what....its still there in 2017, 27 years later, shouldnt  it by  now  be underwater? instead whats destroying the Maldives is rampant tourism and population explosion

And greed/over-development etc. etc. 

 

Your post encouraged me to look up my first Maldives holiday (Villivaru).  Its been abandoned after a new resort owner moved in and pretty much destroyed the house reef whilst building bungalows over the water....  To look on the bright side, he was heavily fined and had to leave.