Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Mohammed-Mehdi

Climate change: causes, consequences and solutions

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l read back a couple of pages and l can't find "CE Delft"

https://www.ce.nl/en/publications/610/climate-change-causes-consequences-and-solutions

 

Climate change: causes, consequences and solutions

 Report in Engllish 
 Report in Dutch 

Delft, September 2007

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammed-Mehdi  The problem with computer modeling is the same old "garbage-in, garbage-out" matrix.

Why do you need a computer model to analyze the energy consumption of potatoe processing? Even if a company does not have process-metering it still can read its electric bill and fuel delivery charges. This makes no more sense than in the 70s ((when this outfit was formed)) when home computers had the balance-your-checkbook sales pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

@Mohammed-Mehdi  The problem with computer modeling is the same old "garbage-in, garbage-out" matrix.

Why do you need a computer model to analyze the energy consumption of potatoe processing? Even if a company does not have process-metering it still can read its electric bill and fuel delivery charges. This makes no more sense than in the 70s ((when this outfit was formed)) when home computers had the balance-your-checkbook sales pitch.

 How much of the report is this the case? Is it really that significant in capacity? 
And I do not understand why using computers or computer modeling would be bad per se. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mohammed-Mehdi said:

And I do not understand why using computers or computer modeling would be bad per se.

Because it consumes too much time and resources.  Search functions are a "speed-up" but you do not find a solution set.

From something l was remembering from a few nights ago, ask a computer to model a 100,000 rpm spindle. You'll have to find the myriad of relevant answers before you could even start writing code. So why bother with coding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/01/23/586595/United Kingdom-fossil-fuels-subsidies-EU-report

 

EU data shows United Kingdom continue to heavily subsidize fossil fuels

Wed Jan 23, 2019 05:46PM [Updated: Wed Jan 23, 2019 05:51PM ]
  1. Home
  2. United Kingdom
  3. Society
Environmental activists hold a demonstration outside the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in central London on November 12, 2018, to show their anger at government complicity with fossil fuel industries. (AFP photo) Environmental activists hold a demonstration outside the United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in central London on November 12, 2018, to show their anger at government complicity with fossil fuel industries. (AFP photo)

The United Kingdom is still the heaviest subsidizer of fossil fuels in the European Union despite the country’s pledges to fight climate change by giving more support to renewable energies, a new EU has revealed.

The report published on Wednesday by the EU Commission showed that Britain offered more than €12 billion (£10.5 billion) a year in support for fossil fuels until 2016, according to the latest data available.

It said the figure was well above United Kingdom subsidies for renewable energies which has been €8.3bn annually until that year.

The commission said despite international commitments made by leading economic powers like the United Kingdom, subsidies for fossil fuels have not substantially decreased in the EU in general.

“EU and national policies might need to be reinforced to phase out such subsidies,” said the report.

Comparing the subsidies to fossil fuels and renewables in leading EU countries, he report stated that Germany was the top subsidizer of new energies with €27 billion, almost three times the €9.5 billion the country had given to fossil fuels.

Spain and Italy also performed well in preferring renewable energies while United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland were the countries that still supported fossil fuels despite their alignment with international action meant to fight carbon emissions.

A United Kingdom government spokeswoman denied the country was deliberately subsidizing fossil fuels, saying London was committed to its international obligations regarding the expansion of renewable energies.

“We’re firmly committed to tackling climate change by using renewables, storage, interconnectors, new nuclear and more to deliver a secure and dynamic energy market at the least possible cost for consumers,” said the spokeswoman.

Britain has already faced criticism over its environmental policy as it has allowed fracking operation in a major site northwest of the country. The operation, which uses high levels of pressure to extract gas, is believed to be highly detrimental to the environment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:dwarf:"Hysterical Reporting"

Greenland, which use to be 'green', lost 11 Billion tons of ice in one day.  :mod:"l am supposed to be outraged by this?"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/weather/greenland-lost-11-billion-tons-of-surface-ice-in-one-day/ar-AAFeZ8F 

Hmmmm, no :einstein: needed here. 31.75 gallons = 1 ton of water. There are 660,000 gallons in an Olympic size swimming pool, or 20,787 tons. Which is about 529,167 swimming pools to get 11 billion tons. Which is also 33,757 acre feet of water ---or enough to cover my home county with about 1.3 inches of rain. :woot:

:hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hasanhh
Even if you don't believe in by man influenced climate change, climate change is part of the history of this planet.

In the big picture, it happens gradually in half curves, zoomed in the changes are much more drastic.

Humanity is facing this challenge of climate change. Dikes have to be heightened and solidified, etc. see report above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammed-Mehdi

Man as a geographic factor is first written about by Strabo.

Even ~60 years ago in grade school, we were told 'climate changes' -the Fertile Crescent is no longer 'fertile', Greenland is no longer 'green', the "great American Desert" started getting more rain in the 19th Century and is now known as 'the Great Plains', and so on.

During the Cretaceous Era, it is calculated the air was 26% Oxygen, we have had 'mini-ice ages, and so on.

The above article also reports that on average, Greenland loses 190 Billion tons of ice every July, which is replaced in the Winter.

92 Volcanoes in Antarctica -active and inactive- have not melted the ice dome.

"Climate Change" is like 'acid rain': contrived hysteria that will prove false in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greta Thunberg's handed-to-me-agenda is found here, about 3/8ths of the way down, in 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/youth-marches-for-climate-action-draw-millions-around-the-world 

"This broad nutwork of activists want several key things, (l have them listed outside of its paragraphical form)

-passage of the Green New Deal with its shift to 100 percent renewable green energy by 2030

-protection and restoration of half the world's lands and oceans

-stopping deforestation within 10 years,

-ending subsidies for industrial agriculture

and -halting resource extraction on indigenous lands."

OPINE:  Notice this is a political agenda rather than a quality of life proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Greta Thunberg's handed-to-me-agenda is found here, about 3/8ths of the way down, in 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/youth-marches-for-climate-action-draw-millions-around-the-world 

"This broad nutwork of activists want several key things, (l have them listed outside of its paragraphical form)

-passage of the Green New Deal with its shift to 100 percent renewable green energy by 2030

-protection and restoration of half the world's lands and oceans

-stopping deforestation within 10 years,

-ending subsidies for industrial agriculture

and -halting resource extraction on indigenous lands."

OPINE:  Notice this is a political agenda rather than a quality of life proposal.

what do you think the political motive is?

I have always seen it as a form of distraction from real issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AkhiraisReal said:

what do you think the political motive is?

I have always seen it as a form of distraction from real issues.

"This broad network of activists . . ." is the identifying phrase. An umbrella organization for a mish-mash of emotional agendas and a couple of needs-to-be-done elements.

A component of the "green new deal" is the nuclear power industry --something US politicians are heavily invested in --both the Bushies/Baker and friends and the Clintons and friends. Although the waste problem has yet to be handled.

Industrial agriculture is what feeds us/US. How ending whatever subsidies there are  is not explained.

'lands and oceans' -the threat to the oceans are over-fishing and plastic pollution. How "land" is to be "restored" and still be of any value is never explained. What do these do-gooders want to do? Plant trees for forest fires over the cornfields?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

"This broad network of activists . . ." is the identifying phrase. An umbrella organization for a mish-mash of emotional agendas and a couple of needs-to-be-done elements.

A component of the "green new deal" is the nuclear power industry --something US politicians are heavily invested in --both the Bushies/Baker and friends and the Clintons and friends. Although the waste problem has yet to be handled.

Industrial agriculture is what feeds us/US. How ending whatever subsidies there are  is not explained.

'lands and oceans' -the threat to the oceans are over-fishing and plastic pollution. How "land" is to be "restored" and still be of any value is never explained. What do these do-gooders want to do? Plant trees for forest fires over the cornfields?

Personally, I love our national parks and am happy to see them, and wildlife protected from over-hunting as well. Makes for good recreational activities, and provides jobs for state and federal employees. Funds are also reclaimed through fees for hunting permits and licenses. Small businesses also thrive through sales of outdoor equipment, camping gear, hiking gear, hunting gear etc.

Land can be restored alternatively through environmental reclamation. Things like restoration of waterways and wetlands and reclamation of brownfields and Superfund sites that are polluted/contaminated.

Any means of remediating and re-using contaminated or otherwise destroyed land benefits us in giving us more land-use options. This is how these programs have become so successful. Remediate, restore and develop sustainable infrastructure and restore value of the otherwise uninhabitable land.

And there is just the simple fact that we really don't have a choice but to at least attempt to protect and restore our natural lands. Else we one day simply run out of the resources that we depend on. We can't chop trees down if we don't plant an equal amount to be chopped down. Otherwise we run out of trees. Which is really what green energy and sustainability is all about. Sustainability meaning, not to use more of what we have or are able to produce. As opposed to unsustainable use of resources at rates in which they cannot be replenished. 

 This is also why liberal states like new York are also banning plastic bags. It's unsustainable to produce plastic bags that can't be recycled. It is sustainable to lessen out "foot-print" in generating less waste so that we lessen out impacts to the oceans in filling them with trash. If we didn't make efforts to lessen our trash disposal, eventually every pristine beach would look like jersey shore with trash all over the place. 

For Hassan:

Do you not think that our plastic pollution in oceans is a problem? Why not lessen our use of non-recyclable plastics and clean the oceans? Or should we prefer swimming in trash?

Do you not see value in restoring contaminated/uninhabitable Superfund and brownfields sites for future economic uses?

Do you not see value in living a more sustainable life style, in which we restore resources such as forests by planting trees, to push back against a future of having no trees left?

Do you enjoy recreational activities in refuges for wildlife and lands protected from development?

I think there is value in all of the above. These are all items of the green movement at large and the green new deal.

And even renewable energy investment is a move toward sustainability, given our clearly limited supply of fossil fuels and unsustainable rate of use.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lt is easier to respond, brother, by using boldface.

11 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Personally, . . .

Land can be restored alternatively through environmental reclamation. Things like restoration of waterways and wetlands and reclamation of brownfields and Superfund sites that are polluted/contaminated. The US gov't has been doing this since the 1930s with the CCC and other programs.  As for Superfund sites, a couple of times l looked around on the internet for a summary of its current status but found nothing informative. 

Any means of remediating . . .  Any?

And . . .

 This is also why liberal states like new York are also banning plastic bags. It's unsustainable to produce plastic bags that can't be recycled.  From what l have read, polypropylene  and polyethylene have different recycling potentials. All most every plastic is different. So, what l think is to regulate which plastics can be massed produced. 

For Hassan:

Do you not think that our plastic pollution in oceans is a problem? Why not lessen our use of non-recyclable plastics and clean the oceans? Or should we prefer swimming in trash? l started the Plastic Pollution thread. lt's still on page 1. There is one problem there isn't much of any research on. I found that micro-plastics 'taste good' to corals. BUT what concerns me is the really small particulates. Micro-plastics are defined as <5mm which is way to large for my point. I wonder if these really small, actual micro-sized (measurement in millionths) particles are clogging the gills of fish and also passing into their blood streams leading to gill diseases, suffocation and epidemics.

Do you not see value in restoring contaminated/uninhabitable Superfund and brownfields sites for future economic uses? Urban brownfields are just part of the urban cycle. Cities are rebuilding all the time. For example, Rome. Ancient Rome is 12 feet below current ground level.

Do you not see value in living a more sustainable life style, in which we restore resources such as forests by planting trees, to push back against a future of having no trees left?  Clearcutting is good. This is on a 55 year cycle, usually. Specialty trees for paper are on a 20 year cycle.  Note: back in the 70s, the US Forest Service did a study in which they found that more wood was left to rot on the ground in national forests than would be needed to rebuild every house in America. In addition, Carbon is stored inside the structure of buildings.

Do you enjoy recreational activities in refuges for wildlife and lands protected from development? No.

I think there is value in all of the above. These are all items of the green movement at large and the green new deal. l do not buy into these. Too whacky for me. Did you read the 'Dirty Secret . . .' thread?

And even renewable energy investment is a move toward sustainability, given our clearly limited supply of fossil fuels and unsustainable rate of use. Says who? The 1967 Club of Rome assessment that still dominates political behavior was/is woefully uninformed. The state of lIIinois alone has enough easily available coal underneath it to fire every old coal plant utility operation for 400 years.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't care for recreational activities such as hiking, hunting, fishing etc. Ok.

You mentioned coal. Oil certainly isn't going to last 400 years by anyone's estimates. At best we might have 100 years of oil remaining, at least at current rates of use. In this regard, fossil fuels are exceptionally limited. Hence the value of investment in economically viable alternatives. 

You seem to be accepting of cleanup of contaminated sites, which is good. With removal of contamination, unused land can be repurposed for residential and/or commercial development. Regarding Rome, the Romans werent dumping millions of gallons of solvents into soils and groundwater, I wouldn't compare their impact to our much more vast industrial environmental impacts. Remediating our pollution, as well as diminishing our environmental foot-print is necessary for the success and prosperity of our country. And it shows. We have repurposed plenty of contaminated sites with use of remediation, restoration and reclamation of brownfields and Superfund sites. It is truly profitable and it benefits human health and the environment at the same time.

It's great that you also appear to be aware of our plastic issues. Reducing rates of production of non-recyclable plastics sounds like a good idea to me too. I'll have to check out your post.

 

None of the above has anything to do with "buying into things". It just is what it is. Contamination due to use of fossil fuels, hazardous wastes, plastics etc., despite their great economic value, often destroys property value. Not only do they destroy property value, but in some cases, such as in the oil and gas industry, resources are limited and are going to be gone in the next few generations. Which is really the driving force behind green movements and green politics. 

Clean the land, protect the health of people, restore value to contaminated land and reclaim it for economic use. Invest in sustainable renewables that aren't going to run out in 100 years. Recycle when possible and cut back on mass production of non-recyclable materials such as certain types of 1-time-use plastics.

That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCenozoic your 'reading understanding' must be better than your post shows.

The part with Rome had to do with cities constantly rebuilding. Buildings replaced and such. Which is why ancient Rome is 12 feet lower than now. They had serious pollution problems, sanitary sewers, lye, paints, carcasses but not the solvents in the Tiber River.

Oil will last more than a hundred years. Besides, biodiesel is taking a big share allowing more for jets and all. And then there is 'coal oil', usually kerosene molecular weight.

Then your disdain for non-conforming critiques towards romanticized visions of the-OZ-that-could-be  contributed nothing.

l remember the pervasive pollution of the 50s and 60s, so why do you assume l am unaware of the environment.?

Edited by hasanhh
?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fireman blames "eviros" for thr Australian bush fire emergency:

The first few paragraphs:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/11/volunteer-firefighter-blames-environmentalists-for-catastrophic-fires-in-Australia.html 

Distance Sydney to Auckland 1300+miles/2100+km: Smoke from Australia is in New Zealand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 10:13 PM, hasanhh said:

@iCenozoic your 'reading understanding' must be better than your post shows.

Oil will last more than a hundred years. Besides, biodiesel is taking a big share allowing more for jets and all. And then there is 'coal oil', usually kerosene molecular weight.

 

If you think that oil will last more than 100 years, by what numbers or data do you make your estimates?

Most estimates I've seen vary between 40-80 years, with even the most generous estimates being less than 100 years.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

by what numbers or data do you make your estimates?

l'II use one example. Texas has enough "stranded reserves" to run the entire World economy for two years. What is a "stranded reserve"? Drilled, pumping and trucked out. lt is 'stranded' because it is not connected to a pipeline.

This does not included the pumping-producing and undrilled oil in only Texas. 

For coal convertable to oils, the state of illinois has enough near surface high quality coal to fuel power plants for 300+ years at 1970 consumption levels. Conversion to oils produces more energy.

The numbers are on the Net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not buy into this:  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming 

Why not?

Models of the 60s and 70s were all-over-the-place.

Models do not include dust --which has a cooling effect, but was an expressed concern in the 1960s

Models do not include desertification --the Sahara has expanded southward for 30 years; Lake Chad is drying up because of other drainage systems eroding into the Logonne River; water to the Aral Sea has been diverted; . . .

How temperartures are recorded is not standardized by time of day --only the "High" is recorded

Misuse of observables: notoriously the "heat island" fraud (the Sun heats up all the concrete and asphalt in cities, then when it got dark took an IR picture of all this material cooling off and proclaim it is the effect of fossil fuels)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2019 at 10:49 PM, hasanhh said:

 

-passage of the Green New Deal with its shift to 100 percent renewable green energy by 2030

-protection and restoration of half the world's lands and oceans

-stopping deforestation within 10 years,

-ending subsidies for industrial agriculture

and -halting resource extraction on indigenous lands."

How are any of these things bad? 

Even if climate change is outside of human control, what is harmed by making these changes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l'II quote myself, @notme       and boldface my reply:

On 9/20/2019 at 10:49 PM, hasanhh said:

Greta Thunberg's handed-to-me-agenda is found here, about 3/8ths of the way down, in 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/youth-marches-for-climate-action-draw-millions-around-the-world 

"This broad nutwork of activists want several key things, (l have them listed outside of its paragraphical form)

-passage of the Green New Deal with its shift to 100 percent renewable green energy by 2030  The specifics listed were old, 60ish, liberal and socialist ideas.

-protection and restoration of half the world's lands and oceans    This requires a multi-national effort. Most plastic pollution is reported to come from East and South Asia

-stopping deforestation within 10 years,   Clearcutting areas are replanted in North America and Europe.  "Deforestation" where it does exist is in the 3rd World and some land clearing for agriculture is included. Most often, deforestation is a tree hugger's reaction.

-ending subsidies for industrial agriculture   This will accomplish nothing and will damage economies. What can be done is to rotate the '-cides' like with crops.

and -halting resource extraction on indigenous lands."  What is "indegenous"? lt is still own by someone.

OPINE:  Notice this is a political agenda rather than a quality of life proposal.   Ditto !

Help any?

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, notme said:

.Wicked Wit Warning !

Firstly, :furious:"Where did you get this pinko, political poo ?"

"Radical lmagniation" :book: You read my book. That is 'radical'. Not this socialist scat script.

That there "trained meteorologist" only repeats a forecast in the very near furture.

She can't kount eyether. Climate change gained attention in the 1990s -which is less than 30 years ago and not "half a century of institutionalized climate denial".

"planetary tipping point"  :hahaha::hahaha: "How do you "tip" a globe?"

"An infinite number of paths ahead of us"  l ain't going to read that much garbage.

We are already in 2020, so beginning with

2021 more law and dispensing with slow elections to be replaced by mob rule run by a socialist losership.

2022 "on behalf of the collective" - run by a soviet (council) of course

2023 criminalize industry and 'try' "fossil fuel executives for crimes against humanity". The word "executive" is not defined. Neither was kulak. So are these modern kulaks to be summarily shot soviet style, or lynched Cultural Revolutionary style?

2024 "We will electrify everything . . ."  Yeah, l'II start with her chair. (Satire of course.)

2025 "We will have long begun to reclaim . . ."      She admits to soialist claim jumping.

2026  "...we need more connections . . . we need more empathy . . ."   Except for "Big Tech" and those undefined "executives".

-and then she scribbles "Through art, music, memes and methods-yet-to-be-invented, we will laugh and love . . ."   Whaat is she promoting? A next generation of designer drugs so we can rant like an air-head meteorologist?

2027 "regenative agriculture" Food from "less pesticides and fertilizer allowing for a thriving ecosystem that supports more wildlife."  :ko::ko:nth power. 

Before WW2, the farmers adage was: you get 1/4th of what you plant in a good year. 1/4 goes to the weather (which is a difficult concept for this meteorologist); 1/4 goes to the bugs; 1/4th goes to the crows(a catchall for all them crop eatin' varmits); and 1/4th for the farmer hoping for a decent price.

2028 A rewording of: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." which will now be a "human right". Commie Cwap

2029 We will "celebrate" this social engineering  no matter how miserable we really feel.

2030 "Perhaps the most radical . . . will be our newfound ability to tell a story -a positive story- about the future and mean it" --a la Hugo Chavez

But do l survive to that then there 'past' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hasanhh

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/08/imperial-oil-climate-change-exxon/

Climate change caused by carbon emissions was first predicted in the 1890s. It was studied, confirmed, and quantified well by the 1980s. It only became publicly discussed in the 90s, but scientists knew of it long before then. 

The man who wrote this article is a meteorologist and science communicator/journalist. I believe his expertise over yours or mine. 

You have to look at the actual evidence, the actual data, not just recite what you were taught in 1956. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, notme said:

Climate change caused by carbon emissions was first predicted in the 1890s. It was studied, confirmed, and quantified well by the 1980s. It only became publicly discussed in the 90s, but scientists knew of it long before then. 

This ain't whut your article says. Quote: "as far back as the 1960s".

Studies like these were begun not from CO2 ideas, but as a consequence of the  "nuclear Winter" hypothesis of a post-nuclear exchange between the Soviets and the US. l forget the Russian author's name, if l ever remembered. This estimated the amount of ash and fallout such a war would produce in the atmosphere and unexpectedly concluded this would affect global weather by the increase in reflectivity of the Sun's light. Thereby cooling the weather as did the Tambora volcanoe did in 1815. 

Also, "expertise" does not preclude confimation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

This ain't whut your article says. Quote: "as far back as the 1960s".

That's when they can verify that Exxon's subsidiary studied it and knew about it. 

Eunice Newton Foote first proposed that sunlight warmed the atmosphere differently under different levels of carbon dioxide in 1856, but since women scientists were mostly disregarded then, the credit went to John Tyndall in 1861. The first to prove that emissions from burring were significant enough to warm the atmosphere was Svante Arrhenius in 1896, but it wasn't until 1938 that Guy Callendar demonstrated that the atmosphere was already changing and temperatures were already increasing. 

Look it up. People knew. It just wasn't profitable to care or to make changes.

Edited by notme
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Also, "expertise" does not preclude confimation bias.

I acknowledge this to be true. I don't think it is the case here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...