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
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

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.


×
×
  • Create New...