Climate Change

[Rorschach]

So what do we make of the historic cooling and warming phases from history which in no way can be attributed to human activity? The Roman warm period for example?

The Milankovitch cycles that cause glacial and interglacial periods should have us heading towards another ice age but we've managed to buck the trend by burning dead dinosaurs. And the rate of the warming is unprecedented too. It's us.

 

[SkipRat]

So what do we make of the historic cooling and warming phases from history which in no way can be attributed to human activity? The Roman warm period for example?

Yup, the same three main drivers throughout history remain the same. And the same three drivers are driving climate today.

Carbon Dioxide, Solar radiance, and Aerosols.

Until the industrial revolution, it was all natural. Now we have pumped billion of tons of CO2 into the atmospere.

And we know it is our fault from the change in carbon isotopes ratio in the atmosphere.

C12, C13, and C14.

One is associated with volacanism, one with plants, and one with fossile fuels.

Guess which one has massively changed the ratio of these isotopes in the atmosphere?

And we have known since 1896 that CO2 is green house gas and every single scientist knows that climate has changed through history... they can even tell you why.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So what do we make of the historic cooling and warming phases from history which in no way can be attributed to human activity? The Roman warm period for example?

They both exist, but they are both entirely separate.

 

[Lilbaz]

What i don't understand is that water vapour is the biggest cause of heating the atmosphere. Yet we concentrate on taking out co2 (not talking of reducing our output but of taking co2 out of the atmosphere). Wouldn't taking water vapour out of the air be easier? Dehumidifiers have been around for a while now. Couldn't we build bigger ones pwered by nuclear or renewables?

 

[SkipRat]

What i don't understand is that water vapour is the biggest cause of heating the atmosphere. Yet we concentrate on taking out co2 (not talking of reducing our output but of taking co2 out of the atmosphere). Wouldn't taking water vapour out of the air be easier? Dehumidifiers have been around for a while now. Couldn't we build bigger ones pwered by nuclear or renewables?

Water vapour is a secondary effect of one of the main three drivers.

 

[Lilbaz]

Water vapour is a secondary effect of one of the main three drivers.

Yet it is responsible for half of the greenhouse effect. I'm not saying ignore the others. But reducing the water vapour in the air would reduce the greenhouse effect.

 

[Rorschach]

Yup, the same three main drivers throughout history remain the same. And the same three drivers are driving climate today.

Carbon Dioxide, Solar radiance, and Aerosols.

Until the industrial revolution, it was all natural. Now we have pumped billion of tons of CO2 into the atmospere.

And we know it is our fault from the change in carbon isotopes ratio in the atmosphere.

C12, C13, and C14.

One is associated with volacanism, one with plants, and one with fossile fuels.

Guess which one has massively changed the ratio of these isotopes in the atmosphere?

And we have known since 1896 that CO2 is green house gas and every single scientist knows that climate has changed through history... they can even tell you why.

That is interesting about the isotopes.

 

[SkipRat]

Yet it is responsible for half of the greenhouse effect. I'm not saying ignore the others. But reducing the water vapour in the air would reduce the greenhouse effect.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the mare water vapour there is.

This video explains it better than I. But there is another one that explains it better.

 

[Lilbaz]

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the mare water vapour there is.

This video explains it better than I. But there is another one that explains it better.

Yes i get that. I'm not saying ignore co2. I'm saying if we reduce the amount of water vapour in the air it reduces the greenhouse effect. Reducing the amount of water vapour in the air is a lot easier than reducing the amount of co2. The technology has been around for decades.

 

[SkipRat]

Yes i get that. I'm not saying ignore co2. I'm saying if we reduce the amount of water vapour in the air it reduces the greenhouse effect. Reducing the amount of water vapour in the air is a lot easier than reducing the amount of co2. The technology has been around for decades.

I would guess dehumidifiers work in confined spaces, like rooms.

How many miles thick is the atmosphere?

And water vapour rises, yes you might be able to get it to work at surface level and get a bit out, but the water vapour will genrerally rise and you will miss most of it.

Not unless you build them miles high too where the water vapour is.

You can't use what works in confined spaces the expect it to work in miles thick atmosphere.

 

[Rorschach]

Yes i get that. I'm not saying ignore co2. I'm saying if we reduce the amount of water vapour in the air it reduces the greenhouse effect. Reducing the amount of water vapour in the air is a lot easier than reducing the amount of co2. The technology has been around for decades.

I'm sure I heard about some research being done into turning the water vapor in the stratosphere into ice in some fashion. I'm not sure how viable that is as an option but it would at least indicate some thought has gone into it.

I think ultimately things will get bad enough that some sort of geoengineering will be tried. It would seem that climate heavyweights like James Hansen are already coming to this conclusion.

 

[Rorschach]

A little hopium in these dark times.

This Yellow Powder Made at UC Berkeley Can Suck Carbon From the Air | KQED

UC Berkeley chemists developed a material that absorbs carbon dioxide — a key part of the battle against climate change — but whether it can do this cheaply and at scale remains to be seen.

www.kqed.org

Most of these ideas die before birth. I see so many that hit some practical roadblock to scalability, and this might too, but some scientists I trust are getting a bit excited about it fwiw.

 

[SkipRat]

A little hopium in these dark times.

This Yellow Powder Made at UC Berkeley Can Suck Carbon From the Air | KQED

UC Berkeley chemists developed a material that absorbs carbon dioxide — a key part of the battle against climate change — but whether it can do this cheaply and at scale remains to be seen.

www.kqed.org

Most of these ideas die before birth. I see so many that hit some practical roadblock to scalability, and this might too, but some scientists I trust are getting a bit excited about it fwiw.

Or is good news.

Shame it doesn't provide cheap energy for the public and businesses.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was funded in part by the oil and gas industry.

 

[Gutter Boy]

A little hopium in these dark times.

This Yellow Powder Made at UC Berkeley Can Suck Carbon From the Air | KQED

UC Berkeley chemists developed a material that absorbs carbon dioxide — a key part of the battle against climate change — but whether it can do this cheaply and at scale remains to be seen.

www.kqed.org

Most of these ideas die before birth. I see so many that hit some practical roadblock to scalability, and this might too, but some scientists I trust are getting a bit excited about it fwiw.

I'm not sure I don't trust humans to screw this up and extinct ourselves in the process. It's why I like the basalt version of this, because that's just crushing up natural rock.

Anything like this needs to be part of the repair job after net zero, not a route to enabling big oil to continue.

 

[SkipRat]

I'm not sure I don't trust humans to screw this up and extinct ourselves in the process. It's why I like the basalt version of this, because that's just crushing up natural rock.

Anything like this needs to be part of the repair job after net zero, not a route to enabling big oil to continue.

Problem is, that is just a buzz word and most of carbon footprint is being moved abroad and the burden placed on developing countries.

It's these buzz words that are a bane of politics.

We should be selling the idea not of because of "net zero," but rather because unlimited green energy will be life saver of British manufacturing, cheap energy for the people and households... Which is great for business. Just look at Port Talbot. It is actually really important for national security producing steel, as it is the back bone of everything will build. It's single biggest cost is energy, and its making a loss, because of the cost of energy.

Would it be wise to, had it over the Chinese for cheap steel, in the same way the EU sold their soul to Russia for cheap gas, thinking that this would change his ways?

But your last sentence as whole, is absolutely spot on and I couldn't agree more even if I tried. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

[Rorschach]

I'm not sure I don't trust humans to screw this up and extinct ourselves in the process. It's why I like the basalt version of this, because that's just crushing up natural rock.

Anything like this needs to be part of the repair job after net zero, not a route to enabling big oil to continue.

Yes, I agreed with you that this shouldn't be a permission slip to continue business as usual, but the net zero concept is a big oil con job to do that anyway. We can't wait for that to happen if a scalable solution exists. I am a firm believer in prevention rather than cure, however, we are at the point of no return now.

 

[SkipRat]

Yes, I agreed with you that this shouldn't be a permission slip to continue business as usual, but the net zero concept is a big oil con job to do that anyway. We can't wait for that to happen if a scalable solution exists now. I am a firm believer in prevention rather than cure, however, we are at the point of no return now.

We are at a point of no return, so pushing the wrong thing is not going to help, you can always clear up a mess later.

But to win people over, you need to look after them first, get people and business on your side... What better way to get people to listen to you if your making their lives easier?

 

[Gutter Boy]

Problem is, that is just a buzz word and most of carbon footprint is being moved abroad and the burden placed on developing countries.

It's these buzz words that are a bane of politics.

We should be selling the idea not of because of "net zero," but rather because unlimited green energy will be life saver of British manufacturing, cheap energy for the people and households... Which is great for business. Just look at Port Talbot. It is actually really important for national security producing steel, as it is the back bone of everything will build. It's single biggest cost is energy, and its making a loss, because of the cost of energy.

Would it be wise to, had it over the Chinese for cheap steel, in the same way the EU sold their soul to Russia for cheap gas, thinking that this would change his ways?

But your last sentence as whole, is absolutely spot on and I couldn't agree more even if I tried. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

That was just laziness on my part. I do think we should be talking about absolute zero, rather than net zero.

I know we'll never realistically get to absolute zero. My dream is for it to be absolute zero globally, with just very specific exceptions for heritage railways and 5th November bonfires (the important things in life!).

 

[SkipRat]

That was just laziness on my part. I do think we should be talking about absolute zero, rather than net zero.

I know we'll never realistically get to absolute zero. My dream is for it to be absolute zero globally, with just very specific exceptions for heritage railways and 5th November bonfires (the important things in life!).

Thing is, there is more than enough wriggle room in the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere and how much the natural world can absorb, for us to pump some CO2 amounts in the atmosphere and not worry about being 100%. I love NASCAR and GT3 Racing, and it is not really a problem.

To many people think we have to be insane full green Nazi's (not saying you) or the planet will die if we pump a little CO2... No matter what we do, we make things, people require stuff, population will grow... If people cared about carbon foot print, then look at pets, pets are one the single biggest things we can cut our "carbon footprint" with...

Carbon pawprint: is man's best friend the planet's enemy?

Is your adorable puppy as bad for the planet as a gas-guzzling SUV?

phys.org

This doesn't include, treats, gifts etc and the fact that cats are obliterating native species, the murderous little gits...

And carbon footprints was created by the oil and gas industry to make us feel guilty to put the emphasis on us, so we don't look at what they are doing.

Just like everything else, it just need to managed with calm heads, without the hyperbole and not lot the oil and gas industry get involved.

 

[SkipRat]