Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 902 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Damn it.
AlB, going by you’re last post I
think the Frazier camp might, just be empty now.
Nicely dodged Sussex Socialist. Won’t belong to any club that forces membership upon you eh? 👍🏼
Perfect volte-face Alan “Perhaps i am the optimistic one after all. 😃”
😃😃
Was “hoping” ALB had just taken the “man only sets such problems as he can solve” thing too far:- this time (at/near a singularity.)
Mmm. Alan is that fresh pessimism???
Despite statistical overload, more reading required! Just what I needed. Ta. 😆
Laterz…
ps just like ALB I’d like to thank the moderators for there forbearance, garce, latitude etc (But, Damn Scots they ruined Scotland!)
pps robbo203 said “I would agree although, offhand, I can’t think of many proponents in the WSM of a “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.” in which our needs would be fulfilled with the mere push of a button on a console.” 🤣🤣🤣
No. When I look into their heart of darkness/endless production of consumerist crap, I see nothing that I want either.
Hiding the facts
Coal is the most damaging of the fossil fuels because of the quantity of carbon dioxide it releases when it’s burned. For years, the increase in the number of Chinese coal-fired power stations has been criticised.
Now environmental groups say China is also backing dozens of coal projects far beyond its borders. Chinese-supported coal projects are underway or planned as far afield as South America, Africa, southeast Asia, and the Balkans.
“You cannot be a world leader in curbing air pollution and at the same time the world’s biggest financier of overseas coal power plants. By having China invest in over 60 countries along the Belt and Road Initiative, it’s perpetuating a source of pollution that has been demonstrated to be harmful not just to the climate but also to economies.”
Geo-engineering
<p dir=”ltr”>The idea involves spraying reflective sulphites 20km above the surface of the Earth, into the stratosphere, where the particles reflect sunlight back into space, preventing solar energy from warming our planet further. If effective, the technology, known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), could be used to offset the impacts of our continuing greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p dir=”ltr”>A new study examining only the process of delivering the sulphites to the stratosphere indicates an effective global effort is possible, and would be relatively inexpensive if purpose-built high-altitude aircraft were manufactured</p>
<p dir=”ltr”>“It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2bn – $2.5bn (£1.5bn – £1.9bn) per year over the first 15 years.”</p>
<p dir=”ltr”>https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-geoengineering-atmospheric-spraying-climate-change-global-warming-a8647206.html</p>
<p dir=”ltr”>The new planes would comprise a fleet of eight in the first year, rising to a fleet of just under 100 within 15 years. The fleet would fly just over 4,000 missions a year in year one, rising to just over 60,000 per year by year 15. The team estimated the total development costs at less than $2bn for the airframe, and a further $350m for modifying existing engines.</p>
<p dir=”ltr”></p>Dave Douglass in WW continues his defence of CCS.
It led me to this article
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Don_Valley_Power_Project
So on paper CCS is indeed a viable option for coal
The problem is;
………every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2, the sheer volume of CO2 that must be disposed of makes CCS inherently impractical and overly expensive……..
That is close from the number I got from doing a basic chem equation.
It is a bit less for natural gas/ oil as it has hydrogens in it.
Not sure about the thermodynamics of energy per tone of coal and natural gas/ oil.
It is a bit more practical if you can pipe it locally to a suitable underground ‘storage’ location.
The scientific geological conditions of it remaining there and not leaking are not yet fully established.
I think at the moment it takes, energy wise, about 1/4 of a tonne of coal to capture the CO2 from burning a tonne of coal.
Theoretically they could drive that down.
The ‘plant’ infrastructure costs are enormous as well and need to build new power stations rather that bolt stuff onto old ones. But that could change.
On shore wind power in the correct location is now cheaper that nuclear.
The tree huggers have been a problem I think in the past for instance objecting to turning the outer Hebrides into a giant wind farm which I believe they are now starting to do?
Same with tidal energy eg barrages in the Bristol channel area.
[actually they did a big study on that, maybe the ‘Swansea barrage project? which was interesting as they costed the project in person hours so it had a lot of labour theory of value in it.]
The scientists/ engineers in the past haven’t helped much I think probably because nuclear and fusion research looked more ‘interesting’ than windmills.
The only option now I think is geo-climate-bio engineering ; which is a potential ecological Frankinstien; monster and the tree huggers will hate that.
It could be quick and inexpensive and easy to switch off.
The whole subject is highly polarised from all sides of the argument and it is really important to be sceptical.
LOL @malcom ” I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER ” Grouchy Karl Marx
Yet another report about the immediate impact climate change is having right now. More bad news
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
“Climate-related risks will continue to grow without additional action…neither global efforts to mitigate the causes of climate change nor regional efforts to adapt to the impacts currently approach the scales needed to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”
“Regardless of future scenario, additional increases in temperatures across the contiguous United States of at least 2.3°F relative to 1986–2015 are expected by the middle of this century. As a result, recent record-setting hot years are expected to become common in the near future. By late this century, increases of 2.3°–6.7°F are expected under a lower scenario and 5.4°–11.0°F under a higher scenario relative to 1986–2015.
“Sea levels are expected to continue to rise along almost all U.S. coastlines, and by 2100, under the higher scenario, coastal flood heights that today cause major damages to infrastructure would become common during high tides nationwide”
“It is very likely that some impacts, such as the effects of ice sheet disintegration on sea level rise and coastal development, will be irreversible for many thousands of years, and others, such as species extinction, will be permanent,” the report warns
The White House said the report was inaccurate.
So even the Americans are convinced the way we live is likely to end and soon……
Fifty Conservative MPs have called on Theresa May to adopt an ambitious target of cutting carbon emissions to net zero before 2050
The worms that have turned
Extract from the US 2018 National Climate Assessment report quoted in a previous post.
Regardless of future scenario, additional increases in temperatures across the contiguous United States of at least 2.3°F relative to 1986–2015 are expected by the middle of this century. As a result, recent record-setting hot years are expected to become common in the near future. By late this century, increases of 2.3°–6.7°F are expected under a lower scenario and 5.4°–11.0°F under a higher scenario relative to 1986–2015. (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/)
I know people have complained here about statistics overload but how can you make sense of this unless you know how to convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade and know what the lower and higher scenarios are?
I am sure Dave Bsc will be able to explain it better, but basically to convert a degree increase in F to one in C you multiply the F figure by 5 and divide by 9. So the 2.3 degrees F above is about 1.3 degrees C. Which doesn’t sound so scary. On the other hand, the comparison is with the period 1986-2015 as opposed to pre-industrial times. Between pre-industrial times and 2016 average global temperature increased by 1.8°F (1.0° C), so the comparable figures to those in the recent IPPC report are 4.1° F and 2.3° C.
Fortunately, in other parts of the report they give the figures in both F and C. The Report is one required every four years by law and so is a serious document. Its conclusions are more or less the same as those of the IPCC report.
As to the scenarios, the higher one is where CO2 emissions continue at their present rate, i.e. a sort of worst case scenario which is not likely to happen. An increase by 6.7°C (12°F) would in fact be a real disaster risking the runaway global warming that some talk about.
The lower one is what would be needed to limit the rise to 2°C as set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
As the Report puts it:
With significant reductions in emissions, global temperature increase could be limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less compared to preindustrial temperatures. Without significant reductions, annual average global temperatures could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century compared to preindustrial temperatures.
The “significant reductions” would have to be quite substantial:
Of the two RCPs predominantly referenced throughout this report, the lower scenario (RCP4.5) envisions about 85% lower greenhouse gas emissions than the higher scenario (RCP8.5) by the end of the 21st century.
The Report also puts forwards some capitalist reasons for doing something about it (and why I would think they will do something, though in the US there is the additional obstacle of having to stand up to sectional lobbies that put their interests before that of the capitalist class as a whole):
Without more significant global greenhouse gas mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause substantial losses to infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century. Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are increasingly vulnerable to impacts driven by climate change. Reliable and affordable energy supplies, which underpin virtually every sector of the economy, are increasingly at risk from climate change and weather extremes. The impacts of climate change beyond our borders are expected to increasingly affect our trade and economy, including import and export prices and U.S. businesses with overseas operation and supply chains. Some aspects of our economy may see slight improvements in a modestly warmer world. However, the continued warming that is projected to occur without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century.
I think our situation as human beings is pretty bad.
I think it is expected that small changes in temperatures is expected to make droughts, when and where they occur , much more severe.
And with more evaporation and thus rainfall floods also much more severe.
Which might still be a small problem in Surrey but is likely to have more dramatic life affecting impact in places like India and Bangladesh.
It is expected in general for there to be more severe extreme weather events.
I think it is generally accepted that predicting the effects of ‘small’ changes of global temperature on local or regional weather events is difficult.
Watching hurricane events making landfall in the US, which is all that ‘matters’ might be one to watch in the next ten years.
Britain’s Drax has started a pilot project to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions at its biomass plant, the first of its kind in Europe.
Drax said the CO2 will initially be stored on site but that eventually it will seek to find a use for the gas, such as in the drinks industry which earlier this year was hit with a CO2 shortage. (hmmmm…?? drink our way out of climate change)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.