Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(02-09-2017 01:08 PM)Kaneda Wrote:  It's time to start talking about "negative" carbon dioxide emissions.

The best solutions would be those that provide a direct economic benefit for Carbon sequestration. If we could borrow from nature and create energy like plants do by consuming CO2, and if we can do that economically, that would be a great way to create negative carbon emissions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
08-09-2017, 04:12 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(08-09-2017 02:56 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(02-09-2017 01:08 PM)Kaneda Wrote:  It's time to start talking about "negative" carbon dioxide emissions.

The best solutions would be those that provide a direct economic benefit for Carbon sequestration. If we could borrow from nature and create energy like plants do by consuming CO2, and if we can do that economically, that would be a great way to create negative carbon emissions.

Shifting away from industrial methods of agriculture toward organic, permaculture, and regenerative methods would sequester carbon back in the soil again as well as reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in other ways. I've been reading about many strategies in the book Drawdown this week.

https://www.amazon.com/Drawdown-Comprehe...s=drawdown
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
15-09-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"It might seem premature when people in the Caribbean, Florida and Texas are still mucking out their flooded homes. And no, changes in our planet's atmosphere did not cause Hurricanes Harvey or Irma. But the consensus among scientists is that the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and warmer oceans, made those storms far more destructive than they would have been in previous decades."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/us/climate...index.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
15-09-2017, 11:40 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"Deadly climate change could threaten most of the world's human population by the end of this century without efforts well beyond those captured in the Paris Agreement. That's the finding of a pair of related reports released yesterday by an international group of climate science and policy luminaries who warned that the window is closing to avert dangerous warming. They say carbon dioxide might have to be removed from the atmosphere. Scientists Yangyang Xu and Veerabhadran Ramanathan found in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that there already exists a 1 in 20 chance that the 2.2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere could cause an existential warming threat. This 'fat tail' scenario would mean the world experiences 'existential/unknown' warming by 2100 — defined in the report as more than 5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Temperatures haven't been that high since the Miocene warming period. That low-probability but very extreme scenario could expose most of the world's people to deadly heat stress, with 2.5 billion facing viruses linked to warming and 20 percent of the world's species becoming extinct."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...inability_
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2017, 12:12 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
We are fucking up the planet.
As would a blight of billions of any other creature.
We are just uniquely talented at it.
The details are irrelevant.
Nature will fuck us up in return.
Just a matter of time.
Till then.

[Image: 5856952861_a56bd1535c_b.jpg]

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2017, 12:37 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(15-09-2017 12:12 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The details are irrelevant.

The details are entirely relevant if we can still change the outcome to something less destructive.

Nice picture, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
15-09-2017, 12:44 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(15-09-2017 12:37 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(15-09-2017 12:12 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The details are irrelevant.

The details are entirely relevant if we can still change the outcome to something less destructive.

Nice picture, though.

Yeah, I would much rather humanity avoid extinction if it has the capacity to do so. Not avoiding our own extinction would be a truly stupid thing to do considering we are the only species we know of that understands what the concept means, and we are the only species we know of that has the intelligence and capacity to intentionally innovate a way of avoiding extinction.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-09-2017, 12:44 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(15-09-2017 12:37 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(15-09-2017 12:12 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The details are irrelevant.

The details are entirely relevant if we can still change the outcome to something less destructive.

Nice picture, though.

I am sure you are talking about the....kegs. Yes
They are 13us$ each. Big Grin

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
16-09-2017, 03:42 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity. But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.) Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming. 'Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,' Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post."

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientif...urce=parSA
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
19-09-2017, 03:45 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"Here’s some potentially good news on the climate front. The most aggressive climate goal we have is to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C above their pre-industrial average. The most recent IPCC report suggests that to do this, we need to limit total future carbon emissions to about 250 billion tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2). This is all but impossible. However, a team that includes some of the world’s leading experts on carbon budgets has published a new paper that resolves some contradictions in the IPCC figures and comes up with a much higher carbon budget: about 900 Gt."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...ge-really/

"The updated 1.5°C is more like what we expected for 2°C, and thus the updated 2°C carbon budget is probably more like we expected for 2.5°C. Given that the emission pledges submitted to the Paris Agreement are somewhat around 2.5°C to 3°C across most studies, then the new carbon budgets would imply 2°C is roughly consistent with the current emission pledges."

http://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/nyhete...get-easier
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: