Skip to main content
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 1441 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #32
I can't save the world, but I can save myself from too much rubbish.

I have two compost bins.

I recycle everything possible.

I red cycle my plastics.

I make sure we use the e waste cages at work for electrical waste.

If everyone does the same, we'll all go a long way to helping. 

Our rubbish bin usually has no more than two bags of rubbish every fortnight and its mainly stuff that can't be recycled.  We even buy bin liners that are made from either recycled plastic, or are biodegradable.
Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #33
I certainly back the second link Paul posted .... but you can't patrol the Pacific.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #34
Thinking about things, laterally I can probably/possibly do more by buying less products wrapped in plastic.  We do this as much as possible, but our number one culprit at the minute would likely be a leafy green mix when we can just buy the greens seperately.
Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #35
Thinking about things, laterally I can probably/possibly do more by buying less products wrapped in plastic.  We do this as much as possible, but our number one culprit at the minute would likely be a leafy green mix when we can just buy the greens seperately.
Firstly, in the world of many there is no such device as a single use bag!

It's going to get harder, the plastic bag ban is counterproductive in this regard.

The problem is that producers want you to get their goods home and in use in the best possible condition, free of cross contamination and spoilage. So the general trend after the check-out bag ban is more and more items coming pre-packaged. This functionally eliminates cross contamination coming from re-used fabric bags, which is seen as a huge liability by producers. It is also viewed as improving the transport condition of the goods. Ireland was the first country to ban bags, and the total plastic consumption increased after the supermarket bag ban and grown steadily.

A new threat are those re-used bags at the COVID/Checkout counter, you can expect that it won't be long before re-useable bags are banned if the policy markers are consistent, if not then why not share a mask, are those re-used bags looped over many COVID Cough Elbows? But they are probably hypocrites that will tell you your hands are dirty but that 3 year old nylon supermarket bag is fine as it is unwashed and used for everything from a lettuce to nuts and bolts from the hardware store!

The irony for me is that it seems the primary offenders of abusing single use plastic bags are wealthy leftist socialites who see a previously used bag as contaminated and trash it, it ranks marginally above a used snot rag in their life rating system. It's a bit like clothes and handbags, can't be seen wearing them twice unless your driving to the tip recycle store to donate last weeks clothes and fashions to the poor! They then paint the general public with their own shallow perspective and accuse everybody of doing the same.

Yes you guessed it, the rest of us "we to us, them to them" are all horrible horrible environmental vandals, and they'll tweet it out on the new spang-dangled rare earth repository of an 2020 iPhone because that ridiculously old 2019 model one was well, old! Put last weeks clothes on and off to the tip with that phone!

The vast bulk of the population was already re-using those "Single use bags" for secondary purposes as bin liners or some such purpose. Yes, in the world of many there is no such device as a single use bag!
The Force Awakens!



Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #38
This statistical aspect of climate change, much like the statistical aspect of virology, are the hardest things to communicate.

I like to use gambling or lottery analogies, they seem to resonate with most people because most of us aren't that lucky and we get how rare a big lottery / punting win is!

These climates events as we are experiencing them, if they are just random events, are statistically like backing three winning straight up Quadrellas in a row! It's not impossible, but out of the billions and billions of bets made each day, trillions each month and year globally, it's happened maybe once or twice! I believe just once here in Australia, in the whole history of punting a single gambler backed in three winning consecutive Quadies just once, but he did it by boxing the field in some legs, so he doesn't even qualify because it wasn't a straight up bet!

Boxing the field on some legs is like Pumping carbon into the atmosphere, increasing the chance of it happening!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #39
My issue with the whole climate change debate is that it disregards the following:

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles

I have no issues with us attempting to be greener as we have caused more damage to the overall environment than any other species (I doubt you will find any other species that logs, or pollutes to the same levels as humanity) but the answer to these problems is quite simple.

Humanity is a parasite on the earth, and appears hell bent on consuming it, and until we work out that exponential growth of humanity correlates with the exponential growth of pollutants which means that the only real way forward is to live simpler and consume less, and perhaps grow slower and maybe revert back to dying younger.  Remember when living past 70 was the exception not the norm?  Now the exception is the opposite, and 70 year olds run countries.
Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #40
My issue with the whole climate change debate is that it disregards the following:

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles

I have no issues with us attempting to be greener as we have caused more damage to the overall environment than any other species (I doubt you will find any other species that logs, or pollutes to the same levels as humanity) but the answer to these problems is quite simple.

Humanity is a parasite on the earth, and appears hell bent on consuming it, and until we work out that exponential growth of humanity correlates with the exponential growth of pollutants which means that the only real way forward is to live simpler and consume less, and perhaps grow slower and maybe revert back to dying younger.  Remember when living past 70 was the exception not the norm?  Now the exception is the opposite, and 70 year olds run countries.

The science of climate change is enmeshed within the study past climatic fluctuations Thry.  What that tells us is that the climate is changing faster now than at any time in the past. 

And we’re not in an ice age now: Glacial = ice age, Interglacial = no ice age.

The geological time scale used Holocene to denote the current geological age.  It’s now called the Anthropocene to reflect the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.  The Holocene commenced at the end of the last ice age (or glacial period) about 10,000 years ago.  The Anthropocene’s commencement is being pushed back to around 15,000 years as it is argued that human impact on the environment and climate commenced during the last ice age.

Palynological studies suggest that Aboriginal burning practices changed the Australian environment and biodiversity tens of thousands of years before that.

The elephant in the room is the exponential growth of the human population as well as the mantra that economies must continue to grow.  We can reduce consumption and waste and minimise environmental impacts but we’ll continue on a path to oblivion as long as humanity continues to breed like rabbits.



“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #41
Interestingly, the population growth is now expected to plateau between 2050 to 2100, so in this regard it won't be growing exponentially like it has in the past. I think Attenborough covered this in his recent A Life on Our planet documentary.

Apparently this is now validated across several disciplines including epidemiology, macro-economics, ecology and sociology. The influences are complex, related to changes in society, female empowerment, education, wealth and health. It seems the longer we are likely to live, the greater the chances of survival in a healthy state, the less children we have on average.

When I first heard this a few years back I thought it might be a bit of propaganda, designed to diminish the need for urgent change, but it isn't it and it doesn't diminish the need to act at all.  Change is still required, because despite population growth slowing, resources continue to diminish and energy consumption per-capita rises. This is where the scope of the climate change issue broadens to become much much more than just greenhouse gas, and is the is the spawn of continuous economic growth which is different to population growth.

The ultimate climate change buster is fusion energy, it makes all other sources of energy redundant and filthy by comparison, but there is no guarantee it is either possible or cheap. Pretty much every other source of energy, is dirty by comparison, even solar, wind and tidal. But even if fusion became globally available tomorrow, resources would still diminish.

Humans are not a good judge of these things, for example almost every person you ask will tell you hydroelectric is clean. When in fact it's one of the most environmentally damaging forms of energy production you can have. They think nuclear fission is dirty and dangerous, when it's one of the safest and environmentally clean sources of energy currently available. Humans judge these things on emotion, to a human a nuclear power plant is a giant atomic bomb while a hydroelectric dam is a beautiful eco friendly lake, nothing is further from the truth. We see the very rare instantaneous effects of a major event, and ignore numerous occurences of the creeping death!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #42
The science of climate change is enmeshed within the study past climatic fluctuations Thry.  What that tells us is that the climate is changing faster now than at any time in the past. 

And we’re not in an ice age now: Glacial = ice age, Interglacial = no ice age.

The geological time scale used Holocene to denote the current geological age.  It’s now called the Anthropocene to reflect the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.  The Holocene commenced at the end of the last ice age (or glacial period) about 10,000 years ago.  The Anthropocene’s commencement is being pushed back to around 15,000 years as it is argued that human impact on the environment and climate commenced during the last ice age.

Palynological studies suggest that Aboriginal burning practices changed the Australian environment and biodiversity tens of thousands of years before that.

The elephant in the room is the exponential growth of the human population as well as the mantra that economies must continue to grow.  We can reduce consumption and waste and minimise environmental impacts but we’ll continue on a path to oblivion as long as humanity continues to breed like rabbits.





I only disagree with one part of your post DJC, and that is that the evidence points to us still being in an Ice Age even though you might have stated we arent because even at a recent trivia night I attended the correct answer was that we are technically still in one, (my gut said that its true was a better trivia answer so we got the points on that one).


https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth/ask-a-scientist-about-our-environment/how-did-the-ice-age-end

Ive read this up a few times, because I used to have a theory that we were on track with respect to natural cycles and the earth warming because I was sick of the climate debate, and the answers I found were to debunk that theory and keep reading and understand that we are actually having a bigger impact, and that has been thus far to stave off the next glacial period thanks to 100 years of warming which will either result in an over correction and flip to a massive ice age to fix it, or cause a lot of damage.  Thing is, it seems to point to the earth wobble, and bulge causing more change here than not.


Quote
Scientists are still working to understand what causes ice ages. One important factor is the amount of light Earth receives from the Sun. The amount of sunlight that reaches Earth can vary quite a lot, mainly due to three factors:

    how much Earth is tilted relative to the Sun
    whether Earth wobbles a lot or a little as it spins on its axis (kind of like how a toy top can wobble a lot or a little as it spins)
    the shape of Earth's orbit as it goes around the Sun (whether it is shaped more like a circle or more like an ellipse or oval)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Quote
Glacials and interglacials
See also: Glacial period and Interglacial
Shows the pattern of temperature and ice volume changes associated with recent glacials and interglacials
Minimum and maximum glaciation
Minimum (interglacial, black) and maximum (glacial, grey) glaciation of the northern hemisphere
Minimum (interglacial, black) and maximum (glacial, grey) glaciation of the southern hemisphere

Within the current glaciation, more temperate and more severe periods have occurred. The colder periods are called glacial periods, the warmer periods interglacials, such as the Eemian Stage.[1] There is evidence that similar glacial cycles occurred in previous glaciations, including the Andean-Saharan[41] and the late Paleozoic ice house. The glacial cycles of the late Paleozoic ice house are likely responsible for the deposition of cyclothems.[42]

Glacials are characterized by cooler and drier climates over most of the earth and large land and sea ice masses extending outward from the poles. Mountain glaciers in otherwise unglaciated areas extend to lower elevations due to a lower snow line. Sea levels drop due to the removal of large volumes of water above sea level in the icecaps. There is evidence that ocean circulation patterns are disrupted by glaciations. The glacials and interglacials coincide with changes in orbital forcing of climate due to Milankovitch cycles, which are periodic changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of the Earth's rotational axis.

The earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for around 11,700 years,[43] and an article in Nature in 2004 argues that it might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.[44] Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now. Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousand of years.[45][5][4]

The variation of sunlight reaching Earth is one cause of ice ages.

Over thousands of years, the amount of sunshine reaching Earth changes by quite a lot, particularly in the northern latitudes, the area near and around the North Pole. When less sunlight reaches the northern latitudes, temperatures drop and more water freezes into ice, starting an ice age. When more sunlight reaches the northern latitudes, temperatures rise, ice sheets melt, and the ice age ends. But there are many other factors. So if you became a climate scientist one day, you could make your own discoveries!


Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #43
We're condemned to live on this planet, we will never survive on another, be it this solar system, or anywhere else.  It's an impossible.

The worst threat to humanity is ourselves and listening to any green alternatives hardly helps.

We MUST go nuclear.  The rest are just distractions

 

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #44
    how much Earth is tilted relative to the Sun
    whether Earth wobbles a lot or a little as it spins on its axis (kind of like how a toy top can wobble a lot or a little as it spins)
    the shape of Earth's orbit as it goes around the Sun (whether it is shaped more like a circle or more like an ellipse or oval)
@Thryleon  This bit is a horribly simplistic hash up between what causes the seasons and what influences long term climate change.

The shape of the earths orbit effectively doesn't vary at all on times scales measured in billions of years, it's almost perfectly round less than 3% elliptical. The Sun's changing flux over that time has far more influence than any small orbital variations but even that solar flux variation is trivial on human time scales.

The earth wobbles (Precession) but this has no long term effect as it is cyclic, and the same applies in regards to the tilt. Small timing variations causing correlations between precession and Earth's position in it's elliptical orbit can cause some slight longer term seasonal variations. This is because a conjunctions between the perihelion, aphelion and precession.

The seasons are cyclic because they are caused by the tilt, the Earth is effectively a big spinning gyroscope pointing mostly in the same direction with a slight precession. But Earth's precession takes 26000 years to complete. Interestingly, the main climate effect of precession is modelled to be an evening out of the seasons mid-cycle, not a change in the averages, at some stage in the 26000 cycle summer and winter would be barely distinguishable around the equator. There is no history of glacial or inter-glacial periods tide to precession, even the Maunder Minimum has been ruled out as a precession effect.

A nice debunking argument for the climate change sceptics who try to claim orbital dynamics is the cause, is that the Earth is closest to the sun(About 5,000,000 km closer) when the Northern Hemisphere is in the middle of it's winter.
The Force Awakens!