General Global Warming

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Finally someone that talks sense not scare mongering
Facts are that global temps are rising, pollution is getting worse and human kind needs to do something to change the future that we are creating for ourselves. Focusing on CO2 should not be the ultimate answer, but at least its a start and as long as it treated as just a start, then there is a future.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Unfortunately need the big players like China (who contribute 30% ish of the total) to play ball otherwise it’s a bit of a futile effort, I suspect it will be hard to get them to give up any competitive advantage.
I guess I’m a bit suspicious that the answer to solving the problem seems to be nothing other than “taxes” but no clear plan on how it’s going to solve it.
It’s also hard when there’s just as much science debunking it as proving it.
Still even if it is all bullshit there’s no harm in taking better care of the planet
The science is predominantly in favour of climate change, the anti science is less than 10 percent and maybe as low as 3 percent. However the rhetoric is about 50/50 from both sides.

Many scientists are being misquoted and taken out of context by the non climate change fraternity. However because it is not a simple just look at temps issue, but is about how those temps interact with sea levels and air quality and how other gasses are increasing in the atmosphere no single thing can be pointed at as an explanation of why.

For example people talk about rising sea levels thinking of island nations being swamped, but long before this happens the small rise in sea level will have contaminated their ground water drinking supplies, making many islands unlivable. But again this is not a simple issue as you have to take into account salinity of water, due to melting ice flows, increased precipitation, due to increased thermal evaporation and increased rainfall, leading to blizzards, with ice and snow falling in record volumes in new and unusual locations tying up some of the worlds drinking water in places that traditionally wouldn't get it.

To sum it up - its complicated and no 1 min sound bite on the TV will ever do it justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rizzah

bruce

Contributor
Focusing on CO2 should not be the ultimate answer, but at least its a start and as long as it treated as just a start, then there is a future.
From what I understand there is no future.

Once methane started pumping out from underground by itself all man made CO2 emissions could stop tomorrow and we are still stuffed. It might just take a bit longer to get stuffed though.

I remember about 20 years ago an academic article predicting the future for climate change said that by the time enough people realised what was happening it would be too late to stop it.
 

bruce

Contributor
To sum it up - its complicated and no 1 min sound bite on the TV will ever do it justice.
I can say this in less than a minute. Time me.

Most oxygen production comes from underneath the sea; between 50-80% depending on who you listen to. Atmospheric CO2 levels are causing the oceans to acidify. This will cause plants to die and to stop producing oxygen. The world suffocates as a result, end of story.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Unfortunately need the big players like China (who contribute 30% ish of the total) to play ball otherwise it’s a bit of a futile effort, I suspect it will be hard to get them to give up any competitive advantage.
I guess I’m a bit suspicious that the answer to solving the problem seems to be nothing other than “taxes” but no clear plan on how it’s going to solve it.
It’s also hard when there’s just as much science debunking it as proving it.
Still even if it is all bullshit there’s no harm in taking better care of the planet

Hope you dont think im picking on you. I love your post so much as it gives me so much to work with. And your end is exactly the point that so many people need to accept. Alt energy and climate change is a focus thing of mine, as i used to be a denier but I challenged myself to prove them right and after reading the scientific lit, rather than the sound bites, became a born again.

so just a last hurrah.

Taxes, or the as the Enron power wants you to call them Carbon credits were a commercial creation to give Enron something to trade once oil and gas were gone. Totally made up they benefit no one.

However. Real change is happening, mostly with the cost of creating renewables. At the moment depending on who you want to quote, renewables are at parity or already cheaper per megawatt to create and ship than fossil fuelled power. This move is happening so fast that the thinking is that banks wont lend money to build power plants running off fossil fuels, nor will they lend money to coal mines. And the expectation is that renewables will soon be less than half the price of fossil fuel, for both construction of the plant, meaning only an idiot would ever invest in them.

Remember that once built the cost of renewables is insignificant compared to fossil fuels as well. Issues with load balancing and storage are being dealt with and if you really want fossil fuels they can actually grow them from algae in tanks using free power from the sun to do so.

This is what i place my hope in. Don't let your lack of faith in the government confuse you. There is a brighter day coming, but its not here yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Who put this thread in the NERD ZONE?:rolleyes:

Just to put some perspective on it there is alarm at the amount of methane bubbling up from the Arctic Tundra, which increasing dramatically. So much so that many experts predicted years ago that when that started to happen the world was a goner, no matter how much carbon was saved from man made activity.

They predict that it will cause sea quality to deteriorate (Great Barrier reef!!!) to the extent that the oxygen producing plants in the ocean (2/3 of the world surface) would succumb and we would run out of oxygen. This has happened before millions of years ago.

The 100 million dollar question is how long this will take and what will happen along the way. The respected Booker prize winning environmental author Jared Diamond wrote a book called "Collapse" about this very point 13 years ago. It is a very scary read indeed.

I remember about 18 years ago some greenie telling me that the respected environmental scientist David Suzuki gave the world 25 to 30 years maximum, which takes us to 2030 at the latest. That is scarily in line with the latest UN report which says if something isn't done within 10 years we are in trouble.

Believe Donald Trump if you will. Nobody with any sense sees him as anything more than a moron apart from the fact he knows absolutely nothing about science.

I recently saw an article where they have a process now where they can take CO2 out of the atmosphere and reintrouce it into the ground. I wonder if the same process can be used for methane. It was a side effect of them making CO2 into fuel.

 

bruce

Contributor
This is what i place my hope in. Don't let your lack of faith in the government confuse you. There is a brighter day coming, but its not here yet.
Young smart leaders like Xi Jinping in China can see the writing on the wall. Old farts like Trump cannot and won't. Like I said I have been told it doesn't matter anyway, bend over and kiss your arse good bye.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
I can say this in less than a minute. Time me.

Most oxygen production comes from underneath the sea; between 50-80% depending on who you listen to. Atmospheric CO2 levels are causing the oceans to acidify. This will cause plants to die and to stop producing oxygen. The world suffocates as a result, end of story.
while not incorrect it really is a simplification and leaves out so, so much. Including salinity issues, changing currents, weather...

Fortunately there are solutions available.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Young smart leaders like Xi Jinping in China can see the writing on the wall. Old farts like Trump cannot and won't. Like I said I have been told it doesn't matter anyway, bend over and kiss your arse good bye.

you only say that as you have no intention of being here to deal with it. The truth is that anything man does can be undone. It will take time and money but these are incidentals, what has been missing and is still missing is will. Mankind hasnt yet got the will to change the earth for the better.

An example of this is CFC's and the ozone layer. Once identified as an issue the world moved as a whole to fix the problem. Was it simple to fix compared to the climate change issue, sure. But it shows what the world can do when the will is there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz

bruce

Contributor
you only say that as you have no intention of being here to deal with it.
I am pretty sure I will be here to deal with it, based on average life expectancy.
The truth is that anything man does can be undone.
Man cannot put the methane from underground back in. They have tried it. The genie is out of the bottle.

Please remember that although the average lady and jellybean has become aware of global warming sometime this decade, some people have been aware of it e.g. Shell Oil, since the 1980's (at least), and it was first predicted as long ago as the mid 1960's by the Odum brothers.

We are close to full time on this game, five converted tries down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dean

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Young smart leaders like Xi Jinping in China can see the writing on the wall. Old farts like Trump cannot and won't. Like I said I have been told it doesn't matter anyway, bend over and kiss your arse good bye.

young and smart, 65 years old might be young in comparison to trump. And in comparison to Trump i would put my puppy as smart. so fair call.

But hes no different to trump really. He just wants the world to think hes awesome, which is why he is embracing renewables. At home hes another fish altogether, hes just made himself god emperor and recreated the whole dynastic approach to Chinese politics for a start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
I am pretty sure I will be here to deal with it, based on average life expectancy.

Man cannot put the methane from underground back in. They have tried it. The genie is out of the bottle.

Please remember that although the average lady and jellybean has become aware of global warming sometime this decade, some people have been aware of it e.g. Shell Oil, since the 1980's (at least), and it was first predicted as long ago as the mid 1960's by the Odum brothers.

We are close to full time on this game, five converted tries down.
yes, the opposition have a lead, but the game is not over. And may never actually end.

Glad you will be here to fight the good fight with us then (i have to admit, that sometimes i get a very skewed view of what people are like off the forums.) Hope to see you marching on parliament to protest that they aren't doing enough to pressure other countries to improve their efforts.
 

bruce

Contributor
Hope to see you marching on parliament to protest that they aren't doing enough to pressure other countries to improve their efforts.
I wouldn't waste my energy. There are plenty of rabble rousers to do that anyway. TBH although I think Ardern is a lightweight, and has probably hit the Taranaki economy for six, I agree she has done the right thing in pulling the plug on oil exploration. National would never have had the guts (or electoral dumbness) to do it.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
I wouldn't waste my energy. There are plenty of rabble rousers to do that anyway. TBH although I think Ardern is a lightweight, and has probably hit the Taranaki economy for six, I agree she has done the right thing in pulling the plug on oil exploration. National would never have had the guts (or electoral dumbness) to do it.
at least your country has a plan, and bipartisan agreement on an environmental issues. My kid was down in front of the Victorian parliament only last week protesting the lack of any here.
 

bruce

Contributor
at least your country has a plan, and bipartisan agreement on an environmental issues. My kid was down in front of the Victorian parliament only last week protesting the lack of any here.
The day Australia gets real about the environment their economy goes to shite. Sad but true. Just look at Poland over the coal argument. I forget who it was who talked about us going out by nuclear bomb, but global warming could well cause that.

Just another point, and not being an intensely scientific sort, but I first saw real evidence of global warming over 30 years ago. Rock hard evidence, not just a hunch. I got talking to some scientific types who had been seeing it for years before then. Nobody talked about it in general conversation because you would be classed as a nutter greenie.

The scary thing was that since then the march to the end game has been steady, just like the Jaws theme music. So as people realise what is happening, it ain't stopping at this point, and the shark is fast and hungry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Horriors2013
Scientists are noted prostitutes. Most money comes from the oil and coal companies. Follow the money.
Have a good day.

That's just a Greenie lie! When have you ever seen a scientist in flshnets and leather!?

Nice to know I'm not the only cynic on here.
 
The problem is that this issue is so intertwined with Politics and the petrochemical industries.

The melting of the poles seem to be undeniable. Why is the argument but neither side is giving an inch.

As far as Politics go an example is Russias natural gas pipelines into Europe opposed by US who want Europe to buy US fracked gas.

Personally I think both sides are prone to exaggeration but there are some obvious clangers. One being electric cars. What powers the plants that provides the power.

Renewables work in Melbourne I had 16 solar panels. I had 3 montly bills. Over two bills one was $27 and the other $9
 

bruce

Contributor
I recently saw an article where they have a process now where they can take CO2 out of the atmosphere and reintrouce it into the ground. I wonder if the same process can be used for methane. It was a side effect of them making CO2 into fuel.
The process for CO2 would be different to methane. Also the quantities involved mean it is impractical. For methane how are they going to stop it bubbling up from the ocean, and affecting water quality as it does. Read my lips, we are stuffed.
Watch a doco called Racing Extinction. Fuck we humans are cu**s!!!


Also try this one and shit yourself. Made by a radical left wing outfit called...the Australian Broadcasting Commission;):)
https://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

"A thoughtful, surprising and really important film"
DAVID SUZUKI environmental guru, author, presenter of The Nature of Things

ABC TV is proud to present the world television premiere of Crude, a superbly crafted, 90 minute documentary spanning 160 million years of the Earth's history to reveal the story of oil.

From the food on our tables to the fuel in our cars, crude oil seeps invisibly into almost every part of our modern lives. It is the energy source and raw material that drives transport and the economy. Yet many of us have little idea of the incredible journey it has made to reach our petrol tanks and plastic bags.

Coming in the wake of rising global concerns about the continued supply of oil, and increasingly weird weather patterns, award-winning Australian filmmaker, Dr Richard Smith takes us through time: from the birth of oil deep in the dinosaur-inhabited past, to its ascendancy as the indispensable ingredient of modern life. Filmed on location in 11 countries across five continents, Smith consults the leading international scientific experts to join the dots between geology and economy and provide the big-picture view of oil.

Smith says: "When I first started getting interested in oil, I was amazed to find that not only did most people not really have a good idea what this stuff was, but it was hard to find a really definitive explanation from the experts on how it formed. Clearly, the science of oil was lagging behind the exploitation. The deeper I dug into the latest research on the subject, the more incredible links in the story began to drop into place."

Crude takes a step back from the day to day news to illuminate the Earth's extraordinary carbon cycle and the role of oil in our impending climate crisis. Nearly seven billion people have come to depend on this resource, yet the Oil Age, that began less than a century and a half ago, could be over in our lifetimes.

Crude is essential viewing in the tradition of An Inconvenient Truth and Who killed the Electric Car?
 

bruce

Contributor
This is an article from STUFF today about the role of nitrogen fertilser in global warming:

Just a side note before it starts. NZ didn't use urea on pasture to any extent until Robert Muldoon needed to win an election back in 1981. There were a few key rural seats that held the balance of power in parliament. So he started a "THINK BIG" industrial investment that made places like Invercargill, Whangarei and New Plymouth amazingly wealthy for a few years.

One of the projects was a urea plant in Tarakaki using natural gas. That started a massive usage of artificial nitrogen that has become widespread practice in economical dairying.

The government knows, because it has been told by experts, that dairying cannot pay for itself economically if the environmental costs are considered. End of story...read on:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/fa...-climate-killer-synthetic-nitrogen-fertiliser
Banning New Zealand's hidden climate killer - synthetic nitrogen fertiliser
"Right now we are facing a manmade disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change," he said. "If we don't take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon."

We've literally got 12 years before the planet is going to hell in a handbasket, taking us with it. That is, unless we radically transform society. Like, now. Or preferably, yesterday.

One part of society that urgently needs a fundamental and far reaching transformation is agriculture. It makes up 49 per cent of New Zealand's emissions.

But what do we do about it?
We need to be farming far fewer cows - that much is obvious to anyone who isn't living in the the fantasy world of unproven methane vaccines. But reducing the herd won't be enough.

There's a hidden climate (and river) killer that drives the industrialisation of agriculture.

Synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. We have to ban it.

Synthetic nitrogen is one of the key industrial agricultural inputs. Pesticides, livestock feed, antibiotics, irrigation, are some of the others. These things are what drive the high input, high damage way of growing food.

Without the inputs, industrial agriculture does not work.
Luckily, the most fundamental input of all is synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. That means, when we get it banned, it will force the de-industrialisation of farming and pave the way for regenerative farming - the only way of farming that provides a glimmer of hope against climate breakdown.

What is synthetic nitrogen fertiliser?

It's a product that is made in factories and then dumped onto farmland in vast quantities to make grass and other crops grow fast. It's a bit like crack cocaine for plants, a departure from reality and, ultimately destructive.

It often comes in the form of 'urea' but it's sold under lots of other names too.
There are really only two companies selling it in New Zealand - Ravensdown and Ballance. Together they sell 98 per cent of all fertiliser used here.

In New Zealand, it has been the driving force behind the grossly bloated dairy herd.

Since 1990, dairy cow numbers have more than doubled. In the same period the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser increased seven-fold.

Dairying is by far and away the biggest user.
Basically its use increases cow numbers, which increases methane emissions from burps and nitrous oxide emissions from urine patches.

But, it doesn't stop there. Synthetic nitrogen fertiliser is a real double whammy for the climate.

When applied, it directly causes nitrous oxide emissions. That's the gas that is 289 times worse for the climate than CO2. And the most ozone depleting one to boot.

Direct nitrous oxide emissions from synthetic nitrogen fertiliser have increased 478 per cent since 1990. I wish there was a decimal point somewhere in that figure but no, it really says - four hundred and seventy eight per cent.
It gets worse. The reason it's called "synthetic" is because in the 1900s a guy called Fritz Haber invented a chemical process which allows humans to steal inert nitrogen out of the atmosphere.

This process was originally, and still is, used to make the raw ingredient in bombs. It's both the fuel for war and the fuel for the broken food system.

You'll never guess the main ingredient in that process. It's hydrocarbon gas, a fossil fuel. You know, the one they often use fracking to extract.

Luckily, we don't need this truly gross, climate killing chemical to grow our food.
We don't need it for farms to remain profitable either. Just ask Dairy NZ - they'll agree. Or at least, their scientists will. They published a 10-year study that proved it.

And we definitely don't need it to feed the world. All we need to do is work with the natural nitrogen cycle instead of against it.

The problem with weaning agriculture off synthetic nitrogen fertiliser isn't physical. It's political. Ravensdown and Ballance have a vested interest in selling it and they're not going to go down without a fight.

But it's a fight worth having, and one we have to win.
With enough of us taking action and putting pressure on the Government, we will change what we grow and how we grow it.

We'll farm fewer cows and other livestock, and they'll be part of seriously diversified farms that grow more than just milk.

We will undergo huge diversification into more plant-based foods. Regenerative farming will become the dominant model. Agriculture will stop being one of the biggest environmental problems and start being one of the biggest solutions.

It all starts with banning synthetic nitrogen fertiliser.
 

Similar threads