General > General Technical Chat

the dark side of cobalt

<< < (19/40) > >>

Siwastaja:
There is a lot of unnecessary scaremongering going on, but that does not mean the whole climate change thing is just scaremongering. Reducing CO2 plays in everyone's (except the fossil fuel sellers) favor. It just makes no sense to artificially keep burning so much fossil fuels when there are still rather easy ways to significantly reduce it.

AVGresponding:

--- Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 09:34:43 pm ---While rising CO2 levels in recent history (over the past 70 years) is a well-documented fact, it is doubtful that there were reliable measurements of this gas concentration at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, observation #1 suggests that followers of Greta Thunberg tend to exaggerate and extrapolate.

--- End quote ---

There are very reliable measurements, through ice cores, and tree rings, to give but two examples. Therefore this observation suggests that you know less about the subject than you think you do, and perhaps Greta and her followers have a point.

Siwastaja:

--- Quote from: AVGresponding on July 13, 2023, 08:26:53 am ---
--- Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 09:34:43 pm ---While rising CO2 levels in recent history (over the past 70 years) is a well-documented fact, it is doubtful that there were reliable measurements of this gas concentration at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, observation #1 suggests that followers of Greta Thunberg tend to exaggerate and extrapolate.

--- End quote ---

There are very reliable measurements, through ice cores, and tree rings, to give but two examples. Therefore this observation suggests that you know less about the subject than you think you do, and perhaps Greta and her followers have a point.

--- End quote ---

The problem is twofold:
(1) incoherent scaremongering which does not help because it causes the opposite reaction in people
(2) focus on ineffectively small improvements, or non-improvements, which mentally (and concretely, e.g. money) wear out people, so that they'll be unable to make significant changes

We should simply forget banning plastic drinking straws and accusing people of eating meat, based on old and incorrect calculations of climate effect thereof*, and simply concentrate all of our efforts on minimization of usage of fossil coal, oil and natural gas. And to achieve that, primary targets should be building heating/HVAC and transport, with secondary focus on some highly energy hungry industrial processes like steel manufacturing. Everything else, forget about it, because the disadvantages caused to people outweigh the gains. Even though it would be effective to sit in a dark room eating ze bugs and being happy, we don't need to do that, there are other equally effective ways.

See https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector for ideas in priorization.

*) for example, an independent authority, Natural Resources Institute Finland, published a calculation based on real data on Finnish cattle, showing that the CO2 footprint of milk is roughly equal to that of plant-based substitutes, simply because the CO2-equivalent methane calculations from manufacturers of those products are based on old data, in less developed countries, while during last decades the cattle diet has been optimized to significantly reduce methane and increase milk output.

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on July 13, 2023, 08:17:23 am ---Reducing CO2 plays in everyone's (except the fossil fuel sellers) favor.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly.  Even if it makes equatorial regions unhabitable, northern areas like the Cap of the North, Greenland, Northern Canada, and Siberia, would become much more habitable, lush even, if global temperatures were to reach those of the Eocene epoch (+6°C .. +14°C).  There is a lot of basically uninhabited land area there now.

At least in the Arctic regions, even early holocene (as the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago) was somewhat warmer than it is now.  Even the tallest fells in Northern Finland and Norway's Finnmark were covered in large pine trees; they're above the treeline now and completely bald.  As deer fly (lipoptena cervi) spreads northwards, reindeer herding will likely become untenable, though.  So, if we are fully honest, Nordic countries won't suffer much, just the weather extremes will get more extreme.

If we think in global terms, and we do live in a thoroughly connected and interdependent world, you're absolutely right, though.
But, if we humans could actually think in such terms, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

connectTek:

--- Quote from: nctnico on July 12, 2023, 11:00:06 am ---
--- Quote from: connectTek on July 12, 2023, 08:52:10 am ---Totally agree.
0.03% is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and we contribute 3% of that ,Apparently.
A poofteenth of a poofteenth.

--- End quote ---
That is not correct. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled from around 200ppm to over 400ppm (and rising). It is pretty easy to attribute that to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. And you have to keep in mind the oceans and seas have absorbed a large amount of CO2 as well to to point that the acidity of the water has risen to levels that are harmfull to sea life (like coral). CO2 emission is a real problem for all of us.

--- End quote ---

During the Triassic period it was 4000ppm, 10 times higher than today.
The world never ended.
CO2 is plant food, NOT a dangerous gas.
200ppm to 400ppm a %50 increase,  sounds bad.
But the reality is 0.000200 to 0.000400 doesn't seem that bad.
1/3 of people who use public transport will get cancer, Why?
Because 1/3 of people get cancer.
You can make statistics/numbers look as good or bad as you want.
As I've stated  Man made Global warming,  or is it now climate change? Is SCAM.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod