| General > General Technical Chat |
| the dark side of cobalt |
| << < (20/40) > >> |
| Gyro:
--- Quote from: connectTek on July 13, 2023, 09:58:00 am ---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. --- End quote --- Of course the world never ended! The Earth has shrugged off much more devastating events than Man made Global warming... with massive global extinctions. The Earth isn't the fragile thing, the Human race, together with our familiar biosphere is! The World will get on just fine without us. |
| AVGresponding:
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on July 13, 2023, 09:18:41 am --- --- 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. --- End quote --- Of course there's incoherent scare-mongering; media organisations are in the business of making money, and this kind of thing sells newspapers/subscriptions etc. If people were educated properly, in things like critical thinking, this would be less of a problem, but they aren't, and it is. This is not to say there isn't a problem, and a serious one. It's down to governments to take a lead on this, but mostly they won't, because mostly they're ruled by unenlightened self-interest; they like money and power, and pandering to the big corporations gives them this. History tells us that the necessary actions probably won't be taken until it's too late to mitigate the worst effects. If you live anywhere near a coastline, or outside the northern and southern temperate zones, in the next few decades quite likely it's gonna suck to be you. --- Quote from: Gyro on July 13, 2023, 11:05:05 am --- --- Quote from: connectTek on July 13, 2023, 09:58:00 am ---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. --- End quote --- Of course the world never ended! The Earth has shrugged off much more devastating events than Man made Global warming... with massive global extinctions. The Earth isn't the fragile thing, the Human race, together with our familiar biosphere is! The World will get on just fine without us. --- End quote --- Exactly so. |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: connectTek on July 13, 2023, 09:58:00 am --- --- 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. --- End quote --- Geez, get your math straight. From 200ppm to 400ppm is a 100% increase. Secondly, CO2 starts to become problematic (toxic) to humans starting from concentrations of 1000ppm. Above that level things like concentration problems start to occur and ultimately death. CO2 is a toxic gas to most animals. And plants don't like a lot of CO2 either. Optimum is between 800ppm and 1500ppm |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: nctnico on July 13, 2023, 05:46:34 pm --- --- Quote from: connectTek on July 13, 2023, 09:58:00 am ---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. --- End quote --- Geez, get your math straight. From 200ppm to 400ppm is a 100% increase. Secondly, CO2 starts to become problematic (toxic) to humans starting from concentrations of 1000ppm. Above that level things like concentration problems start to occur and ultimately death. CO2 is a toxic gas to most animals. And plants don't like a lot of CO2 either. Optimum is between 800ppm and 1500ppm --- End quote --- The idea that CO2 is "fine" and is not really worth worrying about because plants will love it is something that started in the US, I think. Because it's now undeniable that CO2 is rising, and that humans are causing that rise, but "Plants love CO2! So it is not bad!". It fails some of the most basic tests, like, ok, even if plants love it, do we, what about atmospheric temperatures, what about the oceans? Plants may well thrive in 2000ppm CO2, but I think we will be mostly dead! |
| Infraviolet:
"No one sensible is saying humans can't adapt to climate change, it's just whether that adaptation is going to lead to a significant degradation in quality of life compared to making changes now to reduce the impact." The trouble is that a lot fo the green movement, especially the modern "woke" authoritarian corporate-backed iteration of this movement, is in the habit of planning solutions which would quite possibly be worse than the worst likely scenario that climate change could cause (which is a fairly bad scenario). We need to end our addiction to oil/gas/coal, if for no other reason than that they will run out sooner or later and right now make the world dependent on fuel supplies from all manner of awful regimes in unstable countries, but the "greens" who want to wipe out fossil fuels before we've had a chance to replace them, want to end farming and have us all on diets of ultra-processed bugs, and want things like individual carbon credit surveillance and rationing schemes, are quite likely more dangerous to standards of living than climate change is. There is a right way to fix the climate issue, that is nuclear power, hydrogen road transport, non-CO2 emitting industrial process for steel and concrete production, and investing all spare money in to development of technologies which can provide direct equivalents to current fossil fuels, but many in the curent green movement seem so devoted to an anti-capitalist anti-freedom anti-modernity agenda that it is as if they don't want a simple fix or the climate because then they'd have no way remaining to push their ideology. Climate change is an industrial problem, to be fixed by replacing, a soon as practical, CO2 emitting technologies with non-emitting alternatives of comparable performance, but today's "green" movement dismisses that proper form of solution because it wouldn't require massive disruption to lifestyles, and their corporate backers support them because the corporate backers would rather cause massive societal upheaval than sacrifice profits for a little while whilst swapping out dirty technologies for clean ones, under the present "green" movement's thought patterns mass emissions would stay busienss as usual for the big corporations, its only the little people who would have changes forced on them. Get talking to many of the current generation of "green" activists and you'll find that given the choice between saving the planet with some "magic bullet"* technology or ending capitalism, they openly admit they'd opt for the latter. *good news, perhaps too good to be true, but it even looks now like there migh be natural hydrogen reserves ("white hydrogen") which can be extracted from the ground, hard to believe given hydrogen's propensity to react with anything it can, but the evidence seems to be there, could help us get used to hydrogen for mobile applications while we get enough nuclear power online to run huge electrolysis plants, infact some suggest the hydrogen is being constantly replenished by geologial processes so could be a long term fuel in itself. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |