[Discussion] Climate Change

This thread is just to post interesting news, thoughts, opinions about climate change.

Edit: off by a factor of 10

Jonman wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Lackner's carbon-capture technology moves to commericalization

SKH plans to deploy clusters of column-shaped devices, or mechanical trees. A cluster comprises 12 columns and can remove 1 metric ton of CO2 per day. SKH will deploy the technology in a pilot CO2 farm targeting 100 metric tons per day of CO2. The technology will then be deployed to full-scale CO2 farms in multiple locations, each capable of removing 3.8 million metric tons of CO2 annually.

Just a press release and it's still in the very early stages, but I'll take it.

I'm not up on the math - how many of those CO2 farms are we talking to have a measurable effect on slowing climate change? And what kind of footprint does that have (expressed in Texas's)?

Looks like we produced about 37 billion tons of co2 in 2018, so each site would remove about 0.01% of that (at perfect operating efficiency). Paris Agreement calls for a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, so we'd need at least 2000 sites operating at the target efficiency to meet that goal. And likely even more as I'm not accounting for carbon released by deforestation and other factors likely accelerated by the climate change that's already happening. In terms of number of Texases, I'm fine allocating all of one Texas to make this a reality.

Yesterday I learned that in a tiny sliver of land upstream of Lake Eerie there are nearly 200 factories producing liquid cowsh*t fertilizer. (and polluting the lake and drinking water)

2000 sites to solve a global problem seems trivial now.

Steve King Tells Iowans Hit By Flooding Not to Worry Because Maybe All That Rain Will Make Deserts Green

Per the Sioux City Journal, at a town hall meeting in Cherokee, Iowa last week, King responded to a question on climate geo-engineering by suggesting that everything bad (warming global average temperatures) must also result in something good (something something wet deserts something).

“You mentioned the global warming part of this, the weather patterns that are there,” King told the audience. “But I think that, I began, when I first looked at that, I thought, ‘I’m hearing all these things that are bad, well, what could be good?’ Surely there is something on the other side that could be good. So, let’s just say that if the earth should warm by four degrees, or whatever that number might be, then I’ve had to measure the evaporation off of, in the summertime.”

“Seventy percent of the earth is covered by water. If the earth warms, then there is evaporation that goes into the atmosphere. According to Newton’s First Law of Physics, what goes up must come down,” King added, per the City Journal. “... That means it will rain more and more places. It might rain harder in some places, it might snow in some of those places. But it’s surely gotta shrink the deserts and expand the green growth, there’s surely got to be some good in that. So I just look at the other, good side.”

The good is that maybe the earth won't be plagued by humans anymore.

farley3k wrote:

Steve King Tells Iowans Hit By Flooding Not to Worry Because Maybe All That Rain Will Make Deserts Green

Per the Sioux City Journal, at a town hall meeting in Cherokee, Iowa last week, King responded to a question on climate geo-engineering by suggesting that everything bad (warming global average temperatures) must also result in something good (something something wet deserts something).

“You mentioned the global warming part of this, the weather patterns that are there,” King told the audience. “But I think that, I began, when I first looked at that, I thought, ‘I’m hearing all these things that are bad, well, what could be good?’ Surely there is something on the other side that could be good. So, let’s just say that if the earth should warm by four degrees, or whatever that number might be, then I’ve had to measure the evaporation off of, in the summertime.”

“Seventy percent of the earth is covered by water. If the earth warms, then there is evaporation that goes into the atmosphere. According to Newton’s First Law of Physics, what goes up must come down,” King added, per the City Journal. “... That means it will rain more and more places. It might rain harder in some places, it might snow in some of those places. But it’s surely gotta shrink the deserts and expand the green growth, there’s surely got to be some good in that. So I just look at the other, good side.”

That aspires to just being wrong.

Some companies are really getting value for their dollar out of that man.

NathanialG wrote:

Some companies are really getting value for their dollar out of that man.

Ironically, two of the top three industry groups that donate to him are "Crop Production & Basic Processing" and "Agricultural Services/Products," both of which are already getting hurt by climate change.

farley3k wrote:

Steve King Tells Iowans Hit By Flooding Not to Worry Because Maybe All That Rain Will Make Deserts Green

Per the Sioux City Journal, at a town hall meeting in Cherokee, Iowa last week, King responded to a question on climate geo-engineering by suggesting that everything bad (warming global average temperatures) must also result in something good (something something wet deserts something).

“You mentioned the global warming part of this, the weather patterns that are there,” King told the audience. “But I think that, I began, when I first looked at that, I thought, ‘I’m hearing all these things that are bad, well, what could be good?’ Surely there is something on the other side that could be good. So, let’s just say that if the earth should warm by four degrees, or whatever that number might be, then I’ve had to measure the evaporation off of, in the summertime.”

“Seventy percent of the earth is covered by water. If the earth warms, then there is evaporation that goes into the atmosphere. According to Newton’s First Law of Physics, what goes up must come down,” King added, per the City Journal. “... That means it will rain more and more places. It might rain harder in some places, it might snow in some of those places. But it’s surely gotta shrink the deserts and expand the green growth, there’s surely got to be some good in that. So I just look at the other, good side.”

It is Steve King, so I think you could just tell him non-white people live in those deserts, and he'd flip pretty quickly.

OG_slinger wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

Some companies are really getting value for their dollar out of that man.

Ironically, two of the top three industry groups that donate to him are "Crop Production & Basic Processing" and "Agricultural Services/Products," both of which are already getting hurt by climate change.

Lucky for him he doesn't represent the citizens of Iowa.

DSGamer wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

Some companies are really getting value for their dollar out of that man.

Ironically, two of the top three industry groups that donate to him are "Crop Production & Basic Processing" and "Agricultural Services/Products," both of which are already getting hurt by climate change.

Lucky for him he doesn't represent the citizens of Iowa.

Steve King? He’s pretty representative of most of the Iowans I personally know.

ruhk wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

Some companies are really getting value for their dollar out of that man.

Ironically, two of the top three industry groups that donate to him are "Crop Production & Basic Processing" and "Agricultural Services/Products," both of which are already getting hurt by climate change.

Lucky for him he doesn't represent the citizens of Iowa.

Steve King? He’s pretty representative of most of the Iowans I personally know.

I mean he doesn't represent their interests. So even if their farms are underwater the people who fund him will have gotten their money's worth.

Humans Are Speeding Extinction and Altering the Natural World at an ‘Unprecedented’ Pace

WASHINGTON — Humans are transforming Earth’s natural landscapes so dramatically that as many as one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction, posing a dire threat to ecosystems that people all over the world depend on for their survival, a sweeping new United Nations assessment has concluded.

The 1,500-page report, compiled by hundreds of international experts and based on thousands of scientific studies, is the most exhaustive look yet at the decline in biodiversity across the globe and the dangers that creates for human civilization. A summary of its findings, which was approved by representatives from the United States and 131 other countries, was released Monday in Paris. The full report is set to be published this year.

Its conclusions are stark. In most major land habitats, from the savannas of Africa to the rain forests of South America, the average abundance of native plant and animal life has fallen by 20 percent or more, mainly over the past century. With the human population passing 7 billion, activities like farming, logging, poaching, fishing and mining are altering the natural world at a rate “unprecedented in human history.”

At the same time, a new threat has emerged: Global warming has become a major driver of wildlife decline, the assessment found, by shifting or shrinking the local climates that many mammals, birds, insects, fish and plants evolved to survive in.

As a result, biodiversity loss is projected to accelerate through 2050, particularly in the tropics, unless countries drastically step up their conservation efforts.

King's medieval take on "science" shows that he never even tried to understand the IPCC reports, much less the science behind them. (Reading the IPCC, whether one agrees with it or not, should be a rite of passage for anyone who wants to claim the title of "adult" these days...)

414 million pieces of plastic found on remote island group in Indian Ocean

I've seen an uptick in these stories recently.

On the beaches of the tiny Cocos (Keeling) Islands, population 600, marine scientists found 977,000 shoes and 373,000 toothbrushes.

A comprehensive survey of debris on the islands – among the most remote places on Earth, in the Indian Ocean – has found a staggering amount of rubbish washed ashore. This included 414m pieces of plastic, weighing 238 tonnes.

The study, published in the journal Nature, concluded the volume of debris points to the exponential increase of global plastic polluting the world’s oceans and “highlights a worrying trend in the production and discharge of single-use products”.

The lead author, Jennifer Lavers from the University of Tasmania’s Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, said remote islands without large populations were the most effective indicator of the amount of plastic debris floating in the oceans.

“Islands such as these are like canaries in a coal mine and it’s increasingly urgent that we act on the warnings they are giving us. Plastic pollution is now ubiquitous in our oceans, and remote islands are an ideal place to get an objective view of the volume of plastic debris now circling the globe,” Lavers said.

The study found the quantity of debris buried up to 10cm beneath the beach was 26 times greater than the amount visible; that previous surveys that only assessed surface garbage might have “drastically underestimated the scale of debris accumulation”.

If we stop shipping our trash to Asia it would help.

LeapingGnome wrote:

If we stop shipping our trash to Asia it would help.

Not really, though. We're already shipping less recyclables because China stopped accepting them but the issue highlighted is the creation of single use plastic items the world over. Having more garbage locally rather than internationally doesn't help the environment and we've seen time and again that American politicians largely don't give a sh*t about humanitarian crises.

The reason it would help is because first world countries are typically better at either incinerating (without making a ton of pollution) or burying their garbage. It is mostly the developing countries that still dispose of their trash in bulk (aka as a matter of course, not litter) by dumping it into rivers or oceans.