• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

My back notices when leaves need to be raked and plopped in the front for pickup. 2004 leaf pickup was on election day. Pickup is about a month later now... and we always need an additional pickup in December. One tree is barely hanging on to the leaves remaining. Better this year than the last few though, where I was raking at my Mom's place after Xmas, which is absurd! All the leaves at her place dropped early. We didn't have the crazy hot fall this year.
 
The oil god delusion: What ancient pantheists got right
Long, long ago, humans tried to make sense of the world by imagining whole pantheons of self-absorbed jerks with outsized power: so-called “gods” whose family quarrels, personal tantrums, dysregulated sexual behaviors, and violent insecurity about others doing anything even close to as well as them shaped the fate of all consigned to suffer in their world.

When following the news today, one has to hand it to the ancient pantheists:

They understood human society pretty well.
That's polytheism, and those deities were imagined as acting much like their worshippers, as Xenophanes pointed out some 2,500 years ago.
Today our pantheon is filled with a mess of 1%-ers: some old money powers-that-be who invest in media and politics behind the scenes, Silicon Valley grifters and influencers from new or coarsely used family money, a handful of world leaders coasting for decades on delusions of grandeur, and a select group of CEOs convinced that their profit matters more than the environment.
Planet Wreckers: How 20 Countries’ Oil and Gas Extraction Plans Risk Locking in Climate Crisis
As the cheerful title suggests, this research and advocacy group finds that 20 countries will be responsible for 90 percent of CO2 pollution “from new oil and gas fields and fracking wells planned between 2023 and 2050”. Far from helping us cap global warming at 1.5°C, as per international standards, these countries are tolerating industry growth that could make our climate goals unattainable.

According to the report, none of these 20 countries are acting as responsible “first movers”: global powers that committed in Glasgow in 2021 to “end their trade and development finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022”. These 20 are countries with “high incomes, a high degree of ability to transition away from fossil fuels, and outsized historical responsibility for causing the climate crisis”. They could be leading the way for reform. And yet, even when they agree to support change, domestic policies do not reflect all the transformations required.

The US is the worst offender by this metric: the largest historical emitter of CO2, the country responsible for almost one in five global barrels in 2022, and the country “poised to be the world’s largest expander of oil and gas extraction from 2023 to 2050, singlehandedly representing more than one-third of planned global expansion”. The next four, Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom, raise the overall number to 51 percent of planned expansion projects.
 
The COP28 climate conference has an F-word problem
Buried in coverage of this latest event, though, is how late most countries came even to the language of phase-outs and phase-downs being haggled over at COP28, along with how much Big Oil has always been part of these proceedings. As noted by Climate Change News in 2019, the 2015 Paris Agreement didn’t include the words “fossil fuels”, “oil”, “[natural] gas”, and “coal”. Only in COP25, where Shell and the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers were bargaining for their industry’s continuation, did more direct language gain force in related proceedings. Instead, for years, great efforts had been taken to couch the crisis in terms of carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases, as if they simply emerged out of the blue.
Fossil fuels, it seems. The main contributor to our current excess of atmospheric CO2. Not addressing the use of them is a recipe for failure.

Revealed: Saudi Arabia’s grand plan to ‘hook’ poor countries on oil | Oil | The Guardian
Saudi Arabia is driving a huge global investment plan to create demand for its oil and gas in developing countries, an undercover investigation has revealed. Critics said the plan was designed to get countries “hooked on its harmful products”.

Little was known about the oil demand sustainability programme (ODSP) but the investigation obtained detailed information on plans to drive up the use of fossil fuel-powered cars, buses and planes in Africa and elsewhere, as rich countries increasingly switch to clean energy.

The ODSP plans to accelerate the development of supersonic air travel, which it notes uses three times more jet fuel than conventional planes, and partner with a carmaker to mass produce a cheap combustion engine vehicle. Further plans promote power ships, which use polluting heavy fuel oil or gas to provide electricity to coastal communities.
Supersonic air travel? Seems like spending a lot more to arrive in a few less hours. That's likely feasible for very long routes, like over the Pacific Ocean, but not for much else. The previous supersonic airliner, the Concorde, mostly did transatlantic flights.

Cheap cars? What kind of configuration of car? Something like a tuk-tuk?  Auto rickshaw - a three-wheeled small car.

Power ships? Ships that serve as electric powerplants? That's by running their engines and delivering electricity to the shore. First, I must note that steam engines are long gone, except in nuclear-powered ships. What's replaced them is diesel engines, sometimes giant diesel engines. Many ships have direct-drive engines, so that's not very feasible for them. To go in reverse, the engine must be stopped then restarted in the reverse direction. But some ships, like many cruise ships, use propeller pods, pods that can be turned for greater maneuverability. These pods are usually powered by electricity, electricity generated by the engines. So some ships can use their engines for generating electricity.
The brief information on the programme’s English-language website calls it the oil sustainability programme, while on the Arabic version it is described as the oil demand sustainability programme.

Its stated objective, according to the Arabic site, is to “sustain and develop the demand for hydrocarbons as a competitive source of energy, by raising its economic and environmental efficiency, while ensuring that the transition in the energy mix [is] sustainable for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia”.
How convenient. Using different text in the English and Arabic versions. Since this is an online site, it should be easy to copy and paste the Arabic text into an autotranslator.
 
Saudi Arabia surprises no one with its oil plans
notes
Cheap cars, supersonic jets and floating power plants: Undercover in Saudi Arabia’s secretive program to keep the world burning oil – Centre for Climate Reporting
with the earlier-mentioned details.
In the course of the CCR’s investigation, reporters met with a Saudi official who claimed that it isn’t possible for Africa to “leapfrog” to cleaner tech. The argument is that all countries need to go through a dirty, destructive oil and gas phase to arrive at the level of economic stability necessary to then invest in alternatives. If developing nations in Africa and Asia are finally going to achieve a proper seat at the global table, this is their ticket in.

...
And therein lies the side that isn’t properly addressed in this latest “dog bites man” story of Saudi Arabia pursuing more oil wealth: the many years in which Western-guided green energy initiatives have failed to implement wind and solar properly in vulnerable economies. There’s a global power vacuum that is currently making it easy for countries like Saudi Arabia to leverage markets of desperate need, even at cost to all our human futures.

...
Just last November, the initiative finally announced a more aggressive upfront investment in renewable energy alternatives in the region, but still through the creation of markets, rather than a direct investment in local infrastructure. This disparity in approach is also why China has recently taken the lead in African development: it shows up and builds roads and related infrastructure directly, without meddling deeply in local governance structures, so that secondary industries can participate in international economic relationships instead.
 
Broken heat records—and the promise of more
While a heat dome scorched Southern US states in late June, killing at least 13 in Texas (not counting deaths in overheated prisons), at least 44 died of heat-related deaths in sweltering northern India, which reached 116°F (47°C) last week. North Africa was also hit by temperatures nearing 122 degrees (50°C), Muslims on pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia sweltered under 118 degrees (48°C), and Beijing endured a weekend above 104 (40°C) temperatures.

These places aren’t alone in testing the limits of human survivability, though. This week, our world gained the ignoble distinction of breaking overall heat records three days in a row, in what is also the hottest week on record. On Monday July 3, our overall average global temperature reached 62.62°F (17.01°C). On Tuesday, it reached 62.92°F (17.18°C) and stayed there through Wednesday.

The previous record of 62.46°F (16.92°C) was set in August of 2016. With the peak of summer heat still ahead of us, and the return of El Niño’s climate impacts, meteorologists do not expect these latest records to hold for long.
A grim sort of hope: Notes from the fifth US climate assessment
Our goal is to keep from reaching global tipping points that will make intervention in such devastating cycles even harder. To keep global warming below 2°C (3.6°F), and ideally below 1.5°C (2.7°F), the world needs to reach net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by around 2050. However, it is not on track for this objective, and although the US has made significant strides toward reducing emissions even amid a growing population, these efforts continue to fall short of the need:

While US greenhouse gas emissions are falling, the current rate of decline is not sufficient to meet national and international climate commitments and goals. US net greenhouse gas emissions remain substantial and would have to decline by more than 6% per year on average, reaching net-zero emissions around midcentury, to meet current national mitigation targets and international temperature goals; by comparison, US greenhouse gas emissions decreased by less than 1% per year on average between 2005 and 2019.
 

Something to do with the melting permafrost. I don't understand the chemistry, but, has to do with PH change.
 
My chemistry is weak, I found this.

What is the color of carbonic acid on pH paper?


The carbon dioxide in your breath will react with water to form carbonic acid, which can break down into bicarbonate and a proton. This lowers the pH of the solution and as a result, the color changes from blue to yellow shades. The chemical structures of carbon dioxide and water are shown.Jun 4, 2023

Carbon dioxide can dissolve in water and then reacts with water to form carbonic acid. Since the acid then dissociates into carbonate ions and hydrogen ions and eventually forms H30+ ions, it follows that an increase in CO2 will cause a decrease in pH because the solution is getting more acidic.
 
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but it is related to climate change. So, I'll ask the question. Are EV batteries/vehicles really the answer to reducing our impact on the environment? I couldn't find the article I read yesterday in one of the major newspapers I read, but I found something similar that I will link.

https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/

The principle of lower emissions in EVs is certainly commendable, the notion of sustainability on account of battery use, however, is still up for debate. There are two primary environmental costs relating to an electric car – the manufacturing of batteries and the energy source to power these batteries. To understand the advantage an EV has over the Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, we must analyse each step of production and not just look at the final product. The manufacturing process begins with building the chassis using a combination of aluminium and steel; emissions from smelting these remain the same in both ICE and EV. However, the environmental impact of battery production begins to change when we consider the manufacturing process of the battery in the latter type.

You might also like: Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment

The Environmental Impact of Battery Production

In India, batteries contain some combination of lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Currently, India does not have enough lithium reserves to produce batteries and it thereby relies on importing lithium-ion batteries from China.

Mining these materials, however, has a high environmental cost, a factor that inevitably makes the EV manufacturing process more energy intensive than that of an ICE vehicle. The environmental impact of battery production comes from the toxic fumes released during the mining process and the water-intensive nature of the activity. In 2016, hundreds of protestors threw dead fish plucked from the waters of the Liqui river onto the streets of Tagong, Tibet, publicly denouncing the Ganzizhou Ronga Lithium mine’s unethical practice of polluting the local ecosystem through toxic chemical leaks. Similarly, the production of lithium was halted in China’s Yichun city after an investigation into the water quality of the Jin river, the main source of residential water, revealed the presence of toxic pollutants.

You might also like: Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition

The additional environmental cost of transporting these batteries results in a higher carbon footprint than ICE vehicles. A 2021 study comparing EV and ICE emissions found that 46% of EV carbon emissions come from the production process while for an ICE vehicle, they ‘only’ account for 26%. Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually.
The other article I read mentioned that a lot of the workers involved in some of this mining are having serious health problems due to the fumes released. Anyone have an opinion?
 
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but it is related to climate change. So, I'll ask the question. Are EV batteries/vehicles really the answer to reducing our impact on the environment?

So the EVs reduce pollution by only a very small amount, and that's assuming none of the electricity used to charge the batteries comes from carbon fuel. But instead, the EVs increase the demand for electricity which demand, almost inevitably, will be met in part with carbon fuels. If this is true, then EVs represent a TRILLION-dollar boondoggle, a colossal scam.

If you'd told me this a few decades ago, I'd have said "Impossible! The decision-makers responsible for such a trillion-dollar transition couldn't possibly be so stupid (or so corrupt)."

But I've lost some illusions and, based on other readings (and bilby's comments here at IIDB!) I am willing to believe that "Yes, some trillion-dollar programs can be ridiculously foolish."
 
The big benefit of EVs isn't that they reduce pollution, but rather that they move the pollution they generate out of our cities, so that far fewer people are exposed to it.

This is great for pollutants that are unwanted due to their toxic and/or unwanted acute effects on individuals exposed to them; But it does nothing for pollutants whose impact is global, such as greenhouse gases - the atomosphere doesn't care whereabouts you emitted your carbon dioxide, only on how much of it you emitted in total, when deciding how much heat to retain and how much to radiate back into space.
 
The big benefit of EVs isn't that they reduce pollution, but rather that they move the pollution they generate out of our cities, so that far fewer people are exposed to it.

This is great for pollutants that are unwanted due to their toxic and/or unwanted acute effects on individuals exposed to them; But it does nothing for pollutants whose impact is global, such as greenhouse gases - the atomosphere doesn't care whereabouts you emitted your carbon dioxide, only on how much of it you emitted in total, when deciding how much heat to retain and how much to radiate back into space.
Then, it is obvious (to me) that we went the wrong way 100 years ago. A car in every garage was a bad idea.
What is the average speed on the 5 in LA?
 
Then, it is obvious (to me) that we went the wrong way 100 years ago. A car in every garage was a bad idea.
Yup.
What is the average speed on the 5 in LA?
Google tells me:
The evening commute on the 5 South (between the 10 and the 605) defends its title as the slowest in LA, with average speeds of 19.6 mph.

That's from a 2018 article.

That's 31.5km/h, for those of us in the civilised world.

Trams and trollybuses were always a better option for commuters, and the handful of cities that kept them are far nicer places to live and work than the ones that decided freeways and private cars were preferable.
 

Trams and trollybuses were always a better option for commuters, and the handful of cities that kept them are far nicer places to live and work than the ones that decided freeways and private cars were preferable.
my guess is that those cities for which those options are viable for commuting are not nearly as large as the Los Angeles metro area.
 
Trams and trollybuses were always a better option for commuters, and the handful of cities that kept them are far nicer places to live and work than the ones that decided freeways and private cars were preferable.
my guess is that those cities for which those options are viable for commuting are not nearly as large as the Los Angeles metro area.
Melbourne is a similar size to LA County, in terms of land area; And LA has about twice the population, making it more suitable for such public transport systems as trams.
 
Trams and trollybuses were always a better option for commuters, and the handful of cities that kept them are far nicer places to live and work than the ones that decided freeways and private cars were preferable.
my guess is that those cities for which those options are viable for commuting are not nearly as large as the Los Angeles metro area.
Melbourne is a similar size to LA County, in terms of land area; And LA has about twice the population, making it more suitable for such public transport systems as trams.
But, but gota have my freedom. And only weird people ride busses.
 
Trams and trollybuses were always a better option for commuters, and the handful of cities that kept them are far nicer places to live and work than the ones that decided freeways and private cars were preferable.
my guess is that those cities for which those options are viable for commuting are not nearly as large as the Los Angeles metro area.
Melbourne is a similar size to LA County, in terms of land area; And LA has about twice the population, making it more suitable for such public transport systems as trams.
But, but gota have my freedom. And only weird people ride busses.
You should see the people who drive them.
 
Trams and trollybuses were always a better option for commuters, and the handful of cities that kept them are far nicer places to live and work than the ones that decided freeways and private cars were preferable.
my guess is that those cities for which those options are viable for commuting are not nearly as large as the Los Angeles metro area.
Melbourne is a similar size to LA County, in terms of land area; And LA has about twice the population, making it more suitable for such public transport systems as trams.
I don’t know anything about Melbourne but having lived in Los Angeles before I can understand why public transport failed there.

I guess maybe had it been developed from the start it could have worked but a retroactive fix it really couldn’t be.
 
Cheap gasoline fueled the suburban 'bedroom communities'.

It also killed railroads as a main form of public transportation. When I was growing up in Ct trains were common in the area. You took a train into NYC. My father was a union carpet and tile installer, he commuted on a train form Stamford to NYC.

Here in Seattle light rail is growing. Portland's system was a success back in the 8os/90s.

The freedom to get into a car at anytime and go somewhere is ingrained.

Cities were no designed around transportation, roads were fitted in as a city grew. Result, gridlock

In the 70s wen I was living in Hartford Ct you could see the old manufacturing buildings. Sprinkled around neighborhoods. Easy commute on foot or by bus.

Here in Seattle my monthly Metro pass costs $36, senior rate. For that I have unlimited travel by bus or light rail. I ran get to Tacoma easily.

On the bus ad light rail you wil see suits and ties to construction workers.
 
"2023 is the year when humanity crossed into a new climate era"

https://wapo.st/3RFL0qU

“It felt like the earth was about to explode,” Dinas said.
Even if its extremes are ultimately eclipsed, as seems inevitable, 2023 will mark a point when humanity crossed into a new climate era — an age of “global boiling,” as United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called it. The year included the hottest single day on record (July 6) and the hottest ever month (July), not to mention the hottest June, the hottest August, the hottest September, the hottest October, the hottest November, and probably the hottest December. It included a day, Nov. 17, when global temperatures, for the first time ever, reached 2 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial levels.
Discomfort, destruction, and death are the legacy of those records.

In Phoenix, a heat wave went on for so long, with 31 consecutive days above 110 Fahrenheit, that one NASA atmospheric scientist called it “mind-boggling.” The surrounding county recorded a record number of heat deaths, nearly 600.

In Brazil, drought sapped the normally lush Amazon, causing towns to ration drinking water, contributing to the deaths of endangered pink dolphins, and choking off the river-based system of travel and commerce.
In the Antarctic, wintertime sea ice was at an all-time low. An unprecedented marine heat wave upended coral ecosystems. At one point the coastal Florida Keys waters reached 100 degrees, comparable to a hot tub.

One explanation for 2023’s extreme heat is El Niño a recurring oceanic phenomenon that warms the waters in the Pacific and causes a global ripple of consequences. But the scale of this year’s heat — amplified by human-caused factors and the burning of fossil fuels — is still well beyond what most scientists had thought possible. Some have theorized that planetary warming may be accelerating. Others have said there’s not enough evidence. What they agree upon, though, is that the earth is trending toward more extreme heat.

Of course there have been exceptions. The weather here in Georgia, other than the tornado we had last January followed by an extreme cold spell for about two days, that killed some trees, hasn't been that weird, but read the entire article to get a picture as to how the climate is changing around the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom