A Rational Conversation about Climate Change
- Thread starter Dixie Cup
- Start date
That one is about compress gas manufacturing, I thought there was another saying the atmospheric CO2 levels are dropping big time.
It depends on how permanent her work from home scenario is. If she has to start going back to the office, the commute from where you are would be a tad lengthy.
Personally, I like the cold chatless lineups at stores in the GTA.
Hiding your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away Tec. The numbers I've provided for what will be needed are estimates from the World Bank. I didn't just pull them out of my ass. You'd think a bunch of so-called envirotards would understand that mining has caused more environmental destruction, ecological destruction and habitat destruction than pretty much any other human activity and yet they're willing to go full-on with it regardless of the environmental destruction. Ecologists estimate that even at present rates of global material use, we are overshooting sustainable levels by 82 percent.
This isn't case of choosing one's battles either. Environmental destruction is environmental destruction whether it's through oil use or mineral extraction. It's not like a massive increase in mining is going to negatively affect a different environment than the fossil fuel industry. It's the same f*cking planet.
Let's look back at lithium. It takes 500,000 gallons of water to produce 1 ton of lithium. To meet the 2050 target date would require around 40 million tons of lithium. That's an eye-watering increase in production of 2700% over today. The lithium boom has barely started and it's already a crisis with South American farmers downstream of the mines seeing their farms dry up.
Or how about silver? Mexico is home to the Peñasquito mine, one of the biggest silver mines in the world. Covering nearly 40 square miles, the operation is staggering in its scale: a sprawling open-pit complex ripped into the mountains, flanked by two waste dumps each a mile long, and a tailings dam full of toxic sludge held back by a wall that’s 7 miles around and as high as a 50-story skyscraper. This mine will produce 11,000 tons of silver in 10 years before its reserves, the biggest in the world, are gone. To transition the global economy to renewables, we need to commission up to 130 more mines on the scale of Peñasquito. Just for silver. To transition the global economy to renewables, we need to commission up to 130 more mines on the scale of Peñasquito. Just for silver.
The zero emissions dream is going to cost 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.
For neodymium—an essential element in wind turbines—extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double.Demand for indium, essential for solar power technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920%.
And that is just what's needed for electricity generation. When it comes to cars, a group of leading British scientists submitted a letter to the U.K. Committee on Climate Change outlining their concerns about the ecological impact of electric cars. They agree, of course, that we need to end the sale and use of combustion engines. But they pointed out that unless consumption habits change, replacing the world’s projected fleet of 2 billion vehicles is going to require an explosive increase in mining: Global annual extraction of neodymium and dysprosium will go up by another 70 percent, annual extraction of copper will need to more than double, and cobalt will need to increase by a factor of almost four—all for the entire period from now to 2050.
And all of this is just to power the existing global economy. Things become even more extreme when we start accounting for growth. As energy demand continues to rise, material extraction for renewables will become all the more aggressive—and the higher the population growth rate, the worse it will get.
The harsh reality is Tec, all we're doing is shifting the burden from fossil fuels to mineral extraction while the Green Dreamers seem to be under the impression that green energy is clean, pristine and will lovingly save the planet.
It's not about choosing battles either, it's about them deliberately keeping their heads shoved up their collective asses because after YEARS of screaming about how wonderful "green" shit is, they'd have to admit it's not the least bit green.
Speaking of CO2 and it's effects on plants. Researchers are doing tests on the possible negative effects on plants that get to much CO2.
Interesting.
Interesting.
TRUE DAT!
Any Cdn should be able in a matter of a couple of nights - PROVE that creating lots of contrails from aircraft engines
WILL AFFECT OUR CLIMATE!
One has only to take a walk on a night with heavy overcast - and then go out again on another night
WHEN THE AIR IS CLEAR - it is obvious to all except LIE-berals that those heavy clouds HOLD IN HEAT AT NIGHT!
Even your local weatherman will confirm this - just listen to them talk about a CLEAR COLD NIGHT that lacks clouds to hold in heat!
Thus - as various writers have established - the city design that LIE-berals prefer - with LOTS of mid rise buildings and LOTS OF
LITTLE CONCRETE BOXES for us to cram into - HOLDS HEAT MUCH LONGER than grass in parks and lawns or in farmers fields!
And of course airports tend to be built in less densely populated areas - with pavement that soaks up heat replacing grass and trees that cool faster!
And with aircraft in holding patterns, waiting for their turn to land being sent out over even more rural areas!
Thus we get the DOUBLE COMBO - heat held long after dark in our city concrete canyons!
AND HEAT HELD in more rural areas where contrails also HOLD HEAT!
Okay - here is your report::::::::
Here is an interesting article that illustrates how poorly LIE-berals are handling environmental issues. With some comments of my own in brackets):
Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment.
By Patrick Cain National Online Journalist, News Global News. Sept 12, 2016.
(Some reader swill recall my previous posts- with information taken from Cdn Geographic magazine about how the 9/11 terror attack grounded 25 percent of the worlds airline fleet- and a year later the air across the planet was measurably cleaner! This article expands on that old report!)
On the morning of September 11, 2001, officials at the U.S. national air control centre couldn’t make out what was happening, at first.
As controllers watched the second plane crash into the World Trade Center complex just after 9 a.m., however, it became clear that the first one hadn’t been a spectacular accident, but something much more sinister. Planes were becoming fuel-filled missiles. How many? Nobody knew.
Officials at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration did the only thing they could think of to try to control the situation: ordering every aircraft in U.S. airspace, about 4,000 of them, to land somewhere, anywhere, immediately.
Canadian officials followed. Airports in Atlantic Canada quickly filled with thousands of bewildered people who had been flying west across the Atlantic from Europe, but found themselves stranded in Goose Bay, Labrador or Stephenville, Nfld.
Within a few hours, the skies across the continent were empty except for military aircraft. Here’s what it looked like: Civilian air traffic wouldn’t resume for three days.
Thousands of jet aircraft leave contrails over North America every day, especially over the U.S. eastern seaboard and the Midwest. Contrails are created when water vapour in hot air blasted out of jet engines freezes in the intense cold of high altitudes.
Do all those jet trails change weather patterns? It’s hard to tell, normally. But with the once-busy skies silent and empty, the scene was set for a giant experiment.
“I remember walking to and from my office (in the days after the attacks) and thinking how incredibly clear the skies were,” Andrew Carleton, a geographer at Pennsylvania State University, later wrote.
About a year after the attacks, Carleton, David Travis, a geographer at the University of Wisconsin, and another colleague argued in a paper that thin clouds created by contrails reduce the range of temperatures. By contributing to cloud cover during the day, they reflect solar energy that would otherwise have reached the earth’s surface. At night, they trap warmth that would otherwise have escaped.
The effect during the three days that flights were grounded was strongest in populated regions where air traffic was normally densest. The increase in range came to about two degrees Celsius.
(IN other words- it isnt just the carbon monoxide and other gases that engines produce that we must worry about! The water vapour being generated is also a SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT! And the latest jet engines have the ironic quality of being both more fuel efficient and more environmentally unsound since the new engines spit out larger lumps of carbon that water droplets coalesce around more easily than the smaller lumps from older engines! The new more fuel efficient engines actually accelerate the production of contrails! And the new Airbus 380`s actually fly few thousand ft higher where the air is even colder and condensation is further facilitated!)
Other studies have tended to back up the research. In 2011, British scientists wrote that an air raid in May 1944 involving over 1,400 aircraft measurably lowered daytime temperatures in England. In that case, the situation was the reverse of 9/11 – large-scale air travel was unknown, and dense concentrations of large planes were rare.
In 2004, NASA scientist Patrick Minnis wrote that “increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.”
Minnis also argued that a steady increase in cloud cover over the United States, about one per cent a decade, was due to increasing air travel. He also found that increases in cloud cover were more pronounced in populated areas, and stronger in winter, when contrails are bigger.
The warming effect happened because the high-altitude clouds that contrails created tended to trap warm air, Minnis wrote. On balance, though contrails can both warm and cool, there is more of a warming effect.
A Penn State study compared regions of the United States where contrails tended to form more strongly with areas where they didn’t. The more contrail-heavy the area, the less the variation between daytime highs and nighttime lows tended to be.
In a 2005 paper, physicist Robert Noland of Imperial College London suggested that restricting airliners to 31,000 feet, and 24,000 feet in winter, could reduce the formation of contrails. Though lower-flying planes would be less fuel-efficient, Noland argued that the increased fuel consumption would be more than made up for by less contrail-linked clouds as a cause of global warming.
(So we now have solid proof that airplane contrails are contributing to global warming and are a major source of air pollution - just as the old articles from Cdn Geographic magazine claimed. Therefore the LIE-beral carbon crap and trade tax will do NOTHING to clean the air- nor save us from global warming! As I and many others have repeatedly pointed out- LIE-beral crap and trade just cleans wallets and leaves the dirt in the air!)
(The carbon crap and trade tax is nothing more than a LIE-beral gravy grabbing scam that will ensure that civil service union Hogs can continue to spew their major masses of carbon from their gas guzzling toys and will continue to fly to places like Florida- at vast environmental cost- for those vitally important rounds of golf! And we have yet to discuss the environmental degradation brought on by heavy use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers at those golf courses- which all to often run into the nearest body of water after a rain storm- with MORE ugly environmental results!)
Temperatures warming or cooling is secondary. The eco lobbies are insisting that catastrophic warming or changiness are a direct and measurable result of human inputs, more so than the natural cycles etc.
This is where the debate rages, not if temperatures fluctuate
This is where the debate rages, not if temperatures fluctuate
Actually THAT IS NOT what was agreed to!
There is LOCALIZED WARMING for certain!!
but there is also LOCALIZED COOLING!
Example: Arctic ice is said to be melting...............
while southern Ontari-owe WHINES about the freezing Polar Vortex!
Actions that simply ALTER the flow of either hot air or cold air to different locations............
DOES NOT EQUAL an over all rise in temperature!
Temps are increasing.
Oceans are rising.
Land and sea ice are melting.
Why?
Never mind about the loons that say the end is near.
Why? Because 500 years ago temperatures plummeted, oceans dropped, glaciers grew and sea ice thickened.
Was it supposed to stay that way?
Climate changes.
I've never disputed that and neither do scientists.
It doesn't happen just because though.
Always a forcing.
The various politicos and ecotard lobbies have unilaterally stated that the cause is specifically due to human activity.
Why?.. Well, because Mother Gaia can't pay taxes, fees, etc, therefore, the low info mouth breathers can't blame Gaia now, can they?.. Interesting how groups like the UN that are on the verge of bankruptcy propose a save-the-planet-tax (only payable by 'have' nations) that the UN will graciously collect and administer?
This is the reason that the aforementioned NEVER refer to the multiple episodes of continental glaciation (and consequent receeding of said glaciers) that occurred before... (wait for it)... humans ever walked the Earth
You can obfuscate the conversation with all kinds of goobledegook about forcings - OR - you can use easily digestible words like 'natural cycles'... Even the mouth breathers will understand that