Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-25-2022, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Madison, Alabama
12,967 posts, read 9,489,942 times
Reputation: 8956

Advertisements

Just watching "Watters' World" with a reporter questioning climate change protesters.

Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. But I'd like to know - what are these peoples' qualifications to know one way or the other? Are they just parroting what they've heard, or have they done some actual technical analysis?

Climate change is not something to "believe in". It's not a religion. It either a scientific fact or it's not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2022, 06:18 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,202 posts, read 107,859,557 times
Reputation: 116113
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Adapt or die? What's the alternative? You can't control the climate.
Just pointing out, that adapting to climate catastrophe isn't as simple or as doable as glib pronouncements hope to make it seem. Of the two possibilities in your quote (not just one), "die" is going to become a very common one, possibly the dominant one, eventually.

I'm glad I didn't have kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2022, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,353 posts, read 5,129,553 times
Reputation: 6771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
This is something I wanted to point out earlier, when someone said we can all adjust, as humans have been doing for eons. But when change comes too fast, there isn't time to adjust. Species have been moving north, but in their new location, there's not the food sources they depended on in their old location. So some species are threatened as a result.

But the main thing I wanted to say is, people who are young enough can adapt. Maybe. IDK how one adapts to extreme heat waves that become a regular pattern over time. For now we have A/C, or if we don't have it (Seattle, coastal CA, British Columbia), we can get it. The hydroelectric energy to power the A/C won't always be there, though, as the failure of the Oroville Dam in northern CA during the drought indicates. That was a warning alarm, in case anyone missed it.

In the meantime, the elderly and infirm won't be able to adapt to sudden extreme heat waves. They die. In Europe, most of which doesn't have A/C, elders died in alarming numbers during a major summer heat wave in 2003. 3000 people died in France alone, just one country among many to experience a mass premature die-off of elders that summer. Too bad for them, I guess? Adapt or die? Welcome to the brave new world of indifference to sudden die-offs.

An extreme heat wave in Europe in 2017 destroyed much of Europe's crop supply and thousands of cattle. Adapt to no food? That would be quite a trick.
Too fast? Basically the entire state of Wisconsin was an ice sheet 20,000 years ago. 20,000 years is not that long geologically speaking for there to be entire hardwood ecosystems up there now, replacing the first climate type of boreal forests that the state used to have. I think people underestimate how good nature is at reclamation. And people focus on the one species that is endangered while ignoring the ones that are thriving. Beavers are exploding in population in Canada and Alaska right now.

If heat waves were really a problem, Phoenix and Miami would not be the hottest housing markets. Peoples desired temperature seems to be increasing faster than the global temperature is rising. As time goes on, it seems like more and more people are moving south to ditch winter even though winter is less extreme than it's been.

3000 people is a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to casualties from other natural disasters. Does global warming present increased risk from natural disasters? Yes. But you have to put that against a backdrop that deaths due to natural disasters have decreased dramatically over the last 100 years (especially considering the % of the total population and not just raw numbers), so even if there is more disasters, they will be increasingly less and less of a problem. We recently had a drought worse than the dust bowl recently in the Midwest and it didn't even register on peoples oh crap radar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2022, 06:41 AM
 
9,853 posts, read 7,724,981 times
Reputation: 24517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Just pointing out, that adapting to climate catastrophe isn't as simple or as doable as glib pronouncements hope to make it seem. Of the two possibilities in your quote (not just one), "die" is going to become a very common one, possibly the dominant one, eventually.

I'm glad I didn't have kids.
My point is that it's impossible for mere humans to control the climate, so why even talk about it. We should be talking about adapting to changes and people should be acting on it - if it's a real danger where you are.

It's not just a "glib pronouncement." People move all the time to a better location. If your life is truly on the line if you stay in a location that could kill you, why wouldn't you leave? Why wouldn't you move your elderly parent? Why would you just stay and talk about it?

If a deadly heat wave is coming, what are the possible real world solutions to prevent deaths? Bus elderly residents to a cooler location? Make sure everyone keeps plenty of water on hand? Have public health workers checking on those at risk?

This is how we should be addressing and adapting to changes, not pretending we can stop weather events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2022, 06:44 AM
 
Location: PNW
7,521 posts, read 3,231,998 times
Reputation: 10687
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post
Why aren't we building more nuclear power plants? We will need reliable electricity when we all start driving electric cars.

Why aren't we using more natural gas? There are untapped trillions of cubic feet in New York alone. Why burn oil?

Why isn't there a carbon tariff on products from countries that don't meet carbon emission criteria? If a country shows that they are trying to reduce emissions by using nuclear power or natural gas, that should be enough to escape the tariff.

Why are we looking the other way as China and India increase their carbon output for another decade before they are expected to adhere to the Paris Accords? 14 miners were declared dead in a China mine collapse 6 weeks ago. You heard about one little boy who died in Morocco but you didn't hear about 14 men in China because it happens so frequently.

Why do climate activists fly on private jets to such a degree that it make headlines when one angry Swedish teenager takes one sailboat ride? Can't they fly first class on a commercial jet even to make a point?

Common people are being told -- not asked -- to give up their way of live but low hanging fruit is left to rot as the grandees and dandies fly private and eat cake. Let's see some sacrifice from the 1% before demanding working class people give up their pickup trucks.

Drive your pickup as much as you need to because reducing CO2 and pollution is only going to make it hotter. This is a major problem with no known solution. About the only solution is depopulation (which will happen in the normal course of things). You cannot grow food in a desert and you cannot maintain adequate water if all the water from the snow evaporates before it gets to the dam.

The 1% pay for "carbon credits." I guess the rest of us that can't afford that will be paying carbon taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2022, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
8,069 posts, read 7,432,678 times
Reputation: 16320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Nuclear is problematic. No place safe to store the radioactive waste products, for one thing, and many of the reactor locations are prone to earthquakes. Just to name a couple of issues. A number of companies are in overdrive right now, working on developing nuclear fusion, which is much safer than the nuclear fission currently used in power production. Fusion has been a dream of scientists for around 40 years. A breakthrough can't come soon enough.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.

Nuclear is problematic but so are all the alternatives.

The current U.S. administration supports Iran building nuclear power plants, and the worldwide community is currently in favor of China and India (mostly China) building as many nuclear plants as they can. And the Germans would rather continue sending cash to Putin rather than use nuclear power. Problematic, no?
https://world-nuclear.org/informatio...worldwide.aspx

Quote:
Tapping natural gas is also problematic. The production side of it is poorly controlled, from what I understand, so that gas escapes into the atmosphere, where it contributes to the warming of the atmosphere. Perhaps with tighter controls required, that problem could be adequately addressed. But there have been too many incidents in which leaks were allowed to go on for days.

Here's something that explains the risks of natural gas production and use, better than I can.

More info at:

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/env...ts-natural-gas
The production side of natural gas is not poorly controlled. I live in Northeast PA, a hotbed of Marcellus Shale fracking since the early 2010's. I'm not specifically in a fracking area but the local TV stations cover the whole area. There just aren't fracking problems like you seem to think. One village called Dimock, PA was featured in an anti-fracking documentary in 2010 which you have probably seen. The Obama EPA department found no flaming tap water and the last families settled with the fracking company in 2017, after most of the village settled in 2012. The water is safe to drink and the last water buffalo provided by the EPA was withdrawn years ago.

Annual CO2 emissions per capita in the U.S. peaked at 22.51 metric tons in 1973, reaching a low of 14.81 metric tons per capita by 2017. How about taking a look at how we've reduced emissions by 50% and work to continue the decline?
https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-co2-emissions

And I still think the rich Hollywood types who lecture us about pickup trucks should ditch their private planes. Just for the optics if nothing else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2022, 09:48 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,202 posts, read 107,859,557 times
Reputation: 116113
Natural gas wells in CA and NM spew tens of thousands of metric tons of methane, out of control:

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/c...hane-lawsuits/. (2016 article)

Quote:
On October 23rd, the Southern California Gas Company's natural gas storage well sprung a leak in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Porter Ranch. For over two months, it has spewed gas, releasing over 80,000 metric tons of methane. No one seems able to stop it, either.

While the leak pumps out thousands of tons of toxic greenhouse gases, the lawsuits are already piling up: 25 so far and climbing.

Like the BP Oil Spill, but in Los Angeles

The leak has been described as one of the worst environmental disasters in decades. It's "the equivalent of the BP oil spill," says Mitchel Englander, the L.A. city councilmember for Porter Ranch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/c...ew-mexico.html
Quote:
Startlingly large amounts of methane are leaking from wells and pipelines in New Mexico, according to a new analysis of aerial data, suggesting that the oil and gas industry may be contributing more to climate change than was previously known.

The study, by researchers at Stanford University, estimates that oil and gas operations in New Mexico’s Permian Basin are releasing 194 metric tons per hour of methane, a planet-warming gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide. That is more than six times as much as the latest estimate from the Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...dge-fuel-17309
Quote:
The EPA estimated in 2011 that natural gas drilling accounts for about 1,200 gigagrams, or 2.6 billion pounds, of methane emissions each year from well completions, equipment leaks and pneumatic controllers. “Flowback,” one of the final stages in well development after fracking, is estimated to emit an average of 81 megagrams of methane per operation. The EPA's most recent geenhouse gas inventories show that natural gas production and distribution is the second largest source of methane emissions nationwide, just behind methane emissions from livestock.

But the new Purdue study suggests the EPA’s inventories may not be quantifying all the methane emissions from wells being drilled because few people have measured methane leaking from wells in the earliest stage of well development — the actual drilling itself.

Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 04-26-2022 at 10:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2022, 10:30 PM
 
Location: South Dakota
165 posts, read 146,379 times
Reputation: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Nuclear is problematic. No place safe to store the radioactive waste products, for one thing, and many of the reactor locations are prone to earthquakes. Just to name a couple of issues. A number of companies are in overdrive right now, working on developing nuclear fusion, which is much safer than the nuclear fission currently used in power production. Fusion has been a dream of scientists for around 40 years. A breakthrough can't come soon enough.
The biggest issue with standard nuclear power is the waste, esp spent fuel rods and the like. I did an internship during my senior year of college about 40 years ago at a nuke plant under construction. I'm hoping the quality of construction got better over the years, as we saw things like the plastic rings from soft drink 6 packs hanging out of concrete walls. Also did a literature review seminar for my graduate degree a few years later on the encapsulation of waste in glass. The half life of some of the isotopes that can be formed are in fission are up in the tens of thousands of years. Quite a burden to pass on to future generations. I am hopeful that fusion reactors will provide a solution, but I think demo scale commercial units are not going to happen until a couple of decades at least, if we're lucky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2022, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
8,069 posts, read 7,432,678 times
Reputation: 16320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Natural gas wells in CA and NM spew tens of thousands of metric tons of methane, out of control:

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/c...hane-lawsuits/. (2016 article)


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/c...ew-mexico.html


https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...dge-fuel-17309
The Los Angeles leak appears to be a one-off incident from 2016. I never heard about it the way I heard about the BP disaster, so how big a deal was it really?

I can't read the NYT article as I've reached my free article limit and the paywall came up.

The bottom line is, if NatGas fracking is such a disaster then how do we explain the continued reduction in per-capita greenhouse gas emissions in the United States?

Even when the goalposts are moved from CO2 to Methane, numbers continue to trend downward. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/p...US~CHN~IDN~USA

Fracking aside, what is it about nuclear energy that makes it OK for Iran and China to build new plants, but not the U.S.?

Last edited by jtab4994; 04-27-2022 at 08:38 AM.. Reason: Changed "how do you explain" to "how do we..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2022, 01:32 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,252 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Let's correct some of the pseudo-science perpetuated in the popular press--

methane is 100x more powerful, on a molar basis, than co2 as a ghg...Co2 is 10x more powerful than h2o as a ghg...BUT--

h2o is 100 x more plentiful than co2 in the atm and co2 is 1000x more plentiful than ch4, so--

the total gh effect of ch4 is negliglible. (Woud you rahter have $10 in quarters, or $100 in pennies?)

Moreover-- methane abosorbs EM in the same range as h2o & co2. Essentially all the EM that can be absorbed by those IS absorbed by those, leaving essentially no EM for ch4 to absorb (extinction of absortion).

Methane is just not a significant factor in regards weather/climate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top