RugbyRebels

I'm firmly in the camp of "stop polluting, you fuckwits" without being in the global warming camp...

And I don't think it really should matter how you get there, all that should matter is that you both want the same thing.

I honestly see no other option than trade embargoes on the largest polluting nations, INCLUDING products that are simply produced there. We need to get the carbon footprint of things like fast fucking fashion down a looooooong way.

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Talk to the trees

Sadly a lot of trees being planted in the name of carbon capture are causing problems, there is a way of doing it sensibly but all too often it's being done stupidly (and cheaply)

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Speaking of which... it seems like trying to chase oil companies for damages is more widespread than I had realised.

https://amp.ft.com/content/d5fbeae4-869 ... ssion=true

What's most interesting about these to me is that they suggest there is a large degree of recognition about the effects of climate change but no concurrent drive to make changes, or to try and reduce CO2 levels, only to try and mitigate those effects.

Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Well, the melting glaciers might not actually be about temperature, but about the earth trying to reduce its carbon dioxide levels...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ainforests

Interesting, although misleadingly/abiguously written article, ie

for decades, the northern rivers secretly pulled carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a rate faster than the Amazon rainforest.

This means that during high melt periods, glacial river water will absorb 40 times as much carbon as the Amazon rainforest.

“On a per-metre-squared basis, these rivers can consume a phenomenal amount of carbon dioxide,” said St Pierre. But their limited size means on a gross scale, they pull in far less than the sprawling Amazon.

Potentially drawing in more CO2 than the Amazon, or just per metre-squared?

I had to go to the research paper to see that it was indeed just per metre-squared, even at times of high melt. It's much smaller than the Amazon in absolute terms.

So, I'm afraid glaciers melting is indeed all about the temparatures - they will not significantly offset CO2 released in other ways. And of course when the glaciers are gone, Earth will reflect less sunlight back into space, hence warm up even more.

That's not to mention that melting glaciers might absorb some CO2, but is releasing methane deposits that've been frozen for aeons, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

Stom wrote:I'm firmly in the camp of "stop polluting, you fuckwits" without being in the global warming camp...

And I don't think it really should matter how you get there, all that should matter is that you both want the same thing.

I honestly see no other option than trade embargoes on the largest polluting nations, INCLUDING products that are simply produced there. We need to get the carbon footprint of things like fast fucking fashion down a looooooong way.

Out of interest, why are you not in the global warming camp?

Puja

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Talk to the trees

Sadly a lot of trees being planted in the name of carbon capture are causing problems, there is a way of doing it sensibly but all too often it's being done stupidly (and cheaply)

Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Talk to the trees

Sadly a lot of trees being planted in the name of carbon capture are causing problems, there is a way of doing it sensibly but all too often it's being done stupidly (and cheaply)

Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

There are a number of problems with trees being planted in the mass planting schemes, from being monoculture, too often being pines causing acidification of the soil, plans to pulp those trees in the coming years rather defeating the carbon capture, some of the schemes even use fertiliser which for a decent period will ensure a carbon release... too often the schemes allow certain people to say they're doing something and ignoring the something isn't suitable or even especially useful, annoying when there's much to be said for a more natural wilding, but the wilding is slower and doesn't allow for such lurid headlines as 'one million/billion trees planted'

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well, the melting glaciers might not actually be about temperature, but about the earth trying to reduce its carbon dioxide levels...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ainforests

Interesting, although misleadingly/abiguously written article, ie

for decades, the northern rivers secretly pulled carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a rate faster than the Amazon rainforest.

This means that during high melt periods, glacial river water will absorb 40 times as much carbon as the Amazon rainforest.

“On a per-metre-squared basis, these rivers can consume a phenomenal amount of carbon dioxide,” said St Pierre. But their limited size means on a gross scale, they pull in far less than the sprawling Amazon.

Potentially drawing in more CO2 than the Amazon, or just per metre-squared?

I had to go to the research paper to see that it was indeed just per metre-squared, even at times of high melt. It's much smaller than the Amazon in absolute terms.

So, I'm afraid glaciers melting is indeed all about the temparatures - they will not significantly offset CO2 released in other ways. And of course when the glaciers are gone, Earth will reflect less sunlight back into space, hence warm up even more.

That's not to mention that melting glaciers might absorb some CO2, but is releasing methane deposits that've been frozen for aeons, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

Stom wrote:I'm firmly in the camp of "stop polluting, you fuckwits" without being in the global warming camp...

And I don't think it really should matter how you get there, all that should matter is that you both want the same thing.

I honestly see no other option than trade embargoes on the largest polluting nations, INCLUDING products that are simply produced there. We need to get the carbon footprint of things like fast fucking fashion down a looooooong way.

Out of interest, why are you not in the global warming camp?

Puja

1) I worked as a geoscientist at an oil company back in London. The geologists made some quite convincing arguments about the information within rocks pointing toward temperature increases being kinda due anyway, and that we couldn't do much about it other than accelerating it slightly.

2) I'm of the opinion that if you come to the same outcome as someone else, why do you need to have the same route? My kids go to alternative schooling, but they do it because I feel it's the best option and that state schooling is failing. Friends of mine believe the same but then go into much more detail and much more angst about the reasons why state schooling is failing. I don't really care for the reasons behind it, tbh, there's 1 thing I can do about it and I'm already doing it, so why should I waste my time exploring it further.

So on global warming, I'm simply not willing to put in the time researching it further when I already agree with most of the things people who do strongly believe in it want. If I already agree, why do I need to research further when it's not a high priority for me to understand all the details behind it?

Donny osmond wrote:

Stom wrote:
Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?

Though not chemically removing CO2, a lot of work and research as got into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in depleted oil and gas reservoirs in the North Sea - especially as lot of the infrastructure is in palce for transporting it to these reservoirs. The largest and most advanced is Northern Lights https://northernlightsccs.com/en/about in Norway

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Sadly a lot of trees being planted in the name of carbon capture are causing problems, there is a way of doing it sensibly but all too often it's being done stupidly (and cheaply)

Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

or a better more cohesive approach to replenishing tree stocks, reduction in CO2 output, fixing CO2 underground etc etc....you are seemingly wanting a silver bullet, whereas it will need to be a range of interventions which already exist, and including population control.

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote: Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

or a better more cohesive approach to replenishing tree stocks, reduction in CO2 output, fixing CO2 underground etc etc....you are seemingly wanting a silver bullet, whereas it will need to be a range of interventions which already exist, and including population control.

Population growth seems to be slowing,

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... e-century/

This pandemic offers the opportunity to reprioritise a green economy in the west at least, its a shame that the governments in most of the larger economies are against this as it doesn’t offer the same opportunities to line their own pockets.

canta_brian wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

or a better more cohesive approach to replenishing tree stocks, reduction in CO2 output, fixing CO2 underground etc etc....you are seemingly wanting a silver bullet, whereas it will need to be a range of interventions which already exist, and including population control.

Population growth seems to be slowing,

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... e-century/

This pandemic offers the opportunity to reprioritise a green economy in the west at least, its a shame that the governments in most of the larger economies are against this as it doesn’t offer the same opportunities to line their own pockets.

Good and yes

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote: Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

or a better more cohesive approach to replenishing tree stocks, reduction in CO2 output, fixing CO2 underground etc etc....you are seemingly wanting a silver bullet, whereas it will need to be a range of interventions which already exist, and including population control.

Is population the biggest driver or is it consumerism?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

or a better more cohesive approach to replenishing tree stocks, reduction in CO2 output, fixing CO2 underground etc etc....you are seemingly wanting a silver bullet, whereas it will need to be a range of interventions which already exist, and including population control.

Is population the biggest driver or is it consumerism?

....I give up, what's the answer?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: or a better more cohesive approach to replenishing tree stocks, reduction in CO2 output, fixing CO2 underground etc etc....you are seemingly wanting a silver bullet, whereas it will need to be a range of interventions which already exist, and including population control.

Is population the biggest driver or is it consumerism?

....I give up, what's the answer?

OK :p I just don't see much chance of reducing the former, while there are plenty of opportunities to reduce the latter.

Alas, with the way politics works, we're more likely to see it the other way round, not that it'll be done in a way that's any positive for the environment.

I've already said quite often that I believe humanism is linked to this fight, and so the only way to do something about it is to exclude countries who have appalling human rights records and pollute the hell out of the world. So put huge taxes on any products produced in China. Stop trading with the middle east countries. And keep it up.

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote: Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

or a better more cohesive approach to replenishing tree stocks, reduction in CO2 output, fixing CO2 underground etc etc....you are seemingly wanting a silver bullet, whereas it will need to be a range of interventions which already exist, and including population control.

Yeah, sorry, I realise this tree has many branches, as it were, and I'm delighted to see as many trees as possible being planted, delighted to see reduction in output and c fixing, all that... I'm just not sure it's enough without some large scale technology that actively removes CO2 from the atmosphere as well.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Sadly a lot of trees being planted in the name of carbon capture are causing problems, there is a way of doing it sensibly but all too often it's being done stupidly (and cheaply)

Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I don't know if I'd call it scatter gun, I think a lot of the problem with the current drive to plant trees comes from a focus on one point, namely how many trees can we plant with an assumption more is better. I'm not hoping they don't act, I just wish we'd take a moment to think before acting, try to consider some wider implications and then act in more joined up fashion

The drive to do something, or at least the drive to be seen to be doing something is causing some problems, 'twas ever thus

While some of us are screaming into the void about the failures of dealing with covid, the reality could be much more brutal...


Rising temperatures will cause more deaths than all infectious diseases – study

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... Keep_notes

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote: Most effective way of fixing carbon. Donny was asking about the chemical possibilities. Good reason the rainforests are called the lungs of the planet- though doing the opposite of what our lungs do....

Iceland 'fix' their carbon dioxide output from ge0-thermal and hydro power into permeable rock.

In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I don't know if I'd call it scatter gun, I think a lot of the problem with the current drive to plant trees comes from a focus on one point, namely how many trees can we plant with an assumption more is better. I'm not hoping they don't act, I just wish we'd take a moment to think before acting, try to consider some wider implications and then act in more joined up fashion

The drive to do something, or at least the drive to be seen to be doing something is causing some problems, 'twas ever thus

Serendipitously...

Can Planting a Trillion Trees Stop Climate Change? Scientists Say it’s a Lot More Complicated

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2605 ... ate-change

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I don't know if I'd call it scatter gun, I think a lot of the problem with the current drive to plant trees comes from a focus on one point, namely how many trees can we plant with an assumption more is better. I'm not hoping they don't act, I just wish we'd take a moment to think before acting, try to consider some wider implications and then act in more joined up fashion

The drive to do something, or at least the drive to be seen to be doing something is causing some problems, 'twas ever thus

Serendipitously...

Can Planting a Trillion Trees Stop Climate Change? Scientists Say it’s a Lot More Complicated

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2605 ... ate-change

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

The world needs to find the money to pay countries with rainforests to stop cutting them down ie there needs to be a real incentive to maintain carbon sinks, and indeed expand them where possible. The Trillion Trees does sound a lot like greenwash bullshit.

Donny osmond wrote:

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:In the last couple of years I have become infatuated with trees in a rather strange way so I'm delighted to see them getting planted. However Diggers does raise a good point, it can't just be a scatter gun approach. Also, the sheer volume of trees required I'm not sure is viable without us severely cutting back on CO2 production, and that ain't happening, so we need some more artificial way of getting a larger amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, hence my question.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I don't know if I'd call it scatter gun, I think a lot of the problem with the current drive to plant trees comes from a focus on one point, namely how many trees can we plant with an assumption more is better. I'm not hoping they don't act, I just wish we'd take a moment to think before acting, try to consider some wider implications and then act in more joined up fashion

The drive to do something, or at least the drive to be seen to be doing something is causing some problems, 'twas ever thus

Serendipitously...

Can Planting a Trillion Trees Stop Climate Change? Scientists Say it’s a Lot More Complicated

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2605 ... ate-change

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Prior to clicking on the link I was reminded of the simple take someone like Trump has, the just give me a magic red button that makes this issue go away thinking, and that's just not realistic if not downright retarded

I can pretty much guarantee a trillion trees would have to be based around monocultures which come with a lot of risk themselves, like say future pandemics which is something of a current theme

A small tornado just belted the area next to where I work.

Fuck you climate change.

Beirut's just gone up again - though looks like a different type of intervention by homo sapiens..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53656220

The explosion looked absolutely unbelievable. Horrible stuff. But I'm confused by it being posted in here. Is the/your thinking that whatever explosive material was stored in the port has simply over-heated? There's so many theories flying around but I'm not aware of anything solid yet.

Should be own thread tbf, but when saw the blast drew a link with tornado borne from another example of reckless disregard and capacity to trash.
Overheating or act of malice (Am. Nitrate) ?..the local situation is so miltilayered it would be too easy to speculate.Maybe some group will claim responsibilty.
( popn. > cities of hull & stoke, made homeless from this, blast felt in cyprus...powerful stuff - same material as Manchester bomb in 90's I think).

Stom wrote:1) I worked as a geoscientist at an oil company back in London. The geologists made some quite convincing arguments about the information within rocks pointing toward temperature increases being kinda due anyway, and that we couldn't do much about it other than accelerating it slightly.

2) I'm of the opinion that if you come to the same outcome as someone else, why do you need to have the same route? My kids go to alternative schooling, but they do it because I feel it's the best option and that state schooling is failing. Friends of mine believe the same but then go into much more detail and much more angst about the reasons why state schooling is failing. I don't really care for the reasons behind it, tbh, there's 1 thing I can do about it and I'm already doing it, so why should I waste my time exploring it further.

So on global warming, I'm simply not willing to put in the time researching it further when I already agree with most of the things people who do strongly believe in it want. If I already agree, why do I need to research further when it's not a high priority for me to understand all the details behind it?

On 1), I'm sure a lot of scientists in the oil industry have views like that - they need something to allow them to sleep at night.

On 2), you said in an earlier post that we need to get reduce the carbon footprint of some industries. But if you aren't really in the global warming camp, why are you bothered about carbon footprints at all? What's wrong with increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?