Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 21 Sep 2020, 22:40:05

vt, read the article posted above.

Again, the richest 1% is responsible for as much co2 polution as half the world's entire population.

Obviously, the 'middle class' (whatever that even is any more) does not contribute more than that...mathematical impossibility

If the poorest half of the world population suddenly disappeared, it would only take the richest 15 (now 2%, I guess) to double their consumption rate...buy another yacht or two, to make up for half the earth's population worth of emissions.

I am not saying population is not a problem, but I always find it...curious...that so many posters are so eager to rush to the defense of the rich. You know, by definition, they're doing just fine, and don't really need any knights in white armor to come running to their defense.

I'll say again what I say often...well off, white males tend to want to identify world population as the main problem in the world, and they usually conveniently blame it on poor non-white females.

What's that about?? :roll:

And at the same time those same dudes are rarely avid supporters of the kinds of policies that would have the greatest effect on controlling population growth--giving women full rights over their bodies and over other parts of their lives, fully support women's education, free abortions...

So they're 'concern' always strikes me as rather....disingenuous...something else is going on with this passion of theirs that they are probably not fully aware of.

(Not to say that this analysis applies to any of the fine gentlemen on this forum, necessarily... :roll: )
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby REAL Green » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 00:51:45

vtsnowedin wrote: There is no reason a rich person could not life as green a live as any woke environmentalist. They don't have to buy the Yacht or the gulf stream private jet.
But they are not the real problem as all of them lumped together with their lifestyle amounts to a tiny sliver of what the middle class with their suburban homes and daily commutes in gas guzzling SUVs plus all their weekend toys from RVs to four wheelers with boats and snow machines in season thrown in.
The USA has 1.8 million millionaires and about 150 million middle class people striving to keep up with the Jones es and he who dies with the most toys wins.


My point is greener is less affluence. There is no way around this. It is physics. This can be hedged by green strategies but to be a “truer” green you embrace relative poverty and offset that with spiritual wealth. Green strategies hit diminish returns at a point where the technology is expensive and suffers carbon budget tradeoffs. Remember you have to pay for these strategies with dirty salaries in our industrial modern life. It does not matter what class you are in with regards to less affluence. All classes can try to be less affluent. Of course, the poor have very little wiggle room but even they can change some destructive behavior. That said the amount of less affluent change most people can realize is smallish becuase of their particular people and place (life). We are all trapped in it.

Driving is not green but required for survival for most. EV's are no exception in regards to dirty but better than ICE as most of us here know. All mechanized travel is dirty becuase of the imbedded energy to produce, maintain, and fuel them. Mechanized travel also delocalizes the local by taking people away from a scale that is truer to a proper earth footprint. Mechanized travel is a matter of survival so it is one of many carbon traps. Public transport is even better but still dirty. Large cities are dirty. Small walkable communities greener but large cities indirectly subsidize small communities with economies of scale that produces needed goods and services. Large cities also concentrate expertise. Because of globalism large cities are essential for survival until they and globalism fails.

Toys are the low hanging fruit of a greener life but few want to give up their pleasures and passions. Many work hard and want to unwind in play. Hard to argue with that but the extent we can curb some of the most destructive toys the better. Leisure lifestyles would be a great focus for green savings because they are not required for survival but keep in mind many people’s livelihood depend on toys. Many toys are also practical like an ATV for a farmer but others play on them.

I talk about what the individual can do because in my opinion because of competitive cooperation people will not change as needed in mass to mitigate the climate dangers ahead. IMO climate is already lost. The green new deals are just more dirty growth. The individual can choose to green prep which I talk about in my REAL Green. Green strategies are also more resilient and sustainable but to a point. The reason there is a limit is the world is delocalized. Even green preppers depend on their local community extending up the ladder to globalism.

Acceptance of this trap allows for an effort to make due and honestly accept civilization will be faced with decline and likely eventual failure. Get ahead of the crowd and decline in place with less affluence in mind and with things. This can yield a spiritual wealth if done right. Do this in a relative way that does not mess up your people and place (life). Use the status quo to leave it. This means use the dirt to clean things up and prep for hard times ahead. If you are true green and can go off the grid and live in a relative poverty close to nature similar to monks in earlier Christian time then do it! I wish I could.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 04:05:35

dohboi:
From the article you linked.
The richest 10% of the global population, comprising about 630 million people, were responsible for about 52% of global emissions over the 25-year period, the study showed.

Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.
So you have the top 10% are responsible for 52% of emissions not the top 1%. And then to be in that top 10% you only have to make $35,000 a year which is way below the median income .
The piece is just an alarmist rant playing lose with the facts to scare the innocent reader..
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby jedrider » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 09:34:37

vtsnowedin wrote:dohboi:
From the article you linked.
The richest 10% of the global population, comprising about 630 million people, were responsible for about 52% of global emissions over the 25-year period, the study showed.

Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.
So you have the top 10% are responsible for 52% of emissions not the top 1%. And then to be in that top 10% you only have to make $35,000 a year which is way below the median income .
The piece is just an alarmist rant playing lose with the facts to scare the innocent reader..


There appears to be a level of wealth where family size is minimal and emissions are minimal and that level appears to be zero.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby REAL Green » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 10:17:40

jedrider wrote:There appears to be a level of wealth where family size is minimal and emissions are minimal and that level appears to be zero.


I acknowledge the damage rich do to the carbon budget but keep in mind large populations in regards to regions, nations, and communities impacts land use and its overall effect on the carbon budget. Really there is no free lunch for humans. Less consumption and less population size go hand in hand. The rich world is likely where most of the saving can be made up within a limited carbon budget adaptation but the poor overpopulated parts of the world cannot be given a green light to grow too in the footsteps of the rich world. This is what most of these poor people will do given the opportunity.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 11:42:57

I know I say this a lot but I mean it sincerely. Humans became human when we discovered how to make fire. In the entire 200,000+ years since that happened we have delighted in finding things which would burn and lighting those things afire. We as a species used fire as a way to shape our environment even when our best tools were made of stone.

Archeologists have shown that American First Peoples, Australian Aborigines and South African Koi-San natives all used fire deliberately set to drive herds of prey animals into traps and to shape the forests and meadows where they lived in hunter-gatherer cultures immersed in the natural world. The same things most likely happened many other places as well but the ancient civilizations of the fertile crescent, Europe and East Asia have had farming cultures for so long those traces of the former hunter-gatherers are few and hard to find. Archeologists have show farming had spread to Great Britain as long ago as 3,500 ybp, not long after it is found in Babylon, Egypt or China. In the North American/South African/Australian context the culture was still predominantly stone age technology 500 ybp up to 150 ybp depending on specific circumstances so the traces of the former culture are vastly more abundant and easier to detect.

So what? We as a species are irrevocably related to Fire. What do people do if they are hanging out in the evening in a yard party? They build a fire and gather around to tell tales or just hang out. It is a large part of what makes us a unique species. For humans building a fire is almost instinctive on the same level as a wolf digging a den or a squirrel building a nest. Even when the Greek economy nearly collapsed back in 2009-11 the newly homeless camped out in park lands and turned to burning the shrubs and trees for the comfort being near a controlled fire gave them.

Then around 300 ybp in Wales it was discovered that a very crude steam pump would do the work of a 100 man bucket brigade in draining mines to allow further tunneling work to continue. Wood was quickly in short supply to feed these crude steam pumps, but it turned out coal worked even better and it was relatively common on Great Britain which gave birth to the Industrial Revolution circa 1750. It took a century for those crude steam engines to improve to the point they could drive paddle wheel boats and locomotives to move already existing trains easier than using animal power to haul canal cargo or wagon trains.

Not long after Steam engines became relatively reliable and common Petroleum was drilled for and became a cheap source of lighting in the form of refined Kerosene for lanterns which was its main use until the early 20th century when it was displaced by electric incandescent bulbs. Production then switched to powering diesel and gasoline engines with the lighter fractions and using the residual oils to power steam engines. Somehow it escapes most folks attention that the last generation of steam engines were almost entirely oil fired both for sea and land use.

One thing remained true through all this massive change from burning wood to coal, petroleum and finally natural gas. We have always been pyromaniacs when it comes to lighting flammable materials on fire and enjoying, or suffering, from the resulting flames.

From this I conclude that for as long as humans can maintain access to gas/petroleum/coal we will continue to burn those natural resources. Therefore CO2 in the atmosphere is going to keep going up unless and until our civilization crashes all the way back to the point where we are left burning wood/dug/biomass as our main fuels. Whenever that happens we will still be burning all those available materials, they just will not include fossil fuels in a meaningful way.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15995
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 11:55:13

REAL Green wrote: The rich world is likely where most of the saving can be made up within a limited carbon budget adaptation but the poor overpopulated parts of the world cannot be given a green light to grow too in the footsteps of the rich world. This is what most of these poor people will do given the opportunity.

On that last you are quite correct.
But of course a zero human population is not desired by any individual or their family as long as they are included in the total. So any attempt to achieve even a halving of human population would result in all out war that even if kept from going nuclear would release pollution and emissions far in excess of any we release today so would do more harm then good.
All we can practically do is move economies toward lower emissions by expanding the use of renewable energy even with it's built in carbon footprint, while depressing population growth worldwide with increased education and access to birth control to women.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 14:13:33

vt's argument is merely from incredulity, a common logical fallacy, with no data of his own to back it up.

Further he seems to be confusing 50% of the population with 50% emissions...hard to know where to start when the confusions is so deep

::::::::::::::

Interesting points, T. Interesting that I just saw an article that the earliest 'mattress,' made of grasses and leaves specially picked out to repel bugs, is also about 200,000 years old! Connection? Who knows?

Anyway, one could pick out various points along the history of the homo species where we appeared to take a 'wrong turn'--a development that seems to have set us on the globally destructive path that we are now nearing the end of.

But I'll just make two points about fire. Other species do in fact seem to show some tendency to control fire. Some kinds of hawks have been seen to spread wild fires across otherwise fire proof barriers by carrying burning sticks in their beaks over to the unburnt areas. This is an advantage for them, since rabbits and other edible critters fleeing fires generally are less cautious about avoiding predators.

Also, while every human culture (as I recall) has been found to have some control over fire, only one human culture, the modern industrial culture that started in Europe and the US and has spread now to the rest of the world, has posed a direct threat to the majority of complex life forms on the planet, as well as to the systems that support them.

And as the above show, it is particularly the wealthiest of that culture who perpetrate the lion's share of that global harm.

We have worked furiously to control nature. But the main task now is for humans to control themselves, and particularly to control those who currently hold the most power.

I'm not optimistic we can do it, and the hour is, of course, beyond late. But the path is rather clear at this point of what needs to be done.

Who will bell the cat, is the main question at hand, an age-old one
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 18:06:20

dohboi wrote:vt's argument is merely from incredulity, a common logical fallacy, with no data of his own to back it up.

Further he seems to be confusing 50% of the population with 50% emissions...hard to know where to start when the confusions is so deep

::::::::::::::

Interesting points, T. Interesting that I just saw an article that the earliest 'mattress,' made of grasses and leaves specially picked out to repel bugs, is also about 200,000 years old! Connection? Who knows?

Anyway, one could pick out various points along the history of the homo species where we appeared to take a 'wrong turn'--a development that seems to have set us on the globally destructive path that we are now nearing the end of.

But I'll just make two points about fire. Other species do in fact seem to show some tendency to control fire. Some kinds of hawks have been seen to spread wild fires across otherwise fire proof barriers by carrying burning sticks in their beaks over to the unburnt areas. This is an advantage for them, since rabbits and other edible critters fleeing fires generally are less cautious about avoiding predators.

Also, while every human culture (as I recall) has been found to have some control over fire, only one human culture, the modern industrial culture that started in Europe and the US and has spread now to the rest of the world, has posed a direct threat to the majority of complex life forms on the planet, as well as to the systems that support them.

And as the above show, it is particularly the wealthiest of that culture who perpetrate the lion's share of that global harm.

We have worked furiously to control nature. But the main task now is for humans to control themselves, and particularly to control those who currently hold the most power.

I'm not optimistic we can do it, and the hour is, of course, beyond late. But the path is rather clear at this point of what needs to be done.

Who will bell the cat, is the main question at hand, an age-old one


I wouldn't go quite as faf as you do in crediting industrial humans as being uniquely destructive. Take for example the South American giant Sloth, the North American horse, camel, mammoth, mastodon, woolly rhinoceros, the New Zealand Moa and Elephant bird, the Australian Giant Kangaroo or the European Aurochs that had bulls the size of a hippo. Everywhere we spread after leaving Africa we have caused massive extinction events. Sure industrialisation gave us wide scale poisoning of the landscape with chemical wastes but our disgusting taste for destruction is almost as hard set as our love of fire.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15995
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 21:05:13

One report points out that around 71 percent of the world's population live on less than $10 daily:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/e ... ow-income/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5139
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 21:58:52

dohboi wrote:vt's argument is merely from incredulity, a common logical fallacy, with no data of his own to back it up.

Further he seems to be confusing 50% of the population with 50% emissions...hard to know where to start when the confusions is so deep


I don't need data of my own as the argument is provably false within it's own data which you misquoted. And no I am not confused about 50% of the population vs 50% of total emissions. I merely used reducing the human population by half as an impossibly high figure to achieve without destructive war. I suppose you would vote for removing the top 10% of the population to remove their 52% of emissions but as I'm included in that group I'll vote against it.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 22 Sep 2020, 22:09:11

Some people don't seem to be able to see the difference between hypotheticals put forward to make a point, and actual proposals being advocated. Not worth bantering more with those so benighted.

T, yes, I know very well about those extinctions. I'm not sure if even all of those earlier extinctions put together merit the label 'mass extinction event' though. And there is some debate as to whether some of those just went away because we were coming out of a major glaciation period, so climate was changing fairly dramatically in some areas...not as much need for the wool on that woolly mammoth, and once that went, the saber tooth tiger had was deprived of prey (if I'm getting my predator-prey relations right here).

So yeah, lots of extinctions, but you can count them on your fingers and toes, and maybe a few more fingers and toes. What we are doing now is many orders of magnitude higher, and it will probably end up being the greatest mass extinction events since complex life evolved, and much faster than any of the earlier ones, with even greater and long lasting impacts on basic systems that have been around for tens to hundreds of millions of years (loss of Arctic sea ice...tens of millions; acidification of oceans now happening faster than any time in at least 200 million years...).

But I do think it is worth looking at every step that took us to the path we are on today.

This should be THE major area of study in the humanities and social sciences. When I went went to university, already forty some years ago, that is what I thought I would find. But not so much, really at all. And still very little, as far as I can see. One reason I have mostly left academia
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 23 Sep 2020, 11:50:48

dohboi wrote:Some people don't seem to be able to see the difference between hypotheticals put forward to make a point, and actual proposals being advocated. Not worth bantering more with those so benighted.

T, yes, I know very well about those extinctions. I'm not sure if even all of those earlier extinctions put together merit the label 'mass extinction event' though. And there is some debate as to whether some of those just went away because we were coming out of a major glaciation period, so climate was changing fairly dramatically in some areas...not as much need for the wool on that woolly mammoth, and once that went, the saber tooth tiger had was deprived of prey (if I'm getting my predator-prey relations right here).

So yeah, lots of extinctions, but you can count them on your fingers and toes, and maybe a few more fingers and toes. What we are doing now is many orders of magnitude higher, and it will probably end up being the greatest mass extinction events since complex life evolved, and much faster than any of the earlier ones, with even greater and long lasting impacts on basic systems that have been around for tens to hundreds of millions of years (loss of Arctic sea ice...tens of millions; acidification of oceans now happening faster than any time in at least 200 million years...).

But I do think it is worth looking at every step that took us to the path we are on today.

This should be THE major area of study in the humanities and social sciences. When I went went to university, already forty some years ago, that is what I thought I would find. But not so much, really at all. And still very little, as far as I can see. One reason I have mostly left academia


Not to get too far afield which we have already done to an extent for this topic but I am dubious of claims that all these species just happened to go extinct when humans arrived for entirely climatic reasons. Part, even most, of my doubt stems from the fact that these same species had survived a number of glaciation/thaw/glaciation/thaw cycles over the last 2.5 million years and then suddenly in the last 50,000 years depending on geography those same species suddenly went extinct because we had a sharp cold spell followed by a strong thaw about 18,000 ybp. The problem with that theory are multiple but the two big ones are species like the Giant Kangaroo dying off just after the Aborigines migrated to the formerly uninhabited Australian continent. By the same token the American camel, horse, Mammoth, Mastodon and Woolly Rhinoceros all made it though a dozen glacial cycles until circa 30,000 ybp when the First People migrated to the formerly uninhabited Americas. Or to point the finger at the European palefaces for a moment the Aurochs, ancestor species of all domesticated cattle and very closely linked to the Tibetan Yak managed to hang on in the wild until around 500 ybp. We have actual skulls and accounts of noble knight hunting these fellow in eastern Europe after their populations in other regions of the continent had already been wiped out. The Mammoth/Mastodon/Woolly Rhinoceros of northern Europe and Siberia were also wiped out about the same time they were killed off in North America.

So in my opinion, for whatever that is worth, if Humans were not directly responsible for hunting down and eliminating all these species, possibly when they were already having to migrate due to climate change, I would be very surprised.

Might as well put this here in an attempt to veer back on target. It looks like we have bottomed and are on the way back up, but not yet certain.

September 22: Unavailable
September 21: 410.57 ppm
September 20: 411.12 ppm
September 19: 411.16 ppm
September 18: 411.15 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15995
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 23 Sep 2020, 14:12:17

Assuming that mastodons were about as smart as modern elephant species I think it would be impossible for humans hunting with stone tipped spears to ever hunt them to extinction unless the mastodon population was not already under a great deal of stress from the same climate change that allowed the humans to migrate to those new hunting grounds. Some other species of course like the Dodo birds that were not used to predator pressure could be attributed to the arrival of human hunters. Any place where wolves were present would find the arrival of humans just a nastier species of wolf with their trained wolf/dog helpers.
As to the CO2 level as the economy opens back up after we get past Covid-19 we will happily go back to dumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans.
But fear not , the Green new deal will save the world.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 24 Sep 2020, 11:16:13

https://twitter.com/zlabe/status/1035000461542080513

"The Great Wave" painting as background for CO2 graph...Fuji is almost gone

(Couldn't figure out how to get the actual graph up here...any help would be appreciated)

Image
Last edited by Tanada on Thu 24 Sep 2020, 16:08:46, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added graph as requested.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby REAL Green » Mon 28 Sep 2020, 18:23:27

More lies out of China:

“China Calls For 'Green Revolution' - Right After Approving "New Fleet Of Coal Plants"
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chi ... oal-plants

“According to Li Shuo, senior climate and energy officer at Greenpeace China, there's a "tension at the heart of China's energy planning" which "pits Beijing's strategic interests against the immediate goals of cash-strapped provincial governments, makes it difficult to walk the talk" about a cleaner future. "China's energy policy is like a two-headed beast, with each head trying to run in the opposite direction," he added. China accounts for nearly a third of the world's total greenhouse gases linked to global warming. So, while Xi is making grandiose pronouncements about a 'green revolution' - the backdrop is that in the first half of 2020, China approved 23 gigawatts-worth of new coal power projects, which is more than the previous two years combined according to the report, citing San Francisco-based environmental NGO, Global Energy Monitor (GEM). "A new fleet of coal plants is in direct contradiction with China's pledge to peak emissions before 2030," said Lauri Myllyvirta, China analyst at Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. Meanwhile, China's coal surge will most likely destroy the market for renewables within the country - as China uses Soviet-style energy distribution quotas, where power suppliers are allocated a monthly supply cap - which has pushed local governments to boost allocation for inexpensive coal, leaving less room for renewables regardless of investment in new technologies. Wind and solar farms have been forced to idle and dozens of new renewable projects have been cancelled since late last year as small private operators struggle to make money. -Straits Times "Local governments prefer to buy more coal-generated power to protect mining jobs," said Li.”
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 29 Sep 2020, 08:48:10


Week beginning on September 20, 2020: 411.00 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.34 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 386.81 ppm


Image
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15995
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 29 Sep 2020, 08:49:39


September 28: 411.04 ppm
September 27: 410.82 ppm
September 26: 410.88 ppm
September 25: 410.90 ppm
September 24: 411.25 ppm


Not rising yet, unusual as harvest time is on full swing in northwest Ohio now.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15995
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 29 Sep 2020, 16:25:09

Tanada wrote:
September 28: 411.04 ppm
September 27: 410.82 ppm
September 26: 410.88 ppm
September 25: 410.90 ppm
September 24: 411.25 ppm


Not rising yet, unusual as harvest time is on full swing in northwest Ohio now.

Do the deciduous trees and other seasonal plants in the Northern hemisphere consume enough CO2 during their growing season to make a measurable difference between summer and winter? I thought the plankton in the oceans far outweighed their contribution as far as CO2 absorption was concerned.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 7

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 29 Sep 2020, 22:03:06

Plankton are more evenly distributed across the (non-tropical) oceans, so don't have a strong seasonal effect as I understand it.

But it's an interesting point
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests