Climate Change - Why don't we care?

[Hal Jordan]

How morally bankrupt do you have to be to willingly argue on behalf of Big Tobacco, and then once you've conclusively lost that battle, effortlessly pivot your "scientific expertise" to climate change denial?

I suppose the money's nice.

[Biffer]

I've been coming to the conclusion that our only solution is a geoengineering one. I've always been against that as basically we'd be fucking around with the environment more, rather than trying to leave it be, but I am moving towards starting to block out incoming energy from the sun. hundreds of thousands of large sunshields required, positioned at L1 (a lagrange point where the sun and earth gravity cancel out so it's much easier to leave things permanently positioned there). Several trillion dollars worth of cost involved, but it's a much better idea than the fucking idiocy of seeding sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere or anything like that.

A kind of explanation here - I don't actually agree with the two proposals referenced here, I think hundreds of thousands of smaller shields of around a square kilometre is a better proposalas it'd act a smore of a diffuser than a straight block, which has advantages.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/could ... l-warming/

It's not a permanent fix but it reduce the acceleration and would give us extra time to clean up our energy sources.

[inactionman]

I've been coming to the conclusion that our only solution is a geoengineering one. I've always been against that as basically we'd be fucking around with the environment more, rather than trying to leave it be, but I am moving towards starting to block out incoming energy from the sun. hundreds of thousands of large sunshields required, positioned at L1 (a lagrange point where the sun and earth gravity cancel out so it's much easier to leave things permanently positioned there). Several trillion dollars worth of cost involved, but it's a much better idea than the fucking idiocy of seeding sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere or anything like that.

A kind of explanation here - I don't actually agree with the two proposals referenced here, I think hundreds of thousands of smaller shields of around a square kilometre is a better proposalas it'd act a smore of a diffuser than a straight block, which has advantages.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/could ... l-warming/

It's not a permanent fix but it reduce the acceleration and would give us extra time to clean up our energy sources.

It's always going to the issue. Just as one aspect, what happens to local flora and fauna if we start to influence what light reaches a certain area?

We don't have many good ways to go about this, and we're really looking for the least-worse - and anything feels less worse than wildfires consuming cities and the drowning coastal and island communities.

Just by happenstance, last night I read my youngest the nursery rhyme about the old lady who swallowed the fly, and that story could have been written with our approach and response to energy and climate change in mind.

[Biffer]

I've been coming to the conclusion that our only solution is a geoengineering one. I've always been against that as basically we'd be fucking around with the environment more, rather than trying to leave it be, but I am moving towards starting to block out incoming energy from the sun. hundreds of thousands of large sunshields required, positioned at L1 (a lagrange point where the sun and earth gravity cancel out so it's much easier to leave things permanently positioned there). Several trillion dollars worth of cost involved, but it's a much better idea than the fucking idiocy of seeding sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere or anything like that.

A kind of explanation here - I don't actually agree with the two proposals referenced here, I think hundreds of thousands of smaller shields of around a square kilometre is a better proposalas it'd act a smore of a diffuser than a straight block, which has advantages.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/could ... l-warming/

It's not a permanent fix but it reduce the acceleration and would give us extra time to clean up our energy sources.

It's always going to the issue. Just as one aspect, what happens to local flora and fauna if we start to influence what light reaches a certain area?

We don't have many good ways to go about this, and we're really looking for the least-worse - and anything feels less worse than wildfires consuming cities and the drowning coastal and island communities.

Just by happenstance, last night I read my youngest the nursery rhyme about the old lady who swallowed the fly, and that story could have been written with our approach and response to energy and climate change in mind.

You'd only be blocking 1-2% of the incoming solar radiation, and by using multiple sails rather than one big one you'd get a diffuse effect rather than having a 'shadow' of sorts moving over the earth's surface. It'd be negligible - no tnoticeable at all to us as humans, and no effect on crops etc. Although you'd have to prepare for the howling and it being blamed for every single weather event that occurred, both from a 'it didn't prevent that storm!' and 'it caused that storm!' viewpoint.

edit - 1-2% would reduce the warming effect of CO2 etc by about 1C globally. That's what I mean by giving us some extra time.

[inactionman]

I've been coming to the conclusion that our only solution is a geoengineering one. I've always been against that as basically we'd be fucking around with the environment more, rather than trying to leave it be, but I am moving towards starting to block out incoming energy from the sun. hundreds of thousands of large sunshields required, positioned at L1 (a lagrange point where the sun and earth gravity cancel out so it's much easier to leave things permanently positioned there). Several trillion dollars worth of cost involved, but it's a much better idea than the fucking idiocy of seeding sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere or anything like that.

A kind of explanation here - I don't actually agree with the two proposals referenced here, I think hundreds of thousands of smaller shields of around a square kilometre is a better proposalas it'd act a smore of a diffuser than a straight block, which has advantages.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/could ... l-warming/

It's not a permanent fix but it reduce the acceleration and would give us extra time to clean up our energy sources.

It's always going to the issue. Just as one aspect, what happens to local flora and fauna if we start to influence what light reaches a certain area?

We don't have many good ways to go about this, and we're really looking for the least-worse - and anything feels less worse than wildfires consuming cities and the drowning coastal and island communities.

Just by happenstance, last night I read my youngest the nursery rhyme about the old lady who swallowed the fly, and that story could have been written with our approach and response to energy and climate change in mind.

You'd only be blocking 1-2% of the incoming solar radiation, and by using multiple sails rather than one big one you'd get a diffuse effect rather than having a 'shadow' of sorts moving over the earth's surface. It'd be negligible - no tnoticeable at all to us as humans, and no effect on crops etc. Although you'd have to prepare for the howling and it being blamed for every single weather event that occurred, both from a 'it didn't prevent that storm!' and 'it caused that storm!' viewpoint.

Even small changes over extended periods can make substantial differences - the very fact that such a sunshield will reduce radiant energy to an extent it slows global warming demonstrates this in and of itself.

I suppose the question I should really be asking is whether the likely effects of such a shield outweigh the effects of/have a greater negative influence than climate change and global warming. I'd think the answer to that is no. But it's a complicated picture and I can't believe there will be no consequences. Sadly, however, it's the position we're in, doing nothing really isn't an option.

[Biffer]

It's always going to the issue. Just as one aspect, what happens to local flora and fauna if we start to influence what light reaches a certain area?

We don't have many good ways to go about this, and we're really looking for the least-worse - and anything feels less worse than wildfires consuming cities and the drowning coastal and island communities.

Just by happenstance, last night I read my youngest the nursery rhyme about the old lady who swallowed the fly, and that story could have been written with our approach and response to energy and climate change in mind.

You'd only be blocking 1-2% of the incoming solar radiation, and by using multiple sails rather than one big one you'd get a diffuse effect rather than having a 'shadow' of sorts moving over the earth's surface. It'd be negligible - no tnoticeable at all to us as humans, and no effect on crops etc. Although you'd have to prepare for the howling and it being blamed for every single weather event that occurred, both from a 'it didn't prevent that storm!' and 'it caused that storm!' viewpoint.

Even small changes over extended periods can make substantial differences - the very fact that such a sunshield will reduce radiant energy to an extent it slows global warming demonstrates this in and of itself.

I suppose the question I should really be asking is whether the likely effects of such a shield outweigh the effects of/have a greater negative influence than climate change and global warming. I'd think the answer to that is no. But it's a complicated picture and I can't believe there will be no consequences. Sadly, however, it's the position we're in, doing nothing really isn't an option.

That's the conclusion I've come to. I used to be dead set against geoengineering, but using it to allow us to clean up our act over a longer period now seems a reasonable option.

[Sandstorm]

Place these things where nothing grows and the sun shines all day long - really arid deserts - and they'd do the job without disrupting local ecology.

[Slick]

What are you all blabbering about. For goodness sake.

[inactionman]

We're thinking big

[Niegs]

I was just yesterday listening to a podcast discussing geoengineering and remember one mentioned that Futurama nailed it showing a massive and expensive space project destroyed by a tiny rock. The episode is here: https://art19.com/shows/the-climate-den ... 812ba152c2 (which has a lot of articles listed in the sources if not interested in two jokers talking about what they've learned from them)

It reminded me of the meme that goes around saying 'men will do x before going to therapy', joking about strange, extreme hobbies or skills they develop to compensate. My increased pessimism believes people don't really give a shit about the environment as they'd rather have all their cheap shit shipped around the world and then dumped a few years (if that) later. (i.e. changing many ways we live our lives should be more do-able than an ambitious science project that might not work)

[Biffer]

Place these things where nothing grows and the sun shines all day long - really arid deserts - and they'd do the job without disrupting local ecology.

Yeah, nothing grows in space one and a half million kilometres away. Nice to see you’re up to speed.

Not really possible to shade one part of the earth currently.

[Sandstorm]

Place these things where nothing grows and the sun shines all day long - really arid deserts - and they'd do the job without disrupting local ecology.

Yeah, nothing grows in space one and a half million kilometres away. Nice to see you’re up to speed.

Not really possible to shade one part of the earth currently.

You’re such a Negative Nellie. You won’t get funding for an Empire Cruiser with that attitude.

[Biffer]

Place these things where nothing grows and the sun shines all day long - really arid deserts - and they'd do the job without disrupting local ecology.

Yeah, nothing grows in space one and a half million kilometres away. Nice to see you’re up to speed.

Not really possible to shade one part of the earth currently.

You’re such a Negative Nellie. You won’t get funding for an Empire Cruiser with that attitude.

Been there, done that

[Slick]

We're thinking big

[Slick]

We're thinking big

FFS, can’t even post an image never mind big thinking

[Hal Jordan]

Wernstrom...

[Kiwias]

Farage and Truss attend UK launch of US climate denial group

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -heartland

From wiki

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.[2]

Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[3]: 233–234 [4] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denia

This photo from that article and I can't decide which face is the more punchable.

[Hal Jordan]

The guy on the right looks like he's wearing someone else's face over his own.

[Sandstorm]

[Biffer]

90-100 mph winds incoming for Scotland and north England. Nail everything down folks.

Islay has forecast gusts over 100mph.

Thankfully I decided to fly to San Francisco on Saturday, not Friday. Thanks KLM for not not having a direct flight on Friday.

[dpedin]

90-100 mph winds incoming for Scotland and north England. Nail everything down folks.

Islay has forecast gusts over 100mph.

Thankfully I decided to fly to San Francisco on Saturday, not Friday. Thanks KLM for not not having a direct flight on Friday.

Batten down the hatches, make some nice soup, cracnk up the coffee machine and then settle down for Homes under the Hammer. You will be mad to even consider travelling anywhere in Scotland. However I do expect there will be some Kite Surfers out at Longniddry Bents ... next stop Norway?

[Slick]

I spent most of the last couple of days in Aberdeen going meeting to meeting either being told the energy transition up there was either great or shite, not much in between.

Must say though, I was slightly surprised to see a new waste incinerator pumping out smoke as I left on the train. Not sure where that fits in

[lemonhead]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ollinators

About flipping time.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ollinators

About flipping time.

[sockwithaticket]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ollinators

About flipping time.

Yep. It's a relatively small thing in the grand scheme, but it's nice to get a win every now and then. As a Bumblebee Conservation Trust member I've written to politicians and signed petitions for ages about this. Every now and then you need some evidence that giving your time and energy can achieve a result.

[Hal Jordan]

When the Tories get back in they'll reverse it, simply because Labour did it and everyone is now forced to be insanely tribal and automatically condemn all that came before irrespective of whether it was a good idea or not.

[Dogbert]

I spent most of the last couple of days in Aberdeen going meeting to meeting either being told the energy transition up there was either great or shite, not much in between.

Must say though, I was slightly surprised to see a new waste incinerator pumping out smoke as I left on the train. Not sure where that fits in

The Ness EFW facility in Tullos ( its much more than just an' incinerator' ) fits in perfectly with Net Zero transition as it produces energy from waste via the integral steam turbine instead of waste that would normally have gone to landfill.

The plume from the stack is not smoke. Smoke is typically darker and filled with particulates. In contrast, the NESS process burns waste at over 850°C, ensuring complete combustion, which, combined with advanced filtration system, ensures that any dust and particulates are trapped. Therefore, the gas leaving the stack consists of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide, and minute amounts of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and mercury .

The visibility and colour of the plume is also affected by the ambient light conditions, therefore on dark backgrounds, or low sun level conditions typically seen during winter months, the plume may appear dark. Whereas on bright days with light or no cloud cover, the plume will also be light.

[Slick]

I spent most of the last couple of days in Aberdeen going meeting to meeting either being told the energy transition up there was either great or shite, not much in between.

Must say though, I was slightly surprised to see a new waste incinerator pumping out smoke as I left on the train. Not sure where that fits in

The Ness EFW facility in Tullos ( its much more than just an' incinerator' ) fits in perfectly with Net Zero transition as it produces energy from waste via the integral steam turbine instead of waste that would normally have gone to landfill.

The plume from the stack is not smoke. Smoke is typically darker and filled with particulates. In contrast, the NESS process burns waste at over 850°C, ensuring complete combustion, which, combined with advanced filtration system, ensures that any dust and particulates are trapped. Therefore, the gas leaving the stack consists of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide, and minute amounts of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and mercury .

The visibility and colour of the plume is also affected by the ambient light conditions, therefore on dark backgrounds, or low sun level conditions typically seen during winter months, the plume may appear dark. Whereas on bright days with light or no cloud cover, the plume will also be light.

This has been a public service announcement from Aberdeen Council

[Dogbert]

I spent most of the last couple of days in Aberdeen going meeting to meeting either being told the energy transition up there was either great or shite, not much in between.

Must say though, I was slightly surprised to see a new waste incinerator pumping out smoke as I left on the train. Not sure where that fits in

The Ness EFW facility in Tullos ( its much more than just an' incinerator' ) fits in perfectly with Net Zero transition as it produces energy from waste via the integral steam turbine instead of waste that would normally have gone to landfill.

The plume from the stack is not smoke. Smoke is typically darker and filled with particulates. In contrast, the NESS process burns waste at over 850°C, ensuring complete combustion, which, combined with advanced filtration system, ensures that any dust and particulates are trapped. Therefore, the gas leaving the stack consists of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide, and minute amounts of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and mercury .

The visibility and colour of the plume is also affected by the ambient light conditions, therefore on dark backgrounds, or low sun level conditions typically seen during winter months, the plume may appear dark. Whereas on bright days with light or no cloud cover, the plume will also be light.

This has been a public service announcement from Aberdeen Council

No not at all - its all a matter of public record - if you could be bothered to look

[Slick]

The Ness EFW facility in Tullos ( its much more than just an' incinerator' ) fits in perfectly with Net Zero transition as it produces energy from waste via the integral steam turbine instead of waste that would normally have gone to landfill.

The plume from the stack is not smoke. Smoke is typically darker and filled with particulates. In contrast, the NESS process burns waste at over 850°C, ensuring complete combustion, which, combined with advanced filtration system, ensures that any dust and particulates are trapped. Therefore, the gas leaving the stack consists of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide, and minute amounts of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and mercury .

The visibility and colour of the plume is also affected by the ambient light conditions, therefore on dark backgrounds, or low sun level conditions typically seen during winter months, the plume may appear dark. Whereas on bright days with light or no cloud cover, the plume will also be light.

This has been a public service announcement from Aberdeen Council

No not at all - its all a matter of public record - if you could be bothered to look

I did, it’s on the companies website.

Maybe it is all true, maybe it is better than landfill, I don’t know to be honest, just seemed slightly incongruous and I’d spent a day with people who know about these things being very cynical.

I’m also a little cynical when you have the likes of Drax importing trees to burn with government subsidies and expecting us to believe that’s also green. And I remain a little cynical when the “public record” is the company that built and run it and the authorities that gave it the go ahead.

[Dogbert]

This has been a public service announcement from Aberdeen Council

No not at all - its all a matter of public record - if you could be bothered to look

I did, it’s on the companies website.

Maybe it is all true, maybe it is better than landfill, I don’t know to be honest, just seemed slightly incongruous and I’d spent a day with people who know about these things being very cynical.

I’m also a little cynical when you have the likes of Drax importing trees to burn with government subsidies and expecting us to believe that’s also green. And I remain a little cynical when the “public record” is the company that built and run it and the authorities that gave it the go ahead.

I always think that being questioning rather than cynical will produce better outcomes in the end.

From reading a number of the technical engineering papers from multiple sources that the Ness plant does appear to me at least to be , taking everything I have read into account, to be a move in the right direction, so not just the company that built and run it and the authorities that gave it the go ahead

There are a lot of vested interests who promote cynicism as fact that muddies the water, regarding Net Zero - many of whom live and work in Aberdeen.

I take it you didn't get a chance to see the Wind Peak offshore supply vessel that have been sitting off Aberdeen beach this week , a fascinating bit of kit for wind farm, just a pity that we can't build this sort of equipment in the UK. ( cue the jokes about ferries )

Drax is , like everything else complicated and, it certainly uses renewable fuel , whether that is green all depends on what you mean by green, ( Drax imports wood pellets of course), as we don't have the facilities in the UK to produce the pellets on the commercial scale required , and you then have to consider manufacturing plants in the US for example using fossil fuels to dry the pellets - but could it become a 'green' or 'greener' energy source -most certainly. I don't believe at present that Drax meets most peoples definition of 'green', then again many people would not believe that Nuclear energy is a 'green' energy source - and Nuclear also attracts huge government subsidies

[lemonhead]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rainforest

Love to see more of this, on whatever land people and agencies are willing to use.

And to go visit that neck of the woods properly one day, went to the agroforestry trust nearby for a course and it's a lovely spot.

[Niegs]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rainforest

Love to see more of this, on whatever land people and agencies are willing to use.

And to go visit that neck of the woods properly one day, went to the agroforestry trust nearby for a course and it's a lovely spot.

[Dogbert]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rainforest

Love to see more of this, on whatever land people and agencies are willing to use.

And to go visit that neck of the woods properly one day, went to the agroforestry trust nearby for a course and it's a lovely spot.

In a similar vein

One of Scotland’s pioneering rewilding sites has seen a near doubling of its native woodlands over the past 30 years.
At Tireragan, on the southwestern tip of Mull, woodland cover has grown from 56 hectares in 1994, to 93 hectares in 2024, thanks to natural regeneration following the removal of sheep and deer.

Tireragan comprises 625 hectares of critical habitats, ranging from rainforest and wet heath to blanket bog, lochans and rocky coastline.

It is also a very lovely spot

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/248 ... -30-years/

Tireragan is part of Northwoods Rewilding Network

https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/loc ... ng-network

[lemonhead]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... sphogeddon

Hope this trial works, one of a few little good news items recently.

[Oxbow]

Everything is fine...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tures-high

[Niegs]

Everything is fine...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tures-high

And Florida, Georgia, etc. had snow!

There must have been some massive shift in something?

[Guy Smiley]

Everything is fine...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tures-high

And Florida, Georgia, etc. had snow!

There must have been some massive shift in something?

A warmer world means more moisture in the atmosphere. We’re already seeing regular record flooding events from severe rainfall, combine that with continental wind patterns off the Arctic and… skiing at Mar a Lago.

[Kawazaki]

Read an article recently that said this...

Commodity reporting agency Argus says that in 2024, China’s coal consumption rose by about 6pc to a record 4.9bn tonnes, accounting for 56pc of the world’s global total.

This meant China burnt more than 300m tonnes of extra coal in 2024, which is equivalent to an extra 800m tonnes of carbon.

That one-year increase is practically double the 400m tonnes of CO2 that Britain has stripped from its energy system since 1990

What's the fucking point?

We in the west make all kinds of compromises and sacrifices and incur huge costs to lower our carbon emissions only to import electrical goods, electric cars, white goods and just about everything else from China that are manufactured using dirty energy.

[Guy Smiley]

Read an article recently that said this...

Commodity reporting agency Argus says that in 2024, China’s coal consumption rose by about 6pc to a record 4.9bn tonnes, accounting for 56pc of the world’s global total.

This meant China burnt more than 300m tonnes of extra coal in 2024, which is equivalent to an extra 800m tonnes of carbon.

That one-year increase is practically double the 400m tonnes of CO2 that Britain has stripped from its energy system since 1990

What's the fucking point?

We in the west make all kinds of compromises and sacrifices and incur huge costs to lower our carbon emissions only to import electrical goods, electric cars, white goods and just about everything else from China that are manufactured using dirty energy.

Whinger.

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energ ... 2024/china

China accounted for 19% of global GDP in 2023 and its annual economic growth rate of 5.2% narrowly exceeded the government’s annual target. Despite initial signs that the recovery would be swift, China’s economy continues to face some challenges, notably with a troubled property market. Yields on Chinese sovereign bonds have been declining steadily since 2021 and reached a record low in March 2024.The People’s Bank of China, as well as other state-owned commercial banks, have continued to lower their interest rates, in contrast to the upward trend in most other major economies.

Chinese investments in energy remained extremely strong, accounting for one-third of clean energy investments worldwide and an important share of China’s overall GDP growth. China has announced dual carbon goals – to peak carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060 – and has shown remarkable progress in adding renewable capacity. In 2023, China commissioned as much solar PV as the entire world did in 2022 while its wind additions also grew by 66% year-on-year. Over the past five years, China also added 11 GW of nuclear power, by far the largest of any country in the world.

The year 2023 saw robust growth for the so-called “new three” (xin-sanyang) industries – solar cells, lithium batteries and electric vehicles (EV) – which saw a 30% jump in exports in 2023 from a year earlier, making them a major factor in Chinese trade. These trends are expected to continue into 2024, with the largest portion of China’s investments heading towards low-emission power.

Ample domestic manufacturing capacity and continued government support for clean technologies provides a foundation for strong clean energy investment within China. However, pressures are increasing on China’s ability to export these technologies to other large international markets, including Europe and the United States.

Another issue that requires close attention is China’s continued investment in fossil fuels, especially coal with nearly all the new global coal fired capacity. In tandem with its growing renewable capacity, coal still remains the most prominent fuel source in China’s energy mix, with coal production reaching a record high in 2023. While China aims to ensure that coal and coal-fired power will play a supporting role in its energy system, these developments reflect a strong emphasis on energy security in China's energy strategy.

Overall energy investment levels in China are comparable to the amounts required to meet national energy and climate goals, although full alignment with the targets implies a rebalancing away from investments in fossil fuel supply, towards grids and the end-use sectors.