Global warming strikes again...

[Estebonrober]

It's only an intractable problem if you can't comprehend the idea of giving up air travel. IMO we need to have it taken away from us as a goad; if we're ingenious enough to come up with a way to do it that doesn't ruin the planet we can earn the privilege again.

I think hydrogen fuel may be a more promising route for air travel than trying to make it electric.

I sympathize with this point of view. I think we can make air travel less desirable but I’m not sure about eliminating it.

 

[Lexicus]

I sympathize with this point of view. I think we can make air travel less desirable but I’m not sure about eliminating it.

I don't necessarily think eliminating air travel is a great idea, and it would create all kinds of serious difficulties, but I honestly think that's the approach we need to take with all this stuff. Because obviously whatever we're doing now isn't working. Maybe if our toys are taken away from us it will give us the incentive to figure out how to enjoy them without trashing the planet.

 

[Estebonrober]

I don't necessarily think eliminating air travel is a great idea, and it would create all kinds of serious difficulties, but I honestly think that's the approach we need to take with all this stuff. Because obviously whatever we're doing now isn't working. Maybe if our toys are taken away from us it will give us the incentive to figure out how to enjoy them without trashing the planet.

I always try to frame it as we are just dumb and lazy for not shifting to renewable green technologies. Largely for ten years now this has been more about a few convincing a lot to let them rape the planet a bit longer for “shareholders”.

 

[AmazonQueen]

We could start by taxing aviation fuel.
Introduce frequent flyer taxes.
Use the revenue to subsidise less environmentally unfriendly forms of travel.

Atm all sorts of government policies favour air travel over other forms of travel.

 

[El_Machinae]

Aviation fuel should be taxed with a carbon tax. If it's worth doing, the externalities tax will handle it.

 

[Hrothbern]

Some countries benefit from building airplanes, all countries and lower authorities want their airports to be competitive because of the jobs.
We need to use for medium distances (non-intercontinental) more train transport. And revive sleeping in night trains to offset the longer travelling times for the 800-1500 km distances.
After your work in some cold rain area in your train and the next morning breakfast on a terrace in Rome starting your holiday.

Another one of the same kind:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...iggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal

 

[Estebonrober]

Some countries benefit from building airplanes, all countries and lower authorities want their airports to be competitive because of the jobs.
We need to use for medium distances (non-intercontinental) more train transport. And revive sleeping in night trains to offset the longer travelling times for the 800-1500 km distances.
After your work in some cold rain area in your train and the next morning breakfast on a terrace in Rome starting your holiday.

Another one of the same kind:

View attachment 537385

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...iggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal

SUV s and trucks drive me crazy. That’s emissions that are 90% status symbols and about 10% justified. My coworker just bought a truck and I asked her why she needed a truck. She said for mulch. . . Like once a year she needs a truck.

 

[stfoskey12]

Doesn't something like 20-30% of carbon emissions get absorbed by the environment, and isn't aviation about 5% of carbon emissions? I feel like if we did a good enough job cutting back on other things, we could still fly.

 

[Estebonrober]

According to a new U.S. Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse. This could all happen over the next two decades, the report notes.

The senior US government officials who wrote the report are from several key agencies including the Army, Defense Intelligence Agency, and NASA. The study called on the Pentagon to urgently prepare for the possibility that domestic power, water, and food systems might collapse due to the impacts of climate change as we near mid-century.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...e-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says

Fwiw the deep state Pentagon sees with clear eyes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Doesn't something like 20-30% of carbon emissions get absorbed by the environment, and isn't aviation about 5% of carbon emissions? I feel like if we did a good enough job cutting back on other things, we could still fly.

Yes, ostensibly, we could. We have a total budget. Unfortunately, an incredible amount of our flying is done for luxury, so it's coming out of the same budget we use to alleviate poverty

 

[Synobun]

From an /r/science thread on concrete alternatives: "The process of burning the limestone and shale to make clinker is a bigger contributor to climate change than any single country in the world except China or the US (source)."

In 2015, it generated around 2.8bn tonnes of CO2, equivalent to 8% of the global total – a greater share than any country other than China or the US.

Cement use is set to rise as global urbanisation and economic development increases demand for new buildings and infrastructure. Along with other parts of the global economy, the cement industry will need to dramatically cut its emissions to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals.

"In 2017 China produced 2,400,000,000 metric tons of concrete, India made 270,000,000 metric tons and the USA made 86,000,000 metric tons."

This concrete replaces 40% of the original "recipe" with rice husk cinder, limestone crushing waste, and silica sand.

Direct link to paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S207511331905006X

Finding a more eco-friendly method with equivalent cost to create concrete seems like an easy way to reduce emissions significantly. "Equivalent cost" is likely the biggest obstacle...

 

[Samson]

From an /r/science thread on concrete alternatives: "The process of burning the limestone and shale to make clinker is a bigger contributor to climate change than any single country in the world except China or the US (source)."



"In 2017 China produced 2,400,000,000 metric tons of concrete, India made 270,000,000 metric tons and the USA made 86,000,000 metric tons."

This concrete replaces 40% of the original "recipe" with rice husk cinder, limestone crushing waste, and silica sand.

Direct link to paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S207511331905006X

Finding a more eco-friendly method with equivalent cost to create concrete seems like an easy way to reduce emissions significantly. "Equivalent cost" is likely the biggest obstacle...

I do not really get this. You drive off CO2 from calcium carbonate to get calcium hydroxide, but that then takes up the CO2 again when the cement sets?

Also, you always mix the cement with some other material (sand and / or gravel when I was doing it), at ratio between 1:3 and 1:20 depending what you are doing, what are they replacing with the "rice husk cinder, limestone crushing waste, and silica sand"? Surely it is not the cement, that is just making the mix weaker.

 

[Hrothbern]

I do not really get this. You drive off CO2 from calcium carbonate to get calcium hydroxide, but that then takes up the CO2 again when the cement sets?

Also, you always mix the cement with some other material (sand and / or gravel when I was doing it), at ratio between 1:3 and 1:20 depending what you are doing, what are they replacing with the "rice husk cinder, limestone crushing waste, and silica sand"? Surely it is not the cement, that is just making the mix weaker.

According to study below, done in Norway-Denmark, over time part of the CO2 will be absorbed by concrete.

from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.533.3817&rep=rep1&type=pdf

8. Conclusions
Portland cement concrete absorbs appreciable amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere during its lifecycle. In this report the amount of CO2 taken up by concrete has been calculated. The CO2 uptake process is called carbonation and implies that CO2 from the atmosphere diffuse into the concrete and combine with CaO of the reacted cement to form limestone (i.e. CaCO3), the same natural mineral Portland cement was made of. Carbonation is a relatively slow process. Our calculations are therefore based on carbonation during a 100 year period, assuming a 70 years service life period of concrete structures and a 30 year period of CO2 uptake after demolition. Parts of the demolished concrete are processed to recycled concrete aggregates (RCA). The high surface area of RCA is assumed to increase the CO2 uptake, and this effect is accounted for in the calculations of the CO2 uptake. In a geological time frame all CO2 released by the calcination process (i.e. the decomposition of limestone in cement manufacturing) will be re-absorbed by carbonation. Over 100 years, one year of Nordic concrete construction is calculated to absorb 0.34, 0.22, 0.24 and 0.021 million metric tons of CO2 in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland, respectively. This implies that about 0.5% of the total national CO2 emissions will be re-absorbed in concrete in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The corresponding number for Iceland is about 1%. The calculated CO2 uptake implies that up to 57% of the CO2 emitted due to calcination in the production of the Portland cement utilized in Nordic concrete construction will be re-absorbed by 100 years. Previous studies of CO2 uptake have yielded considerably lower numbers for the total CO2 uptake. One reason for this is that the previous studies assumed lower numbers for the specific CO2 uptake pr unit reacted cement. Experimental studies undertaken in the current project indicate that the specific CO2 uptake (38 metric ton CO2 pr 100 metric ton reacted Portland clinker) used in the present report is justified (5). The calculations are based on statistics regarding cement and concrete production and consumption volumes. Likewise, volumes of demolished concrete and recycled concrete aggregates are based on statistical data. Carbonation rate factors are largely based on measured values of concrete structures. These rate factors have been assumed for recycled aggregates as well. It is advised that carbonation rate factors are verified by further measurements for particularly high quality concrete, concrete water saturated or below ground, and recycled concrete aggregates.

That study mentioned in this Concrete CO2 Fact Sheet with as key text on reabsorption:
http://www.nrmca.org/greenconcrete/concrete co2 fact sheet june 2008.pdf

A significant portion of the CO2 produced during manufacturing of cement is reabsorbed into concrete during the product life cycle through a process called carbonation. One research study [study above] estimates that between 33% and 57% of the CO2 emitted from calcination will be reabsorbed through carbonation of concrete surfaces over a 100-year life cycle.

 

[Samson]

The calculated CO2 uptake implies that up to 57% of the CO2 emitted due to calcination in the production of the Portland cement utilized in Nordic concrete construction will be re-absorbed by 100 years.

Wow, I had never realised it took so long to reabsorb the CO2. I guess the time lag itself would be significant.

 

[Hrothbern]

Wow, I had never realised it took so long to reabsorb the CO2. I guess the time lag itself would be significant.

That 100 years is also much longer than I thought.
Concrete is however funny stuff.
That hydrating, forming that crystal water, is also a process that although most of it happens within 1-3 days, it continues to happen for a very long time (also depending on surrounding moisture), making the concrete stronger, filling up micro holes, micro cracks over time/

And I guess it all interacts because Calcium bound to CalciumSilicate water crystals cannot bind anymore to CO2.

 

[Hrothbern]

When the weather is hot, go to a forest 10 miles from your place. It will be cool there ?

Global warming is in big cities only.

Trees do indeed help to lower temperature around them.
Cities with lots of trees are a better place. Not only the shadow... but also the cooling of the slowly evaporating water the trees drink... and not to forget: trees are excellent fine dust catchers.

But Global Warming is happening everywhere unfortunately !
Also in forests.
In many forests the growth rate of the trees is already much lower because they get less water because rain patterns changed. Both locations as more important shorter bursts of rain instead of regular rain.
Trees in such bursty areas see over the whole year perhaps the same amount of rain, but can catch less of it.
The other nasty global climate effect seems to be that more rain falls on oceans and less on land. And on oceans trees do not grow.


Global warming happens LiasLis !
That is proven enough with temperature charts all over tyhe world.
What remains to chart and predict is how it works out in micro regions.

 

[Hrothbern]

Good morning...

The Trump administration formally notified the United Nations on Monday of its intention to exit the deal.
The notification begins a one-year process of exiting the global climate change accord, culminating the day after the 2020 US election.

From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50297029

So... Trump is doing what he announced several times the past years: get out of any foreign influence on how the US deals with Climate.
But... CO2, the warming up effect... has no borders !
Trump just cannot walk out with the US for Climate responsibility.



Now... on top.... it is not only about reducing our current CO2 emission... but also about our accumulated CO2 on Earth, our CO2 debt.

Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans comes from the UK (who started the industrial coal-irion revolution), western Europe and the US.
And because they started producing CO2 earliest, they caused relatively more temperature increase over time than their share of accumulated CO2:
1 gigaton of CO2 added in 1920 has had at this moment 10 times the temperature increasing effect as 1 gigaton CO2 added in 2010.
If we would take 2050 as date that we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere and 2100 as date that we wasghed out the excess CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans this factor 10 becomes smaller, but it does show that:
A. there is a current CO2 emission per country
B. there is a CO2 debt per country (that is higher for the western developed countries)
C. there is a temperature increase debt per country (that is for the western countries even higher than the CO2 debt).

=> From this perspective it is utterly unfair for the western countries to just focus on reducing CO2 emission (point A.) and be done with the climate action... and blame underdeveloped countries that they are not doing enough.
=> From this perspective it is also utterly unfair that the countries who started the most CO2 emissions AND started the most temperature increase ARE NOT ALSO the countries that are the first to zero their emissions AND wash out their CO2 of the past 2 centuries.


Ourworldindata is always good for having (dynamic) charts showing lots of data, like here also on CO2: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Here some screenshots of 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 showing the CO2 emission per Capita of countries since the start of the coal-iron industrial revolution.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ugh, the 11,000 weren't actually scientists

 

[Arwon]

Yes, ostensibly, we could. We have a total budget. Unfortunately, an incredible amount of our flying is done for luxury, so it's coming out of the same budget we use to alleviate poverty

Planes are like 2% of global emissions and exactly the kind of sector which we need to be saving our carbon budget for, given the lack of viable alternatives in that space in both a fuel sense (bio jet fuel is in its infancy and possibly not worth spending the resources to prioritise) and a usage sense (if you've gotta travel you've gotta travel). The opposite of low hanging fruit.

I'd argue the same for shipping but that's more about the political difficulties getting flags of convenience to enforce standards on their maritime fleets.

 

[Arwon]

Meanwhile it's November and both California and New South Wales are on fire at the same time. We had 19 emergency fires at once in NSW over the weekend, and have alrady had deaths and lost homes before summer even starts.

So that's certainly normal, and not at all a big threat to established models of international bushfire response. I mention California because they and Australia have a long history of sharing resources like water bombers during each place's off-season... something an off-season which apparently no longer really exists.

Article from this time last year:

In July the US requested help from Australia and New Zealand, which sent 188 personnel to help fight the blazes. That group has now returned.

For about 20 years, Australia and the US have exchanged personnel and equipment during major fires. But there are fears that, as climate change drives more severe blazes and lengthens fire seasons, those arrangements could be strained.

A fleet of aircraft, including six adapted helicopters and two Hercules water bombers, are also shared – spending the Australian winter fighting fires in the northern hemisphere before being contracted to fight bushfires in Australia’s summer months.

Interstate cooperation in Australia and the Rural Fire Service reliance on unpaid volunteers are also starting to look like they'll be stretched beyond what they have long been able to cover. They were never meant to deal with to an 8-month fire season.