Climate change and the power crisis..

[vphasitha01]

I'm a person who lives in a developing country (but not a 3rd world shitposter) and I'm so worried about the "climate change" (actually whole world should be). At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 2⁰C and to reduce the emission of Green House Gases (GHG) which are causing the atmospheric temperature rise and thus the global climate change.

CO₂is a GHG and thus CO₂ emission from Coal power stations is considered as a major contributor to climate change. So should we going to consider long term least cost option of building more and more coal power stations for the sloution of power crisis or should we going for higher cost options? If we go for higher cost options peoples have to bear that cost. Btw the historical emissions of GHG by developing countries are insignificant compared to other developed countries.

However there is and would be tremendous pressure from environmental lobbies and external parties to reduce or stop further coal power development in the developing countries. So as a person who lives in a developing country how we should address this global issue. Your valuable thoughts are highly appreciated.

[1713559029]

1713559029

[Vod]

At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 2⁰C

How would they expect to achieve this?  Even if we stop all fossil fuel burning NOW, the earth's temperature is still going to rise for the next half century or so.

[TheBeardedBaby]

At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 2⁰C

How would they expect to achieve this?  Even if we stop all fossil fuel burning NOW, the earth's temperature is still going to rise for the next half century or so.

I know the way to cool down the Earth quickly and fix the global human population growth problem at the same time but... is called nuclear winter, I hope they don't go for that "solution" even with those crazy heads like Putin,Trump, Kim..

[vphasitha01]

At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 2⁰C

How would they expect to achieve this?  Even if we stop all fossil fuel burning NOW, the earth's temperature is still going to rise for the next half century or so.

Let's clarify this 2⁰C, it's considered as the treashold maximum that earth can afford. If it goes higher than
2⁰C, it will be disaster.

Look at the above graph and you can clearly see atmospheric CO₂ concentration is increasing exponentially with time. Now it's more than 400 (ppm).In order to temperature rise below 2⁰C , atmospheric concentration of CO₂ should not exceed 450(ppm).

What we should do

Together we can do it, to do that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested that,

• World must redused emission by 50% by 2050 with a peak around 2020
• Annex 1 countries 30% emission cuts by 2020 and at least 80% cuts by 2050
• Developing countries should cuts of 20% against 1990 levels by 2050

But I believed most important one is "plant trees" in order to capture the CO₂ from atmosphere. If we plant more trees ,more absorption will happen.

Last but not the least check the following figure,

It clearly shows that how largely CO₂ (fossil fuel burning) contributes to the GHG share of global emissions.

[aleksej996]

I know the way to cool down the Earth quickly and fix the global human population growth problem at the same time but... is called nuclear winter, I hope they don't go for that "solution" even with those crazy heads like Putin,Trump, Kim..

Lol. To be honest people refer to climate change as a problem for reason, it isn't just that it heats up, but that ecosystem isn't used to it.
It is the rapid change in climate that is the main problem, not the heat in particular. Rapidly cooling the planet down would create it's own problems to the ecosystem.

But I believed most important one is "plant trees" in order to capture the CO₂ from atmosphere. If we plant more trees ,more absorption will happen.

Trees take a long time to grow. There is a lot of trees in the World already, I don't think increasing the number of trees is the most important factor.
I doubt that any amount of trees would be able to handle this much CO2. We just need to slow it down, that is all.

As for the developing countries needing fossil fuels, yeah, this is exactly why everyone agreed that they should be allowed to burn their fair share that developed countries already profited from burning their's.

The end is near. we must repent or we will go to hell.

Seems like hell will come to us

[vphasitha01]

I know the way to cool down the Earth quickly and fix the global human population growth problem at the same time but... is called nuclear winter, I hope they don't go for that "solution" even with those crazy heads like Putin,Trump, Kim..

Lol. To be honest people refer to climate change as a problem for reason, it isn't just that it heats up, but that ecosystem isn't used to it.
It is the rapid change in climate that is the main problem, not the heat in particular. Rapidly cooling the planet down would create it's own problems to the ecosystem.

Yeah we all know natural climate variability already there. But the "Anthropogenic effect"is the main thing for climate change.
I also agree with rapidly cooling the planet is not an viable option even thinking about ,in fact it will create more problems.

Trees take a long time to grow. There is a lot of trees in the World already, I don't think increasing the number of trees is the most important factor.
I doubt that any amount of trees would be able to handle this much CO2. We just need to slow it down, that is all.

Everything takes time and we are not talking about forthcoming two,three even ten years only, try to look at the big picture. We need to slow down as well as need to take preventive actions simultaneously.

I doubt that "there is lot of trees" since deforestation take place after industrial revolution. I will highlight only few facts,

• One mature tree absorbs carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 pounds per year
• In one year, an acre of forest can absorb twice the CO2 produced by the average car's annual mileage
• One and a half acres of forest is cut down every second
• Loss of forests contributes between 12 percent and 17 percent of annual global GHG emissions

As for the developing countries needing fossil fuels, yeah, this is exactly why everyone agreed that they should be allowed to burn their fair share that developed countries already profited from burning their's.

Though developed countries already profited from burning their's, why everyone should agreed for allowing developing countries to burn their fair share while everyone has to face the consequences of climate change equally.

So rather better option is introducing mechanisms like "Clean Development Mechanisms" (CDM) for the developing countries, funded by developed countries.


References:

1-51 Breathtaking Facts About Deforestation
2-Carbon dioxide emission calculator
3-https://www.americanforests.org/explore-forests/forest-facts/

[xtraelv]

The ocean does not take up carbon uniformly. It breathes, inhaling and exhaling carbon dioxide.

Having collected carbon over hundreds of years, this deep upwelling water vents carbon dioxide to the atmosphere like smoke escaping through a chimney.

In the equatorial Pacific, carbon dioxide venting increased between 1997 and 2004.

Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/?src=share


I believe that far too much emphasis has been placed on carbon emissions. It is a ploy for enrichment through carbon taxes.

But pollution in general is a bad thing - so reduction in carbon emission is not a bad thing.

https://www.politico.eu/article/bogus-carbon-offsets-emissions-greenhouse-gas-pollution/

[vphasitha01]

-snip-

Thanks for your valuble information regarding ocenic carbon dioxide venting. I'm more than happy to know more about carbon taxing.

Another thing I want to highlight is Anthropogenic emissions of green house gases (GHGs) are making the atmosphere more absorptive of long- wave radiation. So we are "closing" the window that allows long wave radiation to escape. This is causing additional green house warming above the "natural" amount.

Another thing we can observed is increasing of ocenic heat content. If it has more heat on the ocean,that heat has to get in to the atmosphere. Therefore heat gradient is very high and more cyclones will happen. That is how nature reacts in order to release the gradient.

[vphasitha01]

don't just discuss. go to plant more tree as you can.

Yeah I do my part, will you? because we can't wait and watch the disaster without taking preventive measures. First we need to identify the problem clearly and then only together we can stand up in order to protect the earth.

Trust me world is on a path to distruction through human activity causing "Rapid Resource Depletion" and "Heavy Environmental Pollution" which has exceeded Earth's thresold capacity.

[criza]

Power and Energy are must-have in order for a country to move forward since it does the work for the creation and maintaining of ones need to be a developed country. And one of the most used energy sources thay we have is coal or fossil fuels. It is because coal or fossil fuels are the easiest to be found and beneficial to be used as an energy source. However, in every utilization of that energy source, there is also an emission of excessive carbon dioxide that results to extreme greenhouse effect that causes the warming of the Earth. And according to study, developed countries are emitting more than the developing countries. Therefore, we humans, especially people from developed countries must develop also a means to become more developed and at the same time they would not harm the environment. Development is not bad at all, but we must not compromise our environment because of that. It is for the reason that our environment brings our Earth to where we are today.

[Spendulus]

don't just discuss. go to plant more tree as you can.

Yeah I do my part, will you? because we can't wait and watch the disaster without taking preventive measures. First we need to identify the problem clearly and then only together we can stand up in order to protect the earth.

Trust me ....

why?

You sound a lot like Al Gore and I do not know anyone who would trust that guy.

Also I do not think you have clearly thought these things through.

Are you a shitposter from Reddit Climate?

[Spendulus]

....,Even if we stop all fossil fuel burning NOW, the earth's temperature is still going to rise for the next half century or so.

There is no certainty of another half century of rising temperatures.

Yes the effect of the additional CO2 will linger in the atmosphere for such a timeframe, but the effect of each additional increment of CO2 is exponentially less than the previous.

Also there are 60-80 year cycles, and longer term cycles, of climate to consider. These have warming and cooling periods. An example was the "mini ICE AGE" in the 1700s in which the river Thames in London froze over.

Among solar scientists, concern has been growing about global cooling. See for example -

http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307894966_The_Influence_of_Solar_System_Oscillation_on_the_Variability_of_the_Total_Solar_Irradiance

[vphasitha01]

don't just discuss. go to plant more tree as you can.

Yeah I do my part, will you? because we can't wait and watch the disaster without taking preventive measures. First we need to identify the problem clearly and then only together we can stand up in order to protect the earth.

Trust me ....

why?

It's up to you to trust me or not it doesn't make anything to me or my work.

You sound a lot like Al Gore and I do not know anyone who would trust that guy.

That's your point of view not others.

Also I do not think you have clearly thought these things through.

I think I have clear thoughts about what I'm saying and can you highlight where you feeled that I haven't through those things? Can you highlight any incorrect facts that I have mentioned. Because I only want to highlight the actual scenario of what's going on at the moment. I think facts matters rather than accusations.

Are you a shitposter from Reddit Climate?

"Reddit" LOL. Can you prove it? Don't judge a member without looking at his profile. I'm still a member but I'm not a underworld freak who do Bounties, I don't expect such a childish behavior from a legendary member like you. I think "shitposter" is the person who ruins a thread without adding any value to the discussion. So who is the shitposter? Is it me?

[vphasitha01]

Also there are 60-80 year cycles, and longer term cycles, of climate to consider. These have warming and cooling periods. An example was the "mini ICE AGE" in the 1700s in which the river Thames in London froze over.

Yes there have been cycles since natural climate variability always there. But the problem is "Anthropogenic effect" will divert those cycles from where it should be actually.

Among solar scientists, concern has been growing about global cooling. See for example -

http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307894966_The_Influence_of_Solar_System_Oscillation_on_the_Variability_of_the_Total_Solar_Irradiance

Thanks for looking at the problem from a different angle. However I don't believe about global cooling thing(besides from natural climate varibility).

"People who deny or try to minimize the importance of human-caused climate change will often argue that climate changed naturally in the past. And while that’s true, we know the climate change is now being dominated by what humans are doing" - The Guardian

Link>>>Pollen data shows humans reversed natural global cooling

[Spendulus]

Also there are 60-80 year cycles, and longer term cycles, of climate to consider. These have warming and cooling periods. An example was the "mini ICE AGE" in the 1700s in which the river Thames in London froze over.

Yes there have been cycles since natural climate variability always there. But the problem is "Anthropogenic effect" will divert those cycles from where it should be actually.

Where it "should be?"

Consider what the effect would be, and how many lives would be lost, if another Little Ice Age were to happen.

If it is the case that man's emissions have stopped such a climate event, that is a good outcome, not a bad outcome.

Now consider a real ice age. As you may be aware, these occur periodically and our planet is overdue for one. Again, a slight effect of man's CO2 emissions might at the least, stall such disaster.

I don't think you really mean what you say, "should be."

Among solar scientists, concern has been growing about global cooling. See for example -

http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307894966_The_Influence_of_Solar_System_Oscillation_on_the_Variability_of_the_Total_Solar_Irradiance

Thanks for looking at the problem from a different angle. However I don't believe about global cooling thing(besides from natural climate varibility).

May I remind you, that in the camp of Global Warming there are many who are basically pushing propaganda? They are politicians, some of the scientists, many people who are well meaning, but many companies who benefit from scaring the public.

Solar scientists are physicists. They do not have those points of view. They study the internal dynamics of our Sun. If they publish papers and publicly warn about the possible consequences of a lowering of solar activity similar to the 17th century, people should listen. That means reading and understanding their reasoning.

Believing is completely irrelevant and is more akin to religion than science.

[Spendulus]

don't just discuss. go to plant more tree as you can.

Yeah I do my part, will you? because we can't wait and watch the disaster without taking preventive measures. First we need to identify the problem clearly and then only together we can stand up in order to protect the earth.

Trust me ....

why?

It's up to you to trust me or not it doesn't make anything to me or my work.

You sound a lot like Al Gore and I do not know anyone who would trust that guy.

That's your point of view not others.

Also I do not think you have clearly thought these things through.

I think I have clear thoughts about what I'm saying and can you highlight where you feeled that I haven't through those things? Can you highlight any incorrect facts that I have mentioned. Because I only want to highlight the actual scenario of what's going on at the moment. I think facts matters rather than accusations.

Are you a shitposter from Reddit Climate?

"Reddit" LOL. Can you prove it? Don't judge a member without looking at his profile. I'm still a member but I'm not a underworld freak who do Bounties, I don't expect such a childish behavior from a legendary member like you. I think "shitposter" is the person who ruins a thread without adding any value to the discussion. So who is the shitposter? Is it me?

RE shitposter, I was joking, you used the word first. Your extensive use of graphs and charts, reminded me of numerous propaganda threads on the reddit climate threads, from which many who disagreed were banned, and are now here.

Yes, you do seem to draw incorrect or unwarranted conclusions from partial or poorly understand phenomena. This is typical of AGW believers —

(1) pick a set of data which affirms the theory of AGW
(2) assert that man is responsible and must change his ways
(3) detail how he must change his ways

Almost always by the time one gets to (3) the assertions are wildly inaccurate.

So to answer your question, yes, there are logical errors both in 1-->2, and 2-->3.

I would comment that science is hard, and a lot of time the answer is "we don't know." Believers in AGW want to propagate their belief, and they have an absolute certainty as to their righteousness. That is much more like religion than science.

New findings occur almost daily, but it may be fifty or seventy-five years before we really understand the chaotic system of climate and it's dynamics.

[vphasitha01]

RE shitposter, I was joking, you used the word first. Your extensive use of graphs and charts, reminded me of numerous propaganda threads on the reddit climate threads, from which many who disagreed were banned, and are now here.

Yes, you do seem to draw incorrect or unwarranted conclusions from partial or poorly understand phenomena. This is typical of AGW believers —

(1) pick a set of data which affirms the theory of AGW
(2) assert that man is responsible and must change his ways
(3) detail how he must change his ways

Almost always by the time one gets to (3) the assertions are wildly inaccurate.

So to answer your question, yes, there are logical errors both in 1-->2, and 2-->3.

I'm not an AGW believer or i don't have any propaganda. i just want to aware what humans done to the mother nature and we just need to slow down our development or moving to renewable. Can you give me a example(like atmospheric concentration of CO₂) and just filter those (1),(2) and (3) steps. Then only i can find out is there any logical errors between those steps. 

I would comment that science is hard, and a lot of time the answer is "we don't know." Believers in AGW want to propagate their belief, and they have an absolute certainty as to their righteousness. That is much more like religion than science.

I think you're telling we all should accept the answer of "we don't know". I don't say anywhere "Anthropogenic effect" is the absolute certain reason for climate change, but it is the predominant factor when looking at the historical data.

New findings occur almost daily, but it may be fifty or seventy-five years before we really understand the chaotic system of climate and it's dynamics.

Solar scientists are physicists. They do not have those points of view. They study the internal dynamics of our Sun. If they publish papers and publicly warn about the possible consequences of a lowering of solar activity similar to the 17th century, people should listen. That means reading and understanding their reasoning.

Believing is completely irrelevant and is more akin to religion than science.

Don't you think those two answers are not matching with each others. First quote you are saying we can't rely on new findings and second quote you are saying solar scientists are the ones who we should listen. i'm some what confused?

some times i feeled liked "Denialism is backed by economism" or "Climate change is not happening, Earth is also Flat"

 

[Divine.bc]

I think that a much bigger deal has been made of this than it need be. Yes, pollution is bad. I think we can all agree. But, the climate changes naturally throughout time. in terms of geological time the temperature has risen and fallen in dramatic ways throughout time, and it will continue to do so. It doesn't care about your house or your streets. at some point in time the oceans will rise and flood low areas. Also, in time glaciers will come through and swallow everything in its path. None of this is new. its mother nature and the natural cycle of things.

As far as fossil fuel emissions are concerned sure we need to stop that, its a pollutant. And the sooner the better. But as far as I know the technology to solve this problem isn't quite there yet. But, I have full faith that the right people are hard at work and making real progress and we should all get behind those people. So in my opinion if you really want to help than the next time you need to buy a car then go get yourself a Tesla. Start putting up solar panels and selling your excess power back to your local electric company etc.

I believe that in my lifetime these changes will be made and will be commonplace.   

[Spendulus]

..... Then only i can find out is there any logical errors between those steps.  

(2-->3) illogical conclusions
You advocated "planting trees." But assuming they have the effect you believe they have, that won't work, when you do the math.

Size of United States: 3,805,927 square miles

Number of square miles of ADDITIONAL trees needed to absorb all US CO2 emissions: 1,042,019 square miles

Nature has a way of putting plants, including trees, in locations where they can thrive.

(3 incorrect understanding)
Moreover, you consider trees as an unqualified Good, based on a belief that they have an effect of removing Co2 from the air. This is false, they are not an unqualified, absolute Good. Trees can either increase or decrease the greenhouse effect depending on conditions. And if they were planted as you assert should be done, the net effect would be negative.

https://carnegiescience.edu/news/co2-effects-plants-increase-global-warming-0

averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. “If we think of a doubling of carbon dioxide as causing about four degrees of warming, in many places three of those degrees are coming from the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and one is coming from the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.

You've proposed people should trust your judgement, embark on a course of action that math says is useless, and that will have the opposite effect you believed.

Any other questions?

[Gifar_Gofur]

Currently we are in a century of climate change and energy crises that take place simultaneously. Ironically, the double crisis has an impact on the declining quality of the environment. The need for energy also rises when humans must survive the impacts of climate change. Climate change will always lead to extreme dislocations in many ecosystems when those systems undergo changes in rainfall and temperature. A similar case also occurs in the correlation between energy and the environment. The cost to stabilize the climate is large but still manageable. Conversely, the delay will make it more dangerous and very expensive.