Global Warning/Climate Change

[Ken]

It is about what Arizona will be like in 10-20 years.

They can not predict weather 5 days out presently. How do we know about the future?

With increased co2, plant can be much more efficient and require half the water to preform photosynthesis. This means arid places will be able to grow much more plants.

While there are negatives that we need to watch for, there is also many positives. It seems some only look at one side.

It isn’t my area of science. But climate scientists are indeed attempting to predict longer-term trends with very sophisticated models that use enormous amounts of data. They, of course, can’t predict what the weather will be on July 2, 2027. But they can construct models that will make predictions about what future climate conditions will be like in different locations under various different warming scenarios. NOAA is doing this sort of work jointly with Princeton at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton to cite just one example. It is way more sophisticated modeling work than I can wrap my head around, using state-of-the-art supercomputers. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/climate-modeling/

I don’t think they are just “looking at one side” to distort their results in a particular direction.

[Robert]

But they can construct models that will make predictions about what future climate conditions will be like in different locations under various different warming scenarios.

The reason why their models are off is because of clouds. They all have to guess at the affect of clouds because there is no model that can calculate it. Clouds are the biggest factor to climate. Not being able to calculate clouds and their affect is quite a big issue.

I don’t think they are just “looking at one side” to distort their results in a particular direction.

I am not discussing climate change with them.

[temporal1]

[Soloist]

That picture isn't very fair towards how Lithium is harvested.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium ... ent-impact

to extract lithium, miners start by drilling a hole in the salt flats and pumping salty, mineral-rich brine to the surface.

Then they leave it to evaporate for months at a time, first creating a mixture of manganese, potassium, borax and lithium salts which is then filtered and placed into another evaporation pool, and so on. After between 12 and 18 months, the mixture has been filtered enough that lithium carbonate – white gold – can be extracted.

It’s a relatively cheap and effective process, but it uses a lot of water – approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne of lithium.

This is the refining process of oil

[temporal1]

That picture isn't very fair towards how Lithium is harvested.
://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteri ... onment-imp

to extract lithium, miners start by drilling a hole in the salt flats and pumping salty, mineral-rich brine to the surface.

Then they leave it to evaporate for months at a time, first creating a mixture of manganese, potassium, borax and lithium salts which is then filtered and placed into another evaporation pool, and so on. After between 12 and 18 months, the mixture has been filtered enough that lithium carbonate – white gold – can be extracted.

It’s a relatively cheap and effective process, but it uses a lot of water – approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne of lithium.

This is the refining process of oil
[img]https:img]

my only purpose in the above graphic was caution to consider the big picture, the NET effects, which are often glossed-over when big profits tempt. it’s not easy. BOTH sides want to win. the stakes are high, morality low.

[Ken]

And this is what tar sands mining actually looks like in Alberta

[silentreader]

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... ing-world/

[JimFoxvog]

From the World Meteorological Organization:

Greenhouse Gas Bulletin: Another Year Another Record
25 October 2021

Rise in greenhouse gas concentrations jeopardizes Paris Agreement temperature targets

Geneva, 25 October 2021 (WMO) - The abundance of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere once again reached a new record last year, with the annual rate of increase above the 2011-2020 average. That trend has continued in 2021, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.

Concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most important greenhouse gas, reached 413.2 parts per million in 2020 and is 149% of the pre-industrial level. Methane (CH4) is 262% and nitrous oxide (N2O) is 123% of the levels in 1750 when human activities started disrupting Earth’s natural equilibrium. The economic slowdown from COVID-19 did not have any discernible impact on the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and their growth rates, although there was a temporary decline in new emissions.
...
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-r ... her-record

One press coverage of the report:

Greenhouse gas levels hit record high in 2020: UN report
UN weather agency warns the world is ‘way off track’ on reaching goals for capping rising temperatures.

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere hit a new record high in 2020, the United Nations’ weather agency reported in a stark warning about worsening global warming.

Monday’s annual report on heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) showed that carbon dioxide levels surged to 413.2 parts per million in 2020, increasing at a faster rate than the annual average over the last decade despite a temporary dip in emissions during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/ ... port-shows

[Robert]

Greenhouse gas levels hit record high in 2020: UN report

China and India, who are not bound by the Paris agreements, are the worse producers. So the Paris accords are basically useless. Bring them in and I will consider the need.

[Ken]

Greenhouse gas levels hit record high in 2020: UN report

China and India, who are not bound by the Paris agreements, are the worse producers. So the Paris accords are basically useless. Bring them in and I will consider the need.

It depends on what you mean by “worst”. Countries don’t pollute, people and industries do. The top three countries in terms of CO2 production are China, the US, and India. But in terms of per-capita CO2 production the numbers are quite different.

China: 7.38 tons per capita
USA: 15.54 tons per capita
India: 1.91 tons per capita

So the average American is producing about 9x more carbon per capita than the average Indian, and about double the average Chinese. Canada and Australia are actually worse than the US and up in the 18 tons per capita range. The worst countries in the world in terms of per-capita CO2 production are the gulf states like Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. which are mostly in the 30+ tons per capita.

One solution would be a carbon tax tariff on imports. That would be one way for the US to get at carbon production abroad with our without the Paris agreements. In other words, impose import taxes based on each country (or each industry’s) carbon production overseas. If China has 5x higher carbon production than say Vietnam then China would be imposed 5x higher carbon tariffs. That would incentivize countries to reduce their carbon production if they want to be competitive exporting to the US market. Bring in the EU and you have over 50% of the world’s market which would be a powerful incentive for any country to compete for. All that could be done with a stroke of the pen as Trump showed when he imposed all kinds of new tariffs without going through Congress or any international bodies.