Houston-area school board votes to remove 13 chapters from state-approved science textbooks, citing controversial topics

[Zaha Torte]

Considering that you postulate nothing short of divine intervention as a response to anything humans do that might be an "immediate threat" to mankind, I don't see the point of convincing you of the science of an immediate threat like climate change.

That's ridiculous.

The entirety of my faith is built up around the fact that there is an "immediate threat" to Mankind and that we all have need of divine intervention.

I just don't believe that threat to be climate change.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You honestly believe that we can prevent the thing that always changes from changing?

Yes. The major threat to human civilization comes from changes WE are inducing. Things could have been so much easier if everyone had just listened 30 years ago. Instead, we must now have a crash de-carbonization and deal with at least some of the impacts.

 

[Zaha Torte]

At the moment human beings are the main cause of its changing, so we can be the main cause of adjusting that change (to either go back towards the former equilibrium, or to push it further out of whack).

Equilibrium? By what standard do you make that claim?

 

[Nithavela]

That's ridiculous.

I also think that the viewpoint you have displayed in this thread is ridiculous.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Yes. The major threat to human civilization comes from changes WE are inducing. Things could have been so much easier if everyone had just listened 30 years ago. Instead, we must now have a crash de-carbonization and deal with at least some of the impacts.

What would have changed if people had listened 30 years ago?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What would have changed if people had listened 30 years ago?

The amount of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere would be significantly lower, and we would not be seeing large annual increases in the global average temperature.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Equilibrium? By what standard do you make that claim?

On a scale of centuries, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was in a relative equilibrium compared to the changes since the industrial revolution.

On a scale of millenia, it has changed some over the past 10,000 years, but still relatively balanced between CO2 added and CO2 taken away (note the bottom of the y-axis in both graphs is not 0 ppm but 250 ppm.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The amount of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere would be significantly lower, and we would not be seeing large annual increases in the global average temperature.

How so? What would people have done differently?

 

[Zaha Torte]

On a scale of centuries, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was in a relative equilibrium compared to the changes since the industrial revolution.

View attachment 348199

On a scale of millenia, it has changed some over the past 10,000 years, but still relatively balanced between CO2 added and CO2 taken away (note the bottom of the y-axis in both graphs is not 0 ppm but 250 ppm.

View attachment 348200

Aw - I thought you meant equilibrium in terms of temperature or climate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Aw - I thought you meant equilibrium in terms of temperature or climate.

They are related. The change in CO2 changes the balance (equilibrium) between the energy absorbed by the earth and the energy reradiated into space. This changes the global average temperature of the planet.

 

[Zaha Torte]

They are related. The change in CO2 changes the balance (equilibrium) between the energy absorbed by the earth and the energy reradiated into space. This changes the global average temperature of the planet.

View attachment 348206

I understand. I thought you meant that there was a temperature or climate "equilibrium".

Which was why I asked by what standard you made that claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What would have changed if people had listened 30 years ago?

There are so many ways we could have more gently reduced our emissions of CO2 if we'd started earlier and that would reduce the climate impact *now* and made it easier to effect a gentle transition to a (mostly) carbon-free economy.

A few things that could have been done include:

tighter CAFE standards for cars. Gasoline engines got more efficient during the last 30 years, but most of this was put into building bigger cars.

a moratorium on new coal power plants early. There is less need to decommission plants early in their lifecycles if they don't get built.

investments in public transit that reduce the need for transportation fuel usage with more compact development.

earlier and wider investments in wind power.

Each of these wouldn't solve the problem, but these were obvious paths to be taken 30 years ago and all of them were fought. CO2 emissions could have peaked much earlier with more total emissions in the atmosphere. The failure of the US to take strong action (and often as particularly under GW Bush to fight against them) made it easier for other nations to scoff at our attempts to fuel their reluctance.

This would have given us more time and cushion to turn this around more gently. We're long past that point.

 

[Zaha Torte]

There are so many ways we could have more gently reduced our emissions of CO2 if we'd started earlier and that would reduce the climate impact *now* and made it easier to effect a gentle transition to a (mostly) carbon-free economy.

A few things that could have been done include:

tighter CAFE standards for cars. Gasoline engines got more efficient during the last 30 years, but most of this was put into building bigger cars.

a moratorium on new coal power plants early. There is less need to decommission plants early in their lifecycles if they don't get built.

investments in public transit that reduce the need for transportation fuel usage with more compact development.

earlier and wider investments in wind power.

Each of these wouldn't solve the problem, but these were obvious paths to be taken 30 years ago and all of them were fought. CO2 emissions could have peaked much earlier with more total emissions in the atmosphere. The failure of the US to take strong action (and often as particularly under GW Bush to fight against them) made it easier for other nations to scoff at our attempts to fuel their reluctance.

This would have given us more time and cushion to turn this around more gently. We're long past that point.

I'm surprised that you didn't bring up natural gas and nuclear power.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm surprised that you didn't bring up natural gas and nuclear power.

I didn't want the post to go on forever. There were many possible "easy" and available choices in the 1990s that we didn't take. (Natural gas isn't quite the panacea for reducing GHG emissions it is made out to be.)

 

[Zaha Torte]

I didn't want the post to go on forever. There were many possible "easy" and available choices in the 1990s that we didn't take. (Natural gas isn't quite the panacea for reducing GHG emissions it is made out to be.)

Does it not burn cleaner than petrol though?

I saw loads of people from both sides offering alternatives - but they couldn't settle.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Does it not burn cleaner than petrol though?

Not really. Natural gas is not pure methane and CO2 is one of the common components. More importantly extracting and transporting natural gas results in leakage and methane is a much more powerful GHG than CO2, so the net savings is minimal. (Natural gas does produce less toxins in burning than coal.) (It was never much of a vehicle fuel.)

I saw loads of people from both sides offering alternatives - but they couldn't settle.

I'm not sure what "both sides" are in this context, nor what they couldn't settle on. Could you be more specific about who, what, and when we are talking about here.

 

[Pommer]

Does it not burn cleaner than petrol though?

I saw loads of people from both sides offering alternatives - but they couldn't settle.

Natural gas is cleaner because it’s CH4, and not the crazy-chains of hydrocarbons that don’t “play well” with the nitrogen which 78% of the atmosphere. But without CO2 scrubbers, (or other carbon-capture tech), the “benefit” would diminish should NG is used in more places.

 

[Pommer]

Not really. Natural gas is not pure methane and CO2 is one of the common components. More importantly extracting and transporting natural gas results in leakage and methane is a much more powerful GHG than CO2, so the net savings is minimal. (Natural gas does produce less toxins in burning than coal.) (It was never much of a vehicle fuel.)

I'm not sure what "both sides" are in this context, nor what they couldn't settle on. Could you be more specific about who, what, and when we are talking about here.

I drove cab in the 1980s, our fleet was switched over from gasoline to propane just about the time the owner opened a new business being a propane distributor.
What a joy it was to fill the predawn taxi-cab with 80 lbs of propane in -40° weather! Valves get funny.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A

I drove cab in the 1980s, our fleet was switched over from gasoline to propane just about the time the owner opened a new business being a propane distributor.
What a joy it was to fill the predawn taxi-cab with 80 lbs of propane in -40° weather! Valves get funny.

At those temperatures, you almost don't need to pressurize it to keep it liquid. (That's not actually a good thing. You need it to vaporize it to get it to flow up the tube to the engine.) Propane has 3x the carbon and 2x the hydrogen per molecule (C3H8) relative to methane (CH4).

 

[Pommer]

A

At those temperatures, you almost don't need to pressurize it to keep it liquid. (That's not actually a good thing. You need it to vaporize it to get it to flow up the tube to the engine.) Propane has 3x the carbon and 2x the hydrogen per molecule (C3H8) relative to methane (CH4).

Yeah, they were hard-starting in the very cold and ran rough until the block warmed enough to ensure proper vaporization in the intake manifold.