Climate Change Prevention

[mitchellmckain]

It seems quite likely to me (approaching undeniable) that like the O2 portion of our atmosphere, the ozone layer is also a product of the biosphere. This suggests to me that there may have been species of phytoplankton more adapted to UV exposure. At the very least, there may have been species of phytoplankton more adapted to warmer climates. Perhaps the recent (or current) ice age is why phytoplankton seem to prefer colder climates at this time.

Apparently 175 million years ago the CO2 levels began to decline from 2500 ppm down to the 225 ppm average that we have had over the last million years or so (now 400 pmm at the moment). Most of that time the average global temperature was much much higher. If phytoplankton was reason for this change in CO2 levels then it seems likely it was adapted to a higher temperature. In this case, it would be just a matter of time for these previous versions of phytoplankton to reassert themselves, though the evolutionary time scale is not so helpful to human civilization. But then there is Braininvat's suggestion that we might help this along ourselves.

I acknowledge that this is not the only possible explanation. Just because phytoplankton is responsible for the majority of our CO2 to O2 conversion right now does not mean that it always has been. Also the buildup of our current O2 versus CO2 levels may been a rather slow process from other plants or a less effective phytoplankon and we cannot assume it was more effective at higher temperatures in the past.

[Braininvat]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-electric-taxi/london-hails-electric-cabs-for-a-fare-to-a-different-world-idUSKBN1E00E0?il=0

Whittling away at our carbon footprint. The question is, do these little victories aid the whittling to where it can eventually make a dent?

[Serpent]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-electric-taxi/london-hails-electric-cabs-for-a-fare-to-a-different-world-idUSKBN1E00E0?il=0

Whittling away at our carbon footprint. The question is, do these little victories aid the whittling to where it can eventually make a dent?

Nah! Too late. And anyway, the current US administration will do more harm in a year than the rest of world can undo in a decade.

More admirable whittling.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/passive-house-affordable-housing-1.4432331

Had we begun these measures in 1968

1967 - Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math
1968
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically. =>Sea rise & ice

the whole thing might have been prevented - with the bonus of far better health, both of humans and other species, world-wide. Imagine the shape we'd be in if we'd listened back in the 1890's.

The timeline in the link may be of interest.
https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

[Serpent]

Would be interesting to see some data on insect changes around where I am over the past 30 years but I don't think anyone in my area was studying that so long ago as the population was a fraction of what it is now.

I don't know where you are, and it doesn't seem to matter. This paper was brought to my attention recently. I mentioned it elsewhere, but if you're still interested, here it is again
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

[BadgerJelly]

Here's some water/petrol for the fire ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

[zetreque]

Here's some water/petrol for the fire ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

Why even post such a piece of trash? It is missing so many things such as disappearing ice, methane hydrates, or rapid change and the speed of evolution. And it's hardly related to the topic. best for another topic of small minded people like the US president.

[zetreque]

Lindzen against the academic community.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

[Braininvat]

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/1229/Why-coal-rich-Wyoming-is-investing-big-in-wind-power

[zetreque]

This thread is already so long already but this certainly fits the category.

2009 was the first approved Hemp construction house in the USA.
They make a lot of claims and I wonder how well the claims actually stack up long term and if there are any negative indoor air quality effects. If it sucks carbon out of the air I wonder how well indoor plants would do. If it is significant enough to make a difference.

I wonder what rate the concrete becomes more dense aka carbon sequestration rate.



133$ per square foot. Not bad.

[zetreque]

California Cow Power
http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/1 ... alifornia/

This technology is nothing new, but maybe it will be more competitive and better known with volume.

[Braininvat]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/science/hemp-homes-cannabis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

]Manufacturers say it’s ideal for low-rise construction, a product that’s stucco-like in appearance and toxin-free. Its promoters also boast that it has a lower carbon footprint, requiring three times less heat to create than standard limestone concrete.

More like drywall than concrete, hempcrete can’t be used for a foundation or structure; it’s an insulation that needs to breathe, said Joy Beckerman, a hemp law specialist and vice president of the Hemp Industries Association, a trade group.

[zetreque]

Very informative article. Thank you. I researched this the other day when posting above because I am hopefully very soon starting on my own building project. After my research I don't think I will be using hempcrete but haven't entirely ruled it out. It comes down to cost. As the article points out, even the seeds have to be imported. With time this product will get very cheap I think when farmers start growing it locally, but right now it's not entirely sustainable being shipped all over and it's more expensive going through all the building exemptions, labor and mixing.

Also as the article points out, it's not for structural. You are basically replacing the costs of standard insulation, drywall and siding with the cost of hempcrete which is much more labor intensive. California might be much more open to the industry after the last series of disastrous fires wiped out thousands of homes. I think even as non-environmentally friend as standard concrete is, concrete still looks good when you take into account it's being fireproof, thermal mass, soundproofing and strength. (so long as the next owner of the house doesn't just tear the thing down to build his or her own dream home which happens quite often.)

This article mentions the problems with being used close to ground level. I did not read that in my research and that adds additional problems. I'd like to consider this building material, but unfortunately I might be a little to early to the game. The article gave me a couple leads to look into. Thanks again.

[Braininvat]

You're welcome. It's certainly early days, in terms of knowing all the pluses and minuses. I try to restrain jokes about homeowners too stoned to flee the house when it catches fire.

Also in the news recently in the A2F technology experiments, where CO2 is extracted from the air to make carbon neutral fuels...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... bill-gates

[Serpent]

Not a bad idea, that one. They're going into production of precast panels; they could as easily make bricks, or other shapes for prefab construction. I can imagine, with a little more tweaking of the formulation, reinforcing it with rebars or a mesh of something tougher - say, cedar bark off all those fence-posts - to make it strong and thus more versatile.
http://www.westlocknews.com/article/Tiny-house-builder-branches-out-his-hempcrete-business-20170207

At this stage, he noted that hempcrete is quite cost competitive since most of the biomass he is using is actually rotting away in fields.
....." We’re basically using a local waste product to build houses. The benefits there are astronomical. Not only is it a waste product, its fire resistant, mould resistant, pest resistant, earthquake resistant.”
Hempcrete is also notable for its heat-retaining properties and low-environmental impact. He noted that materials for an average house could be produced on five-acres of land in one growing season.
As well, aging only strengthens the blocks as the natural fibres petrify over a 30 to 40-year period.

[RjMaan]

This topic does need a debate on it. Actually there are a lot of sources of climate change and we cannot eliminate those resource at once. It will need a lot of time. As you know the shifting of people from gasoline cars to electric cars and bikes took a lot of time. Plus, it also depends on the awareness of people, if people are well aware of the climate change and its causes then they will actively take part in prevention.

[Serpent]

This topic does need a debate on it. Actually there are a lot of sources of climate change and we cannot eliminate those resource at once. It will need a lot of time. As you know the shifting of people from gasoline cars to electric cars and bikes took a lot of time. Plus, it also depends on the awareness of people, if people are well aware of the climate change and its causes then they will actively take part in prevention.

There have been electric vehicles since the 1830's; practical designs since 1870. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/overview-of-early-electric-cars.html
It took over 2 centuries to wake up to the destructiveness of fossil fuels: even though the immediate effects were obvious, commercial interest won out over conservation, environment, human health and welfare, indigenous cultures and communities, wildlife and nature.
Now, it might be more advantageous to some financial interests to promote ecologically sound practices, but opposing commercial interests are still invested in the destructive technologies, and most industries are still finding it a lot cheaper to dump toxic waste illegally than to to dispose of it safely - or **imagine!!** - stop producing it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968 Of course, the use of coal was clearly bad for miners, railway and ship crews, as well as all the working people in industrial cities, but they simply didn't matter until they unionized and got some degree of protection. The environment couldn't. Here's something from 100 years ago. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/

The accelerating rate of of climate change have been clearly and loudly enunciated by scientists for the past half century - though, trying to avoid being labelled as "alarmist", they regularly erred on the optimistic side of prediction.

These weather changes are currently manifesting in disasters all over the globe. The number of people permanently displaced, mainly by too much or not enough water as rain and wind patterns are increasingly disrupted, will continue to grow.

If you're still only "debating", when do you expect to see results?