Climate change: what are YOU doing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: what are YOU doing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand?

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

1452 posts

Uber Geek

#1847275 15-Aug-2017 20:20

frankv:

frednz:

In any event, I'm sure the planet will eventually recover from global warming or global cooling, it's just everything that lives on the planet that may be in danger.

Yeah. "Recovery of the planet" is very anthropocentric. It suggests that some state is "good" for the planet, and another is "bad". But was it in a better state 1000 years ago? A million years ago? 100 million years ago? A billion years ago? 4.5 billion years ago?

For most of its existence, Earth was uninhabitable by human beings.

Here's an extract from an article about what happened 55 million years ago on our planet:

About 55 million years ago global temperatures spiked. Then, as now, sea levels rose, the oceans became more acidic, and species disappeared forever.

Little wonder, then, that researchers view this ancient event – known as the "Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum" or PETM – as a potential goldmine of useful information for understanding modern climate change.

So, our planet has been super hot before as a result of global warming and it eventually survived.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

fated

27 posts

Geek

#1847304 15-Aug-2017 22:15

frankv:

Yeah. "Recovery of the planet" is very anthropocentric. It suggests that some state is "good" for the planet, and another is "bad". But was it in a better state 1000 years ago? A million years ago? 100 million years ago? A billion years ago? 4.5 billion years ago?

For most of its existence, Earth was uninhabitable by human beings.

the planet existed just fine without humans for 99.997% of its existence , and will exist just fine after we as a species no longer do!

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1847343 16-Aug-2017 07:08

fated:

frankv:

Yeah. "Recovery of the planet" is very anthropocentric. It suggests that some state is "good" for the planet, and another is "bad". But was it in a better state 1000 years ago? A million years ago? 100 million years ago? A billion years ago? 4.5 billion years ago?

For most of its existence, Earth was uninhabitable by human beings.

the planet existed just fine without humans for 99.997% of its existence , and will exist just fine after we as a species no longer do!

Correct. Once the gases fall, it will very slowly go back to normal. Life will again be small organisms and mosses and it will start over.

Dratsab

3934 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1847438 16-Aug-2017 11:01

Rikkitic:

jmh: After reading the actual scientific data measuring reality, rather than the politically-motivated data generated by models, I have discovered that we are approaching a period of global cooling due to a reduction in sun activity. I am investigating how I can grow food in a cooler climate when prices go up (it's started already actually), and investing in a greenhouse. In New Zealand, where the glaciers are already growing, we will see more snow in the South and more rain in the North which 1 - 3 deg C average drops in temperature. That's the best case scenario - hopefully we won't go colder as has happened in the past.

I have to say, I'm gobsmacked that people still believe this warming nonsense. Stock up on warm jumpers.

I would be interested in links to some of that scientific data. I am quite prepared to change my mind if the evidence is there.

This is getting quite old as far as news is concerned and I find it a little surprising it's gained little traction or is just being glossed over. At this stage it's not clear exactly what effects the decrease in sunspot will have and the scientific community seems quite divided, with some saying it will have no effect and others predicting another Maunder Minimum. The division of this community itself doesn't actually mean anything as it's a common occurrence with anything new(ish).

Here's an article with scientists saying decreased sunspot activity will cause significant cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum (aka The Little Ice Age).

Here's an article saying reduced sunspot activity will have no effect as the correlation between the observed drastic sunspot decrease and the Maunder Minimum has not been proven.

So, at the moment there is 'scientific evidence' but what it means and what it's effects will be are controversial. If anyone wants to take a bit of time, there's hundreds of articles available to be read - some for cooling, some denying it. Are those who deny cooling will occur in the same camp as those that denied 'climate change'? Are those saying another Maunder Minimum is in the offing merely alarmists? Only time will tell.

I like to equate scientists (and lawyers) with Newtown's Third Law - for every scientist, there is an equal and opposite scientist.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17251 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1847523 16-Aug-2017 12:43

There does seem to be real evidence that ‘global warming’ is slowing down. Those who seem to think everything is a conspiracy are quick to seize on this as ‘proof’ that it is all a huge plot and there is no reason to give up their SUVs.

Trying to get objective information from the Internet is like trying to pick the right number at roulette. For every convincing-sounding argument there is an equally convincing counter-argument, all trying to overwhelm you with ‘facts’, figures, formulas and calculations.

As an intelligent but non-expert lay person, I find it impossible to sift through all this noise. How do you judge the validity or objectivity of a source spewing out spurious data like a volcano? The only way is to go with sources you have some confidence in because of their past performance over a range of issues, and to place some trust in majority opinion.

I find it very precious of some individuals who make definitive pronouncements about climate change being a big lie, or at least a big misunderstanding. What qualifies them to make such judgements? They are merely venturing an opinion, probably uninformed.

My opinion that climate change is real and exacerbated by human activity is equally uninformed but I base it on the fact that sources I trust say it is so, and a majority of qualified experts appear to agree. Maybe this is wrong, but I believe the chances of it being right are much greater than a dissenting opinion supported by only a handful of scientists, along with the oil industry and right-wing conspiracy advocates.

Here is an article in the Economist that seems informed and balanced. No doubt some will find all kinds of reasons why it is wrong but to my inexpert mind it seems to state the current situation fairly well. Maybe global warming will turn out to be a myth and we can all carry on merrily burning fossil fuels. Maybe we are doomed. I don’t know. I think the threat is real, but if more evidence to the contrary emerges, and the consensus of expert opinion changes, I will be glad to say I was wrong.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7619 posts

Uber Geek

#1847551 16-Aug-2017 13:12

tdgeek:

Look at Venus, next planet to us, its the hottest in the solar system, all due to greenhouse gas.

Earth, if it gets too hot will pass a tipping point. Up to the tipping point, if we ceased polluting, it will recover. Past the tipping point, we dont matter as the earth's atmosphere, warm seas, greenhouse gas insulation, decreasing ice caps that reflect, feed it without humans needed to feed it. Its a runaway problem. It will recover in time, as the gases dissipate, I assume. We will be long gone. Too hot to live, fresh water runs out, no room for food to grow, the big water tunnel that circulates water around the world, spreading cool and warm water, nutrients, oxygen, will stop, as the temp differential between cold and warm is too low. Stagnant. Marine life slowly dies as that happens as oxygen decreases in warm water, they decompose, more chemical released exacerbating that problem. Methane in the Russian tundra leaks hugely, it is now, as parts are barely freezing. Methane is a bad Greenhouse gas.

Thats the science.

To start with Venus as far as we know has never had a biosphere to actively influence the atmosphere. Earth's biosphere exerts a substantial regulating influence on atmospheric gases.

Previously when CO2 levels have spiked, plant growth has massively increased and ultimately oxygen levels have increased as well. Durign the carboniferous period atmospheric CO2 was 800ppm (400 currently) and oxygen was 35% (215 currently). Life was abundant.

Its human activities that are stopping these conditions developing now despite that fact we are at 400ppm C02 and it's warm. Post human earth is likely to be another carboniferous period but a much more bio-diverse one. Incidentally, carboniferous literally means coal-bearing.

Marine life doesn't die out completely in warm or enriched - the species mix changes.

Methane is a bad greenhouse gas but it doesn't persist as methane for all that long (due to the presence of radical compounds in the troposphere) and there is a finite supply of it to evaporate.

Mike

frednz

1452 posts

Uber Geek

#1848336 18-Aug-2017 09:05

A lot of the issues we have been discussing in this thread are dealt with in this recent issues paper "Low-emissions economy" issued by the Productivity Commission:

http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/LEE%20IP%20PDF.pdf

This is well worth reading to get an up to date view of what NZ is doing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I would be interested to hear your views on this comprehensive issues paper.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1848349 18-Aug-2017 09:22

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

Look at Venus, next planet to us, its the hottest in the solar system, all due to greenhouse gas.

Earth, if it gets too hot will pass a tipping point. Up to the tipping point, if we ceased polluting, it will recover. Past the tipping point, we dont matter as the earth's atmosphere, warm seas, greenhouse gas insulation, decreasing ice caps that reflect, feed it without humans needed to feed it. Its a runaway problem. It will recover in time, as the gases dissipate, I assume. We will be long gone. Too hot to live, fresh water runs out, no room for food to grow, the big water tunnel that circulates water around the world, spreading cool and warm water, nutrients, oxygen, will stop, as the temp differential between cold and warm is too low. Stagnant. Marine life slowly dies as that happens as oxygen decreases in warm water, they decompose, more chemical released exacerbating that problem. Methane in the Russian tundra leaks hugely, it is now, as parts are barely freezing. Methane is a bad Greenhouse gas.

Thats the science.

To start with Venus as far as we know has never had a biosphere to actively influence the atmosphere. Earth's biosphere exerts a substantial regulating influence on atmospheric gases.

Previously when CO2 levels have spiked, plant growth has massively increased and ultimately oxygen levels have increased as well. Durign the carboniferous period atmospheric CO2 was 800ppm (400 currently) and oxygen was 35% (215 currently). Life was abundant.

Its human activities that are stopping these conditions developing now despite that fact we are at 400ppm C02 and it's warm. Post human earth is likely to be another carboniferous period but a much more bio-diverse one. Incidentally, carboniferous literally means coal-bearing.

Marine life doesn't die out completely in warm or enriched - the species mix changes.

Methane is a bad greenhouse gas but it doesn't persist as methane for all that long (due to the presence of radical compounds in the troposphere) and there is a finite supply of it to evaporate.

You make it sound like not a problem! :-)

Venus is a good example of what runaway greenhouse gases can do

Yes, agree, as the CO2 and O change that helps or hinders species so some take advantage

Should the oceans overheat, lose oxygen and mass decomposition and low or no water flow it will become stagnant. Life will exist, but not so much a species mix, more of a marine bacteria ocean

Problem is with methane, there so SO much of it that is currently inert, that if and when it starts bleeding into the atmosphere as it is doing some some parts of Russian tundra, that might well blow away any turnaround that humans did. Some parts of the tundra are already barely below zero. Punch a small knife into it, get your lighter out, you have flame. Thats how it is now in places

frednz

1452 posts

Uber Geek

#1889689 26-Oct-2017 09:07

https://royalsociety.org.nz/assets/documents/Report-Human-Health-Impacts-of-Climate-Change-for-New-Zealand-Oct-2017.pdf

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11936747

A recent export report by New Zealand's leading body for science, Royal Society Te Aparangi, warns of a warmer world bringing heat waves, diseases, water contamination and air pollution.

Several degrees of warming this century could also have alarming implications for our mental health and social inequality - hitting Maori particularly hard.

This report is well worth reading. What are your views on the conclusions of this report?

MarkH67

509 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1890933 26-Oct-2017 18:53

frednz:

What are your views on the conclusions of this report?

Clearly climate change is bad and we should all do what we can to reduce the negative impact we have on this world.

I've seen an add for steel framing for houses, it listed the advantages of using steel. I couldn't help feeling that it must surely be better to grow trees and make framing from wood, that way the frames of the houses can be a carbon sink. Even using wood as much as we can it would take a LONG time (much more than a few decades) for trees to pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere.

Changing the vehicle I commute to work in means that I've reduced the hydrocarbons I burn per year by over 1,000 litres, but that seems like such a tiny amount compared to global CO₂ emissions. I wish I could do more.

wsnz

640 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1890971 26-Oct-2017 19:55

MarkH67:

I've seen an add for steel framing for houses, it listed the advantages of using steel. I couldn't help feeling that it must surely be better to grow trees and make framing from wood, that way the frames of the houses can be a carbon sink. Even using wood as much as we can it would take a LONG time (much more than a few decades) for trees to pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere.

Deforestation from mining iron should also taken into account in assessing how environmental friendly the product is.

A builder I know said one big issue with those products is that all the wiring had to be encased in PVC conduit which added to the cost and obviously negative environmental aspects.

Sir Bob Jones released plans a few months ago for a wooden high-rise in Wellington. Worth a read.

frednz

1452 posts

Uber Geek

#1891008 26-Oct-2017 20:44

MarkH67:

frednz:

What are your views on the conclusions of this report?

Clearly climate change is bad and we should all do what we can to reduce the negative impact we have on this world.

I've seen an add for steel framing for houses, it listed the advantages of using steel. I couldn't help feeling that it must surely be better to grow trees and make framing from wood, that way the frames of the houses can be a carbon sink. Even using wood as much as we can it would take a LONG time (much more than a few decades) for trees to pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere.

Changing the vehicle I commute to work in means that I've reduced the hydrocarbons I burn per year by over 1,000 litres, but that seems like such a tiny amount compared to global CO₂ emissions. I wish I could do more.

I sympathise with your view that "you wish you could do more". But, you've made a good start with your EV and that's great.

The other day, I walked around a used car dealer's yard and there were rows and rows of petrol vehicles sitting there, more than 700 in total. I asked if they had any EVs for sale and they said they didn't.

I can therefore understand the reference in the report which talks about the sense of pessimism etc people can feel when they realise we are doing too little to late to counter the harmful effects of climate change.

Here's an extract from the report that deals with how stressed people can feel when they consider the likely future effects of climate change:

"Threat of climate change as a stressor

Routine exposure to images, headlines, and risk messages about the threat of current and projected climate change provide a powerful and on-going stress-inducing aspect of an individual’s everyday environment. Between 2005 and 2016, there were on average 422 articles published per month mentioning climate change or global warming in print and online media in the New Zealand region, according to the global media database Factiva (vii). In the US, psychological responses to such stress have been shown to include heightened risk perceptions, general anxiety, pessimism, helplessness, eroded sense of self and collective control, stress, distress, sadness, loss, and guilt."

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1891015 26-Oct-2017 20:54

frednz:

MarkH67:

frednz:

What are your views on the conclusions of this report?

Clearly climate change is bad and we should all do what we can to reduce the negative impact we have on this world.

I've seen an add for steel framing for houses, it listed the advantages of using steel. I couldn't help feeling that it must surely be better to grow trees and make framing from wood, that way the frames of the houses can be a carbon sink. Even using wood as much as we can it would take a LONG time (much more than a few decades) for trees to pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere.

Changing the vehicle I commute to work in means that I've reduced the hydrocarbons I burn per year by over 1,000 litres, but that seems like such a tiny amount compared to global CO₂ emissions. I wish I could do more.

I sympathise with your view that "you wish you could do more". But, you've made a good start with your EV and that's great.

The other day, I walked around a used car dealer's yard and there were rows and rows of petrol vehicles sitting there, more than 700 in total. I asked if they had any EVs for sale and they said they didn't.

I can therefore understand the reference in the report which talks about the sense of pessimism etc people can feel when they realise we are doing too little to late to counter the harmful effects of climate change.

Here's an extract from the report that deals with how stressed people can feel when they consider the likely future effects of climate change:

"Threat of climate change as a stressor

Routine exposure to images, headlines, and risk messages about the threat of current and projected climate change provide a powerful and on-going stress-inducing aspect of an individual’s everyday environment. Between 2005 and 2016, there were on average 422 articles published per month mentioning climate change or global warming in print and online media in the New Zealand region, according to the global media database Factiva (vii). In the US, psychological responses to such stress have been shown to include heightened risk perceptions, general anxiety, pessimism, helplessness, eroded sense of self and collective control, stress, distress, sadness, loss, and guilt."

It would be nice if the moist intelligent lifeforms on Earth could get their 7 billion heads together and formulate a response. We are too stupid and selfish. (generally, not all of us)

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1891049 26-Oct-2017 22:27

tdgeek:

It would be nice if the moist intelligent lifeforms on Earth could get their 7 billion heads together and formulate a response. We are too stupid and selfish. (generally, not all of us)

In short - Fusion energy. Nothing else can even come close to replacing fossil fuels for the worlds energy needs. Everything else is just nibbling at the edges. Nuclear fusion uses hydrogen as the fuel source. And the waste product is Helium. All of the advantages of nuclear energy, But with a virtually free fuel source and no worries about radioactive waste.

There is a joke that Fusion energy is always 30 years away. But there are more breakthroughs such as This happening. I hope that I will see practical fusion energy in my lifetime.

In 1781, James Watt invented the practical steam engine. Which kicked off the industrial revolution. And in the 1890s the diesel engine was invented. Which was a major breakthrough as it was both more efficient than other engines of that time. And it gave industrial size power outputs from an engine that could be started in minutes, Instead of the days that it would take to get large steam boilers up to full temp and pressure. So an approx 100 year gap between the two. If Fusion power happens soon, then it would also be an approximate 100 year gap between it and the diesel engine appearing. And you could argue that experimental fusion reactors do fit with the 100 year gap.

Linuxluver

5824 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1891096 27-Oct-2017 00:28

frednz:

So, our planet has been super hot before as a result of global warming and it eventually survived.

That was 4C of warming did that = across 20,000 years. Most life was wiped out for millions of years......but. Seabed cores for that period turned to plain old mud for a very long time.....no seashells or other life in them.

We've done 1.5C of warming already all by ourselves in just 200 years. We'll hit 2C by 2050 at the rate we are going....and at some point the warming will then simply carry on no matter what we do. Feedback loops out of control.

Yeah...climate does change over time.....and that's hard enough. This time, it's US doing it. We at least have some choice about that.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19