DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/592386-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-11-co2-kills-10-billion-people-edition.html)

grundle 04-02-18 02:22 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Psi (Post 13301066)
It was so cold at work yesterday that everyone had to put on a jacket in the office. Then we found out that some jerk already turned on the AC and left it at 68F.


Different people have different temperature preferences. I always wear a short sleeve shirt and shorts when I'm outside and it's 68, and to me, the idea of wearing a jacket at that temperature is something that I would never consider.

DVD Polizei 04-02-18 02:25 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13301846)
In fact, right now the word "theory" no longer appears at all on the Global warming Wikipedia page.

Climate Change isn't a theory. What is a theory, is how to confront it, and what is causing it. We've had so many predictions that have fallen flat on their face, countless taxpayer dollars on programs that actually defeat the purpose, etc.

I won't disagree there is global change in temps, but I will argue how we address the issue and just how much of it is due to human production.

SFX 04-02-18 05:04 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13301867)
3) There is nothing we can do to stop the climate from changing.

That's actually a very good topic of scientific research. If the climate was changing (from overwhelming natural causes) could we, as a planet of highly advanced and very numerous people, do anything about it? Should we try?

It's not a new idea. Stopping global cooling was something that was discussed before.


Originally Posted by DVD Polizei (Post 13301878)
Climate Change isn't a theory.

The CO2 theory (basic global warming theory) is a theory. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change is a theory (it's in fact the same theory)

"Climate Change" is not a theory.

VinVega 04-05-18 08:19 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13301751)
Are you mentally deficient?

mod note - No Personal Attacks.

Psi 04-05-18 08:56 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by VinVega (Post 13304420)
mod note - No Personal Attacks.

:lol: Been busy since you came back?

SFX 04-06-18 02:55 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by VinVega (Post 13304420)
mod note - No Personal Attacks.

I apologize. It was not meant as an attack on the person.

Along the lines of, "Are you crazy? Why would you say that?".

grundle 04-08-18 11:47 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. has some of the cleanest air of any country in the world:

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/inter...ure/atlas.html

grundle 04-11-18 09:43 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-biolog...reenhouse.html

Biologically inspired membrane purges coal-fired smoke of greenhouse gases

April 11, 2018

A biologically inspired membrane intended to cleanse carbon dioxide almost completely from the smoke of coal-fired power plants has been developed by scientists at Sandia National Laboratories and the University of New Mexico.

The patented work, reported recently in Nature Communications, has interested power and energy companies that would like to significantly and inexpensively reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the most widespread greenhouse gases, and explore other possible uses of the invention.

The memzyme meets the Department of Energy's standards by capturing 90 percent of power plant carbon dioxide production at a relatively low cost of $40 per ton.
Spoiler:

Researchers term the membrane a "memzyme" because it acts like a filter but is near-saturated with an enzyme, carbonic anhydrase, developed by living cells over millions of years to help rid themselves of carbon dioxide efficiently and rapidly.

"To date, stripping carbon dioxide from smoke has been prohibitively expensive using the thick, solid, polymer membranes currently available," says Jeff Brinker, a Sandia fellow, University of New Mexico regents' professor and the paper's lead author.

"Our inexpensive method follows nature's lead in our use of a water-based membrane only 18 nanometers thick that incorporates natural enzymes to capture 90 percent of carbon dioxide released. (A nanometer is about 1/700 of the diameter of a human hair.) This is almost 70 percent better than current commercial methods, and it's done at a fraction of the cost."

Coal power plants are one of the United States' largest energy producers, but they have been criticized by some for sending more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other form of electrical power generation. Still, coal burning in China, India and other countries means that U.S. abstinence alone is not likely to solve the world's climate problems.

But, says Brinker, "maybe technology will."

The device's formation begins with a drying process called evaporation-induced self-assembly, first developed at Sandia by Brinker 20 years ago and a field of study in its own right.

The procedure creates a close-packed array of silica nanopores designed to accommodate the carbonic anhydrase enzyme and keep it stable. This is done in several steps. First, the array, which may be 100 nanometers long, is treated with a technique called atomic layer deposition to make the nanopore surface water-averse or hydrophobic. This is followed by an oxygen plasma treatment that overlays the water-averse surface to make the nanopores water-loving or hydrophilic, but only to a depth of 18 nanometers. A solution of the enzyme and water spontaneously fill up and are stabilized within the water-loving portion of the nanopores. This creates membranes of water 18 nanometers thick, with a carbonic anhydrase concentration 10 times greater than aqueous solutions made to date.

The solution, at home in its water-loving sleeve, is stable. But because of the enzyme's ability to rapidly and selectively dissolve carbon dioxide, the catalytic membrane has the capability to capture the overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide molecules that brush up against it from a rising cloud of coal smoke. The hooked molecules then pass rapidly through the membranes, driven solely by a naturally occurring pressure gradient caused by the large number of carbon dioxide molecules on one side of the membrane and their comparative absence on the other. The chemical process turns the gas briefly into carbonic acid and then bicarbonate before exiting immediately downstream as carbon dioxide gas. The gas can be harvested with 99 percent purity—so pure that it could be used by oil companies for resource extraction. Other molecules pass by the membrane's surface undisturbed. The enzyme is reusable, and because the water serves as a medium rather than an actor, does not need replacement.

The nanopores dry out over long periods of time due to evaporation. This will be checked by water vapor rising from lower water baths already installed in power plants to reduce sulfur emissions. And, enzymes damaged from use over time can easily be replaced.

Says Brinker, "The very high concentration of carbonic anhydrase, along with the thinness of the water channel, result in very high carbon dioxide flux through the membrane. The greater the carbonic anhydrase concentration, the greater the flux. The thinner the membrane, the greater the flux."

The membrane's arrangement in a generating station's flue would be like that of a catalytic converter in a car, suggests Brinker. The membranes would sit on the inner surface of a tube arranged like a honeycomb. The flue gas would flow through the membrane-embedded tube, with a carbon dioxide-free gas stream on the outside of the tubes. Varying the tube length and diameter would optimize the carbon dioxide extraction process.

"Energy companies and oil and gas utilities have expressed interest in optimizing the gas filters for specific conditions," says Susan Rempe, Sandia researcher and co-author, who suggested and developed the idea of inserting carbonic anhydrase into the water solution to improve the speed by which carbon dioxide could be taken up and released from the membrane. "The enzyme can catalyze the dissolution of a million carbon dioxide molecules per second, vastly improving the speed of the process. With optimization by industry, the memzyme could make electricity production cheap and green," she says.

The separation process could increase the amount of fuel obtained by enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide injected into existing reservoirs.

A slightly different enzyme, used in the same process, can convert methane—an even more potent greenhouse gas—to the more soluble methanol for removal, she says.

Prior cleansing by industrial scrubbers means that the rising smoke will be clean enough not to significantly impair membrane efficiency, says University of New Mexico professor and paper co-author Ying-Bing Jiang, who originated and developed the idea of using watery membranes based on the human body's processes to separate out carbon dioxide. The membranes have operated efficiently in laboratory settings for months.

The procedure also could sequester carbon dioxide on a spacecraft, the authors mention, because the membranes operate at ambient temperatures and are driven solely by chemical gradients.

SFX 04-12-18 08:10 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
My God! At that price it will only cost 48,000 dollars a second to stop CO2!

That's only a little over 4 trillion dollars a year! All we need is 571 US dollars from every last person on the planet (each year) and we are home free.

SFX 04-12-18 08:11 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Or we could irrigate and plant some of the desert areas of the world to capture the carbon, which would cost a lot less than that.

grundle 04-13-18 01:55 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13309225)
My God! At that price it will only cost 48,000 dollars a second to stop CO2!

That's only a little over 4 trillion dollars a year! All we need is 571 US dollars from every last person on the planet (each year) and we are home free.


CO2 emissions in the U.S. are less than 20 tons per person per year. So that would be less than $800 per person per year, if that was the only method used. But this method only works where the emissions are heavily concentrated, such as near coal power plants. Poor countries have much lower emissions, so their cost per person would be much lower.

I support a tax on each ton of CO2 emissions, and using that money to lower other taxes by an equal amount.

SFX 04-13-18 03:10 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by kvrdave (Post 10841514)
The similarities between this and doomsday cults is fascinating.

Except cults don't have the power to tax you and then blow your money on hookers and coke.

Psi 04-16-18 06:55 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
If we can somehow bury all plastic waste in landfills, or teach whales not to eat it...

https://i.imgur.com/0ObI7KE.jpg

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn...astic-problem/


APR 9, 2018 @ 12:11 PM

Yet Another Dead Whale Is Grave Reminder Of Our Massive Plastic Problem

A sperm whale was found washed ashore dead after swallowing 64 pounds of plastic debris. The male sperm whale was found on the Murcian coast in southern Spain in late February, reminding us how critical plastic waste in the oceans has become.

After investigating, the El Valle Wildlife Rescue Center determined that the sperm whale was killed by gastric shock to its stomach and intestines after ingesting 64 pounds of plastic. The autopsy found plastic bags, nets, ropes, plastic sacks, and even a plastic jerrycan in the whale's stomach and intestines.

Experts found the inner walls of the whale's abdomen to be inflamed due to a bacterial or fungal infection. This is likely a result of the whale unable to expel the plastics from its system, resulting in peritonitis.

...

It is becoming increasingly clear that plastic in our oceans is a core threat to marine life in the decades to come. Approximately 5 trillion pieces of plastic are estimated to be floating around the world's oceans based on a recent study. To make matters worse, marine experts believe the total weight of plastic in our oceans could outweigh fish in the world's oceans by 2050.

...

With an increasing amount of plastic discarded in oceans, whale deaths due to ingestion of plastics are becoming far too common. Just two years ago a pod of 13 sperm whales all washed ashore dead from ingestion of plastic waste.

SFX 04-16-18 03:29 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Psi (Post 13311620)
If we can somehow bury all plastic waste in landfills, or teach whales not to eat it...

https://i.imgur.com/0ObI7KE.jpg

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn...astic-problem/

It might have been better to post that in the appropriate topic.

And to not use a fake non sperm whale image

SFX 04-16-18 03:30 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
People throwing plastic shit in the river and oceans should be shot

grundle 04-16-18 05:54 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Psi (Post 13311620)
If we can somehow bury all plastic waste in landfills, or teach whales not to eat it...

https://i.imgur.com/0ObI7KE.jpg

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn...astic-problem/


If the plastic was in a landfill, it would not be in the whale.

The caption under the picture says (the bolding is mine): "A Greenpeace Philippines representation of a dead whale from ingestion of plastic."

According to the article, the actual, real whale had consumed 64 pounds of plastic, and that plastic was much too deep in its digestive system to be visible in a picture such as that.

Psi 04-16-18 09:55 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
It doesn't help that a big amount of plastic is inside the whale instead of outside.

grundle 04-17-18 02:45 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Psi (Post 13312266)
It doesn't help that a big amount of plastic is inside the whale instead of outside.


This is the real picture of the real whale from the article at your link:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaMZcxZV4AYeFym.jpg

When it comes to science, I prefer real pictures whenever they are available. Fake pictures are for dinosaurs with their skin, or false color images of astronomy that were actually taken in infrared or ultraviolet.

SFX 04-18-18 01:07 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Shoving this back on topic


Unfortunately due to excessive whaling efforts it is estimated that whalers killed as many as 1,000,000 sperm whales over the last few centuries which is now causing an imbalance in the oceans ecosystem and affecting our ozone layer.
http://www.whalefacts.org/what-do-sperm-whales-eat/


Studies have shown that the nutrients in sperm whale poop helps stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which pulls carbon from the air providing a cleaner and healthier breathing environment for all animals.

It is estimated that as much as 400,000 tonnes of carbon are extracted from the air due to these whales each year!

SFX 04-18-18 01:09 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Because carbon dioxide is so dangerous.

(normal range in lungs is between 30,000 ppm and 35,000 ppm

grundle 04-18-18 07:23 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Manmade global warming is real, but the OSHA safety limit for CO2 exposure is 5,000 ppm. The current level is about 400 ppm, so that, in and of itself, is not the problem. CO2 levels were much higher than today's levels when the dinosaurs were alive, and global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. And life thrived. Because carbon dioxide is the bottom of the food chain, which is something that they used to teach back in the old days when I was in school.

C02 levels have been falling for tens of millions of years. If it wasn't for us humans putting that C02 back into the atmosphere, the CO2 levels would get so low that plants could not live. And no plants means no animals (except possibly for the ones that live off of thermal vents very deep in the ocean, although even those may be dependent on CO2 at some point in their food chain - I'm not sure about this part of it).

Anyway, if we go by the theory that the earth is one giant ecosystem, then maybe the earth created humans specifically for the purpose of putting that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Once we have done that, the earth will have no more use for us, and we will go extinct.

grundle 04-18-18 07:39 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Eight of the 10 most polluted U.S. cities are in California. At first, I thought this was because of pollution from Asia. However, the article says that Honolulu is one of the 10 least polluted U.S. cities. And Honolulu is much closer to Asia than California is. So the problem really is California. Shame on them.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ies/524815002/

California has eight of 10 most polluted U.S. cities

Forget the Golden State. California should be called the Smoggy State.

Spoiler:

April 18, 2018

Eight of the USA's 10 most-polluted cities, in terms of ozone pollution, are in California, according to the American Lung Association's annual "State of the Air" report, released Wednesday.

The Los Angeles/Long Beach area took the dubious distinction of being the nation's most ozone-polluted city as it has for nearly the entire 19-year history of the report.

Overall, the report said about 133 million Americans — more than four of 10 — live with unhealthful levels of air pollution, placing them at risk for premature death and other serious health effects such as lung cancer, asthma attacks, cardiovascular damage and developmental and reproductive harm.

"We still have a lot to do in this country to clean up air pollution," said Lyndsay Moseley Alexander, director of the Association's Healthy Air Campaign.

The report looked at pollution levels from 2014 to 2016. Ozone pollution was worse overall in this report than it was in last year's report.

Bakersfield, Calif., was in second place for ozone pollution. Other California cities on the list include Fresno, Sacramento and San Diego. The only non-California metro areas in the top 10 list were Phoenix and New York City.

Of the 10 most-polluted cities, seven cities did worse in this year's report, including Los Angeles and the New York City metro area.

“Near record-setting heat from our changing climate has resulted in dangerous levels of ozone in many cities across the country, making ozone an urgent health threat for millions of Americans,” Lung Association President and CEO Harold P. Wimmer said.

Smog forms on warm, sunny days and is made worse from chemicals that exit vehicle tailpipes and from power plant and industrial smokestacks. Warmer temperatures make ozone more likely to form.

"This adds to the evidence that a changing climate makes it harder to reduce ozone pollution and protect human health," Alexander said.
Spoiler:

Bakersfield took the top spot in a list of cities with another variety of air pollution — small particulate matter, aka soot. Increased heat, changes in climate patterns, drought and wildfires — many related to climate change — contributed to the high number of days with unhealthy particulate matter.

Since California is known for its strict environmental regulations, why are so many cities from the state typically on this list? It's because the state would be far worse off without its strict laws on tailpipe pollution and eliminating coal-fired power plants. California has done more than any other state to counteract air pollution, the Lung Association said.

With this report, the Lung Association also calls out Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for ongoing threats to the nation’s air quality, including steps to roll back or weaken enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has taken many steps to roll back or put in loopholes to the Clean Air Act, Alexander said, adding that "the association is concerned and we will continue to fight for healthy air," she said.

Some good news in the report was that particulate pollution "generally continued to improve in 2014-16," the report said. This was true for both short-term particulate pollution and for year-round particulate pollution.

For year-round particle pollution, Fairbanks, Alaska, was the most-polluted city.

The Lung Association also lists the nation's cleanest cities, meaning ones that experience no high ozone or high particulate pollution days.

The nation's cleanest cities are Bellingham, Wash.; Burlington, Vt.; Casper, Wyo.; Honolulu; Melbourne, Fla.; and Wilmington, N.C.

SFX 04-19-18 12:07 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Bakersfield, CA has the distinction of being in the top of all three categories for air pollution

http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/...ed-cities.html

It's also pretty much one of the worst places to live in the country.

Nick Danger 04-19-18 12:29 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13313492)
Manmade global warming is real, but the OSHA safety limit for CO2 exposure is 5,000 ppm. The current level is about 400 ppm, so that, in and of itself, is not the problem. CO2 levels were much higher than today's levels when the dinosaurs were alive, and global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. And life thrived. Because carbon dioxide is the bottom of the food chain, which is something that they used to teach back in the old days when I was in school.

C02 levels have been falling for tens of millions of years. If it wasn't for us humans putting that C02 back into the atmosphere, the CO2 levels would get so low that plants could not live. And no plants means no animals (except possibly for the ones that live off of thermal vents very deep in the ocean, although even those may be dependent on CO2 at some point in their food chain - I'm not sure about this part of it).

Anyway, if we go by the theory that the earth is one giant ecosystem, then maybe the earth created humans specifically for the purpose of putting that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Once we have done that, the earth will have no more use for us, and we will go extinct.

I recommend that you don't quote OSHA regulations without reading them. The limit of 5000 ppm on that page is right next to the risk of asphyxiation. There is a big difference between long-term environmental effects and quick death.

grundle 04-19-18 10:00 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Nick Danger (Post 13313890)
I recommend that you don't quote OSHA regulations without reading them. The limit of 5000 ppm on that page is right next to the risk of asphyxiation. There is a big difference between long-term environmental effects and quick death.



Yes, I know. I was responding to comments about the quick death aspect.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.