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)

maxfisher 04-19-18 11:04 PM

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

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13314322)
Yes, I know. I was responding to comments about the quick death aspect.

Whose comments?

grundle 04-20-18 09:45 AM

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

Originally Posted by maxfisher (Post 13314339)
Whose comments?


The two comments that were made immediately before mine.



Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13313291)


Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13313295)
Because carbon dioxide is so dangerous.

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


grundle 04-20-18 09:57 AM

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


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...EN-rivers.html

Shocking report reveals that 95% of plastic polluting the world's oceans comes from just TEN rivers including the Ganges and Niger

Scientists analysed data on plastic from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers

Their results showed that 10 rivers account for the majority of plastic

Eight of these are in Asia, including the Yangtze and Indus rivers
Spoiler:

Targeting these rivers could halve the amount of plastic waste, experts predict

October 11, 2017

Up to 95 per cent of plastic polluting the world's oceans pours in from just ten rivers, according to new research.

The top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste.

About five trillion pounds is floating in the sea, and targeting the major sources - such as the Yangtze and the Ganges - could almost halve it, scientists claim.

Massive amounts of plastic bits that imperil aquatic life are washing into the oceans and even the most pristine waters.

But how it all gets there from inland cities has not been fully understood.

Now a study shows the top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste.

The team calculated halving plastic pollution in these waterways could potentially reduce the total contribution by all rivers by 45 per cent.

Dr Christian Schmidt, a hydrogeologist at Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany, said: 'A substantial fraction of marine plastic debris originates from land-based sources and rivers potentially act as a major transport pathway for all sizes of plastic debris.'

His team analysed data on debris from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers - both microplastic particles measuring less than 5 mm and macroplastic above this size.

They said microplastics in particular can damage the health of marine life but cleaning it all up would be impossible. However stemming the tide could help reduce the potential harm.

Dr Schmidt said to do this, researchers need a better understanding of how plastic makes its way into the oceans in the first place.

Rivers which flow from inland areas to the seas are major transporters of plastic debris but the concentration patterns aren't well known.

The findings could help fill in this knowledge gap.

Dr Schmidt pooled data from dozens of research articles and calculated the amount in rivers was linked to the 'mismanagement of plastic waste in their watersheds.'

He said: 'The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88-95 per cent of the global load into the sea.'

The study follows a recent report that pointed the finger at China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam for spewing out most of the plastic waste that enters the seas.

Spoiler:

The Yangtze has been estimated in previous research to dump some 727 million pounds of plastic into the sea each year. The Ganges River in India is responsible for even more - about 1.2 billion pounds.

A combination of the Xi, Dong and Zhujiang Rivers (233 million lbs per year) in China as well as four Indonesian rivers: the Brantas (85 million lbs annually), Solo (71 million pounds per year), Serayu (37 million lbs per year) and Progo (28 million lbs per year), are all large contributors.

Previous research has also suggested two-thirds of plastic comes from the 20 most contaminated rivers. But Dr Schmidt reckons this can be narrowed down even further.

He said: 'The rivers with the highest estimated plastic loads are characterised by high population - for instance the Yangtze with over half a billion people.

'These rivers are also in countries with a high rate of mismanaged plastic waste (MMPW) production per capita as a result of a not fully implemented municipal waste management including waste collection, dumping and recycling.

'The data shows large rivers are particular efficient in transporting plastic debris. Large rivers like the Yangtze transport a higher fraction of the MMPW that is generated in their catchments than smaller rivers.

'These three factors lead to the estimated concentration of most of the plastic load to large rivers with a large population living in their catchment.

'Countries with high MMPW generation such as China or India could greatly reduce the plastic pollution of rivers by implementing proper waste management.

'In industrial countries, although they have a well developed waste management infrastrcuture, one way for plastic waste entering the environment is littering.'

Pollution costs more than £6 billion ($7.9 billion) in damage to marine ecosystems and kills an estimated one million sea birds, 100,000 sea mammals and untold numbers of fish.

Dr Schmidt said: 'Pollution of the marine environment with plastic debris is widely recognised and is of increasing ecological concern because of the chemical persistence of plastics and their mechanical fragmentation to so-called microplastics which can be ingested by even small organisms such as zooplankton.

'Beyond the long recognised occurrence of plastic debris in the marine environment plastic debris has been more recently detected in freshwater environments and can be found even in pristine, remote locations.'

He added: 'The high fraction of a few river catchments contributing the vast majority of the total load implies that potential mitigation measures would be highly efficient when applied in the high-load rivers.

'Reducing plastic loads by 50 per cent in the 10 top-ranked rivers would reduce the total river-based load to the sea by 45 per cent.

'Our analysis reveals that plastic loads of large rivers disproportionately increase in relationship to the increase of plastic debris available for transport.'

The same article contains this other info in a separate box, which says that in the U.S., garbage that is sent to landfills is properly disposed of, and the real problem is people who litter. This verifies my previous statement that putting plastic into landfills prevents it from entering the ocean.



WHO DUMPS THE MOST PLASTIC?

So much plastic is dumped into the sea each year that it would fill five carrier bags for every foot of coastline on the planet, scientists have warned.

More than half of the plastic waste that flows into the oceans comes from just five countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka.

The only industrialized western country on the list of top 20 plastic polluters is the United States at No. 20.

The U.S. and Europe are not mismanaging their collected waste, so the plastic trash coming from those countries is due to litter, researchers said.

While China is responsible for 2.4 million tons of plastic that makes its way into the ocean, nearly 28 percent of the world total, the United States contributes just 77,000 tons, which is less than one percent, according to the study published in the journal Science.

SFX 04-23-18 10:54 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
This illustrates a basic principle of life.It doesn't matter how decent and clean and careful you are with the world, if your neighbors are assholes. And if you can't force them to also be clean and careful with the shared world.

If CO2 is actually a real and present danger, we are completely fucked. It's exactly the same with almost every other pollution issue that damages the planet.

grundle 04-23-18 04:37 PM

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

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13316249)
This illustrates a basic principle of life.It doesn't matter how decent and clean and careful you are with the world, if your neighbors are assholes. And if you can't force them to also be clean and careful with the shared world.

If CO2 is actually a real and present danger, we are completely fucked. It's exactly the same with almost every other pollution issue that damages the planet.


No we're not. The Kuznets curve will save us.

Disclaimer: The bolded part was written by me, and I cited sources for my claims:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznet..._Kuznets_curve

Environmental Kuznets curve

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nets_Curve.png

Environmental Kuznets curve: The application of Kuznets curve in environmental studies

The environmental Kuznets curve is a hypothesized relationship between environmental quality and economic development: various indicators of environmental degradation tend to get worse as modern economic growth occurs until average income reaches a certain point over the course of development. Although the subject of continuing debate, some evidence supports the claim that environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shaped curve. It has been argued that this trend occurs in the level of many of the environmental pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, sewage, and other chemicals previously released directly into the air or water.

For example, between 1970 and 2006, the United States' inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the country more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven increased by 178%. However, during that same period regulatory changes meant that annual emissions of carbon monoxide fell from 197 million tons to 89 million, nitrogen oxides emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million, sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million, particulate emissions fell by 80%, and lead emissions fell by more than 98%.

However, there is little evidence that the relationship holds true for other pollutants, for natural resource use or for biodiversity conservation. For example, energy, land and resource use (sometimes called the "ecological footprint") do not fall with rising income. While the ratio of energy per real GDP has fallen, total energy use is still rising in most developed countries. Another example is the emission of many greenhouse gases, which is much higher in industrialised countries. In addition, the status of many key "ecosystem services" provided by ecosystems, such as freshwater provision and regulation (Perman, et al., 2003), soil fertility, and fisheries,[citation needed] have continued to decline in developed countries.

In general, Kuznets curves have been found for some environmental health concerns (such as air pollution) but not for others (such as landfills and biodiversity). Advocates of the EKC argue that this does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis – the scale of the Kuznets curves may differ for different environmental impacts and different regions. If the search for scalar and regional effects can salvage the concept, it may yet be the case that a given area will need more wealth in order to see a decline in environmental pollutants. In contrast, a thermodynamically enlightened economics suggests that outputs of degraded matter and energy are an inescapable consequence of any use of matter and energy (so holds the second law); some of those degraded outputs will be noxious wastes, and whether and how their production is eliminated depends more on regulatory schemes and technologies at use than on income or production levels. In one view, then, the EKC suggests that "the solution to pollution is more economic growth;" in the other, pollution is seen as a regrettable output that should be reduced when the benefits brought by its production are exceeded by the costs it imposes in externalities like health decrements and loss of ecosystem services.

Deforestation may follow a Kuznets curve (cf. forest transition curve). Among countries with a per capita GDP of at least $4,600, net deforestation has ceased to exist. Yet it has been argued that wealthier countries are able to maintain forests along with high consumption by ‘exporting’ deforestation.

It has also been suggested that the Kuznets curve applies to both littering and cigarette smoking.

grundle 04-23-18 05:41 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/art...NEWS/180419738

Environmentalists plan logging to restore redwood forests

Spoiler:

April 17, 2018

Environmentalists who have fought loggers for generations have a surprising new strategy to save California’s storied old-growth redwood forests: Logging.

Save the Redwoods League, a venerable San Francisco organization that has preserved more than 214,000 acres of redwood forest since it was founded in 1918, is embarking on a $5 million plan to thin out 10,000 acres of redwoods, Douglas fir, tan oaks and other trees. The logging will begin at Redwood National Park and Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park near the Oregon border over the next five years. After that, the group plans to thin forests in nearby Jedediah Smith and Prairie Creek Redwoods state parks.

Many of the spots under consideration were heavily logged decades ago before they were purchased and added to the parks, the league says. And cutting down the thinner trees — including those planted by loggers too densely as part of commercial reseeding operations in the 1960s — will restore more natural conditions, and reduce competition for sunlight and water, helping regular-sized redwoods grow faster into majestic old-growth giants.

But chainsaws in beloved redwood parks? Will the public go for it?

“It’s about allowing the younger forests to grow more effectively,” said Sam Hodder, president of Save the Redwoods League. “Right now in some of these places all the trees are crowding each other out.”

Many of California’s old-growth redwoods — the world’s tallest living things that can grow to more than 300 feet high and live 2,000 years — were cut down between the 1800s and the 1970s for decks, paneling, and even fence posts and railroad ties. Modern environmental laws and the creation of public parks ended it. Today, nearly all redwood lumber sold in stores is from second-and-third growth younger trees. Only about 5 percent of the original old-growth acreage remains, and nearly all of that is preserved in parks.

The new task for this century, Hodder said, is to restore landscapes that were logged but now exist in parks in a damaged, unnatural state.

That means removing old logging roads, restoring streams to bring back salmon and other fish, and doing everything to help second-and-third growth redwood trees get bigger, he said. On April 27, the league is scheduled to sign an agreement with the California state parks department and the National Park Service to allow for “restoration forestry” funded by the league as a way to undo the damage from industrial logging and recreate forests that are more natural.

The project in Humboldt and Del Norte counties “aligns the public and private sectors to take the next big steps towards restoring these cherished public landscapes. It is a great investment in our future,”said Steve Mietz, superintendent of Redwood National Park.

All four parks involved together have about 120,000 acres of forests. Of those, about 40,000 acres is old-growth redwood, and the other 80,000 acres are in formerly logged areas that project planners hope to thin and restore in the coming decades. Most of the trees cut down will be Douglas fir, with some second-growth redwood and hardwoods like tan oak, said Paul Ringold, a forest ecologist and chief program officer of the Save the Redwoods League. Roughly 30 to 70 percent of the trees will be taken out in the 10,000 acres treated between now and 2022, he said, and in some cases, sold to timber companies.

“These stands are a legacy of clear-cut logging,” Ringold said. “We want to restore these areas as close as we can to the way they were pre-logging.”

But not everyone is rushing to embrace the project, which is called “Redwoods Rising.”

“I do have concerns when organizations who have historically been involved in the preservation of our old growth redwoods and our parks get into the business of logging. I’d like to see more details,” said Jodi Frediani, a longtime Santa Cruz County logging activist.

Frediani said she supports the removal of old logging roads and efforts the league is taking to study the impacts of climate change on redwood and Giant Sequoia forests. But she noted that the league has very few specifics about the new thinning projects on its website. And in any logging operation, even well-meaning ones, she added, heavy equipment can damage the forests and there is pressure to cut down larger trees, which are worth more money than thin ones.

“I find it a very slippery slope to have timber operations in state and national parks,” she said.

Hodder noted that in a natural old-growth forest there are about 200 trees per acre. In some forests that were clear cut and reseeded, there are 10 times that amount now. Redwood National Park already has done some thinning, he noted, to help restore areas that were purchased by the federal government from logging companies after the companies clear cut the biggest, oldest trees.

Under the organization’s plan, an environmental impact statement will be drawn up and made public later this year. Commercial timber crews will be hired and given detailed direction. And although some logs will be sold and the money used to offset costs, the goal will not be profit, but rather ecological restoration, he said.

A similar project has been underway for the past few years at San Vicente Redwoods Preserve, an 8,300-acre property in rural Santa Cruz County near the town of Davenport. The land was purchased for $30 million in 2011 by four environmental groups — the Peninsula Open Space Trust, Save the Redwoods League, Trust for Public Land and Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. Since then, they have allowed roughly 350 acres that were logged years ago to be thinned again, raising about $500,000 that has funded stream restoration, a public access plan and other work on the property. A new logging plan being drawn up this year aims to restore previously logged areas of the property.

Some environmental groups are OK with the trend.

“There is a need for restoration. What they are trying to do is exciting,” said Tom Wheeler, executive director of EPIC, the Environmental Protection Information Center, in Arcata, which fought commercial logging plans at Headwaters Forest in Humboldt County during the 1990s. “Honestly, it is a little bit of an experiment. There is only one way to create old growth redwoods and that is with time. If we can kick start the process a little bit, then we are all in favor of that.”

SFX 04-24-18 01:11 PM

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

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13316563)
No we're not. The Kuznets curve will save us.

I can't tell if you are being satirical or not.

grundle 04-25-18 10:33 PM

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

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13317261)
I can't tell if you are being satirical or not.

I'm serious.

In the future, when we reach some (currently unspecified) level of per capita income, carbon dioxide emissions will peak and start to fall.

Just like it did in the past with all those other pollutants.

SFX 04-26-18 10:25 AM

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

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13318443)
Just like it did in the past with all those other pollutants.

That's incorrect for a multitude of reasons. Most important, CO2 is not and can not be considered pollution. Carbon is the basis of life, and something plants require to live just can't be labeled pollution. It's like calling water pollution. Certainly an excess of water (flooding or extreme precipitation for example) is a real danger, but you can't just start calling water a pollutant.

Since plant life evolved in much higher levels of CO2, plants do better with more CO2. Plants are actually growing faster (like trees for example) due to our putting back fossil CO2 into the system. This does not mean raising the atmospheric CO2 levels might not have climate effects, but calling the basis of life on earth pollution is an absurdity.

grundle 04-27-18 02:36 AM

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

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13318684)
That's incorrect for a multitude of reasons. Most important, CO2 is not and can not be considered pollution. Carbon is the basis of life, and something plants require to live just can't be labeled pollution. It's like calling water pollution. Certainly an excess of water (flooding or extreme precipitation for example) is a real danger, but you can't just start calling water a pollutant.

Since plant life evolved in much higher levels of CO2, plants do better with more CO2. Plants are actually growing faster (like trees for example) due to our putting back fossil CO2 into the system. This does not mean raising the atmospheric CO2 levels might not have climate effects, but calling the basis of life on earth pollution is an absurdity.


I agree with you that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain.

And here's a post I made in this thread a while ago:


https://forum.dvdtalk.com/13114219-post1096.html


Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13114219)
For the scientifically illiterates out there who don’t know that carbon dioxide is the bottom of the food chain, here is an article form NASA called “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

Also, back when the dinosaurs were alive, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were five times as high as they are today, and global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the earth was not “uninhabitable.” It was actually the exact opposite, which is why it was home to the biggest land animals that the planet has ever had.


That being said, if enough people want to implement policies to reduce CO2 emissions, then it will happen, and it will reduce them, just like with those other things that I bolded in the wikipedia article that I posted.

Personally, I don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant. But a lot of other people do, and they are taking steps to reduce emissions.

grundle 05-29-18 09:59 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
https://www.westernjournal.com/green...-solar-panels/

Green Activists Now Worried About Mountain of Toxic Waste from Their Solar Panels
Spoiler:

May 24, 2018

A leading activist has raised concerns over the ecological impact of solar panels — a renewable energy technology widely considered to be harmless to the environment.

Michael Shellenberger — the president of Environmental Progress, a nonprofit organization working to promote clean energy — detailed the real-life impacts of discarded solar installation.

Solar technology typically contains cadmium, lead and other toxic chemicals that can’t be extracted without taking apart the whole panel, resulting in entire solar panels being considered hazardous, Shellenberger noted in a Forbes article Wednesday.

More specifically, these toxic chemicals become an environmental threat when solar panels reach their end-of-life stage and need to be disposed.

Panels left in landfills may break apart and release toxic waste into the ground or even enter bodies of water.

Solar panel disposal in “regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil,” the Electric Power Research Institute determined in a 2016 study.

There is growing concern over the possibility of rainwater washing cadmium out of panels and into the environment. In Virginia, for example, a group of locals are pushing back against a proposal to construct a 6,350-acre solar farm in Spotsylvania County.

“We estimate there are 100,000 pounds of cadmium contained in the 1.8 million panels,” Sean Fogarty of Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake stated to Shellenberger. “Leaching from broken panels damaged during natural events — hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. — and at decommissioning is a big concern.”

Instances can occur where severe weather — such as a tornado in California and a hurricane through Puerto Rico — decimate solar panel farms, potentially leaking chemicals into the ground.

Virtually no one in media cares to discuss the solar industry’s negative effects on the environment, Shellenger also noted.

“With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it’s been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm,” he wrote.

As a suggested solution, Shellenberger entertained the idea of an added fee with solar panel purchases that can go toward the recycling and disposing of decommissioned panels. He also encouraged greater government involvement as to avoid the placement of solar installation into landfills.

Previous studies have examined the solar industries’ effect on the environment. The process it takes to build renewable energy technology is extremely intensive, an April America Rising Squared report determined. The production of solar panels and wind turbines, America Rising found, requires the extraction of rare earth metals such as Indium, Gallium and Tellurium. Refining these rare minerals is extremely energy intensive.

Issues relating to solar panel waste will only worsen as more Americans utilize the technology. Lured with promises of long-term financial gains and environmental benefits, a growing number of U.S. households are purchasing rooftop solar installations.

On May 9, California became the first state in the U.S. to mandate every new household have a solar panel.

Environmental activists, like billionaire Tom Steyer, are funding national campaigns to promote renewable energy use. Such campaigns and government mandates are increasing renewable portfolio standards across the country.

Nick Danger 05-29-18 11:18 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
I've known that manufacturing processes for solar panels are toxic for forty years. It hasn't been a secret.

Every technology has a cost/benefit analysis. Are the benefits of solar panels greater than their costs?

I saw this today. Will using more solar panels slow or reverse this trend?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Retweeted NWS Albuquerque (<a href="https://twitter.com/NWSAlbuquerque?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NWSAlbuquerque</a>):<br><br>NM's Average summer temperatures (Jun, Jul, Aug) have exhibited a warming trend since records began 122 years ago. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nmwx?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nmwx</a> (Courtesy of the National Centers for Environmental Information: <a href="https://t.co/uJQ7FuF8aX">https://t.co/uJQ7FuF8aX</a>) <a href="https://t.co/digpi9Ceif">pic.twitter.com/digpi9Ceif</a></p>&mdash; New Mexico RGIS (@nmrgis) <a href="https://twitter.com/nmrgis/status/1001489714749345793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

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

grundle 05-30-18 01:22 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
A lot of "recycled" garbage actually ends up in landfills:

Spoiler:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/c...ic-papers.html

Your Recycling Gets Recycled, Right? Maybe, or Maybe Not

Plastics and papers from dozens of American cities and towns are being dumped in landfills
after China stopped recycling most “foreign garbage.”

May 29, 2018

Oregon is serious about recycling. Its residents are accustomed to dutifully separating milk cartons, yogurt containers, cereal boxes and kombucha bottles from their trash to divert them from the landfill. But this year, because of a far-reaching rule change in China, some of the recyclables are ending up in the local dump anyway.

In recent months, in fact, thousands of tons of material left curbside for recycling in dozens of American cities and towns — including several in Oregon — have gone to landfills.

In the past, the municipalities would have shipped much of their used paper, plastics and other scrap materials to China for processing. But as part of a broad antipollution campaign, China announced last summer that it no longer wanted to import “foreign garbage.” Since Jan. 1 it has banned imports of various types of plastic and paper, and tightened standards for materials it does accept.

While some waste managers already send their recyclable materials to be processed domestically, or are shipping more to other countries, others have been unable to find a substitute for the Chinese market. “All of a sudden, material being collected on the street doesn’t have a place to go,” said Pete Keller, vice president of recycling and sustainability at Republic Services, one of the largest waste managers in the country.

China’s stricter requirements also mean that loads of recycling are more likely to be considered contaminated if they contain materials that are not recyclable. That has compounded a problem that waste managers call wishful or aspirational recycling: people setting aside items for recycling because they believe or hope they are recyclable, even when they aren’t.

In the Pacific Northwest, Republic has diverted more than 2,000 tons of paper to landfills since the Chinese ban came into effect, Mr. Keller said. The company has been unable to move that material to a market “at any price or cost,” he said. Though Republic is dumping only a small portion of its total inventory so far — the company handles over five million tons of recyclables nationwide each year — it sent little to no paper to landfills last year.

But for smaller companies, like Rogue Disposal and Recycling, which serves much of Oregon, the Chinese ban has upended operations. Rogue sent all its recycling to landfills for the first few months of the year, said Garry Penning, a spokesman.

Western states, which have relied the most on Chinese recycling plants, have been hit especially hard. In some areas — like Eugene, Ore., and parts of Idaho, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii — local officials and garbage haulers will no longer accept certain items for recycling, in some cases refusing most plastics, glass and certain types of paper. Instead, they say, customers should throw these items in the trash.

Theresa Byrne, who lives in Salem, Ore., said the city took too long to inform residents that most plastics and egg and milk cartons were now considered garbage. “I was angry,” she said. “I believe in recycling.”

Other communities, like Grants Pass, Ore., home to about 37,000 people, are continuing to encourage their residents to recycle as usual, but the materials are winding up in landfills anyway.
Local waste managers said they were concerned that if they told residents to stop recycling, it could be hard to get them to start again.

It is “difficult with the public to turn the spigot on and off,” said Brian Fuller, a waste manager with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

The fallout has spread beyond the West Coast. Ben Harvey, the president of E.L. Harvey & Sons, a recycling company based in Westborough, Mass., said that he had around 6,000 tons of paper and cardboard piling up, when he would normally have a couple hundred tons stockpiled. The bales are filling almost half of his 80,000-square-foot facility.

“It’s really impacted our day-to-day operations,” Mr. Harvey said. “It’s stifling me.”

Recyclers in Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany and other parts of Europe have also scrambled to find alternatives.

Still, across much of the United States, including most major cities, recycling is continuing as usual. Countries like India, Vietnam and Indonesia are importing more of the materials that are not processed domestically. And some waste companies have responded to China’s ban by stockpiling material while looking for new processors, or hoping that China reconsiders its policy.

Americans recycle roughly 66 million tons of material each year, according to the most recent figures from the Environmental Protection Agency, about one-third of which is exported. The majority of those exports once went to China, said David Biderman, the executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, a research and advocacy group.

But American scrap exports to China fell by about 35 percent in the first two months of this year, after the ban was implemented, said Joseph Pickard, chief economist for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, a trade group.

“It’s a huge concern, because China has just been such a dominant overseas market for us,” Mr. Pickard said.

In particular, exports of scrap plastic to China, valued at more than $300 million in 2015, totaled just $7.6 million in the first quarter of this year, down 90 percent from a year earlier, Mr. Pickard said. Other countries have stepped in to accept more plastics, but total scrap plastic exports are still down by 40 percent this year, he said.

“There is a significant disruption occurring to U.S. recycling programs,” Mr. Biderman said. “The concern is if this is the new normal.”

Curbside recycling is typically hauled by a private company to a sorting plant, where marketable goods are separated out. Companies or local governments then sell the goods to domestic or overseas processors. Some states and cities prohibit these companies from dumping plastic, paper and cardboard, but some local officials — including in Oregon, Massachusetts and various municipalities in Washington State — have granted waivers so that unmarketable materials can be sent to the landfill.

Recycling companies “used to get paid” by selling off recyclable materials, said Peter Spendelow, a policy analyst for the Department of Environmental Quality in Oregon. “Now they’re paying to have someone take it away.”

In some places, including parts of Idaho, Maine and Pennsylvania, waste managers are continuing to recycle but are passing higher costs on to customers, or are considering doing so.

“There are some states and some markets where mixed paper is at a negative value,” said Brent Bell, vice president of recycling at Waste Management, which handles 10 million tons of recycling per year. “We’ll let our customers make that decision, if they’d like to pay more and continue to recycle or to pay less and have it go to landfill.”

Mr. Spendelow said companies in rural areas, which tend to have higher expenses to get their materials to market, were being hit particularly hard. “They’re literally taking trucks straight to the landfill,” he said.

Will Posegate, the chief operations officer for Garten Services, which processes recycling for a number of counties in Oregon, said his company had tried to stockpile recyclables but eventually used a waiver to dump roughly 900 tons. “The warehouse builds up so much that it’s unsafe,” he said.

In California, officials are concerned that improperly stored bales of paper could become hazards during wildfire season, said Zoe Heller, the policy director for the state’s recycling department.

While China has entirely banned 24 materials, including post-consumer plastic and mixed paper, it has also demanded that other materials, such as cardboard and scrap metal, be only 0.5 percent impure. Even a small amount of food scraps or other rubbish, if undetected, can ruin a batch of recycling.

Some waste managers say that China’s new contamination standards are impossible to meet, while others are trying to clean up their recycling streams by slowing down their processing facilities, limiting the types of materials they accept or trying to better educate customers on what belongs in the recycling bin.

Mr. Bell, the Waste Management executive, said he had seen everything from Christmas lights to animal carcasses to artillery shells come through the company’s recycling facilities. “Most of our facilities get a bowling ball every day or two,” he said.

Some materials can ruin a load, he said, while others pose fire or health hazards and can force facilities to slow their operations and in some cases temporarily shut down. (And a bowling ball could do serious damage to the equipment.) Approximately 25 percent of all recycling picked up by Waste Management is contaminated to the point that it is sent to landfills, Mr. Bell said.

Recyclers have always disposed of some of their materials. But the percentage has climbed as China and other buyers of recyclable material have ratcheted up quality standards.

Most contamination, Mr. Bell said, happens when people try to recycle materials they shouldn’t. Disposable coffee cups — which are usually lined with a thin film that makes them liquid-proof but challenging and expensive to reprocess — are an example. Unwashed plastics can also cause contamination.

“If we don’t get it clean, we’re not going to be able to market it, and if we can’t market it unfortunately it’s going to go to the landfill,” said Mr. Penning, the Rogue spokesman. In March, Rogue told customers to put everything in the trash except for corrugated cardboard, milk jugs, newspapers and tin and aluminum cans, which the company is finding domestic markets for, Mr. Penning said.

Rogue customers who make mistakes might see an “Oops” sticker the next time they check their recycling bin, he said.

In Eugene, similar restrictions have been imposed by the waste company Sanipac. These have not sat well with some residents. “Eugene is a very green city and people love their recycling here,” said Diane Peterson, a resident. “There are a lot of things like yogurt containers that we get all the time, and now we can’t recycle them.”

Leah Geocaris, another Eugene resident, said the change had prompted her to try to consume less overall. “On the one hand, I hate it, because I don’t want stuff to end up in landfill,” she said. “On the other hand, it’s a wake-up call.”

“Recycling is the third R,” she said. “You have to reduce and reuse first.”

grundle 05-30-18 01:23 PM

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

Originally Posted by Nick Danger (Post 13341372)
I've known that manufacturing processes for solar panels are toxic for forty years. It hasn't been a secret.

Every technology has a cost/benefit analysis. Are the benefits of solar panels greater than their costs?


I've known it for a long time too.

But apparently, a lot of other people don't. They still insist that it is "clean."

Nick Danger 06-04-18 10:06 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1509/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2735/a...HTURvY.twitter

I like this image a lot because it clearly shows the trend by color-coding the data and by using enough data points that the outliers aren't a visual distraction.

It's an excellent example of a graphic display of information.

Dan 06-04-18 11:12 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
I'm really not a fan of Joe Rogan, but this clip is worth posting to show what climate change denialists tend to sound like:

She says (paraphrasing slightly): The weather is different than it was yesterday. Climate changes all the time.

Joe makes a fantastic point; as public people, if they do not have a basic understanding of the issue they're discussing, they have some responsibility to just NOT talk about it if all they're going to do is seed unwarranted skepticism to their audience. Saying "I don't believe in climate change" to a big audience is far worse than saying "I don't KNOW enough about the topic to comment on it." She freely admits to Joe that she doesn't know, and that she might answer the topic in a different way in front of a crowd... but she still holds firm that even though she doesn't know, she still doesn't believe it. It's actually kind of fascinating.

She even pulls the, "Oh It's a dot COM website? I dunno... maybe if it was dot ORG, I'd believe it more." when he pulls up an article. :lol:

VHS? 06-04-18 03:18 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
It's like when Trump said no such thing as global warming... "It's called weather, folks"
According to Trump, it's a money making hoax by the Chinese....

grundle 06-22-18 07:34 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Global warming is real, but it's not as bad as what as what had been predicted:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-...-up-1529623442

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.

June 21, 2018

James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.

The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.

PerryD 06-22-18 08:16 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Came across this article, not sure if it was posted before by Grundle. It's not denying climate change, but it is stating the obvious that plants love CO2.

The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?

So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected. That price is falling more heavily on poor than on rich people. The evidence suggests that this imbalance will persist for most of this century, perhaps longer. It is time for a rethink.

grundle 06-22-18 11:11 AM

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

Originally Posted by PerryD (Post 13357692)
Came across this article, not sure if it was posted before by Grundle. It's not denying climate change, but it is stating the obvious that plants love CO2.

The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?

So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected. That price is falling more heavily on poor than on rich people. The evidence suggests that this imbalance will persist for most of this century, perhaps longer. It is time for a rethink.

I didn't post that article, but I did post a link to a similar article by NASA:

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-p...l#post13114219


Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13114219)
On July 9, 2017, New York Magazine published this article, which is called, “The Uninhabitable Earth.”

Five Days later, the magazine said the article "… is already the most-read article in New York Magazine’s history.”

However, I would like to remind everyone of the following bogus doomsayer predictions that were made during the first Earth Day in 1970:



* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

Source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/27702.html
Real scientists learn form their mistakes, and from the mistakes of others.

However, the environmental doomsayers who have been making these bogus predictions for many decades have expressed absolutely zero interest in learning why these predictions of the past failed to come true.

Instead, these doomsayers pretend that these failed predictions were never made, in the hopes that their current audience has either forgotten about them, or was never even aware of them in the first place.

Whatever happened to the scientific method?

Whatever happened to a willingness to admit to being wrong?

Whatever happened to the desire to learn from one’s mistakes, as well as from the mistakes of others?

For the scientifically illiterates out there who don’t know that carbon dioxide is the bottom of the food chain, here is an article form NASA called “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

Also, back when the dinosaurs were alive, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were five times as high as they are today, and global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the earth was not “uninhabitable.” It was actually the exact opposite, which is why it was home to the biggest land animals that the planet has ever had.


As to the question of why this isn't being talked about more:

The doomsayers who only care about making one bogus prediction after another certainly aren't bringing it up.

But the people who care about the truth are bringing it up.

The problem is that the mainstream environmental movement falls far more often into the former group, and far less often into the latter group.

grundle 06-25-18 06:56 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
I just found out about a new TV show on Netflix called "Occupied."

Spoilerized for actual spoilers.

Spoiler:

In Norway, a hurricane caused by manmade climate change kills thousands of people. In response, the Green Party is elected into power. They decide to ban all drilling, selling, and exporting of fossil fuels, and build a bunch of thorium nuclear reactors to make up for it.

Russia doesn't like their loss of access to Norway's fossil fuels, so they invade and take control of them. The EU supports the invasion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has become energy independent, and is indifferent to the invasion.

alexkevin 06-25-18 07:05 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
I don't believe in this shit, How global warming can kill people when Globally people are killing each other by the name of religion and ruining the climate by bombarding etc. By the way, I also don't believe in the story they posted about this Australian scientist.

grundle 07-12-18 01:48 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Wow! I'm really surprised that a publication as mainstream as the Los Angeles Times would publish something like this. It's usually just my unreliable sources that are this critical of recycling.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...09-story.html#

Environmentally minded Californians love to recycle — but it's no longer doing any good

July 9, 2018

Californians dutifully load up their recycling bins and feel good about themselves. They’re helping the environment and being good citizens.

But their glow might turn to gloom if they realized that much of the stuff is headed to a landfill.

Spoiler:

That’s because there’s no longer a recycling market for a lot of the paper, cardboard, plastic and other junk that’s left curbside.

Moreover, people are tossing garbage into those blue bins that they shouldn’t be. It just gums up the process.

“People are engaged in wish recycling,” says Mark Oldfield, public affairs director at CalRecycle, which runs the state’s recycling program. “They think: ‘This should be recycled. I’m going to put it in the bin.’”

“It’s amazing what people put in recycling bins,” Oldfield continues. “Dirty diapers. Broken crockery. Old garden hoses. Some of the worst offenders are old batteries.”

But what constitutes forbidden material is more nuanced than soiled diapers and corrosive batteries. Oldfield says it includes pizza boxes blotched with cheese and grease, plastic wrappers for food, shredded paper, unclean jelly jars, broken glass, unrinsed bottles and newspapers that have lined bird cages. Even paper envelopes with plastic address windows.

Recyclers these days don’t want items with mixed material such as paper and plastic, or cardboard and tape. It doesn’t pay to tear the stuff apart. Off to the landfill.

Moreover, what used to be California’s — and the world’s — largest overseas market for recyclables recently shut its door.

“China doesn’t want our garbage anymore,” says Steve Maviglio, a political strategist who is advising the recycling industry. “It’s time we cleaned up our own mess.”

In January, China began barring “contaminated” material it once accepted. And under China’s new rules, if something is one-half of 1% contaminated, it’s too impure for recycling.

“This policy change is already starting to have adverse impacts on California,” CalRecycle declared last month in a bulletin, “and is resulting in more material being stockpiled at solid waste facilities and recycling centers or disposed of in landfills.”
More from George Skelton »

Eric Potashner, a government relations official for Recology, a curbside hauler that sorts San Francisco Bay Area trash for recycling, says, “There’s no market for a lot of stuff in the blue bin. What we can’t recycle we take to a landfill.”

One big problem, he says, is mixed paper — newsprint, magazines, junk mail. China no longer wants it. So it’s being sold to smaller markets in India, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries. The issue is compounded because, unlike with Chinese vessels, there are fewer ships making round trips from Southeast Asia to California.

“A year ago,” Potashner says, “we were getting $100 a ton for newsprint. Now we’re getting an average $5…. Revenue has fallen off the cliff.”

Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, an advocacy group, says: “China’s not the bad guy. To the Chinese credit, they’ve decided they don’t want to have Third World [trash] sorting in their country.”

The Chinese have a growing middle class, Murray continues, and “they don’t want kids and families sorting through mixed paper and plastic. They want to hire factory workers, not people doing the dirty work.”

Collapse of the China market is just the latest recycling problem for California.

There’s continuing struggle with the popular beverage container recycling program that originated with passage of California’s convoluted so-called Bottle Bill 32 years ago.

Under it, people can ostensibly cart their used bottles and cans to a recycling center and collect the nickel apiece — or dime for larger ones — that they deposited when buying the beverage at a store.
Coverage of California politics »

But the program itself needs recycling. It’s not generating enough money, in many cases, to make recycling pay. Scrap value has dropped — especially for plastic. When oil prices tumbled, it became cheaper to make plastic bottles from all-new material than recycled matter.

Nearly 1,000 recycling centers have closed in the last two years, about 40% of the total, leaving consumers in many communities with no local place to leave their bottles and redeem their nickels.

California’s once-proud recycling program “is teetering on the edge,” says state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda). It was hit hard in 2016 when the state cut back on fees it paid to recyclers. The old fees served as recycling incentives.

Glazer has a modest bill that he says is “better than doing nothing at all.” His measure would return fees to their 2015 level.

That’s a carrot. There’s a stick in a bill by Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont). It would require all beverage containers sold in California to contain a minimum amount of recycled material. CalRecycle would establish the minimum.

The bill is particularly aimed at plastic containers. The goal is to establish a bigger market for plastic recycling in California. It also would help reduce greenhouse gases, the senator says, because “we wouldn’t be burning more oil to make plastic bottles.”

Gov. Jerry Brown, in his new state budget, shifted $15 million in bottle bill money to private firm incentives for processing and purchasing recycled plastic.

Nice touches, but they’re Band-Aids.

Consumers — taxpayers — will need to put more into the pot to pay for sustainable recycling and creating a bigger market for California trash.

We’ve got to stop dumping useless, filthy crud in blue bins.

It’s either that or spend more money for ugly landfills.

cultshock 07-12-18 01:54 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Glacier half the size of Manhattan breaks off Greenland

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/gr...ving-1.4742691

How's that rising sea level coming along?

grundle 07-12-18 05:14 PM

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

Originally Posted by cultshock (Post 13370571)
Glacier half the size of Manhattan breaks off Greenland

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/gr...ving-1.4742691

How's that rising sea level coming along?


Although your question seems like it may be rhetorical, here's an actual answer from a highly reliable source:


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...ea-level-rise/

January 13, 2017

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 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.