+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7808
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Pollution  (Read 8547 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #555 on: August 05, 2017, 04:56:31 pm »
Agelbert Note: Luciddreams is a good man forced to seek other employment in order to feed his family. He prefers permaculture and farming bamboo, which he is experienced in and has done for some time, but he cannot make enough money doing it. He was also an EMT for a few years. He is now driving a truck to earn the money to better care for his wife and two small boys while saving enough money to buy a large piece of land to grow bamboo on.

I know I'm being taken advantage of.  But isn't that just the nature of money?  We sell our time for it, and there ain't no time that works out is there?  Because our time is not worth money.  Our time is priceless.  Our time can't be quantified with money, but we all quantify our time with money based on how much of it we can get.  Based on what we are willing to do for it. 

Yeah, I'm tired of reality, but what choice do I have?  We deal in reality whether we want to or not.  Our time may not be worth money, but reality is.


The fastest growing, and also reasonably paid, job in the USA is that of a Wind Turbine Technician.  If you are not afraid of heights, I recommend you pursue a career there. If we even have a future, which is highly doubtful, it will be in Renewable Energy jobs that CANNOT be outsourced AND NO profit over people and planet CAPTALISM, period.

Anyone that thinks human civilization can survive with Capitalism controlling everything is a wedge (see my other post defining Homo Sap  Wedge).  ;D

Which brings me to my decision to go trucking. 

Look, I Been There, Done That, Own the T-Shirt.

I will tell you one more time this life **** SUCKS on all levels, and that is even if you are single with no kids.

Get a Janitorial Bizness going.  It will be a fuckload better than driving around a **** truck.

RE
Nothing wrong with trucking.  It is as you say one of the last well paid trades that does not involve years of college. The homestead game is expensive.  We were lucky we built a nest egg before kids and the move so the land and house shell went up from savings. It's a small town so we just moved in at that stage and nobody cared.
I wish you luck. 
David B.

Thanks David.  Ultimately this is a way to get my family into a situation similar to yours.  I plan to buy land and a domicile with the proceeds...at some point...hopefully.  I plan to build a new permaculture/bamboo paradise.  On land that I own, and in a home that is ours.  It takes money.  I can get that money truckin', and so that's what I'm going to do.  There are other ways I could get that money...but none that I have seen that I will be able to stomach.  I'm betting that I can stomach truckin', so I'm going to find out...and soon.  If all goes well I'll be up in Wisconsin September 1st.

Good luck, Lucid. I'm sure you will have a few years before the future of Trucking "persuades" you to look elseware for a job. RE knows of what he speaks. So do I. 

Quote
According a recent report from management magazine strategy + business, fleets could save billions across the industry by switching from human controlled trucks to those that drive themselves. Overdrive sister site CCJ‘s Senior Editor Kevin Jones has a full write-up on the latest on autonomous trucks on CCJ‘s site, where he says the economic upside for fleets would immediately include productivity, as hours of service rules would no longer be a worry.



Nor would driver wages, says one analyst in Jones’ story.


The numbers now are roughly this: It costs $200,000 to outfit a truck and trailer to run autonomously, which would yield savings of about $100,000 every year, which, obviously, would put any fleets that made the switch in the black on the change in just two years.

The analyst also says fleets that do adopt autonomous trucks early will set establish “industry-leading positions.”

Do drivers need to be watching their backs? Click here to see Jones’ full post on autonomous trucks

http://www.overdriveonline.com/robotic-trucks-set-to-push-drivers-out-of-a-job/


   


It's not the driverless truck that is the problem it's the entire system built up around trucks that would have to be rebuilt. Just imagine the simple act of backing up in the built up areas involving convincing traffic to stop for you and give you a window for doing it.  Imagine the tens of thousands of docks that predate 18 wheelers let alone autonomous trucks.  Do you honestly think the money is there at that end to replace anything.  How about unloading.  Have you even seen some of the sketchy places freight gets dropped off at? A robot would go into convulsions.   It will happen but it will take at least 10-20 years for the wet ware at the delivery points to be ready to accept autonomous freight...
Just an opinion of course I did run a warehouse in a previous life though...


The short answer is, of course there is money to do that.

Every objection you present to robotic driving, including enroute challenges, delivery constraints, docking in non-automation friendly arreas, etc. is being addressed successfully. Automated driving is going to be far more accident free than human controlled driving.

I was an air traffic controller for many years. I used to say, and I was right in 1972 when I first said it, that I was in the most short lived profession in the history of the human race. WHY? Simply because computers are far better, quicker and more reliable at spacial visualization, vector probabilities, etc. (which is what is involved in keeping airplanes from hitting each other)  than humans. There still are human ATC specialists, but the computer is gradually taking over the ATC to aircraft (bypassing the pilots too!) commands.

Now if you think that moving things from here to there is not going to be nearly 100% automated (with human supervisors overseeing an entire trucking fleet, not just one vehicle at a time), you are not fully cognizant of the present abilities of computer software with the appropriate sensor IO. I know what I am talking about. I was an automation specialist after being an air traffic contoller. The technology is OLD to move trucks without humans. What is NEW is the lower price for the sensor package needed to do that reliably and safely.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #556 on: August 05, 2017, 05:37:55 pm »
It's not the driverless truck that is the problem it's the entire system built up around trucks that would have to be rebuilt. Just imagine the simple act of backing up in the built up areas involving convincing traffic to stop for you and give you a window for doing it.  Imagine the tens of thousands of docks that predate 18 wheelers let alone autonomous trucks.  Do you honestly think the money is there at that end to replace anything.  How about unloading.  Have you even seen some of the sketchy places freight gets dropped off at? A robot would go into convulsions.   It will happen but it will take at least 10-20 years for the wet ware at the delivery points to be ready to accept autonomous freight...
Just an opinion of course I did run a warehouse in a previous life though...

The short answer is, of course there is money to do that.

Every objection you present to robotic driving, including enroute challenges, delivery constraints, docking in non-automation friendly arreas, etc. is being addressed successfully. Automated driving is going to be far more accident free than human controlled driving.

I was an air traffic controller for many years. I used to say, and I was right in 1972 when I first said it, that I was in the most short lived profession in the history of the human race. WHY? Simply because computers are far better, quicker and more reliable at spacial visualization, vector probabilities, etc. (which is what is involved in keeping airplanes from hitting each other)  than humans. There still are human ATC specialists, but the computer is gradually taking over the ATC to aircraft (bypassing the pilots too!) commands.

Now if you think that moving things from here to there is not going to be nearly 100% automated (with human supervisors overseeing an entire trucking fleet, not just one vehicle at a time), you are not fully cognizant of the present abilities of computer software with the appropriate sensor IO. I know what I am talking about. I was an automation specialist after being an air traffic contoller. The technology is OLD to move trucks without humans. What is NEW is the lower price for the sensor package needed to do that reliably and safely.


Look, there ain't **** that any of us can do about the robots.  They are going to put us out of work.  Work can be done by robots, robots are getting cheaper by the day.  At this point it's still a viable career option.  Hopefully I can make the money I need in the time I have before robots put me out of work. 

On another note, we just signed a contract for our land...37k.  I'm probably going to pay to have the water, power, and septic dove tailed onto my mom's build with that cash.  Then we'll finance our own double wide and be set, in a doublewide down by the river...a far bit better then a van down by the river. 

11 acres for the bamboo and food forest, a double wide down by the river, and maybe a decade of 50k a year before the robots put me out of work.  Bamboo is virile, it doesn't require tender loving care.  My groves will grow just fine while I'm OTR trucking and so will my food producing trees and shrubbery.  The income will enable me to buy infrastructure for animals and whatnot.  I'll save as much of it as I can.

In the end, the robots will put us all out of work and we'll run out of oil which will put the robots out of work.  It will be game over, and then we can all learn how to be uncomfortable while we transition into 21st century third world dystopian ghettos.
 

Say what you want about my decision to go truckin'...at least I'm not delusional about it.

True.

     


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #557 on: August 05, 2017, 06:24:48 pm »
I don't doubt the robots will come for trucking I just find all the optimistic time lines you read about are for the truck automation not the end destinations.  In the context of this conversation it's the time frame that matters.  I would say there is 10 to 20 years of driving left for humans to do which is LD's target anyways.
David B.


True. The security problem of keeping somebody from using the five finger discount on the truck contents is probably going to contribute more to delaying full automation implementation than the what drives the truck. Humans are very creative at stealing stuff that isn't being watched by another human.   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #558 on: August 08, 2017, 02:47:27 pm »
30-Year EPA Veteran Writes Farewell Letter, Warns of Environmental Catastrophe Under Pruitt

Environmental Responsibility

Aug. 02, 2017 08:01AM EST

SNIPPET:

Her letter concluded with this overall assessment:

"Today the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth. The truth is there is NO war on coal, there is NO economic crisis caused by environmental protection, and climate change IS caused by man's activities. It may take a few years and even an environmental disaster, but I am confident that Congress and the courts will eventually restore all the environmental protections repealed by this administration because the majority of the American people recognize that this protection of public health and safety is right and it is just."

Full eye opening article:
https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-pruitt-2467950563.html

Left to right: Tillerson, Pruitt, Sessions, Price

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #559 on: August 11, 2017, 06:09:23 pm »
2017-08-07 - High-rise five-star hotel damaged by fire in the Marina District in coastal Dubai (UAE):
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-dubai-fire-idUKKBN1AN0NM
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-08/07/c_136506202.htm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/fire-breaks-out-in-dubai-hotel-no-casualties-reported/448532.html
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/third-dubai-fire-in-days-forces-evacuation-of-hotel-near-marina-district-1734463
http://zeenews.india.com/world/fire-breaks-out-in-dubai-hotel-marina-third-blaze-within-a-week-2030861.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/08/07/Fire-breaks-out-again-in-Dubai-Marina-third-blaze-in-a-week.html
http://gulfbusiness.com/fire-breaks-out-movenpick-jbr/

Quote: "A fire erupted at a Dubai five-star hotel in the Marina tourist hotspot on Monday, with no casualties or injuries reported. The fire in Movenpick Jumeirah Beach Residence (JBR) Hotel, which was quickly brought under control, was the third blaze in less than a week in Dubai, reports Xinhua news agency."

Quote: "On Sunday, another minor fire occurred on a balcony at the Tiger Tower, causing the building to be evacuated. No injuries were reported. It followed a massive blaze across the road at Torch Tower early on Friday morning – the second time the 86-floor building has caught fire in two years."

Note: So three high-rise fires in four days in Dubai, plus some vehicle fires too...


Great catch! 

What I find amazing about the Dubai fires is that, even though high ambient temperatures always aid in spontaneous combustion, the CO2 levels there are very high, which tends to inhibit combustion. This link is to a continuosly updated global graphic data set for temperatures, GHG levels, jet stream, ocean currents, wave heights, etc.

I just went over there right now. The CO2 level in Dubai is 407 PPM. Of course that is peanuts compared to the area in Canada I just checked out where there is a lot of fire (and tar sands piggery). THAT area has 446 PPM of CO2!  :o :P
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #560 on: August 11, 2017, 06:31:36 pm »
 This link is to a continuosly updated global graphic data set for temperatures, GHG levels, jet stream, ocean currents, wave heights, etc.

Good to have that link handy. Thanks.

The Schumann resonance link is on that corresponding thread as well.


I didn't know what that was so I looked it up. Thanks for the  information. I suspect Global Warming will jack up the Schuman Resonance, which will cause more frequent fires.  :( I'll be watching that too.


For other readers not in the know:

Schumann Resonance

SNIPPET:

At any given moment about 2,000 thunderstorms roll over Earth, producing some 50 flashes of lightning every second. Each lightning burst creates electromagnetic waves that begin to circle around Earth captured between Earth's surface and a boundary about 60 miles up. Some of the waves - if they have just the right wavelength - combine, increasing in strength, to create a repeating atmospheric heartbeat known as Schumann resonance. This resonance provides a useful tool to analyze Earth's weather, its electric environment, and to even help determine what types of atoms and molecules exist in Earth's atmosphere.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/gallery/schumann-resonance.html


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #561 on: August 11, 2017, 06:37:29 pm »
2017-08-09 - 1100 cattle suddenly die at farm in Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil):
http://g1.globo.com/mato-grosso-do-sul/noticia/morte-de-11-mil-cabecas-de-gado-por-suspeita-de-botulismo-causa-prejuizo-de-aproximadamente-r-2-milhoes-em-ms.ghtml
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fg1.globo.com%2Fmato-grosso-do-sul%2Fnoticia%2Fmorte-de-11-mil-cabecas-de-gado-por-suspeita-de-botulismo-causa-prejuizo-de-aproximadamente-r-2-milhoes-em-ms.ghtml&edit-text=&act=url

Az,
I watched the video. I don't speak Portugese but it is enough like Spanish that I understood most of it. Those cattle are special cattle. Unlike most of the cattle in the USA, those cattle are heat tolerant Brahman cattle (the ones in India that those folks think are sacred). Most tropical areas imported them for beef and milk in the 20th century because they do well in the heat.

Butolism is suspected in these cows. But whatever it was that poisoned them, I'm sure there is a link to Catastrophic Climate Change. The fact is that increased heat helps the worse kind of microscopic life (and fungi) to make life more miserable for macroscopic life.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #562 on: August 11, 2017, 09:07:04 pm »
Limit to growth in our finite world.

Yeah, right.  ::) I know EXACTLY what growth you wish to limit (see: poor and not-white  ) and what horrendous polluting profit over people and planet GROWTH you have never failed to DEFEND. 

For other readers who can think logically, please view the following graphics. Edpell is allergic to them.

Population is NOT the problem

THIS is how Edpell, the fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' (to PAY to mitigate Catastrophic climate Change) pie chart  to look like (that is, when he and his fossil fuel worshipping pals can no longer pretend that isn't a "Chinese myth"):


The biosphere math facts clearly state that less than 17% of the human population, MOSTLY concentrated in wealthy countries, is DOING over 80% of the damage by consuming over 80% of the resources. Only about half (or less) of the MILITARY budgets alone of the wealthy countries could pay for bio-remediating the most impacted areas, stop the exploitation and care for and educate the high population growth poor there so they become good stewards instead of biosphere destroyers.

Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:

The REAL bottom line is that less than 17% of the human population is an existential threat to the ALL of the human population AND a large part of macroscopic species in the biosphere.





Edpell's world view does not allow him to think logically (see below):

Quote
"Capitalist ideology claims that the world is perfectly ordered and everybody is in their place (i..e. everybody gets what they deserve). This self legitmating aspect of Capitalism is Socially Catastrophic. This is the Victorian view of the world." Rob Urie - Author " Zen Economics"
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #563 on: August 12, 2017, 02:05:13 pm »
2017-08-07 - High-rise five-star hotel damaged by fire in the Marina District in coastal Dubai (UAE):
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-dubai-fire-idUKKBN1AN0NM
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-08/07/c_136506202.htm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/fire-breaks-out-in-dubai-hotel-no-casualties-reported/448532.html

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/third-dubai-fire-in-days-forces-evacuation-of-hotel-near-marina-district-1734463

http://zeenews.india.com/world/fire-breaks-out-in-dubai-hotel-marina-third-blaze-within-a-week-2030861.html

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/08/07/Fire-breaks-out-again-in-Dubai-Marina-third-blaze-in-a-week.html
http://gulfbusiness.com/fire-breaks-out-movenpick-jbr/

Quote: "A fire erupted at a Dubai five-star hotel in the Marina tourist hotspot on Monday, with no casualties or injuries reported. The fire in Movenpick Jumeirah Beach Residence (JBR) Hotel, which was quickly brought under control, was the third blaze in less than a week in Dubai, reports Xinhua news agency."

Quote: "On Sunday, another minor fire occurred on a balcony at the Tiger Tower, causing the building to be evacuated. No injuries were reported. It followed a massive blaze across the road at Torch Tower early on Friday morning – the second time the 86-floor building has caught fire in two years."

Note: So three high-rise fires in four days in Dubai, plus some vehicle fires too...


Great catch!

What I find amazing about the Dubai fires is that, even though high ambient temperatures always aid in spontaneous combustion, the CO2 levels there are very high, which tends to inhibit combustion. ]This link is to a continuosly updated global graphic data set for temperatures, GHG levels, jet stream, ocean currents, wave heights, etc.

I just went over there right now. The CO2 level in Dubai is 407 PPM. Of course that is peanuts compared to the area in Canada I just checked out where there is a lot of fire (and tar sands piggery). THAT area has 446 PPM of CO2!  :o :P


I have a hard time believing that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 which are always well below a tenth of one percent (for now) can possible be a significant modulator of spontaneous combustion.   A tenth of one percent is 1000 ppm.  Temperature has a far more significant effect.  Things which are not really comparable can''t balance each other out.  Temperature impacts the rate of chemical reactions which are the very causes of spontaneous combustion.  CO2 will only displace a tiny amount of oxygen and trying to measure the difference CO2 does cause would be very difficult.

Science could prove me wrong but I doubt it.  Besides which the overall concentration of CO2 can't possibly vary much from place to place.


K-Dog, WHY do you have such difficulties reading what is written (by me )?

Yes, of course the ambient temperature, AS I POINTED OUT, is the main issue in spontaneous combustion. But, lo and behold, CO2 molecules, even in teeny tiny amounts, TRAP HEAT, don't they, K-Dog? So, ANY added amount of CO2 contributes to INCREASE the ambient temperature somewhat. So your claim that the "relatively tiny" increase in CO2 concentration is "irrelevant" to spontaneous combustion, if that is what is indeed going on in Dubai, is scientifically inaccurate because any amount of heat increase is relevant to enabling spontaneous combustion. Please do not lecture me on the energy of activation needed to initiate an exothermic chemical reaction. Anyone with a science background (as well as anybody with common sense) knows that combustion is one of those chemcial reactions that just happens to occur much easier when it is hotter out there.

A tiny amount of CO2 PPM increase (as opposed to all the other atmospheric gases), as this graphic from a lecture by an IPCC scientist clearly states, causes a HUGE increase in atmospheric heating. If YOU do not think a 10 PPM CO2 increase is a large amount, then you are in error.


And I also POINTED OUT that the CO2 level in Dubai is PEANUTS compared with Canada where some fires and tar sands piggery is going on.

If you had been objective, you might have mentioned the one thing I missed (on any of those fires that started in daylight hours, of course). That is, that reflection from glass surfaces on skyscrapers might have aided in combustion on other buildings. I missed that one. So did you.

K-Dog SAID, "Besides which the overall concentration of CO2 can't possibly vary much from place to place."

It is clear that you are NOT in the know about how MUCH CO2 PPM (and CO PPM, by the way) concentrations vary from place to place.

After you go to the site at this link, you may admit at your leisure that SCIENCE just proved you wrong on that incorrect assumption (not just Agelbert  ;D ). No need to rush to admit your error, K-Dog. I understand that you have always been rather reticent to admit  I am right about anything.  ;)

But if you don't admit it within 24 hours, I will return to this thread with screen shots of CO, CO2, SO2, and maybe some particulate matter concentrations in different parts of the globe DIRECTLY CAUSED by the BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS, which are the irrefutable cause of Global Warming caused Catastrophic Climate change (for you to try to talk your way around).

Dinner is served, K-dog:

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #564 on: August 12, 2017, 02:51:47 pm »
I favor a decline in human numbers to 8 million world wide. That will require contributions from all nations. As to what it does to profits I do not care.

If that 17% I pointed out to you does not stop degrading our biosphere, within a century there will be less humans (and 90% or more of all other vertebrate species extinct) than that.

When you are in a hole, it is customary to stop digging. You think that the "shovel" is population growth. I KNOW that the "shovel" digging our grave is the burning of fossil fuels and the unestrained pollution from mining, manufacturing and chemical industry piggery. All that can be done without polluting. But that requires 100% Renewable Energy and a steady state economy that protects the biosphere (IOW, an economy run by governments that respect ALL life including ALL humans in an egalitarian fashion).

THAT economy would destroy the profits of the 1%. Whether you care about that or not, the 75 million or so ONE PERCENTERS out there certainly do care about their ill gotten profits and are presently in the drivers seat.   

You may not wish to connect the dots, but if the 1% finally do not get their head out of their profit over planet worshipping descending colon, they will, along with all the rest of humanity, perish.


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #565 on: August 12, 2017, 03:17:32 pm »


August 10, 2017

U.S. Pipelines Spill 9,000 Gallons of Dangerous Chemicals a Day
Leading anti-pipeline campaigner Diana Best discusses hearings in Nebraska that may mark Keystone XL's last stand and a new Greenpeace warning that four proposed Tar Sands oil pipelines threaten water resources

Diana Best  is a senior climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace USA, based in Denver, CO. She began working with Greenpeace in 2008 on federal climate legislation and has since worked on reforming federal fossil fuel leasing programs and fighting new infrastructure projects around the US. She is currently leading Greenpeace's pipeline resistance work aimed at halting proposed tar sands pipelines as well as undermining the political and social influence of the oil industry during Trump's administration.

transcript

U.S. Pipelines Spill 9,000 Gallons of Dangerous Chemicals a Day

DHARNA NOOR:   Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Dharna Noor joining you from Baltimore. For the past 10 years, pipelines have spilled an average of 9,000 gallons of hazardous liquids every single day in the U.S. alone. This is according to Greenpeace USA. In a recent study, Greenpeace found that over the past decade these spills in the U.S. have led to 20 fatalities, 35 injuries, $2.6 billion in cost and over 800,000 total barrels spilled, that's 34 million gallons. They also concluded that the Tar Sands oil pipelines are virtually guaranteed to spill.

The release of this report comes at the moment that hearings are taking place in Nebraska, where regulators have yet to approve the expansion of the Keystone XL Pipeline. On Thursday, environmental groups, including Greenpeace, and also Bold Nebraska, The Indigenous Environmental Network, and others are set to deliver over 300,000 public comments against the Keystone XL to the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The deadline for public comment is this Friday.

Our next guest is here to discuss the Nebraska Keystone XL hearings and Greenpeace's important report titled Four Proposed Tar Sands Oil Pipelines Pose A Threat To Water Resources. We're very pleased to be joined from Denver, Colorado, by Diana Best. She is the Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace USA. Thanks so much for joining us today.

DIANA BEST:   Thank you so much for having me.

DHARNA NOOR:   First of all, what are the four proposed Tar Sands oil pipelines that your new report says will pose a threat to water resources?

DIANA BEST:   Great. Yeah, there's four proposed Tar Sands pipelines, all starting at the Alberta Tar Sands fields. One of those is Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline that will go out west to the B.C. coast. Another one, of course, is the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is the subject of these hearings this week. The third is the Line 3, Enbridge's Line 3, which goes through Canada and then cuts through a portion of Northern U.S. territories. Then, the final one is Energy East.

DHARNA NOOR:   Why is Greenpeace saying that Tar Sands oil pipelines are guaranteed to spill? What makes them virtually guaranteed to spill?

DIANA BEST:   Great. As you mentioned, Greenpeace U.S. released a report very recently, which details the spill record of some of these companies behind the four proposed pipelines that I just mentioned. Those companies have had a terrible track record of spills since 2010, which is detailed in our report. The U.S. crude oil pipeline system, as a whole, has had an average of one significant incident, about a total of 570 barrels release per a year per a 1,000 miles of pipelines over the past 10 years. As I mentioned, they don't have a great track record.


What is really scary about this right now is that instead of actually seeing a downward trend in the number of spills, this investigation also found that the long-term trend data shows a significant pipeline incidents have actually increased since 2007. Assuming that some of this data holds true, that means that these pipelines, if they are built, are virtually guaranteed to spill.

DHARNA NOOR:   Let's talk a little bit about the hearings currently going on in Nebraska. These hearings may shape up to be the final battle against the expansion of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline. Nebraska regulators have, again, get to approve the pipeline. Talk a little bit about the significance of these hearings and why people are concerned about the expansion of the Keystone.

DIANA BEST:   Definitely. I think, one of the best opportunities we have right now to slow pipeline construction down in the U.S. is through these state permitting processes. Pipelines in general need a handful of both federal and state permits. The state permits are really where, I think, we're seeing a lot of opposition at the pipelines, and a lot of the activism around the pipelines really taking shape.

What's happening right now in Nebraska is that The Nebraska Public Service Commission has been tasked with essentially having open hearings and taking public comments to review the risks and rewards of this pipeline and whether or not to approve this critical state permit, the last permit that the Keystone XL Pipeline needs to complete its route from Alberta, through Montana, South Dakota and then Nebraska. This is a really critical window for people to share their stories, to talk about the impacts of what this pipeline will mean for their communities, for their property, for their climate. It's a huge moment right in Nebraska.

We saw on Sunday thousands of people, hundreds of people coming together in Lincoln from Indigenous community leaders, to First Nations and tribes, landowners, climate activists, people from all over the state and all over the region coming together to give Key XL the boot. It was a big, powerful march on Sunday to kick off these hearings. Now, we're in day three of what will be a five-day all day hearings at the Public Service Commission.

DHARNA NOOR:   One of the Keystone XL pipeline actually already runs through Nebraska, right? This last is really contentious because of its proximity to a major underground water aquifer. Why is that important? Does it matter that it's so close to this water aquifer?

DIANA BEST:   Yeah. I think Tar Sands pipelines really pose a threat to a lot of water resources, from where they start in the oil fields of Alberta, all the way throughout. There are countless streams and rivers and aquifers that those pipelines intersect and go over. I think what's particularly scary about the Keystone XL Pipeline is that it actually crosses the Ogallala Aquifer, which is one of the biggest freshwater resources that we have. Millions of people rely on it for drinking water and then you start to incorporate some of the indirect ways that people depend on having a clean, fresh water source. For agriculture, for growing crops and food. This is the heartland of our country, where a lot of our food does come from. To think that that water could be contaminated at all by, hopefully not, a disastrous pipeline spill, it certainly starts to increase the stakes of what this pipeline could potentially have for people in that region.

DHARNA NOOR:   Some, of course, in the pipeline or oil and natural gas industry, say, spills are just part of the cost of doing business and that they factor in spills and are prepared for those emergencies. What's your response to this sort of pushback?

DIANA BEST:   Yeah, certainly. I think there's a lot of responses. One, let's start with the economic. Spills cost money, that's the bottom line. We've discussed in the report, the billions have been associated already with previous spills that have happened. When you start to add up the various high-price tag costs of these pipelines, which include not only the cost of cleaning up spills, the cost of delays, the uncertainty of the permitting process, the reputational risk of these pipelines, the protest risks, all of these risks, we start to really add up the cost quite quickly.

All of this is coming, of course, in a fairly uncertain and unpredictable oil market, when we're also seeing the cost of renewable energy go down, we're seeing a boom in post-fossil fuel technology, like electric cars. I think one has to ask, and I'm certain key investors are asking themselves, or should be asking is it worth it? At what point do the risks outweigh the very limited rewards of pushing forward these pipelines?

Each of these companies right now that are proposing these pipelines are looking to finance these pipelines and going to major Wall Street investors and banks. One of our objectives at Greenpeace, and I know a lot of our allies and partner groups are also making similar demands. One of the things that we're trying to do is go to some of these big investors and some of the groups bankrolling and banks bankrolling these projects and say, "You have to look at what the increased price tag of this is and you should consider just not funding these at all."

DHARNA NOOR:   I have to ask you, what about the talking point, of course, that these pipelines will create jobs?


DIANA BEST:   Yeah, I think this is something ... We've seen president Trump use this as a justification. We've seen the industry uses as a justification for pushing these pipelines forward for almost a decade. The reality is there's been numerous reports, which dispel the myth that this is a long-term job creator. In fact, the permanent job growth from pipelines is under 100 for a pipeline, I think Keystone XL Pipeline. I think you also have to look at where the job market is going and where the long-term trend is right now.

There is a huge boom in the solar and renewable energy industry right now. We know that there are jobs that are going to take us into a fossil-free future, and those jobs are going to be there to last. While there may be a short-term boom in job growth in the region for the construction, in the long-term, is this going to be this sort of economic boom that the industry and Trump and the oil and gas cronies claim it will be? No.

DHARNA NOOR:   The recent Greenpeace report says that the decades of spills averaging 9,000 barrels a day have amounted to $2.6 billion in cost. Is that the pipeline or oil companies who are paying those costs? Or are taxpayers also having to foot the bill?

DIANA BEST:   That's a really good question. According to the EPA, by law, companies responsible for the use or transport, storage, disposal of hazardous substances and oil, they're actually technically liable for the cost. That can include spills, cleanup, damages, you name it. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone and we've seen this in the past that some companies refuse to comply. In the past, the EPA, among other places, have had public funds put aside to help deal with some of the cleanup, or damages, just basically getting some of these contaminations in order.

I think what is nerve-wracking about the situation that we're in, is that the Trump administration is both, pushing forward new pipelines, they are undercutting the regulatory process that we're in, and they're de-funding or underfunding some of the EPA regulatory programs that we rely on. A lot of the safety nets that we've seen in the past come to play in moments of disaster might not be there and that's an uncertainty that I think we're going to have to face. Who ultimately foots the bill for that? Will it be the companies? Will it be local taxpayers? Will it be the federal government? I think that's an unknown and something that we should be considering very closely.

DHARNA NOOR:   When might we know the outcome of the Nebraska hearings and the ultimate fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

DIANA BEST:   Right. At this point, the Public Service Commission of Nebraska is hearing this testimony, there is cross-examination. The company also has a chance to testify and share their testimony. They're going to go back, they're going to review all of that, including the thousands and thousands of public comments that are being delivered on Thursday, the final comment period, of course, closes on Friday. They're going to review all of that. What we're hearing right now is that we should expect an up or down final vote on whether or not to approve the Nebraska permit sometime in the late fall, that could be sometime in November.

DHARNA NOOR:   How much of the American public is at risk, in terms of their drinking water from oil and gas pipeline spillage? Are there specific at-risk populations?

DIANA BEST:   Yeah. I think, the pipeline network across the U.S. has certainly expanded in recent years. I think the risks from a pipeline spill are numerous. From contaminating our water that we depend on to drink, to a fossil fuel leakage and spills of hazardous materials, and of course, the risk to our climate. I think who is at risk? It's technically all of us. I think when we look at Key pipelines, like the Keystone XL Pipeline that's currently on the table and being debated of whether or not to approve this, it crosses the Ogallala Aquifer, as I mentioned, a water source that millions of people rely on directly for drinking water, and indirectly countless people rely on for food. A contamination and a key drinking water source like that would be absolutely disastrous.

DHARNA NOOR:   Can you talk a little bit more about the long-term effects of these kinds of pipeline spills?

DIANA BEST:   Yeah. I think we can look at other places that we've seen oil spills. I think Deepwater Horizon is still in everyone's recent memory. We can also look at Michigan's Kalamazoo River spill that happened in 2010, when 20,000 plus barrels of oil spilled into that river, what the cleanup costs were. I think it brings a lot more than just direct impacts. Of course, there is water contamination, not being able to drink water, not being sure if your water is safe, to some of the other environmental hazards that happen. Can you appreciate and enjoy the outdoors without fear of contamination? I think there is also just a perception risk. It affects people's property values. It affects people's desire to want to spend time in that region. I think there's a tourism angle here that is also not widely discussed.

DHARNA NOOR:   Let's turn to the owner and the builder of the would be Keystone XL Trans Canada. What's their track record for spill rates?

DIANA BEST:   Yeah. Their track record, like all of these companies, is not great. In our report, we use pipeline incident data maintained by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration. That is a mouthful. We looked through that report, and what we found is that Trans Canada was responsible for 13 spills totalling about 829 barrels of crude oil since 2010. They had two significant spills. One in 2011 and one in 2016.

DHARNA NOOR:   Greenpeace's recent study also concluded that we could expect 59 significant spills over the next 50 years. The study said there's even more to concern when it comes to the Alberta Tar Sands, because of the mining and processing of bitumen. What exactly is bitumen and why does that pose a particular concern for Greenpeace?

DIANA BEST:   Sure. Bitumen is a fancy term for Tar Sands oil. Unlike conventional crude oil, bitumen has a consistency of almost like a thick tar. It's too thick to just pump straight out of the ground and pushed through pipelines. In order to actually get it to flow through the pipelines, which are being considered right now, bitumen must be mixed with light crude oil, or natural gas to give it the consistency that it can actually flow through those pipelines. That's called diluted bitumen, or dilbit for short.

DHARNA NOOR:   Did a Trans Canada's Pipeline competitors Kinder Morgan or Enbridge and their subsidiaries fare any better in your report in terms of their track records for spills?

DIANA BEST:   They actually fared a lot worse, in fact. Kinder Morgan was involved in approximately 213 spills. 35 of those were crude oil and six were highly volatile liquids. 22 of those were actually deemed significant spills by the regulators. Enbridge, as well, had about 147 spills. 17 of those were classified as significant.

DHARNA NOOR:   All right. Diana Best, thank you so much for joining us today.

DIANA BEST:   Thank you so much for having me, take care.

DHARNA NOOR:   Thanks so much for joining us on The Real News. We'll keep tracking these unfolding developments for the Keystone XL and other pipelines and the environmental health battle against them.

Video at link:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19736


 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #566 on: August 12, 2017, 03:30:51 pm »

Gigantic Pipes Beach in England After Breaking Free from Tow

August 11, 2017 by Mike Schuler

More pictures and story:

http://gcaptain.com/gigantic-pipes-wash-ashore-in-england-after-breaking-free-during-tow/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #567 on: August 13, 2017, 04:19:15 pm »
There could be methane releases as well as sulfur dioxide.
I'm limited in my chemistry knowledge, however those two gases are combustible.

Wind mixes it.  It will only vary if there is a feed.  Even if there were no wind diffusion would mix it but that would take a long time.  It is like mixing two fluids, the difference being gases mix themselves.  I always liked the kinetic theory of gases.  So pure simple and satisfying.

I don't have to take this abuse.  I graduated college physics.  Radiant energy from the sun to which the atmosphere is transparent hits the earth and is converted into heat.  Heat is then radiated back out into space but small concentrations of CO2 trap heat photons on the way as to get to outer space many miles of atmosphere must be transversed.  The probability is high that a photon will be trapped and released several times along the way despite a low concentration of atmospheric CO2 because of the large distance involved.  The situation will find and balance about a point where an increase in surface temperature steps up the rate of energy radiated away from the earth so that once again the amount of energy radiated out equals the amount coming in less what plants and solar panels store.  It is always a balanced equation.  With the new balancing point being a hotter earth.  A computer should be able to model the effect just fine which had climate change deniers hearts, souls, and most particularly, brains would be another blow against them.

A part per thousand of CO2 in the air is not going to do twiddly didily squat about spontaneous combustion.  Global warming is a macro phenomena because of the size of the petri dish we live in.  I make a legitimate contribution and the green eyed monster goes apeshit on me seeing a pattern of fires that is most likely random chance.

The above was an excellent example of a straw grasping, arrogant, appeal to authority fallacious debating technique that deliberately dances around K-Dog's woeful denial of the DATA I pointed out to him. Az did not, and I did not, claim that spontaneous combustion is the known cause of all those fires. But K-Dog continues to ridicule the mere POSSIBILITY of it having occurred, and adds a BROWN colored ( ;)) screaming stuffed toy to underline the fact that he will NOT accept ANYTHING comin' from folks like me. Besides the usual racist fun and games which have no place at all in this discussion, but racists like to use to undermine the argument of an opponent of color, the issue that K-Dog does NOT want to address, is the connection of Global Warming with the Burning of Fossil Fuels. So, he arm waves in as many slightly, but mostly insignificant, distracting relevant directions as possible. K-Dog is a Bad Doggie but he ain't stupid. 

The "pattern of fires" CO2 PPM HIGH Concentrations I pointed out to him is NOT "random chance". If he had bothered to look all over the globe, he would have learned that uttering that added bit of ignorance makes him look rather silly. K-Dog has much confusion in his head about the physics of gases. He probably learned about molecular diffusion, Brownian movement and such in college, which both tend to scatter molecules of gases and liquids until they are thoroughly and proportionately mixed. That leads K-Dog to the incorrect assumption that gases do not concentrate appreciably anywhere in the atmosphere.

You see, depending on their HEIGHT (i.e. atmospheric pressure variances and wind velocities affect both dispersion and concentration of gases) above the surface of the earth, gases VARY in the amount they diffuse equally in the atmosphere. But K-Dog, if he has been exposed to that info, passes it off as irrelevant to his ass-u-me-ption that gases MUST be equally distributed because, "that's what he learned in physics". If that's all K-Dog learned about how gases diffuse, K-Dog had a lousy teacher!



2017-08-07 - High-rise five-star hotel damaged by fire in the Marina District in coastal Dubai (UAE):
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-dubai-fire-idUKKBN1AN0NM
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-08/07/c_136506202.htm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/fire-breaks-out-in-dubai-hotel-no-casualties-reported/448532.html


http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/third-dubai-fire-in-days-forces-evacuation-of-hotel-near-marina-district-1734463
http://zeenews.india.com/world/fire-breaks-out-in-dubai-hotel-marina-third-blaze-within-a-week-2030861.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/08/07/Fire-breaks-out-again-in-Dubai-Marina-third-blaze-in-a-week.html
http://gulfbusiness.com/fire-breaks-out-movenpick-jbr/

Quote: "A fire erupted at a Dubai five-star hotel in the Marina tourist hotspot on Monday, with no casualties or injuries reported. The fire in Movenpick Jumeirah Beach Residence (JBR) Hotel, which was quickly brought under control, was the third blaze in less than a week in Dubai, reports Xinhua news agency."

Quote: "On Sunday, another minor fire occurred on a balcony at the Tiger Tower, causing the building to be evacuated. No injuries were reported. It followed a massive blaze across the road at Torch Tower early on Friday morning – the second time the 86-floor building has caught fire in two years."

Note: So three high-rise fires in four days in Dubai, plus some vehicle fires too...


Great catch! 

What I find amazing about the Dubai fires is that, even though high ambient temperatures always aid in spontaneous combustion, the CO2 levels there are very high, which tends to inhibit combustion. This link is to a continuosly updated global graphic data set for temperatures, GHG levels, jet stream, ocean currents, wave heights, etc.

I just went over there right now. The CO2 level in Dubai is 407 PPM. Of course that is peanuts compared to the area in Canada I just checked out where there is a lot of fire (and tar sands piggery). THAT area has 446 PPM of CO2!  :o :P

I have a hard time believing that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 which are always well below a tenth of one percent (for now) can possible be a significant modulator of spontaneous combustion.   A tenth of one percent is 1000 ppm.  Temperature has a far more significant effect.  Things which are not really comparable can''t balance each other out.  Temperature impacts the rate of chemical reactions which are the very causes of spontaneous combustion.  CO2 will only displace a tiny amount of oxygen and trying to measure the difference CO2 does cause would be very difficult.

Science could prove me wrong but I doubt it.  Besides which the overall concentration of CO2 can't possibly vary much from place to place.


K-Dog, WHY do you have such difficulties reading what is written (by me )?

Yes, of course the ambient temperature, AS I POINTED OUT, is the main issue in spontaneous combustion. But, lo and behold, CO2 molecules, even in teeny tiny amounts, TRAP HEAT, don't they, K-Dog? So, ANY added amount of CO2 contributes to INCREASE the ambient temperature somewhat. So your claim that the "relatively tiny" increase in CO2 concentration is "irrelevant" to spontaneous combustion, if that is what is indeed going on in Dubai, is scientifically inaccurate because any amount of heat increase is relevant to enabling spontaneous combustion. Please do not lecture me on the energy of activation needed to initiate an exothermic chemical reaction. Anyone with a science background (as well as anybody with common sense) knows that combustion is one of those chemcial reactions that just happens to occur much easier when it is hotter out there.

A tiny amount of CO2 PPM increase (as opposed to all the other atmospheric gases), as this graphic from a lecture by an IPCC scientist clearly states, causes a HUGE increase in atmospheric heating. If YOU do not think a 10 PPM CO2 increase is a large amount, then you are in error.


And I also POINTED OUT that the CO2 level in Dubai is PEANUTS compared with Canada where some fires and tar sands piggery is going on.

If you had been objective, you might have mentioned the one thing I missed (on any of those fires that started in daylight hours, of course). That is, that reflection from glass surfaces on skyscrapers might have aided in combustion on other buildings. I missed that one. So did you.

K-Dog SAID, "Besides which the overall concentration of CO2 can't possibly vary much from place to place."

It is clear that you are NOT in the know about how MUCH CO2 PPM (and CO PPM, by the way) concentrations vary from place to place.

After you go to the site at this link, you may admit at your leisure that SCIENCE just proved you wrong on that incorrect assumption (not just Agelbert  ;D ). No need to rush to admit your error, K-Dog. I understand that you have always been rather reticent to admit  I am right about anything.  ;)

But if you don't admit it within 24 hours, I will return to this thread with screen shots of CO, CO2, SO2, and maybe some particulate matter concentrations in different parts of the globe DIRECTLY CAUSED by the BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS, which are the irrefutable cause of Global Warming caused Catastrophic Climate change (for you to try to talk your way around).

Dinner is served, K-dog:




K-Dog, your 24 hours are up.


As predicted, Mr. ARROGANCE INCORPORATED, K-Dog, refuses to admit that he is WRONG. WRONG and, in case I forgot to mention it, WRONG.   

Quote
K-Dog SAID, "Besides which the overall concentration of CO2 can't possibly vary much from place to place."  

The following screen shot is from  this link. Those readers who, unlike the bad Doggie K-Dog, respect objective scientific data, instead of splitting irrelevant hairs about "random readings" or "faulty climate models" or using pejorative (see: diddly squat - darn! that sounds just like the fossil fueler MKing!), may wish to peruse our sad climate situation. Please pass it on, but not to closet defenders of the fossil fuel polluting status quo like K-Dog.     

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #568 on: August 13, 2017, 04:43:40 pm »
The 'dead-zone' in the northern Gulf of Mexico is one of the world's biggest 'biological deserts' NOAA

The ocean is slowly being suffocated with levels of oxygen falling at a similar rate to 94 million years ago when there was a mass extinction of marine life, scientists have warned.

While that event was caused naturally, humans are responsible for several different factors driving the increase in “dead zones” in our seas.

One is that sewage and fertilisers running off farmers fields are causing massive blooms of algae that die and then decompose in a process that consumes oxygen. This kills most marine life or forces mobile animals such as fish to flee.

One of the world’s biggest “biological deserts” is in the northern Gulf of Mexico, centred on the mouth of the Mississippi River. The Baltic Sea is also severely affected.

Another factor driving the process is that global warming is gradually increasing the amount of erosion of the land, adding extra nutrients to the sea. However this process is expected to take tens of thousands of years.

The loss of oxygen from the ocean is yet another problem facing marine life along with rising temperatures and ocean acidification, caused by absorption of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Writing in the journal Science Advances, the researchers said that current rates of deoxygenation were similar to those 94 million years ago during what is known as Oceanic Anoxic Event-2 (OAE-2).

“Increased ocean deoxygenation is already apparent in the modern ocean, because marine dioxygen has decreased by two per cent over roughly the last half century, and recent models predict a continued loss of 0.5 to 3.5 per cent over the next half century, which would result in huge expansions of ocean anoxia within the next few thousand years,” they said.

“Should anthropogenically induced oxygen loss occur at similar rates as in the period leading up to OAE-2, then the current area of seafloor hypoxia would double in about the next 102 to 344 years.

“Localised oxygen loss is already apparent in the modern ocean, and the ability to observe more widespread perturbation seems realistic under currently projected carbon emissions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-sewage-fertilisers-mass-extinction-ocean-life-trigger-scientists-warn-a7884861.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Pollution
« Reply #569 on: August 13, 2017, 04:52:41 pm »

Climate Change & Anthropocene Extinction 10: Biodiversity loss accelerates under warming, metastudy shows

Climate change leads to species extinctions and exponentially so: the loss of biodiversity is set to accelerate under continuation of global average temperature rise.


This graph illustrates two important things: (1) the pattern of exponential decline of biodiversity for a linear increase in global temperatures (which means that for the preservation of Earth’s biodiversity a business as usual emissions scenario is much worse than ambitious global climate policy) – and (2) that there is large variation among individual published biodiversity projections (illustrating high complexity/uncertainty).

We learn this from a very interesting metastudy performed by ecologist Mark Urban of the University of Connecticut that was published in Science in 2015. In this study Urban assessed 131 existing studies in scientific literature investigating extinction risk under anthropogenic climate change.

Models are simplifications, real world ecological responses are very complex – and for instance differ geographically…

All assessed studies contain extinction predictions and focus on multiple species – and most of the climate-biodiversity models used define extinction as species habitat falling below a critical limit, yet, as the author notes, often ignore further complexities as species interactions (both ecosystem interdependance and competition), dispersal differences and evolution.

Main conclusions from the meta-analysis are that extinction risk varies geographically and that overall biodiversity loss increases exponentially with climatic warming.

The latter may be unsurprising if you give it a thought (for instance due to the cascading nature of extinctions), but it’s also a very important realisation. It means that if we want to prevent biodiversity loss – we do, of course – then raising the global climate policy ambition can be very rewarding:

For instance the average values from Urban’s assessment show that the RCP8.5 scenario that (under conservative climate sensitivity assumption) is linked to a global average warming of slightly more than 4 degrees would lead to more than three times as much biodiversity loss as a 2 degrees warming scenario. Meanwhile the difference in biodiversity decline comparing the 2 degrees and the more ambitious 1.5 degrees scenario could also be significant.

What can we learn from variation in climate-biodiversity studies?

Another thing Urban’s meta-analysis clearly shows, is that there is a large variation in studies assessing extinction risk under anthropogenic climate change, ‘depending on the specific assumptions and geographic and taxonomic focus of each study’. However when he synthesised these studies it showed that extinction risk did not vary by taxonomic group – in other words, the damaging effect of climate change on biodiversity is universal. Variation was however strongly correlated with geography, with significant differences per continent:


Extinction risk under climate change per continent, reflecting higher vulnerability for hot regions (tropics) and smaller land masses/islands. [Speculation from our side: used biodiversity-climate models may ignore full extent of regional climate warming feedbacks, that lead to dramatic increase of relative warming at high latitudes, aggravating local ecological effects – thereby possibly evening out above geographical pattern.]

This shows two overlapping phenomena: the immediate biodiversity decline in hot, tropical regions (where species do not migrate to) plus the relatively high sensitivity of relatively small and geographically isolated habitats, most notably islands – which goes for Australia and New Zealand, and to some extent also South America – as the Panama Isthmus is still an ecological bottleneck for northward climate migration. (Rule of thumb: having many islands and complicated coastlines is good for biodiversity.)

Within the larger pool of biodiversity-climate research, the more pessimistic publications seem to deserve special attention, as Urban writes that those studies that used ‘realistic assumptions about extinction debt and dispersal capacity’ showed ‘substantially increased extinction risks’.

Hmm… that does not sound like good news. We’ll try to find out more.

http://www.bitsofscience.org/climate-change-anthropocene-extinction-biodiversity-loss-accelerates-warming-metastudy-7426/

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
241 Replies
8239 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 02:27:30 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 20, 2017, 11:10:06 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
September 20, 2017, 06:12:46 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 20, 2017, 05:15:43 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
September 20, 2017, 04:52:45 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
September 19, 2017, 07:35:49 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 19, 2017, 07:06:23 pm

Homebody Handy Hints by AGelbert
September 18, 2017, 11:16:31 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
September 17, 2017, 10:17:00 pm

Majestic and sometimes Spectacular Scenery by AGelbert
September 17, 2017, 07:52:46 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
September 17, 2017, 07:22:28 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial