forums.rs

Forums

Climate Change: Not Just CO2

Quick find code: 23-24-60-62485114

of 53
Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Glad you made this thread.
I was thinking about making one myself, but seeing as we have quite different points of view, it would be something completely different.

Well, I've read it and I am also glad to be over CO2.
Whether climate change is happening or not is a point of discussion, but you don't need to be certain about it to change things. Either way, you can't deny that with our current lifestyle, we are emitting lots of compounds that don't belong in the atmosphere in such quantities.
Green chemistry is a great example of how to do things right. You change chemistry to be more sustainable and less damaging to the environment, without awaiting the consequences or waiting for more conclusive evidence.
Finally, I could ask a climate scientist how to solve the CO2 problem, but I'd probably not get a satisfying answer.
The answer I would give is to not focus directly on CO2, but focus on other issues that are damaging to the environment and solve the problems there, like green chemistry is doing. That will indirectly also solve the CO2-problem. These indirect solutions are the best way to beat climate change, as direct solutions are not working.

This thread did inspire me to study more about green chemistry. Currently I'm studying environmental sciences, but I've always liked chemistry. Combine those and you get green chemistry.

08-Mar-2011 14:30:05 - Last edited on 08-Mar-2011 14:56:05 by Abbem 20

Helios223

Helios223

Posts: 21,708 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Virtually full agreement from me with that. I wish you luck with the environmental science studies. :)
One thing though which has been brought up earlier... You will not get taken very seriously if you just ignore the majority of scientific literature regarding climate change. It would not work for any other area of science, and climate science is no exception to that.
~Hélios~

09-Mar-2011 22:24:12

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
"One thing though which has been brought up earlier... You will not get taken very seriously if you just ignore the majority of scientific literature regarding climate change."

That's something that I am starting to understand slowly. I guess I'll just have to accept something that I do not agree with and work with it.
Fortunately there is something I noticed when discussing environmental problems. CO2 is rarely ever the main cause of a problem. Without looking at CO2, the problem is still a problem that can be solved, figuring in CO2 does make the problem look worse though. This makes it rather easy to address environmental problems and propose solutions without having to accept global warming.

10-Mar-2011 16:08:15

Helios223

Helios223

Posts: 21,708 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
CO2 is a problem due to the warming and ocean acidification. It is the major problem in climate change, and all of what I am talking about is just a secondary process.
In science it is rarely a question of whether you like it or not. For example in the labs here at university today I have been working with metal hydride complexes, which are unstable in air.
I really dislike the fact that they are unstable in air as it means a lot more work to use them. I would really rather they did not, but as with climate change it is merely an opinion.
Sure when looking at these hydride complexes in an argon-filled flask it just looks like air and so, to the layman, it would be safe to assume that it is just a regular complex. But take the cap off and it would turn black and be utterly useless.
My point with this is that personal interpretations of things, unless one is actually qualified in the field, is not an appropriate way to do things. If I did not know what I was doing with those complexes I would just destroy them and waste about £200 of starting materials.
This is the very reason why we have peer review. It's a way to ensure the information is accurate.
~Hélios~

10-Mar-2011 17:06:40

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I don't think you get what I mean.
That metal hydrides react with air and that it makes them useless when you take them out of the argon-filled pot is something you can observe.
That CO2 is causing global warming is something you can not observe directly, because most of the warming should be happening in the future. That is what makes it a point of discussion.
And while most scientists agree that CO2 is causing climate change and that it is going to be disastrous if it proceeds, there are also scientists that oppose this. Both sides have arguments, but since the majority is pro-climate change, it is more likely that scientific consensus is going that way.
But be careful not to confuse sceptics with denialists. Even climate sceptics agree that doing nothing is not an option.

10-Mar-2011 18:44:05

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
What I meant with environmental problems usually not being caused by CO2 is part of my view on how to solve things.
We know about global warming and the role of CO2 in all of this for about 25 years. Yet we see no change in the amounts of CO2 that are pumped in the atmosphere every day. In fact, it only gets worse.
Our current systems of reducing CO2 emissions are not working, and even if they worked they would not be effective. The reason it doesn't work is very simple: you can't avoid CO2 emission. We need fossil fuel burning to get energy to heat our homes, to drive our cars, to power our computers, etc. We simply cannot live without that and no other form of energy production is currently as efficient as fossil fuels.
This has not really been a problem before global warming was discovered. Before that we had other problems, which happened to be related to CO2. Air pollution for example. Main air pollutants are sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. It is observable that these do cause problems, mainly smog and breathing diseases. Air pollution still exists and still kills people. There is more than enough reason to do something about it, because it is an observable problem, unlike CO2.
So if a city or region decides to clean its air, they will most likely solve the observable problems first. A way to solve air pollution is to move away from fossil fuel burning and use renewable energy resources. Inhabitants will want to do this, because they too want the air to be cleaner. So the city or region starts a project for more solar panels.
After a while the following has been achieved:
The air has become cleaner
Emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2, have been reduced
The public has become aware of a problem and is willing to pay for it to be solved, which is probably the most important.
And we did not focus on reducing CO2 emissions, just on solvnig an environmental problem.

10-Mar-2011 19:00:57

Helios223

Helios223

Posts: 21,708 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
CO2 is kind of a separate problem to this. But anyway there are several methods of CO2 capture being discussed. I read an article in ChemistryWorld about catalysts which can use CO2 as a reagent in chemical reactions, which would be a fantastic way to deal with it.
What I am trying to focus on in this thread is what is being done, other than CO2 regulations, to combat climate change. This is because time and time again I see the argument that CO2 is being used as a scapegoat of sorts, to get away with much worse pollution.
That really is not the case.
~Hélios~

14-Mar-2011 12:23:05

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I do agree with that.
I've just finished a paper on sulphur-dioxide emission in international shipping and realized that what I said in earlier posts is not completely true. While SO2 emissions are often related to CO2 emissions, the way they are treated is different. It's possible to cut down on both by using better engines, but the most commonly applied solution is refining the fuels used to contain less sulphur, which costs some energy and thus causes more CO2 emission.
I always prefer solutions that solve multiple problems at once, which would be using better engines in this case.

14-Mar-2011 15:40:19

Helios223

Helios223

Posts: 21,708 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Improving the chemical industry solves a large number of these problems. Less emissions from having to heat things up, and less toxic chemicals released.
Good to hear about the paper. I am working on a presentation at the moment about the etherification of glycerine into much more useful materials. Originally the reaction used a stoichiometric amount of aluminium chloride, which of course lead to lots of heavy metal waste. Also it could not use glycerine: it had to use other much more harmful chemicals
Now the reaction can be done with a solid silica catalyst with sul*onate groups attached, and glycerine is a great starting material for it.
~Hélios~

14-Mar-2011 21:50:51

Quick find code: 23-24-60-62485114 Back to Top