29/03/2024
when people talk about the Paris Agreement, where more than ten years ago most of the countries in the United Nations roster agreed to what was defined as necessary to keep global warming to no more than one-and-a-half degrees celsius.
"Ratifying the Paris Agreement" involves the signatory countries taking active steps to reduce carbon output, as carbon particles in the atmosphere trap heat around the planet. Fossil Fuels when used release much carbon particle ratio very quickly into the atmosphere; "Petroleum Products" are refined from oil... this
.. this oil - and gas, also coal... they themselves are like "refined Dinosaur Age organic matter" ... they became what they are by being buried, subjected to pressure and such - over millions of years .
This is why they are called "Fossil Fuels" ... they arrive in the form they are now due to a millennia-long natural process; very long decomposition times of organic matter from the Dinosaur Age making what powered the Industrial Age in the 1950's onwards so seemingly miraculously.
In the mid-90's I just could not believe that about five big ol' rich bastards got together, pooled billions of dollars together with the express intention of saying this is not so. Of saying such scientific data is nonsense. I thought for a couple of years they were wasting their breath, time and money. But those fu***rs did it. For a while. Ten, maybe twenty years, they swayed opinion so that a majority of populations in the "developed world" believed that climate science was questionable in its claims.
Here's a scientifically researched claim made by climate scientists: the ice-caps of the glaciers in Greenland hold enough water that if melted, would raise ocean levels by 24 feet.
Here's another claim: the biggest river in the world is not visible on nor from land; it is a "deep ocean river" flowing from Southern Hemisphere (beginning somewhere offshore, deep, around the lower south east ocean area next to Australia) ...
.. from there, this "deep ocean river" known affectionally ass the "Trans-Atlantic Express" goes alllll the way up to the Northern Hemisphere, journey completion near the Hebrides; hence the quite salubrious climate around there.
If this, the "Transatlantic Express" is slowed, or even stopped by the slightly irritatingly cover-all noun-verb combo "climate change" ... then I do not actually know what will happen as I need to research more on this topic.
So that is the "Stop-Press Read All About It" message of today's post: that I myself need to do some more research. Fascinating, I know.
Ah yes, this topic does remind me, there is a country in Europe that is entirely powered by the electricity coming from the offshore ocean turbines that get turned forwards or backwards...
Either way for the turbine doesn't matter, they are fixed in place and the process works forwards or conversely; by harvesting the oscillation and sending the energy to shore for storage and usage .
Ocean swells (sensibly placed) hold much promise for those countries who don't experience or have access to a lot of sunlight.
Wind farms seem to have caused some ruffled feathers on a variety of levels due to it is in fact very very difficult to find a suitable location for any sort of sizeable wind farm. Also the idea is very foreign to most birds and so she wind farms are hurting individual birds and parts of entire flocks.
If I were to draw a simile I would compare it to trying to dam rivers then use water turbines to harvest energy. The idea is halfway there but the focus needs to be on payoff, swings and roundabouts. Dam a river and it could mess up 50-200km of riverine ecosystems upriver, possibly more downriver.
The ocean is not nearly as much of a "controllable and predictable" environment as a river... and yet, if we embrace the challenge, we might just never need to dam a single river ever again.