Planet-saving, global warming etc

[Sprintex]

16 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

But the Brexit Party is pretending that "we" decided to make those sacrifices for "freedom". No, "we" did it because we were told to.

 

 

Utter rubbish!!

 

And I agree with Apollo - just using the thread as an excuse to soapbox about leaving the EU.

 

 

Paul

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Sprintex

[Steamport Southport]

I wish it would hurry up. It's freezing here!

 

 

 

Jason

[jonny777]

Every few hundred million years the planet seems to have witnessed a mass extinction event; and one is currently underway. 

 

In the past these events have been caused by unpreventable physical effects such as massive volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and collisions with asteroids. 

 

However the current one is being caused by humans, us - all of us; and it *would* have been preventable if we all were not so greedy. 

[Mike Storey]

2 hours ago, Sprintex said:

 

Utter rubbish!!

 

And I agree with Apollo - just using the thread as an excuse to soapbox about leaving the EU.

 

 

Paul

 

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, even though you do not appear to show the same courtesy for anyone else's that differs, but the point made was entirely accurate, and naff all to do with the merits or otherwise of Brexit, but of a politician deliberately using a falsification of history.

 

My parents certainly did not know why they were being told to fight for Poland - they did not even know where it was. Once we were attacked directly, it became a matter of survival, a rather different thing.

 

The issue is over what should drive decisions about tackling climate change (if indeed, one believes that climate change is a problem - not necessarily a given, even on here), and whether that should be by national politicians with possibly ulterior motives, or by international cooperation, or by some other approach.

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

Is (a questionable amount) of the Climate Charge theory "driven" (politically) by the rapid depletion of fossil fuels, especially oil ? Honest question as I do not know.

 

LOTS of interesting energy info here.

 

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2018.pdf

 

Oil / Natural Gas etc - It won't last for ever, neither is our worldwide dependence on fossil fuels going away soon either.

 

Brit15

 

 

[The White Rabbit]

5 hours ago, jonny777 said:

Every few hundred million years the planet seems to have witnessed a mass extinction event; and one is currently underway. 

 

In the past these events have been caused by unpreventable physical effects such as massive volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and collisions with asteroids. 

 

However the current one is being caused by humans, us - all of us; and it *would* have been preventable if we all were not so greedy. 

 

Perhaps that is our anthropological purpose? I wouldn't claim to be an expert but from what I know, there's a lot of evidence suggesting humanity is an aberrant species, with many tendencies at odds with those of other mammals. Mathematics suggests that Life exists through more than mere chance (and I'm staying well away from religion and 'Intelligent Design' options) so perhaps every now and then (as in few hundred to a thousand million years) a species comes along that breaks the mould and shakes things up, giving 'Life' a fresh start and chance to try something different.

 

I believe there is also a theory suggesting most extinctions are caused by a behavioural failure to adapt rather than a physical incapability. So perhaps it's in human DNA to be initially successful, change the environment, be psychologically unable (collectively) to adapt and die out, having taken many other species with it? Not that I believe that's an excuse to behave like selfish *s. Like some of the previous posters, I have a conscience. We can * ourselves up if we want but we ought to think about others. Even if that is being an aberration of an aberration? 

 

 

 

 

[ess1uk]

On 10/05/2019 at 19:22, APOLLO said:

Interesting maps ------

 

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=48.3416,14.6777&z=13&m=7

 

Put your chosen sea level rise in (top left).

 

Brit15

 

 

I’m paddling at 4m sea rise

[jonny777]

25 minutes ago, The White Rabbit said:

 

Perhaps that is our anthropological purpose? I wouldn't claim to be an expert but from what I know, there's a lot of evidence suggesting humanity is an aberrant species, with many tendencies at odds with those of other mammals. Mathematics suggests that Life exists through more than mere chance (and I'm staying well away from religion and 'Intelligent Design' options) so perhaps every now and then (as in few hundred to a thousand million years) a species comes along that breaks the mould and shakes things up, giving 'Life' a fresh start and chance to try something different.

 

I believe there is also a theory suggesting most extinctions are caused by a behavioural failure to adapt rather than a physical incapability. So perhaps it's in human DNA to be initially successful, change the environment, be psychologically unable (collectively) to adapt and die out, having taken many other species with it? Not that I believe that's an excuse to behave like selfish *s. Like some of the previous posters, I have a conscience. We can * ourselves up if we want but we ought to think about others. Even if that is being an aberration of an aberration? 

 

 

 

 

 

I love the anthropological purpose idea, but my only worry is that the species which are currently being wiped out have not failed to adapt their behaviour to the environment, but have had that destroyed by humans through no fault of their own.

 

No species could adapt as quickly as man has destroyed their habitat and, given many have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, it seems a rather wasteful use of survival of the fittest. 

 

I wonder if the idea was for humans to choose the path to take, either peaceful improvement and a technical revolution which would discover how to overcome the earth's gravity/escape velocity; or get bogged down in greed, corruption and military conflict - which would consume all the resources and get them nowhere. 

 

 

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

On 10/05/2019 at 19:22, APOLLO said:

Interesting maps ------

 

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=48.3416,14.6777&z=13&m=7

 

Put your chosen sea level rise in (top left).

 

Brit15

 

 

 

So we lose bits of Yorkshire. Result.

 

 

 

Jason

[APOLLO]

It has been said that with climate change / global warming total polar ice melt would yield a 60 ft rise in sea level. My house is 65ft above sea level so bring on the wide sandy beaches and palm trees - Wigan - A tropical paradise - who would have thought that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Brit15

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Is (a questionable amount) of the Climate Charge theory "driven" (politically) by the rapid depletion of fossil fuels, especially oil ? Honest question as I do not know.

 

LOTS of interesting energy info here.

 

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2018.pdf

 

Oil / Natural Gas etc - It won't last for ever, neither is our worldwide dependence on fossil fuels going away soon either.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

Surprisingly open forecast from an energy company. I have not read it all - primarily the exec summaries, a few chapters in detail and the data tables in the appendices - but their main message seems to be that, whilst they cannot guarantee the accuracy of the totals or the mixes they predict (just as well given the sources that are apparently omitted), every scenario they have modelled will come nowhere near to meeting the targets agreed as necessary in the Paris agreements. They have not attempted to say whether or not this is a bad thing, which is fair enough, given the objective stated was to identify likely energy needs and sources, not its effect on climate, which it leaves to others.

 

One matter which may concern us, is that they forecast that transport energy consumption will reduce in relation to overall growth, but when you read the appendices data, that appears to be marginal. Their forecasts of non-carbon fuel sources for transport are quite pessimistic.

 

 

 

[Kingzance]

I suggest that everyone looks at the relationship between global population and both temperature and CO2 levels. The correlation is almost perfect. In 1960, the global population was 3 billion, it had risen to 4.5 billion by 1980, 6.1 billion by 2000 and will hit 8 billion around 2020. Although many of us are living longer, the massive decrease in infant mortality means there are many more people around capable of procreating. As for switching to electric vehicles, trains and cars, how are these going to be charged? We can't rely on wind or solar, we decry nuclear, we are happy to burn gas which we import from other polluting countries etc, etc, etc. In amongst that, our underfunded NHS is harangued for not allowing multiple courses of IVF to all and sundry to increase the population further. 

This is about taking responsibility for one's own actions, as many have stated in these posts. We cannot rely upon any government to do so as they are at the beck and call of those who financially support them.

[Ozexpatriate]

5 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

I suggest that everyone looks at the relationship between global population and both temperature and CO2 levels. The correlation is almost perfect.

That's hardly surprising. Humans like to consume energy. More humans = more consumption of energy, which until things change = more CO2.

[Ozexpatriate]

7 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

As for switching to electric vehicles, trains and cars, how are these going to be charged? We can't rely on wind or solar

Who says so?

There are energy storage solutions and these will improve.

[jonny777]

I find it hard to believe that we can't rely on solar. 

 

In my experience the sun one big reliable source of energy that is un

18 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

I suggest that everyone looks at the relationship between global population and both temperature and CO2 levels. The correlation is almost perfect. In 1960, the global population was 3 billion, it had risen to 4.5 billion by 1980, 6.1 billion by 2000 and will hit 8 billion around 2020. Although many of us are living longer, the massive decrease in infant mortality means there are many more people around capable of procreating. As for switching to electric vehicles, trains and cars, how are these going to be charged? We can't rely on wind or solar,

 

We can't rely on the sun?  

 

OMG! We are all doomed in that case.  

 

 

[Kingzance]

6 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

Who says so?

There are energy storage solutions and these will improve.

There are not sufficient suitable storage systems available today on a wide scale. Yes, Musk's system in Australia works but in general, the western / developed world does not have such capabilities. Investment is actively discouraged in the same way that houses built in the UK COULD be much more energy efficient and fitted with solar thermal, solar pv and air / ground sourced heat pumps as standard BUT the politicians won't stand up to builders, power companies and landowners who profit from the present conditions. The UK has some of the highest tidal ranges in the world and has a huge length of coast-line but there is practically no investment in this most reliable of renewable energy sources because it would upset the existing generating companies!

 

15 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

That's hardly surprising. Humans like to consume energy. More humans = more consumption of energy, which until things change = more CO2.

Overpopulation is going to strip the planet of resources at an ever escalating rate. We have become swayed by the glitter of advertising whilst we ignore the real cost of our actions. We have to have the latest fashions, year-round endless choice in foodstuffs and we are too lazy to do much ourselves. That cannot be sustainable.

As for expecting politicians to take a lead - just look at the EU's Common Agriculture Policy and its food intervention program to see the effect of dishonest politics!

[Ozexpatriate]

3 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

There are not sufficient suitable storage systems available today on a wide scale.

The technology needs to improve, but it's not really a technical problem. It is one of the will to do something. 

[Ozexpatriate]

6 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

Overpopulation is going to strip the planet of resources at an ever escalating rate.

Solving the problems connected to population increase is very serious. Even more than CO2 production are the issues related to agriculture and fresh water sustainability. They compound each other in areas like the Middle East where desalinization is essential for the survival of large populations in non-sustainable climates. The hydrology of the Jordan and Dead Sea is a disaster area and imperils millions in a very politically sensitive zone.

 

In the US west aquifers are being depleted to farm nuts like almonds. Nuts may be a "superfood" but there are the very worst food product (in terms of the water required per unit of food mass) to produce - even worse than beef! 

 

Solving the water problem might be even more important than reducing CO2 for a growing global population.

[jjb1970]

12 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Granted - BUT they are still investing in coal on a huge scale -  see above vid.

 

As you are "on the ground" over there so to speak it seems China is starting to do its bit - Will India and most importantly the USA follow ?

 

Brit15

 

 

 

China is investing huge sums into renewable energy and by some metrics can now claim to be the world leader in the field if only looking at absolute figures although other countries are well ahead in terms of decarbonising their electricity supply requirements. Funnily enough, the percentage of electricity which China gets from low carbon forms of generation actually compares very well against many countries that would claim to be well ahead of China in the saving the world stakes but that is largely because of biblically huge hydro-electric schemes. China knows they have a problem, they have a plan to fix it and are pressing on with implementing that plan. I was working in the electricity sector when China was the equivalent of a California or Yukon gold rush for companies selling coal fired power plants, everybody wanted in on the action and the scale of new construction was staggering. They still need coal, but in some ways their drive into clean energy is just as impressive as their appetite for new coal plants was 20 years ago.

 

Despite the rhetoric of the current POTUS renewable energy is growing in the USA, people tend to forget that just because a politician and even government is sceptical of climate change does not prevent industry investing in clean tech for commercial reasons or stop consumers demanding low carbon energy. Some states like California have very ambitious environmental programs (it is often forgotten just how far ahead of the curve California often is on eco issues) and even the federal government appears to be softening its position in terms of its previous climate scepticism. Believe it or not I have no worries about the US in terms of low carbon electricity generation. India is more of a problem, but then again the per-capita electricity demand of India is a small fraction of ours and poverty in India isn't the relative poverty of Europe.

[Ian J.]

One of the ideas for storing electricity from wind and solar is to use the battery powered cars to hold the charge, and sometimes, if said cars are kept connected when not moving, that charge can run in the other direction, supporting power needs elsewhere. However, high capacity and fast charging will still be needed.

[Ozexpatriate]

5 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

One of the ideas for storing electricity from wind and solar is to use the battery powered cars to hold the charge, and sometimes, if said cars are kept connected when not moving, that charge can run in the other direction, supporting power needs elsewhere. However, high capacity and fast charging will still be needed.

A simpler approach is to charge EVs during the day - while parked under a solar-cell covered carport. Many high tech companies already have such installations in their employee car parks. Today the energy is mostly used for the facility, rather than the parked cars. As an added benefit, the shade keeps the cars cool - which is not only pleasant but more energy efficient since less AC load is needed when you get in the car.

 

On a larger scale, consider hydro power generated between two dams. Other renewable sources (like wind or solar) can pump water back to the higher level dam, enabling the hydro power to supply consumers when the other sources are unavailable (like at night) and keep dam levels where they need to be for continuity of supply. No complicated battery technology is needed - energy storage is the simple potential energy of gravity. The lower dam only needs to be big enough to store the water flow needed for daily generation.

[TheQ]

On 10/05/2019 at 19:22, APOLLO said:

Interesting maps ------

 

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=48.3416,14.6777&z=13&m=7

 

Put your chosen sea level rise in (top left).

 

Brit15

 

 

The area around me becomes an island at 2m,  something I knew, as during the 1953 floods that's what happened.  The map shows I flood at before 5M but I know the house is above that as its at about 6M  so their charts aren't perfect. 

 

Just noticed the charts definitely aren't right it shows the nearest  of the Norfolk broads part flooded at a 9m rise..  Whereas just the normal tides causes the water to rise a foot.. Spring tides combined with low air pressure and a northerly storm  3ft..

Edited May 12, 2019 by TheQ

[ikks]

"This article some may find disturbing, but it is very important to the protection of native species. Australia has millions of feral cats and they are devastating to other wildlife.https://www.theage.com.au/national/bullets-baits-killer-robots-feral-felines-in-the-firing-line-20190508-p51l4t.html"

We had a ginger and white one on on our property a few years ago, whenever I spotted him, he was gone before I got the 303 out of the safe.......except for once, I was out looking for a couple of foxes I had seen a couple of hours before, came round one of the Protea bushes and there he was about 20 metres away. Anyway he was quickly humanely dispatched.....................one out of all of the countless cats that abound in Oz. Maybe if all these vermin control deniers could see the incidence of native kill I see on my small place(7 acres), they might rethink.

 

Mike

Edited May 12, 2019 by ikks

[The White Rabbit]

18 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

I love the anthropological purpose idea, but my only worry is that the species which are currently being wiped out have not failed to adapt their behaviour to the environment, but have had that destroyed by humans through no fault of their own.

 

No species could adapt as quickly as man has destroyed their habitat and, given many have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, it seems a rather wasteful use of survival of the fittest. 

 

Yes, I don't much like the collateral damage either. 

 

18 hours ago, jonny777 said:

I wonder if the idea was for humans to choose the path to take, either peaceful improvement and a technical revolution which would discover how to overcome the earth's gravity/escape velocity; or get bogged down in greed, corruption and military conflict - which would consume all the resources and get them nowhere. 

 

 

I think there was a line in a [black humour] sitcom along the lines of, "Why were humans given free will? That was always going to end badly."

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, ess1uk said:

I’m paddling at 4m sea rise

The 150 ft contour line runs along the bottom end of my garden (although the bottom end of my garden is about 15 -20 feet higher than much of it).  However Tesco and waitrose would definitely be underwater well before that so not necessarily an entirely safe situation.

 

In my mind the biggest threat of the lot is population and the exponential increases now occurring.  Already this country, to take but one minor example, can't feed itself and is increasingly putting food growing land under concrete , bricks, and tarmacadam to accommodate ever more people.  Even worse, and seemingly largely ignored, is that the south east of england is already at 'water strees' level and as population increases that will only get worse.

 

And yet Govt and Parliamentary opposition - of all colours - do more to encourage population growth than to curb.  Not even attempting to passively discourage it by such measures as changes to the tax and benefits systems while at the same time demanding ever more productive agricultural land is given over to house building.  I would think that actively discouraging population growth would probably be a far 'greener' policy than increasing the number of electric vehicles *which will need ever increasing supplies of electricity and consume rare metals etc in their construction).  And of course the policy target for electric road vehicles is totally at odds with opting to retain a diesel powered railway instead of electrifying it.

 

By the way having had a house built 12 years ago the cost of including the required level of insulation added nothing like a third to the cost of materials - more like a percentage way down in single figures.  Converting old property would obviously be more expensive but the added cost in new construction is peanuts compared to overall building costs.  What does add cost, again a small percentage, is adding waste water recovery for use as grey water (we didn't - the builder misled us on cost and we spoke to the plumber about it too late in the build time) but we do recover rainwater to a 1,000 gallon tank for garden use.  The biggy back then was a ground heat pump but that was way beyond our budget so we didn't go for it.  Solar panels, and the necessary additional kit they need, are also only a small extra percentage on new build cost (less than 4% in total when having both the water heating and electricity generation panels).