Planet-saving, global warming etc

[APOLLO]

Last November I took the twin girls to Salford University for an open day visit. What I found VERY interesting there was work being done on old house insulation etc. In a large fully environmentally controlled chamber they have built a full-scale typical 1919 end-of-terrace house with the intention of insulation and heating research.

 

More details here - a fantastic project in my opinion

 

http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/563165/pdf4-saint-gobain_energy_house_leaflet_high_res_v8.pdf

 

Years ago Salford Uni was the one for our nations gas engineers - most of my old bosses went there (not me though, Riversdale Tech Liverpool ONC & Stretford Tech Manchester HNC for me).

 

Good luck to Salford on this one - though the girls want to go to Lancaster (Astro Physics) & Liverpool (Bio Med) dependant on their upcoming A level results - fingers crossed.

 

Brit15

Edited May 12, 2019 by APOLLO
Typo

[EddieB]

On 11/05/2019 at 22:27, Ozexpatriate said:

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

Ding!

 

Totally agree that while the focus has been on carbon dioxide levels, the greater problem is with water depletion.

 

Sadly I think it was promoting this alternative message that got David Bellamy dropped from the BBC many years ago...

[monkeysarefun]

On 11/05/2019 at 11:45, Ozexpatriate said:

Yes, this is a problem. Voting here in Oregon is 100% postal with motor/voter rules in place to make sure that everyone who has valid ID gets enrolled. No dealing with the polling station or election day itself. It is very effective.

 

No system is perfect. There are serious issues with Australian elections too. (I have participated in them.) The preferential system is extraordinary complex and serves no apparently useful purpose - other than to muddy and confuse the process. As with many parliamentary systems it can be hard to form a government - examples are the 2010 minority government formed with the support of Katter and Crook and the 2016 (almost) minority government currying the (ultimately unnecessary) support of Katter, Wilkie and McGowen.

 

I was going to post a comedic 'commentary' on some of the luminaries of the upcoming Australian election, but in the spirit of our 'no politics' rule, sadly have to keep it to myself. 

 

 

The senate is a work in progress but has a long way to go, especially with the preference swapping which had become a black art easily manipulated.

 

One Nations 2nd candidate in QLD was elected with just 77 primary  votes, then when he got kicked out for being a non-Austalian (ironic..) his replacement 3rd candidate got the post despite getting just 19 votes. and these are the people that get to say yes or no on all government  policies... And they are climate denying hard liners.

Edited May 13, 2019 by monkeysarefun

[Ian J.]

IMO, most (if not all) hard line climate deniers have some kind of vested interest that is or would be affected negatively by combatting climate change. Primarily they will be people who have some kind of money in carbon polluting businesses. Secondarily, they could be people who have an interest in maintaining a very preset view of how to live (I'm thinking religious types). If either of those types of people had a background in something that would support them that was aided by fighting climate change, they'd be thoroughly in support of doing something about it.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Ian J.

[Classsix T]

Show them the history of Easter Island, not so much wrt climate change directly, but a clear warning from the past of the stupidity of rampant consumption if ever there was one.

 

C6T.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Classsix T

[tigerburnie]

As someone who was briefly involved with local politics a decade or so ago(I know things might have changed, but from the outside it doesn't look like it) I can say that on occasion, politicians ask the voting public for their opinion. Almost without exception they then ignore it and do what ever suits their own personal agenda....see Brexit(I voted to remain, but we must honour democracy and leave)….Scottish Devolution(the snp must honour democracy and get on with the day job and stop running the country into the ground). So the chances of any politician of any party doing anything in a timely manner that will make things better is extremely unlikely to happen, unless they see an opportunity to make a fast buck.

[NorthBrit]

Golly Gosh!    Yesterday we turned the heating off.    The sun is shining.  

 

The 'Climate Change Bandwagon' is rolling again.

 

Codswallop!

 

It's approaching Summertime.

 

Enjoy the moment.

[monkeysarefun]

5 hours ago, NorthBrit said:

Golly Gosh!    Yesterday we turned the heating off.    The sun is shining.  

 

The 'Climate Change Bandwagon' is rolling again.

 

Codswallop!

 

It's approaching Summertime.

 

Enjoy the moment.

 

It is probably true that many of  those living in the colder damper parts of the world would see any rise in temperatures in a positive way and the chance to get outside and get a bit of a tan.

However for those of us who live in places that have less headroom before conditions get dire the trends are already obvious in the "new normal" that we are now enduring.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2019 by monkeysarefun

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎11‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 21:44, 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...

Bob on. I have been watching this thread with interest but it was only with this post that someone dared say it clear.

 

Whether it is carbon dioxide or methane in the atmosphere, water shortage, habitat loss, species extinction, ice melt, sea level rise: these are symptoms of the real problem. One medium sized primate species is increasing its population at a geometric rate. I well recall a lecture in the late 1960s in which was the line, "by the time you young people reach the end of your lives, there will be three times as many humans living as at present".

 

The only government that responded rationally to this knowledge was China's with the single child policy. Everyone telling their kids 'no grandchildren necessary, but if you really must, just one' would be a good voluntary place to start. And for the rest keep calm (no more flying or driving, walk and bike everywhere, grow as much food as you can, restrict your mains water consumption, put on lots of warm organic fibre clothes as required) and carry on. Hysterical Swedish schoolgirls and ageing actresses: flying about to nag us makes as much sense as sex in the name of virginity. Stay quietly at home please.

 

[jonny777]

18 hours ago, NorthBrit said:

Golly Gosh!    Yesterday we turned the heating off.    The sun is shining.  

 

The 'Climate Change Bandwagon' is rolling again.

 

Codswallop!

 

 

 

 

Presumably your lack of links to hard evidence supporting your one word dismissal of a serious subject, was merely an oversight?

 

 

[jonny777]

To add to the graphs from 'monkeysarefun', here are the latest global graphs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

Quote

Stay quietly at home please.

 

Like the elite, the powers that be, politicians etc etc do.

 

Like hell, off to Thailand next month - Four four engined A380's !!!!!

 

Brit15

[Pete the Elaner]

On 09/05/2019 at 22:54, APOLLO said:

 

What is needed globally will not be achievable in my opinion. China, India USA (the BIG emitters) don't seem to be doing very much, and we in the UK are a tiny CO2 emitter compared to those. Should we shoot ourselves in the foot while they do sweet FA. ?

 

I think they are but it takes time.

The US has much stricter car emission regulations than we do in the UK, but they are suffering from past policies of road transport over rail. New rail schemes are being planned & built though.

China have built more miles of high speed rail than any other country over the past 25 years.

I was in Bangkok last week. They have suffered from a lack of transport policy. The city's roads are choked & many of the vehicles are tuk-tuks. You can smell how much rubbish they emit.

They have several new city railways planned, all electric. They are also building a brand new terminus away from the city centre because the present one cannot cope with all the new lines they have planned.

 

And as for the UK??? As all travel is on the increase, some electrification schemes are being rationalised for bi-mode. We still have people whingeing about how much of an eyesore wind farms are. Surely you can't get much cleaner or cheaper than using wind to generate electricity?

[APOLLO]

 

I've been going to Thailand for over 25 years, have family there. I've seen a lot of change transport wise, many new roads, motorways etc and also new railways etc. The new station you mention is very impressive and will open soon. My brother in law is a German engineer involved with its construction. Its main line, skytrain, underground, bus terminal and future high speed line all rolled into one -  It's very impressive.

 

 

Quite a few new skytrain lines also under construction. Some of these are built, some under construction and some just at the planning stage.

 

 

Of course when all this lot is finished Bangkok will disappear under water due to sea level rise - such is the calibre of politicians and decision makers world wide (not just in the UK) !!!!!

 

The smelly (2 stroke engined) Tuk Tuks are getting less every year, and are now usually only found at tourist spots (Grand Palace etc). I saw an electric powered one last year. You should have visited East Berlin just after the wall came down - The stench of Trabant was everywhere !!!

 

Nothing wrong with "green" wind and solar power - EXCEPT it wont supply base load on a cold, cold, still, moon and starlit night in December. load at peak 4.30 - 7.30 pm (tea time) - no wind - no sun, it happens on quite a few nights every winter.

 

Edited to add - And just wait until, on such nights, in the not too far off future, the many new electric car owners come home and plug the car(s) in !!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by APOLLO

[EddieB]

On 13/05/2019 at 07:24, Ian J. said:

IMO, most (if not all) hard line climate deniers have some kind of vested interest that is or would be affected negatively by combatting climate change. Primarily they will be people who have some kind of money in carbon polluting businesses. Secondarily, they could be people who have an interest in maintaining a very preset view of how to live (I'm thinking religious types). If either of those types of people had a background in something that would support them that was aided by fighting climate change, they'd be thoroughly in support of doing something about it.

I think you will find vested interests on both sides of the debate. Very little research can take place without funding, and where funded it’s a case of “who pays the piper” - unlikely that research will come up with findings contrary to the aspirations of the sponsor.  On the one hand, the influence of “big business” is easily discernible, on the other the various green agendas less obvious.

 

Excuse my mild cynicism, but even the peer review system tends towards conformity with the current consensus. Results that are outliers or contradictory tend to be suppressed, rather than opening further lines of enquiry.

 

Now, by and large, most rational people can accept this system as being imperfect, but rather better than alternatives. They can work within its limitations and assess margins of scepticism; providing they are given the underlying basis and not just a bland set of results.

 

The problem comes primarily with media and politicians, with little understanding but strong bias and self interest.  They take scientific “findings” and apply them like religious dogma, hard and unchallengeable.

 

To give an example, there was a study a few years ago on air quality in London.  The published report projected the effects of air pollution on life expectancy.  By multiplying the conjectured figure of a few days per individual by the population size, they came up with something like 9000 equivalent lifespans.  (I think the way it was presented in the report was misleading).  Of course, when the press and politicians got hold of the “science” telling them that air pollution was causing 9000 deaths per annum they were quick to seize on that point.

 

In that example, there remains an underlying and serious problem of air pollution.  But over-exaggeration fuels scepticism and damages the integrity of the underlying study.

 

My concern is that the apparent fixation on anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels has drowned out debate around other potential contributing factors - water depletion (as already mentioned), atmospheric water vapour (likewise), natural carbon dioxide generation (vulcanicity), albedo effect and other greenhouse gases, to name a few.

[EddieB]

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

I've been going to Thailand for over 25 years, have family there. I've seen a lot of change transport wise, many new roads, motorways etc and also new railways etc. The new station you mention is very impressive and will open soon. My brother in law is a German engineer involved with its construction. Its main line, skytrain, underground, bus terminal and future high speed line all rolled into one -  It's very impressive.

 

Phew! From memory, Bang Sue was a busy junction in a largely rural location...

 

I just hope they continue to commemorate the king’s birthday with the special train hauled by back-to-back COAL BURNING steam engines once all that lot has been built!

[Ozexpatriate]

29 minutes ago, EddieB said:

the apparent fixation on anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels has drowned out debate around other potential contributing factors - water depletion (as already mentioned), atmospheric water vapour (likewise), natural carbon dioxide generation (vulcanicity), albedo effect and other greenhouse gases

There is research and data out there. I remember finding sources on vulcanicity. Even though volcanoes spew enormous amounts of gases (which of course does include CO2) they are very episodic. The data I saw demonstrated their contribution by mass, while material, is on average quite small compared with the daily burn from electrical power generation.

 

The contributions from all transportation sources accumulated globally start to approach the order of magnitude of contributions from power generation but it is clearly the most significant contributor. It's power stations and industry, more than trains, planes, automobiles and shipping that is the big contributor.

 

This is from the first web hit on "volcanic contribution to CO2"

Quote

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors

 

The USGS estimate of 200 million tons is the data I remember. I found some other data suggesting a very prolific volcano in Iceland producing perhaps 9 MT annually - which could fit the USGS estimate.

 

There were of course times in the earth's history where volcanic contributions were far higher. I remember reading about a centuries long burn where volcanic activity penetrated a coal deposit (I want to say this was in what has become north east Asia).

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[Ozexpatriate]

Hopefully this data is still accurate. The US EPA has had a lot of top-down changes to reporting in the last couple of years.

 

This data includes Methane and deforestation-based CO2 - so the agricultural sector shows up as a comparably large anthropogenic greenhouse gas contributor. Factoring in the agricultural sources drives the transportation contribution down to 14%. It is material, but others are bigger.

 

As is always the case with data, what data is included and what is excluded is important, and particularly so for this topic. (In the above data all the sources are anthropogenic - the natural sources like vulcanicity and deteriorating tundra are not included.)

 

Deteriorating tundra is a potential monster. If climate change causes substantial disintegration of tundra currently under permafrost, a massive amount of additional, currently sequestered Carbon may be released as CO2.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I think they are but it takes time.

The US has much stricter car emission regulations than we do in the UK, but they are suffering from past policies of road transport over rail. New rail schemes are being planned & built though.

China have built more miles of high speed rail than any other country over the past 25 years.

I was in Bangkok last week. They have suffered from a lack of transport policy. The city's roads are choked & many of the vehicles are tuk-tuks. You can smell how much rubbish they emit.

They have several new city railways planned, all electric. They are also building a brand new terminus away from the city centre because the present one cannot cope with all the new lines they have planned.

 

And as for the UK??? As all travel is on the increase, some electrification schemes are being rationalised for bi-mode. We still have people whingeing about how much of an eyesore wind farms are. Surely you can't get much cleaner or cheaper than using wind to generate electricity?

I do wonder about wind farms.  Having over the past few years seen almost all of the offshore wind farms around the English and Welsh coastlines several things hav e been quickly apparent -

1. They only work when the wind blows at the correct range of speeds. Too little wind and they don't work, too strong a wind and they have to be feathered.

2.  The amount of resources invested in plant and installation is massive and is probably only achievable with considerable subsidy.

3.  The fleet of ships of various sizes, and in the latest cases of considerable technical complexity (and consequent cost), to keep then serviced and maintained is considerable even if u it has provided employment for building yards and continuing employment for seafarers and technical personnel.

4. The power is inevitably transmitted to land by undersea cables which also require attention plus they had a first cost and (although it rarely seems to happen) are open to being damaged by trawlwrs and ships anchoring.

 

By contrast the tide comes and goes with almost monotonous regularity yet the trial site wave hub off St Ives seems to be little used for testing wave energy experiments.  Wave energy would avoid some of the problems of offshore wind farms but at least it would be a consistent source of energy.  Land based solar energy 'farms' also seem to be increasing and strike me as a good idea even if they inonly work during daylight - nbut inevitably they all seem to be sited on what was once productive agricultural land.

 

But I do find that offshore wind farms can provide some interesting photographic opportunities -  this is one row of Gunfleet Wind Farm which is situated on Gunfleet Sand off Clacton-On-Sea and it was working as 'storm' Hannah was begining to make itself felt (not that it was severe there only gusting to gale force, the day after I took this photo)

 

 

 

[Reorte]

38 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 Land based solar energy 'farms' also seem to be increasing and strike me as a good idea even if they inonly work during daylight - nbut inevitably they all seem to be sited on what was once productive agricultural land.

 

All those bland office blocks, supermarkets, tin shed distribution centres that seem to be everywhere - surely they should be where solar panels get put.

 

That said they're probably not designed to take the weight, and somewhere someone said that firemen really aren't keen on solar panels on the roof.

[Ozexpatriate]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Land based solar energy 'farms' also seem to be increasing and strike me as a good idea even if they only work during daylight - but inevitably they all seem to be sited on what was once productive agricultural land.

 

Flipping the distribution model - using distributed generation rather than centralized generation with lossy distribution is a meaningful solution for renewable generation - solar panels and small wind devices. Centralized solar generation makes sense in deserts where truly massive solar farms can be created and make up for transmission loss.

 

43 minutes ago, Reorte said:

All those bland office blocks, supermarkets, tin shed distribution centres that seem to be everywhere - surely they should be where solar panels get put.

 

That said they're probably not designed to take the weight, and somewhere someone said that firemen really aren't keen on solar panels on the roof.

Car parks are the ideal location for solar panels. The landscape is already blighted with thermal island material. Having solar panels might actually help.

 

Boxy buildings make an ideal location and can easily be designed to carry the weight of solar panels - which are not that heavy. I could imagine firefighters not wanting to see solar panels on domestic residences since they would hinder emergency attic egress and present a falling hazard, but in a commercial setting this becomes moot. (I also see it as a risk worth taking. Other fire suppression schemes like mandatory smoke alarms and sprinklers would greatly mitigate the need for heroic firefighting. Containment is much safer than rescue work.

 

There are residential wind turbines that don't look like you've been trying to attach a 1930s flying boat on your roof top. I wouldn't call them beautiful but nor are television antennae or satellite dishes. There are helical turbines as well.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

 

Car parks are the ideal location for solar panels. The landscape is already blighted with thermal island material. Having solar panels might actually help.

 

 

I can think of a couple of ways that could work - either park under them, or built in to the surface (which will of course get blocked by parked cars).

 

Quote

There are residential wind turbines that don't look like you've been trying to attach a 1930s flying boat on your roof top. I wouldn't call them beautiful but nor are television antennae or satellite dishes.

 

Certainly another thing that could be stuck on your average office block alongside all the aircon paraphenalia.

[Ozexpatriate]

2 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I can think of a couple of ways that could work - either park under them

Structures that look like "car ports" supporting solar panels in corporate car parks are common in large corporate campuses in the western US. The cars park under them where they are shaded by the sun. The company gets renewable energy and the employees have a shady spot to park.

 

This approach would work for the top storey of a multi-storey car park as well.

[Pete the Elaner]

8 hours ago, EddieB said:

Phew! From memory, Bang Sue was a busy junction in a largely rural location...

 

Sounds about right. I took a look there almost exactly a week ago.

I exited the MRT into what was a relatively quiet Bangkok suburb. There were a few food stalls as is normal for Thailand.

The existing surface (metre gauge station had 2 platforms & either 1 or 2 through lines. Beyond that was a huge structure with a curved roof. There was a little activity but I expect quite a lot was going on inside.

There is simply no space for expansion in the existing terminal (Hua Lamphong). The planned expansion of the railways there has necessitated this. In a way, I imagine London was a little like this 120 years ago when what we now know as the Piccadilly, Central, Bakerloo lines & the Charing Cross branch of the Northern lines were being built.

I will be interested to go there in 15 or so years time to see how much of what has been planned is actually running.

[APOLLO]

Up at the old Don Muang airport (now domestic flights mainly) there is a HUGE multi level station being constructed over the existing metre gauge main line to the north. This is for both skytrain and a proposed new rail link to the new airport (which I cannot either spell or pronounce !!) which is about 20 miles on the other side of the city. Not sure how the existing metre gauge line will fit in.

 

 

Note the good old Sprinter - Train of the future !!!!!!!!!!!! Also the bird on the mast about to be zapped !!!!

 

 

 

One thing I notice when over there is that despite most houses / buildings now being fully air conditioned (sometimes several units per house) they "don't do" insulation. Basic house construction is a 4" or 6" thick solid reinforced concrete structure, wood framed single glazed windows. No insulation whatever except for white / cream paint. Somebody from over there needs to visit Salford University - Insulation works both ways !!!!!  (see previous post).

 

Brit15

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by APOLLO