Jump to content

Climate Change. Threat to the World?


Paul6754
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Doha said:

Wind supplied 25% of the UK last year. There are 10 more massive wind farms currently being built/being surveyed to come, that will supply an additional several gigawatts. I know that as I know someone involved with the Rampion site off Brighton.

Nuclear is a safe, reliable and relatively very very clean option that we should follow France in using a lot more of, they produce so much energy so cheaply that we buy the excess off them wholesale, but it's not the only game in town. I'm sure I read somewhere Britain is the best placed country in Europe to take advantage of wind power. 

Nuclear is the way to go, but who wants a plant within fallout distance. The cities and towns won't have them and the green belt don't even want affordable housing near them.

Wind may produce 25% now but what percentage would it cover when the demand rockets when we get rid of oil and gas?

When France stops using gas and oil and the demand increases will they have an excess to sell and it's a risky business depending on another nation for your power supply.

How much would the demand increase if we got rid of petrol, diesel,  gas and plastic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


2 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Where is all the electric coming from for the future electric cars and buses? Never mind the lorries.

Solar

Wind

Natural Gas (as a mid range backup to help load balancing until there's enough storage available)

Storage (different storage technologies like liquid air batteries as well as lithium)

Improved infrastructure (some substations currently can't cope with the amount of wind energy being produced and are unable to feed 100% into the grid)

Nuclear

VTG - Vehicle To Grid (fully charged electric vehicles will be able to (optionally) supply the grid when demand is high)

Hydrogen (The National Grid are looking at producing hydrogen and moving it through existing gas pipelines)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

It’s a reply to this.

CO2 is removed and put back in to the atmosphere all the time so you need to be more specific about what you're trying to get at with that statement.”

I don’t know what you were trying to get at with ‘removed and put back…all the time’.

I suspect you don’t either.

HH, CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the land, dissolved by the sea and absorbed by trees/plants etc, CO2 is also released by the land and sea and exhaled by man and animals, it's a continuous equilibriium. 

I was asking you for clarification 'cause I think what your trying to get at is Ginge's statement saying 99% of all CO2 has been released by Capitalist countries and I replied with data from just 2019. If you wish to go back to Industrial revolution times and add up how much CO2 each country has released by each country then please do so but I'm not going to. 

What is important is the future and the points I made about China being the largest producer of greenhouse gases, the building of coal fired power stations in Asia and their non committment to reducing their carbon footprint 'til 2030 were not wrong as you suggested to another poster but on  the money as the subsequent BBC article shows.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57483492

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


China,Russia,US,India,Canada and Germany have been accused of killing the planet by the latest UN climate report which accused the six nations of doing nothing to stop pumping out billions of tons of CO2.Only 13 of the G20 nations have committed to net zero and just eight have plans for getting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

HH, CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the land, dissolved by the sea and absorbed by trees/plants etc, CO2 is also released by the land and sea and exhaled by man and animals, it's a continuous equilibriium. 

I was asking you for clarification 'cause I think what your trying to get at is Ginge's statement saying 99% of all CO2 has been released by Capitalist countries and I replied with data from just 2019. If you wish to go back to Industrial revolution times and add up how much CO2 each country has released by each country then please do so but I'm not going to. 

What is important is the future and the points I made about China being the largest producer of greenhouse gases, the building of coal fired power stations in Asia and their non committment to reducing their carbon footprint 'til 2030 were not wrong as you suggested to another poster but on  the money as the subsequent BBC article shows.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57483492

CO2 is not in continuous equilibrium. If it were we wouldn't have ice ages as CO2 levels (and solar output if you go way back) are what drive them.

The adding up of CO2 has already been done. I provided a link a few pages back, but here's the summary.

spacer.png

It's crucial China decarbonise along with everyone else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, geosname said:

Nuclear is the way to go, but who wants a plant within fallout distance. The cities and towns won't have them and the green belt don't even want affordable housing near them.

Wind may produce 25% now but what percentage would it cover when the demand rockets when we get rid of oil and gas?

When France stops using gas and oil and the demand increases will they have an excess to sell and it's a risky business depending on another nation for your power supply.

How much would the demand increase if we got rid of petrol, diesel,  gas and plastic?

What about Hydrogen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

CO2 is not in continuous equilibrium. If it were we wouldn't have ice ages as CO2 levels (and solar output if you go way back) are what drive them.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one HH. So Ice Ages are nothing to do with The Milankovich Cycles?

 

4 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

The adding up of CO2 has already been done. I provided a link a few pages back, but here's the summary.

spacer.png

It's crucial China decarbonise along with everyone else.  

The West and the English speaking world are bound to have produced more carbon based greenhouse gases as they discovered the majority if not all the science and processes to enable the production of cheap fuel/energy which has been the driver of the massive increase in the standard and quality of living, the increase in life expectancy and breakthroughs in medicine, science and general understanding etc  in the world, which have benefitted the world and many of it's people.

So what are you advocating by bringing this point up.

Again we'll have to agree to disagree on the need to decarbonize as there is no clear evidence that carbon dioxide is the sole driver of the earth's climate, if you have clear evidence please post it. The Earth's climate is so complex and variable that it's impossible there is only one significant driver.

I now see the IPCC has jumped on the Methane bandwagon, a greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere at levels of approx 1, yes one, molecule of Methane per 1,000,000 air molecules and again it's not even a potent greenhouse gas. We await the first tax on farting.

 

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, geosname said:

Nuclear is the way to go, but who wants a plant within fallout distance. The cities and towns won't have them and the green belt don't even want affordable housing near them.

Wind may produce 25% now but what percentage would it cover when the demand rockets when we get rid of oil and gas?

When France stops using gas and oil and the demand increases will they have an excess to sell and it's a risky business depending on another nation for your power supply.

How much would the demand increase if we got rid of petrol, diesel,  gas and plastic?

I agree Geo, Nuclear plants in countries/areas which do not have powerful earth quakes is an excellent way to go.

Paradoxically I'm all for developing renewable energy but not because of reducing the carbon footprint but to save precious fossil fuels. However, there needs to be a few major breakthroughs in science before wind and solar become truly viable, among them improving battery storage capacity, increasing the efficiency of conversion of a photon of light to electricity and increasing the efficiency of converting wind to electricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


21 hours ago, geosname said:

The biggest problem I have about saving the world (climate change)

If we get rid of the big 3........ oil, coal, gas...... what the hell do we replace them with?

The only viable means of producing enough electricity is nuclear.

Or do we go back to the horse & cart, sailing ships and barges down the canals? Scraping plastic for glass and paper? Could we grow enough trees to produce the paper as we will have fields of windmills? Stop farming animals and start eating insects for the protein? Keep a pot by the bed to take to the tannery.

The other problem with saving the world is......

Is it worth it? Should we just let nature do a reset?

Interesting conundrum isn't it but I side with "Let nature do a reset" and if it becomes clearer what's diving the change/climate then I have faith that man is creative enough to deal with it. I certainly don't favor screwing up the world's economies and reducing standards of living in the west to comply with a theory which most likely doesn't explain the whole story of climate change and could well be wrong.

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one HH. So Ice Ages are nothing to do with The Milankovich Cycles?

 

The West and the English speaking world are bound to have produced more carbon based greenhouse gases as they discovered the majority if not all the science and processes to enable the production of cheap fuel/energy which has been the driver of the massive increase in the standard and quality of living, the increase in life expectancy and breakthroughs in medicine, science and general understanding etc  in the world, which have benefitted the world and many of it's people.

So what are you advocating by bringing this point up.

Again we'll have to agree to disagree on the need to decarbonize as there is no clear evidence that carbon dioxide is the sole driver of the earth's climate, if you have clear evidence please post it. The Earth's climate is so complex and variable that it's impossible there is only one significant driver.

I now see the IPCC has jumped on the Methane bandwagon, a greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere at levels of approx 1, yes one, molecule of Methane per 1,000,000 air molecules and again it's not even a potent greenhouse gas. We await the first tax on farting.

 

Ice ages are to do with Milankovich cycles. Milankovich cycles are what start things off.

I think you misunderstood me. I was merely providing a bigger picture to your post about what China did in 2019.

What you've done is create a strawman about co2. Nobody is saying it's the sole driver on the Earth's climate.

There are thousands of papers concerning the role of co2 in our climate.

Maybe start with Richard Alley if you're unfamiliar with his work.

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"

Edited by hillmanhunter
correct youtube link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, hillmanhunter said:

Ice ages are to do with Milankovich cycles. Milankovich cycles are what start things off.

I think you misunderstood me. I was merely providing a bigger picture to your post about what China did in 2019.

What you've done is create a strawman about co2. Nobody is saying it's the sole driver on the Earth's climate.

No straw man at all just questioning how a greenhouse gas which isn't a very potent greenhouse gas and is not very abundant in the atmosphere can be the sole driver of the earth's climate. Most if not all the world's effort to combat climate change/global warming is focused on reducing levels of CO2 and there are many articles claiming CO2 IS the control knob especially from the Climate crisis mob.

55 minutes ago, hillmanhunter said:

There are thousands of papers concerning the role of co2 in our climate.

Maybe start with Richard Alley if you're unfamiliar with his work.

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"

HH, I have read many papers on this subject both pro and con. Richard Alley is at Penn. State University and is affiliated with the IPCC who were set up to prove the role of CO2 in causing global warming rather than investigate what is causing global warming. He may well have played a role in attracting Michael Mann to UPenn, he of the hockey stick graph and climategate scandal. I will have a gander at his work.

 

Carbon dioxide has always played a role in the earth's climate but the main question is how much of a role, if any, does man made CO2 play in the approx 1oC warming of the earth since the mini ice age in the late 1800's 'til now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

Ice ages are to do with Milankovich cycles. Milankovich cycles are what start things off.

I think you misunderstood me. I was merely providing a bigger picture to your post about what China did in 2019.

What you've done is create a strawman about co2. Nobody is saying it's the sole driver on the Earth's climate.

There are thousands of papers concerning the role of co2 in our climate.

Maybe start with Richard Alley if you're unfamiliar with his work.

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"

You've done it now ffs. The Fox news clips will be coming out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


We are lucky to be the windiest country in Europe because we look out to the Atlantic and the westerlies, so wind power has a huge role to play in our energy future. Solar is getting more efficient all the time, and will play a key role in the UK.  Tidal power is also something we should be investing in more - the Severn estuary has the second highest tidal range on the planet, so a Severn barrage across the estuary would provide electricity in abundance for the south west, though their are ecological concerns in shifting the salinity balance behind the barrage.  Scotland, Wales  and Ireland also have tidal rips in places where turbines could yield a lot.  So I am confident we can shift towards a non fossil fuel future. Nuclear has to play a role until we get there though.  The French have around 70% nuclear in their energy mix, but many of their stations are inland, and rely on rivers for their cooling water.  In a time of climate change and possible drought, these rivers may not have the discharge to cool the reactors - so France will need to look at alternatives too. I'm optimistic we can solve this problem if the developed world do it together - and planting more trees to sequester carbon and aid biodiversity can only be a good thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

No straw man at all just questioning how a greenhouse gas which isn't a very potent greenhouse gas and is not very abundant in the atmosphere can be the sole driver of the earth's climate. Most if not all the world's effort to combat climate change/global warming is focused on reducing levels of CO2 and there are many articles claiming CO2 IS the control knob especially from the Climate crisis mob.

HH, I have read many papers on this subject both pro and con. Richard Alley is at Penn. State University and is affiliated with the IPCC who were set up to prove the role of CO2 in causing global warming rather than investigate what is causing global warming. He may well have played a role in attracting Michael Mann to UPenn, he of the hockey stick graph and climategate scandal. I will have a gander at his work.

 

Carbon dioxide has always played a role in the earth's climate but the main question is how much of a role, if any, does man made CO2 play in the approx 1oC warming of the earth since the mini ice age in the late 1800's 'til now.

You're making some claims here. Can you back them up?

You say co2 is not 'potent'. Are you talking about sensitivity? What do you mean exactly?

What papers have you read that are 'con' as you put it?

Maybe it would be easier if we avoid any conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The human race has being sticking excess CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Fact.

This has resulted in an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Fact.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact

What do you want to do, risk it, or do something about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...