Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

@Fazzer 7

 

Here we are then.

 

At midnight tonight, if we were able to switch off, I don’t know, say 50% of the world’s co2 production. What would happen? How long would it take the earth’s atmosphere to cool?

 

The current global human-caused CO2 emission amount is approximately 35 billion tons annually [1]. Halving this in one stroke would therefore result in emissions of around 17.5 billion tons annually. That is roughly equivalent to the total emissions in 1974 [1]. Assuming that we then maintain that level (17.5 Gt) going forward rather than it increasing again, a look at global average temperatures around the same time indicates that it was the time that global average temperatures began accelerating increase [2]. and the link between CO2 levels and global average temperature is well-documented [3]. Also, around 1974 the total CO2 atmospheric concentration was increasing, but slowly [4].

 

What all of that means is such a 50% reduction wouldn't actually stop the global average temperature increase. So, bad news, there would be no cooling. However, it would slow the increase down significantly, giving us maybe three or four times as much time as we would have under "normal" circumstances (e.g. present ones) to stop the average temperature from increasing to a level where significant negative change would happen.

 

In real life terms, what even is ‘net zero’?

 

"Net zero" is a situation where the outgoing amount of CO2 produced by human activity is at least met by sources such as trees and algal life that take it out of the atmosphere. This means zero increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. It's the blue line in the second graph in [4] being a straight line - or even going down.

 

Why this is a big deal is because atmospheric CO2 increase and global average temperature increase (with all that entails) are so inextricably linked, to stop one you must stop the other. And we've got to do it soon, because the higher the average temperature bar gets before we get to net zero and stop it increasing, the worse the overall effects will be on humanity and on lots of the biosphere.

 

I hope that all helps. If you have any specific questions, please do ask.

 

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

[2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

[3] https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

[4] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

@Leicmac, 

Thanks for taking the time to respond in depth. I haven’t read the links yet, but I will do.  

Not a problem. :thumbup:

 

The links are mostly just there to justify the figures I've put up with peer-reviewed sources, but they do contain a wealth of pertinent information that might be worth looking at too.

  • Like 1
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted

The  last (Tory) Australian goverment withheld the 5 yearly "State of the environment" report. It was delivered in December and they hid it until after the election and it has now been released by the new Labor government.

Our country is now in disaster planning... but still the ignoramuses are saying its not our problem. ffs

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/19/tanya-plibersek-pledges-new-environment-laws-to-end-years-of-wilful-neglect-by-coalition

ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
On 16/07/2022 at 02:16, Zear0 said:

Got stung by a bee once...

 

£10 for a jar of honey. 

stand BY bees.. not on them :)

  • Like 2
WigstonWanderer

WigstonWanderer

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

The  last (Tory) Australian goverment withheld the 5 yearly "State of the environment" report. It was delivered in December and they hid it until after the election and it has now been released by the new Labor government.

Our country is now in disaster planning... but still the ignoramuses are saying its not our problem. ffs

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/19/tanya-plibersek-pledges-new-environment-laws-to-end-years-of-wilful-neglect-by-coalition

Quite a good Press Club address by Tanya Plibersek today. She is clearly motivated to try to roll back some of the damage caused by the last lot. They really were a bunch of vandals, busy carving up the commons for private gain, often in a corrupt and/or monopolistic way, seeming deliberately hostile to a sustainable environment.

 

The problem is that Labor have rather boxed themselves in to get elected in the face of Murdoch media and disinformation. They’ll wave through huge new coal and gas projects. Still, the last lot were so bad, there’s plenty of other low hanging fruit to tackle.

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

@leicmac, Don't be put off by the title. I found this quite interesting, and would like to know what you make of the claims.  

 

Thank you for this. It's leicsmac btw,for the ease of tagging me next time. :D

 

It's a yes and no from me. Nuclear power - including pretty much all the video mentions - should be a staple of energy generation going forward as a replacement for oils and gas post haste. However, bespoke renewable sources do have their uses where nuclear sources might not be most effective - small-scale generation, remote locations etc, as well as being a capable adjutant to fission power in their own right.

 

They both have a part to play in a future that doesn't involve hundreds of millions of climate refugees, famine and warfare.

  • Like 1
Fazzer 7

Fazzer 7

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thank you for this. It's leicsmac btw,for the ease of tagging me next time. :D

 

It's a yes and no from me. Nuclear power - including pretty much all the video mentions - should be a staple of energy generation going forward as a replacement for oils and gas post haste. However, bespoke renewable sources do have their uses where nuclear sources might not be most effective - small-scale generation, remote locations etc, as well as being a capable adjutant to fission power in their own right.

 

They both have a part to play in a future that doesn't involve hundreds of millions of climate refugees, famine and warfare.

Yes, it seems the Thorium powered reactors could be a game changer in terms of nuclear power generation. I just hope we're not going to cover vast swathes of green field and agri land in solar panels, that is my concern, there seems to be a big push toward them. In my small county there are 2 large and 1 giant site proposed all on agricultural land.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Yes, it seems the Thorium powered reactors could be a game changer in terms of nuclear power generation. I just hope we're not going to cover vast swathes of green field and agri land in solar panels, that is my concern, there seems to be a big push toward them. In my small county there are 2 large and 1 giant site proposed all on agricultural land.

Personally, I'm thinking that there is plenty of room for solar panels to satisfy the requirements asked of them and still retain "green field" land.

 

There's certainly a balance to be struck out there.

Fazzer 7

Fazzer 7

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally, I'm thinking that there is plenty of room for solar panels to satisfy the requirements asked of them and still retain "green field" land.

 

There's certainly a balance to be struck out there.

They should be covering every south facing industrial and commercial building roof’s before placing them in fields. Just my opinion. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fazzer 7 said:

They should be covering every south facing industrial and commercial building roof’s before placing them in fields. Just my opinion. 

There's certainly capacity for putting them on buildings as much as possible, even residential new builds. However, the utility and that they fulfil their task is the most important factor here.

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

There's certainly capacity for putting them on buildings as much as possible, even residential new builds. However, the utility and that they fulfil their task is the most important factor here.

Agree...in addition for allowing for the potential of solar radiation management through rooftop albedo modification, which in an urban environment is huge. 

Fazzer 7

Fazzer 7

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Agree...in addition for allowing for the potential of solar radiation management through rooftop albedo modification, which in an urban environment is huge. 

Forgive me, are you talking about the heat from these being radiated back into the atmosphere?

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
Just now, Fazzer 7 said:

Forgive me, are you talking about the heat from these being radiated back into the atmosphere?

Surface albedo modification. Three million people a week are moving to cities. Lighter coloured rooftops and the creation of large surfaces with a higher albedo increases the amount of solar radiation/insolation reflected from the Earth’s surface and could therefore theoretically en-masse with increased urbanisation, reduce the temperature of the atmosphere, because surfaces absorb less solar energy. However, the proposal would not reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which would continue increasing so as a geoengineering strategy  - seeks only to mitigate ground temperatures in urban environments as opposed to negative emissions technology which address the root cause. 

  • Like 1
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

https://news.sky.com/story/meteoroid-hit-has-caused-significant-uncorrectable-damage-to-james-webb-space-telescope-12655489

Yesterday's news but in case you missed it.

Bit of a sensationalised headline which does not give the full picture. "Significant uncorrectable damage" ...to segment C3 which although impedes the accuracy of data collected, realignment of the other 17 sections has largely compensated for this and the strike does not compromise the overall function of the telescope as a whole and it remains well within performance limits. However, NASA engineers are keeping an eye on potential future dust-generating events and micrometeroid threats such as in 2023 and 2024, when JWT is expected to fly through particles left behind by Halley's Comet. It may be that Webb is "more susceptible to damage by micrometeoroids than pre-launch modelling predicted."

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.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...