Any physicist / meteorologist around

[craigs]

Regardless of what side of the camp you'on on, its driven by vested interests and happy idiots.

The climate has always changed, and will always change, that's not an idea or subjective. Jesus the UK used to be tropical...ok that was 200 million years ago, but then it was half covered in ice. im pretty sure that if a big floaty space rock can withstand 4.3 billion years of change then it can handle a couple of hundred years of exfoliation....which is essentially what drilling for oil is, its skin deep in the size of it all.

 

[Fitzroy]

It was long thought that we couldn't damage the oceans through pollution due to their size.....

As was said for a long time the solution to pollution is dilution, well that didn't go so well! All earlier figures I quoted were energy use today, and whilst is seems impossible that energy use could increase 100 or 1000 fold, to a point were is is comparable to other elements of the global energy balance, never say never.

The Kardashev scale is a conceptual idea of how advanced a society is based on the amount of energy it can utilise. Looking back historically we advanced as a society when we could control fire and have energy from burning wood/other combustibles. We advanced as a society when we discovered fossil fuels and could harness the energy they provide. I think the development of solar and wind will see us able to harness more energy in the future than we ever have before.

Anthropogenic climate change today due to carbon dioxide may be solved in the next generation or two but we need to be more aware and watching for similar effects as we change where our energy comes from and we increase our global energy usage.

Interesting times.

F.

 

[Fitzroy]

Regardless of what side of the camp you'on on, its driven by vested interests and happy idiots.

The climate has always changed, and will always change, that's not an idea or subjective. Jesus the UK used to be tropical...ok that was 200 million years ago, but then it was half covered in ice. I'm pretty sure that if a big floaty space rock can withstand 4.3 billion years of change then it can handle a couple of hundred years of exfoliation....which is essentially what drilling for oil is, its skin deep in the size of it all.

The planet will be fine, the problem is for humanity. A change over tens of thousands of years is easy to manage, society and ecology adapt with no intervention required. A change over 10s or a 100 years will create havoc. Eco systems do not adapt, eg coral reefs collapse due to ocean acidification. Societies don't respond effectively, eg coastal erosion due to increased storms causes housing loss, increased hurricane frequency results in human tragedy in the Caribbean, more flooding in Gulf of Mexico etc.

Even if I play along and agree it's unclear what is causing climate change, should we do nothing and hope for the best, or should we be studying the heck out of it, trying to understand it, and then doing something to respond to it to minimise the negative impact it is likely to have on many billions of human beings in the future?

I'm totally fine with the personal position of not caring about things that will occur outside ones lifetime, or that the influence on them will be positive, ie the UK will be warmer, I live away from the coast and I can grown my vegetables for longer each year. But ignoring the data and saying, it's not happening and it's not going to impact millions of people, or that it's being created to control society is at best having ones head in the sand.

Having ranted and now feeling better I'm actually really interested in the alternate view point. Do you agree the climate is changing and the earth is warming, what do you think is causing it, what should we be doing to respond to it?

Fitz,

BTW : The evidence is clear that the climate is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that this is due to human activity due to the build-up of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. There is no debate on this in any group or individual who considers all available data. Debate only occurs when only partial data sets are considered and studies are 'cherry picked'. Yes the UK used to be tropical, and at that time CO2 levels were much higher than they are now, CO2 increase, global warming...... Additionally the current thinking may be wrong, that's the power of science it's ambivalent to change as more data emerges, however we're not seeing that data. Back to the point of sit and do nothing or respond to the situation aligned with our best current understanding.

 

[chris13]

Hi all

All this desperate scramble to become "green" may have other unseen consequences. We all know the basic laws of physics that state energy cannot be created or destroyed and that the 1st law of thermodynamics state you cannot get something for nothing so what is the real impact of windturbines and these huge windfarms? Each one converts the energy in the wind into mechanical energy before converting that to electrical energy so they must have an impact on our weather systems, taking energy out of the wind must change it's speed and potentialy if rain clouds move slower they will drop more rain on a smaller area resulting in flooding. Any scientist around with a deeper grounding in these topics who wants to comment?

A physicist and amateur cabinet maker here ! I must admit that I despair at the amount of oil we are burning in vehicles and wish we still had a good rail network so much more could be transport by railways. When it comes to the new transport and energy technologies what I believe is not being put into the public domain is the environmental balance of say building a wind turbine or developing battery capability. For example what is the environmental cost of building a substantial foundation for a wind tower, how much pollution is associated with mining for and then refining lithium and what are the planets reserves of this metal ? In my own opinion I think that fuel cell technology and the use of hydrogen is the way to go, and of course we need to generate lots of electricity even when the wind doesn't blow.

 

[D_W]

I say we should all fart to the north to give those with less heat some of our personal wealth.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

We must be clearer about the timescales about which we are concerned.

For some this may be as little as a couple of decades - no concern for what may happen after ones allotted time, and a clear reluctance to change a comfortable current existence.

Others may wish to avoid contributing to a legacy which could burden their known descendants with what may be an unpleasant future - timescales may be 100-150 years.

Others feel the moral need to do nothing which may compromise the longer term future of humanity for perhaps thousand of years.

The longer the timeframe, the less robust analysis becomes. We don't know what will be learned in decades to come which would have the effect of modifying todays conclusuions, nor unanticipated actions which may be taken.

Individual conclusions are personal, but unless there is some consensus over why action (or inaction) is necessary, there is little prospect of a shared solution.

 

[craigs]

The planet will be fine, the problem is for humanity. A change over tens of thousands of years is easy to manage, society and ecology adapt with no intervention required. A change over 10s or a 100 years will create havoc. Eco systems do not adapt, eg coral reefs collapse due to ocean acidification. Societies don't respond effectively, eg coastal erosion due to increased storms causes housing loss, increased hurricane frequency results in human tragedy in the Caribbean, more flooding in Gulf of Mexico etc.

Even if I play along and agree it's unclear what is causing climate change, should we do nothing and hope for the best, or should we be studying the heck out of it, trying to understand it, and then doing something to respond to it to minimise the negative impact it is likely to have on many billions of human beings in the future?

I'm totally fine with the personal position of not caring about things that will occur outside ones lifetime, or that the influence on them will be positive, ie the UK will be warmer, I live away from the coast and I can grown my vegetables for longer each year. But ignoring the data and saying, it's not happening and it's not going to impact millions of people, or that it's being created to control society is at best having ones head in the sand.

Having ranted and now feeling better I'm actually really interested in the alternate view point. Do you agree the climate is changing and the earth is warming, what do you think is causing it, what should we be doing to respond to it?

Fitz,

BTW : The evidence is clear that the climate is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that this is due to human activity due to the build-up of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. There is no debate on this in any group or individual who considers all available data. Debate only occurs when only partial data sets are considered and studies are 'cherry picked'. Yes the UK used to be tropical, and at that time CO2 levels were much higher than they are now, CO2 increase, global warming...... Additionally the current thinking may be wrong, that's the power of science it's ambivalent to change as more data emerges, however we're not seeing that data. Back to the point of sit and do nothing or respond to the situation aligned with our best current understanding.

Anything that has an impact should be studied, that doesn't mean the studying is over and also doesn't mean there aren't giant conglomo-corps using this and lobbying for greed and control. there seems to be a lot of people saying opposite things and ill just wait for them to fight it out which could take a while as they cant figure out if the chicken or the egg came first. everyone knows politicians are idiots and it seems they are being scared/forced to do complete knee jerk reactions.

...and don't get me started on the prophet Greta.

Last time I looked the UK was pretty low on polluting the planet, but i see pineapple-rebellion want us in the dark ages because they dont have the kahunas to go after the real polluters like China/India etc. like everyone, the UK is an easy target.

Is my head in the sand, I don't think so, but i do think its a massive overreaction rather than a calm considered approach, as the politicians will find out when they try taking peoples cars away and telling them they need a double cost electric car.

 

[Inspector]

Until people realize they are the problem things will only get worse. As I see it we only have two choices. One kid per family until the population has gone back to a billion or so or let the world take us out with another pandemic, climate change or we take ourselves out in a third world war. Everything else is just a bandaid on a disembowelling.

Pete

 

[Fitzroy]

Until people realize they are the problem things will only get worse. As I see it we only have two choices. One kid per family until the population has gone back to a billion or so or let the world take us out with another pandemic, climate change or we take ourselves out in a third world war. Everything else is just a bandaid on a disembowelling.

Pete

Somewhat more pessimistic that my view point but I agree with the sentiment. World population exceeds the capacity of the earth to sustain it long term, today we manage as many in the world live with much less (food, energy, goods) than many others. As growing nations strive for parity with what the most develop nations enjoy then burden increases.

We can't really say to India "sorry half your population needs to remain with no clean water, sanitation, washing machine, TV, etc so that we can live the lifestyle we are accustomed to". Each and every person has the same environmental allowance.

It's a problem we need to solve individually and as a global society and that's not something we've ever managed as a species.

F.

 

[billw]

It's a problem we need to solve individually and as a global society and that's not something we've ever managed as a species.

It certainly needs to be global. Developing nations point the finger at developed economies and say "well you polluted like mad when you were growing, why can't we?" and to some degree it's a fair point. As developed economies we should be looking at cleaner tech which is more expensive and more advanced than developing and emerging economies might be able to cope with.

It's also why nations need to work with Brazil so they don't need to bin off the entire Amazon to graze cattle, because that's a global resource under the control of a government who only have their own development needs in consideration.

The Middle East got rich off oil, they're already trying to pivot away from it to ensure they're sustainable in the future - whether they'll retain their current level of wealth remains to be seen obviously.

As @Fitzroy says, as a species it's not easy, we're too concerned with the smaller picture of our own nations.

 

[clogs]

Lemmings.....they breed and consume...when the food is gone they just die.....
sound familiar.....mmmmm.......

 

[Geoff_S]

So just how long is it before the windmills suck away all the air?

 

[sammy.se]

Well if you are to be compelled to replace your ICE propelled vehicle by 2030 then you should start saving now.

I don't think that will be the case - it's new ICE car sales that will be stopped in 2030. If you bought an ICE car in 2029, you would still be allowed to keep it.

 

[craigs]

Until people realize they are the problem things will only get worse. As I see it we only have two choices. One kid per family until the population has gone back to a billion or so or let the world take us out with another pandemic, climate change or we take ourselves out in a third world war. Everything else is just a bandaid on a disembowelling.

Pete

A lot of western countries birth rate is fairly low already, but go on, try telling Africa, India, China and all the 'stans to stop spitting out kids and see where that gets ya

 

[Spectric]

Until people realize they are the problem things will only get worse. As I see it we only have two choices. One kid per family until the population has gone back to a billion or so or let the world take us out with another pandemic, climate change or we take ourselves out in a third world war. Everything else is just a bandaid on a disembowelling.

Bang on, everything stems from population and especially when that population is materialistic and many younger specimens buy cloths to just wear once. One kid limit and then you start to pay more tax for every other one.

 

[Felix]

Green energy is great. However, we have a lot to learn from the Environment Agency in terms of monetising the 'green movement'. You have a stream. You want to instal a green water turbine. You can. Only you have to pay the EA for the privilege of taking that water from out of your stream and putting it into your turbine. That very same water then goes back into the stream a little further downstream. Nice one, EA.

Maybe you should counter charge them for allowing their water to pass across your land......

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Many years ago I went to a presentation by Jonathan Porritt, the environmentalist.

He made the point that it was unsustainable to expect the third and developing world not to aspire to the material goods we in the West consider essential - cookers, adequate food, fridges, TVs etc etc.

People may also recall James Lovelock who developed the Gaia theory - there is only one planet who resources are being grossly overexploited with inevitable consequences. He suggested that by 2100 the global population would fall (or needed to fall) to 500m from then 6bn.

Whether the issue is climate change, resources, pollution, food or fresh water, there is a problem. Timing may vary from when the original concerns were articulated, but in principle still hold true.

So far humanity has only tinkered around the edges of the impending problems - you would need to be a die hard optimist to believe that over the next 80 years the world will be a harmonious, secure and pleasant place to live.

 

[billw]

He made the point that it was unsustainable to expect the third and developing world not to aspire to the material goods we in the West consider essential - cookers, adequate food, fridges, TVs etc etc.

Exactly. (Note that the developing world is the "third" world, the "emerging" world is the second)

 

[Trainee neophyte]

This is a fun thread!

There is a very odd, CIA related defence website that has the projected population figures for every nation for 2025. Most western countries are projected to lose two thirds of their population, but it is a not explained as to where they may be going. I've just had a look at it to find the link and I see that they have updated their projections. USA will only drop to 99 million (it was 60 ish last time I looked), but the UK will be down to 14 million. I guess Brexit won't go as well as Boris expects.

https://deagel.com/forecast
About the one child policy: most European countries have not been replacing their populations, and with an ageing population the economy will fail (our mad debt-as-money system requires constant, perpetual growth). This is why immigration from the third world is required - to replace the non reproducing population. Got to keep wages suppressed but consumer purchases up, so the retirement funds keep paying the pensions to the politicians. Lots of plates to spin.

I was looking at the energy return on energy invested for solar panels, and I found this 2016 paper which suggests that they use about the same amount of energy to create as they produce in their lifetime: Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation

I also found another paper debunking this paper, from the same source: Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation: A comprehensive response

So as with just about every subject, there are facts, alternative facts, and conspiracy theories. Just choose the "facts" that make you feel the most, good or bad, and embrace your inner Gretta.

There may or may not be climate change, and it may or may not be caused by humans. What I guarantee is that government will step in to make the majority poorer, and a lucky, well connected few much, much wealthier. It's what they do best. Don't forget - they are just following the advice of scientists.

 

[Nautilus21]

Deleted