What's new
PNE-Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Extinction Rebellion, the return of the great unwashed.

Extinction Rebellion

  • Genuine people concerned solely with the future of our planet?

  • An Anti-Capitalist movement using the fear of children to drive their agenda?

  • A bunch of arseholes whose tactics are driving away people who could otherwise support them?

  • All of the above


Results are only viewable after voting.

Sepp Blatter

Ursula Fanboy
Patron
Quite worrying isn’t it.

For every 1C increase in global temperature atmospheric moisture levels increase 7 fold and this additional moisture amplifies the warming effect as well as resulting in more extreme weather events eg a third of the entire country of Pakistan currently under floodwater from last week’s storms which were seven times more severe than their normal monsoons.

Correct me if I’m wrong but this seems a frightening (exponential?) growth (+1C = x7 increase in moisture, +2C = x49 moisture increase) which will have devasting consequences in our lifetimes. Maybe we shouldn’t be just thinking of our children but of the horrors we’re likely to face in the very near future.

We reached +1C above pre industrial levels in 2017 and the current rate of increase is now as high as 0.2C per decade.

But we have a hard right UK Govt transferring billions £ of public money subsidising gas and oil exploration and supply and a policy to promote fracking across the country elected by the public.

Desperate times.
Atmospheric humidity is very complex and one of the least understood aspects - like many things involved with climate change, it is not a simple linear relationship. This article summarises some of the points very nicely:

 

Soapy

Manager
I go on a bit about localised power, and it has come up on the energy thread - this article gives a pretty good explanation of why this is a good idea going forward. The electricity system as we know it is not fit for purpose - and the markets even more so:

The Windmills of your mind!
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Quite worrying isn’t it.

For every 1C increase in global temperature atmospheric moisture levels increase 7 fold and this additional moisture amplifies the warming effect as well as resulting in more extreme weather events eg a third of the entire country of Pakistan currently under floodwater from last week’s storms which were seven times more severe than their normal monsoons.

Correct me if I’m wrong but this seems a frightening (exponential?) growth (+1C = x7 increase in moisture, +2C = x49 moisture increase) which will have devasting consequences in our lifetimes. Maybe we shouldn’t be just thinking of our children but of the horrors we’re likely to face in the very near future.

We reached +1C above pre industrial levels in 2017 and the current rate of increase is now as high as 0.2C per decade.

But we have a hard right UK Govt transferring billions £ of public money subsidising gas and oil exploration and supply and a policy to promote fracking across the country elected by the public.

Desperate times.

Honestly, I thought the 7-fold increase sounded impossible.... and you might have already seen from the interesting paper posted by @Sepp Blatter that the relationship is an increase of 7% (not 600%!!) for every 1C
 

Mer5eywhite

Forum Patron
Patron
Honestly, I thought the 7-fold increase sounded impossible.... and you might have already seen from the interesting paper posted by @Sepp Blatter that the relationship is an increase of 7% (not 600%!!) for every 1C
Shhhh

We’ll have to kill all the world’s termites and concrete over all the wetland habitat. That methane is bloody everywhere.

Anyway, carbon and methane capture are probably the way forward.
 

noelpne

Forum Patron
Patron
I don't see localised turbine power or solar power supplying  this country's ever-growing energy demands. Sure, perhaps the two above would eventually be sufficient somewhere like California or even better in the much more sparsely-populated areas of the USA eg Mid West.
Not enough ( at current efficiency levels & a turbine on the majority of street corners ) wind. And compared to Nevada, California etc etc a heck of a loss less Solar.

( But I've not a single figure to support this )

Tbh I believe the only way out of a Country, any Country which has insufficient HEP resources, insufficient space for wind turbines unless the place is dotted with them, insufficient sunshine, an ignorance of the possibilities of tidal & wave power, a ( sensible and realistic imo ) realisation that Coal is outdated, diminishing North Sea Gas & Oil stock along with Coal & Fracking are ultimately counter-productive if we seriously do wish to lower CO2 Emissions and NOT pollute the Country(side) more than possible......
and fek Putin etc off....

.......is Nuclear Power.
 

26-0

Forum Patron
Patron
Honestly, I thought the 7-fold increase sounded impossible.... and you might have already seen from the interesting paper posted by @Sepp Blatter that the relationship is an increase of 7% (not 600%!!) for every 1C

Note to self - keep off the gin 🥴

Sorry, I misread the article I found last night.

7% increase per 1C rise in temp sounds less worrying. So the real threat faces our children not us 👍
 

Sepp Blatter

Ursula Fanboy
Patron
I don't see localised turbine power or solar power supplying  this country's ever-growing energy demands. Sure, perhaps the two above would eventually be sufficient somewhere like California or even better in the much more sparsely-populated areas of the USA eg Mid West.
Not enough ( at current efficiency levels & a turbine on the majority of street corners ) wind. And compared to Nevada, California etc etc a heck of a loss less Solar.

( But I've not a single figure to support this )

Tbh I believe the only way out of a Country, any Country which has insufficient HEP resources, insufficient space for wind turbines unless the place is dotted with them, insufficient sunshine, an ignorance of the possibilities of tidal & wave power, a ( sensible and realistic imo ) realisation that Coal is outdated, diminishing North Sea Gas & Oil stock along with Coal & Fracking are ultimately counter-productive if we seriously do wish to lower CO2 Emissions and NOT pollute the Country(side) more than possible......
and fek Putin etc off....

.......is Nuclear Power.
I'm a bit more optimistic than that - the total area of the UK needed for solar panels at present is 12%. However, that assumes that solar is the only source of power, which it won't be. In addition, solar panels are becoming more and more efficient - the NREL lab in the US has just developed a solar panel with double the efficiency (almost 50%, which translates to about 40% for the UK) - once they get into production, they will make a huge difference. Other technologies that improve efficiency include sun tracking panels and parabolic panels that help to squeeze even more energy from the sun.

You can also reuse area, of course, such as rooftops and even the walls of buildings.

That's before we look at energy efficiency (there is a lot of room for improvement), demand response, and energy storage. The other advantage of localised generation is that you reduce electricity losses significantly and also tackle the problem of congestion on the system where it lacks the capacity to transport the amount of electricity needed.

With you on tidal - the hold up so far is due to the high cost at present, the need for energy storage, and researching any potential environmental impacts. A great source of energy, though, once we get the hang of it. I have never been convinced by the case for building more nuclear power stations.
 

26-0

Forum Patron
Patron
I'm a bit more optimistic than that - the total area of the UK needed for solar panels at present is 12%. However, that assumes that solar is the only source of power, which it won't be. In addition, solar panels are becoming more and more efficient - the NREL lab in the US has just developed a solar panel with double the efficiency (almost 50%, which translates to about 40% for the UK) - once they get into production, they will make a huge difference. Other technologies that improve efficiency include sun tracking panels and parabolic panels that help to squeeze even more energy from the sun.

You can also reuse area, of course, such as rooftops and even the walls of buildings.

That's before we look at energy efficiency (there is a lot of room for improvement), demand response, and energy storage. The other advantage of localised generation is that you reduce electricity losses significantly and also tackle the problem of congestion on the system where it lacks the capacity to transport the amount of electricity needed.

With you on tidal - the hold up so far is due to the high cost at present, the need for energy storage, and researching any potential environmental impacts. A great source of energy, though, once we get the hang of it. I have never been convinced by the case for building more nuclear power stations.

Great points.

Main deficiency is political will and sadly the UK has just taken another big backward step in that respect.
 

Sepp Blatter

Ursula Fanboy
Patron
Great points.

Main deficiency is political will and sadly the UK has just taken another big backward step in that respect.
To be fair, the UK is pretty good when it comes to renewable/zero carbon energy - the country is towards the top of the list when it comes to percentage of energy from renewable sources, and we are at a similar level to Germany and Italy. Even better when you consider that some of the countries above the UK in the list - Norway, Sweden, Brazil, Colombia, New Zealand, and Canada have huge hydroelectric resources.

No fan of the Tory government, but they have done a pretty good job increasing the amount of renewable energy over the past decade.
 

Mer5eywhite

Forum Patron
Patron
:ROFLMAO:


Actually you may be surprised to learn that I'm a bit further to the right of your scale on this but I especially enjoy the 'certainty' displayed by people with no scientific background and I enjoy challenging their assertion that we are entirely responsible...

I don't agree with the title but this is worth a watch:

I would also be interested to know the opinions of the EXPERTS on here (without going off and doing research) on the following question...

Atmospheric CO2 levels were around 180ppm before the industrial revolution and are now somewhere in the region of 420ppm. Where would you like to see atmospheric CO2 ppm?
 

Winkytinky

GTTO
Patron
Actually you may be surprised to learn that I'm a bit further to the right of your scale on this but I especially enjoy the 'certainty' displayed by people with no scientific background and I enjoy challenging their assertions that we are entirely responsible...
You must be cock a hoop with Jacob Rees Moggs appointment then .
 

Sepp Blatter

Ursula Fanboy
Patron
:ROFLMAO:


Actually you may be surprised to learn that I'm a bit further to the right of your scale on this but I especially enjoy the 'certainty' displayed by people with no scientific background and I enjoy challenging their assertion that we are entirely responsible...

I don't agree with the title but this is worth a watch:

I would also be interested to know the opinions of the EXPERTS on here (without going off and doing research) on the following question...

Atmospheric CO2 levels were around 180ppm before the industrial revolution and are now somewhere in the region of 420ppm. Where would you like to see atmospheric CO2 ppm?
Don't qualify as an expert on climate change but, for me, it isn't so much about the level (it has been much, much higher in the past) but the rate of change - one thing that is often forgotten in the drive for reducing emissions is that levels are rising and will continue to do so for some time, so we need to adapt to this inevitability. We should be putting a lot more investment into mitigation - planting trees at the head of rivers, encouraging salt marshes, trying to stop development in areas at risk of flooding, and looking at the type of crops we plant and where.
 

Mer5eywhite

Forum Patron
Patron
Don't qualify as an expert on climate change but, for me, it isn't so much about the level (it has been much, much higher in the past) but the rate of change - one thing that is often forgotten in the drive for reducing emissions is that levels are rising and will continue to do so for some time, so we need to adapt to this inevitability. We should be putting a lot more investment into mitigation - planting trees at the head of rivers, encouraging salt marshes, trying to stop development in areas at risk of flooding, and looking at the type of crops we plant and where.
Wetlands store CO2 :)

And generate methane :(
 
Top