Environment crisis

pillars of hercules said:
Sea level will rise people will starve and the population will come down
Click to expand...
Better plan relocating from London, the SE, East Anglia and west Lancashire, just for starters.

But how long a timespan do you place on this reduction in population?

Another point conveniently ignored by many is the effect of global dimming caused by visible pollutants. After 9/11 all airplanes were grounded over the USA and the opportunity was taken to measure the average temperature while that form of pollution was removed. It was found the entire temperature range rose by 2 degrees. This indicated visible pollution was encouraging cloud cover that had a temporary dimming effect of 2 degrees. If we took away this visible pollution from the entire planet we may find we are a further 2 degrees higher than we currently think and that would take us dangerously close to that upper 4 degree limit.

If this sudden change in consumption resulted in a corresponding decrease in visible pollution we will be in more trouble than we realise.
 


Teed said:
Yes, I'm sure it has, mate.

Where are they going to plant these trees?

I don't think money is the driver behind this, though people will get rich from it, the driving factor is Agenda 21/30, download the PDF from the UN site and read it, ignore the sugar coated language they use, you have to ask how they believe they can achieve their goals.
Click to expand...
All around the windfarms mate. Ive worked on loads and the potential is there
 
babyimreadytoblow said:
Yep, population growth is actually slowing atm isn't it.

I think population isn't expected to go any higher that 9-10 billion.
Click to expand...
Report in the lancet last year estimated that population will peak at 9.73 billion in 2064 and that takes into account the falling birthrate.
Teed said:
If you take into account male infertility along with the decline in birth rates, then the population will decrease dramatically in the coming years, so that will make a few on here very happy. ;)

en.wikipedia.org

Male infertility crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
No it won't see above
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
Better plan relocating from London, the SE, East Anglia and west Lancashire, just for starters.

But how long a timespan do you place on this reduction in population?

Another point conveniently ignored by many is the effect of global dimming caused by visible pollutants. After 9/11 all airplanes were grounded over the USA and the opportunity was taken to measure the average temperature while that form of pollution was removed. It was found the entire temperature range rose by 2 degrees. This indicated visible pollution was encouraging cloud cover that had a temporary dimming effect of 2 degrees. If we took away this visible pollution from the entire planet we may find we are a further 2 degrees higher than we currently think and that would take us dangerously close to that upper 4 degree limit.

If this sudden change in consumption resulted in a corresponding decrease in visible pollution we will be in more trouble than we realise.
Click to expand...
I know mate i work in the industry. A lot of visible pollution causes tropospheric ozone, but this doesn't have a long residence time in the atmosphere. Also the methane you talk about has a relatively short residence time in the atmosphere compared to co2.

I'm not trying to make light of the problem, just saying it's maybe not as simple as you suggest. I did my MSc dissertation on the affect of ghgs on climate change so have done a bit of research.
 
Doing my bit...not buying any more shit from China, down to one car, writing to MP's and have invented a more efficient generator.

I'm fab me :D
 
Rolls Royce getting funding to continue development of mini nuclear reactors

www.telegraph.co.uk

Rolls-Royce lines up funding for mini nuclear reactor revolution

Private backing for Rolls-led consortium to build new generation of 'mini nukes' unlocks hundreds of millions of taxpayer support
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.rolls-royce.com

Small modular reactors

Rolls-Royce SMR LTD was established to develop an affordable power plant that generates electricity using a small modular reactor.
www.rolls-royce.com www.rolls-royce.com
 
pillars of hercules said:
I know mate i work in the industry. A lot of visible pollution causes tropospheric ozone, but this doesn't have a long residence time in the atmosphere. Also the methane you talk about has a relatively short residence time in the atmosphere compared to co2.

I'm not trying to make light of the problem, just saying it's maybe not as simple as you suggest. I did my MSc dissertation on the affect of ghgs on climate change so have done a bit of research.
Click to expand...
I know they don't have a long residence time in the atmosphere which is why they are considering encouraging cloud cover over the Arctic and in particular Greenland to try to slow warming in that region. To achieve that we would have to pump certain chemicals into the atmosphere. I'm hoping there is some alternative to sulphur dioxide.

Also methane may not have a long residence time but a sudden large release would have a serious effect that would be difficult to recover from. People understandably assume the shift from ice to water and back to ice all occurs at 0 degrees Celsius but that is not correct. For change of state to occur ice needs to reach +4 Celsius to change from solid to liquid and for water to freeze it needs to reach -4 Celsius to turn from liquid to solid. That's an 8 degree Celsius difference. Once the ice does melt then reflectivity is reduced and the exposed land absorbs and retains heat much more. Therefore to refreeze the Greenland ice shelf we would have reduce temperature by at least 8 degrees Celsius and that is not going to happen. The sea absorbs more heat than the land and that Arctic region is warming three times faster than the rest of the planet. A sudden release of a large quantity of methane would have a catastrophic effect.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
I know they don't have a long residence time in the atmosphere which is why they are considering encouraging cloud cover over the Arctic and in particular Greenland to try to slow warming in that region. To achieve that we would have to pump certain chemicals into the atmosphere. I'm hoping there is some alternative to sulphur dioxide.

Also methane may not have a long residence time but a sudden large release would have a serious effect that would be difficult to recover from. People understandably assume the shift from ice to water and back to ice all occurs at 0 degrees Celsius but that is not correct. For change of state to occur ice needs to reach +4 Celsius to change from solid to liquid and for water to freeze it needs to reach -4 Celsius to turn from liquid to solid. That's an 8 degree Celsius difference. Once the ice does melt then reflectivity is reduced and the exposed land absorbs and retains heat much more. Therefore to refreeze the Greenland ice shelf we would have reduce temperature by at least 8 degrees Celsius and that is not going to happen. The sea absorbs more heat than the land and that Arctic region is warming three times faster than the rest of the planet. A sudden release of a large quantity of methane would have a catastrophic effect.
Click to expand...
I think the 'clathrate gun' hypothesis that would see the release a lot of methane hydrate into the atmosphere in a short space of time with significant impact over decades is now thought unlikely, as opposed to a longer slower release over a much longer timescale. Which is still an issue, but of a different kind.
 
The King of Um said:
I think the 'clathrate gun' hypothesis that would see the release a lot of methane hydrate into the atmosphere in a short space of time with significant impact over decades is now thought unlikely, as opposed to a longer slower release over a much longer timescale. Which is still an issue, but of a different kind.
Click to expand...
That's reassuring but I did say when I first mentioned the methane issue a few posts back that we may have time to prevent the problem for some time along with the microbiology of rainforests and vegetation changing if we reach 4 degrees above pre industrial levels.

However that still leaves us with some serious issues that will be a problem sooner rather than later. The melting of the ice caps, the melting of glaciers, and continued deforestation of rainforests. This is going to result in sea level rise, loss of freshwater supplies, less absorption of CO2 and increased precipitation and/or drought depending on the region.

In some ways we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, in that if we clean up the air by lowering consumption and manufacturing then we will lower CO2 but we will also lower visible pollutants that encourage cloud formation and thus provide some protection from direct sunlight.

We are on the brink and walking a tightrope and it looks like we are running out of time.
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
I know they don't have a long residence time in the atmosphere which is why they are considering encouraging cloud cover over the Arctic and in particular Greenland to try to slow warming in that region. To achieve that we would have to pump certain chemicals into the atmosphere. I'm hoping there is some alternative to sulphur dioxide.

Also methane may not have a long residence time but a sudden large release would have a serious effect that would be difficult to recover from. People understandably assume the shift from ice to water and back to ice all occurs at 0 degrees Celsius but that is not correct. For change of state to occur ice needs to reach +4 Celsius to change from solid to liquid and for water to freeze it needs to reach -4 Celsius to turn from liquid to solid. That's an 8 degree Celsius difference. Once the ice does melt then reflectivity is reduced and the exposed land absorbs and retains heat much more. Therefore to refreeze the Greenland ice shelf we would have reduce temperature by at least 8 degrees Celsius and that is not going to happen. The sea absorbs more heat than the land and that Arctic region is warming three times faster than the rest of the planet. A sudden release of a large quantity of methane would have a catastrophic effect.
Click to expand...
I think any release would be gradual and don't believe pumping SO2 into the atmosphere is advisable. Carbon capture and storage is the solution.
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
That's reassuring but I did say when I first mentioned the methane issue a few posts back that we may have time to prevent the problem for some time along with the microbiology of rainforests and vegetation changing if we reach 4 degrees above pre industrial levels.

However that still leaves us with some serious issues that will be a problem sooner rather than later. The melting of the ice caps, the melting of glaciers, and continued deforestation of rainforests. This is going to result in sea level rise, loss of freshwater supplies, less absorption of CO2 and increased precipitation and/or drought depending on the region.

In some ways we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, in that if we clean up the air by lowering consumption and manufacturing then we will lower CO2 but we will also lower visible pollutants that encourage cloud formation and thus provide some protection from direct sunlight.

We are on the brink and walking a tightrope and it looks like we are running out of time.
Click to expand...
Having cheered you up on the methane clathrates...you can add acidification of the oceans from absorbtion of CO2 to the list of serious issues, sadly.
 
I heard on the radio the other day that dead whales used to capture and trap more carbon in the deepest parts of the ocean than the whole of the Amazon rain forest does on land. Not any more though since we decimated whale populations.
 
There are loads of things could be done to replenish carbon sinks. Like everything else in life we always focus on how much it costs to do it, instead of how much it costs not to.
 

Back
Top