The Planet is Toast

Pat · 14 November 2007

Re: plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.

Dukey said:
Yep - nature will indeed win in the end - but it will take a long long time - we're talking 'geological time'...

Yes it will, but when you think about it, it takes that long for anything natural to happen, like evolution. I often wonder how the world coped... or will cope... when a massive volcano blows, or where hit by an asteroid.

Dukey said:
...but sometimes I wonder about our place here on Earth...

I often do too. Although I have faith in our technological evolution. StarTrek universe here we come!

2020hindsight · 14 November 2007

no argument from me Dukey and Pat ..

As for the pollution in the Beijing air ...
It must almost be at a point where you can run a machine just using the air (and semi-burnt pollution) as fuel.

PS I think when the pollution is cleaned up, the greenhouse effect gets worse.

Pat · 14 November 2007

2020hindsight said:
PS I think when the pollution is cleaned up, the greenhouse effect gets worse.

Do you think the smog blocks and rebounds some radiation?

algis · 14 November 2007

Pat said:
Do you think the smog blocks and rebounds some radiation?

Something I would like to know is what is the science behind the knowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere allows for a greenhouse effect - that is, it lets in a certain range of radiation and then, once through, reflects it down.

Have chambers been set up where such an experiment could be carried out? Where say, you could vary the composition of the atmosphere within the chamber, stratify it etc and then work out the sensitivities of the change? Has it only be done via Monte Carlo type computer modelling techniques? Or has this correlation only been based on circumstantial evidence that shows that CO2 levels are somewhat in tune with global temps?

Pat · 14 November 2007

algis said:
Something I would like to know is what is the science behind the knowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere allows for a greenhouse effect - that is, it lets in a certain range of radiation and then, once through, reflects it down.

Have chambers been set up where such an experiment could be carried out? Where say, you could vary the composition of the atmosphere within the chamber, stratify it etc and then work out the sensitivities of the change? Has it only be done via Monte Carlo type computer modelling techniques? Or has this correlation only been based on circumstantial evidence that shows that CO2 levels are somewhat in tune with global temps?

Good question, I think they use drill core samples from the Antarctic as reference to CO2 in the atmosphere in the past… but I'd like to know how the guesstimate global temps etc in the past.

2020hindsight · 14 November 2007

plenty of wikipedia on greenhouse gas effects

light (sun's spectrum) gets to us, then sent skyward as longer wavelength (infrared) - much of which is reflected back again (not all).

all about infrared light = heat - As I understand it, if you looked up at the sky with sensitive infrared filters you would see a heap of infared rays being reflected back at you from the atmosphere. O2 and N2 don't absorb and reflect this heat back ( both O-O) but CO2 and H2O water do (O-O-O) also methane CH4 etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GHG_per_capita_2000_no_LUC.svg

meanwhile here is the greenhouse emission per capita
and just by coincidence - see if you can pick the two first world countries who have not signed Kyoto.

2020hindsight · 14 November 2007

Here are the CO2-equivalent- emitters-per-capita listed on order of with or withou land use change. (I feel without is more relevant personally - just because we got in early and cleared our forests is no excuse not to cut back on how much energy we use each for instance - and paying Indonesia to leave their forests standing - WITHOUT a change of mindset back home - is not the same as our OWN contribution and hardship. That is nothing more than a con in my opinion).

Note that Aus is 5th - and the 4 above us are OPEC countries (Qatar Emirates Kuwait Brunei)
Note also that Aus (25.6) is worse than USA (24.3).
And for all the talk of Canada being so deadful, we are worse than them as well. (they are 22.2)
NZ 18.5
Aus (25.6) is more than twice as bad as UK.(11.0)
Likewise Greece ( 11.0) and South Korea (11.0)
South Africa 9.5
Sweden 7.5
Malaysia 6.8
Brazil 4.9
China 3.9
India 1.9
Ghana 1.2
Heaps of African countries less than 1.0

numbercruncher · 14 November 2007

Another bit of climate change action barrelling down on North Qld, first cyclone this early in over 30 years ..... They are tipping a bad season all round

Wysiwyg · 14 November 2007

numbercruncher said:
Another bit of climate change action barrelling down on North Qld, first cyclone this early in over 30 years ..... They are tipping a bad season all round

Yes it is early and presently only a 1 but forecast to intensify on this map.Cyclone Guba.Cane fields and bananas again?

2020hindsight · 14 November 2007

numbercruncher said:
Another bit of climate change action barrelling down on North Qld, first cyclone this early in over 30 years ..... They are tipping a bad season all round

I notice t's called Goober ( and named by PNG , means "storm over water")
Here's a song called "Goober Peas", a Southern song from the American Civil War

Goober Peas = peanuts (the man who discovered peanuts was Mr Goober apparently - sheesh I thought it was Joh B Peterson)

You have to go to the 2m30s mark
Johnny Cash & Burl Ives

Smurf1976 · 14 November 2007

2020hindsight said:
Here are the CO2-equivalent- emitters-per-capita listed on order of with or withou land use change. (I feel without is more relevant personally - just because we got in early and cleared our forests is no excuse not to cut back on how much energy we use each for instance - and paying Indonesia to leave their forests standing - WITHOUT a change of mindset back home - is not the same as our OWN contribution and hardship. That is nothing more than a con in my opinion).

Note that Aus is 5th - and the 4 above us are OPEC countries (Qatar Emirates Kuwait Brunei)
Note also that Aus (25.6) is worse than USA (24.3).

I'll stir the pot...

If we had the same portion of nuclear power and hydro-electricity as the OECD average then our emissions would be around 22.

If we had the same combined share of nuclear and hydro as France then our emissions would be around 15.

My point being that these are the only large scale low emissions energy sources that actually have a significant impact globally. Practically all other commercial energy is from fossil fuels.

Nuclear and hydro are, of course, also the energy sources most strongly opposed by environmentalists. No nuclear waste and free flowing rivers maybe, but it comes at a price.

I'm personally of the view that we ought to be including nuclear waste production when ranking countries according to emissions. It may not add to climate change, but it's a toxic legacy nonetheless.

Nuclear power is the sole reason US emissions are lower than Australia's. Take that out and the US position looks considerably worse.

Likewise it's hydro making Canada and NZ look good. Take that out and they'd be much higher on that list.

2020hindsight · 14 November 2007

Smurf1976 said:
I'll stir the pot...

If we had the same portion of nuclear power and hydro-electricity as the OECD average then our emissions would be around 22.

If we had the same combined share of nuclear and hydro as France then our emissions would be around 15.

My point being that these are the only large scale low emissions energy sources that actually have a significant impact globally. Practically all other commercial energy is from fossil fuels.

Nuclear and hydro are, of course, also the energy sources most strongly opposed by environmentalists. No nuclear waste and free flowing rivers maybe, but it comes at a price.

I'm personally of the view that we ought to be including nuclear waste production when ranking countries according to emissions. It may not add to climate change, but it's a toxic legacy nonetheless.

Nuclear power is the sole reason US emissions are lower than Australia's. Take that out and the US position looks considerably worse.

Likewise it's hydro making Canada and NZ look good. Take that out and they'd be much higher on that list.

Thanks Smurf - good to have your expert opinion there.

nuclear is interesting isn't it. - must be hundreds of nucler power plants out there (other than aus of course) - happily pouring out heaps of clean energy - damn all contribution to GW or pollution -

..except as you say the waste - but no way do I treat that in the same light as other pollution - you need to be careful that's all (imo) - easy if you say it fast .

And furthermore, "clean coal" is surely gonna be a joke in five or fifteen years whatever, when people understand that you're trying to stuff the genie back in some ( underground) bottle. Bet you $20 that in 70 years time there wll be a lot more nuclear plants than "clean coal" plants

I propose we leave the bets with our grandkids as our proxies, lol.
(that's assuming that the $20 bill is still in use then - and hasn't gone the way of the 2c piece )

2020hindsight · 15 November 2007

One thing not to be able to see the wood for the trees....

it's nice (occasionally) not to be able to see the sunset for the trees as well

(gee I like daylight saving )

Dukey · 15 November 2007

Smurf1976 said:
I'll stir the pot...

If we had the same portion of nuclear power and hydro-electricity as the OECD average then our emissions would be around 22.

If we had the same combined share of nuclear and hydro as France then our emissions would be around 15.

My point being that these are the only large scale low emissions energy sources that actually have a significant impact globally. Practically all other commercial energy is from fossil fuels.

Nuclear and hydro are, of course, also the energy sources most strongly opposed by environmentalists. No nuclear waste and free flowing rivers maybe, but it comes at a price.

I'm personally of the view that we ought to be including nuclear waste production when ranking countries according to emissions. It may not add to climate change, but it's a toxic legacy nonetheless.

Nuclear power is the sole reason US emissions are lower than Australia's. Take that out and the US position looks considerably worse.

Likewise it's hydro making Canada and NZ look good. Take that out and they'd be much higher on that list.

Smurf - can I ask - cause I too value your input...
When all is said and done, If you were the K-Rudd - Miester-Mann (making a gross assumption that it's he that matters now...!) - would you throw cash at Nuclear Plants OR Renewable Energy Technologies OR both?

Smurf1976 · 16 November 2007

Dukey said:
Smurf - can I ask - cause I too value your input...
When all is said and done, If you were the K-Rudd - Miester-Mann (making a gross assumption that it's he that matters now...!) - would you throw cash at Nuclear Plants OR Renewable Energy Technologies OR both?

Renewable.

And a full scale coal to liquids plant in the Latrobe Valley using the wastes to generate power and the CO2 (hopefully) injected into depleted offshore Bass Strait gas fields. If geosequestration doesn't work here with a plant like that then it's not going to work anywhere - let's settle the argument and we need the liquid fuels anyway.

But I wouldn't waste my time with renewables that can only take us to 20 or 30% renewable energy in the grid.

Instead, I'd start building what will ultimately be a viable 100% renewable system. That's technically doable if we combine geothermal, solar thermal, hydro (pumped and natural) and to a far lesser extent wind.

Dukey · 16 November 2007

Smurf1976 said:
Renewable.

And a full scale coal to liquids plant in the Latrobe Valley using the wastes to generate power and the CO2 (hopefully) injected into depleted offshore Bass Strait gas fields. If geosequestration doesn't work here with a plant like that then it's not going to work anywhere - let's settle the argument and we need the liquid fuels anyway.

But I wouldn't waste my time with renewables that can only take us to 20 or 30% renewable energy in the grid.

Instead, I'd start building what will ultimately be a viable 100% renewable system. That's technically doable if we combine geothermal, solar thermal, hydro (pumped and natural) and to a far lesser extent wind.

Thanks again - you've reinforced my earlier opinion.....
Smurf for PM... who's onboard!!!!!!!!!! Should put you in the "who will you vote for poll"

Who is gonna be first cab off the rank with Geothermal?

kgee · 16 November 2007

why? when there's so many hydrocarbons?

2020hindsight · 17 November 2007

Smurf1976 said:
Renewable.

And a full scale coal to liquids plant in the Latrobe Valley using the wastes to generate power and the CO2 (hopefully) injected into depleted offshore Bass Strait gas fields. If geosequestration doesn't work here with a plant like that then it's not going to work anywhere - let's settle the argument and we need the liquid fuels anyway.

But I wouldn't waste my time with renewables that can only take us to 20 or 30% renewable energy in the grid.

Instead, I'd start building what will ultimately be a viable 100% renewable system. That's technically doable if we combine geothermal, solar thermal, hydro (pumped and natural) and to a far lesser extent wind.

A test case for "clean coal" is urgent you're right - I'll personally believe it when I see it, but it's a good way to keep winning elections in the Hunter and Collie etc.

as for renewables - so many are weather dependant - I guess it's unlikely to be dry (hydro) and overcast ( photovoltaic/solar), and lack of wind (wind turbines) at the same time

I mean a decent volcanic eruption (Krakatoa revisited) would surely cause a major downgrading for solar generation in those latitudes affected

At least nuclear runs 24/7 base load power. Most of the arguments against nuclear seem to start from the premise that we are the only ones who would be using it - when in fact we are one of the few (moderate sized industrialised) countries NOT using it.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm Nuclear Power in the World Today
Briefing Paper 7
August 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first commercial nuclear power stations started operation in the 1950s.
There are now some 439 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, with 372,000 MWe of total capacity.
They supply 16% of the world's electricity, as base-load power, and their efficiency is increasing.
56 countries operate a total of 284 research reactors reactors and a further 220 reactors power ships and submarines.

Today, only eight countries are known to have a nuclear weapons capability. By contrast, 56 operate civil research reactors, and 30 have some 439 commercial nuclear power reactors with a total installed capacity of 372,000 MWe (see table). This is more than three times the total generating capacity of France or Germany from all sources. Over 30 further power reactors are under construction, equivalent to 7.5% of existing capacity, while over 80 are firmly planned, equivalent to 24% of present capacity.

Concerning share of power that is nuclear in origin, Belgium and Sweden are up over 50% , and France is almost 80%
http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm
http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm

2020hindsight · 17 November 2007

I mean , have a look at the last bar in this graph - that's Australia, and the red is the percentage coal we use ... bludy disgraceful - we are environmental vandals here.

Kurt Vonnegut - note his last book ended in a poem .......
When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here, - ESPECIALLY THE AUSSIES!!!
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1895585.htm

We are addicted to fossil fuels, and we are about to be forced to give up, and forced to go cold turkey. etc

http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm

PS Gee whiz, Canada has a lot of "hyro / renewables" (blue line) - how the heck can they be nearly as bad as us on "CO2 equivalent per capita"??

Tysonboss1 · 17 November 2007

UPKA said:
If you r an evolutionist you'll probably believe that overtime human and other creatures will adapt to the "new" environment overtime . Although emission of greenhouse gases is linked to global warming, bt there r no direct evidence to it, some may even argue that the animals n us humans produce more CO2s than the factories in China.

Evolution theory means that probally 95% of the species will perish it the changed cercumstances and some may survive and then continue to breed with the new adaptions,...

The Planet is Toast

Pat

2020hindsight

Pat

algis

Pat

2020hindsight

Attachments

2020hindsight

Attachments

numbercruncher

Beware of Dropbears

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

Attachments

2020hindsight

Smurf1976

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Attachments

Dukey

Smurf1976

Dukey

kgee

2020hindsight

Attachments

2020hindsight

Attachments

Tysonboss1

Similar threads

The Planet is Toast

Attachments

Attachments

Beware of Dropbears

Everyone wants money

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency