1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
  2. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    I found this such a good and positive read on this topic I thought it worth sharing:

    How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden.

    The author, Raymond Pierrehumbert holds the Halley Professorship of Physics at the University of Oxford.

    He debunks the myths that keeping global warming below 2 to 2.5C would mean the end of capitalism and an almost unimaginable change in the nature of humanity as we know it today.

    One significant myth underlying the political debate is that 1 tonne of CO2 emitted today or in the future has less effect on AGW than the same emitted at the start of the industrial revolution. That ignores how as the planet warms the mechanisms that removed CO2 at the start of the industrial revolution are today less able to do so and will continue to decline as we warm the planet. The net outcome is a close to linear relationship.
     
  3. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Location:
    Dark City
    I find Denmark/Norway/Iceland pretty remarkable. There are countries that have already realised 100% renewable energy.

    For many countries it is actually fairly easy to do. The compromises are minimal. If a country values it enough to make it a priority, it can be done. While increasing GDP and moving employment even higher.
     
  4. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    Where does that come from?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

    Denmark: 2009 CO2 8.4T/inhabitant.
    Norway: 2011 CO2 8.8T/inhabitant
    Iceland: 2009 CO2 6.2T/inhabitant


    Denmark and Norway both burn a lot of natural gas. I believe they've both reduced emission per inhabitant while increasing GDP . I'd say for some countries that's relatively easy to do.
    For countries such as India and China I'm not so sure. The countries you mention have access to renewable energy sources that China and India don't. The opinion piece I linked to previously does seem to gloss over this. As much as I'd like some good news I'd like to see some modelling of how the inhabitants of 3rd world nations can go about doing the same as Sweden.

    Both China and India are certainly trying but the main political driver is the horrid air quality in their large cities. China's response is to move the problem from the coast to the inland. Just as much coal will be burnt and as much if not more CO2 emitted.
     
  5. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,984
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
  6. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Location:
    Dark City
    Norway is about 98% renewable electricity grid.

    If they could sort the heating and the transport they would be pretty much carbon free (various offsets for industry etc). They are aiming for 70% renewable total energy by 2020.
     
  7. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    That's more accurate.
    According to http://www.intpow.no/?id=109 58% of Norway's total energy needs are met from renewables, mostly hydro. There's not much solar PV or wind currently in Norway. They have the second highest per capita opportunity of any country to exploit off shore wind. Install enough of it and convert their hydro stations to pumped storage and they are probably the 1st world country in the best position to achieve 100% renewables. They are therefore remarkable.

    We need to be a tad cautious though. As we've seen in Tasmania climate change can rob hydro of the water it needs. Norway could well be in the same position so lots more wind would seem wise. AGW will also reduce Norway's need for heating of living spaces.

    On the other hand Norway is also remarkable as an example of how difficult transitioning to zero carbon is. They're in arguably the best position to make it but they'll still not do it within their carbon budget.
     
  8. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,537
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Well, to be fair to the current rainfall situation here, despite the long term, AGW driven downward trend, they had managed to fill the dams to nearly 60% prior to selling the farm under the carbon tax and refused to become more conservative in their NEM sales despite the strong El Niño forecast. I think in this particular instance, it's a case of idiots robbing the dams of their water.

    RE: Pumped storage, there was talk of building a small retainer dam on the Gordon River and using wind power to pump water back into the dam, but that would be done in World Heritage area, so it got hit on the head. The trouble is that the Gordon is the only one here that is big enough and practical to do it, as I would have thought that the head below Poatina back to Great Lake would nearly end up below 0% efficiency, unless they could get an epic syphon action going. I can't see it happening here unless there was some kind of big ticket trade off for the environment.
     
  9. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Location:
    Dark City
    Denmark is the world leader in wind power. They just don't have anywhere for hydro as its all pretty flat. Most likely Denmark will build wind generation and Norway will be able to pump store much of this.

    Tasmania's hydro problems are more to do with Basslink and trying to cash in on the carbon tax that the drought per se.

    Compressed air storage in dams and lakes can also help solve the problem regardless of rainfall. May be easier than pumped storage.
     
  10. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    Compressing a gas to store energy is inefficient as the gas heats during compression and that heat is lost. Pumping a liquid higher up seems more efficient.

    The best idea I've seen for compressed air storage is one being developed by Nottingham University. The compressor is sliding pistons in the turbine blades and the storage tanks are bladders under the sea. The whole system is supported by a floating raft. The compressed air is piped to shore to run generators as needed. It's not very efficient but it's simple and uses less materials than big turbines on columns attached to the sea floor.

    Closer to topic, didn't see this one coming: Earth getting greener due to rising carbon dioxide levels.

    The article doesn't mention the problem with using remote sensing to measure this. It cannot tell the difference between trees and grasses and from ground based studies it's mostly grasses. Better than nothing of course but nowhere near the Carbon density of trees.
     
  11. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    162,463
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
  12. antipody

    antipody Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    5,039
    Location:
    Small World
  13. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,473
    Location:
    Brisbane
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...ing-reaches-400ppm-for-the-first-time/7417434
     
  14. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    More troubling news: Climate change could trigger 'tipping point' for East Antarctic Totten Glacier

    As discussed our models are a work in progress. Over time no doubt we're creating better algorithms and we have more reliable data to test them against.

    Something that only caught my attention a few days ago is Azolla.

    Can the Fern That Cooled the Planet Do It Again?

    It seems this little fern was able to halve the atmospheric CO2 levels from around 3,000PPM to 1,500PPM. It only needs a few centimetres of fresh water to grow, is edible, hosts a cyanobacteria that provides the nitrogen it needs to grow and can double its mass every couple of days if it's warm enough. It's been used for centuries in the tropics as an adjunct to rice growing and two species are native to Australia. Compared to all the other proposed methods of carbon sequestration this seems a winner.

    Already what to do with the big holes left after coal mining is a hot topic. Turning them into lakes to grow Azolla has some symmetry to it. Of course there's not enough of those big holes and they're unnecessarily deep hence requiring vast amounts of fresh water. There are plenty of vast natural depressions in our deserts that could be turned into lakes. Azolla bring with it another advantage, it reduces evaporation. Our dept of agriculture suggests leaving be in dams for this reason.
     
  15. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,693
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q 4109
    http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-sources

    ..possibly our use of fossil fuels.

    or is this still up for debate?


    (shakes head)

    miniscule carbon offset strategies , yes they are good, but too little too late. focus on solving local problems locally, minimising fossil fuels and wastage, and maximise organic toxin free practices



    plant as much space as possilbe with edible trees mixed with native vegetation.

    stop population increase.

    easy if you just do the right thing
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
  16. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Location:
    Dark City
    Actually you are asking for the hardest thing.

    * Don't burn anything. Even though humans have burnt things for energy for thousands of years. The richer you are the more you burn.
    * Don't have children. Humans have a pretty instinctive drive to have children. Some see it as a right!
    * Make huge investments into schemes that are not economically viable for hundreds of years. For it to work we would need to see military budgets for these projects.

    I really hope solar, nuclear, electric cars, batteries, carbon trading systems, efficiency gains, birth control, education, modern industrialization can have the huge effect we all want it to have.
     
  17. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    It's not just that each one is hard, they're interrelated. For example improved living standards lead to population decline but the improved living standards of the 1st world were driven by improvement in productivity made possible by the burning of fossil fuels.
     
  18. Walshy

    Walshy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Brisbane
    It also takes quite a while for improved living standards to actually decrease the population, because along with the reduced birth rate comes increased lifespans.

    Bangladesh, for instance, apparently is already below replacement birthrate, but it's going to take a generation for population to stop growing, simply because less people are dying early.

    Unfortunately, a generation is time we don't have to solve this problem, so it's going to have to be techno-fixes.
     
  19. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Location:
    Dark City
    Yes, decrease birth rate, but then you have increasing life expectancy.

    I really don't see things sorting themselves out for a long time.

    Problem is, we don't have that long. We really should have got a hold of this back in the 1970's.

    Doing things that goes against peoples freedom and economic prosperity is extremely difficult. To do it for some long term benefit it nearly impossible.
     
  20. Walshy

    Walshy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Brisbane
    And doing things that go against the economic interests of rich people who control or have friends who control much of the media is nigh impossible. :mad:
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: