• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

Roger Ramjets said:
So far.

But everything so far is water under the bridge. We can't undo what we did, we can only try to not make it any worse. India has a chance to not pollute like we did. But will they take it? Their population is exploding and they want a more affluent lifestyle. In a few years they could be bigger polluters than China, if they don't plan to avoid it.
Click to expand...
A birth rate of 2.159 and falling, is not an exploding population.

Their death rate is also going down, but that will level off at some point. India is like nearly every other country: A declining birth rate.

The difference between India and China though is that their demographics won't screw them in the long term, as their population will continuie to grow for longer (and exceed China), but its not set to do so in an "explosive" way.

And:
The current UN medium projection says that Indian fertility will decline by 1.8 births per woman. As a result, the population of India is expected to reach 1.7 billion by 2060 and decline to 1.5 billion by the end of the 21st century. The lower projection expects fertility to decrease to 1.3 births per woman. As a result, the population will decline to 1.5 billion in 2040 and 900 million by 2100.
Click to expand...
https://iipsindia.org/the-population-of-india-over-time/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/demographics-china-india-diverging/
China’s population has plateaued, and will eventually decline over the remainder of the 21st century. There is plenty of room to grow economically, but the weight of an aging population will create additional social and economic pressures. By 2050, it’s estimated that over one-third of the country will be 60 years or older.

On the other hand, India is following a more traditional demographic path, as long as it is uninterrupted by drastic policy decisions. The country will likely top out at 1.6-1.7 billion people, before it begins to experience the typical demographic transition already experienced by more developed economies in North America, Europe, and Japan.
Click to expand...

On the point of emissions, of course they could do more. But getting their population out of poverty must also be a priority. Rich nations must be at the forefront of innovation to help acheiving this.
 
Anyone ever heard of Russ George? I came across this video and it all sounds rather too good to be true, as well as gives off crank vibes:



And why would the Canadian Government send a "swat team" after him? Obviously, there's something he's not telling us in this video. The persecuted outsider whose ideas are being suppressed because it just works so well that it would threaten the profits of vested interests who don't want the problem to be solved so easily.

I have heard of the idea of "seeding" the oceans with iron to stimulate plankton growth. What's the downside though? Plankton blooms can be toxic, right? Is that the downside? And do they really sequester as much carbon dioxide as he claims they do?
 
Puppycow said:
And why would the Canadian Government send a "swat team" after him?
Click to expand...

A swat team seems like simple dishonesty on his part. I'm speculating but I suspect of there is any truth what happened was than he was planning the unauthorized dumpling of millions of tonnes of material into Canadian territorial waters and it took a large team to seize all the materiel he was planning to dump illegally.



Puppycow said:
I have heard of the idea of "seeding" the oceans with iron to stimulate plankton growth. What's the downside though? Plankton blooms can be toxic, right? Is that the downside? And do they really sequester as much carbon dioxide as he claims they do?
Click to expand...

Toxic and they consume oxygen and can create dead zones where nothing can live expect sulfur dioxide producing bacteria.

While we often talk about climate change, and rightly so CO2 emissions also causes ocean acidification, something that has the potential to kill off most complex life on the earth so his fundamental premise is broken. You don't just need to absorb CO2 you need to sequester it, this doesn't happen if other organism eat the plankton.

What needs to happen is for the plankton to grow then sink to the bottom and turn into carbonate rock without going though the process of decay. This is a slower process than he claims, and indeed isn't even what he's trying to do.

He's also making claims that are clearly suspect. For example he's claiming that his small ocean seeding project was responsible for a massive salmon catch the following year, but Salmon lifecycle is typically 4-5 years. Also note that even if the salmon did come about because of his seeding project, catching them and eating them returns the captured CO2 to the atmosphere so the net reduction for that CO2 is zero.
 
Last edited:
Methane-reducing seaweed asparagopsis up for sale after years of research

After years of frantic research and fast-tracked commercial licensing, cattle feedlots can now buy asparagopsis, a native Australian seaweed touted to reduce methane emissions by "90 to 95 per cent" when fed to cows and sheep.

The first global sale of asparagopsis was announced this month by CH4, one of three businesses licensed to sell the feed additive in Australia.

South Australian meat processor CirPro was the buyer.

"We're very proud that we are the first to be able to announce a commercial supply to the marketplace," CH4 Australia general manager Adam Main said.

Asparagopsis has been the subject of numerous research trials and a fast-tracked commercialisation effort since it was first identified as a way to reduce ruminant animals' methane emissions.
Click to expand...
 
wobs said:
https://iipsindia.org/the-population-of-india-over-time/
Click to expand...
Ahem...
The current fertility rate of India is 2.3 births per woman and has remained constant for the past two decades. At this rate, the population of India is expected to grow up to 1.8 billion by 2050. Despite the attempts to reduce the fertility rate to 2.1, the expected population growth is expected to reach 1.9 billion by the end of the century. In any case, there is no stopping for India to become the most populous nation in the world.
Click to expand...
But it's not the population per se that's the problem, it's the pursuit of more affluent (and greater polluting) lifestyles. India has a lot of poor people. If living standards are raised closer to the West it will be a disaster for the environment - unless they plan to avoid it.
 
The new Australian government was elected partly on a platform of climate change action, and they continue to deliver on that.

Climate modelling abandoned by Abbott nine years ago reinstated by Labor government

Treasury has not modelled the economic impacts of climate change for almost a decade, after the practice was abandoned by former prime minister Tony Abbott.

But new Treasurer Jim Chalmers has ordered the Treasury to restart its climate modelling and says work is underway to restore the department's role in climate action.

"Treasury is working closely with other departments to rebuild this capacity after years of neglect under the Coalition, and we'll have more to say about this important work," Mr Chalmers told the ABC.

"Treasury's modelling will help us chart a path that maximises jobs and opportunities for our country as we take advantage of this transformation.

"Australia's economic prospects will be in large part determined by our ability to take ambitious action on climate change and deliver cheaper and cleaner energy."

The head of Treasury admitted last year that it had not been asked for climate modelling since 2013.
Click to expand...
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Ahem...

But it's not the population per se that's the problem, it's the pursuit of more affluent (and greater polluting) lifestyles. India has a lot of poor people. If living standards are raised closer to the West it will be a disaster for the environment - unless they plan to avoid it.
Click to expand...

That is not an exploding population though, as the rate is low and dropping.
 
There's more than one way to skin arrogantly ignorant pachyderms

Here are 3 ways the EPA can still regulate climate pollution - https://grist.org/regulation/supreme-court-west-virginia-epa-clean-air-act/

...the Supreme Court issued a narrow but consequential opinion that only ruled out one specific mechanism for slashing carbon emissions: so-called generation shifting. The mechanism was one aspect of the Clean Power Plan, first proposed by the Obama administration in 2015, which set maximum carbon emission rates for coal and natural gas plants and allowed utility companies to comply using a variety of methods. They could improve efficiency at individual plants, or they could opt for generation shifting — changing their overall mix of electricity generation to use less coal and a greater share of natural gas (which is less carbon-intensive than coal) and renewable sources. The rule quickly got tied up in litigation and never took effect, but the falling prices of natural gas and renewables changed the country’s energy mix anyway and the U.S. met the Clean Power Plan’s target a decade ahead of schedule.

The Supreme Court’s six-member majority ruled that the EPA’s proposed use of generation shifting overstepped the authority it was given by Congress when it passed the Clean Air Act, which was the legal basis for the Clean Power Plan. However, though this ruling invalidated the already-defunct Clean Power Plan, it didn’t eliminate any carbon-cutting approaches besides generation shifting. Unlike the court’s sweeping ruling overturning the 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade, the West Virginia opinion respected precedents declaring carbon dioxide a threat to public health that the EPA can regulate...​

Time to pass a new set of clean environment regulations that aren't gerrymandered by corporate lobbyists ahead of passage.
 
Last edited:
Hey was thinking of you Trakar when I read this.....

a few years ahead of time
Dr Simon Lee @SimonLeeWx
In 2020, the @metoffice produced a hypothetical weather forecast for 23 July 2050 based on UK climate projections.

Today, the forecast for Tuesday is shockingly almost identical for large parts of the country.
Click to expand...
FXtxVXTVQAEk3VX
 
macdoc said:
Hey was thinking of you Trakar when I read this.....

a few years ahead of time

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXtxVXTVQAEk3VX?format=jpg&name=small[/qimg]
Click to expand...

...disturbing, but a good example of the creeping conservatism that is a fundamental component of mainstream, consensual science consideration. This is both a flaw and a feature of the process that is modern science. This flaw definitely retards and slows scientific discovery, advancement and development, but it also preserves and respects rigorous and compelling evidence as the testing measure to distinguish mainstream scientific consideration from mere majoritarian consensus.
 
arthwollipot said:
That's record temperatures, and yes, Aussies, 40 degrees is a big deal in the UK.

Stay cool and hydrated, British friends.
Click to expand...


I was watching a Twitch streamer from Ireland yesterday and he was talking about how expensive air conditioners are there and how their houses aren't built to keep the interiors cool. It's not going to be good.
 
a_unique_person said:
Coping is the answer according to deniers. Everyone is now rich enough to buy as many airconditioners as they need.


Any non human species, they should get an economy too.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that air conditioning contributes to even more greenhouse emissions.
 
This just dropped:

Majority of Australia's environment in 'poor' state as Labor blames the Coalition for decade of 'inaction and wilful ignorance'

Australia's environment is in a "poor and deteriorating state", according to the latest State of the Environment Report.

Climate change, mining, pollution, invasive species and habitat loss are outlined in the five-yearly report that has been released on Tuesday, with Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek laying the blame squarely at the feet of the previous Coalition government.

"It tells a story of crisis and decline in Australia's environment [and] of a decade of government inaction and wilful ignorance," Ms Plibersek said.

The report was handed to the Morrison government in December last year, but former environment minister Sussan Ley did not release it before the election.

The lead author of the report, Emma Johnston from the University of Sydney, said the biggest difference between this report and the previous one from 2016 was how climate change was now damaging the environment.

"In previous reports, we've been largely talking about the impacts of climate in the future tense," she said.

"In this report there's a stark contrast, because we are now documenting widespread impacts of climate change."

However, the report also outlined ways in which the grim assessment could be improved through stronger protections, innovative thinking and courageous leadership.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
That's record temperatures, and yes, Aussies, 40 degrees is a big deal in the UK.

Stay cool and hydrated, British friends.
Click to expand...

I was on vacation in the UK in the Summer of 2003, when they had a couple of days of 100 degree temperature.
It was Horrible.And Ihave lived most of my life in the American West, where yu can expect 100 F of higher days ever year, so I am used to high temperature, and I found 100 F in London hard to take. It was probably the damn humidity that made it so bad.
I don't envy you in the UK.
 
dudalb said:
I was on vacation in the UK in the Summer of 2003, when they had a couple of days of 100 degree temperature.
It was Horrible.And Ihave lived most of my life in the American West, where yu can expect 100 F of higher days ever year, so I am used to high temperature, and I found 100 F in London hard to take. It was probably the damn humidity that made it so bad.
I don't envy you in the UK.
Click to expand...


The humidity does make a difference.

Around here on the US East Coast, weather reports always say things like "96 degrees, and feels like 104." But it doesn't, it feels like 96, because it's always humid when it's hot here, so that's what 96 feels like. When it's 104 it will feel hotter, because it will be humid then too.

But someone from a dry Western state might benefit from the extra warning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom