Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | ... | 70

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15464

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2327852 1-Oct-2019 16:13

Fred99:

networkn:

There wasn't a LOT of detail in the Ted X talk I saw about Nuclear power, but he was pretty plain about the fact birds, bees and many other types of insects were being badly affected by huge Wind and Solar installations.

I am unsure if they are related specifically to this latest report on birds, but I guess it's all contributing.

My guess would be that effects of solar and windmills etc on bird population would be pretty minimal overall - or at worst local, but the reduction in bird (and probably originally insect) population seems to be global. Possibly a combination of habitat loss (some of which could be caused by CC) and large scale monoculture farming using (very effective) insecticides.

Climate change will probably have devastating effects on some migratory birds, if they're stopping on their seasonal migration route to feed and the food isn't there any more because of a change in climate, then they're doomed.

I didn't get the impression they were insignificant but agreed that not the largest impact. I think it's a matter of trying to take as many factors into account as possible.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2327978 1-Oct-2019 19:47

Fred99:

networkn:

There wasn't a LOT of detail in the Ted X talk I saw about Nuclear power, but he was pretty plain about the fact birds, bees and many other types of insects were being badly affected by huge Wind and Solar installations.

I am unsure if they are related specifically to this latest report on birds, but I guess it's all contributing.

My guess would be that effects of solar and windmills etc on bird population would be pretty minimal overall - or at worst local, but the reduction in bird (and probably originally insect) population seems to be global. Possibly a combination of habitat loss (some of which could be caused by CC) and large scale monoculture farming using (very effective) insecticides.

Climate change will probably have devastating effects on some migratory birds, if they're stopping on their seasonal migration route to feed and the food isn't there any more because of a change in climate, then they're doomed.

Agree. While CC effects are minimal, are they? South England has has vineyards for a while now. I suspect birds, and nature in general is more up to speed than Trump, so they act now. Id like to know if they disappeared or relocated.

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 449

#2328312 2-Oct-2019 10:05

I was speaking to a Dr in Physics the other week and his views were very different. He mentioned Co2 isn;t the problem with the rising temp its actually water vapour. He mentioned that Co2 is scarce in the atmosphere compared to water vapour and that Co2 doesn;t soak up as much radiaton as water vapour.

The whole heating up thing is supposed to be the Co2 molecules heating up from the heat in the sun and then vibrating and causing more heat. Now if water vapour is more abundent and soaks up more heat than Co2 I think he has a point.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2328316 2-Oct-2019 10:12

BTR:

I was speaking to a Dr in Physics the other week and his views were very different. He mentioned Co2 isn;t the problem with the rising temp its actually water vapour. He mentioned that Co2 is scarce in the atmosphere compared to water vapour and that Co2 doesn;t soak up as much radiaton as water vapour.

The whole heating up thing is supposed to be the Co2 molecules heating up from the heat in the sun and then vibrating and causing more heat. Now if water vapour is more abundent and soaks up more heat than Co2 I think he has a point.

Makes sense. Years ago a doco mentioned global cooling. Smoke particles which are large, hold more water vapour, and act as a filter fpor solar rays, cooling the planet, so if we were at say 1C global warming, it might actually be 2, less the cooling effect. That raised the theory allowing more smoke to enter the atmosphere, to reduce solar heating, as clouds do

Interesting stuff

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2328323 2-Oct-2019 10:26

Apparently somewhere in Montana has had a whole seasons snow, in September, in just 3 days. That's 48 inches.

Can't wait to see that happen at Mar a Lago.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2328327 2-Oct-2019 10:33

SJB:

Apparently somewhere in Montana has had a whole seasons snow, in September, in just 3 days. That's 48 inches.

Can't wait to see that happen at Mar a Lago.

"See, I told you there is no global warming!"

I agree with you, yeah.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2328335 2-Oct-2019 10:55

BTR:

I was speaking to a Dr in Physics the other week and his views were very different. He mentioned Co2 isn;t the problem with the rising temp its actually water vapour. He mentioned that Co2 is scarce in the atmosphere compared to water vapour and that Co2 doesn;t soak up as much radiaton as water vapour.

The whole heating up thing is supposed to be the Co2 molecules heating up from the heat in the sun and then vibrating and causing more heat. Now if water vapour is more abundent and soaks up more heat than Co2 I think he has a point.

CO2 levels actually are the problem - not water. What branch of physics?

I suspect that you misunderstood what you were being told. Water vapour is mainly confined to the lower levels of the atmosphere, CO2 may be at low concentration, but it's at constant but increasing concentration. Water vapour is in a complex state of equilibrium, condensed as clouds it increase albedo etc, but that equilibrium is strongly affected by the impact of C02 on atmospheric warming, so although it's a greenhouse gas for sure, it's a "result" rather than a "cause". If there was no CO2, then IIRC the average surface temperature would be below freezing.

Perhaps as an example of how small quantities of something in the atmosphere can have a big impact, look at ozone, where minuscule levels effectively cloak the surface from UV.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2328350 2-Oct-2019 11:42

BTR:

I was speaking to a Dr in Physics the other week and his views were very different. He mentioned Co2 isn;t the problem with the rising temp its actually water vapour. He mentioned that Co2 is scarce in the atmosphere compared to water vapour and that Co2 doesn;t soak up as much radiaton as water vapour.

The whole heating up thing is supposed to be the Co2 molecules heating up from the heat in the sun and then vibrating and causing more heat. Now if water vapour is more abundent and soaks up more heat than Co2 I think he has a point.

Yes, water vapour is definitely a greenhouse gas, causing 2-3 times as much heating as CO2. No-one has ever disputed that.

Direct heating of molecules by the Sun isn't the issue. Generally speaking, for a given gas pressure, there will be a given number of molecules in a given volume. Sunlight passing through that volume will cause the same amount of heating, no matter whether they're CO2 or H2O or O2 or N2. Vibrating molecules don't cause more heat; vibration (and speed) is an effect of the heat.

Nevertheless,

According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

kingdragonfly

11992 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12881

Subscriber

#2328373 2-Oct-2019 12:40

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#2328380 2-Oct-2019 12:50

IIRC Water vapor is part of the positive feedback loop that CO2 triggers, Without high CO2 levels water vapor never goes past a natural equilibrium but when CO2 triggers *something I forget* the vapor levels can shoot past this. I'll try and dig out something more concrete about it

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2328512 2-Oct-2019 15:21

I am not an engineer, and I have not studied alternative energy technologies, but I strongly believe that technology does not stand still, and objections voiced against current technologies, even when true, do not mean the end of the story.

Here are two windmill ideas that impress me. The first one popped up many years ago, during the oil embargoes. I think it is a great idea but it seems to have disappeared from public discussion. What I like about it is its simplicity. If you mount a windmill on a ship, and use it to drive a screw propeller, you can sail directly into the wind and otherwise make use of the wind regardless of which way it is blowing. All you have to do is rotate the blades of the windmill to keep them facing into the wind. It doesn’t matter what the wind direction is.

The other idea is more recent and involves an airplane-like kite to generate electricity. I don’t know what either of these might do to bird life, if anything, but they show that we are not out of alternative ideas. Who knows what the future may bring?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2328523 2-Oct-2019 15:31

Rikkitic:

I am not an engineer, and I have not studied alternative energy technologies, but I strongly believe that technology does not stand still, and objections voiced against current technologies, even when true, do not mean the end of the story.

Here are two windmill ideas that impress me. The first one popped up many years ago, during the oil embargoes. I think it is a great idea but it seems to have disappeared from public discussion. What I like about it is its simplicity. If you mount a windmill on a ship, and use it to drive a screw propeller, you can sail directly into the wind and otherwise make use of the wind regardless of which way it is blowing. All you have to do is rotate the blades of the windmill to keep them facing into the wind. It doesn’t matter what the wind direction is.

The other idea is more recent and involves an airplane-like kite to generate electricity. I don’t know what either of these might do to bird life, if anything, but they show that we are not out of alternative ideas. Who knows what the future may bring?

I once thought of every house having two pipes running through the roof, level, for the two predominant winds. Two or the windmill blades inside that rotate and generate a small amount of electricity. More if its howling. The blades are light, superlight, and when enough wind they are magnetised so there is no friction. Thr magnetic field is equal to the weight. Wind is common here, you shouild get soem generation for many housr most days. It might be small but if it was 1kWh thats something

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2328907 3-Oct-2019 10:51

Rikkitic:

If you mount a windmill on a ship, and use it to drive a screw propeller, you can sail directly into the wind and otherwise make use of the wind regardless of which way it is blowing. All you have to do is rotate the blades of the windmill to keep them facing into the wind. It doesn’t matter what the wind direction is.

A vertical axis wind turbine is even better... no rotating of the windmill to face into the wind. But I think there are issues of stability with large surface area objects on the tops of ships.

WyleECoyoteNZ

1055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372

#2328916 3-Oct-2019 11:01

frankv:

Rikkitic:

If you mount a windmill on a ship, and use it to drive a screw propeller, you can sail directly into the wind and otherwise make use of the wind regardless of which way it is blowing. All you have to do is rotate the blades of the windmill to keep them facing into the wind. It doesn’t matter what the wind direction is.

A vertical axis wind turbine is even better... no rotating of the windmill to face into the wind. But I think there are issues of stability with large surface area objects on the tops of ships.

Might(?) work on like grain\crude oil\gas ships where the cargo is below decks.

Can't see how it would work on a container or cruise ship, and what would be the impact of a rotating blade on the stability of the vessel??

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2328932 3-Oct-2019 11:22

Like I said, I'm not an engineer. But if people can come up with ideas like this, I'm sure they can also find solutions to any associated problems. I just thought these were cool ideas worth mentioning.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | ... | 70