EXC: Red Wall Tories turn fire on ministers after shock polling revealed Tory voters will be hit hardest by Boris Johnson’s expensive green revolution.
🤳 Tory MP Whatsapp bruising tonight.. with machine gunning from rising stars and old guard…
J They may all be right but where do these voters go. Labour will be alot ‘greener’ than the Tories and the consequences would be worse.
Yes but the polls show extraordinary levels of support for tough climate change measures across the UK
The trick will be as to whether voters feel the same when they have to fund many of the measures and as you point out Starmers and the Greens would be far more punitive
This is the point where all betting on the next GE is most probably off, and how can anyone tell just how the costs of covid and climate change are met without serious political fallout
This is the moment politics gets very real
To be honest, I think that it is too late to stop Climate Change and very possible for it to accelerate even if the world goes carbon neutral*. All that Siberian tundra defrosting and releasing stored methane and carbon, those Ice sheets melting etc.
A lot of what we love in the natural world will be extinct by the end of the century.
*the world won't go carbon neutral.There are too many selfish countries and individuals who won't make more than token efforts.
Like most of us I have watched the fires and the floods in 'awe' at nature and I have come to a similar conclusion in many ways
Vanilla Mail for you Big_G.
Yes and I have responded - no issues with your request and a further response for your perusal
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
I wish it was as easy as that and I'm a big believer that we'll one day crack fusion. I fear that it will be a decade too late for us to really benefit in climate change terms to halt the rise in temperature. I'd love for one of the smaller private companies to crack it sooner rather than later. I'd hate to be waiting around for ITER.
I think it's for the latter half of the century, so I see it for the carbon suck.
EDIT: ITER is shit, we're far more likely to have success with MAST-U and then the STEP programme.
There's a couple of promising US startups on the case as well, one is suggesting that they have cracked aneutronic fusion but it requires He-3 which is not exactly the easiest thing in the world to make (possibly requiring a feed-in reaction which wouldn't be aneutronic).
But yes, agree that ITER will be a waste of everyone's time and money. Bureaucratic nonsense project that will be outdone by smaller, faster moving rivals.
There’s a load of He-3 on the moon. It might even be economic to recover it. NASA did a study back in the 80s and thought it might be feasible back then; with Musk’s vehicles it would be a lot easier/cheaper now.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
If only we could make steam and turn turbines with the sun.
Was slightly worried for our classic mini (1972) but E5 will continue, probably as the supreme option, and will be labelled.
A series engines tend to burn out valves every 10 000 miles or so without lead in the petrol, even with retarded ignition. This was a problem with my Austin Healey Sprite, though on a couple of thousand miles per year, an affordable expense restoring them.
Yep - we do around a thousand a year (one big, glorious trip to Devon, and the odd pootle).
There are some specialist garages that used to sell four star, and even five star fuel, but it was quite expensive. I used to give my Sprite a tank full a couple of times a year to coat the valves. For a low mileage it isn't a very bad act.
We tend to use supreme unleaded with redox (?) added. Seems to work. The mini n3ver had much of an engine in the first place... (998 cc)
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
There's an East Germany vibe about Brexit Britain: half-full supermarket shelves and a government that wants to stop people's freedom of movement. No spying on each other yet, however.
My shopping report. Generally the shortages are in fresh produce, although it varies. Waitrose is the worst stocked supermarket around here at the moment. Went to Sainsburys this morning. Fruit & veg, some gaps. But no fresh meat at all, except sausages, some, and pork belly, lots. So I buy sausages. Fine. I don't need beef, chicken, lamb or other kinds of pork. It's an East German approach to shopping. No-one starves.
I really wish I could believe anything you write. Pics or it didn't happen.
People are just pretending that problems caused by the pandemic are caused by Brexit. Those in charge of road haulage have been saying for years there was a shortage across the whole world, and the pandemic has made it worse . I’ve posted the links many times, but the Boris hating Remainers don’t want to face facts
Like I said, Brexit will be blamed for everything bad that happens in the next decade. You can't fight it. It was the same as blaming the EU for everything before, a convenient excuse for our politicians.
Half a century. Minimum. The Brexiteers are gonna reap what they sowed, and then some.
Oh goody another exams shakeup so the Tories can look like they're doing something
What? Like actually having exams?
Though perhaps it would be better to just abolish A levels entirely, as a debased educational currency, and have university entrance exams instead, controlled by the Universities.
EXC: Red Wall Tories turn fire on ministers after shock polling revealed Tory voters will be hit hardest by Boris Johnson’s expensive green revolution.
🤳 Tory MP Whatsapp bruising tonight.. with machine gunning from rising stars and old guard…
They may all be right but where do these voters go. Labour will be alot ‘greener’ than the Tories and the consequences would be worse.
Well, it depends.
Green policies cannot be separated from redistribution of wealth and economic development of needy areas. Fitting electric heating, or heat pumps etc is only a problem if a cost burden on the Red Wall voters. If they come with subsidies etc, then not such an issue.
That will surely depend on the level of subsidy. Ground and air source heat pumps are not only high in cost, and unlikely to come down a great deal, and even with the current level of subsidies the outlay is huge.
Anyway we are not,just talking about phasing out gas boilers are we. It is a whole raft of measures that are going to cost and there’s even talk of a carbon tax. Isn’t there always a tax.
Sure, but carbon neutrality does make for quite major changes in lifestyle. There is no getting away from that, and we see from this morning's thread that even the relatively minor shift to EV gets people's backs up.
That is why Green politics is so intrinsically left wing and requires economic justice and redistribution. Either that or it won't happen.
EXC: Red Wall Tories turn fire on ministers after shock polling revealed Tory voters will be hit hardest by Boris Johnson’s expensive green revolution.
🤳 Tory MP Whatsapp bruising tonight.. with machine gunning from rising stars and old guard…
J They may all be right but where do these voters go. Labour will be alot ‘greener’ than the Tories and the consequences would be worse.
Yes but the polls show extraordinary levels of support for tough climate change measures across the UK
The trick will be as to whether voters feel the same when they have to fund many of the measures and as you point out Starmers and the Greens would be far more punitive
This is the point where all betting on the next GE is most probably off, and how can anyone tell just how the costs of covid and climate change are met without serious political fallout
This is the moment politics gets very real
To be honest, I think that it is too late to stop Climate Change and very possible for it to accelerate even if the world goes carbon neutral*. All that Siberian tundra defrosting and releasing stored methane and carbon, those Ice sheets melting etc.
A lot of what we love in the natural world will be extinct by the end of the century.
*the world won't go carbon neutral.There are too many selfish countries and individuals who won't make more than token efforts.
Like most of us I have watched the fires and the floods in 'awe' at nature and I have come to a similar conclusion in many ways
Vanilla Mail for you Big_G.
Yes and I have responded - no issues with your request and a further response for your perusal
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
I see we are back to anecdotal stories about I know somebody who got it despite been jabbed etc etc etc.
Not to downplay that unfortunately people will get it, some will get it bad, but we don't do this for any other disease. We all know somebody who got cancer, had a terrible heart attack etc etc etc, with doctors saying they had a lucky escape there, and we don't then run into the fall out shelter.
Humans are terrible at assessing risk and fixate on the horror stories e.g. why people are shit scared of shark attacks, despite you having basically no risk of actually suffering on, in comparison to getting in their car every day (and many being very naughty and driving at speed).
What we need to see is the latest data on how the vaccines are holding up. The last time it all looked bang in line with the initial PHE estimates with well into the 90% reduction in hospitalization, and nothing like the initial scare data from Israel. The US is also looking good at the moment in terms of among the vaccinated.
The data isn’t being released transparently or promptly, so all we have are anecdotes and second hand stories. I’ve got another second hand story for you from someone tangentially involved. That anyone still arguing boosters are not necessary for the whole country is now seen as the stupid person in the room.
Ive got another one @Leon will like too, direct from someone else on one of the UK government committees. That it is now taken as a given behind closed doors that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab. For those that like to bet on US presidential elections, that seems pertinent I would have thought.
Yes, this is what i hear
It is now generally accepted by western intel that it came from the Wuhan labs. It is also accepted that it was quite possibly engineered to be more virulent
Whether it was actually a bio-weapon in the making is the last question
I'm hearing differently. That the lab theory is fading amongst serious analysts. Looking like a 20% shot max. Not low enough - yet - to resume mocking but that's the direction of travel.
The circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming…
No, it’s not. I can’t really try to rebut your claim in detail, since you’d have to lay out just what that ‘overwhelming’ evidence consists of, but I’ve not seen anything that merits that description.
It's also noteworthy that evidence that is not supportive of the lab leak theory gets almost no attention. (See that on other mammalian carriers of CV19, for example.)
"Other mammalian carriers" evidence is presumably neutral, though; a carrier is as likely to end up in Wuhan in a wet market or in a research lab.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
I’d say all of it is, ultimately.
Hmmm... I was excluding nuclear fission and tidal, but I guess you could make a case there too.
I see we are back to anecdotal stories about I know somebody who got it despite been jabbed etc etc etc.
Not to downplay that unfortunately people will get it, some will get it bad, but we don't do this for any other disease. We all know somebody who got cancer, had a terrible heart attack etc etc etc, with doctors saying they had a lucky escape there, and we don't then run into the fall out shelter.
Humans are terrible at assessing risk and fixate on the horror stories e.g. why people are shit scared of shark attacks, despite you having basically no risk of actually suffering on, in comparison to getting in their car every day (and many being very naughty and driving at speed).
What we need to see is the latest data on how the vaccines are holding up. The last time it all looked bang in line with the initial PHE estimates with well into the 90% reduction in hospitalization, and nothing like the initial scare data from Israel. The US is also looking good at the moment in terms of among the vaccinated.
The data isn’t being released transparently or promptly, so all we have are anecdotes and second hand stories. I’ve got another second hand story for you from someone tangentially involved. That anyone still arguing boosters are not necessary for the whole country is now seen as the stupid person in the room.
Ive got another one @Leon will like too, direct from someone else on one of the UK government committees. That it is now taken as a given behind closed doors that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab. For those that like to bet on US presidential elections, that seems pertinent I would have thought.
Yes, this is what i hear
It is now generally accepted by western intel that it came from the Wuhan labs. It is also accepted that it was quite possibly engineered to be more virulent
Whether it was actually a bio-weapon in the making is the last question
I'm hearing differently. That the lab theory is fading amongst serious analysts. Looking like a 20% shot max. Not low enough - yet - to resume mocking but that's the direction of travel.
The circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming…
No, it’s not. I can’t really try to rebut your claim in detail, since you’d have to lay out just what that ‘overwhelming’ evidence consists of, but I’ve not seen anything that merits that description.
It's also noteworthy that evidence that is not supportive of the lab leak theory gets almost no attention. (See that on other mammalian carriers of CV19, for example.)
"Other mammalian carriers" evidence is presumably neutral, though; a carrier is as likely to end up in Wuhan in a wet market or in a research lab.
It makes it incredibly unlikely it was made as a part of a bioweapon program, as species specificity would probably be number one on your list of requirements.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
I’d say all of it is, ultimately.
Hmmm... I was excluding nuclear fission and tidal, but I guess you could make a case there too.
Well all of the fissionable material came from supernovae which are ultimately fusion reactions.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
Yes, I read it too - pretty persuasive. As with social care, it would be nice if there was a cross-party consensus to do something substantial about it without trying to score points.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
Oh goody another exams shakeup so the Tories can look like they're doing something
What? Like actually having exams?
Though perhaps it would be better to just abolish A levels entirely, as a debased educational currency, and have university entrance exams instead, controlled by the Universities.
The old JMB exam board (which I did my exams under) was controlled by the universities. Scrapped in 1990s iirc.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
There is some emerging technology around atmospheric CO2 capture, really the key is going to be renewable energy. It will never be a free process in terms of energy so we will need to put energy in which obviously can't come from fossil fuels.
Though, I do agree we will need to move into a net negative scenario after we hit net zero. I think of it like reducing the national debt once the deficit has been eliminated. We need 2-3 decades of net negative on greenhouse gases.
Just as there was an opportunity 30 years ago to be the first mover for renewable energy, there is one now for net negative technologies. We need to be pouring research money into it.
Nuclear fusion mate, ticket out of here.
We already use nuclear fusion. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that around 70% of UK electricity is produced via nuclear fusion.
Whatever you're smoking, can you pass it round?
Nuclear fusion in the sun is the (ultimate) source of almost all our energy.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
Yes, it's got a lower density than the average density of the atmosphere. It ends up in space. CO2 is quite a heavy molecule in comparison and can't escape.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
The Texas Supreme Court has found that Texas Democrats can be arrested for refusing to convene a quorum. Time to hit the Best Western on the other side of the border, again. https://t.co/aTuqx1J7r8
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
It converts to CO2 and water vapor.
Only some of it and the water vapour is pretty bad too. Most of it just does what Helium does and fucks off into space.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
Yes, it's got a lower density than the average density of the atmosphere. It ends up in space. CO2 is quite a heavy molecule in comparison and can't escape.
From wikipedia: "The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide."
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Indeed. All of these ideas over water wars and water being the next oil etc... make no sense. Desalination is already a viable technology and is only improving in quality and efficiency.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
It converts to CO2 and water vapor.
Only some of it and the water vapour is pretty bad too. Most of it just does what Helium does and fucks off into space.
I see we are back to anecdotal stories about I know somebody who got it despite been jabbed etc etc etc.
Not to downplay that unfortunately people will get it, some will get it bad, but we don't do this for any other disease. We all know somebody who got cancer, had a terrible heart attack etc etc etc, with doctors saying they had a lucky escape there, and we don't then run into the fall out shelter.
Humans are terrible at assessing risk and fixate on the horror stories e.g. why people are shit scared of shark attacks, despite you having basically no risk of actually suffering on, in comparison to getting in their car every day (and many being very naughty and driving at speed).
What we need to see is the latest data on how the vaccines are holding up. The last time it all looked bang in line with the initial PHE estimates with well into the 90% reduction in hospitalization, and nothing like the initial scare data from Israel. The US is also looking good at the moment in terms of among the vaccinated.
The data isn’t being released transparently or promptly, so all we have are anecdotes and second hand stories. I’ve got another second hand story for you from someone tangentially involved. That anyone still arguing boosters are not necessary for the whole country is now seen as the stupid person in the room.
Ive got another one @Leon will like too, direct from someone else on one of the UK government committees. That it is now taken as a given behind closed doors that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab. For those that like to bet on US presidential elections, that seems pertinent I would have thought.
Yes, this is what i hear
It is now generally accepted by western intel that it came from the Wuhan labs. It is also accepted that it was quite possibly engineered to be more virulent
Whether it was actually a bio-weapon in the making is the last question
I'm hearing differently. That the lab theory is fading amongst serious analysts. Looking like a 20% shot max. Not low enough - yet - to resume mocking but that's the direction of travel.
The circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming…
No, it’s not. I can’t really try to rebut your claim in detail, since you’d have to lay out just what that ‘overwhelming’ evidence consists of, but I’ve not seen anything that merits that description.
It's also noteworthy that evidence that is not supportive of the lab leak theory gets almost no attention. (See that on other mammalian carriers of CV19, for example.)
"Other mammalian carriers" evidence is presumably neutral, though; a carrier is as likely to end up in Wuhan in a wet market or in a research lab.
It makes it incredibly unlikely it was made as a part of a bioweapon program, as species specificity would probably be number one on your list of requirements.
Lab leak theory is a far cry from bioweapon theory.
Gain of function research is explicable on three main bases. People do it
A. To create bioweapons B. So that we can be really well prepared in case nature comes up with something similar C. Because they are wankers.
Oh goody another exams shakeup so the Tories can look like they're doing something
What? Like actually having exams?
Though perhaps it would be better to just abolish A levels entirely, as a debased educational currency, and have university entrance exams instead, controlled by the Universities.
The old JMB exam board (which I did my exams under) was controlled by the universities. Scrapped in 1990s iirc.
They need to revisit exam nations full stop and work out what universities need apfor filtering purposes,
And then everyone aged under 21 needs the chance to point out to M Gove that the 5+ years of pain they've gone through since 2015 when he created his new exams system was for noet
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Indeed. All of these ideas over water wars and water being the next oil etc... make no sense. Desalination is already a viable technology and is only improving in quality and efficiency.
Well, as we have seen with the recent floods and fires, one problem with Climate Change and water is that it is often in the wrong place.
Sure, in the long term seaweed for cattle feed, and desalinated water might help. Less so for the feed crops which are driving deforestation. In the mean time, why don't we help out by simply eating less meat? With a bonus for our health too.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Indeed. All of these ideas over water wars and water being the next oil etc... make no sense. Desalination is already a viable technology and is only improving in quality and efficiency.
Well, as we have seen with the recent floods and fires, one problem with Climate Change and water is that it is often in the wrong place.
Sure, in the long term seaweed for cattle feed, and desalinated water might help. Less so for the feed crops which are driving deforestation. In the mean time, why don't we help out by simply eating less meat? With a bonus for our health too.
Because burgers. Technology is the way out of this. Not living in a damp cave.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Indeed. All of these ideas over water wars and water being the next oil etc... make no sense. Desalination is already a viable technology and is only improving in quality and efficiency.
Well, as we have seen with the recent floods and fires, one problem with Climate Change and water is that it is often in the wrong place.
Sure, in the long term seaweed for cattle feed, and desalinated water might help. Less so for the feed crops which are driving deforestation. In the mean time, why don't we help out by simply eating less meat? With a bonus for our health too.
Because burgers. Technology is the way out of this. Not living in a damp cave.
And that is the reason that global climate will worsen. People are unwilling to make more than token changes to stop it. Me included, and I am greener than most on here.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Indeed. All of these ideas over water wars and water being the next oil etc... make no sense. Desalination is already a viable technology and is only improving in quality and efficiency.
Well, as we have seen with the recent floods and fires, one problem with Climate Change and water is that it is often in the wrong place.
Sure, in the long term seaweed for cattle feed, and desalinated water might help. Less so for the feed crops which are driving deforestation. In the mean time, why don't we help out by simply eating less meat? With a bonus for our health too.
People can help out a lot more by having fewer children. Ideally none. My non-existent offspring will have zero carbon footprint and zero environmental impact. I've done my bit, so I've earned myself a burger. The likes of Bozo can stick to chickpeas.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
It converts to CO2 and water vapor.
Only some of it and the water vapour is pretty bad too. Most of it just does what Helium does and fucks off into space.
Fair enough.
Doesn’t seem to be the case (from the wikipedia page): … If it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane will last approximately 120 years before it is eventually destroyed in Earth's next atmospheric layer: the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Based on balloon-borne measurements since 1978, the abundance of stratospheric methane has increased by 13.4%±3.6% between 1978 and 2003… So it’s certainly not removed to space at a rate anywhere near atmospheric helium.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Possibly a numpty question, but where does the methane 'piss off' to? Does it escape the atmosphere?
It converts to CO2 and water vapor.
Only some of it and the water vapour is pretty bad too. Most of it just does what Helium does and fucks off into space.
Fair enough.
Doesn’t seem to be the case (from the wikipedia page): … If it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane will last approximately 120 years before it is eventually destroyed in Earth's next atmospheric layer: the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Based on balloon-borne measurements since 1978, the abundance of stratospheric methane has increased by 13.4%±3.6% between 1978 and 2003… So it’s certainly not removed to space at a rate anywhere near atmospheric helium.
Bloody A-Level chemistry teachers! Never bothered with this stuff at university level.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Indeed. All of these ideas over water wars and water being the next oil etc... make no sense. Desalination is already a viable technology and is only improving in quality and efficiency.
Well, as we have seen with the recent floods and fires, one problem with Climate Change and water is that it is often in the wrong place.
Sure, in the long term seaweed for cattle feed, and desalinated water might help. Less so for the feed crops which are driving deforestation. In the mean time, why don't we help out by simply eating less meat? With a bonus for our health too.
Because burgers. Technology is the way out of this. Not living in a damp cave.
Off topic, I've read the IPPC summary report (42 pages) and it seems quite well-reasoned and measured to me. They're very clear where they have evidence and where they don't, and how confident they are:
It struck me that the last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 (the intermediate scenario) was over 3 million years ago.
Net Zero won't be enough, I think we'll have to go negative as well and do some biodome engineering: gently "suck" carbon from the atmosphere in the latter half of this century from 2050 to 2100 - and probably beyond - ideally using catalysts to turn it back to pure carbon.
It might even turn into a form of reverse "coal mining", which could titillate future generations of the Red Wall.
That's a cogent and sensible analysis and I wouldn't disagree.
I'm also a firm believer human ingenuity will be a big part of the solution to all this but there will, I fear, be some difficult years ahead as we resolve this and there will be some horrible events both sudden and long drawn out which will involve tens if not hundreds of millions of people.
To be fair to Boris Johnson, which I'm not as a rule, at least he's talking about a Governmental response. The reaction of some in his Party shows the real uphill battle all parties have in convincing some still sceptical and downright ostrich-like individuals in the electorate and elsewhere.
The truth is we cannot go on as we are - that's not to say we should abandon civilisation, far from it but recognising technological change and innovation has always shaped society and will do so again.
The change in attitudes on PB to AGW has been instructive. Five years ago roughly 50% of the posters here took the Richard Tyndall and Morris Dancer denialist view. Now that position looks faintly ridiculous and even those posters have rowed back somewhat.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Indeed. All of these ideas over water wars and water being the next oil etc... make no sense. Desalination is already a viable technology and is only improving in quality and efficiency.
Well, as we have seen with the recent floods and fires, one problem with Climate Change and water is that it is often in the wrong place.
Sure, in the long term seaweed for cattle feed, and desalinated water might help. Less so for the feed crops which are driving deforestation. In the mean time, why don't we help out by simply eating less meat? With a bonus for our health too.
Because burgers. Technology is the way out of this. Not living in a damp cave.
And that is the reason that global climate will worsen. People are unwilling to make more than token changes to stop it. Me included, and I am greener than most on here.
One of the JE Gordon books on materials science/engineering makes the point that human progress since the Industrial Revolution has been about getting more and more energy confined into smaller and smaller volumes, but what we need to get used to is working with very diffuse energy again. The art will be doing that cleverly, and we're not a generation that's good at that sort of clever.
He also went on about the stupid wasteful stuff society does with planned obsolescence. More importantly, he was saying this decades ago- "The New Science Of Strong Materials" was written in 1973.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Looks as though California has a pretty big engineering challenge, then. Desalination might help at the margin, but it’s not a solution.
Methane is an interesting one, it's a good 40% of the overall warming effect but it only loiters in the atmosphere for 4-12 years, and then it pisses off.
Trouble is, when it's up there it's up to 30 times more effective at warming than CO2. But, once it's down (way down) the contributing factor it provides goes away very quickly.
So that's something - again natural gas and industry uses (including landfill) are leaky and naughty on this, as well as rice paddies and farms, particularly cattle, and there's an awful lot of microbes in them.
Ripe for bioengineering out, if you ask me.
Yes. You only need to cut methane emissions from agriculture in half and it has the potential to reduce the concentration of methane in the atmosphere quite quickly. It gives much more potential for helping us out in an overshoot scenario.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is much harder, because while we're burning fossil fuels the oceans absorb a large proportion of that, and that naturally goes in reverse when you are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the oceans will release some of the carbon dioxide they absorbed previously.
This is why stopping burning fossil fuels is much more urgent, as those emissions are much closer to being forever, while methane emissions are much easier to deal with later.
Yep. Cattle farming is a major emitter.
There's a British company that has developed a feed additive made from a type of seaweed that cuts methane from cattle farming by over 90% iirc. The technology is currently in scale up and has got a lot of interested parties. If it can be rolled out globally the methane issue from livestock goes away.
Ssshht. Don't mention practical technological solutions like that!
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
Methane is just one of the many environmentally destructive features of the increasing numbers of cattle in the world. Water consumption is ferocious, and that will be a big issue as water sources dry up.
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
We also have some pretty amazing desalination technology in development all over the world that can make seawater drinkable. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue as you think it is.
Water is not being destroyed. It is merely an engineering challenge to make sure it is in the right places at the right time.
Looks as though California has a pretty big engineering challenge, then. Desalination might help at the margin, but it’s not a solution.
The fact the Californian population has almost stopped rising is a good start.
Comments
Hope you have received it
All the best
It might even be economic to recover it. NASA did a study back in the 80s and thought it might be feasible back then; with Musk’s vehicles it would be a lot easier/cheaper now.
You shouldn't notice any difference unless your car is very old, in which case the additional ethanol might melt the seals on your fuel intake and damage your car. See here, for example:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/what-is-e10-fuel-and-how-could-it-affect-you/
I'm going to bed.
Though perhaps it would be better to just abolish A levels entirely, as a debased educational currency, and have university entrance exams instead, controlled by the Universities.
I completely disagree with you.
All the best to you too.
Night all.
That will upset the Lefties with an agenda as they then don't have a figleaf to force us to give up beef.
https://twitter.com/FabianBliem/status/1425083961886363652
https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/
You are one of the examples of why the Green agenda of the Tories will fail. No one is serious about the lifestyle changes required.
https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1425207039123410962?s=19
The Texas Supreme Court has found that Texas Democrats can be arrested for refusing to convene a quorum. Time to hit the Best Western on the other side of the border, again. https://t.co/aTuqx1J7r8
Gain of function research is explicable on three main bases. People do it
A. To create bioweapons
B. So that we can be really well prepared in case nature comes up with something similar
C. Because they are wankers.
I'm a C theorist, myself.
And then everyone aged under 21 needs the chance to point out to M Gove that the 5+ years of pain they've gone through since 2015 when he created his new exams system was for noet
Sure, in the long term seaweed for cattle feed, and desalinated water might help. Less so for the feed crops which are driving deforestation. In the mean time, why don't we help out by simply eating less meat? With a bonus for our health too.
… If it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane will last approximately 120 years before it is eventually destroyed in Earth's next atmospheric layer: the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Based on balloon-borne measurements since 1978, the abundance of stratospheric methane has increased by 13.4%±3.6% between 1978 and 2003…
So it’s certainly not removed to space at a rate anywhere near atmospheric helium.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9879795/Parish-chairman-Stratford-Avon-forced-resign-racist-emails.html
He also went on about the stupid wasteful stuff society does with planned obsolescence. More importantly, he was saying this decades ago- "The New Science Of Strong Materials" was written in 1973.
I am surprised by what shameless fucks they are.
Edit: I'm not suprised by Cruz thinking about it but I would have thought DeSantis had at least a smidge of nous.
Desalination might help at the margin, but it’s not a solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea