The future of the planet.

[scotia]

Cows don't fart, they belch. And people are working on genetically engineering the bacteria in whichever stomach it is to not produce methane as a by-product.

I didn't approach the cows to listen whether or not the sounds were emanating from the front or back, but I can assure you that visually they were emitting lots of smelly waste with gay abandon out of the back end.

[UncleEbenezer]

Cows don't fart, they belch.

AIUI they both.

I didn't approach the cows to listen whether or not the sounds were emanating from the front or back, but I can assure you that visually they were emitting lots of smelly waste with gay abandon out of the back end.

The permanent diarrhoea is, along with the excessive methane, symptomatic of centuries of genetic modification (before it became a thing) and diet-and-lifestyle meddling to meet mankind's needs from them.

[tjh290633]

Something that puzzles me. It is the belief that if we all foreswore meat eating, there would be less CO2 emitted,
Looking at your typical cow or sheep, it eats nothing but grass or silage, maybe the odd pellets from vegetation, converts that into protein and other bodily parts, emits some CO2 and methane from its bodily orifices, but the grass has already absorbed more CO2 through photosynthesis than is emitted.
Surely the animals are carbon neutral? Rather moreso than using plant based fuel to generate electricity.
TJH

Its the methane that they emit which is the major problem. Although methane degrades in the upper atmosphere, (I think with about a 10 year half life - and usually producing Carbon Dioxide) it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. The figure usually quoted over a 20 year span (taking account of the degradation) is that Methane is about 85 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide.
I first became aware of this when fishing late one night with my son, and we returned through a field of cows. With no other sounds, the noise of cows farting was impressive. And my son, being a biological scientist, informed me that this was a significant factor in global warming.

What is far more potent than either CO2 or methane is water vapour, yet this is ignored by the climatologists. A study of the infrared absorption spectra of the respective gases might be instructive, as would their respective abundance in the atmosphere.

TJH

[UncleEbenezer]

What is far more potent than either CO2 or methane is water vapour, yet this is ignored by the climatologists. A study of the infrared absorption spectra of the respective gases might be instructive, as would their respective abundance in the atmosphere.

TJH

Of course. The point about water vapour is, it's part of a natural water cycle, and nature can easily absorb all we generate. In simple terms, it falls as rain, and makes its way to the oceans, whose capacity is more than ample. So whatever mankind does has no long-term effect. Well, except when we disrupt it to such an extent as to cause desertification in an area - but that's local.

That's diametrically opposite to CO2, the real problem. Methane falls somewhere between them.

[tjh290633]

What is far more potent than either CO2 or methane is water vapour, yet this is ignored by the climatologists. A study of the infrared absorption spectra of the respective gases might be instructive, as would their respective abundance in the atmosphere.

TJH

Of course. The point about water vapour is, it's part of a natural water cycle, and nature can easily absorb all we generate. In simple terms, it falls as rain, and makes its way to the oceans, whose capacity is more than ample. So whatever mankind does has no long-term effect. Well, except when we disrupt it to such an extent as to cause desertification in an area - but that's local.

That's diametrically opposite to CO2, the real problem. Methane falls somewhere between them.

Have you never heard of the CO2 cycle?

Where are we with sunspot cycles?

TJH

[JohnB]

Climate models do not ignore water vapour, take it from someone who wrote the models. Water vapour has a positive feedback loop, so tends to amplify other drivers.

Does tjh understand the different timescales of water and CO2 cycles? A factor of 10 million or more

[scotia]

I'm going to deviate slightly from the topic - but I'm sure that's allowed in the Snug Bar. As a young lad I can remember the huge Canadian forest fire that occurred in 1950. In North America the smoke produced a Blue-Violet Sun and daylight turned to dusk, with some people thinking that the world was coming to an end. The fire burned for around six months and swallowed 1.4 million hectares of trees. The smoke drifted over to Europe, and I can remember seeing a slight discolouration of the Sun - and being told that it was caused by a forest fire in Canada.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/1950+monster+fire+burned+into+history/4823685/story.html

[djbenedict]

Can you please point out where I've done that?

The post I just replied to! Where you say:

the simple fact is that un-developed CO2 populations don't have to develop exactly the same CO2-pumping habits as we do for it to be a major, catastrophic issue, they simply need to stay the same, or even worse, rise from their current position....

That completely fails to mention anything about the actual major source of the problem — developed nations — and focusses entirely on the CO2 habits of "un-developed CO2 populations". Look at the graph! If their habits and family sizes stay the same they will be continue to be literally the least of our worries.

I'd like you to please remember that you entered this particular thread in a direct reply to me when I originally made this point -

"We should be asking ourselves what the personal CO2 impact on the planet might be for the next 200 years by having two kids instead of one......just have a think about the size of those inverted people-pyramids in 200 years.....how much extra C02 is likely to be generated five generations out from a standing-start??......"

and you chose to reply with the following snippet about Africa -

"One point that is made in the programme is that, on a global level, large families do not have as much of an impact on CO2 production as you might think. This is because most large families are in Africa (specifically) and the average CO2 production per capita in Africa is low, and forecast to remain low."

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=19611&start=20#p253280

So it was you who originally brought up the subject of un-developed nations, and not me - and for some reason you brought it up as a reply to a point I made regarding just two-kid families, and how vocal climate-change hypocrites who choose to either maintain or raise their own personal population-group should look much closer to home before telling me I need to manage my own CO2 output better....

So the fact that we then meandered into 'un-developed-nation' territory was due to your original straw man, and nothing more, and so to then tell people that we are then 'wrong to focus on it', when it was you who brought it up in the first place, is curious to say the least.

The issue of un-developed nations arises directly out of the matter of whether or not large families (even at the two child size) are a major factor in CO2 production. It seems that you have a belief that personal CO2 production habits don't matter and yours should not be criticised. However: the data don't support your view that family size control will make any meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally. Family size is the actual straw man.

You asked me to point out where you were focusing on un-developed nations. As well as the direct quote above, which I note you haven't addressed at all, your entire obsession with family size as being a major factor does this in a second order way.

[djbenedict]

We need to focus on the developing nations, because they aspire to Western lifestyles. Removing the second car from a European household makes much less difference than not adding the first car to 5 Asian ones.

The trouble with this view is that the second car in a European household is a present fact, whereas the first cars in the Asian households are a hypothetical future event. It's like saying, "I'll pay for my lunch today by not buying a television tomorrow" when you have no money.

(Not to mention that the 'first cars', if they eventuate, might be much lower emission units).

[JohnB]

There is certainly the argument that new cars will soon be electric, and Asia can build up a recharging grid more easily than we can undo a petrol based system. Similar to Africa skipping landlines for mobiles. With cars lasting a decade, new adopters will pollute less than the established base as the turnover occurs. Asians traditionally gravitated from push bikes to scooters to cars, perhaps they can be held at the electric motorbike level, but with climate becoming more extreme, I think they would value the air-conditioned metal box as much as we do.

[redsturgeon]

Those pesky Asians, fancy them wanting the same comforts as us civilised Westerners...heaven forbid, the Africans will be wanting the same comforts next!

John

[gryffron]

Asia can build up a recharging grid more easily than we can undo a petrol based system. Similar to Africa skipping landlines for mobiles.

It is in no way similar.
Mobile phone networks with Microwave backbone require massively LESS fixed infrastructure than landlines.
Electric recharging points require massively MORE fixed infrastructure than petrol distribution.

Gryff

[JohnB]

My argument is skipping inappropriate technology generations, not their expense. And I'm not sure that running power cables once is more expensive than running petrol tankers indefinitely.

[gryffron]

And I'm not sure that running power cables once is more expensive than running petrol tankers indefinitely.

Actually it is. The efficiency of the power grid is about 60% (i.e. 40% losses). And that's densely populated UK. I suspect most 3rd world systems are much worse.
A fuel tanker can deliver 32k litres for about 2km/L. And the installation and maintenance cost of hundreds of miles of localised wiring for home charging is WAY more than the one delivery truck.

It is a common misconception to think that electric cars are simpler or cheaper or "better" or cleaner or more efficient. They are none of these things. Unless you can run them substantially on renewable power, they solve NOTHING!

Gryff

[JohnB]

From http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost ... your-plug/

So even though electricity may travel much farther on high-voltage transmission lines – dozens or hundreds of miles – losses are low, around two percent. And though your electricity may travel a few miles or less on low-voltage distribution lines, losses are high, around four percent.

Energy lost in transmission and distribution: About 6% – 2% in transmission and 4% in distribution

I suspect your number is based on oil fired power stations, and ignores the face that electric motors are much more efficient than internal combusion engines at 20-35%

[gryffron]

Yes, sorry, 60% is from generator to consumer. Not just transmission losses. Still even 4% is probably more than the tanker

OVERALL electric cars are just slightly more efficient than typical petrol ones. Those heavy batteries really kill the performance. And the very best modern internal combustion engines will beat electrics. Unless they're sat in a traffic jam.

Snorvey, hybrids exist. But with all the weight penalties of both systems, underperform ICE cars over long distances, and electrics over short distances.

Apart from the NIMBY issue of moving the pollution from the cities to the countryside, the only real benefit of electric cars is renewable power.
Powering an electric vehicle from renewables or nuclear is easy.
Powering an ICE from renewables is just about possible, but difficult. They compete for the same food resources as humans. We'd need vastly more farmland to replace the oil.

Gryff

[Itsallaguess]

However: the data don't support your view that family size control will make any meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally. Family size is the actual straw man.

You asked me to point out where you were focusing on un-developed nations. As well as the direct quote above, which I note you haven't addressed at all, your entire obsession with family size as being a major factor does this in a second order way.

Family size is the actual straw man?

It was mentioned by me in direct relation to the fact that some climate-change hypocrites find it well within their remit to try to tell me, loudly and repeatedly, to turn down my central heating at the very same time that they're pumping out more than a single unit of inverted-people-pyramids. That was the entire basis of me entering this thread, and I stand by that position.

When you say that 'family size control' doesn't make a 'meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally', that's not the point at all (even if I disagree with it on a 'preparing for the future' basis....)...

I only need those climate-change hypocrites to fully understand that if they were less hypocritical, and looked towards their loins rather than angrily towards my hand near my heating thermostat, they'd then realise that their own 'family size control' would make a much, much larger difference to planetary C02 levels, on a 200-year, five generations out view (don't forget about all those little inverted people-pyramids starting at each off-spring...), than them standing there with their multiple off-spring pointing at my thermostat.....

You're the one that's meandered away from that central point that I was making, I'm afraid, and I'll please ask if you agree on that specific point or not, rather than continuing to spur off into developed/un-developed nation rabbit-holes...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[scotia]

Yes, sorry, 60% is from generator to consumer.
Gryff

The efficiency of turning Heat Energy into Electrical Energy is governed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The higher the temperature you can achieve in burning the fuel, and the lower the temperature of the wasted output, then the higher the efficiency you can achieve. With old conventional
coal or oil fired steam-turbine generation plant, this resulted in about 40% efficiency. The newer gas powered generators use gas turbines (like jet engines) which get up to very high temperatures, but their output (waste) temperature is also high - so this output is used to heat a conventional boiler for a steam turbine generator. The 2-stage process can give efficiencies of around 60% (all numbers are ball-park figures).

[djbenedict]

However: the data don't support your view that family size control will make any meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally. Family size is the actual straw man.

You asked me to point out where you were focusing on un-developed nations. As well as the direct quote above, which I note you haven't addressed at all, your entire obsession with family size as being a major factor does this in a second order way.

Family size is the actual straw man?

It was mentioned by me in direct relation to the fact that some climate-change hypocrites find it well within their remit to try to tell me, loudly and repeatedly, to turn down my central heating at the very same time that they're pumping out more than a single unit of inverted-people-pyramids. That was the entire basis of me entering this thread, and I stand by that position.

When you say that 'family size control' doesn't make a 'meaningful difference to the amount of CO2 produced globally', that's not the point at all (even if I disagree with it on a 'preparing for the future' basis....)...

I only need those climate-change hypocrites to fully understand that if they were less hypocritical, and looked towards their loins rather than angrily towards my hand near my heating thermostat, they'd then realise that their own 'family size control' would make a much, much larger difference to planetary C02 levels, on a 200-year, five generations out view (don't forget about all those little inverted people-pyramids starting at each off-spring...), than them standing there with their multiple off-spring pointing at my thermostat.....

You're the one that's meandered away from that central point that I was making, I'm afraid, and I'll please ask if you agree on that specific point or not, rather than continuing to spur off into developed/un-developed nation rabbit-holes...

You seem very certain of the truth of your theory. However, people in the pyramid past the next generation, or maybe the one after that, will probably be net zero CO2 emitters over their lifetimes. Or certainly much lower emitters, following the prevailing trends of decarbonisation. Is that a factor you have included in your calculations?

So sorry for "meandering" by the way, I rather thought that was the point of this particular board. By all means get us whipped into shape and back on to your narrow little hobby-horse topic.

[Itsallaguess]

However, people in the pyramid past the next generation, or maybe the one after that, will probably be net zero CO2 emitters over their lifetimes.

Or certainly much lower emitters, following the prevailing trends of decarbonisation.

But might you agree that this 'something might turn up tomorrow' approach seems to be how we've got ourselves into this little pickle in the first place?

You seem to be hanging your hat very firmly on un-developed countries failing to develop more ferocious CO2-guzzling habits, and now you're also hoping that a 'carbon-neutral approach' to things, which is likely to be very, very costly in terms of time, effort and funding, is going to give the planet a quick wipe with a cloth and things will be as right as rain....

Then there are others who simply point to the growing numbers of people on the planet, and saying, erm, shall we take look at how we might help to fix the issue at source, instead of coming up with a number of down-stream wish-lists that may or may not materialise in terms of their effectiveness......

Cheers,

Itsallaguess