47
   

Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sat 8 Apr, 2017 03:39 pm
@Olivier5,
Let me settle this for both of you. Both of you are nicer than me.
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Sat 8 Apr, 2017 04:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I read alla ya.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:01 am
Tactically, it's important to be nice to GW deniers. Their primary motivation for denial is fear, so it doesn't take much to scare them away. In particular, if you try to tell a GW denier that the consequences of GW are likely to be catastrophic, he will not listen to you but immediately withdraw in his bubble of denial, like a snail withdrawing into his shell. It's a defence mecanism, they can't help it.

Olivier5
 
  0  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:46 am
@ossobucotemp,
ossobucotemp wrote:

I read alla ya.

That's because you're nicer than us all.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:19 am
UK to 'scale down' climate change and illegal wildlife measures to bring in post-Brexit trade, secret documents reveal
Quote:
‘Some economic security-related work like climate change and illegal wildlife trade will be scaled down’

The UK Government plans to water down regulations surrounding climate change and illegal wildlife trading in an effort to help secure post-Brexit trade, civil service documents have reportedly revealed.

In an upcoming speech by Tim Hitchens, the director-general of economic and consular affairs at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), he said the UK must to change its focus to carry out Prime Minister Theresa May’s vision of the UK as a “great, global trading nation”.

“You have a crucial role to play in posts in implementing our new approach to prosperity against the huge changes stemming from last year’s Brexit vote,” the notes seen by The Sunday Times read.

“Trade and growth are now priorities for all posts — you will all need to prioritise developing capability in this area. Some economic security-related work like climate change and illegal wildlife trade will be scaled down.”

A changing focus would reportedly make it easier for the UK to sign deals with Africa and Latin America.

The speech will take place on 26 April at a conference called Prosperity UK, sponsored by think tanks Legatum Institute and Open Europe.

The documents were contained in the folder of a senior civil servant at the Department for International Trade and were photographed by a passenger on a train.

They also exposed tensions between that department and the FCO, which are in the same building.

Some senior civil servants have expressed frustration that Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, is more focused on signing tariff-free trade deals around the world than rolling back regulatory burdens.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 08:42 am
@Olivier5,
We can afford to be wrong if GW is not completely true.
We can't afford to test if it is right any further.
A simple economical argument should settle the matter in case of doubt.
I have yet to see an argument based on absolute certainty Human caused GW is not true.

Hence the position that from doubt alone we can dismiss the protective politic on GW is IRRATIONAL!
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 10:47 am
@Olivier5,
I can be baaad..
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 10:53 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Well, there's a mistake!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 02:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

In particular, if you try to tell a GW denier that the consequences of GW are likely to be catastrophic, he will not listen to you but immediately withdraw in his bubble of denial, like a snail withdrawing into his shell.


I'm interested in hearing how it will be catastrophic and to what it will be catastrophic too.

Please share.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 02:24 pm
@McGentrix,
On the long run, it's almost bound to become catastrophic. There are vast quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and at the bottom of artic seas. Thanks to progressive warming, at some point this methane will get released in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities for a big jump in temperature. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 02:39 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

On the long run, it's almost bound to become catastrophic. There are vast quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and at the bottom of artic seas. Thanks to progressive warming, at some point this methane will get released in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities for a big jump in temperature. Methane is a much more potent greenhlouse gas than CO2.


You know what plants crave? CO2. They love that stuff.

One thing that could happen, is the polar ice caps melt. That could raise sea level which could make some sea level area's uninhabitable. Having to move is not catastrophic.

You know what a lot of animals love? Vegetation. Thick, lush vegetation. If we get elevated CO2 levels, plants will grow thick and lush.

You know a quick and dirty way to counter global warming caused by green house gases? Volcano. A really good volcanic eruption can spew enough ash and sulfuric gases into the atmosphere that can cool the entire globe several degrees.

So, you suggest that global warming will be catastrophic, I say that at most it will be an inconvenience.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:08 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

On the long run, it's almost bound to become catastrophic. There are vast quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and at the bottom of artic seas. Thanks to progressive warming, at some point this methane will get released in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities for a big jump in temperature. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.


This is incorrect. Deep ocean methane hydrates including those in the Arctic are stabilized by the immense water pressures and not a threat. Other oceanic methane hydrates at shallower depths (~ < 2,000 ft) could, particularly on continental shelves, conceivably be released by significant warming (though a great deal of warming would be required and the attendant deepening of the oceans would delay it) . Methane is indeed a more potent IR reflector than CO in the atmosphere, however it breaks down into CO2 fairly quickly in the atmosphere, with a half life of about 4.5 years. One of many AGW scare stories, but part of the dogmatic folklore of unscientific zealots..

That said, the earth has likely had multiple mass extinctions due to volcanism, ice ages, and asteroid impacts. It's ultimate fiery fate in the sun's Red Giant phase expansion is generally accepted by physicists.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:45 pm
@McGentrix,
Plants like CO2, but we're dumping far too much of it for them to make a noticeable difference. And a big volcano eruption would slow the thing for a few years at most....
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:55 pm
@Olivier5,
That's not accurate either. The IPCC, after years of ignoring this effect, and overestimating the rate of warming by multiples up to ten, finally (about two years ago) acknowledged that the observed greater growth rates of green plants worldwide were significantly attenuating the warming, and that they had incorrectly omitted it from their models. Their estimates are so far still high.

Again;
=> warming is occurring, and it is likely due to GHG, but at much lower rates than forecast.
=> renewable energy production with current wind & solar technology, even if adopted through government mandates at the rates indicated in pending treaties, will not eliminate this problem, though it would have serious adverse effects on human economic activity, and all that follows from it.
=> The currently available technologies with by far the greatest potential to quickly reduce GHG emissions are (1) Nuclear Power; (2) the use of fraking and horizontal drilling techniques to harvest shale gas. and use it to replace coal as a major source of energy; (3) Increased construction of dams both as a source of hydroelectric energy and as an efficient large scale energy storage technique. All three are efficient and economically profitable without subsidies, and of these methods are avidly opposed by AGW zealots and environmentalists.

Go figure.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:21 am
@georgeob1,
Where in hell did you read such absurdity? The IPPC took into account plant growth right from its first report in 1990. GW is happening at the rate observed and forecasted for decades. There's no attenuation.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Mon 10 Apr, 2017 02:53 am
@georgeob1,
It's perfectly correct, rather, as you admit yourself. Concentrations of atmospheric methane rose dramatically between 2006-2016 for unknown reasons. This points to a positive feedback mecanism, where more warming leads to more methane release, itself leading to more warming.

The fact that methane can be oxidized in the atmosphere does not mean the risk is négligeable. Methane concentrations ARE rising, in spite of such oxidation, and the various reactions involved produce CO2, also a GHG although less potent.

My scenario stands as likely to happen, and would lead to catastrophic warming.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Mon 10 Apr, 2017 04:44 am
@georgeob1,
How about the huge reserves of methane in the permafrost George, are those negligible also?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2017 05:34 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Huge amounts of methane are stored around the world in the sea floor in the form of solid methane hydrates. These hydrates represent a large energy reserve for humanity. Climate warming, however, could cause the hydrates to destabilize. The methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would escape unused into the atmosphere and could even accelerate climate change.

[...] Today it is assumed that in the worst case, with a steady warming of the ocean of 3 degrees Celsius, around 85 per cent of the methane trapped in the sea floor could be released into the water column.

Other, more sensitive models predict that methane hydrates at great water depths are not threatened by warming. According to these models, only the methane hydrates that are located directly at the boundaries of the stability zones would be primarily affected. At these locations, a temperature increase of only 1 degree ­Celsius would be sufficient to release large amounts of methane from the hydrates. The methane hydrates in the open ocean at around 500 metres of water depth, and deposits in the shallow regions of the Arctic would mainly be affected.

In the course of the Earth’s warming, it is also expected that sea level will rise due to melting of the polar ice caps and glacial ice. This inevitably results in greater pressure at the sea floor. The increase in pressure, however, would not be sufficient to counteract the effect of increasing temperature to dissolve the methane hydrates. According to the latest calculations, a sea-level rise of ten metres could slow down the methane-hydrate dissolution caused by a warming of one degree Celsius only by a few decades.

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 10 Apr, 2017 05:48 am
Quote:
Study: Arctic seafloor methane releases double previous estimates
November 25, 2013

The seafloor off the coast of Northern Siberia is releasing more than twice the amount of methane as previously estimated, according to new research results published in the Nov. 24 edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is venting at least 17 teragrams of the methane into the atmosphere each year. A teragram is equal to 1 million tons.

“It is now on par with the methane being released from the arctic tundra, which is considered to be one of the major sources of methane in the Northern Hemisphere,” said Natalia Shakhova, one of the paper’s lead authors and a scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “Increased methane releases in this area are a possible new climate-change-driven factor that will strengthen over time.”

Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. On land, methane is released when previously frozen organic material decomposes. In the seabed, methane can be stored as a pre-formed gas or asmethane hydrates. As long as the subsea permafrost remains frozen, it forms a cap, effectively trapping the methane beneath. However, as the permafrost thaws, it develops holes, which allow the methane to escape. These releases can be larger and more abrupt than those that result from decomposition.

The findings are the latest in an ongoing international research project led by Shakhova and Igor Semiletov, both researchers at the UAF International Arctic Research Center. Their twice-yearly arctic expeditions have revealed that the subsea permafrost in the area has thawed much more extensively than previously thought, in part due to warming water near the bottom of the ocean. The warming has created conditions that allow the subsea methane to escape in much greater amounts than their earlier models estimated. Frequent storms in the area hasten its release into the atmosphere, much in the same way stirring a soda releases the carbonation more quickly.


https://research.uaf.edu/node/8895
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Mon 10 Apr, 2017 05:54 am
And none of this positive feedback via release of frozen methane deposits is taken into account in the IPPC models and predictions. Meaning that the IPPC predictions are optimistic: they paint a reassuring picture of the likely outcomes, and probably underestimate the extent of the disruption we and our children will face during the 21st century.
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.48 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 07:37:08