Forum menu
the 1.5 - 2 degree temp rise is the minimum if we take drastic measures now - which we are not going to do. 3 - 4 is more likely. with probable runaway
1.5 degree rise is going to be breached in the next few years We are already at 1.1
yes its unpredictable
JonV - I do not believe there is any technical solution - the only solution is to consume a lot less worldwide.
We are gradually fixing things, the worst they get the faster they’ll get fixed.
We are not as a world population. A few countries are fiddling around the edges. No one is taking the steps needed. Note that the reoprt was wtered down by oil intersts and it states quite clearly without drastic action now the 1.5 - 2 Degree limit is well gone.
You’re not necessarily wrong. Personally I’m on the fence about all this. It’s a great way of getting governments to stimulate the high tech economy, or to get billionaires to do it themselves, but on the other hand you could still do that and end up with something more worthy.
Tell me that the marginal tax rate for billionaires is an order of magnitude too low, without telling me etc etc.
I do not believe there is any technical solution – the only solution is to consume a lot less worldwide.
If no one has a child for 50 years the World would be saved. Simples
The human world wouldn't. We'd only be left with animals who don't sit around thinking existential thoughts. I think you should leave that line of reasoning alone as it's banal.
tjagain Full Member
the only solution is to consume a lot less worldwide.
This is why rather than worrying about bullshit rockets to Mars, we should be getting everyone out of their cars and back onto bikes.
Your belief is worth no more or less than my belief really. The only 'evidence' I can offer is:
1/ as yet undiscovered solutions. Not necessarily iterative, total paradigm shifts. Your frame of reference is here and now, mine is beyond current knowledge.
2/ Historically, it's taken major disruption to stimulate the development of these changes. The industrial revolution was starting but progressing slowly, it wasn't felt to be needed that badly. Then slavery got banned and suddenly ........
(not an in depth historical treatise, more complex but no doubt it was a stimulus)
We’d only be left with animals who don’t sit around thinking existential thoughts
You can predict evolution? How's that?
Yes – you put 120 tonnes into orbit. How much of that hundred tonnes is the stuff you need and how much is the tanks etc to hold it.
Payload is payload, it could be carrying anything. On some flights, it’ll be 90%+ (fuel, oxygen, etc) transfer on others it’ll be closer to 100 (vehicles, spacecraft modules. Etc).
Nothing on Apollo was parasitic it was designed specifically to get from EOR, to TLI, to the surface and back again using the smallest, neatest, cleverest combination to make it work and leave some capacity to retrieve samples.
I can’t believe how closed minded some are being. I reiterate; 200 years ago we travelled by horse and cart. The thought of flight, let alone supersonic flight, or self driving cars, or a pocket computer you can use to talk to other people ….. mindblowing
Yeah, we've moved faster than any time, and done wonderful things, but physics and chemistry haven't really changed in that time, and those are the issues we will have in doing anything more than sight seeing of places like Mars.
As stated earlier, Mars hasn't changed much either, it still has barely anything to assist sustaining life, it still has no ozone layer, so a hell of a lot of work to support any colony, which i dare say would cost more than a lot of western nations have to spend on their own population.
You can predict evolution? How’s that?
Oh give it a rest.
This is why rather than worrying about bullshit rockets to Mars, we should be getting everyone out of their cars and back onto bikes.
Getting people onto bikes a) is extremely difficult as no-one wants to cycle 30 miles each way to work and b) wouldn't really solve the major issues we face. The biggest of which, IMO is that the entire world economy is rooted in extraction and consumption of raw materials and the power to manufacture things and move them around. That's a really hard problem to solve.
With enough money you can buy enough engineers and materials to make spaceships. You can't persuade billions of people to deny themselves nice things, or get them to endorse political action that severely curtails their freedoms.
still has no ozone layer
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2021/07/Understanding_ozone_on_Mars
Ta Daffy -
I can’t believe how closed minded some are being. I reiterate; 200 years ago we travelled by horse and cart. The thought of flight, let alone supersonic flight, or self driving cars, or a pocket computer you can use to talk to other people ….. mindblowing[
Those things were the low hanging fruit.
physics and chemistry haven’t really changed in that time
I work with 900 brilliant physicists, chemists, biologists and engineers. Who in turn are collaborating with 1000's of others. We're barely scratching the surface of our understanding of some areas. No point asking me to predict what this will lead to, just as you would have wasted your time asking one of Brunel's engineers his opinion on the iPhone.
put another way. Who honestly believes we have reached the edge of understanding and ingenuity, and there's now only iterative polishing to come? Marginal gain type stuff. Really?
Those things were the low hanging fruit.
Only in hindsight
Imagine who Newton would view a mobile phone?
Oh give it a rest.
Why? It's you that challenge me mate. If you don't want to interact with me then the very obvious solution is to ignore my posts and not comment. It's not exactly rocket science.
But I will certainly challenge your nonsense that the Earth "must" have humans living on it because animals don’t sit around thinking existential thoughts.
A cruise liner emits more CO2 in 100 miles than a rocket launch does in its entirety.
Starlink may end up saving resources rather than using them.
That’s a crap argument. They still emit co2 and equivalents. Ozone depletion is also a worry. We should be reducing emissions across the board not starting ventures that increase then. I have no faith that Musk has the best interests of mankind in his thoughts. This is a man that described the ESG framework as the Devil incarnate.
.
ernielynch
Full Member
still has no ozone layerhttps://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2021/07/Understanding_ozone_on_Mars/blockquote >
I believe that's surface ozone, which is even worse for humans, rather than the ozone layer we have which benefits us.
put another way. Who honestly believes we have reached the edge of understanding and ingenuity, and there’s now only iterative polishing to come? Marginal gain type stuff. Really?
Agreed, I reckon humans will make some amazing breakthroughs in weapons science which will make what we have now seem like muskets. Then at some point we will use them. This idea that humans scientific advances is necessarily a force for good.... it's debatable.
I don't know what height ozone is found on Mars argee but Mars's atmosphere provides humans with a whole variety of problems, not just where the ozone might be found!
funkmasterp
no they aren’t. CO2 is a huge issue and pissing about with space rockets causes a lot of it.
It does not. In fact space launches cause less than 1% of the CO2 emissions of conventional aviation alone, which in turn causes about 2% of all C02 emissions.
But even that exaggerates things, because how many of those 170-ish launches per year are "pissing about"? Most are launching telecoms satellites,most of the rest are research missions. 15 or so go to the ISS or Tiangong station, literally 1 launch was entirely about space travel for its own sake.
So it's a few percent of a percent of 2%. Feral pigs produce more CO2 than all spaceflight let alone space exploration. It's easy to say "but it all adds up, we should be reducing all CO2 emissions" and there's some truth in that but we can completely outdo all space emissions with something like a 1% reduction in avoidable food wastage in transit. Let alone losing nice things like climatically inappropriare fruit production. And we SHOULD do that, but we're not going to, and so wanting to stop something useful while we still continue making things worse with completely unimportant easy to fix stuff, is wrongheaded.
And the other thing is, the exact same mindset that has us pushing forward with space travel, is the same mindset, the same forces of opinion and effort and resource that will also help us reduce the meaningful polluters. Whereas the people that say "let's stop space launches in order to stop 1% of 1% of 2% of all carbon emissions" are generally the exact same people who don't say much about the big polluters. Science and engineering is the one thing we have any chance of using in order to get us out of the hole. Inaction and regression is the thing that's going to make it worse.
Daffy
Full MemberAs an engineer and scientist who’s involved with these efforts, I can’t begin to tell you how wrong you are. Almost no problems are as constrained as those involving flight with humans aboard. It’s almost absurdly difficult and yet it’s made to look routine.
Yep, but... That's not the point. Engineering wise, climate intervention here is really pretty straightforward, and sending stuff to Mars is really really hard. But culturally and politically, it's the opposite. The problem isn't our capability, it's our willingness. Sadly that's not a science problem at all.
put another way. Who honestly believes we have reached the edge of understanding and ingenuity, and there’s now only iterative polishing to come? Marginal gain type stuff. Really?
No, but the things we're now inventing are more complicated, harder to build, and require more money and investment. It's not 1880 any more.
But I will certainly challenge your nonsense that the Earth “must” have humans living on it because animals don’t sit around thinking existential thoughts.
No mate. There's no external reason that the Earth 'must' have people on it. But if it didn't, there'd be no people around to appreciate its beautiful pristine state, would there? All this worrying about the state of the planet is within the human value system. Therefore, having no humans on Earth is logically and obviously not a solution to Earth not being habitable for humans.
So it's pointless bringing it up.
Speaking personally, I'm hugely in favour of crewed spaceflight. Exploring the solar system and mitigating climate change aren't mutually exclusive - there's enough wealth on the planet to achieve both.
Of the twelve people who walked on the moon all of them were white males, eleven of them were test pilots. There was only one geologist. Since then, we've discovered that ice is present on the moon in enough quantities to support a moonbase and to fuel spacecraft launching from one fifth of terrestrial gravity. Further down the line, it's possible that the moon may offer the gateway to a post-fossil fuel future.
Climate change will cost my local economy approx 9.4% of GDPby 2100. A very optimistic estimate of fixing climate change suggests $300Bn.
The three richest businessmen on the planet are worth $515bn combined.
So it’s pointless bringing it up.
Bringing what up? I said that no one having children for 50 years would save the world, because it obviously would. 50 years after that there would be no further anthropogenic global warming.
Now obviously no one having children for 50 years is not intended to be a serious proposition so it is up to you to decide how serious I was being. The aim was to highlight just how devastating humans are in their negative effect on the planet and how a very simple, if not practical, solution could quickly resolve the issue.
Obviously flying to Mars, which this thread is discussing, isn't the solution either.
All this worrying about the state of the planet is within the human value system. Therefore, having no humans on Earth is logically and obviously not a solution to Earth not being habitable for humans.
So David Attenborough shouldn't sound so concerned because in ten years time he probably won't be around and all this worrying won't matter?
No, but the things we’re now inventing are more complicated, harder to build, and require more money and investment. It’s not 1880 any more.
The same was likely true in 1880 when it wasn't 1780 any more.
No, but the things we’re now inventing are more complicated, harder to build, and require more money and investment.
And yet in 2123 they'll be old fashioned
'can you believe they used to do this with semiconductors?'
'i know! I saw one in a museum once on a school trip to earth!'
Your belief is worth no more or less than my belief really. The only ‘evidence’ I can offer is:
1/ as yet undiscovered solutions. Not necessarily iterative, total paradigm shifts. Your frame of reference is here and now, mine is beyond current knowledge.
2/ Historically, it’s taken major disruption to stimulate the development of these changes. The industrial revolution was starting but progressing slowly, it wasn’t felt to be needed that badly. Then slavery got banned and suddenly ……..
(not an in depth historical treatise, more complex but no doubt it was a stimulus)
I'm not a fan of "beliefs" when it comes to setting priorities for our species. Belief systems, and theirs associated ideologies, seem to work against the majority's best interests more often than not. While "paradigm shifts" are the sort of thing tech-****ers seem to think solves everything, but these are still people who measure the success or failure of any concept by share values, they're not all that evolved really. We're facing bigger, more immediate "disruptions" back on the our home rock still which another space race won't address... i.e. How does putting a person on Mars address climate change? "Paradigm shift" us the answer to that one?
We have no divine right to continue existing you know, we're not the first species to rise to dominance over the earth, the giant lizard lot didn't manage to evolve their way out of the cradle or dodge space rocks either. I don't know if I see us doing much better even if we did invent Tamagochi, harpsichords and Tik-Tok, we haven't proven we're special just yet. At best we have 'potential' (mostly wasted still) and a bit of luck that could run out tomorrow.
Our current crop of wealth hoarders grasping for Mars are not benevolent either, they're just looking to escape the filthy, crowded, shit-hole that was/is/will be be the necessary by-product of their ascent to win at the imaginary game of capitalism...
We're simply not evolved enough yet. Technologically we could do it, the core technologies exist, the resources exist, the Moon landings were a squandered stepping stone 50 odd years ago. Instead we redeployed all that learning to the stupid shit we still inexplicably hold dear; beaming Wendy-ball and X-factor into people's homes while spying on those not so ideologically aligned with ourselves (they do the same of course). Space technology just became another way for us to piss about and take fun tokens off each other...
In the intervening years the only thing that has really changed is that we've really focussed on how to ramp up inequality and utterly **** the thin layer of gas clinging to this wet, rocky ball which us "evolved" chimps still actually need to survive (and isn't actually present on Mars). At every turn we work against our own best interests, mostly because someone with more money, or who claims to have a direct line to the baby Jeebus told us to. While that behaviour persists we're basically fudged...
We should absolutely aspire for a Human to set foot on Mars, but not because some Billionaires see opportunities or a way to escape their Earthly misdeeds, nor because it symbolic of one socio-political system's superiority over another. We should seek to do it because it grows our knowledge and understanding, maybe because it gets some eggs into another basket, but mostly because we're ready to leave the cradle having first solved our various problems back on Earth, but we just ain't ready yet.
FWIW, billionaires aren't really looking at Mars or the Moon as escape capsules. What they'll actually do, when they decide that global warming and societal collapse are inevitable, is they'll start fortifying islands or hilltops. We'll be able to make places to live on the Moon and Mars that are better than a fortified island, eventually, but it'll take long enough that the bilionaires will never live there. No matter how bad we manage to trash earth, parts of it will still be better than anywhere else.
Billionaires fundamentally don't want to live in a cave for as long as there's any other options, which there will be.
Wow cookeaa, didn't expect quite such an attack in response.
I'm not talking about beliefs in the same sense as religious ones, nor for setting priorities. Merely that I *believe* we have a lot yet to understand that will fundamentally change again the technology at our disposal. Does that really justify labelling me and my colleagues as tech-****, whatever the *'s are hiding? And we don't have a share price, as a national lab, our research is to support the UK and despite what many would think we can't advance as far or as fast as we want without collaborating overseas. It's harder to do now, granted, but we're still doing it.
FWIW the research being done on directly and indirectly supporting net zero and climate is way bigger anything we are doing that is 'space race' - but to observe the earth we need to put equipment into orbit from time to time so cannot do it carbon free, and so we do support work in that area too that will make it more sustainable.
Nowhere have I said or commented whether it's a good or bad thing to be pursuing a trip to Mars, or how important it is or isn't vs addressing climate change. Of course climate change is more important and pressing at present, but it's not either / or, in my opinion, and that like it or not some good will come from it.
Back to my point. Thinking these problems are insoluble (whether that's solving the climate crisis, or payload sizes vs fuel used for a Mars mission) because of what we know now is ->IMHO<- a mistake. Just because I can't say (not secrecy, just ignorance) what the breakthroughs will be doesn't mean they won't happen. And it takes crises to focus the mind, but there are thousands of scientists and engineers with very focused minds working on it. Even if they do like to watch the football in the evening.
Have a look at what the techno-****s have been up to https://www.npl.co.uk/case-studies
to observe the earth we need to put equipment into orbit from time to time so cannot do it carbon free, and so we do support work in that area too that will make it more sustainable.
You can actually. You can build a nuclear, wind, or solar power plant to generate electricity, then use electricity to produce hydrogen, or capture CO2 from the atmosphere and convert that to methane or methanol. The Martian atmosphere contains CO2 and there is water on Mars, so it is possible to produce rocket fuel there. Whether it's practical or economical is another matter, but it is possible to fuel Mars rockets without needing fossil carbon fuels.
Space programs inspire in way that many other large scale endeavors do not. They also pay back far more than they cost or consume.
Many of the things we can do today have their foundations in the space race. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) started at NASA with NASTRAN. This is now the foundation of complex structure and multi-physics analysis, used for everything from biomedical simulation (blood flow, mixing, micro-capillary action) to hypersonics and beyond. Wind turbines, their structure, blades and placement with respect to each other are all done with this. The engineers who created it, the companies who commercialised it and the researchers who democratised it (kids and grandkids of boomers) have made a direct, positive impact on climate change. The UKs energy mix is now more than 50% renewable (and increasing) on an annual basis - the foundations of this are in simulation.
Lasers development for communication, 3D printing and most recently the LFI Project.
CO2 Scrubers and their high performance derivaties are the basis for many carbon capture technologies.
Materials development such as inconel and invar came from aerospace interest and use, but are now found all over the place where their performance can be significantly positive.
Micro-computers, sensors and communication were which enable things to run connected and interactive were develoepd directly from technology develoepd for Apollo. The first cell towers and cell phone from Motorola was developed in 1973. Motorola's biggest contract in the 60s/70s? NASA.
You can actually. You can build a nuclear, wind, or solar power plant to generate electricity, then use electricity to produce hydrogen, or capture CO2 from the atmosphere and convert that to methane or methanol. The Martian atmosphere contains CO2 and there is water on Mars, so it is possible to produce rocket fuel there. Whether it’s practical or economical is another matter, but it is possible to fuel Mars rockets without needing fossil carbon fuels.
You'd likely need to take something with you. Nitrogen is in extremely short supply on Mars, but is abundant on earth. Hydrazine would be a good start, you can split and mix it into all kinds of useful things.
Ta Daffy - its nice to get some good info from folk.
You can actually. You can build a nuclear, wind, or solar power plant to generate electricity, then use electricity......
I mean currently - some of our work needs satellite observation so we have to do some space flight - answering the 'accusation' that we shouldn't be creating more CO2 by doing space launches while we face a climate crisis.
Longer term, who knows what fuels and sources will work.
If no one has a child for 50 years the World would be saved. Simples
Yes. Simple. Useless, but simple.
If no one has children for 50 years the human race dies as there would be no women capable of having children. They'd all be 50y old and too old to have children. So, in your efforts to save us, you've killed us. <slow clap>
Do you (ever) have a positive suggestion? IME, people like you are the problem. With your glib "wit" and "simple" solutions which offer no practical suggestions or solutions at all. Why, because the issue is too complex for you to understand and thus you reach for the simplest answer that fits your narrative best - KIDS produce more C02, lets stop kids, that'll fix it. (FYI - 12.7m children under 16 in the UK - 12.5m dogs. Since 2005 - Children have decreased approximately 8% -dogs have increased approximately 50%. The number of indoor pets in the UK is around 28m, their environemental impact is now 4* what it was in 2015.)
The solution is to invest - both in science and in people to implement it. South Korea's economy has increased 40% in less than 10 years due to their investment in science, technology and education. Imagine if the world did same (5% GDP on science, rather than 2%) and focussed that investment on climate change. It's cumulative gains, every year you do this, those moving through the system get better at it, more capable, more effective, as do the technologies developed. It's exponential.
You NEED new people, passionate, inspired, interested people to implement, bold, innovative solutions. People who're willing to change, to adapt, to INVEST THEIR LIVES to make a difference. These are people with skin in the game. Anyone who's 50+ - their skin in the game comes down to their children and their grandchildren, what they leave behind. Those without that, many just don't seem to care at all.
PEOPLE are the future, we just need to make sure that they're supported, nurtured and directed to be the best they can be in a world where they'll really need to be.
Looking outward (to space) will help that, it inspires.
Ta Daffy – its nice to get some good info from folk.
Yep, good post. The cross-fertlization of research ideas; work that starts in one area and then someone has a 'hang on, does this mean....?' moment
I have to say as a dark green I do not believe there is a possible technical solution. energy usage worldwide is going to keep on increasing as developed countries develop and without us cutting our greenhouse gas in the developed world hugely how can we tell the developing world they cannot have what we have. Population is increasing as well.
Basically the scale of the problem now and into the future is beyond any tech we can dream of now. Who knows what might be developed in the future but we need solutions now
energy usage worldwide is going to keep on increasing
This is the problem.
We are all using a lot more energy than 50 years ago.
How many houses had central heating in the 1960's? Generally most people heated 1 room and the rest of the house was cold.
How many UK offices had air con 40 or 50 years ago?
In the 1970s not everyone owned a car, now a typical household will have at least 2, it's common to have 3 or 4.
Look at a modern domestic electrical system, it will often have more sockets in 1 room that a house of 50 years ago had in total.
A lot of modern stuff is more efficient but we are using far more "stuff" than we ever have.
EV's are just moving the problem somewhere else, until we have a good mix of renewables and safe nuclear, then we are still producing a lot of CO2. And that's not a quick fix.
This is the problem.
We are all using a lot more energy than 50 years ago.
It's not. The problem is that until recently, we didn't investigate better ways of industrially generating power. We did what was simple and cheap, we didn't look to the long term.
Consider - Solar is now providing almost all of my power for both my EV and my house.
Would it work year round - no#, but reducing houshold emissions to almost zero for 6-9 months of the year is a HUGE and achievable step. It's available now, to many.
EV’s are just moving the problem somewhere else, until we have a good mix of renewables and safe nuclear, then we are still producing a lot of CO2. And that’s not a quick fix.
EVs aren't moving problem, they're a means to solving the problem. They can be powered from a variety of sources (ICEs can't), they don't require massive industrially complex systems (drilling, transporting, refining, transporting, storing) to continually support (ICEs do). They're a pull factor for the development of a better power system. Hopefully, they'll showcase the way toward NOT using gas or hydrogen for heating, too.
Again, back to space - EU/Airbus are looking heavily at space based power generation and transmission. That's direct electricity for homes, EVs, etc. It's abundant, it's free, but investment is high, just like wind was. just like solar was.
EVs aren’t moving problem, they’re a means to solving the problem. They can be powered from a variety of sources (ICEs can’t)
They can. You can produce ethanol from biomass or you can capture CO2 from the atmosphere and use solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc. generated electricity to convert the CO2 into methanol. Key thing to remember is that ICEs aren't limited to fossil fuels, and EVs often use electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. The idea that EVs are inherently good and ICEs inherently bad is too simplistic.
Wow cookeaa, didn’t expect quite such an attack in response.
Was that an attack? Or just some stranger on the internet offering their differing opinions?
I get that we're not talking religious faith here, but you clearly have some 'faith' in the idea of crisis points and conflicts stimulating human endeavour. Which, admittedly, there is precedent for within the last 150 odd years, but there were also lots of close calls, the odd failure and some pretty late responses...
Doe-eyed "futurism" and a belief that somehow concentrating on space exploration when more terrestrial issues present far more of an existential threat seems to be following a foolish pattern (IMO).
Anyway it'll be a fun conversation with the Grandkids:
"why did the sea levels rise Grandpa?"
"Well we were distracted, we used all of our resources making sure a handful of disgustingly rich people could get 200 million miles away from the rest of humanity and live on a cold, barren rock"