Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:51 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
No, our 1% is the issue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2349
_fatprop wrote:
No, our 1% is the issue


No, its get your own house in order before you start telling others to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3654
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.

I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.


More likely to be rubbish than not.

Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:

Image

Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm
Posts: 955
Sonny Blount wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.

I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.


More likely to be rubbish than not.

Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:

Image

Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.


No it hasn’t, that bullshit. The “stall” relies on taking one particular year (1998) as the starting point and the stats don’t work if you use the following year. Logically if it’s been stalled since 1998, it’s also been stalled since 1999, or 2000. If you can show me a statistical analysis with those as the starting dates, I’ll be astonished, because it doesn’t it exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3654
Biffer29 wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.

I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.


More likely to be rubbish than not.

Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:

Image

Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.


No it hasn’t, that bullshit. The “stall” relies on taking one particular year (1998) as the starting point and the stats don’t work if you use the following year. Logically if it’s been stalled since 1998, it’s also been stalled since 1999, or 2000. If you can show me a statistical analysis with those as the starting dates, I’ll be astonished, because it doesn’t it exist.



I said 'nearly' not absolutely stalled. It still rising, but nothing like the rate alarmists predicted.

And it is stalled from around 2001, which is when the steeper upward trajectory of the 80's and 90's flattens off.

Image


Last edited by Sonny Blount on Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5711
Location: Vandean Coast
Sonny Blount wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.

I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.


More likely to be rubbish than not.

Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:

Image

Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.


You do realise a one pixel change on that graph corresponds to about 2000 years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3654
deadduck wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.

I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.


More likely to be rubbish than not.

Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:

Image

Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.


You do realise a one pixel change on that graph corresponds to about 2000 years


and?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5711
Location: Vandean Coast
The changes aren't fast at all

They take place over 20,000+ years


The current warming has occurred in about 150 years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3654
deadduck wrote:
The changes aren't fast at all

They take place over 20,000+ years


The current warming has occurred in about 150 years



What was the steepest rate of temperature change over a 150 year period in the Pleistocene?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6957
deadduck wrote:
The changes aren't fast at all

They take place over 20,000+ years


The current warming has occurred in about 150 years

So much faster than previous rises, I accept. What about the point that temperature rise itself causes a CO2 increase? If CO2 rise is both a cause and a consequence of warming, how much of the CO2 increase is from the sea (ie not from burning)? And if it is a large amount will reducing our emmisions stop it? I certainly hope so (ie I am not in the denial camp) otherwise we really are doomed)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16533
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Sonny Blount wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The changes aren't fast at all

They take place over 20,000+ years


The current warming has occurred in about 150 years



What was the steepest rate of temperature change over a 150 year period in the Pleistocene?

That ia called clutching at straws


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2579
THere is absolutely no way we're gonna solve this. zero. It would require a complete overhaul of our economic system, ts just not gonna happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:56 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26135
Location: Chickenrunning...
Heymans wrote:
THere is absolutely no way we're gonna solve this. zero. It would require a complete overhaul of our economic system, ts just not gonna happen.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2579
Sandstorm wrote:
Heymans wrote:
THere is absolutely no way we're gonna solve this. zero. It would require a complete overhaul of our economic system, ts just not gonna happen.


Image


Pretty much, yeah. In the current system, fairly accurate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4906
Location: 'ertfordshire
This whole subject is now getting far more serious!
Quote:
Trouble brewing: climate change to cause 'dramatic' beer shortages
Extreme weather damage to the global barley crop will mean price spikes and supply problems, according to new research

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/climate-change-to-cause-dramatic-beer-shortages-extreme-weather-price


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3654
Farva wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The changes aren't fast at all

They take place over 20,000+ years


The current warming has occurred in about 150 years



What was the steepest rate of temperature change over a 150 year period in the Pleistocene?

That ia called clutching at straws



No. It's a question that must be answered by anyone who claims the current warming is happening faster than ever before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10519
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Sonny Blount wrote:
Farva wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The changes aren't fast at all

They take place over 20,000+ years


The current warming has occurred in about 150 years



What was the steepest rate of temperature change over a 150 year period in the Pleistocene?

That ia called clutching at straws



No. It's a question that must be answered by anyone who claims the current warming is happening faster than ever before.


Never go full Silver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2428
james garner wrote:
The latest IPCC report is out and its now at the stage of basically saying we are f**ked if we want to keep climate change down to less than the 2 degree average; I am sure the media & political reaction is the same across the western world. 1 day of wailing how we are failing, and then silence:

So, Seeing as this forum is the next best thing to the UN and twice as intelligent, are we going to solve this issue? and if so how?

My take on it is right now we need a massive ramp up in nuclear, focus on reducing costs and time to operation. We (in many countries) are focusing on renewables which is great to a degree (for context I have worked in offshore wind for a decade).

As nuclear is often controversial, what would convince you that we need it?

Here is some 'propaganda': Yes I am skewing the debate, but feel free to change it

https://youtu.be/AAFWeIp8JT0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHsljVnY6oI

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/


Nuclear is a non-runner. Given existing carbon budgets and the need to stay within 2° celsius (anything up to that is still a big problem), we (the entire planet) would need to design, plan, construct and have operational, several thousand nuclear power stations by about 2040. That simply will not happen. It wouldn't happen even if there was significant political will behind the idea, which there is not.

So, in terms of resorting to nuclear as a means of staving off worsening climate change - non runner. And I say "worsening" climate change, as we are already experiencing the effects of human-induced climate chage right now. It's here, already. Arguably 1.5°, or the warming that's already taken place, is a sufficient tipping point. In which case the positive feedback mechanisms would take it completely out of our control.

There is only one realistic solution: reduce energy demand. I listened to Prof Kevin Anderson on this for about an hour and it's fairly obvious that this is the only solution that doesn't involve fantasy or some other form of bollocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56491
Reduce energy demands ....


There's progress for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16533
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Sonny Blount wrote:
Farva wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
deadduck wrote:
The changes aren't fast at all

They take place over 20,000+ years


The current warming has occurred in about 150 years



What was the steepest rate of temperature change over a 150 year period in the Pleistocene?

That ia called clutching at straws



No. It's a question that must be answered by anyone who claims the current warming is happening faster than ever before.

Well the claim is faster than ever recorded before but its all semantics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5907
Turbogoat wrote:
comets wrote:
Anyone ele just realized that THANOS was right all along?


Thinking about that, we are at 7.7Billion people on the planet right now.
Click your fingers, and reduce the number to 3.85Billion, and that's like winding the clock all the way back to about 1973.

Is buying our selves another 45 years before we find ourselves in the same situation worth having to wear this again?
Image



Thanos was full of shit. Saying he wants to kill half the universe to restore balance and shit...meanwhile seemed to have no idea of what numbers he was dealing with. Math time...Earth, one insignificant planet on the spiral arms of some galaxy has what 7.5 billion sentient beings (assuming that that's the only gang Thanos was gonna kill). There's something like 150 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Assume only half those stars have planets, so 75 billion, then assume only a quarter of those 75 billion stars have sapient life on it...so that's 37,500,000,000 stars with intelligent life. Then just to be conservative let's say the population of each of those planets is 5 billion...so that's 37.5 billion x 5..which is about 1.87^20 OR 18700000000000000000000. And that's for the Milky Way ALONE...now there's around 100 billion galaxies in the OBSERVABLE universe sooooooo 1.87 x 100,000,000,000 is 1.87^31...which is a huuuuuge number...killing 50% of all that life is nothing. Thanos might have almost limitless power but his maths skills are shocking. Broken galactic education system!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm
Posts: 955
Sonny Blount wrote:
Biffer29 wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.


More likely to be rubbish than not.

Unless of course we have 5-10 yearly temperature measurements from millions of years ago? The changes look to have been pretty fast:

Image

Global warming has been nearly stalled for over 15 years. This is fatal to the runaway warming hypothesis as the theory requires 'warming' to trigger the positive feedbacks rather than just CO2.


No it hasn’t, that bullshit. The “stall” relies on taking one particular year (1998) as the starting point and the stats don’t work if you use the following year. Logically if it’s been stalled since 1998, it’s also been stalled since 1999, or 2000. If you can show me a statistical analysis with those as the starting dates, I’ll be astonished, because it doesn’t it exist.



I said 'nearly' not absolutely stalled. It still rising, but nothing like the rate alarmists predicted.

And it is stalled from around 2001, which is when the steeper upward trajectory of the 80's and 90's flattens off.

Image




Why are you using a five year old graph? That only goes to 2013. Wouldn't be because the four hottest years on record are 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017 would it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33378
Location: Planet Rock
All this talk about finding this that and the other solution is bollox. Ever since the industrial revolution we have been f**king this planet for human habitation. Maybe previous generations knew the score. I know this generation certainly knows It's f**king the planet and there will be no magic solution found. There is no money in finding a solution that lets us keep doing what we want and prevent global warming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16533
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Anonymous. wrote:
All this talk about finding this that and the other solution is bollox. Ever since the industrial revolution we have been f**king this planet for human habitation. Maybe previous generations knew the score. I know this generation certainly knows It's f**king the planet and there will be no magic solution found. There is no money in finding a solution that lets us keep doing what we want and prevent global warming.


Disagree. I think we can achieve zero carbon emission energy production by utilising storage and solar / wind generation, and then utilise EVs such that there are zero emissions from vehicles too. I think these are already, or will become so soon, cost effective solutions.
I also think deforestation can be managed through revegetation regimes.
That covers the major forms of carbon emissions. Livestock account for around 18% and cement manufacture account for around 5% of greenhouse gas emissions and I think they will be tough to bring down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7258
I'd at least like us to make a decent stab at trying to solve the problem. It's all depressingly tepid at the moment. I'd happily pay more tax for the UK government to put a serious and comprehensive environmental plan in place and put money towards solutions for us and the world. David Attenborough was talking about us needing the equivalent of an Apollo project - the UK has always been pretty good at pulling technological rabbits out of the hat, I'd like to see if we can do it again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6263
Conservative Eddie wrote:
james garner wrote:
The latest IPCC report is out and its now at the stage of basically saying we are f**ked if we want to keep climate change down to less than the 2 degree average; I am sure the media & political reaction is the same across the western world. 1 day of wailing how we are failing, and then silence:

So, Seeing as this forum is the next best thing to the UN and twice as intelligent, are we going to solve this issue? and if so how?

My take on it is right now we need a massive ramp up in nuclear, focus on reducing costs and time to operation. We (in many countries) are focusing on renewables which is great to a degree (for context I have worked in offshore wind for a decade).

As nuclear is often controversial, what would convince you that we need it?

Here is some 'propaganda': Yes I am skewing the debate, but feel free to change it

https://youtu.be/AAFWeIp8JT0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHsljVnY6oI

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/


Nuclear is a non-runner. Given existing carbon budgets and the need to stay within 2° celsius (anything up to that is still a big problem), we (the entire planet) would need to design, plan, construct and have operational, several thousand nuclear power stations by about 2040. That simply will not happen. It wouldn't happen even if there was significant political will behind the idea, which there is not.

So, in terms of resorting to nuclear as a means of staving off worsening climate change - non runner. And I say "worsening" climate change, as we are already experiencing the effects of human-induced climate chage right now. It's here, already. Arguably 1.5°, or the warming that's already taken place, is a sufficient tipping point. In which case the positive feedback mechanisms would take it completely out of our control.

There is only one realistic solution: reduce energy demand. I listened to Prof Kevin Anderson on this for about an hour and it's fairly obvious that this is the only solution that doesn't involve fantasy or some other form of bollocks.



Building more nukes isn't realsitic but reducing consumption is? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Posts: 4902
Location: England
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
comets wrote:
Anyone ele just realized that THANOS was right all along?


Thinking about that, we are at 7.7Billion people on the planet right now.
Click your fingers, and reduce the number to 3.85Billion, and that's like winding the clock all the way back to about 1973.

Is buying our selves another 45 years before we find ourselves in the same situation worth having to wear this again?
*snip*


Thanos was full of shit. Saying he wants to kill half the universe to restore balance and shit...meanwhile seemed to have no idea of what numbers he was dealing with. Math time...Earth, one insignificant planet on the spiral arms of some galaxy has what 7.5 billion sentient beings (assuming that that's the only gang Thanos was gonna kill).*snip*


Do you remember the bit in the film where it shows how he acquired his 'daughter', Gamora? He was clearly culling on other planets too. Also, wasn't the whole point of the Infinity Gauntlet that he'd no longer need to go planet to planet with conventional armies, but just have to think it and have his will be actioned throughout the universe?

So...Thanos was right?

I'm certainly pessimistic enough to think that the overdue global epidemic taking down sizeable chunks of the population would be necessary to buy us the breathing space to effectively combat climate change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56491
penguin wrote:
I'd at least like us to make a decent stab at trying to solve the problem. It's all depressingly tepid at the moment. I'd happily pay more tax for the UK government to put a serious and comprehensive environmental plan in place and put money towards solutions for us and the world. David Attenborough was talking about us needing the equivalent of an Apollo project - the UK has always been pretty good at pulling technological rabbits out of the hat, I'd like to see if we can do it again.



The U.K. Government pretty much leads the way in Carbon reductions in the last 20 years, unless the US and China seriously reduce its f ucking pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7258
bimboman wrote:
penguin wrote:
I'd at least like us to make a decent stab at trying to solve the problem. It's all depressingly tepid at the moment. I'd happily pay more tax for the UK government to put a serious and comprehensive environmental plan in place and put money towards solutions for us and the world. David Attenborough was talking about us needing the equivalent of an Apollo project - the UK has always been pretty good at pulling technological rabbits out of the hat, I'd like to see if we can do it again.



The U.K. Government pretty much leads the way in Carbon reductions in the last 20 years, unless the US and China seriously reduce its f ucking pointless.


Hence the point about us and the world - if we can solve one or some of the major issues (battery tech, conductors, carbon capture, or the holy grail of fusion - a man can dream) then we can push along countries that aren't at the same pace. We can't just wait out the dicks currently running things in the US, there just isn't the time for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1570
definitely a reason to do nothing.

lets all start rolling coal on our hummers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 900
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
zzzz wrote:
Conservative Eddie wrote:
james garner wrote:
The latest IPCC report is out and its now at the stage of basically saying we are f**ked if we want to keep climate change down to less than the 2 degree average; I am sure the media & political reaction is the same across the western world. 1 day of wailing how we are failing, and then silence:

So, Seeing as this forum is the next best thing to the UN and twice as intelligent, are we going to solve this issue? and if so how?

My take on it is right now we need a massive ramp up in nuclear, focus on reducing costs and time to operation. We (in many countries) are focusing on renewables which is great to a degree (for context I have worked in offshore wind for a decade).

As nuclear is often controversial, what would convince you that we need it?

Here is some 'propaganda': Yes I am skewing the debate, but feel free to change it

https://youtu.be/AAFWeIp8JT0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHsljVnY6oI

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/


Nuclear is a non-runner. Given existing carbon budgets and the need to stay within 2° celsius (anything up to that is still a big problem), we (the entire planet) would need to design, plan, construct and have operational, several thousand nuclear power stations by about 2040. That simply will not happen. It wouldn't happen even if there was significant political will behind the idea, which there is not.

So, in terms of resorting to nuclear as a means of staving off worsening climate change - non runner. And I say "worsening" climate change, as we are already experiencing the effects of human-induced climate chage right now. It's here, already. Arguably 1.5°, or the warming that's already taken place, is a sufficient tipping point. In which case the positive feedback mechanisms would take it completely out of our control.

There is only one realistic solution: reduce energy demand. I listened to Prof Kevin Anderson on this for about an hour and it's fairly obvious that this is the only solution that doesn't involve fantasy or some other form of bollocks.



Building more nukes isn't realsitic but reducing consumption is? :lol:


Nuclear on its own may be a non starter, but equally renewables and lots of storage wont do it IMO. France and Sweden managed impressive Nuclear roll out previously, if we could match that speed of roll out across Europe (needs to be done between lots of countries to be a success) we could have a large Nuclear fleet as part of the energy mix, alongside large scale renewables and some storage.


While we do need to become more energy efficient, electricity demand will increase when we all start to use electric cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56491
penguin wrote:
bimboman wrote:
penguin wrote:
I'd at least like us to make a decent stab at trying to solve the problem. It's all depressingly tepid at the moment. I'd happily pay more tax for the UK government to put a serious and comprehensive environmental plan in place and put money towards solutions for us and the world. David Attenborough was talking about us needing the equivalent of an Apollo project - the UK has always been pretty good at pulling technological rabbits out of the hat, I'd like to see if we can do it again.



The U.K. Government pretty much leads the way in Carbon reductions in the last 20 years, unless the US and China seriously reduce its f ucking pointless.


Hence the point about us and the world - if we can solve one or some of the major issues (battery tech, conductors, carbon capture, or the holy grail of fusion - a man can dream) then we can push along countries that aren't at the same pace. We can't just wait out the dicks currently running things in the US, there just isn't the time for it.



Yeah let's blame the US while China is building a coal station a week still.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7258
bimboman wrote:
penguin wrote:
bimboman wrote:
penguin wrote:
I'd at least like us to make a decent stab at trying to solve the problem. It's all depressingly tepid at the moment. I'd happily pay more tax for the UK government to put a serious and comprehensive environmental plan in place and put money towards solutions for us and the world. David Attenborough was talking about us needing the equivalent of an Apollo project - the UK has always been pretty good at pulling technological rabbits out of the hat, I'd like to see if we can do it again.



The U.K. Government pretty much leads the way in Carbon reductions in the last 20 years, unless the US and China seriously reduce its f ucking pointless.


Hence the point about us and the world - if we can solve one or some of the major issues (battery tech, conductors, carbon capture, or the holy grail of fusion - a man can dream) then we can push along countries that aren't at the same pace. We can't just wait out the dicks currently running things in the US, there just isn't the time for it.



Yeah let's blame the US while China is building a coal station a week still.


I wasn't letting China off the hook, but the US administration's attitude at the moment is particularly irritating as one piece of the puzzle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56491
What carbon restriction did Obama manage in 8 years ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8750
Farva wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
All this talk about finding this that and the other solution is bollox. Ever since the industrial revolution we have been f**king this planet for human habitation. Maybe previous generations knew the score. I know this generation certainly knows It's f**king the planet and there will be no magic solution found. There is no money in finding a solution that lets us keep doing what we want and prevent global warming.


Disagree. I think we can achieve zero carbon emission energy production by utilising storage and solar / wind generation, and then utilise EVs such that there are zero emissions from vehicles too. I think these are already, or will become so soon, cost effective solutions.
I also think deforestation can be managed through revegetation regimes.
That covers the major forms of carbon emissions. Livestock account for around 18% and cement manufacture account for around 5% of greenhouse gas emissions and I think they will be tough to bring down.

More difficult?
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-methane-burps-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-research-a8368911.html

https://www.carboncure.com/

What's depressing is just how slow governments are at adopting potential solutions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7258
bimboman wrote:
What carbon restriction did Obama manage in 8 years ?


I don't think that's a particularly helpful point.

For what it's worth though, Obama did not achieve as much as he (or many of us) would have wanted but he did bring in $80 billion of funding for renewables that led to the massive growth in those areas, and his vehicle efficiency policy was probably the other major success. He also entered the Paris agreement. We can certainly criticise the performance - he didn't go far enough but at least he believed in the problem. That is not the case now, and the time that has been wasted makes the scale of the task all the harder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4211
Location: Cape Town
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Thanos was full of shit. Saying he wants to kill half the universe to restore balance and shit...meanwhile seemed to have no idea of what numbers he was dealing with. Math time...Earth, one insignificant planet on the spiral arms of some galaxy has what 7.5 billion sentient beings (assuming that that's the only gang Thanos was gonna kill). There's something like 150 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Assume only half those stars have planets, so 75 billion, then assume only a quarter of those 75 billion stars have sapient life on it...so that's 37,500,000,000 stars with intelligent life. Then just to be conservative let's say the population of each of those planets is 5 billion...so that's 37.5 billion x 5..which is about 1.87^20 OR 18700000000000000000000. And that's for the Milky Way ALONE...now there's around 100 billion galaxies in the OBSERVABLE universe sooooooo 1.87 x 100,000,000,000 is 1.87^31...which is a huuuuuge number...killing 50% of all that life is nothing. Thanos might have almost limitless power but his maths skills are shocking. Broken galactic education system!


It's even stupider that that.

The current global population is estimated at 7.6 billion...so if it were reduced by half, to 3.8 billion it would be approximately the same as it was in 1970. Assuming people reproduce at the same rate as they did (and there isn't a massive baby boom in the wake of the snap) it won't even take 50 years to repopulate the world back to current levels.

The arbitrary 50% value fails to account for the exponential nature population growth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56491
penguin wrote:
bimboman wrote:
What carbon restriction did Obama manage in 8 years ?


I don't think that's a particularly helpful point.

For what it's worth though, Obama did not achieve as much as he (or many of us) would have wanted but he did bring in $80 billion of funding for renewables that led to the massive growth in those areas, and his vehicle efficiency policy was probably the other major success. He also entered the Paris agreement. We can certainly criticise the performance - he didn't go far enough but at least he believed in the problem. That is not the case now, and the time that has been wasted makes the scale of the task all the harder.



How much carbon was reduced, the point is about the actions rather than intent and words. Point is the carbon changes didn't occur.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7258
bimboman wrote:
penguin wrote:
bimboman wrote:
What carbon restriction did Obama manage in 8 years ?


I don't think that's a particularly helpful point.

For what it's worth though, Obama did not achieve as much as he (or many of us) would have wanted but he did bring in $80 billion of funding for renewables that led to the massive growth in those areas, and his vehicle efficiency policy was probably the other major success. He also entered the Paris agreement. We can certainly criticise the performance - he didn't go far enough but at least he believed in the problem. That is not the case now, and the time that has been wasted makes the scale of the task all the harder.



How much carbon was reduced, the point is about the actions rather than intent and words. Point is the carbon changes didn't occur.


Like I say, we can certainly criticise the performance but where Obama was an ineffective climate change believer, Trump's band of fuckmuppets are outright deniers. Their attitude is a problem, and what Obama did or didn't do is irrelevant now if we want to fix it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
bimboman wrote:
What carbon restriction did Obama manage in 8 years ?


It's quite likely that Obama himself would have liked to achieve more, but there were a few hurdles that may have slipped under your radar:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/p ... rules.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/ar ... -plan.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-passes ... nance.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ower-plan/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/p ... tions.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... epublicans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... imate-deal


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, beafheart, BillW, Bing [Bot], crouchy, Dan54., Flametop, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], iarmhiman, jambanja, Jay Cee Gee, Leinsterman, Lobby, lorcanoworms, Madness, Massey Ferguson, mileendmikey, Mog The Almighty, Mr. Very Popular, MungoMan, Red Revolution, Risteard, Saint, SamShark, Sandstorm, Sefton, sonic_attack, Still Not Playing, Tez, Ulsters Red Hand, UncleFB, Zakar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group