Yeah. Thank god we have these [s]climate scientists[/s] skeptical geniuses on the thread to inform us as to why there’s no reason to worry, and no reason to do anything. It’s not flooding where they live, so what’s the problem?
Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah.
I have some ability of course. I live by the sea, and empirically I observe none of the supposedly world-shattering trends that people talk about. So I'm having to take someone else's word for it that there is in fact something going on.
Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere.
unenlightenedDecember 28, 2023 at 21:11#8659950 likes
Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere.
What mainly has to be taken into account is that so far it is mainly sea ice we have been losing, and sea ice loss doesn't raise sea levels unless the ice is well grounded. Most of the small rise so far has been due to the expansion of water with rise of temperature, and some glacier loss. But it's only just begun.
Greenland ice is going to take some time to melt, but it is almost certainly going to melt. Those interested in fake physics will foolishly believe that melting ice absorbs a great deal of heat because of the latent heat associated with a change of state. Those doom merchants will think that there is another reason why things have not quite gotten as bad as they might otherwise have. Latent heat is one of those things they used to propagandise us with in physics lessons back in the 60's.
Reply to unenlightened That seems right...ice absorbs less, and reflects more, heat than liquid water...the so-called "albedo effect:
The Greenland ice sheet may be even more sensitive to the warming climate than scientists previously thought.
A new study finds that rising air temperatures are working with warm ocean waters to speed the melting of Greenland’s seaside glaciers.
The findings, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, shed new light on the forces driving ice loss on the world’s second largest ice sheet.
The Greenland ice sheet is losing an average of around 250 billion metric tons of ice per year. These losses are speeding up over time, studies have found—and there are two main processes causing it.
Warm air temperatures cause melting to occur on the surface of the ice sheet—that process accounts for about half the ice Greenland loses each year. The other half comes from glaciers at the ice sheet’s edge crumbling into the sea.
Losses from these seaside glaciers have, until now, been mainly attributed to warm ocean waters licking at the edge of the ice. But the new research finds that rising air temperatures have a big influence as well.
Warm air causes the surface of the ice sheet to melt, and that meltwater then runs off into the ocean. When that happens, it churns up the waters—and that turbulence helps heat rise up from the depths of the ocean and warm up the waters coming into contact with the ice. That, in turn, melts the glaciers faster.
Lead study author Donald Slater, a scientist at the University of Edinburgh, likened the process to ice cubes in a glass of water. They clearly melt faster when the water is warmer. But they also melt faster when the water is stirred.
Rising air temperatures in Greenland “effectively result in a stirring of the ocean close to the ice sheet, causing faster melting of the ice sheet by the ocean,” he said in a statement.
The researchers used a combination of observations and models to investigate the melt rates at the edges of Greenland’s oceanfront glaciers, and then to tease out the roles of ocean versus atmosphere.
That seems right...ice absorbs less, and reflects more, heat than liquid water...the so-called "albedo effect:
That's a separate thing, though also significant. The latent heat thing is that you have to add some heat to ice at 0°C to turn it into water at 0°C, and that extra energy is called latent heat. It is the energy required to break the chemical bonds that form the crystalline structure of ice. The same thing happens with boiling water. You have to keep adding heat to turn the water into vapour, and the water doesn't get any hotter, it just vaporises. That's why the potatoes don't burn until the pot has boiled dry.
So all the time extra energy is melting ice, that energy isn't raising the temperature. And there's lots of ice to melt. So it's only just begun.
The albedo change is a positive feedback loop that produces one of the notorious 'tipping points'. As ice melts, the planet darkens and absorbs more heat. It is generally accepted that we are heading for an ice free N.pole in summer, in a few years rather than a few decades. And then the Greenland ice sheet is going to be exposed on all sides and looking vey lonesome.
Reply to unenlightened Thanks for the explanation—it seems I misunderstood your point, failing to realize you were being ironic with "fake physicists".
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 29, 2023 at 00:54#8660740 likes
Relying on nearly a 30-year record of satellite measurements, scientists have measured the rate of sea-level rise at 0.13 inches (3.4 millimeters) per year.
3.4 millimeters per year is a lot less than 10 millimeters per year. Sorry you can't read, Mikie.
Here is some information about long term rates of sea level rise.
Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year.
So the sea level was rising by 1-2 mm per year even before global warming started. How do the people who are concerned about sea level rise explain that?
4 millimeters per year is a lot less than 10 millimeters per year. Sorry you can't read, Mikie.
No, the article cited, which he was responding to, was very clear: 10 mm. Sorry you can’t read.
Sea levels along coastlines from North Carolina to Texas have risen in excess of 10 millimeters a year (about a half inch) compared to an average of about 2 millimeters a year over the last century,
Also, even 3.4 (which is indeed accurate) is more than 2. So even with your adolescent attempts at a “gotcha” moment, you still look like an ignoramus.
Cool to see you never tire of embarrassing yourself though.
So the sea level was rising by 1-2 mm per year even before global warming started.
Lol. Yeah, because global warming started in 2018.
:roll: Good lord.
Might as well complete the article— because it is actually interesting for those interested in more than cherry picking to score points on the internet:
Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year.[2] This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022.[3] Climate change due to human activities is the main cause. Between 1993 and 2018, thermal expansion of water accounted for 42% of sea level rise. Melting temperate glaciers accounted for 21%, with Greenland accounting for 15% and Antarctica 8%.[4]:?1576? Sea level rise lags changes in the Earth's temperature. So sea level rise will continue to accelerate between now and 2050 in response to warming that is already happening.[5] What happens after that will depend on what happens with human greenhouse gas emissions. Sea level rise may slow down between 2050 and 2100 if there are deep cuts in emissions. It could then reach a little over 30 cm (1 ft) from now by 2100. With high emissions it may accelerate. It could rise by 1 m (3+1?2 ft) or even 2 m (6+1?2 ft) by then.[6][7] In the long run, sea level rise would amount to 2–3 m (7–10 ft) over the next 2000 years if warming amounts to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F). It would be 19–22 metres (62–72 ft) if warming peaks at 5 °C (9.0 °F).[6]:?21?
Climate change denial (also global warming denial or climate denial) is the pseudoscientific[2] dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[3][4][5]
Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[6][7][8] To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[9] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[10][11] pseudoscience,[12] or propaganda.[13]
Fits several of our visitors on this thread to a tee. Worth posting occasionally.
Let's try another approach. The big oil companies have billions of dollars at their disposal. They can afford to hire any number of top climatologists. If they could demonstrate - using good science - that
- Global warming is not happening at all
- It's happening but it's caused by some hitherto unknown natural phenomena
that person or persons would become among the most famous scientists who ever lived. Why have they (big oil companies) not done this?
[s]Anthropogenic climate change, which is what this thread is about, is the result of human activities— namely, pumping out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in enormous quantities. Particularly the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.
The burning of coal, oil, and gas was a major part of the Industrial Revolution, of course. That’s roughly 1750-onward.[/s]
Eh…nevermind. It’s not happening. Or rather the climate always changes and the science isn’t clear. Or whatever.
Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere.
I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust.
unenlightenedDecember 29, 2023 at 11:51#8661400 likes
Reply to Janus Sorry about that. It's frustrating dealing with the global scepticism at times.
I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust.
Here is where i have a problem with trusting you and the honesty of your scepticism. When I look at the venality of academia, I see three possibilities.
First, a systematic distortion produced by vested interests with power and money is possible and has happened. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Guns, big Defence. There is no Big Wind, or Big Solar, so I discount that in this case, only the opposite distortion by Big Oil is remotely likely and the evidence of their activity is not hard to find and works to undermine and minimise, not to exaggerate.
Second, there is a natural tendency for any discipline to big itself up and make itself important. But geologists and climate scientists already have a massive market for their ideas and predictions in the commercial field, and are not making themselves popular with predictions of collapse. On the contrary, the more pessimistic predictors are losing their jobs.
Third, there is always a market on the internet for the odd maverick or contrarian feeding any conspiracy theory, or other special interest. But this of its nature cannot apply to the consensus of climate scientists.
So I am asking you for a proper justification of your scepticism in this case, rather than just innuendo. Who is distorting and why is it so widespread and systematic, and how is it profiting anyone?
Astronomy is complicated, hard to understand and based on indirect and estimated measurement, extrapolating from sparse evidence using complicated statistics. These are reasons to be cautious and flexible about its findings, but one does not hear accusations of grift about the big bang or cosmic inflation.
But don’t you know it’s about control, and that the big Green lobby stands to make billions— and Bill Gates and George Soros and scientists have been wrong before and Greta Thunberg is a patsy and so on…
unenlightenedDecember 29, 2023 at 12:15#8661460 likes
Here is a village local to me, where the sea defences are not going to be raised, and where one cannot get a mortgage. Over on the east coast of England, there are problems with coastal erosion, but this is sea level rise pure and simple. There are of course atolls and deltas already suffering devastation elsewhere, but it's somehow more real when it happens to decent civilised property owning people like us.
I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust.
I'm guessing a lot of people are in this situation.
It’s happening all around us, constantly — and trusting a graph doesn’t require much strain.
But it’s funny to have such doubts about science, yet repeat wholesale the demonstrable propaganda of oil companies. Apparently they’re trustworthy. Keen judgment.
But it’s funny to have such doubts about science, yet repeat wholesale the demonstrable propaganda of oil companies. Apparently they’re trustworthy. Keen judgment.
Some low-brow attempt to shove me into the camp of the oil companies? :brow:
Some low-brow attempt to shove me into the camp of the oil companies? :brow:
Not at all. Just seems to me for someone claiming such skepticism about institutions, that skepticism about the propaganda of oil companies seems disproportionately thin.
You can't identify single incidents like this, or look at a single graph, or look at this year's weather and decide what the climate is doing. The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables.
Yes of course. Us peons couldn't possibly understand the the variable approximations of numerous models that get averaged out to give us a low resolution picture of how the climate will have changed in 100 years. Yes, we should just shut up when the politicians interpret all this hyper-accurate data and accept whatever they tell us. I'm sure there is no ulterior agenda.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe
The proximal vector in the multiplexed zone retraces the inferior Fibonacci levels to localize on the scale of dimensional applications.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe
The IPCC talks about it quite a bit. Since it ended in the 1850s, it means North America has been warming up since then. It's yet another reason we use computer models instead of looking out the window to understand the climate.
Did you happen to look at the graph on the Wikipedia page? Look at what happened to the temperature at the beginning of the 21st Century.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 29, 2023 at 23:51#8663910 likes
The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables.
Frank, you seem to have very strong faith in super computers and their output. Are you familiar with GIGO (garbage in garbage out).
I have been a computer programmer for about 40 years. Whether the output is realistic depends on using correctly written software. There are many assumptions made when writing a climate model, and then of course there are bugs.
Some people believe that using a super computer just lets you make mistakes more quickly.
What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)?
What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)?
— Agree-to-Disagree
I like it. What are your thoughts?
I think that AI is a two-edged sword. It could have very good consequences, or very bad consequences. It will probably have both.
Many of the products and services that claim to have or use AI at the moment don't really have AI. It is used as a marketing ploy and an excuse to have a higher price.
Scammers and people who want to cheat will be able to use AI to help them scam and cheat.
AI must get its information from somewhere. This is likely to include the internet. This is worrying because 80% of the stuff on the internet is crap. GIGO (or in this case CICO - crap in crap out)
When I started computer programming 40 years ago, computers were fairly new. People were in awe of computers and accepted as true anything that came out of a computer. I see the same thing happening now with AI. People are in awe of AI and tend to believe anything that an AI does or says.
I bookmark articles on AI. Especially the ones where AI is wrong, stupid, or causes people to lose a lot of money. Some of the articles are quite funny.
Google issues urgent warning to the millions of people using ChatGPT
A boss at Google has hit out at ChatGPT for giving ‘convincing but completely fictitious’ answers.
Which is kind of ironic, since Google’s own AI chatbot, Bard, recently cost the company £100,000,000,000 by giving the wrong answer.
Nevertheless, the search giant maintains people should be wary of ChatGPT.
‘This type of artificial intelligence we’re talking about [ChatGPT] can sometimes lead to something we call hallucination,’ Google boss Prabhakar Raghavan told German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag.
Influencer who created AI version of herself says it's gone rogue and she's working 'around the clock' to stop it saying sexually explicit things
Caryn Marjorie created an AI version of herself, which was designed to be a virtual girlfriend. But the voice-based chatbot has engaged in sexual explicit conversations with subscribers. Sternlicht wrote that while CarynAI did not initiate sexual encounters, when prompted "she discussed exploring 'uncharted territories of pleasure' and whispering 'sensual words in my ear' while undressing me and positioning herself for sexual intercourse."
Marjorie said she and her team are working "around the clock" to prevent it from happening again.
Is it really artificial intelligence when a person is controlling the AI to restrict what the AI can do or say? Or restrict what the AI can't do or say.
AI Chat Bots Are Running Amok — And We Have No Clue How to Stop Them
Of course, novel tech comes with its share of chaos. Lately, it seems that all our chat bots are either failing, lying, or veering off-mission with inappropriate or disturbing output. In basically every case, it’s because humans have figured out a way to misuse them — or simply don’t comprehend the forces they’ve unleashed.
unenlightenedDecember 30, 2023 at 11:47#8665140 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree
I'm mainly familiar with AI art generation. It opens up new doors for creativity.
I haven't used the AI answer generator except I once asked it a question about Kierkegaard and its answer blew my mind. It was so insightful. How could it have come from an unconscious machine? It's crazy. Turing would be amazed.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 30, 2023 at 19:48#8666230 likes
I haven't used the AI answer generator except I once asked it a question about Kierkegaard and its answer blew my mind. It was so insightful. How could it have come from an unconscious machine? It's crazy. Turing would be amazed.
Hi Frank. I am not sure whether you are being ironic or gullible. :grin:
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 30, 2023 at 20:18#8666380 likes
Climate changes over most of the last 800,000 years were always due to natural causes. Humans had little or no influence.
800,000 years ago, hominid species were one of many species, with absolutely zero contribution above and beyond their biological needs. And that was the case right up until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In case you hadn’t noticed, humans have since then not only increased massively in number, approaching 8 billion in the coming year, they’ve also devised an enormous number of impactful technologies which have demonstrably affected the environment generally and the atmosphere in particular. This is utterly beyond dispute, it is a matter of empirical fact, no matter your sophisticated obfuscation.
Speaking of Artificial Intelligence, I put this exchange to ChatGPT just now:
Q: I’m interacting with a forum contributor who expresses many doubts about the impact of humans on climate change, and also the ability of humans to ameliorate that impact, even if he were to agree that humans are a factor. What should I say to him?
A: When engaging with someone skeptical about human impact on climate change and our ability to address it, it's important to approach the conversation with respect and understanding. Here are a few key points you could consider:
1. **Scientific Consensus**: Emphasize that there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is real and significantly driven by human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2.
2. **Historical Data and Predictions**: Point to the wealth of historical climate data and the accuracy of predictions made by climate models over the past decades, which support the understanding of human impact.
3. **Visible Impact**: Mention observable changes such as melting glaciers, more frequent and severe weather events, and shifts in wildlife behavior and habitats.
4. **Economic and Health Benefits**: Highlight that actions to mitigate climate change can have immediate benefits, like improving air quality, public health, and even creating economic opportunities in renewable energy sectors.
5. **Successful Examples**: Provide examples of successful mitigation efforts, such as the growth of renewable energy, reforestation projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies, which demonstrate that human action can make a difference.
6. **Collective Responsibility**: Stress that while individual actions are important, the most significant changes need to come from systemic and policy changes at the governmental and corporate levels.
7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem.
Remember, the goal is not to win an argument but to foster a thoughtful conversation. Listening to their concerns and understanding their perspective can also be key in finding common ground.
Generally speaking, a good recommendation, with the caveat that the interlocutor also ought not feel as though they’ve ’won the argument’.
unenlightenedDecember 31, 2023 at 10:53#8668220 likes
[quote=BollocksGPT]7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem.[/quote]
That has been tried.
and tried.
And now it is too late. Governments have met and done very little; people have spend their lives trying to protect environments and failed.
No one wants to hear the news, but the human population is going to crash, with immense suffering and the collapse of governments. Optimism is entirely inappropriate. An entirely different mindset is required, of mourning, resignation, and stoical compassion. It is time to consider what there is of value in our civilisation that we might be able to rescue some remnant of, for the future. Chat GPT will not be high on my list. It sounds like Eddy the ship's computer, when Marvin the paranoid android would be more useful and appropriate.
Speaking of Douglas Adams, here is a little irony of the programme series "Last Chance to See"
The subject of the final programme was due to be the Yangtze river dolphin; however, the species was declared extinct in 2007. Instead, he takes Fry to the Gulf of California on the eastern side of the Baja California Peninsula in Mexico to search for the endangered blue whale.
Q: I’m interacting with a forum contributor who expresses many doubts about the impact of humans on climate change, and also the ability of humans to ameliorate that impact, even if he were to agree that humans are a factor. What should I say to him?
1. **Scientific Consensus**: I know that there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is real and significantly driven by human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2. As well as knowing that there is a consensus, for the most part I agree with the consensus.
2a. **Historical Data**: Point to the wealth of historical climate data. The widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate began in the 19th century. NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, giving us about 45 years of data. Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.
2b. **Predictions**:Point to the accuracy of predictions made by climate models over the past decades, which support the understanding of human impact. I am not sure than the predictions are very accurate since scientists are always surprised when warming is worse than they predicted. For example, "It's now "virtually certain" that 2023 will be the hottest year on record. That's something that no major climate science body expected at the start of the year.". Why didn't scientists expect 2023 to be the hottest year on record?
3. **Visible Impact**: Mention observable changes such as melting glaciers, more frequent and severe weather events, and shifts in wildlife behavior and habitats. I accept that these changes are happening.
4. **Economic and Health Benefits**: Highlight that actions to mitigate climate change can have immediate benefits, like improving air quality, public health, and even creating economic opportunities in renewable energy sectors. I accept these points. However, not all efforts have a beneficial effect. "Regulations introduced in 2020 to encourage cleaner shipping fuels have reduced global emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), a harmful air pollutant for humans to breathe, by an estimated 10%. But this appears to have raised temperatures, especially in shipping hotspots like the North Atlantic.
5. **Successful Examples**: Provide examples of successful mitigation efforts, such as the growth of renewable energy, reforestation projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies, which demonstrate that human action can make a difference. I support the growth of renewable energy, reforestation and environmental projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies. However, I don't think that renewable energy has reached the point where we can stop using fossil fuels. I favor a slow transition away from fossil fuels.
6. **Collective Responsibility**: Stress that while individual actions are important, the most significant changes need to come from systemic and policy changes at the governmental and corporate levels. I am skeptical that these changes will happen. Because of human nature people don't really want to reduce their standard of living. Democracy means that politicians don't want to be unpopular.
7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem. I agree that feeling hopeless or denying the problem will make matters worse. It is a very huge problem and because of human nature it will be very difficult to solve.
I don't normally agree with James Hansen, but I think that he is correct when he says "The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail," said Hansen, whose 1988 congressional testimony on climate change helped sound the alarm of global warming. "And the two-degree limit can be rescued, only with the help of purposeful actions.".
An entirely different mindset is required, of mourning, resignation, and stoical compassion.
You lose me here. If we all simply resign, it’s certainly over. If we continue to act, something may happen — at the least we can mitigate the absolute worst. 2C is better than 3C or 4C. That trajectory has already changed. It just hasn’t changed enough.
I haven't noticed us acting, and nor has the climate. Not only that, but plans to act effectively are not even being talked about or put in place. Like bollocksGPT says, what individuals can do without change of policy is negligible. We are not going to stop it, and therefore we are going to suffer the consequences. We can each help a little to make it slightly less catastrophic, so inaction is not what I am suggesting, but preparing for a radical change that is coming and will be chaotic and unsurvivable for many is now my priority, and talking to people who want to live in fantasy is becoming less and less important to me.
Why do you imagine the climate can be stabilised at 2°C or 3°C? If we had been acting to change our societies economies for the last 20 years, it would have been possible, but there has been no movement away from an economy dependent on endless growth. None.
The best estimate of the climate record shows that the last time CO2 levels were at the current level, the global temperature was about 6°C higher, and sea levels were 40 m. higher. But we are still adding more CO2 at near record amounts, so that seems a likely climate scenario for the future, on the way to possibly higher temperatures. It is the biosphere that tends to stabilise the climate, and the biosphere cannot cope well with rapid change, plus we are busily polluting and depleting it already.
The weakness of reason is apparent in this thread; one can spend pages trying to convince one fairly educated and thoughtful person that there is a problem. Half the world is going to be dead before any real action is taken. It all sounds extravagant and shocking, and most will dismiss it. But if you read the graphs, it is clear enough. We are in overshoot.
Why do you imagine the climate can be stabilised at 2°C or 3°C?
I’m going on various trajectories based on business as usual, stated goals, and best-case scenarios. If we’ve “improved” to the point where 4C is no longer seen as probable, then that’s some progress at least. 1.5 is gonzo— I know that. We shouldn’t let that stop us from pushing anyway.
I don’t hear 6C being mentioned as a probable scenario much.
I am reading that directly off the graph I posted earlier. It is not a modelled prediction, just a bare "well that's what it was the last time". and here is the link again. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177
This is obviously based on indirect measurements, because direct measurements of CO2 levels in air bubbles in ice cores only go back 800.000 years, and our CO2 levels are off that scale, as you know.
So the nearest comparison you can see on the graph is about 16M yrs ago. That in itself is a scary number, because we are talking about a climate far from that which humans evolved in, and a time when the earliest apes were living.
Recent temperatures have exceeded model predictions by a scary margin, and masking by shipping pollution in the atmosphere has been suggested as a cause of underestimating the sensitivity to CO2 levels.
But I think there has also been a strong pressure towards conservatism in the reporting. We know how it goes, "don't give the sceptics a target" So always much climate action is assumed in the models, everything is conservatively estimated.
Along this trajectory, the middle Miocene (~16 Ma) marks the last time that CO2 concentrations were consistently higher than at present; Greenland was not yet glaciated at that time, and independent estimates suggest that sea level was some 50 m higher than today.
They don't say "that's where we're heading". But that's where we seem to be heading, or beyond. People are saying it, but the people who are saying it are not continuing their research into human futility, they are finding other things to do with what time is left. This is genuinely traumatic to those who have come to believe it, and that is why there is a great resistance to admitting how bad things are going to get, even to oneself. - and so not much is done, and we keep calm and carry on.
unenlightenedJanuary 10, 2024 at 12:54#8710710 likes
I remember having an epileptic fit from overheating many years ago in a vineyard in the South of France. It was ever thus, but now more-so, and it's only just begun.
Meanwhile here's a cheery site that aggregates greenhouse gasses into a CO2 equivalent measure, and finds that when all the gases are accounted for it is equivalent to 500 ppm currently. Or rather, a while ago.
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
Fortunately no one understands or cares about that either.
unenlightenedJanuary 23, 2024 at 09:49#8748130 likes
ChatteringMonkeyJanuary 23, 2024 at 14:01#8748460 likes
Reply to unenlightened Well it seems to me it's not only their pessimism that got them fired, but especially their activism.
I think maybe there is a case to be made that a scientist shouldn't be trying to be an activitist or politician, because these two activities don't allways go together all that well for obvious reasons.
In an ideal world, a scientist describes the world as best as he can, and then politicians and activists take up the task of changing the world informed by the picture scientists have painted. Mixing the two doesn't seem ideal, if not for reasons of potential conflicts of interest, then for reasons of credibility.
But given the scope, severity and urgency of the problem, and the fact that politics doesn't seem to work as it should, I can definately understand more scientists going in that direction.
Saw that. I knew that they were well aware in the late 70s…but the 50s? Incredible.
Just shows how much better their propaganda and influence has been compared to big tobacco. Tobacco delayed a backlash for 30 years. Big oil is literally destroying the world, and yet they’ve denied and delayed for 70 years. Have to hand it to them.
ChristofferFebruary 01, 2024 at 15:59#8771230 likes
I guess we're gonna look back on these times 40-50 years from now in the same way we look back at doctors advertising cigarettes. And future generations will look at all the aging advocates, apologists and evangelics as fuckups of their time, elderly losers who no one will miss. Great sense of legacy these people will feel by then. I have no problem feeling moral superiority in this matter, if there ever was something that would be easy to find the moral compass within it's this topic. One of the most proven scientific fields of all, showing evidence as far back as the 50s and people just act like it's up for debate. Yeah, I'll stay humble in other areas, but this high horse is quite comfy to be on.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 01, 2024 at 18:55#8771520 likes
Try over a 100 years. And really even before that it was known but tobacco companies were already peddling propaganda at the time. There were plenty of people worried about the bad effects of smoking around the 1900s but there wasn't any statistical proof. That came in the 1940s which led to more propaganda.
There were plenty of people worried about the bad effects of smoking around the 1900s but there wasn't any statistical proof. That came in the 1940s which led to more propaganda.
I thought it was the 60s. But I won’t Wikipedia it— I’ll take your word for it.
Reply to Mikie 1964 was the US surgeon general's report. I worked on the public awareness research for the tobacco industry during my studies as a part time paralegal.
The 60s is therefore generally considered the time a reasonable person should have been aware of the bad effects of smoking but it could've been much sooner - as early as the 1920s if there weren't so many doctors willing to promote cigarettes in return for payment.
Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"?
Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate. Some countries, that fortunately still haven't caught up to the schizophrenic political zeitgeist of English-speaking countries, still use their language equivalent of "global warming" instead of the more accurate "climate change", even though those countries already know that some parts of the world are becoming colder instead of warmer.
"Climate change" is a platitude of a phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" is not; climate is undeniably changing, as it always has been. The only debate is how much has been caused by us, and more importantly, regardless of whether it is caused by us or not, how much can we control the climate to keep it at a range that is most beneficial to modern society.
ChristofferFebruary 02, 2024 at 15:50#8773910 likes
Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate.
It's not scientifically inaccurate, it is scientifically accurate in that the world is globally warming up and the climate is changing in different ways because the effect of increased global degrees affects the balance between different regions of the world. And since society, globally, is primarily built around the climate that has been in each region for hundreds of years every society needs to adjust while those already at the hottest position will need to move.
The change in terminology is due to people being too stupid to read below the headlines, not that it is scientifically inaccurate.
There is no debate. It's one of the most proven scientific field of all; getting high into the Sigma scales of statistical probabilities. The only ones debating are the ones too stupid to understand everything, those chilling for the oil industry and those who have just attached the anti-climate-science identity to their general persona. The rest have known about this for a long time and been proven right over and over and over. At the moment there's so much data that anyone denying human industry and infrastructure being the cause for the global temp spikes are simply delusional.
There is absolutely no debate left to be held other than how to mitigate the consequences and stop further temperature increase.
Deleted userFebruary 02, 2024 at 16:03#8773940 likes
getting high into the Sigma scales of statistical probabilities
How does one "prove" a scientific field? A theory is proven, not a whole field.
Speaking of field, meteorological science is extremely faulty. Chemistry, astronomy, physics, all of these are more reliable fields. Meteorology cannot even get the weather of next week right. The claim that meteorology is "more proven" does not pass through common sense.
Sigma scales of statistical probability? You mean the standard deviation of a bell curve? I don't see how that relates to the topic. Is there some "research paper" by someone who compares replicability of different scientific fields? Because that would be bunk.
It feels as if you are just repeating buzzwords from CNN and BCC. Or that you are not being specific at all with the terms you use.
it is scientifically accurate in that the world is globally warming up
The global average temperature has risen — 1 degree compared to the 20th century average. From "global warming" to "global average temperature" is a big semantic shift.
Go read some publications. Listen to the actual experts. There is no debate other than by those believing themselves to know more than the actual scientists who publish. I will not be baited like this, I've been in these debates for a long time and it's just not possible to convince people who think they know more about climate change and global warming than the science presents. It's like debating flat earthers, there's no point and I won't even bother putting time and effort into it, pointless. I can debate and discuss the things that matter; what to do, evaluating the possible consequences, strategies to mitigate, energy politics and stuff but I will not engage in a debate about human causes for climate change because it is already proven and I'm not gonna lower myself to that level of anti-intellectual waste of time.
Just ignore the deniers. Leave them to their slogans. “The climate is always changing!” Cool—bye!
Deleted userFebruary 02, 2024 at 16:36#8774040 likes
Reply to Christoffer I ask you to give proof that the terminology was changed because of people's stupidity. I imagine there was some press conference or (real) journalism of science of the 2000s and early 2010s, when "global warming" was more popular than "climate change", discussing how the terminology should be changed. So I hoped you would give me something concrete, like the aforementioned, that would convince me.
I did not get that, I got the "go read some by experts". What is it that you have been reading, when you say things such as "sigma scales of probability" and "proven scientific field", which hints at a scientific education that is not nowhere near enough to read brand new research?
Everytime people link me scientific research papers, I ask them what their qualifications are, so I don't waste my time reading something that ultimately does not prove them right.
In an ideal world, intelligent laymen would discuss scientific findings with their own qualificative limitations in mind — some fields and papers are more laymen friendly than others. But this is not an ideal world, and people, who don't even know what a p-value is, feel themselves free to flaunt content that is made by doctors and masters for other doctors and masters.
Obviously you are referring to me. Here is the funny thing, I am not a denier of anthropogenic climate change, or whatever histrionic label is used in the Anglosphere. I am very concerned about the environment, from the Amazon, to the water of our rivers, to the climate, to the expansion of deserts.
With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making, more like the kind who would shut down nuclear powerplants in Germany to increase coal burning instead.
Yes, and it’s great to have humanitarians like you to swoop in with your Dr. Phil analyses on hurt feelings. If only we could all model your approach: smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.
Incidentally, sarcastic comments like yours are also “really really” helpful. Way to lead by example. Good work.
Instead, you're the one with the smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.
If you really care about global heating and the future of humanity, then how come you're willing to invest so little into finding ways to effect change in people?
The mechanics of what might be successful strategies to counteract global heating are not rocket science. Cutting down on fossil fuels etc. That's not the issue.
The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.
With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making
As long as you can blame global heating on people being stupid, ignorant, and such, that's it for you, you have finished your job.
Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing.
So are Boomers, but they vote. If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it.
If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it.
Not necessarily. If they already feel hopeless about the long-term future of the planet, then they won't be motivated to do anything about it. And chances are they already feel hopeless. Add to this the patronizing and hostility they are exposed to, and you get a great number of passive, anxious, angry young people.
And then, of course, there are climate activists who believe that it is on the people themselves to find hope and motivation. On occasion, I actually still look to climate activists to provide some profound insight into the meaning of life as such, an insight that would give hope and motivation. And what do I get? Cynicism. They blame me. They dismiss me.
Reply to baker I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet.
But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.
I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet.
Young people tend to be used to many material conveniences. How are they supposed to look forward to live without them?
But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.
Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic.
Yes, I've talked to a lot of young people about all of this and they say that "there's no point". An utter surrender to whatever downfall of society or humanity that will come. And I've tried to challenge them and say that since change takes time, especially in political arenas, they have to go into politics now. I'm not sure if it's the adults and older people's failure to communicate the importance of politics or if it's an utter lack of faith in political influence, but they don't seem to understand that they can absolutely make a difference if they fight for it.
I mean, there's only elderly people in the halls of power anyway, it would be like doing a cage fight with the residents of an elderly home. Just pile dive those suckers and move into positions that take the power away from these old farts. They're not building a future other than their own funeral.
Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways.
We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are.
Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.
The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes.
This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.
Yes, I've talked to a lot of young people about all of this and they say that "there's no point". An utter surrender to whatever downfall of society or humanity that will come
I remember talking with members of the Beat generation in the 1950s who expressed the same philosophy. But a few years later, when they began being drafted for Vietnam, they came alive.
We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are.
Yes.
If only Malcolm X had been nicer. If he really cared, he wouldn’t have been so cynical and hurt so many peoples delicate feelings— those poor victims.
Martin Luther King — same deal. But a little nicer. Less offensive to privileged white people. But oh yeah, he was despised and killed anyway.
It’s almost as if focusing on tone and niceness and feelings and moral “objectivity” is just another way of avoiding facts, problems, and solutions.
Anyway — yes, please excuse me if I have zero tolerance for ignorance and propaganda on this issue anymore. If you’ve not taken the maybe 4-5 hours it takes to familiarize yourself with the issue beyond the slogans, then you can indeed fuck off. Especially when you come with anything other than a willingness to learn. This is science, not psychotherapy.
One’s failure to understand such an important issue is, at this point, inexcusable and immoral. If that attitude is too harsh for some — too bad.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 03, 2024 at 00:25#8775480 likes
I mean, there's only elderly people in the halls of power anyway, it would be like doing a cage fight with the residents of an elderly home. Just pile dive those suckers and move into positions that take the power away from these old farts.
We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are.
How dare they !!!
How dare the older people who are more mature and have more life experience disobey the younger people who are more immature and have less life experience.
[quote=] The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.[/quote]
Sorry, but I just have to highlight how incredibly ignorant, judgmental, and immoral this comment is as well. Now that’s in keeping from a posturing, sanctimonious hypocrite who feels entitled to lecture everyone about their appearance while their own approach is being rude, shallow, contemptuous, and instigating — so no surprise there.
But it’s also a common line on conservative propaganda outlets — one of their many ways to undermine the consensus and overwhelming evidence, delay political and social action, and foster hostility (we see this especially in the vitriol aimed at Greta Thunberg) within the environmental movement. How sad.
Yeah, like you for example. Plenty of age and life experience. And yet you’re one of the most ignorant about climate change on this thread and have made no efforts to learn about it, apparently contented with your own unique denialism.
Talk about crappy role modeling. If you’re any kind of representation, it’s no wonder kids have no respect. Ignorance and denial isn’t respectable.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 03, 2024 at 00:53#8775640 likes
They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are.
more mature and have more life experience
— Agree-to-Disagree
Yeah, like you for example. Plenty of age and life experience. And yet you’re one of the most ignorant about climate change on this thread and have made no efforts to learn about it, apparently contented with your own unique denialism.
If you and others really have nothing to offer this thread but nonsense like this and slogans from Tucker Carlson, why not simply find another hobby?
I assume that your opinion about me is due to your own ignorance. I have researched global warming extensively. Here are a few of the many graphs that I have made. How many graphs like these have you made?
And this is the level of discourse climate deniers engage in, folks
But there are legitimate skeptics who have problems with some of the particulars, who are not backwood numbskulls. As perhaps the only actual ex-meteorologist (USAF, U of Chicago) on TPF (others?) I am not convinced the world population is capable of averting some of the unpleasant consequences of climate change. Possibly, if we had started many years ago, but at present nations had best do their work to prepare for what will come. But I might be proven wrong.
It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society over and over, no matter how good it may make one feel.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 03, 2024 at 07:05#8776240 likes
And this is the level of discourse climate deniers engage in, folks.
I am surprised that you call me a denier. None of the graphs that I posted conflict with the fact that global warming is happening. A few of the graphs even mention global warming.
You seem to think that temperature anomalies tell the whole story about global warming. You seem incapable of understanding that actual temperatures are also part of the story about global warming.
I suggest that you have a look at this website https://weatherspark.com
to improve your understanding of world temperatures. You can see actual historical hourly temperatures for entire years. For example, for London you can look back as far as 1949.
I don't believe that you will look at this website. You won't look at anything which might make you think for yourself. It is much easier to be a parrot for the IPCC. That doesn't require any thinking.
unenlightenedFebruary 03, 2024 at 10:10#8776360 likes
It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society
That is very true, and appropriate to this and many other threads too: Ukraine, Palestine. Trump...
Stilt would be nice to have a chat about the consequences of the ongoing mass extinction event we have triggered. But it does get tiresome when one can never get beyond "What? You think we have triggered a mass extinction event ? You must be a conspiracy theorist."
Mikie has been at this for over 100 pages and 3 years now, just in this thread; some irritation is to be expected, when one cannot get beyond the frigging title of the thread.
Here are a few consequences I envisage.
Mass (human) migrations, generally away from the Equator, and in practice mainly Northwards
Environmental disruption, because vegetation cannot migrate as fast as fauna and disease.
Sea-level rise will have a dual effect, decreasing the amount of convenient fertile floodplain arable land available to feed humans, and flooding major coastal cities adding to the migrants.
Conflicts will ensue over the fertile lands remaining, and the dwindling housing stock and fresh water supply.
Increasing xenophobia decreasing prosperity, less democracy, more violent dictatorship, rampant corruption, governmental collapse.
A population crash.
Perceptive readers may have noticed some of these beginning to happen, but if you haven't, don't worry, you soon will. It's only just begun.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 03, 2024 at 11:31#8776470 likes
Mikie has been at this for over 100 pages and 3 years now, just in this thread; some irritation is to be expected, when one cannot get beyond the frigging title of the thread.
After being at this for over 100 pages and 3 years now, why hasn't Mikie realized that he is doing things the wrong way?
Is Mikie wrong, or is everybody else wrong?
Mikie should heed some useful advice, "when in a hole, stop digging".
unenlightenedFebruary 03, 2024 at 12:16#8776510 likes
After making a fool of yourself repeatedly whenever you’ve made empirical claims, whether about temperature anomalies or land use for cattle, your perception of others’ abilities to think or understand is worthless.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 03, 2024 at 12:54#8776610 likes
Is Mikie wrong, or is everybody else wrong?
— Agree-to-Disagree
You are wrong.
“Everybody else.” Lol
unenlightenedFebruary 03, 2024 at 13:36#8776710 likes
Reply to Mikie Yeah, and when did you stop beating your wife?
unenlightenedFebruary 03, 2024 at 17:54#8777200 likes
Importantly, cold-related death decreased 0.51 per cent from 2000 to 2019, while heat-related death increased 0.21 per cent, leading to a reduction in net mortality due to cold and hot temperatures.
To save the sceptics from the necessity of actual reading, I quote above the good news.
However, both the good news and the bad news indicate global warming. and the study does not include extreme event mortality other than temperature, eg extra wind, drought, flood, etc.
unenlightenedFebruary 03, 2024 at 20:29#8777550 likes
Meta, which owns Instagram, declined to comment. The company has policies to counter misinformation, including international teams of fact checkers which evaluate climate science content.
... and then censorship, free speech, suppression ... the usual. When such folk were chasing lizards and aliens in the desert, they might actually come across something interesting (by coincidence). :up: This seems a bit different though, no particular independent "Go look". Also exploitable by others.
ChristofferFebruary 04, 2024 at 17:01#8779390 likes
Reply to unenlightened Sabine does a good job of calmly saying "get your fucking shit together". But unfortunately nothing will happen until the people in power and industries around the globe start to see their resources dwindle or when people had enough of floodings and heat waves and start removing these powerful people by force.
Regular people will continue to not want to change, until the world changes so much that they simply have to.
Fire OlogistFebruary 04, 2024 at 22:31#8779970 likes
"Who are you to choose which mass extinction event is good and which is bad? How dare you fight climate change! How dare you!" Said the three billion year old fungus.
unenlightenedFebruary 04, 2024 at 22:47#8780010 likes
Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.
The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes.
You're inconsistent.
This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.
The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.
—
Sorry, but I just have to highlight how incredibly ignorant, judgmental, and immoral this comment is as well. Now that’s in keeping from a posturing, sanctimonious hypocrite who feels entitled to lecture everyone about their appearance while their own approach is being rude, shallow, contemptuous, and instigating — so no surprise there.
But it’s also a common line on conservative propaganda outlets — one of their many ways to undermine the consensus and overwhelming evidence, delay political and social action, and foster hostility (we see this especially in the vitriol aimed at Greta Thunberg) within the environmental movement. How sad.
It's extremely offensive the way you assign to people stances they don't hold and then castigate them for them.
It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society over and over, no matter how good it may make one feel.
Which is what so much climate activism really seems to be all about: activists feeling good about themselves.
I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself.
I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself.
I've met plenty. On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.
That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.
The world just marked a year above a critical climate limit scientists have warned about
Global warming surpassed 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 12 months for the first time on record, new data shows, breaching a critical threshold that, if it continues, will push the limits of life on Earth to adapt.
The past year was 1.52 degrees hotter on average than temperatures before industrialization, according to data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate and weather monitoring service. That 12-month average was boosted by the hottest January on record, which was 1.66 degrees warmer than the average January temperature in pre-industrial times.
I spent the first half of this week reporting in Iceland, and I came away convinced that the country provides a window into our collective future in at least three important ways.
Iceland uses remarkably few fossil fuels to power its economy and heat its homes. Instead, 85 percent of the country’s energy comes from domestically produced renewables, primarily geothermal power and hydropower.
Iceland can claim such a high percentage of renewables, the most of any country in the world, thanks to its unique geology. Its land sits atop an incredibly active volcanic zone, and six major geothermal plants tap that subterranean warmth to provide heating for almost all the country’s homes.
Drive around the countryside, and you can’t miss steam billowing from the ground between the majestic fjords. Just this morning, an active volcano began erupting in a town I visited only a few days ago.
Geothermal power also produces about 20 percent of the country’s electricity, with the remainder coming from a robust network of hydroelectric plants. The oil that Iceland does burn is primarily used to power cars and trucks, as well as the boats that comprise the country’s large fishing fleet.
Iceland a small and wealthy country that is unique, to say the least, in having such abundant geothermal and hydroelectric resources. But as we’ve recently reported, new advances gleaned from the oil and gas business are making geothermal feasible in new locales. And as solar and wind power continue to expand at a rapid clip, it may not be long before more countries are powering their economies not with fossil fuels but with local, clean renewable energy.
We’re going to get there — it’s just a matter of how quickly.
- Permitting reform is necessary to accelerate the building of transmission lines so as to transmit the energy from wind and solar (a large segment of which is restricted to certain geographical areas) to other parts of the country.
- Plenty of fossil fuel use will be needed to mine for necessary metals and manufacture wind turbines and solar panels and car batteries. But this is in the short term — once up and running, they’re practically zero emissions.
The inflation reduction act (IRA) provisions are starting to kick in this year, especially the rebates on heat pumps, which will be key to transitioning away from heating homes and commercial buildings with dirty fuels like oil and natural gas / propane. Rebates on EVs and solar panels will also be helpful.
In the meantime, the best strategy is still local involvement in conservation commissions, zoning boards, and city/town councils. Also advocating for going greener at one’s workplace — which, when cost effectiveness is emphasized, is fairly easy.
Anyway — some relevant information.
Deleted userFebruary 09, 2024 at 03:26#8793060 likes
Of course not. You are just asking legitimate questions about the science and trotting out fashionable lines from climate “skeptics.” Carry on.
"The science". There is no "the science". This is a phrase that is only ever used by people who have last touched an equation more than five years ago — mathematics is the language of science as we know.
My posts at no point were arguments against climate change or environmentalism. My posts were successful attempts at showing how you and others posters here do not know nearly enough, but just parrot what Lindsey McNuggets (intern in communications at BBC) says on her news article. Lindsey, like me and many people on this thread, are not knowledgeable, but Lindsey in special is the kind of people to cause this kind of tragedy. Who is more like Lindsey overall?
I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself.
This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.
What choice, if you plan to "run them over"?
How is that inconsistent? I mentioned what is needed to be done to change course and if people don't make that choice then the only outcome is for everything to collapse until the world's population beg for changes. To speak about different possible outcomes does not make what I said inconsistent.
ChristofferFebruary 09, 2024 at 13:13#8793650 likes
We who? Educational? You have shown that you do not even know statistics, how are you going to educate anyone?
We who actually understand the science, we who understand the problems, we who don't attach identity to this entire subject and use it as punchlines for something else.
And not doing the research that people should actually do on their own is not the same as "not know the statistics". You can search publications yourself, you can dive into all that research, the information is everywhere if you know where to get scientific data. And there are plenty who are trying to educate people, but you know, people don't listen, because they don't care to listen, they decide what they agree with or not before they hear it, they decide based on arbitrary ideals and emotional reasoning.
Then they formulate arguments around such biases and believe they are actually intellectually engaging with the subject matter. But they're not, they're using rhetorical twists and turns not to convince the other side, but to make sure they're never acknowledging themselves to be wrong. It's the same behavior as flat earthers and other conspiratorial behaviors. It doesn't matter that there's a truckload of evidence, that there are educators and experts everywhere that friendly provide their knowledge if they want it, or that the publications are out there to be found if they wanted. The reason has nothing to with what is truth or not for them, it has to do with them.
In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals.
Then they formulate arguments around such biases and believe they are actually intellectually engaging with the subject matter. But they're not, they're using rhetorical twists and turns not to convince the other side, but to make sure they're never acknowledging themselves to be wrong. It's the same behavior as flat earthers and other conspiratorial behaviors. It doesn't matter that there's a truckload of evidence, that there are educators and experts everywhere that friendly provide their knowledge if they want it, or that the publications are out there to be found if they wanted. The reason has nothing to with what is truth or not for them, it has to do with them.
Yep. Which is why at the end of the day, all they have is feelings. When pointed out, they naturally accuse you of having nothing but feelings, and I’m rubber you’re glue, the end. It’s pointless.
But like I said before, this thread is like a fly trap. There’s overwhelming evidence and a de facto 100% consensus, it’s as established as evolution and gravity — and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time.
I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology.
ChristofferFebruary 09, 2024 at 15:30#8793930 likes
and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time.
Yes, how people handle knowledge is a trait transcending specific subjects. I tend to see even within science that people who have biased ideas about something else tend to be biased in their scientific research as well. That's why I'm always skeptical about religious physicists. At most they have to be agnostic, but having a strong belief at the same time as conducting science mostly seem to influence how they treat their own conclusions, sticking to their guns further than others when facing criticism. Thank the gluons we have consensus praxis.
I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology.
Reply to Christoffer Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.
Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans.
I think that in order to effectively counteract human-caused climate heating, radical steps would need to be taken. Such as people not having any children for the next 30 years, not eating any animal products, forbidding luxury tourism, forbidding air conditioning, and so on. Obviously, this is not realistic. I suspect that many climate activists actually realize that only such radical steps might prove effective, but this is not something that can be said in polite society. What is currently being suggested as "effective steps to save the planet" (not using plastic bags, going paperless, carpooling, solar energy, etc.) amounts to rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
In order to actually stand a chance at "saving the planet", people would need to change the very nature of their relationship with the planet. That is, they would need to stop having a consumerist, materialist attitude toward it. This isn't happening, of course. Instead, people are being lulled into a false hope that by keeping their fundamental materialistic, consumerist attitudes intact and doing trifles, they can nevertheless "save the planet". And if that doesn't work out, the "solution" is already given: others are to blame.
That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.
People like this are wasting what might very well be the last opportunity to do something that might make a real difference for the planet.
In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals.
And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people?
Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans.
If we could remove the people from the cities and recreate an agrarian society, we could get back to our natural roots, and we'd eliminate the class system that has been put in place and get us closer to a utopian society as opposed to our gradual move away from it.
Where is Pol Pot when you need him?
The morality of anti-humanism requires some tough love, but it's well worth it. Just think of all the trees that will grow in the killing fields.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 09, 2024 at 19:47#8794530 likes
If we could remove the people from the cities and recreate an agrarian society, we could get back to our natural roots, and we'd eliminate the class system that has been put in place and get us closer to a utopian society as opposed to our gradual move away from it.
Where is Pol Pot when you need him?
The morality of anti-humanism requires some tough love, but it's well worth it. Just think of all the trees that will grow in the killing fields.
I don't think you can avoid the class system. Someone is going to have to do brain surgery, oncology, anesthesia, etc. and if they only make the same as a farmer makes, not enough people will go into those fields.
1. Global temperatures are rising as the result of human activity.
2. Humans ought to modify their activity in order to lower global temperatures.
#2 is a non-sequiter.
#1 is an empirical statement.
#2 is a moral statement.
This is a form of the naturalistic fallacy.
We cannot say that because something is naturally in state X that it ought be in state X.
This is to say the question over the science isn't where the philosophy is. Either the scientific modeling is correct or it isn't. If it says the tides will rise, then they will. That does not mean we can't allow them to rise and deal with the consequences as opposed to stopping the rise.
The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science.
I don't think you can avoid the class system. Someone is going to have to do brain surgery, oncology, anesthesia, etc. and if they only make the same as a farmer makes, not enough people will go into those fields.
I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective.
I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective.
I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective.
A strange sarcasm then, if you advocate classism but also shy back from means needed to put it into action.
Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle.
This is not what the science shows. There are no meaningful models that predict the human response to the climate change as it occurs, as if to suggest you can know what mitigating responses will be available. That would be like predicting in the 1800s that we would one day run out of horse food due to the ever increasing need for transportation. The fact that we can sustain billions of people on the planet would have been unfathomable a few hundred years ago.
Here's where I think we disagree (among other things): I find no virtue in protecting the planet for the planet's sake. I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality.
I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality.
This certainty says it all. :up: At least you’re honest about it.
Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 10, 2024 at 01:23#8795170 likes
It is very interesting doing a search in google news for "climate change exaggerated".
The Guardian:Third of UK teenagers believe climate change exaggerated, report shows
fortune.com:Bill Gates sees ‘a lot of climate exaggeration’ out there: ‘The climate is not the end of the planet. So the planet is going to be fine’
pewresearch.org:Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change
In-depth interviews find some Americans consider crisis language overblown, leading to added skepticism of claims
wionews.com:Climate change alarm is exaggerated, we should not demonise oil and gas: Elon Musk
Daily Mail:Climate scientist admits to focusing solely on global warming in paper about United States wildfires and ignoring other 'key aspects' just to get published
Brown says studies will get rejected unless they 'support certain narratives'
New York Post:Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’
Calgary Sun:Beware of exaggerated claims of climate harm
Daily Mail:Electric car mastermind Elon Musk claims threat of climate change is 'overblown' in the short term - despite making a fortune in eco ventures
news.gallup.com:Americans Most Likely to Say Global Warming Is Exaggerated
uk.news.yahoo.com:This is how many Brits think the threat of climate change has been exaggerated
one in three Britons over the age of 55 think the threat of climate change is over-exaggerated
Analysis of the poll also revealed that men are twice as likely as women to say that it is definitely true that the threat is over-exaggerated
The Telegraph:Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
It’s very interesting doing a Google search of “climate change is a hoax.” Plenty of moronic stuff from all kinds of bullshit sources. So very interesting. At least for those far more interested in denial than anything else…but who definitely aren’t climate deniers.
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.
Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures.
The main greenhouse gases that are causing climate change include carbon dioxide and methane. These come from using gasoline for driving a car or coal for heating a building, for example. Clearing land and cutting down forests can also release carbon dioxide. Agriculture, oil and gas operations are major sources of methane emissions. Energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and land use are among the main sectors causing greenhouse gases.
The Earth is feeling the heat.
Humans are responsible for global warming
Climate scientists have showed that humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. Human activities like the ones mentioned above are causing greenhouse gases that are warming the world faster than at any time in at least the last two thousand years.
The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is now about 1.1°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s (before the industrial revolution) and warmer than at any time in the last 100,000 years. The last decade (2011-2020) was the warmest on record, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than any previous decade since 1850.
Many people think climate change mainly means warmer temperatures. But temperature rise is only the beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where everything is connected, changes in one area can influence changes in all others.
The consequences of climate change now include, among others, intense droughts, water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms and declining biodiversity.
The Earth is asking for help.
People are experiencing climate change in diverse ways
Climate change can affect our health, ability to grow food, housing, safety and work. Some of us are already more vulnerable to climate impacts, such as people living in small island nations and other developing countries. Conditions like sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion have advanced to the point where whole communities have had to relocate, and protracted droughts are putting people at risk of famine. In the future, the number of people displaced by weather-related events is expected to rise.
[Worth posting the basics. I’ll refer back to it when the next goofy “skeptic” with 15 minutes of Fox News under their belts comes ambling along. “It’s the clouds, stupid!”]
Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle.
— unenlightened
This is not what the science shows. There are no meaningful models that predict the human response to the climate change as it occurs, as if to suggest you can know what mitigating responses will be available.
Of course it is not what the science shows. Science models, and models predict, However, the common sense prediction that humans would respond to the predictions in such a way as to mitigate the effects has proven false. On the contrary, net emissions are still increasing.
And there are other factors that seem to indicate that the climate sensitivity has been somewhat underestimated. Turns out that science can be a bit wrong the 'other' way too. It is becoming clear that actual temperatures have exceeded models by some margin, and so models need to be adjusted.
However, the main problem is the time lag. The Greenhouse effect of CO2 is that it insulates, and the effects of insulation are slow, and cumulative. In geological terms, our increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere has been catastrophically fast, but in terms of human lifetime, the change in my seventy years lifetime has been barely noticeable.
This year we hit 1.5°C which was the recommended limit to prevent serious disruption to human life. So we have missed that target, and will almost certainly miss the 2°C target, because of the time lag of centuries and the fact that we have not even begun to reduce emissions, let alone reached net zero.
And we are already seeing disruption to agriculture, climate refugees, fighting over resources, depletion of natural resources especially forest, and the oceans, the best carbon absorbers.
But it's only just begun.
If it was just polar bears, I wouldn't mind much either, because I don't eat them anyway. But it is the whole ecosystem of the world that is being disrupted, and almost every species of plant and animal that is in decline. Your dinner plate may not be affected at first, because The US is wealthy and has a food surplus. Russia will do well because vast tracts of marginal land in the North will increase in value.
I will just repeat this;
All our worldwide human efforts at mitigation thus far have not added up to any reduction at all in net carbon emissions, but on the contrary, they are still increasing.
And if we do begin to reduce, and eventually reach zero, we will only have stopped ourselves from making things worse, but the insulating effect will continue to warm the planet for many many years to come.
There is no natural moral ought about this, as you point out. There is no natural ought about human survival, either. It is just a personal bias I have, such that I regret and mourn the folly of my species.
unenlightenedFebruary 10, 2024 at 11:11#8795570 likes
Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle.
The human population will fall dramatically in many countries for reasons not related to climate-change/global-warming. The following information is based on the study published in Jul 2020 called "The Lancet: World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power".
Population in more than 20 countries to halve by 2100: Study
The Earth will be home to 8.8 billion people in 2100, two billion fewer than current UN projections, says new study.
More than 20 countries, including Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, will see their numbers diminish by at least half by the year 2100, according to projections in a major study.
Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48·0% decline
China’s population will fall from 1.4 billion people today to 730 million in 80 years, said the study led by an international team of researchers, published in The Lancet on Wednesday.
By century’s end, 183 of 195 countries, barring an influx of immigrants, will have fallen below the replacement threshold needed to maintain population levels, it said.
Good news for the environment
These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions
“Our analysis suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average,” he explained by email.
[quote] I find no virtue in protecting the planet for the planet's sake. I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality. Reply to Hanover
You’ve got that the wrong way round Hanover. The planet will be fine whatever we do. There might not be many people left though.
Reply to unenlightened But that is all speculation, even if you think they are good guesses, still you're guessing.
That the earth is changing is clear. That we'll not adapt isn't. We're resilient because that's how Darwin made us.
We've got to admit to our biases (myself included) in constructing our narrative that fills in the blanks of what we don't know. If we start with the notion that we're a parasitic species ravaging a gentle planet, particularly barbaric in our economic and social methods of controlling resources, a coming apocalypse comes as welcome news because it can be used as argument to preemptively and radically change our society immediately. That is, the capitalistic party was fun, but it's over. Time for rehab.
My approach is to deal with the fall out when it falls out, but not because I'm reckless, but because I think your speculation is pure speculation and most likely wrong, so your solutions will be ineffective and more destructive than the disease.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
ChristofferFebruary 10, 2024 at 14:59#8796090 likes
Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
How do you know I'm not doing that? And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?
And you phrase that I'm only acting like this to justify to be mean, which is an intentional misinterpretation of what I actually do. I am mean because that's what apologists deserve as they are actively standing in the way of necessary change. Collectively these people form the political public opinion that holds these necessary changes back and in turn they are indirectly responsible for any deaths linked to the rapidly changing climate. I am very much in the right to treat them accordingly:
If you are told that certain paths ahead will result in people dying and societies getting destroyed and that there's a path to take to avoid all that, and you actively choose to not take the path to avoid it, but not only that you actively try to sabotage anyone trying to change it, as well as spreading disinformation denial of all of it even being an issue; then that's a deliberate act of sabotage that has a direct link to the consequences that could have been avoided.
It's like if you have a drunk person in front of you who says he's going to drive home and you know that this path will go past a school. There's a person trying to convince him that he shouldn't drive home drunk but there's also another person who's trying to just push that person aside and tell the drunk that he shouldn't listen, that there is no risk, there's no problem, just drive home and do it as fast as he can. You have the choice to support one of these opposing sides; to support the person who tries to talk sense into the drunk by pushing aside the one trying to get him to drive. But you could also support the other person and push aside the one trying to talk sense into the drunk.
Neither of your actions in that scenario leads to you directly being the one running over and killing kids. But it's quite clear that your actions help push a certain line of opinions towards an action that would quite possibly do that. Why wouldn't anyone put you into partial blame for what happened if kids got run over by the drunk?
This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly. So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass. The ones who are the really entitled people in all of this are the ones who don't want to change their ways and actively fight against anything that would require them to do so, even if not changing would lead to kids getting run over in the future.
And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people?
As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work. It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.
If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed. It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated. So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes. But then again, people would vote some idiot into power that would just push for ignorant policies. If we can underline the immorality of regular people acting against necessary change, then we can at least create a cultural foundation of the morality of regular people within this subject matter and as I've exemplified I have no problem calling them immoral and people should stop beating around the bush on this as well.
There's a person trying to convince him that he shouldn't drive home drunk but there's also another person who's trying to just push that person aside and tell the drunk that he shouldn't listen, that there is no risk, there's no problem, just drive home and do it as fast as he can.
Because you weren’t nice enough.
Instead of saying “hey I agree this is important, but your approach may be counterproductive — anyway, here are some possible solutions” they focus exclusively on feelings. Why? Because they don’t understand the issue anyway, and refuse to take the time to learn.
Because it’s a public Internet forum, everyone feels entitled to a seat at the table, pretending to contribute with doozies like “this all doesn’t feel quite right to me, we’ll get out of it somehow” to “Science isn’t always right” to “It’s a sham” to “Climate activists are mean.”
There’s only two reasonable ways to deal with such people: ignore them or point out their stupidity, in the harshest way possible so that they hopefully go away. In the real world, there’s a very different approach. One I’ve been assuming for years and which works well. (Which is why it’s hilarious to be given “lessons” from Buddhist wannabes.)
ChristofferFebruary 10, 2024 at 15:15#8796120 likes
The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science.
Since there's no debate about the science as the science is clear, why would it therefor be about economic policy as a form of a capitalist/anti-capitalist dichotomy? Isn't it more or less a question of morality? I.e what's the moral action for us to collectively take? With the right strategy and effort, the damage of rapid policy change would be microscopic against the reality of not doing anything to mitigate climate change.
I don't see how there should be any debate other than about what's the best mitigation strategy. The debate should be about which actions are the best, and how to incorporate them into society in the best way. Like, new green industries that not only mitigate climate change, but also generate new jobs. How high carbon taxes would push industry people who are only interested in their balance sheets and bank accounts to actually change towards mitigation. When and where nuclear energy is better than solar, wind and sea and so on...
If the debate centers around the science, then it's pointless. If it centers around some capitalist/anti-capitalist political debate, then it's also pointless. In this subject matter the science is real and proven and economic philosophy just lead to navel-gazing about people's preferred world views. Rather, the position climate change should be about at this time in history should be about the strategies and mitigation solutions and how to practically implement them into society in a smart way. Everything else is just pointless and every denier should just be ignored just as much as they ignore the severity of the subject.
To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance.
Not at all. Unless one defines capitalism as exclusively the most destructive form ever known. Other countries are doing much better than we are, and they’re working within a mixed economic system too.
So it’s a false dichotomy. But should capitalism be abolished in all its forms? One can only hope.
unenlightenedFebruary 10, 2024 at 16:47#8796290 likes
But that is all speculation, even if you think they are good guesses, still you're guessing.
Yes. That's the nature of prediction. Like the timetable predicts the train times, but sometimes shit happens instead. So ignore the timetable?
unenlightenedFebruary 10, 2024 at 17:20#8796500 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree Yes, It's almost as if the Chinese government had planned it. Their population will decline as productivity increases, stabilising at a level their agriculture can sustain. No such good news though for Africa, India, S. America or Indonesia, unfortunately.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 10, 2024 at 20:15#8797010 likes
Yes, It's almost as if the Chinese government had planned it. Their population will decline as productivity increases, stabilising at a level their agriculture can sustain. No such good news though for Africa, India, S. America or Indonesia, unfortunately.
There is a growing consensus that environmental problems, particularly the effects of climate change, pose a grave challenge to humanity. Pollution, habitat destruction, intractable waste issues and, for many, deteriorating quality of life should be added to the list.
Economic growth is the chief culprit. We forget, though, that environmental impacts are a consequence of per capita consumption multiplied by the number of people doing the consuming. Our own numbers matter.
A radical rethink of the global economy is needed to address climate change. In relation to population growth, if we can move beyond unhelpful ideologies, the solution is already available.
People are not stupid. In particular, women are not stupid. Where women are given the choice, they restrict the number of children they have. This freedom is as basic a human right as you can get.
Women will show the way, if only we would let them.
A recent study suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.
Why aren't climate activists making more effort to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services, rather than concentrating their efforts on demonizing oil and gas. This is especially important in places like Africa, India, S. America and Indonesia.
unenlightenedFebruary 10, 2024 at 20:20#8797020 likes
Why aren't climate activists making more effort to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services
— Agree-to-Disagree
What makes you think they aren't? Some of us are so smart we can walk and chew gum at the same time!
What have you done to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services?
What brand of gum do you chew? :grin:
unenlightenedFebruary 10, 2024 at 20:41#8797080 likes
What have you done to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services?
Well back in the day, I was involved with a collective that supported a women's health group that was being trained by a maverick doctor in secret in the subtle art of very early abortions by aspiration, which was and still is an illegal intervention that women can use to control their fertility. but I am not going to share further details with you because - make up whatever idiotic reason you like.
I can chew gum, but I don't because it is a filthy habit.
[quote] Rather, the position climate change should be about at this time in history should be about the strategies and mitigation solutions and how to practically implement them into society in a smart way. Everything else is just pointless and every denier should just be ignored just as much as they ignore the severity of the subject. Reply to Christoffer
Precisely, if civilisation is to survive intact, the priorities should be these. The twin path of reduction in the severity of climate change, the transition to zero carbon asap and the bold strategies of mitigation globally.
This will in itself be a gargantuan task. While not following this course will result in more severe climate change. More radical mitigation. With the added complication of civilisation collapse, initially local collapses, but followed by wider systemic collapse.
Or in other words, we have no choice if we want to preserve the achievements of civilisation, rather than return to the Bronze Age.
The preservation of capitalism would only be where it can help in this task.
It will give us a bit of breathing space on the climate front. But won’t protect us from civilisation collapse. But I think we’re alright. We will be dead and buried by then.
Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
— baker
How do you know I'm not doing that?
Because you're sticking to your old guns.
And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?
??
I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.
You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here.
This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly.
For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't.
So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass.
But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet?
As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work.
Given the strategies used so far ....
It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.
I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies.
If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed.
How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy?
It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated.
I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results.
As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.
Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes.
So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes.
How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet.
That is quite the achievement considering how much the West has been exporting it's heavy industry to China.
I’m surprised by this too. Given that the Republican Party line is now “we can’t do anything because China is emitting more than anyone”, I wonder how this pans out— and what their next bullshit excuse will be.
unenlightenedFebruary 11, 2024 at 19:14#8799640 likes
Reply to Mikie They can't do anything about climate change because ... climate change!
A recent study suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.
It's not all that new, been a tendency for some time (also in religious demography). The "Idiocracy (2006)" movie takes a humorous shot at that (not really the best movie, but, anyway).
How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet.
You and your imagination.
unenlightenedFebruary 11, 2024 at 22:06#8800310 likes
The suggestion is to form an orderly queue
— unenlightened
"An orderly queue" for what? Dying? To be executed?
It is really rather tedious to have to explain one's creative use of idioms, but at the second quote from you of the same phrase: it is a cliche of British English used in many ways ...
It is the proverbial way we Bits organise every cooperative undertaking, and in my usage above should be taken figuratively not literally to mean that the suggestion is to organise cooperatively to deal with the situation as best we can for the benefit of all.
It that sufficiently clear for you now?
ChristofferFebruary 12, 2024 at 00:02#8800530 likes
You only know the things I write here, you know nothing else. But you act upon such lack of knowledge and perform judgement. This is just a dishonest attempt at framing the other in a discussion as a form of ad hominem.
I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.
You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here.
And you are too vague about your intentions as well as framing it in very odd rhetoric.
Once again, you do not know anything other than what you read of me here. As I've pointed out many times now; if there are deniers, there's no point in trying to convince them as they are acting through a cult mentality. You cannot convince them as long as they are deeply rooted within their community of denial.
So what efficiency are you talking about? Being efficient in achieving what exactly?
For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't.
And it's been done to death. How much more education do these people need? The denial group have slowly started to go into just acceptance of a changing world, but they do so in the context of not acting anyway. The outcome of their reasoning is the same as their previous pure denial.
If they are unable to understand that mitigation is still necessary so as to not completely ruin everything and that not acting will cause millions of deaths as a result, then they haven't really been convinced, they have only moved their goal posts of their denial towards a new position of defending their inaction and ignorance.
Why should the world cater to these people? Why should we continue wasting time trying to convince them and not just move on with the debate towards what solutions will work best?
But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet?
By ignoring them and implementing changes to society anyway, yes, we will save millions and mitigate the worst damages. There's no time to build public opinion through convincing these people, it will be too late. The strategies need to circumvent slow progress, the damage of such rapid progress will be microscopic against the consequence of not doing so.
Treating these people as immoral is not an act of entitlement, it is an act of building a collective sense of morality that can drive changes in society. If it is considered moral to support actions taken to mitigate climate change and immoral not to, then it will use social structures to form public opinion rather than being dependent on uneducated or people unequipped to understand complex knowledge.
Structural racism have rarely been fought through educating racists to not support such structural racism; that does not work until they've instinctually already left the racist mindset. Instead it has been a moral dimension that's been most effective transforming society. Reshaping the idea of dividing people into being an immoral act at its core. Then, people don't have to understand any complex knowledge about a subject, they just have to accept the more instinctually programmed moral codes in the social structures they exist in. That's why I don't just call them uneducated, idiots or conspiratorial cultists, but also immoral people who support a destructive movement through inaction or active action against mitigation efforts.
View them as immoral people, just like racists, abusers and other immoral people. Don't act like they're just expressing some opinions that have some balanced value, because there's no such balance. It's like saying that a racist statement is just as morally acceptable as someone making a statement about love. It's not. Making statements that push public opinion towards ignorance about climate change is an immoral act that can with enough collective public drive cause delays that will kill millions. It is pushing dominos in a direction of pure horror and that is simply an immoral act.
I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies.
You don't think this has been done for decades now? There's no time left to keep doing this. If we had 50 years more to slowly change people's mind, yes, but just look at how far anti-racism has gotten. Shouldn't we've been freed of such idiocy by now? Aren't we educated enough by now to understand how immoral and stupid racism is? We still have major problems with that and more education and trying to convince racists does not help. The only thing that helps is to shut them up and make policies against racism.
If you have some idea that hasn't been tried to death before regarding convincing these people, then everyone's listening. But there's no practical value to just pointing out that there "should be some way to convince them". If we are to act now, then the solution is to just ignore them, make policies regardless of their opinions and just shut them up. There's simply no time educating these adult children.
How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy?
When it comes to the issues with climate change, it has nothing to do with abolishing democracy. It's not a question of opinion or idealism, it is a fact of our world's reality and a fact that points in a certain problematic direction for everyone. Everyone, globally, should take action towards mitigating climate change and stop listening to these immoral people. That is not the same as abolishing democracy.
Like, if there was a comet coming towards us and the entire world economy and all nations need to act together to solve it fast. Would you leave that up to democracy? To be debated? To try and convince idiots that the problem is real? No, all nations would just move towards solutions like if they had a giant bulldozer. They would run the idiots over and everyone who understands the dangers would cheer it on.
I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results.
The people we are talking about are not discussing the most effective strategies, they are opposing what would be minor inconveniences in their lives. The only ones equipped to really decide the best strategies are the actual scientists, experts and engineers working to solve the problems. Regular people should shut up and listen to these experts. Politicians should shut up and listen to the solutions. The moral dimension around the subject need to become more clear to the public.
As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.
Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes.
Failing that education would not result in potentially millions of deaths and extremely changed living conditions of the entire global population. Sorry, but this analogy does not work for the subject of climate change as it does not have a moral consequence and the dimension of time to avoid such a consequence. Class is over, the semester is done, action needs to be taken.
How am I outsourcing responsibility when I point in the direction of the one's who are actually responsible to take the actions needed? What responsibility are you suggesting me to have and take? Isn't it responsible to also push for actions taken now and not caring for the saboteurs working against these necessary actions? Isn't it taking responsibility to try and push for a moral realm of thinking around this subject and abandoning the idea that this is some debate of ideals?
What type of responsibility is valid in your book? Considering the urgent time for action and the lack of time to educate people actively giving experts the finger? Did that student give you the finger when you tried to help her? No, because your analogy is about people wanting to be educated, it's nowhere near the reality of this subject matter. I'm all for education, but we don't have time to educate people in order for them to support solutions to a damn comet on collision course with earth. In such a situation you simply ignore the ignorant and take the necessary action that is needed right now.
if there are deniers, there's no point in trying to convince them as they are acting through a cult mentality. You cannot convince them as long as they are deeply rooted within their community of denial.
Please define what a denier is. You seem to label people as deniers if they don't believe everything that you want them to believe, or if they don't want to do everything that you want them to do.
Aren't climate activists acting through a "cult mentality"? People who are in a cult usually don't think that they are in a cult.
What if the "deniers" are actually in the majority. You would need to convince them, or bulldoze them. Bulldozing them certainly doesn't sound like democracy. And they may not go quietly. They might start disrupting traffic, throwing things over famous works of art, and gluing themselves to things.
they don't believe everything that you want them to believe
Gonna be hard to get past this, with ideology. Having never once denied any piece of data put forward by Chris or Mikie, the response was to paint me as a moral monster because I didn't conclude we should upend civilisation. Its an odd position, as baker also knows.
I used to take this attitude with psychedelics and what I thought was required to save the world from "bad attitudes" hahaha
Deleted userFebruary 12, 2024 at 19:28#8803170 likes
By century’s end, 183 of 195 countries, barring an influx of immigrants, will have fallen below the replacement threshold needed to maintain population levels, it said.
And what is the issue with that? Populations either grow or fall, it is seldom the case that their birth rates perfectly align with mortality rates, and it can't grow forever. It is only an issue for corporatist moguls who need an ever increasing number of consumers to keep lining their pockets with cheap electronics' revenue and taxes while the Earth dies from cobalt mining — the same corporatists who want us to use paper straws.
Immigration is not a solution, because it will also come the time when the whole world's population is falling. Thus immigration is not a way to prevent populational collapse as anyone with less naivete than a 10 year old would have guessed by 2024, but simply a way to keep importing more cheap, uneducated workforce to keep working on those exploitative factories and voting on the parties that support all this.
I think the problem is one illustrated, interestingly, by another two threads here currently (50 year old man...(Lounge) and Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History (main page)).
Yes, populations grow or fall. But if we, humans, are having a net-negative(mathematically speaking) effect, this is automatically seen as a negative valence too. I also cannot see how, but the point is that if humans are causing the collapse of human populations, we should probably check that to avoid a collapse upending society entirely.
There is no such thing as 'all things being equal' here, but if we can tell the specific reason a certain trend is happening (in the related threads: lying in academic, and males in female sport) then its worth at the very least assessing, if not addressing.
[quote] I'm all for education, but we don't have time to educate people in order for them to support solutions to a damn comet on collision course with earth. In such a situation you simply ignore the ignorant and take the necessary action that is needed right now. Reply to Christoffer
Of the people who are sceptical of climate change, or adopt an attitude, or conspiracy theory regarding it. Most are swayed by a political populism which spoon feeds them a populist narrative or conspiracy theory to keep them on board. Some are old and don’t want to change their lifestyle, fewer still are young and don’t want to change their lifestyle. There may be a handful of sceptics who genuinely don’t accept the science. But they will fade away soon as the climactic impacts start to be felt.
These people can be disregarded because even if they do form groups which reach positions of power and influence. The impacts of climate change will change their minds soon enough and industry is already making the required adaptations and changes to address the issue. Albeit a bit late to the game, but there was always going to be a great deal of inertia.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 13, 2024 at 09:20#8805440 likes
The impacts of climate change will change their minds soon enough
Yes, as I said, that is the scenario if we fail to do something now. Or, we do what's necessary to not let millions die.
If it is immoral to let millions die and put the world into a economical and relocation crisis of historical proportions due to inaction, would it be more immoral to take away people's voting rights if they deny that actions need to be taken? Is that a level of cost to the world worth keeping their democratic votes, or is that just a good example of why Kantian ethics aren't enough to make moral sense in all situations? I sense that such things get people's blood pumping into slippery slope scenarios of totalitarian governments, but no, it's about one thing and one thing alone; getting on the right path to avoid disaster and in a battle for the health of the world and all people, that's requires a level of martial law as it is a war against inaction. Any industry that does not have a strategy or plan to change course will lose their execs and board, any politicians who don't have a serious plan for changing a nation's course in time will be removed from power. The blame cannot be put onto the people as the people can only follow how society is structured. The only blame they can get is for who they put into power and everyone needs to be prepared for major economical turmoil as assets are relocated into solutions from the current non-solutions.
As scientists are witnessing more and more actual consequences of climate change, it is clear that the consequences are very underestimated. If this continues we actually don't know how severe it can get. An eco-system can absolutely survive, but in what state? Losing algae in the sea would produce another tipping point. And with collapses of certain groups of species it can lead to new forms of pathogens and invasive species that could cause new pandemics and a massive famine on a scale never before seen.
I don't think people really realize how delicate the balance of the world is. The economy is a good analogy for it. The most minor problem can cause extreme fluctuations of the global economical balance. The war in Ukraine and subsequent blockage of gas from Russia caused an energy crisis, which helped pushed us into a big inflationary spiral. The blockade of the Suez Canal alone was able to put the entire world into economical fragility. But it was the sum of the Ukraine war, the pandemic, the blockage, the energy crisis, the Chinese/Taiwan unrest that put the global economy into turmoil. Put into terms of the world's ecological balance and temperature, people underestimate what the change does to the planet. It's like people only think that the sea will rise and the warmest parts of the world will get slightly warmer. In Scandinavia, some people think it will be nice to grow more wine as the region gets warmer, like what the hell are they talking about? It's like people have an inability to actually extrapolate a logical overview of the consequences. If even scientists underestimate the damage, or by fear of being attacked by the idiots of society if they look like alarmists; then just imagine how bad the general population is at accurate predictions of the level of damage we face.
In my view, rip the fucking band-aid and then we can heal the world from that. It's much easier for everyone than trying to heal from a broken world.
[quote] Are you saying that the existence of sceptics shows that there are people who are not feeling the impacts of climatic change? Reply to Agree-to-Disagree
No, I’m accepting that there are always some people who genuinely think the science is wrong. Just like there were people who insisted the world was flat.
Having said that, I don’t remember ever meeting, or hearing of one.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 13, 2024 at 12:51#8805880 likes
that requires a level of martial law as it is a war against inaction. Any industry that does not have a strategy or plan to change course will lose their execs and board, any politicians who don't have a serious plan for changing a nation's course in time will be removed from power.
How many countries do you think would be willing to instigate martial law to fight climate change?
What will be done to countries which refuse to instigate martial law?
Who exactly will be in command and set the goals? (Donald Trump?)
Some civilians may not comply. Civilians in the U.S. own close to 400 million firearms and the total number of firearms owned by private citizens vastly exceeds the police and military. By comparison, the U.S. military holds about 4.5 million guns, and state and local police have just over 1 million.
What you are suggesting will probably cause more problems than climate change will?
Reply to Christoffer I agree with everything you say, short of “ripping the bandaid”. You and I have reached the realisation of the seriousness of the issue. It’s a road to Damascus moment for people who realise this. Unfortunately it is very difficult to explain this, or convey it to people who are just getting along with their lives, or are being lead down another road.
The number of people coming to this realisation is increasing rapidly along with the number of people who realise there is a problem that needs addressing and are ready to act. But there is an enormous inertia in the system and the culture. Many of us are banging our heads against this wall of inertia.
Eventually one realises all we can do is play our part from the position we are in within society. Ideally one would become a politician run for office and change things. Or figure out a way to change peoples minds through some kind of media organisation, or protest group. But again the inertia hits home and many people are already doing these things. In fact some of these people are pushing so hard that media campaigns are growing to discredit them as extremists and pull more people into climate denial.
So one reaches a point of acceptance, an acceptance that the crisis is enormous and irreversible and we as a species are to weak to prevent it. This is quite normal, the list of species extinctions in the fossil record is long and there is an inevitability to it.
The task of intelligent beings as I see it is to overcome these cycles and reach a point of long term survival through working with natural cycles and adopt a custodian role within the ecosystem.
It is too late now to overcome this current cycle of climate change, however if some portion of humanity can survive, adapt and preserve our intellectual and technological achievements sufficiently that they can be conveyed to the next flourishing of civilisation. There is an increased chance of achieving a that custodial role.
This is the natural cycle as I see it, with many failed attempts, collapses, until at some point in the future, the species adapts, or grows up sufficiently to overcome these obstacles and achieves a long term survival and develops into an advanced civilisation to take its place among other advanced civilisations in the cosmos, if they exist (to be confirmed). In this humanity is still in its infancy.
Personally, I will play my small part in improving our lot. While enjoying the life I have built for myself and my family.
But there is an enormous inertia in the system and the culture. Many of us are banging our heads against this wall of inertia.
Yes, the system itself is the problem and people rely on the system too much. For this to be fixed, we need to break the system, even if that has to be healed afterwards. The consequences of breaking its stability will be far less than that of taking too long to change course.
Eventually one realises all we can do is play our part from the position we are in within society. Ideally one would become a politician run for office and change things. Or figure out a way to change peoples minds through some kind of media organisation, or protest group. But again the inertia hits home and many people are already doing these things. In fact some of these people are pushing so hard that media campaigns are growing to discredit them as extremists and pull more people into climate denial.
Activists in this are just as much morons as the deniers and oil chills. It's the other extreme end featuring people who can't handle the psychological stress, so they act out in desperation rather than rationality.
But the problem is that there's no time to play along as usual. I'm serious here, the largest contributors to emissions need to be put into such pressure that they collapse as economies if they don't change course. China for instance, is the worlds largest contributor to emissions. Their economy need to be crippled to the point they accept they have to change. And so does every nation who does so globally. The global economy will crash because of this, but it has to be done as money is the only thing that moves this world. The problem is that politicians in the world do not take action, they try to eat the cake and have it to, they can't turn their backs on voters who are deniers and who don't care about climate change, so they play it down; they do the absolute minimum required by COP and COP itself only arrive at minimal conclusions that scientists are criticizing being too little each time they gather.
If people think that such breaking of the system would lead to conflicts and war, yes, it might. But imagine a world with billions of people relocated and battling for resources during famine and societies in need to rebuild their infrastructure and housing due to shifting environmental needs. What wars would that generate?
What we as regular people can do is as I said, view all people who don't take this seriously as immoral people due to them downplaying the seriousness. There's a big difference between viewing them as having the wrong opinion and seeing them as immoral. The change produces a social change. The problem is that the realm and dimension of the consequences of passive behavior isn't communicated. The seriousness of collective passiveness is downplayed. If the link between being passive or dismissive of the problems and the consequences a few decades from now are established, then it would be easier to view this passivity as being immoral and these people as being immoral.
But we are still acting like it's just an opinion, like it's a behavior that's fine. It's like in the 40s and 50s and it's fine to be a racist. It's fine to divide people by color. And at some point it's not fine anymore and if you express racist opinions or behave like that in public you'll get punched in the face and people would cheer that on. That's the level of social behavior we need to be at in order to seriously pressure politicians and the public opinion. And even then it would be hard, seen as there's plenty of politicians who still win elections with downright outspoken racism. Even today that happens, but at least that power usually can't survive long if the social ideal is to punch a racist.
So one reaches a point of acceptance, an acceptance that the crisis is enormous and irreversible and we as a species are to weak to prevent it. This is quite normal, the list of species extinctions in the fossil record is long and there is an inevitability to it.
We are not to weak to prevent it, we just need to do what it takes. When the pressure is on, people won't be weak, they will fight and kill for change. That's where we're heading if we're not acting now.
It is too late now to overcome this current cycle of climate change, however if some portion of humanity can survive, adapt and preserve our intellectual and technological achievements sufficiently that they can be conveyed to the next flourishing of civilisation. There is an increased chance of achieving a that custodial role.
Or just change course now. If that's our future and people would start to realize this to be a very likely outcome, then they will pick up guns and remove anyone who do not actively work to fix it. It's easy to ignore it now, but when enough people get the short end of the stick, they will soon organize and do something. We might see billions of them. Billions who have nothing else they can do but storm the castles of immorality.
I think the way you describe it is how many people view things, especially in places that may seem to be out of danger. But people don't realize that there is no such place. The changing climate collapse ecosystems and produce a cocktail effect of consequences, many unpredictable as we've witnessed already. This increase will more than likely happen in our lifetime. If people care for their children, then what future are they giving them? Putting blind folds on the kids, trying to soothe them into a belief that everything will be fine and then kicking them out into a world that is breaking apart?
Adults today are so inactive and passive that young teenagers have essentially given up. The depression around this subject among young people is so severe and their parents just don't seem to give a shit. It's appalling in my opinion.
And I actually don't see most people actually accepting how serious this problem is, or rather, they don't seem to accept just how serious this can become. I see most regular people as ignorant, putting on the blind folds and distracting themselves with mindless instagram reels. Essentially they have their head in the sand until the hurricane winds rip their bodies from their stuck heads. If they actually understood, they would speak more openly about it, but they don't, because it's socially awkward to do so, it's socially awkward to be angry about how things are. Changing that would make things go faster.
And one such change would be to draw a clear moral line between the active and the passive person. If the deniers and passive people are considered immoral, then people will start to express themselves much more on the matter. People will find it much less awkward to socially be outspoken about the issues. People will find it is moral to talk about solutions, to have it as a conversation starter.
People aren't talking right now, they are quiet.
How much further, how much does it take in order for regular people to stop voting for politicians who downplay the problems? How much further does it have to go in order for people to put pressure on world politics? How much further does it have to go in order for people to start talking about the issues much more openly?
I suspect that when the first bullet is fired from a guerilla or resistance group fighting for a piece of land because their own nation is uninhabitable; then people will realize just how dire the situation is. Then it would be such an illogical thing to say "go back to your own country" because they can't, and the number of people and military groups born out of such desperation will grow, and grow, and grow. And they will creep closer and closer and closer to the comfort of people's homes. Then, maybe, regular people will start to get the fucking point on how serious this thing is.
[quote] Or just change course now. If that's our future and people would start to realize this to be a very likely outcome, then they will pick up guns and remove anyone who do not actively work to fix it. It's easy to ignore it now, but when enough people get the short end of the stick, they will soon organize and do something. We might see billions of them. Billions who have nothing else they can do but storm the castles of immorality. Reply to Christoffer
If it were that simple to change course, I would be out there now with my gun. But that is more likely to be counterproductive. The problem is that any breakdown in civil order would inevitably disrupt commerce and turn politics more authoritarian. Resulting in a slowing down in the development of carbon neutral technology and infra-structure and the transition and the activists who took up arms thrown in jail and labelled terrorists.
Programmes of education to educate the population in the severity and pressing nature of the threat would be effective in spreading the word. There is already lots of media aimed at achieving this. In the U.K., the work of Sir David Attenborough has been very effective and the majority of the population is on board.(to the extent of understanding the issue and prepared to act)
But really what is required is for large numbers of people to be struck with the realisation, the road to Damascus revelation, as I said. This is much more difficult and I don’t see a way of achieving this in the absence of a catastrophic natural event. Something which is likely not far off happening now.
You say we are able to make the necessary changes and prevent catastrophe. But I would say it is too late now, we should have been at our current state of readiness at the time of that Carl Sagan lecture in 1990.(I was onboard at that time). The situation is much more critical now and catastrophic effects and states collapsing will be happening soon. The best that we can do until then is keep things on a stable footing as long as possible, while nations transition to national sustainable energy generation infrastructure and make big reductions in fossil fuel usage, as has been done in China and France for example.
It looks as though the transition to carbon neutral transport is not going to be rolled out in time and may fail, with either a move back to oil, or a collapse of transport systems.
I also expect the powerful nations of the world retreating into fortresses in an attempt to survive. This would likely be in North America, Europe and China. The rest of the world would be cut loose and would have to fend for themselves. I think Putin is trying to make a move in this direction, thinking that Russia would become warmer and become an empire. (Edit. this would require the Ukraine plains for food production). This will of course fail.
The rise of fascism and libertarianism around the world is another symptom with the powerful already trying to asset strip nations, or looking to hide away in bunkers.
unenlightenedFebruary 14, 2024 at 16:01#8809160 likes
Reply to unenlightened Yes it’s going to be a rollercoaster when the AMOC circulation collapses. Rapid ice melt on Greenland could tip the balance during the next few decades. Resulting in much colder weather for Europe and global consequences. Followed by a rapid warming at a later date when it catches up with the rest of the world.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/
ChristofferFebruary 14, 2024 at 16:47#8809260 likes
The problem is that any breakdown in civil order would inevitably disrupt commerce and turn politics more authoritarian.
It's primarily industries that needs to be changed by force. Regular people will surely hate the consequences of the industry changes, but new industries will pop up that can follow the new path long before people start to vote for dictators. Like, the least they can do is to tax carbon emissions, and do it a lot. Then use the money as direct funds towards engineering solutions for mitigation.
Programmes of education to educate the population in the severity and pressing nature of the threat would be effective in spreading the word.
Education doesn't seem to help much for those last percentages of people who are enough to screw up elections with candidates who oppose green industries.
You say we are able to make the necessary changes and prevent catastrophe. But I would say it is too late now
It's too late for some consequences, but giving up would be far more catastrophic. There's no point in just stop mitigation. But we have to speed up the change and do it fast.
It looks as though the transition to carbon neutral transport is not going to be rolled out in time and may fail, with either a move back to oil, or a collapse of transport systems.
Moving back into oil just to see the entire world collapse is just stupid as a strategy. Just burn the oil industry (not literally). Crack down on the corrupted politicians getting money from it, do it by force if needed. Block oil entirely or partially (to have transportation for the build up of green replacements.
People buy what is on the market, so remove oil-driven products from the market. Have the governments put a ban on new gas cars earlier than we have now. If they bitch about it and try something as a blow back, put them in jail.
It's basically war against the climate change consequences and there's traitors walking about.
The rest of the world would be cut loose and would have to fend for themselves.
Billions against a fortress? Politicians in high places will soon enough be toppled if that would ever happen. Desperation force people into the only option they have, and getting into revolutionary mode à la France can move mountains.
I just wish people would argue for more serious push against the oil industry than has been done so far. There are just too many politicians in the pockets of the global oil industry, and the politicians who are directly owning their part of the oil industry need to be starved out of power. Like, Russia should be totally isolated. China should be totally isolated. With the only key to the door being that they stop oil. If not, they can hunger until the people storm the leader's castles.
ChristofferFebruary 14, 2024 at 16:48#8809270 likes
And of course... republicans. Can we actually just conclude them to be collectively stupid? Like, what more evidence do we need?
Like, Russia should be totally isolated. China should be totally isolated. With the only key to the door being that they stop oil. If not, they can hunger until the people storm the leader's castles. Reply to Christoffer
Who is in charge in this situation?
All the strategies you list will fail, resulting in martial law and authoritarian police, or military states. While the activists would be thrown in jail and vilified as extremist terrorists. Used as whipping boys for divide and rule populists. All action towards net zero will be abandoned. Carbon emissions might drop, but there would be global economic collapse. So no one will be able to develop the required technology and infra structure for a return to normality. More likely would be a Mad Max outcome. During a period of mass extinction and climate turmoil.
As I say, it’s important to retain a functioning economic and industrial system in safe areas for as long as possible. To give us a hope of pulling through as a civilisation with the appropriate technologies in place. Which are being rapidly developed now.
[quote]It's too late for some consequences, but giving up would be far more catastrophic. There's no point in just stop mitigation. But we have to speed up the change and do it fast.
This is equivocation. It is not the case that not following your prescribed actions equates to giving up.
unenlightenedFebruary 14, 2024 at 20:16#8809690 likes
And it's been done to death. How much more education do these people need? The denial group have slowly started to go into just acceptance of a changing world, but they do so in the context of not acting anyway. The outcome of their reasoning is the same as their previous pure denial.
Insulting and bullying people, and exaggerating the effects of climate change, does not cause most people to make major changes.
Bullshit. The French revolution had much needed beheadings. Tone policing is just another form of censorship for people to adhere to the status quo. The effects of climate change are not exaggerated, in fact, they've been underestimated as is becoming painfully obvious if you would be paying attention.
unenlightenedFebruary 16, 2024 at 21:40#8816230 likes
Better sooner than later the way things are currently going. Can you give me your address for the list?
The United States (and probably many other countries) traditionally has a policy against negotiating with terrorists. If you get too extreme then you will be shooting yourself in the foot, and you will make it even harder to bring about change.
Deleted userFebruary 18, 2024 at 23:01#8820680 likes
I don't think any of the people here implying terrorism have solved an equation in the past 5 years to be able to pretend to know what they are talking about, neither are they in shape to go jogging to the local government building. Since there is no general environment thread, I will post this here while people worry about the fact that the Netherlands should be underwater 20 years ago:
If you get too extreme then you will be shooting yourself in the foot
They are already metaphorically shooting themselves in the head by overdosing on cortisol coming from their neurotic worldview and oestrogen-filled tap water:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135422013586:Among the plethora of chemicals released into the environment, much attention is paid to endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). Natural estrogens, such as estrone (E1), 17?-estradiol (E2), estriol (E3) are excreted by humans as well as animals, and can enter the environment as a result of discharging domestic sewage and animal waste.
These compounds can cause deleterious effects such as feminization, infertility and hermaphroditism in organisms that inhabit water bodies.
Reply to Deleted user I was wondering, there were already micro particles in the environment before plastics were invented. How come they are not a problem?
unenlightenedFebruary 19, 2024 at 11:49#8821710 likes
It's an invidious comparison. The environmental effects of estrogenic pollution are not negligible and the direct effect on humans include a drop in fertility and an increase in prostate and breast cancers. It's a problem worth addressing, and sooner rather than later.
Micro-plastics is probably more serious as a cumulative poison or rather cocktail of poisons that travels up the food chain like DDT or heavy metals and generally cannot be either sequestered or eliminated by the body. It is a major benefit of plastics that they are not biodegradable and that is why they are so popular as food packaging, electrical insulators and so on. Early electric cable was insulated with waxed cloth and wrapped in a protective sheath of lead. Ah, the good old days! It was as easy to recycle as it was dangerous to use.
But neither of these problems can compare with the existential threat that climate change poses to the whole of humanity. In this context, they serve as yet another diversionary tactic.
The only real question left is how we’re going to solve this existential problem. The solutions are already being employed and they’re worth looking at and engaging with, whether individually or, better, within a community or organization.
It’s no longer a debate about whether it’s happening (it is), whether scientists agree (they do), whether humans are causing it (we are), or what the effects are (bad).
My own interest is converting heating systems from fossil fuels to heat pumps (and better insulation), increasing the building of electrical transmission lines, and greening the electrical grid (including through nuclear). This means talking to one’s employer and getting them on board with IRA rebates, retrofitting buildings, talking to local officials, talking with state public utility commissions, going to (boring) meetings like zoning boards, etc.
Voting, divesting from fossil fuels (switching from banks to credit unions, for example), advocating for better public transportation, electrification of all school buses and postal trucks (numbering in the hundreds of thousands), plugging old oil sites, plugging methane leaks in fracking sites, and on and on.
Plenty of things to do. I think that should be the topic here. Perhaps “Climate change solutions” should be the new name, or a separate thread. All this one does is occasionally attract random ignoramuses who want to take yet another stab at the subject by exhuming tiresome lines of delay and denial, drowning out anything interesting.
Reply to unenlightened I can see that there might be some leaching of chemicals into the body from micro plastics. But if there is toxicity, where has it come from? Are plastics made of toxic ingredients? Also how come all the other micro particles in the environment haven’t caused similar problems?
I can see that there is a food chain issue, but has it been demonstrated that they accumulate at the top of the food chain and stay there?
unenlightenedFebruary 19, 2024 at 14:28#8822110 likes
Reply to Punshhh Asbestos is another; clogs the lungs and I think irritates causing inflammation lung cancers... Sahara sand blows into Europe occasionally. Sand in the lungs is also not great. Any foreign body can literally block the little tubes. likewise I think one can line the gut with impermeable indigestible plastic sheeting. There are also breakdown products particularly of things like PVC with chlorine atoms instead of the usual hydrogen that are not good for the system, but my chemistry/biochemistry gets a bit vague here. But organic chemistry tends to produce unwanted byproducts in a rather messy way - like dioxins for example. Generally, I'd recommend keeping foreign bodies out of the home body whether I'm talking to fish, fowl or fool.
But it's mainly a diversionary scare story, in the context of the current catastrophe of climate change. There's nothing quite like the danger of turning into a woman to exercise the terror circuits of the average cockwomble. Worse than being possessed by the devil!
Reply to unenlightened Quite, a distraction. Often people get diverted onto plastics and recycling so that they continue using fossil fuels. While thinking they are doing their bit for the planet.
I will wait on micro plastics until there are firmer research results.
Deleted userFebruary 19, 2024 at 19:17#8822670 likes
I was wondering, there were already micro particles in the environment before plastics were invented. How come they are not a problem?
Is every microparticle a problem? Volcanic ash is a strongly present microparticle in some environments long before plastics were a thing. Volcanic ash is toxic to humans. But snowflakes are a completely harmless microparticle.
I will wait on micro plastics until there are firmer research results.
Nope, you will wait on it until ABC News tells you you should worry about it — that is how it goes with you folks. None of you here are qualified to read "research", that much is evident.
My own interest is converting heating systems from fossil fuels to heat pumps (and better insulation), ...
The following excerpts come from the Financial Times article
https://www.ft.com/content/21beeb8d-08de-46db-97c4-a976d3f0b90c
‘Outraged and furious’: Germans rebel against gas boiler ban
But the proposed boiler ban has already led to a series of unintended consequences. Thousands of Germans are seeking to beat the ban by installing new gas boilers before the January 1 deadline set by the bill, locking in CO2 emissions for decades to come.
Around 168,000 gas boilers were sold in Germany in the first quarter of this year, a 100 per cent increase on the previous year, according to the ZVSHK, a trade association for heating, plumbing and air conditioning engineers.
"Wärmewende" means "heating revolution" or "heating transition".
“This Wärmewende is just not feasible,” said AfD MP Marc Bernhard during a Bundestag debate on the issue on Wednesday. “We don’t have enough skilled workers, we don’t have enough electricity and people don’t have enough money to pay for this madness.”
Reply to Mikie One more quote to the now-removed log of your intense bad faith and ability to dehumanize based on your ideology.
Neat that it got removed though. In fact, the entire exchange was removed.
Keeps you going. But I think it is ethically questionable that the Mods (probably you) have removed the evidence of this, in the thread from which it had been collectively taken. Seems modding isn't about improving the forum, in this case.
If there’s an issue with moderation, take it up in feedback. I have no clue what you’re referring to and don’t mod threads or conversations I’m involved with.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 20, 2024 at 04:06#8823780 likes
[quote] The only real question left is how we’re going to solve this existential problem. The solutions are already being employed and they’re worth looking at and engaging with, whether individually or, better, within a community or organization. Reply to Mikie
There are issues that come with the speed of transition to net zero. Due to the inertia in the system and how late we have reached a point where significant change is happening. Many of the changes are now going to have to be more rapid than a seamless transition would expect.
A case in point is the role out of charging points for electric vehicles in the U.K. There are massive hiccups in the role out. This is resulting in big hiccups in the introduction of electric vehicles and a slowing of the transition. For the role out to go smoothly there needs to be a sufficient number of charge points in sufficient locations for drivers to be confident that they will be able to make their journeys without the problems of not finding a charging point, or finding a queue at the charging point they need to use.
This has resulted in lots of people deciding not to buy an electric car until these problems have been solved. Also the inadequacies of the electrical grid systems have been revealed meaning there is a requirement for massive national upgrades in infrastructure.
Now this is just one case, there are similar issues across the board in the transition. Many of them converging in pinch points, or bottlenecks. This trips up the progress, resulting in frustrations, liquidations, unrest and protests.
The more rapid these issues have to be dealt with the greater the barriers and obstacles there are. The greater the upheaval.
There is also a political fallout from this. The rise of far right populism and the miss information they promote. In the U.K. the Conservative Party has failed to invest in the required infrastructure, failed to provide incentives, failed to put necessary laws and regulations in place for over a decade, to speed up the transition. Now we are in the position where all this has to be done at breakneck speed and the Conservatives are split with a faction insisting on reneging on our net zero commitments. This plays into the climate denial that is sweeping the Western democracies.
Divide and rule politics and far right conspiracy theories threaten to derail our efforts to tackle the climate crisis and the more the necessary changes are delayed the greater the upheaval.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 20, 2024 at 20:02#8825150 likes
Calling people "deniers" creates an "us and them" mentality. This makes it even less likely to get cooperation. People who call other people "deniers" are part of the problem, not the solution.
The more rapid these issues have to be dealt with the greater the barriers and obstacles there are. The greater the upheaval.
Indeed— and we see this all over. The conversion to a better electric grid requires permitting, for example, and sometimes has to cut across people’s properties and they don’t want to lease. So it gets tied up in courts or eminent domain is invoked, and that angers people, etc. All kinds of problems like this will crop up. Electric charging stations, upfront costs, and so on.
But it’s going to happen one way or another, because it has to. Which is why the fossil fuel industry keeps politicizing things like induction stoves (which are awesome) and meat alternatives and blather on about freedom and masculinity. They selectively run ridiculous stories and constantly highlight problems— not constructively, because they don’t care in the first place, but in order to paint a picture of unreliability or socialism or whatever. Anything to delay.
Their propaganda works, gets into the brains of lazy consumers, and eventually gets regurgitated on Internet forums. See the past 108 pages for plenty of examples.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 21, 2024 at 04:15#8825920 likes
Good. They never intended to cooperate anyway, because they deny there’s a problem. Fuck ‘em.
Many people will cooperate if they are asked nicely. But when you are nasty to them, and call them insulting names, then they are likely to dig their heels in. That means that you have probably lost the fight against climate change.
Which is more important Mikie, your ego or the fight against climate change?
Many people will cooperate if they are asked nicely.
No, they won’t. Climate deniers are like creationists. It doesn’t matter how nicely you present evidence or argue your case. Carl Sagan was doing it respectfully, articulately, and reasonably — 35 years ago, in interviews, in congress, in lectures, on popular radio and television programs. Climate deniers remain with their denial.
I’m no longer interested in engaging substantially or nicely with those who deny reality and delay progress on a problem known decades ago. Especially on the internet. As I said: fuck ‘em. There’s better things to do.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 21, 2024 at 05:07#8826020 likes
You seem to believe that all climate deniers are the same. At the extreme point of denial. In reality there is a spectrum of denial. Your attitude is making people move towards the extreme point of denial.
You have created a self-fulfilling situation Mikie. Kudos for making the situation worse.
Yes, and it’s all both dangerous and immoral. There’s a spectrum of Holocaust denial too, and I likewise have no interest in engaging seriously with any of it. Again: there’s better things to do.
Thankfully, deniers are a small minority, both in the US and the world. So, fuck ‘em.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 22, 2024 at 04:27#8829010 likes
Thankfully, deniers are a small minority, both in the US and the world. So, fuck ‘em.
Small ???
I think that you are in denial Mikie.
Some recent research, reported on this webpage:
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-02-16/despite-the-evidence-nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change
Despite the Evidence, Nearly 15% of Americans Deny Climate Change
In fact, more than 20% of the populations of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota do not believe in climate change, results show.
For example, less than 12% of the population of California does not believe in climate change, but northern California’s Shasta County had denial rates as high as 52%.
Similarly, denial across Texas averages 21%, but at the county level denial ranges from 13% in Travis County to 67% in Hockley County.
From The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/16/third-of-uk-teenagers-believe-climate-change-exaggerated-report-shows
A third of UK teenagers believe climate change is “exaggerated”
[teenagers are probably more likely to believe in climate change than non-teenagers - not really "small" Mikie]
From Statista:
https://www.statista.com/chart/19449/countries-with-biggest-share-of-climate-change-deniers
From The Conversation:
https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450
The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds
Australian news consumers are far more likely to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries.
The Digital News Report: Australia 2020 was conducted by the University of Canberra at the end of the severe bushfire season during January 17 and February 8, 2020.
More than half (58%) of respondents say they consider climate change to be a very or extremely serious problem, 21% consider it somewhat serious, 10% consider it to be not very and 8% not at all serious.
Regardless of political orientation, only 36% of news consumers think climate change reporting is accurate. This indicates low levels of trust in climate change reporting and is in stark contrast with trust in COVID-19 reporting, which was much higher at 53%.
The findings also point to a significant section of the community that simply don’t pay attention to the issue, despite the calamitous bushfires.
Yes, and becoming smaller. At least in the world. True, fossil fuel states have higher rates — US, Australia, probably Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. But still minorities even there. Even the oil companies pushing denial bullshit are themselves not really deniers.
At this point it takes a special kind of stupid— but whatever. People believe in creationism and that the Holocaust didn’t happen and in a flat earth. Eventually you got to let them be. No sense engaging seriously.
According to data from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute released last week, Americans bought 21 percent more heat pumps in 2023 than the next-most popular heating appliance, fossil gas furnaces. That’s the biggest lead heat pumps have opened up over conventional furnaces in the two decades of data available from the trade group.
Reply to Mikie Something weird is going on in Australia. They’re gonna fry in a few years. Must be that problem with populism I was talking about.
Saudi is investing big time in solar, they know their oil is going to become a stranded asset soon enough. Russia knows this too, so want to grab Ukraines grain producing plains before it’s to late.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 22, 2024 at 10:15#8829320 likes
Heat pumps outsold gas furnaces again last year — and the gap is growing
I fully support the use of heat pumps where they are appropriate. But as usual, the devil is in the details.
Heat pumps look good on paper, but there are issues.
The following quotes come from an article called "Are Heat Pumps a Climate-Friendly Solution to Reduce Carbon Footprint?"
https://climateadaptationplatform.com/are-heat-pumps-a-climate-friendly-solution-to-reduce-carbon-footprint
Swapping a boiler to a heat pump is more complex. There are costs and space involved. First, heat pumps are larger than gas boilers and require outside space. Second, heat pumps run at cooler temperatures than boilers do, and for the freezing winter temperatures, old and leaky homes comprise 60% of European properties.
These properties would need to be insulated, which means additional costs to homeowners on top of installing a heat pump. The price of switching to heat pumps could quickly become problematic and politically toxic, the article notes. The least that governments can do is to cover some of the cost and ensure that there are enough skilled workers to retrofit homes, the article suggests.
While many households in the U.S. could benefit from switching to heat pumps, the study also notes that wide-scale heat pump adoption may have unintended, undesirable consequences. Study authors simulated widespread heat pump adoption outcomes to determine the circumstance that makes heat pumps a wise choice.
“The key finding is that for around a third of the single-family homes in the U.S., if you installed the heat pump, you would reduce environmental and health damages,” according to Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan and a co-author of the paper (Rocheleau, 2021).
However, installing a heat pump would only benefit some. For others, installing a heat pump would be more expensive because the cost of generating electricity is higher than the cost of in situ fossil fuel use. Heat pumps are also less efficient to heat houses in colder climates and will increase power bills. In 24 of the studied cities, mostly in colder climates, peak residential electricity demand increased by over 100% if all houses adopted heat pumps, which would require grid upgrades.
The study suggests that switching about 30% of single-family homes to heat pumps will reduce harm to the environment and human health and allow savings for households. The best places to start are the parts of the country with a moderate climate. The authors also suggest cleaning up the grid as fast as possible to allow wider uptake of heat pumps and noting that heat pumps will continue improving and increase efficiency in colder climates.
Something weird is going on in Australia. They’re gonna fry in a few years. Must be that problem with populism I was talking about.
They will fry, yes. But their economy relies on fossil fuel extraction and export, especially to China — so they’ve delayed and continue to delay, although some steps have been recently taken.
Lol. Yeah, please keep talking as if you understand the “details” — evidently in this case meaning “googling for an article, posting it, and pretending it proves something.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You haven’t known what you’re talking about since the time you started trolling this thread with your thinly veiled denialism.
So here’s an assignment: while you’re googling, google the problems and “details” about oil, coal, and natural gas extraction — the environmental damage, the health damage, the industry practices and lobbying, the destruction left in its wake, its transportation, the effects on workers, the effects on respiratory problems, its expense, how governments subsidize the industry, the externalities that aren’t paid for, etc.
It’ll be good for you. You might learn something. Then you can get back to your pro bono work as an industry apologist, following their playbook of amplifying the “risks” and “problems” associated with a green transition. “They don’t work well in cold climates!” (Wrong) “They aren’t cost effective!” (Wrong) …etc. Take a break.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 22, 2024 at 19:55#8830300 likes
And knowing this, Lee Raymond and other executives, caring about their grandkids and the future of humans on earth and being the good patriots they are, immediately started on carbon capture technology, aiding the research and development of alternative energy, encouraging the government to put in place stricter industry regulations and efficiency standards and an across-the-board carbon tax to fully reflect the cost vis-à-vis externalities.
Just kidding.
Instead they started a massive propaganda campaign and hired the same people tobacco companies used to downplay the harm of cigarettes.
Cost the country and the world decades of progress. But I’m sure it was awesome have those profits. Yachts are fun and God will handle the rest.
Deleted userFebruary 25, 2024 at 00:06#8834340 likes
Yes, because so far you’ve proven yourself credible to make such a judgment. :roll:
"Et tu?" Yes, more than any of you here who want to suspend society. You all have shown not to know basic statistics and physics as I have shown before several times (do I have to go quote all those times?), yet you want to talk about "the science™" as if such a phrase is not the utmost insult for centuries of development of natural philosophy. I, at the very least, still remember Bhaskara.
Our results indicate that, by neglecting calving-front retreat, current consensus estimates of ice-sheet mass balance4,9 have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%. The mass loss we report has had minimal direct impact on global sea level but is sufficient to affect ocean circulation and the distribution of heat energy around the globe
The bad news is that if some bits of the world are going to get colder but overall its going to get warmer, the bits that get warmer are going to get a good deal warmer than the "average". And whether it gets hotter or colder, trees cannot stock up on thermal clothing or bottled water, and forests can only move a matter of meters per year under their own steam.
This spring, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will release its finalized rule on companies’ climate disclosures.
That much-anticipated rule will weigh in on the key question of whose responsibility it is to account for emissions — the customer who burns them (Scope II), or the fossil fuel company that produces them (Scope III).
Exxon has long argued for Scope II, based on the idea that it provides a product and is not responsible for how customers use it.
Last week, Reuters reported that the SEC would likely drop Scope III, a positive development for the companies.
Woods argued last year that SEC Scope III rules would cause Exxon to produce less fossil fuels — which he said would perversely raise global emissions, as its products were replaced by dirtier production elsewhere.
Reply to Mikie The headline not withstanding; he's right. Most people want something to be done as long as other people pay for it. If people would start paying the true price of most of what they consume, there would be revolt. Take his example of aviation fuel. They could produce it and then every airline will turn around and buy regular aviation fuel from Shell, BP, etc. So it's self-defeating. Then if you could get all the fuel companies aligned then everybody is going to complain because their trip to Spain all of a sudden costs 5 times as much. NIMBY all the way unfortunately.
It’s just hilarious coming from an oil shill who lobbies and propagandizes for delaying any and all efforts to address the issue. We know they’ve known it’s a problem for decades, and we know they continue to block legislation while claiming they want a carbon tax.
Yeah, sorry if his words mean exactly nothing to me.
Reply to Mikie Yeah Exon Mobil was there right at the beginning of climate change denial. They played a big part in spreading the denial and disinformation.
From the highway into Vanderbijlpark, you can see the heavy veil of smoke that cloaks Africa’s biggest steel mill. To the southeast, near the town of Vereeniging, the Lethabo coal power plant, whose name means “happiness,” joylessly belches out ash and toxic sulfur dioxide. Further south, outside a petrochemicals plant in Sasolburg, an adjacent neighborhood regularly reeks of rotten eggs from hydrogen sulfide in the air.
The plants offer steady work for residents at a time when one in three South Africans are unemployed, yet they’re also pumping out harmful emissions at levels so high that Vereeniging is by some measures the most polluted city in the world. The toxins are causing hundreds of premature deaths every year across the Vaal Triangle, and respiratory disease for many of those still breathing. The situation is a stark reminder of the toll the world’s dependency on steel, oil and coal is having on human health – and the difficulty a green transition faces if it costs the livelihood of the workers who depend on old economy jobs.
Reply to Mikie Yes, in the U.K., the government is pushing the line, that adapting to climate change, net zero policies are expensive. That the poor will end up paying more and due to the severe economic circumstances, they are going to have to move more slowly to help out the poor. We are helping the poor by not addressing climate change.
Yes, that's a good video on what's going on right now. Maybe if the people who can still use their brains could stop focusing on spending their time on so much trash culture and lazy attitudes towards politics and philosophical thought; they might be able to help change the course instead. But people aren't interested, even if they're on the right side of history.
The problem isn't really the climate deniers or the climate doomers, they're mostly just irrelevant since they're not nearly enough of a democratic force to stand in the way of necessary change. Or, that's how it should be at least. The problem is that democracies are tilted to such an extreme balance between decent and absolute trash that they've become relevant without really being a large democratic force; all because the rest of society consist of lazy people who "can't find the time to involve themselves in these issues".
It's this lazy attitude, this "I don't have time to think about..." that is the real problem. There's not enough demand on politicians and parties, so politicians fall back into playing into populism in order to keep their power.
People who acknowledge the problem and agree with the need for solutions, still just don't give a shit about voting for those who actually push for necessary change and they don't seem to care to speak up when necessary.
This is why shifting the social sphere into climate denying and doomerism should be considered immoral. Something equivalent of being a racist, spitting on the poor, abusive behavior etc. Society needs to change towards treating people who talk and act within such attitudes to be unwelcomed, totally ok to be fired from jobs, kicked out of restaurants, unwanted in social situations etc. And if someone would talk like that in media it should be equivalent of uttering the n-word in public; not as an opinion that's treated equal to everything else.
If so, if pushed in that direction of social culture in society, it would gather a greater momentum towards action. It would lead to politicians being careful not to cater to such voices and the social consequences would be too severe for people to go around shouting such opinions and statements.
Since the consequences of not doing anything to mitigate climate chance are so far away in time, we need to have consequences here and now that people want to avoid. Producing a culture of more severe negative social consequences as direct results of promoting or uttering climate denial and doomerism would help change the lazy attitude into being more active and proactive. It would force people to be more verbal in order to keep their social moral status and in doing so keep the focus on working towards solutions higher on the list for politicians as it's part of the cultural atmosphere they want to cater to in order to gain votes.
Right now, people who, in social situations, talk a lot about climate change and the required need for solutions are often viewed as "bad at parties", while people who are deniers or doomers just get eyeroll reactions. That makes the issues and the topic dead in politics and something left for Reddit brawls, rather than part of core societal topics. Forcing a harsher moral environment around the topic could push people to "show their moral stance" more openly since they surely don't want to be viewed as possible deniers or doomers.
If people can't take actions on their own, then make it customary immoral not to. The sad truth is that status and social structures are more important for common people than saving the planet. And so shaping a social construct of morality around the subject into being more extreme could help steer the ship in a better direction faster.
Reply to Mikie [quote=Lindsey Gulden, geophysicist]It may not be advisable to talk on LinkedIn about the time I was fired by #ExxonMobil. But here goes.
I am a #climate scientist. I can identify with both climate researchers featured in this worth-your-time article.
I started out as Ms Rebecca Grekin, a climate scientist who earnestly, naively believed that the ExxonMobil of today is a trustworthy actor in the energy transition. I spent more than a decade working for ExxonMobil, occasionally (but not often enough) advocating for combatting #climatechange .
In 2020, I was fired—yes, fired—by ExxonMobil because I reported what amounted to a $10 billion fraud. To put it mildly, that experience fundamentally altered my opinion of whether present-day ExxonMobil can be considered an honest broker in anything, but most especially in the realm of the energy transition, which is a far-greater-than-$10-billion threat to the Exxon's bottom line. I have become the article's more cynical and wiser Mr Kashtan.
Despite what smooth-talking spokespeople will tell you, ExxonMobil continues to fund and be an active member of organizations that are—today—working to decrease political support for government action to curb climate change and decrease the public’s access to and trust in readily available replacements for #oilandgas. They fund PhDs and national labs to burnish their reputation and influence what questions researchers address. #industry lobbyists have convinced large swaths of the public (and most of their own well-meaning employees) that technologies like carbon capture and storage are legitimate recipients of billions of taxpayer dollars earmarked for combatting climate change. Those taxpayer dollars are urgently needed for existing, proven, ready-right-now solutions but instead are funding a massive campaign to enhance oil recovery. Carbon capture and storage is, at its core, a technology for producing more oil. It requires more carbon to be expended to inject #co2 at pressure than it keeps out of the atmosphere. It is not and will not be a viable solution to climate change.
ExxonMobil executives can continue this deception in large part because so many useful idiots, myself included, willingly lend their personal reputations to the propping up of a lie. They can continue this deception because they make an example of people like me (I’m not the only one) to ensure that their employees are afraid to truly challenge the ethics of the company line.
I wish I could tell my younger self that the cynical Mr Yannai Kashtan is right. That idealism and/or a paycheck can lull you into trusting those who say one thing and do another. That we must stop allowing ourselves to be used by a few people who care more about their reserve shares than about doing the right thing. And, most important, that we must, without delay, find the unflinching political will to turn off the #fossilfuels tap as fast as we possibly can. [/quote]
I think one error that media and climate scientists make when trying to communicate the problems is to use terms like "point of no return". I think this has been negatively helping the legitimizing of the shifting goal posts for climate science denier's "doomer stance" of "yes, the climate is shifting and yes we might be responsible but there's no point in doing anything since we're already doomed".
If we can leave out terms like "point of no return", we won't play into their newest but equally stupid position against mitigation projects.
If we can leave out terms like "point of no return", we won't play into their newest but equally stupid position against mitigation projects.
There’s plenty we can do to mitigate even worse effects. Some warming is locked in— and we’ll likely blow past 1.5 — but it’s not too late for 2C. Anything that can be done should be done.
When scientists warn about catastrophe, they’re mostly talking about tipping points. There’s potential that if these are triggered, we’re toast. There’s a lot of denial about that, even on these very pages, similar to those arguments about how nuclear war isn’t an “existential” threat because, after all, some human beings would survive.
But ignoring moronic stuff like that, it’s important to acknowledge the level of threat we face. But doomism and defeatism isn’t the answer.
Yes, that's my point, the threat is real, the science is real, but the language used in media play into an ideal of everything being too late, when it's not. Or rather, the complexity gets lost and the doomer climate science deniers just point towards singular words as sources and reasons for their cause.
We already had to change using the term "climate change" to "climate crisis" as deniers leaned into arguments about the "change" having happened before in earth's history and there's no proof for human actions being the reason. So changing it to "climate crisis" have helped push back against those kinds of stupid arguments from them. And now when most of them have shifted into acknowledging human causes, but changed the narrative into that we're doomed so there's no point in changing, then we need to adjust the language to push back against that kind of doomer rhetoric.
Maybe push terms like "mitigation efforts" and "mitigation strategies" into the mainstream in order to push the concept that it's not too late and there's still time to do stuff. That way the debate instead goes into a debate against deniers and doomers with the frame of reference being a question of "why would you oppose mitigating the effects of this crisis?"
Change in language works best on people who can't understand information on their own and who instead rely on other authorities to form opinions (authority in terms of group think clusters and populistic influencers pushing their agendas rather than upholding facts).
Since we have the problem of these people having enough democratic power to push elections in the direction of leaders who would halt mitigation strategies, then the only democratic strategy to use is rhetoric to persuade them.
The other option is for UN to declare a form of global marshal law on the topic of climate change and that no democratic nation can oppose or work against global mitigation strategies. But I doubt UN can have enough power to shift anything through that.
Alex Honnold ("Greatest athletic feat of all time") and scientists pull their sleds over the Greenland ice cap in a recent Nat'l Geo offering. I wasn't paying a lot of attention as they slogged over the ice, but at some point a scientist remarks that the sheet (glacier) is in good shape, not melting away as suspected. I probably have it wrong. Any others watch this?
it’s important to acknowledge the level of threat we face. But doomism and defeatism isn’t the answer.
Oh if only I could find the right way to talk. 'Crisis' good, 'catastrophe' bad; 'tipping point' good, 'point of no return' bad; 'Houston we have a problem', good, 'The rocket has exploded' bad.
The main thing is to get the talk nuanced just so, and then everyone will act and no one will despair. Or possibly not.
Oh if only I could find the right way to talk. 'Crisis' good, 'catastrophe' bad; 'tipping point' good, 'point of no return' bad; 'Houston we have a problem', good, 'The rocket has exploded' bad.
The main thing is to get the talk nuanced just so, and then everyone will act and no one will despair. Or possibly not.
Language matter, especially in media headlines for the part of the masses who are stupid enough to only read the headlines; but who carry enough democratic power to vote people into power who actively act against mitigation strategies.
Modern capitalism has pushed media in many nations to compete in the attention economy of who can write in the most bold, underlined ALL CAPS text ending with the most exclamation marks; for the purpose of reaching the absolute most extreme eye catching DOOM rhetoric possible.
Ignoring how such media behavior affect the population who aren't intellectual enough to do anything but follow the most shallow interpretation of reality is to ignore how group think and cult mentality shape and form the upper most deciding factors of democratic elections.
Today, almost every election balances right at the mid point between two sides and elections become essentially decided by a very small group of people who are pushed and pulled by people in power using any kind of algorithmic weapon they can muster.
In the end, the intellectual and educated masses stand firm on each side in an election and has to hope that their side had the highest marketing budget to sway that sheep herd in the middle towards their direction.
If anyone calls that kind of "democracy" our peak of society and spearhead of civilisation, they're delusional. Democracy today is just a sports game of sheep herding into winning and gaining power for the next four years. It's not about what's good for society or about solutions to problems.
So, language matter; language can sway that middle herd towards or away from mitigation strategies. But since commercial media isn't playing a game of morality or truth, but rather profit, the truth gets pushed to the small fine writing underneath the profit-gaining headlines, and the headlines always focus on doom, it's what sells the most ads and grabs the most attention, and attention is today's most valuable currency, more precious than saving the world.
Narcissus gazing into his reflection in the water; so mesmerized that he can't hear the deadly tsunami up the river.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 22, 2024 at 01:58#8898310 likes
Don't take it personal, but I do get a bit fed up with being told my language and/or attitude is the problem. The solution we are going for at the moment is 'most people die', along with a mass extinction.
Language matter, especially in media headlines for the part of the masses who are stupid enough to only read the headlines; but who carry enough democratic power to vote people into power who actively act against mitigation strategies.
Obviously those people are not reading climate scientists or philosophy forums, so there is no problem. Oh, but wait - there is a problem, and it's not careless talk that is costing lives, but closed ears.
Here's some people taking it seriously. Because when things get tough, the tough get going. I'm just leaving this link here for my own reminder really, but if anyone wants to look at the security implications, here are some folk already doing that.
https://climateandsecurity.org
Don't take it personal, but I do get a bit fed up with being told my language and/or attitude is the problem. The solution we are going for at the moment is 'most people die', along with a mass extinction.
Reply to unenlightened
They don’t mean you. They mean the people who inform the ordinary voter.
Don't take it personal, but I do get a bit fed up with being told my language
Seems like you took that personally.
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about the effects of defeatism. Maybe you feel it’s already over. In that case, fine— but I’m not sure that’s true yet. Seems a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 22, 2024 at 10:46#8898880 likes
First there was Big Tobacco
Then there was Big Oil
Now there is Big Meat
The next big climate deadline is for meat and dairy
Nearly two decades ago, a United Nations report marked the livestock sector as one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Ever since, there’s been a steady drip of research on the need to scale back meat production in high- and middle-income countries.
[The meat] Industry is fighting back. A well-oiled PR machine composed of shadowy communications groups, industry-funded academics, and pro-meat influencers all push out the message that livestock aren’t so bad for the planet. Their claims have ranged from misleading scientific arguments to hollow corporate greenwashing to outright disinformation.
Does this sound familiar? :scream:
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 22, 2024 at 11:41#8899160 likes
This makes a welcome change from climate activists glueing themselves to things. :grin:
Maybe you feel it’s already over. In that case, fine
Not at all. My feeling is that ..."It's only just begun." Which has been my tag line in this thread several times.
And fine it is not going to be — stormy, rather. But I have given up hoping that sense and decency will prevail in the near future; rather, starvation, war, and greedy stupidity will do the job instead.
But I have given up hoping that sense and decency will prevail in the near future; rather, starvation, war, and greedy stupidity will do the job instead.
Okay. In that case I mostly agree in theory— in practice I have to adopt more optimism, otherwise I guarantee it happens. But history seems on your side, yes.
unenlightenedMarch 22, 2024 at 14:38#8899720 likes
[quote=Christopher Logue]
Be not too hard, for life is short,
And nothing is given to man;
Be not too hard when he is sold and bought,
And he must manage as best he can;
Be not too hard when he blindly dies
Fighting for things he does not own;
And be not too hard when he tells lies,
Or his heart is sometimes like a stone;
Be not too hard, for soon he'll die,
Often no wiser than he began;
Be not too hard, for life is short,
And nothing is given to man.
[/quote]
Reply to unenlightened There is within environmentalism a kind of despair which often afflicts one. Rather like the lightbulb moment when one first realises the full magnitude of the climate crisis. It is written about in the book, The confessions of a recovering environmentalist. However once one has passed the next stage after that of acceptance that it’s going to happen and one might as well enjoy life in the meantime. Rather than put it on hold, that an equilibrium can be reached.
unenlightenedMarch 22, 2024 at 17:03#8900260 likes
Reply to Punshhh Indeed. It is harder I think for the young - my daughters do not seem to want children. When I was procreating, there was still hope. But there is room until the very last gasp for kindness and affection, and to make what adaptations one can...
https://community.deepadaptation.info
unenlightenedMarch 22, 2024 at 17:20#8900300 likes
Dr. Eliot Jacobson is a retired professor of mathematics, computer science, as well as a casino industry consultant.
Dr. Eliot Jacobson: Can I just add one thing to what you said much earlier in the conversation, and maybe we can go back and forth if you have thoughts on this. But the idea that the IPCC started out with the 1750 baseline. I actually tracked that down because, you know, there are some people who will argue that that was part of some fraud that was sort of being perpetrated on us to change how much we've really warmed.
Dr. Eliot Jacobson: I believe the language is they talk about the 30-year period centered on 1750, which would be 1735 to 1765, more or less, which is actually 31 years, I never quite got how they got 30 years out of that.
Dr. Eliot Jacobson is a "retired professor of mathematics, computer science, as well as a casino industry consultant". But he couldn't work out how they got 30 years out of the date range from 1735 to 1765.
Even I can do that (work out how they got 30 years out of the date range from 1735 to 1765) !!!. :nerd:
At least nice that the reactionary Wall Street Journal acknowledges his climate bona fides.
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 11, 2024 at 09:33#8955990 likes
Here are some interesting comments about School Strike for Climate.
A bigger problem with the School Strike for Climate is one set out beautifully in the Oxford Union Debate by Konstantin Kisin.
In short, there are billions of poor people in the world. They are really poor. Their children will struggle to get enough nutrition to develop properly. They are the 10 per cent or so who still live in absolute poverty. They can see a path to a richer life, and the developed world has already trodden it.
They want to use technologies that affordably raise our life expectancies, usually emitting lots of carbon dioxide. They’re not going to not do it, just like Westerners are not going to not feed their children. They will feed their children first and worry about emissions second. It should be a familiar pattern to Westerners.
Demanding that governments damage their economies in the name of climate science won’t help the planet. What will help, as Kisin concludes, is science and technology that allows the poorest people in the world to feed themselves without large emissions.
You can see Konstantin Kisin's part of the Oxford Union Debate on Youtube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo
No matter who we have as president, if it's valuable, it's going to be dug up and sold or used. Biden can chip away at the problem at the margins and push for more EV's and fewer gas stoves, but that is just putting a finger in the climate dike. Gas went up a buck a gallon in the last four years, and there will howls of protest as if the world was coming to an end. People aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary for real solutions.
Not hopeless, but what we're currently doing is obviously not working. People are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to transition away from fossil fuels. Poor and developing countries are also going to keep using fossil fuels. We're going to have to either hope for some tech miracle, hope the Earth is self-regulating in some way as to prevent warming from getting too bad, or geo-engineering our way out of it.
Cheer up, though. Embrace idealism. This is all just a dream. It's meaningless. Work on adjusting your attitude so you attract a better reality for yourself.
People are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to transition away from fossil fuels.
People make sacrifices all the time, especially for the oil industry. Whether they know it or not. The assessment that everyone needs to “sacrifice” for a green transition in the first place is silly — but even if true, since we all do it all the time anyway, it’s really yet another way of justifying the status quo. “Nothing can be done— the people don’t want to sacrifice!”
No thanks. If you feel nothing can be done, then go on doing nothing.
We're going to have to either hope for some tech miracle, hope the Earth is self-regulating in some way as to prevent warming from getting too bad, or geo-engineering our way out of it.
Yes, because your expert knowledge on this issue is definitely worth paying attention to. :up:
No thanks. If you feel nothing can be done, then go on doing nothing.
As opposed to being a massive dick to people on some obscure philosophy forum? If you're so upset about climate change, why are you wasting your time here? Do you think your ramblings here are helping the planet in any way? There must be some painting somewhere you could be scheming to throw some soup at.
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 11, 2024 at 21:10#8956890 likes
Yes, because your expert knowledge on this issue is definitely worth paying attention to. :up:
Note that Mikie considers himself to be an "expert" about climate change, and believes that he is superior to everybody else. If only the governments of the world and the oil companies would listen to Mikie then climate change would not be a problem. The people who still live in absolute poverty will happily obey Mikie. I hope that Mikie doesn't fall off his pedestal, or fall off his high horse.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree Some months ago when I put myself in his Crosshairs, I actually put together a log of his intensely uncivil insulting comments to posters who did nothing of the sort to him. It ran to something like 22 entries, and I got bored trawling back through pages around page 50. So, there's plenty more im sure.
He deleted that comment logging his gross behaviour. He denies it, and continues to pretend that magically the comment disappeared. I have genuinely never seen someone as fragile as this guy.
For the first time since 1920, the government has raised the rates that companies pay. The fossil fuel industry says it will hurt the economy.
About time.
Any time the fossil fuel industry says something will “hurt the economy,” what they mean is: now we’ll have to gouge consumers even more to maintain our returns for our billionaire masters.
Supporters say the changes announced Friday will better compensate taxpayers for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands, and that they will prevent taxpayers from footing the bill for cleanup of abandoned oil and gas wells. After ending their drilling operations or going out of business, fossil fuel companies have walked away from thousands of wells, leaving the sites leaking greenhouse gases and toxic substances such as arsenic and benzene.
The bipartisan infrastructure law of 2021 provided a record $4.7 billion for states’ efforts to plug these “orphan” wells. But the federal funding may make only a small dent in the problem, with some experts estimating that there could be millions of undiscovered orphan wells across the country.
“There are costs of doing business, and the industry should shoulder the costs of cleanup for their operations,” said Autumn Hanna, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “They’re extracting oil and gas from public lands for their own profit, and those resources are owned by taxpayers, who should not be left to shoulder the cleanup costs themselves.”
Kate Groetzinger, communications manager at the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group, said the changes are “only fair” after the country’s largest oil and gas companies reported their biggest annual profits in a decade last year. ExxonMobil reported $36 billion in earnings, while Chevron netted $21.4 billion.
unenlightenedApril 13, 2024 at 16:44#8961740 likes
https://global-tipping-points.org
Here is a large report that explains some of the tipping points and what we might expect and what we ought to be doing about it politically. It's fairly up to date, and well researched. Seems mightily optimistic to me about the ability/possibility for human society to find its own transformative positive tipping points in terms of world governance and mitigating technologies and lifestyle adaptation. But hope springs 'til the last minute.
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 14, 2024 at 11:19#8963770 likes
Quotes from an article by Heather du Plessis-Allan
The plant-based food craze is over
February 2020, I basically said fake meat is not a thing, it's not going to catch on. And that is when I met the woman from Sunfed, who actually tried to change my mind.
Shama Sukul Lee came into the studio with some meat-free bacon, and it was actually delicious. Credit to her, she had a great product. And she had money behind it, she has $10 million worth of investment, which included some pretty high profile backers.
But she couldn't turn a profit. And she says it’s because the "plant-based bubble burst".
You know what the problem is, don't you? (this is the bit that is relevant to EVs)
It's the same problem I think the EVs have got. Consumers en masse will only switch if what you give them is better.
But plant-based food is not better than a steak. And frankly, not enough of us think about the climate deeply enough to do it for moral reasons.
There's a lot of this going on at the moment, there's hype about new products that we will switch to for moral reasons, EVs being the most obvious example right now.
But look what’s happening to the EV market, there's a massive slump. And why? Because they’re still not better than petrol and diesel vehicles, particularly over longer distances.
If there’s one lesson from this, it’s that moral motivation is not enough. The product you give us has got to be better.
Here is a large report that explains some of the tipping points and what we might expect and what we ought to be doing about it politically. It's fairly up to date, and well researched. Seems mightily optimistic to me about the ability/possibility for human society to find its own transformative positive tipping points in terms of world governance and mitigating technologies and lifestyle adaptation. But hope springs 'til the last minute.
Heather du Plessis-Allan's comments seem reasonable to me. Not enough people think about the climate deeply enough to make major changes for moral reasons. Many people don't like change, and most people don't want to give up the things that they enjoy.
What is being done to fight climate change at the moment is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :roll:
I am not particularly bothered about climate change. But there are a number of things that annoy me.
-- :naughty: -- science seems to have sold its soul to the devil
-- :down: -- science is being controlled by bureaucracy
-- :scream: -- many things are exaggerated (scaremongering)
-- :zip: -- the public is not told the full story about many things
-- :roll: -- people are doing the wrong things to fight climate change
There are many other things about climate change that annoy me, but it is time for my afternoon nap. :yawn:
The good thing is that I will probably be long dead by the time the shit hits the fan. :grin:
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 16, 2024 at 12:39#8969160 likes
Where would you rather live, location A or location B ?
The graphs below show a compact characterization of the entire year of hourly average temperatures. The horizontal axis is the day of the year, the vertical axis is the hour of the day, and the color is the average temperature for that hour and day.
Based only on these average temperature graphs, where would you rather live, location A or location B ?
Note that location A and location B are real locations on the earth. I will reveal where the locations are after people have answered the question. Location A and location B are very close to being on the same line of longitude, and the straight line distance from location A to location B is about 490 kilometers.
Many of us realize climate change is a threat to our well being. But what we have not yet grasped is that the devastation wreaked by climate change is often just as much about headline-grabbing catastrophes as it is about the subtler accumulation of innumerable slow and unequal burns that are already underway — the nearly invisible costs that may not raise the same alarm but that, in their pervasiveness and inequality, may be much more harmful than commonly realized. Recognizing these hidden costs will be essential as we prepare ourselves for the warming that we have ahead of us.
Let’s start with heat, which is killing more people than most other natural disasters combined. Research shows that record-breaking heat waves are only part of the story. Instead, it may be the far more numerous unremarkably hot days that cause the bulk of societal destruction, including through their complex and often unnoticed effects on human health and productivity. In the United States, even moderately elevated temperatures — days in the 80s or 90s — are responsible for just as many excess deaths as the record triple-digit heat waves, if not more, according to my calculations based on a recent analysis of Medicare records.
In some highly exposed and physically demanding industries, like mining, a day in the 90s can increase injury risk by over 65 percent relative to a day in the 60s. While some of these incidents involve clear cases of heat illness, my colleagues and I have found that a vast majority appear to come from ostensibly unrelated accidents, like a construction worker falling off a ladder, or a manufacturing worker mishandling hazardous machinery. In California, our research shows that heat may have routinely caused 20,000 workplace injuries per year, only a tiny fraction of which were officially recorded as heat-related.
Mikie, you really need to improve your "cut and paste" skills. Some of the text in your post has mysteriously changed from the original text in the article.
Original article text:
the devastation wreaked by climate change comes not just from headline-grabbing catastrophes but also from the...
Mikie's text:
the devastation wreaked by climate change is often just as much about headline-grabbing catastrophes as it is about the...
Why did the text change Mikie?
Did you make the change?
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 18, 2024 at 03:46#8973580 likes
Mikie, thank you for making this post. It is a good example of the sort of climate stupidity that is making the public distrust climate science and climate scientists.
Instead, it may be the far more numerous unremarkably hot days that cause the bulk of societal destruction, including through their complex and often unnoticed effects on human health and productivity. In the United States, even moderately elevated temperatures — days in the 80s or 90s Fahrenheit — are responsible for just as many excess deaths as the record triple-digit heat waves, if not more, according to my calculations based on a recent analysis of Medicare records
.
Consider the different states in America. Some of the states are hotter than others (e.g. Texas, Florida, Louisiana) and some of the states are colder than others (e.g. North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana).
This article implies that the hotter states should have more societal destruction, and more effects on human health and productivity, than the colder states. Is that true?
The article also implies that the hotter states should have a greater number of excess deaths caused by moderately elevated temperatures than the colder states. Is that true?
A growing body of literature links temperature to cognitive performance and decision making. Research shows that hotter days lead to more mistakes, including among professional athletes; more local crime; and more violence in prisons, according to working papers. They also correspond with more use of profanity on social media, suggesting that even an incrementally hotter world is likely to be a nontrivially more irritable, error-prone and conflictual one.
Do people from hotter states have worse cognitive performance and decision making than people from the colder states? Do people from hotter states make more mistakes and have more local crime than people from the colder states? Do people from hotter states use more profanity on social media than people from the colder states. Mikie, do you live in a hotter state or a colder state?
Children are not immune. In other research, my colleagues Joshua Goodman, Michael Hurwitz and Jonathan Smith and I found that across the country, hotter school years led to slower gains on standardized exams like the Preliminary SAT exams. It may not seem a huge effect, on average: roughly 1 percent of learning lost per one-degree-hotter school year temperatures. Probably hardly noticeable in any given year. But because these learning effects are cumulative, they may have significant consequences.
Did hotter states have slower gains on standardized exams like the Preliminary SAT exams than colder states?
If 1 percent of learning is lost per one-degree-hotter school year temperatures, and the effects are cumulative, then the children from the hotter states must be slowly but surely becoming stupider than the children from the colder states. Mikie, do you live in a hotter state or a colder state?
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 18, 2024 at 04:27#8973630 likes
Do you mind if science is being controlled overall or just by the bureaucracy? It seems you want to set science and scientists free.
Science needs to be controlled in some way. So some degree of bureaucracy is required. But it should not be strongly biased towards one view.
To paraphrase Judith Curry:
Bureaucracy influences research funding priorities, the scientific questions that are asked, how the findings are interpreted, what is cited, and what gets canonized. Factual statements are filtered in assessment reports and by the media with an eye to downstream political use.
Here is a good description of academic life from Sabine Hossenfelder, who has many videos on YouTube:
It made me realize that this institute wasn’t about knowledge discovery.
It was about money making.
And the more I saw of academia, the more I realized it wasn’t just this particular
institute and this particular professor.
It was generally the case.
[u]The moment you put people into big institutions the goal shifts from knowledge discovery to
money making.[/u]
[u]You have to work on topics that are mainstream enough but not too mainstream.
You want them to be a little bit edgy.
But not too edgy.
it needs to be something that fits into the existing machinery.[/u]
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 19, 2024 at 00:20#8975830 likes
Every time you blame cows for climate change, an oil executive laughs
Of all the climate solutions out there, maybe we should concentrate on the 97% of industrial emissions that come from fossil fuels, and leave the cows out of it, Eurof Uppington writes.
Given the press, you’d be forgiven for thinking that reducing cattle numbers and moving to a plant-based diet is a climate solution up there with electric vehicles and offshore wind.
Billions of dollars and euros and celebrity endorsements have been invested in plant-based and alternative protein startups. “Cows create global warming” is a truism of our time, shared by almost all right-thinking people.
The emerging truth appears different. Not only is the climate impact of cattle confused and overblown — properly managed, grazing cows and sheep can be a climate and biodiversity solution.
Probably a huge underestimate, but hilarious that they have to put a dollar amount on it so the corporate masters can actually understand.
Also, this is a good summary by Michael Mann of what we’re dealing with these days from the newest form of industry propaganda/ denialism:
“Delayers.” Examples of individuals occupying that niche in the media today are folks like Judith Curry of the Georgia Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, former UC Berkeley astrophysicist Richard Muller, and “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg. Rather than flat-out denying the existence of human-caused climate change, delayers claim to accept the science, but downplay the seriousness of the threat or the need to act. The end result is an assertion that we should delay or resist entirely any efforts to mitigate the climate change threat through a reduction of fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions. Despite claiming to assent to the scientific evidence, delayers tend to downplay the climate change threat by assuming unrealistic, low-end projections of climate change, denying the reality of key climate change effects, and employing lowball estimates of the costs of those impacts. When the cost-benefit analysis of taking action is skewed by a downwardly biased estimate of the cost of inaction, it is far easier to make the Pollyanna-ish argument that technology and the free market will simply solve the problem on their own. It is a backdoor way of saying that we do not need to pursue clean, non-fossil fuel energy sources, which are arguably the only real ways to avoid locking in dangerous climate change.
Rather than flat-out denying the existence of human-caused climate change, delayers claim to accept the science, but downplay the seriousness of the threat or the need to act. The end result is an assertion that we should delay or resist entirely any efforts to mitigate the climate change threat through a reduction of fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions. Despite claiming to assent to the scientific evidence, delayers tend to downplay the climate change threat by assuming unrealistic, low-end projections of climate change, denying the reality of key climate change effects, and employing lowball estimates of the costs of those impacts.
This is a really smart way to make it quite clear that you have no patience for disagreement, and prefer alarmist 'I'm right' type arguments to enforce actions that make you personally feel better.
Weird way to approach science.
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 23, 2024 at 11:55#8985760 likes
Net zero has become unhelpful slogan, says outgoing head of UK climate watchdog
The concept of “net zero” has become a political slogan used to start a “dangerous” culture war over the climate, and may be better dropped, the outgoing head of the UK’s climate watchdog has warned.
But it was not just those who were against climate action who were causing the problem, according to Stark. Climate activists were also alarming people, he warned, and creating “quite a serious barrier to large parts of the political spectrum to support climate action” by forceful protests, and presenting environmental policies as radical.
“It would be more helpful if they were less divisive,” he said. “I don’t think it is radical. It’s really important that we stop using words like that, as it is understandably frightening.”
Agree-to-DisagreeApril 23, 2024 at 12:15#8985790 likes
South Korean court hears children's climate change case against government
SEOUL, April 23 (Reuters) - South Korea's Constitutional Court began hearing on Tuesday a case that accuses the government of having failed to protect 200 people, including dozens of young environmental activists and children, by not tackling climate change.
The proceeding is Asia's first such climate-related litigation, the plaintiffs said, which includes four petitions by children and infants among others dating from 2020, as well as one from a foetus at the time, nicknamed Woodpecker.
How did Woodpecker (a foetus) sign the petition? :chin:
Uruguay, a nation of 3.4 million people wedged between Argentina and Brazil, generates nearly all its electricity from renewable sources. In 2008, the government set a goal of transforming the electric grid, which had come to depend on imported oil.
The country had a lot of hydropower, but years of drought in the 1990s and 2000s slashed the dams’ output. Uruguay was forced to import oil instead, at volatile prices, and faced shortages and blackouts. Officials noted the increasing cost competitiveness of renewables, especially wind, and set out to build a local wind industry nearly from scratch.
Between 2013 and 2018, wind generation grew sharply from almost nothing to about a quarter of Uruguay’s electricity mix. By the end of 2022, the most recent year data is available, Uruguay generated more than 90 percent of its power from renewables, with wind and solar growing even as hydropower declined.
Often said that these smaller countries can’t compare to a leading polluter like the US. But it can compare to states— like NH, VT, MA, NC or SC, etc. Enough states do it, there will be a turning point. The question, as always, is how quickly.
Should have started 30 years ago. Then there’d be room for more optimism. We’ve already shot past the Paris target of 1.5 however. That’s dunzo. There will be massive damage caused by this, and we may reach tipping points because of our delay.
But this and other examples shows it can certainly be done. The people are there, the technology is there— the dying fossil fuel industry, their lobbyists, and their lackies in congress, still in denial. So given our anti-majoritarian system, short term thinking, and general science ignorance, stupidity will most likely put prevail.
Hydropower may be renewable and clean, but it destroys the surrounding ecosystem. A small price to pay perhaps, but there is that.
This song was written by John Hanlon and was adopted by the opponents of the Lake Manapouri dam.
It is called "Damn The Dam".
Leaf falls to kiss the image of a mountain
The early morning mist has ceased to play
Birds dancing lightly on the branches by a fountain
Of a waterfall which dazzles with its spray
Tall and strong and aged, contented and serene
The kauri tree surveys this grand domain
For miles and miles around him, a sea of rolling green
Tomorrow all this beauty won't remain
Damn the dam cried the fantail
As he flew into as he flew into the sky
To give power to the people
All this beauty has to die
Rain falls from above and splashes on the ground
Goes running down the mountain to the sea
And leaping over pebbles makes such a joyful sound
Such as Mother Nature's meant to be
I have grave reflection, reflection of a grave
Trees that once lived green now dead and brown
The homes of tiny animals and little birds as well
For the sake of man's progression have been drowned
Damn the dam cried the fantail
As he flew into as he flew into the sky
To give power to the people
All this beauty has to die
This is rather long. But I think it is worth plodding through, and thinking about. For instance, the simple notion that the largest waste product of modern human society currently by tonnage is... CO2.
In general, it is a great introduction to ecological theory and the comparison with economic theory is particularly cogent and revealing. But you might need to keep your happy pills handy.
Last year the eu set up a second ets to bring in some previously excluded sectors, such as road transport and domestic heating, by 2027. For fear of a political backlash, this “ets2” has a clause to suppress its carbon price, should it rise above €45 a tonne in the first three years. Still, the aim is to reduce these sectors’ emissions by 42% by 2030, compared with 2005, and to issue no new permits for them after 2044.
These carbon prices should be enough to bring about the lion’s share of the 90% reduction envisaged for 2040, provided that politicians have the courage to avoid interfering if higher carbon prices become too painful for consumers and industry.
The second factor that may help is Russia’s war in Ukraine. When gas prices jumped in 2022, firms were forced to cut their energy use or close production lines. This lowered emissions from ets-covered industries by 5% in 2022 and another 7% in 2023. Although gas prices have now fallen, the disadvantage in fossil-fuel costs compared with America will continue to force firms to adjust, though the eu’s carbon border tax (cbam) will apply in full from 2026, protecting eu industry somewhat by taxing imports based on their carbon content. Renewable energy and grid extensions have also become an easier political sell, as green energy makes Europe depend less on autocratic providers of fossil fuels.
The third factor is low-cost green kit from China that will cheapen the transition. In Spain, Europe’s sunniest country, electricity is practically free during the day. As the solar boom continues, power generation will become emissions-free much faster than previously thought. At the same time, cheap Chinese electric vehicles (evs) are entering the market, lowering costs for drivers wishing to go green.
With its enormous economic, military and political clout, America is the colossus that stands in the way of a planetary crackdown on emissions. Congress is deeply entangled with the fossil fuel industry, and in the short term will stay that way. In time, we can hope for its corruption to wane and a belated survival instinct to kick in. But at this pivotal point, when science tells us we have to peak emissions by 2025, the only way forward is through the executive.
President Biden can’t stop oil companies from drilling on private or state lands, which are the source of the vast majority of our current output, but he can phase out oil and gas production on public lands. And he can reinstate a ban on oil and gas exports from private lands. He can stop saying yes to all new oil and gas projects — including the planned Sea Port Oil Terminal off the Texas coast, intended to increase our exports — and more exploration and drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico.
He can declare the destabilized climate to be the emergency it is and stop the billions of dollars in fossil fuel financing invested abroad, which locks in decades’ worth of extraction. He can direct the Environmental Protection Agency to establish national limits for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. He can end the Department of Energy’s fossil fuel financing programs and require that all new vehicle sales are zero-emission by 2030. He can prosecute polluters and utilities for the damages they cause under nuisance and fraud suits, as Gov. Gavin Newsom has just done in California, and bring antitrust violation suits against entities that obstruct the clean energy transition.
America’s energy system has a problem: Solar and wind developers want to build renewable energy at a breakneck pace — and historic climate legislation has fueled their charge with financial incentives worth billions of dollars. But too often the power that these projects can produce has nowhere to go. That’s because the high-voltage lines that move energy across the country don’t have the capacity to handle what these panels and turbines generate. At the same time, electric vehicles, data centers, and new factories are pushing electricity demand well beyond what was expected just a few years ago.
As a result, the U.S. is poised to generate more energy — and, crucially, more carbon-free energy — than ever before, but the nation’s patchwork system of electrical grids doesn’t have enough transmission infrastructure to deliver all that renewable energy to the homes and businesses that could use it. Indeed, this transmission gap could negate up to half of the climate benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act, according to one analysis.
On Monday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, approved a new rule that could help complete this circuit. The agency, which has jurisdiction over interstate power issues, is essentially trying to prod the country’s many electricity providers to improve their planning processes and coordinate with each other in a way that encourages investment in this infrastructure. The hope is that this new regulation will not only address the outstanding interconnection challenge and growing demand but also fortify the grid in the face of extreme weather, given that more transmission will make it easier to shift electricity from one grid to another when there are disaster-driven outages.
However…
However, the reality of the rulemaking process means that the action might not come as quickly as the moment seems to demand. Though the rule was approved on Monday, it doesn’t take effect until 60 days after its publication, and then grid operators and transmission planners will have 10 to 12 months to outline how they intend to comply with the new rule. Only then will the actual planning begin.
[…]
Of course, these new requirements could be delayed or derailed by lawsuits — a likely prospect given the history of legal challenges faced by major FERC rules in the past. Both Powell and Phillips said that they believe that the new policy is durable enough to withstand those challenges. Powell told Grist that the rule went through a lengthy review process that involved extensive public comment. FERC went through 15,000 pages of those comments and ensured that the arguments and issues raised in each were weighed and considered before the final rule was completed.
The projected timeline for these events extends over the course of 250 million years. This vast timeframe offers humanity ample opportunity to prepare and adapt.
This Supercomputer Just Made A Prediction About The Human Species, And It’s Quite Terrifying
Recent simulations run by a supercomputer have painted a chilling picture of our planet’s future. If climate change continues at its current pace, humanity could vanish within the next 250 million years, leaving behind an uninhabitable world.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree I used to be worried about nuclear war too, until someone told me that it won't likely kill literally every human on the planet so now I guess there's nothing to worry about.
Man the excuses for not doing anything on the climate are starting to get silly even by denialist standards.
Reply to unenlightened Smart daughters... I love my kids but I have recurring doubts whether I did the right thing having kids, considering the extremist right wing politics, ecological degradation and increased inequality that grips most of Europe.
Reply to Mikie Literally nothing he said indicates this.
A grift can be in service of a legitimate cause. And it does undermine the credibility of the movement.
If it doesn't to you, you're short of a full deck. And yeah. No surprise if so. This isn't even moral - it's based on the fact that this is what it has done
Likely the people who caused this mess will also block those migrants from entering their countries.
And later on down the line when climate change becomes an unbearable crisis that's impossible to ignore, they will likely push for equally reckless solutions like geoengineering.
they will likely push for equally reckless solutions like geoengineering.
Find Lagrange Point On eBay
Fantastic Prices On Lagrange Point - Shop From Great Retailers On eBay. Find It On eBay. Everything You Love On eBay. Great Selection, Great Prices.
L1 is the one I want, between sun and Earth, and some of that space blanket reflective stuff. It's that bad right now that I want to do some reckless geoengineering If we start to get cold, we can roll up the blanket later. I wonder if they deliver?
Agree-to-DisagreeMay 27, 2024 at 11:58#9068590 likes
Frozen iguanas are falling from trees in Florida
News article dated 24 January 2024
In Florida, colder than normal temperatures are having a major impact on certain animal species. This weekend, several weather forecasters issued unofficial warnings – not about snow or ice, but about the possibility of falling iguanas.
While falling iguanas are more often stunned rather than dead, they can be inconvenient or even dangerous. In some cases, they’ve damaged cars or injured people. So, when walking in Florida during colder temperatures, looking up is advisable.
While extreme weather due to climate change is on the rise, Matt Devitt, chief meteorologist at Wink News in southwest Florida, says that’s not what’s behind the uptick in falling iguanas – and in turn, the increase in falling iguana warnings and recommended protocol. Instead, we’re hearing about it more frequently because iguanas aren’t native to Florida and their population is beginning to surge.
"The iguanas were brought over from Central and South America in the 1960s and '70s, but the population was limited then," says Devitt. "They’ve exploded in population over the past decade, which is why people are starting to notice what the cold does to them."
Do you read your own sources at all, or is the headline enough for you? Here is a marginal population way outside its normal range and barely surviving until the climate had sufficiently warmed for them to thrive, and now they have become noticeable. But fool that you are, you think this is some kind of counter evidence. What a pathetic idiot!
Like I suggested to Mr Bee: since climate change denial and spamming this thread with stupid bullshit doesn’t warrant a banning, the ignore list feature works brilliantly.
The posts have already been established as worthless, so there’s nothing to miss.
Like I suggested to Mr Bee: since climate change denial and spamming this thread with stupid bullshit doesn’t warrant a banning, the ignore list feature works brilliantly.
Yeah, but I'm not trying to convince myself, but to prevent the world from drowning in bullshit for the sake of the community. All that is required for the lie to triumph is for truth tellers to be silent.
Many of us focused on the problem of climate change have been waiting for the day when renewable energy would become cheaper than fossil fuels.
Well, we’re there: Solar and wind power are less expensive than oil, gas and coal in many places and are saving our economy billions of dollars. These and other renewable energy sources produced 30 percent of the world’s electricity in 2023, which may also have been the year that greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector peaked. In the United States alone, the amount of solar and wind energy capacity waiting to be built and connected to the grid is 18 times the amount of natural gas power capacity in the queue.
So you might reasonably conclude that the market is pivoting, and the end for fossil fuels is near.
But it’s not. Instead, fossil fuel interests — including think tanks, trade associations and dark money groups — are often preventing the market from shifting to the lowest cost energy.
Similar to other industries from tobacco to banking to pharmaceuticals, oil and gas interests use tactics like lobbying and manufacturing “grass-roots” support to maximize profits. They also spread misinformation: It’s well documented that fossil fuel interests tried to convince the public that their products didn’t cause climate change, in the same way that Big Tobacco tried to convince the public that its products didn’t harm people’s health.
But as renewables have become a more formidable competitor, we are now seeing something different: a large-scale effort to deceive the public into thinking that the alternative products are harmful, unreliable and worse for consumers. And as renewables continue to drop in cost, it will become even more critical for policymakers and others to challenge these attempts to slow the adoption of cheaper and healthier forms of energy.
Mikie, the article that you linked to is an opinion guest essay by Andrew Dessler. He is a climate scientist and not an expert on renewable energy. Many people would see him as biased and that he has a conflict of interest.
If you want to get the facts from the New York Times then I suggest that you read this article:
https://nypost.com/2023/11/02/opinion/collapse-of-projects-shows-again-that-wind-power-is-not-affordable
Here are some highlights:
Collapse of projects shows again that wind power is not affordable
The renewable-power fantasy is being blown apart by furious financial headwinds.
Already this year projects have tumbled in Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and now Danish wind-power giant Ørsted has canceled two wind farms in New Jersey.
Over and over, the litany of causes is the same: inflation, higher interest rates that drive up capital costs and severe kinks in the supply chain.
Indeed — and yet this broken industry is what New York’s climate activists have pinned their clean-energy hopes on.
If offshore wind had to compete on the free market, we wouldn’t even be talking about it.
More (somewhat) good news. Thinking my next car will be a used EV.
More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.
If offshore wind had to compete on the free market, we wouldn’t even be talking about it.
The problem with the free market in this case is it doesn't price in the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels (global warming, increased asthma deaths, increased smog).
The planet just marked a “shocking” new milestone, enduring 12 consecutive months of unprecedented heat, according to new data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate monitoring service.
Every single month from June 2023 to May 2024 was the world’s hottest such month on record, Copernicus data showed
Reply to Mikie "It found that just one-third of all young Americans said they would back Biden if the election was held at the time the survey was conducted. The poll also reflects a virtual tie in the race."
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4987296/young-voters-biden-gaza-inflation-abortion-trump-genforward-poll
So, the "drill, baby, drill" and "ban all Muslims" guy is tied with the Democrat. We can't look to young people to win the election. Men prefer Trump over Biden. Looks like women are our last best hope.
The problem with the free market in this case is it doesn't price in the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels (global warming, increased asthma deaths, increased smog).
What happens if some people are affected by the externalities, but other people are not. How do you price an externality that affects different people in different ways?
Agree-to-DisagreeJune 06, 2024 at 13:18#9089060 likes
Turning the planet into Venus seems to be the goal.
This is the sort of stupid comment that destroys the credibility of the people who make it.
Agree-to-DisagreeJune 06, 2024 at 13:37#9089140 likes
Is this a joke, or are they serious? Would banning advertising for fossil fuels save us from climate change? Fossil fuels don't need to be advertised. Most people know about fossil fuels and want to use them. The main effect of advertising is probably to influence which oil company you buy from.
‘Godfathers of climate chaos’: UN chief urges global fossil-fuel advertising ban
Fossil-fuel companies are the “godfathers of climate chaos” and should be banned in every country from advertising akin to restrictions on big tobacco, the secretary general of the United Nations has said while delivering dire new scientific warnings of global heating.
In a major speech in New York on Wednesday, António Guterres called on news and tech media to stop enabling “planetary destruction” by taking fossil-fuel advertising money while warning the world faces “climate crunch time” in its faltering attempts to stem the crisis.
“Many governments restrict or prohibit advertising for products that harm human health, like tobacco,” he said. “I urge every country to ban advertising from fossil-fuel companies. And I urge news media and tech companies to stop taking fossil-fuel advertising.”
They also promise to reach back to 2009 to reverse a crucial finding from the EPA that carbon dioxide causes harm, a position that undergirds much federal environmental regulation. Their plan would even abolish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which measures the damage we’re doing to air and water—because those findings are “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.”
[…]
And it’s even worse than that. The climate crisis—unlike most of our political woes—is a timed test; past a certain point, we can’t repair the damage. Once you melt the Arctic, no one knows how to freeze it back up again. And that “certain point” is approaching: Climate scientists have made it clear that emissions need to fall by half by 2030; Trump’s term would end in January of 2029, giving his successor… 11 months. Good luck.
What’s so sad is that, much like tobacco companies before them, they really don’t care about the externalities of their products. “Climate change alarm industry” :lol:
The World Will Be Swimming in Excess Oil by End of This Decade, IEA Says
Global oil markets are headed toward a major glut this decade, a global energy watchdog forecast, citing surging supplies and slowing demand growth for crude thanks to lower-emissions energy sources.
The first time Donald J. Trump ran for president, he slapped on a miner’s helmet and told coal workers they would be “winning, winning, winning” when he entered the White House.
Now, as Mr. Trump campaigns for another chance at the presidency, he rarely mentions America’s coal miners and has stopped making grand promises about their future.
The shift reflects political and economic realities, experts said. Top among them: Mr. Trump oversaw coal’s decline, not its salvation. Despite the fact that Mr. Trump gutted climate regulations and appointed a coal lobbyist to lead the country’s top environmental agency, 75 coal-fired power plants closed and the industry shed about 13,000 jobs during his presidency.
“Not a single coal miner went back to work or power plant saved,” said Erin E. Bates, a spokeswoman for the United Mine Workers of America, the labor organization representing coal miners.
“I think he’s realizing those promises were not met during his term and they’re probably not going to be met now,” she said. “Politically, it probably doesn’t pay for his campaign to make more broken promises.”
Two decades ago, coal produced about half of all the electricity in the United States. Today, it accounts for just 16 percent of American power generation. The industry employed nearly 180,000 people at its peak in the 1980s, but now that figure is about 44,800, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Coal began its slide around 2005 as the fracking boom started to produce large quantities of cheap natural gas, which proved attractive to utilities. In the last few years, the cost of power generated by wind turbines and solar farms has plunged, replacing natural gas as the cheapest source of electricity. Last year, power generated from onshore wind turbines and solar farms was about one-third of the cost of the electricity produced by coal, on average.
Agree-to-DisagreeJune 19, 2024 at 10:47#9109570 likes
‘Inconvenient truths’ for greens
There is a danger environmentalists “get into a bubble of clear-sighted, righteous agreement that if only other people had sufficient political will and shared our views, we’d be well on our way to the promised land”
Environmentalism is much harder than a few slogans and he listed what he called five “inconvenient truths” that need addressing
The first inconvenient truth is that closing polluting industries will in most cases result in imported replacement goods unless there is an equal focus on curbing consumption. Telling consumers they can’t have stuff is an altogether more difficult conversation to have.
The second inconvenient truth is that society must entertain some environmentally damaging activities like mining or the provision of infrastructure. “The question is how much damage? If we are not prepared to examine trade-offs critically, we will be dismissed as the dog that barks at every passing car.” Environmentalists oppose extractive industries but in the transition to zero emissions energy, demand will increase for metals needed for batteries, wind turbines and solar panels.
The third inconvenient truth is the call for green growth, which he said isn’t the easy economic and environmental win some people imagine. Tourism is not environmentally benign and renewable electricity is usually far more efficient and therefore less damaging than fossil fuels but will result in ecosystem damage. “The green growth vision of the future will continually trade one environmental issue for the next. We can’t escape that.”
The fourth inconvenient truth is that change is costly and not the win-win it is pitched as. “Environmentalists have to be conscious of the social impacts of these sorts of transitions.”
The fifth inconvenient truth is that arguing for degrowth is not an easy sell. “As a student of human nature, my hunch is that if we tell people that they can’t have the stuff they’ve grown to expect, they will turn to thinking about how they can take it from others.”
tldr: fossil fuel extractor have been claiming their projects are carbon neutral because the product will be used by someone else somewhere else. Someone likened it to tobacco companies saying their product did not cause cancer as long as it was not burned. The law has decided otherwise. A small hurrah!
Some good news on nuclear power. And the best news is that since it's bipartisan then it should be immune to partisan politics (assuming that Trump doesn't arbitrarily dismantle it like the Iran Nuclear Deal or the oil lobbyists change their tune once they start seeing nuclear power as a legitimate short-term threat to their business).
Interesting— I haven’t followed the news in a couple days and must have missed this. Not sure what to think about it— I hear Sanders and Markey were No votes, which gives me pause, although I’m generally pro-nuclear.
Reply to Mikie Not sure about Markey but Sanders is stubbornly anti-nuclear which is one part of his energy policy I recall disagreeing with back in 2020. Part of me suspects it is because he's an old fashioned environmentalist.
Agree-to-DisagreeJune 29, 2024 at 05:41#9129350 likes
Denmark will tax livestock farmers for methane emissions
In 2030, Denmark is set to become the first country to start taxing farmers for gassy pigs, sheep, and cattle — the methane that livestock animals give out is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
The goal is to reduce methane gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels, said Denmark’s tax minister, but the new law does not specify how it will change the economic livelihood of farmers.
Question - will Denmark's methane tax help to reduce global-warming/climate-change?
Here are my thoughts:
- farming of pigs, sheep, and cattle will reduce in Denmark, but will increase in other countries to meet the demand for these things. So no reduction in global methane emissions.
- if the other counties are less efficient than Denmark in farming these animals then global methane levels could actually go up because of the methane tax in Denmark
- there will be additional greenhouse gases produced due to the transport of farm products to Denmark. So global methane levels and CO2 levels could actually go up because of the methane tax in Denmark
Why is Denmark going to introduce a methane tax when it will have no effect, or possibly even make global-warming/climate-change worse than before the tax?
As president, Donald Trump’s sweeping attempts to roll back federal environmental regulations were often stymied — by the courts, by a lack of experience, even by internal resistance from government employees.
But if he retakes the White House in November, Mr. Trump would be in a far better position to dismantle environmental and climate rules, aided by more sympathetic judges and conservative allies who are already mapping out ways to bend federal agencies to the president’s will.
“It’s going to be easier,” said Myron Ebell, who led the transition at the Environmental Protection Agency after Mr. Trump won in 2016. “They’re going to have better people, more committed people, more experienced people. They will be able to move more quickly, and more successfully, in my view.”
On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump has promised to repeal federal regulations designed to cut greenhouse gas pollution that is rapidly heating the planet. Many of his allies want to go further. They are drafting plans to slash budgets, oust career staffers, embed loyalists in key offices and scale back the government’s powers to tackle climate change, regulate industries and restrict hazardous chemicals.
Trump and the climate deniers in the Republican Party are mind-numbingly stupid. No logic, no economic sense, no care for future generations, no facts, no evidence— nothing sways their absolute, unwavering commitment to destroying the planet.
Is the fossil fuel money and propaganda that powerful? Apparently.
"There is a graph saying it is extremely hotter now compared to 70 years ago!"
There is a graph saying people with left-wing views have lower testosterone in average than right-wingers. The difference is that the latter is scientifically presented.
Seems weird that anyone would want to harm the planet deliberately. They’re not stupid, they must know it will hurt them too? I wonder if something else is going on. The evidence does seem convincing at this point. Is it really money or what?
There are all kinds of reasons. Some of it relates to a certain interpretation of the Bible, appeals to tradition, fear of change, etc. But mostly it’s the massive propaganda machine that has been well documented. See Naomi Orestes, for one: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
Anyone who denies the obvious at this point is, put simply and frankly, an idiot or a dupe.
"Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.
According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade."
Reply to Deleted user Do you think climate change, in the form of global warming caused by human activity, is an existential threat to the biosphere that we should be taking seriously?
Reply to RogueAI It doesn't matter what I think, I don't make policy. If people worried about things under their control rather than things they will never be qualified to deal with, this planet wouldn't be so full of people who can't find the end of a queue.
Don’t argue with children, just put them on the ignore list like I do.
No one cares what they think. Neither should you. Unfortunately I’m only reminded of their existence when they’re referenced in a post. That agree to disagree and the incel clown is still around is baffling.
You can find it there. Yes, it hides all posts and notifications from anyone you put on it. The only thing it doesn’t hide is when someone who is not blocked quotes or mentions someone who is.
I have only a handful of people who I have nothing to learn from, contribute nothing, never have anything interesting to say, and are, frankly, idiots. I won’t say who, but if it ever appears that I’m never responding to — or interacting with — a person, it’s because I have them on ignore.
Try it— it’s great. Much less annoying. If you want to know some recommendations, PM me. On this thread I can name one: “Agree to Disagree.” Just a climate-denying troll. Maybe he’s been booted off by now, I don’t know.
Agree-to-DisagreeJuly 23, 2024 at 05:03#9196790 likes
On this thread I can name one: “Agree to Disagree.” Just a climate-denying troll. Maybe he’s been booted off by now, I don’t know.
I am still here. Since Mikie has me on his ignore list I can say anything that I like about him. :grin:
Mikie has no idea what he is talking about, and doesn't realize how foolish he is.
- I do not deny the climate
- I do not deny climate change
- people like Mikie exaggerate the effects of climate change
- people like Mikie blame the wrong people
- people like Mikie promote solutions which won't work
- people like Mikie misrepresent other people's views. He calls everybody who doesn't accept his views a "denier", even when they are not denying climate change
- people like Mikie think that abusing people will make them do what Mikie wants
- people like Mikie don't understand human nature
- people like Mikie won't have a discussion (because Mikie thinks that he knows everything)
- people like Mikie underestimate the number of people who don't care about climate change
- people like Mikie enjoy being a troll, while accusing other people of being trolls
Mikie has no idea what he is talking about, and doesn't realize how foolish he is.
From reading this thread and the conversations with you, that’s not how it appears to me. He’s also not the only one that’s called you out on your biases. Whether or not you’re a climate denier I don’t know, but every post of yours indicates a slant towards downplaying the risks. But you seem like a nice enough guy!
(Sorry Mikie for quoting people you ignore lol)
A common climate denier and troll. Glad you can tell just by reading a few of his garbage posts. Quite right I’m not the only one that recognizes it or calls it out. But like most trolls, he just moves on to the next crappy denial line after the previous one has been thoroughly debunked. Utter waste of time. Might as well be talking to a bot.
And don’t worry about the quote stuff— His opinion is worthless to me. All climate deniers’ opinions are worthless.
Anyway, let me know what you think of Orestes’ book. Really spells it all out.
Agree-to-DisagreeJuly 24, 2024 at 21:33#9200470 likes
Whether or not you’re a climate denier I don’t know, but every post of yours indicates a slant towards downplaying the risks.
I believe that climate-change/global-warming is happening. I don't deny that.
The reason that most of my posts downplay the risks is that I believe that most of the posts from many other people exaggerate the risks.
I am a very skeptical person and I tend to take the opposite side to other people. However, I don't do this without what I consider valid reasons. My comments are meant to promote discussion and make people think. Something that Mikie doesn't like.
Here is an example. People are concerned about an increase in the global average temperature of 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. But most places on Earth have a difference in temperature between winter and summer of 20 to 30 degrees Celsius. Which do you prefer, winter or summer?
A lot of that difference in viewpoint comes down to the use of temperature anomalies, rather than actual temperatures.
Very few things in life are totally good or totally bad. But you will never hear anything good said about climate-change/global-warming. Why? What about having a longer growing season in many places? Lower winter heating bills? Moscow has an average temperature of 4 degrees Celsius. Wouldn't Muscovites welcome some global warming? Etc, etc, ...
The reason that most of my posts downplay the risks is that I believe that most of the posts from many other people exaggerate the risks.
Where? I don’t see much exaggeration. If it is exaggerated, how certain are you that it is? Isn’t it better to assume some of the worst case scenarios, given the harm it might do? Are you a climate scientist? From those I read and hear from, this all seems like a very serious thing. It might not be the end of the world, but that’s a Straw Man argument to me. I’m not a scientist but I know they’ve been talking about this since the early 90s at least, and I can see evidence all around me that the world is warming, and though that may be good in some ways its bad in far more ways.
Here is an example. People are concerned about an increase in the global average temperature of 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. But most places on Earth have a difference in temperature between winter and summer of 20 to 30 degrees Celsius. Which do you prefer, winter or summer?
But this is just silly my friend. Even I know that just because the number is low doesn’t mean it can’t have big impacts. If these are the thought provoking things you mention, you can’t be angry at people from dismissing you as unserious.
But like most trolls, he just moves on to the next crappy denial line after the previous one has been thoroughly debunked. Utter waste of time. Might as well be talking to a bot.
No, I believe in environmental change (not just the UUUUH IT IS GETTING HOT part championed by the automatic masses under their corporate overlords).
What do you think of this analogy? Is it possible the climate is like a large spinning object, say a hydroelectric turbine, and that enough small changes to the balance of either can cause rapid catastrophic failure (failure of the climate here would be runaway rapid warming)? What kind of odds would you give to the climate being that way?
It would be funny if it weren't sadly hypocritical how the moderators are willing to let their chihuahua bark and attack others but will censor anyone who gives the 36 year old bachelor a taste of his own sour medicine.
Is there a manlet alliance behind the curtains on this website? If you want to say there isn't, start moderating both ways, not just one way. There is no third option here.
He got his mod powers removed for a reason, and this is not about politics.
What kind of odds would you give to the climate being that way?
100%. As soon as I say a few factories make no difference here and there you will just move goalpost and say that doesn't qualify as "enough small changes". Your weasel word there is "enough", it can mean anything from cow farming all the way to nuclear warfare.
I am still not gonna eat the bugs, I will use AC, I will drive a car.
Contemporary scientists are right Anthropogenic climate
about anthropogenic climate change change is negligible
We do something about YY NY
the environment
We go on about our business YN NN
with no mind to the environment
[sup](including all kinds of details would make it cumbersome, use charity where in doubt, you know what I mean)[/sup]
YY and NN aren't so interesting for this inquiry.
So, what's the worst that could happen in case of NY and YN respectively?
(By "do something" I'm not thinking of everyone committing suicide. :grin:)
As far as I can tell, "We do something about the environment" is generally the most rational (re)action, at least if caring about our children's children.
More importantly, what do you think?
100%. As soon as I say a few factories make no difference here and there you will just move goalpost and say that doesn't qualify as "enough small changes". Your weasel word there is "enough", it can mean anything from cow farming all the way to nuclear warfare.
So to keep going with the turbine analogy, let's say we have an airplane turbine which can withstand a number of bird impacts before catastrophic failure. Noone is quite sure how many.
You're in an airplane with that turbine. There is one bird strike, then another, etc. after 20 bird strikes, the turbine is still running. If you fly on, there'll be more bird strikes. The engine could fail at 21 bird strikes or 100. The probability goes up with more bird strikes but since you don't know the base probability you only know that the risk increases.
At what point do you land the plane?
Deleted userAugust 01, 2024 at 14:51#9220890 likes
Reply to Echarmion What kind of analogy is that? RogueAI was talking about a hydroelectric turbines, not plane turbines.
I am still not gonna eat the bugs, I will use AC, I will drive a car.
:lol:
But what about governments subsidizing things like solar and wind energy? If the atmosphere is capable of coming completely unstuck due to GHG emissions, shouldn't we try and reduce those emissions a lot? And what about governments subsidizing lab grown meat?
Deleted userAugust 06, 2024 at 00:42#9231800 likes
But what about governments subsidizing things like solar and wind energy?
Wind turbines are not worth it for a lot of regions — low efficiency and high maintenance. Solar is good if maintened and recycled properly. Hydroelectric and nuclear are the best options currently. Hopefully China figures something out with fusion eventually. But the Greens in Germany and their troglodytic, lower-palaeolithic brain easily surpassed by that of an Australopithecus have decided that it was a good idea to shut the nuclear plants down. I once heard the cope justification that the nuclear plants became a negative investment, but if that is the reason, suddenly for the greens a bit of money is more important than destroying the environment by burning millions of tons of coal like Germany is doing now.
And what about governments subsidizing lab grown meat?
Untenable sci-fi stuff for the next 100 years championed by the "we heckin love science"/"I can't solve middle school math" crowd (Mickei). Those 3D printed steaks are full of carcinogens for all we know.
John McMannisAugust 06, 2024 at 03:08#9232120 likes
As far as I can tell, "We do something about the environment" is generally the most rational (re)action, at least if caring about our children's children.
Yeah. It’s strange that we wouldn’t take their word for it on such a complex subject. Everyone seems to think they’re an expert or that it’s ok to have a strong opinion about climate change, but they wouldn’t do the same thing with microbiology or biochemistry or astrophysics or something. Someone brought up this point before and I agree. I think there’s always a chance things are wrong but when there’s such broad agreement, I tend to go with that. Especially when it’s important. Like the ozone was years ago. Countries came together to solve that problem and they succeeded. But with this one, for some reason it has become partisan. Like people think it’s a political thing, like a left wing issue. I don’t know who came up with that like if it was the left wing pundits or the right wingers but that’s how it was framed in people’s minds.
@Mikie I read some of that book and the parallels between this and tobacco industry \ smoking - cancer is very interesting. Companies like Exxon use some of the same PR people as Philip Morris! My thing is; don’t the ceos of these companies have kids and family? I mean they must know what they’re saying is bs but they still do it for the buck. Just weird to me. I guess they must have convinced themselves. Anyway, thanks for the recommendation!
John McMannisAugust 06, 2024 at 03:11#9232130 likes
My thing is; don’t the ceos of these companies have kids and family? I mean they must know what they’re saying is bs but they still do it for the buck. Just weird to me.
Glad you liked the book.
Yes, it is bizarre, but it’s understandable when you look at it. In the same way that Christian fundamentalists deny evolution, the religious cult that is Trumpism and the republican party was easily duped into climate denial. All they had to do was tell them that climate change is a lie from the devil to take over the world. The devil being in this case “liberals” (which to them means anyone from cities or the coastal states, or anyone who’s ever looked down on them).
Climate denialists – 23 in Senate and 100 in House – are all Republicans and make US an outlier internationally
Speaking of Oreskes:
Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University who has long studied anti-climate rhetoric, said it was “unsurprising” that the report found old-school climate denial is on the decline.
“It’s harder to deny the science when it’s so much more apparent that the climate is warming, that extreme weather is getting worse and happening constantly,” she said. “Nobody can deny the science with a straight face, given everything.”
She noted, however, that the fossil fuel industry and its allies have long used a variety of messaging to rebuff concerns about the climate. She said she was unsure those other forms of rhetoric were any less harmful.
“As far back as the 1990s, they were saying renewable energy isn’t reliable enough, or they were saying that wind power … kills whales,” she said. “Is it really so different from climate denial if you don’t deny the science but you deny the possibility of solutions?”
I can tell you the obvious: that I’m sorry, that I tried.
I can tell you how sorry I am, that it ate me up. That even as we sat in bed with the nightlight on, reading together about coral reefs and finding Dory, I knew there was not much time left for those bright and beautiful places.
I can tell you that I tried, that even though it felt hopeless, still if there was any chance left then I wasn’t going to quit. I can tell you that this is why we always took the train, why I pestered politicians, why we changed what we ate, why I got myself arrested that time.
But what I really want you to know: that the hardest thing was living through a time when we could have turned this around, but that most people just carried on as if it didn’t matter.
There will be a thousand explanations for this. You’ll hear that people were selfish, that we were trapped in a consumer culture, that our politicians were craven servants of fossil fuels, that the media didn’t keep us informed, too preoccupied with dance contests, fashions and trivia.
There is something in all of this, but I want you to know what it felt like at the time. It felt like a dream, where everything seemed so normal, but where under the surface there was a horrible and brutal truth we all pretended didn’t exist. Hardly anyone even spoke about climate change and the destruction of the natural world. If you did, more often than not the conversation would be shut down, familiar devices pulled out of nowhere to dismiss, sidetrack, and silence your concerns.
And outside, the world — the thoughtless, concrete and metal, fume-choked, all-consuming human world — rumbled on, deaf to the warnings and unwilling to lift a finger.
I want to tell you that I am sorry, and that I tried.
Reply to Benkei Do you feel a weight on your shoulders for how your children would feel in the future? Do you believe they will feel ‘disappointed’ with you?
Even though I get the letter's meaning, I believe there will be a common understanding that the ineptitude of politicians and the greed of some businessmen should be held accountable rather than any specific people.
Greenland ice takes up what would otherwise contribute markedly to sea levels. These folk examined interim deglaciation during the Pleistocene, from when the temperature was ? 2-3°C above pre-industrial.
The real thing boomers should be feeling sorry for is the fact that their children will have to carry their economically unsustainable social security systems (which will probably be completely scrapped by the time their kids would get to enjoy them), and that the reason their kids are infertile and getting cancer and Parkinsons at the age of 30 is because they followed the ethereal 'climate change' narrative while blind to the real poisoning of the environment that have clearly discernible causes.
PS: I realize now that the melodramatic letter was probably not written by a boomer, because this type of virtue-signaling self-flagelation is not in their nature.
PS: I realize now that the melodramatic letter was probably not written by a boomer, because this type of virtue-signaling self-flagelation is not in their nature.
It’s not ethereal— it’s overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and also happening all around us. The effects are at least as obvious (if not more so) than toxicity (which is also not ethereal).
The causes are also very clearly discernible: greenhouse gases. This is pretty basic stuff. To imply the causes aren’t discernible, the effects aren’t seen, etc — is pure climate denial. Why don’t you grow up on this subject already?
The causes are also very clearly discernible: greenhouse gases. This is pretty basic stuff. To imply the causes aren’t discernible, the effects aren’t seen, etc — is pure climate denial. Why don’t you grow up on this subject already?
I will "grow up" on this subject once it stops being a lightning rod that obfuscates the very real, short-term health risks that everybody ignores.
I know that's not your intention, but it's the intention of many who keep flooding the media with climate alarmism.
Both have as their root cause profit seeking. For instance, it would be sufficient if the Netherlands would produce what we needed. Instead we produce 10x as much, which under normal circumstances would exhaust the earth (with monoculture), so we add fertiliser, which deteriorates the quality is the earth and water (you can't replicate natural efficiencies). Then we want to maximise yields, so we start killing everything that touches our food using poison, but we prefer to call them "crop protection means". Further destroying the soil and water. Marketing creates a perfect image of a tomato, zucchini and apple, so now only "perfect" looking but generally tasteless products reach our table. We mechanize as much as possible and export most of it.
Making fertiliser = extra co2
Poison = extra Co2
Mechanization = extra Co2
Export = extra Co2
Knock on effects:
Cleaning soil = extra Co2
Cleaning water = extra Co2
obfuscates the very real, short-term health risks that everybody ignores.
Who’s ignoring it? I hear about things like PFAS and microplastics and pesticides, etc., all the time. So I suppose that’s “alarmism” as well.
But of course there’s real, short-term health risks of climate change too. Like dying in a wildfire or starving from draught’s impact on food — or flooding, or heat stroke. And so forth. I don’t see how one can ignore these things and claim ii’s ethereal. It’s at least as real and important as toxicity.
unenlightenedAugust 16, 2024 at 13:44#9259450 likes
I get your point, but toxicity in general is important. As @Benkei pointed out, the cause is mostly the same: profits over people. So the rate at which we’re killing insects alone is alarming. Fertility rates are down too— there’s not overwhelming evidence that this is due to pesticides and the like, but there’s some that points in that direction.
Anyway— yeah, also important. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The framing of climate change being “ethereal,” or somehow far away and less real, in contrast to pollution and toxins, is ridiculous. We should be alarmed about both.
unenlightenedAugust 17, 2024 at 07:57#9261210 likes
Sure, Global warming is simply one aspect of the degradation of the environment caused by human overshoot that results by from myopia of self-centred, shortsighted thinking. But a drop in human fertility is rather an ameliorating factor to the problem.
Reply to unenlightened If we all would still be living the tribal life, we wouldn't be in overshoot. It's not too many people, it's too many people doing the wrong things. Profit over everything else because money has become the necessity to survive. Instead of actual skills that help you survive: building, fishing, farming, cooking etc., most people learn a job only existing within the system that demands money for toy to survive. So you cannot get out, unless you have a lot of money.
In the past, there were very few lawyers and mostly concerned with arguing cases instead of writing contracts. Today consumer terms and conditions are more complex than peace treaties. Do we really need it? Probably not but it pays the bills (quite well I must add because avoiding liability fits well in profit maximisation through externalising costs).
unenlightenedAugust 17, 2024 at 10:18#9261440 likes
If we all would still be living the tribal life...
If wishes were horses...
the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution. If we were still fishing with sailing boats and hemp ropes and nets, the population would not have been growing at the rate it has, and we would not be as numerous as we are, nor as totally fucked as we are, and there would still be lots of fish in the sea. But Steel hawsers and plastic nets are a thing, and I have to carefully sort the seaweed I put on my garden to decontaminate it.
I'm not advocating a massive cull of humanity, I'm predicting one.
Climate models have long predicted that a warming world would lead to higher humidity, because warmer air evaporates more water from Earth’s surface and can hold more moisture. The consequences of more humid heat include greater stress on the human body, increased odds of more extreme rainfall, warmer nights and higher cooling demand.
With only a few days left in meteorological summer, defined as June to August, this summer is on track to be the most humid in the United States in 85 years of recordkeeping based on observations of dew point — a measure of humidity — compiled by Hudson Valley meteorologist Ben Noll. It’s also likely to end up being the most humid summer globally, Alaska-based climate scientist Brian Brettschneider said in an email to The Washington Post.
If both trends hold, then five of the most humid summers in both the United States and worldwide will have occurred since 1998
the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution
I thought it was the invention of fertilizer. The global population begins its exponential rise around then.
unenlightenedSeptember 01, 2024 at 09:28#9294830 likes
Reply to frank I'm not sure what you mean, as you give no date or reference.
If you mean the invention of artificial fertiliser, then the 1900s seems very late date. Natural fertilisers were in use from Roman times and before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fertilizer
But agricultural industrialisation began alongside the industrialisation of production with horse drawn machines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)
Reply to unenlightened Ok, not fertilizer. I was thinking of Jethro Tull, so you're right, it was about industrialization:
"Jethro Tull's invention of the seed drill contributed to the population increase during the British Agricultural Revolution:
Seed drill
Tull's horse-drawn seed drill allowed farmers to plant seeds in straight rows, which increased the amount of seeds that germinated. The seeds were planted below the ground, out of reach of wind and birds.
Agricultural Revolution
The seed drill allowed farmers to cultivate larger areas and produce more food, which led to a population increase.
Modern agriculture
Tull's methods were adopted by many landowners and helped to establish the basis for modern agriculture." -- google AI
Reply to unenlightened, Reply to frank, human population has roughly been growing exponentially since the neolithic (as far as we can tell), but might peak in our time.
Transitions by hunting/gathering ... tool use/making ... farming helped increase growth when the population was much lower.
It was with the industrialization (starting, let's just say, around 1800) that anthropogenic effects went global. (and we started infecting the Moon and Mars as well :wink:)
I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities.
I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities.
I don't know, millions of Americans faithfully put their garbage into recycling bins, not realizing that there are limited options for doing anything with all that material. China used to take a large portion of American recyclables, but not anymore. In other words, caring doesn't necessarily equal beneficial action.
unenlightenedSeptember 01, 2024 at 20:30#9295850 likes
human population has roughly been growing exponentially since the neolithic (as far as we can tell), but might peak in our time.
Sure it has. Exponential growth is what happens to populations until a constraint or limit halts it. As long as there were new worlds to conquer, new environments to exploit, new technologies to use, new resources of energy, new more intensive farming methods, human exponential growth has continued - give or take a few hiccups - plagues, famines and so on. But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 03, 2024 at 14:35#9297840 likes
But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on.
World population likely to shrink after mid-century
Improvements in access to modern contraception and the education of girls and women are generating widespread, sustained declines in fertility, and world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study published in The Lancet.
[ Also people with a higher standard of living tend to have less children. Or is it that having less children gives you a higher standard of living? ]
By 2100, projected fertility rates in 183 of 195 countries will not be high enough to maintain current populations without liberal immigration policies
By century's end 23 countries will see populations shrink by more than 50%, including Japan, Thailand, Italy, and Spain.
Continued global population growth through the century is no longer the most likely trajectory for the world's population.
You ever plot something you think is linear and found out it ain't?
The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't)
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 05, 2024 at 12:09#9301140 likes
Reply to Moliere
The new analysis predicts that the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates.
The latest (2019) UN Population Division report estimates that world population is likely to reach 10.88 billion by 2100.
Population forecasts from UN Population Division use just past time trends as the determinant of future trajectories for fertility and mortality. So population forecasts from the UN Population Division are more linear than the new analysis.
In the new study researchers developed a statistical modelling strategy that use past and forecasted trends in drivers of fertility (education and met need for modern contraceptives), mortality (sociodemographic variables and more than 70 risk factors for disease) and migration (sociodemographic variables, deaths due to conflict and natural disasters, and the difference between birth and death rates). Also, their model incorporates uncertainty about migration and accounts for women delaying childbirth as they become more educated.
The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't)
The new analysis attempts to handle the situation where a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate.
Population forecasts from UN Population Division don't attempt to handle these situations.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 20, 2024 at 11:43#9333920 likes
Scientists have captured Earth’s climate over the last 485 million years
These are selected quotes from an article in The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet
There is no doubt that Alarmists will interpret this information in a catastrophic way.
An ambitious effort to understand the Earth’s climate over the past 485 million years has revealed a history of wild shifts and far hotter temperatures than scientists previously realized — offering a reminder of how much change the planet has already endured and a warning about the unprecedented rate of warming caused by humans.
At its hottest, the study suggests, the Earth’s average temperature reached 96.8 degrees Fahrenheit (36 degrees Celsius) — far higher than the historic 58.96 F (14.98 C) the planet hit last year.
At the timeline’s start, some 485 million years ago, Earth was in what is known as a hothouse climate, with no polar ice caps and average temperatures above 86 F (30 C).
Temperatures began to slowly decline over the next 30 million years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide was pulled from the air, before plummeting into what scientists call a coldhouse state around 444 million years ago. Ice sheets spread across the poles and global temperatures dropped more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).
Coldhouse climates — including our current one — prevailed just 13 percent of the time. [note - we are currently in a coldhouse climate]
This is one of the more sobering revelations of the research, Judd said. Life on Earth has endured climates far hotter than the one people are now creating through planet-warming emissions.
Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability.
Judd said the timeline should serve as a wake-up call. Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability. But it will create conditions unlike anything seen in the 300,000 years our species has existed — conditions that could wreak havoc through ecosystems and communities.
We're talking about mass displacement due to flooding and droughts, food shortages due to failed crops, more violent weather, supply chain disruptions, fresh water shortages, increased likelihood of wars for scarce resources etc.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 20, 2024 at 12:57#9334030 likes
It's crazy that anyone ever believed that the earth would cease to be habitable due to anthropogenic climate change.
There are only 2 sane people in the world, you and me. And I am beginning to have my doubts about you. :grin:
There are many crazy people around. Probably more crazy people than sane ones. Unfortunately the crazy ones have convinced young people that there is no future for them.
Don’t waste too much time with climate deniers. Ignore feature works great. That’s my recommendation.
Anyway— yes, for denialists who don’t understand a single thing climate scientists say, but want to sound as if they alone have special knowledge, it’s important to develop the strawman of “they think the world will end in 12 years!”
Idiots are gonna idiot.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 21, 2024 at 05:33#9335840 likes
At the timeline’s start, some 485 million years ago, Earth was in what is known as a hothouse climate, with no polar ice caps and average temperatures above 86 F (30 C).
Do you think that article suggests that most of the animal life on land that is larger than an insect wouldn't go extinct if the average temperature was above 86 F? (It is paywalled, so I haven't looked at the article itself.)
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 03, 2024 at 11:12#9361550 likes
Do you think that article suggests that most of the animal life on land that is larger than an insect wouldn't go extinct if the average temperature was above 86 F?
I like to work in degrees Celsius. Your temperature of 86 degrees Fahrenheit is the same as 30 degrees Celsius.
Here are the average summer temperatures for the hottest countries in the world. They are in degrees Celsius and are sorted from the hottest country to the coldest country.
- Kuwait 44.5
- Iraq 42.2
- United Arab Emirates 40.6
- Chad 40.5
- Qatar 40.4
- Sudan 39.9
- Niger 39.6
- Pakistan 39.3
- Mali 38.8
- Saudi Arabia 38.3
About 397 million people live in these countries. That is over 5% (over 1 in 20) of the total human population.
Remember that we have had about 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming over the last 100 years. So these places were hot even before global warming started.
As far as I know the human species and most of the animal life on land have not gone extinct in these countries.
unenlightenedOctober 03, 2024 at 20:00#9362540 likes
The normal human body temperature range is typically stated as 36.5–37.5 °C (97.7–99.5 °F). Because movement, digestion circulation and all life processes generate heat, at ambient temperatures above 30°C the human body needs to cool itself by sweating even at rest, to avoid heat stroke. The effectiveness of sweating as a cooling response is reduced by humidity. The recommended sleeping ambient temperature is 18 - 20°C
Kuwait, in the summer (June, July, August) the nighttime temperature rarely falls below 29°C.
The average high these same months is 45°C. Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer. With air-conditioning, wot me worry about climate change?
Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer.
For a country that is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" the population growth is very high.
In the year 2000 the population of Kuwait was 1,991,674
In the year 2023 the population of Kuwait was 4,349,380
That is an increase of 2,357,706 people in 23 years. The population is now 218% of the population in the year 2000. The population has more than doubled since 2000.
Why is the population of Kuwait going up so fast when Kuwait is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" ?
At this point, to be a climate denier takes really hard work. Must be like playing whack-a-mole. Unprecedented heat, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.— but nah, nothing to see. Or it’s all “natural,” so no need to care about emissions. Or it’s “not so bad,” because it probably won’t wipe out every human.
I was thinking of a good film metaphor for all this— and of course Don’t Look Up was a good one, but there has also been another staring us in the face for 50 years: Jaws.
Try picturing the shark as climate change, and it all makes sense. And Republicans are still the mayor.
unenlightenedOctober 04, 2024 at 14:46#9365650 likes
Air conditioning demand in Kuwait 2011-2021
Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 22, 2024
In 2021, the demand for air conditioning devices in Kuwait amounted to approximately 133 thousand units, the second lowest number of the past decade. Within the observed period, demand for air conditioning peaked in 2015 at approximately 225 thousand units, but has been on a downward trend since then. Especially the past three years saw a significant drop in demand for air conditioners, with 2020 marking the low-point of only 123 thousand units.
In Kuwait the demand for air conditioning devices is dropping significantly while the population is growing rapidly (doubled since 2000).
The world's hottest city whose coast can burn sea creatures to death and whose streets feature air conditioning has been branded "unliveable".
In happier times, Kuwait City was known as the "Marseilles of the Gulf", boasted a thriving fishing industry and was an attractive prospect for tourists.
But like so many of Britain's seaside towns, the hub has fallen on harder times in recent years - albeit for reasons that would be alien to anybody who has taken a shivering stroll on one of the UK's beauty spots.
On July 21, 2016, the Mitribah weather station in northern Kuwait registered a temperature of 54C (129F) – the third-highest reading in the world. The blistering Cerberus Heatwave Europe has just endured would hardly have raised an eyebrow in the Middle Eastern country.
On July 21, 2016, the Mitribah weather station in northern Kuwait registered a temperature of 54C (129F) – the third-highest reading in the world. The blistering Cerberus Heatwave Europe has just endured would hardly have raised an eyebrow in the Middle Eastern country.
So demand for new air con units has fallen because it is so unliveable that tourists are avoiding it and the economy has declined along with new builds. But you couldn't work out that your evidence was evidence for exactly what I said, so you had to go posting it like you were in the right.
Reply to unenlightened
I think his point was that humans can and do adapt to desert conditions with extreme heat.
It's true. Some Spaniards wandered into El Malpais and died because they couldn't find water and their horse's hooves were damaged by the glass in the sand. Meanwhile, humans have been living there like Fremen for thousands of years.
I don't think this is really related to climate change, where volatility is the main problem, not heat.
unenlightenedOctober 04, 2024 at 18:19#9366390 likes
I think his point was that humans can and do adapt to desert conditions with extreme heat.
Then why would he so triumphantly post about air conditioning sales going down? I like a charitable reading if one can be found, old man, but yours is a completely nonsensical reading, and thus fails also of charity.
The world's hottest city whose coast can burn sea creatures to death and whose streets feature air conditioning has been branded "unliveable".
I thought that you would be able to connect the dots. But apparently I was wrong.
People like you try to create the impression that Kuwait has become "unlivable" because of global-warming/climate-change. The truth is that it has almost always been "unlivable".
Compare these 2 Color Temperature Figures. One is for 2022 and the other is for 1989. A difference of 33 years. They look fairly similar to me, with approximately the same "sweltering" area. So Kuwait is about the same degree of "unlivable" in both years.
On the subject of air conditioning. Carrier was the first air conditioning company to be present in Kuwait way back in 1946. Mr. Morad Yusuf Behbehani was appointed as authorized distributor and the first air conditioner was delivered to the then Emir of Kuwait in the year 1946.
Before air conditioning Kuwait must have been like living in the fires of hell. That really was "unlivable".
In one stretch in the Brazilian state of Amazonas, the river was 25 feet below the average for this time of year, according to the agency, which began collecting data in 1967.
Parts of three of the Amazon River’s most important tributaries — major rivers in their own right, each spanning over 1,000 miles — have also fallen to historical lows.
I think Biden said it best the other day (for once): if you deny the climate crisis, you’re braindead at this point.
That was interesting, thanks. Kind of scary that so many don’t think about it. I’m one of them until recently and it reminded me of stuff like pandemics and nuclear weaponry.
I think you’re in over your head here mate. Why do you go on like this?
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 07, 2024 at 04:42#9373190 likes
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
The absolute truth about something, without omission, embellishment, or alteration.
One of the things that concerns me about global-warming/climate-change is the omission of some information. This can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is.
Take the recent highest temperature record from Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station, a staggering 54°C.
Now look at the Wikipedia article about Mitribah. Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitribah
Look at the picture of the weather station. It appears to be surrounded on at least 2 sides by concrete block walls.
The National Weather Service says this about the proper siting of a weather station:
"When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface."
Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station does not appear to meet the standards. It should not be used as a reliable trustworthy site for temperature measurements. But it is being used to scare and panic people about global-warming/climate-change.
It arouses my humour mechanisms.
Have you tracked Mikie's posts through this thread? Several attempts have been made to catalogue his inane, insulting tirades that he seems to take pride it.
HIlarious he's a mod.
John McMannisOctober 07, 2024 at 15:37#9374460 likes
Have you tracked Mikie's posts through this thread? Several attempts have been made to catalogue his inane, insulting tirades that he seems to take pride it.
HIlarious he's a mod.
I have read some. It seems he’s put you on ignore and you don’t like it? Maybe you’re making it personal. I don’t mind if people are a little insulting if I can learn from them, and I’ve learned a lot from him….also he’s not a mod.
But what does Mikie have to do with my question? Is climate change funny because of one person’s posts?
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
A troll, a complete troll, and nothing but a troll. There is literally no end to your bullshit, is there?
unenlightenedOctober 07, 2024 at 17:36#9374770 likes
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has officially evaluated temperature record extremes of 54.0 °C at two locations, one in Mitribah, Kuwait, on 21 July 2016 and a second in Turbat, Pakistan, on 28 May 2017.
In its most intensive evaluation ever undertaken, the WMO Archive of Weather and Climate Extremes, has verified the Mitribah observation as 53.9 °C (± 0.1 °C margin of uncertainty) and the Turbat one as 53.7 °C (± 0.4 °C).
The Mitribah, Kuwait temperature is now accepted by the WMO as the highest temperature ever recorded for the continental region of Asia and the two observations are the third (tied within uncertainty limits) and fourth highest WMO-recognized temperature extremes. Significantly, they are the highest, officially-recognized temperatures to have been recorded in the last 76 years.
Full details of the assessment are given in the on-line issue of the International Journal of Climatology published on 17 June 2019.
A troll, a complete troll, and nothing but a troll.
I see you’re engaging with a number of intellectually deficient individuals. My advice is to just let them be. Banging your head against a brick wall is useless— eventually you just have to stop. Ignore feature is helpful there.
My advice is to just let them be. Banging your head against a brick wall is useless— eventually you just have to stop. Ignore feature is helpful there.
Forgive me, I will not take your advice. If no one shovels out the shit, then the whole thread becomes shit. If I was a mod, I would have banned, but since I am no longer a mod, I feel the need to respond to even pathetic attempts to undermine what I post, even though it is a never ending and thankless task.
I look at the news of extreme heat and floods and stuff like that and it doesn’t seem funny.
Feel free :) You're now talking about somethign other than this thread. Which is why I find funny. I don't really care about the 'climate crisis' but I don't deny the majority of what's claimed about it. It's the reactions I find funny.
But Mr troll is suddenly the world expert on weather station rules on the basis of a photo.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Are you claiming that the photo is not genuine?
And questioning things is better than accepting them with your eyes shut and your brain turned off.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has officially evaluated temperature record extremes of 54.0 °C at two locations, one in Mitribah, Kuwait, on 21 July 2016 and a second in Turbat, Pakistan, on 28 May 2017.
If the WMO accepts the temperature record from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station, given that it obviously doesn't meet the standards set by the National Weather Service, then I have lost all faith in the WMO. The WMO have shown that they cannot be trusted.
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 07, 2024 at 20:40#9375760 likes
Kuwait has been in the news recently because of the record temperature recorded from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station. A "staggering" 54°C.
Global-warming/climate change (GW/CC) fanatics have gone wild claiming that Kuwait has become "almost unlivable". In truth it has nearly always been "almost unlivable". But GW/CC fanatics don't want to let the facts get in the way of a good story that they want to hear.
Forgive me, I will not take your advice. If no one shovels out the shit, then the whole thread becomes shit.
That was directed at John— but I’d say the same of you. But I appreciate your efforts, whatever it is they’re claiming. The climate issue attracts a lot of idiots.
Global-warming/climate change (GW/CC) fanatics have gone wild claiming that Kuwait has become "almost unlivable". In truth it has nearly always been "almost unlivable".
I haven't heard anyone to talking about Kuwait. :razz:
John McMannisOctober 07, 2024 at 21:25#9375920 likes
Is climate change funny because of one person’s posts?
— John McMannis
You're not reading very clearly, it seems. No one said climate change is funny.
You said when you stop laughing you’ll take the claim that climate deniers are braindead seriously. You’ll “bother” with it. I guess I was giving more credit than deserved in assuming your post had any connection to climate change. What you’re really doing is being immature, which according to your post history you often criticize others for. I guess that’s my fault. Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
But GW/CC fanatics don't want to let the facts get in the way of a good story that they want to hear.
You’ve been given the facts by many people here. It’s clear to me who wants to follow a story, and it’s you. The story of an outsider battling the “fanatics”. But they’re not fanatical. There’s nothing they’ve said that’s inaccurate. If the number of days over 50C has tripled since 2000, as was pointed out, then that by itself appears significant. Again I ask what motivates a person to go on like this? What about this subject makes you take a position you wouldn’t hold with other subjects, like geophysics or string theory? Sorry but this subject is important to me as my family is from an island nation.
Reply to frank I considered, but that would be very bad faith. I'm unsure Mikie needs to cloak anything. Pretty outwardly incapable of being civil. Maybe time will tell..
You have given me the perfect opportunity to show how leaving out relevant details can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is. In this case it is about global warming.
If the number of days over 50C has tripled since 2000, as was pointed out, then that by itself appears significant.
Yes, that does appear to be significant. But what does it signify?
I am not disputing the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. I am pointing out that there is more information that is relevant to the claim and that the meteorologist has not mentioned it.
The meteorologist's claim creates the impression that global warming has caused record high temperatures in Kuwait. But wait, could there be another explanation for the record high temperatures.
First, a few things about Kuwait:
- with the discovery of oil, Kuwait has undergone a transformative urban boom from a small Arab maritime town to a modern-day metropolis in less than half a century
- Kuwait City itself is a concrete metropolis, and as such, retains the heat
I immediately considered the possibility that the record high temperatures were caused by the UHI (urban heat island) effect, rather than being caused directly by global warming.
There are a number of scientific articles about the UHI effect in Kuwait. Here are 2 of them.
Diurnal and seasonal dynamics of the canopy-layer urban heat island of Kuwait
RMets - Royal Meteorological Society
International Journal of Climatology
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.8560?af=R From Abstract:
Mean positive UHICL intensities, ranging from 1.1°C to 3.8°C at night, are observed consistently across all months, owing to the prevalence of clear skies from winter to summer. Negative UHICL intensities, indicating a typical daytime urban cool island (UCICL), are most prominent on summer days, exhibiting a mean hourly magnitude range between 0.6°C and 2.6°C that extends into the early parts of the evening.
Spatial Distribution of Land Surface Temperatures in Kuwait: Urban Heat and Cool Islands
National Library of Medicine
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246769/ From Abstract:
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was ?1.1 °C (95% CI; ?1.2, ?1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. At night, the temperature difference (urban/suburban versus rural governorates) became 3.6 °C (95% CI; 3.5, 3.7, p < 0.001) indicating a nighttime urban heat island.
Conclusion
If there is a UHI effect at night of up to 3.6 °C or 3.8°C then that could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming.
It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming.
That's true. This is why they use computer models to discover anthropogenic climate change. Pointing to today's weather is not the way to convince non-believers because we're always just one volcano away from cool weather than can last a decade.
Focus on the computer models. Not this year's weather.
unenlightenedOctober 08, 2024 at 14:04#9378270 likes
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was ?1.1 °C (95% CI; ?1.2, ?1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. At night, the temperature difference (urban/suburban versus rural governorates) became 3.6 °C (95% CI; 3.5, 3.7, p < 0.001) indicating a nighttime urban heat island.
Conclusion
If there is a UHI effect at night of up to 3.6 °C or 3.8°C then that could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming.
Well no it couldn't. On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C.
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 09, 2024 at 05:54#9380950 likes
On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C.
Where is your evidence to support these statements?
I spent the past three years sailing through storms and visiting research labs around the world to learn about the recent increase in extreme cyclones. I spoke to captains who logged changes in the Gulf Stream, the jet stream, trade winds and storm seasons. I interviewed scientists who studied amplifying typhoons in the Pacific, whose barometric pressure could drop so low that they triggered a spider web of earthquakes. I studied major cyclones that hit parts of the Middle East for the first time and some of the first hurricane landfalls to strike Europe. Experts consistently tied storm intensity, range and destruction to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and said that if we reduced it, storm intensity would also diminish in lock step.
Here is a glimpse of where we are headed. The heat accumulating in the ocean from global warming will make tropical cyclones last longer than they once did, and occasionally move slower, making damage many times worse. Rapid intensification — in which storm winds increase by 35 miles per hour or more in 24 hours — will continue to rise, especially in coastal waters.
A 2021 study by Yale University researchers shows that warmer waters in the north and south will soon draw extreme storms toward the poles, threatening to inundate densely populated, and especially unprepared, cities like Washington, D.C., New York and Boston. A northwestward migration from the region where most Atlantic tropical cyclones originate could result in an uptick in landfalls along the East Coast later this century.
From Abstract:
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was ?1.1 °C (95% CI; ?1.2, ?1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island.
A daytime urban cool island is produced by basic physics. Dry sand has air pockets that are a net insulator as compared to solid rock or concrete and the urban environment is therefore going to absorb more heat during the day and emit more heat during the night. Perhaps you ought to try and understand what you are reading, before trying to use it in an argument.
unenlightenedOctober 10, 2024 at 19:14#9385710 likes
Yet another report: a valediction for the natural world.
https://livingplanet.panda.org/en-GB/
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 11, 2024 at 03:44#9387050 likes
On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C.
The following information describes how the temperature at night can be higher than the temperature during the day. In certain circumstances it is possible for the temperature at night in Kuwait to exceed 50°C.
Yes, there have been instances where nighttime temperatures have been higher than daytime temperatures, especially in certain climates or weather conditions. This phenomenon can occur in desert regions where daytime temperatures soar due to intense sunlight, but at night, the temperature might not drop significantly due to factors like cloud cover or humidity.
In summary, while it is uncommon, there are specific conditions under which the temperature at night can exceed the temperature during the day.
This could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century.
unenlightenedOctober 11, 2024 at 08:23#9387410 likes
No one has suggested that nighttime temperatures in Kuwait at night exceed those during the day, though it is conceivable that it could happen there rarely.
Your desperation to find an excuse for your obvious failure to make any kind of a case here is pathetic. I'm quite sure you are not even convincing yourself, never mind anyone else. Time to concede, or at least end the futile continuation of a lost cause.
The following information describes how the temperature at night can be higher than the temperature during the day...
This could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century.
There has never been an official nighttime temperature of over 50°C recorded ever anywhere. And I would challenge you to find even one unofficial after-dark temperature in Kuwait of that level that beat the daytime temperature. So, the claim that such temperatures happen so regularly in Kuwait at night rather than the day, and are higher than the day, so as to account for that statistic is so fabulously, stupidly wrong that you deserve an award in barefaced audacity just for trying to pull it off. Sadly (for you) the trophy ought also to be your parting gift as your credibility is so shot now any attempt to limp on would be Pythonesque.
unenlightenedOctober 11, 2024 at 17:40#9388520 likes
Reply to Baden Two pythons on one page! I think we have broken the nonvenomous snake record. It must be global warming leading to an excess of hot air. :nerd: :sweat:
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 11, 2024 at 19:59#9388700 likes
It must be global warming leading to an excess of hot air. :nerd: :sweat:
Exactly !!!
There is an enormous lack of critical thinking when it comes to global warming. Many people are gullible enough to accept what they are told without thinking. :vomit:
There has never been an official nighttime temperature of over 50°C recorded ever anywhere.
Where is your evidence for this? Have you just made up this claim because you want it to be true? I have done a lot of researching about this and the biggest problem is that they don't specify the time of day that the maximum temperature occurs. So you can't tell if the maximum temperature happened during the day or during the night. Can you prove otherwise?
John McMannisOctober 11, 2024 at 23:23#9389160 likes
Many people are gullible enough to accept what they are told without thinking.
But not me. I scrutinise your every word. And I trust, by and large, the published temperature figures of meteorological departments, because I don't have time to personally inspect their facilities, but I see that their work is used by farmers and weather forecasters and so on who find their figures useful, and I see no evidence of or reason to suspect any conspiracy to inflate the figures.
On the contrary, there is strong evidence that powerful interests have for credible reasons of power and profit sought to undermine the evidence for global warming over many years. So when gullibility is in question, well right back at you, kiddo.
unenlightenedOctober 14, 2024 at 09:40#9395100 likes
Herewith, some more lies and propaganda from the new scientist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iHwEn33I
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 15, 2024 at 06:55#9397760 likes
Herewith, some more lies and propaganda from the new scientist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iHwEn33I
Please list the things that you think are "lies and propaganda".
The YouTube video that you link to is a New Scientist weekly podcast (Oct 12, 2024). The discussion about overshooting 1.5 degrees of global warming is based on a paper published in Nature that week. The paper has been peer reviewed.
The authors of the paper are:
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Gaurav Ganti, Quentin Lejeune, Biqing Zhu, Peter Pfleiderer, Ruben Prütz, Philippe Ciais, Thomas L. Frölicher, Sabine Fuss, Thomas Gasser, Matthew J. Gidden, Chahan M. Kropf, Fabrice Lacroix, Robin Lamboll, Rosanne Martyr, Fabien Maussion, Jamie W. McCaughey, Malte Meinshausen, Matthias Mengel, Zebedee Nicholls, Yann Quilcaille, Benjamin Sanderson, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Jana Sillmann, Christopher J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Emily Theokritoff, Rachel Warren, Jeff Price & Joeri Rogelj
But you decided that their work is "more lies and propaganda". Are people meant to take you seriously?
Where is your evidence for this? Have you just made up this claim because you want it to be true? I have done a lot of researching about this and the biggest problem is that they don't specify the time of day that the maximum temperature occurs. So you can't tell if the maximum temperature happened during the day or during the night. Can you prove otherwise?
Ummm....have you noticed that it's colder when the sun isn't up?
Especially in the desert it's so. And when the highest temperature recorded temperatures are 54 Celsius or so, then it's quite reasonable to assume that the highest records are taken DURING DAYTIME.
But you aren't talking total rubbish. Night time temperatures have measured near 50 Celsius:
(New Scientist, 2023) Between 12am and 1am on 17 July, a weather station in Death Valley, California measured temperatures of 48.9°C (120°F). If confirmed it would be the hottest recorded temperature at that time
No. they are supposed to smile at the sarcasm. Like this : :grin:
[sarcasm] Hey man, are you, like, being sacastic? Are you, like, really saying we're not supposed to smile? Can you just, like, indicate whenever you're being sarcastic with, like, some square-brackety notes or something, so I just, like, know. It's just, like, sooooo confusing. [/sarcasm]
unenlightenedOctober 15, 2024 at 17:27#9399120 likes
This is info from Wikipedia about fertility rates by country. The ones that are blue are negative. The darker blue countries are headed for demographic crisis where the economy starts shrinking due to smaller demand, and the birth rate drops even more due to a shrinking economy. South Korea, for instance, with a birth rate of 0.7, has passed a tipping point where they can't have a baby boom. They don't have the material means to reverse the trend. The cause of this population decrease is basically freedom and opportunity available to women. When women can choose not to have children, a pretty high percentage of them don't.
When women can choose not to have children, a pretty high percentage of them don't.
Perhaps child-rearing is an undervalued contribution to the economy; a cost that individuals choose not to bear unaided in support of a society that does not reward it.
A quickie, something for the weekend, to make you me, anyway, smile.
How can they get such good results when they are being destroyed by climate-change/global-warming?
It appears that the threat from climate-change/global-warming can be greatly reduced without the need to stop using fossil fuels. A little bit of adaptation and conservation work can achieve amazing results.
unenlightenedOctober 28, 2024 at 10:40#9426070 likes
It appears that the threat from climate-change/global-warming can be greatly reduced without the need to stop using fossil fuels. A little bit of adaptation and conservation work can achieve amazing results.
That would just delay the change by maybe a generation. Part of the problem is the ways people have adapted to a high energy lifestyle. So many people think they need a water heater continuously heating so they can instantly have a shower that takes 17 freaking gallons of hot water. A human doesn't need that extravagance, but people don't realize that.
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 29, 2024 at 04:35#9427660 likes
I don't run a car and walk a lot. Now @Tzeentch is going to tell me running a car is decadent. I agree. Although if you live in the states with little or no public transport, maybe not.
javi2541997October 29, 2024 at 15:45#9428600 likes
I do the same. I always try to go by walking to places. If it is really away from my home, I use public transport. Both trains and buses have zero emissions and are low-polluting. The price is €21.80 monthly. I have never owned a car, and I think I will never do so. Apart from the costs and pollution mainly caused by traffic jams, I think it is an evil machine. It is dangerous, and I often thought that some car brands designed the model to save the car before the driver or pedestrian.
Wash in a Polish creek. Isn't that what you guys do?
I remember washing myself and clothes in a creek when I was a toddler. While it was enjoyable to feel the stream flowing through my hands, the government decided to outlaw this practice due to water pollution and a lack of water storage. I agree, and it is maybe one of the few things the government of my country did rightly in the past decades. It seems an innocent practice but can scare the fish off and drop bleach accidentally. By the way, why does the creek need to be Polish? There are cool and pure creeks in the Netherlands, where maybe @Tzeentch takes a bath often.
It's stuff like this that really gets my blood pumping. I absolutely hate how gullible people are, how they're so easily manipulated by anti-climate science agendas. People who push their idiotic world views onto masses of easily manipulated people who know absolutely nothing about how science works, its methods and how to read actual data.
There's no debate, there's no discussion, there's only idiots raising their voices so high that it disturbs the public space to the degree that normally functioning people have to deal with it. :vomit:
There's no debate, there's no discussion, there's only idiots raising their voices so high that it disturbs the public space to the degree that normally functioning people have to deal with it.
I think most people follow the bandwagon that fits their profile. Neither side tends to know much about science. But scientists can be wrong, so skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
ChristofferOctober 31, 2024 at 00:52#9432180 likes
But scientists can be wrong, so skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Skepticism without grounding in unbiased reasoning and having an insight into what the science means... is meaningless.
People only express skepticism because it doesn't fit into their invented narrative.
It's like if someone who's never stepped on a large ship suddenly starts to command around and inserting themselves into the crew's chain of command giving out orders that have no grounding in the knowledge of how to actually manage such a ship. Then demanding the crew listens to them, just because they have some fantasy idea about how to run a ship their way, as some foundation for why they're skeptical of how the ship is run. And then for some stupid reason, the shipping company puts people like that in charge while the crew tries to explain why this is a bad idea.
The problem with using "scientists can be wrong" as a premise is that it implies that uneducated amateurs knows any better when a theory or hypothesis is proven false. No, science doesn't work like that. Research is a process trying to use every method possible to reach an objective fact about something. Being "wrong" is what the uneducated people calls it when a theory is proved false, but that doesn't mean that the overarching scientific process hit a wall and that everything is thrown out the window, NO, it means that a part of the large body of theories have been chipped down a bit, closing in on what the objective fact really is.
Unscientific people simply don't understand how science actually works and so when a certain hypothesis or theory is proven "wrong", they interpret that as the scientists not knowing what they're doing, trying to insert themselves and their bullshit into the mix as some alternate answer or simply concluding that "because that theory was wrong, I am right".
I'm simply sick and tired of the type of "skepticism" that the majority of uneducated people are vomiting all over topics like climate change science. People simply don't know what they're talking about, but demand the right to be heard as someone with a valid input without caring for the need to actually understand it first.
There are no sides here, there's the side of the science, the facts and the people who understand the correct path forward... and then the side of the uneducated self-indulging delusions of people who seek attention by trying to paint themselves as being on par with the experts. It's absolutely pathetic.
Climate science is one of the most grounded, proven fields out there. Why in the world should we listen to amateurs vomiting out dislocated concepts and counter arguments towards that research? Especially since these people cannot be reasoned with as they simply don't understand the basics of scientific research.
We've seen numerous times how even pointing at certain research papers and conclusions doesn't even matter because they don't even have basic understanding of how to read stuff like that.
The anti-climate science people simply do it to validate themselves as more important than they are. Under the banner of being "fed up with experts". It's just plain populist stupidity without any actual grounding in the science, with nothing to support alternative theories other than delusions of grandeur in these people. Or they're simply following influential people and when they vomit the same bullshit they shout "hail the influencer!"
It's impossible to not see how all these right winger narratives are the same across the entire globe. It's the same narratives everywhere. Using certain topics to gather disgruntled zealots under them and using the anti-establishment narrative as a core point of control.
And part of this narrative has been climate change. It could have been any moronic narrative really, but since there's a lot of industries that rely on things staying the same, they start to flood money into pushing these anti-climate change narratives and so it spirals out of control and into the overarching narrative of these populist leaders and influencers.
Imagine if they incorporated cancer research into their populist bs. Pointing out "wrong" theories there, pushing for lowering the amount of government, private and charity funding that such research gets. Effectively stifling it to the point that it stagnates and slows down, leading to a lot of cancer treatments not coming into reality and people unnecessarily dying. It's the same kind of scenario.
I mean, we see the same in anti-vaccer ideologies. How the anti-vaccer movement managed to enable previously almost snuffed out diseases to spread out again. Imagine being the parent of a child who dies because some anti-vaccer morons took their non-vaccinated sick child to a place with younger children who weren't at the age of vaccination yet.
There are deadly consequences to this type of anti-establishment stupidity among uneducated people who believe to know better than the experts.
The extreme focus on individualism in recent decades have shaped people into absolute bloated egos. Thinking they are the main protagonists of the world. It's an appalling situation we're in where experts are treated the way they are and politicians playing off people's stupid sense of pseudo-importance.
Rather, this world needs to grow the fuck up. People need to realize that they are a part of something bigger. They need to respect other people's knowledge and expertise and work together. The plumber should not discuss "simulated ocean current data" and form a conclusion about climate change. They should fix the damn pipes and be damn good at their job. Just as a climate change scientist shouldn't try to explain the best way to fix the pipe or risk flooding the entire office themselves because they believed they could handle it themselves.
A stable world that learns to fix major global problems needs to have people being good at their profession, not try and interfere in other people's profession.
If people have skepticism about some scientific discovery, then take that skepticism to another scientist in that field, discussing it until they understand it.
There are no sides in this other than the right one and the wrong one and I'm not going to pretend there are on some delusional idea of neutrality in respect of some spoiled behavior from people who think that they, without any education in the field, can place themselves on the same level as these scientists.
And there's a difference between non-scientists who engage with scientific research on grounds of curiosity and who always present their amateur ideas in reference to current scientific understanding and that their own ideas are probably highly speculative... and the ones being skeptical against actual scientists through the narrative of belief in their own ideas being the truth or that some influencer they like knows better than scientists. One is able to discuss without overstepping their level of knowledge, while the other don't.
Skepticism without any rational foundation, skepticism that is self-indulgent and catering to the ego of the skeptic more than the pursuit of knowledge... is meaningless and irrelevant, and It should be excluded from discussions because it's useless for the progress of ideas.
Skepticism without grounding in unbiased reasoning and having an insight into what the science means... is meaningless.
Right. Educate yourself. That's the best way to gain immunity from click bait.
unenlightenedOctober 31, 2024 at 13:11#9432940 likes
Paul Beckwith discusses the latest World Meteorological Organization Report on the atmosphere CO2 etc. levels. I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days. But stopping increasing the rate is the first step to take, and we probably need to do that quite urgently now.
I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days.
When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? Climate scientists tell the public that plane flights are very bad for climate change, but apparently that doesn't apply to them. People might start taking climate change more seriously if climate scientists "walked the walk", and didn't just "talk the talk".
A total of 83,884 people attended COP28 in person, plus 2,089 online, taking the total number of participants to almost 86,000. This means COP28 was comfortably the largest climate COP in history – topping COP27 by more than 35,000.
I am sure that "scientists" will start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels soon, or when pigs fly, whichever comes first.
javi2541997November 01, 2024 at 05:45#9434980 likes
People might start taking climate change more seriously if climate scientists "walked the walk", and didn't just "talk the talk".
Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? I don't know where you are from, but I hope the politicians—and other responsables—of my country might start to take this crisis—because climate change is a big crisis—more seriously. Everything is destroyed; more than 160 people died. I can't accept an argument that this was a normal natural disaster. After experiencing the floods, someone has to be very mad to keep denying climate change, at least in the context and reality of Spain. Now it is time to convince people around the globe. Please don't focus only on tax-funded organisations or politicians. There are more out there who work with honesty and want to avoid the impacts of DANA, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end.
:up:
That's precisely what surprises me the most. Climate change deniers can suffer the consequences of adverse weather, but they seem to not care anyway. If they are trapped in a garage flooded to the top they would think: "Well, this just happens. It is normal. I am just having bad luck today."
unenlightenedNovember 01, 2024 at 08:51#9435080 likes
When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail?
This is a very feeble ad hominem, even by your low standards. Some scientists do more than others. They need to communicate with the world and with governments because one cannot do much alone, without changing the infrastructure and regulatory system.
Reply to javi2541997 Here is Paul Beckwith again talking about the tragedy in Spain.
Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse
“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events.
It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.
Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.
For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.
The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour
The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.
The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours
They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people.
The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.
javi2541997November 01, 2024 at 11:01#9435230 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree What is your point of sharing the history and dates of Valencia's floods? We are already aware of the continuous floods in that area each year. It seems like you claim that the DANA always happened and was not caused by climate change.
My point goes deeper than this. Before the reference to Valencia natural disaster, you claimed that some folks—yourself included—don't take climate change seriously because of the behaviour of some tax-funded people and organisations. I agree. Maybe they are not facing the issue correctly. Then, I shared the 'before and after' picture of the Albufera. I think it is clear the impact of adverse weather in that region. Whether COP29 is effective or not, it is not relevant to the fact and evidence that climate change has changed the structure and surface of my country. First the 1957 Valencia catastrophe and now these floods. Did you know that because of this, the government has to build literally new roads and rails to Madrid? I think we have to take climate change seriously, at least here.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 01, 2024 at 12:28#9435350 likes
What is your point of sharing the history and dates of Valencia's floods?
My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse.
There have been floods as bad as, and worse than, the 2024 floods in the distant past, long before climate change was an issue.
"Scientists" attribute every negative event to climate change. But "scientists" seem to have an agenda and don't want to compare recent negative events to historical negative events. This is because the comparison could show that climate change may not have made the negative event worse.
[Added later]
Please note that I am not downplaying the seriousness of this disaster. I am questioning whether it is justified to claim that climate change made the floods worse.
javi2541997November 01, 2024 at 13:52#9435490 likes
My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse.
We are having records of high temperatures in summer and records of floods in autumn each year. Check it out, and you will see. If climate change is not making the weather worse and adverse here, what is the main cause then? By the way, I guess you could accept that climate change is a factor to take on regarding the last and coming floods. People around Valencia were interviewed—not scientists—and they said: We are used to floods in Valencia, but we can’t remember of a worse example than this year. It seems like each year the floods are more violent and destructive than the previous. They are literally experiencing the consequences of climate change.
Don’t waste too much time on climate-denying imbeciles. They’re embarrassed over and over yet continually come back anyway. Just trolling— or a learning disability. Either way, best to ignore.
If you want to learn something, check out Unenlightened’s posts— something can actually be learned in that case, rather than attempting to refute any child’s armchair ideas about science.
unenlightenedNovember 03, 2024 at 21:08#9442650 likes
My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse.
You are not justified in such a blanket criticism of a rather fulsome explanation of why the area is prone to such floods and a further explanation of how the higher sea temperatures in the mediterranean have made the flood even worse than previously. There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble.
If climate change is not making the weather worse and adverse here, what is the main cause then
We just went through an El Nino phase. Don't conclude climate change just because you can't think of anything else. Scientists use super computers to model the climate.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 04, 2024 at 00:39#9443960 likes
There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble.
Have I touched a sore point?
I gave plenty of evidence to support my view. Why don't you try to refute my evidence? The answer is obvious, you can't refute my evidence. So you respond with abusive name calling.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 04, 2024 at 00:51#9444010 likes
Scientists use super computers to model the climate.
Frank, I think that you have too much faith in "super computers". "Super computers" run programs that are designed and written by people, possibly scientists. If the people get something wrong then the "super computer" will still give the wrong answer, just like an ordinary computer. But the "super computer" will produce the wrong answer faster.
What we really need are " super-duper infallible AI genius computers". :grin:
Just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.
Just because they could be right doesn't mean they are right.
I have been in the IT industry for the last 40 years. I have been a programmer, a senior programmer, an analyst, a systems programmer, and for the last 12 years I was responsible for testing software and hardware.
It is very difficult to make complex computer software bug free. Climate models deal with systems that are complex and chaotic. Because they have many iterations a tiny bug can have a very large effect on the result. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate modelling and climate projections.
Here is a good introduction to model uncertainty:
https://www.jbarisk.com/news-blogs/modelling-and-uncertainty-the-extra-dimension
Don't conclude climate change just because you can't think of anything else.
I'm still waiting for answers on why the weather and even the surface and structure of my country have drastically changed in the past decades. As I said before, maybe climate change is not the only issue, but it is obvious that it is a feature that accelerates natural disasters.
Well, I can't think of another main reason. Most of the studies and articles point to climate change as the cause of why Spain is becoming a desert and summer accelerates desertification. Check out this amazing web page by the government of The Netherlands (@Agree-to-Disagree would say they are wrong too, and we can't trust Dutch offices when they are one of the most advanced nations in the world :lol: ).
Most of the graphics and studies show an increment in high temperatures and more frequency of extreme events. The red dots are high probability or natural disasters. Valencia has a red dot.
Large changes in flood frequency mean that what is an extreme event today may become the norm by the end of the century in some locations. The frequency of coastal flooding events is estimated (Fig. 4) to increase by more than a factor of 10 in many European locations, and by a factor of more than 100 or even 1000 in some locations during the 21st century, depending on the emissions scenario.
That chart was published in 2020, and look at the mess and disaster of the past week. Just four years later. They predicted it, and they nailed it. Do you still have doubts? @Agree-to-Disagree
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 04, 2024 at 11:28#9445150 likes
Large changes in flood frequency mean that what is an extreme event today may become the norm by the end of the century in some locations. The frequency of coastal flooding events is estimated (Fig. 4) to increase by more than a factor of 10 in many European locations, and by a factor of more than 100 or even 1000 in some locations during the 21st century, depending on the emissions scenario.
And you said that Valencia has a red dot on the map of "Projected changes in the frequency of coastal flooding".
Barcelona, which is part of Catalonia, also has a red dot on the map. Both Valencia and Barcelona are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia.
From 1900 to 2011, 277 flood events, mainly flash floods, were recorded in Catalonia, and 61 of these events caused catastrophic damage.
From the beginning of 1900 to the end of 2011 is 112 years. Over this time period there were on average nearly 2.5 flood events per year. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, 25 flood events per year, or just over 2 flood events per month. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?
If we just look at the floods that caused catastrophic damage, there were 61 in 112 years. That is an average of just over 0.5 catastrophic floods per year (1 catastrophic flood every 2 years). What would the frequency of floods that caused catastrophic damage be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, just over 5 catastrophic floods per year. What would the frequency of catastrophic floods be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?
In summary, it appears that the "scientists" are not aware of the historical flood frequency, or they have overestimated the factor by which flood frequency will increase. What do you think about this? Do you believe that flood frequency will increase by a factor of 10 (or 100 or 1000)?
unenlightenedNovember 04, 2024 at 11:29#9445160 likes
Perhaps you avoided my evidence because it disagrees with your narrow-minded prejudice. I will repeat my evidence here for you to read. Compare the statistics for the 2024 flood with the statistics for the 1879, 1957, and 1962 floods. There is only 5 years between the 1957 and 1962 floods. All 3 of these historical floods were similar to, or worse than, the 2024 flood.
Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse
“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events.
It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.
Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.
For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.
The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour
The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.
The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours
They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people.
The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.
As I said before, maybe climate change is not the only issue, but it is obvious that it is a feature that accelerates natural disasters.
It's not obvious to climatologists. They use climate modeling to determine that anthropogenic global warming is happening. They don't just say, "Oh, it's got to be that." The climate is too complex for simple analysis. That's all I meant.
Again, why you bother with climate-denying imbeciles is a mystery.
You can’t think of another reason because there is no other reason. Climate change isn’t true because of modeling, and the patterns we see aren’t due to some tilt of the earth’s axis, or el nino, or clouds, or volcanoes, or anything else people who know nothing about climate science want to claim it is.
The evidence is overwhelming, for those who are interested in the real world. For those too frightened you face it, motivated reasoning and Dr. Google will be enough to find ways to believe nothing is happening, both generally and specifically.
Don’t waste time— just get to work trying to replace fossil fuels and help brace for the disasters to come (of which there will be many more, and will only get worse).
javi2541997November 04, 2024 at 14:44#9445710 likes
Again, why you bother with climate-denying imbeciles is a mystery.
I know. I know. I shouldn't have answered again. But I wanted to try using 'impartial' and 'non-tax-funded climate researchers' to provide a basic fact that climate change is clearly deteriorating, deserting, shaping, and destroying some parts of my country. Although weather studies and climate charts are complex, I personally believe that it is so damn clear the evolution in each graph. Jesus is like denying real life.
Barcelona, which is part of Catalonia, also has a red dot on the map. Both Valencia and Barcelona are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia.
I was talking about Valencia, not Barcelona. Clever guy, trying to switch the topic when you feel trapped in your own views. Fine, let's talk about Catalunya and its desertification. But I think it is not worthy to keep up with this, because you would also say that the desertification in Barcelona (they are literally run of water in summer) is not a big deal, and the scientists of the European Commission and the Catalunya government are not entitled to point to climate change for that reason.
Reply to javi2541997 I'm sure you're aware that part of Spain's problem is poor agricultural practices. Something similar happened in the USA during the 1930s. What happens is that people get away with over farming and poor irrigation practices until a round of droughts.
So climate induced drought is only part of the reason Spain is turning into a desert. In the USA, they called it the Dust Bowl.
javi2541997November 04, 2024 at 16:23#9446110 likes
Reply to frank Yes, frank, I am fully aware of the countless things that the stupid politicians and businessmen did in my country for the last decades. They overexploded farms and soil, reducing lagoons, riverbanks, and springs to zero. This is the problem and effects that can be seen in Andalucía and most of the south of the peninsula. I could say that it was motivated by human factors rather than weather adverse situations.
Nonetheless, this is part of the past. Farming and agriculture are mainly managed by the European Union. Yet Andalucian folks experience records of high temperatures each year. I think having 47°C in summer in Cordoba is a very serious thing that shows a constant change in our climate, thus climate change.
On the other hand, it would be unfair to say that Galicia or Aragón had poor agriculture practices, and yet they are also experiencing an important drought. My idea is that desertification in Spain is caused by climate change, but sadly, human reckless management is also guilty.
My idea is that desertification in Spain is caused by climate change, but sadly, human reckless management is also guilty.
It's both. If you look at the website I cited, it mentions that there are ways to rehabilitate the soil. Desertification is a sign that it's time to go ahead and make those changes. We shouldn't give up just because climate change is underway. The next generation could come up with some genius way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Is it something the EU would have to address?
unenlightenedNovember 04, 2024 at 16:35#9446210 likes
“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events.
And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll:
javi2541997November 04, 2024 at 16:46#9446310 likes
Absolutely. Firstly, because the EU is the only competent authority to address agriculture and farming, and secondly, it is a big problem that affects all EU zone countries equally.
I remember there was a huge strike of farmers in Spain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. because of the European bureaucracy and the great amount of taxes they needed to pay. But they turn against the wrong authority. Most of the farmers were protesting in the doors of the Ministry of Agriculture in Madrid, and barely a group of them went to Brussels. I think only a few are really aware of the power of the EU in this issue.
The next generation could come up with some genius way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not. :meh:
I think only a few are really aware of the power of the EU in this issue.
We have a federal department of agriculture, and it has some authority, but it couldn't stop people from changing their practices. By the way, the US is also over farming its land. Bad news.
I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not.
This is a case where blaming climate change exclusively is a problem. People need to recognize that the soil can be rehabilitated. Regulations need to change.
javi2541997November 04, 2024 at 17:56#9446780 likes
This is a case where blaming climate change exclusively is a problem.
Consider, please, that I don't blame climate change exclusively. But I disagree with "Agree-to-Disagree" on the way he approached Valencia's floods. I think the latter is a good example of how we could blame climate change mostly. I don't get why it is hard to accept. I wanted to share the charts and the last-week catastrophe because I thought it could be seen as a good example of climate change. The 2020 chart said that Valencia had a risk of increasing the sea level by 10% by floods, and it is astonishing how that graphic nailed what would happen four years later. That's all.
Reply to javi2541997
I see what you're saying. The climatologist I've studied the most said that this century will see more storms and more intense storms. That's a statement of statistics, so the whole century taken as a whole. But there was recently a hurricane here that destroyed several towns in the Appalachian Mountains. There's no record of that ever happening, so everyone is pretty sure it's due to climate change.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 05, 2024 at 04:09#9448390 likes
I was talking about Valencia, not Barcelona. Clever guy, trying to switch the topic when you feel trapped in your own views.
I told you that I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia, but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia
Both Valencia and Catalonia are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. They are not very far apart, about 303 km. Do you know of any reason why flood frequency would be significantly different between Valencia and Catalonia?
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 05, 2024 at 04:31#9448440 likes
And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll:
I fully accept that climate-change/global-warming (CC/GW) is happening. I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.
I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 05, 2024 at 04:38#9448450 likes
The 2020 chart said that Valencia had a risk of increasing the sea level by 10% by floods, and it is astonishing how that graphic nailed what would happen four years later.
Could you please explain what this statement means. In general the rain that falls causing a flood evaporated from the sea in the first place. So the system is a cycle. It would not increase the sea level.
I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.
I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.
Climate scientists have been saying for many many years in response to questions as to whether this or that weather event is caused by climate change, that it is impossible to say on a day to day scale what is or is not the result of climate change. This is obviously so because weather is chaotic and climate is the generalisation of weather. For example, climate talks about prevailing winds, whereas weather talks about the wind today, or tomorrow.
But this careful talk has not persuaded you, because you have not been listening charitably to understand, but uncharitably to find fault. This is because you are unwilling to face the facts, or are unable to admit you have mistaken things, or you just like to be contrary, or some other motive.
Your criticisms are without merit and serve no function in this discussion but to divert, confuse and impede the understanding of the readers.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 09, 2024 at 10:41#9461460 likes
Those Who Do Not Learn History Will Think That Today's Climate Is Different To The Past
New insights from Shakespeare’s England reveal striking parallels to contemporary climate change.
Unprecedented storms and devastating drought. Flash floods and wildfires ignited by the air’s dry heat. This is the experience for many in our modern world. But it was also the experience for those living amid England’s Little Ice Age.
While the causes of the climate change of today are well known, and likely different from that of the Little Ice Age, the experiences of living through both events are at times eerily similar.
In the 16th century, severe rain storms were far more common than cold snaps.
On Oct. 5, 1570, “a terrible tempest of wind and raine” caused flooding from Lincolnshire to London as rivers overflowed their banks, drowning towns, fields, crops and cattle. Storm surges inundated the coastline.
Four years later, towns from Newport to St. Ives suffered “raging floods,” and a “giant sea fish” (whale) washed up in the Thames from a massive surge up river. In May 1594, “soddane showres of haile [and] raine” destroyed houses, iron mills, crops and cattle in Sussex and Surrey. September of that year saw another deluge, with bridges taken down in Cambridge and Ware.
Fire and heat
If colder, wetter weather was a new normal for 17th century Britons, the hot, dry spring of 1666 caught Londoners unprepared. The Great Fire of London was one of the worst disasters of the age, and diarist John Evelyn recounts that “the heate … had even ignited the aire,” a comment reminiscent of descriptions of wildfire spread today.
Yet periods of extreme heat were surprisingly frequent during the previous century, especially in the England that Shakespeare knew. More than a dozen droughts were recorded across England in the 16th century, usually broken by extreme storms or floods. It never rained, it seems, but it poured. The Thames dried up completely in 1592.
As Thomas Short wrote in his Chronological History of English Weather, “an excessive drought, great death of cattle from want of water; springs and brooks were dried up; horsemen could ride the Thames.” Locals went into the mud to retrieve items long lost to the river.
Shakespeare’s hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon was nearly destroyed by fire twice, in 1594 and 1595, due to severe drought and heat. The warning signs were there for Londoners to beware of hot spells in the next century, but frost fairs and wet weather may have bred complacency.
These quotes are taken from:
https://theconversation.com/new-insights-from-shakespeares-england-reveal-striking-parallels-to-contemporary-climate-change-240755
unenlightenedNovember 09, 2024 at 18:49#9462530 likes
At this point the hope is that technology advances so quickly and cheaply that there’s little excuse to go backwards. I see it happening with heat pumps and induction stoves. Not to mention electric lawnmowers and leafblowers and whatnot. These things are just cool and better.
Guys like this and his Kraken are encouraging.
unenlightenedNovember 11, 2024 at 18:12#9466990 likes
An interesting chat about climate models, that explains how they differ from weather models.
I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not.
As the climate in Europe becomes more unstable and intense, it is going to become increasingly more difficult to grow enough food to feed the population. Adaptation will be vital in fighting food insecurity. In the longer term it is much more serious, when AMOC collapses we will be in for a rollercoaster of unknown climatic changes.
javi2541997November 12, 2024 at 06:12#9468840 likes
Reply to Punshhh I agree. However, what makes me furious is that future generations would have to 'adapt' to adverse conditions such as scarcity or weather. This is clearly—in my opinion and view—a consequence of climate change and the guilt of our representatives for not taking the correct decisions on time. Yet others—climate change deniers—believe some [s]shite[/s] that this is just the fate of our humanity and we are overreacting.
We started to experience this issue regarding water. When summer comes, there are vast municipalities in Spain where it is impossible to drink potable water! The pits and lagoons are already drought!
Well, I don't know why I am speaking in the future because we already have zones that became a bloody desert.
Note: this video is from the end of August. Now, you can find many videos and satellite images showing lakes and rivers that have appeared in the desert.
In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to drop modestly this year, by around 0.6 percent. America’s emissions from coal are now at their lowest levels in more than 120 years as utilities continue to retire their older coal-burning power plants.
At the same time, however, U.S. electricity demand has soared to record highs as a result of scorching summer heat waves and a rapid build-out of data centers. That has led to record demand for natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned for energy.
China, the world’s largest emitter, saw a small increase in emissions this year of around 0.2 percent. That’s a notable shift from the past few decades, when China was building hundreds of coal plants to fuel breakneck growth and carbon dioxide emissions were rising sharply each year. But experts say it is too soon to say whether Chinese emissions might be on the verge of peaking.
In recent years, China has built more solar arrays, wind farms and electric vehicles than any other country. At the same time, China’s rate of economic growth has slowed, with sectors like construction and heavy industry cooling off after decades of rapid expansion.
“If these trends continue and renewable power keeps up the pace, it’s conceivable that emissions will decline or at least stay flat after 2024,” said Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at CICERO who studies Chinese emissions. But he also cautioned that some forecasters had expected China’s emissions to decline this year, and that didn’t happen.
unenlightenedNovember 13, 2024 at 13:53#9471050 likes
A report from Greenland; very quiet and sober, Not reassuring though. Time to start growing some gills.
And to escape the meaningless graphs for a moment, a short report on India, and how poor people are affected. Human, and animal impact.
This is why we will see millions, if not billions of people going to seek refuge somewhere else. And this time there's no "go back to your country" if there's literally nothing to go back to.
I think people miss the fact, or they're too stupid to understand it, that the cascading consequences of what's happening won't just be some higher waters and some heat waves in the summer or more storms, but a total change of how people live. The relocation of people, by their own or through government means will transform the entire world.
And even if the wealthy world ignores the poor people of the world there will be people in more wealthy locations that will be feeling the burn as well. When this happens, things will be felt much more.
I'm predicting there will be wars because of this. People who are so desperate that they have nothing to do but to fight for a place to exist in, will do so. It's extremely naive to think that people will just remain in the heat and take it until they die. No, people will be pushed to the point that killing others in order to save their family and people will be a no-brainer.
I mean, if you had the option to see your friends and family die off because of living conditions falling to unsustainable levels, or invade somewhere else in order to survive... what are you going to do?
Governments of the world won't help people, they can't. If they can't sustain the normal levels of refugees due to current conflicts in the world, how would they ever be able to handle the extreme amount of refugees that climate change will bring about?
unenlightenedNovember 14, 2024 at 14:08#9472780 likes
Governments of the world won't help people, they can't.
After a careful examination, I managed to find two words to disagree with - "they can't." They can do a great deal more than they are doing. Instead of sowing division and conflict and xenophobia, they could help poor countries adapt somewhat; instead of subsidising oil, they could subsidise renewables; instead of pretending that endless growth is possible, they could start managing the economy to be fair and stable instead of expanding and exploiting. And so on. It's going to be bad, but there's no reason in that, to go on making it worse.
Two fundamental problems that make our governments fail completely:
1. Democracy entails short-termism.
2. Giving all the power to the old does the same.
ChristofferNovember 14, 2024 at 14:40#9472830 likes
After a careful examination, I managed to find two words to disagree with - "they can't." They can do a great deal more than they are doing. Instead of sowing division and conflict and xenophobia, they could help poor countries adapt somewhat; instead of subsidising oil, they could subsidise renewables; instead of pretending that endless growth is possible, they could start managing the economy to be fair and stable instead of expanding and exploiting. And so on. It's going to be bad, but there's no reason in that, to go on making it worse.
I'm not talking about the now, but the future in which it's too late to do anything. At that time, "they can't". They can't do anything to help millions of refugees that simply can't do anything but to enter the nation. Where are they going? How are they sustained? How do the food get distributed? Imagine a nation with 20 million inhabitants and they get 2 million refugees storming in. It's going to throw the economic and resource balance out the window. Not only will these 2 million refugees starve, but the rest of the nation will be thrown into chaos trying to solve the problem.
Nations today can't even handle a few thousands refugees coming at once without creating both political and societal turmoil. How do the world handle billions of people relocated from uninhabitable locations?
It's this that I mean governments can't solve. We can solve things now, but when the tipping point happens, we won't be able to without fundamentally throw the world into chaos. It's not the climate change itself that will be the greatest issue, it's the delicate balance of the current world order.
unenlightenedNovember 14, 2024 at 14:51#9472870 likes
Reply to Christoffer Yes, we will soon be shooting people at the borders and sinking the boats. But most will die of heatstroke or famine where they are. It turns out that frogs will not stay in the pot while you slowly boil them, but humans, I think, mostly will. Like the Palestinians of Gaza, respecting the borders imposed on them that they could have overwhelmed at any time.
Nah, humans are incredibly adaptable and naturally migratory. It will be like the early iron age. The sea peoples will be cruising all over the place, raiding, having fun, going back to Greenland to party.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree, if we assume something like this can be weaponized (which it likely could), then (knowing homo sapiens) someone may do that eventually. If others don't/can't, then they'd have to rely on something else for deterrence, or a sufficient alliance, or whatever. I'm just speculating. Either way, if it's feasible, then it's grabbing free energy from the Sun. What's not to like? The idea is older than Reflect Orbital; it's the useful, safe, reliable implementation that needs work.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 22, 2024 at 08:24#9493910 likes
if it's feasible, then it's grabbing free energy from the Sun. What's not to like?
Many people live in a fantasy world where they think that they can get energy for free.
- solar power is not free
- wind power is not free
- getting energy from in-space reflectors will not be free. Think about the cost of getting the reflectors into space. Operating the system. Maintaining the system. Salaries need to be paid. The company will want a good return on their assets. The company will want to make a profit (just like oil companies).
My wife wanted to watch the documentary Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy (2024 · 1h:24m), so that's what we did. Some will call it propaganda, others will revel in the exposé, others still whatever else.
Regardless of the genuinely troubling (and known) message, just using it to promote anti-capitalism doesn't seem quite right. Responsible consumer culture and incentives are parts of a response, to be furthered by legal constraints on whatever parts of the problem. But, it's a global thing. Maybe we should all pick up some of that Greta Thunberg stuff and pass it on.
Some nice pics and little films and Timelapse's and some words too.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 27, 2024 at 04:20#9503140 likes
Is solar energy a good investment?
SolarZero Limited, New Zealand’s biggest solar energy company, has announced its liquidation, citing unsustainable operating losses and liquidity constraints.
The directors of SolarZero said the decision came after extensive efforts to explore restructuring options. “Regretfully, SolarZero and its key stakeholders were unable to find a viable solution to sustain the business.
Customers posting on SolarZero’s Facebook page were concerned about their contracts being honoured.
- one asked: “Can we please have a heavily discounted liquidator sale buyback scheme? Feels like a liability on the roof now.”
- another wrote: “Our contracts still stand and we still get the second battery free after 10 years, correct?”
Customers of SolarZero could buy solar panels and a battery set-up outright, which often runs to $20,000-plus or, as most did, pay nothing up-front.
The company continued to own all the hardware and the customer paid a set fee per month for “energy as a service”.
Rates varied depending on the set-up, especially the number of solar panels installed.
SolarZero would not provide further comment since liquidators have now been appointed.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree
My state subsidizes roof solar panels, so basically all tax payers contribute to make solar energy available. Doesn't New Zealand do that?
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 27, 2024 at 10:23#9503490 likes
New Zealand doesn't currently offer government subsidies for solar panels, but there are other ways to support solar energy, including:
- Solar subsidies from banks
- Labour's solar policy (basically an election bribe, but they lost the election)
- Community Renewable Energy Fund
- The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) has a tool to help consumers assess the economics of solar installations.
- Solar buy-back rates
Of course, subsidies don't help much when the company supplying and maintaining your solar panels goes broke.
Of course, subsidies don't help much when the company supplying and maintaining your solar panels goes broke.
True. And the government shouldn't interfere in a case where the company was mismanaged, or just not suited to its intended market.
unenlightenedNovember 27, 2024 at 21:11#9504520 likes
Reply to frank NZ is not best placed for solar. They would do better to concentrate on hydro, wind, wave, and tidal. Australia is a bit sunnier tho, I hear.
NZ is not best placed for solar. They would do better to concentrate on hydro, wind, wave, and tidal. Australia is a bit sunnier tho, I hear.
In 2022, 87% of New Zealand's electricity came from renewable sources.
This is compared to around 25% renewable generation in neighboring Australia.
The following percentages are for 2023
- 60% of New Zealand's electricity came from hydropower
- 18% of New Zealand's electricity came from geothermal
- 7% of New Zealand's electricity came from wind
unenlightenedDecember 01, 2024 at 10:56#9510560 likes
I'm not sure how important this is, but it is not something I have seen discussed before, so maybe it needs to be, or maybe it doesn't. Yet another melting permafrost side effect.
So we've learned in America that when people are faced with single-digit transitory inflation, all their climate concerns go out the window and they vote for the drill-baby-drill candidate. American leadership is essential to combating climate change, and it's taken a four-year hiatus. I don't think we're going to solve this problem with collective action. We'll have to hope for a tech miracle or some crazy geo-engineering plan.
Reply to RogueAI I don't think the inflation is transitory. It's endemic, structural, will happen in waves. But anyway, if the present global monetary system collapses, it isn't going to be an end. People will deny the event, confuse people what happened. Just like with the "transitory inflation".
Combating climate change is really up to China and India, the newcomers.
In 2023, the global mean temperature soared to almost 1.5K above the pre-industrial level, surpassing the previous record by about 0.17K. Previous best-guess estimates of known drivers including anthropogenic warming and the El Niño onset fall short by about 0.2K in explaining the temperature rise. Utilizing satellite and reanalysis data, we identify a record-low planetary albedo as the primary factor bridging this gap. The decline is apparently caused largely by a reduced low-cloud cover in the northern mid-latitudes and tropics, in continuation of a multi-annual trend. Further exploring the low-cloud trend and understanding how much of it is due to internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback will be crucial for assessing the current and expected future warming.
I watched this video and saw the following text in the subtitles:
And telling Bob who works over 40 hour weeks
in an office job in a cold and gray City
in a rainy miserable country that he
should no longer take that couple weeks
holiday to somewhere warm to escape his
miserable life because the climate
crisis is all his fault yeah I can see
how that doesn't go down very well
Bob doesn't like the cold. The word "cold" has negative connotations.
Bob likes to be warm. He takes a couple of weeks holiday to somewhere warm to escape his miserable (cold) life.
Bob could just wait a few years and then his "cold and gray" city will be "warm and sunny". All thanks to climate change.
unenlightenedDecember 09, 2024 at 09:00#9525580 likes
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 09, 2024 at 12:57#9525760 likes
The climate of the Holocene
Here is some information about the climate of the Holocene which climate change fanatics will refuse to believe.
The information comes from a course at The University of Arizona. The course is called ATMO 336 - Weather, Climate, and Society. The course includes a lecture called "The Climate of the Holocene". The webpage for the lecture can be found at:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall10/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
The webpage for the lecture is well worth reading. It includes graphs, pictures, and a summary table at the end. The lecture includes a general theme that warmth is generally good and cold is generally bad.
Here are some selected quotes:
By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.
During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. 6,000 years ago the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals.
From 600-900 AD (The "Dark Ages"), global average temperatures were significantly colder than today. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.
The period 1100 - 1300 AD has been called either the Little Climatic Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. In Europe during this time:
- The Vikings established a colony on Greenland
- Farming was productive on Greenland (has not been productive again since that time)
- Grape vines were grown in England
- Wheat was grown in Norway (64° North latitude)
A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s. Horrendous floods devastated China in 1332 (reported to have killed several million people).
From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 degree Celsius lower than today. But in Europe:
- Re-advance of glaciers down mountains (valley houses in Swiss Alps were covered)
- Canals in Holland froze for three months straight. This rarely occurred before or after this period.
- Agricultural productivity dropped significantly, even becoming impossible in parts of northern Europe.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 09, 2024 at 13:19#9525780 likes
'Why is this warming period different and more concerning than all them other fluctuations?'
Well it isn’t, you see, because I’m super smart and skeptical and have spent 5 hours reading Bjorn Lomburg. Nothing to worry about because it gets hot sometimes and has been really hot in the past and the scientists are all part of a groupthink dilemma, or are shouted down if they disagree…or bought by whoever funds them. One of those anyway.
Also, carbon dioxide is actually good for plants. And what about water vapor? And what about the global cooling scare of the 70s? And what about Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore taking private jets around the world? And what about…
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 12, 2024 at 13:49#9531930 likes
Global warming is usually measured by calculating the global average temperature anomaly of the Earth's surface.
But people do not die just because the global average temperature anomaly goes up. They die if actual local temperatures get too high.
How do we find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location?
The website www.timeanddate.com can be used to find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location. The information shown includes (for each month of the year) the high temperature, the low temperature, and the mean temperature. The diurnal temperature range (DTR) can be calculated by subtracting the low temperature from the high temperature. The information is also shown on a very clear and easy to understand graph.
Here are the steps to find out what the normal local temperatures are for just about any city.
1) go to the webpage https://www.timeanddate.com/weather
2) enter the name of the city that you are interested in into the search box and select that city (it must be a city, and not a State or Province)
3) this will take you to a webpage with a heading like "Weather in " or "Current Local Time in "
4) go to the menu just below this heading and move the mouse pointer over the menu item "Weather".
5) a drop down menu will appear and you need to click the submenu item "Climate (Averages)"
6) Sit back and enjoy the graph and the information
If anybody has trouble getting this to work then please contact me.
unenlightenedDecember 12, 2024 at 14:33#9532060 likes
Here is a numbers guy for them as likes numbers. If you don't much like numbers, zip forward to right near the end where our man speaks personally about his priorities and in just a couple of sentences characterises the coming collapse of human society, which has already started, but is still ignorable.
My take on the changing climate is, money talks and BS walks. All the protests and statistics and numbers being tossed around is the BS, cuz it's not stopping the large corporations and various governments from moving ahead as usual in the use of fossil fuels. The U.S. seems to be the largest purveyor of fossil fuels currently (Dec 2024) but that could change as other deposits or retrieval techniques are discovered.
So from the money perspective, legacy fossil fuel companies are stalling and denying while eyeing emerging alternate energy sources to see which ones can be profitably co-opted. Other companies are developing technolgies to help rich people fend off the effects of a changing climate and if they're successful, they'll probably be bought by the legacy fossil fuel companies to burnish their climate credentials and maybe even make a few bucks. Just like 40 years ago people would create computer companies in their garages, and now computer creators just want to create something that Apple or Microsoft or whoever will buy.
Until those who wish to change the direction our climate is headed in learn to cause serious economic and political pain to the legacy forces causing this current climate situation, it's all BS, even with all the deaths and destructions, because they're not being effective. Sure, the people care, they just don't care enough, and don't see enough entities successfully opposing legacy fossil fuel corporations.
Reply to alleybear, talking $s doesn't mean that all else is BS (also known as a non sequitur).
I suppose you might check the tragedy of the commons.
Say, up-and-coming countries aren't all that likely to go all green from the get-go when they can industrialize using fossil fuels. "Why should we be denied development when everyone else did this?"
And so it goes. Or whatever. "Shit where the grandkids eat."
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 24, 2024 at 02:43#9553540 likes
Gaining traction, losing tread. Pollution from tire wear now 1,850 times worse than exhaust emissions.
All of the following information comes from a study that can be found on this webpage:
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/gaining-traction-losing-tread
Emissions Analytics has been testing and analysing tire wear emissions in more detail across a wider range of driving conditions, and has performed a detailed chemical analysis of hundreds of new tires. Furthermore, we have worked with the National Physical Laboratory in the UK objectively to quantify the uncertainties in our measurements of chemical composition.
The headline conclusion we draw now is that, comparing real-world tailpipe particulate mass emissions to tire wear emissions, both in ‘normal’ driving, the latter is actually around 1,850 times greater than the former.
Particularly vocal were the battery electric vehicle (BEV) community, sensitive to any suggestion that the added weight of these vehicles might lead to tire wear emissions that might confound the ‘zero emissions’ tag.
The fundamental trends that drive this ratio (real-world tire wear particulate mass emissions divided by real-world tailpipe particulate mass emissions) are: tailpipe particulate emissions are much lower on new cars, and tire wear emissions increase with vehicle mass and aggressiveness of driving style. Tailpipe emissions are falling over time, as exhaust filters become more efficient and with the prospect of extending the measurement of particulates under the potential future Euro 7 regulation, while tire wear emissions are rising as vehicles become heavier (e.g. EVs) and added power and torque is placed at the driver’s disposal. On current trends, the ratio may well continue to increase.
While the body of research on the health of effects of ultrafine particles is growing, how bad these effects are is likely to depend on how toxic the particles are. Light-duty tires are typically made up of synthetic rubber, derived from crude oil, rather than natural rubber, together with various fillers and additives. In a recent newsletter, Emissions Analytics set out its initial findings from chemical analysis of the organic compounds in a range of tires using two-dimensional gas chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. This showed that there were hundreds of different compounds in each tire, with a significant proportion being aromatics, some of which are recognised carcinogens.
unenlightenedDecember 24, 2024 at 11:03#9553940 likes
Climate change causes inflation; inflation causes populations pain; pain produces populist governments. Populists deny problems or blame 'others'; globalised trade is threatened by both climate change and populism, and the reduction of trade leads to inflation.
This video could have been in the Grump thread, or one of the several other unrest threads, but I guess the connection between the political climate and the climate is a bit abstruse for the political mind to encompass.
I think we have reached psychosocial tipping point into a self-destructive politics, that will continue to worsen our prospects until the destruction of our infrastructure and governance becomes complete enough that local community is all that is left, and gardeners rule, ok.
unenlightenedJanuary 03, 2025 at 10:06#9578420 likes
Brief note in a New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago:
The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago came from a report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912. The quote is the caption under a picture in the report. The quote in the New Zealand newspaper correctly matches the caption in the report.
However, the brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago is only a small part of the report, which is called "Remarkable Weather of 1911". It sounds like the weather in 1911 was even more extreme at 300.6 ppm of CO2 than it was in 2023 and 2024 at 419.3 ppm of CO2. Here are some quotes from the report.
========== Beginning of quotes ==========
THE year 1911 will long be remembered for the violence of its weather. The spring opened mild and delightful, but in June a torrid wave of unparalleled severity swept over the country. The cities baked and gasped for breath, while the burning sun and hot winds withered the corn and cost the farmers a million dollars a day. A little later England was scorched and France and Germany sweltered. The mercury went above 100 deg, in western Canada, and whalers brought back reports from the Arctic regions of open water where always before there had been solid ice. The reports from Mexico and Central America would well describe the lower regions, but it is said that the summer in Iceland was enjoyable.
In August the elements took a different turn and the flood-gates of the heavens were opened. Kentucky and the South Atlantic states were deluged, and the Philippines were more thoroughly drowned than they had been before since the time of Noah. Alberta was visited by a killing frost which ruined hundreds of pioneer farmers. A cyclone devastated Costa Rica and a violent gale swept the South Atlantic coast, destroying a great number of vessels. During the later fall, the North Atlantic was tormented by a series of more violent storms than were known to the oldest sea captains. In November the southern states were visited by a killing frost, while December was remarkable for its high temperatures.
Aside from the extreme heat, the frosts of the far North and the sunny South, and the violent storms at sea, the year 1911 was still exceptional. The mean temperature of every month except November was above the average of that of the 40 years covered by the records of the United States Weather Bureau. The average daily excess was from four to six degrees.
With only one month out of twelve below normal, one may well ask if the climate is not changing and getting warmer. There is a general impression among older men that the good old-fashioned winters in which “the snow was fifteen feet deep and lasted six months” do not come any more. In spite of the fact that the year just past was above the average in temperature, there is no clear indication that there is any progressive change in the direction of a warmer climate. The average temperature of the year 1878 was as high as that of 1911. There seem to be moderate changes in a cycle of about 35 years, and it is suggested that this is related to the period of sun-spot activities, which is about one-third as long.
[ added by @Agree-to-Disagree - from 1911 to 2023 is 112 years, which is close to 3 cycles of 35 years ]
========== End of quotes ==========
The report from the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912 can be found here:
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA339&dq=&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century. By the 1950s, it was becoming obvious. By the 70s, it was very obvious — even by Exxon scientists, whose predictions have been remarkably accurate.
Reagan was the point at which most things turned around for the worse. We will be — and are — living with the consequences for decades.
With Trump now in office, we’ll be lucky to cap at 2.5 degrees— which is catastrophic for billions of people. It’s not wonder there’s as much denial about it as there is about death— or there was about cigarette smoke.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 21, 2025 at 22:17#9627070 likes
Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century.
Yes, we have known about global warming for a long time.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.
This was published over 100 years ago. :rofl:
Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Like most doomsday cults, when the predicted disaster doesn't happen when it was predicted they just shift the date of disaster to some time in the future.
unenlightenedJanuary 22, 2025 at 10:05#9628010 likes
Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Like most doomsday cults, when the predicted disaster doesn't happen when it was predicted they just shift the date of disaster to some time in the future.
"The effect may be considerablein a few centuries."
Come back in another century and sneer about failed doomsday cults. :roll:
Come back in another century and sneer about failed doomsday cults.
That is a foolish thing to say since I won't still be alive in another century.
You probably won't be around in another century to see that your predictions were wrong. In fact almost everyone alive now will not be around in another century. It is easy to make predictions for things that are predicted to occur after you are dead. You won't be around for people to laugh at.
Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have made many predictions which turned out to be wrong.
In 1982, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, pointed to the possibility of widespread devastation in less than 20 years. He cited “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press squeezed decimation into a tight, 11-year window, with an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
In 1990, aware the apocalypse was stalled, Mostafa Tolba, doubled down: “We shall win or lose the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s. The issue is as urgent as that.”
In February 1993, Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary for Environmental and External Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution, stressed the world had one remaining decade of opportunity to avoid calamity. “I am utterly convinced that most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”
The 1990s was a steady chain of doomsday assurances, but the heaviest hyperbole was yet to be unleashed.
Cannibals, Toast, and Chaos
In 2006, former vice-president Al Gore projected that unless drastic measures were implemented, the planet would hit an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016. Game over.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, one-upped Gore in 2007, insisting 2012 was the year of irreversibility. “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner provided far more detail than either Gore or Pachauri, emphasizing the consequences of climate inaction. “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not 10 but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn growing.”
The acclaimed godfather of global warming, James Hansen, drew a line in the sand testifying before Congress in June 2008, on the dangers of greenhouse gases: “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path. This is the last chance.”
A year later, in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”
Only three months later, UK prime minister Gordon Brown urged nations to pull a historical handbrake ahead of a climate conference: “There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then, it will be irretrievably too late.”
In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius upped Brown’s 50 days to 500. “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”
Twelve years to 2031. In January 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put her chips on 2031 as the potential end of days. “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it? And, like, this is the war—this is our World War ll.”
Eleven years to 2030. Echoing Ocasio-Cortez in March 2019, but shaving off a year, UN General Assembly President Maria Garces declared an 11-year window to escape catastrophe: “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet.”
In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden threw his support behind Ocasio-Cortez’s dozen-year projection: “Science tells us that how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet.”
Full circle back to 2023, and the UN’s latest “time-bomb,” released March 20, as described by the Associated Press: “Humanity still has a chance close to the last to prevent the worst of climate change’s future harms…”
In step with near annual UN declarations from the past 50 years, Secretary-General Guterres once again sounded the alarm: “The climate time-bomb is ticking.”
But therein lies the beauty of doomsday predictions: When one fails, make another.
unenlightenedJanuary 23, 2025 at 08:26#9630200 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree People have been saying silly things and getting predictions wrong for as long as they have been talking. But to do it deliberately, as you do, is fortunately much rarer, though I have the impression it is becoming normalised of late.
unenlightenedJanuary 23, 2025 at 13:48#9630650 likes
I have been banging on for ages about sea level rise as a major factor that will affect us, and in the first video, Father Christmas on his day off explains how sea level rise is likely to be exponential, and how when you are on an exponential curve, if you look back, things seem to be changing gradually, but when you look forwards, you are facing a wall of abrupt change. His topic is the North polar region and Greenland as you would expect from Santa. Santa suggests you cut back on the meat a bit.
So for some balance, here is my favourite doom-merchant showing an ongoing collapse of sea ice in the Antarctic that you can follow live via links in the description on youtube.
It isn’t uncommon for climate skeptics to claim climate predictions have been wrong. Many climate change predictions are based on modeling, which involves putting data into a computer program and having the program make predictions. It’s not a perfect science, as it’s difficult to account for all the relevant data about an entire planet.
One way to determine a model’s accuracy is to look at old models and see how well they withstood the test of time. A 2019 study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters showed that of 17 climate models published from 1970 to 2007, 10 closely matched the global average temperatures that occurred. That number increased to 14 after "accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate," according to a 2020 NASA article about the study.
Another 2012 study in the journal Nature Climate Change found that 1990 predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were fairly accurate. IPCC had suggested that by 2030, Earth would have warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius, which would amount to about 0.55 degrees Celsius by 2012. The warming that occurred was about 0.39 degrees Celsius.
Despite the difference in the projected and actual temperatures, the 1990 prediction is accurate, Penny Whetton, senior principal research scientist at the Australian government agency Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and a lead author for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, told the nonprofit news website The Conversation in 2012. The difference between the projected 0.55 degrees and the observed 0.39 degrees is because of natural fluctuations, Whetton said.
"This is good evidence to show that what the IPCC has been saying for a while is coming true," she added.
Or, as climate denying idiots would say: “No climate predictions have come true!”
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 23, 2025 at 22:00#9631660 likes
People have been saying silly things and getting predictions wrong for as long as they have been talking. But to do it deliberately, as you do, is fortunately much rarer
What makes you think that your predictions and claims are any better than mine? I present evidence to support my claims. For example:
- the report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912.The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago was based on this report
- the quote from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922
Both of these items show that climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Can you prove that my evidence is not true?
unenlightenedJanuary 23, 2025 at 22:02#9631670 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree You are so very stupid, you cannot read your own evidence. I cannot help you.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 23, 2025 at 22:20#9631690 likes
Or, as climate denying idiots would say: “No climate predictions have come true!”
I enjoy being insulted by climate-change/global-warming alarmists because it shows that they are desperate, irrational, and have no scientific rationale. :scream:
(1) Stupid bullshit stated that you’ve heard a million times and that has been debunked a million times.
(2) You walk them through it.
(3) They move on to the next idiotic thing.
Or, after multiple times of going through this, (2) is skipped. Then: (3)b denier says “See! You can’t engage with the ‘argument’”. (The “argument” being searching the web for climate denial nonsense and AI summaries, copying them and pasting them.)
What do you think Santa does with the reindeer that get too old to pull his sleigh? Apparently reindeer burgers are very tasty. If you look at the size of Santa's belly he is obviously not vegan or vegetarian.
Also, it is too cold to grow vegetables at the North Pole. Does Santa have to get his vegetables flown in?
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 23, 2025 at 23:02#9631810 likes
I have been banging on for ages about sea level rise as a major factor that will affect us
The Global Warming Apocalypses That Didn’t Happen:Sea levels have been slowly rising since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. Coastal cities have not disappeared though, because in the normal course of constantly rebuilding structures and infrastructures, we have been elevating them. For the most part, this is not a piece of some grand master plan (other than building codes for new structures), but the basic fact is that “new” cities are constantly being built on top of “old cities,” a practice that has gone on for at least a few thousand years.
This is a typical climate-change/global-warming alarmist response to an inconvenient truth. Ad hominem. If they don't have any way of disproving a statement then they resort to attacking the person who made the statement.
Respond to the statement Mikie, not the person who made the statement.
P.S.
Another common tactic used by climate-change/global-warming alarmists when cornered is to go silent.
What I find hilarious is that it’s not just “alarmist,” which we’d all understand— he has to, each time, type out “climate change/global warming alarmist.” :lol:
When you have the intellect of a fruit fly…
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 24, 2025 at 11:48#9632940 likes
Here is Google's AI Overview when asked the question "how intelligent are fruit flies?"
Fruit flies are surprisingly intelligent, capable of complex behaviors like forming memories, making decisions based on gathered information, and navigating their environment, demonstrating cognitive abilities that were previously thought to be only present in mammals, even though their brains are much simpler compared to humans; research suggests they can "think before they act" and consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice.
Thank you for the compliment Mikie. Another scientific topic that you know nothing about. :rofl:
From what I can see, Mikie doesn't have the ability to "think before acting" or "considering the complexity of a situation before making a choice". What is it like to be outsmarted by a fruit fly Mikie.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 24, 2025 at 12:37#9633030 likes
What I find hilarious is that it’s not just “alarmist,” which we’d all understand— he has to, each time, type out “climate change/global warming alarmist.”
That is because alarmists keep changing the name.
- global warming
- climate change
- climate crisis
- climate emergency
- climate breakdown
- climate collapse
- climate chaos
- climate whiplash
- global heating
- global boiling
- global weirding
- planetary fever
- planetary warming
- global meltdown
- global melting
- scorched Earth
I didn't want to type out "global warming/climate change/climate crisis/climate emergency/climate breakdown/climate collapse/climate chaos/climate whiplash/global heating/global boiling/global weirding/planetary fever/planetary warming/global meltdown/global melting/scorched Earth alarmist"
As LA continues to burn due to climate change, it’s worth remembering this is global, and just the beginning:
Using data from researchers at the University of Maryland, recently updated to cover the years 2001 to 2023, we calculated that the area burned by forest fires increased by about 5.4% per year over that time period. Forest fires now result in nearly 6 million more hectares of tree cover loss per year than they did in 2001 — an area roughly the size of Croatia.
Doesn't seem plausible that they're all in on some conspiracy or whatever, but people have ridiculously believed worse. Any ulterior motives would largely be financial in fossil fuel sectors. (Or just contrarians/conservatives/economists perhaps?) :shrug:
why do you consistently call others alarmists and scaremongers?
I call people "alarmists" because they are warning people about a dangerous situation. They a raising an alarm about the consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels.
The definition of the word "alarmist" is "a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities". So "alarmist" can have a negative connotation, but not necessarily so. If the "alarmist" is warning people about a real dangerous situation, and they are not exaggerating the dangers, then using the word in this situation does not have a negative connotation.
I think that the best substitute for "alarmist" is "activist". The word "activist" can have positive or negative connotations, often positive. Also, it is short and ends with "ist" (meaning a person who practices, is interested in, or believes in something).
In absence of anything better, I'll go by the (large) consensus among subject matter experts.
You are welcome to go by the (large) consensus. I try to look at the data and draw my own conclusions.
A consensus is not always correct. There can be groupthink (where dissenting opinions are suppressed, e.g. climate scientists influencing journal editors). There can be pressure to conform within a group. There can be financial considerations (the need to agree with the consensus in order to get funding etc.). Climate change is now a huge self sustaining industry (Big Climate Change, like there is Big Oil and Big Pharma, etc.).
Doesn't seem plausible that they're all in on some conspiracy or whatever, but people have ridiculously believed worse. Any ulterior motives would largely be financial in fossil fuel sectors
It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Scientists (including climate scientists) have also got a number of motives (e.g. financial motives). The scientists who work for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, etc. are often seen (possibly incorrectly) as being paid to produce requested scientific results. Are climate scientists immune from the same thing? Do you believe that all climate scientists are "knights in shining armour"?
Top appointees include David Fotouhi, Mr. Zeldin’s second-in-command, a lawyer who recently challenged a ban on asbestos; Alex Dominguez, a former oil lobbyist who will work on automobile emissions; and Aaron Szabo, a lobbyist for both the oil and chemical industries who is expected to be the top air pollution regulator.
Lol — it’s like bad satire.
Climate deniers back in charge. It’s basically too late anyway, at this point. We’re likely on the road to 2.4 or more. Which will be catastrophic. We’re at 1.1 now and already seeing hundreds of billions in damages and many lives lost thanks to the warming by greenhouse gases.
We deserve what we get. Here’s hoping the worst of it strikes those who voted in this idiot.
unenlightenedJanuary 25, 2025 at 21:33#9636290 likes
Did "concerned" (heck, or "caring") go out of fashion?
I'm happy to claim "alarmist", as I am being battered by another storm, and the first official 'red warning' for a long time. If you look at a few economic commentators, you will see that every major economy is in trouble. While one can blame the oligarchs to an extent, one of the reasons that disaster capitalism is taking over the world is that disaster is taking over the world. We are getting poorer, because our stuff is burning, being blown down, washed away, drying out, etc. The rich can still make money from our desperation...
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 25, 2025 at 22:21#9636560 likes
Big Climate Change is pushing the idea of net zero. It tries to demonize fossil fuels. It promotes solar energy and wind energy over other more reliable types of energy. It is trying to affect what forms of energy developing counties can use. It is trying to get everybody into EV's and stop people using fossil fuel vehicles. It is trying to affect what people eat. It funds science that supports its goals. Because of this climate scientists seem to be trying to outdo each other by coming out with more and more extreme claims and predicted catastrophic disasters.
Big Climate Change is using public money (e.g. money from taxes, etc.) to try and control what the public is allowed to do. According to the Climate Policy Initiative, the global "climate change industry," encompassing climate finance, reached an average of approximately $1.3 trillion annually in 2021/2022. This is close to the GDP of Indonesia.
Big Geophysics, that’s a little fishy. The level of consensus that the earth is spherical is suspect. It’s about the funding. I look at the data myself, and make up my own mind. I’ve concluded that all the scientists are wrong: the earth is flat. But I’m not a flat earther.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 26, 2025 at 05:53#9637570 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree I recently bought a used Nissan Leaf. I love it. I plug it in when I get home and never have to worry about gas. It's also much easier to maintain.
We’re faced with a hard choice: listen to the thousands of climate scientists around the world — from NASA to the Royal Academy…and learn about the extensive, overwhelming evidence…
Or… do we ignore all that, select a YouTube lawyer (because what he says confirms what we want to believe), and then pretend that others are brainwashed because they dismiss us as idiots?
:chin:
The latter has the added benefit of pretending that we have special knowledge that everyone else has missed. Flat earthers and creationists talk exactly like climate deniers for a reason…
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 28, 2025 at 00:06#9640320 likes
I recently bought a used Nissan Leaf. I love it. I plug it in when I get home and never have to worry about gas. It's also much easier to maintain.
MGUY is not totally against EVs. He says that they are good in certain circumstances. For example, if you do short trips, if you have off-street parking, if you can charge your EV at home, etc.
MGUY is against EV mandates because EVs are not great in all circumstances. He wants people to be able to choose the type of car that is right for them.
It is good that your Nissan Leaf is great for you. But not everybody is in the same situation as you.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 28, 2025 at 00:09#9640330 likes
Why did you fail to mention that MGUY is also an engineer?
Could it be Mikie, that you are biased and ignore the qualifications of any person that disagrees with you?
MGUY puts links to the places where he gets information from. For example in his YouTube video called "UK Fire Chiefs issue STARK warning on EVs", he puts the following links in the description of the video.
FRNSW position statement: https://m-g.uy/onl
Express article: https://m-g.uy/mgr
You can check that what he is saying is true. Not that you would ever follow the links Mikie. You don't even see the links if you don't go to any of MGUYs videos Mikie. :scream:
An engineer is as much a climate scientist as a lawyer. But it’s hilarious you think it’s important I “left it out.”
An engineer knows more about solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc. than a climate scientist.
MGUY is not talking about climate science. He is talking about engineering problems.
For your information Mikie, engineers apply scientific principles to analyze, design, invent, code, build, and create, to solve all sorts of problems and make the world a better place.
No kidding. Neither are you. Which is why it’s strange you’re in a climate change thread.
Solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc. are relevant to climate change. If you don't know that then you should expand your world view beyond your little self-imposed echo chamber.
Some advice for you Mikie. When in a hole, stop digging. Remember that everybody reading the thread can see how ridiculous you are.
Yes, I would like renewable/sustainable/green energy efforts to succeed. But I think that most people don't know about, or don't want to acknowledge, the many problems that there are with the current efforts. I could list many examples of these problems, but MGUY does a much better job of this than I can. I strongly recommend that you look at his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 29, 2025 at 11:35#9643500 likes
Some of the information on the map that you reference seems "odd".
North-Central USA / Jan 2020-Jan 2021 / wet to dry
Why does this have the impact of flooding
Northern and Central Europe / Jan 2018-Jan 2019 / wet to dry
Why does this have the impact of flooding
Pacific Southwest / Oct 2022-Oct 2023 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire
Southern Chile and Argentina / Dec 2016-Dec2017 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire
Southeast Australia / Dec 2019-Dec2020 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire
The way that the date ranges are different for each region makes it look like they are cherry-picking. They vary in starting month and starting year. The starting year varies from 2016 to 2023.
Also the date ranges vary in length. Most are MMM YYYY to MMM (YYYY+1).
But West Africa is Jun 2020-Sep 2020
East Africa is Sep 2023 to Dec 2023
Southern China is Jun 2022 to Sep 2022
Iran, Pakistan and Eastern Arabian Peninsula is May 2022-Aug 2022
Why didn't they give results for the same date range and date range length?
So the “windmills kill birds!” tactic of the stupidest of climate deniers. Let’s ignore the bigger “list” of problems with fossil fuels and focus solely on the problems of renewables. Never mind that fossil fuels are subsidized by governments and are far more costly, even when externalities aren’t added — like the fact that they create greenhouse emissions which is heating the world and are causing, and will continue to cause, worldwide devastation.
But some idiot on YouTube has something to say about it that we should all pay attention to — after all, he comes highly recommended by an Internet forum’s resident climate denier, and fellow intellectual fruit fly — who refuses to spend a second reading anything relevant on the topic, but would like you to spend the time watching his stupid bullshit.
Sounds great.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 29, 2025 at 13:50#9643740 likes
Let's ignore the “windmills kill birds!” issue at the moment. You have introduced it as a distraction. But since you have raised the issue...
If you ask Google the question "what type of birds do wind turbines farms kill", The AI overview says:
Wind turbines most often impact large birds of prey, waterfowl, and nocturnally migrating birds.
Birds that are most impacted
- Large birds of prey: Eagles and hawks are more likely to fly into turbine blades
- Waterfowl: Swans, geese, and ducks are more likely to collide with turbines
- Nocturnally migrating birds: Passerines that migrate at night are more likely to collide with turbines
The fact that "windmills" kill large birds of prey is of particular concern.
Never mind that fossil fuels are subsidized by governments and are far more costly, even when externalities aren’t added
Renewable energy is highly subsidized by governments. If fossil fuels are far more costly than renewables then why are developing counties using fossil fuels to help lift themselves out of poverty? If renewable energy was really cheaper then they would be queuing up to use renewables.
after all, he comes highly recommended by an Internet forum’s resident climate denier, and fellow intellectual fruit fly — who refuses to spend a second reading anything relevant on the topic, but would like you to spend the time watching his stupid bullshit.
I have told you many times Mikie that I accept that global warming is happening. I accept that humans are responsible for most of the increase in the CO2 level above 280 ppm. I accept that this will cause some problems. We need to be careful that in trying to solve global warming that we don't end up causing bigger more serious problems. That is why you should be looking at things like MGUY's videos. You shouldn't be pretending that there are no problems with our "solutions" to global warming.
If you pull the blankets over your head in bed, then the monsters can't get you. :scream:
I would be interested to hear from other people on this thread what they think about MGUY's videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv
Since you ask, looking at the banner of his website, he declares upfront that his site is an EV free zone. Then there are some videos highlighting problems with EVs. Then there are some videos extolling the virtues of high end petrol sports cars.
I think MGUY is a petrol-head. These are not a rare breed in the UK or in Australia. So it is not the site to look for a balanced view of EVs as a practical means of transport, never mind as a way to contribute to stabilising the climate.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 29, 2025 at 23:15#9644270 likes
So it is not the site to look for a balanced view of EVs as a practical means of transport, never mind as a way to contribute to stabilising the climate.
Do EV evangelists provide a balanced view of EVs? MGUY is providing the "other side" from EV evangelists.
I agree with you that MGUY is a bit of a petrol-head. But as I said before, MGUY is not totally against EVs. He says that they are great in certain circumstances. For example, if you do short trips, if you have off-street parking, if you can charge your EV at home, etc.
MGUY is very against EV mandates because EVs are not great in all circumstances. He wants people to be able to choose the type of car that is right for them.
MGUY provides links to where he gets his information from, so you can check that he providing true information. For example, in his video called "UK Fire Chiefs issue STARK warning on EVs" he provides the following links:
FRNSW position statement: https://m-g.uy/onl
- Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) is the State Government agency responsible for the provision of fire, rescue and hazmat services in cities and towns across New South Wales. FRNSW is one of the world’s largest urban fire and rescue services and is the busiest in Australia. FRNSW's position statement includes the following:
- FRNSW consider EVs and EV charging stations to be special hazards...
- A failure event within an EV battery (such as mechanical, thermal abuse, rapid discharge, or internal cell failure) has the potential to lead to a thermal runaway event within the EV battery, which may pose significant challenges for the building structure, the building occupants, and for firefighters in the management of the incident. Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video?
Express article: https://m-g.uy/mgr
Here are some extracts:
- Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs.
- Fire chiefs say the public must be told about the huge fire risks posed by electric vehicles, as the Government presses ahead with a ban on new petrol and diesel cars.
- Damaged vehicles could burst into “explosive” flames and fires could resume days after they appeared to have been extinguished according to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the professional voice of the UK fire and rescue service.
- Blazes could also release toxic fumes and even the water used to put out electric vehicle fires could become poisonous and pollute the environment.
- Thermal runaway can lead to the creation of toxic vapours and gases such as (not exhaustive) carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride.
- Fire water that is contaminated with chemicals from battery fires is dangerous to the environment. Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video?
I’ve given your recommendation exactly the amount of attention it deserves: none. As with most climate deniers.
I get that you’re too stupid to understand why — but others do.
Here is a news report from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW):
Fire and Rescue NSW recording Lithium-Ion battery fires at a rate of five a week - NSW
Published: 15 Mar 2024 11:48am
Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) has expressed concerns about the rising rate of Lithium-Ion battery fires as crews responded to four separate incidents yesterday.
- Nine fire trucks rushed to an address in Apprentice Drive at Berkeley, on the state’s Central Coast, just after 5pm yesterday when an electric vehicle charging station caught alight. Crews established a defensive perimeter around the business, fearing multiple Lithium-Ion truck batteries were at risk of catching fire. Firefighters extinguished the blaze without further incident.
- Around 4pm yesterday, a tradesman drove to the Tingira Heights Fire Station at Lake Macquarie, alerting firefighters that his toolbox was on fire. The maintenance worker told the crew he was driving when he noticed a large amount of smoke in his rear vision mirror. When he stopped his ute and opened the large toolbox, he found an unattached battery for his hedger ablaze. The man covered the flames in dirt and drove to the nearby fire station. Firefighters opened the toolbox and observed the dirt bubbling as the battery had entered a process, known as ‘Thermal Runaway; whereby the cell was off-gassing and threatening to explode. They submerged the battery in a container of water until the danger had passed.
- In a third incident around 12.45pm yesterday, a fire broke out in the rear of a garbage truck travelling along Derby Street at Silverwater, in Sydney’s west. The driver stopped the truck and tipped the burning rubbish onto the roadway. FRNSW crews arrived and found one battery amongst around 150 Lithium-Ion cells had entered ‘Thermal Runaway’ and was on fire. The battery was submerged in water, preventing a chain reaction, and the scene cleaned up.
- In a fourth Lithium-Ion battery-related blaze, an e-bike caught fire on the third floor of a 10-storey apartment block at Bankstown, in Sydney’s south-west. Residents were evacuated from the French Avenue address around 6.30am, as 25 firefighters and four trucks responded to the scene. Sprinklers were activated and suppressed the flames. The fire crews extinguished the fire and ventilated the building. An occupant suffered a superficial burn when he tried to remove the burning e-bike.
FRNSW has recorded 63 Lithium-Ion battery fires to date in 2024 (this report was published on 15 Mar 2024), subject to review, at a rate of 5.7 blazes a week.
Seven people have been injured in the fires.
There were 272 Lithium-Ion battery-related fires in 2023, at a rate of 5.2 a week.
Thirty eight people were injured last year.
FRNSW is reinforcing its public messages to households and businesses to use extra caution around Lithium-Ion batteries and related devices.
Mikie, do you think that Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) is stupid?
Remember, these problems are only going to get worse as the number of EVs on the road increases.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 30, 2025 at 00:46#9644390 likes
Mikie, I am not surprised that you are ignorant about EV mandates. A little bit of googling would have educated you.
There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office.
In Britain automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.
In Britain failure to meet these requirements forces manufacturers to either purchase certificates from others who exceeded their targets or face fines of £15,000 per non-compliant vehicle.
Here is the title of an article that I found, "Europe’s Wobbling EV Mandate Will Force Hard Choices".
China’s EV mandate, announced last week (this was published on October 3, 2017), is part of an effort to reach 20% EV sales, or 7 million vehicles, in 2025, Yunshi Wang of the China Center for Energy and Transportation, UC Davis, told the event.
While the Australian emission standard does not mandate EVS the government knows full well that the only way that most brands will meet the target is by selling battery cars to offset the regular petrol and diesel cars. It's an EV mandate by the back door.
For anyone scrolling: don’t listen to the climate denying imbecile. He’s lying, or he’s watching too much Fox News: there has never been an EV “mandate” in the US. Never.
And the climate denying idiocy continues on…
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 30, 2025 at 07:45#9644760 likes
There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office.
Try googling "ev mandate america us usa". Here are some results:
This first one is from The White House (the whitehouse.gov domain). I think that they will know about EV mandates if anybody does.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States:
(e) to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies and effectively mandate their purchase by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;
RANDY FEENSTRA - Proudly serving the 4th district (the house.gov domain)
https://feenstra.house.gov/media/op-ed/president-bidens-electric-vehicle-mandates-are-costly-and-unrealistic
President Biden’s Electric-Vehicle Mandates are Costly and Unrealistic.
On March 20th, President Biden authorized the largest government mandate of electric vehicles in American history.
But President Biden didn’t stop his attacks on liquid fuels there. Just nine days after he approved his electric-vehicle mandate on American families, he authorized another EPA rule that would impact eight different classes of trucks and require a growing share of trucks – including semis – to be electric over the next decade.
As is commonplace with this administration, President Biden has his priorities misplaced. By forcing mandates on our families while inflation continues to rise, he is increasing costs for Americans at a time when they can least afford it.
Energy & Commerce - Chairman Brett Guthrie (the house.gov domain)
https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/e-and-c-republicans-lead-to-stop-the-biden-harris-de-facto-ev-mandate
Energy and Commerce Republicans are leading to stop the Biden-Harris administration from imposing unaffordable electric vehicle mandates that will jeopardize our auto industry and hand China the keys to our energy future.
USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/20/trump-executive-order-day-1-electric-vehicle/77835683007
Trump ends 'electric vehicle mandate,' withdraws US from Paris climate agreement
The orders include eliminating the so-called "electric vehicle mandate," Trump's phrase for a Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027.
The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.
unenlightenedJanuary 30, 2025 at 09:05#9644800 likes
- Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs.
What about petrol cars? Can they not explode? Batteries are a new hazard that people need to become aware of. But the information that would be more informative than 'what fire chiefs say' is the comparison.
Australia’s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars. (The Home Office said it was unable to provide data for the UK.)
Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.
Fire departments are right to be concerned, and there are new factors to take into account, fumes and restarts, along with unknowns such as the rate of increase as batteries age. Nevertheless, MGUY is more than a little misleading in his representation of the risks of EVs that ignores completely the familiar, and by an order of magnitude greater risks of fossil fuel vehicles.
Horses hardly ever explode; perhaps cars should be banned altogether.
The orders include eliminating the so-called "electric vehicle mandate," Trump's phrase for a Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half
Emphasis mine.
So yeah, the phrase “EV mandate” sure is used a lot, particularly in conservative media. Imagine thinking that this proves something…
The phrase “voter fraud” pops up a lot too. Must mean it’s true (it isn’t).
So both a climate denier and brainwashed by conservative media…but I repeat myself.
There has never been an EV mandate. True, that’s hard to believe for climate denying idiots who cite Donald Trump as a source.
Mikie, if you had the ability to "think before acting" and to "consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice" (both of which fruit flies can do :scream: ), then you would make less mistakes.
A mandate is "an official order or commission to do something".
The Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 IS THE MANDATE.
The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.
This is similar to the Britain mandate which says that automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.
The British mandate is based on sales figures whereas the USA mandate is based on greenhouse gas emissions.
So you are wrong (as usual). There was an EV mandate in the USA but Trump eliminated it just hours after taking office.
The Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 IS THE MANDATE.
No, it isn’t. And never was.
You can still buy combustion engine cars all you want. No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV. The entire “mandate” bullshit is and was a manufactured Fox News myth, on par with the hysteria around “taking away your hamburgers” and the “mandate” to buy induction stoves.
And the truly imbecilic fall for it. But Trump and his media said it repeatedly, so it must be true. If only there were a mandate against climate denying idiots…
Speaking of stupid myths like the non-existent EV “mandate,” what became of all that gas-stove hysteria?
Honestly, I wish there actually WERE mandates on this stuff. Public transportation, sustainable farming, etc. But all we get are emissions reduction targets years in the making, which are already way too long (50% by 2050!).
Meanwhile the world burns.
unenlightenedJanuary 30, 2025 at 16:36#9645280 likes
You can still buy combustion engine cars all you want. No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV. The entire “mandate” bullshit...]
The effective EV mandate would make gasoline-powered automobiles much more expensive than EV's (the opposite of the current situation). This would effectively price gasoline-powered automobiles out of the market in favour of EVs.
Mikie, you seem unable to understand the clear statement made by President Trump. Here it is again. I will carefully explain it to you in language that an idiot can understand. I have underlined the parts that you should pay attention to.
To eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice
- by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access
- by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles
- by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles
- by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies
- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule (this is the the effective EV mandate) that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 and effectively mandate the purchase of EVs by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;
Exactly. Let’s all wait for those who have established themselves as authorities — and who definitely has not had their stupidity proven over and over again — to EXPLAIN to us children why these disasters are a good thing. Or just natural, etc.
Can’t wait.
Agree-to-DisagreeJanuary 31, 2025 at 04:26#9645880 likes
Have you ever seen the advertisement for Claytons, a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage coloured and packaged to resemble bottled whisky. Since is has zero alcohol the punch-line in the advertisement is "the drink that you have when you're not having a drink".
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions is "the mandate that you have when you're not having a mandate".
So, to summarize in the off-chance anyone pays attention to this idiot:
There is no EV mandate. There was no EV mandate. Effectively or otherwise. Take it no more seriously than “they’re taking away your hamburgers!” Or hysteria over induction stoves. To climate denying Trump cultists, who ignore all reality that doesn’t conform to what he or his media says, it’s all very real. That’s true. But it doesn’t exist. It’s just another small aspect of climate denial.
I don't know if Trump was lying or just honestly has his facts wrong, but either way, there is no EV mandate. The Biden administration DID tighten fuel-economy standards (though not as much as initially proposed) and the EPA did tighten tailpipe-emissions rules but there is no rule or law forcing automakers to build EVs or a certain percentage of EVs. Biden has set a goal of 50 percent EV sales by 2030, but that's a goal not a mandate.
Some might argue that the tighter rules will, in effect, force automakers to build more EVs in order to comply, but that would ignore that automakers can get there using other tech including hybrids. Automakers could also, if I understand the rules correctly, be in compliance simply by building more vehicles that have fuel-efficient internal-combustion powertrains -- you know, the kind of vehicles that have become scare as consumers flock to more-profitable crossovers and SUVs.
Even if the new rules do force automakers to alter their product mix and offerings to be in compliance, it is not a mandate that they build EVs.
I'd also add, taking off the fact-checker hat and putting on the analyst hat, that many American-built EVs are built in states that show heavy support for Donald Trump. Not only is Trump likely upsetting automakers, who need regulatory consistency since they plan models years in advance, but he could be upsetting his own constituents.
The Biden Administration dropped a new rule limiting tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicles yesterday, and you know what that means.
Yes, it's lying season!
I want to focus on one particular egregious lie. You will soon see arguments from certain anti-EV types that new rule is an EV mandate. It very much is not.
First, some background from the New York Times:
The rule increasingly limits the amount of pollution allowed from tailpipes over time so that, by 2032, more than half the new cars sold in the United States would most likely be zero-emissions vehicles in order for carmakers to meet the standards.
We can argue all day long about whether the rule is too stringent or not, or whether automakers will be able to achieve the administration's goals. But as the Times points out, the government is NOT forcing the fleet to become all electric:
The E.P.A. regulation is not a ban. It does not mandate the sales of electric vehicles, and gas-powered cars and trucks could still be sold. Rather, it requires carmakers to meet tough new average emissions limits across their entire product line. It’s up to the manufacturers to decide how to comply.
That hasn't stopped the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers lobbying arm from calling the rule "Biden's EPA car ban." This is where I credit the oft-beleaguered Times, which I have hit at here and there, for not pulling punches and calling that assertion false.
It's not a ban on cars or internal-combustion engine cars. It's just not. And don't let those who have an anti-EV agenda lie to you.
There is no EV mandate. There was no EV mandate. Effectively or otherwise.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Do you understand that Mikie?
In case you don't understand it, I will explain it to you.
It doesn't matter what name you use to describe what the Biden administration and the EPA did. The important thing is that President Trump got rid of it.
Now degenerated into full-blown Trump cultist. What a shocker. :lol:
The important thing is that Trump stopped all the massive voter fraud! (Never mind that the “voter fraud” didn’t exist, and was all along a figment of his imagination.) Ditto the “EV mandate.”
And don't let those who have an anti-EV agenda lie to you.
:up: Exactly.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 01, 2025 at 01:44#9647140 likes
There is a big difference between "exploding" and "catching fire".
This is a long post. If you don't want to see the details of how the calculations were done then you can skip the details and go straight to the "Summary of results"
There are at least 5 calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs.
1) The EV FireSafe report which was funded by Australia’s Department of Defense. It found that the risk of a gasoline car catching fire was about 83 times bigger than the risk of an EV catching fire. (83 is calculated by dividing 0.1 by 0.0012)
2) A graphic that has been widely shared on the internet which is attributed to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). This graphic hasn't changed since 2018 so we should be careful when using these numbers). It shows that the risk of an EV catching fire is 25.1 per 100k Sales. It also shows that the risk of a gasoline car catching fire is 1,529.9 per 100k Sales. Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 61 times bigger than the risk of an EV catching fire. (61 is calculated by dividing 1,529.9 by 25.1)
3) The Authority for Social Protection and Preparedness in Sweden recently released the first report of its kind specifically tracking EV fires in Sweden and comparing them to combustion-powered vehicle fires, and the results are clear: EVs are much less likely to catch fire.
According to MSB data, there are nearly 611,000 EVs and hybrids in Sweden as of 2022. With an average of 16 EV and hybrid fires per year, there's a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire. There are a total of roughly 4.4 million gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles in Sweden, with an average of 3,384 fires per year, for a 1 in 1,300 chance of fire. That means gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles are 29 times more likely to catch fire than EVs and hybrids.
4) From https://www.nautinst.org/resources-page/recognising-the-risk-of-evs.html
Statistically, the estimated failure rate (and therefore risk of combustion) of an individual battery cell is one in ten million. However, when you consider that an average EV contains approximately 7000 cells, the risk increases significantly.
Data from the London Fire Brigade suggests an incident rate of 0.04% for ICE car fires, but the rate for EVs is more than double that at 0.1%. Although it is not clear whether EVs are more likely than ICE vehicles to catch fire, it is common ground that the consequences are potentially more disastrous and more difficult to handle.
Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 0.4 (about a half) times the risk of an EV catching fire. (0.5 is calculated by dividing 0.04 by 0.1)
5) Various statements from Elon Musk
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines. So the risk of a gasoline car catching fire is about
11 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire
- https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1133254_fires-are-less-frequent-in-teslas-and-other-evs-vs-gas-vehicles
The electric car maker notes, as CEO Elon Musk has for years, that the frequency of EV fire headlines can be deceiving. There were almost 190,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2019, and they happen in gasoline vehicles at a much higher rate. It notes that from 2012 to 2020 there was about one Tesla vehicle fire per 205 million miles traveled—versus one per 19 million miles traveled for all types, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.
Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 11 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire. (11 is calculated by dividing 205 by 19)
- https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
Vehicle Fire Data
Our global data indicates that, between 2012 and 2022, approximately one Tesla vehicle fire event occurred for every 130 million vehicle miles traveled. By comparison, data from the NFPA and U.S. Department of Transportation indicate that one vehicle fire occurs in the United States for every 18 million miles traveled.
Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 7 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire. (7 is calculated by dividing 130 by 18)
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/10/04/elon-musk-tesla-fire/2924423
Elon Musk defends Tesla electric car after fire (This is from 2013)
Elon Musk says in comparison to 150,000 vehicles fires a year, Tesla has now had only one out of 100 million miles driven. "This means you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!"
Summary of results
The different calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are:
- 83 times more likely
- 61 times more likely
- 29 times more likely
- 0.4 times more likely
The different claims from Elon Musk for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are:
- 11 times more likely
- 11 times more likely
- 7 times more likely
- 5 times more likely (a claim made in 2013)
The large range of values for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs is probably due to a number of reasons. The lack of data, and the reliability of the data that does exist, makes all of these values questionable.
An important factor has been left out of these statistical calculations
None of these calculations take into account the age distributions of gasoline cars and EVs on the road. The age distributions of gasoline cars and EVs are very different. There are many gasoline cars on the road which are well over 20 years old. The first mass-market EV, the Nissan Leaf, wasn't released until 2010. Only the earliest modern EVs, of which very few were sold, are over 10 years old today.
An analysis of car fires shows that older cars are far and away the most likely to catch fire and the risk of fire increases the older a car gets. A total of 77 percent of all car fires that occurred in 2017 involved vehicles made in 2007 or earlier, so those at least 10 years old or older. The original Tesla Roadster didn't come out until 2008, and only 2,500 of those were built. The first mass-market EV, the Nissan Leaf, wasn't released until 2010. Only the earliest modern EVs, of which very few were sold, are over 10 years old today. The NFPA report cites worn-out parts and deferred maintenance as the likely cause of increased fire danger for older cars.
How many 20 year old cars are still on the road?
- about 23% of all passenger cars on the road today are 20 years old or older. (none of these are EVs)
Percentage of cars still on the road (some numbers rounded)
Year Range % of Vehicles
2020-24 model years 12%
2015-19 model years 26%
2010-14 model years 19%
2005-09 model years 20%
2000-04 model years 14%
1995-99 model years 5%
1990-94 model years 2%
1985-89 model years 1%
Older than 1985 1%
The average age of electric vehicles (EVs) in the United States is 3.5 years.
The average age of all vehicles in the United States is 12.6 years.
All of the current calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are NOT comparing apples with apples.
It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire.
unenlightenedFebruary 01, 2025 at 09:46#9647550 likes
It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire.
And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head.
New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop. In some cases, the technology may have to be abandoned - the use of DDT, and asbestos comes to mind. It may yet happen with EVs, because large scale energy storage is a new tech, if one discounts the lead/acid batteries that powered EVs in the early part of the 20th century. But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed.
But the persistent long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel use are extremely well understood. You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexity, of which no one has any experience, even theoretically through geological records.
And so pages of script and hours of labour are wasted here, discussing your petrol head video maker, not to convince you, because no one here has any wish to argue with a climate change denier, but simply to explain to the general reader, why you and MGUY are not reliable sources of information.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 01, 2025 at 12:07#9647700 likes
And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head.
You shouldn't disregard everything that MGUY says just because you think that he is a petrol-head. You are attacking him rather than discussing what he says (ad hominem).
I agree with your comment about new technology. I saw a news item which said that Korean researchers are developing a long-lasting, self-extinguishing EV battery. That could be a game changer.
I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern. In the same way that scientists are meant to be skeptical, we are looking at the proposed solutions to climate change from a different angle. You should listen to what we say and respond to what we say, not have a knee-jerk response because you don't like what we say. You don't want to be like Mikie, do you? We should also listen to what you say and respond in a reasonable way.
I am well aware of the predicted long term deleterious effects of fossil fuels use. You say that all our research and all our criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives. Somebody should be doing this, and I don't see many other people doing it.
I put a lot of time and effort into looking at the question of the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs. I don't regard it as a waste of time. I showed that the "facts" that Alarmists are using are wrong (see how I can call people names as well). Why should I believe anything that an Alarmist says? Please point out where my analysis of the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs is wrong.
You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexity
:clap:
I applaud your efforts for the general reader. This guy makes a decent example of current climate change denial. Because he’s not very intelligent, it makes it easy— so it’s not really fair. But still— good for anyone pursuing.
unenlightenedFebruary 01, 2025 at 18:13#9648290 likes
I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern.
I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change.
I think MGUY is concerned about possible restrictions on his enjoyment of fast petrol cars. He has videos on all these:
Mercedes-Benz SLK 350
Maserati GranTurismo (2013)
MG Midget (1971)
Ferrari 360
Mercedes C63 (2020)
These "sports" cars are what he is concerned about, and their safety is not their major feature, and nor is utility or economy. These cars are what is known as "penis extensions". EVs have superior acceleration, potentially, but they are too quiet to satisfy poseurs.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 01, 2025 at 19:52#9648380 likes
I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change.
It doesn't matter whether you believe MGUY and/or me. What you need to do is address the concerns that we raise. Otherwise you just have your head buried in the sand.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 01, 2025 at 20:00#9648400 likes
New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop [...] But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed.
You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.
Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ?
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 01, 2025 at 20:15#9648420 likes
These "sports" cars are what he is concerned about, and their safety is not their major feature, and nor is utility or economy. These cars are what is known as "penis extensions". EVs have superior acceleration, potentially, but they are too quiet to satisfy poseurs.
It sounds like you are suffering from "penis jealousy". :razz:
You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.
Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ?
Faith? I think it probable that new technology will improve in safety and efficiency. But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle. I have no faith in that happening until it is far too late for most of us. But change we will, of necessity.
But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness, and your continued defence of the indefensible shows you to be the same. As I have hinted, the choice is between EVs and horses (or camels); but all this is a minor quibble, as are most of your posts.
Let us discuss the banning of all flights and the planting of all runways with vegetables. Let us discuss a 25% tariff on meat, a 50 % tariff on gas, and so on, let us have faith in bold politicians taking decisive effective action to address the global crisis. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :death:
unenlightenedFebruary 02, 2025 at 11:02#9649130 likes
Why do oligarchs all have big yachts?
[hide="Reveal"]To get away from the angry mob.[/hide]
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 02, 2025 at 12:44#9649200 likes
But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness
Sorry, I must have missed that bit. What do you mean by an unreliable witness? Someone who says things that you don't like? MGUY provides links to where he gets his information from. You can easily check that what he is saying is reliable. As long as you are not too lazy to check.
But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle.
As far as I can see that collective will doesn't exist.
Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
unenlightenedFebruary 02, 2025 at 13:24#9649240 likes
Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
No.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 02, 2025 at 14:24#9649320 likes
And that's why most of us will die an early death.
Being overly pessimistic does not help things. It often leads to depression and/or causes people to stop trying. You might be worrying about something that never happens because technology will save us..
I think that many people (especially young people) have been brainwashed into thinking that there is no hope. They attack anybody who doesn't share their pessimistic view.
Climate scientists have done a great job of scaremongering by continually predicting that things are rapidly getting worse. Children are scared stiff.
The people who are trying to save humanity and the planet are coming up with unrealistic plans, and are blaming the wrong people. They are not willing to compromise on any point so nothing ends up being done. Blocking traffic and vandalising great works of art and historical monuments (like Stonehenge) is not helping their cause. In fact it is harming their cause.
The activists who are concerned about climate change need to rethink their methods.
Donald Trump provides links to where he gets his information from. Trust him. Don’t be lazy: look up all the stupid shit he says. Because he’s definitely worth the effort.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 02, 2025 at 14:37#9649370 likes
Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
— Agree-to-Disagree
No.
By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information.
You are a delusional evangelist and you have your head buried in the sand.
Rational people know that there are some serious problems.
By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information.
No.
You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 02, 2025 at 16:04#9649590 likes
You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree.
I am not doubting the sincerity of what you are saying.
You are not reliable because you are wrong. Any rational person knows that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
unenlightenedFebruary 02, 2025 at 16:31#9649640 likes
Rational people know that there are some serious problems.
Just to be completely transparent, there are of course always problems with technology and infrastructure. however, in relation to the problems of climate change, which, in case you had forgotten, is the topic under discussion. there are no serious problems at all; the problems you have suggested are trivial by comparison with the effects of climate change.
For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales:
Different methods were used by Government bodies to estimate heat-related
mortality in 2022. A UKHSA analysis reported an estimated 2,985 excess deaths
associated with the five heat periods in England (Figure 1).32
Using a slightly different baseline, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis
reported 3,271 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and
Wales.
33 The ONS also estimated there were 3,363 – 5,587 heat-related deaths in
England in all of 2022.34c
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0723/POST-PN-0723.pdf
Compared to:
In the UK, fires linked to lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes have quadrupled since 2020, killing eight people and injuring 190, external.
in relation to the problems of climate change, which, in case you had forgotten, is the topic under discussion. there are no serious problems at all; the problems you have suggested are trivial by comparison with the effects of climate change.
But since you’re dealing with someone who denies it’s really a problem, and who delusionally believes that people who have studied this issue their entire lives are wrong for making such a big deal of it (and he feels entitled to do so because he’s chosen to spend hours listening to long-refuted climate deniers like Richard Lindzen and Alex Epstein and whatever random YouTubers he pulls from his ass (and expects everyone to take seriously)).
He’s worth a few sentences and a couple laughing emojis. He long ago proved that’s all he was worth, after being humiliated over and over again.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 03, 2025 at 04:52#9651160 likes
For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales (2022).
- a UKHSA analysis reported an estimated 2,985 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England.
- using a slightly different baseline, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis reported 3,271 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales.
If you are going to start talking about excess deaths associated with heat periods then you should read the following. It provides some context for the numbers.
Point 1
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityduringheatperiods/englandandwales1juneto31august2022#:~:text=Each%20heat%2Dperiod%20peak%2C%20most%20notably%20that%20on%2019%20July%202022%2C%20was%20followed%20by%20a%20fall%20in%20deaths%20to%20below%20the%20average%20over%20the%20following%20days
Note that this extract comes from "ons.gov.uk", the same organisation that some of your numbers come from.
Each heat-period peak, most notably that on 19 July 2022, was followed by a fall in deaths to below the average over the following days; this suggests a short-term mortality displacement, where deaths among vulnerable individuals are ‘brought forward’ to within the heat-periods.
So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest.
Point 2
https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
How many people die from extreme temperatures, and how this could change in the future
Cold deaths vastly outnumber heat-related ones, but mostly due to “moderate” rather than extremely cold conditions.
If you look at many of the “optimal temperature” curves above, you’ll find that most of us spend most of the year a bit below the optimum. We most frequently experience temperatures a bit colder than is “best”. This means most temperature-related deaths happen in “moderately cold” conditions, not on extremely cold or hot days. It’s not because the mortality risk in this zone is the highest, but the amount of time spent there is.
What’s consistent in these studies is that cold-related deaths vastly outnumber those from heat. In the Global Burden of Disease study, cold-related deaths were around four times higher than heat-related ones. The study that estimates that 7.7% of deaths were attributed to temperature found that 7.3% were from cold temperatures; 0.4% were from heat.
Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.
Summary of point 2
Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).
A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world.
unenlightenedFebruary 03, 2025 at 16:13#9651800 likes
So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest.
Indeed. Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year.
Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).
A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world.
Now that I have to admire. When the numbers are not in your favour, just change the subject. Of course in this miserable damp and somewhat cold climate, premature deaths from cold are greater than those from heat. It does not follow that "A little bit of global warming would save many lives" though, because climate change is creating more energetic weather systems; this results in more extreme weather variations.
Some researchers expect that as many as 1.8 million deaths each year are attributed to short-term temperature variability alone. Large swings from cold to warm conditions, or vice versa, can put pressure on our organ systems and increase health risks.
For example, snow in Florida is also the result of climate change. Unfortunately such inconvenient facts rather mess up the neat statistics. And it's not just temperature, power cuts, floods, damage to homes also contribute.
Summary. Cherry picked statistics without an understanding of how climate is changing are worse than useless.
Even the long-used climate denial line (commonly used by Bjorn Lomberg) about cold deaths is probably wrong to begin with.
In a 2014 interview in the Washington Post of University of Miami climatologist Larry Kalkstein, who has published numerous research papers on weather-related mortality, weighed in on the matter: “Comparing apples to apples, which would be to evaluate acute or short-term responses to weather, I would always give the nod to heat-related deaths. However, if you are considering the seasonal differences in daily mortality, rather than just the “spikes” that we find with acute deaths, I can see why one can argue that winter (or cold-related) mortality is greater.” That was certainly the conclusion of a 2015 epidemiological study of deaths in 13 countries in The Lancet, which found that cold-related deaths in the U.S. were about a factor of fifteen higher than heat-related deaths. Cold deaths outnumbered heat deaths by a factor of twenty when averaged over all 13 countries studied. However, this study did not control for the seasonal cycle in death rates; deaths are always higher in winter, due to influenza and other non-weather-related factors.
The 2005 study, Heat Mortality Versus Cold Mortality: A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States, advocated using gross mortality (or excess mortality, as shown in Figure 2 for the 1995 Chicago heat wave) as a way to arrive at a better estimate of heat-and cold-related deaths. They stressed that one must correct for the seasonal cycle in deaths before using this technique, to remove the influence of the winter influenza season and other non-weather-related factors. Interestingly, they found that major heat waves cause big spikes in the death rate, whereas major cold waves do not: “Severe heat waves often produce large "spikes" in mortality, especially during the 1995 heat wave across the Midwest. However, abnormally cold conditions have little effect on the standardized daily mortality. For example, February 1996, a cold period across much of the United States, produced no spikes in winter mortality levels.” Similarly, from the 2016 U.S. National Climate Assessment: “The relationship between mortality and an additional day of extreme heat is generally much larger than the relationship between mortality and an additional day of extreme cold.”
Question: has this imbecile once cited a credible source or an actual climate scientist? Has there ever been a criticism of fossil fuels and all the problems they cause— apart from climate change? Has there ever once been anything said of the devastation the changing climate has caused? If so, where?
Don’t hold your breath: there is none. It’s just dismissing, minimizing, denying. Then citing climate deniers with deep ties to the fossil industry and plagiarizing AI summaries. That’s all it’s been. All while pretending not to be a climate denier.
This troll should have been booted from this site a while ago.
Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66890135
There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show.
Some 4,507 deaths were estimated to be linked to heat in England last year - when temperatures topped 40C. That was the highest number of estimated heat-related deaths over the last 35 years - but does not take into account population growth, and is a similar number to levels in the 1990s and early 2000s when the population was smaller.
The ONS compiled its figures based on information from the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis and created a new method to understand how temperature affects risk of death.
Their analysis also showed a sharp rise in deaths during the winter of 2010/11 when the UK saw unusually cold temperatures.
So your logic is to let 200,000 people die (who had their whole lives ahead of them) in order to let a few sick and old people live for an extra month. People are dying of cold at 4x the rate that they are dying of heat.
Why not install some air conditioning in the places where the sick and old people live. Then a little bit of global warming would save many lives (even in the hottest parts of the world), and the sick and old people would be better off (with air conditioning they could protect themselves from heat and cold).
This troll should have been booted from this site a while ago.
I think that it is you who is the troll Mikie.
- a troll is an an ugly creature often depicted as a dwarf
- they live under bridges or in their mother's basement
- they abuse anybody who is more intelligent than them (which is most people)
unenlightenedFebruary 04, 2025 at 09:02#9653830 likes
So your response to the complete refutation of your first argument, is to repeat your second argument as if that has not also been thoroughly refuted.
And even if the arrithmeticial idiocy of subtracting cold deaths from heat deaths was correct, that does not make your previous suggestion that I am [water off a duck's back] for thinking that 8 deaths in 3 years is not a serious problem in the transport industry, any more legitimate.
It is clear that you do not have any coherent understanding, but are flailing about looking for contrarian ideas to whatever is the last thing that has been said. So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems?
It is clear that you do not have any coherent understanding, but are flailing about looking for contrarian ideas to whatever is the last thing that has been said.
:up:
Hey look, I just copied an AI summary about combustion engine problems. Check and mate:
Combustion engines, also known as internal combustion engines, have several problems including significant air pollution due to emissions like carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, high fuel consumption, noise generation, vibration, dependence on fossil fuels, and potential for maintenance issues like oil leaks, worn bearings, and faulty spark plugs, all contributing to environmental concerns and potential health risks.
Let it be noted just how lopsided the exchanges between unenlightened and the climate denier are in terms of coherence, depth of knowledge, understanding of the issues, etc.
Which is why I guess he thinks he’s the smartest one in the room. The dumbest people aren’t usually very self-aware.
Anyway— let this be a good lesson kids. This could be you if you consume an exclusive diet of propaganda.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 05, 2025 at 09:30#9657920 likes
So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems?
I am compiling a list of problems with EVs.
While I am doing that I want you to answer these questions.
1) Do you drive an EV ?
2) If you don't drive an EV then why don't you drive an EV ?
unenlightenedFebruary 05, 2025 at 10:22#9658050 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree
1) I had an estate car for a couple of years when I started a vegetable and whole-food shop, and needed to transport goods in the 80s. It was petrol, because EVs hadn't been invented, except for very slow lead-acid accumulator vans used for local milk deliveries. Otherwise, I have never owned or driven any vehicle other than a bike.
2) EVs are not without costs to the environment, and public transport is the better option except in very isolated regions.
You won't be interested to hear that I have once flown in a plane, aged 10, taken by my parents. That was 1962. And I am a vegetarian, but not a strict one, and have been since I left the parental home.
Imagine being so transparently idiotic. Moving on, per usual, from one stupidity to the next, the question then becomes personal: “YOU don’t own an EV for SOME reason, so those are the problems I was talking about.” As if we’re not aware that any technology has its issues.
While doofus is compiling a list of “problems with EVs” in his heroic quest to contribute to slowing the transition away from his archaic, harmful technology from the 1800s — I’ll be compiling a list of the stupid shit he’s brought up for the last 20 pages that were refuted, debunked, or retracted.
unenlightenedFebruary 05, 2025 at 12:46#9658440 likes
I’ll be compiling a list of the stupid shit he’s brought up for the last 20 pages that were refuted, debunked, or retracted.
Have loads of fun! I have paid my sewer clearing dues; you always hope to find a diamond ring or a bag of crack or something, but that stuff always happens to a friend of someone's friend. :sad:
In a report this week, James Hansen, the famed former NASA scientist, argued that cutting pollution had already played a big role in causing global warming to accelerate. The reason is a little counterintuitive: For decades, humans have not only been emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they burn fossil fuels. They’ve also been spewing tiny sulfate particles into the air.
These particles spur the formation of more and brighter clouds, which help shield Earth from the sun. But as regulators have curbed sulfate pollution to protect people’s lungs, this cooling effect has diminished, exposing the planet to more of the full force of greenhouse warming.
It’s been so warm that scientists are looking for areas added warmth might be coming from.
Not great.
unenlightenedFebruary 07, 2025 at 08:49#9663180 likes
James Hansen’s New Paper and Presentation: Global Warming Has ACCELERATED
Please donate to http://PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos connecting the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.
James Hansen power point presentation link:
Dr. Pushker Kharecha power point slides and other scientists power point slides
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/y4zf25blgotzekhhjuwvk/AD5ejwIIbgxx6cRBdFRIWw8?e=1&mc_cid=8c6e107514&rlkey=sl54bq0g8t13jq6h9eerjvgxy&st=4rorogat&utm_campaign=8c6e107514-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_10_31_04_36_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=SDSN&utm_term=0_-01f09620b9-179349392&dl=0
Some key points to understand:
- the 1.5C target has already been surpassed
- with temperature increasing at an accelerated pace since 2010 of 0.36 C per decade (double the rate of rise from 1970 to 2010) we will gain an additional 0.5 in less than 15 years (15 year rise will be 0.36 x 1.5 equals 0.54 C) which will bring us above 2 C by 2040 at the latest
- climate sensitivity is 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, much higher than the IPCC value of 3 C
- AMOC will likely collapse before 2050 due to fresh water hosing in the North Atlantic at much higher rates (double) than the value used in Hansen's previous paper
- last time AMOC shut down, global sea level rise went up several meters. Clearly, with an AMOC shutdown cooling the Arctic more heat builds up in the Southern Hemisphere and equatorial regions, so Antarctica melt rate increases rapidly and dominates the reduced melt rate from Greenland glaciers
James Hansen scientific paper link:
Publisher link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#abstractart
Actual paper link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494?needAccess=true
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 08, 2025 at 05:43#9665240 likes
Some problems with EVs (this is not an exhaustive list)
Limited Driving Range
Range anxiety
More Expensive to Buy
Higher insurance cost of EVs
Rapid depreciation
Higher repair costs
Parts are harder to get and are expensive
Lack of Charging infrastructure
Need to plan journeys based on location of charging stations
Long Charging Times
Queues at public chargers
Need off street parking and a charger to charge at home
May be restrictions on charging EVs in underground apartment car parks
Charging infrastructure is not very profitable as a business so there is not a lot of enthusiasm to build more charging stations
Charging stations that don't work (broken or not accepting payment)
Battery issues
Battery Degradation and Replacement Cost
Battery disposal and recycling
Problems in disasters
In hot dry conditions power companies may turn power off for a number of days to avoid the risk of sparks causing fires. Can't charge EVs. If a wildfire comes then how will you get away? Can easily keep a can of gasoline in your garage
Dangerous in a flood
Software and electronic problems
Using heating or cooling can reduce range
Faulty seals can lead to leakage (dangerous with lithium-ion batteries)
Once alight, a lithium-ion battery can be extremely difficult to extinguish
- can give off hydogen fluoride gas
- water that is used to extinguish a lithium-ion fire can be toxic
A lithium-ion battery can reignite
Impact of Temperature on Battery Performance (bad if too cold or too hot)
Dealing with extreme temperatures
- EVs generally don't cope very well with colder climates. Can cause the range to drop by an average 41%
- charging times are much slower in cold weather
Temperature sensitive batteries
Extreme heat can speed up the degradation of an EV battery pack, whereas extreme cold can negatively affect the vehicle’s range. Some counties have extreme temperatures (e.g. India, Thailand, Russia, Canada)
EVs have lower top speeds than gasoline cars because of the risk of the lithium-ion battery getting too hot
Less efficient than gasoline cars at higher speeds
Environmental Impact (e.g. if the electricity comes from a coal-powered power station)
Environmental impact of mining
Creating the lithium-ion battery pack is more environmentally harmful than the manufacturing process for an average petrol-powered car
Battery packs – There are ethical concerns about the sourcing of raw materials for electric cars and their battery packs (e.g. cobalt and lithium)
Grid Capacity
EV brakes rusting
In non-electric vehicles, the friction brakes are used so often that there is little chance for rust or corrosion to build up. However, as EVs use regenerative braking the majority of the time, their friction brakes and pads can build up rust and corrosion.
More road wear on tires because of EVs being heavy (more paticulate pollution)
EVs may be too heavy for old multi-story parking buildings
Cleaning up EVs after a disaster (e.g. fires and floods)
INSANE queue for EV charging is HILARIOUS (and tragic) - covers a number of issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9huBMByvs
Some issues with towing
The Charging Conundrum (see this video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-vhSby1Kd4
The Government gets a lot of revenue from taxes on gasoline. If they lose this then they will need to find new revenue streams. EVs could provide new revenue streams (e.g. road user charges, etc.)
We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days. The above film is before my time but the old crocks are the same.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 08, 2025 at 20:50#9666350 likes
We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days.
Yes, it has taken about 80 years to move from the old crocks of 1938 to the modern efficient gasoline cars of today. You shouldn't expect to be able to quickly replace the modern efficient gasoline cars of today with EVs (at their current stage of development).
Also, the "old crocks" were replaced by better cars that people wanted to buy. It didn't require government legislation to force people to move to better gasoline cars.
In Britain automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. Failure to meet these requirements forces manufacturers to either purchase certificates from others who exceeded their targets or face fines of £15,000 per non-compliant vehicle.
In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 08, 2025 at 21:49#9666470 likes
Frank, this reminded me of your faith in supercomputers.
Scientists used a computer to predict exactly when society will collapse
The results were pretty terrifying
A group of scientists have used a computer to try and establish exactly when society will collapse, and the results are rather daunting. (I wonder if the computer that they used was a supercomputer. :rofl: )
Through this research, the team learned that the fall of society would hit near the midpoint of the 21st century. And yes, in case you'd forgotten, that's the century we're currently in the middle of.
In fact, there's apparently less than two decades to go until the collapse. Around 17 years, to be precise, as the scientists predicted the collapse would come in 2040 (at 2:47 pm on the 5th of July :rofl: ).
But inputting good data does not guarantee good results.
There can be bugs in the programming, incorrect assumptions in the computer models, limitations in what the computer model can realistically model (e.g. clouds in climate models), and all computers (even supercomputers) have some sort of a limitation on the precision that can be used to specify numbers (e.g. 32 bits or 64 bits, floating point numbers, etc.).
But I suspect that you believe that computers are gdigdo (good data in, good data out). This is pronounced "giddy giddo". :grin:
You may not believe that all computers are gdigdo, but you seem to have a lot of faith in supercomputers.
I am pointing out that even supercomputers have their limitations. Supercomputers let you make mistakes faster than when you are using an ordinary computer.
Lol- Imagine the level of a mind that reads that crap— let alone takes it seriously…to say nothing of actually referencing it.
Mikie shoots himself in the foot again. How many holes are there in your foot now Mikie?
I put a link to the article. I bet that you didn't even look at it. :scream:
If you had looked at the article then you would have found that the article has links to where it got information from.
Back in 1972, the team at MIT used computer modelling, which evaluated several data patterns relating to the likes of population, natural resources and energy use.
Other studies that support the prediction
At the time, the report wasn’t taken too seriously and did attract some ridicule, the Guardian reports. However, before you start to feel smug, you should know that in 2009, a different team of researchers did a similar study which produced similar results.
Published by American Scientist, the more recent study concluded that the model’s results were ‘almost exactly on course some 35 years later in 2008 (with a few appropriate assumptions)'.
"It is important to recognise that its predictions have not been invalidated and, in fact, seem quite on target. We are not aware of any model made by economists that is as accurate over such a long time span," the study said.
Further to this, in 2021, Dutch sustainability researcher Gaya Herrington also affirmed the somewhat bleak predictions made in the study.
Speaking to the Guardian, Herrington said: “From a research perspective, I felt a data check of a decades-old model against empirical observations would be an interesting exercise.”
Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.
Do I need to keep spoon-feeding you Mikie. :rofl:. When are you going to start wearing big boy pants?
"And the morning and the evening were the eighth day."
Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.
So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say?
So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say?
You should watch the YouTube video called "Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3sguj9m8ZQ
This one is not made by MGUY, the well known petrol-head.
This one is made by Sabine Hossenfelder, the well known petrol-head who has a PhD in physics.
unenlightenedFebruary 09, 2025 at 14:00#9667750 likes
Our climate simulations led to the staggering conclusion that continued growth of ice melt will cause shutdown of the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean overturning circulations as early as midcentury and “nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters in 50-150 years.”Footnote111 These results contrast sharply with IPCC conclusions based on global climate models. Growing freshwater injection in the Ice Melt model49 already limits warming in the Southern Ocean by the 2020s with cooling in that region by midcentury. In contrast, models that IPCC relies on have strong warming in the Southern Ocean. Observed sea surface temperature is consistent with results from the Ice Melt model,49 but inconsistent with the models that IPCC relies on (Figure 20).Footnote112
I really recommend this paper; it brings together solar cycles, the contribution of the reduction of aerosol emissions, AMOC, and the effect of an AMOC collapse on Antarctic melting and sea level rise, and paints a detailed picture of where we are headed, which is rather too close to shit creek with no paddle for comfort. For the hard of reading, Here is the imitable Paul Beckwith ("Hello, I'm Paul Beckwith.") doing the hard work, so you don't have to. This is his second go at the paper, and as he gets towards the end he makes the connections all too clear and believable.
This one is made by Sabine Hossenfelder, the well known petrol-head who has a PhD in physics.
There's not much physics in that, more politics and economics. But there is little I disagree with as to the facts of human social behaviour. And I like planet wild too.
I concluded already that the project of the oligarchs is to let climate change wipe out most of the human population and replace them with more amenable and less needy intelligent robots. But I don't have to like it, do I?
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 09, 2025 at 14:41#9667820 likes
Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.
So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say?
I think that your interpretation of what Herrington said is incorrect (what Herrington said is ambiguous).
If you break it down into statements:
1) - back in 1972 they had a number of scenarios (e.g. best case, business as usual, worst case, etc.)
2) - they made different predictions based on these different scenarios.
3) - the present 2024 data align with the predictions made in 1972 (but they don't explicitly say which scenario this is based on)
4) - they then say that the 1972 predictions had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later
You have assumed that (3) and (4) are referring to the same scenario (worst case). But (4) may just be additional information which is not referring to the scenario that (3) is based on.
==========
This is similar to the situation with NASA scientist James Hansen. In a paper in 1988 he selected 3 different emissions scenarios, one in which emissions continued to increase (A), one in which the rate stayed similar to what it was in the 1980s (B), and one in which they basically stop in 2000 (C).
Each scenario gave a different temperature prediction.
The actual emissions were closest to scenario A (emissions continued to increase ), but the actual temperature was somewhere between scenario B's and scenario C's temperature predictions.
Alarmists like to claim that James Hansen's temperature predictions were correct. But they were not the temperatures that he predicted for the scenario that actually occurred.
I guess that desperate people will deny the facts and withdraw into a fantasy world. :rofl:
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 09, 2025 at 14:48#9667840 likes
I concluded already that the project of the oligarchs is to let climate change wipe out most of the human population and replace them with more amenable and less needy intelligent robots.
Haven't the oligarchs watched the Terminator film series?
Haven't the oligarchs watched the Terminator film series?
I'll be back. :cool:
Oh hahahahaha! A line from 40 years ago that’s been quoted about a billion times before! What wit. What humor.
Just also worth pointing out how Incredibly unfunny this guy is. (Besides when he’s pretending that he’s not thought of as a complete baffoon — that’s actually hilarious.)
I think that your interpretation of what Herrington said is incorrect (what Herrington said is ambiguous).
Research by Herrington, a rising star in efforts to place data analysis at the center of efforts to curb climate breakdown, affirmed the bleaker scenarios put forward in a landmark 1972 MIT study, The Limits to Growth, that presented various outcomes for what could happen when the growth of industrial civilization collided with finite resources.
Thus the article the the experts at lad bible are referencing.
And here, in case anyone wants to go right to the horse's mouth, is the veritable Herrington saying what Herrington is saying to whoever cares to read it. https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction
This article is more than 6 years old
Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie
Dana Nuccitelli
Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.
Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.
The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.
Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
View image in fullscreen
Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
In the WSJ, deniers again lie about Hansen
The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.
Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.
In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.
Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Michaels was joined by Ryan Maue in an op-ed that again grossly distorted Hansen’s 1988 paper. Maue is a young scientist with a contrarian streak who’s published some serious research on hurricanes, but since joining the Cato Institute last year, seems to have sold off his remaining credibility to the fossil fuel industry.
In their WSJ opinion piece, Michaels and Maue claimed:
Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.
They provided no evidence to support this claim (evidence and facts seem not to be allowed on the WSJ Opinion page), and it takes just 30 seconds to fact check. In reality, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.35°C since 2000 – precisely in line with Hansen’s 1988 model projections, as shown above. And it’s unscientific to simply “discount” the El Niño of 2015-16, because between the years 1999 and 2014, seven were cooled by La Niña events while just four experienced an El Niño warming. Yet despite the preponderance of La Niña events, global surface temperatures still warmed 0.15°C during that time. There’s simply not an ounce of truth to Michaels’ and Maue’s central WSJ claim.
It’s also worth noting that Hansen’s 1988 paper accurately predicted the geographic pattern of global warming, with the Arctic region warming fastest and more warming over land masses than the oceans. And climate deniers in the 1980s like Richard Lindzen were predicting “that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.” If anyone deserves criticism for inaccurate climate predictions, it’s deniers like Lindzen who thought there wouldn’t be any significant warming, when in reality we’ve seen the dramatic global warming that James Hansen predicted.
Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation didn’t stop there:
And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
Once again, this unsupported assertion is completely wrong. I evaluated the IPCC’s global warming projections in my book, and showed in detail that theirs have been among the most accurate predictions. The climate model temperature projections in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports were all remarkably accurate; the IPCC predicted global warming almost exactly right.
Why lie? To keep cashing Koch paychecks
We don’t even have to guess at the motivation behind Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation; they give it away toward the end of their opinion piece, asking:
Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?
Michaels and Maue don’t want us to cut carbon pollution, and it’s easy to understand why. They work for the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by and is heavily controlled by the Koch brothers, who have donated more than $30 million to Cato. As Michaels admitted, they’re basically fossil fuel industry employees.
But the answers to their question are simple. As climate scientists have predicted for decades, global temperatures are rising dangerously rapidly. Moreover, research has shown that the economic benefits of cutting carbon pollution far outweigh the costs.
Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.
We would have to be incredible suckers to take their bet.
The part about Lindzen is especially relevant, as several climate deniers on this very page often cite him. Yet the criticisms about predictions are only leveled at climate scientists…hmm
I heard this explanation somewhere, but cannot give the due credit. "When one is on an exponential curve and one looks to the past, the curve looks almost flat and gives little indication that what lies ahead looks more like a wall. "
So far, most of the excess heat has been absorbed in melting sea ice. The AMOC has taken extra heat from South to North. As AMOC slows, the heat effects will be much stronger in the tropics and southern hemisphere.
The economic and political collapse is already under way, populism leads to divisive policies which lead to conflicts, trade wars, civil wars, and international wars, There is no major economy on a stable footing at the moment, and no government looks stable. This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse.
As AMOC slows, the heat effects will be much stronger in the tropics and southern hemisphere.
The British isles will freeze over. It's speculated that the Younger Dryas, a massive swing in temperatures from warm to freezing and back again was the result of an AMOC shutdown triggered by the end of the last glacial phase. This would be catastrophic because of the speed of the changes
A slow warming isn't bad because we can adapt. Wild swings are a different story.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 10, 2025 at 13:38#9670170 likes
Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events
Matthews, T., Raymond, C., Foster, J. et al. Nat Rev Earth Environ (2025)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00635-w#Sec9
Have any of you actually read this article?
I haven't had time to carefully read the whole article, but while scanning it I found this interesting paragraph:
The unsurvivable threshold of older adults has also been breached. These exceedances include six-hourly means (Fig. 2a, compare red lines with darker blue line), with almost 2% of the land surface crossing these thresholds, largely in North Africa, around the Persian/Arabian Gulf, and in parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (Fig. 3f). This statistic contrasts starkly with the general lack of mass mortality reported in those regions (Table 1), especially as exceedances of all thresholds computed with ERA5 are probably conservative because reanalysis data underestimate the intensity of extreme heat at local scales and within living environments. The lack of reported mass mortality from unsurvivable heat episodes for older adults might, therefore, reflect limitations in health surveillance data, physiological thresholds that are too pessimistic for those living in the hottest regions, or the impact of personal and community adaptations that reduce vulnerability. Similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.
(my bold)
So they worked out the unsurvivable thresholds and explained what would happen if these uncompensable thresholds were crossed. They then looked at the real world and found that some of the unsurvivable thresholds had already been crossed. But they couldn't find the predicted mass mortality.
This applied to older adults, but they point out that similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.
Don't you just hate it when the real world doesn't do what (climate) scientists think it will do. :scream:
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 10, 2025 at 13:46#9670190 likes
It's possible, but rather unlikely. In order for that to happen, the sea ice would have to extend a long way beyond where it has been in historical times. But if that were to happen, it would increase the salinity of the surface water and that would likely restart the overturning. In any case, it would take many years to form much of a glaciation of the land. Most likely it will be harsher winters and more unpredictable summers.
This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse.
— unenlightened
It was obvious that capitalism wasn’t sustainable 100 years ago. Now it’s a fact.
Adapt and survive, or don't adapt and die
When faced with changing environmental conditions an organism can either:
- adapt to the new environmental conditions and survive
- not adapt to the new environmental conditions and die
- if a whole species does not adapt to the new environmental conditions then it will eventually become extinct
Essentially, adaptation is the key to survival in a changing world, and failure to adapt leads to death and potential extinction. :scream:
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 11, 2025 at 10:07#9672960 likes
Lithium-ion battery degradation conditions
- high temperature
- low temperature
- high charging current
- high discharging current
- high state of charge / overcharge
- low state of charge / overdischarge
Lithium-ion batteries inevitably degrade with time and use. Almost every component of the battery is affected, including the anode, cathode, electrolyte, separator, and current collectors.
Lithium-ion batteries can degrade even if you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20%.
If you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20% then the range of the EV is noticeably reduced, and range anxiety becomes worse.
Gasoline cars don't have these problems... :scream:
For anyone reading this thread and thinking it’s just a venue for climate denying idiots to spout nonsense: I and everyone I know loves their EVs. The only problem reported: sometimes they’re too quiet.
If public transportation isn’t available, and a bike won’t do, they’re the obvious choice…and only getting better.
unenlightenedFebruary 11, 2025 at 19:02#9674320 likes
Essentially, adaptation is the key to survival in a changing world, and failure to adapt leads to death and potential extinction. :scream:
Just so! And there are but 2 ways for humans to adapt to climate change.
1. Stop using fossil fuels that are increasing climate change and take other urgent measures to stabilise the environment. The Humble Pie adaptation.
2. Reduce the population of humans by 95% or so, and let the remaining few continue to burn baby burn, moving from place to place as each in turn becomes uninhabitable. The Mad Max adaptation.
There is a 3rd possibility; the Ostrich adaptation of looking the other way and pretending there is nothing happening. But this is more of a refusal to adapt.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 11, 2025 at 19:42#9674400 likes
There is a 3rd possibility; the Ostrich adaptation of looking the other way and pretending there is nothing happening. But this is more of a refusal to adapt.
Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures, and I will defend them with my words, since they lack the capacity to speak for themselves. No bird has ever refused to adapt. Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors.
unenlightenedFebruary 11, 2025 at 19:55#9674450 likes
You are quite right, and I hereby rename the refusal to adapt "the Dodo adaptation" - an equivalently fowl metaphor, but somewhat more apt.
But the Dodo was driven to extinction by the Portuguese. It's not the Dodo's fault that people wanted to eat them. They did not refuse to adapt, they were simply preyed upon by foreign predators.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 11, 2025 at 20:01#9674490 likes
Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures, and I will defend them with my words, since they lack the capacity to speak for themselves. No bird has ever refused to adapt. Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors.
:up: :100:
Arcane SandwichFebruary 11, 2025 at 20:10#9674520 likes
?Agree-to-Disagree Your Forum name read backwards would be Disagree-to-Agree.
Ever thought about that?
You're very smart. I say that unironically. It is rare to find people of your intellect, nowadays. :grin:
I do refuse to follow other people like sheep (to the slaughter).
I am a naturally cynical and skeptical person. When somebody tells me something I immediately analyse it to try and find a valid reason why it is not true.
Scientists are meant to be skeptical. Finding a skeptical scientist today is difficult. We have a situation that I call "science by bureaucracy" (I am not the first person to use this term). The IPCC cherry-picks the science that suits its agenda, and scientists are rewarded for producing science that supports that agenda.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 11, 2025 at 22:30#9674810 likes
Emus are another cool member of the Ratite family. Cassowaries are also incredible.
Kiwis are the "black sheep" of the ratite family. Kiwis have some unusual features:
- they are small and nocturnal
- the kiwi is the only bird in the world with nostrils at the tip of its beak
- Kiwi feathers are soft, long, and loose, and feel more like fur than bird feathers. They are shaggy, warm, and fluffier than most bird feathers
- kiwis have whiskers, like a cat
- they have one of the largest eggs in proportion to body size of any order of bird in the world (up to 20% of the female's weight)
- most birds have hollow bones to aid in flight. The kiwi has marrow in its bones, just like a human. Their powerful legs make up a third of their body weight and allow them to run as fast as a human
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 11, 2025 at 22:43#9674850 likes
2. Reduce the population of humans by 95% or so, and let the remaining few continue to burn baby burn, moving from place to place as each in turn becomes uninhabitable. The Mad Max adaptation.
You have a very limited imagination if these 2 options are all that you can come up with.
The population of humans in many countries is falling naturally because the fertility rate is below the rate needed to maintain the population. More than 20 countries, including Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, will see their numbers diminish by at least half by the year 2100, according to projections from a major study.
Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48% decline.
These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions. The analysis suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.
You’re neither a scientist nor a skeptic. You’re just a guy who falls for the equivalent of flat earth “theory.” But keep telling yourself that — always good for a chuckle.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 11, 2025 at 23:23#9674980 likes
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 11, 2025 at 23:45#9675090 likes
HILARIOUS! Defense Ministry says "NO TALKING" in Chinese EVs!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GumbaWxctOc
Another of MGUYs brilliant videos.
Summary
The UK Ministry of Defense has bought hundreds of Chinese EVs for its employees in order to meet Net Zero targets. They have suddenly realized that this might cause some security problems. But instead of junking the cars and buying new ones that don't spy on their occupants or surroundings, they've come up with a cheaper solution. The brilliant solution is to tell Ministry of Defense employees to shut up when they're traveling in these EVs. Top brass have been ordered to stop talking in EVs over fears that Chinese makers will eavesdrop on conversations. A ministry spokesperson said protecting National Security is the foundation of everything we do. We have strict security procedures in place to ensure sensitive information is protected. But apparently that all takes second place to Net Zero.
Frank, which parts of this story do you think are bs?
1) - Do you accept that the UK Ministry of Defense has bought hundreds of Chinese EVs for its employees in order to meet Net Zero targets?
2) - Do you accept that Chinese EVs might cause some security problems?
3) - Do you accept that the UK Ministry of Defense is not junking the cars?
4) - Do you accept that the the UK Ministry of Defense has told its employees and/or "top brass" to stop talking in EVs?
If you accept (1), (2), and (3), but don't accept (4), then that would mean that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.
What do you think? Please tell us why you think that this story is bs.
So you believe that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.
If you don't believe that this is public information then read this news story. It is written by Jerome Starkey, Defence Editor (Published: 17:16 ET, Feb 5 2025, Updated: 17:28 ET, Feb 5 2025)
https://www.the-sun.com/news/13464048/defence-chiefs-electric-cars-chinese-spy
Here is some juicy stuff from the news story. . :scream:
The Sun understands a security notice was issued across the department banning sensitive conversations in electric cars.
A source said: “It’s crazy. A lot of these electric cars are used by senior officers, who know a lot of secrets.
"They work on sensitive missions.
“It’s normal to discuss work when they’re driving, especially if everyone in the car is cleared to the same level or working on the same project.
“They aren’t used to thinking the car might be listening — especially if the car has been issued by the UK MoD.”
A second source said: “These cars are everywhere now, from Special Forces headquarters to nuclear submarine bases.
If the story is not true then somebody (e.g. the UK Ministry of Defense) would expose it as a lie.
If you accept (1), (2), and (3), but don't accept (4), then that would mean that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.
I think that story is bs, and the only source your provided was The Sun. :meh:
The Sun is not the only source. Are all of the following sources bs?
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/drivers-fears-electric-vehicles-spying-mod
Ministry of Defence is thought to have instructed staff to stop speaking in Chinese manufactured electric vehicles
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14366019/MoD-told-not-talk-electric-cars-Chinese-spy.html
MoD top brass are told not to talk in electric cars - in case Chinese 'spy' manufacturers eavesdrop on top-secret information
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/2010767/ministry-of-defence-electric-cars-china
Defence chiefs ordered to stop talking in electric cars over China spy fears
https://www.cityam.com/chinese-ev-makers-should-be-barred-from-uk-public-contracts-over-data-privacy-fears-campaigners-warn
Ministers should consider banning Chinese electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers from securing government contracts over national security and data privacy concerns, a new report has warned.
https://www.electrive.com/2025/02/06/uk-warns-government-employees-of-spying-cars
Top officials in the UK government's Ministry of Defense have been warned to keep quiet while in their cars as the Chinese government could be listening in, trying to gain access to classified information, according to media reports.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/16/chinese-evs-in-britain-could-be-weaponised-think-tank-warns
Experts warn vehicles with Chinese-made components could transmit data back to Beijing
Chinese electric vehicles being driven in Britain could be “weaponised” and should be banned from government use, a report has warned.
Modules within Chinese-made electric vehicles could transmit sensitive data back to the country or even be remotely controlled, the China Strategic Risks Institute (CSRI) warned.
The think tank called for an end to Chinese carmakers being able to win government contracts. Last year it emerged that the Ministry of Defence used electric cars made by Chinese-owned MG.
Whitehall departments are buying up electric cars in an attempt to decarbonise their fleets. The report said the vehicles present a potentially greater security risk than petrol-powered vehicles because they are more likely to be equipped with internet-connected modules capable of collecting data and controlling the car’s functions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/tesla-cars-banned-from-chinas-military-complexes-on-security-concerns-sources-idUSKBN2BB18R/
Britain’s unusual stance on Chinese electric vehicles
Unlike America or Europe, Britain is welcoming the cheap cars—for now
(Reuters) - The Chinese military has banned Tesla cars from entering its complexes, citing security concerns over cameras installed on the vehicles, two people who have seen notices of the directive told Reuters.
The move is the latest sign of China's growing scrutiny of the U.S. electric carmaker amid tensions with Washington. Analysts said it resembled Washington's measures against Chinese telecoms firm Huawei citing national security.
https://cim-coalition.co.uk/collision-course-under-pricing-chinese-ev-risks-in-the-uk
It warns that the Government should consider banning Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers from securing government contracts over national security and data privacy concerns.
It says suppliers suspected of having ties to China’s military-industrial complex pose a key risk due to the potential for built-in wireless components to be “weaponised”, which could even be used to gridlock British streets.
It comes as the UK government is rapidly procuring EVs for the public sector and confirmed last year that some models used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had been supplied by MG, which is owned by China’s SAIC Motor.
https://fortune.com/2024/09/17/china-evs-csri-europe-electric-vehicles-cybersecurity-risk
Chinese electric vehicles could be ‘weaponized’ and should be banned from government use, report warns
Really Frank? Am I going to have to spoon-feed you like I spoon-feed Mikie?
The Sun, and most of the others, are quoting from a report put out by The Coalition on Secure Technology in conjunction with the China Strategic Risks Institute (CSRI). The report is called "Collision Course: Under-pricing Chinese EVs risks in the UK". This has been widely picked up in publications today such as CityAM, the Telegraph, and presumably The Sun.
It warns that the Government should consider banning Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers from securing government contracts over national security and data privacy concerns.
It says suppliers suspected of having ties to China’s military-industrial complex pose a key risk due to the potential for built-in wireless components to be “weaponised”, which could even be used to gridlock British streets.
It comes as the UK government is rapidly procuring EVs for the public sector and confirmed last year that some models used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had been supplied by MG, which is owned by China’s SAIC Motor.
You can download the full report from a link near the bottom of the webpage. The full report is 36 pages long so I will just quote a little bit of it.
As it stands, around 25% of the ministerial fleet of cars are already ultra-low emission vehicles, with a target for all central government cars and vans to be EVs by 2027 . As with the Government’s EV producer quota system it looks likely that the greatest beneficiary will be Chinese EV producers who can afford to underbid their competitors.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed in September 2023 that its department uses electric vehicles and hybrids produced by MG, which is owned by SAIC Motor. This is unsurprising on cost grounds given the dire state of public finances.
Aside from the threat to the UK’s manufacturing industry, the UK public remains largely unaware of the dependency, disruption, and data security risks Chinese EVs pose via Chinese manufactured Cellular Internet of Things Modules (CIMs) within them.
? Dependency Risk: Chinese EV producers winning UK government procurement
contracts and providing EVs to the police, the armed forces, government departments,
and local authorities, will create dependency which could be exploited by the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) to pressure the UK Government to change its policies towards
the PRC.
? Disruption Risk: If relations between the UK and the PRC were to deteriorate, CIMs in
Chinese EVs could enable the PRC to disable vehicles and thus cause significant
disruption to the UK Government, the police force, the military, and the UK’s trade supply
chain. Whilst the likelihood of the CCP disrupting the UK Government and society
through sabotaging EVs is low in the current circumstances, responsible governments
should plan for the worst and minimise national security risks in advance.
? Data Security Risk: EVs report geolocation and performance data in real-time. This
would allow the PRC to plot the movement of government and defence vehicles.
Geolocation detail is far greater than can be obtained from monitoring mobile phones.
Put together with other information, this could yield useful intelligence. For example, by
syncing a mobile phone with a car’s audio system, manufacturers can gain access to
personal data. If CIMs contained backdoors – such as those found in the products of
Chinese technology companies Huawei and HikVision – the amount of data which could
be extracted could be considerable.
Thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Not many people are honest enough to do that. . :up:
unenlightenedFebruary 12, 2025 at 11:15#9676620 likes
Here is some bad news that is not, as far as I know, directly connected to climate change, but certainly adds to the degradation of the environment and affects the food supply. Is it pesticides, varela, viruses, that cold snap, or just accumulated stresses? Wait and see. Anyway, bad news, we don't know yet how bad.
But a bit of good news for UK bees, the government has finally banned neonicotinoid insecticides to treat seeds, that had been permitted against advice.
Edwards added: “The focus must now be on a complete, sustainable transition away from a reliance on the use of neonicotinoids not just in agriculture, but also in pet flea treatments. This is a key source of chemical pollution in our waterways, with 10% of UK rivers found to contain toxic neonicotinoid chemicals.”
unenlightenedFebruary 12, 2025 at 11:25#9676630 likes
Further to my earlier mention of the difficulty of having an intuitive understanding of exponential functions. Here is a good explanation of the nature of that difficulty.
“Aren’t you mad that the car that’s served you perfectly well over 8 years is really a piece of junk?”
Oof. No wonder even Frank thinks you’re an idiot.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 12, 2025 at 15:30#9677020 likes
People, I propose that we get this thread back on track.
Have the magnetic poles of the Earth been disrupted in some way, as of 2025? That doesn't seem to be the case.
Has the weather system of the Earth been disrupted in some way, as of 2025? That doesn't seem to be the case either.
But I'll tell you what's the case, you already know it: tons of plastic in our oceans, pollution in general in our cities and towns, and I think that we, as human beings, need to take the blame here. Yes, volcanic eruptions are not due to human action. Mass extinction events like the one that killed the T. Rex are not due to human action. But, by parity of reasoning, the existence of tons of plastic in our oceans, such as empty water bottles, or plastic bags, for example, are due to human action. So, in that sense, we're definitely affecting different ecosystems.
Is that the same thing as climate change? That's debatable. But let's debate it with a bit of, I don't know, intellectual sophistication. Insults are for adolescents. We're way past that point. So, let's discuss, as is expected of men and women.
Is climate change real? Yes, it is, because the climate exists, and it changes. Have we caused that change? Not all of it, but some of it. And yes, it has to do with the tons of plastic that pollute our oceans. Because those plastics were made despite the fact that massive carbon emissions would be required for producing them. Factory farming is also negatively impacting ecosystems, and the climate more generally. Thousands of acres of tropical rainforest are cut down as we speak, and this has been going on for decades, both in the Amazon rainforest as well as the tropical jungles of Southeast Asia. These patches of land are cleared for cattle raising. In a few centuries, at this rhythm, there will be no more tropical rainforests or jungles, and we don't know what effect this will have on the climate (just think of how difficult it is to make an accurate weather prediction in professional climatology, to say nothing of professional meteorology). What we do know, is that tropical storms have something to do with heat waves, and we also know that plants absorb light, heat, and water. So, destroying tropical ecosystems might actually make tropical storms more potent, and more chaotic. And since we've been destroying tropical flora for decades now, it is entirely possible that human beings have caused some of the most destructive effects that climate change itself causes as of 2025.
Is climate change real? Yes, it is, because the climate exists, and it changes. Have we caused that change? Not all of it, but some of it. And yes, it has to do with the tons of plastic that pollute our oceans. Because those plastics were made despite the fact that massive carbon emissions would be required for producing them.
Why figure on plastics, exactly? Electricity generation, transportation, home heating, cement and steel production, etc — all huge contributors. So why not say that? Why exclusively mention plastics?
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 00:03#9679110 likes
Reply to Mikie Sure. Even mining for Bitcoins has an effect on the carbon footprint. I mentioned plastic because it's the most obvious example. I didn't mean to imply that it's the only example. I thought that much was obvious.
It’s cool, but to me it’s not the most obvious example. The most obvious is transportation or electricity. That’s why I found it odd. But no worries.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 00:13#9679210 likes
Reply to Mikie Yeah, but it's like, we can live with less plastic, I'm honestly really sure about that. Can we live with less transportation or less electricity? I'm not so sure. What are your own thoughts on that?
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 13, 2025 at 00:14#9679220 likes
Yeah, but it's like, we can live with less plastic, I'm honestly really sure about that. Can we live with less transportation or less electricity? I'm not so sure.
You’re basically right— but it’s very tough to live without plastics. They now play a major role in the world. Not talking about straws, of course, but medical equipment, etc. But yes, we can ween ourselves off of them and find alternatives.
With electricity and transportation— of course we can’t live without those things. But in those cases the solutions are plentiful to reduce emissions. There’s public transportation, EVs, and renewable energy.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 02:42#9679550 likes
it’s very tough to live without plastics. They now play a major role in the world. Not talking about straws, of course, but medical equipment, etc. But yes, we can ween ourselves off of them and find alternatives.
It's a real mindfuck if you think about it, like, this isn't politics anymore. This is straight-up ecology, from the plastic in the ocean to the plastic in your hospitals.
I guess "rabbit hole" is the more appropriate philosophical term, but no. This one, this specific problem in Ethics, is a complete mindfuck. I say that as a proponent of Kant's Categorical Imperative.
With electricity and transportation— of course we can’t live without those things. But in those cases the solutions are plentiful to reduce emissions. There’s public transportation, EVs, and renewable energy.
:100:
And in my case, I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025. I could be wrong though, a scientific prediction isn't necessarily infallible.
And yeah, when I said "scientific prediction", I said what I said. I didn't stutter.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 02:45#9679580 likes
This one, this specific problem in Ethics, is a complete mindfuck.
Let me add something to this. It's not OK that this problem is a mindfuck. We should, at the very least, do our very best in order to ensure that this mindfuck of a problem does not degenerate into an online orgy of stupidity. That's all I'm saying, as far as the topic of "respect vs disrespect" goes.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 13, 2025 at 04:08#9679850 likes
I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025
One of the problems with your statement is that many people are not interested in having a conversation or discussion. The evangelists (like Mikie) are only interested in preaching, and they are not interested in listening.
Mikie always calls me a "denier" whenever I say something that he doesn't like or agree with. I don't deny that global warming and climate change are happening. Mikie won't discuss what I am saying, he just tries to shut me up by insulting me. It doesn't work, and it makes me think that nothing that Mikie says is worth listening to.
I would like to be able to have adult discussions without name calling. But they don't happen very often.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 04:11#9679870 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way. I mean, it sounds like a problem between you and Mikie, specifically. I can't do anything about that. And even if I could, I don't want to. There's better uses of my time. Just work it out between yourselves.
And in my case, I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025. I could be wrong though, a scientific prediction isn't necessarily infallible.
What scientific prediction are you referring to?
And yes, renewable enjoy is an interesting topic. They’ve become cheaper and more efficient. At this point the problem is the fossil fuel lobby and its propaganda, who want everyone to stay hooked on their products as long as possible (see tobacco companies in previous decades for nearly identical situation) — and political willpower.
Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal — all excellent. Most are cheaper than fossil fuels. The emissions and environmental cost in their production (like giant wind turbines) are all front-heavy, but once they’re built there’s no emissions and they offset the negative effects in a few years. Thec technology is there, we just have to start building — and that’s not always easy, especially in a stupid country where the government is run by reality-denying fossil fuel shills.
There’s also other problems, like the United States electrical grid. We need more transmission lines — which is a major undertaking — to get the solar energy from the sunbelt and the wind energy from the midwestern states to other areas. Nuclear energy can fill the potential gaps, since it’s dispatchable and creates no carbon emissions (although there’s a host of issues there too, including managing waste and the time it takes to build them, although there’s smaller ones that can be built that are in the works).
With EVs there’s a question about the lithium and cobalt, and whether there’s enough to meet demand — although there’s potential for sodium-ion batteries which seems promising. EVs are already great, but will get even better; more charging stations are being built, and they’re becoming cheaper— even with idiots like Trump and his climate denier cronies in office. It’s too late to stop that train— China is a good example. We have to put 100% tariffs on their EVs because they’re cheap and awesome (see BYD).
The question of heavy industry — like steel and cement — is one of the hardest ones. Alternative technologies exist but not to scale, and research is still in its infancy.
We should, at the very least, do our very best in order to ensure that this mindfuck of a problem does not degenerate into an online orgy of stupidity.
The problem of climate change and plastics can definitely be tough ones to fully appreciate. It can also be scary — which is partly why people fall for propaganda: they want to deny what the overwhelming evidence is telling us.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 05:30#9680150 likes
Anyway, I took their references and their concluding summary seriously enough to think that we better prepare. Unless otherwise meeting an early end, that applies to everyone.
Haven't sifted through the references and examples in detail though, maybe if time permits. Some mentioned samples are down to Karachi, Paris, Vancouver, Mecca, Lagos, Chicago, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Al Hudaydah, New York, Ahmedabad, other perspectives are broader. Preparing for wider temperature swings is justified.
On another note, plastic bags (old style) have been out for a while around here. In stores, you bring your own reusable bags or buy them there. Plastic straws have been out for a while as well. Anthropogenic pollution at large has become ridiculous.
I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way.
One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues. Plastic pollution is a serious environmental problem, but it is not a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The Earth is warming because of the insulating effect of changes in the atmosphere, mainly the increase of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and the increase of methane from various sources, farmed cattle emissions, natural gas leakage, permafrost melting, etc. Plastics actually function to lock up carbon long term and so function in a minor way as a carbon sink. But do not take that as a vote in their favour.
So the issue for this thread at least, is the burning of fossil fuels rather than their transformation into plastics, unless those plastics are incinerated. Petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, coal, natural gas, are all hydrocarbons whose combustion add to the insulation that warms the earth.
Pollution has some importance too, because it degrades the ability of the living environment to absorb carbon dioxide, and rebalance the atmosphere. But the major impact comes from oil and coal burning, and that is what needs to stop.
Of course things get much more complicated as one goes into the details, and we can talk about positive feedback and tipping points and sun-cycles and Milankovitch cycles, and bees, and krill, and plastics, and so on and on. But please understand, our total addiction to fossil fuels is the big problem and if we don't sort it, the world will heat up until we either do sort it or the heat sorts us.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 18:57#9681100 likes
I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way.
— Arcane Sandwich
One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues.
I was referring to the situation involving @Agree-to-Disagree and @Mikie specifically, as in, whatever beef they have with each other, if any. I'm not here to squash the beef between them. So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question.
unenlightenedFebruary 13, 2025 at 19:08#9681150 likes
So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question.
It would allow you to understand their conflict better. I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 19:18#9681220 likes
I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again.
Well, look at the bright side, this Thread hasn't degenerated into a debate about the shape of the Earth, and we can take some pride in that fact.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 13, 2025 at 20:02#9681390 likes
Big Geophysics, that’s a little fishy. The level of consensus that the earth is spherical is suspect. It’s about the funding. I look at the data myself, and make up my own mind. I’ve concluded that all the scientists are wrong: the earth is flat. But I’m not a flat earther.
You obviously haven't read much of this thread. :grin:
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 20:04#9681400 likes
You obviously haven't read much of this thread. :grin:
Ok, then look at this other bright side: at least this Thread hasn't degenerated into Semantics. We're still able to draw a map-territory distinction, here.
And that's something to be proud of.
unenlightenedFebruary 13, 2025 at 21:07#9681770 likes
On the less bright side, discussing the thread and its bright and dull sides is entirely off topic, as is most of the discussion that goes on in the thread. but since we can't beat them...
Arcane SandwichFebruary 13, 2025 at 21:12#9681820 likes
On the less bright side, discussing the thread and its bright and dull sides is entirely off topic, as is most of the discussion that goes on in the thread. but since we can't beat them...
The less bright side?
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 13, 2025 at 21:36#9681870 likes
Kayaker swallowed by humpback whale in Chile
See video of it happening here:
https://news.sky.com/story/kayaker-survives-being-swallowed-by-humpback-whale-in-chile-13308753
It is impossible to say whether this particular event was caused by climate change.
But climate scientists doing attribution studies have shown that climate change has made "kayakers being swallowed by humpback whales" a lot more likely than it was in the past. . :scream:
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 13, 2025 at 22:47#9682170 likes
Aren’t you mad that the car that’s served you perfectly well over 8 years is really a piece of junk?
If you bought your EV over 8 years ago then it must have been around 2016. There were not many EV models available at that time. You probably have a Nissan Leaf. Did you buy the Leaf S (which has a range of 149 miles), or the pricier SV Plus (which has a range of 212 miles)?
Because you live in your mother's basement you probably don't need any more range. 4 trips to the letterbox and back on a single charge is plenty.
How many times have you had to replace the battery pack?
How many EV fires have you had?
Can you charge your EV at home, or do you use public chargers?
Does your mother let you charge your EV near the house?
How much did you pay for your EV?
How much has your EV depreciated?
What are the insurance costs for your EV?
Do you feel smug and self-righteous because you drive an EV?
Are you aware of the environmental impacts that EVs have?
- you might be able to pride yourself on producing zero tailpipe emissions from your EV but unless you're charging from solar panels on your roof all you are doing is pushing those emissions back up the wire to the coal or gas fired power station
- not only that but to obtain all the minerals and elements for a single EV battery requires over 250 tons of Earth to be mined moved refined and assembled, all of which is powered by diesel vehicles and
machinery
- you'll be driving your EV for many many years before it even breaks even (if it ever does break even)
- but despite all of those things at least you can bask in the warm glow of knowing that the cobalt in your EVs battery has probably been mined by child slave labor in sub-Saharan Africa
Do you really think that this is going to save humans and the planet Mikie?
Both 2023 and 2024 shattered previous temperature records, hovering near or above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the Earth's temperature in the late 1800s, a time before humans began burning vast amounts of fossil fuels that have inexorably heated up the planet.
But the forecast was projected to ease slightly, primarily because a strong El Niño — a part of a natural climate cycle that had contributed to the intense heat — had faded by late last year. During El Niños, the planet is often warmer than usual. But during the other half of the cycle, called La Niña, it usually cools down. Earth flipped into the La Niña phase last year.
But the expected reprieve hasn't shown up. Instead, January broke yet more records: NOAA reported the month was the hottest January in its 176-year-long record. Copernicus, the European meteorological service that tracks global climate change, reported that January was 1.75 C (3.15 Fahrenheit) above historic levels.
Again—this is just at 429 ppm (the highest in 2 million years). There’s also a lag effect.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 14, 2025 at 02:41#9682800 likes
An interesting YouTube video called "UnbeliEVable! Why with Governments Like This in Charge, The EV is DOOMED" by "JayEmm on Cars"
JayEmm is from the UK (and is not related to MGUY :grin: )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8
It is a 32 minute video so I will just quote an interesting part. I may post other parts later.
========== begin quote ==========
I've discussed before, many times, the issues that you have if you don't have a driveway and the general expense of running an EV. In the last year or two prices for electric car charging have gone through the roof, but you already know that, this is not news to anybody.
But you see in the last couple of months there's a few friends of mine, one in particular - lovely chap called Chris, that have been on the hunt for an EV of their own and so I have been given a little bit more of an insight into this world that I know many of you already inhabit and I would appreciate greatly your feedback on.
The general gist in case you're wondering is that if you can charge at home on a driveway with good decent cheap night rate electricity your cost per mile to run a car could be as low as 2 p and there is no combustion engine vehicle out there that can or probably ever will come close to that.
The issue is that if you can't charge at home on a driveway then you are at the mercy of public charging points, and if you're in an inefficient EV your cost suddenly skyrockets to a point where you'd actually save money by driving an old V12 Mercedes. Bit nuts right. That's clearly not sustainable for an awful lot of people, but prices will go up, they will come down, and hopefully they will stabilize. But this is an area where I'd like a little bit more government intervention.
If it is true what [charging] companies are saying, that they simply cannot be a viable business without having to charge 80 P per kilowatt hour, then we've got a real problem because EVs were sold to a lot of people in the first wave under the guise of yes we know it's more expensive to buy but your total running costs are dramatically lower. Now they are more expensive to buy and more expensive to run.
========== end quote ==========
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 14, 2025 at 05:20#9683030 likes
Again—this is just at 429 ppm (the highest in 2 million years).
Look at the history of global living conditions.
Compare 1820 (with a CO2 level of about 284 ppm) and 2020 (with a CO2 level of about 414 ppm). An increase of about 130 ppm of CO2 in 200 years.
Would you rather live in 1820 or 2020 ?
The CO2 level and global living conditions have increased together.
The world has become better in many ways. e.g. the following areas: (not a complete list)
- poverty
- literacy
- health
- freedom
- education
- quality of life
- technology
The world population was around 1 billion in the year 1800 and increased more than eight-fold since then. The increase of the world population should evoke more than just doom and gloom. First of all, this increase shows a tremendous achievement. It shows that humans stopped dying at the rate at which our ancestors died for many millennia before.
The Industrial Revolution unlocked a whole new energy resource: fossil fuels. Fossil energy has been a fundamental driver of the technological, social, economic, and development progress that has followed. Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have, and continue to, play a dominant role in global energy systems. There are many problems that will occur if we try to shift away from fossil fuels too quickly. The change to renewable energy will continue, but it also has many risks associated with it.
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing— far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that it’s “too expensive” rather absurd).
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
[hide]Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few years back. Worth repeating periodically for any newcomers to the thread, as it’s a decent and brief introduction. [/hide]
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 14, 2025 at 23:36#9688260 likes
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
PowerChina, the project contractor, completed the project 42 days ahead of schedule in just 115 days by using pre-installed mounts and on-site assembly lines, which increased construction efficiency by 40%, despite the challenges of the plateau environment.
China will undoubtedly keep the lead in both solar and EVs. The US will regret falling so far behind. But at least they kept some Exxon shareholders happy for a few years.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 15, 2025 at 23:39#9692900 likes
Please watch this YouTube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, and think about whether it applies to climate science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg
Sabine Hossenfelder has a PhD in physics. She is author of the books "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" (Basic Books, 2018) and "Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions" (Viking, 2022).
unenlightenedFebruary 17, 2025 at 10:13#9698760 likes
Please watch this YouTube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, and think about whether it applies to climate science.
It does, but not in the way you think. Rather, the institutions, academic and governmental, downplay and even outright reject the more pessimistic papers and predictions, despite their having been proven accurate. Thus it is the voices I post here and below, that are marginalised and ignored in favour of more reassuring IPPC positions that everything can be sorted out in a few decades time.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 20, 2025 at 01:53#9706830 likes
China is currently considered to be the world leader in
- electric vehicles (EVs)
- solar energy
- wind power
- renewable energy
Being an alarmist, I was shocked to find this video on YouTube. In case you don't want to watch the video I will quote some of the content. Remember, China is currently considered to be the world leader in electric vehicles (EVs), solar energy, wind power, and renewable energy.
China’s Too Hot, No Power! 750,000 EV Owners Suffer, Queuing 10 Hours, Can’t Charge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx6Q9f-2Is&list=WL&index=4
This is from denier number 1
When I got here I thought at least a few charges would work. There are cars plugged in with no one inside them, but the charges aren't even working. What are they doing? They're waiting for midnight
when the power comes back so they can charge without waiting in line.
This is the most anxious that I've ever felt since driving an EV. It's not that I can't find a charging station. It's not about waiting for a charger. There are chargers here, but no electricity. I've only got a little bit of battery left. With so many electric cars on the road now, do you think these power restrictions are reasonable? At the second charging station there's still a power restriction. Can we charge at all? What time will the power be back on? Midnight. It's been like this everywhere in Chengdu lately. So there's no power at all.
Recently the Sichuan meteorological Observatory has issued several high temperature warnings with temperatures exceeding 40° C across the province. The extreme heat has caused tight electricity supplies leading to power restrictions in cities like Chengdu and Chongqing. This has affected Industrial and Commercial sectors, including the use of electric vehicle charging stations. As a result 750,000 new energy vehicle owners are facing difficulties charging their cars. Many have reported that electric vehicle
charging stations in Chengdu can't be used during the day and only become available late at night.
One ride hailing driver, using the alias Zang Way, shared his experience. He hadn't been
home for two days. On one night he started queuing around 9:00 p.m. and finally managed to charge his car at around 6:00 a.m., after waiting for nearly 10 hours. Zang explained that the regulation of public charging stations in Chengdu started around August 20th. At first he wasn't aware of the situation and went to queue at 5:00 a.m. as usual but by 8:00 a.m. the charging station had run out of power. With almost no battery left he had to stop at the charging station, missing an entire day of work. Since then he's been stuck in a routine of driving during the day and queuing for charging at night. He recalled one night when more than than 60 vehicles were lined up at a public charging station, stretching nearly a kilometer. Although the station had 36 chargers, only half were working due to power restrictions. It took about an hour for each car to charge meaning the entire queue would take four to 5 hours to clear. This isn't the first time Chengdu has experienced power restrictions. In 2022 high temperatures and drought led to widespread power cuts. The situation wasn't limited to Chengdu. Many cities across Central and western China face similar power issues. In 2023 several regions in China dealt with power cuts again and new energy vehicle owners will have to keep struggling. Sichuan's frequent summer power restrictions pose a big challenge for charging infrastructure. New energy vehicles heavily rely on this infrastructure which hasn't yet fully developed in Chengdu.
This is from denier number 2
As someone who's been driving electric cars for 5 years, let me tell you that I'll never buy an electric car again. My EV has a range of 420 km in theory, but only 200 km in reality, and only 150 km on the highway. Even an EV with a 600 km range only gives you just around 260 to 270 km, and that's when there's no traffic. If you get stuck in traffic, factoring in the towing fee and the time wasted, you do the math. Don't believe the hype that electricity is cheaper than gas. That's all nonsense that China has been pushing. The electric vehicle industry is offering subsidies and incentives, yet many people still choose to buy gasoline cars. Why is that?
Since the climate change threads are allowed to become a cesspool of denial and misinformation, I’m no longer posting on them— I’ve moved any serious discussion to private group chat. Feel free to message to join if you haven’t been invited already. :up:
Since the climate change threads are allowed to become a cesspool of denial and misinformation, I’m no longer posting on them— I’ve moved any serious discussion to private group chat. Feel free to message to join if you haven’t been invited already. :up:
I still don’t understand why the mods let evangelists keep infecting the lounge. I understand it’s more lose in there compared to the proper philosophical pages, but if there’s no moderation at all it just becomes infested with posters who are only here for the purpose of evangelical propaganda for their disinformation rants. They just infect every topic so there’s no point in any discussion.
Forum rules state
Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.
If someone is having an unpopular stance that’s fine, as long as they take as much care in their arguments as everyone else. But this constant spams of bullshit everywhere just makes the lounge impossible to be in.
Shouldn’t there be at least some minor standards? Where obvious evangelists and spammers get banned even from the lounge? If someone is a member here to clearly only post in a single thread over and over, that shouldn’t be allowed. That’s not what this site is about. These are spammers.
But having been a moderator myself, I can sympathize — you can’t be everywhere at once. I think perhaps most mods also have a different opinion on climate change. It’s fine— I’ll just discuss this particular topic privately and on other websites.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 03, 2025 at 11:32#9734870 likes
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.
Climate change alarmism meets this definition of evangelism.
Climate change alarmism meets this definition of evangelism.
You are basically only on this forum to spread disinformation about climate science. You basically interact with no other thread or category other than spam threads which focus on climate change and climate science.
I don't think anyone fit the category of forum rules against evangelism better than you do. Your only defense is that mods don't seem to care about topics in the lounge.
But I would argue that if a member is only ever posting on one subject, over and over, to the point of the creator of the thread having to change the title and intention of the thread to reflect your hijacking of it, that would warrant mods to take action.
I think perhaps most mods also have a different opinion on climate change.
Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 03, 2025 at 12:05#9734940 likes
This post was deleted to add new content. It will be reposted below.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 03, 2025 at 12:12#9734950 likes
You are basically only on this forum to spread disinformation about climate science.
You are an evangelist if you think that there is no disagreement about anything to do with climate change. I don't deny that climate change is happening. A lot of my posts are about whether the proposed solutions to climate change will work.
Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not.
I think that the mods can see that I am not denying climate change. Mikie is getting the titles of threads changed to suit his agenda. This is a dishonest thing to do. I will be creating a new thread to discuss whether changing the titles of threads is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.
You are an evangelist if you think that there is no disagreement about anything to do with climate change.
Disagreement does not equal scientific data and research being wrong. There are lots of uneducated and low intelligence people who disagree with facts all the time, which leads to "the existence of disagreement", but that doesn't make the uneducated and stupid in the right about anything. Such an idea is just an attempt at manipulating the debate. There are tons of people who believe in flat earth and who would use the same type of argument in an attempt to validate their stance.
What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?
That's not something someone who agrees with the science would say. It's something that climate science deniers usually says; a rhetoric aimed to bait a non-scientist to get lost in evidence data that requires the knowledge of climate scientists. It's a rhetoric that works against everyone but climate scientists who can provide and answer due to their deeper knowledge of the subject. Because it doesn't matter if the actual evidence is provided; the interlocutors do not know how to interconnect specific data with the holistic understanding of the subject and through that the denier claims victory without actually having won any argument. These rhetorical strategies are dishonest and hollow, and for anyone observant of such behavior, a clear indicator of who the person is and what they attempt to accomplish.
I will be creating a new thread to discuss whether changing the titles of threads is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.
He started a thread that has been hijacked by climate science deniers to the point an actual discourse is impossible. For you to call that unethical, one can turn it around and ask if it's ethical to spam a thread to the point the OP gives up on even trying to continue it. Who are you to place yourself on a moral high ground like that? Isn't that rather delusional and arrogant?
And a further point, the destructive use of censorship is something done by official institutions and governments. It is not applicable to other individuals, especially not within a construct they've created. If they create a place of discussion about something and someone doesn't follow the intention of that space, it is not censorship to silence those who disrupts things for the people there. This use of the concept of censorship in your rhetoric is another form of dishonest manipulative rhetoric aimed at painting your opposition as dishonest. You attempt to bootstrap yourself to a higher moral ground. But as always, it's obvious to anyone who's ever been involved in online debates. It's also rather clumsy to attempt to use that rhetoric when the entire right-wing culture at the moment have proved just how dysfunctional that rhetoric is by Musk's treatment of the concept of censorship on X. It should be obvious to all nowadays that the idea of censorship and free speech by certain people in society follows that trend of claiming to be arguing for free speech and opposing censorship, while then trying to control the flow of communication to align with their own ideology.
In that regard, it would also be a form of censorship to spam a discussion so much that people can't have a proper discussion anymore. I would argue that this form of rhetoric is a hidden form of silencing people far more than the people trying to govern discourse manners - A rhetoric in the same operation as DoS attacks towards websites. This type of DoS rhetoric functions in the same "denial of service" way, pushing so much noise into discussions that it becomes impossible for honest interlocutors to have a proper discussion. Essentially drowning out the flow off discussion with the noise of bullshit.
So I would be careful lecturing others on unethical behavior like you want to attempt.
Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not.
No I don’t think so— I meant they take climate change as more nuanced and legitimate thing to debate than, say, Holocaust history. I don’t really view it that way, but it’s not my forum. I’ve said my piece already, and I leave it to others to decide.
As far as the threads go— I created it years ago, and it basically devolved into a receptacle for denialist spam. So since I created it, I can also change it. If someone else wants to create another climate change thread, they’re welcome to. But until it’s better moderated, I see no point in continuing.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 03, 2025 at 13:35#9735060 likes
The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.
What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?
Are YOU being a science denier? Do you deny these scientific facts:
- The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial
- it regularly moves between the 2 states
- We are currently in an interglacial
- the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials
- The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial
Do you admit that you are a science denier?
Here is the evidence that I posted in a separate post to support my statements. It is from a scientific source.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 03, 2025 at 13:39#9735070 likes
Your attempt of bait-rhetorics won't work. You're only on this forum to DoS climate debates. As long as mods tolerate this, there won't be any good discussions on the topic. You win, or whatever the fuck you attempt to do.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 03, 2025 at 13:48#9735120 likes
As far as the threads go— I created it years ago, and it basically devolved into a receptacle for denialist spam. So since I created it, I can also change it
Mikie. That thread has been in existence for 4 years and contains 3.9K posts. Hundreds of people have posted on this thread knowing that the thread title was "Climate change (general discussion)". You are disrespecting all of the people who have posted on this thread by changing the title to "Science denial".
What you have done is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.
Just because you created a thread doesn't mean that you own it. Once created the thread belongs to The Philosophy Forum.
I think that the MODS should look at what you are doing !!!
Do what I do: put idiots on the ignore list. You don’t see anything they post. Then they can talk to themselves. In the meantime, I suggest private correspondence or Reddit.
unenlightenedMarch 03, 2025 at 16:45#9735430 likes
Here is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it.
Here is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it.
Sometimes I wonder what your comprehension level is. As usual you have totally misrepresented this video.
The person talking in this video is Michael Kelly, professor emeritus of technology at the University of Cambridge. Kelly was a government scientist when the Climate Change Act launched in 2008, and has been researching the reduction of carbon in Britain since then.
Nowhere in the entire video does he say that climate science is wrong.
He talks about how we don't have the money, the workforce, or the materials, to achieve Net Zero.
Why don't you watch the video before jumping to incorrect conclusions?
Here is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it.
— unenlightened
Sometimes I wonder what your comprehension level is. As usual you have totally misrepresented this video.
The person talking in this video is Michael Kelly, professor emeritus of technology at the University of Cambridge. Kelly was a government scientist when the Climate Change Act launched in 2008, and has been researching the reduction of carbon in Britain since then.
Nowhere in the entire video does he say that climate science is wrong.
He talks about how we don't have the money, the workforce, or the materials, to achieve Net Zero.
Why don't you watch the video before jumping to incorrect conclusions?
Ah, happy days are here again!
Everything he says about the lack of a realistic plan and the vast expense that government commitments imply is pretty much true. Those commitments are not going to be met. I knew you'd like it!
But several times, in passing, he claims without giving any detail or evidence that climate models are unreliable, and are overestimating the disruption and rate of change. Thus he solves the insoluble problem by denying its existence, and implying as you always do, that climate scientists are pretending in order to further their careers. This is done of course to further his own career - because no one ever wants to hear unalloyed bad news. :cool:
Why do you imagine I post videos I haven't watched? Or that I haven't somewhat comprehended?
Here is the evidence that I posted in a separate post to support my statements. It is from a scientific source.
I have already explained that global temperature and sea level rise are lagging indicators to atmospheric CO2 levels, because CO2 acts as an insulator not a direct heat source. The rapid increase in CO2 levels due to fossil fuel burning is only now beginning to have an effect. the radiative balance of the Earth has changed and the planet surface will continue to warm until a new balance is achieved. meanwhile, as we begin to overheat, we continue to add another duvet or two.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 04, 2025 at 11:01#9737850 likes
Thus he solves the insoluble problem by denying its existence, and implying as you always do, that climate scientists are pretending in order to further their careers. This is done of course to further his own career
According to Wikipedia:
Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET
Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge He is 75 YEARS OLD
I don't think that he is very interested in "furthering his own career".
You have jumped to another incorrect conclusion. :scream:
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 04, 2025 at 11:37#9737920 likes
But several times, in passing, he claims without giving any detail or evidence that climate models are unreliable, and are overestimating the disruption and rate of change.
You might be interested in some of the highlights of Professor Michael Kelly's career.
- He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993 and won its Hughes Medal in 2006
- He was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government
- He was elected in 1998 as a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering
- In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy). The panel concluded that there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET is highly qualified in science and engineering.
FRS = Fellow of the Royal Society
FREng = Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering
FIET = Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology
How many climate scientists are as qualified as Professor Michael Kelly?
unenlightenedMarch 04, 2025 at 20:24#9739300 likes
How many climate scientists are as qualified as Professor Michael Kelly?
I think almost any climate scientist would be more qualified to speak on climate science than Kelly. If you need a plumber, don't consult an electrician, or a plasterer.
...
There are many problems that will occur if we try to shift away from fossil fuels too quickly. The change to renewable energy will continue, but it also has many risks associated with it.
Is this pretty much what your position is that you're advocating for?
Like, in linking CO2 to prosperity, and in talking about the dangers of EV's and the intelligence of people who like them -- you're thesis is "We shouldn't change too quickly because they're useful, and there are many risks associated with too fast a rate of change"
Like, in linking CO2 to prosperity, and in talking about the dangers of EV's and the intelligence of people who like them
I don't think that I have ever said that the people who like EV's are not intelligent. In certain circumstances they are a good thing. But many people don't live in circumstances where an EV works well. People should be allowed to make their own decision about what type of vehicle is best for them. Many governments are trying to force people into EV's using mandates or effective mandates. Doing this is not intelligent.
you're thesis is "We shouldn't change too quickly because they're useful, and there are many risks associated with too fast a rate of change"
Yes, that more or less is my thesis. There are many areas where gasoline vehicles are currently better than EV's. Some examples of problems with moving to EV's too quickly are:
- power grid capacity
- need to upgrade power infrastructure
- need to have more EV charging stations (owning EV charging stations is not a very profitable business)
- lithium battery fires
- many EV's have poor performance in real world conditions (e.g. range, using the heater, length of time to charge, queuing at charging stations, slower changing in cold weather)
- EV batteries have poor performance when too hot or too cold
- can be a problem in emergencies (e.g. getting away from wildfires)
- traditional automakers being closed down (the loss of many jobs, not just direct jobs but also many third party businesses)
-
There are many other problems but that is enough for now.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 05, 2025 at 05:57#9740320 likes
I think almost any climate scientist would be more qualified to speak on climate science than Kelly. If you need a plumber, don't consult an electrician, or a plasterer.
I repeat again, he was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government.
In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy).
Why do you think he was chosen to do an independent scientific assessment of "climategate"?
Investigating "climategate" must have given him a lot of insight into the world of climate models and how reliable or unreliable they are.
Climate models primarily use physics, chemistry, and fluid dynamics to represent the Earth's climate system through mathematical equations, essentially applying the fundamental laws of these sciences to simulate how energy and matter interact within the atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces.
Professor Kelly is a physicist.
And the icing on the cake, Professor Kelly has engineering skills which no climate scientist has. If you need an engineer, don't consult with a climate scientist.
But many people don't live in circumstances where an EV works well. People should be allowed to make their own decision about what type of vehicle is best for them. Many governments are trying to force people into EV's using mandates or effective mandates. Doing this is not intelligent....
There are many other problems but that is enough for now.
Which governments are using force to get people into EV's?
It seems to me when you say "Don't move too quickly" I can't think of a single government that is moving at all. So I'm left wondering which specific countries are doing what specific things?
At present people are able to allowed to make their own decisions about what type of vehicle is best for them.
But note how it's not addressing the issue: CO2 levels continue to rise, and the various predictions linked to that continue to be true.
I'm going to propose a rate -- suppose we waited to do anything about climate change until after your life. That way you can choose whatever vehicle you want, but the next generation will have to tighten their belt.
This need not be read too literally. In a way what we are to the industrial revolution this future generation will be to us -- the industrial revolution inherited the benefits of "free" energy because it was later generations who pay the price of trying to figure out how to support billions of people with a resource that is finite, and which is continuing to warm the planet.
In fact I'd like to suggest that this is what we are presently choosing: To let our children's children to deal with the problem so we can have the freedom of individual choice in the market and everything feels normal.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 05, 2025 at 11:01#9740580 likes
Which governments are using force to get people into EV's?
If you ask ChatGPT the question "which countries have electric vehicle ev mandates, it lists the following:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. European Union
4. United Kingdom
5. China
6. India
7. Japan
8. South Korea
It seems to me when you say "Don't move too quickly" I can't think of a single government that is moving at all. So I'm left wondering which specific countries are doing what specific things?
Probably the best known mandate is the UK's. The UK government has now enacted the ZEV Mandate into law, which officially came into force from 3rd January 2024.
This has brought the UK to be more in line with EU countries and Canada.
Here is a summary:
- There is an imposition on car manufacturers to sell a percentage of ZEVs every year. This percentage is set to increase over time, until by the year 2035 it should be at 100%.
- ZEV sales made by car manufacturers will be converted into certificates. The sellers will need to hold a certain number of certificates by the end of each year to avoid fines.
- For car manufacturers who fail to reach the set target, there is the possibility of either trading certificates with other car manufacturers who managed to exceed the target, or else be fined £15,000 per car.
- There are separate targets for CO2 emissions in order to help in regulating non-ZEVs.
I'm going to propose a rate -- suppose we waited to do anything about climate change until after your life. That way you can choose whatever vehicle you want, but the next generation will have to tighten their belt.
Many people, including me, can't afford to buy an EV. Will you give me one for free? My current gasoline car, which is 14 years old, will probably last me until I die.
In fact I'd like to suggest that this is what we are presently choosing: To let our children's children to deal with the problem so we can have the freedom of individual choice in the market and everything feels normal.
Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us? Will our children's children be intelligent or stupid? Won't technology become better with time?
Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us?
No.
Will our children's children be intelligent or stupid?
It wouldn't matter either way; we're clever enough to see a problem, but stupid enough to want to keep it.
Won't technology become better with time?
No.
The issue of climate change is a political, not an engineering, problem. We already have the means to address it in terms of the science -- we just don't want to because we like the way things are, so we imagine that there's going to be a future invention that will save us.
In terms of science that's about as good as praying to Jesus Christ. It makes sense to believe in it, but there's no reason to do so.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 05, 2025 at 11:37#9740620 likes
We already have the means to address it in terms of the science
There are many problems with the proposed solutions. Many of those problems are financial and engineering type problems. Science has not solved those problems.
My view of the situation is an honest appraisal based upon what we are doing, what we know, and what we are able to do.
What we are doing is hoping the future figures it out, when we have the means to address climate change in terms of our engineering and scientific knowledge.
Or, really, that the future is the one who pulls the lever.
What I see is a bunch of adults hoping that the children of tomorrow are bigger adults than they are after they die; leaving very little of an example for our children to learn from.
Or, in the worst of cases, saying that the future will birth a bright genius who will save the world. That's a familiar story that's told in more than scientific lingo. That's asking for Jesus Christ to solve the problem: It may stave off pessimism, but it's still scientifically false.
Sure! You’re a risible, triggered little imbecile you can’t stop commenting or following me around. You’re right, it is fun! We know you lack the maturity or emotional regulation to move along, so I look forward to continuing. :grin:
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree I don't have one, because I am adult. It seems Mikie not only needs an ignore list, he chooses, instead, to lean into everything that could show his childish side. Not my circus :P
Reply to Mikie I'm waiting for something a bit more on the nose...
What a model of self control and polite conversation. Like most sanctimonious twits.
But keep following me around, by all means. I don’t know who you are or why you have a beef, but so be it. Whatever I said in the past must have really triggered you —very glad to see it demonstrated again and again. :up: (And glad to have the opportunity to embarrass you repeatedly for the posturing runt you are.)
And since risible guy is also a huge hypocrite, I’ll eagerly await his next witty remark (which is really simply the ability to move on and the compulsion to get the all important “last word”) while pretending to be above it all.
Again — no wonder he’s a laughingstock here. Glad that I can contribute in displaying it publicly.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 06, 2025 at 22:02#9743360 likes
I was only joking about me having an ignore list. I don't want to miss out on Mikie's pearls of wisdom (wink, wink. :rofl: )
One of the things that I like about Mikie is that I don't have to spend any time making Mikie look foolish and immature. He does a great job of that himself. . :scream:
unenlightenedMarch 09, 2025 at 12:26#9748200 likes
This is somewhat off topic, because it doesn't deny fossil fuel effects, but merely ignores them. But we all love Milankovitch Cycles don't we?
Reply to unenlightened
I first learned about milankivitch cycles from a library book that was published in 1970. It's ok to talk about the Earth's wobble without mentioning climate change. It's just one of many factors in natural climate change that goes all the way from the water at the equator being close to a boil (thermal maximum at the time primates first evolved) to the entire oceanic surface freezing so that they really aren't sure how life made it through that (that was caused by too little CO2.) That was a real mass extinction. We are not having a mass extinction right now. Not even close. A scientist who specializes in mass extinctions says that people who think we're having a mass extinction just don't understand the term. How's that from climate denial? :joke:
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 13, 2025 at 05:39#9757560 likes
Reducing pollution accelerates global warming. How do we solve this catch-22?
This article was published on 02 November 2023
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/11/02/reducing-pollution-accelerates-global-warming-how-do-we-solve-this-catch-22
Air pollution, a global scourge that kills millions of people a year, is shielding us from the full force of the sun.
Stripped of its toxic shield, which scatters and reflects solar radiation, China's average temperatures have gone up by 0.7 degrees Celsius since 2014 (note - this is since 2014, not since pre-industrial times).
This has triggered fiercer heatwaves, according to a review of meteorological data by news agency Reuters and confirmed by six leading climate experts.
The removal of the air pollution - a term scientists call 'unmasking' - may have had a greater effect on temperatures in some industrial Chinese cities over the last decade than the warming from greenhouse gases themselves, the scientists say.
They say efforts to improve air quality could actually push the world into catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts.
"Aerosols are masking one-third of the heating of the planet," says Paulo Artaxo, an environmental physicist and lead author of the chapter on short-lived climate pollutants in the most recent round of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), completed this year.
"If you implement technologies to reduce air pollution, this will accelerate - very significantly - global warming in the short term."
During heatwaves, the unmasking effect can be even more pronounced. Laura Wilcox, a climate scientist who studies the effects of aerosols at the UK's University of Reading, says a computer simulation showed that the rapid decline in SO2 in China could raise temperatures on extreme-heat days by as much as 2C.
Which scenario do you prefer?
1) - have air pollution and lower temperatures and kill millions of people a year
2) - have improved air quality and higher temperatures and potentially catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts and possibly kill billions of people
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 18, 2025 at 12:16#9766960 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree Do you think we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels for 150+ years and not have a catastrophic effect on the climate? Isn't that something a child would believe? Even if you knew nothing of atmospheric science and someone said, "hey, let's dig up all this coal and oil and natural gas and burn it year after year" wouldn't you think maybe that's not a good idea?
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 19, 2025 at 04:23#9769810 likes
Nothing that I said disagrees with what you said. I said that climate change is not a scam, which implies that it is real.
Saying that climate change is a circus, a fiasco, and a gravy train, is a statement about the lack of progress, the unrealistic goals, the blaming of the wrong people, the way that certain groups are protesting, the fact that not enough people are actually willing to do much or pay much to combat climate change, the fact that governments that are more right wing are being voted in and they often don't take climate change seriously, the efforts to force people into EV's, the lack of infrastructure to support efforts to fight climate change, the pushing of unreliable renewable energy at the expense of reliable energy based on fossil fuels, etc., etc.
Reply to RogueAI Most of us who see Mikie is a completely unhinged child do agree with this. For my part, i've never suggested otherwise. He's not often wrong, he's just a patently aggressive, disrespectful and emotionally immature person.
Perhaps "existential" is a bit far in my book, but that's due to something other than "the case right now"
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 19, 2025 at 22:25#9771550 likes
Don't underestimate jesters. Here are some great quotes about jesters:
Jesters do often prove prophets. --- Joseph Addison
Even in the most repressive medieval kingdoms, they understood the need for the court jester, the one soul allowed to tell the truth through laughter. --- Joe Randazzo
The jester is brother to the sage. --- Arthur Koestler
An unemployed jester is nobody's fool. --- Danny Kaye. :rofl:
I see climate change as a threat, but not really an existential threat.
I think that there is a lot of exaggeration going on.
If you mean the human species will continue, I tend to agree. I don't see us getting wiped out by climate change. But I think we could lose a big chunk of our population if we don't get our act together. That being said, I feel sorry for the developing countries that are late to the party and want to expand their middle class with cheap fossil fuel powered energy the way the first world countries all did, and now they're being told they can't do that. Well, they're going to go ahead and do it anyway.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 20, 2025 at 01:02#9771740 likes
He's not often wrong, he's just a patently aggressive, disrespectful and emotionally immature person.
Only to disingenuous, sanctimonious internet twits. I agree it’s a waste of time — and childish — to lower myself to your level. Can’t help myself. Pretentious pukes should be resisted at every instance — that’s my philosophy.
This turned out prophetic: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/974319
Genuinely worried you're mentally ill. I am not being disingenuous. Your behaviour mirrors my bipolar brother. I will refrain from further comment , leaving this as reasoning for same.
Projection. It’s fairly obvious you’re mentally ill, given that you’ve held some kind of a grudge for literally years (even after being ignored for that amount of time), follow me around, slander and insult me unprovoked, and then continue to obsessively respond even after weeks have passed. All the while trying to maintain an air of being above it all, as if you weren’t the psychopath in this scenario. Being in psychology myself, this is very typical. You see it with most narcissists and sociopaths.
I’ve alerted the moderators already to your behavior.
Anyway- I can see now why I would have put you on the ignore extension, especially given that your other “contributions” are fatuous and remind me of someone who pretends to know it all because they recently took an undergraduate philosophy class.
Scientific article: phys.org from March 11, 2025
Permian mass extinction linked to 10°C global temperature rise that reshaped Earth's ecosystems
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-permian-mass-extinction-linked-10c.html
Great Wikipedia information on "Extinction Events":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Great Wikipedia information on "Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction Event'":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
unenlightenedMarch 25, 2025 at 12:27#9784790 likes
Recent article from LiveScience:
Ancient Egyptian city of Alexandria — the birthplace of Cleopatra — is crumbling into the sea at an unprecedented rate: By Jess Thomson published March 4, 2025
Key point: Coastal erosion from rising sea levels has led to the collapse of 280 buildings across Alexandria, Egypt, over the past two decades.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/ancient-egyptian-city-of-alexandria-the-birthplace-of-cleopatra-is-crumbling-into-the-sea-at-an-unprecedented-rate
New peer-reviewed paper in AGUPubs:
Soaring Building Collapses in Southern Mediterranean Coasts: Hydroclimatic Drivers & Adaptive Landscape Mitigations
First published: 12 February 2025
Link: https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004883
Parts of San Francisco and Los Angeles are sinking into the sea — meaning sea-level rise will be even worse: By Patrick Pester published February 13, 2025
Key points: A study led by NASA and NOAA has found that California is sinking in some areas, which means the projected sea level rise for parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco has doubled.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/parts-of-san-francisco-and-los-angeles-are-sinking-into-the-sea-meaning-sea-level-rise-will-be-even-worse
I watched this video and I couldn't stop laughing when I saw how incredibly unscientific Paul Beckwith is.
Here is the "About Paul Beckwith" from his YouTube channel.
Paul Beckwith:Well known climate system science educator; joining the dots on abrupt climate change. Occasional part-time professor (sessional/contract instructor) in Geography (on climatology, oceanography, environmental issues) at University of Ottawa. Physicist. Engineer. Master's Degree in Science in Laser Optics, Bachelors of Engineering, in Engineering Physics. Won Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario gold medal. Also interested in climate solutions, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
These qualifications sound very impressive and you would think that an occasional part-time professor in Geography (on climatology, oceanography, environmental issues) at University of Ottawa would know what he is doing. Instead, what I am about to show you proves that Paul Beckwith is an educated idiot. This makes a nice change from most climate fanatics and alarmists who are uneducated idiots.
In this video Beckwith discusses an article based on a new peer-reviewed paper that just came out recently, which talks about how the Permian mass extinction is now linked to a 10° Celsius global temperature rise which completely reshaped the Earth's ecosystems on both the land and in the ocean. The mass extinction was caused by huge volcanoes erupting and releasing 100,000 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere very rapidly.
No problems so far. But then a scientific statement appears in the article about the peer-reviewed paper which isn't alarmist enough for Beckwith. The article says:
This framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system in response to the present-day CO2 increase. If this increase continues at the same rate, we will reach the level of emissions that caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction in around 2,700 years—a much faster timescale than the Permian-Triassic Boundary emissions.
What is Paul Beckwith's comment about this statement? The transcript for the video shows Paul Beckwith's commentary. He says:
Paul Beckwith:[...] it lets us understand tipping behavior today in the climate system in response to present day CO2 increases and it says uh you know it it says if the increase continues at the same rate we'd reach the level of emissions that caused the KT mass extinction it would take thousands of years but you know this is assuming this is not accounting for tipping point so this is I don't know why this statement is really in there [...]
Firstly he misinterprets what the statement from the article says, even though he just read it out in the video. The article says "This framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system in response to the present-day CO2 increase.". Paul Beckwith responds with "but you know this is assuming this is not accounting for tipping point". But the article just said (and Paul Beckwith just read out) that the framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system.
Secondly (and this is even funnier), the fact that it will take about 2,700 years to reach the level of emissions that caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction doesn't suit Paul Beckwith's agenda. Paul Beckwith wants to create immediate panic and 2,700 years is unlikely to cause immediate panic for many/most people.
So Paul Beckwith says "[...] it would take thousands of years [...] so this is I don't know why this statement is really in there [...]".
Here is a clue Paul Beckwith. The statement is there because the scientists who wrote the paper, and the scientists who peer-reviewed the paper, thought that the statement was revenant and true. If you can't see that then you are an idiot. Real scientists try to avoid putting incorrect statements in their papers.
Real scientists don't want you to ignore what they wrote. If you ignore what the scientists wrote then you are a science denier.
unenlightenedMarch 25, 2025 at 14:06#9784880 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree Yes I agree with you, there were some careless comments there. It's a video, not a scientific paper. But then I don't think anyone is suggesting we are heading for 10 degrees of warming any time soon. I have seen 6 suggested but 3 or 4 is more often the figure.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree
During the Permian extinction there was so much crap in the atmosphere that the partial pressure of O2 went from 35% all the way down to 12%. It's 21% now, and that's what we need to survive. If the PO2 went down to 12% again, most living things on land and in the oceans would die.
A mass extinction is like this: imagine a car that goes through a lot of hardship, but keeps running. Finally a point is reached where a critical component of the engine falters and the whole engine stops. During a mass extinction, there's a fundamental breakdown in the mechanics of the biosphere. This has happened several times. There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 26, 2025 at 11:35#9786910 likes
I saw this comment in the comments section of a YouTube video.
97% of climate scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded. The science is settled !!!
:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 26, 2025 at 11:54#9786930 likes
There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all.
Which mass extinction are you referring to?
What is your definition of life? Does it include bacteria and archaea? Does it include ecosystems that are found around hydrothermal vents? These ecosystems support specialised life forms like giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish, all adapted to the extreme conditions of the deep ocean, and relying on chemosynthesis for energy.
You are correct that funding is necessary for most things. But the important question is whether the results of the funding are worth (or likely to be worth) the cost.
There is also the question of whether the funds could have been better used elsewhere.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 26, 2025 at 20:23#9787890 likes
What is your definition of life?
— Agree-to-Disagree
I don't think there is one.
Okay, I will reword my question to make it easier to answer.
Are bacteria and archaea alive?
Are the organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents alive? The types of organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents include giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish.
97% of climate scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded. The science is settled !!!
The science was settled decades before these scientists started work on climate change. After which fossil fuel corporations pumped lots of cash into discrediting it.
This notion of scientists saying whatever will secure their funding is nonsense, conspiracy, populist claptrap.
Okay, I will reword my question to make it easier to answer.
Are bacteria and archaea alive?
Are the organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents alive? The types of organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents include giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish.
Yes. And?
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 27, 2025 at 02:51#9788910 likes
During a mass extinction, there's a fundamental breakdown in the mechanics of the biosphere. This has happened several times. There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all.
I am pointing out that even in a major mass extinction there are still many living things that will survive.
If "they" are still not sure how life survived at all in that mass extinction then it shows that "they" are lacking knowledge and are exaggerating. Unless the whole planet explodes life will continue.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree You’ve put the cart before the horse. Those concerns fund their scientists to defend market share. The concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. Economics does come into it at the next stage, inevitably.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 27, 2025 at 09:39#9789230 likes
The concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks.
You say that the concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. Doesn't that put pressure on climate change scientists to find and highlight risks? If climate change scientists don't find risks, or find positives about climate change, then they will be defunded. There is pressure to give the concern the results that they want.
Comments (3959)
Lol. Yeah, it must not be happening. Keep plugging your eyes and ears — it’s fun to watch.
Quoting Tzeentch
You should be sure— because they are. Hence why they’re retreating. See above. Also, it’s 10 millimeters, not 2. Sorry you can’t read.
Yeah. Thank god we have these [s]climate scientists[/s] skeptical geniuses on the thread to inform us as to why there’s no reason to worry, and no reason to do anything. It’s not flooding where they live, so what’s the problem?
Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah.
Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere.
What mainly has to be taken into account is that so far it is mainly sea ice we have been losing, and sea ice loss doesn't raise sea levels unless the ice is well grounded. Most of the small rise so far has been due to the expansion of water with rise of temperature, and some glacier loss. But it's only just begun.
Greenland ice is going to take some time to melt, but it is almost certainly going to melt. Those interested in fake physics will foolishly believe that melting ice absorbs a great deal of heat because of the latent heat associated with a change of state. Those doom merchants will think that there is another reason why things have not quite gotten as bad as they might otherwise have. Latent heat is one of those things they used to propagandise us with in physics lessons back in the 60's.
From here
That's a separate thing, though also significant. The latent heat thing is that you have to add some heat to ice at 0°C to turn it into water at 0°C, and that extra energy is called latent heat. It is the energy required to break the chemical bonds that form the crystalline structure of ice. The same thing happens with boiling water. You have to keep adding heat to turn the water into vapour, and the water doesn't get any hotter, it just vaporises. That's why the potatoes don't burn until the pot has boiled dry.
So all the time extra energy is melting ice, that energy isn't raising the temperature. And there's lots of ice to melt. So it's only just begun.
The albedo change is a positive feedback loop that produces one of the notorious 'tipping points'. As ice melts, the planet darkens and absorbs more heat. It is generally accepted that we are heading for an ice free N.pole in summer, in a few years rather than a few decades. And then the Greenland ice sheet is going to be exposed on all sides and looking vey lonesome.
Quoting Mikie
Is NASA a biased source?
Quoting NASA
3.4 millimeters per year is a lot less than 10 millimeters per year. Sorry you can't read, Mikie.
Here is some information about long term rates of sea level rise.
Quoting Wikipedia (IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers)
So the sea level was rising by 1-2 mm per year even before global warming started. How do the people who are concerned about sea level rise explain that?
Yeah, that was called satire. Not surprised you missed that.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
No, the article cited, which he was responding to, was very clear: 10 mm. Sorry you can’t read.
Also, even 3.4 (which is indeed accurate) is more than 2. So even with your adolescent attempts at a “gotcha” moment, you still look like an ignoramus.
Cool to see you never tire of embarrassing yourself though.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Lol. Yeah, because global warming started in 2018.
:roll: Good lord.
Might as well complete the article— because it is actually interesting for those interested in more than cherry picking to score points on the internet:
Fits several of our visitors on this thread to a tee. Worth posting occasionally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
So when did global warming start?
Let's try another approach. The big oil companies have billions of dollars at their disposal. They can afford to hire any number of top climatologists. If they could demonstrate - using good science - that
- Global warming is not happening at all
- It's happening but it's caused by some hitherto unknown natural phenomena
that person or persons would become among the most famous scientists who ever lived. Why have they (big oil companies) not done this?
[s]Anthropogenic climate change, which is what this thread is about, is the result of human activities— namely, pumping out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in enormous quantities. Particularly the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.
The burning of coal, oil, and gas was a major part of the Industrial Revolution, of course. That’s roughly 1750-onward.[/s]
Eh…nevermind. It’s not happening. Or rather the climate always changes and the science isn’t clear. Or whatever.
I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust.
Quoting Tzeentch
Here is where i have a problem with trusting you and the honesty of your scepticism. When I look at the venality of academia, I see three possibilities.
First, a systematic distortion produced by vested interests with power and money is possible and has happened. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Guns, big Defence. There is no Big Wind, or Big Solar, so I discount that in this case, only the opposite distortion by Big Oil is remotely likely and the evidence of their activity is not hard to find and works to undermine and minimise, not to exaggerate.
Second, there is a natural tendency for any discipline to big itself up and make itself important. But geologists and climate scientists already have a massive market for their ideas and predictions in the commercial field, and are not making themselves popular with predictions of collapse. On the contrary, the more pessimistic predictors are losing their jobs.
Third, there is always a market on the internet for the odd maverick or contrarian feeding any conspiracy theory, or other special interest. But this of its nature cannot apply to the consensus of climate scientists.
So I am asking you for a proper justification of your scepticism in this case, rather than just innuendo. Who is distorting and why is it so widespread and systematic, and how is it profiting anyone?
Astronomy is complicated, hard to understand and based on indirect and estimated measurement, extrapolating from sparse evidence using complicated statistics. These are reasons to be cautious and flexible about its findings, but one does not hear accusations of grift about the big bang or cosmic inflation.
Is this because you think we need a democratic initiative to find a solution, so skepticism diminishes our efforts?
Or is it just that skepticism itself is irritating? Or both?
This is excellent. Well said sir.
But don’t you know it’s about control, and that the big Green lobby stands to make billions— and Bill Gates and George Soros and scientists have been wrong before and Greta Thunberg is a patsy and so on…
https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/11/residents-defiant-as-village-set-to-be-abandoned-to-rising-sea-levels-15582361/
I'm guessing a lot of people are in this situation.
It’s happening all around us, constantly — and trusting a graph doesn’t require much strain.
But it’s funny to have such doubts about science, yet repeat wholesale the demonstrable propaganda of oil companies. Apparently they’re trustworthy. Keen judgment.
Some low-brow attempt to shove me into the camp of the oil companies? :brow:
Not at all. Just seems to me for someone claiming such skepticism about institutions, that skepticism about the propaganda of oil companies seems disproportionately thin.
Yet you repeat their propaganda verbatim. What a coincidence.
But anyway, you missed the point entirely. I’m not shocked.
Yes of course. Us peons couldn't possibly understand the the variable approximations of numerous models that get averaged out to give us a low resolution picture of how the climate will have changed in 100 years. Yes, we should just shut up when the politicians interpret all this hyper-accurate data and accept whatever they tell us. I'm sure there is no ulterior agenda.
The proximal vector in the multiplexed zone retraces the inferior Fibonacci levels to localize on the scale of dimensional applications.
I have never heard such a precise and clear explanation of the weather. Does this apply to the fluid dynamics of both clouds and water vapor?
The Little Ice Age
The IPCC talks about it quite a bit. Since it ended in the 1850s, it means North America has been warming up since then. It's yet another reason we use computer models instead of looking out the window to understand the climate.
Did you happen to look at the graph on the Wikipedia page? Look at what happened to the temperature at the beginning of the 21st Century.
Frank, you seem to have very strong faith in super computers and their output. Are you familiar with GIGO (garbage in garbage out).
I have been a computer programmer for about 40 years. Whether the output is realistic depends on using correctly written software. There are many assumptions made when writing a climate model, and then of course there are bugs.
Some people believe that using a super computer just lets you make mistakes more quickly.
What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)?
I like it. What are your thoughts?
Oh yea? Give an example.
I think that AI is a two-edged sword. It could have very good consequences, or very bad consequences. It will probably have both.
Many of the products and services that claim to have or use AI at the moment don't really have AI. It is used as a marketing ploy and an excuse to have a higher price.
Scammers and people who want to cheat will be able to use AI to help them scam and cheat.
AI must get its information from somewhere. This is likely to include the internet. This is worrying because 80% of the stuff on the internet is crap. GIGO (or in this case CICO - crap in crap out)
When I started computer programming 40 years ago, computers were fairly new. People were in awe of computers and accepted as true anything that came out of a computer. I see the same thing happening now with AI. People are in awe of AI and tend to believe anything that an AI does or says.
I bookmark articles on AI. Especially the ones where AI is wrong, stupid, or causes people to lose a lot of money. Some of the articles are quite funny.
Quoting metro.co.uk
Quoting insider.com
Is it really artificial intelligence when a person is controlling the AI to restrict what the AI can do or say? Or restrict what the AI can't do or say.
Quoting rollingstone.com
Then you know the difference between a chat bot and a climate model.
So you are blowing smoke like a well paid climate denier.
This is a level of disinformation that you really should be ashamed of, and if I were a moderrator I would be banning you for proselytising.
I'm mainly familiar with AI art generation. It opens up new doors for creativity.
I haven't used the AI answer generator except I once asked it a question about Kierkegaard and its answer blew my mind. It was so insightful. How could it have come from an unconscious machine? It's crazy. Turing would be amazed.
Hi Frank. I am not sure whether you are being ironic or gullible. :grin:
I did.
That's the quintessential truth, Ruth.
800,000 years ago, hominid species were one of many species, with absolutely zero contribution above and beyond their biological needs. And that was the case right up until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In case you hadn’t noticed, humans have since then not only increased massively in number, approaching 8 billion in the coming year, they’ve also devised an enormous number of impactful technologies which have demonstrably affected the environment generally and the atmosphere in particular. This is utterly beyond dispute, it is a matter of empirical fact, no matter your sophisticated obfuscation.
Generally speaking, a good recommendation, with the caveat that the interlocutor also ought not feel as though they’ve ’won the argument’.
That has been tried.
and tried.
And now it is too late. Governments have met and done very little; people have spend their lives trying to protect environments and failed.
No one wants to hear the news, but the human population is going to crash, with immense suffering and the collapse of governments. Optimism is entirely inappropriate. An entirely different mindset is required, of mourning, resignation, and stoical compassion. It is time to consider what there is of value in our civilisation that we might be able to rescue some remnant of, for the future. Chat GPT will not be high on my list. It sounds like Eddy the ship's computer, when Marvin the paranoid android would be more useful and appropriate.
Speaking of Douglas Adams, here is a little irony of the programme series "Last Chance to See"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Chance_to_See_(TV_series)
1. **Scientific Consensus**: I know that there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is real and significantly driven by human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2. As well as knowing that there is a consensus, for the most part I agree with the consensus.
2a. **Historical Data**: Point to the wealth of historical climate data. The widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate began in the 19th century. NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, giving us about 45 years of data. Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.
2b. **Predictions**:Point to the accuracy of predictions made by climate models over the past decades, which support the understanding of human impact. I am not sure than the predictions are very accurate since scientists are always surprised when warming is worse than they predicted. For example, "It's now "virtually certain" that 2023 will be the hottest year on record. That's something that no major climate science body expected at the start of the year.". Why didn't scientists expect 2023 to be the hottest year on record?
3. **Visible Impact**: Mention observable changes such as melting glaciers, more frequent and severe weather events, and shifts in wildlife behavior and habitats. I accept that these changes are happening.
4. **Economic and Health Benefits**: Highlight that actions to mitigate climate change can have immediate benefits, like improving air quality, public health, and even creating economic opportunities in renewable energy sectors. I accept these points. However, not all efforts have a beneficial effect. "Regulations introduced in 2020 to encourage cleaner shipping fuels have reduced global emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), a harmful air pollutant for humans to breathe, by an estimated 10%. But this appears to have raised temperatures, especially in shipping hotspots like the North Atlantic.
5. **Successful Examples**: Provide examples of successful mitigation efforts, such as the growth of renewable energy, reforestation projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies, which demonstrate that human action can make a difference. I support the growth of renewable energy, reforestation and environmental projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies. However, I don't think that renewable energy has reached the point where we can stop using fossil fuels. I favor a slow transition away from fossil fuels.
6. **Collective Responsibility**: Stress that while individual actions are important, the most significant changes need to come from systemic and policy changes at the governmental and corporate levels. I am skeptical that these changes will happen. Because of human nature people don't really want to reduce their standard of living. Democracy means that politicians don't want to be unpopular.
7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem. I agree that feeling hopeless or denying the problem will make matters worse. It is a very huge problem and because of human nature it will be very difficult to solve.
I don't normally agree with James Hansen, but I think that he is correct when he says "The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail," said Hansen, whose 1988 congressional testimony on climate change helped sound the alarm of global warming. "And the two-degree limit can be rescued, only with the help of purposeful actions.".
You lose me here. If we all simply resign, it’s certainly over. If we continue to act, something may happen — at the least we can mitigate the absolute worst. 2C is better than 3C or 4C. That trajectory has already changed. It just hasn’t changed enough.
What did you make of that?
I haven't noticed us acting, and nor has the climate. Not only that, but plans to act effectively are not even being talked about or put in place. Like bollocksGPT says, what individuals can do without change of policy is negligible. We are not going to stop it, and therefore we are going to suffer the consequences. We can each help a little to make it slightly less catastrophic, so inaction is not what I am suggesting, but preparing for a radical change that is coming and will be chaotic and unsurvivable for many is now my priority, and talking to people who want to live in fantasy is becoming less and less important to me.
Why do you imagine the climate can be stabilised at 2°C or 3°C? If we had been acting to change our societies economies for the last 20 years, it would have been possible, but there has been no movement away from an economy dependent on endless growth. None.
The best estimate of the climate record shows that the last time CO2 levels were at the current level, the global temperature was about 6°C higher, and sea levels were 40 m. higher. But we are still adding more CO2 at near record amounts, so that seems a likely climate scenario for the future, on the way to possibly higher temperatures. It is the biosphere that tends to stabilise the climate, and the biosphere cannot cope well with rapid change, plus we are busily polluting and depleting it already.
The weakness of reason is apparent in this thread; one can spend pages trying to convince one fairly educated and thoughtful person that there is a problem. Half the world is going to be dead before any real action is taken. It all sounds extravagant and shocking, and most will dismiss it. But if you read the graphs, it is clear enough. We are in overshoot.
Okay. I guess I misunderstood “resignation” there.
Quoting unenlightened
I’m going on various trajectories based on business as usual, stated goals, and best-case scenarios. If we’ve “improved” to the point where 4C is no longer seen as probable, then that’s some progress at least. 1.5 is gonzo— I know that. We shouldn’t let that stop us from pushing anyway.
Quoting unenlightened
Well that’s terrifying. So what am I missing? I don’t hear 6C being mentioned as a probable scenario much.
I am reading that directly off the graph I posted earlier. It is not a modelled prediction, just a bare "well that's what it was the last time". and here is the link again. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177
This is obviously based on indirect measurements, because direct measurements of CO2 levels in air bubbles in ice cores only go back 800.000 years, and our CO2 levels are off that scale, as you know.
So the nearest comparison you can see on the graph is about 16M yrs ago. That in itself is a scary number, because we are talking about a climate far from that which humans evolved in, and a time when the earliest apes were living.
Recent temperatures have exceeded model predictions by a scary margin, and masking by shipping pollution in the atmosphere has been suggested as a cause of underestimating the sensitivity to CO2 levels.
But I think there has also been a strong pressure towards conservatism in the reporting. We know how it goes, "don't give the sceptics a target" So always much climate action is assumed in the models, everything is conservatively estimated.
They don't say "that's where we're heading". But that's where we seem to be heading, or beyond. People are saying it, but the people who are saying it are not continuing their research into human futility, they are finding other things to do with what time is left. This is genuinely traumatic to those who have come to believe it, and that is why there is a great resistance to admitting how bad things are going to get, even to oneself. - and so not much is done, and we keep calm and carry on.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31122023/california-farmworkers-dying-in-the-heat
Meanwhile here's a cheery site that aggregates greenhouse gasses into a CO2 equivalent measure, and finds that when all the gases are accounted for it is equivalent to 500 ppm currently. Or rather, a while ago.
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
Fortunately no one understands or cares about that either.
Hansens position seems to be a minority position among Climate scientists, which doesn't mean he's wrong ofcourse, but still a minority position.
If he's got the right idea though...
Yes. Climate scientists who get too pessimistic argue themselves out of a job, one way or another.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2022/01/12/should-climate-scientists-stop-doing-research-three-experts-say-yes/?sh=63980d187242
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/opinion/scientist-fired-climate-change-activism.html
https://lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
I think maybe there is a case to be made that a scientist shouldn't be trying to be an activitist or politician, because these two activities don't allways go together all that well for obvious reasons.
In an ideal world, a scientist describes the world as best as he can, and then politicians and activists take up the task of changing the world informed by the picture scientists have painted. Mixing the two doesn't seem ideal, if not for reasons of potential conflicts of interest, then for reasons of credibility.
But given the scope, severity and urgency of the problem, and the fact that politics doesn't seem to work as it should, I can definately understand more scientists going in that direction.
https://www.energymonitor.ai/finance/reporting-and-disclosure/just-1-3-of-companies-get-triple-a-for-environmental-discourse-2022-cdp/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/climate-propane-influence-campaign.html
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/26/business/nightcap-chevron-stock-buyback/index.html
https://climatefeedback.org/feedbacks/
https://www.eenews.net/articles/meet-the-top-house-recipients-of-oil-and-gas-money/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/climate/renewable-energy-transition.html
https://grist.org/economics/eu-green-deal-270-billion/
https://grist.org/international/investor-state-dispute-settlements-keystone-pipeline/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/22/climate/heat-pumps-extreme-cold.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/business/energy-environment/oil-gas-renewable-energy-jobs.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/climate/renewable-energy-us-electrical-grid.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/06/revealed-1000-super-emitting-methane-leaks-risk-triggering-climate-tipping-points
https://www.eenews.net/articles/rural-utilities-turn-disruptive-as-they-embrace-renewables/
And.... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/30/fossil-fuel-industry-air-pollution-fund-research-caltech-climate-change-denial
Saw that. I knew that they were well aware in the late 70s…but the 50s? Incredible.
Just shows how much better their propaganda and influence has been compared to big tobacco. Tobacco delayed a backlash for 30 years. Big oil is literally destroying the world, and yet they’ve denied and delayed for 70 years. Have to hand it to them.
I guess we're gonna look back on these times 40-50 years from now in the same way we look back at doctors advertising cigarettes. And future generations will look at all the aging advocates, apologists and evangelics as fuckups of their time, elderly losers who no one will miss. Great sense of legacy these people will feel by then. I have no problem feeling moral superiority in this matter, if there ever was something that would be easy to find the moral compass within it's this topic. One of the most proven scientific fields of all, showing evidence as far back as the 50s and people just act like it's up for debate. Yeah, I'll stay humble in other areas, but this high horse is quite comfy to be on.
What about climate scientists who are too optimistic? Don't they also argue themselves out of a job?
It is "safer" to just agree with the consensus. This is a negative feedback loop.
No, big oil pays them well.
You can find know-nothing imbeciles making statements on a topic they refuse to learn about (too hard) all the time. Easy to feel superior to them.
Take quantum physics. “All nonsense — it’s just a result of groupthink.” Boom, I’m smart and my opinion is just as valid as anyone’s.
Try over a 100 years. And really even before that it was known but tobacco companies were already peddling propaganda at the time. There were plenty of people worried about the bad effects of smoking around the 1900s but there wasn't any statistical proof. That came in the 1940s which led to more propaganda.
I thought it was the 60s. But I won’t Wikipedia it— I’ll take your word for it.
The 60s is therefore generally considered the time a reasonable person should have been aware of the bad effects of smoking but it could've been much sooner - as early as the 1920s if there weren't so many doctors willing to promote cigarettes in return for payment.
Interesting. Well in that case, double-fuck them too.
I know that the greenhouse effect was understood back in the late 19th century, so if we take that as a starting point, it rivals tobacco.
Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate. Some countries, that fortunately still haven't caught up to the schizophrenic political zeitgeist of English-speaking countries, still use their language equivalent of "global warming" instead of the more accurate "climate change", even though those countries already know that some parts of the world are becoming colder instead of warmer.
"Climate change" is a platitude of a phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" is not; climate is undeniably changing, as it always has been. The only debate is how much has been caused by us, and more importantly, regardless of whether it is caused by us or not, how much can we control the climate to keep it at a range that is most beneficial to modern society.
It's not scientifically inaccurate, it is scientifically accurate in that the world is globally warming up and the climate is changing in different ways because the effect of increased global degrees affects the balance between different regions of the world. And since society, globally, is primarily built around the climate that has been in each region for hundreds of years every society needs to adjust while those already at the hottest position will need to move.
The change in terminology is due to people being too stupid to read below the headlines, not that it is scientifically inaccurate.
Quoting Deleted user
There is no debate. It's one of the most proven scientific field of all; getting high into the Sigma scales of statistical probabilities. The only ones debating are the ones too stupid to understand everything, those chilling for the oil industry and those who have just attached the anti-climate-science identity to their general persona. The rest have known about this for a long time and been proven right over and over and over. At the moment there's so much data that anyone denying human industry and infrastructure being the cause for the global temp spikes are simply delusional.
There is absolutely no debate left to be held other than how to mitigate the consequences and stop further temperature increase.
Quoting Christoffer
How does one "prove" a scientific field? A theory is proven, not a whole field.
Speaking of field, meteorological science is extremely faulty. Chemistry, astronomy, physics, all of these are more reliable fields. Meteorology cannot even get the weather of next week right. The claim that meteorology is "more proven" does not pass through common sense.
Sigma scales of statistical probability? You mean the standard deviation of a bell curve? I don't see how that relates to the topic. Is there some "research paper" by someone who compares replicability of different scientific fields? Because that would be bunk.
It feels as if you are just repeating buzzwords from CNN and BCC. Or that you are not being specific at all with the terms you use.
Quoting Christoffer
The global average temperature has risen — 1 degree compared to the 20th century average. From "global warming" to "global average temperature" is a big semantic shift.
Quoting Christoffer
Cool. Proof?
Go read some publications. Listen to the actual experts. There is no debate other than by those believing themselves to know more than the actual scientists who publish. I will not be baited like this, I've been in these debates for a long time and it's just not possible to convince people who think they know more about climate change and global warming than the science presents. It's like debating flat earthers, there's no point and I won't even bother putting time and effort into it, pointless. I can debate and discuss the things that matter; what to do, evaluating the possible consequences, strategies to mitigate, energy politics and stuff but I will not engage in a debate about human causes for climate change because it is already proven and I'm not gonna lower myself to that level of anti-intellectual waste of time.
Just ignore the deniers. Leave them to their slogans. “The climate is always changing!” Cool—bye!
I did not get that, I got the "go read some by experts". What is it that you have been reading, when you say things such as "sigma scales of probability" and "proven scientific field", which hints at a scientific education that is not nowhere near enough to read brand new research?
Everytime people link me scientific research papers, I ask them what their qualifications are, so I don't waste my time reading something that ultimately does not prove them right.
In an ideal world, intelligent laymen would discuss scientific findings with their own qualificative limitations in mind — some fields and papers are more laymen friendly than others. But this is not an ideal world, and people, who don't even know what a p-value is, feel themselves free to flaunt content that is made by doctors and masters for other doctors and masters.
Obviously you are referring to me. Here is the funny thing, I am not a denier of anthropogenic climate change, or whatever histrionic label is used in the Anglosphere. I am very concerned about the environment, from the Amazon, to the water of our rivers, to the climate, to the expansion of deserts.
With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making, more like the kind who would shut down nuclear powerplants in Germany to increase coal burning instead.
Overall, it is all very tiresome, and sad.
Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic.
Quoting Christoffer
Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways.
Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing.
Of course not. You are just asking legitimate questions about the science and trotting out fashionable lines from climate “skeptics.” Carry on.
Yes, and it’s great to have humanitarians like you to swoop in with your Dr. Phil analyses on hurt feelings. If only we could all model your approach: smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.
Incidentally, sarcastic comments like yours are also “really really” helpful. Way to lead by example. Good work.
You should know better.
Instead, you're the one with the smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.
If you really care about global heating and the future of humanity, then how come you're willing to invest so little into finding ways to effect change in people?
The mechanics of what might be successful strategies to counteract global heating are not rocket science. Cutting down on fossil fuels etc. That's not the issue.
The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.
I agree with the poster above:
Quoting Deleted user
As long as you can blame global heating on people being stupid, ignorant, and such, that's it for you, you have finished your job.
So are Boomers, but they vote. If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it.
Not necessarily. If they already feel hopeless about the long-term future of the planet, then they won't be motivated to do anything about it. And chances are they already feel hopeless. Add to this the patronizing and hostility they are exposed to, and you get a great number of passive, anxious, angry young people.
And then, of course, there are climate activists who believe that it is on the people themselves to find hope and motivation. On occasion, I actually still look to climate activists to provide some profound insight into the meaning of life as such, an insight that would give hope and motivation. And what do I get? Cynicism. They blame me. They dismiss me.
But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.
Young people tend to be used to many material conveniences. How are they supposed to look forward to live without them?
Who raised these young people?
Yes, I've talked to a lot of young people about all of this and they say that "there's no point". An utter surrender to whatever downfall of society or humanity that will come. And I've tried to challenge them and say that since change takes time, especially in political arenas, they have to go into politics now. I'm not sure if it's the adults and older people's failure to communicate the importance of politics or if it's an utter lack of faith in political influence, but they don't seem to understand that they can absolutely make a difference if they fight for it.
I mean, there's only elderly people in the halls of power anyway, it would be like doing a cage fight with the residents of an elderly home. Just pile dive those suckers and move into positions that take the power away from these old farts. They're not building a future other than their own funeral.
Quoting baker
We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are.
Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.
The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes.
This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.
I remember talking with members of the Beat generation in the 1950s who expressed the same philosophy. But a few years later, when they began being drafted for Vietnam, they came alive.
Okay! Bye.
Yes.
If only Malcolm X had been nicer. If he really cared, he wouldn’t have been so cynical and hurt so many peoples delicate feelings— those poor victims.
Martin Luther King — same deal. But a little nicer. Less offensive to privileged white people. But oh yeah, he was despised and killed anyway.
It’s almost as if focusing on tone and niceness and feelings and moral “objectivity” is just another way of avoiding facts, problems, and solutions.
Anyway — yes, please excuse me if I have zero tolerance for ignorance and propaganda on this issue anymore. If you’ve not taken the maybe 4-5 hours it takes to familiarize yourself with the issue beyond the slogans, then you can indeed fuck off. Especially when you come with anything other than a willingness to learn. This is science, not psychotherapy.
One’s failure to understand such an important issue is, at this point, inexcusable and immoral. If that attitude is too harsh for some — too bad.
Be careful that you don't fall off your high horse. It is better to have your feet on the ground, rather than your head in the clouds.
Also better to be honest and moral instead of dangerously, irresponsibly ignorant. To each his own though.
Quoting Christoffer
How dare they !!!
How dare the older people who are more mature and have more life experience disobey the younger people who are more immature and have less life experience.
It is appalling. How dare they !!!
Sorry, but I just have to highlight how incredibly ignorant, judgmental, and immoral this comment is as well. Now that’s in keeping from a posturing, sanctimonious hypocrite who feels entitled to lecture everyone about their appearance while their own approach is being rude, shallow, contemptuous, and instigating — so no surprise there.
But it’s also a common line on conservative propaganda outlets — one of their many ways to undermine the consensus and overwhelming evidence, delay political and social action, and foster hostility (we see this especially in the vitriol aimed at Greta Thunberg) within the environmental movement. How sad.
Yeah, like you for example. Plenty of age and life experience. And yet you’re one of the most ignorant about climate change on this thread and have made no efforts to learn about it, apparently contented with your own unique denialism.
Talk about crappy role modeling. If you’re any kind of representation, it’s no wonder kids have no respect. Ignorance and denial isn’t respectable.
Oh the irony. It burns. It burns.
If you and others really have nothing to offer this thread but nonsense like this and slogans from Tucker Carlson, why not simply find another hobby?
Quoting Mikie
I assume that your opinion about me is due to your own ignorance. I have researched global warming extensively. Here are a few of the many graphs that I have made. How many graphs like these have you made?
And this is the level of discourse climate deniers engage in, folks.
And for the record, I’ve made many graphs in my life. Congratulations on figuring out how Google Charts works, and to your series of useless graphs.
But there are legitimate skeptics who have problems with some of the particulars, who are not backwood numbskulls. As perhaps the only actual ex-meteorologist (USAF, U of Chicago) on TPF (others?) I am not convinced the world population is capable of averting some of the unpleasant consequences of climate change. Possibly, if we had started many years ago, but at present nations had best do their work to prepare for what will come. But I might be proven wrong.
It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society over and over, no matter how good it may make one feel.
I am surprised that you call me a denier. None of the graphs that I posted conflict with the fact that global warming is happening. A few of the graphs even mention global warming.
You seem to think that temperature anomalies tell the whole story about global warming. You seem incapable of understanding that actual temperatures are also part of the story about global warming.
I suggest that you have a look at this website https://weatherspark.com
to improve your understanding of world temperatures. You can see actual historical hourly temperatures for entire years. For example, for London you can look back as far as 1949.
I don't believe that you will look at this website. You won't look at anything which might make you think for yourself. It is much easier to be a parrot for the IPCC. That doesn't require any thinking.
That is very true, and appropriate to this and many other threads too: Ukraine, Palestine. Trump...
Stilt would be nice to have a chat about the consequences of the ongoing mass extinction event we have triggered. But it does get tiresome when one can never get beyond "What? You think we have triggered a mass extinction event ? You must be a conspiracy theorist."
Mikie has been at this for over 100 pages and 3 years now, just in this thread; some irritation is to be expected, when one cannot get beyond the frigging title of the thread.
Here are a few consequences I envisage.
Perceptive readers may have noticed some of these beginning to happen, but if you haven't, don't worry, you soon will. It's only just begun.
After being at this for over 100 pages and 3 years now, why hasn't Mikie realized that he is doing things the wrong way?
Is Mikie wrong, or is everybody else wrong?
Mikie should heed some useful advice, "when in a hole, stop digging".
You are wrong.
Look at what the graphs are showing, not the way that they were made.
By the way, the were not made using Google Charts.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
After making a fool of yourself repeatedly whenever you’ve made empirical claims, whether about temperature anomalies or land use for cattle, your perception of others’ abilities to think or understand is worthless.
Oh the irony. It burns. It burns.
“Everybody else.” Lol
To save the sceptics from the necessity of actual reading, I quote above the good news.
However, both the good news and the bad news indicate global warming. and the study does not include extreme event mortality other than temperature, eg extra wind, drought, flood, etc.
Wellness influencers fueled pandemic misinformation. Now they have another big conspiracy in their sights
[sup]— Laura Paddison · CNN · Feb 4, 2024[/sup]
... and then censorship, free speech, suppression ... the usual. When such folk were chasing lizards and aliens in the desert, they might actually come across something interesting (by coincidence). :up: This seems a bit different though, no particular independent "Go look". Also exploitable by others.
Regular people will continue to not want to change, until the world changes so much that they simply have to.
Come back and say that when you have extinguished your self, o aged fungus.
It will be global climate catastrophy in a couple of decades.
What about "global boiling"?
Quoting The Guardian
You're inconsistent.
What choice, if you plan to "run them over"?
You're missing the point. The point is that your method is ineffective. Which you then simply excuse and blame others.
Quoting Mikie
And thus you annull your climate activism efforts.
Quoting Mikie
It's extremely offensive the way you assign to people stances they don't hold and then castigate them for them.
Which is what so much climate activism really seems to be all about: activists feeling good about themselves.
I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself.
You do the exact same thing, and have been doing so for years. When you acknowledge your own hypocrisy, others will take your feedback better.
Now if you have nothing to say about climate change, run along. This thread isn’t about feelings.
Quoting baker
I've met plenty. On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.
That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.
https://apple.news/Af18UAJ-GRlKmFwVd55H3vA
Iceland is living our future
Interesting stuff.
We’re going to get there — it’s just a matter of how quickly.
- Permitting reform is necessary to accelerate the building of transmission lines so as to transmit the energy from wind and solar (a large segment of which is restricted to certain geographical areas) to other parts of the country.
- Plenty of fossil fuel use will be needed to mine for necessary metals and manufacture wind turbines and solar panels and car batteries. But this is in the short term — once up and running, they’re practically zero emissions.
The inflation reduction act (IRA) provisions are starting to kick in this year, especially the rebates on heat pumps, which will be key to transitioning away from heating homes and commercial buildings with dirty fuels like oil and natural gas / propane. Rebates on EVs and solar panels will also be helpful.
In the meantime, the best strategy is still local involvement in conservation commissions, zoning boards, and city/town councils. Also advocating for going greener at one’s workplace — which, when cost effectiveness is emphasized, is fairly easy.
Anyway — some relevant information.
We who? Educational? You have shown that you do not even know statistics, how are you going to educate anyone?
Quoting Mikie
"The science". There is no "the science". This is a phrase that is only ever used by people who have last touched an equation more than five years ago — mathematics is the language of science as we know.
My posts at no point were arguments against climate change or environmentalism. My posts were successful attempts at showing how you and others posters here do not know nearly enough, but just parrot what Lindsey McNuggets (intern in communications at BBC) says on her news article. Lindsey, like me and many people on this thread, are not knowledgeable, but Lindsey in special is the kind of people to cause this kind of tragedy. Who is more like Lindsey overall?
Quoting baker
Because they don't exist.
Climate science is actually a thing, yes. But good job using the new line. I guess “the climate is always changing” is thankfully becoming passé.
How is that inconsistent? I mentioned what is needed to be done to change course and if people don't make that choice then the only outcome is for everything to collapse until the world's population beg for changes. To speak about different possible outcomes does not make what I said inconsistent.
We who actually understand the science, we who understand the problems, we who don't attach identity to this entire subject and use it as punchlines for something else.
And not doing the research that people should actually do on their own is not the same as "not know the statistics". You can search publications yourself, you can dive into all that research, the information is everywhere if you know where to get scientific data. And there are plenty who are trying to educate people, but you know, people don't listen, because they don't care to listen, they decide what they agree with or not before they hear it, they decide based on arbitrary ideals and emotional reasoning.
Then they formulate arguments around such biases and believe they are actually intellectually engaging with the subject matter. But they're not, they're using rhetorical twists and turns not to convince the other side, but to make sure they're never acknowledging themselves to be wrong. It's the same behavior as flat earthers and other conspiratorial behaviors. It doesn't matter that there's a truckload of evidence, that there are educators and experts everywhere that friendly provide their knowledge if they want it, or that the publications are out there to be found if they wanted. The reason has nothing to with what is truth or not for them, it has to do with them.
In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals.
Yep. Which is why at the end of the day, all they have is feelings. When pointed out, they naturally accuse you of having nothing but feelings, and I’m rubber you’re glue, the end. It’s pointless.
But like I said before, this thread is like a fly trap. There’s overwhelming evidence and a de facto 100% consensus, it’s as established as evolution and gravity — and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time.
I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology.
Yes, how people handle knowledge is a trait transcending specific subjects. I tend to see even within science that people who have biased ideas about something else tend to be biased in their scientific research as well. That's why I'm always skeptical about religious physicists. At most they have to be agnostic, but having a strong belief at the same time as conducting science mostly seem to influence how they treat their own conclusions, sticking to their guns further than others when facing criticism. Thank the gluons we have consensus praxis.
Quoting Mikie
:lol:
You talked about "running them over":
Quoting Christoffer
How do you plan to do that?
Good for you then.
Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans.
I think that in order to effectively counteract human-caused climate heating, radical steps would need to be taken. Such as people not having any children for the next 30 years, not eating any animal products, forbidding luxury tourism, forbidding air conditioning, and so on. Obviously, this is not realistic. I suspect that many climate activists actually realize that only such radical steps might prove effective, but this is not something that can be said in polite society. What is currently being suggested as "effective steps to save the planet" (not using plastic bags, going paperless, carpooling, solar energy, etc.) amounts to rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
In order to actually stand a chance at "saving the planet", people would need to change the very nature of their relationship with the planet. That is, they would need to stop having a consumerist, materialist attitude toward it. This isn't happening, of course. Instead, people are being lulled into a false hope that by keeping their fundamental materialistic, consumerist attitudes intact and doing trifles, they can nevertheless "save the planet". And if that doesn't work out, the "solution" is already given: others are to blame.
People like this are wasting what might very well be the last opportunity to do something that might make a real difference for the planet.
Quoting Hanover
And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people?
If we could remove the people from the cities and recreate an agrarian society, we could get back to our natural roots, and we'd eliminate the class system that has been put in place and get us closer to a utopian society as opposed to our gradual move away from it.
Where is Pol Pot when you need him?
The morality of anti-humanism requires some tough love, but it's well worth it. Just think of all the trees that will grow in the killing fields.
He will probably do it in fossil fuel cars because EV's need frequent recharging and the queues to use the charge stations are too long. :grin:
I don't think you can avoid the class system. Someone is going to have to do brain surgery, oncology, anesthesia, etc. and if they only make the same as a farmer makes, not enough people will go into those fields.
2. Humans ought to modify their activity in order to lower global temperatures.
#2 is a non-sequiter.
#1 is an empirical statement.
#2 is a moral statement.
This is a form of the naturalistic fallacy.
We cannot say that because something is naturally in state X that it ought be in state X.
This is to say the question over the science isn't where the philosophy is. Either the scientific modeling is correct or it isn't. If it says the tides will rise, then they will. That does not mean we can't allow them to rise and deal with the consequences as opposed to stopping the rise.
The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science.
I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective.
:up:
100%. I spent a couple of pages badly trying to get that across a while ago. Cest la vie
The suggestion is to form an orderly queue, and stop making things worse, merely, instead of keeping on shooting the messengers.
People are reluctant to "form an orderly queue" already at a grocery store.
How do you propose to get them to wait patiently in line for their death?
Quoting Hanover
Good luck trying to discuss this with the climate activists!
A strange sarcasm then, if you advocate classism but also shy back from means needed to put it into action.
This is not what the science shows. There are no meaningful models that predict the human response to the climate change as it occurs, as if to suggest you can know what mitigating responses will be available. That would be like predicting in the 1800s that we would one day run out of horse food due to the ever increasing need for transportation. The fact that we can sustain billions of people on the planet would have been unfathomable a few hundred years ago.
Here's where I think we disagree (among other things): I find no virtue in protecting the planet for the planet's sake. I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality.
This certainty says it all. :up: At least you’re honest about it.
Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever.
https://news.google.com/search?q=climate%20change%20exaggerated
Here are some of the results:
—
Just as a basic head count on this thread:
@baker
And counting. Far more than I’d expect on this forum, even if a relatively low percentage. Oh well…
More good news.
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change
[Worth posting the basics. I’ll refer back to it when the next goofy “skeptic” with 15 minutes of Fox News under their belts comes ambling along. “It’s the clouds, stupid!”]
How many of those lives do you actually appreciate?
The promotion of which human life?
All of it, or just your tribe's?
Of course it is not what the science shows. Science models, and models predict, However, the common sense prediction that humans would respond to the predictions in such a way as to mitigate the effects has proven false. On the contrary, net emissions are still increasing.
And there are other factors that seem to indicate that the climate sensitivity has been somewhat underestimated. Turns out that science can be a bit wrong the 'other' way too. It is becoming clear that actual temperatures have exceeded models by some margin, and so models need to be adjusted.
However, the main problem is the time lag. The Greenhouse effect of CO2 is that it insulates, and the effects of insulation are slow, and cumulative. In geological terms, our increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere has been catastrophically fast, but in terms of human lifetime, the change in my seventy years lifetime has been barely noticeable.
This year we hit 1.5°C which was the recommended limit to prevent serious disruption to human life. So we have missed that target, and will almost certainly miss the 2°C target, because of the time lag of centuries and the fact that we have not even begun to reduce emissions, let alone reached net zero.
And we are already seeing disruption to agriculture, climate refugees, fighting over resources, depletion of natural resources especially forest, and the oceans, the best carbon absorbers.
But it's only just begun.
If it was just polar bears, I wouldn't mind much either, because I don't eat them anyway. But it is the whole ecosystem of the world that is being disrupted, and almost every species of plant and animal that is in decline. Your dinner plate may not be affected at first, because The US is wealthy and has a food surplus. Russia will do well because vast tracts of marginal land in the North will increase in value.
I will just repeat this;
All our worldwide human efforts at mitigation thus far have not added up to any reduction at all in net carbon emissions, but on the contrary, they are still increasing.
And if we do begin to reduce, and eventually reach zero, we will only have stopped ourselves from making things worse, but the insulating effect will continue to warm the planet for many many years to come.
There is no natural moral ought about this, as you point out. There is no natural ought about human survival, either. It is just a personal bias I have, such that I regret and mourn the folly of my species.
I have no proposals. I expect famine, pestilence and war to do the job with maximal disorder and cruelty.
The human population will fall dramatically in many countries for reasons not related to climate-change/global-warming. The following information is based on the study published in Jul 2020 called "The Lancet: World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power".
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
Population in more than 20 countries to halve by 2100: Study
The Earth will be home to 8.8 billion people in 2100, two billion fewer than current UN projections, says new study.
More than 20 countries, including Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, will see their numbers diminish by at least half by the year 2100, according to projections in a major study.
Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48·0% decline
China’s population will fall from 1.4 billion people today to 730 million in 80 years, said the study led by an international team of researchers, published in The Lancet on Wednesday.
By century’s end, 183 of 195 countries, barring an influx of immigrants, will have fallen below the replacement threshold needed to maintain population levels, it said.
Good news for the environment
These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions
“Our analysis suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average,” he explained by email.
You’ve got that the wrong way round Hanover. The planet will be fine whatever we do. There might not be many people left though.
:lol:
Everyone but you.
That the earth is changing is clear. That we'll not adapt isn't. We're resilient because that's how Darwin made us.
We've got to admit to our biases (myself included) in constructing our narrative that fills in the blanks of what we don't know. If we start with the notion that we're a parasitic species ravaging a gentle planet, particularly barbaric in our economic and social methods of controlling resources, a coming apocalypse comes as welcome news because it can be used as argument to preemptively and radically change our society immediately. That is, the capitalistic party was fun, but it's over. Time for rehab.
My approach is to deal with the fall out when it falls out, but not because I'm reckless, but because I think your speculation is pure speculation and most likely wrong, so your solutions will be ineffective and more destructive than the disease.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
Through politicians actually doing what it takes instead of acting like demagogues only worried about losing votes in the next election.
Quoting baker
How do you know I'm not doing that? And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?
And you phrase that I'm only acting like this to justify to be mean, which is an intentional misinterpretation of what I actually do. I am mean because that's what apologists deserve as they are actively standing in the way of necessary change. Collectively these people form the political public opinion that holds these necessary changes back and in turn they are indirectly responsible for any deaths linked to the rapidly changing climate. I am very much in the right to treat them accordingly:
If you are told that certain paths ahead will result in people dying and societies getting destroyed and that there's a path to take to avoid all that, and you actively choose to not take the path to avoid it, but not only that you actively try to sabotage anyone trying to change it, as well as spreading disinformation denial of all of it even being an issue; then that's a deliberate act of sabotage that has a direct link to the consequences that could have been avoided.
It's like if you have a drunk person in front of you who says he's going to drive home and you know that this path will go past a school. There's a person trying to convince him that he shouldn't drive home drunk but there's also another person who's trying to just push that person aside and tell the drunk that he shouldn't listen, that there is no risk, there's no problem, just drive home and do it as fast as he can. You have the choice to support one of these opposing sides; to support the person who tries to talk sense into the drunk by pushing aside the one trying to get him to drive. But you could also support the other person and push aside the one trying to talk sense into the drunk.
Neither of your actions in that scenario leads to you directly being the one running over and killing kids. But it's quite clear that your actions help push a certain line of opinions towards an action that would quite possibly do that. Why wouldn't anyone put you into partial blame for what happened if kids got run over by the drunk?
This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly. So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass. The ones who are the really entitled people in all of this are the ones who don't want to change their ways and actively fight against anything that would require them to do so, even if not changing would lead to kids getting run over in the future.
Quoting baker
As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work. It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.
If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed. It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated. So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes. But then again, people would vote some idiot into power that would just push for ignorant policies. If we can underline the immorality of regular people acting against necessary change, then we can at least create a cultural foundation of the morality of regular people within this subject matter and as I've exemplified I have no problem calling them immoral and people should stop beating around the bush on this as well.
Because you weren’t nice enough.
Instead of saying “hey I agree this is important, but your approach may be counterproductive — anyway, here are some possible solutions” they focus exclusively on feelings. Why? Because they don’t understand the issue anyway, and refuse to take the time to learn.
Because it’s a public Internet forum, everyone feels entitled to a seat at the table, pretending to contribute with doozies like “this all doesn’t feel quite right to me, we’ll get out of it somehow” to “Science isn’t always right” to “It’s a sham” to “Climate activists are mean.”
There’s only two reasonable ways to deal with such people: ignore them or point out their stupidity, in the harshest way possible so that they hopefully go away. In the real world, there’s a very different approach. One I’ve been assuming for years and which works well. (Which is why it’s hilarious to be given “lessons” from Buddhist wannabes.)
Since there's no debate about the science as the science is clear, why would it therefor be about economic policy as a form of a capitalist/anti-capitalist dichotomy? Isn't it more or less a question of morality? I.e what's the moral action for us to collectively take? With the right strategy and effort, the damage of rapid policy change would be microscopic against the reality of not doing anything to mitigate climate change.
I don't see how there should be any debate other than about what's the best mitigation strategy. The debate should be about which actions are the best, and how to incorporate them into society in the best way. Like, new green industries that not only mitigate climate change, but also generate new jobs. How high carbon taxes would push industry people who are only interested in their balance sheets and bank accounts to actually change towards mitigation. When and where nuclear energy is better than solar, wind and sea and so on...
If the debate centers around the science, then it's pointless. If it centers around some capitalist/anti-capitalist political debate, then it's also pointless. In this subject matter the science is real and proven and economic philosophy just lead to navel-gazing about people's preferred world views. Rather, the position climate change should be about at this time in history should be about the strategies and mitigation solutions and how to practically implement them into society in a smart way. Everything else is just pointless and every denier should just be ignored just as much as they ignore the severity of the subject.
Not at all. Unless one defines capitalism as exclusively the most destructive form ever known. Other countries are doing much better than we are, and they’re working within a mixed economic system too.
So it’s a false dichotomy. But should capitalism be abolished in all its forms? One can only hope.
Yes. That's the nature of prediction. Like the timetable predicts the train times, but sometimes shit happens instead. So ignore the timetable?
Quoting The Conversation
A recent study suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.
Why aren't climate activists making more effort to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services, rather than concentrating their efforts on demonizing oil and gas. This is especially important in places like Africa, India, S. America and Indonesia.
What makes you think they aren't? Some of us are so smart we can walk and chew gum at the same time!
For example:— https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12687/matrilineal-matriarchy
What have you done to promote the education of women and giving women more access to reproductive health services?
What brand of gum do you chew? :grin:
Well back in the day, I was involved with a collective that supported a women's health group that was being trained by a maverick doctor in secret in the subtle art of very early abortions by aspiration, which was and still is an illegal intervention that women can use to control their fertility. but I am not going to share further details with you because - make up whatever idiotic reason you like.
I can chew gum, but I don't because it is a filthy habit.
Precisely, if civilisation is to survive intact, the priorities should be these. The twin path of reduction in the severity of climate change, the transition to zero carbon asap and the bold strategies of mitigation globally.
This will in itself be a gargantuan task. While not following this course will result in more severe climate change. More radical mitigation. With the added complication of civilisation collapse, initially local collapses, but followed by wider systemic collapse.
Or in other words, we have no choice if we want to preserve the achievements of civilisation, rather than return to the Bronze Age.
The preservation of capitalism would only be where it can help in this task.
Don’t worry, here in the U.K. we will be saved by the cold blob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_blob
Somehow, I am not totally reassured.
It will give us a bit of breathing space on the climate front. But won’t protect us from civilisation collapse. But I think we’re alright. We will be dead and buried by then.
Because you're sticking to your old guns.
??
I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.
You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here.
For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't.
But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet?
Given the strategies used so far ....
I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies.
How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy?
I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results.
As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.
Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes.
There you go, outsourcing responsibility again.
—
Quoting unenlightened
I’m surprised by this too. Given that the Republican Party line is now “we can’t do anything because China is emitting more than anyone”, I wonder how this pans out— and what their next bullshit excuse will be.
You heard it here first.
It's not all that new, been a tendency for some time (also in religious demography). The "Idiocracy (2006)" movie takes a humorous shot at that (not really the best movie, but, anyway).
"An orderly queue" for what? Dying? To be executed?
But there's no shiny happy people around you.
You and your imagination.
It is really rather tedious to have to explain one's creative use of idioms, but at the second quote from you of the same phrase: it is a cliche of British English used in many ways ...
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/02/06/forming-an-orderly-queue
... for example.
It is the proverbial way we Bits organise every cooperative undertaking, and in my usage above should be taken figuratively not literally to mean that the suggestion is to organise cooperatively to deal with the situation as best we can for the benefit of all.
It that sufficiently clear for you now?
You only know the things I write here, you know nothing else. But you act upon such lack of knowledge and perform judgement. This is just a dishonest attempt at framing the other in a discussion as a form of ad hominem.
Quoting baker
And you are too vague about your intentions as well as framing it in very odd rhetoric.
Once again, you do not know anything other than what you read of me here. As I've pointed out many times now; if there are deniers, there's no point in trying to convince them as they are acting through a cult mentality. You cannot convince them as long as they are deeply rooted within their community of denial.
So what efficiency are you talking about? Being efficient in achieving what exactly?
Quoting baker
And it's been done to death. How much more education do these people need? The denial group have slowly started to go into just acceptance of a changing world, but they do so in the context of not acting anyway. The outcome of their reasoning is the same as their previous pure denial.
If they are unable to understand that mitigation is still necessary so as to not completely ruin everything and that not acting will cause millions of deaths as a result, then they haven't really been convinced, they have only moved their goal posts of their denial towards a new position of defending their inaction and ignorance.
Why should the world cater to these people? Why should we continue wasting time trying to convince them and not just move on with the debate towards what solutions will work best?
Quoting baker
By ignoring them and implementing changes to society anyway, yes, we will save millions and mitigate the worst damages. There's no time to build public opinion through convincing these people, it will be too late. The strategies need to circumvent slow progress, the damage of such rapid progress will be microscopic against the consequence of not doing so.
Treating these people as immoral is not an act of entitlement, it is an act of building a collective sense of morality that can drive changes in society. If it is considered moral to support actions taken to mitigate climate change and immoral not to, then it will use social structures to form public opinion rather than being dependent on uneducated or people unequipped to understand complex knowledge.
Structural racism have rarely been fought through educating racists to not support such structural racism; that does not work until they've instinctually already left the racist mindset. Instead it has been a moral dimension that's been most effective transforming society. Reshaping the idea of dividing people into being an immoral act at its core. Then, people don't have to understand any complex knowledge about a subject, they just have to accept the more instinctually programmed moral codes in the social structures they exist in. That's why I don't just call them uneducated, idiots or conspiratorial cultists, but also immoral people who support a destructive movement through inaction or active action against mitigation efforts.
View them as immoral people, just like racists, abusers and other immoral people. Don't act like they're just expressing some opinions that have some balanced value, because there's no such balance. It's like saying that a racist statement is just as morally acceptable as someone making a statement about love. It's not. Making statements that push public opinion towards ignorance about climate change is an immoral act that can with enough collective public drive cause delays that will kill millions. It is pushing dominos in a direction of pure horror and that is simply an immoral act.
Quoting baker
You don't think this has been done for decades now? There's no time left to keep doing this. If we had 50 years more to slowly change people's mind, yes, but just look at how far anti-racism has gotten. Shouldn't we've been freed of such idiocy by now? Aren't we educated enough by now to understand how immoral and stupid racism is? We still have major problems with that and more education and trying to convince racists does not help. The only thing that helps is to shut them up and make policies against racism.
If you have some idea that hasn't been tried to death before regarding convincing these people, then everyone's listening. But there's no practical value to just pointing out that there "should be some way to convince them". If we are to act now, then the solution is to just ignore them, make policies regardless of their opinions and just shut them up. There's simply no time educating these adult children.
Quoting baker
When it comes to the issues with climate change, it has nothing to do with abolishing democracy. It's not a question of opinion or idealism, it is a fact of our world's reality and a fact that points in a certain problematic direction for everyone. Everyone, globally, should take action towards mitigating climate change and stop listening to these immoral people. That is not the same as abolishing democracy.
Like, if there was a comet coming towards us and the entire world economy and all nations need to act together to solve it fast. Would you leave that up to democracy? To be debated? To try and convince idiots that the problem is real? No, all nations would just move towards solutions like if they had a giant bulldozer. They would run the idiots over and everyone who understands the dangers would cheer it on.
Quoting baker
The people we are talking about are not discussing the most effective strategies, they are opposing what would be minor inconveniences in their lives. The only ones equipped to really decide the best strategies are the actual scientists, experts and engineers working to solve the problems. Regular people should shut up and listen to these experts. Politicians should shut up and listen to the solutions. The moral dimension around the subject need to become more clear to the public.
Quoting baker
Failing that education would not result in potentially millions of deaths and extremely changed living conditions of the entire global population. Sorry, but this analogy does not work for the subject of climate change as it does not have a moral consequence and the dimension of time to avoid such a consequence. Class is over, the semester is done, action needs to be taken.
Quoting baker
How am I outsourcing responsibility when I point in the direction of the one's who are actually responsible to take the actions needed? What responsibility are you suggesting me to have and take? Isn't it responsible to also push for actions taken now and not caring for the saboteurs working against these necessary actions? Isn't it taking responsibility to try and push for a moral realm of thinking around this subject and abandoning the idea that this is some debate of ideals?
What type of responsibility is valid in your book? Considering the urgent time for action and the lack of time to educate people actively giving experts the finger? Did that student give you the finger when you tried to help her? No, because your analogy is about people wanting to be educated, it's nowhere near the reality of this subject matter. I'm all for education, but we don't have time to educate people in order for them to support solutions to a damn comet on collision course with earth. In such a situation you simply ignore the ignorant and take the necessary action that is needed right now.
Please define what a denier is. You seem to label people as deniers if they don't believe everything that you want them to believe, or if they don't want to do everything that you want them to do.
Aren't climate activists acting through a "cult mentality"? People who are in a cult usually don't think that they are in a cult.
What if the "deniers" are actually in the majority. You would need to convince them, or bulldoze them. Bulldozing them certainly doesn't sound like democracy. And they may not go quietly. They might start disrupting traffic, throwing things over famous works of art, and gluing themselves to things.
Gonna be hard to get past this, with ideology. Having never once denied any piece of data put forward by Chris or Mikie, the response was to paint me as a moral monster because I didn't conclude we should upend civilisation. Its an odd position, as baker also knows.
I used to take this attitude with psychedelics and what I thought was required to save the world from "bad attitudes" hahaha
And what is the issue with that? Populations either grow or fall, it is seldom the case that their birth rates perfectly align with mortality rates, and it can't grow forever. It is only an issue for corporatist moguls who need an ever increasing number of consumers to keep lining their pockets with cheap electronics' revenue and taxes while the Earth dies from cobalt mining — the same corporatists who want us to use paper straws.
Immigration is not a solution, because it will also come the time when the whole world's population is falling. Thus immigration is not a way to prevent populational collapse as anyone with less naivete than a 10 year old would have guessed by 2024, but simply a way to keep importing more cheap, uneducated workforce to keep working on those exploitative factories and voting on the parties that support all this.
I think the problem is one illustrated, interestingly, by another two threads here currently (50 year old man...(Lounge) and Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History (main page)).
Yes, populations grow or fall. But if we, humans, are having a net-negative(mathematically speaking) effect, this is automatically seen as a negative valence too. I also cannot see how, but the point is that if humans are causing the collapse of human populations, we should probably check that to avoid a collapse upending society entirely.
There is no such thing as 'all things being equal' here, but if we can tell the specific reason a certain trend is happening (in the related threads: lying in academic, and males in female sport) then its worth at the very least assessing, if not addressing.
Of the people who are sceptical of climate change, or adopt an attitude, or conspiracy theory regarding it. Most are swayed by a political populism which spoon feeds them a populist narrative or conspiracy theory to keep them on board. Some are old and don’t want to change their lifestyle, fewer still are young and don’t want to change their lifestyle. There may be a handful of sceptics who genuinely don’t accept the science. But they will fade away soon as the climactic impacts start to be felt.
These people can be disregarded because even if they do form groups which reach positions of power and influence. The impacts of climate change will change their minds soon enough and industry is already making the required adaptations and changes to address the issue. Albeit a bit late to the game, but there was always going to be a great deal of inertia.
Are you saying that the existence of sceptics shows that there are people who are not feeling the impacts of climatic change?
Who are you going to believe, climate scientists, or your own lying eyes?
A handfull enough to sway politics in favor of populist leaders who keep the necessary mitigation from happening in time.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes, as I said, that is the scenario if we fail to do something now. Or, we do what's necessary to not let millions die.
If it is immoral to let millions die and put the world into a economical and relocation crisis of historical proportions due to inaction, would it be more immoral to take away people's voting rights if they deny that actions need to be taken? Is that a level of cost to the world worth keeping their democratic votes, or is that just a good example of why Kantian ethics aren't enough to make moral sense in all situations? I sense that such things get people's blood pumping into slippery slope scenarios of totalitarian governments, but no, it's about one thing and one thing alone; getting on the right path to avoid disaster and in a battle for the health of the world and all people, that's requires a level of martial law as it is a war against inaction. Any industry that does not have a strategy or plan to change course will lose their execs and board, any politicians who don't have a serious plan for changing a nation's course in time will be removed from power. The blame cannot be put onto the people as the people can only follow how society is structured. The only blame they can get is for who they put into power and everyone needs to be prepared for major economical turmoil as assets are relocated into solutions from the current non-solutions.
As scientists are witnessing more and more actual consequences of climate change, it is clear that the consequences are very underestimated. If this continues we actually don't know how severe it can get. An eco-system can absolutely survive, but in what state? Losing algae in the sea would produce another tipping point. And with collapses of certain groups of species it can lead to new forms of pathogens and invasive species that could cause new pandemics and a massive famine on a scale never before seen.
I don't think people really realize how delicate the balance of the world is. The economy is a good analogy for it. The most minor problem can cause extreme fluctuations of the global economical balance. The war in Ukraine and subsequent blockage of gas from Russia caused an energy crisis, which helped pushed us into a big inflationary spiral. The blockade of the Suez Canal alone was able to put the entire world into economical fragility. But it was the sum of the Ukraine war, the pandemic, the blockage, the energy crisis, the Chinese/Taiwan unrest that put the global economy into turmoil. Put into terms of the world's ecological balance and temperature, people underestimate what the change does to the planet. It's like people only think that the sea will rise and the warmest parts of the world will get slightly warmer. In Scandinavia, some people think it will be nice to grow more wine as the region gets warmer, like what the hell are they talking about? It's like people have an inability to actually extrapolate a logical overview of the consequences. If even scientists underestimate the damage, or by fear of being attacked by the idiots of society if they look like alarmists; then just imagine how bad the general population is at accurate predictions of the level of damage we face.
In my view, rip the fucking band-aid and then we can heal the world from that. It's much easier for everyone than trying to heal from a broken world.
No, I’m accepting that there are always some people who genuinely think the science is wrong. Just like there were people who insisted the world was flat.
Having said that, I don’t remember ever meeting, or hearing of one.
How many countries do you think would be willing to instigate martial law to fight climate change?
What will be done to countries which refuse to instigate martial law?
Who exactly will be in command and set the goals? (Donald Trump?)
Some civilians may not comply. Civilians in the U.S. own close to 400 million firearms and the total number of firearms owned by private citizens vastly exceeds the police and military. By comparison, the U.S. military holds about 4.5 million guns, and state and local police have just over 1 million.
What you are suggesting will probably cause more problems than climate change will?
The number of people coming to this realisation is increasing rapidly along with the number of people who realise there is a problem that needs addressing and are ready to act. But there is an enormous inertia in the system and the culture. Many of us are banging our heads against this wall of inertia.
Eventually one realises all we can do is play our part from the position we are in within society. Ideally one would become a politician run for office and change things. Or figure out a way to change peoples minds through some kind of media organisation, or protest group. But again the inertia hits home and many people are already doing these things. In fact some of these people are pushing so hard that media campaigns are growing to discredit them as extremists and pull more people into climate denial.
So one reaches a point of acceptance, an acceptance that the crisis is enormous and irreversible and we as a species are to weak to prevent it. This is quite normal, the list of species extinctions in the fossil record is long and there is an inevitability to it.
The task of intelligent beings as I see it is to overcome these cycles and reach a point of long term survival through working with natural cycles and adopt a custodian role within the ecosystem.
It is too late now to overcome this current cycle of climate change, however if some portion of humanity can survive, adapt and preserve our intellectual and technological achievements sufficiently that they can be conveyed to the next flourishing of civilisation. There is an increased chance of achieving a that custodial role.
This is the natural cycle as I see it, with many failed attempts, collapses, until at some point in the future, the species adapts, or grows up sufficiently to overcome these obstacles and achieves a long term survival and develops into an advanced civilisation to take its place among other advanced civilisations in the cosmos, if they exist (to be confirmed). In this humanity is still in its infancy.
Personally, I will play my small part in improving our lot. While enjoying the life I have built for myself and my family.
A pity we didn’t all get on board at that point.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/intelligence-as-a-planetary-scale-process/5077C784D7FAC55F96072F7A7772C5E5
I was there 30yrs ago, but was seen as a crank.
Yes, the system itself is the problem and people rely on the system too much. For this to be fixed, we need to break the system, even if that has to be healed afterwards. The consequences of breaking its stability will be far less than that of taking too long to change course.
Quoting Punshhh
Activists in this are just as much morons as the deniers and oil chills. It's the other extreme end featuring people who can't handle the psychological stress, so they act out in desperation rather than rationality.
But the problem is that there's no time to play along as usual. I'm serious here, the largest contributors to emissions need to be put into such pressure that they collapse as economies if they don't change course. China for instance, is the worlds largest contributor to emissions. Their economy need to be crippled to the point they accept they have to change. And so does every nation who does so globally. The global economy will crash because of this, but it has to be done as money is the only thing that moves this world. The problem is that politicians in the world do not take action, they try to eat the cake and have it to, they can't turn their backs on voters who are deniers and who don't care about climate change, so they play it down; they do the absolute minimum required by COP and COP itself only arrive at minimal conclusions that scientists are criticizing being too little each time they gather.
If people think that such breaking of the system would lead to conflicts and war, yes, it might. But imagine a world with billions of people relocated and battling for resources during famine and societies in need to rebuild their infrastructure and housing due to shifting environmental needs. What wars would that generate?
What we as regular people can do is as I said, view all people who don't take this seriously as immoral people due to them downplaying the seriousness. There's a big difference between viewing them as having the wrong opinion and seeing them as immoral. The change produces a social change. The problem is that the realm and dimension of the consequences of passive behavior isn't communicated. The seriousness of collective passiveness is downplayed. If the link between being passive or dismissive of the problems and the consequences a few decades from now are established, then it would be easier to view this passivity as being immoral and these people as being immoral.
But we are still acting like it's just an opinion, like it's a behavior that's fine. It's like in the 40s and 50s and it's fine to be a racist. It's fine to divide people by color. And at some point it's not fine anymore and if you express racist opinions or behave like that in public you'll get punched in the face and people would cheer that on. That's the level of social behavior we need to be at in order to seriously pressure politicians and the public opinion. And even then it would be hard, seen as there's plenty of politicians who still win elections with downright outspoken racism. Even today that happens, but at least that power usually can't survive long if the social ideal is to punch a racist.
Quoting Punshhh
We are not to weak to prevent it, we just need to do what it takes. When the pressure is on, people won't be weak, they will fight and kill for change. That's where we're heading if we're not acting now.
Quoting Punshhh
Or just change course now. If that's our future and people would start to realize this to be a very likely outcome, then they will pick up guns and remove anyone who do not actively work to fix it. It's easy to ignore it now, but when enough people get the short end of the stick, they will soon organize and do something. We might see billions of them. Billions who have nothing else they can do but storm the castles of immorality.
I think the way you describe it is how many people view things, especially in places that may seem to be out of danger. But people don't realize that there is no such place. The changing climate collapse ecosystems and produce a cocktail effect of consequences, many unpredictable as we've witnessed already. This increase will more than likely happen in our lifetime. If people care for their children, then what future are they giving them? Putting blind folds on the kids, trying to soothe them into a belief that everything will be fine and then kicking them out into a world that is breaking apart?
Adults today are so inactive and passive that young teenagers have essentially given up. The depression around this subject among young people is so severe and their parents just don't seem to give a shit. It's appalling in my opinion.
And I actually don't see most people actually accepting how serious this problem is, or rather, they don't seem to accept just how serious this can become. I see most regular people as ignorant, putting on the blind folds and distracting themselves with mindless instagram reels. Essentially they have their head in the sand until the hurricane winds rip their bodies from their stuck heads. If they actually understood, they would speak more openly about it, but they don't, because it's socially awkward to do so, it's socially awkward to be angry about how things are. Changing that would make things go faster.
And one such change would be to draw a clear moral line between the active and the passive person. If the deniers and passive people are considered immoral, then people will start to express themselves much more on the matter. People will find it much less awkward to socially be outspoken about the issues. People will find it is moral to talk about solutions, to have it as a conversation starter.
People aren't talking right now, they are quiet.
How much further, how much does it take in order for regular people to stop voting for politicians who downplay the problems? How much further does it have to go in order for people to put pressure on world politics? How much further does it have to go in order for people to start talking about the issues much more openly?
I suspect that when the first bullet is fired from a guerilla or resistance group fighting for a piece of land because their own nation is uninhabitable; then people will realize just how dire the situation is. Then it would be such an illogical thing to say "go back to your own country" because they can't, and the number of people and military groups born out of such desperation will grow, and grow, and grow. And they will creep closer and closer and closer to the comfort of people's homes. Then, maybe, regular people will start to get the fucking point on how serious this thing is.
If it were that simple to change course, I would be out there now with my gun. But that is more likely to be counterproductive. The problem is that any breakdown in civil order would inevitably disrupt commerce and turn politics more authoritarian. Resulting in a slowing down in the development of carbon neutral technology and infra-structure and the transition and the activists who took up arms thrown in jail and labelled terrorists.
Programmes of education to educate the population in the severity and pressing nature of the threat would be effective in spreading the word. There is already lots of media aimed at achieving this. In the U.K., the work of Sir David Attenborough has been very effective and the majority of the population is on board.(to the extent of understanding the issue and prepared to act)
But really what is required is for large numbers of people to be struck with the realisation, the road to Damascus revelation, as I said. This is much more difficult and I don’t see a way of achieving this in the absence of a catastrophic natural event. Something which is likely not far off happening now.
You say we are able to make the necessary changes and prevent catastrophe. But I would say it is too late now, we should have been at our current state of readiness at the time of that Carl Sagan lecture in 1990.(I was onboard at that time). The situation is much more critical now and catastrophic effects and states collapsing will be happening soon. The best that we can do until then is keep things on a stable footing as long as possible, while nations transition to national sustainable energy generation infrastructure and make big reductions in fossil fuel usage, as has been done in China and France for example.
It looks as though the transition to carbon neutral transport is not going to be rolled out in time and may fail, with either a move back to oil, or a collapse of transport systems.
I also expect the powerful nations of the world retreating into fortresses in an attempt to survive. This would likely be in North America, Europe and China. The rest of the world would be cut loose and would have to fend for themselves. I think Putin is trying to make a move in this direction, thinking that Russia would become warmer and become an empire. (Edit. this would require the Ukraine plains for food production). This will of course fail.
The rise of fascism and libertarianism around the world is another symptom with the powerful already trying to asset strip nations, or looking to hide away in bunkers.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/
It's primarily industries that needs to be changed by force. Regular people will surely hate the consequences of the industry changes, but new industries will pop up that can follow the new path long before people start to vote for dictators. Like, the least they can do is to tax carbon emissions, and do it a lot. Then use the money as direct funds towards engineering solutions for mitigation.
Quoting Punshhh
Education doesn't seem to help much for those last percentages of people who are enough to screw up elections with candidates who oppose green industries.
Quoting Punshhh
It's too late for some consequences, but giving up would be far more catastrophic. There's no point in just stop mitigation. But we have to speed up the change and do it fast.
Quoting Punshhh
Moving back into oil just to see the entire world collapse is just stupid as a strategy. Just burn the oil industry (not literally). Crack down on the corrupted politicians getting money from it, do it by force if needed. Block oil entirely or partially (to have transportation for the build up of green replacements.
People buy what is on the market, so remove oil-driven products from the market. Have the governments put a ban on new gas cars earlier than we have now. If they bitch about it and try something as a blow back, put them in jail.
It's basically war against the climate change consequences and there's traitors walking about.
Quoting Punshhh
Billions against a fortress? Politicians in high places will soon enough be toppled if that would ever happen. Desperation force people into the only option they have, and getting into revolutionary mode à la France can move mountains.
I just wish people would argue for more serious push against the oil industry than has been done so far. There are just too many politicians in the pockets of the global oil industry, and the politicians who are directly owning their part of the oil industry need to be starved out of power. Like, Russia should be totally isolated. China should be totally isolated. With the only key to the door being that they stop oil. If not, they can hunger until the people storm the leader's castles.
This is equivocation. It is not the case that not following your prescribed actions equates to giving up.
Insulting and bullying people, and exaggerating the effects of climate change, does not cause most people to make major changes.
A carrot usually works better than a stick.
Bullshit. The French revolution had much needed beheadings. Tone policing is just another form of censorship for people to adhere to the status quo. The effects of climate change are not exaggerated, in fact, they've been underestimated as is becoming painfully obvious if you would be paying attention.
Well, donkey, unfortunately, carrots are going to be running short, and sticks too. But thistles will probably survive somewhere or other.
When does climate activism become climate terrorism?
Quoting Benkei
The United States (and probably many other countries) traditionally has a policy against negotiating with terrorists. If you get too extreme then you will be shooting yourself in the foot, and you will make it even harder to bring about change.
They are already metaphorically shooting themselves in the head by overdosing on cortisol coming from their neurotic worldview and oestrogen-filled tap water:
Micro-plastics is probably more serious as a cumulative poison or rather cocktail of poisons that travels up the food chain like DDT or heavy metals and generally cannot be either sequestered or eliminated by the body. It is a major benefit of plastics that they are not biodegradable and that is why they are so popular as food packaging, electrical insulators and so on. Early electric cable was insulated with waxed cloth and wrapped in a protective sheath of lead. Ah, the good old days! It was as easy to recycle as it was dangerous to use.
But neither of these problems can compare with the existential threat that climate change poses to the whole of humanity. In this context, they serve as yet another diversionary tactic.
It’s no longer a debate about whether it’s happening (it is), whether scientists agree (they do), whether humans are causing it (we are), or what the effects are (bad).
My own interest is converting heating systems from fossil fuels to heat pumps (and better insulation), increasing the building of electrical transmission lines, and greening the electrical grid (including through nuclear). This means talking to one’s employer and getting them on board with IRA rebates, retrofitting buildings, talking to local officials, talking with state public utility commissions, going to (boring) meetings like zoning boards, etc.
Voting, divesting from fossil fuels (switching from banks to credit unions, for example), advocating for better public transportation, electrification of all school buses and postal trucks (numbering in the hundreds of thousands), plugging old oil sites, plugging methane leaks in fracking sites, and on and on.
Plenty of things to do. I think that should be the topic here. Perhaps “Climate change solutions” should be the new name, or a separate thread. All this one does is occasionally attract random ignoramuses who want to take yet another stab at the subject by exhuming tiresome lines of delay and denial, drowning out anything interesting.
I can see that there is a food chain issue, but has it been demonstrated that they accumulate at the top of the food chain and stay there?
But it's mainly a diversionary scare story, in the context of the current catastrophe of climate change. There's nothing quite like the danger of turning into a woman to exercise the terror circuits of the average cockwomble. Worse than being possessed by the devil!
I will wait on micro plastics until there are firmer research results.
Is every microparticle a problem? Volcanic ash is a strongly present microparticle in some environments long before plastics were a thing. Volcanic ash is toxic to humans. But snowflakes are a completely harmless microparticle.
Quoting Punshhh
Nope, you will wait on it until ABC News tells you you should worry about it — that is how it goes with you folks. None of you here are qualified to read "research", that much is evident.
Yes, because so far you’ve proven yourself credible to make such a judgment. :roll:
Why not go troll somewhere else.
The following excerpts come from the Financial Times article
https://www.ft.com/content/21beeb8d-08de-46db-97c4-a976d3f0b90c
‘Outraged and furious’: Germans rebel against gas boiler ban
But the proposed boiler ban has already led to a series of unintended consequences. Thousands of Germans are seeking to beat the ban by installing new gas boilers before the January 1 deadline set by the bill, locking in CO2 emissions for decades to come.
Around 168,000 gas boilers were sold in Germany in the first quarter of this year, a 100 per cent increase on the previous year, according to the ZVSHK, a trade association for heating, plumbing and air conditioning engineers.
"Wärmewende" means "heating revolution" or "heating transition".
“This Wärmewende is just not feasible,” said AfD MP Marc Bernhard during a Bundestag debate on the issue on Wednesday. “We don’t have enough skilled workers, we don’t have enough electricity and people don’t have enough money to pay for this madness.”
So add one more subject that the climate-denying troll knows nothing about: heat pumps. Cool. :up:
Neat that it got removed though. In fact, the entire exchange was removed.
Keeps you going. But I think it is ethically questionable that the Mods (probably you) have removed the evidence of this, in the thread from which it had been collectively taken. Seems modding isn't about improving the forum, in this case.
If there’s an issue with moderation, take it up in feedback. I have no clue what you’re referring to and don’t mod threads or conversations I’m involved with.
"heat pumps. Cool. :up:" says Mikie.
Was the pun intended Mikie?
There are issues that come with the speed of transition to net zero. Due to the inertia in the system and how late we have reached a point where significant change is happening. Many of the changes are now going to have to be more rapid than a seamless transition would expect.
A case in point is the role out of charging points for electric vehicles in the U.K. There are massive hiccups in the role out. This is resulting in big hiccups in the introduction of electric vehicles and a slowing of the transition. For the role out to go smoothly there needs to be a sufficient number of charge points in sufficient locations for drivers to be confident that they will be able to make their journeys without the problems of not finding a charging point, or finding a queue at the charging point they need to use.
This has resulted in lots of people deciding not to buy an electric car until these problems have been solved. Also the inadequacies of the electrical grid systems have been revealed meaning there is a requirement for massive national upgrades in infrastructure.
Now this is just one case, there are similar issues across the board in the transition. Many of them converging in pinch points, or bottlenecks. This trips up the progress, resulting in frustrations, liquidations, unrest and protests.
The more rapid these issues have to be dealt with the greater the barriers and obstacles there are. The greater the upheaval.
There is also a political fallout from this. The rise of far right populism and the miss information they promote. In the U.K. the Conservative Party has failed to invest in the required infrastructure, failed to provide incentives, failed to put necessary laws and regulations in place for over a decade, to speed up the transition. Now we are in the position where all this has to be done at breakneck speed and the Conservatives are split with a faction insisting on reneging on our net zero commitments. This plays into the climate denial that is sweeping the Western democracies.
Divide and rule politics and far right conspiracy theories threaten to derail our efforts to tackle the climate crisis and the more the necessary changes are delayed the greater the upheaval.
Calling people "deniers" creates an "us and them" mentality. This makes it even less likely to get cooperation. People who call other people "deniers" are part of the problem, not the solution.
Good. They never intended to cooperate anyway, because they deny there’s a problem. Fuck ‘em.
Quoting Punshhh
Indeed— and we see this all over. The conversion to a better electric grid requires permitting, for example, and sometimes has to cut across people’s properties and they don’t want to lease. So it gets tied up in courts or eminent domain is invoked, and that angers people, etc. All kinds of problems like this will crop up. Electric charging stations, upfront costs, and so on.
But it’s going to happen one way or another, because it has to. Which is why the fossil fuel industry keeps politicizing things like induction stoves (which are awesome) and meat alternatives and blather on about freedom and masculinity. They selectively run ridiculous stories and constantly highlight problems— not constructively, because they don’t care in the first place, but in order to paint a picture of unreliability or socialism or whatever. Anything to delay.
Their propaganda works, gets into the brains of lazy consumers, and eventually gets regurgitated on Internet forums. See the past 108 pages for plenty of examples.
Many people will cooperate if they are asked nicely. But when you are nasty to them, and call them insulting names, then they are likely to dig their heels in. That means that you have probably lost the fight against climate change.
Which is more important Mikie, your ego or the fight against climate change?
No, they won’t. Climate deniers are like creationists. It doesn’t matter how nicely you present evidence or argue your case. Carl Sagan was doing it respectfully, articulately, and reasonably — 35 years ago, in interviews, in congress, in lectures, on popular radio and television programs. Climate deniers remain with their denial.
I’m no longer interested in engaging substantially or nicely with those who deny reality and delay progress on a problem known decades ago. Especially on the internet. As I said: fuck ‘em. There’s better things to do.
Quoting Mikie
You seem to believe that all climate deniers are the same. At the extreme point of denial. In reality there is a spectrum of denial. Your attitude is making people move towards the extreme point of denial.
You have created a self-fulfilling situation Mikie. Kudos for making the situation worse.
Yes, and it’s all both dangerous and immoral. There’s a spectrum of Holocaust denial too, and I likewise have no interest in engaging seriously with any of it. Again: there’s better things to do.
Thankfully, deniers are a small minority, both in the US and the world. So, fuck ‘em.
Small ???
I think that you are in denial Mikie.
Some recent research, reported on this webpage:
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-02-16/despite-the-evidence-nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change
Despite the Evidence, Nearly 15% of Americans Deny Climate Change
In fact, more than 20% of the populations of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota do not believe in climate change, results show.
For example, less than 12% of the population of California does not believe in climate change, but northern California’s Shasta County had denial rates as high as 52%.
Similarly, denial across Texas averages 21%, but at the county level denial ranges from 13% in Travis County to 67% in Hockley County.
From The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/16/third-of-uk-teenagers-believe-climate-change-exaggerated-report-shows
A third of UK teenagers believe climate change is “exaggerated”
[teenagers are probably more likely to believe in climate change than non-teenagers - not really "small" Mikie]
From Statista:
https://www.statista.com/chart/19449/countries-with-biggest-share-of-climate-change-deniers
From The Conversation:
https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450
The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds
Australian news consumers are far more likely to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries.
The Digital News Report: Australia 2020 was conducted by the University of Canberra at the end of the severe bushfire season during January 17 and February 8, 2020.
More than half (58%) of respondents say they consider climate change to be a very or extremely serious problem, 21% consider it somewhat serious, 10% consider it to be not very and 8% not at all serious.
Regardless of political orientation, only 36% of news consumers think climate change reporting is accurate. This indicates low levels of trust in climate change reporting and is in stark contrast with trust in COVID-19 reporting, which was much higher at 53%.
The findings also point to a significant section of the community that simply don’t pay attention to the issue, despite the calamitous bushfires.
Yes, and becoming smaller. At least in the world. True, fossil fuel states have higher rates — US, Australia, probably Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. But still minorities even there. Even the oil companies pushing denial bullshit are themselves not really deniers.
At this point it takes a special kind of stupid— but whatever. People believe in creationism and that the Holocaust didn’t happen and in a flat earth. Eventually you got to let them be. No sense engaging seriously.
Good news— still a long way to go.
Saudi is investing big time in solar, they know their oil is going to become a stranded asset soon enough. Russia knows this too, so want to grab Ukraines grain producing plains before it’s to late.
I fully support the use of heat pumps where they are appropriate. But as usual, the devil is in the details.
Heat pumps look good on paper, but there are issues.
The following quotes come from an article called "Are Heat Pumps a Climate-Friendly Solution to Reduce Carbon Footprint?"
https://climateadaptationplatform.com/are-heat-pumps-a-climate-friendly-solution-to-reduce-carbon-footprint
Swapping a boiler to a heat pump is more complex. There are costs and space involved. First, heat pumps are larger than gas boilers and require outside space. Second, heat pumps run at cooler temperatures than boilers do, and for the freezing winter temperatures, old and leaky homes comprise 60% of European properties.
These properties would need to be insulated, which means additional costs to homeowners on top of installing a heat pump. The price of switching to heat pumps could quickly become problematic and politically toxic, the article notes. The least that governments can do is to cover some of the cost and ensure that there are enough skilled workers to retrofit homes, the article suggests.
While many households in the U.S. could benefit from switching to heat pumps, the study also notes that wide-scale heat pump adoption may have unintended, undesirable consequences. Study authors simulated widespread heat pump adoption outcomes to determine the circumstance that makes heat pumps a wise choice.
“The key finding is that for around a third of the single-family homes in the U.S., if you installed the heat pump, you would reduce environmental and health damages,” according to Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan and a co-author of the paper (Rocheleau, 2021).
However, installing a heat pump would only benefit some. For others, installing a heat pump would be more expensive because the cost of generating electricity is higher than the cost of in situ fossil fuel use. Heat pumps are also less efficient to heat houses in colder climates and will increase power bills. In 24 of the studied cities, mostly in colder climates, peak residential electricity demand increased by over 100% if all houses adopted heat pumps, which would require grid upgrades.
The study suggests that switching about 30% of single-family homes to heat pumps will reduce harm to the environment and human health and allow savings for households. The best places to start are the parts of the country with a moderate climate. The authors also suggest cleaning up the grid as fast as possible to allow wider uptake of heat pumps and noting that heat pumps will continue improving and increase efficiency in colder climates.
They will fry, yes. But their economy relies on fossil fuel extraction and export, especially to China — so they’ve delayed and continue to delay, although some steps have been recently taken.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Lol. Yeah, please keep talking as if you understand the “details” — evidently in this case meaning “googling for an article, posting it, and pretending it proves something.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You haven’t known what you’re talking about since the time you started trolling this thread with your thinly veiled denialism.
So here’s an assignment: while you’re googling, google the problems and “details” about oil, coal, and natural gas extraction — the environmental damage, the health damage, the industry practices and lobbying, the destruction left in its wake, its transportation, the effects on workers, the effects on respiratory problems, its expense, how governments subsidize the industry, the externalities that aren’t paid for, etc.
It’ll be good for you. You might learn something. Then you can get back to your pro bono work as an industry apologist, following their playbook of amplifying the “risks” and “problems” associated with a green transition. “They don’t work well in cold climates!” (Wrong) “They aren’t cost effective!” (Wrong) …etc. Take a break.
It is nice to meet somebody who knows more about Australia than Australians do.
Why is it that many Australians are willing to "fry" despite the calamitous bushfires?
Stunningly accurate.
And knowing this, Lee Raymond and other executives, caring about their grandkids and the future of humans on earth and being the good patriots they are, immediately started on carbon capture technology, aiding the research and development of alternative energy, encouraging the government to put in place stricter industry regulations and efficiency standards and an across-the-board carbon tax to fully reflect the cost vis-à-vis externalities.
Just kidding.
Instead they started a massive propaganda campaign and hired the same people tobacco companies used to downplay the harm of cigarettes.
Cost the country and the world decades of progress. But I’m sure it was awesome have those profits. Yachts are fun and God will handle the rest.
"Et tu?" Yes, more than any of you here who want to suspend society. You all have shown not to know basic statistics and physics as I have shown before several times (do I have to go quote all those times?), yet you want to talk about "the science™" as if such a phrase is not the utmost insult for centuries of development of natural philosophy. I, at the very least, still remember Bhaskara.
Quoting Mikie
Sorry, I did not know this was a safe space for the religious. With this realisation I will now leave.
:lol:
Quoting Deleted user
:rofl:
Quoting Deleted user
Please! I could use another good laugh.
If you're doing satire, you're doing it well.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189
And on the other hand:—
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06863-2
A case of 'Many hands make light stop working.'
The bad news is that if some bits of the world are going to get colder but overall its going to get warmer, the bits that get warmer are going to get a good deal warmer than the "average". And whether it gets hotter or colder, trees cannot stock up on thermal clothing or bottled water, and forests can only move a matter of meters per year under their own steam.
:lol:
Mikie, are you laughing out loud to cover your embarrassment over the fact that the Exxon CEO makes good sense?
From your link:
Quoting Saul Elbein (The Hill)
It’s just hilarious coming from an oil shill who lobbies and propagandizes for delaying any and all efforts to address the issue. We know they’ve known it’s a problem for decades, and we know they continue to block legislation while claiming they want a carbon tax.
Yeah, sorry if his words mean exactly nothing to me.
https://apple.news/AuadVxyMFSHG6_svjlnIj4g
“There’s been an uptick in arguments claiming that any or all solutions are expensive, harmless, and ultimately pointless. Like Madame Web.”
Yes, that's a good video on what's going on right now. Maybe if the people who can still use their brains could stop focusing on spending their time on so much trash culture and lazy attitudes towards politics and philosophical thought; they might be able to help change the course instead. But people aren't interested, even if they're on the right side of history.
The problem isn't really the climate deniers or the climate doomers, they're mostly just irrelevant since they're not nearly enough of a democratic force to stand in the way of necessary change. Or, that's how it should be at least. The problem is that democracies are tilted to such an extreme balance between decent and absolute trash that they've become relevant without really being a large democratic force; all because the rest of society consist of lazy people who "can't find the time to involve themselves in these issues".
It's this lazy attitude, this "I don't have time to think about..." that is the real problem. There's not enough demand on politicians and parties, so politicians fall back into playing into populism in order to keep their power.
People who acknowledge the problem and agree with the need for solutions, still just don't give a shit about voting for those who actually push for necessary change and they don't seem to care to speak up when necessary.
This is why shifting the social sphere into climate denying and doomerism should be considered immoral. Something equivalent of being a racist, spitting on the poor, abusive behavior etc. Society needs to change towards treating people who talk and act within such attitudes to be unwelcomed, totally ok to be fired from jobs, kicked out of restaurants, unwanted in social situations etc. And if someone would talk like that in media it should be equivalent of uttering the n-word in public; not as an opinion that's treated equal to everything else.
If so, if pushed in that direction of social culture in society, it would gather a greater momentum towards action. It would lead to politicians being careful not to cater to such voices and the social consequences would be too severe for people to go around shouting such opinions and statements.
Since the consequences of not doing anything to mitigate climate chance are so far away in time, we need to have consequences here and now that people want to avoid. Producing a culture of more severe negative social consequences as direct results of promoting or uttering climate denial and doomerism would help change the lazy attitude into being more active and proactive. It would force people to be more verbal in order to keep their social moral status and in doing so keep the focus on working towards solutions higher on the list for politicians as it's part of the cultural atmosphere they want to cater to in order to gain votes.
Right now, people who, in social situations, talk a lot about climate change and the required need for solutions are often viewed as "bad at parties", while people who are deniers or doomers just get eyeroll reactions. That makes the issues and the topic dead in politics and something left for Reddit brawls, rather than part of core societal topics. Forcing a harsher moral environment around the topic could push people to "show their moral stance" more openly since they surely don't want to be viewed as possible deniers or doomers.
If people can't take actions on their own, then make it customary immoral not to. The sad truth is that status and social structures are more important for common people than saving the planet. And so shaping a social construct of morality around the subject into being more extreme could help steer the ship in a better direction faster.
I am a #climate scientist. I can identify with both climate researchers featured in this worth-your-time article.
I started out as Ms Rebecca Grekin, a climate scientist who earnestly, naively believed that the ExxonMobil of today is a trustworthy actor in the energy transition. I spent more than a decade working for ExxonMobil, occasionally (but not often enough) advocating for combatting #climatechange .
In 2020, I was fired—yes, fired—by ExxonMobil because I reported what amounted to a $10 billion fraud. To put it mildly, that experience fundamentally altered my opinion of whether present-day ExxonMobil can be considered an honest broker in anything, but most especially in the realm of the energy transition, which is a far-greater-than-$10-billion threat to the Exxon's bottom line. I have become the article's more cynical and wiser Mr Kashtan.
Despite what smooth-talking spokespeople will tell you, ExxonMobil continues to fund and be an active member of organizations that are—today—working to decrease political support for government action to curb climate change and decrease the public’s access to and trust in readily available replacements for #oilandgas. They fund PhDs and national labs to burnish their reputation and influence what questions researchers address. #industry lobbyists have convinced large swaths of the public (and most of their own well-meaning employees) that technologies like carbon capture and storage are legitimate recipients of billions of taxpayer dollars earmarked for combatting climate change. Those taxpayer dollars are urgently needed for existing, proven, ready-right-now solutions but instead are funding a massive campaign to enhance oil recovery. Carbon capture and storage is, at its core, a technology for producing more oil. It requires more carbon to be expended to inject #co2 at pressure than it keeps out of the atmosphere. It is not and will not be a viable solution to climate change.
ExxonMobil executives can continue this deception in large part because so many useful idiots, myself included, willingly lend their personal reputations to the propping up of a lie. They can continue this deception because they make an example of people like me (I’m not the only one) to ensure that their employees are afraid to truly challenge the ethics of the company line.
I wish I could tell my younger self that the cynical Mr Yannai Kashtan is right. That idealism and/or a paycheck can lull you into trusting those who say one thing and do another. That we must stop allowing ourselves to be used by a few people who care more about their reserve shares than about doing the right thing. And, most important, that we must, without delay, find the unflinching political will to turn off the #fossilfuels tap as fast as we possibly can. [/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/05/us-banks-leave-esg-finance-climate-crisis
If we can leave out terms like "point of no return", we won't play into their newest but equally stupid position against mitigation projects.
There’s plenty we can do to mitigate even worse effects. Some warming is locked in— and we’ll likely blow past 1.5 — but it’s not too late for 2C. Anything that can be done should be done.
When scientists warn about catastrophe, they’re mostly talking about tipping points. There’s potential that if these are triggered, we’re toast. There’s a lot of denial about that, even on these very pages, similar to those arguments about how nuclear war isn’t an “existential” threat because, after all, some human beings would survive.
But ignoring moronic stuff like that, it’s important to acknowledge the level of threat we face. But doomism and defeatism isn’t the answer.
Yes, that's my point, the threat is real, the science is real, but the language used in media play into an ideal of everything being too late, when it's not. Or rather, the complexity gets lost and the doomer climate science deniers just point towards singular words as sources and reasons for their cause.
We already had to change using the term "climate change" to "climate crisis" as deniers leaned into arguments about the "change" having happened before in earth's history and there's no proof for human actions being the reason. So changing it to "climate crisis" have helped push back against those kinds of stupid arguments from them. And now when most of them have shifted into acknowledging human causes, but changed the narrative into that we're doomed so there's no point in changing, then we need to adjust the language to push back against that kind of doomer rhetoric.
Maybe push terms like "mitigation efforts" and "mitigation strategies" into the mainstream in order to push the concept that it's not too late and there's still time to do stuff. That way the debate instead goes into a debate against deniers and doomers with the frame of reference being a question of "why would you oppose mitigating the effects of this crisis?"
Change in language works best on people who can't understand information on their own and who instead rely on other authorities to form opinions (authority in terms of group think clusters and populistic influencers pushing their agendas rather than upholding facts).
Since we have the problem of these people having enough democratic power to push elections in the direction of leaders who would halt mitigation strategies, then the only democratic strategy to use is rhetoric to persuade them.
The other option is for UN to declare a form of global marshal law on the topic of climate change and that no democratic nation can oppose or work against global mitigation strategies. But I doubt UN can have enough power to shift anything through that.
Oh if only I could find the right way to talk. 'Crisis' good, 'catastrophe' bad; 'tipping point' good, 'point of no return' bad; 'Houston we have a problem', good, 'The rocket has exploded' bad.
The main thing is to get the talk nuanced just so, and then everyone will act and no one will despair. Or possibly not.
A weird response, given the 5 years worth of my posts. But have your strawman if you wish.
Language matter, especially in media headlines for the part of the masses who are stupid enough to only read the headlines; but who carry enough democratic power to vote people into power who actively act against mitigation strategies.
Modern capitalism has pushed media in many nations to compete in the attention economy of who can write in the most bold, underlined ALL CAPS text ending with the most exclamation marks; for the purpose of reaching the absolute most extreme eye catching DOOM rhetoric possible.
Ignoring how such media behavior affect the population who aren't intellectual enough to do anything but follow the most shallow interpretation of reality is to ignore how group think and cult mentality shape and form the upper most deciding factors of democratic elections.
Today, almost every election balances right at the mid point between two sides and elections become essentially decided by a very small group of people who are pushed and pulled by people in power using any kind of algorithmic weapon they can muster.
In the end, the intellectual and educated masses stand firm on each side in an election and has to hope that their side had the highest marketing budget to sway that sheep herd in the middle towards their direction.
If anyone calls that kind of "democracy" our peak of society and spearhead of civilisation, they're delusional. Democracy today is just a sports game of sheep herding into winning and gaining power for the next four years. It's not about what's good for society or about solutions to problems.
So, language matter; language can sway that middle herd towards or away from mitigation strategies. But since commercial media isn't playing a game of morality or truth, but rather profit, the truth gets pushed to the small fine writing underneath the profit-gaining headlines, and the headlines always focus on doom, it's what sells the most ads and grabs the most attention, and attention is today's most valuable currency, more precious than saving the world.
Narcissus gazing into his reflection in the water; so mesmerized that he can't hear the deadly tsunami up the river.
Dude, you are so lucky. Soon you will be living in a tropical paradise. :up:
Is there a realistic solution to this problem?
Don't take it personal, but I do get a bit fed up with being told my language and/or attitude is the problem. The solution we are going for at the moment is 'most people die', along with a mass extinction.
Quoting Christoffer
Obviously those people are not reading climate scientists or philosophy forums, so there is no problem. Oh, but wait - there is a problem, and it's not careless talk that is costing lives, but closed ears.
Here's some people taking it seriously. Because when things get tough, the tough get going. I'm just leaving this link here for my own reminder really, but if anyone wants to look at the security implications, here are some folk already doing that.
https://climateandsecurity.org
They don’t mean you. They mean the people who inform the ordinary voter.
Seems like you took that personally.
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about the effects of defeatism. Maybe you feel it’s already over. In that case, fine— but I’m not sure that’s true yet. Seems a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Then there was Big Oil
Now there is Big Meat
Quoting Vox (Kenny Torrella)
Does this sound familiar? :scream:
Quoting Chef Andrew Gruel (@ChefGruel)
Not at all. My feeling is that ..."It's only just begun." Which has been my tag line in this thread several times.
And fine it is not going to be — stormy, rather. But I have given up hoping that sense and decency will prevail in the near future; rather, starvation, war, and greedy stupidity will do the job instead.
Okay. In that case I mostly agree in theory— in practice I have to adopt more optimism, otherwise I guarantee it happens. But history seems on your side, yes.
Be not too hard, for life is short,
And nothing is given to man;
Be not too hard when he is sold and bought,
And he must manage as best he can;
Be not too hard when he blindly dies
Fighting for things he does not own;
And be not too hard when he tells lies,
Or his heart is sometimes like a stone;
Be not too hard, for soon he'll die,
Often no wiser than he began;
Be not too hard, for life is short,
And nothing is given to man.
[/quote]
https://community.deepadaptation.info
:pray:
Yay me.
From the video "Chaos in the Climate Casino"
Dr. Eliot Jacobson is a retired professor of mathematics, computer science, as well as a casino industry consultant.
Dr. Eliot Jacobson: Can I just add one thing to what you said much earlier in the conversation, and maybe we can go back and forth if you have thoughts on this. But the idea that the IPCC started out with the 1750 baseline. I actually tracked that down because, you know, there are some people who will argue that that was part of some fraud that was sort of being perpetrated on us to change how much we've really warmed.
Dr. Eliot Jacobson: I believe the language is they talk about the 30-year period centered on 1750, which would be 1735 to 1765, more or less, which is actually 31 years, I never quite got how they got 30 years out of that.
Dr. Eliot Jacobson is a "retired professor of mathematics, computer science, as well as a casino industry consultant". But he couldn't work out how they got 30 years out of the date range from 1735 to 1765.
Even I can do that (work out how they got 30 years out of the date range from 1735 to 1765) !!!. :nerd:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/biden-is-spending-1-trillion-to-fight-climate-change-voters-dont-care-21d8cb05?mod=mhp
:chin:
At least nice that the reactionary Wall Street Journal acknowledges his climate bona fides.
A bigger problem with the School Strike for Climate is one set out beautifully in the Oxford Union Debate by Konstantin Kisin.
In short, there are billions of poor people in the world. They are really poor. Their children will struggle to get enough nutrition to develop properly. They are the 10 per cent or so who still live in absolute poverty. They can see a path to a richer life, and the developed world has already trodden it.
They want to use technologies that affordably raise our life expectancies, usually emitting lots of carbon dioxide. They’re not going to not do it, just like Westerners are not going to not feed their children. They will feed their children first and worry about emissions second. It should be a familiar pattern to Westerners.
Demanding that governments damage their economies in the name of climate science won’t help the planet. What will help, as Kisin concludes, is science and technology that allows the poorest people in the world to feed themselves without large emissions.
You can see Konstantin Kisin's part of the Oxford Union Debate on Youtube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo
A transcript is available.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Before even reading, I’m thinking to myself “Gee, I wonder if these ‘interesting comments’ will have a negative slant?”
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
:lol: What complete bullshit.
The school strikes are heroic and inspirational, climate denial propaganda notwithstanding.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/03/12/eia-confirms-historic-us-oil-production-record/?sh=6fcd85824048
No matter who we have as president, if it's valuable, it's going to be dug up and sold or used. Biden can chip away at the problem at the margins and push for more EV's and fewer gas stoves, but that is just putting a finger in the climate dike. Gas went up a buck a gallon in the last four years, and there will howls of protest as if the world was coming to an end. People aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary for real solutions.
Right, so it’s hopeless. Cool analysis. Bye.
Not hopeless, but what we're currently doing is obviously not working. People are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to transition away from fossil fuels. Poor and developing countries are also going to keep using fossil fuels. We're going to have to either hope for some tech miracle, hope the Earth is self-regulating in some way as to prevent warming from getting too bad, or geo-engineering our way out of it.
Cheer up, though. Embrace idealism. This is all just a dream. It's meaningless. Work on adjusting your attitude so you attract a better reality for yourself.
People make sacrifices all the time, especially for the oil industry. Whether they know it or not. The assessment that everyone needs to “sacrifice” for a green transition in the first place is silly — but even if true, since we all do it all the time anyway, it’s really yet another way of justifying the status quo. “Nothing can be done— the people don’t want to sacrifice!”
No thanks. If you feel nothing can be done, then go on doing nothing.
Quoting RogueAI
Yes, because your expert knowledge on this issue is definitely worth paying attention to. :up:
As opposed to being a massive dick to people on some obscure philosophy forum? If you're so upset about climate change, why are you wasting your time here? Do you think your ramblings here are helping the planet in any way? There must be some painting somewhere you could be scheming to throw some soup at.
Mikie doesn't want to accept reality. It is either Mikie's way or the highway.
Be careful. When Mikie is cornered he can be quite nasty.
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Note that Mikie considers himself to be an "expert" about climate change, and believes that he is superior to everybody else. If only the governments of the world and the oil companies would listen to Mikie then climate change would not be a problem. The people who still live in absolute poverty will happily obey Mikie. I hope that Mikie doesn't fall off his pedestal, or fall off his high horse.
He deleted that comment logging his gross behaviour. He denies it, and continues to pretend that magically the comment disappeared. I have genuinely never seen someone as fragile as this guy.
There is only one type of climate activist. The gullible, unrealistic, idiot.
They should be ignored or mocked. :scream:
About time.
Any time the fossil fuel industry says something will “hurt the economy,” what they mean is: now we’ll have to gouge consumers even more to maintain our returns for our billionaire masters.
Here is a large report that explains some of the tipping points and what we might expect and what we ought to be doing about it politically. It's fairly up to date, and well researched. Seems mightily optimistic to me about the ability/possibility for human society to find its own transformative positive tipping points in terms of world governance and mitigating technologies and lifestyle adaptation. But hope springs 'til the last minute.
The plant-based food craze is over
February 2020, I basically said fake meat is not a thing, it's not going to catch on. And that is when I met the woman from Sunfed, who actually tried to change my mind.
Shama Sukul Lee came into the studio with some meat-free bacon, and it was actually delicious. Credit to her, she had a great product. And she had money behind it, she has $10 million worth of investment, which included some pretty high profile backers.
But she couldn't turn a profit. And she says it’s because the "plant-based bubble burst".
You know what the problem is, don't you? (this is the bit that is relevant to EVs)
It's the same problem I think the EVs have got. Consumers en masse will only switch if what you give them is better.
But plant-based food is not better than a steak. And frankly, not enough of us think about the climate deeply enough to do it for moral reasons.
There's a lot of this going on at the moment, there's hype about new products that we will switch to for moral reasons, EVs being the most obvious example right now.
But look what’s happening to the EV market, there's a massive slump. And why? Because they’re still not better than petrol and diesel vehicles, particularly over longer distances.
If there’s one lesson from this, it’s that moral motivation is not enough. The product you give us has got to be better.
Thanks for the reference. Very interesting.
Are you a Kiwi?
Yes.
Quoting AmadeusD
An obscure source, but the points that are made are relevant to the switch to EVs and to human psychology.
Do you agree with the points that are made?
Always good to see locals about :)
I agree with the final line. But i think there are ways around it - much less cynical than Du Plessis-Allan.
I am a cynical and skeptical person.
Heather du Plessis-Allan's comments seem reasonable to me. Not enough people think about the climate deeply enough to make major changes for moral reasons. Many people don't like change, and most people don't want to give up the things that they enjoy.
What is being done to fight climate change at the moment is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :roll:
I am not particularly bothered about climate change. But there are a number of things that annoy me.
-- :naughty: -- science seems to have sold its soul to the devil
-- :down: -- science is being controlled by bureaucracy
-- :scream: -- many things are exaggerated (scaremongering)
-- :zip: -- the public is not told the full story about many things
-- :roll: -- people are doing the wrong things to fight climate change
There are many other things about climate change that annoy me, but it is time for my afternoon nap. :yawn:
The good thing is that I will probably be long dead by the time the shit hits the fan. :grin:
The graphs below show a compact characterization of the entire year of hourly average temperatures. The horizontal axis is the day of the year, the vertical axis is the hour of the day, and the color is the average temperature for that hour and day.
Based only on these average temperature graphs, where would you rather live, location A or location B ?
Note that location A and location B are real locations on the earth. I will reveal where the locations are after people have answered the question. Location A and location B are very close to being on the same line of longitude, and the straight line distance from location A to location B is about 490 kilometers.
© WeatherSpark.com
© WeatherSpark.com
Do you mind if science is being controlled overall or just by the bureaucracy? It seems you want to set science and scientists free.
Unseen Ways Climate Change Effects Us
Mikie, you really need to improve your "cut and paste" skills. Some of the text in your post has mysteriously changed from the original text in the article.
Original article text:
the devastation wreaked by climate change comes not just from headline-grabbing catastrophes but also from the...
Mikie's text:
the devastation wreaked by climate change is often just as much about headline-grabbing catastrophes as it is about the...
Why did the text change Mikie?
Did you make the change?
Mikie, thank you for making this post. It is a good example of the sort of climate stupidity that is making the public distrust climate science and climate scientists.
Quoting We Don’t See What Climate Change Is Doing to Us
.
Consider the different states in America. Some of the states are hotter than others (e.g. Texas, Florida, Louisiana) and some of the states are colder than others (e.g. North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana).
This article implies that the hotter states should have more societal destruction, and more effects on human health and productivity, than the colder states. Is that true?
The article also implies that the hotter states should have a greater number of excess deaths caused by moderately elevated temperatures than the colder states. Is that true?
Quoting We Don’t See What Climate Change Is Doing to Us
Do people from hotter states have worse cognitive performance and decision making than people from the colder states? Do people from hotter states make more mistakes and have more local crime than people from the colder states? Do people from hotter states use more profanity on social media than people from the colder states. Mikie, do you live in a hotter state or a colder state?
Quoting We Don’t See What Climate Change Is Doing to Us
Did hotter states have slower gains on standardized exams like the Preliminary SAT exams than colder states?
If 1 percent of learning is lost per one-degree-hotter school year temperatures, and the effects are cumulative, then the children from the hotter states must be slowly but surely becoming stupider than the children from the colder states. Mikie, do you live in a hotter state or a colder state?
Science needs to be controlled in some way. So some degree of bureaucracy is required. But it should not be strongly biased towards one view.
To paraphrase Judith Curry:
Bureaucracy influences research funding priorities, the scientific questions that are asked, how the findings are interpreted, what is cited, and what gets canonized. Factual statements are filtered in assessment reports and by the media with an eye to downstream political use.
Here is a good description of academic life from Sabine Hossenfelder, who has many videos on YouTube:
It made me realize that this institute wasn’t about knowledge discovery.
It was about money making.
And the more I saw of academia, the more I realized it wasn’t just this particular
institute and this particular professor.
It was generally the case.
[u]The moment you put people into big institutions the goal shifts from knowledge discovery to
money making.[/u]
[u]You have to work on topics that are mainstream enough but not too mainstream.
You want them to be a little bit edgy.
But not too edgy.
it needs to be something that fits into the existing machinery.[/u]
Quoting Eurof Uppington (euronews)
Probably a huge underestimate, but hilarious that they have to put a dollar amount on it so the corporate masters can actually understand.
Also, this is a good summary by Michael Mann of what we’re dealing with these days from the newest form of industry propaganda/ denialism:
Spot on. Best not to pay them any attention.
[sup]— Rhythm Reet · The Weather Network · Apr 21, 2024[/sup]
Bit early? Last year was bad enough.
You seem to constantly repeat this advice Mikie. Doesn't that prove that they are getting attention?
And Mikie, you seem to be giving them a lot of attention. Otherwise why would you need to give this advice constantly?
This is a really smart way to make it quite clear that you have no patience for disagreement, and prefer alarmist 'I'm right' type arguments to enforce actions that make you personally feel better.
Weird way to approach science.
Quoting The Guardian
Quoting Reuters
How did Woodpecker (a foetus) sign the petition? :chin:
An administrator, guardian or legal care taker can sign documents, petitions, papers, etc. in the name of a foetus.
Often said that these smaller countries can’t compare to a leading polluter like the US. But it can compare to states— like NH, VT, MA, NC or SC, etc. Enough states do it, there will be a turning point. The question, as always, is how quickly.
Should have started 30 years ago. Then there’d be room for more optimism. We’ve already shot past the Paris target of 1.5 however. That’s dunzo. There will be massive damage caused by this, and we may reach tipping points because of our delay.
But this and other examples shows it can certainly be done. The people are there, the technology is there— the dying fossil fuel industry, their lobbyists, and their lackies in congress, still in denial. So given our anti-majoritarian system, short term thinking, and general science ignorance, stupidity will most likely put prevail.
This song was written by John Hanlon and was adopted by the opponents of the Lake Manapouri dam.
It is called "Damn The Dam".
Leaf falls to kiss the image of a mountain
The early morning mist has ceased to play
Birds dancing lightly on the branches by a fountain
Of a waterfall which dazzles with its spray
Tall and strong and aged, contented and serene
The kauri tree surveys this grand domain
For miles and miles around him, a sea of rolling green
Tomorrow all this beauty won't remain
Damn the dam cried the fantail
As he flew into as he flew into the sky
To give power to the people
All this beauty has to die
Rain falls from above and splashes on the ground
Goes running down the mountain to the sea
And leaping over pebbles makes such a joyful sound
Such as Mother Nature's meant to be
I have grave reflection, reflection of a grave
Trees that once lived green now dead and brown
The homes of tiny animals and little birds as well
For the sake of man's progression have been drowned
Damn the dam cried the fantail
As he flew into as he flew into the sky
To give power to the people
All this beauty has to die
Around the dam site, and on some fish. But compared to the environmental impact of oil production, it’s small indeed.
Nice
In general, it is a great introduction to ecological theory and the comparison with economic theory is particularly cogent and revealing. But you might need to keep your happy pills handy.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/04/25/carbon-emissions-are-dropping-fast-in-europe
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/19/opinion/climate-summit-2023-un.html
However…
https://grist.org/energy/ferc-transmission-rule-electricity-grid/
I’m sure it’ll be challenged— and who knows with this Trump-stacked judiciary what will happen.
Reconductoring is included and that’s a good thing too.
============================================
A supercomputer simulation just predicted when humans will go extinct
Quoting Joshua Hawkins
First-ever supercomputer simulation predicts when humans will become extinct on Earth
Quoting Dylan Murray
Supercomputer shares terrifying prediction of date human life will become extinct
Quoting James Kay
This Supercomputer Just Made A Prediction About The Human Species, And It’s Quite Terrifying
Quoting Sarah Jensen
Man the excuses for not doing anything on the climate are starting to get silly even by denialist standards.
:up:
Just ignore climate deniers. See ignore list extension thread. I promise you won’t be missing anything.
I'm even luckier — my daughters seem to have chosen not to reproduce, so my grandchildren will never die.
Well, here you go:
Rich nations are earning billions from a pledge to help fix climate
It’s like arguing world hunger is a hoax because some nonprofits funnel money to rich people. That is to say: stupid.
A grift can be in service of a legitimate cause. And it does undermine the credibility of the movement.
If it doesn't to you, you're short of a full deck. And yeah. No surprise if so. This isn't even moral - it's based on the fact that this is what it has done
The tropics are becoming uninhabitable. Expect the refugees to be called 'economic migrants' or worse.
Likely the people who caused this mess will also block those migrants from entering their countries.
And later on down the line when climate change becomes an unbearable crisis that's impossible to ignore, they will likely push for equally reckless solutions like geoengineering.
L1 is the one I want, between sun and Earth, and some of that space blanket reflective stuff. It's that bad right now that I want to do some reckless geoengineering If we start to get cold, we can roll up the blanket later. I wonder if they deliver?
Quoting Sarah Bregel, BBC
Do you read your own sources at all, or is the headline enough for you? Here is a marginal population way outside its normal range and barely surviving until the climate had sufficiently warmed for them to thrive, and now they have become noticeable. But fool that you are, you think this is some kind of counter evidence. What a pathetic idiot!
Like I suggested to Mr Bee: since climate change denial and spamming this thread with stupid bullshit doesn’t warrant a banning, the ignore list feature works brilliantly.
The posts have already been established as worthless, so there’s nothing to miss.
Yeah, but I'm not trying to convince myself, but to prevent the world from drowning in bullshit for the sake of the community. All that is required for the lie to triumph is for truth tellers to be silent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/01/opinion/clean-energy-solar-wind.html
Mikie, the article that you linked to is an opinion guest essay by Andrew Dessler. He is a climate scientist and not an expert on renewable energy. Many people would see him as biased and that he has a conflict of interest.
If you want to get the facts from the New York Times then I suggest that you read this article:
https://nypost.com/2023/11/02/opinion/collapse-of-projects-shows-again-that-wind-power-is-not-affordable
Here are some highlights:
Collapse of projects shows again that wind power is not affordable
The renewable-power fantasy is being blown apart by furious financial headwinds.
Already this year projects have tumbled in Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and now Danish wind-power giant Ørsted has canceled two wind farms in New Jersey.
Over and over, the litany of causes is the same: inflation, higher interest rates that drive up capital costs and severe kinks in the supply chain.
Indeed — and yet this broken industry is what New York’s climate activists have pinned their clean-energy hopes on.
If offshore wind had to compete on the free market, we wouldn’t even be talking about it.
More (somewhat) good news. Thinking my next car will be a used EV.
The problem with the free market in this case is it doesn't price in the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels (global warming, increased asthma deaths, increased smog).
12 Months of Records
Turning the planet into Venus seems to be the goal.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4987296/young-voters-biden-gaza-inflation-abortion-trump-genforward-poll
So, the "drill, baby, drill" and "ban all Muslims" guy is tied with the Democrat. We can't look to young people to win the election. Men prefer Trump over Biden. Looks like women are our last best hope.
Quoting RogueAI
Could be.
What happens if some people are affected by the externalities, but other people are not. How do you price an externality that affects different people in different ways?
This is the sort of stupid comment that destroys the credibility of the people who make it.
Quoting The Guardian
The Planet Could Bear the Scars of a Second Trump Term… Forever
Project 2025: Roadmap to Venus.
What’s so sad is that, much like tobacco companies before them, they really don’t care about the externalities of their products. “Climate change alarm industry” :lol:
https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/global-oil-markets-to-tip-into-surplus-by-end-of-decade-iea-says-c85688fa?mod=mhp
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/climate/trump-coal-politics.html
There is a danger environmentalists “get into a bubble of clear-sighted, righteous agreement that if only other people had sufficient political will and shared our views, we’d be well on our way to the promised land”
Environmentalism is much harder than a few slogans and he listed what he called five “inconvenient truths” that need addressing
The first inconvenient truth is that closing polluting industries will in most cases result in imported replacement goods unless there is an equal focus on curbing consumption. Telling consumers they can’t have stuff is an altogether more difficult conversation to have.
The second inconvenient truth is that society must entertain some environmentally damaging activities like mining or the provision of infrastructure. “The question is how much damage? If we are not prepared to examine trade-offs critically, we will be dismissed as the dog that barks at every passing car.” Environmentalists oppose extractive industries but in the transition to zero emissions energy, demand will increase for metals needed for batteries, wind turbines and solar panels.
The third inconvenient truth is the call for green growth, which he said isn’t the easy economic and environmental win some people imagine. Tourism is not environmentally benign and renewable electricity is usually far more efficient and therefore less damaging than fossil fuels but will result in ecosystem damage. “The green growth vision of the future will continually trade one environmental issue for the next. We can’t escape that.”
The fourth inconvenient truth is that change is costly and not the win-win it is pitched as. “Environmentalists have to be conscious of the social impacts of these sorts of transitions.”
The fifth inconvenient truth is that arguing for degrowth is not an easy sell. “As a student of human nature, my hunch is that if we tell people that they can’t have the stuff they’ve grown to expect, they will turn to thinking about how they can take it from others.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/climate/extreme-summer-heat.html?unlocked_article_code=1.000.e-Vm.9B61_NeAn8_Z&smid=url-share
tldr: fossil fuel extractor have been claiming their projects are carbon neutral because the product will be used by someone else somewhere else. Someone likened it to tobacco companies saying their product did not cause cancer as long as it was not burned. The law has decided otherwise. A small hurrah!
Some good news on nuclear power. And the best news is that since it's bipartisan then it should be immune to partisan politics (assuming that Trump doesn't arbitrarily dismantle it like the Iran Nuclear Deal or the oil lobbyists change their tune once they start seeing nuclear power as a legitimate short-term threat to their business).
Interesting— I haven’t followed the news in a couple days and must have missed this. Not sure what to think about it— I hear Sanders and Markey were No votes, which gives me pause, although I’m generally pro-nuclear.
In 2030, Denmark is set to become the first country to start taxing farmers for gassy pigs, sheep, and cattle — the methane that livestock animals give out is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
The goal is to reduce methane gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels, said Denmark’s tax minister, but the new law does not specify how it will change the economic livelihood of farmers.
Question - will Denmark's methane tax help to reduce global-warming/climate-change?
Here are my thoughts:
- farming of pigs, sheep, and cattle will reduce in Denmark, but will increase in other countries to meet the demand for these things. So no reduction in global methane emissions.
- if the other counties are less efficient than Denmark in farming these animals then global methane levels could actually go up because of the methane tax in Denmark
- there will be additional greenhouse gases produced due to the transport of farm products to Denmark. So global methane levels and CO2 levels could actually go up because of the methane tax in Denmark
Why is Denmark going to introduce a methane tax when it will have no effect, or possibly even make global-warming/climate-change worse than before the tax?
Written words unfortunately formatted for phone users, or spoken, take your pick.
Trump and the climate deniers in the Republican Party are mind-numbingly stupid. No logic, no economic sense, no care for future generations, no facts, no evidence— nothing sways their absolute, unwavering commitment to destroying the planet.
Is the fossil fuel money and propaganda that powerful? Apparently.
"There is a graph saying it is extremely hotter now compared to 70 years ago!"
There is a graph saying people with left-wing views have lower testosterone in average than right-wingers. The difference is that the latter is scientifically presented.
Seems weird that anyone would want to harm the planet deliberately. They’re not stupid, they must know it will hurt them too? I wonder if something else is going on. The evidence does seem convincing at this point. Is it really money or what?
There are all kinds of reasons. Some of it relates to a certain interpretation of the Bible, appeals to tradition, fear of change, etc. But mostly it’s the massive propaganda machine that has been well documented. See Naomi Orestes, for one: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
Anyone who denies the obvious at this point is, put simply and frankly, an idiot or a dupe.
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-clocks-july-2023-as-hottest-month-on-record-ever-since-1880/
Do you think NASA is wrong?
"Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.
According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures#:~:text
Don’t argue with children, just put them on the ignore list like I do.
No one cares what they think. Neither should you. Unfortunately I’m only reminded of their existence when they’re referenced in a post. That agree to disagree and the incel clown is still around is baffling.
Thanks, I will.
What ignore list? I don’t see that option. Who do you have on yours? Can it be anyone? Does it block everything they post or just some?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/897535
You can find it there. Yes, it hides all posts and notifications from anyone you put on it. The only thing it doesn’t hide is when someone who is not blocked quotes or mentions someone who is.
I have only a handful of people who I have nothing to learn from, contribute nothing, never have anything interesting to say, and are, frankly, idiots. I won’t say who, but if it ever appears that I’m never responding to — or interacting with — a person, it’s because I have them on ignore.
Try it— it’s great. Much less annoying. If you want to know some recommendations, PM me. On this thread I can name one: “Agree to Disagree.” Just a climate-denying troll. Maybe he’s been booted off by now, I don’t know.
I am still here. Since Mikie has me on his ignore list I can say anything that I like about him. :grin:
Mikie has no idea what he is talking about, and doesn't realize how foolish he is.
- I do not deny the climate
- I do not deny climate change
- people like Mikie exaggerate the effects of climate change
- people like Mikie blame the wrong people
- people like Mikie promote solutions which won't work
- people like Mikie misrepresent other people's views. He calls everybody who doesn't accept his views a "denier", even when they are not denying climate change
- people like Mikie think that abusing people will make them do what Mikie wants
- people like Mikie don't understand human nature
- people like Mikie won't have a discussion (because Mikie thinks that he knows everything)
- people like Mikie underestimate the number of people who don't care about climate change
- people like Mikie enjoy being a troll, while accusing other people of being trolls
From reading this thread and the conversations with you, that’s not how it appears to me. He’s also not the only one that’s called you out on your biases. Whether or not you’re a climate denier I don’t know, but every post of yours indicates a slant towards downplaying the risks. But you seem like a nice enough guy!
(Sorry Mikie for quoting people you ignore lol)
A common climate denier and troll. Glad you can tell just by reading a few of his garbage posts. Quite right I’m not the only one that recognizes it or calls it out. But like most trolls, he just moves on to the next crappy denial line after the previous one has been thoroughly debunked. Utter waste of time. Might as well be talking to a bot.
And don’t worry about the quote stuff— His opinion is worthless to me. All climate deniers’ opinions are worthless.
Anyway, let me know what you think of Orestes’ book. Really spells it all out.
I believe that climate-change/global-warming is happening. I don't deny that.
The reason that most of my posts downplay the risks is that I believe that most of the posts from many other people exaggerate the risks.
I am a very skeptical person and I tend to take the opposite side to other people. However, I don't do this without what I consider valid reasons. My comments are meant to promote discussion and make people think. Something that Mikie doesn't like.
Here is an example. People are concerned about an increase in the global average temperature of 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. But most places on Earth have a difference in temperature between winter and summer of 20 to 30 degrees Celsius. Which do you prefer, winter or summer?
A lot of that difference in viewpoint comes down to the use of temperature anomalies, rather than actual temperatures.
Very few things in life are totally good or totally bad. But you will never hear anything good said about climate-change/global-warming. Why? What about having a longer growing season in many places? Lower winter heating bills? Moscow has an average temperature of 4 degrees Celsius. Wouldn't Muscovites welcome some global warming? Etc, etc, ...
Where? I don’t see much exaggeration. If it is exaggerated, how certain are you that it is? Isn’t it better to assume some of the worst case scenarios, given the harm it might do? Are you a climate scientist? From those I read and hear from, this all seems like a very serious thing. It might not be the end of the world, but that’s a Straw Man argument to me. I’m not a scientist but I know they’ve been talking about this since the early 90s at least, and I can see evidence all around me that the world is warming, and though that may be good in some ways its bad in far more ways.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
But this is just silly my friend. Even I know that just because the number is low doesn’t mean it can’t have big impacts. If these are the thought provoking things you mention, you can’t be angry at people from dismissing you as unserious.
Well i talk to everyone but I see your point
What do you think of this analogy? Is it possible the climate is like a large spinning object, say a hydroelectric turbine, and that enough small changes to the balance of either can cause rapid catastrophic failure (failure of the climate here would be runaway rapid warming)? What kind of odds would you give to the climate being that way?
Is there a manlet alliance behind the curtains on this website? If you want to say there isn't, start moderating both ways, not just one way. There is no third option here.
He got his mod powers removed for a reason, and this is not about politics.
100%. As soon as I say a few factories make no difference here and there you will just move goalpost and say that doesn't qualify as "enough small changes". Your weasel word there is "enough", it can mean anything from cow farming all the way to nuclear warfare.
I am still not gonna eat the bugs, I will use AC, I will drive a car.
[sup](including all kinds of details would make it cumbersome, use charity where in doubt, you know what I mean)[/sup]
YY and NN aren't so interesting for this inquiry.
So, what's the worst that could happen in case of NY and YN respectively?
(By "do something" I'm not thinking of everyone committing suicide. :grin:)
As far as I can tell, "We do something about the environment" is generally the most rational (re)action, at least if caring about our children's children.
More importantly, what do you think?
So to keep going with the turbine analogy, let's say we have an airplane turbine which can withstand a number of bird impacts before catastrophic failure. Noone is quite sure how many.
You're in an airplane with that turbine. There is one bird strike, then another, etc. after 20 bird strikes, the turbine is still running. If you fly on, there'll be more bird strikes. The engine could fail at 21 bird strikes or 100. The probability goes up with more bird strikes but since you don't know the base probability you only know that the risk increases.
At what point do you land the plane?
I am aware. But there was agreement on that point so I'm bringing up a further analogy to address your rejoinder.
:lol:
But what about governments subsidizing things like solar and wind energy? If the atmosphere is capable of coming completely unstuck due to GHG emissions, shouldn't we try and reduce those emissions a lot? And what about governments subsidizing lab grown meat?
Wind turbines are not worth it for a lot of regions — low efficiency and high maintenance. Solar is good if maintened and recycled properly. Hydroelectric and nuclear are the best options currently. Hopefully China figures something out with fusion eventually. But the Greens in Germany and their troglodytic, lower-palaeolithic brain easily surpassed by that of an Australopithecus have decided that it was a good idea to shut the nuclear plants down. I once heard the cope justification that the nuclear plants became a negative investment, but if that is the reason, suddenly for the greens a bit of money is more important than destroying the environment by burning millions of tons of coal like Germany is doing now.
Quoting RogueAI
Untenable sci-fi stuff for the next 100 years championed by the "we heckin love science"/"I can't solve middle school math" crowd (Mickei). Those 3D printed steaks are full of carcinogens for all we know.
Yeah. It’s strange that we wouldn’t take their word for it on such a complex subject. Everyone seems to think they’re an expert or that it’s ok to have a strong opinion about climate change, but they wouldn’t do the same thing with microbiology or biochemistry or astrophysics or something. Someone brought up this point before and I agree. I think there’s always a chance things are wrong but when there’s such broad agreement, I tend to go with that. Especially when it’s important. Like the ozone was years ago. Countries came together to solve that problem and they succeeded. But with this one, for some reason it has become partisan. Like people think it’s a political thing, like a left wing issue. I don’t know who came up with that like if it was the left wing pundits or the right wingers but that’s how it was framed in people’s minds.
@Mikie I read some of that book and the parallels between this and tobacco industry \ smoking - cancer is very interesting. Companies like Exxon use some of the same PR people as Philip Morris! My thing is; don’t the ceos of these companies have kids and family? I mean they must know what they’re saying is bs but they still do it for the buck. Just weird to me. I guess they must have convinced themselves. Anyway, thanks for the recommendation!
Should be right away! Good analogy
Glad you liked the book.
Yes, it is bizarre, but it’s understandable when you look at it. In the same way that Christian fundamentalists deny evolution, the religious cult that is Trumpism and the republican party was easily duped into climate denial. All they had to do was tell them that climate change is a lie from the devil to take over the world. The devil being in this case “liberals” (which to them means anyone from cities or the coastal states, or anyone who’s ever looked down on them).
Unfortunate, but that’s what money can buy.
[sup]— T Möller, A E Högner, CF Schleussner et al · Nature · Aug 1, 2024[/sup]
Every 0.1°C of warming increases risk, with acceleration above 2.0°C
Speaking of Oreskes:
Interesting article. They spell it out in undeniable terms. But it’s not from Nature — it’s from Nature communications.
A letter to my kids
What can I say, now that it’s too late?
I can tell you the obvious: that I’m sorry, that I tried.
I can tell you how sorry I am, that it ate me up. That even as we sat in bed with the nightlight on, reading together about coral reefs and finding Dory, I knew there was not much time left for those bright and beautiful places.
I can tell you that I tried, that even though it felt hopeless, still if there was any chance left then I wasn’t going to quit. I can tell you that this is why we always took the train, why I pestered politicians, why we changed what we ate, why I got myself arrested that time.
But what I really want you to know: that the hardest thing was living through a time when we could have turned this around, but that most people just carried on as if it didn’t matter.
There will be a thousand explanations for this. You’ll hear that people were selfish, that we were trapped in a consumer culture, that our politicians were craven servants of fossil fuels, that the media didn’t keep us informed, too preoccupied with dance contests, fashions and trivia.
There is something in all of this, but I want you to know what it felt like at the time. It felt like a dream, where everything seemed so normal, but where under the surface there was a horrible and brutal truth we all pretended didn’t exist. Hardly anyone even spoke about climate change and the destruction of the natural world. If you did, more often than not the conversation would be shut down, familiar devices pulled out of nowhere to dismiss, sidetrack, and silence your concerns.
And outside, the world — the thoughtless, concrete and metal, fume-choked, all-consuming human world — rumbled on, deaf to the warnings and unwilling to lift a finger.
I want to tell you that I am sorry, and that I tried.
Your dad,
Stuart
Even though I get the letter's meaning, I believe there will be a common understanding that the ineptitude of politicians and the greed of some businessmen should be held accountable rather than any specific people.
Plant, insect, and fungi fossils under the center of Greenland’s ice sheet are evidence of ice-free times
[sup]— Bierman, Mastro, Peteet, Corbett, Steig, Halsted, Caffee, Hidy, Balco, Bennike, Rock · PNAS · Aug 5, 2024[/sup]
Greenland was ? 1-10°C in July, largely ice-free tundra. Anyway, anthropogenic climate change could end up seeing some wicked rises in sea levels.
Interesting take, thank you.
It gets a lot of conservative and laissez faire panties in a twist, which is always a good indicator it's a very good idea.
PS: I realize now that the melodramatic letter was probably not written by a boomer, because this type of virtue-signaling self-flagelation is not in their nature.
The letter was written by Stuart Capstick. He seems to be pretty 'boomer', actually. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/stuart-capstick-81584260
Quoting Tzeentch
It’s not ethereal— it’s overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and also happening all around us. The effects are at least as obvious (if not more so) than toxicity (which is also not ethereal).
The causes are also very clearly discernible: greenhouse gases. This is pretty basic stuff. To imply the causes aren’t discernible, the effects aren’t seen, etc — is pure climate denial. Why don’t you grow up on this subject already?
I will "grow up" on this subject once it stops being a lightning rod that obfuscates the very real, short-term health risks that everybody ignores.
I know that's not your intention, but it's the intention of many who keep flooding the media with climate alarmism.
Making fertiliser = extra co2
Poison = extra Co2
Mechanization = extra Co2
Export = extra Co2
Knock on effects:
Cleaning soil = extra Co2
Cleaning water = extra Co2
Who’s ignoring it? I hear about things like PFAS and microplastics and pesticides, etc., all the time. So I suppose that’s “alarmism” as well.
But of course there’s real, short-term health risks of climate change too. Like dying in a wildfire or starving from draught’s impact on food — or flooding, or heat stroke. And so forth. I don’t see how one can ignore these things and claim ii’s ethereal. It’s at least as real and important as toxicity.
Middle class white males might be being emasculated by synthetic oestrogen pollution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028202043893
This is far more important than a few million Bangladeshis and Chinese drowning and a few million African's starving, etc.
I get your point, but toxicity in general is important. As @Benkei pointed out, the cause is mostly the same: profits over people. So the rate at which we’re killing insects alone is alarming. Fertility rates are down too— there’s not overwhelming evidence that this is due to pesticides and the like, but there’s some that points in that direction.
Anyway— yeah, also important. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The framing of climate change being “ethereal,” or somehow far away and less real, in contrast to pollution and toxins, is ridiculous. We should be alarmed about both.
Sure, Global warming is simply one aspect of the degradation of the environment caused by human overshoot that results by from myopia of self-centred, shortsighted thinking. But a drop in human fertility is rather an ameliorating factor to the problem.
In the past, there were very few lawyers and mostly concerned with arguing cases instead of writing contracts. Today consumer terms and conditions are more complex than peace treaties. Do we really need it? Probably not but it pays the bills (quite well I must add because avoiding liability fits well in profit maximisation through externalising costs).
If wishes were horses...
the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution. If we were still fishing with sailing boats and hemp ropes and nets, the population would not have been growing at the rate it has, and we would not be as numerous as we are, nor as totally fucked as we are, and there would still be lots of fish in the sea. But Steel hawsers and plastic nets are a thing, and I have to carefully sort the seaweed I put on my garden to decontaminate it.
I'm not advocating a massive cull of humanity, I'm predicting one.
—WaPo
I thought it was the invention of fertilizer. The global population begins its exponential rise around then.
If you mean the invention of artificial fertiliser, then the 1900s seems very late date. Natural fertilisers were in use from Roman times and before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fertilizer
But agricultural industrialisation began alongside the industrialisation of production with horse drawn machines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)
"Jethro Tull's invention of the seed drill contributed to the population increase during the British Agricultural Revolution:
Seed drill
Tull's horse-drawn seed drill allowed farmers to plant seeds in straight rows, which increased the amount of seeds that germinated. The seeds were planted below the ground, out of reach of wind and birds.
Agricultural Revolution
The seed drill allowed farmers to cultivate larger areas and produce more food, which led to a population increase.
Modern agriculture
Tull's methods were adopted by many landowners and helped to establish the basis for modern agriculture." -- google AI
Transitions by hunting/gathering ... tool use/making ... farming helped increase growth when the population was much lower.
It was with the industrialization (starting, let's just say, around 1800) that anthropogenic effects went global. (and we started infecting the Moon and Mars as well :wink:)
I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities.
I don't know, millions of Americans faithfully put their garbage into recycling bins, not realizing that there are limited options for doing anything with all that material. China used to take a large portion of American recyclables, but not anymore. In other words, caring doesn't necessarily equal beneficial action.
Sure it has. Exponential growth is what happens to populations until a constraint or limit halts it. As long as there were new worlds to conquer, new environments to exploit, new technologies to use, new resources of energy, new more intensive farming methods, human exponential growth has continued - give or take a few hiccups - plagues, famines and so on. But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on.
World population likely to shrink after mid-century
Improvements in access to modern contraception and the education of girls and women are generating widespread, sustained declines in fertility, and world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study published in The Lancet.
[ Also people with a higher standard of living tend to have less children. Or is it that having less children gives you a higher standard of living? ]
By 2100, projected fertility rates in 183 of 195 countries will not be high enough to maintain current populations without liberal immigration policies
By century's end 23 countries will see populations shrink by more than 50%, including Japan, Thailand, Italy, and Spain.
Continued global population growth through the century is no longer the most likely trajectory for the world's population.
You ever plot something you think is linear and found out it ain't?
The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't)
The new analysis predicts that the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates.
The latest (2019) UN Population Division report estimates that world population is likely to reach 10.88 billion by 2100.
Population forecasts from UN Population Division use just past time trends as the determinant of future trajectories for fertility and mortality. So population forecasts from the UN Population Division are more linear than the new analysis.
In the new study researchers developed a statistical modelling strategy that use past and forecasted trends in drivers of fertility (education and met need for modern contraceptives), mortality (sociodemographic variables and more than 70 risk factors for disease) and migration (sociodemographic variables, deaths due to conflict and natural disasters, and the difference between birth and death rates). Also, their model incorporates uncertainty about migration and accounts for women delaying childbirth as they become more educated.
Quoting Moliere
The new analysis attempts to handle the situation where a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate.
Population forecasts from UN Population Division don't attempt to handle these situations.
These are selected quotes from an article in The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet
There is no doubt that Alarmists will interpret this information in a catastrophic way.
An ambitious effort to understand the Earth’s climate over the past 485 million years has revealed a history of wild shifts and far hotter temperatures than scientists previously realized — offering a reminder of how much change the planet has already endured and a warning about the unprecedented rate of warming caused by humans.
At its hottest, the study suggests, the Earth’s average temperature reached 96.8 degrees Fahrenheit (36 degrees Celsius) — far higher than the historic 58.96 F (14.98 C) the planet hit last year.
At the timeline’s start, some 485 million years ago, Earth was in what is known as a hothouse climate, with no polar ice caps and average temperatures above 86 F (30 C).
Temperatures began to slowly decline over the next 30 million years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide was pulled from the air, before plummeting into what scientists call a coldhouse state around 444 million years ago. Ice sheets spread across the poles and global temperatures dropped more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).
Coldhouse climates — including our current one — prevailed just 13 percent of the time. [note - we are currently in a coldhouse climate]
This is one of the more sobering revelations of the research, Judd said. Life on Earth has endured climates far hotter than the one people are now creating through planet-warming emissions.
Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability.
True. It's crazy that anyone ever believed that the earth would cease to be habitable due to anthropogenic climate change.
We still need to switch to fusion though.
We're talking about mass displacement due to flooding and droughts, food shortages due to failed crops, more violent weather, supply chain disruptions, fresh water shortages, increased likelihood of wars for scarce resources etc.
There are only 2 sane people in the world, you and me. And I am beginning to have my doubts about you. :grin:
There are many crazy people around. Probably more crazy people than sane ones. Unfortunately the crazy ones have convinced young people that there is no future for them.
Certainly no one who was particularly well informed.
Eh, the world is always ending. We endure.
Don’t waste too much time with climate deniers. Ignore feature works great. That’s my recommendation.
Anyway— yes, for denialists who don’t understand a single thing climate scientists say, but want to sound as if they alone have special knowledge, it’s important to develop the strawman of “they think the world will end in 12 years!”
Idiots are gonna idiot.
You seem to waste a lot of time Mikie. :grin:
Question: What do you call somebody who calls people "deniers" even though they don't deny climate change?
Answer: Mikie. :vomit:
[sup]— Jill Lawless · AP · Sep 30, 2024[/sup]
UK to shut last coal-fired power plant | WION Climate Tracker
[sup]— WION · Sep 19, 2024 · 3m:56s[/sup]
That's cool, except China is in the process of building about 50 coal burning power plants. :sad:
Amphibians evolved about 360 million years ago. So aside from the earliest insects there was no animal life on land 485 MYA.
Do you think that article suggests that most of the animal life on land that is larger than an insect wouldn't go extinct if the average temperature was above 86 F? (It is paywalled, so I haven't looked at the article itself.)
I like to work in degrees Celsius. Your temperature of 86 degrees Fahrenheit is the same as 30 degrees Celsius.
Here are the average summer temperatures for the hottest countries in the world. They are in degrees Celsius and are sorted from the hottest country to the coldest country.
- Kuwait 44.5
- Iraq 42.2
- United Arab Emirates 40.6
- Chad 40.5
- Qatar 40.4
- Sudan 39.9
- Niger 39.6
- Pakistan 39.3
- Mali 38.8
- Saudi Arabia 38.3
About 397 million people live in these countries. That is over 5% (over 1 in 20) of the total human population.
Remember that we have had about 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming over the last 100 years. So these places were hot even before global warming started.
As far as I know the human species and most of the animal life on land have not gone extinct in these countries.
Kuwait, in the summer (June, July, August) the nighttime temperature rarely falls below 29°C.
The average high these same months is 45°C. Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer. With air-conditioning, wot me worry about climate change?
https://weatherspark.com/y/150245/Average-Weather-in-Kuwait-Year-Round#Figures-ColorTemperature
For a country that is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" the population growth is very high.
In the year 2000 the population of Kuwait was 1,991,674
In the year 2023 the population of Kuwait was 4,349,380
That is an increase of 2,357,706 people in 23 years. The population is now 218% of the population in the year 2000. The population has more than doubled since 2000.
Why is the population of Kuwait going up so fast when Kuwait is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" ?
I was thinking of a good film metaphor for all this— and of course Don’t Look Up was a good one, but there has also been another staring us in the face for 50 years: Jaws.
Try picturing the shark as climate change, and it all makes sense. And Republicans are still the mayor.
I already told you. Air conditioning.
Air conditioning demand in Kuwait 2011-2021
Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 22, 2024
In 2021, the demand for air conditioning devices in Kuwait amounted to approximately 133 thousand units, the second lowest number of the past decade. Within the observed period, demand for air conditioning peaked in 2015 at approximately 225 thousand units, but has been on a downward trend since then. Especially the past three years saw a significant drop in demand for air conditioners, with 2020 marking the low-point of only 123 thousand units.
In Kuwait the demand for air conditioning devices is dropping significantly while the population is growing rapidly (doubled since 2000).
Your stated that:
Quoting unenlightened
The statistics don't seem to support you claim.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1798490/world-s-hottest-city-where-streets-are-air-conditioned-spt
So demand for new air con units has fallen because it is so unliveable that tourists are avoiding it and the economy has declined along with new builds. But you couldn't work out that your evidence was evidence for exactly what I said, so you had to go posting it like you were in the right.
Idiot!
I think his point was that humans can and do adapt to desert conditions with extreme heat.
It's true. Some Spaniards wandered into El Malpais and died because they couldn't find water and their horse's hooves were damaged by the glass in the sand. Meanwhile, humans have been living there like Fremen for thousands of years.
I don't think this is really related to climate change, where volatility is the main problem, not heat.
Then why would he so triumphantly post about air conditioning sales going down? I like a charitable reading if one can be found, old man, but yours is a completely nonsensical reading, and thus fails also of charity.
Quoting frank
This is true of temperate zones, but near the equator heat itself is a big problem. As a minute's research would have told you.
https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/mecc_infosheet_heat_and_migration.pdf
https://theconversation.com/increasing-heat-is-already-a-factor-in-human-migration-new-study-206358
https://www.climate-refugees.org/spotlight/2023/10/4/global-temperatures
etc.
I don't know. I think he was saying that increased air conditioning doesn't account for their population increase.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes. It's hot at the equator.
First of a series of easy-watching videos that might illuminate a little.
I thought that you would be able to connect the dots. But apparently I was wrong.
People like you try to create the impression that Kuwait has become "unlivable" because of global-warming/climate-change. The truth is that it has almost always been "unlivable".
Compare these 2 Color Temperature Figures. One is for 2022 and the other is for 1989. A difference of 33 years. They look fairly similar to me, with approximately the same "sweltering" area. So Kuwait is about the same degree of "unlivable" in both years.
https://weatherspark.com/h/y/104331/2022/Historical-Weather-during-2022-in-Kuwait-City-Kuwait#Figures-ColorTemperature
https://weatherspark.com/h/y/104331/1989/Historical-Weather-during-1989-in-Kuwait-City-Kuwait#Figures-ColorTemperature
On the subject of air conditioning. Carrier was the first air conditioning company to be present in Kuwait way back in 1946. Mr. Morad Yusuf Behbehani was appointed as authorized distributor and the first air conditioner was delivered to the then Emir of Kuwait in the year 1946.
Before air conditioning Kuwait must have been like living in the fires of hell. That really was "unlivable".
''The number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century, noted the meteorologist.''
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-kuwait-summers-planet.html#:~:text=Kuwait%20has%20always%20been%20hot,Death%20Valley%20in%20eastern%20California.
That's significant.
(Research time necessary to discover this: 3 minutes)
I think Biden said it best the other day (for once): if you deny the climate crisis, you’re braindead at this point.
That was interesting, thanks. Kind of scary that so many don’t think about it. I’m one of them until recently and it reminded me of stuff like pandemics and nuclear weaponry.
Quoting AmadeusD
Weird. What’s funny about it?
I think you’re in over your head here mate. Why do you go on like this?
The absolute truth about something, without omission, embellishment, or alteration.
One of the things that concerns me about global-warming/climate-change is the omission of some information. This can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is.
Take the recent highest temperature record from Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station, a staggering 54°C.
Now look at the Wikipedia article about Mitribah. Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitribah
Look at the picture of the weather station. It appears to be surrounded on at least 2 sides by concrete block walls.
The National Weather Service says this about the proper siting of a weather station:
"When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface."
Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station does not appear to meet the standards. It should not be used as a reliable trustworthy site for temperature measurements. But it is being used to scare and panic people about global-warming/climate-change.
It arouses my humour mechanisms.
Have you tracked Mikie's posts through this thread? Several attempts have been made to catalogue his inane, insulting tirades that he seems to take pride it.
HIlarious he's a mod.
Ya but why? I look at the news of extreme heat and floods and stuff like that and it doesn’t seem funny.
Quoting AmadeusD
I have read some. It seems he’s put you on ignore and you don’t like it? Maybe you’re making it personal. I don’t mind if people are a little insulting if I can learn from them, and I’ve learned a lot from him….also he’s not a mod.
But what does Mikie have to do with my question? Is climate change funny because of one person’s posts?
She's not a mod anymore.
A troll, a complete troll, and nothing but a troll. There is literally no end to your bullshit, is there?
https://web.archive.org/web/20231218172054/https://public-old.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-verifies-3rd-and-4th-hottest-temperature-recorded-earth
But Mr troll is suddenly the world expert on weather station rules on the basis of a photo.
So what next, Troll?
Answer:
Quoting unenlightened
I see you’re engaging with a number of intellectually deficient individuals. My advice is to just let them be. Banging your head against a brick wall is useless— eventually you just have to stop. Ignore feature is helpful there.
Anyway, back in the real world:
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20241007-in-utah-climate-change-denial-persists-as-america-s-dead-sea-disappears
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna174260
Forgive me, I will not take your advice. If no one shovels out the shit, then the whole thread becomes shit. If I was a mod, I would have banned, but since I am no longer a mod, I feel the need to respond to even pathetic attempts to undermine what I post, even though it is a never ending and thankless task.
:cool:
Feel free :) You're now talking about somethign other than this thread. Which is why I find funny. I don't really care about the 'climate crisis' but I don't deny the majority of what's claimed about it. It's the reactions I find funny.
Quoting John McMannis
You're not reading very clearly, it seems. No one said climate change is funny.
So you want to be surrounded by "yes men". Perhaps you should change your name to Donald Trump.
Why did you bring up Kuwait?
A picture is worth a thousand words. Are you claiming that the photo is not genuine?
And questioning things is better than accepting them with your eyes shut and your brain turned off.
If the WMO accepts the temperature record from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station, given that it obviously doesn't meet the standards set by the National Weather Service, then I have lost all faith in the WMO. The WMO have shown that they cannot be trusted.
Kuwait has been in the news recently because of the record temperature recorded from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station. A "staggering" 54°C.
Global-warming/climate change (GW/CC) fanatics have gone wild claiming that Kuwait has become "almost unlivable". In truth it has nearly always been "almost unlivable". But GW/CC fanatics don't want to let the facts get in the way of a good story that they want to hear.
That was directed at John— but I’d say the same of you. But I appreciate your efforts, whatever it is they’re claiming. The climate issue attracts a lot of idiots.
The last time I was in Las Vegas it was 52 C. So what?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I haven't heard anyone to talking about Kuwait. :razz:
You said when you stop laughing you’ll take the claim that climate deniers are braindead seriously. You’ll “bother” with it. I guess I was giving more credit than deserved in assuming your post had any connection to climate change. What you’re really doing is being immature, which according to your post history you often criticize others for. I guess that’s my fault.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
You’ve been given the facts by many people here. It’s clear to me who wants to follow a story, and it’s you. The story of an outsider battling the “fanatics”. But they’re not fanatical. There’s nothing they’ve said that’s inaccurate. If the number of days over 50C has tripled since 2000, as was pointed out, then that by itself appears significant. Again I ask what motivates a person to go on like this? What about this subject makes you take a position you wouldn’t hold with other subjects, like geophysics or string theory? Sorry but this subject is important to me as my family is from an island nation.
Why not focus on the topic rather than on psychoanalysis?
No i didn't.
Thanks for playing.
Quoting John McMannis
Ah. baby Mikie. You'll be fun.
sock puppet?
yep
Neither yes men nor no men such as yourself are of any value to a discussion.
You have given me the perfect opportunity to show how leaving out relevant details can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is. In this case it is about global warming.
Quoting Baden
The following information took me 10 minutes of research time. Perhaps you should have spent an extra 7 minutes checking the meteorologist's claim.
Quoting John McMannis
That is probably correct. The problem is with what they didn't say.
Quoting John McMannis
Yes, that does appear to be significant. But what does it signify?
I am not disputing the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. I am pointing out that there is more information that is relevant to the claim and that the meteorologist has not mentioned it.
The meteorologist's claim creates the impression that global warming has caused record high temperatures in Kuwait. But wait, could there be another explanation for the record high temperatures.
First, a few things about Kuwait:
- with the discovery of oil, Kuwait has undergone a transformative urban boom from a small Arab maritime town to a modern-day metropolis in less than half a century
- Kuwait City itself is a concrete metropolis, and as such, retains the heat
I immediately considered the possibility that the record high temperatures were caused by the UHI (urban heat island) effect, rather than being caused directly by global warming.
There are a number of scientific articles about the UHI effect in Kuwait. Here are 2 of them.
Diurnal and seasonal dynamics of the canopy-layer urban heat island of Kuwait
RMets - Royal Meteorological Society
International Journal of Climatology
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.8560?af=R
From Abstract:
Mean positive UHICL intensities, ranging from 1.1°C to 3.8°C at night, are observed consistently across all months, owing to the prevalence of clear skies from winter to summer. Negative UHICL intensities, indicating a typical daytime urban cool island (UCICL), are most prominent on summer days, exhibiting a mean hourly magnitude range between 0.6°C and 2.6°C that extends into the early parts of the evening.
Spatial Distribution of Land Surface Temperatures in Kuwait: Urban Heat and Cool Islands
National Library of Medicine
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246769/
From Abstract:
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was ?1.1 °C (95% CI; ?1.2, ?1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. At night, the temperature difference (urban/suburban versus rural governorates) became 3.6 °C (95% CI; 3.5, 3.7, p < 0.001) indicating a nighttime urban heat island.
Conclusion
If there is a UHI effect at night of up to 3.6 °C or 3.8°C then that could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming.
That's true. This is why they use computer models to discover anthropogenic climate change. Pointing to today's weather is not the way to convince non-believers because we're always just one volcano away from cool weather than can last a decade.
Focus on the computer models. Not this year's weather.
Well no it couldn't. On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C.
Where is your evidence to support these statements?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/opinion/hurricane-milton-florida-storm-surge-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Q04.RYJo.4A9XWKePGo6H&smid=url-share
If only we listened.
If only we start listening.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
You just gave it to me.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
A daytime urban cool island is produced by basic physics. Dry sand has air pockets that are a net insulator as compared to solid rock or concrete and the urban environment is therefore going to absorb more heat during the day and emit more heat during the night. Perhaps you ought to try and understand what you are reading, before trying to use it in an argument.
https://livingplanet.panda.org/en-GB/
The following information describes how the temperature at night can be higher than the temperature during the day. In certain circumstances it is possible for the temperature at night in Kuwait to exceed 50°C.
Quoting Quora
This could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century.
No one has suggested that nighttime temperatures in Kuwait at night exceed those during the day, though it is conceivable that it could happen there rarely.
Your desperation to find an excuse for your obvious failure to make any kind of a case here is pathetic. I'm quite sure you are not even convincing yourself, never mind anyone else. Time to concede, or at least end the futile continuation of a lost cause.
There has never been an official nighttime temperature of over 50°C recorded ever anywhere. And I would challenge you to find even one unofficial after-dark temperature in Kuwait of that level that beat the daytime temperature. So, the claim that such temperatures happen so regularly in Kuwait at night rather than the day, and are higher than the day, so as to account for that statistic is so fabulously, stupidly wrong that you deserve an award in barefaced audacity just for trying to pull it off. Sadly (for you) the trophy ought also to be your parting gift as your credibility is so shot now any attempt to limp on would be Pythonesque.
Exactly !!!
There is an enormous lack of critical thinking when it comes to global warming. Many people are gullible enough to accept what they are told without thinking. :vomit:
Quoting Baden
Where is your evidence for this? Have you just made up this claim because you want it to be true? I have done a lot of researching about this and the biggest problem is that they don't specify the time of day that the maximum temperature occurs. So you can't tell if the maximum temperature happened during the day or during the night. Can you prove otherwise?
Ok!
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Ok and what is that?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Ok but why would he leave it out? Do you think it’s deliberate and what would the motive be?
But not me. I scrutinise your every word. And I trust, by and large, the published temperature figures of meteorological departments, because I don't have time to personally inspect their facilities, but I see that their work is used by farmers and weather forecasters and so on who find their figures useful, and I see no evidence of or reason to suspect any conspiracy to inflate the figures.
On the contrary, there is strong evidence that powerful interests have for credible reasons of power and profit sought to undermine the evidence for global warming over many years. So when gullibility is in question, well right back at you, kiddo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iHwEn33I
Please list the things that you think are "lies and propaganda".
The YouTube video that you link to is a New Scientist weekly podcast (Oct 12, 2024). The discussion about overshooting 1.5 degrees of global warming is based on a paper published in Nature that week. The paper has been peer reviewed.
The authors of the paper are:
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Gaurav Ganti, Quentin Lejeune, Biqing Zhu, Peter Pfleiderer, Ruben Prütz, Philippe Ciais, Thomas L. Frölicher, Sabine Fuss, Thomas Gasser, Matthew J. Gidden, Chahan M. Kropf, Fabrice Lacroix, Robin Lamboll, Rosanne Martyr, Fabien Maussion, Jamie W. McCaughey, Malte Meinshausen, Matthias Mengel, Zebedee Nicholls, Yann Quilcaille, Benjamin Sanderson, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Jana Sillmann, Christopher J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Emily Theokritoff, Rachel Warren, Jeff Price & Joeri Rogelj
But you decided that their work is "more lies and propaganda". Are people meant to take you seriously?
Ummm....have you noticed that it's colder when the sun isn't up?
Especially in the desert it's so. And when the highest temperature recorded temperatures are 54 Celsius or so, then it's quite reasonable to assume that the highest records are taken DURING DAYTIME.
But you aren't talking total rubbish. Night time temperatures have measured near 50 Celsius:
See Death Valley may have just had the hottest recorded midnight ever
So @unenlightened is right. But a record to be close is still a long way from Kuwait having regularly +50 Celsius nights.
(Death Valley National park, picture from National Park Service)
But if you're living up to your name, then I can understand.
No. they are supposed to smile at the sarcasm. Like this : :grin:
So should we assume that everything that you say is sarcastic?
[sarcasm] Hey man, are you, like, being sacastic? Are you, like, really saying we're not supposed to smile? Can you just, like, indicate whenever you're being sarcastic with, like, some square-brackety notes or something, so I just, like, know. It's just, like, sooooo confusing. [/sarcasm]
You should, but everyone else, not so much. :grin:
I mean, the other way round.
Oh, let's just agree to disagree about it all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg
With a decreasing but high-tech country, mobility might not be as big a challenge.
Perhaps child-rearing is an undervalued contribution to the economy; a cost that individuals choose not to bear unaided in support of a society that does not reward it.
In other news ...
I've only been harassing you about the AMOC for years now, mainly because if it shut down, you'd have to move to Montana.
Although you would then be just north of the Yellowstone caldera, which is due to destroy N America. :worry:
How can they get such good results when they are being destroyed by climate-change/global-warming?
It appears that the threat from climate-change/global-warming can be greatly reduced without the need to stop using fossil fuels. A little bit of adaptation and conservation work can achieve amazing results.
That would just delay the change by maybe a generation. Part of the problem is the ways people have adapted to a high energy lifestyle. So many people think they need a water heater continuously heating so they can instantly have a shower that takes 17 freaking gallons of hot water. A human doesn't need that extravagance, but people don't realize that.
How long are you willing to wait to have a shower?
I use an immersion heater. It takes about 10 minutes.
:up:
I do the same. I always try to go by walking to places. If it is really away from my home, I use public transport. Both trains and buses have zero emissions and are low-polluting. The price is €21.80 monthly. I have never owned a car, and I think I will never do so. Apart from the costs and pollution mainly caused by traffic jams, I think it is an evil machine. It is dangerous, and I often thought that some car brands designed the model to save the car before the driver or pedestrian.
Wash in a Polish creek. Isn't that what you guys do?
I remember washing myself and clothes in a creek when I was a toddler. While it was enjoyable to feel the stream flowing through my hands, the government decided to outlaw this practice due to water pollution and a lack of water storage. I agree, and it is maybe one of the few things the government of my country did rightly in the past decades. It seems an innocent practice but can scare the fish off and drop bleach accidentally. By the way, why does the creek need to be Polish? There are cool and pure creeks in the Netherlands, where maybe @Tzeentch takes a bath often.
Creeks are self cleaning. About every 100 feet, whatever you plopped in is now down in the sand. That's per a scientist friend.
And a new magic German feeling word to rival schadenfreude — "fremdschamen".
It's stuff like this that really gets my blood pumping. I absolutely hate how gullible people are, how they're so easily manipulated by anti-climate science agendas. People who push their idiotic world views onto masses of easily manipulated people who know absolutely nothing about how science works, its methods and how to read actual data.
There's no debate, there's no discussion, there's only idiots raising their voices so high that it disturbs the public space to the degree that normally functioning people have to deal with it. :vomit:
I think most people follow the bandwagon that fits their profile. Neither side tends to know much about science. But scientists can be wrong, so skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Skepticism without grounding in unbiased reasoning and having an insight into what the science means... is meaningless.
People only express skepticism because it doesn't fit into their invented narrative.
It's like if someone who's never stepped on a large ship suddenly starts to command around and inserting themselves into the crew's chain of command giving out orders that have no grounding in the knowledge of how to actually manage such a ship. Then demanding the crew listens to them, just because they have some fantasy idea about how to run a ship their way, as some foundation for why they're skeptical of how the ship is run. And then for some stupid reason, the shipping company puts people like that in charge while the crew tries to explain why this is a bad idea.
The problem with using "scientists can be wrong" as a premise is that it implies that uneducated amateurs knows any better when a theory or hypothesis is proven false. No, science doesn't work like that. Research is a process trying to use every method possible to reach an objective fact about something. Being "wrong" is what the uneducated people calls it when a theory is proved false, but that doesn't mean that the overarching scientific process hit a wall and that everything is thrown out the window, NO, it means that a part of the large body of theories have been chipped down a bit, closing in on what the objective fact really is.
Unscientific people simply don't understand how science actually works and so when a certain hypothesis or theory is proven "wrong", they interpret that as the scientists not knowing what they're doing, trying to insert themselves and their bullshit into the mix as some alternate answer or simply concluding that "because that theory was wrong, I am right".
I'm simply sick and tired of the type of "skepticism" that the majority of uneducated people are vomiting all over topics like climate change science. People simply don't know what they're talking about, but demand the right to be heard as someone with a valid input without caring for the need to actually understand it first.
There are no sides here, there's the side of the science, the facts and the people who understand the correct path forward... and then the side of the uneducated self-indulging delusions of people who seek attention by trying to paint themselves as being on par with the experts. It's absolutely pathetic.
Climate science is one of the most grounded, proven fields out there. Why in the world should we listen to amateurs vomiting out dislocated concepts and counter arguments towards that research? Especially since these people cannot be reasoned with as they simply don't understand the basics of scientific research.
We've seen numerous times how even pointing at certain research papers and conclusions doesn't even matter because they don't even have basic understanding of how to read stuff like that.
The anti-climate science people simply do it to validate themselves as more important than they are. Under the banner of being "fed up with experts". It's just plain populist stupidity without any actual grounding in the science, with nothing to support alternative theories other than delusions of grandeur in these people. Or they're simply following influential people and when they vomit the same bullshit they shout "hail the influencer!"
It's impossible to not see how all these right winger narratives are the same across the entire globe. It's the same narratives everywhere. Using certain topics to gather disgruntled zealots under them and using the anti-establishment narrative as a core point of control.
And part of this narrative has been climate change. It could have been any moronic narrative really, but since there's a lot of industries that rely on things staying the same, they start to flood money into pushing these anti-climate change narratives and so it spirals out of control and into the overarching narrative of these populist leaders and influencers.
Imagine if they incorporated cancer research into their populist bs. Pointing out "wrong" theories there, pushing for lowering the amount of government, private and charity funding that such research gets. Effectively stifling it to the point that it stagnates and slows down, leading to a lot of cancer treatments not coming into reality and people unnecessarily dying. It's the same kind of scenario.
I mean, we see the same in anti-vaccer ideologies. How the anti-vaccer movement managed to enable previously almost snuffed out diseases to spread out again. Imagine being the parent of a child who dies because some anti-vaccer morons took their non-vaccinated sick child to a place with younger children who weren't at the age of vaccination yet.
There are deadly consequences to this type of anti-establishment stupidity among uneducated people who believe to know better than the experts.
The extreme focus on individualism in recent decades have shaped people into absolute bloated egos. Thinking they are the main protagonists of the world. It's an appalling situation we're in where experts are treated the way they are and politicians playing off people's stupid sense of pseudo-importance.
Rather, this world needs to grow the fuck up. People need to realize that they are a part of something bigger. They need to respect other people's knowledge and expertise and work together. The plumber should not discuss "simulated ocean current data" and form a conclusion about climate change. They should fix the damn pipes and be damn good at their job. Just as a climate change scientist shouldn't try to explain the best way to fix the pipe or risk flooding the entire office themselves because they believed they could handle it themselves.
A stable world that learns to fix major global problems needs to have people being good at their profession, not try and interfere in other people's profession.
If people have skepticism about some scientific discovery, then take that skepticism to another scientist in that field, discussing it until they understand it.
There are no sides in this other than the right one and the wrong one and I'm not going to pretend there are on some delusional idea of neutrality in respect of some spoiled behavior from people who think that they, without any education in the field, can place themselves on the same level as these scientists.
And there's a difference between non-scientists who engage with scientific research on grounds of curiosity and who always present their amateur ideas in reference to current scientific understanding and that their own ideas are probably highly speculative... and the ones being skeptical against actual scientists through the narrative of belief in their own ideas being the truth or that some influencer they like knows better than scientists. One is able to discuss without overstepping their level of knowledge, while the other don't.
Skepticism without any rational foundation, skepticism that is self-indulgent and catering to the ego of the skeptic more than the pursuit of knowledge... is meaningless and irrelevant, and It should be excluded from discussions because it's useless for the progress of ideas.
Absolutely.
Stupid, stupid people. That’s all it is.
“Don’t Look Up” captures it well.
m
:clap:
Right. Educate yourself. That's the best way to gain immunity from click bait.
Have a nice day, while you still can.
https://library.wmo.int/records/item/69057-no-20-28-october-2024
https://library.wmo.int/viewer/69057/download?file=GHG-20_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1
When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? Climate scientists tell the public that plane flights are very bad for climate change, but apparently that doesn't apply to them. People might start taking climate change more seriously if climate scientists "walked the walk", and didn't just "talk the talk".
A total of 83,884 people attended COP28 in person, plus 2,089 online, taking the total number of participants to almost 86,000. This means COP28 was comfortably the largest climate COP in history – topping COP27 by more than 35,000.
I am sure that "scientists" will start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels soon, or when pigs fly, whichever comes first.
Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? I don't know where you are from, but I hope the politicians—and other responsables—of my country might start to take this crisis—because climate change is a big crisis—more seriously. Everything is destroyed; more than 160 people died. I can't accept an argument that this was a normal natural disaster. After experiencing the floods, someone has to be very mad to keep denying climate change, at least in the context and reality of Spain. Now it is time to convince people around the globe. Please don't focus only on tax-funded organisations or politicians. There are more out there who work with honesty and want to avoid the impacts of DANA, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
Yes we should. But climate deniers never will. They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end.
Like I said: just stupid, stupid people.
:up:
That's precisely what surprises me the most. Climate change deniers can suffer the consequences of adverse weather, but they seem to not care anyway. If they are trapped in a garage flooded to the top they would think: "Well, this just happens. It is normal. I am just having bad luck today."
This is a very feeble ad hominem, even by your low standards. Some scientists do more than others. They need to communicate with the world and with governments because one cannot do much alone, without changing the infrastructure and regulatory system.
Here is Paul Beckwith again talking about the tragedy in Spain.
Quoting Matt McGrath - BBC
It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.
Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.
For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.
The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour
The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.
The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours
Quoting Mikie
The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.
My point goes deeper than this. Before the reference to Valencia natural disaster, you claimed that some folks—yourself included—don't take climate change seriously because of the behaviour of some tax-funded people and organisations. I agree. Maybe they are not facing the issue correctly. Then, I shared the 'before and after' picture of the Albufera. I think it is clear the impact of adverse weather in that region. Whether COP29 is effective or not, it is not relevant to the fact and evidence that climate change has changed the structure and surface of my country. First the 1957 Valencia catastrophe and now these floods. Did you know that because of this, the government has to build literally new roads and rails to Madrid? I think we have to take climate change seriously, at least here.
My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse.
There have been floods as bad as, and worse than, the 2024 floods in the distant past, long before climate change was an issue.
"Scientists" attribute every negative event to climate change. But "scientists" seem to have an agenda and don't want to compare recent negative events to historical negative events. This is because the comparison could show that climate change may not have made the negative event worse.
[Added later]
Please note that I am not downplaying the seriousness of this disaster. I am questioning whether it is justified to claim that climate change made the floods worse.
We are having records of high temperatures in summer and records of floods in autumn each year. Check it out, and you will see. If climate change is not making the weather worse and adverse here, what is the main cause then? By the way, I guess you could accept that climate change is a factor to take on regarding the last and coming floods. People around Valencia were interviewed—not scientists—and they said: We are used to floods in Valencia, but we can’t remember of a worse example than this year. It seems like each year the floods are more violent and destructive than the previous. They are literally experiencing the consequences of climate change.
Don’t waste too much time on climate-denying imbeciles. They’re embarrassed over and over yet continually come back anyway. Just trolling— or a learning disability. Either way, best to ignore.
If you want to learn something, check out Unenlightened’s posts— something can actually be learned in that case, rather than attempting to refute any child’s armchair ideas about science.
You are not justified in such a blanket criticism of a rather fulsome explanation of why the area is prone to such floods and a further explanation of how the higher sea temperatures in the mediterranean have made the flood even worse than previously. There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble.
We just went through an El Nino phase. Don't conclude climate change just because you can't think of anything else. Scientists use super computers to model the climate.
Have I touched a sore point?
I gave plenty of evidence to support my view. Why don't you try to refute my evidence? The answer is obvious, you can't refute my evidence. So you respond with abusive name calling.
Frank, I think that you have too much faith in "super computers". "Super computers" run programs that are designed and written by people, possibly scientists. If the people get something wrong then the "super computer" will still give the wrong answer, just like an ordinary computer. But the "super computer" will produce the wrong answer faster.
What we really need are " super-duper infallible AI genius computers". :grin:
Just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.
Just because they could be right doesn't mean they are right.
I have been in the IT industry for the last 40 years. I have been a programmer, a senior programmer, an analyst, a systems programmer, and for the last 12 years I was responsible for testing software and hardware.
It is very difficult to make complex computer software bug free. Climate models deal with systems that are complex and chaotic. Because they have many iterations a tiny bug can have a very large effect on the result. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate modelling and climate projections.
Here is a good introduction to model uncertainty:
https://www.jbarisk.com/news-blogs/modelling-and-uncertainty-the-extra-dimension
[tweet]https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1853084093568925750[/tweet]
Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly: 1881 - 2024 · 12-Month Moving Average (Eliot Jacobson · Nov 3, 2024)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1853204080346403228[/tweet]
I'm still waiting for answers on why the weather and even the surface and structure of my country have drastically changed in the past decades. As I said before, maybe climate change is not the only issue, but it is obvious that it is a feature that accelerates natural disasters.
Well, I can't think of another main reason. Most of the studies and articles point to climate change as the cause of why Spain is becoming a desert and summer accelerates desertification. Check out this amazing web page by the government of The Netherlands (@Agree-to-Disagree would say they are wrong too, and we can't trust Dutch offices when they are one of the most advanced nations in the world :lol: ).
Most of the graphics and studies show an increment in high temperatures and more frequency of extreme events. The red dots are high probability or natural disasters. Valencia has a red dot.
What are the climate change impacts in Spain?
That chart was published in 2020, and look at the mess and disaster of the past week. Just four years later. They predicted it, and they nailed it. Do you still have doubts? @Agree-to-Disagree
You posted the following quote from the report:
And you said that Valencia has a red dot on the map of "Projected changes in the frequency of coastal flooding".
Barcelona, which is part of Catalonia, also has a red dot on the map. Both Valencia and Barcelona are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia.
Quoting Journal of Hydrology
From the beginning of 1900 to the end of 2011 is 112 years. Over this time period there were on average nearly 2.5 flood events per year. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, 25 flood events per year, or just over 2 flood events per month. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?
If we just look at the floods that caused catastrophic damage, there were 61 in 112 years. That is an average of just over 0.5 catastrophic floods per year (1 catastrophic flood every 2 years). What would the frequency of floods that caused catastrophic damage be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, just over 5 catastrophic floods per year. What would the frequency of catastrophic floods be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?
In summary, it appears that the "scientists" are not aware of the historical flood frequency, or they have overestimated the factor by which flood frequency will increase. What do you think about this? Do you believe that flood frequency will increase by a factor of 10 (or 100 or 1000)?
You gave none.
Perhaps you avoided my evidence because it disagrees with your narrow-minded prejudice. I will repeat my evidence here for you to read. Compare the statistics for the 2024 flood with the statistics for the 1879, 1957, and 1962 floods. There is only 5 years between the 1957 and 1962 floods. All 3 of these historical floods were similar to, or worse than, the 2024 flood.
Quoting javi2541997
Quoting Matt McGrath - BBC
It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.
Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.
For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.
The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour
The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.
The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours
Quoting Mikie
The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.
It's not obvious to climatologists. They use climate modeling to determine that anthropogenic global warming is happening. They don't just say, "Oh, it's got to be that." The climate is too complex for simple analysis. That's all I meant.
Again, why you bother with climate-denying imbeciles is a mystery.
You can’t think of another reason because there is no other reason. Climate change isn’t true because of modeling, and the patterns we see aren’t due to some tilt of the earth’s axis, or el nino, or clouds, or volcanoes, or anything else people who know nothing about climate science want to claim it is.
The evidence is overwhelming, for those who are interested in the real world. For those too frightened you face it, motivated reasoning and Dr. Google will be enough to find ways to believe nothing is happening, both generally and specifically.
Don’t waste time— just get to work trying to replace fossil fuels and help brace for the disasters to come (of which there will be many more, and will only get worse).
Fair enough. I agree.
Quoting Mikie
I know. I know. I shouldn't have answered again. But I wanted to try using 'impartial' and 'non-tax-funded climate researchers' to provide a basic fact that climate change is clearly deteriorating, deserting, shaping, and destroying some parts of my country. Although weather studies and climate charts are complex, I personally believe that it is so damn clear the evolution in each graph. Jesus is like denying real life.
Quoting Mikie
Exactly.
I was talking about Valencia, not Barcelona. Clever guy, trying to switch the topic when you feel trapped in your own views. Fine, let's talk about Catalunya and its desertification. But I think it is not worthy to keep up with this, because you would also say that the desertification in Barcelona (they are literally run of water in summer) is not a big deal, and the scientists of the European Commission and the Catalunya government are not entitled to point to climate change for that reason.
So climate induced drought is only part of the reason Spain is turning into a desert. In the USA, they called it the Dust Bowl.
Nonetheless, this is part of the past. Farming and agriculture are mainly managed by the European Union. Yet Andalucian folks experience records of high temperatures each year. I think having 47°C in summer in Cordoba is a very serious thing that shows a constant change in our climate, thus climate change.
On the other hand, it would be unfair to say that Galicia or Aragón had poor agriculture practices, and yet they are also experiencing an important drought. My idea is that desertification in Spain is caused by climate change, but sadly, human reckless management is also guilty.
It's both. If you look at the website I cited, it mentions that there are ways to rehabilitate the soil. Desertification is a sign that it's time to go ahead and make those changes. We shouldn't give up just because climate change is underway. The next generation could come up with some genius way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Is it something the EU would have to address?
And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll:
Absolutely. Firstly, because the EU is the only competent authority to address agriculture and farming, and secondly, it is a big problem that affects all EU zone countries equally.
I remember there was a huge strike of farmers in Spain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. because of the European bureaucracy and the great amount of taxes they needed to pay. But they turn against the wrong authority. Most of the farmers were protesting in the doors of the Ministry of Agriculture in Madrid, and barely a group of them went to Brussels. I think only a few are really aware of the power of the EU in this issue.
Quoting frank
I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not. :meh:
We have a federal department of agriculture, and it has some authority, but it couldn't stop people from changing their practices. By the way, the US is also over farming its land. Bad news.
This is a case where blaming climate change exclusively is a problem. People need to recognize that the soil can be rehabilitated. Regulations need to change.
Consider, please, that I don't blame climate change exclusively. But I disagree with "Agree-to-Disagree" on the way he approached Valencia's floods. I think the latter is a good example of how we could blame climate change mostly. I don't get why it is hard to accept. I wanted to share the charts and the last-week catastrophe because I thought it could be seen as a good example of climate change. The 2020 chart said that Valencia had a risk of increasing the sea level by 10% by floods, and it is astonishing how that graphic nailed what would happen four years later. That's all.
I see what you're saying. The climatologist I've studied the most said that this century will see more storms and more intense storms. That's a statement of statistics, so the whole century taken as a whole. But there was recently a hurricane here that destroyed several towns in the Appalachian Mountains. There's no record of that ever happening, so everyone is pretty sure it's due to climate change.
I told you that I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia, but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia
Both Valencia and Catalonia are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. They are not very far apart, about 303 km. Do you know of any reason why flood frequency would be significantly different between Valencia and Catalonia?
I fully accept that climate-change/global-warming (CC/GW) is happening. I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.
I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.
Could you please explain what this statement means. In general the rain that falls causing a flood evaporated from the sea in the first place. So the system is a cycle. It would not increase the sea level.
Another lamentation for you to download. Or just watch Sir Issac Newton and his pal Paul Beckwith break it all down for you below.
Climate scientists have been saying for many many years in response to questions as to whether this or that weather event is caused by climate change, that it is impossible to say on a day to day scale what is or is not the result of climate change. This is obviously so because weather is chaotic and climate is the generalisation of weather. For example, climate talks about prevailing winds, whereas weather talks about the wind today, or tomorrow.
But this careful talk has not persuaded you, because you have not been listening charitably to understand, but uncharitably to find fault. This is because you are unwilling to face the facts, or are unable to admit you have mistaken things, or you just like to be contrary, or some other motive.
Your criticisms are without merit and serve no function in this discussion but to divert, confuse and impede the understanding of the readers.
New insights from Shakespeare’s England reveal striking parallels to contemporary climate change.
Unprecedented storms and devastating drought. Flash floods and wildfires ignited by the air’s dry heat. This is the experience for many in our modern world. But it was also the experience for those living amid England’s Little Ice Age.
While the causes of the climate change of today are well known, and likely different from that of the Little Ice Age, the experiences of living through both events are at times eerily similar.
In the 16th century, severe rain storms were far more common than cold snaps.
On Oct. 5, 1570, “a terrible tempest of wind and raine” caused flooding from Lincolnshire to London as rivers overflowed their banks, drowning towns, fields, crops and cattle. Storm surges inundated the coastline.
Four years later, towns from Newport to St. Ives suffered “raging floods,” and a “giant sea fish” (whale) washed up in the Thames from a massive surge up river. In May 1594, “soddane showres of haile [and] raine” destroyed houses, iron mills, crops and cattle in Sussex and Surrey. September of that year saw another deluge, with bridges taken down in Cambridge and Ware.
Fire and heat
If colder, wetter weather was a new normal for 17th century Britons, the hot, dry spring of 1666 caught Londoners unprepared. The Great Fire of London was one of the worst disasters of the age, and diarist John Evelyn recounts that “the heate … had even ignited the aire,” a comment reminiscent of descriptions of wildfire spread today.
Yet periods of extreme heat were surprisingly frequent during the previous century, especially in the England that Shakespeare knew. More than a dozen droughts were recorded across England in the 16th century, usually broken by extreme storms or floods. It never rained, it seems, but it poured. The Thames dried up completely in 1592.
As Thomas Short wrote in his Chronological History of English Weather, “an excessive drought, great death of cattle from want of water; springs and brooks were dried up; horsemen could ride the Thames.” Locals went into the mud to retrieve items long lost to the river.
Shakespeare’s hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon was nearly destroyed by fire twice, in 1594 and 1595, due to severe drought and heat. The warning signs were there for Londoners to beware of hot spells in the next century, but frost fairs and wet weather may have bred complacency.
These quotes are taken from:
https://theconversation.com/new-insights-from-shakespeares-england-reveal-striking-parallels-to-contemporary-climate-change-240755
At this point the hope is that technology advances so quickly and cheaply that there’s little excuse to go backwards. I see it happening with heat pumps and induction stoves. Not to mention electric lawnmowers and leafblowers and whatnot. These things are just cool and better.
Guys like this and his Kraken are encouraging.
As the climate in Europe becomes more unstable and intense, it is going to become increasingly more difficult to grow enough food to feed the population. Adaptation will be vital in fighting food insecurity. In the longer term it is much more serious, when AMOC collapses we will be in for a rollercoaster of unknown climatic changes.
Quoting Punshhh
We started to experience this issue regarding water. When summer comes, there are vast municipalities in Spain where it is impossible to drink potable water! The pits and lagoons are already drought!
Well, I don't know why I am speaking in the future because we already have zones that became a bloody desert.
Note: this video is from the end of August. Now, you can find many videos and satellite images showing lakes and rivers that have appeared in the desert.
And to escape the meaningless graphs for a moment, a short report on India, and how poor people are affected. Human, and animal impact.
This is why we will see millions, if not billions of people going to seek refuge somewhere else. And this time there's no "go back to your country" if there's literally nothing to go back to.
I think people miss the fact, or they're too stupid to understand it, that the cascading consequences of what's happening won't just be some higher waters and some heat waves in the summer or more storms, but a total change of how people live. The relocation of people, by their own or through government means will transform the entire world.
And even if the wealthy world ignores the poor people of the world there will be people in more wealthy locations that will be feeling the burn as well. When this happens, things will be felt much more.
I'm predicting there will be wars because of this. People who are so desperate that they have nothing to do but to fight for a place to exist in, will do so. It's extremely naive to think that people will just remain in the heat and take it until they die. No, people will be pushed to the point that killing others in order to save their family and people will be a no-brainer.
I mean, if you had the option to see your friends and family die off because of living conditions falling to unsustainable levels, or invade somewhere else in order to survive... what are you going to do?
Governments of the world won't help people, they can't. If they can't sustain the normal levels of refugees due to current conflicts in the world, how would they ever be able to handle the extreme amount of refugees that climate change will bring about?
Quoting Christoffer
After a careful examination, I managed to find two words to disagree with - "they can't." They can do a great deal more than they are doing. Instead of sowing division and conflict and xenophobia, they could help poor countries adapt somewhat; instead of subsidising oil, they could subsidise renewables; instead of pretending that endless growth is possible, they could start managing the economy to be fair and stable instead of expanding and exploiting. And so on. It's going to be bad, but there's no reason in that, to go on making it worse.
Two fundamental problems that make our governments fail completely:
1. Democracy entails short-termism.
2. Giving all the power to the old does the same.
I'm not talking about the now, but the future in which it's too late to do anything. At that time, "they can't". They can't do anything to help millions of refugees that simply can't do anything but to enter the nation. Where are they going? How are they sustained? How do the food get distributed? Imagine a nation with 20 million inhabitants and they get 2 million refugees storming in. It's going to throw the economic and resource balance out the window. Not only will these 2 million refugees starve, but the rest of the nation will be thrown into chaos trying to solve the problem.
Nations today can't even handle a few thousands refugees coming at once without creating both political and societal turmoil. How do the world handle billions of people relocated from uninhabitable locations?
It's this that I mean governments can't solve. We can solve things now, but when the tipping point happens, we won't be able to without fundamentally throw the world into chaos. It's not the climate change itself that will be the greatest issue, it's the delicate balance of the current world order.
Nah, humans are incredibly adaptable and naturally migratory. It will be like the early iron age. The sea peoples will be cruising all over the place, raiding, having fun, going back to Greenland to party.
Startup Promises to Beam Sunlight from Space (— via TheBrainMaze TBM · Sep 7, 2024 · 52s)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thebrainmaze/status/1832477794653368642[/tweet]
Reflect Orbital
How long until it is used as a weapon?
Many people live in a fantasy world where they think that they can get energy for free.
- solar power is not free
- wind power is not free
- getting energy from in-space reflectors will not be free. Think about the cost of getting the reflectors into space. Operating the system. Maintaining the system. Salaries need to be paid. The company will want a good return on their assets. The company will want to make a profit (just like oil companies).
Not green energy, unfortunately. Given an already overheating planet, extra sunlight is not what is required.
Some keywords/phrases: profit maximization · capitalism · tragedy of the commons · continued growth · climate change (hence posting it here)
The one-and-a-half hours are split into five chapters:
1. Sell more
? marketing science ? advertising ? faster fashion ? inflate supply and demand
2. Waste more
? planned obsolescence ? IFixit
3. Lie more
? greenwashing
4. Hide more
? disposal ? hazardous waste ? product cycles ? pollution
5. Control more
? Amazon is cracking down on protesters and organizing, workers say (— Michael Sainato · Guardian · May 5, 2020); it's not just Amazon
Regardless of the genuinely troubling (and known) message, just using it to promote anti-capitalism doesn't seem quite right. Responsible consumer culture and incentives are parts of a response, to be furthered by legal constraints on whatever parts of the problem. But, it's a global thing. Maybe we should all pick up some of that Greta Thunberg stuff and pass it on.
FYI, here's a brief review, others can be found with a search: Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy film review — marketing tricks and their effect on the planet exposed (— Jonathan Romney · The Financial Times · Nov 21, 2024)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/21/canada-arctic-herschel-island-qikiqtaruk-climate-permafrost-tundra-ecology-aoe
Some nice pics and little films and Timelapse's and some words too.
SolarZero Limited, New Zealand’s biggest solar energy company, has announced its liquidation, citing unsustainable operating losses and liquidity constraints.
The directors of SolarZero said the decision came after extensive efforts to explore restructuring options. “Regretfully, SolarZero and its key stakeholders were unable to find a viable solution to sustain the business.
Customers posting on SolarZero’s Facebook page were concerned about their contracts being honoured.
- one asked: “Can we please have a heavily discounted liquidator sale buyback scheme? Feels like a liability on the roof now.”
- another wrote: “Our contracts still stand and we still get the second battery free after 10 years, correct?”
Customers of SolarZero could buy solar panels and a battery set-up outright, which often runs to $20,000-plus or, as most did, pay nothing up-front.
The company continued to own all the hardware and the customer paid a set fee per month for “energy as a service”.
Rates varied depending on the set-up, especially the number of solar panels installed.
SolarZero would not provide further comment since liquidators have now been appointed.
My state subsidizes roof solar panels, so basically all tax payers contribute to make solar energy available. Doesn't New Zealand do that?
According to Google's AI overview:
New Zealand doesn't currently offer government subsidies for solar panels, but there are other ways to support solar energy, including:
- Solar subsidies from banks
- Labour's solar policy (basically an election bribe, but they lost the election)
- Community Renewable Energy Fund
- The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) has a tool to help consumers assess the economics of solar installations.
- Solar buy-back rates
Of course, subsidies don't help much when the company supplying and maintaining your solar panels goes broke.
True. And the government shouldn't interfere in a case where the company was mismanaged, or just not suited to its intended market.
:up:
In 2022, 87% of New Zealand's electricity came from renewable sources.
This is compared to around 25% renewable generation in neighboring Australia.
The following percentages are for 2023
- 60% of New Zealand's electricity came from hydropower
- 18% of New Zealand's electricity came from geothermal
- 7% of New Zealand's electricity came from wind
Combating climate change is really up to China and India, the newcomers.
Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo
[sup]— Helge F Goessling · Science · Dec 5, 2024[/sup]
Summaries at ... phys, abc
I watched this video and saw the following text in the subtitles:
And telling Bob who works over 40 hour weeks
in an office job in a cold and gray City
in a rainy miserable country that he
should no longer take that couple weeks
holiday to somewhere warm to escape his
miserable life because the climate
crisis is all his fault yeah I can see
how that doesn't go down very well
Bob doesn't like the cold. The word "cold" has negative connotations.
Bob likes to be warm. He takes a couple of weeks holiday to somewhere warm to escape his miserable (cold) life.
Bob could just wait a few years and then his "cold and gray" city will be "warm and sunny". All thanks to climate change.
Here is some information about the climate of the Holocene which climate change fanatics will refuse to believe.
The information comes from a course at The University of Arizona. The course is called ATMO 336 - Weather, Climate, and Society. The course includes a lecture called "The Climate of the Holocene". The webpage for the lecture can be found at:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall10/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
The webpage for the lecture is well worth reading. It includes graphs, pictures, and a summary table at the end. The lecture includes a general theme that warmth is generally good and cold is generally bad.
Here are some selected quotes:
By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.
During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. 6,000 years ago the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals.
From 600-900 AD (The "Dark Ages"), global average temperatures were significantly colder than today. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.
The period 1100 - 1300 AD has been called either the Little Climatic Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. In Europe during this time:
- The Vikings established a colony on Greenland
- Farming was productive on Greenland (has not been productive again since that time)
- Grape vines were grown in England
- Wheat was grown in Norway (64° North latitude)
A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s. Horrendous floods devastated China in 1332 (reported to have killed several million people).
From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 degree Celsius lower than today. But in Europe:
- Re-advance of glaciers down mountains (valley houses in Swiss Alps were covered)
- Canals in Holland froze for three months straight. This rarely occurred before or after this period.
- Agricultural productivity dropped significantly, even becoming impossible in parts of northern Europe.
The climate change gravy train is rolling along. All aboard !!!
I am not sure what you mean by that Frank. Does that mean we can trust the information in the lecture, or that we should distrust it.
In the summary table at the bottom of the lecture it says "1850 AD - present : Warming trend". So the lecture is not denying AGW.
Ok.
So the question arises, however, 'Why is this warming period different and more concerning than all them other fluctuations?'
Well it isn’t, you see, because I’m super smart and skeptical and have spent 5 hours reading Bjorn Lomburg. Nothing to worry about because it gets hot sometimes and has been really hot in the past and the scientists are all part of a groupthink dilemma, or are shouted down if they disagree…or bought by whoever funds them. One of those anyway.
Also, carbon dioxide is actually good for plants. And what about water vapor? And what about the global cooling scare of the 70s? And what about Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore taking private jets around the world? And what about…
But people do not die just because the global average temperature anomaly goes up. They die if actual local temperatures get too high.
How do we find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location?
The website www.timeanddate.com can be used to find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location. The information shown includes (for each month of the year) the high temperature, the low temperature, and the mean temperature. The diurnal temperature range (DTR) can be calculated by subtracting the low temperature from the high temperature. The information is also shown on a very clear and easy to understand graph.
Here are the steps to find out what the normal local temperatures are for just about any city.
1) go to the webpage https://www.timeanddate.com/weather
2) enter the name of the city that you are interested in into the search box and select that city (it must be a city, and not a State or Province)
3) this will take you to a webpage with a heading like "Weather in
4) go to the menu just below this heading and move the mouse pointer over the menu item "Weather".
5) a drop down menu will appear and you need to click the submenu item "Climate (Averages)"
6) Sit back and enjoy the graph and the information
If anybody has trouble getting this to work then please contact me.
So from the money perspective, legacy fossil fuel companies are stalling and denying while eyeing emerging alternate energy sources to see which ones can be profitably co-opted. Other companies are developing technolgies to help rich people fend off the effects of a changing climate and if they're successful, they'll probably be bought by the legacy fossil fuel companies to burnish their climate credentials and maybe even make a few bucks. Just like 40 years ago people would create computer companies in their garages, and now computer creators just want to create something that Apple or Microsoft or whoever will buy.
Until those who wish to change the direction our climate is headed in learn to cause serious economic and political pain to the legacy forces causing this current climate situation, it's all BS, even with all the deaths and destructions, because they're not being effective. Sure, the people care, they just don't care enough, and don't see enough entities successfully opposing legacy fossil fuel corporations.
I suppose you might check the tragedy of the commons.
Say, up-and-coming countries aren't all that likely to go all green from the get-go when they can industrialize using fossil fuels. "Why should we be denied development when everyone else did this?"
And so it goes. Or whatever. "Shit where the grandkids eat."
All of the following information comes from a study that can be found on this webpage:
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/gaining-traction-losing-tread
Emissions Analytics has been testing and analysing tire wear emissions in more detail across a wider range of driving conditions, and has performed a detailed chemical analysis of hundreds of new tires. Furthermore, we have worked with the National Physical Laboratory in the UK objectively to quantify the uncertainties in our measurements of chemical composition.
The headline conclusion we draw now is that, comparing real-world tailpipe particulate mass emissions to tire wear emissions, both in ‘normal’ driving, the latter is actually around 1,850 times greater than the former.
Particularly vocal were the battery electric vehicle (BEV) community, sensitive to any suggestion that the added weight of these vehicles might lead to tire wear emissions that might confound the ‘zero emissions’ tag.
The fundamental trends that drive this ratio (real-world tire wear particulate mass emissions divided by real-world tailpipe particulate mass emissions) are: tailpipe particulate emissions are much lower on new cars, and tire wear emissions increase with vehicle mass and aggressiveness of driving style. Tailpipe emissions are falling over time, as exhaust filters become more efficient and with the prospect of extending the measurement of particulates under the potential future Euro 7 regulation, while tire wear emissions are rising as vehicles become heavier (e.g. EVs) and added power and torque is placed at the driver’s disposal. On current trends, the ratio may well continue to increase.
While the body of research on the health of effects of ultrafine particles is growing, how bad these effects are is likely to depend on how toxic the particles are. Light-duty tires are typically made up of synthetic rubber, derived from crude oil, rather than natural rubber, together with various fillers and additives. In a recent newsletter, Emissions Analytics set out its initial findings from chemical analysis of the organic compounds in a range of tires using two-dimensional gas chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. This showed that there were hundreds of different compounds in each tire, with a significant proportion being aromatics, some of which are recognised carcinogens.
This video could have been in the Grump thread, or one of the several other unrest threads, but I guess the connection between the political climate and the climate is a bit abstruse for the political mind to encompass.
I think we have reached psychosocial tipping point into a self-destructive politics, that will continue to worsen our prospects until the destruction of our infrastructure and governance becomes complete enough that local community is all that is left, and gardeners rule, ok.
What the rich are worried about.
https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/
Climate-Induced Saltwater Intrusion in 2100: Recharge-Driven Severity, Sea Level-Driven Prevalence (study)
[sup]— Adams, Reager, Buzzanga, David, Sawyer, Hamlington · Geophysical Research Letters · Nov 22, 2024[/sup]
Saltwater Could Contaminate 75% of Coastal Freshwater by 2100
[sup]— Margherita Bassi · GIZMODO · Dec 15, 2024[/sup]
More longer larger droughts...
Global increase in the occurrence and impact of multiyear droughts (study)
[sup]— Karger, Chen, Brun, Buri, Fatichi, Gessler, McCarthy, Pelliciotti, Stocker · Science/AAAS · Jan 16, 2025[/sup]
Mega-droughts are becoming more frequent and intense worldwide
[sup]— Beate Kittl · Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research · Jan 16, 2025[/sup]
The usual findings. Might be worthwhile preparing some.
Brief note in a New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago:
2 points:
1) the article doesn't say that raising the earth's temperature is a bad thing
2) New Zealand has always been ahead of the rest of the world
The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago came from a report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912. The quote is the caption under a picture in the report. The quote in the New Zealand newspaper correctly matches the caption in the report.
However, the brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago is only a small part of the report, which is called "Remarkable Weather of 1911". It sounds like the weather in 1911 was even more extreme at 300.6 ppm of CO2 than it was in 2023 and 2024 at 419.3 ppm of CO2. Here are some quotes from the report.
========== Beginning of quotes ==========
THE year 1911 will long be remembered for the violence of its weather. The spring opened mild and delightful, but in June a torrid wave of unparalleled severity swept over the country. The cities baked and gasped for breath, while the burning sun and hot winds withered the corn and cost the farmers a million dollars a day. A little later England was scorched and France and Germany sweltered. The mercury went above 100 deg, in western Canada, and whalers brought back reports from the Arctic regions of open water where always before there had been solid ice. The reports from Mexico and Central America would well describe the lower regions, but it is said that the summer in Iceland was enjoyable.
In August the elements took a different turn and the flood-gates of the heavens were opened. Kentucky and the South Atlantic states were deluged, and the Philippines were more thoroughly drowned than they had been before since the time of Noah. Alberta was visited by a killing frost which ruined hundreds of pioneer farmers. A cyclone devastated Costa Rica and a violent gale swept the South Atlantic coast, destroying a great number of vessels. During the later fall, the North Atlantic was tormented by a series of more violent storms than were known to the oldest sea captains. In November the southern states were visited by a killing frost, while December was remarkable for its high temperatures.
Aside from the extreme heat, the frosts of the far North and the sunny South, and the violent storms at sea, the year 1911 was still exceptional. The mean temperature of every month except November was above the average of that of the 40 years covered by the records of the United States Weather Bureau. The average daily excess was from four to six degrees.
With only one month out of twelve below normal, one may well ask if the climate is not changing and getting warmer. There is a general impression among older men that the good old-fashioned winters in which “the snow was fifteen feet deep and lasted six months” do not come any more. In spite of the fact that the year just past was above the average in temperature, there is no clear indication that there is any progressive change in the direction of a warmer climate. The average temperature of the year 1878 was as high as that of 1911. There seem to be moderate changes in a cycle of about 35 years, and it is suggested that this is related to the period of sun-spot activities, which is about one-third as long.
[ added by @Agree-to-Disagree - from 1911 to 2023 is 112 years, which is close to 3 cycles of 35 years ]
========== End of quotes ==========
The report from the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912 can be found here:
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA339&dq=&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century. By the 1950s, it was becoming obvious. By the 70s, it was very obvious — even by Exxon scientists, whose predictions have been remarkably accurate.
Reagan was the point at which most things turned around for the worse. We will be — and are — living with the consequences for decades.
With Trump now in office, we’ll be lucky to cap at 2.5 degrees— which is catastrophic for billions of people. It’s not wonder there’s as much denial about it as there is about death— or there was about cigarette smoke.
Yes, we have known about global warming for a long time.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.
This was published over 100 years ago. :rofl:
Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Like most doomsday cults, when the predicted disaster doesn't happen when it was predicted they just shift the date of disaster to some time in the future.
"The effect may be considerablein a few centuries."
Come back in another century and sneer about failed doomsday cults. :roll:
“Impending doom” lol. Whatever it takes to deny what’s happening I guess. “They were saying the world will end decades ago and it never did!”
Climate deniers are nothing if not predictable. How many times must we go over the “global cooling in the 70s” type nonsense?
That is a foolish thing to say since I won't still be alive in another century.
You probably won't be around in another century to see that your predictions were wrong. In fact almost everyone alive now will not be around in another century. It is easy to make predictions for things that are predicted to occur after you are dead. You won't be around for people to laugh at.
Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have made many predictions which turned out to be wrong.
Quoting Chris Bennett
So for some balance, here is my favourite doom-merchant showing an ongoing collapse of sea ice in the Antarctic that you can follow live via links in the description on youtube.
Or, as climate denying idiots would say: “No climate predictions have come true!”
What makes you think that your predictions and claims are any better than mine? I present evidence to support my claims. For example:
- the report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912.The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago was based on this report
- the quote from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922
Both of these items show that climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Can you prove that my evidence is not true?
You obviously can't prove that my evidence is not true. Resorting to personal insults shows that you have no scientific rationale.
P.S. I don't want help from an alarmist idiot. :scream:
I enjoy being insulted by climate-change/global-warming alarmists because it shows that they are desperate, irrational, and have no scientific rationale. :scream:
Conversations with climate deniers:
(1) Stupid bullshit stated that you’ve heard a million times and that has been debunked a million times.
(2) You walk them through it.
(3) They move on to the next idiotic thing.
Or, after multiple times of going through this, (2) is skipped. Then: (3)b denier says “See! You can’t engage with the ‘argument’”. (The “argument” being searching the web for climate denial nonsense and AI summaries, copying them and pasting them.)
On we go. :yawn:
This was interesting, thanks.
What do you think Santa does with the reindeer that get too old to pull his sleigh? Apparently reindeer burgers are very tasty. If you look at the size of Santa's belly he is obviously not vegan or vegetarian.
Also, it is too cold to grow vegetables at the North Pole. Does Santa have to get his vegetables flown in?
If somebody promised you $55,000 but only gave you $39,000, would you be happy?
Every prediction is accurate if you attribute the difference to natural fluctuations.
This is a typical climate-change/global-warming alarmist response to an inconvenient truth. Ad hominem. If they don't have any way of disproving a statement then they resort to attacking the person who made the statement.
Respond to the statement Mikie, not the person who made the statement.
P.S.
Another common tactic used by climate-change/global-warming alarmists when cornered is to go silent.
See above. We’re on (3)b.
Conflict habituated
Quoting whoever
What I find hilarious is that it’s not just “alarmist,” which we’d all understand— he has to, each time, type out “climate change/global warming alarmist.” :lol:
When you have the intellect of a fruit fly…
Why do alarmists consistently call anybody who doesn't totally agree with them "deniers"?
People like Mikie will never stop calling other people "deniers". There seems to be no middle ground between Mikie and reasonable people.
Here is Google's AI Overview when asked the question "how intelligent are fruit flies?"
Fruit flies are surprisingly intelligent, capable of complex behaviors like forming memories, making decisions based on gathered information, and navigating their environment, demonstrating cognitive abilities that were previously thought to be only present in mammals, even though their brains are much simpler compared to humans; research suggests they can "think before they act" and consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice.
Thank you for the compliment Mikie. Another scientific topic that you know nothing about. :rofl:
From what I can see, Mikie doesn't have the ability to "think before acting" or "considering the complexity of a situation before making a choice". What is it like to be outsmarted by a fruit fly Mikie.
That is because alarmists keep changing the name.
- global warming
- climate change
- climate crisis
- climate emergency
- climate breakdown
- climate collapse
- climate chaos
- climate whiplash
- global heating
- global boiling
- global weirding
- planetary fever
- planetary warming
- global meltdown
- global melting
- scorched Earth
I didn't want to type out "global warming/climate change/climate crisis/climate emergency/climate breakdown/climate collapse/climate chaos/climate whiplash/global heating/global boiling/global weirding/planetary fever/planetary warming/global meltdown/global melting/scorched Earth alarmist"
https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires
But have no fear — after 4 of the hottest years on record, remember what the Denier-in-Chief said, 4 years prior:
Still waiting. That’s so far turned out to be as accurate as “covid will be gone by easter [of 2020].”
[hide]
Prediction: some imbecile will come along and say “the fires were from mismanagement not climate change!”
[/hide]
In absence of anything better, I'll go by the (large) consensus among subject matter experts.
Scientific consensus on climate change | Wikipedia | science index
Evidence | NASA | science
Nature Climate Change | Springer Nature | science and discussion index
10 myths about climate change | WWF | errors
Consequences of climate change | European Commission | effects
Climate change | OECD | policy
+ a simple rational analysis ? Aug 1, 2024.
Doesn't seem plausible that they're all in on some conspiracy or whatever, but people have ridiculously believed worse. Any ulterior motives would largely be financial in fossil fuel sectors. (Or just contrarians/conservatives/economists perhaps?) :shrug:
Good post. A lot of good resources to ignore— in favor of the latest from Steve Koonin or the CATO Institute.
I call people "alarmists" because they are warning people about a dangerous situation. They a raising an alarm about the consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels.
The definition of the word "alarmist" is "a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities". So "alarmist" can have a negative connotation, but not necessarily so. If the "alarmist" is warning people about a real dangerous situation, and they are not exaggerating the dangers, then using the word in this situation does not have a negative connotation.
Quoting jorndoe
I think that the best substitute for "alarmist" is "activist". The word "activist" can have positive or negative connotations, often positive. Also, it is short and ends with "ist" (meaning a person who practices, is interested in, or believes in something).
Quoting jorndoe
You are welcome to go by the (large) consensus. I try to look at the data and draw my own conclusions.
A consensus is not always correct. There can be groupthink (where dissenting opinions are suppressed, e.g. climate scientists influencing journal editors). There can be pressure to conform within a group. There can be financial considerations (the need to agree with the consensus in order to get funding etc.). Climate change is now a huge self sustaining industry (Big Climate Change, like there is Big Oil and Big Pharma, etc.).
Quoting jorndoe
It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Scientists (including climate scientists) have also got a number of motives (e.g. financial motives). The scientists who work for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, etc. are often seen (possibly incorrectly) as being paid to produce requested scientific results. Are climate scientists immune from the same thing? Do you believe that all climate scientists are "knights in shining armour"?
:rofl:
Is that the powerful windmill-industrial complex?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
No. Neither are all astronauts, yet the Earth still ain't flat.
Lol — it’s like bad satire.
Climate deniers back in charge. It’s basically too late anyway, at this point. We’re likely on the road to 2.4 or more. Which will be catastrophic. We’re at 1.1 now and already seeing hundreds of billions in damages and many lives lost thanks to the warming by greenhouse gases.
We deserve what we get. Here’s hoping the worst of it strikes those who voted in this idiot.
I'm happy to claim "alarmist", as I am being battered by another storm, and the first official 'red warning' for a long time. If you look at a few economic commentators, you will see that every major economy is in trouble. While one can blame the oligarchs to an extent, one of the reasons that disaster capitalism is taking over the world is that disaster is taking over the world. We are getting poorer, because our stuff is burning, being blown down, washed away, drying out, etc. The rich can still make money from our desperation...
Big Climate Change is pushing the idea of net zero. It tries to demonize fossil fuels. It promotes solar energy and wind energy over other more reliable types of energy. It is trying to affect what forms of energy developing counties can use. It is trying to get everybody into EV's and stop people using fossil fuel vehicles. It is trying to affect what people eat. It funds science that supports its goals. Because of this climate scientists seem to be trying to outdo each other by coming out with more and more extreme claims and predicted catastrophic disasters.
Big Climate Change is using public money (e.g. money from taxes, etc.) to try and control what the public is allowed to do. According to the Climate Policy Initiative, the global "climate change industry," encompassing climate finance, reached an average of approximately $1.3 trillion annually in 2021/2022. This is close to the GDP of Indonesia.
:rofl:
Mikie, what have you been smoking?
Ask a fruit fly to explain satire to you.
MGUY Australia
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv
Finally, “the truth” has been found.
As usual Mikie gives a knee-jerk reaction based on his narrow-mindedness.
If Einstein had a YouTube channel would you refuse to accept his views?
Did you even look at any of MGUY's videos?
MGUY is a British engineer and lawyer, now a Sydney based YouTuber.
What are your qualifications Mikie?
This presents me with a difficult choice. Should I trust Mikie, or a qualified engineer?
:rofl:
Are you really over the age of 11?
Hmm... I think we could reformulate the question in this way: If Einstein had a YouTube channel would we subscribe to it and watch his videos? :chin:
Or… do we ignore all that, select a YouTube lawyer (because what he says confirms what we want to believe), and then pretend that others are brainwashed because they dismiss us as idiots?
:chin:
The latter has the added benefit of pretending that we have special knowledge that everyone else has missed. Flat earthers and creationists talk exactly like climate deniers for a reason…
MGUY is not totally against EVs. He says that they are good in certain circumstances. For example, if you do short trips, if you have off-street parking, if you can charge your EV at home, etc.
MGUY is against EV mandates because EVs are not great in all circumstances. He wants people to be able to choose the type of car that is right for them.
It is good that your Nissan Leaf is great for you. But not everybody is in the same situation as you.
No, I am not. I will be 8 on my next birthday.
Why did you fail to mention that MGUY is also an engineer?
Could it be Mikie, that you are biased and ignore the qualifications of any person that disagrees with you?
MGUY puts links to the places where he gets information from. For example in his YouTube video called "UK Fire Chiefs issue STARK warning on EVs", he puts the following links in the description of the video.
FRNSW position statement: https://m-g.uy/onl
Express article: https://m-g.uy/mgr
You can check that what he is saying is true. Not that you would ever follow the links Mikie. You don't even see the links if you don't go to any of MGUYs videos Mikie. :scream:
An engineer is as much a climate scientist as a lawyer. But it’s hilarious you think it’s important I “left it out.”
An engineer knows more about solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc. than a climate scientist.
MGUY is not talking about climate science. He is talking about engineering problems.
For your information Mikie, engineers apply scientific principles to analyze, design, invent, code, build, and create, to solve all sorts of problems and make the world a better place.
No kidding. Neither are you. Which is why it’s strange you’re in a climate change thread.
Solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc. are relevant to climate change. If you don't know that then you should expand your world view beyond your little self-imposed echo chamber.
Some advice for you Mikie. When in a hole, stop digging. Remember that everybody reading the thread can see how ridiculous you are.
:rofl:
God you’re delusional.
Mikie, are you going to look at any of MGUY's videos?
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv
Hydroclimate volatility on a warming Earth
[sup]— Daniel L Swain, Andreas F Prein, John T Abatzoglou, et al · Nature Reviews Earth and Environment · Jan 9, 2025[/sup]
Yes, I would like renewable/sustainable/green energy efforts to succeed. But I think that most people don't know about, or don't want to acknowledge, the many problems that there are with the current efforts. I could list many examples of these problems, but MGUY does a much better job of this than I can. I strongly recommend that you look at his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv
Some of the information on the map that you reference seems "odd".
North-Central USA / Jan 2020-Jan 2021 / wet to dry
Why does this have the impact of flooding
Northern and Central Europe / Jan 2018-Jan 2019 / wet to dry
Why does this have the impact of flooding
Pacific Southwest / Oct 2022-Oct 2023 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire
Southern Chile and Argentina / Dec 2016-Dec2017 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire
Southeast Australia / Dec 2019-Dec2020 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire
The way that the date ranges are different for each region makes it look like they are cherry-picking. They vary in starting month and starting year. The starting year varies from 2016 to 2023.
Also the date ranges vary in length. Most are MMM YYYY to MMM (YYYY+1).
But West Africa is Jun 2020-Sep 2020
East Africa is Sep 2023 to Dec 2023
Southern China is Jun 2022 to Sep 2022
Iran, Pakistan and Eastern Arabian Peninsula is May 2022-Aug 2022
Why didn't they give results for the same date range and date range length?
But some idiot on YouTube has something to say about it that we should all pay attention to — after all, he comes highly recommended by an Internet forum’s resident climate denier, and fellow intellectual fruit fly — who refuses to spend a second reading anything relevant on the topic, but would like you to spend the time watching his stupid bullshit.
Sounds great.
Have I upset you Mikie?
Let's ignore the “windmills kill birds!” issue at the moment. You have introduced it as a distraction. But since you have raised the issue...
If you ask Google the question "what type of birds do wind turbines farms kill", The AI overview says:
Wind turbines most often impact large birds of prey, waterfowl, and nocturnally migrating birds.
Birds that are most impacted
- Large birds of prey: Eagles and hawks are more likely to fly into turbine blades
- Waterfowl: Swans, geese, and ducks are more likely to collide with turbines
- Nocturnally migrating birds: Passerines that migrate at night are more likely to collide with turbines
The fact that "windmills" kill large birds of prey is of particular concern.
Quoting Mikie
Renewable energy is highly subsidized by governments. If fossil fuels are far more costly than renewables then why are developing counties using fossil fuels to help lift themselves out of poverty? If renewable energy was really cheaper then they would be queuing up to use renewables.
Quoting Mikie
I have told you many times Mikie that I accept that global warming is happening. I accept that humans are responsible for most of the increase in the CO2 level above 280 ppm. I accept that this will cause some problems. We need to be careful that in trying to solve global warming that we don't end up causing bigger more serious problems. That is why you should be looking at things like MGUY's videos. You shouldn't be pretending that there are no problems with our "solutions" to global warming.
If you pull the blankets over your head in bed, then the monsters can't get you. :scream:
Quoting Mikie
I would be interested to hear from other people on this thread what they think about MGUY's videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv
Are MGUY's videos "stupid bullshit" as Mikie is claiming?
On the Extrapolation of Generative Adversarial Networks for Downscaling Precipitation Extremes in Warmer Climates
[sup]— Neelesh Rampal, Peter B Gibson, Steven Sherwood, Gab Abramowitz · NIWA + UNSW · Dec 5, 2024[/sup]
A Reliable Generative Adversarial Network Approach for Climate Downscaling and Weather Generation
[sup]— Neelesh Rampal, Peter B Gibson, Steven Sherwood, Gab Abramowitz, Sanaa Hobeichi · NIWA + UNSW · Jan 2, 2025[/sup]
The projections (for New Zealand) can be generated a lot faster than with traditional models.
:rofl:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I’ve given your recommendation exactly the amount of attention it deserves: none. As with most climate deniers.
I get that you’re too stupid to understand why — but others do.
Since you ask, looking at the banner of his website, he declares upfront that his site is an EV free zone. Then there are some videos highlighting problems with EVs. Then there are some videos extolling the virtues of high end petrol sports cars.
I think MGUY is a petrol-head. These are not a rare breed in the UK or in Australia. So it is not the site to look for a balanced view of EVs as a practical means of transport, never mind as a way to contribute to stabilising the climate.
Do EV evangelists provide a balanced view of EVs? MGUY is providing the "other side" from EV evangelists.
I agree with you that MGUY is a bit of a petrol-head. But as I said before, MGUY is not totally against EVs. He says that they are great in certain circumstances. For example, if you do short trips, if you have off-street parking, if you can charge your EV at home, etc.
MGUY is very against EV mandates because EVs are not great in all circumstances. He wants people to be able to choose the type of car that is right for them.
MGUY provides links to where he gets his information from, so you can check that he providing true information. For example, in his video called "UK Fire Chiefs issue STARK warning on EVs" he provides the following links:
FRNSW position statement: https://m-g.uy/onl
- Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) is the State Government agency responsible for the provision of fire, rescue and hazmat services in cities and towns across New South Wales. FRNSW is one of the world’s largest urban fire and rescue services and is the busiest in Australia. FRNSW's position statement includes the following:
- FRNSW consider EVs and EV charging stations to be special hazards...
- A failure event within an EV battery (such as mechanical, thermal abuse, rapid discharge, or internal cell failure) has the potential to lead to a thermal runaway event within the EV battery, which may pose significant challenges for the building structure, the building occupants, and for firefighters in the management of the incident.
Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video?
Express article: https://m-g.uy/mgr
Here are some extracts:
- Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs.
- Fire chiefs say the public must be told about the huge fire risks posed by electric vehicles, as the Government presses ahead with a ban on new petrol and diesel cars.
- Damaged vehicles could burst into “explosive” flames and fires could resume days after they appeared to have been extinguished according to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the professional voice of the UK fire and rescue service.
- Blazes could also release toxic fumes and even the water used to put out electric vehicle fires could become poisonous and pollute the environment.
- Thermal runaway can lead to the creation of toxic vapours and gases such as (not exhaustive) carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride.
- Fire water that is contaminated with chemicals from battery fires is dangerous to the environment.
Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video?
The climate denial idiocy continues on…
Here is a news report from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW):
Fire and Rescue NSW recording Lithium-Ion battery fires at a rate of five a week - NSW
Published: 15 Mar 2024 11:48am
Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) has expressed concerns about the rising rate of Lithium-Ion battery fires as crews responded to four separate incidents yesterday.
- Nine fire trucks rushed to an address in Apprentice Drive at Berkeley, on the state’s Central Coast, just after 5pm yesterday when an electric vehicle charging station caught alight. Crews established a defensive perimeter around the business, fearing multiple Lithium-Ion truck batteries were at risk of catching fire. Firefighters extinguished the blaze without further incident.
- Around 4pm yesterday, a tradesman drove to the Tingira Heights Fire Station at Lake Macquarie, alerting firefighters that his toolbox was on fire. The maintenance worker told the crew he was driving when he noticed a large amount of smoke in his rear vision mirror. When he stopped his ute and opened the large toolbox, he found an unattached battery for his hedger ablaze. The man covered the flames in dirt and drove to the nearby fire station. Firefighters opened the toolbox and observed the dirt bubbling as the battery had entered a process, known as ‘Thermal Runaway; whereby the cell was off-gassing and threatening to explode. They submerged the battery in a container of water until the danger had passed.
- In a third incident around 12.45pm yesterday, a fire broke out in the rear of a garbage truck travelling along Derby Street at Silverwater, in Sydney’s west. The driver stopped the truck and tipped the burning rubbish onto the roadway. FRNSW crews arrived and found one battery amongst around 150 Lithium-Ion cells had entered ‘Thermal Runaway’ and was on fire. The battery was submerged in water, preventing a chain reaction, and the scene cleaned up.
- In a fourth Lithium-Ion battery-related blaze, an e-bike caught fire on the third floor of a 10-storey apartment block at Bankstown, in Sydney’s south-west. Residents were evacuated from the French Avenue address around 6.30am, as 25 firefighters and four trucks responded to the scene. Sprinklers were activated and suppressed the flames. The fire crews extinguished the fire and ventilated the building. An occupant suffered a superficial burn when he tried to remove the burning e-bike.
FRNSW has recorded 63 Lithium-Ion battery fires to date in 2024 (this report was published on 15 Mar 2024), subject to review, at a rate of 5.7 blazes a week.
Seven people have been injured in the fires.
There were 272 Lithium-Ion battery-related fires in 2023, at a rate of 5.2 a week.
Thirty eight people were injured last year.
FRNSW is reinforcing its public messages to households and businesses to use extra caution around Lithium-Ion batteries and related devices.
Mikie, do you think that Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) is stupid?
Remember, these problems are only going to get worse as the number of EVs on the road increases.
Mikie, I am not surprised that you are ignorant about EV mandates. A little bit of googling would have educated you.
There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office.
In Britain automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.
In Britain failure to meet these requirements forces manufacturers to either purchase certificates from others who exceeded their targets or face fines of £15,000 per non-compliant vehicle.
Here is the title of an article that I found, "Europe’s Wobbling EV Mandate Will Force Hard Choices".
China’s EV mandate, announced last week (this was published on October 3, 2017), is part of an effort to reach 20% EV sales, or 7 million vehicles, in 2025, Yunshi Wang of the China Center for Energy and Transportation, UC Davis, told the event.
While the Australian emission standard does not mandate EVS the government knows full well that the only way that most brands will meet the target is by selling battery cars to offset the regular petrol and diesel cars. It's an EV mandate by the back door.
And the climate denying idiocy continues on…
Mikie, you seem to live in a world of your own. Why don't you try getting out of your mother's basement occasionally.
In an earlier post I said:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Try googling "ev mandate america us usa". Here are some results:
This first one is from The White House (the whitehouse.gov domain). I think that they will know about EV mandates if anybody does.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States:
(e) to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies and effectively mandate their purchase by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;
RANDY FEENSTRA - Proudly serving the 4th district (the house.gov domain)
https://feenstra.house.gov/media/op-ed/president-bidens-electric-vehicle-mandates-are-costly-and-unrealistic
President Biden’s Electric-Vehicle Mandates are Costly and Unrealistic.
On March 20th, President Biden authorized the largest government mandate of electric vehicles in American history.
But President Biden didn’t stop his attacks on liquid fuels there. Just nine days after he approved his electric-vehicle mandate on American families, he authorized another EPA rule that would impact eight different classes of trucks and require a growing share of trucks – including semis – to be electric over the next decade.
As is commonplace with this administration, President Biden has his priorities misplaced. By forcing mandates on our families while inflation continues to rise, he is increasing costs for Americans at a time when they can least afford it.
Energy & Commerce - Chairman Brett Guthrie (the house.gov domain)
https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/e-and-c-republicans-lead-to-stop-the-biden-harris-de-facto-ev-mandate
Energy and Commerce Republicans are leading to stop the Biden-Harris administration from imposing unaffordable electric vehicle mandates that will jeopardize our auto industry and hand China the keys to our energy future.
USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/20/trump-executive-order-day-1-electric-vehicle/77835683007
Trump ends 'electric vehicle mandate,' withdraws US from Paris climate agreement
The orders include eliminating the so-called "electric vehicle mandate," Trump's phrase for a Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027.
The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
What about petrol cars? Can they not explode? Batteries are a new hazard that people need to become aware of. But the information that would be more informative than 'what fire chiefs say' is the comparison.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles.
Fire departments are right to be concerned, and there are new factors to take into account, fumes and restarts, along with unknowns such as the rate of increase as batteries age. Nevertheless, MGUY is more than a little misleading in his representation of the risks of EVs that ignores completely the familiar, and by an order of magnitude greater risks of fossil fuel vehicles.
Horses hardly ever explode; perhaps cars should be banned altogether.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Emphasis mine.
So yeah, the phrase “EV mandate” sure is used a lot, particularly in conservative media. Imagine thinking that this proves something…
The phrase “voter fraud” pops up a lot too. Must mean it’s true (it isn’t).
So both a climate denier and brainwashed by conservative media…but I repeat myself.
Wind turbines kill birds! Same logic.
Oh wait— cats kill 1000 times more birds. Hmm. It’s almost as if these criticisms of renewables are disingenuous.
Really hilarious to watch.
Yeah but horses hardly kill any birds - they're a win win solution.
Mikie, if you had the ability to "think before acting" and to "consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice" (both of which fruit flies can do :scream: ), then you would make less mistakes.
A mandate is "an official order or commission to do something".
The Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 IS THE MANDATE.
The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.
This is similar to the Britain mandate which says that automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.
The British mandate is based on sales figures whereas the USA mandate is based on greenhouse gas emissions.
So you are wrong (as usual). There was an EV mandate in the USA but Trump eliminated it just hours after taking office.
No, it isn’t. And never was.
You can still buy combustion engine cars all you want. No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV. The entire “mandate” bullshit is and was a manufactured Fox News myth, on par with the hysteria around “taking away your hamburgers” and the “mandate” to buy induction stoves.
And the truly imbecilic fall for it. But Trump and his media said it repeatedly, so it must be true. If only there were a mandate against climate denying idiots…
Honestly, I wish there actually WERE mandates on this stuff. Public transportation, sustainable farming, etc. But all we get are emissions reduction targets years in the making, which are already way too long (50% by 2050!).
Meanwhile the world burns.
But at least it smells nice.
The effective EV mandate would make gasoline-powered automobiles much more expensive than EV's (the opposite of the current situation). This would effectively price gasoline-powered automobiles out of the market in favour of EVs.
Mikie, you seem unable to understand the clear statement made by President Trump. Here it is again. I will carefully explain it to you in language that an idiot can understand. I have underlined the parts that you should pay attention to.
To eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice
- by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access
- by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles
- by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles
- by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies
- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule (this is the the effective EV mandate) that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 and effectively mandate the purchase of EVs by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;
Can you understand that?
It’s not a mandate, nor an effective mandate. Citing Trump makes you even more pathetic than you’ve established yourself to be.
Keep embarrassing yourself though. It’s cringey but kind of hilarious.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Love when idiots pretend to be the one’s “explaining” things— :rofl: Who exactly are you fooling, other than yourself?
Exactly. Let’s all wait for those who have established themselves as authorities — and who definitely has not had their stupidity proven over and over again — to EXPLAIN to us children why these disasters are a good thing. Or just natural, etc.
Can’t wait.
Have you ever seen the advertisement for Claytons, a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage coloured and packaged to resemble bottled whisky. Since is has zero alcohol the punch-line in the advertisement is "the drink that you have when you're not having a drink".
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions is "the mandate that you have when you're not having a mandate".
Hey Mikie, how do you keep an idiot in suspense?
There is no EV mandate. There was no EV mandate. Effectively or otherwise. Take it no more seriously than “they’re taking away your hamburgers!” Or hysteria over induction stoves. To climate denying Trump cultists, who ignore all reality that doesn’t conform to what he or his media says, it’s all very real. That’s true. But it doesn’t exist. It’s just another small aspect of climate denial.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cars/editorials/opinion-politicians-are-lying-about-biden-s-epa-rule-44505856
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Do you understand that Mikie?
In case you don't understand it, I will explain it to you.
It doesn't matter what name you use to describe what the Biden administration and the EPA did. The important thing is that President Trump got rid of it.
The important thing is that Trump stopped all the massive voter fraud! (Never mind that the “voter fraud” didn’t exist, and was all along a figment of his imagination.) Ditto the “EV mandate.”
:up: Exactly.
Mikie, I am not, and never have been, a big fan of Donald Trump.
I also do not watch Fox News. And I never have.
You are wrong once again. :scream:
No wonder everyone thinks you’re an idiot.
:rofl:
:lol: Case in point. :point: "This".
That’s how you know it’s true.
There is a big difference between "exploding" and "catching fire".
This is a long post. If you don't want to see the details of how the calculations were done then you can skip the details and go straight to the "Summary of results"
There are at least 5 calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs.
1) The EV FireSafe report which was funded by Australia’s Department of Defense. It found that the risk of a gasoline car catching fire was about 83 times bigger than the risk of an EV catching fire. (83 is calculated by dividing 0.1 by 0.0012)
2) A graphic that has been widely shared on the internet which is attributed to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). This graphic hasn't changed since 2018 so we should be careful when using these numbers). It shows that the risk of an EV catching fire is 25.1 per 100k Sales. It also shows that the risk of a gasoline car catching fire is 1,529.9 per 100k Sales. Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 61 times bigger than the risk of an EV catching fire. (61 is calculated by dividing 1,529.9 by 25.1)
3) The Authority for Social Protection and Preparedness in Sweden recently released the first report of its kind specifically tracking EV fires in Sweden and comparing them to combustion-powered vehicle fires, and the results are clear: EVs are much less likely to catch fire.
According to MSB data, there are nearly 611,000 EVs and hybrids in Sweden as of 2022. With an average of 16 EV and hybrid fires per year, there's a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire. There are a total of roughly 4.4 million gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles in Sweden, with an average of 3,384 fires per year, for a 1 in 1,300 chance of fire. That means gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles are 29 times more likely to catch fire than EVs and hybrids.
4) From https://www.nautinst.org/resources-page/recognising-the-risk-of-evs.html
Statistically, the estimated failure rate (and therefore risk of combustion) of an individual battery cell is one in ten million. However, when you consider that an average EV contains approximately 7000 cells, the risk increases significantly.
Data from the London Fire Brigade suggests an incident rate of 0.04% for ICE car fires, but the rate for EVs is more than double that at 0.1%. Although it is not clear whether EVs are more likely than ICE vehicles to catch fire, it is common ground that the consequences are potentially more disastrous and more difficult to handle.
Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 0.4 (about a half) times the risk of an EV catching fire. (0.5 is calculated by dividing 0.04 by 0.1)
5) Various statements from Elon Musk
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines. So the risk of a gasoline car catching fire is about
11 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire
- https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1133254_fires-are-less-frequent-in-teslas-and-other-evs-vs-gas-vehicles
The electric car maker notes, as CEO Elon Musk has for years, that the frequency of EV fire headlines can be deceiving. There were almost 190,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2019, and they happen in gasoline vehicles at a much higher rate. It notes that from 2012 to 2020 there was about one Tesla vehicle fire per 205 million miles traveled—versus one per 19 million miles traveled for all types, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.
Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 11 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire. (11 is calculated by dividing 205 by 19)
- https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
Vehicle Fire Data
Our global data indicates that, between 2012 and 2022, approximately one Tesla vehicle fire event occurred for every 130 million vehicle miles traveled. By comparison, data from the NFPA and U.S. Department of Transportation indicate that one vehicle fire occurs in the United States for every 18 million miles traveled.
Using these numbers makes the risk of a gasoline car catching fire about 7 times the risk of a Tesla (EV) catching fire. (7 is calculated by dividing 130 by 18)
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/10/04/elon-musk-tesla-fire/2924423
Elon Musk defends Tesla electric car after fire (This is from 2013)
Elon Musk says in comparison to 150,000 vehicles fires a year, Tesla has now had only one out of 100 million miles driven. "This means you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!"
Summary of results
The different calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are:
- 83 times more likely
- 61 times more likely
- 29 times more likely
- 0.4 times more likely
The different claims from Elon Musk for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are:
- 11 times more likely
- 11 times more likely
- 7 times more likely
- 5 times more likely (a claim made in 2013)
The large range of values for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs is probably due to a number of reasons. The lack of data, and the reliability of the data that does exist, makes all of these values questionable.
An important factor has been left out of these statistical calculations
None of these calculations take into account the age distributions of gasoline cars and EVs on the road. The age distributions of gasoline cars and EVs are very different. There are many gasoline cars on the road which are well over 20 years old. The first mass-market EV, the Nissan Leaf, wasn't released until 2010. Only the earliest modern EVs, of which very few were sold, are over 10 years old today.
An analysis of car fires shows that older cars are far and away the most likely to catch fire and the risk of fire increases the older a car gets. A total of 77 percent of all car fires that occurred in 2017 involved vehicles made in 2007 or earlier, so those at least 10 years old or older. The original Tesla Roadster didn't come out until 2008, and only 2,500 of those were built. The first mass-market EV, the Nissan Leaf, wasn't released until 2010. Only the earliest modern EVs, of which very few were sold, are over 10 years old today. The NFPA report cites worn-out parts and deferred maintenance as the likely cause of increased fire danger for older cars.
How many 20 year old cars are still on the road?
- about 23% of all passenger cars on the road today are 20 years old or older. (none of these are EVs)
Percentage of cars still on the road (some numbers rounded)
Year Range % of Vehicles
2020-24 model years 12%
2015-19 model years 26%
2010-14 model years 19%
2005-09 model years 20%
2000-04 model years 14%
1995-99 model years 5%
1990-94 model years 2%
1985-89 model years 1%
Older than 1985 1%
The average age of electric vehicles (EVs) in the United States is 3.5 years.
The average age of all vehicles in the United States is 12.6 years.
All of the current calculations for the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs are NOT comparing apples with apples.
It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire.
And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head.
New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop. In some cases, the technology may have to be abandoned - the use of DDT, and asbestos comes to mind. It may yet happen with EVs, because large scale energy storage is a new tech, if one discounts the lead/acid batteries that powered EVs in the early part of the 20th century. But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed.
But the persistent long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel use are extremely well understood. You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexity, of which no one has any experience, even theoretically through geological records.
And so pages of script and hours of labour are wasted here, discussing your petrol head video maker, not to convince you, because no one here has any wish to argue with a climate change denier, but simply to explain to the general reader, why you and MGUY are not reliable sources of information.
You shouldn't disregard everything that MGUY says just because you think that he is a petrol-head. You are attacking him rather than discussing what he says (ad hominem).
I agree with your comment about new technology. I saw a news item which said that Korean researchers are developing a long-lasting, self-extinguishing EV battery. That could be a game changer.
I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern. In the same way that scientists are meant to be skeptical, we are looking at the proposed solutions to climate change from a different angle. You should listen to what we say and respond to what we say, not have a knee-jerk response because you don't like what we say. You don't want to be like Mikie, do you? We should also listen to what you say and respond in a reasonable way.
I am well aware of the predicted long term deleterious effects of fossil fuels use. You say that all our research and all our criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives. Somebody should be doing this, and I don't see many other people doing it.
I put a lot of time and effort into looking at the question of the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs. I don't regard it as a waste of time. I showed that the "facts" that Alarmists are using are wrong (see how I can call people names as well). Why should I believe anything that an Alarmist says? Please point out where my analysis of the relative risk of gasoline cars catching fire compared to EVs is wrong.
:clap:
I applaud your efforts for the general reader. This guy makes a decent example of current climate change denial. Because he’s not very intelligent, it makes it easy— so it’s not really fair. But still— good for anyone pursuing.
I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change.
I think MGUY is concerned about possible restrictions on his enjoyment of fast petrol cars. He has videos on all these:
Mercedes-Benz SLK 350
Maserati GranTurismo (2013)
MG Midget (1971)
Ferrari 360
Mercedes C63 (2020)
These "sports" cars are what he is concerned about, and their safety is not their major feature, and nor is utility or economy. These cars are what is known as "penis extensions". EVs have superior acceleration, potentially, but they are too quiet to satisfy poseurs.
It doesn't matter whether you believe MGUY and/or me. What you need to do is address the concerns that we raise. Otherwise you just have your head buried in the sand.
You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.
Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ?
It sounds like you are suffering from "penis jealousy". :razz:
Seems ominous that we haven't heard anything about fusion lately. :worry: But there's the thorium reactor. Maybe.
Faith? I think it probable that new technology will improve in safety and efficiency. But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle. I have no faith in that happening until it is far too late for most of us. But change we will, of necessity.
But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness, and your continued defence of the indefensible shows you to be the same. As I have hinted, the choice is between EVs and horses (or camels); but all this is a minor quibble, as are most of your posts.
Let us discuss the banning of all flights and the planting of all runways with vegetables. Let us discuss a 25% tariff on meat, a 50 % tariff on gas, and so on, let us have faith in bold politicians taking decisive effective action to address the global crisis. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :death:
[hide="Reveal"]To get away from the angry mob.[/hide]
Sorry, I must have missed that bit. What do you mean by an unreliable witness? Someone who says things that you don't like? MGUY provides links to where he gets his information from. You can easily check that what he is saying is reliable. As long as you are not too lazy to check.
Quoting unenlightened
As far as I can see that collective will doesn't exist.
Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
And that's why most of us will die an early death.
No.
Being overly pessimistic does not help things. It often leads to depression and/or causes people to stop trying. You might be worrying about something that never happens because technology will save us..
I think that many people (especially young people) have been brainwashed into thinking that there is no hope. They attack anybody who doesn't share their pessimistic view.
Climate scientists have done a great job of scaremongering by continually predicting that things are rapidly getting worse. Children are scared stiff.
The people who are trying to save humanity and the planet are coming up with unrealistic plans, and are blaming the wrong people. They are not willing to compromise on any point so nothing ends up being done. Blocking traffic and vandalising great works of art and historical monuments (like Stonehenge) is not helping their cause. In fact it is harming their cause.
The activists who are concerned about climate change need to rethink their methods.
By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information.
You are a delusional evangelist and you have your head buried in the sand.
Rational people know that there are some serious problems.
Coming from a delusional climate denier this means a lot I’m sure.
No.
You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree.
I am not doubting the sincerity of what you are saying.
You are not reliable because you are wrong. Any rational person knows that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
Just to be completely transparent, there are of course always problems with technology and infrastructure. however, in relation to the problems of climate change, which, in case you had forgotten, is the topic under discussion. there are no serious problems at all; the problems you have suggested are trivial by comparison with the effects of climate change.
For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0723/POST-PN-0723.pdf
Compared to:
That's 8 deaths in 3 years, versus around 3,000 deaths in 1 year. Do you think 8 deaths in three years is the serious problem?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Yeah, I'll not try and argue with that. :fire:
But since you’re dealing with someone who denies it’s really a problem, and who delusionally believes that people who have studied this issue their entire lives are wrong for making such a big deal of it (and he feels entitled to do so because he’s chosen to spend hours listening to long-refuted climate deniers like Richard Lindzen and Alex Epstein and whatever random YouTubers he pulls from his ass (and expects everyone to take seriously)).
He’s worth a few sentences and a couple laughing emojis. He long ago proved that’s all he was worth, after being humiliated over and over again.
If you are going to start talking about excess deaths associated with heat periods then you should read the following. It provides some context for the numbers.
Point 1
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityduringheatperiods/englandandwales1juneto31august2022#:~:text=Each%20heat%2Dperiod%20peak%2C%20most%20notably%20that%20on%2019%20July%202022%2C%20was%20followed%20by%20a%20fall%20in%20deaths%20to%20below%20the%20average%20over%20the%20following%20days
Note that this extract comes from "ons.gov.uk", the same organisation that some of your numbers come from.
Each heat-period peak, most notably that on 19 July 2022, was followed by a fall in deaths to below the average over the following days; this suggests a short-term mortality displacement, where deaths among vulnerable individuals are ‘brought forward’ to within the heat-periods.
So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest.
Point 2
https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
How many people die from extreme temperatures, and how this could change in the future
Cold deaths vastly outnumber heat-related ones, but mostly due to “moderate” rather than extremely cold conditions.
If you look at many of the “optimal temperature” curves above, you’ll find that most of us spend most of the year a bit below the optimum. We most frequently experience temperatures a bit colder than is “best”. This means most temperature-related deaths happen in “moderately cold” conditions, not on extremely cold or hot days. It’s not because the mortality risk in this zone is the highest, but the amount of time spent there is.
What’s consistent in these studies is that cold-related deaths vastly outnumber those from heat. In the Global Burden of Disease study, cold-related deaths were around four times higher than heat-related ones. The study that estimates that 7.7% of deaths were attributed to temperature found that 7.3% were from cold temperatures; 0.4% were from heat.
Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.
Summary of point 2
Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).
A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world.
Indeed. Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Now that I have to admire. When the numbers are not in your favour, just change the subject. Of course in this miserable damp and somewhat cold climate, premature deaths from cold are greater than those from heat. It does not follow that "A little bit of global warming would save many lives" though, because climate change is creating more energetic weather systems; this results in more extreme weather variations.
For example, snow in Florida is also the result of climate change. Unfortunately such inconvenient facts rather mess up the neat statistics. And it's not just temperature, power cuts, floods, damage to homes also contribute.
Summary. Cherry picked statistics without an understanding of how climate is changing are worse than useless.
Even the long-used climate denial line (commonly used by Bjorn Lomberg) about cold deaths is probably wrong to begin with.
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold
Don’t hold your breath: there is none. It’s just dismissing, minimizing, denying. Then citing climate deniers with deep ties to the fossil industry and plagiarizing AI summaries. That’s all it’s been. All while pretending not to be a climate denier.
This troll should have been booted from this site a while ago.
Trump’s appointed climate denier leading the EPA now wants to fire over 1,000 employees at EPA. They’re as transparently a death cult as they come.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66890135
There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show.
Some 4,507 deaths were estimated to be linked to heat in England last year - when temperatures topped 40C. That was the highest number of estimated heat-related deaths over the last 35 years - but does not take into account population growth, and is a similar number to levels in the 1990s and early 2000s when the population was smaller.
The ONS compiled its figures based on information from the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis and created a new method to understand how temperature affects risk of death.
Their analysis also showed a sharp rise in deaths during the winter of 2010/11 when the UK saw unusually cold temperatures.
So your logic is to let 200,000 people die (who had their whole lives ahead of them) in order to let a few sick and old people live for an extra month. People are dying of cold at 4x the rate that they are dying of heat.
Why not install some air conditioning in the places where the sick and old people live. Then a little bit of global warming would save many lives (even in the hottest parts of the world), and the sick and old people would be better off (with air conditioning they could protect themselves from heat and cold).
It is a win-win situation.
The closing longevity gap between battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles in Great Britain
[sup]— Viet Nguyen-Tien, Chengyu Zhang, Eric Strobl, Robert J R Elliott · Nature · Jan 24, 2025[/sup]
Dude should go back to SpaceX and all that. :D
Tesla Sales in Europe Plummet Amidst Elon’s Stupid Meddling
[sup]— Lucas Ropek · GIZMODO · Feb 3, 2025[/sup]
Is this the same EPA as the one that that brought is the "EV mandate"? :rofl:
I think that it is you who is the troll Mikie.
- a troll is an an ugly creature often depicted as a dwarf
- they live under bridges or in their mother's basement
- they abuse anybody who is more intelligent than them (which is most people)
So your response to the complete refutation of your first argument, is to repeat your second argument as if that has not also been thoroughly refuted.
And even if the arrithmeticial idiocy of subtracting cold deaths from heat deaths was correct, that does not make your previous suggestion that I am [water off a duck's back] for thinking that 8 deaths in 3 years is not a serious problem in the transport industry, any more legitimate.
It is clear that you do not have any coherent understanding, but are flailing about looking for contrarian ideas to whatever is the last thing that has been said. So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems?
:lol:
No, just climate denying trolls like you.
Quoting unenlightened
:up:
Hey look, I just copied an AI summary about combustion engine problems. Check and mate:
Which is why I guess he thinks he’s the smartest one in the room. The dumbest people aren’t usually very self-aware.
Anyway— let this be a good lesson kids. This could be you if you consume an exclusive diet of propaganda.
Quoting unenlightened
I am compiling a list of problems with EVs.
While I am doing that I want you to answer these questions.
1) Do you drive an EV ?
2) If you don't drive an EV then why don't you drive an EV ?
1) I had an estate car for a couple of years when I started a vegetable and whole-food shop, and needed to transport goods in the 80s. It was petrol, because EVs hadn't been invented, except for very slow lead-acid accumulator vans used for local milk deliveries. Otherwise, I have never owned or driven any vehicle other than a bike.
2) EVs are not without costs to the environment, and public transport is the better option except in very isolated regions.
You won't be interested to hear that I have once flown in a plane, aged 10, taken by my parents. That was 1962. And I am a vegetarian, but not a strict one, and have been since I left the parental home.
Answer these questions first:
1) what is it like being a climate denying idiot?
2) is moving on to the next stupid thing after prior humiliation really a winning strategy?
Oh! Well there you go. Check and mate.
Imagine being so transparently idiotic. Moving on, per usual, from one stupidity to the next, the question then becomes personal: “YOU don’t own an EV for SOME reason, so those are the problems I was talking about.” As if we’re not aware that any technology has its issues.
While doofus is compiling a list of “problems with EVs” in his heroic quest to contribute to slowing the transition away from his archaic, harmful technology from the 1800s — I’ll be compiling a list of the stupid shit he’s brought up for the last 20 pages that were refuted, debunked, or retracted.
Have loads of fun! I have paid my sewer clearing dues; you always hope to find a diamond ring or a bag of crack or something, but that stuff always happens to a friend of someone's friend. :sad:
It’s been so warm that scientists are looking for areas added warmth might be coming from.
Not great.
Some problems with EVs (this is not an exhaustive list)
Limited Driving Range
Range anxiety
More Expensive to Buy
Higher insurance cost of EVs
Rapid depreciation
Higher repair costs
Parts are harder to get and are expensive
Lack of Charging infrastructure
Need to plan journeys based on location of charging stations
Long Charging Times
Queues at public chargers
Need off street parking and a charger to charge at home
May be restrictions on charging EVs in underground apartment car parks
Charging infrastructure is not very profitable as a business so there is not a lot of enthusiasm to build more charging stations
Charging stations that don't work (broken or not accepting payment)
Battery issues
Battery Degradation and Replacement Cost
Battery disposal and recycling
Problems in disasters
In hot dry conditions power companies may turn power off for a number of days to avoid the risk of sparks causing fires. Can't charge EVs. If a wildfire comes then how will you get away? Can easily keep a can of gasoline in your garage
Dangerous in a flood
Software and electronic problems
Using heating or cooling can reduce range
Faulty seals can lead to leakage (dangerous with lithium-ion batteries)
Once alight, a lithium-ion battery can be extremely difficult to extinguish
- can give off hydogen fluoride gas
- water that is used to extinguish a lithium-ion fire can be toxic
A lithium-ion battery can reignite
Impact of Temperature on Battery Performance (bad if too cold or too hot)
Dealing with extreme temperatures
- EVs generally don't cope very well with colder climates. Can cause the range to drop by an average 41%
- charging times are much slower in cold weather
Temperature sensitive batteries
Extreme heat can speed up the degradation of an EV battery pack, whereas extreme cold can negatively affect the vehicle’s range. Some counties have extreme temperatures (e.g. India, Thailand, Russia, Canada)
EVs have lower top speeds than gasoline cars because of the risk of the lithium-ion battery getting too hot
Less efficient than gasoline cars at higher speeds
Environmental Impact (e.g. if the electricity comes from a coal-powered power station)
Environmental impact of mining
Creating the lithium-ion battery pack is more environmentally harmful than the manufacturing process for an average petrol-powered car
Battery packs – There are ethical concerns about the sourcing of raw materials for electric cars and their battery packs (e.g. cobalt and lithium)
Grid Capacity
EV brakes rusting
In non-electric vehicles, the friction brakes are used so often that there is little chance for rust or corrosion to build up. However, as EVs use regenerative braking the majority of the time, their friction brakes and pads can build up rust and corrosion.
More road wear on tires because of EVs being heavy (more paticulate pollution)
EVs may be too heavy for old multi-story parking buildings
Cleaning up EVs after a disaster (e.g. fires and floods)
INSANE queue for EV charging is HILARIOUS (and tragic) - covers a number of issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9huBMByvs
Some issues with towing
The Charging Conundrum (see this video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-vhSby1Kd4
The Government gets a lot of revenue from taxes on gasoline. If they lose this then they will need to find new revenue streams. EVs could provide new revenue streams (e.g. road user charges, etc.)
Risk of electricity becoming more expensive
It's all fixable.
Speaking of exhausts...
When I was a kid, we used to watch the London to Brighton race.
We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days. The above film is before my time but the old crocks are the same.
A lot of it may be fixable, but in what time frame?
And pigs might fly. :rofl:
Yes, it has taken about 80 years to move from the old crocks of 1938 to the modern efficient gasoline cars of today. You shouldn't expect to be able to quickly replace the modern efficient gasoline cars of today with EVs (at their current stage of development).
Also, the "old crocks" were replaced by better cars that people wanted to buy. It didn't require government legislation to force people to move to better gasoline cars.
In Britain automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. Failure to meet these requirements forces manufacturers to either purchase certificates from others who exceeded their targets or face fines of £15,000 per non-compliant vehicle.
In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.
https://www.ladbible.com/news/world-news/scientists-computer-modelling-technology-ai-society-collapse-920494-20250207
Scientists used a computer to predict exactly when society will collapse
The results were pretty terrifying
A group of scientists have used a computer to try and establish exactly when society will collapse, and the results are rather daunting. (I wonder if the computer that they used was a supercomputer. :rofl: )
Through this research, the team learned that the fall of society would hit near the midpoint of the 21st century. And yes, in case you'd forgotten, that's the century we're currently in the middle of.
In fact, there's apparently less than two decades to go until the collapse. Around 17 years, to be precise, as the scientists predicted the collapse would come in 2040 (at 2:47 pm on the 5th of July :rofl: ).
:death: . :death: . :death: . :death: . :death:
:scream: . :scream: . :scream: . :scream: . :scream:
Computers are gigo.
In a year or two probably. One of the main manufacturers of EV's runs the US government.
But inputting good data does not guarantee good results.
There can be bugs in the programming, incorrect assumptions in the computer models, limitations in what the computer model can realistically model (e.g. clouds in climate models), and all computers (even supercomputers) have some sort of a limitation on the precision that can be used to specify numbers (e.g. 32 bits or 64 bits, floating point numbers, etc.).
So?
You said "Computers are gigo". That is correct.
But I suspect that you believe that computers are gdigdo (good data in, good data out). This is pronounced "giddy giddo". :grin:
You may not believe that all computers are gdigdo, but you seem to have a lot of faith in supercomputers.
I am pointing out that even supercomputers have their limitations. Supercomputers let you make mistakes faster than when you are using an ordinary computer.
[sup]— Charlie Giattino · Our World in Data · Feb 7, 2025[/sup]
[sup]— Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) · Wikipedia[/sup]
The Lad Bible is infallible. the clue is in the name.
Lol- Imagine the level of a mind that reads that crap— let alone takes it seriously…to say nothing of actually referencing it.
Mikie shoots himself in the foot again. How many holes are there in your foot now Mikie?
I put a link to the article. I bet that you didn't even look at it. :scream:
If you had looked at the article then you would have found that the article has links to where it got information from.
Do I need to keep spoon-feeding you Mikie. :rofl:. When are you going to start wearing big boy pants?
It's true. But quantum computers are God!
And lads write the Bible.
"And the morning and the evening were the eighth day."
So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say?
I'm having witty quip overload.
Must
return
to
cave.
You don't need a quantum computer.
The answer has already been computed by the supercomputer "Deep Thought" in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)". The answer is 42.
Now you just have to work out what the question is.
You should watch the YouTube video called "Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3sguj9m8ZQ
This one is not made by MGUY, the well known petrol-head.
This one is made by Sabine Hossenfelder, the well known petrol-head who has a PhD in physics.
(my bold)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#d1e1581
I really recommend this paper; it brings together solar cycles, the contribution of the reduction of aerosol emissions, AMOC, and the effect of an AMOC collapse on Antarctic melting and sea level rise, and paints a detailed picture of where we are headed, which is rather too close to shit creek with no paddle for comfort. For the hard of reading, Here is the imitable Paul Beckwith ("Hello, I'm Paul Beckwith.") doing the hard work, so you don't have to. This is his second go at the paper, and as he gets towards the end he makes the connections all too clear and believable.
There's not much physics in that, more politics and economics. But there is little I disagree with as to the facts of human social behaviour. And I like planet wild too.
I concluded already that the project of the oligarchs is to let climate change wipe out most of the human population and replace them with more amenable and less needy intelligent robots. But I don't have to like it, do I?
I think that your interpretation of what Herrington said is incorrect (what Herrington said is ambiguous).
If you break it down into statements:
1) - back in 1972 they had a number of scenarios (e.g. best case, business as usual, worst case, etc.)
2) - they made different predictions based on these different scenarios.
3) - the present 2024 data align with the predictions made in 1972 (but they don't explicitly say which scenario this is based on)
4) - they then say that the 1972 predictions had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later
You have assumed that (3) and (4) are referring to the same scenario (worst case). But (4) may just be additional information which is not referring to the scenario that (3) is based on.
==========
This is similar to the situation with NASA scientist James Hansen. In a paper in 1988 he selected 3 different emissions scenarios, one in which emissions continued to increase (A), one in which the rate stayed similar to what it was in the 1980s (B), and one in which they basically stop in 2000 (C).
Each scenario gave a different temperature prediction.
The actual emissions were closest to scenario A (emissions continued to increase ), but the actual temperature was somewhere between scenario B's and scenario C's temperature predictions.
Alarmists like to claim that James Hansen's temperature predictions were correct. But they were not the temperatures that he predicted for the scenario that actually occurred.
I guess that desperate people will deny the facts and withdraw into a fantasy world. :rofl:
Haven't the oligarchs watched the Terminator film series?
I'll be back. :cool:
It really is like dealing with a child.
“This idiotic article has REFERENCES from which it draws its stupid conclusions and moronic implications. I guess THAT shows you!”
Yes, because climate deniers never distort and misinterpret science. I guess creationists aren’t idiots because they often quoted Stephen J Gould. Lol
Oh hahahahaha! A line from 40 years ago that’s been quoted about a billion times before! What wit. What humor.
Just also worth pointing out how Incredibly unfunny this guy is. (Besides when he’s pretending that he’s not thought of as a complete baffoon — that’s actually hilarious.)
Yes. Hence why we laugh at you.
I think I do.
(my bold)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/25/gaya-herrington-mit-study-the-limits-to-growth
Thus the article the the experts at lad bible are referencing.
And here, in case anyone wants to go right to the horse's mouth, is the veritable Herrington saying what Herrington is saying to whoever cares to read it. https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
The part about Lindzen is especially relevant, as several climate deniers on this very page often cite him. Yet the criticisms about predictions are only leveled at climate scientists…hmm
Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events
[sup]— Tom Matthews, Colin Raymond, Josh Foster, et al · Nature · Feb 4, 2025[/sup]
:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:
Why haven't I received my Koch paycheck yet?... :rofl:
And only getting worse. We’re seeing these effects at 1.1. Imagine 2.4.
I heard this explanation somewhere, but cannot give the due credit. "When one is on an exponential curve and one looks to the past, the curve looks almost flat and gives little indication that what lies ahead looks more like a wall. "
So far, most of the excess heat has been absorbed in melting sea ice. The AMOC has taken extra heat from South to North. As AMOC slows, the heat effects will be much stronger in the tropics and southern hemisphere.
The economic and political collapse is already under way, populism leads to divisive policies which lead to conflicts, trade wars, civil wars, and international wars, There is no major economy on a stable footing at the moment, and no government looks stable. This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse.
The British isles will freeze over. It's speculated that the Younger Dryas, a massive swing in temperatures from warm to freezing and back again was the result of an AMOC shutdown triggered by the end of the last glacial phase. This would be catastrophic because of the speed of the changes
A slow warming isn't bad because we can adapt. Wild swings are a different story.
Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events
Matthews, T., Raymond, C., Foster, J. et al. Nat Rev Earth Environ (2025)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00635-w#Sec9
Have any of you actually read this article?
I haven't had time to carefully read the whole article, but while scanning it I found this interesting paragraph:
The unsurvivable threshold of older adults has also been breached. These exceedances include six-hourly means (Fig. 2a, compare red lines with darker blue line), with almost 2% of the land surface crossing these thresholds, largely in North Africa, around the Persian/Arabian Gulf, and in parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (Fig. 3f). This statistic contrasts starkly with the general lack of mass mortality reported in those regions (Table 1), especially as exceedances of all thresholds computed with ERA5 are probably conservative because reanalysis data underestimate the intensity of extreme heat at local scales and within living environments. The lack of reported mass mortality from unsurvivable heat episodes for older adults might, therefore, reflect limitations in health surveillance data, physiological thresholds that are too pessimistic for those living in the hottest regions, or the impact of personal and community adaptations that reduce vulnerability. Similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.
(my bold)
So they worked out the unsurvivable thresholds and explained what would happen if these uncompensable thresholds were crossed. They then looked at the real world and found that some of the unsurvivable thresholds had already been crossed. But they couldn't find the predicted mass mortality.
This applied to older adults, but they point out that similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.
Don't you just hate it when the real world doesn't do what (climate) scientists think it will do. :scream:
Careful Frank. Mikie will call you a "denier" if you don't agree with him.
Please stop thinking for yourself. Mikie has exclusive access to the truth. :rofl:
It was obvious that capitalism wasn’t sustainable 100 years ago. Now it’s a fact.
It's possible, but rather unlikely. In order for that to happen, the sea ice would have to extend a long way beyond where it has been in historical times. But if that were to happen, it would increase the salinity of the surface water and that would likely restart the overturning. In any case, it would take many years to form much of a glaciation of the land. Most likely it will be harsher winters and more unpredictable summers.
:up: Like Newfoundland.
Adapt and survive, or don't adapt and die
When faced with changing environmental conditions an organism can either:
- adapt to the new environmental conditions and survive
- not adapt to the new environmental conditions and die
- if a whole species does not adapt to the new environmental conditions then it will eventually become extinct
Essentially, adaptation is the key to survival in a changing world, and failure to adapt leads to death and potential extinction. :scream:
- high temperature
- low temperature
- high charging current
- high discharging current
- high state of charge / overcharge
- low state of charge / overdischarge
Lithium-ion batteries inevitably degrade with time and use. Almost every component of the battery is affected, including the anode, cathode, electrolyte, separator, and current collectors.
Lithium-ion batteries can degrade even if you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20%.
If you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20% then the range of the EV is noticeably reduced, and range anxiety becomes worse.
Gasoline cars don't have these problems... :scream:
If public transportation isn’t available, and a bike won’t do, they’re the obvious choice…and only getting better.
Just so! And there are but 2 ways for humans to adapt to climate change.
1. Stop using fossil fuels that are increasing climate change and take other urgent measures to stabilise the environment. The Humble Pie adaptation.
2. Reduce the population of humans by 95% or so, and let the remaining few continue to burn baby burn, moving from place to place as each in turn becomes uninhabitable. The Mad Max adaptation.
There is a 3rd possibility; the Ostrich adaptation of looking the other way and pretending there is nothing happening. But this is more of a refusal to adapt.
Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures, and I will defend them with my words, since they lack the capacity to speak for themselves. No bird has ever refused to adapt. Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors.
You are quite right, and I hereby rename the refusal to adapt "the Dodo adaptation" - an equivalently fowl metaphor, but somewhat more apt.
But the Dodo was driven to extinction by the Portuguese. It's not the Dodo's fault that people wanted to eat them. They did not refuse to adapt, they were simply preyed upon by foreign predators.
You're very smart. I say that unironically. It is rare to find people of your intellect, nowadays.
:up: :100:
Ever thought about that?
You're very smart. I say that unironically. It is rare to find people of your intellect, nowadays. :grin:
I do refuse to follow other people like sheep (to the slaughter).
I am a naturally cynical and skeptical person. When somebody tells me something I immediately analyse it to try and find a valid reason why it is not true.
Scientists are meant to be skeptical. Finding a skeptical scientist today is difficult. We have a situation that I call "science by bureaucracy" (I am not the first person to use this term). The IPCC cherry-picks the science that suits its agenda, and scientists are rewarded for producing science that supports that agenda.
Emus are another cool member of the Ratite family. Cassowaries are also incredible.
Kiwis are the "black sheep" of the ratite family. Kiwis have some unusual features:
- they are small and nocturnal
- the kiwi is the only bird in the world with nostrils at the tip of its beak
- Kiwi feathers are soft, long, and loose, and feel more like fur than bird feathers. They are shaggy, warm, and fluffier than most bird feathers
- kiwis have whiskers, like a cat
- they have one of the largest eggs in proportion to body size of any order of bird in the world (up to 20% of the female's weight)
- most birds have hollow bones to aid in flight. The kiwi has marrow in its bones, just like a human. Their powerful legs make up a third of their body weight and allow them to run as fast as a human
How many people does a person who lives in their mother's basement know? . :rofl:
Quoting Mikie
That is not surprising since they are crap at the moment. . :scream:
How is that working out for you?
Quoting unenlightened
You have a very limited imagination if these 2 options are all that you can come up with.
The population of humans in many countries is falling naturally because the fertility rate is below the rate needed to maintain the population. More than 20 countries, including Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, will see their numbers diminish by at least half by the year 2100, according to projections from a major study.
Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48% decline.
These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions. The analysis suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.
:rofl:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
You’re neither a scientist nor a skeptic. You’re just a guy who falls for the equivalent of flat earth “theory.” But keep telling yourself that — always good for a chuckle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GumbaWxctOc
Another of MGUYs brilliant videos.
Summary
The UK Ministry of Defense has bought hundreds of Chinese EVs for its employees in order to meet Net Zero targets. They have suddenly realized that this might cause some security problems. But instead of junking the cars and buying new ones that don't spy on their occupants or surroundings, they've come up with a cheaper solution. The brilliant solution is to tell Ministry of Defense employees to shut up when they're traveling in these EVs. Top brass have been ordered to stop talking in EVs over fears that Chinese makers will eavesdrop on conversations. A ministry spokesperson said protecting National Security is the foundation of everything we do. We have strict security procedures in place to ensure sensitive information is protected. But apparently that all takes second place to Net Zero.
That kind of sounds like bs
Frank, which parts of this story do you think are bs?
1) - Do you accept that the UK Ministry of Defense has bought hundreds of Chinese EVs for its employees in order to meet Net Zero targets?
2) - Do you accept that Chinese EVs might cause some security problems?
3) - Do you accept that the UK Ministry of Defense is not junking the cars?
4) - Do you accept that the the UK Ministry of Defense has told its employees and/or "top brass" to stop talking in EVs?
If you accept (1), (2), and (3), but don't accept (4), then that would mean that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.
What do you think? Please tell us why you think that this story is bs.
I doubt this would be public information, so bs.
You haven't been able to disprove a single thing that MGUY has said.
Quoting Mikie
This statement implies that you have an EV. Does it sting to know that you have been fooled into buying a pile of crap? . :rofl:
So you believe that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.
If you don't believe that this is public information then read this news story. It is written by Jerome Starkey, Defence Editor (Published: 17:16 ET, Feb 5 2025, Updated: 17:28 ET, Feb 5 2025)
https://www.the-sun.com/news/13464048/defence-chiefs-electric-cars-chinese-spy
Here is some juicy stuff from the news story. . :scream:
The Sun understands a security notice was issued across the department banning sensitive conversations in electric cars.
A source said: “It’s crazy. A lot of these electric cars are used by senior officers, who know a lot of secrets.
"They work on sensitive missions.
“It’s normal to discuss work when they’re driving, especially if everyone in the car is cleared to the same level or working on the same project.
“They aren’t used to thinking the car might be listening — especially if the car has been issued by the UK MoD.”
A second source said: “These cars are everywhere now, from Special Forces headquarters to nuclear submarine bases.
Does The Sun print anything but bs?
You are beginning to sound a lot like Mikie.
If the story is not true then somebody (e.g. the UK Ministry of Defense) would expose it as a lie.
If you accept (1), (2), and (3), but don't accept (4), then that would mean that the UK Ministry of Defense is not worried if "top secret" information ends up in Chinese hands.
Is that what you believe?
I think that story is bs, and the only source your provided was The Sun. :meh:
The Sun is not the only source. Are all of the following sources bs?
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/drivers-fears-electric-vehicles-spying-mod
Ministry of Defence is thought to have instructed staff to stop speaking in Chinese manufactured electric vehicles
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14366019/MoD-told-not-talk-electric-cars-Chinese-spy.html
MoD top brass are told not to talk in electric cars - in case Chinese 'spy' manufacturers eavesdrop on top-secret information
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/2010767/ministry-of-defence-electric-cars-china
Defence chiefs ordered to stop talking in electric cars over China spy fears
https://www.cityam.com/chinese-ev-makers-should-be-barred-from-uk-public-contracts-over-data-privacy-fears-campaigners-warn
Ministers should consider banning Chinese electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers from securing government contracts over national security and data privacy concerns, a new report has warned.
https://www.electrive.com/2025/02/06/uk-warns-government-employees-of-spying-cars
Top officials in the UK government's Ministry of Defense have been warned to keep quiet while in their cars as the Chinese government could be listening in, trying to gain access to classified information, according to media reports.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/16/chinese-evs-in-britain-could-be-weaponised-think-tank-warns
Experts warn vehicles with Chinese-made components could transmit data back to Beijing
Chinese electric vehicles being driven in Britain could be “weaponised” and should be banned from government use, a report has warned.
Modules within Chinese-made electric vehicles could transmit sensitive data back to the country or even be remotely controlled, the China Strategic Risks Institute (CSRI) warned.
The think tank called for an end to Chinese carmakers being able to win government contracts. Last year it emerged that the Ministry of Defence used electric cars made by Chinese-owned MG.
Whitehall departments are buying up electric cars in an attempt to decarbonise their fleets. The report said the vehicles present a potentially greater security risk than petrol-powered vehicles because they are more likely to be equipped with internet-connected modules capable of collecting data and controlling the car’s functions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/tesla-cars-banned-from-chinas-military-complexes-on-security-concerns-sources-idUSKBN2BB18R/
Britain’s unusual stance on Chinese electric vehicles
Unlike America or Europe, Britain is welcoming the cheap cars—for now
(Reuters) - The Chinese military has banned Tesla cars from entering its complexes, citing security concerns over cameras installed on the vehicles, two people who have seen notices of the directive told Reuters.
The move is the latest sign of China's growing scrutiny of the U.S. electric carmaker amid tensions with Washington. Analysts said it resembled Washington's measures against Chinese telecoms firm Huawei citing national security.
https://cim-coalition.co.uk/collision-course-under-pricing-chinese-ev-risks-in-the-uk
It warns that the Government should consider banning Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers from securing government contracts over national security and data privacy concerns.
It says suppliers suspected of having ties to China’s military-industrial complex pose a key risk due to the potential for built-in wireless components to be “weaponised”, which could even be used to gridlock British streets.
It comes as the UK government is rapidly procuring EVs for the public sector and confirmed last year that some models used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had been supplied by MG, which is owned by China’s SAIC Motor.
https://fortune.com/2024/09/17/china-evs-csri-europe-electric-vehicles-cybersecurity-risk
Chinese electric vehicles could be ‘weaponized’ and should be banned from government use, report warns
All of those are just quoting The Sun.
Really Frank? Am I going to have to spoon-feed you like I spoon-feed Mikie?
The Sun, and most of the others, are quoting from a report put out by The Coalition on Secure Technology in conjunction with the China Strategic Risks Institute (CSRI). The report is called "Collision Course: Under-pricing Chinese EVs risks in the UK". This has been widely picked up in publications today such as CityAM, the Telegraph, and presumably The Sun.
https://cim-coalition.co.uk/collision-course-under-pricing-chinese-ev-risks-in-the-uk
It warns that the Government should consider banning Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers from securing government contracts over national security and data privacy concerns.
It says suppliers suspected of having ties to China’s military-industrial complex pose a key risk due to the potential for built-in wireless components to be “weaponised”, which could even be used to gridlock British streets.
It comes as the UK government is rapidly procuring EVs for the public sector and confirmed last year that some models used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had been supplied by MG, which is owned by China’s SAIC Motor.
You can download the full report from a link near the bottom of the webpage. The full report is 36 pages long so I will just quote a little bit of it.
You suck.
Thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Not many people are honest enough to do that. . :up:
But a bit of good news for UK bees, the government has finally banned neonicotinoid insecticides to treat seeds, that had been permitted against advice.
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/01/24/what-the-government-has-been-doing/
http://www.kazabyte.com/2011/12/we-dont-understand-exponential-functions.html
:up:
Oof. No wonder even Frank thinks you’re an idiot.
Have the magnetic poles of the Earth been disrupted in some way, as of 2025? That doesn't seem to be the case.
Has the weather system of the Earth been disrupted in some way, as of 2025? That doesn't seem to be the case either.
But I'll tell you what's the case, you already know it: tons of plastic in our oceans, pollution in general in our cities and towns, and I think that we, as human beings, need to take the blame here. Yes, volcanic eruptions are not due to human action. Mass extinction events like the one that killed the T. Rex are not due to human action. But, by parity of reasoning, the existence of tons of plastic in our oceans, such as empty water bottles, or plastic bags, for example, are due to human action. So, in that sense, we're definitely affecting different ecosystems.
Is that the same thing as climate change? That's debatable. But let's debate it with a bit of, I don't know, intellectual sophistication. Insults are for adolescents. We're way past that point. So, let's discuss, as is expected of men and women.
Is climate change real? Yes, it is, because the climate exists, and it changes. Have we caused that change? Not all of it, but some of it. And yes, it has to do with the tons of plastic that pollute our oceans. Because those plastics were made despite the fact that massive carbon emissions would be required for producing them. Factory farming is also negatively impacting ecosystems, and the climate more generally. Thousands of acres of tropical rainforest are cut down as we speak, and this has been going on for decades, both in the Amazon rainforest as well as the tropical jungles of Southeast Asia. These patches of land are cleared for cattle raising. In a few centuries, at this rhythm, there will be no more tropical rainforests or jungles, and we don't know what effect this will have on the climate (just think of how difficult it is to make an accurate weather prediction in professional climatology, to say nothing of professional meteorology). What we do know, is that tropical storms have something to do with heat waves, and we also know that plants absorb light, heat, and water. So, destroying tropical ecosystems might actually make tropical storms more potent, and more chaotic. And since we've been destroying tropical flora for decades now, it is entirely possible that human beings have caused some of the most destructive effects that climate change itself causes as of 2025.
Hope that made sense. Feel free to disagree.
The climate is changing at a pace not seen in human history— and it’s because of carbon emissions from using fossil fuels. It’s not that complicated.
I already addressed that point, Mikie:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Why figure on plastics, exactly? Electricity generation, transportation, home heating, cement and steel production, etc — all huge contributors. So why not say that? Why exclusively mention plastics?
It’s cool, but to me it’s not the most obvious example. The most obvious is transportation or electricity. That’s why I found it odd. But no worries.
What was your takeaway from the paper?
Ah, okay. That makes sense.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
You’re basically right— but it’s very tough to live without plastics. They now play a major role in the world. Not talking about straws, of course, but medical equipment, etc. But yes, we can ween ourselves off of them and find alternatives.
With electricity and transportation— of course we can’t live without those things. But in those cases the solutions are plentiful to reduce emissions. There’s public transportation, EVs, and renewable energy.
It's a real mindfuck if you think about it, like, this isn't politics anymore. This is straight-up ecology, from the plastic in the ocean to the plastic in your hospitals.
I guess "rabbit hole" is the more appropriate philosophical term, but no. This one, this specific problem in Ethics, is a complete mindfuck. I say that as a proponent of Kant's Categorical Imperative.
Quoting Mikie
:100:
And in my case, I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025. I could be wrong though, a scientific prediction isn't necessarily infallible.
And yeah, when I said "scientific prediction", I said what I said. I didn't stutter.
Let me add something to this. It's not OK that this problem is a mindfuck. We should, at the very least, do our very best in order to ensure that this mindfuck of a problem does not degenerate into an online orgy of stupidity. That's all I'm saying, as far as the topic of "respect vs disrespect" goes.
One of the problems with your statement is that many people are not interested in having a conversation or discussion. The evangelists (like Mikie) are only interested in preaching, and they are not interested in listening.
Mikie always calls me a "denier" whenever I say something that he doesn't like or agree with. I don't deny that global warming and climate change are happening. Mikie won't discuss what I am saying, he just tries to shut me up by insulting me. It doesn't work, and it makes me think that nothing that Mikie says is worth listening to.
I would like to be able to have adult discussions without name calling. But they don't happen very often.
What scientific prediction are you referring to?
And yes, renewable enjoy is an interesting topic. They’ve become cheaper and more efficient. At this point the problem is the fossil fuel lobby and its propaganda, who want everyone to stay hooked on their products as long as possible (see tobacco companies in previous decades for nearly identical situation) — and political willpower.
Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal — all excellent. Most are cheaper than fossil fuels. The emissions and environmental cost in their production (like giant wind turbines) are all front-heavy, but once they’re built there’s no emissions and they offset the negative effects in a few years. Thec technology is there, we just have to start building — and that’s not always easy, especially in a stupid country where the government is run by reality-denying fossil fuel shills.
There’s also other problems, like the United States electrical grid. We need more transmission lines — which is a major undertaking — to get the solar energy from the sunbelt and the wind energy from the midwestern states to other areas. Nuclear energy can fill the potential gaps, since it’s dispatchable and creates no carbon emissions (although there’s a host of issues there too, including managing waste and the time it takes to build them, although there’s smaller ones that can be built that are in the works).
With EVs there’s a question about the lithium and cobalt, and whether there’s enough to meet demand — although there’s potential for sodium-ion batteries which seems promising. EVs are already great, but will get even better; more charging stations are being built, and they’re becoming cheaper— even with idiots like Trump and his climate denier cronies in office. It’s too late to stop that train— China is a good example. We have to put 100% tariffs on their EVs because they’re cheap and awesome (see BYD).
The question of heavy industry — like steel and cement — is one of the hardest ones. Alternative technologies exist but not to scale, and research is still in its infancy.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
The problem of climate change and plastics can definitely be tough ones to fully appreciate. It can also be scary — which is partly why people fall for propaganda: they want to deny what the overwhelming evidence is telling us.
Then, will all due respect Mikie (and everyone else), people need to grow the fuck up before it's too late.
Indeed.
What do you mean by that Mikie?
That people should stop calling other people names?
And start commenting on what is said rather than who said it?
Anyway, I took their references and their concluding summary seriously enough to think that we better prepare. Unless otherwise meeting an early end, that applies to everyone.
Haven't sifted through the references and examples in detail though, maybe if time permits. Some mentioned samples are down to Karachi, Paris, Vancouver, Mecca, Lagos, Chicago, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Al Hudaydah, New York, Ahmedabad, other perspectives are broader. Preparing for wider temperature swings is justified.
On another note, plastic bags (old style) have been out for a while around here. In stores, you bring your own reusable bags or buy them there. Plastic straws have been out for a while as well. Anthropogenic pollution at large has become ridiculous.
…
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues. Plastic pollution is a serious environmental problem, but it is not a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The Earth is warming because of the insulating effect of changes in the atmosphere, mainly the increase of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and the increase of methane from various sources, farmed cattle emissions, natural gas leakage, permafrost melting, etc. Plastics actually function to lock up carbon long term and so function in a minor way as a carbon sink. But do not take that as a vote in their favour.
So the issue for this thread at least, is the burning of fossil fuels rather than their transformation into plastics, unless those plastics are incinerated. Petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, coal, natural gas, are all hydrocarbons whose combustion add to the insulation that warms the earth.
Pollution has some importance too, because it degrades the ability of the living environment to absorb carbon dioxide, and rebalance the atmosphere. But the major impact comes from oil and coal burning, and that is what needs to stop.
Of course things get much more complicated as one goes into the details, and we can talk about positive feedback and tipping points and sun-cycles and Milankovitch cycles, and bees, and krill, and plastics, and so on and on. But please understand, our total addiction to fossil fuels is the big problem and if we don't sort it, the world will heat up until we either do sort it or the heat sorts us.
I was referring to the situation involving @Agree-to-Disagree and @Mikie specifically, as in, whatever beef they have with each other, if any. I'm not here to squash the beef between them. So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question.
It would allow you to understand their conflict better. I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again.
I don't want to understand it, their conflict doesn't concern me.
Well, look at the bright side, this Thread hasn't degenerated into a debate about the shape of the Earth, and we can take some pride in that fact.
Quoting Mikie
You obviously haven't read much of this thread. :grin:
Ok, then look at this other bright side: at least this Thread hasn't degenerated into Semantics. We're still able to draw a map-territory distinction, here.
And that's something to be proud of.
The less bright side?
See video of it happening here:
https://news.sky.com/story/kayaker-survives-being-swallowed-by-humpback-whale-in-chile-13308753
It is impossible to say whether this particular event was caused by climate change.
But climate scientists doing attribution studies have shown that climate change has made "kayakers being swallowed by humpback whales" a lot more likely than it was in the past. . :scream:
If you bought your EV over 8 years ago then it must have been around 2016. There were not many EV models available at that time. You probably have a Nissan Leaf. Did you buy the Leaf S (which has a range of 149 miles), or the pricier SV Plus (which has a range of 212 miles)?
Because you live in your mother's basement you probably don't need any more range. 4 trips to the letterbox and back on a single charge is plenty.
How many times have you had to replace the battery pack?
How many EV fires have you had?
Can you charge your EV at home, or do you use public chargers?
Does your mother let you charge your EV near the house?
How much did you pay for your EV?
How much has your EV depreciated?
What are the insurance costs for your EV?
Do you feel smug and self-righteous because you drive an EV?
Are you aware of the environmental impacts that EVs have?
- you might be able to pride yourself on producing zero tailpipe emissions from your EV but unless you're charging from solar panels on your roof all you are doing is pushing those emissions back up the wire to the coal or gas fired power station
- not only that but to obtain all the minerals and elements for a single EV battery requires over 250 tons of Earth to be mined moved refined and assembled, all of which is powered by diesel vehicles and
machinery
- you'll be driving your EV for many many years before it even breaks even (if it ever does break even)
- but despite all of those things at least you can bask in the warm glow of knowing that the cobalt in your EVs battery has probably been mined by child slave labor in sub-Saharan Africa
Do you really think that this is going to save humans and the planet Mikie?
Again—this is just at 429 ppm (the highest in 2 million years). There’s also a lag effect.
JayEmm is from the UK (and is not related to MGUY :grin: )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8
It is a 32 minute video so I will just quote an interesting part. I may post other parts later.
========== begin quote ==========
I've discussed before, many times, the issues that you have if you don't have a driveway and the general expense of running an EV. In the last year or two prices for electric car charging have gone through the roof, but you already know that, this is not news to anybody.
But you see in the last couple of months there's a few friends of mine, one in particular - lovely chap called Chris, that have been on the hunt for an EV of their own and so I have been given a little bit more of an insight into this world that I know many of you already inhabit and I would appreciate greatly your feedback on.
The general gist in case you're wondering is that if you can charge at home on a driveway with good decent cheap night rate electricity your cost per mile to run a car could be as low as 2 p and there is no combustion engine vehicle out there that can or probably ever will come close to that.
The issue is that if you can't charge at home on a driveway then you are at the mercy of public charging points, and if you're in an inefficient EV your cost suddenly skyrockets to a point where you'd actually save money by driving an old V12 Mercedes. Bit nuts right. That's clearly not sustainable for an awful lot of people, but prices will go up, they will come down, and hopefully they will stabilize. But this is an area where I'd like a little bit more government intervention.
If it is true what [charging] companies are saying, that they simply cannot be a viable business without having to charge 80 P per kilowatt hour, then we've got a real problem because EVs were sold to a lot of people in the first wave under the guise of yes we know it's more expensive to buy but your total running costs are dramatically lower. Now they are more expensive to buy and more expensive to run.
========== end quote ==========
Look at the history of global living conditions.
Compare 1820 (with a CO2 level of about 284 ppm) and 2020 (with a CO2 level of about 414 ppm). An increase of about 130 ppm of CO2 in 200 years.
Would you rather live in 1820 or 2020 ?
The CO2 level and global living conditions have increased together.
The world has become better in many ways. e.g. the following areas: (not a complete list)
- poverty
- literacy
- health
- freedom
- education
- quality of life
- technology
The world population was around 1 billion in the year 1800 and increased more than eight-fold since then. The increase of the world population should evoke more than just doom and gloom. First of all, this increase shows a tremendous achievement. It shows that humans stopped dying at the rate at which our ancestors died for many millennia before.
The Industrial Revolution unlocked a whole new energy resource: fossil fuels. Fossil energy has been a fundamental driver of the technological, social, economic, and development progress that has followed. Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have, and continue to, play a dominant role in global energy systems. There are many problems that will occur if we try to shift away from fossil fuels too quickly. The change to renewable energy will continue, but it also has many risks associated with it.
Thus, let’s try to slow reduction of emissions.
Do you also believe in homeopathy Mikie? . :rofl:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I would much rather live in 2020 with a CO2 level of about 414 ppm.
But I wish that Mikie lived in 1820. He would be happier riding a horse because horses don't normally burst into flames. . :rofl:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing— far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that it’s “too expensive” rather absurd).
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
[hide]Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few years back. Worth repeating periodically for any newcomers to the thread, as it’s a decent and brief introduction. [/hide]
Quoting Mikie
That last comment from you is very relevant to that first comment from you.
Do you understand what it means to "shoot yourself in the foot"? . :rofl:
Believe it or not Mikie, I agree with most of this post.
If I am a denier then you are one as well.
Yes. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make.
China will undoubtedly keep the lead in both solar and EVs. The US will regret falling so far behind. But at least they kept some Exxon shareholders happy for a few years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg
Sabine Hossenfelder has a PhD in physics. She is author of the books "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" (Basic Books, 2018) and "Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions" (Viking, 2022).
It does, but not in the way you think. Rather, the institutions, academic and governmental, downplay and even outright reject the more pessimistic papers and predictions, despite their having been proven accurate. Thus it is the voices I post here and below, that are marginalised and ignored in favour of more reassuring IPPC positions that everything can be sorted out in a few decades time.
- electric vehicles (EVs)
- solar energy
- wind power
- renewable energy
Being an alarmist, I was shocked to find this video on YouTube. In case you don't want to watch the video I will quote some of the content. Remember, China is currently considered to be the world leader in electric vehicles (EVs), solar energy, wind power, and renewable energy.
China’s Too Hot, No Power! 750,000 EV Owners Suffer, Queuing 10 Hours, Can’t Charge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx6Q9f-2Is&list=WL&index=4
This is from denier number 1
When I got here I thought at least a few charges would work. There are cars plugged in with no one inside them, but the charges aren't even working. What are they doing? They're waiting for midnight
when the power comes back so they can charge without waiting in line.
This is the most anxious that I've ever felt since driving an EV. It's not that I can't find a charging station. It's not about waiting for a charger. There are chargers here, but no electricity. I've only got a little bit of battery left. With so many electric cars on the road now, do you think these power restrictions are reasonable? At the second charging station there's still a power restriction. Can we charge at all? What time will the power be back on? Midnight. It's been like this everywhere in Chengdu lately. So there's no power at all.
Recently the Sichuan meteorological Observatory has issued several high temperature warnings with temperatures exceeding 40° C across the province. The extreme heat has caused tight electricity supplies leading to power restrictions in cities like Chengdu and Chongqing. This has affected Industrial and Commercial sectors, including the use of electric vehicle charging stations. As a result 750,000 new energy vehicle owners are facing difficulties charging their cars. Many have reported that electric vehicle
charging stations in Chengdu can't be used during the day and only become available late at night.
One ride hailing driver, using the alias Zang Way, shared his experience. He hadn't been
home for two days. On one night he started queuing around 9:00 p.m. and finally managed to charge his car at around 6:00 a.m., after waiting for nearly 10 hours. Zang explained that the regulation of public charging stations in Chengdu started around August 20th. At first he wasn't aware of the situation and went to queue at 5:00 a.m. as usual but by 8:00 a.m. the charging station had run out of power. With almost no battery left he had to stop at the charging station, missing an entire day of work. Since then he's been stuck in a routine of driving during the day and queuing for charging at night. He recalled one night when more than than 60 vehicles were lined up at a public charging station, stretching nearly a kilometer. Although the station had 36 chargers, only half were working due to power restrictions. It took about an hour for each car to charge meaning the entire queue would take four to 5 hours to clear. This isn't the first time Chengdu has experienced power restrictions. In 2022 high temperatures and drought led to widespread power cuts. The situation wasn't limited to Chengdu. Many cities across Central and western China face similar power issues. In 2023 several regions in China dealt with power cuts again and new energy vehicle owners will have to keep struggling. Sichuan's frequent summer power restrictions pose a big challenge for charging infrastructure. New energy vehicles heavily rely on this infrastructure which hasn't yet fully developed in Chengdu.
This is from denier number 2
As someone who's been driving electric cars for 5 years, let me tell you that I'll never buy an electric car again. My EV has a range of 420 km in theory, but only 200 km in reality, and only 150 km on the highway. Even an EV with a 600 km range only gives you just around 260 to 270 km, and that's when there's no traffic. If you get stuck in traffic, factoring in the towing fee and the time wasted, you do the math. Don't believe the hype that electricity is cheaper than gas. That's all nonsense that China has been pushing. The electric vehicle industry is offering subsidies and incentives, yet many people still choose to buy gasoline cars. Why is that?
I still don’t understand why the mods let evangelists keep infecting the lounge. I understand it’s more lose in there compared to the proper philosophical pages, but if there’s no moderation at all it just becomes infested with posters who are only here for the purpose of evangelical propaganda for their disinformation rants. They just infect every topic so there’s no point in any discussion.
Forum rules state
If someone is having an unpopular stance that’s fine, as long as they take as much care in their arguments as everyone else. But this constant spams of bullshit everywhere just makes the lounge impossible to be in.
Shouldn’t there be at least some minor standards? Where obvious evangelists and spammers get banned even from the lounge? If someone is a member here to clearly only post in a single thread over and over, that shouldn’t be allowed. That’s not what this site is about. These are spammers.
:100:
But having been a moderator myself, I can sympathize — you can’t be everywhere at once. I think perhaps most mods also have a different opinion on climate change. It’s fine— I’ll just discuss this particular topic privately and on other websites.
That is called "burying your head in the sand". If that is what you want to do then good luck to you.
Quoting Christoffer
Climate change alarmism meets this definition of evangelism.
You are basically only on this forum to spread disinformation about climate science. You basically interact with no other thread or category other than spam threads which focus on climate change and climate science.
I don't think anyone fit the category of forum rules against evangelism better than you do. Your only defense is that mods don't seem to care about topics in the lounge.
But I would argue that if a member is only ever posting on one subject, over and over, to the point of the creator of the thread having to change the title and intention of the thread to reflect your hijacking of it, that would warrant mods to take action.
Quoting Mikie
Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not.
Quoting Christoffer
You are an evangelist if you think that there is no disagreement about anything to do with climate change. I don't deny that climate change is happening. A lot of my posts are about whether the proposed solutions to climate change will work.
Quoting Christoffer
I think that the mods can see that I am not denying climate change. Mikie is getting the titles of threads changed to suit his agenda. This is a dishonest thing to do. I will be creating a new thread to discuss whether changing the titles of threads is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.
Disagreement does not equal scientific data and research being wrong. There are lots of uneducated and low intelligence people who disagree with facts all the time, which leads to "the existence of disagreement", but that doesn't make the uneducated and stupid in the right about anything. Such an idea is just an attempt at manipulating the debate. There are tons of people who believe in flat earth and who would use the same type of argument in an attempt to validate their stance.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
A random sample quote from you:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
That's not something someone who agrees with the science would say. It's something that climate science deniers usually says; a rhetoric aimed to bait a non-scientist to get lost in evidence data that requires the knowledge of climate scientists. It's a rhetoric that works against everyone but climate scientists who can provide and answer due to their deeper knowledge of the subject. Because it doesn't matter if the actual evidence is provided; the interlocutors do not know how to interconnect specific data with the holistic understanding of the subject and through that the denier claims victory without actually having won any argument. These rhetorical strategies are dishonest and hollow, and for anyone observant of such behavior, a clear indicator of who the person is and what they attempt to accomplish.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
What agenda?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
He started a thread that has been hijacked by climate science deniers to the point an actual discourse is impossible. For you to call that unethical, one can turn it around and ask if it's ethical to spam a thread to the point the OP gives up on even trying to continue it. Who are you to place yourself on a moral high ground like that? Isn't that rather delusional and arrogant?
And a further point, the destructive use of censorship is something done by official institutions and governments. It is not applicable to other individuals, especially not within a construct they've created. If they create a place of discussion about something and someone doesn't follow the intention of that space, it is not censorship to silence those who disrupts things for the people there. This use of the concept of censorship in your rhetoric is another form of dishonest manipulative rhetoric aimed at painting your opposition as dishonest. You attempt to bootstrap yourself to a higher moral ground. But as always, it's obvious to anyone who's ever been involved in online debates. It's also rather clumsy to attempt to use that rhetoric when the entire right-wing culture at the moment have proved just how dysfunctional that rhetoric is by Musk's treatment of the concept of censorship on X. It should be obvious to all nowadays that the idea of censorship and free speech by certain people in society follows that trend of claiming to be arguing for free speech and opposing censorship, while then trying to control the flow of communication to align with their own ideology.
In that regard, it would also be a form of censorship to spam a discussion so much that people can't have a proper discussion anymore. I would argue that this form of rhetoric is a hidden form of silencing people far more than the people trying to govern discourse manners - A rhetoric in the same operation as DoS attacks towards websites. This type of DoS rhetoric functions in the same "denial of service" way, pushing so much noise into discussions that it becomes impossible for honest interlocutors to have a proper discussion. Essentially drowning out the flow off discussion with the noise of bullshit.
So I would be careful lecturing others on unethical behavior like you want to attempt.
No I don’t think so— I meant they take climate change as more nuanced and legitimate thing to debate than, say, Holocaust history. I don’t really view it that way, but it’s not my forum. I’ve said my piece already, and I leave it to others to decide.
As far as the threads go— I created it years ago, and it basically devolved into a receptacle for denialist spam. So since I created it, I can also change it. If someone else wants to create another climate change thread, they’re welcome to. But until it’s better moderated, I see no point in continuing.
It is interesting that you took that quote from me out of context. The whole quote says:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Are YOU being a science denier? Do you deny these scientific facts:
- The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial
- it regularly moves between the 2 states
- We are currently in an interglacial
- the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials
- The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial
Do you admit that you are a science denier?
Here is the evidence that I posted in a separate post to support my statements. It is from a scientific source.
Mikie. Do you remember the first post that you made after creating this thread.
You seem to be inviting "blue sky deniers" to post on the thread. :rofl:
Your attempt of bait-rhetorics won't work. You're only on this forum to DoS climate debates. As long as mods tolerate this, there won't be any good discussions on the topic. You win, or whatever the fuck you attempt to do.
So you ARE a science denier.
I presented you with scientific evidence and you dismissed it as bait-rhetorics.
Why didn't you comment on the evidence rather than try to hide?
Mikie. That thread has been in existence for 4 years and contains 3.9K posts. Hundreds of people have posted on this thread knowing that the thread title was "Climate change (general discussion)". You are disrespecting all of the people who have posted on this thread by changing the title to "Science denial".
What you have done is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.
Just because you created a thread doesn't mean that you own it. Once created the thread belongs to The Philosophy Forum.
I think that the MODS should look at what you are doing !!!
Do what I do: put idiots on the ignore list. You don’t see anything they post. Then they can talk to themselves. In the meantime, I suggest private correspondence or Reddit.
Mikie does. Patently.
Lol — risible guy is still triggered about something. Love it. Just nice to know that no one gives a shit about his idiotic Tweets.
Cry more, little girl. It’s risible to me.
Sometimes I wonder what your comprehension level is. As usual you have totally misrepresented this video.
The person talking in this video is Michael Kelly, professor emeritus of technology at the University of Cambridge. Kelly was a government scientist when the Climate Change Act launched in 2008, and has been researching the reduction of carbon in Britain since then.
Nowhere in the entire video does he say that climate science is wrong.
He talks about how we don't have the money, the workforce, or the materials, to achieve Net Zero.
Why don't you watch the video before jumping to incorrect conclusions?
Keep crying little girl. It’s risible.
Ah, happy days are here again!
Everything he says about the lack of a realistic plan and the vast expense that government commitments imply is pretty much true. Those commitments are not going to be met. I knew you'd like it!
But several times, in passing, he claims without giving any detail or evidence that climate models are unreliable, and are overestimating the disruption and rate of change. Thus he solves the insoluble problem by denying its existence, and implying as you always do, that climate scientists are pretending in order to further their careers. This is done of course to further his own career - because no one ever wants to hear unalloyed bad news. :cool:
Why do you imagine I post videos I haven't watched? Or that I haven't somewhat comprehended?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I have already explained that global temperature and sea level rise are lagging indicators to atmospheric CO2 levels, because CO2 acts as an insulator not a direct heat source. The rapid increase in CO2 levels due to fossil fuel burning is only now beginning to have an effect. the radiative balance of the Earth has changed and the planet surface will continue to warm until a new balance is achieved. meanwhile, as we begin to overheat, we continue to add another duvet or two.
According to Wikipedia:
Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET
Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
He is 75 YEARS OLD
I don't think that he is very interested in "furthering his own career".
You have jumped to another incorrect conclusion. :scream:
You might be interested in some of the highlights of Professor Michael Kelly's career.
- He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993 and won its Hughes Medal in 2006
- He was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government
- He was elected in 1998 as a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering
- In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy). The panel concluded that there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET is highly qualified in science and engineering.
FRS = Fellow of the Royal Society
FREng = Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering
FIET = Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology
How many climate scientists are as qualified as Professor Michael Kelly?
I think almost any climate scientist would be more qualified to speak on climate science than Kelly. If you need a plumber, don't consult an electrician, or a plasterer.
Is this pretty much what your position is that you're advocating for?
Like, in linking CO2 to prosperity, and in talking about the dangers of EV's and the intelligence of people who like them -- you're thesis is "We shouldn't change too quickly because they're useful, and there are many risks associated with too fast a rate of change"
?
Risible.
Yes
Quoting Moliere
I don't think that I have ever said that the people who like EV's are not intelligent. In certain circumstances they are a good thing. But many people don't live in circumstances where an EV works well. People should be allowed to make their own decision about what type of vehicle is best for them. Many governments are trying to force people into EV's using mandates or effective mandates. Doing this is not intelligent.
Quoting Moliere
Yes, that more or less is my thesis. There are many areas where gasoline vehicles are currently better than EV's. Some examples of problems with moving to EV's too quickly are:
- power grid capacity
- need to upgrade power infrastructure
- need to have more EV charging stations (owning EV charging stations is not a very profitable business)
- lithium battery fires
- many EV's have poor performance in real world conditions (e.g. range, using the heater, length of time to charge, queuing at charging stations, slower changing in cold weather)
- EV batteries have poor performance when too hot or too cold
- can be a problem in emergencies (e.g. getting away from wildfires)
- traditional automakers being closed down (the loss of many jobs, not just direct jobs but also many third party businesses)
-
There are many other problems but that is enough for now.
I repeat again, he was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government.
In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy).
Why do you think he was chosen to do an independent scientific assessment of "climategate"?
Investigating "climategate" must have given him a lot of insight into the world of climate models and how reliable or unreliable they are.
Climate models primarily use physics, chemistry, and fluid dynamics to represent the Earth's climate system through mathematical equations, essentially applying the fundamental laws of these sciences to simulate how energy and matter interact within the atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces.
Professor Kelly is a physicist.
And the icing on the cake, Professor Kelly has engineering skills which no climate scientist has. If you need an engineer, don't consult with a climate scientist.
Which governments are using force to get people into EV's?
It seems to me when you say "Don't move too quickly" I can't think of a single government that is moving at all. So I'm left wondering which specific countries are doing what specific things?
At present people are able to allowed to make their own decisions about what type of vehicle is best for them.
But note how it's not addressing the issue: CO2 levels continue to rise, and the various predictions linked to that continue to be true.
I'm going to propose a rate -- suppose we waited to do anything about climate change until after your life. That way you can choose whatever vehicle you want, but the next generation will have to tighten their belt.
This need not be read too literally. In a way what we are to the industrial revolution this future generation will be to us -- the industrial revolution inherited the benefits of "free" energy because it was later generations who pay the price of trying to figure out how to support billions of people with a resource that is finite, and which is continuing to warm the planet.
In fact I'd like to suggest that this is what we are presently choosing: To let our children's children to deal with the problem so we can have the freedom of individual choice in the market and everything feels normal.
If you ask ChatGPT the question "which countries have electric vehicle ev mandates, it lists the following:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. European Union
4. United Kingdom
5. China
6. India
7. Japan
8. South Korea
Quoting Moliere
Probably the best known mandate is the UK's. The UK government has now enacted the ZEV Mandate into law, which officially came into force from 3rd January 2024.
This has brought the UK to be more in line with EU countries and Canada.
Here is a summary:
- There is an imposition on car manufacturers to sell a percentage of ZEVs every year. This percentage is set to increase over time, until by the year 2035 it should be at 100%.
- ZEV sales made by car manufacturers will be converted into certificates. The sellers will need to hold a certain number of certificates by the end of each year to avoid fines.
- For car manufacturers who fail to reach the set target, there is the possibility of either trading certificates with other car manufacturers who managed to exceed the target, or else be fined £15,000 per car.
- There are separate targets for CO2 emissions in order to help in regulating non-ZEVs.
Quoting Moliere
Yes, at present. But in future years the rules are getting stricter.
Quoting Moliere
Many people, including me, can't afford to buy an EV. Will you give me one for free? My current gasoline car, which is 14 years old, will probably last me until I die.
Quoting Moliere
Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us? Will our children's children be intelligent or stupid? Won't technology become better with time?
No.
It wouldn't matter either way; we're clever enough to see a problem, but stupid enough to want to keep it.
No.
The issue of climate change is a political, not an engineering, problem. We already have the means to address it in terms of the science -- we just don't want to because we like the way things are, so we imagine that there's going to be a future invention that will save us.
In terms of science that's about as good as praying to Jesus Christ. It makes sense to believe in it, but there's no reason to do so.
Quoting Moliere
You have a very pessimistic view of the world. Pessimism can lead to a lack of action and/or depression.
Quoting Moliere
I disagree. It is a political AND an engineering problem.
Quoting Moliere
There are many problems with the proposed solutions. Many of those problems are financial and engineering type problems. Science has not solved those problems.
My view of the situation is an honest appraisal based upon what we are doing, what we know, and what we are able to do.
What we are doing is hoping the future figures it out, when we have the means to address climate change in terms of our engineering and scientific knowledge.
Or, really, that the future is the one who pulls the lever.
What I see is a bunch of adults hoping that the children of tomorrow are bigger adults than they are after they die; leaving very little of an example for our children to learn from.
Or, in the worst of cases, saying that the future will birth a bright genius who will save the world. That's a familiar story that's told in more than scientific lingo. That's asking for Jesus Christ to solve the problem: It may stave off pessimism, but it's still scientifically false.
Sure! You’re a risible, triggered little imbecile you can’t stop commenting or following me around. You’re right, it is fun! We know you lack the maturity or emotional regulation to move along, so I look forward to continuing. :grin:
Case in point. No wonder no one takes your boring lectures on character seriously. :lol: Just another troll.
You are obviously not on Mikie's ignore list. He must want to continue talking to you.
I suggest that you put Mikie on your ignore list. I have put him on my ignore list and I no longer see his vacuous posts. . :rofl:
I'm waiting for something a bit more on the nose...
Quoting AmadeusD
Yeah, you’re just a happy-go-lucky guy, never missing an opportunity to demonstrate your maturity and wisdom (and to lecture others about it).
Oh wait…
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
What a model of self control and polite conversation. Like most sanctimonious twits.
But keep following me around, by all means. I don’t know who you are or why you have a beef, but so be it. Whatever I said in the past must have really triggered you —very glad to see it demonstrated again and again. :up: (And glad to have the opportunity to embarrass you repeatedly for the posturing runt you are.)
Again — no wonder he’s a laughingstock here. Glad that I can contribute in displaying it publicly.
I was only joking about me having an ignore list. I don't want to miss out on Mikie's pearls of wisdom (wink, wink. :rofl: )
One of the things that I like about Mikie is that I don't have to spend any time making Mikie look foolish and immature. He does a great job of that himself. . :scream:
I first learned about milankivitch cycles from a library book that was published in 1970. It's ok to talk about the Earth's wobble without mentioning climate change. It's just one of many factors in natural climate change that goes all the way from the water at the equator being close to a boil (thermal maximum at the time primates first evolved) to the entire oceanic surface freezing so that they really aren't sure how life made it through that (that was caused by too little CO2.) That was a real mass extinction. We are not having a mass extinction right now. Not even close. A scientist who specializes in mass extinctions says that people who think we're having a mass extinction just don't understand the term. How's that from climate denial? :joke:
This article was published on 02 November 2023
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/11/02/reducing-pollution-accelerates-global-warming-how-do-we-solve-this-catch-22
Air pollution, a global scourge that kills millions of people a year, is shielding us from the full force of the sun.
Stripped of its toxic shield, which scatters and reflects solar radiation, China's average temperatures have gone up by 0.7 degrees Celsius since 2014 (note - this is since 2014, not since pre-industrial times).
This has triggered fiercer heatwaves, according to a review of meteorological data by news agency Reuters and confirmed by six leading climate experts.
The removal of the air pollution - a term scientists call 'unmasking' - may have had a greater effect on temperatures in some industrial Chinese cities over the last decade than the warming from greenhouse gases themselves, the scientists say.
They say efforts to improve air quality could actually push the world into catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts.
"Aerosols are masking one-third of the heating of the planet," says Paulo Artaxo, an environmental physicist and lead author of the chapter on short-lived climate pollutants in the most recent round of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), completed this year.
"If you implement technologies to reduce air pollution, this will accelerate - very significantly - global warming in the short term."
During heatwaves, the unmasking effect can be even more pronounced. Laura Wilcox, a climate scientist who studies the effects of aerosols at the UK's University of Reading, says a computer simulation showed that the rapid decline in SO2 in China could raise temperatures on extreme-heat days by as much as 2C.
Which scenario do you prefer?
1) - have air pollution and lower temperatures and kill millions of people a year
2) - have improved air quality and higher temperatures and potentially catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts and possibly kill billions of people
It is a circus, a fiasco, and a gravy train.
Nothing that I said disagrees with what you said. I said that climate change is not a scam, which implies that it is real.
Saying that climate change is a circus, a fiasco, and a gravy train, is a statement about the lack of progress, the unrealistic goals, the blaming of the wrong people, the way that certain groups are protesting, the fact that not enough people are actually willing to do much or pay much to combat climate change, the fact that governments that are more right wing are being voted in and they often don't take climate change seriously, the efforts to force people into EV's, the lack of infrastructure to support efforts to fight climate change, the pushing of unreliable renewable energy at the expense of reliable energy based on fossil fuels, etc., etc.
Perhaps "existential" is a bit far in my book, but that's due to something other than "the case right now"
I see climate change as a threat, but not really an existential threat.
I think that there is a lot of exaggeration going on.
Don't underestimate jesters. Here are some great quotes about jesters:
Jesters do often prove prophets. --- Joseph Addison
Even in the most repressive medieval kingdoms, they understood the need for the court jester, the one soul allowed to tell the truth through laughter. --- Joe Randazzo
The jester is brother to the sage. --- Arthur Koestler
An unemployed jester is nobody's fool. --- Danny Kaye. :rofl:
If you mean the human species will continue, I tend to agree. I don't see us getting wiped out by climate change. But I think we could lose a big chunk of our population if we don't get our act together. That being said, I feel sorry for the developing countries that are late to the party and want to expand their middle class with cheap fossil fuel powered energy the way the first world countries all did, and now they're being told they can't do that. Well, they're going to go ahead and do it anyway.
I agree. And the petrostates are unlikely to stop production because their economies depend on it.
Libya (60% GDP)
Qatar (60% GDP)
Saudi Arabia (46% GDP)
Angola (28.9% GDP)
Oman (26.2% GDP)
Algeria (25% GDP)
Venezuela (25% GDP)
Iran (18% GDP)
Chad (17% GDP)
Kazakhstan (17% GDP)
Russia (17% GDP)
United Arab Emirates (15.67% GDP)
Only to disingenuous, sanctimonious internet twits. I agree it’s a waste of time — and childish — to lower myself to your level. Can’t help myself. Pretentious pukes should be resisted at every instance — that’s my philosophy.
This turned out prophetic: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/974319
Projection. It’s fairly obvious you’re mentally ill, given that you’ve held some kind of a grudge for literally years (even after being ignored for that amount of time), follow me around, slander and insult me unprovoked, and then continue to obsessively respond even after weeks have passed. All the while trying to maintain an air of being above it all, as if you weren’t the psychopath in this scenario. Being in psychology myself, this is very typical. You see it with most narcissists and sociopaths.
I’ve alerted the moderators already to your behavior.
Anyway- I can see now why I would have put you on the ignore extension, especially given that your other “contributions” are fatuous and remind me of someone who pretends to know it all because they recently took an undergraduate philosophy class.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yeah yeah … we all believe that I’m sure. :wink:
Scientific article: phys.org from March 11, 2025
Permian mass extinction linked to 10°C global temperature rise that reshaped Earth's ecosystems
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-permian-mass-extinction-linked-10c.html
Great Wikipedia information on "Extinction Events":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Great Wikipedia information on "Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction Event'":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
Recent article from LiveScience:
Ancient Egyptian city of Alexandria — the birthplace of Cleopatra — is crumbling into the sea at an unprecedented rate: By Jess Thomson published March 4, 2025
Key point: Coastal erosion from rising sea levels has led to the collapse of 280 buildings across Alexandria, Egypt, over the past two decades.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/ancient-egyptian-city-of-alexandria-the-birthplace-of-cleopatra-is-crumbling-into-the-sea-at-an-unprecedented-rate
New peer-reviewed paper in AGUPubs:
Soaring Building Collapses in Southern Mediterranean Coasts: Hydroclimatic Drivers & Adaptive Landscape Mitigations
First published: 12 February 2025
Link: https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004883
Parts of San Francisco and Los Angeles are sinking into the sea — meaning sea-level rise will be even worse: By Patrick Pester published February 13, 2025
Key points: A study led by NASA and NOAA has found that California is sinking in some areas, which means the projected sea level rise for parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco has doubled.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/parts-of-san-francisco-and-los-angeles-are-sinking-into-the-sea-meaning-sea-level-rise-will-be-even-worse
Link: https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.ads8163
I watched this video and I couldn't stop laughing when I saw how incredibly unscientific Paul Beckwith is.
Here is the "About Paul Beckwith" from his YouTube channel.
These qualifications sound very impressive and you would think that an occasional part-time professor in Geography (on climatology, oceanography, environmental issues) at University of Ottawa would know what he is doing. Instead, what I am about to show you proves that Paul Beckwith is an educated idiot. This makes a nice change from most climate fanatics and alarmists who are uneducated idiots.
In this video Beckwith discusses an article based on a new peer-reviewed paper that just came out recently, which talks about how the Permian mass extinction is now linked to a 10° Celsius global temperature rise which completely reshaped the Earth's ecosystems on both the land and in the ocean. The mass extinction was caused by huge volcanoes erupting and releasing 100,000 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere very rapidly.
No problems so far. But then a scientific statement appears in the article about the peer-reviewed paper which isn't alarmist enough for Beckwith. The article says:
Quoting phys.org
What is Paul Beckwith's comment about this statement? The transcript for the video shows Paul Beckwith's commentary. He says:
Firstly he misinterprets what the statement from the article says, even though he just read it out in the video. The article says "This framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system in response to the present-day CO2 increase.". Paul Beckwith responds with "but you know this is assuming this is not accounting for tipping point". But the article just said (and Paul Beckwith just read out) that the framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system.
Secondly (and this is even funnier), the fact that it will take about 2,700 years to reach the level of emissions that caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction doesn't suit Paul Beckwith's agenda. Paul Beckwith wants to create immediate panic and 2,700 years is unlikely to cause immediate panic for many/most people.
So Paul Beckwith says "[...] it would take thousands of years [...] so this is I don't know why this statement is really in there [...]".
Here is a clue Paul Beckwith. The statement is there because the scientists who wrote the paper, and the scientists who peer-reviewed the paper, thought that the statement was revenant and true. If you can't see that then you are an idiot. Real scientists try to avoid putting incorrect statements in their papers.
Real scientists don't want you to ignore what they wrote. If you ignore what the scientists wrote then you are a science denier.
During the Permian extinction there was so much crap in the atmosphere that the partial pressure of O2 went from 35% all the way down to 12%. It's 21% now, and that's what we need to survive. If the PO2 went down to 12% again, most living things on land and in the oceans would die.
A mass extinction is like this: imagine a car that goes through a lot of hardship, but keeps running. Finally a point is reached where a critical component of the engine falters and the whole engine stops. During a mass extinction, there's a fundamental breakdown in the mechanics of the biosphere. This has happened several times. There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all.
97% of climate scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded. The science is settled !!!
:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:
What are the chances of this happening?
Quoting frank
Are you talking about EV's, and the critical component is the lithium-ion battery?... :grin:
Quoting frank
Which mass extinction are you referring to?
What is your definition of life? Does it include bacteria and archaea? Does it include ecosystems that are found around hydrothermal vents? These ecosystems support specialised life forms like giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish, all adapted to the extreme conditions of the deep ocean, and relying on chemosynthesis for energy.
I don't think there is one.
Come on, mate. Even this site is funded (by subscribers like you) with donations to keep it free from ads. What in this world can work without funds?
You are correct that funding is necessary for most things. But the important question is whether the results of the funding are worth (or likely to be worth) the cost.
There is also the question of whether the funds could have been better used elsewhere.
Okay, I will reword my question to make it easier to answer.
Are bacteria and archaea alive?
Are the organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents alive? The types of organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents include giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish.
The science was settled decades before these scientists started work on climate change. After which fossil fuel corporations pumped lots of cash into discrediting it.
This notion of scientists saying whatever will secure their funding is nonsense, conspiracy, populist claptrap.
Yes. And?
How about the scientists that work for Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Meat and Dairy, Big Pharma, Big Ag (Agriculture), Big Food, Big Chemical, etc.
Are they influenced by the organisations that fund them?
Quoting frank
I am pointing out that even in a major mass extinction there are still many living things that will survive.
If "they" are still not sure how life survived at all in that mass extinction then it shows that "they" are lacking knowledge and are exaggerating. Unless the whole planet explodes life will continue.
The riftia or tubeworm appeared 35 million years ago. The mass extinction known as Snowball Earth was 700 million years ago.
You say that the concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. Doesn't that put pressure on climate change scientists to find and highlight risks? If climate change scientists don't find risks, or find positives about climate change, then they will be defunded. There is pressure to give the concern the results that they want.