Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
I mean the cheapest energy. This will propel third world development which in turn will reduce per capita emissions. This will also speed it up the leveling of population growth in the third world as it has in all the developed nations - once you have stability and plenty, the need for destruction of the environment for resources and the need for large families is reduced.

I do not believe it is fair to hold back the developing world nor do I think it will actually work in any case. It will cause more poverty and more destruction of the environment.
I agree that energy creation is the one element that impacts the climate the most and that burning gas instead of coal is much better for the climate and the environment. Burning coal is about the stupidest thing we can do and are currently doing.
However, you approach to saving the climate, while humane and the morally correct one, should have been an approach implemented 50 years ago for it to have the needed effect to make a difference. Most developed countries have a higher consumption of resources, higher emissions etc per capita compared to third world countries.
And it is important to make the distinction between environment and climate. Climate will impact the environment on a global scale, while different environments can be treated and observed as separate identifies easier than the different facets of the climate.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,476
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Are they not building a cold fusion reactor/test center in France? Expected to be completed: too late. Works in theory, but remains to be seen if it works in practice. Also got thoriumreactors as a potential long term solution. Problem again is that this is too late. And it has been for some time.
I know not of that although the EU is actively pushing NF development.
But you are right, at the current rate of development, 2040/50 are the projected timescales.
All countries should be intensifying efforts to bring forward commercial NF energy production. That is why I urge you to request your MP takes action to push the UK government to intensify it's efforts.
I would argue that it is never too late to bring NF energy into production. This of course along with significantly increasing renewable energy sources.
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
I know not of that although the EU is actively pushing NF development.
But you are right, at the current rate of development, 2040/50 are the projected timescales.
All countries should be intensifying efforts to bring forward commercial NF energy production. That is why I urge you to request your MP takes action to push the UK government to intensify it's efforts.
I would argue that it is never too late to bring NF energy into production. This of course along with significantly increasing renewable energy sources.
Well, it is never too late depending on how you define "what". If what relates to 2.5 degrees increase in average global temperature. That ship sailed long ago.
What as a 4 degree increase in temperature? Maybe, if the governments showed the same political will and effort as they do when trying to get reelected or filling their own purses as when it comes to climate change/global warming.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,526
I mean the cheapest energy. This will propel third world development which in turn will reduce per capita emissions. This will also speed it up the leveling of population growth in the third world as it has in all the developed nations - once you have stability and plenty, the need for destruction of the environment for resources and the need for large families is reduced.

I do not believe it is fair to hold back the developing world nor do I think it will actually work in any case. It will cause more poverty and more destruction of the environment.
We are far past that point, we do not have the time to delay significant reductions. I do agree there's a responsibility for developed nations to be assisted in their transition but considering our governments are doing feck all domestically then i stand little hope for this assistance.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
11,946
Location
Denmark
Are they not building a cold fusion reactor/test center in France? Expected to be completed: too late. Works in theory, but remains to be seen if it works in practice. Also got thoriumreactors as a potential long term solution. Problem again is that this is too late. And it has been for some time.
They're building ITER. Which is "just" a fusion reactor. Cold fusion is science fiction.

But as you say, it's too late. ITER was delayed by about 10 years purely by politics as well. The plans were ready in 1995, then it wasn't approved until 2005 and I think work started on it around 2015.
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
They're building ITER. Which is "just" a fusion reactor. Cold fusion is science fiction.

But as you say, it's too late. ITER was delayed by about 10 years purely by politics as well. The plans were ready in 1995, then it wasn't approved until 2005 and I think work started on it around 2015.
My mistake. Did not bother to look it.
2025 its when they will start with the first tests.
Best we can do for now regarding energy is to replace all coal with gass while building up infrastructure and battery parks for us to go solar/wind.
 

Stookie

Nurse bell end
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
9,113
Location
West Yorkshire
Anyone watch Attenborough’s new series tonight? He really hits it home. The planet is fooked. I think we’re beyond the point of no return.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,167
They're building ITER. Which is "just" a fusion reactor. Cold fusion is science fiction.

But as you say, it's too late. ITER was delayed by about 10 years purely by politics as well. The plans were ready in 1995, then it wasn't approved until 2005 and I think work started on it around 2015.
I wouldn't get too excited about ITER. Read this for a gloomier take. ITER is not designed to generate electricity, it's not anywhere near a practical design, and it only shows that fusion could maybe be viable as an engineering project.

However, lots of interesting approaches are appearing in the US partly thanks to recent advances in superconducting magnetic tape, which can make the magnets much smaller, the devices less complex, and the magnetic confinement far more powerful.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
11,946
Location
Denmark
I wouldn't get too excited about ITER. Read this for a gloomier take. ITER is not designed to generate electricity, it's not anywhere near a practical design, and it only shows that fusion could maybe be viable as an engineering project.
I don't think anyone bar the people studying plasma physics are that excited about ITER. After all ITER is a generation before demo plants if everything goes according to plan (and those wouldn't be until 2050 at the earliest).
 

711

Verified Bird Expert
Scout
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
24,255
Location
Don't sign old players and cast offs
Every year same shit, they need to clean the forests and remove any dead tree, a very dry state with high temperatures mixed with high winds= disaster, how many years would take for them to realize that?
That wouldn't be enough, you would have to tarmac over the lot, after first agent orangeing it all to make sure no desperate shoots managed to grow again to find a ray of sunlight.
 

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,880
Supports
Barcelona
You must dream about him all the time, any problem in California is Trump's fault not the politicians from California, if the Soviet's still in power they would be proud of you.
They are in power, at the white house
 

Drifter

American
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
68,349
Greta Thunberg turns down green award over Nordic 'bragging'

Greta Thunberg has turned down an environmental award and £40,000 in prize money because "bragging" and "beautiful words" will not cut carbon emissions.

The Swedish campaigner revealed in an Instagram post that she had been awarded the Nordic Council Environment Prize 2019, but had "decided to decline".

While thanking the council for the "huge honour", she said the "climate movement does not need any more awards".


https://news.sky.com/story/greta-thunberg-turns-down-green-award-over-nordic-bragging-11848720
 

utdalltheway

Sexy Beast
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
20,491
Location
SoCal, USA
Suggestion, same shit happens in Portugal no organization at all and in California loggers can't go and cut down dead trees anymore just adds fuel for the fires.
barros, it's not just dead trees, it's the living trees that touch the power lines when it's windy.
The humidity right now is approx 3-10% so everything's dried out. We haven't had measurable rainfall for over 5 months. And, last winter was quite wet so everything that was green in March is now dried to a crisp. It's impossible to clear every piece of dried up vegetation but it is possible to trim branches back from near power lines, but the electrical utility hasn't been doing that so that's why they're cutting off the power when it's windy.
And they don't cut power to the entire area so that's why we have some of the fires, cos the tree branches hit live wires. That's what caused the Getty fire on Monday in LA.
The winds can go up to 80 mph and feel like a hand dryer as it's so hot and dry.

Also, I see some are blaming the homeless, some of which hang out in dense underbrush so they can't be seen by the fuzz. One spark from their activities, combined with the high winds, and the place goes up.

Tbf though, it also can be something stupid, like a lawnmower creating a spark, a vehicle's hot exhaust touching the grassy verge, etc.

btw, Trump is an ass so don't be quoting him.
 

Mark Pawelek

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,598
Location
Kent, near London
The sun controls earth's climate.

Not emissions, nor humans.

When 6 most significant solar cycles are combined (red). Plotted against proxies for global temperature anomaly (black) over last 260 years we see lovely correlation. Citation. doi: 10.5194/cpd-8-4493-2012.
 

Mark Pawelek

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,598
Location
Kent, near London
20 million radiosondes analysed. Plotted molar density against pressure to discover equations of state for troposphere & tropopause.

... The fits for the barometric temperature profiles did not require any consideration of the composition of atmospheric trace gases, such as carbon dioxide, ozone or methane. This contradicts the predictions of current atmospheric models, which assume the temperature profiles are strongly influenced by greenhouse gas concentrations. This suggests that the greenhouse effect plays a much smaller role in barometric temperature profiles than previously assumed ...

-M. Connolly, and R. Connolly (2014)
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,629
Location
Sydney
20 million radiosondes analysed. Plotted molar density against pressure to discover equations of state for troposphere & tropopause.

... The fits for the barometric temperature profiles did not require any consideration of the composition of atmospheric trace gases, such as carbon dioxide, ozone or methane. This contradicts the predictions of current atmospheric models, which assume the temperature profiles are strongly influenced by greenhouse gas concentrations. This suggests that the greenhouse effect plays a much smaller role in barometric temperature profiles than previously assumed ...

-M. Connolly, and R. Connolly (2014)
these lads work for the Heartland institute iirc?
 

Mark Pawelek

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,598
Location
Kent, near London
these lads work for the Heartland institute iirc?
Are you too lazy or incompetent to check your own facts. Or do you only do smear and defamation?

They are lefties. Michael Connolly is an old school environmentalist from way back before the days when the "green movement" was paid for by fund management billionaires like Tom Steyer and Jeremy Grantham. Connolly's work is entirely self-funded.
 
Last edited:

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,629
Location
Sydney

Mark Pawelek

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,598
Location
Kent, near London
Thank you. I will send them an email and ask them whether the got any funding from Heartland to so their report, or for anything they ever did. I doubt it. I also doubt whether they care who publishes their work, so long as it's published.

Please accept my apologies too.

Their work on atmospheric balloons - 20 million radiosondes - is entirely their own. It completely contradicts the greenhouse gas narrative. There's nothing you can do about that because their equations for the atmosphere were discovered (like scientific laws). Not manufactured as a thought experiment like the greenhouse gas effect.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,629
Location
Sydney
Thank you. I will send them an email and ask them whether the got any funding from Heartland to so their report, or for anything they ever did. I doubt it. I also doubt whether they care who publishes their work, so long as it's published.

Please accept my apologies too.

Their work on atmospheric balloons - 20 million radiosondes - is entirely their own. It completely contradicts the greenhouse gas narrative. There's nothing you can do about that because their equations for the atmosphere were discovered (like scientific laws). Not manufactured as a thought experiment like the greenhouse gas effect.
Fair enough. I was being a bit lazy as I remember reading about these guys a few years back, and had a vague notion they were discredited.

Their website looks sketchy af, but I'll have another look at their research.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,629
Location
Sydney
@Mark Pawelek

I took a look at their website. Putting aside the links to the Heartland Institute for one moment.

  • Is your work peer reviewed?
  • (Updated: 22 May 2017)
    We have submitted eight scientific articles summarising our main findings for peer review in the Open Peer Review Journal (OPRJ). This is a new forum we have founded to offer a more rigorous and open peer review system than the conventional “closed” peer review system used until now. See our “Start here” page for links to our papers, and non-technical summaries of them.
So they've launched their own journal, then submitted their own work to it, and are now making the extremely dubious claim that its peer reviewed.

How can it be a rigorous peer review if they are both editors and publishers of the journal? They can just delete anything they don't like. It makes zero sense if your intention is to have your work independently verified.

There would be no reason for them to not submit the study to a real scientific journal. Have they done that?
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,386
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
these lads work for the Heartland institute iirc?
Are you too lazy or incompetent to check your own facts. Or do you only do smear and defamation?
Three quick posts perfectly summing up @Mark Pawelek.

I admire your confidence, though. The last time we saw you, you had just professed with absolute certainty that a specific graph proved your point, without any doubt. A graph, as I recall, it turned out you were literally reading backwards. And after all this time, you jump straight into a graph.

Very bold.

@Tarrou, save yourself the trouble. Mark Pawelek has no idea what he's talking about, but no matter how many times you prove him wrong, he'll never stop coming up with new graphs he doesn't understand and new papers he hasn't read, sure that now, he's got you. This time he seems to have changed his tactics though. Last time he posted graphs and papers that directly contradicted his own claims, now he seems to be trying to circumvent that risk by finding papers by "scientists" (i.e. not climate scientists) that also don't believe in global warming.
 
Last edited:

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,629
Location
Sydney
i think the 'scientists' might actually be a pair of builders :lol:

 

Massive Spanner

Give Mason Mount a chance!
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
28,143
Location
Tool shed
:lol: oh dear.

Mark should really be banned from this thread, by the way, all it takes is one gullible person to read his stuff and lap it up for it to prove effective.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,386
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
i think the 'scientists' might actually be a pair of builders :lol:

The son seems to have some degrees, at least, though not any relevant ones. The "about section" of their own site has this written about the dad:

I qualified as a plasterer in 1969 and as an electrician in 1970.
It also says this:

Academic qualifications B.Sc., M.Sc., H.D.E., D.E.E., Ph.D.
Which conveniently does not list his actual qualifications. And considering what it says further down the page, I think it's safe to say that this guy is not any kind of scientist. Which is Mark's favourite kind, incidentally.

Since 1996, we have been carrying out fundamental research in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology, both in Ireland and in USA.
 

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
19,536
Location
Still waiting for the Youthquake
The sun controls earth's climate.

Not emissions, nor humans.

When 6 most significant solar cycles are combined (red). Plotted against proxies for global temperature anomaly (black) over last 260 years we see lovely correlation. Citation. doi: 10.5194/cpd-8-4493-2012.
any data to show 2013 - 2019... would be interesting to see if their prediction matched and the predicted drop off happened or not