We are fucked

[Bernanke]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-weather-climatechange-science-idUSKCN1061RH?rpc=401


LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Record temperatures in the first half of 2016 have taken scientists by surprise despite widespread recognition that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense, the director of the World Climate Research Program said.

The earth is on track for its hottest year on record with June marking the 14th straight month of record heat, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said last week.

Temperatures recorded mainly in the northern hemisphere in the first six months of the year, coupled with an early and fast Arctic sea ice melt and "new highs" in heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels, point to quickening climate change, it said.

In a further announcement on Tuesday, the U.N. agency said it would examine whether a temperature of 54 degrees Celsius (129 degrees Fahrenheit) reported in Kuwait last Thursday was a new high for the eastern hemisphere and Asia.

"What concerns me most is that we didn't anticipate these temperature jumps," said David Carlson, director of the WMO's climate research program, late on Monday.

I've spent a few hours reading up on the latest data/events, and the situation looks fucking dire. Fairly sure I just decided not to have children, because the outlook for them living a decent life look slim.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif

Also, straight from Reddit:


No one is talking about the astronomically large forest fire currently burning in Siberia. One of the largest in history. It's melting vast amounts of permafrost, and releasing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases (methane) into the atmosphere. The Russian government is downplaying it because they don't know how to contain it, and the US media isn't covering it.
This will surely accelerate climate change. Scary, scary stuff.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/07/22/blanket-of-smoke-from-siberia-fires-can-be-seen-from-1-million-miles-away-in-space/#.V5g8LXNlDqA

http://theconversation.com/vast-wildfires-are-burning-in-remote-siberia-far-from-humans-heres-why-we-should-care-62881

Look at the scale of this shit. Zoom out. https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=geographic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden ),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden ),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Refer ence_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coa stlines&t=2016-07-25&v=79.71363212495385,43.2197579693912,130.338632124 95385,71.5205392193912

We still got snowballs though, so it's alright.

http://www.wolverton-mountain.com/articles/images/there-are-snowballs-in-hell/1.jpg

[Spammer]

Is it likely to wipe everyone out?

Nope. We'll be fine. I'm going to build a massive hole and live in that.

[Bernanke]

Is it likely to wipe everyone out?

To my understanding, if we see mass extinctions in the seas or the bees go, it's not out of the question.

[Giggles]

We're not fucked. The ones after us are, so happy days.

[Bernanke]

We're not fucked. The ones after us are, so happy days.

A 3.5 degrees C increase is considered to be the extinction point. The International Energy Agency predicts a 3.5C increase by 2035.

I assume you're younger than 60.

[Jimmy Floyd]

There are a load of bees nesting in my roof at the moment, so I'm alright Jack.

[niko_cee]

The end of the world has always been just around the corner. I suppose one day it will actually happen, although I doubt it.

Better start stock piling the baked beans.

[Spammer]

I'll invite bees into the ecosystem of my massive hole.

[niko_cee]

That doesn't sound like it would end well.

[Giggles]

A 3.5 degrees C increase is considered to be the extinction point. The International Energy Agency predicts a 3.5C increase by 2035.

I assume you're younger than 60.

Not by a massive amount. Far bigger things to worry about in the world now anyway, the next lot can face this one.

[Kikó]

The end of the world is more important than people being stabbed.

[Giggles]

The end of the world is more important than people being stabbed.

It's not more important than me being stabbed though.

[-james-]

The end of the world is more important than people being stabbed.

Bit game of thrones, this.

[Bartholomert]

Oh look fear mongering from the environmentalist lobby. Yes let's dismantle our industries and voluntarily further impoverish our populations because that's exactly what the West should be worried about these days. They've been predicting the end of the world for decades and have been wrong every single time, excuse me as I disregard what they're saying and trust the private sector to come up with solutions if shit actually starts going South.

[-james-]

Oh look fear mongering from the environmentalist lobby. Yes let's dismantle our industries and voluntarily further impoverish our populations because that's exactly what the West should be worried about these days.

I'd say potential extinction of the species should probably be a concern, yes.

[Bartholomert]

I'd say potential extinction of the species should probably be a concern, yes.

Yeah that's not happening.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpxomr0cW7hugyfyDu2dFa7UPudGHyD hYW2ZthkjuPx64LdwZV5bXrYFY

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_389-may-21-04-08.jpg

[-james-]

I guess I just trust NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) (Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree..) over the idea that it's a Chinese hoax, but that's just me.

[ItalAussie]

Climate change is sorted science. Anyone who isn't on board now is just being contrary in the face of evidence.

You can quibble over what to do with that, but putting your fingers in your ears and humming only makes you look stupid, and like you don't understand numbers.

The truth is that we won't do anything, the developed world will adapt, and displaces climate refugees from developing nations are going to be a thing. It's hard to see any other outcome now, because there's certainly not enough political willpower to implement changes that would actually work.

[niko_cee]

It seems pointless arguing over whether 'it' is happening or not when there is no real (political) will to do anything about it. It'll just have to happen and the pieces be picked up in the aftermath (or not). Doomsday scenarios never really seem to inspire much other than skepticism absent an actual plan to do something to avert them.

I wonder whether action like the CFC ban that came in in the 80s (was it?) would be possible today?

[ItalAussie]

I wonder whether action like the CFC ban that came in in the 80s (was it?) would be possible today?
God no. I look back on that, and can't even begin to understand how they pulled it off. One of the best things we ever actually managed to do.

[Bartholomert]

Climate change is sorted science. Anyone who isn't on board now is just being contrary in the face of evidence.

You can quibble over what to do with that, but putting your fingers in your ears and humming only makes you look stupid, and like you don't understand numbers.

The truth is that we won't do anything, the developed world will adapt, and displaces climate refugees from developing nations are going to be a thing. It's hard to see any other outcome now, because there's certainly not enough political willpower to implement changes that would actually work.

Settled science according to the analysis of ultra-leftist environmentalists with a very particular political agenda :yawn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

[Bartholomert]

God no. I look back on that, and can't even begin to understand how they pulled it off. One of the best things we ever actually managed to do.

Consensus is possible without multiculturalism (or maybe its just social media).

[niko_cee]

The thing with that whole issue though was that there was a demonstrable thing (the hole) an understanding of what was causing it (these ozone destroying chemicals) and an apparent way to mitigate or reduce the damage (stopping the use of those chemicals/cfcs). Now, that's obviously a fairly layman's view of it, but presumably a lot of the developing nations of the world had to be on board as well as i guess, even then, they were making a lot of the stuff. With the wider issue of climate change I don't know that there are such easy (ish) solutions, or a sufficiently narrow target for action to be taken against. 'Reducing CO2 emissions' is fairly wide-ranging and has huge implications that perhaps using a different gas in freezer compressors didn't.

Or maybe the world was just a less blasé place back then, having just come off the back of staring down the barrel or something or other for nigh on 70 years.

[Mazuuurk]

When this starts to have a much more noticeable effect on mankind than it has today, it won't be an overnight event, but rather years of worsened conditions for surviving in many parts of the world (see Syria), which will lead to a bunch of other problems that we will need to solve that'll seem more urgent then - at that time - than anything else. The "great European migration" problem of last year was "only" - I dunno - a few million people fleeing. When that turns to 100 and 500 million people deserting whole regions, we might find ourselves in an extremely precareous situation where countries will have to choose between basically condemning millions of people to death or everybody vastly reducing their standards of living, and by vastly I'm thinking going from living with your family in a 4 bedroom house to living in said house with maybe 4 or 10 other families.

Now In the grand, cosmic play of things this will likely be very unfair, and for Earth if you see it as a mythological entity cleansing itself - unpractical, because the people who will start being affected by this are likely those who contribute the least to climate change themselves, and thus we will not have a "natural" reduction of it for another few years or at best decades.

And besides, from what I've read we are approaching the point where the earth is so warm that even if we drastically reduced pollution of all kinds, it might already be too late because many of the large, cooling ice-masses will already be so small they won't be able to sustain themselves, so to speak - but I dunno about that.


About Bernankes point about kids - I really hate that this is happening and that my son may end up being the one that will suffer the most from it. My single biggest fear have become having to flee somewhere at some point because there's a war (seems most likely) or a natural disaster incoming, and living in fear for maybe years. The fact that that happened to some of my older relatives during WW2 and I've heard a lot of their stories makes this fear even more accentuated, I think.

[ItalAussie]

Settled science according to the analysis of ultra-leftist environmentalists with a very particular political agenda :yawn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Sure, Dr Mert. :D

[Mazuuurk]

Mert can you just shut the fuck up.

If I have to read you writing any of the words "Multiculturalism", "Liberal", "Lobbying" or any of all the directions, Left, Right, Northeast, Up your (perhaps sore) arsehole... I will vomit so fucking violently it'll pierce the atmosphere and hopefully through cosmic karma fall into your Open-minded mouth and choke you.


We get it, we all get it. You stand above everyone with any sort of political opinion because you're an enlightened mind. You don't have to remind us every two minutes.

[Bartholomert]

Mert can you just shut the fuck up.

If I have to read you writing any of the words "Multiculturalism", "Liberal", "Lobbying" or any of all the directions, Left, Right, Northeast, Up your (perhaps sore) arsehole... I will vomit so fucking violently it'll pierce the atmosphere and hopefully through cosmic karma fall into your Open-minded mouth and choke you.


We get it, we all get it. You stand above everyone with any sort of political opinion because you're an enlightened mind. You don't have to remind us every two minutes.

"I'm afraid of a future where my children will be unsafe"

"You know I don't think refugees are raping Swedish women at astronomical rates, it's just the racist media focusing on those particular incidents"

Lol.

[SvN]

Yeah that's not happening.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpxomr0cW7hugyfyDu2dFa7UPudGHyD hYW2ZthkjuPx64LdwZV5bXrYFY

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_389-may-21-04-08.jpg

The vast minority (10%) of climatologists predicted a global cooling, despite what a Time magazine cover says.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

[Pepe]

There is no 'political willpower' to do anything about it and even worse, most people are ok with the fact that nothing will be done, which is the bigger issue. I, for one, hope the so called developed world gets massively fucked in the arse.

[Lewis]

The 'so called developed world'.

[Bartholomert]

The vast minority (10%) of climatologists predicted a global cooling, despite what a Time magazine cover says.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

Are you really this much of a sheep? That's because there was a period of steep warming before the sudden cooling, if anything the graph shows the volatility of the 'settled science consensus' of the environmental lobby, perpetuated by the funding hungry, failed, hyper-partisan, wasn't smart enough to make it as an actual scientist, 'climatologists.'

[Pepe]

;)

[Giggles]

The 'so called developed world'.

That's anything that isn't a shanty town sorrounded by dust then.

[ItalAussie]

Are you really this much of a sheep? That's because there was a period of steep warming before the sudden cooling, if anything the graph shows the volatility of the 'settled science consensus' of the environmental lobby, perpetuated by the funding hungry, failed, hyper-partisan, wasn't smart enough to make it as an actual scientist, 'climatologists.'
That's bullshit.

Climate modelling involves highly sophisticated ensemble modelling; it's not just one model, but rather a number of scientifically-based, mathematically-quantitative models put together. The results they produce are sound and consistent. Hell, it's been noted on the board that, for what it's worth, I've done mathematical climate modelling myself and have a firm understanding of the literature and science. Whereas what you know about science could be written on a postage stamp, and you'd still be able send a letter once you were done.

This is the idiocy of politics at the moment. The idea that scientific facts are subservient to political ends. I don't care if you want to quibble over economic models or anything else, but don't pretend you know shit about science. As much as politicians make hay out of claiming otherwise, expertise counts. I've got drooling first years who are more qualified to an opinion on this than you.

[Bernanke]

At this point I honestly consider Merts position to deserve as much attention as that of an anti-vaxxer, GMO-hater, or even a flat earther.

[Reg]

"Don't pretend you know shit about science"

Ital. :cool:

[SvN]

Donned senseless.

[Byron]

I think that's the closest I've seen Ital losing his temper.

[Giggles]

John's right. This new mert is class.

[igor_balis]

Refusing to believe in anthropogenic climate change is idiotic.

[7om]

That's a lot of words just to call someone a cunt, Ital.

[Lewis]

If Mert takes that then he should be banned and Harold should be brought back.

[SvN]

I'm sure he's currently manically scouring /r/the_donald for a rebuttal.

[Pepe]

If Mert takes that then he should be banned and Harold should be brought back.

Yes to the first no to the second.

[-james-]

That's bullshit.

Climate modelling involves highly sophisticated ensemble modelling; it's not just one model, but rather a number of scientifically-based, mathematically-quantitative models put together. The results they produce are sound and consistent. Hell, it's been noted on the board that, for what it's worth, I've done mathematical climate modelling myself and have a firm understanding of the literature and science. Whereas what you know about science could be written on a postage stamp, and you'd still be able send a letter once you were done.

This is the idiocy of politics at the moment. The idea that scientific facts are subservient to political ends. I don't care if you want to quibble over economic models or anything else, but don't pretend you know shit about science. As much as politicians make hay out of claiming otherwise, expertise counts. I've got drooling first years who are more qualified to an opinion on this than you.

Liberal media tho.

[Bartholomert]

That's bullshit.

Climate modelling involves highly sophisticated ensemble modelling; it's not just one model, but rather a number of scientifically-based, mathematically-quantitative models put together. The results they produce are sound and consistent. Hell, it's been noted on the board that, for what it's worth, I've done mathematical climate modelling myself and have a firm understanding of the literature and science. Whereas what you know about science could be written on a postage stamp, and you'd still be able send a letter once you were done.

This is the idiocy of politics at the moment. The idea that scientific facts are subservient to political ends. I don't care if you want to quibble over economic models or anything else, but don't pretend you know shit about science. As much as politicians make hay out of claiming otherwise, expertise counts. I've got drooling first years who are more qualified to an opinion on this than you.

Got it, no questioning allowed :clap:

How has expertise been doing in bringing about a prosperous economy and security for the people? There's a reason why 'scientific facts' are no longer afforded the legitimacy they once were, back in the time before the Left infiltrated academia (after failing in the private sector).

Here is a a nice article outlining the bias of climatologists / climate change industry:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/04/the-state-of-climate-science-no-justification-for-extreme-policies

Have another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2bff0172171b


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Settled science eh? No point in questioning? Okay buddy.

[ItalAussie]

I know it's tempting to let inflated self-importance play the role of knowing stuff about stuff, but you actually don't know anything about science.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[Bartholomert]

There's another study knocking about (that I haven't been able to find yet) about how a climatologists self-professed political leanings were the single best predictor of their views on climate change. Surely politics has nothing to do with 'scientific fact' though right?

At Duke the only kids who studied environmental science were extreme-left hippies from California who couldn't cut it in pre-med or a traditional STEM like chemistry, biology, statistics, etc.

[Bartholomert]

I know it's tempting to let inflated self-importance play the role of knowing stuff about stuff, but you actually don't know anything about science.

You're embarrassing yourself.

I'll stop 'talking about science' when you pledge to never talk about economics or politics again; seem fair?

[ItalAussie]

I've taught far too many economists for that. :D

That said, if they (as in, not undergrads, although that'd be a fun exercise) ever came to a global consensus, it'd certainly be worth hearing.

[Pepe]

Mert trying to pass as an expert in economics and politics. :D

[Bartholomert]

I've taught far too many economists for that. :D

That said, if they ever came to a global consensus, it'd certainly be worth hearing.

Is this the same consensus the Forbes article says doesn't exist...or?

[ItalAussie]

Is this the same consensus the Forbes article says doesn't exist...or?
A study on a thousand geoengineers run by a business school in a management journal with an impact factor of three and a half? Hold me.

Again, I have a passing familiarity with the actual scientific literature, and the actual scientific science. Anyone who understands one or both of those things knows the state of play. The solution for you here is to stop looking for sources that support you and working backwards, and actually learning enough science to accurately appraise the state of scientific literature.

[Bartholomert]

A study on a thousand geoengineers run by a business school in a journal with an impact factor of three and a half?

Again, I have a passing familiarity with the actual scientific literature, and the actual scientific science.

"I disagree with studies that don't yield results that I emotionally believe to be true"

Here's another:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/


Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found.

[John]

John's right. This new mert is class.

What?

[ItalAussie]

"I disagree with studies that don't yield results that I emotionally believe to be true"
The thing is, you don't understand how stupid you sound. You're scientifically illiterate.

The science disagrees with you. No matter what metric you want to choose - the state of human understanding, the accepted knowledge of experts in the field, the mathematics used to process and model the behaviour. Short of teaching you the math and science from the ground up (and it truly is the very ground with you), I don't know what else to tell you. If you're not willing to accept that experts who spend their lives studying a thing know about that thing, then you aren't actually in a position to be swayed by any kind of rational debate. I mean, we could work through the science from the ground up, but it's been a long time since I've done middle school statistics, so it could take a while to get you there.

You can't accurately describe the state of the literature, the scientific mechanism, or the mathematical modelling. Your opinion is uninformed - you simply have no foundation for an informed opinion. However, given that you're happy to use ego as a substitute for knowledge, I'm sure it won't stop you. We also both know that nothing I could say - up to and including a comprehensive literature review of the state of expert understanding in the field - would actually convince you. But just be aware of how ignorant it makes you sound.

[Pepe]

Ital mate, he has access to Google. That makes him an expert of everything.

[Bartholomert]

The thing is, you don't understand how stupid you sound. You're scientifically illiterate.

The science disagrees with you. No matter what metric you want to choose - the state of human understanding, the accepted knowledge of experts in the field, the mathematics used to process and model the behaviour. Short of teaching you the math and science from the ground up (and it truly is the very ground with you), I don't know what else to tell you. If you're not willing to accept that experts who spend their lives studying a thing know about that thing, then you aren't actually in a position to be swayed by any kind of rational debate. I mean, we could work through the science from the ground up, but it's been a long time since I've done middle school statistics, so it could take a while to get you there.

You can't accurately describe the state of the literature, the scientific mechanism, or the mathematical modelling. Your opinion is uninformed - you simply have no foundation for an informed opinion. However, given that you're happy to use ego as a substitute for knowledge, I'm sure it won't stop you. We also both know that nothing I could say - up to and including a comprehensive literature review of the state of expert understanding in the field - would actually convince you. But just be aware of how ignorant it makes you sound.

"There is a consensus that should not be questioned"

Okay great. I just posted two studies showing this is not the case. Now what?

[Pen]

This thread has reminded me of the painful exercise that Ital has apparently decided to on here.

I absolutely despise arguing with people who treat al written text as equal proof. Luckily situations like this are relatively rare as I tend to avoid spending my precious time arguing with retards but it is excruciatingly tedious to find yourself in situation within a discussion (or even an argument) where you seriously think about starting to explain why every written word isn't as credible as the next one.

[ItalAussie]

"There is a consensus that should not be questioned"

Okay great. I just posted two studies showing this is not the case. Now what?

A consensus among experts in the field. Rock engineers are not experts in the field.

I don't know what to tell you. Even the most cursory look through the literature will tell you that the experts in the field are largely in agreement. The fact that Forbes had to delve into the deepest backwaters of academic publishing to find even one study - a study about the feelings of a totally tangential sample population who are largely engineers rather than even researchers in any field - will tell you how far you have to stretch to find significant disagreement.

[Adramelch]

"Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”."

That metric. :D

[Mazuuurk]

This is so much fun.

Mert is like a neanderthal being ripped to pieces by Itals Machinegun of Donnage.

[Bartholomert]

A consensus among experts in the field. Rock engineers are not experts in the field.

I don't know what to tell you. Even the most cursory look through the literature will tell you that the experts in the field are largely in agreement. The fact that Forbes had to delve into the deepest backwaters of academic publishing to find even one study - a study about the feelings of a totally tangential sample population who are largely engineers rather than even researchers in any field - will tell you how far you have to stretch to find significant disagreement.

Dutch study:

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

You can find the Fields of Expertise / Professional Backgrounds on page 21.

I expect a groveling retraction in the next post.


This is so much fun.

Mert is like a neanderthal being ripped to pieces by Itals Machinegun of Donnage.

He's wrong. Utterly and completely. I have posted two studies now disproving what he claims and he refuses to accept it, a perfect encapsulation of the 'objectivity' of 'scientific fact'.

[Lewis]

This is where Harold would have started shifting. Not Mert. :cool:

[Pepe]

Here's another:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

http://i.imgur.com/E1PG59J.jpg

Lol

[Pepe]

Add an extra lol to relying on fucking surveys.

[Pen]

This is where Harold would have started shifting. Not Mert. :cool:

They do share the trait of not reading their sources apart from the keyword they're looking for though.

[Mazuuurk]

Also, Mert, you realize that the study you posted conducted in 2012, at which point - I believe - the debate about the realness of Global Warming theories was... well it probably wasn't legitimate even then, but it was at least more debated, I think.

You speak so much about how you keep an open and informed mind, but the more I see you post the more I get the feeling you live in a tiny tiny little bubble.



EDIT: That said as well, looking through the study itself I'm wondering if you even checked it, because most of the responses are affirming that the participants do indeed think humans are causing global warming.

[Bartholomert]

They do share the trait of not reading their sources apart from the keyword they're looking for though.

I read the sources, Ital is taking issue with the fact that the first survey wasn't in an adequately prestigious journal and targeted geoscientists (who are apparently totally unqualified to have an opinion on the topic).

What does a geoscientist do you might ask:

- Predicting the behavior of Earth systems and the universe.
- Determining geological controls on natural environments and habitats and predicting the impact of human activities on them.
- Understanding global climate patterns.

http://www.bucknell.edu/arts-and-sciences-college-of/academic-departments/geology-and-environmental-geosciences/what-is-a-geoscientist.html

Yep they seem unqualified to have an opinion...actually no it seems like Ital is desperately coping at being exposed for his own blind prejudice.

[Pepe]

:D

Keep up the good fight.

[ItalAussie]

Did you read that Dutch study, mert? The more expertise people have in climate science and related fields, the more they agree with the IPCC stance.

Look, here's the thing. I'm not going to go through and pick apart every article you dig out of the Heritage Foundation, every study you misconstrue, and every two-bit backwater journal you mistake for a credible source (for example, geoengineers are very different to climate scientists - or even geoscientists; I'd trust a practicing electrical engineer to wire up a power plant, but I wouldn't ask them to explain the electromagnetic force equations - engineers need to know precisely enough to do their job). Do you know why? Because I read and understand the actual scientific literature in the actual scientific journals. That's part of my job. Short of giving you the education you need to be able to do the same, all I can do is assure you that I'm qualified to make this call based on the vast preponderance of first-hand sources. I don't have to rely on reporting or media talking heads to tell me what it all means and who to believe.

I could go through each figure in that document and show you why, weirdly, it supports my point. I could carefully explain the role of geoengineers, and why they aren't relevant experts. I could explain journal rankings, and what they mean. But that's all mind-numbingly dull, and you'd just dig up another article for me to waste time doing the same. Because nothing I say could possibly convince you - ironically, you don't actually know enough to be convinced by scientific argument, because you don't actually possess enough knowledge for there to be scientific misapprehensions to fix. So I'm just going to assure you that the science holds up, the literature is overwhelmingly in agreement - especially that found in credible scientific journals about science, and that the mathematics, while complicated, is very, very sound. You will continue to disagree, because you don't actually know anything, but you're wrong, and your opinion is uninformed. And there is literally nothing I can say that can change that.

[Bartholomert]

Also, Mert, you realize that the study you posted conducted in 2012, at which point - I believe - the debate about the realness of Global Warming theories was... well it probably wasn't legitimate even then, but it was at least more debated, I think.

You speak so much about how you keep an open and informed mind, but the more I see you post the more I get the feeling you live in a tiny tiny little bubble.

So we develop unequivocal unassailable consensus on global climate patterns on the basis of...3-4 years of additional data?

[Mazuuurk]

Here's an exercise for you Mert:

- See how many studies (not articles) you can find debunking global warming
- See how many studies you can find that affirm global warming

[Bartholomert]

Did you read that Dutch study, mert? The more expertise people have in climate science and related fields, the more they agree with the IPCC stance.

Look, here's the thing. I'm not going to go through and pick apart every article you dig out of the Heritage Foundation, every study you misconstrue, and every two-bit backwater journal you mistake for a credible source. Do you know why? Because I read and understand the actual scientific literature in the actual scientific journals. That's part of my job. Short of giving you the education you need to be able to do the same, all I can do is assure you that I'm qualified to make this call based on the vast preponderance of first-hand sources. I don't have to rely on reporting or media talking heads to tell me what it all means and who to believe.

I could go through each figure and show you why, weirdly, it supports my point. But that's dull, and you'd just dig up another article for me to waste time doing the same. Because nothing I say could possibly convince you. So I'm just going to assure you that the science holds up, the literature is overwhelmingly in agreement - especially that found in credible scientific journals about science, and that the mathematics, while complicated, is very, very sound. You're wrong, and your opinion is uninformed.

Okay buddy. I would counter with the fact that the climatologists are more likely to be left-leaning environmentalists than those other branches.

PS I recognize that global warming is probably happening, is probably caused by humans and that there is a pretty comprehensive scientific consensus, but I strongly condemn the illiberal "settled science that shouldn't be questioned" attitude and dishonest exaggerations from the environmental lobby.

[Pepe]

Giving up already? I had you to keep going for at least a couple more pages.

[Mazuuurk]

So we develop unequivocal unassailable consensus on global climate patterns on the basis of...3-4 years of additional data?

Of course not.

But look at the spiral-graph Bernanke posted. I've seen several like it, and they all grow exponentially. What I'm saying is that, however stupid it may have been in 2012, it was probably still a somewhat valid debate at that point (I'm being generous here though). Today, you can't even say that.

[SvN]

Cucked by Ital. Mert's ex will be snapchatting Ital photos of her gaping arsehole any second now.

[ItalAussie]

PS I recognize that global warming is probably happening, is probably caused by humans and that there is a pretty comprehensive scientific consensus, but I strongly condemn the illiberal "settled science that shouldn't be questioned" attitude and dishonest exaggerations from the environmental lobby.
It should absolutely be questioned. But, like any other scientific field, you need a certain amount of scientific literacy to question it credibly.

If you - based on feelings rather than any mathematical/physical basis - just decided you didn't believe in black holes, we'd laugh you out of the room. If you came back and showed that our understanding of Einstein's equations was flawed, and that Schwarzchild had made a mistake, we'd publish your paper in Nature. In order to question credibly, your objection must be of a more rigourous academic standard than a child complaining that they don't like the answers.

[Mazuuurk]

Okay buddy. I would counter with the fact that the climatologists are more likely to be left-leaning environmentalists than those other branches.

PS I recognize that global warming is probably happening, is probably caused by humans and that there is a pretty comprehensive scientific consensus, but I strongly condemn the illiberal "settled science that shouldn't be questioned" attitude and dishonest exaggerations from the environmental lobby.


You realize that telling a scientist that their political or otherwise personal views will sway their ability to make scientific judgemental calls is probably the highest form of insult you can give a scientist?

[Mazuuurk]

Ah, he caved in.

Lol guys I was just tryna make a point lol calm down, errybody should just be critical of all ideas lol. Global warmung is totes for real dude.

[ItalAussie]

You realize that telling a scientist that their political or otherwise personal views will sway their ability to make scientific judgemental calls is probably the highest form of insult you can give a scientist?

I don't care. Mert's not here for the science, and no amount of science is going to sway him.

This is more a general lashing out at this weird idea fermenting away in modern politics that facts are irrelevant, and a systematic chipping away at the idea of expertise in itself - as if anything that some pinhead can't explain in a soundbyte is fundamentally worthless. At some point "I know this is complicated but I spent my life studying this and have a certain degree of credibility" needs to be an acceptable answer to a non-expert. :(

[Bartholomert]

It should absolutely be questioned. But, like any other scientific field, you need a certain amount of scientific literacy to question it credibly.

If you - based on feelings rather than any mathematical/physical basis - just decided you didn't believe in black holes, we'd laugh you out of the room. If you came back and showed that our understanding of Einstein's equations was flawed, and that Schwarzchild had made a mistake, we'd publish your paper in Nature. In order to question credibly, your objection must be of a more rigourous academic standard than a child complaining that they don't like the answers.

That's not how human psychology works. Genuinely not sure if you get that.


Ah, he caved in.

Lol guys I was just tryna make a point lol calm down, errybody should just be critical of all ideas lol. Global warmung is totes for real dude.

Only because I'm at work and am doing important LAWYER stuff I need to focus on. Ital got lucky.

[ItalAussie]

That's not how human psychology works. Genuinely not sure if you get that.


It is how science works, and I know you don't get that. There's no better way to establish yourself as a leader in your field than to knock over some existing wisdom with your new insights. It's the fast route to the top, and everyone knows it.

EDIT: I wasn't going to respond to the other thing, but I'm genuinely surprised that you seem to think you're punching any kind of weight here. Like, surely you recognise that we can all see you're bluffing in a game where you don't actually know the rules, or even have any cards.

[Mazuuurk]

Oh ok yes of course, Mert.

[Pepe]

Only because I'm at work and am doing important LAWYER stuff I need to focus on. Ital got lucky.

Gotta go get that coffee before it gets cold.

[Ian]

I'll invite bees into the ecosystem of my massive hole.

This another of your specialist hobbies?

[randomlegend]

It's quite worrying how poor Mert is at appraising evidence considering he wants to be a lawyer. Italy's right that he doesn't understand even basic science, but the above should be a core skill for his chosen career, surely?

I guess he's testing his ability at coming up with bullshit attempts to win a lost case.

[Giggles]

I don't understand why Mert is getting such a hard time here. The initial thing that got him going was basically somone saying the world is fucked within 35 years or whatever. When it won't be, it will be absolutely fine. You can't all surely believe we will all start dying in that time right? right??

Or are you just having a go cos Mert is an easy target? None of what Ital has said has been any better or substantiated than what Mert has been saying.

But you dare not question Ital on anything. Nobody here would ever.

[randomlegend]

Leeds revolution, giggles and mert.

Dream team.

[niko_cee]

It's quite worrying how poor Mert is at appraising evidence considering he wants to be a lawyer. Italy's right that he doesn't understand even basic science, but the above should be a core skill for his chosen career, surely?

I guess he's testing his ability at coming up with bullshit attempts to win a lost case.

Corporate/commercial law has very little to do with what you might imagine it does, which is where I would imagine Mert is aiming himself.

[randomlegend]

Corporate/commercial law has very little to do with what you might imagine it does, which is where I would imagine Mert is aiming himself.

Well I don't know anything about it so I'm going to say you're wrong.

[niko_cee]

:D

A sound strategy.

[igor_balis]

http://i.makeagif.com/media/10-26-2015/yOHB2y.gif

Mert is the Krusty Burglar.

[Spikey M]

Who remembers when Mert said he most closely identified with the communists? What times.

[Shindig]

That opening spirograph does show how much the earth's warmed up. As we build more shit and have more kids, we're accelerating it. Although, if we started dying out, could it be reversed?

[Yevrah]

We're sure as shit not going to be wiped out inside 20 years though, so either whoever came up with the 3.5 increase being the tipping point is a fraud or the agency saying we'll reach that by 2035 are indulging in ludicrous scaremongering.

[Kikó]

How could you possibly be so sure?

[GS]

I assume those who are genuinely concerned about it cycle everywhere and refuse to use aeroplanes given how damaging they are to the economy.

[Pepe]

Cycling can be pretty inefficient energy wise too, depending on what you eat.

[Yevrah]

How could you possibly be so sure?

Because if there were any chance whatsoever that humankind was facing extinction at current run rates inside 20 years someone would have called Bruce Willis.

[Lewis]

Ideally, the world will end the day after Magic pays his mortgage off.

[GS]

Cycling can be pretty inefficient energy wise too, depending on what you eat.

So presumably they should sit at home and starve to death, as there's no efficient way to bring food to the house.

This whole thing is pointless. There's fuck all anybody can do about it, so just get on with it. I'd have more respect for people if they didn't suit themselves, like that Di Caprio lad who took a private jet from France to America to pick up an environmental award. Top, top work.

[Pepe]

Urban farming mate.

[Reg]

Presumably the only thing that would make a significant difference is developed nations drastically change how they do everything, which will require non-politicians going along with big sacrifices. But I can't imagine that will happen in the next couple decades.

[GS]

Why would anybody bother changing their habits?

[Reg]

I don't think they will.


Won't happen in the next couple of decades you say? Well we are all dead then. Fucking brilliant.

Not everyone is predicting 2035, and it's not like politicians will listen to those who are.

[Spikey M]

Presumably the only thing that would make a significant difference is developed nations drastically change how they do everything, which will require non-politicians going along with big sacrifices. But I can't imagine that will happen in the next couple decades.

And good luck convincing developing nations to stop trying to catch up.

[Bernanke]

And good luck convincing developing nations to stop trying to catch up.

They leap-frogged with cellphones, they will leapfrog with clean energy as well. Micro-solar in Africa is going to be massive.

It's all down to battery tech at this point really.

[GS]

Great. Then we can invade and requisition / control what we need to.

[Yevrah]

I don't think they will.



Not everyone is predicting 2035, and it's not like politicians will listen to those who are.

Politicians aren't listening to those predicting 2035 because it's bollocks. If it was the accepted understanding of how events would unfold then we'd be at defcon 3 by now.

[Reg]

You're probably right (not that I would know).

[Lewis]

I've become a right recycling dickhead, so I'm doing my bit.

[Yevrah]

Talking of recycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36882799

Lol at the coffee wankers.

[Giggles]

Talking of recycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36882799

Lol at the coffee wankers.

I heard that pox was doing some sort of campaign. Could he not have stuck to making soup from pigs ears?

[Magic]

Ideally, the world will end the day after Magic pays his mortgage off.

Never?

[Magic]

Also I'm a recycling Nazi. Our local council introduced recycling everything for a year and it was great, gave me a real hard on but they've just scrapped glass from the list due to CUTBACKS.

They've also shut two waste centres. Cunts.

[Giggles]

We have the normal three bins. The recycling and garden/food ones were free and the other waste one was charged by lift. Now they've started charging all the same for each so I stopped bothering with the sorting and bung it all in together in the main bin. The food waste goes in the ditch on the way to work.

Changing the pricing structure will tell you how much the gimps running things give a fuck here.

[Disco]

Giggles rolls around the board complaining about the standards then jumps right in on the bin talk. The world is truly on it's arse.

[Giggles]

Complaining about fucking what now?

What are you on about?

[elth]

Yup, we're totally fucked. By choice too, people would rather argue about tax credits and trade blocks than de-carbonise the economy.

Remarkable, but that's humans for you.

[Bartholomert]

I've become a right recycling dickhead, so I'm doing my bit.

My academic adviser at Duke was an anti-recycling activist:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/06/03/michael-c-munger/recycling-can-it-be-wrong-when-it-feels-so-right

[niko_cee]

Those first two sentences.

:D

[Davgooner]

The consensus seems to be that we're already at the point of no return. Maybe if our governments weren't in the hands of big business more would have been done.

Hillary's platform includes a plan to 'transition' to clean energy using fracking as a 'temporary' bridge. :face:

[Bartholomert]

The consensus seems to be that we're already at the point of no return. Maybe if our governments weren't in the hands of big business more would have been done.

Hillary's platform includes a plan to 'transition' to clean energy using fracking as a 'temporary' bridge. :face:

Are you ready for electricity and private transportation to be a commodity for only the rich to enjoy? If not, please kindly reevaluate your facepalm.

[phonics]

The consensus seems to be that we're already at the point of no return. Maybe if our governments weren't in the hands of big business more would have been done.

Hillary's platform includes a plan to 'transition' to clean energy using fracking as a 'temporary' bridge. :face:

And the clean energy involves 'clean coal' so you know it's going to be a gud time.

Although I did have an interesting conversation last night with a guy who works at Tesla on their enterprise energy programs. Apparently WalMarts are installing giant battery racks that are hooked up to Solar Panels and if they don't get enough charge out of those then they charge over night as the US still has off-peak hours for electricity usage. Saves them an absolute shit ton of money apparently.

[Bartholomert]

...do you realize what the consequences of these 'clean energy policies' will be for the vast majority of the population? Seriously, what do you think happens when we switch to incredibly expensive and unreliable forms of 'clean energy'? Explain your vision for me.

Because the reality will be families freezing to death over the winter because they can't afford electricity. I guess this is where the government subsidizes it? Okay with what money? More taxes? Great now all the business have left so there are no jobs. Now what?

[phonics]

As I said above, I think batteries will get to the point where we can just store large amounts of energy and super charge out of them at such a rate that while we'll still be reliant on electricity, it'll be an infinitesimal amount in comparison to what we currently use today. You just don't need coal and fracking (christ, that is literally the worst idea I've ever heard) to create it.

All done by a company that hasn barely outsourced a thing. Elon Musk for President.

[Pepe]

And the clean energy involves 'clean coal' so you know it's going to be a gud time.

If avoiding carbon emissions is the goal, 'clean coal' works just fine.


...do you realize what the consequences of these 'clean energy policies' will be for the vast majority of the population? Seriously, what do you think happens when we switch to incredibly expensive and unreliable forms of 'clean energy'? Explain your vision for me.

Because the reality will be families freezing to death over the winter because they can't afford electricity. I guess this is where the government subsidizes it? Okay with what money? More taxes? Great now all the business have left so there are no jobs. Now what?

Again talking about something you know nothing about I see. Go on, get to that Googling.

[Pepe]

As I said above, I think batteries will get to the point where we can just store large amounts of energy and super charge out of them at such a rate that while we'll still be reliant on electricity, it'll be an infinitesimal amount in comparison to what we currently use today.

Where do you think the energy to charge those batteries will come from? You're making no sense, batteries would not decrease the amount of electricity we use, at all.

[Mazuuurk]

The way I understand it, and by understand it I mean I asked a friend who did some sort of studies in the area - is that storing energy of any kind is actually quite tricky business. Best way seemed to be to take the leftover energy from, say, Powerplant A after all the households it services are serviced, and use that leftover energy to pump water up huge turbines or silos or some such, where it'll be stored to be released later, thus creating "new" energy as it were. Although this happens at a pretty huge loss, like 60% or more, so it seemed like it wasn't much of a profitable endeavour really.

So I reckon, that even if they cover a small part of Sahara in sun cells that'll power the whole damn world, the challange will rather lie in the distribution of said power, specially across nations with warlords and shady governments and what have you that'll just end up charging too much for it anyway or otherwise exploit it in whatever way they can.

But you know, small steps. Better than nothing.

[Adramelch]

The way I understand it, and by understand it I mean I asked a friend who did some sort of studies in the area - is that storing energy of any kind is actually quite tricky business. Best way seemed to be to take the leftover energy from, say, Powerplant A after all the households it services are serviced, and use that leftover energy to pump water up huge turbines or silos or some such, where it'll be stored to be released later, thus creating "new" energy as it were. Although this happens at a pretty huge loss, like 60% or more, so it seemed like it wasn't much of a profitable endeavour really.

Yes that is the current way of saving energy, but as you say it's at a huge loss (60% seems a bit on the high end, but I haven't worked on hydroelectric plants for more than 6-7 years so my memory is kinda meh at best) and also it requires a rather sizeable cost of actually building the hydroelectric plant. It's something that is becoming more and more common in the wind energy field (given that wind energy is unpredictable-ish and you can't guarantee it will be needed when it is actually produced).

[Boydy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/10/holy-grail-of-energy-policy-in-sight-as-battery-technology-smash/

That sounds promising.

[Giggles]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/10/holy-grail-of-energy-policy-in-sight-as-battery-technology-smash/

That sounds promising.

It's horrendously long, but how far am I from having a phone the same size as now that lasts for 5 days?

[Magic]

It'll never happen.

[phonics]

Scotland just provided it's first day of 100% renewable energy use yesterday. All power was generated by wind and solar (tbf it was a low usage day in the middle of summer so not like this could happen in the dead of winter or anything). It's really not as far off as anyone thinks. We've quadrupled the effectiveness of solar panels in just the last 5 years.

It's the future, if BP and friends had jumped on renewables instead of demonising them they'd already be set for the next 100 years.

[Magic]

It's not Scotland that's destroying the world though, is it?

[phonics]

After initial investment, renewable is cheaper to produce than fossil fuels, large countries like the US and China have the perfect landscapes for renewable as well with large mountainous areas for Wind and deserts for Solar. Just a matter of having strong enough batteries and efficient energy transfer.

[Pepe]

Anything that is 'five to ten years away' has a microscopic chance of ever becoming a viable reality. As for days fully covered by renewable energy, it doesn't really mean all that much. The capacity is there, it's just not there at will, which is what we're used to.

[Spikey M]

Isn't the manufacturing process of batteries filthy?

[Pepe]

It is, and also involves plenty of mining. Also if I recall correctly, most lithium reserves on the planet are situated in only two countries which I believe are Chile and Bolivia. Still probably much better than digging out coal, mind, but the politics/economics could get interesting.

[GS]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/10/holy-grail-of-energy-policy-in-sight-as-battery-technology-smash/

That sounds promising.

A round of applause for Liberal Democract Energy Secretary Ed Davey who "negotiated" a lol-inducing £92 adjusted for inflation. Top, top negotiating.

That said, making ourselves self-sufficient clearly has to be the goal. We can then fuck off Scotland's oil reserve for good because we won't need it.

[phonics]

Thought we had a thread on this but I can't find it.

I'm sure everyone will have seen this by next week but xkcd has nailed it.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

[Giggles]

Won't be alive in 2100. Don't have kids.

Sorted.

[Magic]

We're fucked, only an idiot would deny it. Cheers.

[Spammer]

What is the actual prediction on what will happen in the 'best case', 'optimistic' and 'current path' scenarios?

[Magic]

Best: some death
Optimistic: moar death
Worst: extinction.

[Pepe]

We shouldn't do anything about it! /GS

It's all BS made up by the liberal media and beta cuck scientists! /mert

[Pepe]

Whatever we'll adapt! /someone else

[Luke Emia]

I'm with Giggles. I'm not going to be around and if there's a bit of flooding most seaside towns are shit-holes anyway. Would be much better if somewhere like Cambridge ended up being on the sea rather than Skegness.

[five time]

We'll just move to Mars and live off potatoes while someone fixes Earth.

[Bernanke]

I think it'll take a while for the real effects to hurt us in the developed world to a significant degree.

Unless you're Holland or Belgium, in which case you probably should buy some snorkeling gear soon.

[Magic]

Serves those Benelux cunts right for deserting us. #fuckyounorberto

[Mazuuurk]

There was a thread, phonics, it was just called "We're fucked" or something like that.

[Bernanke]

Yeah, I should've chosen a clearer title for that one.

[Mazuuurk]

It was clear enough.

[phonics]

Bump it and I'll merge the threads.

[Bernanke]

Phonics. :wave:

[phonics]

I am just the best mod.

[Magic]

More threads? Nazi mods.

[mugbull]

Taking everything into account, Bangladesh is probably the saddest place in the world.

[Bernanke]

Taking everything into account, Bangladesh is probably the saddest place in the world.

The Maldives will go first though.

[mugbull]

Yeah but there ain't gonna be no refugee crisis of Maldivians. Bangladesh will flood (lol) into Calcutta. Two hundred million people living in the world's biggest floodplain, at sea level, in abjectly squalid conditions. Should be fun

[Magic]

Let's hope the fuckers die before coming over here.

[Kikó]

We need a star trek moment where we all just band together and strive to improve mankind. Then we could actually sort out the globe.

Until then, we're all dead. Dead dead dead.

[Giggles]

We need a star trek moment where we all just band together and strive to improve mankind. Then we could actually sort out the globe.

Until then, we're all dead. Dead dead dead.

By 2100 we're all dead dead dead anyway.

[Kikó]

Not me. I'll be immortal.

[Giggles]

Which was nice.

[Lewis]

Today was the hottest day since 1911 or something... Which means that it was hotter before 1911. Grow up, whingers.

[Yevrah]

This will probably wipe us out, won't it?

But, really, is it that much of a big deal? We'll have had our stint and something else will take over. We're really not that special.

[niko_cee]

It won't, and we probably are.

[Yevrah]

We're really not.

Ok, we rule the world now, but something will wipe us out eventually and there'll be nothing we can do about it.

[Manc]

Manchester is under water and the sky is pink. This is it.

[Pepe]

This will probably wipe us out, won't it?

But, really, is it that much of a big deal? We'll have had our stint and something else will take over. We're really not that special.

Might as well let terrorism do it then.

[GS]

We shouldn't do anything about it! /GS

I've always said it needs to be a huge co-ordinated international effort (see: China and America) and you or I putting a plastic bottle in the right bin is a bit pointless.

I'd also note that 'green levies' on business etc. are absolutely fucking stupid. They don't cut carbon emissions, they just export them to other countries who don't care. Well done, Ed Miliband, mate.

[Pepe]

I've always said it needs to be a huge co-ordinated international effort (see: China and America) and you or I putting a plastic bottle in the right bin is a bit pointless.

While true, the first world does have the moral obligation of getting the ball rolling (plus we're also in the best position to do so.) Justifying doing fuck all because 'India won't get on board anyway' is just taking the easy way out.

[GS]

While true, the first world does have the moral obligation of getting the ball rolling (plus we're also in the best position to do so.) Justifying doing fuck all because 'India won't get on board anyway' is just taking the easy way out.

I never said you "don't do anything", but there really needs to be some proper context for what is and isn't achievable. Once America and China are on board and start making serious inroads, you might get somewhere. I can't see it happening, because the Americans have too many domestic interests to cater to (regardless of what the executive branch tries to do) and the Chinese are too invested in driving economic growth through production.

It's why I loathe token gestures from smaller countries. As I mentioned, the UK introduced green levies which didn't exempt its own industry. It's meant huge increases in energy costs, which has contributed to driving companies out of business. It's not the sole factor, of course, but a significant one. When you take a step back and look objectively at it, what is the legislation doing? It's not cutting global emissions - it's simply making it too expensive to produce the goods (e.g. steel) here, thus it gets produced elsewhere instead.

If you're going to make in-roads, you need to change the game. Not just virtue signal in the way that many governments or individuals do. Once the Americans and Chinese are leading the way with a global initiative, let's get on board. Until then, the best thing to do is incentivise your average Joe by making it easy and / or giving them cash in exchange, develop your own sustainable (I think I read there's been considerable technological advance in terms of storage of energy, which could represent a considerable 'game changer' in the sustainable energy market) policy - which would also have the geopolitical impact of reducing reliance on imported oil and thus shafting OPEC, which would be great fun.

But, in conjunction with that, stop virtue signalling which cripples your own industry and does nothing to solve the problem. The Germans exempt their own industry, and yet here we are.

[Pepe]

It's why I loathe token gestures from smaller countries.

And there is the issue. They are token gestures. The UK, small or not, could go balls deep into it regardless of what China and/or the US decide to do or not do. Using their reluctance as an excuse is, again, taking the easy way out.

I do agree with 'incentivizing' the average Joe' but even in that front I don't think there is much going on. But at least some heroes are dealing with those evil women wearing pants on the beach.

[GS]

Yes, so why should the UK impose unilateral levies that have no impact whatsoever on anything? I'm fully behind our developing our own sustainable energy policy - not so much because of the climate change impact, but because I'd prefer self-sufficiency over importing - but we achieve nothing from levies and comparable policies that are implemented in a vacuum.

It's not using it as an excuse - it's being sensible about whether a pointless action is worth its symbolism. In this case, I'm afraid, it's not.

[Pepe]

You are talking about a specific measure, one you described as a token one too. What I would like to see, from anyone, is an actual commitment and an actual proper plan. How exactly the plan should look I do not know but so far it has been nothing but promises without an actual suggested path to reaching any of those promises.

[Magic]

Best thing to do immediately? Ban fucking cruises. There is no point in them and they are fucking horrendously dangerous to the environment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3602126/Massive-cruise-liners-spew-sulphurous-emissions-gas-day-376-MILLION-cars-revealed-experts-call-action-pollution-cause-port-cities.html

[Pepe]

Sulphur dioxide cools the environment, fwiw.

[Bernanke]

This will probably wipe us out, won't it?

But, really, is it that much of a big deal? We'll have had our stint and something else will take over. We're really not that special.

Depends on your definition of "wiping out". The human race going completely extinct would probably require all other life being impossible as well. We're resourceful as hell and there's 7 billion of us.

[GS]

You are talking about a specific measure, one you described as a token one too. What I would like to see, from anyone, is an actual commitment and an actual proper plan. How exactly the plan should look I do not know but so far it has been nothing but promises without an actual suggested path to reaching any of those promises.

The EU has targets by 2020, the UK has domestic legislation with targets to 2050. I suspect you'd dismiss any plan presented as "not extensive enough" or "a cop out" if one was ever proffered, because your default position is to decry something as "not sufficient" without actually knowing exactly what it is you want instead. That's fine, but you have to be vaguely sensible about what is and isn't achievable. Very, very few people are going to accept a significant decrease in living standard / disposable income for something that is, at best, an abstract concept. The tide would need to be licking their front door before they'd be particularly arsed about it.

In that context, I'd be throwing money at things like offshore wind, tidal energy and fracking - alternative energy sources which we could do well out of and where we should have ample supply of the former given we're a series of islands. Ireland already has an SEM. We're going to drive more, fly more, heat more homes, use more lights and have to burn more fossil fuels to make the steel et al to build all of this.

None of it you're avoiding, and all of which you can't do without. It means you need energy, and until the alternatives work we're going to burn fossil fuels. Because nobody is going to accept going without these things because "climate change, mate". You would be reliant on significant technological advance in sustainable energy, but that's how you're going to meet these arbitrary targets globally and address it internationally. So that's where the money should go - seeking the technological advances in energy generation and storage which make these things viable as genuine alternatives to burning fossil fuels. I'm hesitant about nuclear, on the grounds the plant could shit itself.

As I said, I don't particularly care about the climate change aspect of it from a UK perspective. But a reduction in energy importing would be welcome, and if you can encourage / drive a technology sector which supports it (with generous tax breaks for R&D, lads) then all the better.

[ItalAussie]

I never said you "don't do anything", but there really needs to be some proper context for what is and isn't achievable. Once America and China are on board and start making serious inroads, you might get somewhere. I can't see it happening, because the Americans have too many domestic interests to cater to (regardless of what the executive branch tries to do) and the Chinese are too invested in driving economic growth through production.
So do you think it's reasonable that if the US and China come to agreements (such as the Paris agreement which they reached about a month ago), the UK should follow suit?


The United States has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions, the world's two biggest economies said on Saturday, which could help put the pact into force before the end of the year.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping submitted their plan to join the agreement to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is in China to witness the announcement.

The leaders you want to lead are leading.

[GS]

So do you think it's reasonable that if the US and China come to agreements (such as the Paris agreement which they reached about a month ago), the UK should follow suit?

The leaders you want to lead are leading.

If the US and China actually implement policies against their own national interest, then perhaps you'll see some impact. Kyoto was considered seminal - I think you'd struggle to argue it wasn't a failure. In that context, I would be sceptical of seeing any serious movement on it as domestic political concerns will almost always trump internationalist environmental concerns, but it's down to them to bother doing something as they're the only major players who could. It's not like you can ask the Indians to impede their own economic development and the advancement of living standards because "climate change, mate".

My view from a UK perspective is to develop self-sufficiency through renewable means. That strategy largely sits in a vacuum, given we can do it irrespective of US/China involvement and / or strategies they may have developed bilaterally / multilaterally. So I would consider your point on the UK "following suit" to be fairly irrelevant to what we should be doing.

[ItalAussie]

Fine. But if you're not going to advocate following suit when the US and China do implement actions, you have to realise that we can't possibly take "the US and China aren't doing it" as a good-faith objection.

But considering your goalposts have shifted from "it's not happening" to "it's happening naturally" to "even if we're causing it, it's not a problem" to "welp, nothing we can do about it now" over our time together on TD, another shift is hardly shocking.


EDIT: Also, India is the next big nation at the table on this particular agreement. I presume that if hop on board, you'll insist on holding off until, I don't know, Brazil, Germany, or Indonesia get on board? There'll always be someone. But this just isn't a problem that can be solved locally in the end. Although renewable self-sufficiency is certainly an important step.

[GS]

Where have I insisted the UK should hold off on anything? You're not getting anywhere until you cut down on fossil fuels. We have no means of cutting down on fossil fuels because we have no serious alternatives to it. Nuclear is an option, but Hinckley Point is ludicrously expensive (we can thank the Lib Dems for that) and you have to question how safe nuclear is. However, sustainable alternatives must be developed. They're not there yet because it's too expensive and doesn't produce enough electricity for the capital invested to get it up and running. Technological advance can change that, so that's where the money should go.

So I really don't care what the USA / China does on climate change - it doesn't impact what the UK can and should be doing in the context of developing a national energy policy that isn't going to leave us increasingly reliant on importing.

For the avoidance of doubt, I personally don't care about it as an issue. But for those who do, they should be looking to what the US / China do - not what bits of paper they sign.

[Jimmy Floyd]

If we wait until India get on board for a multinational agreement, we'll be waiting a while.

[GS]

If we wait until India get on board for a multinational agreement, we'll be waiting a while.

Again, you can't really ask the Indians to bugger their own economic development because it'll make Ital's socks go up and down in the morning.

[Pepe]

It is possible to keep burning fossil fuels and also reduce CO2 emissions. Wind and solar are not the only option, although it is often portrayed as such.

[ItalAussie]

Again, you can't really ask the Indians to bugger their own economic development because it'll make Ital's socks go up and down in the morning.
These things have to be pursued sustainably. India has a lot to lose from climate change; Mumbai is their biggest city and financial capital, and it's right on the front line to bear the brunt.

The US and China both agreeing to a course of action has a lot of traction among sensible states.

[niko_cee]

In terms of the mass extinction - if humans did kark it would that be one of the fastest inceptions to extinctions of any species going? Most things knocked about for millions of years before we (or a big rock) came along and wiped them out.

[ItalAussie]

Hard to tell. The shorter the time something lived, the less we're likely to know about it.

This is an interesting read on the expected time for extinction of humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

I don't know that I really buy into their mathematical arguments, but it's a curious thought experiment.


Denoting by N the total number of humans who were ever or will ever be born, the Copernican principle suggests that humans are equally likely (along with the other N − 1 humans) to find themselves at any position n of the total population N, so humans assume that our fractional position f = n/N is uniformly distributed on the interval [0, 1] prior to learning our absolute position.

f is uniformly distributed on (0, 1) even after learning of the absolute position n. That is, for example, there is a 95% chance that f is in the interval (0.05, 1), that is f > 0.05. In other words, we could assume that we could be 95% certain that we would be within the last 95% of all the humans ever to be born. If we know our absolute position n, this implies an upper bound for N obtained by rearranging n/N > 0.05 to give N < 20n.

If Leslie's figure[5] is used, then 60 billion humans have been born so far, so it can be estimated that there is a 95% chance that the total number of humans N will be less than 20 × 60 billion = 1.2 trillion. Assuming that the world population stabilizes at 10 billion and a life expectancy of 80 years, it can be estimated that the remaining 1,140 billion humans will be born in 9,120 years. Depending on the projection of world population in the forthcoming centuries, estimates may vary, but the main point of the argument is that it is unlikely that more than 1.2 trillion humans will ever live on Earth. I'm not sure what I think about the conclusions (there's a lot of built-in assumptions there), but the math has been used for more prosaic purposes to some effect, so take it as you will.

[Shindig]

We can survive in higher temperatures than this.

[GS]

These things have to be pursued sustainably. India has a lot to lose from climate change; Mumbai is their biggest city and financial capital, and it's right on the front line to bear the brunt.

The US and China both agreeing to a course of action has a lot of traction among sensible states.

Great, but India is a democracy and political concerns (like raising living standards, educational attainment etc. through rapid economic development) are going to come before an abstract concept about what sea levels might do if X, Y and Z all happen.

I'm not having a go, by the way, but it's easy to pay lip service to the idea whilst putting the power plants into overdrive regardless.

[ItalAussie]

I realise it's not the focus of your point, and I'm mostly just quibbling here, but I question your use of "abstract concept". Climate change is definitely a concrete concept. It's physical and can be measured. It's not a concept like love, envy, or rationality.

Also, the use of "might" is rather dismissive there - you can't surely still doubt what's going on? Given you don't seem inclined to believe science telling us what's happening in the first place, it's a touch ironic that you expect science to get us out of any problems that may arise.

[GS]

I think you've misunderstood my point. In the context of Indian domestic politics, things like - jobs, housing, living standards, education - are real and tangible to voters. They'll vote on that, and it's what the electorate will want the government to deliver.

Climate change is happening, but for 99.99% of people, they simply don't care. Mumbai's on "the front line"? So what? It's an abstract concept to them, because it's all theoretical about what might or might not happen or when it might or might not happen. In the meantime, they want better lives. So they're not going to vote for any government which puts "this should happen but we're not sure where exactly, when exactly or even how bad it might or might not be exactly" ahead of "more jobs, more schools, more infrastructure, better lives for all - but we'll have to burn a few fossil fuels to get there". It's abstract concepts versus tangible change.

The lack of "relevance" as a major issue is why the Green party are barely relevant in the UK. There's a small number of people who care a great deal, and a large number of people who aren't - ultimately - particularly interested.

And as I've said previously, I don't think it's entirely acceptable for anybody to say that India embarking on rapid economic development, regardless of short-term environment impact, should be sacrificed for "climate change" policies. It's easy for already developed countries to lecture, I suppose.

[Spoonsky]

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-na-sej-climate-accord-20160921-snap-story.html

Thanks Trump.

[Bernanke]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/goodbye-world-weve-passed-the-carbon-tipping-point-for-good

http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1475015483983587.jpg


According to a blog post last Friday from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “it already seems safe to conclude that we won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year—or ever again for the indefinite future.”


What’s so terrifying about this number? For several years now, scientists have been warning us that if atmospheric carbon were allowed to surpass 400 parts per million, it would mark a serious “tipping point” into some unstoppable climate ramifications.

Summers are going to be even better. :drool:

[Kikó]

Climate change is a myth.

[Smiffy]

.....

[randomlegend]

And the literal billions of people who might die because of it?

[Kikó]

That isn't what climate change is you know.

[Giggles]

And the literal billions of people who might die because of it?

They don't exist yet.

[Lewis]

What would 'literal billions of people' getting dead do to atmospheric carbon levels?

[phonics]

Germany have voted to ban the internal combustion engine by 2030...

785494352617435140

[Giggles]

Germany have voted to ban the internal combustion engine by 2030...

785494352617435140


Pill food and bans on emotion to follow by 2035.

[The Merse]

It's entirely reasonable, and an EU wide agreement would be welcome in my book. If you can't afford to go electric (which would be as cheap as FF'd by then anyway) or just don't want to do so, then they get the electric public transport.

Reasonably proud that we've got Electric buses for my commute in Bristol now too.

[phonics]

Reasonably proud that we've got Electric buses for my commute in Bristol now too.

All our inner city stuff runs on electricity (trams and buses), I'll never forget seeing a bus in Swansea that clearly hadn't been replaced since the 80s with a big 'Go Green, Use Public Transport' sign on the back while bellowing out reams of black smoke. It would have been greener for every individual on the bus to catch a cab.

[The Merse]

All our inner city stuff runs on electricity (trams and buses), I'll never forget seeing a bus in Swansea that clearly hadn't been replaced since the 80s with a big 'Go Green, Use Public Transport' sign on the back while bellowing out reams of black smoke. It would have been greener for every individual on the bus to catch a cab.

And normally with about 3 people in it too in Swansea.

[Lewis]

The electricity is generated by laughter, and the batteries are special ones that don't require loads of Chinese rare earths extracted at a massive environmental cost.

[Pepe]

It's entirely reasonable

No it is not, unless we're ditching the whole transportation industry.

[phonics]

And normally with about 3 people in it too in Swansea.

At a pound fifty a STOP I was amazed anyone got it at all. I used to live at the top of Mount Pleasant so I'd take it from Tesco to there after a big shop but I eventually started calling cabs because it was cheaper.

[niko_cee]

The resolution is non-binding.

Why bother?

[Pepe]

The resolution is non-binding.

Why bother?

To make a STATEMENT.

[The Merse]

The electricity is generated by laughter, and the batteries are special ones that don't require loads of Chinese rare earths extracted at a massive environmental cost.

With the accompanying moves to solar, hydro and nuclear. The combination of which already accounts for around a third of Germany's power.

[The Merse]

The resolution is non-binding.

Why bother?

Such agreements essentially make it easier legislate down the line - it's accepted that this is the position of the government, so it should incentivise the proposal of drafts to that effect.

[Lewis]

Isn't Germany phasing its nuclear plants out?

[The Merse]

Isn't Germany phasing its nuclear plants out?

Yup. They're relying more on FF's than before too.

However. In the case of vehicles, it's more efficient to use the FF's to produce electricity than in internal combustion engines.

[Bernanke]

Ital wanted Mert to troll in the correct thread, so let's bump it.

The Arctic is currently undergoing a massive heatwave:

https://i.sli.mg/PUK1J7.png

Red line: 2016
Green line: calculated from data from 1958-2002
Blue line: melting point of ice in Kelvin

https://i.sli.mg/pc23vw.png

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/17/the-north-pole-is-an-insane-36-degrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/?tid=sm_tw


Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., agrees that something odd is going on. Not only are air temperatures unusually warm, but water temperatures are as well. “There are some areas in the Arctic Ocean that are as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit above average now,” Serreze said. “It’s pretty crazy.”

What’s happening, he explains, is sort of a “double whammy.” On the one hand, there is a “very warm underlying ocean” due to the lack of sea ice forming above it. But, at the same time, kinks in the jet stream have allowed warm air to flow northward and frigid Arctic air to descend over Siberia.

[Bernanke]

Two more charts for the anomaly above:

http://i.imgur.com/6OctW9El.jpg

https://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2016/nsidc_global_area_normanomaly-11.17.16.jpg

An ice-free Arctic is going to be really interesting politically.

[Lewis]

I'm on board with this, but haven't they been predicting the imminent demise of the ice craps for about forty years?

[Bernanke]

Didn't we have a fairly impactful El Niño this past year? That in combination with overall rising temps might have finally pushed it over some threshold.

I'm not sure if this will actually have an impact short-term. My understanding is that almost all of the ice in the Arctic is below sea-level, which means that even if all of it melted you wouldn't get any significant change in sea-levels around the globe.

[Shindig]

I wonder if, once humans are gone, the world will revert back to some sense of normality?

[phonics]

I've been meaning to read this book for years from an interview I saw. The author claimed that if we were to just vanish tomorrow with everything turned off, the planet would be over-taken by plants again within 10 years. Seemed really interesting. But I can't remember the name of the guy who wrote it or the book. I'm just going to have to hope I stoll by it in an airport or something.

[Boydy]

I've been meaning to read this book for years from an interview I saw. The author claimed that if we were to just vanish tomorrow with everything turned off, the planet would be over-taken by plants again within 10 years. Seemed really interesting. But I can't remember the name of the guy who wrote it or the book. I'm just going to have to hope I stoll by it in an airport or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us ?

[phonics]

Wow I even recognise the cover. 10 internet points for you sir.

Have you read it? Is it good?

[Disco]

Doesn't sound far off, basically any post-apocalyptic setting that isn't covered in trees is probably bullshit.

[Boydy]

Wow I even recognise the cover. 10 internet points for you sir.

Have you read it? Is it good?

Nah, I just went searching for it because it sounded interesting and I thought I remembered seeing something similar with a title like 'Earth After People'. So I googled that and ended up finding that which seemed to fit the description.

[niko_cee]

I'm sure there was a crappy tv series/documentary in that vein. 10 years after people, mild shrub coverage. 100 years after people, full rainforest.

[Spikey M]

Fuck trees. Proper Beta cucks.

[Shindig]

What'd be nuts is if it sparked another chain of evolution where something ascended to the heights we've reached.

[Disco]

You don't spark evolution, it's going on the whole time.

[Bartholomert]

Why don't we just grow super algae to eat all the extra CO2? Also aren't there time periods in history with much higher C02 levels where everything was fine and dandy?

[Shindig]

Last time CO2 was this high, humans didn't exist. (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938)

[Spikey M]

Inb4 Mert only reads the title.

[Bartholomert]

Dinosaurs managed to make it work, we'll be fine.

[ItalAussie]

"Scientists are all alarmist conspirators. Anyway, it won't be a problem because science will save us!"

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1479657757-20161120.png

[Panda Bear]

My long-term plan is moving to Winnipeg.

Sure, Edmonton is a better city right now, but Alberta faces drought issues. Our Rocky Mountain glaciers will be gone in twenty years, which will ruin rivers and aquifers. The Arctic Circle's polar vortex works differently now, so we no longer get a lot of seasonal snow.

With Winnipeg, you're at the lowest point in Canada. Water drains from all directions to Winnipeg, and I would rather deal with flood mitigation rather than severe drought.

Join me. Central Canada is where it'll be at in 2055.

[Spoonsky]

*whispers* Montreal.

[Panda Bear]

Montreal's on an island, so it becomes another Atlantis.

[Lewis]

Problem solved (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-park/517779/). :cool:

[Pepe]

Only in Siberia’s empty expanse could an experiment of this scale succeed, and only if human beings learn to cooperate across centuries.

Maybe not.

Will read it later, sounds interesting.

[Shindig]

"We should clone dinosaurs just for the bones to make the oil."
"Dimitri, that's brilliant. How much funding do you need?"

[phonics]

Problem solved (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-park/517779/). :cool:

This was a really good article. Cheers for the link.

[Lewis]

Fuck off.

[phonics]

The unbridled cynicism of this place wins again.

[Yevrah]

Could Jurassic Park happen?

[Lewis]

The unbridled cynicism of this place wins again.

No it doesn't, and it never will.