Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 70

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2253964 7-Jun-2019 16:39

Geektastic:
frankv:

Geektastic: You're not rich unless your income from unearned sources exceeds $500,000 a year IMO.

I don't see a reason to distinguish between earned and unearned. Maybe in terms of disposable income, and for round numbers figure minimum wage (about $35K pa) is minimum cost of living, and anything above that after tax is disposable income.

At an annual income of $200K, you pay $52K more tax than a minimum wage earner, and so have $148K of disposable income. IMO that's rich.

In world terms, that isn't even well paid.

For 90% of the world population, that's beyond the dreams of avarice.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2253967 7-Jun-2019 16:47

tdgeek:

"We're not waiting for solutions. We're simply waiting for the political will to understand that the solutions are here. Clean energy is not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of implementing," said Patz.

Such enormous undertakings are not unprecedented. Hsiang cites the tremendous economic shifts that helped fight World War II. "When we've faced real threats we've been willing to make these kinds of large-scale changes," he said.

The fact is there is no problem, we have the solutions, we can make big changes, as we have before, but we won't. We need a BIG reason, and yakking about the dire future isn't a big reason for the leaders of this world

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113298790/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-could-start-by-2050-if-we-dont-act-report-warns

The "coulds" and "as much as"-type phrases are part of the problem. If, in 1939, military leaders had said "our computer models show that Hitler could invade Poland as soon as 1945", there wouldn't have been the military or economic response that actually happened.

And as pointed out above, we could absolutely build a whole lot of clean power generating capacity but there would be an impact of some sort, which people - mostly Greens - are unwilling to accept. Until we can agree whether CC is a serious enough problem to justify lesser impacts in order to solve, I guess we just nibble around the edges using LED bulbs etc.

But whatever the problem, socialism isn't the solution

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253993 7-Jun-2019 18:00

Geektastic:
frankv:

Geektastic: You're not rich unless your income from unearned sources exceeds $500,000 a year IMO.

I don't see a reason to distinguish between earned and unearned. Maybe in terms of disposable income, and for round numbers figure minimum wage (about $35K pa) is minimum cost of living, and anything above that after tax is disposable income.

At an annual income of $200K, you pay $52K more tax than a minimum wage earner, and so have $148K of disposable income. IMO that's rich.

In world terms, that isn't even well paid.

Is there a -1 button here?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253994 7-Jun-2019 18:07

shk292:

tdgeek:

"We're not waiting for solutions. We're simply waiting for the political will to understand that the solutions are here. Clean energy is not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of implementing," said Patz.

Such enormous undertakings are not unprecedented. Hsiang cites the tremendous economic shifts that helped fight World War II. "When we've faced real threats we've been willing to make these kinds of large-scale changes," he said.

The fact is there is no problem, we have the solutions, we can make big changes, as we have before, but we won't. We need a BIG reason, and yakking about the dire future isn't a big reason for the leaders of this world

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113298790/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-could-start-by-2050-if-we-dont-act-report-warns

The "coulds" and "as much as"-type phrases are part of the problem. If, in 1939, military leaders had said "our computer models show that Hitler could invade Poland as soon as 1945", there wouldn't have been the military or economic response that actually happened.

And as pointed out above, we could absolutely build a whole lot of clean power generating capacity but there would be an impact of some sort, which people - mostly Greens - are unwilling to accept. Until we can agree whether CC is a serious enough problem to justify lesser impacts in order to solve, I guess we just nibble around the edges using LED bulbs etc.

But whatever the problem, socialism isn't the solution

TBH I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me or that piece.

The point is we can do it. Easy as F*** Its just tech. We went to the moon based on a computer that had 80 bytes of memory, it was made for ICBM trajectories.

So can we adjust our usage to maximise O, and minimise CO2? Off course. Easy as F. But as this is not a classroom or lecture theatre but a world based on votes and money, then no.

Heard of global cooling? That can happen. But no, money and votes make it so.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2254143 8-Jun-2019 07:30

tdgeek:
shk292:

tdgeek:

"We're not waiting for solutions. We're simply waiting for the political will to understand that the solutions are here. Clean energy is not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of implementing," said Patz.

Such enormous undertakings are not unprecedented. Hsiang cites the tremendous economic shifts that helped fight World War II. "When we've faced real threats we've been willing to make these kinds of large-scale changes," he said.

The fact is there is no problem, we have the solutions, we can make big changes, as we have before, but we won't. We need a BIG reason, and yakking about the dire future isn't a big reason for the leaders of this world

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113298790/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-could-start-by-2050-if-we-dont-act-report-warns

The "coulds" and "as much as"-type phrases are part of the problem. If, in 1939, military leaders had said "our computer models show that Hitler could invade Poland as soon as 1945", there wouldn't have been the military or economic response that actually happened.

And as pointed out above, we could absolutely build a whole lot of clean power generating capacity but there would be an impact of some sort, which people - mostly Greens - are unwilling to accept. Until we can agree whether CC is a serious enough problem to justify lesser impacts in order to solve, I guess we just nibble around the edges using LED bulbs etc.

But whatever the problem, socialism isn't the solution

TBH I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me or that piece.

The point is we can do it. Easy as F*** Its just tech. We went to the moon based on a computer that had 80 bytes of memory, it was made for ICBM trajectories.

So can we adjust our usage to maximise O, and minimise CO2? Off course. Easy as F. But as this is not a classroom or lecture theatre but a world based on votes and money, then no.

Heard of global cooling? That can happen. But no, money and votes make it so.

I do wonder what would happen if the ice started returning. Would we all be expected to buy huge American V8s?

gzt

18756 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7887

Lifetime subscriber

#2254146 8-Jun-2019 07:56

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#2254693 9-Jun-2019 09:44

This might seem like an inappropriate place to post this video.

However it's a friendly discussion on why the Earth's climate goes awry unpredictably.

It also discusses the seeming contradiction how global warming could cause European winters to get much worse.

Joe Scott

"Game of Thrones just came to an and, so I thought it was an appropriate time to look at the world of the series and examine how a planet could have the random and unpredictable winters that they experience on the show."

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#2256576 12-Jun-2019 11:43

Donald Trump vs. climate change

CNN

Here’s a brief history of his climate change skepticism.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#2257001 12-Jun-2019 20:16

https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11

On the above page, water vapour is described as "the main cause behind the greenhouse effect" contributing 36-70%:

1. WATER VAPOR

Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect.

There has been a lot of publicity recently to the arrival in NZ of two Hyundai hydrogen powered electric vehicles. However, "Linuxluver" pointed out that:

The emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are water and warm air. In that sense, they could be argued to be better than fossil fuels, which emit carbon and other things.

But water vapour is, itself, a powerful greenhouse factor.....and a billion fuel cell vehicles could end up making little difference to the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

EVs emit nothing.

Has there been any published research to support the view that hydrogen powered vehicles are in fact not all that good for the environment because of the emission of water vapour? I guess this should be a key point for future research as one of the main objectives of electric vehicles is to reduce emissions, not add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere?

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#2257041 12-Jun-2019 20:46

The argument you're alluding to is the "iris effect" by MIT scientist Richard Lindzen.

He is often cited by those trying to contradict global warming. Like flat earth, faked moon landings and "evolution doesn't exist", it one of those persistent memes that won't die.

The article you gave is from 2009. Lindzen's water vapor theory was first debunked six months afterwards. It has been repeatedly debunked since.

There's no shortage of materials debunking him, but here's one.

https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm

Here's a 2014 article in Nature that debunks it, yet again.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12829

Regarding electric cars and climate change, there has been studies that an electric car charging even from dirty coal powered plants is still better than driving a petrol car, due to the very high efficiency of electric motors and electricity transmission. Remember that petrol doesn't magically get to fueling stations. It needs to be manufactured, and transported.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-electric-vehicle-air-quality-climate.html

https://jalopnik.com/enough-with-the-actually-electric-cars-pollute-more-bu-1834338565

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

It's annoying how these false theories burn up so much precious time, while our only home slowly dies. There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2257471 13-Jun-2019 16:17

kingdragonfly: There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

I thought that a Mars colony was "plan b" in some people's mind.

Well at least a 70% chance it'll happen for them.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#2257472 13-Jun-2019 16:17

LOL. Most insane video by a climate denier ever.

Don't Worry About Global Warming

Abraham Hicks / Law Of Attraction

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#2257515 13-Jun-2019 16:38

Fred99:

kingdragonfly: There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

I thought that a Mars colony was "plan b" in some people's mind.

Well at least a 70% chance it'll happen for them.

Elon Musk has a plan to build a Mars Colony. But he's so full of bovine excrement it's almost funny.

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#2257538 13-Jun-2019 17:25

I'm getting off subject, and I'm not suggesting a "burn baby burn" attitude toward the Earth.

Even living on the South pole or 40 meters underwater would be more hospitable than anywhere on Mars.

Not that I'm ever going to see it, but there's also Venus.

Should We Live On Venus BEFORE Mars?

Life Noggin

Colonizing Mars might seem like a great idea, but should we go to Venus instead?

Here's an article that says you need at least 80 pioneers in a space colony.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1936-magic-number-for-space-pioneers-calculated/

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#2257620 13-Jun-2019 21:15

It's annoying how these false theories burn up so much precious time, while our only home slowly dies. There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

To people who are not climate change scientists, I guess the internet is the main source of information about greenhouse gases etc. So, in simple terms, is it correct to say that, because of the emission of water vapour, hydrogen powered electric vehicles are worse for the environment than battery electric vehicles, which are said to have no emissions?

That was the point made by "LinuxLuver", so do you think it's a fair observation when comparing battery EVs with hydrogen powered EVs? After all, quite a large percentage of people who buy EVs are doing so because they wish to play their part in reducing global emissions, so why choose a hydrogen powered EV if in fact it emits a greenhouse gas?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 70