Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

Forums › Off topic › Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1451357 16-Dec-2015 10:11

Technofreak: I don't know about you but I'm always sceptical about the type of talk fests we've just witnessed in Paris about the climate change accord.

I came across this blog today. It has some frightening figures.

The cost of the agreement by 2030 will be 1-2 trillion annually.

The agreed carbon emission reductions are less that 1% of what's actually required to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-have-treaty-what-cost-bjorn-lomborg

It all seems to be a very expensive waste of time to me.

A trillion / year is nothing compared to dead seas, 50m+ of sea level rise in 200 years and a risk that the atmosphere could go anoxic.

People who want to save a few dollars today and condemn their great grandchildren to war, disease, poverty or death - or even possible extinction - can't be the full quid. There is something wrong in their head.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1451364 16-Dec-2015 10:18

joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

There is no doubt that human activity is affecting the climate by altering its composition. The natural (non-human) annual CO2 cycle can't account for the rising CO2 levels....and the consequent affect on global average temperature. Variations in output from the Sun can't account for it either.

The deniers are out of runway.

In relative terms, the atmosphere of the planet if thinner than the skin on an apple is to the apple. Of course hundreds of millions and now billions of people actively burning stuff can have an effect across a few centuries. We are. The only people who doubt this are people who haven't done their homework and making stuff up is just easier.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1451381 16-Dec-2015 10:47

Poor old King Cnut. So mis-understood ...

MikeB4: ....any actions then will be akin to King Cnut

Mike

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451382 16-Dec-2015 10:49

MikeAqua: Poor old King Cnut. So mis-understood ...

MikeB4: ....any actions then will be akin to King Cnut

He was swept by a tide of change

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451383 16-Dec-2015 10:50

UHD:
joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

1. Yes. Yes it does degrade.

2. The difference between China and the rest of the western world is nearly a billion people and some semblance of emissions standards.

1. Have you visited the local rubbish dump?

2. Have you Checked out christchurch air quality in winter? Or if it's easier go to London.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451386 16-Dec-2015 10:55

joker97:
UHD:
joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

1. Yes. Yes it does degrade.

2. The difference between China and the rest of the western world is nearly a billion people and some semblance of emissions standards.

1. Have you visited the local rubbish dump?

2. Have you Checked out christchurch air quality in winter? Or if it's easier go to London.

There is more plastic in the oceans.

Christchurch is unique in NZ as its one of a few places that has a thermal inversion issue. This exacerbates pollution.

Dairyxox

1594 posts

Uber Geek

#1451387 16-Dec-2015 10:56

I think if you boil all of this down to just the basics...
Its common sense to look after our environment, surely we can all agree on that?

How far we go in expending 'resources' to do this is the hard part.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451388 16-Dec-2015 10:59

MikeB4: The Earth has not yet reached a tipping point, but that is not far off and the window of opportunity is closing fast. Once past the tipping point then we are going to be along for the ride and any actions then will be akin to King Cnut

Tipping point. The polar caps reflect a lot of light. As they reduce, more sunlight gets in and melts more. When the ice gets too low, its of low value for reflecting away excess sunlight. Waters are warmer, this reduces the circulation rate from polar to tropical regions via the main currents. One day the currents will stop, and the water will lose oxygen (as it does when it's warmer as well) and become stagnant. I recall that if we fixed our excess non natural pollution, it will take 50 years to stabilise. If too much reflective ice has gone, winters may be not cool enough to create more winter ice

Its not about the greens, money, Obama, etc its about science. We live in a huge tank, and that tank can only go so far to recover from non natural anomalies

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451390 16-Dec-2015 11:01

Linuxluver: A trillion / year is nothing compared to dead seas, 50m+ of sea level rise in 200 years and a risk that the atmosphere could go anoxic.

People who want to save a few dollars today and condemn their great grandchildren to war, disease, poverty or death - or even possible extinction - can't be the full quid. There is something wrong in their head.

50 metre sea level rise. Really? Where does all this water come from. Don't tell me it's from ice flows. Ice displaces the equivalent amount of water by weight that it's floating in plus ice takes up more space than water.

I don't think anyone is saying don't spend money, we just need to spend it in the right areas. The costs imposed by agreements like the one in Paris are way out of balance with any benefits. There are better ways to do this.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451396 16-Dec-2015 11:02

tdgeek:
MikeB4: The Earth has not yet reached a tipping point, but that is not far off and the window of opportunity is closing fast. Once past the tipping point then we are going to be along for the ride and any actions then will be akin to King Cnut

Tipping point. The polar caps reflect a lot of light. As they reduce, more sunlight gets in and melts more. When the ice gets too low, its of low value for reflecting away excess sunlight. Waters are warmer, this reduces the circulation rate from polar to tropical regions via the main currents. One day the currents will stop, and the water will lose oxygen (as it does when it's warmer as well) and become stagnant. I recall that if we fixed our excess non natural pollution, it will take 50 years to stabilise. If too much reflective ice has gone, winters may be not cool enough to create more winter ice

Its not about the greens, money, Obama, etc its about science. We live in a huge tank, and that tank can only go so far to recover from non natural anomalies

Our food chain starts with the oceans. The oceans are becoming increasingly hostile to life due to warming and acidity levels. The outcome of that makes one shiver.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451397 16-Dec-2015 11:03

MikeB4:
MikeAqua: Poor old King Cnut. So mis-understood ...

MikeB4: ....any actions then will be akin to King Cnut

He was swept by a tide of change

Almost half of us live near a coast, globally, so you are in fact almost half right, literally

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451399 16-Dec-2015 11:06

Technofreak:
Linuxluver: A trillion / year is nothing compared to dead seas, 50m+ of sea level rise in 200 years and a risk that the atmosphere could go anoxic.

People who want to save a few dollars today and condemn their great grandchildren to war, disease, poverty or death - or even possible extinction - can't be the full quid. There is something wrong in their head.

50 metre sea level rise. Really? Where does all this water come from. Don't tell me it's from ice flows. Ice displaces the equivalent amount of water by weight that it's floating in plus ice takes up more space than water.

I don't think anyone is saying don't spend money, we just need to spend it in the right areas. The costs imposed by agreements like the one in Paris are way out of balance with any benefits. There are better ways to do this.

I think 50 meters is a bit much but should the Antarctic terra ice cap, the Tundra in the Arctic circle melt the oceans will rise as is ice is not displacing at present. However the affect on oceans is more than just level rise.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451401 16-Dec-2015 11:08

Dairyxox: I think if you boil all of this down to just the basics...
Its common sense to look after our environment, surely we can all agree on that?

How far we go in expending 'resources' to do this is the hard part.

33

Agree. To reduce emissions by 20% actually means continue emissions at 80%

We will be on Mars inside 15 years, surely we can get cracking and outfit homes with as much green energy as is possible, get as many true electric cars
on the road as possible. Geez, we generate 80% of our electricity by hydro, we will aim for 90. WTF? Is it that hard to go for 100? Maybe its too hard.....

Edit" typos

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1451408 16-Dec-2015 11:15

We can virtually guarantee the survival of our species if we get off this rock and colonise the solar system and then other star systems.

I know it's extremely difficult but if we don't achieve it I think we've had it. Just look at the state the world is in today and imagine it with say 50% more humans.

Unfortunately we are very much 'live for today', much like every other living thing on the planet, so I don't hold out much hope.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451428 16-Dec-2015 11:27

SJB: We can virtually guarantee the survival of our species if we get off this rock and colonise the solar system and then other star systems.

I know it's extremely difficult but if we don't achieve it I think we've had it. Just look at the state the world is in today and imagine it with say 50% more humans.

Unfortunately we are very much 'live for today', much like every other living thing on the planet, so I don't hold out much hope.

Its easier to renovate than it is to create. We are here, it works, we should fix what we broke, rather than trek to Mars and start over. Thats a 200 year project in itself

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5