Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eveln

NSW / QLD fires

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, datafast69 said:

This "fake news" shit doesn't work on people that have an ability to reason well (reasonable people), It only works on Trump numb-nuts, and other conspiracy theorists.

Plenty of fake news out there, though.

It's getting harder than ever to wade through the bullshit. Information technology has been great to us for so long, but now look at where it's put us....so much information it's difficult to manage.
Which is what we now use huge analytical databases for...oh shit, back to square one 🤣

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, chrisg said:

*Sigh*

 

 I already linked a completely reputable publication that says they are.

 

Cheers


To which I commented that no they’re not.

 

They’ve planted trees to prevent their encroaching deserts - not their emissions growth.

10 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

This "fake news" shit doesn't work on people that have an ability to reason well (reasonable people), It only works on Trump numb-nuts, and other conspiracy theorists.


Would you prefer “alternative facts”?

 

The actual fact is that no - China’s are not planting trees to reduce emissions. They’ve planted trees because their third world industrial practises have caused deforestation and desertification.

 

They’re an Annex 1 country under Kyoto. They have no limits on emissions growth

Edited by Leonid
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chrisg said:

I think it is fair to say that we all understand your argument, we just disagree with it.


Which is to say you disagree with mathematical facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh,

 

 Trees are trees Leo, in part they are indeed reducing desert encroachment but NASA has commented upon significant increases in greening in both countries.

 

You really do seem to believe that two enormous countries are in total climate change denial. It is totally not the case, China in particular have huge concerns over more and more violent weather events.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chrisg said:

On the principle of "every bit helps" it is foolish to do nothing and by doing all we can we also encourage China, and India to move as quickly as they can.


That principle only works if you’re doing something useful.

 

Extracting a cup of water from a pool with an open fire hydrant into it is foolish and doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not particularly interested in math, interested in the will to make changes.

 

The oceans, which I believe I have mentioned before are a significant carbon sink, nowhere near as efficient as trees but 70% of the world is water. We need to be being much more proactive about cleaning it up.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chrisg said:

Trees are trees Leo, in part they are indeed reducing desert encroachment but NASA has commented upon significant increases in greening in both countries.


You realise their forest cover now is lower than it was in 1990? The dorestation initiative started in 2001. Since then their emissions have increased by at least a factor of 20 on lower forest cover than in 1990.

 

As I said: fake news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leonid said:

Would you prefer “alternative facts”?

It's still the same bullshit Trump uses to try and discredit the truth, so you can go ahead and choose ya' favorite (attempt to manipulate the truth) catch cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chrisg said:

Not particularly interested in math, interested in the will to make changes.


Sounds like the sort of guy that should be flying $30m military jets...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

It's an interesting analogy, very dramatic, but not correct, in just the same way that the gradual elimination of CFCs  reversed the hole in the ozone layer so every ton of carbon hat does not go up in smoke is not adding to the problem.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, datafast69 said:

It's still the same bullshit Trump uses to try and discredit the truth, so you can go ahead and choose ya' favorite (attempt to manipulate the truth) catch cry.


Alternative facts and fake news were used by anti-Trumpers to describe his fake news.

 

What happened to your plan of not engaging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, you even argue like Trump....

 

I'm in agreement with you that tech has a significant place in addressing the crisis but there is absolutely no harm in becoming better behaved global citizens and totally nothing wrong with tree planting initiatives.

 

Not everyone is going to be able to contribute technically, anyone with mobility can plant trees and water them, so long as there is water available....

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chrisg said:

It's an interesting analogy, very dramatic, but not correct, in just the same way that the gradual elimination of CFCs  reversed the hole in the ozone layer so every ton of carbon hat does not go up in smoke is not adding to the problem.


I knew someone would bring that up.

 

The protocol established in 1987 required CFC production and consumption drop to zero by 1996.

 

Can we use any technology to replace all GHG emissions from all human sources by 2028?

 

Can someone name me the technology that replaces all cars and all power generation on the planet by 2028?

 

Do remember that it’s more than 14 years since Kyoto became effective and we’re emitting far more than we did then. And still no solution.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you miss the point - the CFCs are not out of the atmosphere yet, despite the bans, the ozone still has a hole but it is shrinking.

 

I wonder, do you subscribe to The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ?

 

They have been having a great deal to say about climate change for quite a while.

 

No, no technologies will do much between now and then. If NASA is on track we can be back on the moon but the L1 trip will still  be a way off. Electric cars will be becoming more common but the estimate there is 15 years minimum before there are more of them than ICE cars. Not that CO is such a big GHG overall, it's primarily CO2 then methane.

 

The drone seeding idea Twinny linked looks interesting, especially if it does not plant pines.

 

It will be an aggregate of initiatives to get us out of the bind and none should be overlooked or dismissed.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Again you miss the point - the CFCs are not out of the atmosphere yet, despite the bans, the ozone still has a hole but it is shrinking.


And you utterly miss the point.

 

The treaty came into effect and 8y later nobody was supposed to produce CFCs.

 

ZERO.

 

In order to reduce climate change we need to go to zero. ASAP. Let’s say 8y

What technology gets us there in 8y?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And I already told you, nothing will do that in 8 years but the ozone issue was different to climate change.

 

What are you suggesting Leo ? We just go on our merry way polluting as we see fit because China pollutes more ?

 

That's madness.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chrisg said:

...And I already told you, nothing will do that in 8 years but the ozone issue was different to climate change.


What's your number of years then? Give me a number of years before you can hand on heart say we may have the clean energy technology AND enough time to have replaced all cars and coal, gas plants?

1 minute ago, chrisg said:

What are you suggesting Leo ? We just go on our merry way polluting as we see fit because China pollutes more ?

 

Nope: I've stated several hundred times in this thread. Stop focusing on emissions.

Start focusing on global warming. The problem is more important than the source of the problem because there may be other ways to solve the problem than just dealing with the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---

 

Look it's clear that too many people here don't understand basic maths or logic. SO I'll explain it to you in a really simple form.

 

The Anthropogenic Warming signal deviated from natural climate change in approx 1950. That is another way of saying that humans exceeded the natural GHG sink capacity of the planet.

 

What this means is that the planet can only clean up after us at 1950s levels of emissions.

 

And that assumes sink capacity has remained constant. Which it hasn't - we've polluted water and cut down forests. The planet has greened in terms of cover but not in terms of plant volume.

 

Because the planet cannot exceed 1950s levels of emissions, every GHG particle we put up above it adds to global warming.

 

In other words (and this is hugely simplified) - to stop global warming - ie actually reverse it we need to emit at below 1950s levels. That means every single person on the planet must consume 36x less electricity and we need to take almost all cars in the world off the roads.

 

This is purely and simply: deindustrialisation. It is also damned simple maths. It's why every treaty on global warming calls for zero emissions - because that is what's needed to stop global warming and reverse it over time. 

 

It is simple maths. Get it.

 

Combine that with human nature and you might understand why yelling about climate change and the need to replace baseload with unreliable energy while de-industrializing, might be a no-go. No-one votes to cut off their nose to spite their own face.

 

In the absence of a technology that can reduce our emissions from all sources to sub-1950s levels, we need to stop worrying about emissions.

 

We need to start worrying about global warming. What can we do to stop global warming without reducing emissions?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no arbitrary date, if we begin proper reduction, which is happening although hard to see as yet, and if we are sufficiently aggressive with lead times on nuke plants etc we should be seeing dramatic change by 2040.

 

But the key is to reverse the trend, we are going to see it rise further before it begins to fall.

 

Joyce, not a person I normally take much notice of, says Qantas will be carbon neutral by 2050. On the assumption that is not just offsets it ought to be achievable.

 

However if other technological initiatives are taken on board we could be seeing significant reductions by 2035.

 

Cheers

 

Edit. Of course I get it, but you are downplaying NASA's role, they look at spectroscopic data, not just colour.

 

It is plain and simply going to take time and the road will be rocky but placing all the blame on China is pathetic and not helpful.

 

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You'll find most carbon 'offsets' are bullshit.

The air industry emits more CO2 than Australia but no one is calling to shut that down................no.

Shut down Australia instead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

 

4 minutes ago, chrisg said:

There is no arbitrary date, if we begin proper reduction, which is happening although hard to see as yet, and if we are sufficiently aggressive with lead times on nuke plants etc we should be seeing dramatic change by 2040.

 

 

We've had nuke plants since the 60s (?).

 

More importantly we've had them since Kyoto and emissions are still going up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power production globally is nowhere near 50% nuclear, and I'm glad it is not until we can produce better plants. The planet does not need another Fukushima.

 

In one respect you are correct, China and India need to migrate off of coal and that is their plan - not sure just how they can move any faster...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, datafast69 said:

People, you must understand that Leo is the most intelligent person here, he has a very big brain.

 

It's not a big brain. It's just that some people apparently operate with a walnut.

26 minutes ago, chrisg said:

In one respect you are correct, China and India need to migrate off of coal and that is their plan - not sure just how they can move any faster...

 

Well given they're not moving at all should be quite easy to move faster.

27 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Power production globally is nowhere near 50% nuclear,

 

Power production from nuclear sources is dropping globally.

 

renewable-energy-graph.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to go out, but if you expect them to be able to undo what has taken over a century to accumulate in total  in a matter of a few years I want some of what you are smoking...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×