Technology, Science and the Environment.

[grobyfox1990]

31 minutes ago, The Bear said:

The world won't react properly until its too late. And only then because it'll be costing the money men their money. We're seeing a sneak peek with the current energy crisis. Firms will protect their profits at the expense of the people, and the government will let them because they'll want to keep Big Money on their side. 

It already is costing money. If you look at the mass disruption caused by climate related events this summer, pretty much every industry suffered loss of revenue? We essentially had two days off coz it was well ‘ot. And remember this is likely to be the coolest summer we have for a long time 

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, Soup said:

@leicsmac I've been listening/reading a lot of Bjørn Lomborg recently. What's your take on him? Genuinely interested in your opinion. He seems to be on board with climate change but suggests we're going about it the wrong way.

He cherry-picks scientific evidence to spin a narrative that the effects of climate change won't be "all that bad" in order to sell books, in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. He's been pulled up on that multiple times by his peers as all good peer review process should. Put simply, he doesn't offer enough to substantively prove his specific point of view.

 

He's no ignorer (I don't use the term "denier" because you may as well deny gravity) however, and his ideas for heavily pushing renewable tech as a solution in order to make it economically viable are on firmer ground.

 

I've said this to you before but I'll say it again; beware mavericks swimming against the tide unless they have the most exacting evidence, there's a reason they're swimming against the tide and their ideas haven't been accepted.

 

In any case, there's a bigger argument that invalidates his; even if the likelihood was that he was right (it isn't, btw), we would still have to take decisive action against the coming threat simply because of the magnitude of it. That's basic risk management - when you know there is a risk out there that is catastrophic, as long as the odds of it happening are larger than zero or very very small (which is absolutely true in this case) then the cost of taking action against it multiplied by the odds of being wrong is a much smaller number than the cost of inaction multiplied by the odds of it being right, simply because the bolded cost will be very, very, very big.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

I am not a religious man, so believe faith will not save this problem either, but of course it requires action yet this requires a colossal show of will in a time of apathy

Quite.

 

But without knowing that it can be done and a pathway as to how then all humanity has to look forward to is at best vastly reduced circumstances and at worst (in due course) the void, so we do have to believe that such a thing can be done right up to the point that it becomes absolutely, brutally certain that we cannot.

 

[Soup]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

He cherry-picks scientific evidence to spin a narrative that the effects of climate change won't be "all that bad" in order to sell books, in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. He's been pulled up on that multiple times by his peers as all good peer review process should. Put simply, he doesn't offer enough to substantively prove his specific point of view.

 

He's no ignorer (I don't use the term "denier" because you may as well deny gravity) however, and his ideas for heavily pushing renewable tech as a solution in order to make it economically viable are on firmer ground.

 

I've said this to you before but I'll say it again; beware mavericks swimming against the tide unless they have the most exacting evidence, there's a reason they're swimming against the tide and their ideas haven't been accepted.

 

In any case, there's a bigger argument that invalidates his; even if the likelihood was that he was right (it isn't, btw), we would still have to take decisive action against the coming threat simply because of the magnitude of it. That's basic risk management - when you know there is a risk out there that is catastrophic, as long as the odds of it happening are larger than zero or very very small (which is absolutely true in this case) then the cost of taking action against it multiplied by the odds of being wrong is a much smaller number than the cost of inaction multiplied by the odds of it being right, simply because the bolded cost will be very, very, very big.

Thanks man, good detailed response. 

 

I'm not necessarily buying what he is saying, I do find it interesting though and maybe it is just to sell books who knows. He appears to make more sense than some, but anyway this subject is way above my level, I'll let the more knowledgeable carry on in this thread

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Soup said:

Thanks man, good detailed response. 

 

I'm not necessarily buying what he is saying, I do find it interesting though and maybe it is just to sell books who knows. He appears to make more sense than some, but anyway this subject is way above my level, I'll let the more knowledgeable carry on in this thread

 

Don't feel fazed by your perception of your own knowledge level mate, everyone had to start somewhere and if you're enthusiastic about learning more about the topic I can certainly recommend reasonable sources for you. The more folks that know more about this topic and therefore are able to make informed choices, the better.

[Soup]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Don't feel fazed by your perception of your own knowledge level mate, everyone had to start somewhere and if you're enthusiastic about learning more about the topic I can certainly recommend reasonable sources for you. The more folks that know more about this topic and therefore are able to make informed choices, the better.

Yes please do mate, 

 

I will say though that I'm not interested in the apocalyptic view of it all, just the solutions to it. I find myself more engaged with that, if that makes sense.

Edited 15 September 2022 by Soup

[leicsmac]

22 hours ago, Soup said:

Yes please do mate, 

 

I will say though that I'm not interested in the apocalyptic view of it all, just the solutions to it. I find myself more engaged with that, if that makes sense.

Of course it does.

 

I talk a lot about the consequences because there still seem to be people bound and determined to ignore what they really mean and the magnitude of it all, but how we stave off those consequences is more important.

 

So, with that in mind...

 

My own personal viewpoints are ones I've posted on here before but I'll repeat them:

 

- Begin phasing out of any and all coal and oil burning energy generation facilities. No new ones built, those that remain designate for staged decommission. Keep gas-based ones for the time being as they are the best of a poor bunch, but aim on phasing them out too as soon as adequate replacements are available.

- To compensate for this, immediately begin work on Gen III/IV/fast breeder fission reactors to fill the gap at large grid level and bespoke renewable infrastructure (solar for Aus, tidal/wind etc for other places like the UK) at a smaller level

- Aim to have the above completed within the next 15 years, 20 at the outside

- Seek to make single-person transportation vehicles no longer reliant on the internal combustion engine within the same timeframe. Ditto for cargo shipping vehicles, as much as is possible.

- Overall goal being reducing carbon emissions to cap average global temperature increase at less than 2 degree C overall (compared to 1850) by three decades time. 1.5 would be preferable, but I think that ship has sailed.

- Invest in infrastructure - flood defences, more durable crops and the like - to defend against changes that will come no matter what we do, because there will be some. The UK might well avoid the worst of it - other places won't.

 

The key thing is keeping the average temperature increase as low as possible, and that means flatlining carbon emissions - net zero.

 

On a more literature-based recommendation, I would recommend Project Drawdown. They have a comprehensive list of solutions even graded by availability and effectiveness. They are optimistic, with evidence, that "drawdown" (at least stopping increasing carbon emissions) can be done by 2050 if these solutions are applied in a comprehensive manner.

[SpacedX]

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Of course it does.

 

I talk a lot about the consequences because there still seem to be people bound and determined to ignore what they really mean and the magnitude of it all, but how we stave off those consequences is more important.

 

So, with that in mind...

 

My own personal viewpoints are ones I've posted on here before but I'll repeat them:

 

- Begin phasing out of any and all coal and oil burning energy generation facilities. No new ones built, those that remain designate for staged decommission. Keep gas-based ones for the time being as they are the best of a poor bunch, but aim on phasing them out too as soon as adequate replacements are available.

- To compensate for this, immediately begin work on Gen III/IV/fast breeder fission reactors to fill the gap at large grid level and bespoke renewable infrastructure (solar for Aus, tidal/wind etc for other places like the UK) at a smaller level

- Aim to have the above completed within the next 15 years, 20 at the outside

- Seek to make single-person transportation vehicles no longer reliant on the internal combustion engine within the same timeframe. Ditto for cargo shipping vehicles, as much as is possible.

- Overall goal being reducing carbon emissions to cap average global temperature increase at less than 2 degree C overall (compared to 1850) by three decades time. 1.5 would be preferable, but I think that ship has sailed.

- Invest in infrastructure - flood defences, more durable crops and the like - to defend against changes that will come no matter what we do, because there will be some. The UK might well avoid the worst of it - other places won't.

 

The key thing is keeping the average temperature increase as low as possible, and that means flatlining carbon emissions - net zero.

 

On a more literature-based recommendation, I would recommend Project Drawdown. They have a comprehensive list of solutions even graded by availability and effectiveness. They are optimistic, with evidence, that "drawdown" (at least stopping increasing carbon emissions) can be done by 2050 if these solutions are applied in a comprehensive manner.

To which I would add - oust that fossil fool Rees-Mogg and with it his Mesozoic mentality immediately, together with his deregulating deputies. Meanwhile in America, this time genuinely rig the next election because the tipping point for the planet may depend on the outcome. 

 

Lord Frost proclaims that there's no 'climate emergency' and Britain should end focus on 'medieval' wind power. But don't most people view Frost as a prime purveyor of medieval wind? If anything is 'medieval', it's the ****ing peerage system. But it's not just him, it's practically all of them. Calls to ditch net zero have risen from a chorus of Tory grandees, from Charles Moore, a former editor of the 'Torygraph', to the former party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith. The objective for such agitators would be to reduce net zero to a culture war issue, dividing the nation much as Brexit did, and gaining support for new fossil fuel exploration in the UK that they argue would bring down the cost of living, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Cutting emissions by taking action now is cheaper. The economic arguments, the arguments for fiscal responsibility, for effective policy, for jobs and investment and sustainability are firmly on the side of net zero.Their model is the US, where almost all Democrats want action on the climate but only about half of Republican voters do, while Republican politicians stand firmly in the way of climate policies in Congress.

 

In so many respects, we teeter on a very dangerous and pivotal point in respect of the future of humanity. 

[leicsmac]

On 17/09/2022 at 17:31, Line-X said:

To which I would add - oust that fossil fool Rees-Mogg and with it his Mesozoic mentality immediately, together with his deregulating deputies. Meanwhile in America, this time genuinely rig the next election because the tipping point for the planet may depend on the outcome. 

 

Lord Frost proclaims that there's no 'climate emergency' and Britain should end focus on 'medieval' wind power. But don't most people view Frost as a prime purveyor of medieval wind? If anything is 'medieval', it's the ****ing peerage system. But it's not just him, it's practically all of them. Calls to ditch net zero have risen from a chorus of Tory grandees, from Charles Moore, a former editor of the 'Torygraph', to the former party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith. The objective for such agitators would be to reduce net zero to a culture war issue, dividing the nation much as Brexit did, and gaining support for new fossil fuel exploration in the UK that they argue would bring down the cost of living, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Cutting emissions by taking action now is cheaper. The economic arguments, the arguments for fiscal responsibility, for effective policy, for jobs and investment and sustainability are firmly on the side of net zero.Their model is the US, where almost all Democrats want action on the climate but only about half of Republican voters do, while Republican politicians stand firmly in the way of climate policies in Congress.

 

In so many respects, we teeter on a very dangerous and pivotal point in respect of the future of humanity. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62982332

 

And we're stepping into the abyss.

 

It's absolutely ridiculous. Here's hoping the next intelligent species is both smarter, and can read our records so that they know exactly who was to blame for the way the world turned out.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62999822

 

And more good news, with special compliments to Senhor "Looten Plunder" Bolsanaro.

[SpacedX]

So NASA smashed 'DART' into Dimorphos, a 530ft wide asteroid 6.8 million miles from Earth. This will enable scientists to evaluate the data to measure the extent to which the Double Asteroid Redirection Test succeeded in diverting the moonlet by impacting at 14,760mph. The pictures taken as it closed in are remarkable. It remains to be seen how far Dimorphos has been diverted from its regular orbit. The ESA are launching the HERA mission in 2024 which will rendezvous with the asteroid system two years later to obtain more detailed observations. It is envisaged that the collective results will yield greater understanding and predictive data to enable the construction of computer models to then engineer precise impacts with these near earth objects that imperil our civilisation and deflect them and their course from our path. 

 

In other news, Hurricane Ian, although set to make landfall with the west Florida coastline later today necessitated the cancellation of launch plans for the SLS at the Cape - which has been rolled back into the VAB as a precaution. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-63119465

 

Fusion by 2040? Would be nice...

[grobyfox1990]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

 

Not surprising from a short-termist Govt desperate for votes, got all the key buzzwords in there from Rees-M0ng 'sovereign' 'Putin' etc. But I can't believe we are still talking about a 1.5 degree world. In reality that has long gone, we will be lucky to keep it down to below 4 degrees. Funds are still reporting against a 1.5 degree world, they have a fiduciary duty to accurately report to their investors, there should be a wave of legal action against this.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

 

Not surprising from a short-termist Govt desperate for votes, got all the key buzzwords in there from Rees-M0ng 'sovereign' 'Putin' etc. But I can't believe we are still talking about a 1.5 degree world. In reality that has long gone, we will be lucky to keep it down to below 4 degrees. Funds are still reporting against a 1.5 degree world, they have a fiduciary duty to accurately report to their investors, there should be a wave of legal action against this.

Their logic in doing it to address the current energy crisis doesn't even make sense either, for the reasons the Greenpeace person pointed out.

 

And yes, keeping overall average temperature increase below 1.5 degrees C - or even 2 or 2.5 - seems near impossible now. If that turns out to be the case, I just hope that those responsible through ignorance or malice are recorded in posterity for all time for the all the death and suffering they cause in the same way we look at the Axis powers in WWII today. Only with a (potentially) much higher body count.

[grobyfox1990]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Their logic in doing it to address the current energy crisis doesn't even make sense either, for the reasons the Greenpeace person pointed out.

 

And yes, keeping overall average temperature increase below 1.5 degrees C - or even 2 or 2.5 - seems near impossible now. If that turns out to be the case, I just hope that those responsible through ignorance or malice are recorded in posterity for all time for the all the death and suffering they cause in the same way we look at the Axis powers in WWII today. Only with a (potentially) much higher body count.

More important to these people than being remembered as the villain is being responsible for losing their investors a stackload of cash. Without having a transition plan for, or even recognisng that, a 3-4 degree world is probably most likely, is what will happen

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

More important to these people than being remembered as the villain is being responsible for losing their investors a stackload of cash. Without having a transition plan for, or even recognisng that, a 3-4 degree world is probably most likely, is what will happen

That's also true.

 

I honestly can't get my head round how people cannot see that the present course will cost far, far more money than actually taking on the problem ASAP. Or they do and simply don't give a toss because they're sociopaths and/or they think they'll be dead by the time it rolls onto them.

Edited 7 October 2022 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

 

@Fazzer 7

 

We were having a chat about fusion power not too long ago, if you'd like to know more, here's a good source.

[grobyfox1990]

On 08/10/2022 at 08:22, leicsmac said:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

 

@Fazzer 7

 

We were having a chat about fusion power not too long ago, if you'd like to know more, here's a good source.

That’s an interesting read. Should pay more attention to this thread in the future. 
 

Costs associated with renewable energy are tumbling and if that continues the market will ensure we use renewables going forward. I wouldn’t trust any govt to do this, it’ll be market forces that prevail. Hopefully the same with this fusion power you mention. Also as an example of an excellent tcfd report I’d recommend reading blackrock’s report. They get climate. Need more of this level of detail in climate reporting 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

That’s an interesting read. Should pay more attention to this thread in the future. 
 

Costs associated with renewable energy are tumbling and if that continues the market will ensure we use renewables going forward. I wouldn’t trust any govt to do this, it’ll be market forces that prevail. Hopefully the same with this fusion power you mention. Also as an example of an excellent tcfd report I’d recommend reading blackrock’s report. They get climate. Need more of this level of detail in climate reporting 

Interesting. As I've said before, I'm the other way around - I think market forces are too slow and too reactionary to make such a change work in the time we have, because they place too much value on the present or short-term ambitions (current events being a proof of that) and so we need further government intervention to make this work in a way that won't be really consequential.

[MPH]

New Zealand proposes taxing cow burps to reduce emissions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63211506

[leicsmac]

 

The first known species to be responsible for a mass extinction event. And the reaction, judging by some comments, is simply denial.

 

How very proud we must be.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

The first known species to be responsible for a mass extinction event. And the reaction, judging by some comments, is simply denial.

 

How very proud we must be.

All too believable. River pollution and deforestation in South America the biggest causes

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

All too believable. River pollution and deforestation in South America the biggest causes

Right.

 

And now, perhaps, the time has come to actually do more about it?

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right.

 

And now, perhaps, the time has come to actually do more about it?

Personally I would gradually introduce regulations that any company manufacturing goods into Western markets must meet ESG standards for those markets.  It would take a few years but worth it I think.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63244353

 

We live in interesting times.