Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

Thank you @Carl the Llama for doing some of the lifting in here too. Pretty much said what I was going to say.

 

In any case, it pretty much comes down to this:

 

- by practically any credible source, there is a consensus among climate scientists that the IPCC's models are accurate

- even if these models fail to predict the future temperature increases and their consequences (because all things are possible, after all) relevant action should still be taken to apply the tech as detailed in the Drawdown report and elsewhere because of the sheer number of other benefits it will bring anyway at (comparatively) small economic cost

- doing nothing and letting the dice fall where they for reasons of...some kind of authoritarian boogeyman, I guess(?) is unbelievably irrational, because firstly why on Earth would one think every single one of these scientists were in on some commie conspiracy to change the world needlessly, and secondly because even if it were the case, barring the ultimate in 1984-style hellhole dystopias the eventual potential consequences of climate change in terms of death and suffering are worse and as resources dwindle governments are likely to become more authoritarian in that way anyway.

 

There is no good reason, none whatsoever, for governments to not seek to apply these changes, beyond short-term self-interest.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49799752

 

Away from the currently demanding issues for a moment, good stuff.

[leicsmac]

https://radio.wosu.org/post/ohio-state-astronomers-capture-black-hole-shredding-star

 

Remember folks, gravity is, pound for pound the *weakest* of the four fundamental forces. But that doesn't mean much when you have *lots* of pounds.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://radio.wosu.org/post/ohio-state-astronomers-capture-black-hole-shredding-star

 

Remember folks, gravity is, pound for pound the *weakest* of the four fundamental forces. But that doesn't mean much when you have *lots* of pounds.

Had to laugh at Sky News. They were showing the graphic and treating it as if it were actual footage of the event as seen by astronomers. I’m sure they actually believed it themselves.

[WigstonWanderer]

On 21/09/2019 at 00:27, leicsmac said:

We can certainly make fission power - like molten salt, as you suggest here - better than it is at the present time, but IMO fusion should always be an objective simply because of the sheer level of reward in terms of safety and output it would give.

I meant to get back to you on this but forgot. 

 

As a physics student many years ago, I remember excitedly discussing fusion with fellow students as a possible solution to energy problems, though even at the time it was acknowledged that the technology always seemed to be 30 or 40 years away. It was around the time of the oil shocks of the early 70s, so was quite topical.

 

I have long relinquished any pretence to having much insight into physics or engineering, but I have come to believe that fusion is unlikely to solve anything for the foreseeable future, the engineering challenges are simply too great. Yes, there’s ITER, but I suspect that this will be one of those projects that will always overrun and be over budget. Even if it eventually gets off the ground, I have doubts about scalability and economic viability. I genuinely hope I’m wrong, but from what I’ve read regarding Molten Salt Reactors, they seem to be a much more realistic bet.

[Nicolo Barella]

I'm a fairly young guy.

 

If you're not willing to use your vote to stop Climate Change, to make the place I live today habitable when I'm old, I hate you. Willing to change my mind?

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Had to laugh at Sky News. They were showing the graphic and treating it as if it were actual footage of the event as seen by astronomers. I’m sure they actually believed it themselves.

Sometimes I despair at the standard of scientific media reportage.

 

10 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I meant to get back to you on this but forgot. 

 

As a physics student many years ago, I remember excitedly discussing fusion with fellow students as a possible solution to energy problems, though even at the time it was acknowledged that the technology always seemed to be 30 or 40 years away. It was around the time of the oil shocks of the early 70s, so was quite topical.

 

I have long relinquished any pretence to having much insight into physics or engineering, but I have come to believe that fusion is unlikely to solve anything for the foreseeable future, the engineering challenges are simply too great. Yes, there’s ITER, but I suspect that this will be one of those projects that will always overrun and be over budget. Even if it eventually gets off the ground, I have doubts about scalability and economic viability. I genuinely hope I’m wrong, but from what I’ve read regarding Molten Salt Reactors, they seem to be a much more realistic bet.

Fusion has been kicked around for some time and you're right about it being "only 30 or 40 years down the road" for about 50 years now. However, progress hasn't stalled - it's merely slower than some folks thought, because as you say, the engineering difficulties are much bigger than first thought.

 

As an energy course, the limited progress we've made and the potential it has means it's too tempting to give up - it's so much better than any other source even vaguely researched right now. However, given the time constraints we have, you're right in that better fission alternatives should be looked at too - Gen IV molten salt reactors being a very good place to start.

 

5 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

I'm a fairly young guy.

 

If you're not willing to use your vote to stop Climate Change, to make the place I live today habitable when I'm old, I hate you. Willing to change my mind?

There's always going to be people who value short-term self-interest over everything else, and they're free to hold that rather sociopathic belief - the kicker is making sure the decisions they make don't get in the way of what needs to be done long term overmuch.

[leicsmac]

 

Long story short, it's now difficult to the point of impossibility to prevent a 1.5 degrees C average increase by 2100, so the best we can do is try to keep it below 2 degrees instead and prepare for the changes that such an increase will entail.

[ozleicester]

Technology -

 

5-6 years ago i was at unable to get a decent audio commentary of City games (Player was a fking shambles)... Today im sat here watching a live stream of the U23s in HD :O
 

Thanks King Power

[Wymsey]

Am not really warming to the plug-in powered hybrid cars to be honest, which apparently are set to rise in popularity in the future.

One thing is that you rarely see any plug-in equipment about to charge them up and, also, would be surprised if you find any plug-in services where most people live.

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 27/09/2019 at 15:40, WigstonWanderer said:

Had to laugh at Sky News. They were showing the graphic and treating it as if it were actual footage of the event as seen by astronomers. I’m sure they actually believed it themselves.

This is why I have strong misgivings about displaying graphics like this, colourised pics of images from radio telescopes, etc. It is all a bit "emperor's new clothes", in which scientists could say almost anything, so long as there was a pretty picture with it.

 

Not saying this is what is happening, but it certainly doesn't help achieve accurate knowledge amongst the masses.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

This is why I have strong misgivings about displaying graphics like this, colourised pics of images from radio telescopes, etc. It is all a bit "emperor's new clothes", in which scientists could say almost anything, so long as there was a pretty picture with it.

 

Not saying this is what is happening, but it certainly doesn't help achieve accurate knowledge amongst the masses.

That's why effective science communication is important - sadly it's a difficult art.

[WigstonWanderer]

40 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

This is why I have strong misgivings about displaying graphics like this, colourised pics of images from radio telescopes, etc. It is all a bit "emperor's new clothes", in which scientists could say almost anything, so long as there was a pretty picture with it.

 

Not saying this is what is happening, but it certainly doesn't help achieve accurate knowledge amongst the masses.

The Sky news woman referred to there being “only a few seconds of footage”, and there was no attempt by the astronomer to explain that it was a graphic, which I found a little disturbing.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49870154

 

There will probably be some schedule slip...but exciting times.

[MC Prussian]

Surprisingly good news from the Ozone Layer Front:

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cams-monitors-very-unusual-2019-ozone-hole

 

Looking at the graphs, there is visible progress being made in the past 40 years. May it continue.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Surprisingly good news from the Ozone Layer Front:

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cams-monitors-very-unusual-2019-ozone-hole

 

Looking at the graphs, there is visible progress being made in the past 40 years. May it continue.

Very much so, goes to show how governmental action directed by scientific data can be a highly positive thing. Also, how quickly nature can restore things if humans stop the particular destructive thing they're doing.

[MC Prussian]

On 25/09/2019 at 19:36, Carl the Llama said:

No.  In the community of climate scientists, 97-98% agree that the IPCC's ACC model is accurate.  Keep reading that sentence I quoted (and which you asked me to read thinking I hadn't).  You'll get there.

 

Btw this 'all scientists' thing is a moot point.  When it comes to climate science I only care about climate scientists who have undertaken research and published their studies.  These are the people included in the 97-98% figure.

Sure we can hardly argue that there is scientific consensus about the fact that there IS climate change, I mean it's plain to see. But that was never my point

 

What we can argue is the way we go about the research, the results it produces based on unreliable computer models, using extremes as benchmarks and how independent the IPCC truly is.

Just don't buy into the hysteria and the activism controlled by a new, emerging Climate Change Scare industry.

As long as there is no in-depth public discussion including scientists, but only scaremongering and propaganda, including one-sided ivory tower communication, the doubts will never go away.

 

Just an update:

Quote

A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, has sent a registered letter to the Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres. They warn the Secretary-General that “[c]urrent climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”
They add: “We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”

The European Climate Declaration sent as part of the letter to Guterres was drafted by climate ambassadors from 14 countries. The official presentation of the Declaration (including the release of the full list of signees) will be held in Oslo on October 18 during the Natural Variability and Tolerance conference. More press conferences will follow in Brussels and Rome.

https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

 

As part of the official letter:

Quote

The group’s letter warns the U.N. that “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose”.

The Declaration adds that the models, which have predicted far more warming than they should (see diagram), “are not remotely plausible as policy tools”, in that “they ... exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial”.

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-press-briefing.pdf

[MC Prussian]

An overview of how 60 countries are doing in terms of Climate Change performance:

The UK are currently one of the top performers (in 8th place). Surprised to see Morocco that high up.

https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CCPI-2019-Results.pdf

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Sure we can hardly argue that there is scientific consensus about the fact that there IS climate change, I mean it's plain to see. But that was never my point

 

What we can argue is the way we go about the research, the results it produces based on unreliable computer models, using extremes as benchmarks and how independent the IPCC truly is.

Just don't buy into the hysteria and the activism controlled by a new, emerging Climate Change Scare industry.

As long as there is no in-depth public discussion including scientists, but only scaremongering and propaganda, including one-sided ivory tower communication, the doubts will never go away.

 

Just an update:

https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

 

As part of the official letter:

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-press-briefing.pdf

No, we can't, unless you once again want to dismiss the vast majority of climate scientists as incompetent or malicious, because there is no debate about that matter within that community.

 

And members of the public can be as skeptical about the data as they wish to be - for one I'm not sure how much leading scientists appearing in public in some grand debate would affect the opinion of the skeptics anyway and for another people, while entitled to their own opinion, are not entitled to their own facts.

 

And while this desire for some kind of daft talking shop continues, both the average global temperature and cost of mitigation of the consequences keeps rising, and the clock keeps ticking. Remember, the Earth doesn't care in the slightest about politics.

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No, we can't, unless you once again want to dismiss the vast majority of climate scientists as incompetent or malicious, because there is no debate about that matter within that community.

 

And members of the public can be as skeptical about the data as they wish to be - for one I'm not sure how much leading scientists appearing in public in some grand debate would affect the opinion of the skeptics anyway and for another people, while entitled to their own opinion, are not entitled to their own facts.

 

And while this desire for some kind of daft talking shop continues, both the average global temperature and cost of mitigation of the consequences keeps rising, and the clock keeps ticking. Remember, the Earth doesn't care in the slightest about politics.

So, that's you openly calling for no public debate between scientists/science and the public? No discussion? Are you actually advocating for a one-sided top-down approach and - to some extent - forcing change on people?

 

I've never dismissed the vast majority of climate scientists as incompetent or malicious, quite the contrary. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

My main criticism lays deeper and somewhere else - Climate Change as a scientific field on its own, the measures and data used, the role of the IPCC in the grand scheme of things, the media, climate change activism.

 

Now more than ever before - in the light of these ridiculous, orchestrated climate change protests - we do need a serious, honest and open public debate, we need to reach a better general understanding what science agrees upon, what the main debated talking points are and how we as individuals and nations can make an impact for real, not by having school kids taking a leave of absence on a regular school day.

I'm pretty sure skeptics can and would be swayed that way.

 

#lessgretasmoredebate

[MC Prussian]

So whilst scientists - actual experts in the field - giving public lectures remain a rarity in the media or are nowhere to be seen or pushed, activists are using children as "scientists" which in turn are pushed by the media:

You can't make it up.

[MC Prussian]

As a side effect of the Climate Change movement hysteria, psychologists see a growing Climate Change anxiety among children:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-climate-children/children-suffering-eco-anxiety-over-climate-change-say-psychologists-idUSKBN1W42CF

 

Sickening - in many ways.

[MC Prussian]

Next time you're in Nice, say hello to the cameras:

Quote

Today, the country’s fifth biggest city in terms of population is de facto “France’s most heavily watched city,” with more than 2,600 cameras  installed on the street — one for every 128 inhabitants, and an increase of 1,111 percent since 2007.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-facial-recognition-is-taking-over-a-french-riviera-city/amp/

 

European Big Brother - coming to a corner near you soon.

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[Jon the Hat]

On 29/09/2019 at 11:41, Wymeswold fox said:

Am not really warming to the plug-in powered hybrid cars to be honest, which apparently are set to rise in popularity in the future.

One thing is that you rarely see any plug-in equipment about to charge them up and, also, would be surprised if you find any plug-in services where most people live.

Are you telling us you don't have electricity at home Wymesy?

[Jon the Hat]

On 27/09/2019 at 21:05, Nicolo Barella said:

I'm a fairly young guy.

 

If you're not willing to use your vote to stop Climate Change, to make the place I live today habitable when I'm old, I hate you. Willing to change my mind?

Buy property in Greenland.