Climate Change - a poll

[Otis]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In order:

 

- provided the transition is made according to current plans, there should really be next to no sacrifices in terms of reduction of quality of life. Energy generation and transportation infrastructures will remain in principle the same; they'll just be powered differently.

- The neo-Luddites amuse me more than worry me, but as long as they or those who think renewables are the entire solution are nowhere near control of the political process I think that's logical. Perhaps more worry might be spent on those who think there isn't a problem at all and are willing to ignore it in favour of short term profit, who do have control of the political process in many places.

- Net zero is exactly as it sounds; a country or location emitting exactly the same or less carbon emissions into the air as it captures. Not sure how that's a worrying concept either.

You see, sometimes I think you're a bonkers eco looney, then you write the above post that and I think, you know what, we're pretty much on the same page. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

How do you think they're going to generate our power needs, because renewables aren't going to get anywhere near, you might know more than I do on the subject 

Personally, I worry more about policies taken by British politicians, than I do.about climate change, isn't it this that's shut down the steel industry? We'd rather buy from China.

This bill if passed would mean that we wouldn't allow ourselves to buy steel from China, as their carbon output would be out carbon output, that would apply to everything.

A suite of solutions - small and medium scale fission for backbone, tidal, hydro, wind and solar for local solutions. That is the overall goal. Perhaps gas to help with the transition, but only where needed and only as a stopgap to preserve quality of life.

Climate change will lead to policy decisions from politicians in the UK and elsewhere you may find very, very nasty. Again, look at the two scenarios I point out earlier on this page.

WRT the bill, once again, if it is radical in the way you suggest, then it won't pass anyway so this entire discussion is moot.

 

1 minute ago, Otis said:

You see, sometimes I think you're a bonkers eco looney, then you write the above post that and I think, you know what, we're pretty much on the same page. 

Ha!

 

I've always favoured a technological transition that doesn't degenerate quality of life over gestures that would radically change things.

 

However, sometimes the necessity of even that needs to be made very, very clear to as many people as possible because they seemingly can't or won't understand the consequences if it isn't done.

[splinterdream]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A suite of solutions - small and medium scale fission for backbone, tidal, hydro, wind and solar for local solutions. That is the overall goal. Perhaps gas to help with the transition, but only where needed and only as a stopgap to preserve quality of life.

Climate change will lead to policy decisions from politicians in the UK and elsewhere you may find very, very nasty. Again, look at the two scenarios I point out earlier on this page.

WRT the bill, once again, if it is radical in the way you suggest, then it won't pass anyway so this entire discussion is moot.

 

Ha!

 

I've always favoured a technological transition that doesn't degenerate quality of life over gestures that would radically change things.

 

However, sometimes the necessity of even that needs to be made very, very clear to as many people as possible because they seemingly can't or won't understand the consequences if it isn't done.

I hear so many conflicting opinions about all of those sources you have stated, for example, the other day it was claimed that that day, solar/wind was generating 0.8% of our electrical grid requirements, and that that is only 20% of our energy requirements overall, now either that was a lie, or you're hoping a seriously high ramp up of solar farms/wind turbines, and tidal is theory isn't it? 

[leicsmac]

Just now, splinterdream said:

I hear so many conflicting opinions about all of those sources you have stated, for example, the other day it was claimed that that day, solar/wind was generating 0.8% of our electrical grid requirements, and that that is only 20% of our energy requirements overall, now either that was a lie, or you're hoping a seriously high ramp up of solar farms/wind turbines, and tidal is theory isn't it? 

That's where storage systems come in, and tidal is theory that would easily be put into practice in a place like the UK.

 

But in any case, I'm thinking more about the consequences not just in the UK but worldwide should we not drawdown carbon emissions, which again I would invite you to consider (as per above) as their cost is much, much higher than most any system implemented to stop them.

 

It's about how it can be done, but more than that it's about why it must be done.

[SpacedX]

 A remarkable work designed by Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading is about to be displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Art as part of an exhibition about how design has been an agent of change. Hawkins' contribution is called Climate Stripes and is deceptively simple. It employs coloured stripes to illustrate how the average temperature of the Earth has warmed each year over the past 175 years recounting the change purely by colours with shades of blue representing the cooler years and reds indicating the warming. The result is a stark reminder of the rapidity of climate change. Apparently he stripes have already had to be updated prior to being exhibited with a new darker shade of red to reflect the extreme heat in 2023, followed by the record global average of 2024 - the warmest year ever recorded. That is the year in which the the Earth's average temperature surpassed the 1.5°C warming level over a year for the first time and was also the benchmark temperature identified in the 2015 Paris agreement which the United States have now shunned. 

 

'Climate Stripes' has been acclaimed throughout the world ad the stripes have been adapted for individual continents, countries and cities. To generate the colours, Hawkins paid homage to the work of climate science and over a billion temperature readings all condensed into and comprising the differing shades. A very simple concept, but highly involved in preparation and execution. As a graphic representation of the pace of climate change, Climate Stripes has achieved outstanding global success in raising awareness and recognition of the crisis . Now it aims to achieve its ultimate aim in helping to avert it and send a message to the growing ambivalence Stateside. 

 

[leicsmac]

23 hours ago, SpacedX said:

 A remarkable work designed by Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading is about to be displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Art as part of an exhibition about how design has been an agent of change. Hawkins' contribution is called Climate Stripes and is deceptively simple. It employs coloured stripes to illustrate how the average temperature of the Earth has warmed each year over the past 175 years recounting the change purely by colours with shades of blue representing the cooler years and reds indicating the warming. The result is a stark reminder of the rapidity of climate change. Apparently he stripes have already had to be updated prior to being exhibited with a new darker shade of red to reflect the extreme heat in 2023, followed by the record global average of 2024 - the warmest year ever recorded. That is the year in which the the Earth's average temperature surpassed the 1.5°C warming level over a year for the first time and was also the benchmark temperature identified in the 2015 Paris agreement which the United States have now shunned. 

 

'Climate Stripes' has been acclaimed throughout the world ad the stripes have been adapted for individual continents, countries and cities. To generate the colours, Hawkins paid homage to the work of climate science and over a billion temperature readings all condensed into and comprising the differing shades. A very simple concept, but highly involved in preparation and execution. As a graphic representation of the pace of climate change, Climate Stripes has achieved outstanding global success in raising awareness and recognition of the crisis . Now it aims to achieve its ultimate aim in helping to avert it and send a message to the growing ambivalence Stateside. 

 

Eloquent.

 

And then you have the leader of the biggest economic power in the world thinking that there's nothing to be concerned about.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20px1e05w0o

[SpacedX]

@Posthorn54 Is there any particular reason why you feel to need to place laughing emojis under member's posts on this thread? Perhaps you have something worthwhile to say or something constructive to bring in the way of refutation? It makes you look rather dumb. 

[jgtuk]

9 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

@Posthorn54 Is there any particular reason why you feel to need to place laughing emojis under member's posts on this thread? Perhaps you have something worthwhile to say or something constructive to bring in the way of refutation? It makes you look rather dumb. 

Pay no attention, lots of these idiots have been emboldened recently by you know who and you know what. 

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, SpacedX said:

@Posthorn54 Is there any particular reason why you feel to need to place laughing emojis under member's posts on this thread? Perhaps you have something worthwhile to say or something constructive to bring in the way of refutation? It makes you look rather dumb. 

It’s the same as Phil bowman reacting to many posts but never commenting. It’s hardly worth getting disparaging and disrespectful about, it’s endearing 

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

It’s the same as Phil bowman reacting to many posts but never commenting. It’s hardly worth getting disparaging and disrespectful about, it’s endearing 

There is nothing disparaging and disrespectful about my observation at all, and it was a genuine question. In fact I'd contend that placing a laughing emoji beneath a post whilst declining to comment is precisely the latter..."disparaging and disrespectful" and there are quite a few members that are prone to it. @Phil Bowman is a sharp contributor to this forum and posts when he has something pertinent or worthwhile to say - instead of feeling the need to comment on absolutely bloody everything such as, it has to be said, yourself. 

[leicsmac]

Truth be told, I'm not that concerned either way.

 

The facts of the matter are what they are and if people want to practice humorous denial then that's up to them. The last laugh will be that of the Earth.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Truth be told, I'm not that concerned either way.

 

The facts of the matter are what they are and if people want to practice humorous denial then that's up to them. The last laugh will be that of the Earth.

Agree; it's a football forum and of little consequence in spite of the fact it can be regarded as a microcosm of popular belief and perception.

 

On this topic though Mac, as you are well aware "humorous denial" could result in nature having the last laugh, whilst a laughing emoji in response to a post is the last refuge of the witless and the vacuous 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Agree; it's a football forum and of little consequence in spite of the fact it can be regarded as a microcosm of popular belief and perception.

 

On this topic though Mac, as you are well aware "humorous denial" could result in nature having the last laugh, whilst a laughing emoji in response to a post is the last refuge of the witless and the vacuous 

It certainly is, but AFAIC either civilisation is saved in spite of them, or it's not and then they answer to the laws of thermodynamics, the screaming mob that will hold them accountable, or both. Payment will come due without anything we should do or say.

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, SpacedX said:

There is nothing disparaging and disrespectful about my observation at all, and it was a genuine question. In fact I'd contend that placing a laughing emoji beneath a post whilst declining to comment is precisely the latter..."disparaging and disrespectful" and there are quite a few members that are prone to it. @Phil Bowman is a sharp contributor to this forum and posts when he has something pertinent or worthwhile to say - instead of feeling the need to comment on absolutely bloody everything such as, it has to be said, yourself. 

You're letting an anonymous poster on a football forum get under your skin by putting an emoji on your comments, and disparagingly and disrespectfully giving them fuel by calling them 'rather dumb.' It's incredibly naive and gullible. Then you proceed to throw some friendly fire at me lol. Settle down, we got 3 points today.

Phil bowman has not made a comment since on this forum since August 2023. 

[SpacedX]

14 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

You're letting an anonymous poster on a football forum get under your skin by putting an emoji on your comments, and disparagingly and disrespectfully giving them fuel by calling them 'rather dumb.'

Your entire comment was a false premise and actually, a strawman fallacy. No you assumed that this was getting under my skin, That said, I find the notion of placing a laughing emoji under a post to discredit it not only in itself disparaging, but yes, rather dumb. And no, I did not call him that, I suggested that it made him look rather dumb. My question remains, what was it accomplishing?

 

19 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Then you proceed to throw some friendly fire at me lol. 

No intention of any hostility but there was really no need for you to comment was there? But then, that's never stopped you before. 

 

22 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Settle down, we got 3 points today.

I'm particularly relaxed tonight. Winning away at Spurs imbues me with a inner warmth and well being - a comforting zen like glow and oneness with the universe.

 

28 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Phil bowman has not made a comment since on this forum since August 2023. 

Perhaps you should follow his lead? 

 

And when you inevitably do post again instead of perhaps refraining from commenting, as opposed to engaging you in discourse, when I place a laughing emoji beneath it, do appreciate that it's actually very "endearing". (fumbles for an emoji) 

[FoxesDeb]

I assumed that @Phil Bowman had been banned from posting and that's why they only react now, and not comment.

 

It's a shame they don't post anymore, whatever the reason.

[grobyfox1990]

4 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I assumed that @Phil Bowman had been banned from posting and that's why they only react now, and not comment.

 

It's a shame they don't post anymore, whatever the reason.

Careful, don't comment on something that doesn't involve you lest you incur the wrath of the paper-skinned Donald Trump/SpaceX offering a line by line garbled rebuttal of your post. He's really chill and zen LOL.

I also assume Phil Bowman is banned from posting, he used to put laughing emojis on loads of my posts and it was always really satisfying. Then he stopped, I DM'd him to check he was ok but no reply. I said in another thread that it was good to see him back reacting to posts after I got a laugh a few days ago. 

[bovril]

I also find the laughing emoji/ no comment reaction pretty annoying and a bit immature, I am Rod Hull used to do it a lot. But it's pretty common across social media. The trick as ever is not to bite...

 

5 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I assumed that @Phil Bowman had been banned from posting and that's why they only react now, and not comment.

Either he's banned, which is weird because I can't remember any posts from him at all, or he is unbelievably disciplined. 

[Wymsey]

5 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I assumed that @Phil Bowman had been banned from posting and that's why they only react now, and not comment.

 

It's a shame they don't post anymore, whatever the reason.

@Mark, could you say if this is the case?

[SpacedX]

26 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Careful, don't comment on something that doesn't involve you lest you incur the wrath of the paper-skinned Donald Trump/SpaceX offering a line by line garbled rebuttal of your post. He's really chill and zen LOL.

I also assume Phil Bowman is banned from posting, he used to put laughing emojis on loads of my posts and it was always really satisfying. Then he stopped, I DM'd him to check he was ok but no reply. I said in another thread that it was good to see him back reacting to posts after I got a laugh a few days ago. 

On the contrary, the uptight one is clearly you. 

 

I suggest that we return to the topic of the thread though in the interest of ourselves and all concerned. 

[grobyfox1990]

34 minutes ago, bovril said:

I also find the laughing emoji/ no comment reaction pretty annoying and a bit immature, I am Rod Hull used to do it a lot. But it's pretty common across social media. The trick as ever is not to bite...

 

Either he's banned, which is weird because I can't remember any posts from him at all, or he is unbelievably disciplined. 

The frequency with which Phil Bowman laugh emoji'd other posts was impressive though. I thought I was special in that he only emoji'd my posts, but then looking back through a thread he had emoji'd lots of posts.

I never took it as immature/annoying, it's a forum for passing time whilst on MS Teams meetings. But then with gullible and exploitable posters like SpaceX showing their hyper sensitive sides, it's probably too good to resist the emoji. Dagger and Miquel Geordie used to tie people up in knots.

[leicsmac]

In an attempt to resume on topic discussion here:

 

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-trump-withdrawn-paris-agreement-bad.html

 

TL;DR - The current US administration being absent from world climate policy discussion might not be the worst thing ever in the same way that having a yelling child being absent from adult discussions isn't the worst thing ever.

 

Edit: of course,  a corollary of this is that the yelling child will still be making an enormous mess that will affect everyone while the adults are talking.

Edited 27 January by leicsmac

[bovril]

18 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

The frequency with which Phil Bowman laugh emoji'd other posts was impressive though. I thought I was special in that he only emoji'd my posts, but then looking back through a thread he had emoji'd lots of posts.

I never took it as immature/annoying, it's a forum for passing time whilst on MS Teams meetings. But then with gullible and exploitable posters like SpaceX showing their hyper sensitive sides, it's probably too good to resist the emoji. Dagger and Miquel Geordie used to tie people up in knots.

I noticed that a few posters who use it as a way of disparaging others' points will also be the same people who are like 'we must teach kids to critically engage with arguments they disagree with online'. 

 

But yeah, you're right of course, no need to be overly sensitive. We're all just passing time at work. Hope nobody's tracking my internet usage....

[SpacedX]

4 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I never took it as immature/annoying, it's a forum for passing time whilst on MS Teams meetings. But then with gullible and exploitable posters like SpaceX showing their hyper sensitive sides, it's probably too good to resist the emoji.

What a frankly bizarre response. Seriously, are you ok?

 

5 hours ago, bovril said:

I also find the laughing emoji/ no comment reaction pretty annoying and a bit immature, I am Rod Hull used to do it a lot. But it's pretty common across social media..

 

Blimey, I'd forgotten about him. Whenever someone challenged his claims with evidence, as opposed to a rebuttal he's simply place a laughing emoji beneath. That's all I'm referring to. Curious as to why people feel the need to do it. 

 

Back on topic, I was reading this paper today suggesting that in the most extreme scenario, climate change rising temperatures threaten to kill millions of European urban dwellers by 2099. Without “stringent” efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change would lead to 2.3mn additional temperature-related deaths, mostly in southern European cities such as Athens, Madrid and Rome. But those fatalities could be cut by at least two-thirds if preventive measures were taken.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03452-2

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, SpacedX said:

What a frankly bizarre response. Seriously, are you ok?

 

Blimey, I'd forgotten about him. Whenever someone challenged his claims with evidence, as opposed to a rebuttal he's simply place a laughing emoji beneath. That's all I'm referring to. Curious as to why people feel the need to do it. 

 

Back on topic, I was reading this paper today suggesting that in the most extreme scenario, climate change rising temperatures threaten to kill millions of European urban dwellers by 2099. Without “stringent” efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change would lead to 2.3mn additional temperature-related deaths, mostly in southern European cities such as Athens, Madrid and Rome. But those fatalities could be cut by at least two-thirds if preventive measures were taken.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03452-2

I am not ok, I am fearful for your overly sensitive soul. 
Also on topic, why do you think a paper only considering 3 of the SSPs is in any way relevant? What new info do you think this is showing given the context in which pretty much all mitigation scenarios are calculated with the commonly worked with 5 SSPs? What preventative measures are worthwhile at scale?