Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Feb 19 11:18:38 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / More climate change nonsense?
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 07:49:55
With Australia's fires now being blamed on CC I habe wondered is that true or was it similar to US forest fires where we had poorly managed Our forests being the main culprit which just was not helped by warmer temps.

Considering how climate change has become a religion, I take claims ( especially ones that immediately proclaim causation but offer little in evidence)



Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 07:53:00
Even if you question OZs fires i hear "well call had thoae fires to, ot must be CC"

But I also remember the many* causes of the US fires not just because of CC but its now being used as evidence.
Average Ameriacn
Member
Sat Jan 18 08:01:27
I was with a guy of Finland and he said: ‘We have, much different, we are a forest nation.’ He called it a forest nation. And they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 08:57:52
The way you combined things illustrate the problem with climate change nicely.

Our way of doing business (for example odd forestry management techniques) will no longer suffice.

We will either need to manage climate change, or absorb great costs finding new ways of doing old stuff.

In reality, we will end up doing both.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 08:59:43
Warmer air also has the capacity to carry more water to dump in your front yard Habebe (the downside is of course that warm, dry air has a greater capacity to draw water out of ground sources in drought prone areas).
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 09:43:37
Floods habe always been a.problem in this sun tropical shit hole...

I'm not saying CC had nothing to do with it. I am. Skeptical that it was a primary cause.

I think even with out CC these fires would have happened and for the most part been on scale.

But I agree that some things will have be done differently.

I guess my main gripe is all of a sudden everyone and there mom is out here claiming these fires are a direct cause of CC with no evidence and if one qurstions it they are called " clate deniers" and wackos....

That is eerily similar to Catholicism.

Your all evil as you've sinned ( used fossil fuels, ate meat etc)

Terrible things will happen.( your going to Hell)

We offer salvation for your sins, but only through our ideology can you get there. Dont dare try to geo engineer. You'll mess with the natural order and anger the gods.

If you disagree or even question your a heretic.

Now that its engrained proof isnt needed by its evangicals, just look with your eyes it mist be CC (or God or the devil)

I have a tendency to be weary of religions.



Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 09:45:19
Sub-tropical.
Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 18 09:47:55
Habebe -

I would look at the press coverage of this the same way I would look at the coverage of the school lunch revisions: dramatizing trash that exists, not to genuinely inform the viewer, but to push a political ideology and generate ad revenue.

Of course climate change could be argued as being an aggravating factor in the fires. But to claim that it's THE cause is just rubbish.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 10:11:06
You should probably spend less time with everyone and their mom.

My sphere is dominated more by the "well, yah. The less we limit global warming, the more the old ways of doing stuff will have to be replaced by dramatically more expensive ways of doing stuff".

Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 18 10:18:56
"You should probably spend less time with everyone and their mom."

I don't know what this means.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 10:21:49
"my main gripe is all of a sudden everyone and there mom is out here claiming"
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 10:59:30
Well, I totally plan to spend more time with there moms....

But ok, off the top of my head buttegieg claimed it on a national debate.

Rugian, Specifically with these fires ( at least the US ones) we know poor management and tree huggers have caused dangerous conditions....that CC has made worse. I suspect it with OZ but I honestly don't know enough about OZs forest and mangement to say one way or another.
Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 18 11:02:30
jergul,

Two points then.

1) I would say that my definition of "everybody and their mom" is wide enough when it comes to blaming the fires on climate change. To give a small sample:

-BBC: http://youtu.be/yNdWtNlJEzw?t=434

-Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-fires-australia-climate-change-20200107-ndjtsmofyzgubd7vqyscrpgw6q-story.html

-New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/opinion/australia-fires-climate-change.html

-CNN: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/01/06/amanpour-tim-flannery-australia-bushfires.cnn

-Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/australias-catastrophic-fires-are-moment-reckoning-murdochs-media-empire/

-Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-01-10/australia-fires-prime-minister-politics-united-states

-The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/17/if-the-bushfires-wont-force-climate-policy-change-we-need-to-circumvent-scott-morrison

-MSNBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJkFuRzJNoQ

-Seattle Times: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/qa-how-climate-change-other-factors-stoke-australia-fires/

-Boston Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/12/21/australia-smoke-and-mirrors/vg0MbIRaCFfC4XHRa20TNN/story.html

-Vice News: http://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgjdq/climate-change-is-turning-australia-into-a-fiery-hellscape

-Vox: http://www.vox.com/world/2020/1/10/21060280/australia-fires-climate-change-scott-morrison

-The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/australia-bushfires-climate-crisis-fossil-fuels-a9276786.html

2) If your sphere is discussing the supposed cost of combating change in the context of the Australian fires, then you have automatically already accepted that CC is the contributing cause. So you just agreed with my point. Thanks and see you Monday.
Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 18 11:06:35
Actually, third point:

3) Whatever the cost required to offset the alleged effects of climate change, it's still a bargain when you consider that the alternative is to roll back all human technological progress by 300 years. Thanks, but I like my electricity and airplanes.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 11:11:11
Jergul, And I get that, but in this case these problems would problematic regardless....

Just as we need drainage help in the South, we need better forest management to prevent and contaim super fires.I could go on about water management, and aquifers etc.

My point is these fires are predominately are the fault of poor management and hippies.

jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 11:31:51
Ruggy
First off, it was habebe that said it. Secondly, Australia is an example of old ways not working very well. Thirdly temperature is definitely a contributing cause.

rofl@rolling back 300 years. Also, rofl@cheaper.

You are spending 9 billion to repair 2 military bases after they were attacked by hurricanes. For context.

habebe
More and worse and fast.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 11:42:52
Lol, that was odd with " my statement" bit. But thanks for citing my point.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 18 17:28:40
Rugian:

This idea that the way to get to zero carbon is to roll back all progress in the last 300 years is absurdly stupid as to be barely worth engaging with.

So, unusually for me, I won't even attempt to lay out the reasoned case. I'll just instead say you are a fucking idiot and leave it at that.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 18 17:28:52
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 18 17:29:26
Habebe:

Climate change is a religion? The 90's era Heartland institute called and want their talking points back.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 18 17:45:01
"I'll just instead say you are a fucking idiot and leave it at that. "

That coming from the guy that thought the tehran plane could have bern engine failure, black people dont commit more crimes, and every bit of global warming hype is true. Lol.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 18 17:47:53
Now as for these fires, it is nearly certain that the existence of fossil fuel powered engines made these fires smaller.

In first world countries, modern burn rates are much smaller than prehistoric burn rates.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 18 17:53:37
So ya, trying to blame these fires on global warming is nonsense. Semiarid and dry summer climates are going to burn. Always have. Always will. Except mow they do it less, because we knock down some fires with our industrial might.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 19:52:40
Rugian, Ok after rereading your post I see What you meant.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 19:53:05
And yes thats what I meant.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 19:59:39
Bushfire scientist David Packham warns of huge blaze threat, urges increase in fuel reduction burns
Darren Gray
By Darren Gray
Updated

**************** March 12, 2015 — ************4.05pmfirst published at 1.50pm
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Whatsapp
Send via Email
Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size
Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.

Victoria's "failed fire management policy" is an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment, David Packham said in a submission to the state's Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

And he argued that unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, "is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur. The forest and alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people [will be] incinerated."

He said forest fuel levels had climbed to their most dangerous level in thousands of years.

Mr Packham produced his submission in response to a review of bushfire fuel management announced last month by the state government and to be conducted by the Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

http://www...ion-burns-20150312-14259h.html


jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 20:28:32
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia

May as well start with the facts.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 20:53:51
Fucking hippies...lol

Anyway that link i posted has a lot more to it, I only posted the top section before the ad breakups.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 21:30:58
I will try to be succinct.

23% of Australian forest is old growth. This does not mean it has never been clear-cut, it simply has not been clear-cut for a while, so the ecosystem has fully regained its normal function (which includes surviving forest fires).

The remaining 77% is a modern, man-made dog's breakfast.

Only 30% of forest fires are controlled burn-offs (most are wildfires). Some 15% of Australia's forests burn every year (by land area).

The problem is not so much that there is more debris around, but that the debris is a lot dryer and will burn a lot hotter (this is a climate change effect).

This means that the fellow is right. Controlled burn-offs in the off-season will get rid of burnable material without incinerating the eco-system.

Or - putting more resources into doing something that we used to have to put less resources into doing.

Which is what is happening and will continue to happen everywhere as we respond to rising temperatures.

Full disclosure - Packham is old as fuck and has a patent from 1966 on a device for - controlled ignition of forests.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 21:34:43
habebe
What is your position on mandating that private forest owners and leaseholders of public forests start paying to burn down 15% of the forest they manage every year?

Or was that something you thought the public should pay for?
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 21:42:07
Controlled burn-offs are incidentally entirely consistent with combating global warming. It locks a shitload of carbon into the topsoil (it takes charcoal 100ds to a 1000nd years to release to carbon it stores through natural processes).
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 22:11:54
Jergul, In OZ? Thats up to them.

In the US probably some sort of partnership.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 22:31:23
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole

Perhaps this weather phenomenon ( think Indian Ocean el Nino, la. Nina, naturally occurring weather patterns)

Mixed with poor management was the cause as it has caused drought in OZ.

CC seems to me could aggravate this, but seems to me that CC has less ans less evidence that it caused or even played a predominant role in this specific disaster.



jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 22:48:56
Habebe
"This specific disaster" is a naturally occurring event that happens in 10% of Australia's forests every year on average.

The question is not so much what caused it (natural stuff), as why it became so bad. The reason it became so bad is because it was aggravated.

Part of aggravation is due to man's direct interaction with the environment (77% of the forest is a dog's breakfast without full natural protection from excessive damage), part of it is due to global warming (the dog's breakfast is dryer than it would have been with cooler average temperatures).

What do we need to do? Spend more money than before on trying to clean up the dog's breakfast.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 18 22:50:59
Ultimately, it all comes down to physics and chemistry.
kargen
Member
Sat Jan 18 23:16:23
"El Nino is associated with drought, and occurs when sea surface temperatures in the western Pacific Ocean are cooler than average."

"In one century in the eleven-hundreds 70 per cent of the years are classified as drought, including a straight run of 39 drought years in a row," said Mr Kiem, a senior lecturer and researcher on climate impacts to Australia’s long term climate cycles."
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 23:24:38
Dogs breakfast? Is that like the lions share? Ive just never heard that phrase before.

Jergul, Im not sure we disagree.

My point in all of this is most mainstream media and CC warriors is over playing the role of climate change citing it as the primary cause and claiming so in the name of science and evidence " it's obvious" , right?

When reality is a different picture.

My honest belief is that some people over play CC with the belief that they know best and even if evidence isn't as bad as it is they keep overstating it because they homestly believe that its the best way to get the message out to the masses.

From there enviromemtalist extremists ran with it and it spread to others for a variety of reasons, Greta was depressed and bored, Al gore was one of the ones whomi think knew the truth and overstated it.

Now it has become so mainstream in most circles that they don't require proof before proclaiming any disaster to further the cause.

I favor moderate * reductions in fossil fuels, mostly through innovation in efficiency and when you can get the best bang for your buck while not dramatically effecting the poverty level.



Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 18 23:36:55
I also think that it takes away much needed fucks from other issues.

Why are dealing with cancer alley?

Or working with Canada more to make and keep the great Lakes as clean as they can be.

Why do we tolerate plastics in our oceans as well mercury in our food.

I fish, hunt and hike and camp. I think one of the best things Obama and GWB did was to increase our natiinal patks and to responsibly care for them with data backed initiatives like bringing back the wolves to Yosemite....

These imo arw much easier and more tangible goals.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 04:33:38
Kargen
Droughts are droughtier due to global warming. Google relative humidity.

Habebe
Dog's breakfast = Vomit. Its a exepression for a total mess.

Climate change does aggravate most any disaster. Things become more extreme. Bad made worse by climate change. The cost of remediation and protection higher than before.

Your counter example is a case in point. We have to revamp forest management because of climate change after a century of happily living with a total mess.

I think climate change helps draw attention to other issues. I am not fucking going to die from cancer if I am taking public transport to work.

The climate goal I favour besides reductions in emissions is pretty simple - Do everything and anything possible to increase the carbon content in soil everywhere.

Fighting forest fires is part of that. Fires burn carbon deposits in the topsoil if they burn too hot.

So its important that fires do not burn too hot.

Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 19 05:11:33
http://www...e-not-over-yet-20200113-p53qz0

It is sort of ironic that they use green energy to build an oil platform.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 05:45:42
I am with the shah of Iran on that one. Oil is way too valuable to burn. He wanted to use oil almost exclusively in petrochemical production.

One of the most common misconceptions is that 0 net emissions means no emissions.

In truth, we can have 0 net emissions and still use 50 million barrels a day (or something, I am pulling that number out of my ass).

The planet has huge CO2 sinks. The sinks are just not good enough to deal with current levels of CO2 emissions.

For something we should really stop doing - LNG. The production method emits an insane amount of CO2 (a unit of CO2 emited per unit CH4(liguid) produced).

Are you incidentally a fan of supply side restrictions to reduce CO2 emissions? That would essentially be a rationing system on input replacing a quota system for output emissions.
Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 19 05:54:12
Yeah, but we make $ on it.
Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 19 05:57:05
Probably way worse that its fracked, ade into LNG shipped in tankers over the Atlantic and then sold to Germany, reprocessed and burnt...but what ya going do build a pipeline?

Maybe if Denmark would sell us Greenland already.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 06:12:29
I am a bit hesitant to invoke spin-off effects, but Norway is special. Lots of things make business sense here that do not make sense anywhere else.

The tax on profits in the oil sector is 73%. It provides a solid motive for international oil companies to do their experiments here because profit reducing stuff reduces the money they have to put into our state coffers quite dramatically.

Equinor (the company doing it) pays 90% of its profits to the State in one way or another.

Svedrup is reducing its CO2 emissions directly, but the spin-offs from electrifying the high seas have tremendous potential.

Think ocean based wind turbines. The Svedrup project is effectively underwriting development costs of figuring out how to transport huge amounts of electricity at sea.

You nuclear subs may end up with extension cords instead of reactors yet :D.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 06:18:14
Electrifying Svedrup is costing us money in other words. 3 of every 4 dollars is effectively financed through a tax break.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 06:47:25
Sam:

Your global warming credentials went out the window when you said you thought we'd get 7m sea rises in fifty years. Hush, the grown ups are talking.
Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 19 07:34:37
I'll give you that, Norway os sort of a niche nation.Better than SC....I miss Sepa, even upstate NY is cool, or Vermont.
Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 19 07:34:37
I'll give you that, Norway os sort of a niche nation.Better than SC....I miss Sepa, even upstate NY is cool, or Vermont.
Rugian
Member
Sun Jan 19 10:18:00
Seb -

I am merely stating what the end-goal of Extinction Rebellion-type movements are advocating. If you really want to make the entire movement carbon-neutral by 2030, that would require a wholesale transformation of the way do things so radical that it would make early-20th century communism look positively quaint by comparison.

Your own government recognized the radicalism of XR when it recently classified it as an extremist movement. They want to completely restructure society as we know it, and they're not afraid of disrupting your public infrastructure systems in order to achieve their goals.

Perusing through the UK's leftwing media, I see that the Guardian's editorial board just this week endorsed both "flight shaming" and government intervention in order to get people to fly less. I think that more than validates my claim about airplanes.

As for electricity, you need to show me the math that supports a future where we are able to rely solely on carbon-neutral fuel sources without forcing a material reduction in consumption.

Another article I saw in the British press this week argued that driving into cities should be considered as anti-social as smoking. Cars are a huge no-no in any XR-dominated world.

I suppose trains are less than 300 years old. But wait, XR has tried to disrupt tube service as well.

Really, you need to point out anything invented in the last 300 years that XR WOULDN'T have a problem with. The cotton gin?

But more than anything, you should be thanking me for dignifying you with a response at all after you completely destroyed any credibility you had on this board with your insane and idiotic statements on the Ukrainian airplane. It's a favor to you that I take the time out of my day to acknowledge you, and you should be grateful for it. You're welcome.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 10:41:39
habebe
See Ruggy's post as an example of someone who thinks that net carbon neutral means no more fossile fuel ever.

Ruggy
H2 is a likely fuel candidate for aviation in the future.

Its important to remember that all fossil fuels are destillates and have to be used at ratios corresponding to the fractions a barrel of oil gives.

Are you against measures causing vessels to stop using heavy oil (a crude residue that is not further refined and cleaned because it can be used as marine fuel, so has a market)?

The measures cause a chain reaction that increase the demand for say marine diesel. Price sensitivity leads to the phase out of diesel cars that in turn create bigger markets for electric vehicles.

Its an industry that can almost never be correctly described in the sweeping generalizations you like to use.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 11:10:11
"Your global warming credentials went out the window when you said you thought we'd get 7m sea rises in fifty years. "

Given how you so badly fail at reasoning, it is no surprise you likewise fail at memory.

The funny thing is though, that is the kind of bs hype you would fall for.

Remember when you argued for years that all of the Himalayan glaciers might melt in a few decades?

Lol@seb
Rugian
Member
Sun Jan 19 11:20:52
jergul,

Hydrogen-powered aircraft are years away from being put into service in any appreciable quantity.

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure what your point is. Putting aside the fact that electric cars have their own issues (how far away are we from reaching peak lithium? what's the transportation cost of electricity?), they do represent a reduction in emissions when compared to diesel or gas. Other environmentally-friendly options provide similar potential for savings in emissions.

But these are just stopgap measures which slow the rate of alleged manmade global warming. If you're of the mind that humanity literally has only eleven years left before we're all doomed, they are woefully insufficient solutions. Much more radical ideas are required.

Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 11:21:45
"But more than anything, you should be thanking me for dignifying you with a response at all after you completely destroyed any credibility you had on this board with your insane and idiotic statements on the Ukrainian airplane. It's a favor to you that I take the time out of my day to acknowledge you, and you should be grateful for it. You're welcome. "

Lol pwnt
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 12:06:10
Ruggy
We only need a large number of stopgap options. The problem is not emissions, its the volume of emissions. The planet is fully able to sink 2/3rds of the emissions we release. Its the final 1/3rd that is the problem.

Your grandparents suffered far more in the way of inconvenience during wwii than anything we might expect to have to endure.
Rugian
Member
Sun Jan 19 12:39:34
jergul,

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Global temperatures have been trending to rise since approximately 1910, when carbon dioxide emissions were one-tenth of what they are now. Moreover, much of the world is continuing to industrialize, which means places like India and Africa are going to massively increase their emissions over time as they approach living standards comparable to the First World.

Let's assume that manmade emissions are the primary or even exclusive cause of global temperature rises. How does a 1/3 cut cause anything but a reduction in the rate of rise?
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:00:16
Nukes are the solution if you are urgent.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:07:14
Rugian:

Net zero.

Also I believe the govt has endorsed the same target circa twenty years later. So we are just quibbling over pace.

Re consumption, those solar cells, lithium batteries, turbines etc don't make themselves.

The govt hasn't declared XR an extremist group, a police force did and immediately got a slap down from their chief. XR has not tried to disrupt tubes, two people did, despite XR having specifically decided not to do that; and in any case the point wasn't that they objected to tubes, the point was that object to continuing bay, the same way that when farmers drive slowly up the motorway in France, the point is the inconvenience to force people to pay attention, not the abolition of motorways.

Goddamn you are idiotic.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 13:10:27
Sammy
I have already mentioned that.

Ruggy
It has to do with where we have set the goal posts. Our goal is to have slightly more CO2 in the air than we do now.

That level represents a new equilibrium and our sinks are not even close to catching up with the new equilibrium.

The sinks will continue to draw down emissions even as we emit 6 times more than we did in 1910.

We would have to do a hell of a lot more if we were aiming for a 1910 equilibrium instead of a 2030 one.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 13:13:56
Look at me explaining stuff :).
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:19:33
"Goddamn you are idiotic. "

The person that said this also said that iran probably didnt shoot down the plane because it didnt immediately blow up into a million pieces.

How ironic.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:20:28
Sam:

You said the ice caps would be gone by 2070. Why should we take your seriously?
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:24:42

"I have already mentioned that."

Then why arent nukes being suggested by extremist environuts and retarded governments(like germany). Seem to me those sebs are doing the opposite of what is reasonable.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:25:23
"You said the ice caps would be gone by 2070."

Lol the memory of a retard.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 19 13:30:49
Iran should cite global warming concerns as a basis for developing peaceful nuclear bombs.
Rugian
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:40:47
Seb,

Are you daft? You completely forgot to thank me for bothering to respond to your credibility-free ass.

And for the record, you're not doing much to improve your standing here. The train disruptions involved well more than two people and the XR ruling against screwing up morning commutes came only a day prior and in the face of a significant minority arguing that such attacks were warranted.

Also noticed you didn't even mention the similar disruptions of aircraft.

I will admit I was wrong on the government declaring XR an extremist group - it was actually the City of London Police, and they withdrew it after facing political backlash. I gave the government too much credit on this front, because the designation is a valid one.

The UK's 2050 target was passed by a Conservative government that has little desire to actually enforce it and only put it into law to appease the mob. Even if they were to enforce it though, it's not like it would make a huge difference - 2050 is well after 2030, and in any case the UK going carbon neutral means bupkis in a world where China is continuing to fire up new coal plants.

Carbon neutrality requires something like 80% of all energy to come from renewables - that's simply not possible, especially if you're ditching nuclear.

It's feel-good legislation designed to make you be able to pat yourselves on the back because you believe you're making a difference. You're not.

Granted, I'd put more credibility on the policy if a Labour government was the one enforcing it. Rebecca Long-Bailey is even on record at PMQs saying that it's no longer party policy to reopen the coal mines. And they still wonder why they lost the north.

So no, the UK will not be taking any appreciable measures to halt their alleged contributions to climate change. To do so will require something much more radical than banning cars from city centers and insisting on switching over to paper straws (which are gross, btw).
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:48:58
Stock Vs flow.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:50:20
Rugian:

The train disruption - was two people on the jubilee line at canning town. Otherwise, the trains were fine. I used them. False news.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:53:32
And you admit basically you are quibbling over a decade or so.

And you've been able to justify your opinion that we have to unroll all 300 years of progress only by citing specifically XR and achieving net zero in a decade.

I remember 15 years ago, getting to 30% wind was supposed to be impossible.

The Labour plan involved planting a lot of trees. Theres a lot of land we could easily reforrest.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:53:43
Also carbon capture.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 19 13:54:15
Ten years is slightly unrealistic. 20 isn't.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 19:37:32

"I remember 15 years ago, getting to 30% wind was supposed to be impossible."

And here you are, its now, and you are not particularly close to 30%.

Lol @ seb, wrong again.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 19:50:31
From what i can find the UK uses about 200 gigawatt-years (thermal) of energy per year(all sectors), of which 6 or 7 gw-year is wind.

Lol seb thinks 30%
when its actually 3%.

It will now be UP standard syntax to use "seb" and "retard" interchangeably.

So it is written, so it is done.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 19 19:58:04
Worldwide wind is about 1% of energy production.

Lol@seb.

What a freaking seb.

Habebe
Member
Mon Jan 20 00:15:04
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

Wiki says 4.8% using BP as a cite

However there is no link to the cite so take it as you will.

2018 figures.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Jan 20 00:27:10
The problem with the internet is so many uneducated people say stupid fucking shit and believe it because they find another fucking moron to agree with them easily.

Example: Habebe, Sam Adams, etc.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 20 00:29:06
You really should be careful about calling other people retards when you so clearly are not doing very well with reading.

30% wind is easily within reach. You see, Seb was speaking of electricity generation.

Why did I know that from the context and you did not?
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 20 02:32:21
Sam:

Who is "You" in your sentence Sam. I certainly didn't say the UK.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 20 02:33:18
North sea facing, so close.

Do you want to take another opportunity to get everything hopelessly wrong by failing to read?
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 20 02:34:00
I'll give you 12 hours.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 20 02:45:59
Fyi, about 15% of UK electricity comes from wind on average over a year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Using thermal power produced as a baseline is retarded. Coal, with a 40% efficiency, produces 1000gw thermal for 400mw electrical produced. So a 55% efficient cgc plant would appear as only 730gw thermal.

Essentially Sam is measuring wasted energy that isn't used in his baseline. Shit poor way to do analysis.

He's also using all sectors - which means our notoriously cold climate with Victorian housing stock reliant on gas heaters which aren't going to come from wind is in the baseline too.

What a joke.

No wonder he thinks all the ice caps will instantly melt in 2070.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 20 05:12:53
Well, both Jergul and Seb failed at Sam's climate test. Obviously Sam is much smerter and nolegable.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 20 05:39:20
Nimi
Did Sammy say I failed? I think he is doing that rabid dog thing of his and focusing on Seb :).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 20 07:17:12
Jergul
My bad, he didn't mention you. I have no idea what to make of the CO2/seasonal variation thread or the more recent airplan discussion. It is below the standards of someone who works in a science building.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 20 08:21:02
Nim:

You mentioned seasonal :-( it was more fun when he had to pretend that he thought we didn't know that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 20 08:56:45
I had to go back and check, Jergul, he indeed mentioned you. You have to ride the short bus now :/

Seb, it isn't too late he can still pretend! What is actually said has no impact on sam's understanding of the world e.g Airplane thread.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 20 10:59:01


"He's also using all sectors "

Duh. Co2 doesnt magically stop being emitted from non-electricity power.

"Wiki says 4.8% using BP as a cite
"

Thats for electricity only. For all power, you need to include building heating and transportation too. Counting thermal to useful inefficiencies electricity is generally about 1 10th of a nations total power consumption.

Which makes winds impact on emissions more than an order of magnitude off from these sebbish claims.

Poor sebs... so much confusion.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 20 11:00:36
Move over sammy. There has to be room for both of us on the short bus.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 20 15:00:36
Sam Adams:

"Co2 doesnt magically stop being emitted from non-electricity power"

I'm not sure what relevance this has - until the energy demand has shifted to electricity, it defacto cannot be met by wind. That is the whole point of electricity: it's an abstraction layer for power transmission. 30% wind means 30% of electricity production.

"Wiki says 4.8% using BP as a cite"

Again, what relevance? The argument that used to be made that more than 20% wind was not achievable was based around the impact of the grid (too variable) and economics (it would push prices too high). If you can get advanced economies using it at 30%, that disproves the case. The fact that terrible backwaters laboring with 19th century infrastructure, like the US for example, or other parts of the the third world, are not using wind power isn't really relevant to answering the issue at hand: is it possible, not are backward savages unable to do so and instead resort to burning rocks.

Denmark is over 30% now, on annual average. UK on 17% last year that stats are available for.





Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 20 15:47:55
I love how seb arbitrarily cuts off all non-electricity power to try to seem less wrong.

So denmark leads the way with some 10% of its yearly averaged energy needs met by wind. But denmark is a tiny fraction of a much larger grid, able to maintain stability only by mooching off its neighbors. Its like saying "west texas meets all its energy winds with wind!" when in reality theres 50 heavy fossil stations, a dozen nuke plants, and 350 natgas peakers all on the same grid doing the real work while ERCOT as a whole chugs along at 4% wind.

Meanwhile danish electricity prices are horribly high already, even with wind at a mere 30% electric, 10% total, as a tiny subset of a much larger grid.

Lol denmark=sebbed.

Meanwhile france continues to have the lowest electricity prices in the civilized part of europe AND has the lowest CO2 emissions.

How did they do that i wonder?

Not with wind or sebs thats for sure.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 20 17:27:58
Sam:

And yet France is building wind turbines at the fastest rate in Europe.

Sam's absurd argument that we should look at noon electrical energy here is hilarious. He won't be happy until there's a wind turbine or sail on every car. Sure, it would be lovely if every car was electric, but if it *is* electric, then it's already part of electrical demand.

The issue was always percentage of grid.

Denmark imports 12% of electricity, so if you like you can deflate it's 30% to 26%. It's still above what was supposed to be impossible.

It's energy prices are average for Europe. Sam is confusing taxes on retail prices with energy costs, and if he thought about what the EU grid actually means (duh, trade) then he'd realise that (duh) high retail prices can't reflect cost of electricity production because otherwise (duh) local wind would simply be outcompeted by imports.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 20 19:17:54
Well ya you need high taxes to support the high subsidies required to make people use relatively shitty wind power.

It all counts the same in the end: wind is not ready to compete on its own against most other forms of genetation in most places even at low penetration. I used to work energy trading for a wind-hydro-natgas generator. Without massive subsidies we never would have touched wind. It just doesnt stack up on its own.

There is yet to be a significant electrical grid that has even come close to 30% wind. Those sebs that try hardest fail and cost alot.

Note the most sebish wind energy users(denmark and germany) have the costliest power. While still having much higher emissions than say, france.

The unmitigated failure of germany/denmark and the vast success enjoyed by france is THE industry case study on not being a seb.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 20 19:18:24
http://upl...ktri%C4%8Dne_energije_2017.jpg

Lol@sebs
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 21 04:31:04
Sammy
Express this in math:

http://en...._Power_Cumulative_Capacity.svg

Hint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 21 06:01:09
The last time seb and sam had math war over global warming, it ended with seb doing some napkin calculation (while drunk) and proving sam wrong, sam accepted this. I can smell where this is going.

Generally, you should use whatever energy production that works for whatever place you are living. If you can have alot of hydro, do that, wind, solar, geothermal ditto. Then you round it all with nuclear. The IPCC is clear that nuclear power is key to meeting the goals.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 21 07:40:51
Sam:

1. Compared to nuclear subsidies?
2. Key word "used to" - subsidies are being withdrawn but rate of installed capacity is going up. Initial subsidy to create the demand for a self sustaining industry with low unit costs through scale has been achieved. Latest uk wind is $0.04 kwh.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 21 07:41:36
Sam shows retail prices again. Muppet.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 21 10:32:23
"Latest uk wind is $0.04 kwh."

thats at low penetration %, impossible to maintain.

And latest combined cycle natgas is 0.02 if you want to look at just production costs.

Lol seb. You will always lose.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 21 10:35:54
Wind is like the bandaid you put on the stubbed toe of a crying child. It doesnt do anything but the crying decreases.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 21 10:40:44
Nimatzo trying to support seb. Lol how cute. Dont forget the bandaid for his toe.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 21 10:56:42
Struggling with the concept of "exponential"? I gave you wiki links and everything.

You are citing combined cycle with cogeneration, right?
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share