Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

What fuels me is when I read a guardian piece on how the arctic will be gone by september 2015 and the empirical measurements show Arctic sea ice at 2006 summer low, meaning the ice in summer has advanced not declined, it pisses me off

When I read Greenland is melting away and then again look at the empirical data, showing Greenland is gaining billions of tons of ice and never reached temperatures high enough for a melt season, it pisses me off.

When the media repeatedly tie extreme weather to global warming without one shred of science to back it up, it pisses me off.


When Obama talks of Co2 without ever mentioning the carbon footprint of the US military it pisses me off.

When Cameron Obama and others talk about the doomed arctic and yet allow Shell Exxon and Rosneft to drill there for oil.. ditto

This is what drives me

 

I agree with most of what you've put there, but I take issue with that statement.

That's a cover all "**** it it's too hard" defeatism that if heeded by many pioneers of our modern age would have resulted in stagnation as opposed to progression.

Yes, as it stands TODAY, we're hooked on Co2 producing processes. Primarily the internal combustion engine and fossil fuel electricity production.

But just look how far we've come in recent years in terms of efficiencies of the former for example. Sure we're still reliant on it and maybe most of the gains have been balanced out by increased numbers of vehicles - BUT - without the political drive for lower emission vehicles we'd be looking at higher numbers of smokers out there, and not higher numbers of highly efficient low Co2, low particulate producing machines.

So there are benefits in the drive towards a cleaner planet that climate change is a prime part of. Of course there's ****s out there lining their pockets off the back of it and of course there's people driving agendas, but it shouldn't deflect from the core aim and the necessity to do something - both in terms of emissions but also in terms of removing the reliance on carbon.

If we don't don't dramatically reduce our reliance on carbon, then we'll see a massive increase in the environmentally catastrophic practices like fracking et al, as we continue to try and squeeze the last drops from the Earths core.

Without the climate change driver, then the entire alternative energy industry and the creativity in our Universities and industries loses it's relevance, impact and ultimately it's funding.

So whilst I think there's a definite over egging of the custard on this issue, driven in part by greed and politics, I don't want to see it marginalised and deemed as being tomorrows problem.

 

This statement is backed by sound work done by economists and researchers. You balance what we have as replacements for CO2 emitting sources. One guy, an economist who believes in global warming was attacked, physically, for suggesting adaption was more cost effective than prevention
Bjørn Lomborg did a cost effective analysis and the clima nuts went mental on him and he actually believes in AGW

Like I said 97% of global transport is emitting CO2. The actual number of vehicles is growing. Imagine a developed India and Africa with as many cars per person as germany. So while 97% is just a %, the actual number of machines increases every single day.

Airtraffic.. will have to be slashed, how will that work?

Agriculture, is petrolium driven, how will that work, pesitcies and fertiliers are petrolium products that involve CO2 emissions. All the machinery is emitting CO2.
Again energy for the third world. The WHO reports 5 million kids recorded as dying from the effects of indoor cooking fires. Many more than that number in adults with throat cancer as 2 billion have no electicty. So how do you offset the development without costing lives?

Food prices.
In the 2000s food prices doubled because this alarmist crap say the US turn 30% of its corn to biofuels. That actually led to many deaths world wide from starvation and drove more into food poverty

There is no halving CO2 unless you plan to half the population

 

@Tobes

I find your stance on this both reasonable and logical, now if only the ****wit alarmist cack media, environmentalists and the IPCC could do same then the issue would be infinitely simpler

The vast majority of people who beleive the IPCC would scream "Denier" at me and tell me I an an Oil shill.


This week I have been told I shill for Putin, ExxonMobile and Koch brothers.

#ifOnly

 

But you're thinking about all of that based on todays technology. That's akin to thinking about how to get a watch to keep your diary, navigate a route and be an encyclopedia, when you're sat looking at a bat and ball TV games console in the '70's. The technology will advance - and do so rapidly.

The salient point is, that the planet needs to find an alternative to the internal combustion engine. Electric cars are merely a fad, and most manufacturers don't believe they are the future of transport at all. Someone will crack a viable alternative, as sure as eggs is eggs.

 

Maybe mate, I am basing it on technology trends and emerging technology though not just current means. The problem is portability of replacement energy sources, solar is local and cannot be transported

Put it this way, you suggest ot me the possible near term solution for transport alone. Airplanes will never be solar or use biofuel.. what do you think is possible within 80 years?

 

Better still no one has yet to expain how we replace all the combustion engines we use. No one seems to also consider the amount of petrochemicals used to actually make these replacements, should they somehow magically arise.

Biofuels just to provide the US with Electricty consumption alone would require three times the current US agricultural land used for all crops in the United States currently. That's just juice to the power socket.

 

Air travel will be the hardest probelm to solve imo. However, the drive towards greener outputs has seen a massive improvement in fuel efficiency in recent years, again probably negated by higher numbers of aircraft, but any improvement is better than none.

As for passenger cars, what the solution looks like I have no idea (and if I did I wouldn't share it, I'd be buying ****ing shares in it ) but what I DO KNOW is that without the drive for greener transport and ever tougher emissions controls, then there'd be no great desire to find it.

 

This video unfortunately titled by some loon on youtube is actually about the oil situation and the near future, it is based on actual facts. Ignore the stupid alarmist title.

This is where we are at and where we are going, when you actually watch this it will sink in that when oil runs out we are in dire trouble due to the dependence on it. It aint an end of the world video. Its the work of research. Not conspiracy

Any comments about the actual video should be about the facts presented.. if anyone bothers to watch it.

This lays the facts about oil bare enough for anyone to understand.

Cities are oil junkies and the withdrawal will be epic and it will be long before 2100 when the world is meant to melt liek an icepop

 

There is always a desire, this tech is worth billions if not trillions and if you start up a project or company because you are working on a sustainable project you get what Elon Musk got with Tesla cars, billions in subsidues, it is actually very profitable to make green tech because you pay virtually no taxes.

So there is a will, didnt I say Al Gore is worth 200m, mostly from investing in green tech.

The green industry is massive and heavily subsidised by you and I whether we like it or not, your energy bills are double because of it and you probably don't even recive any juice from win farms and you don't own a Tesla, the cheapest is 100k ffs. Sustainable if it were not for the oil needed to build them and the fossil fuel electricity to charge them, but not affordable.. nice.

People say Nuke power, we have thousands of years of fuel, we do but not if we build 10000 nuke power stations which would still be insufficient for global needs, with just 10000 the fuel would be gone within decades not centuries or longer.

You know what i find amusing in a tragic sort of way, we are always told advances make things cheaper yet here we are paying more for energy than we ever have before.

ITER and other projects show "some" promise. Hydrogen power is a pipe dream. Thorium raactors I am not sure about but they use nuclear waste for power generation and we already have a few thousand years supply.

None of these answer the transport problem, without transport cities die. Countries die. Economics dies,

 

Anyone remember these images, all these poor Walrus all crammed together because "there is no ice to sit on" ?

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

Zoolologists including Dr Susan Crawford says this is normal, a walrus stampede and it has nothing to do with ice levels, yet libtard social media and mainstream media made a huge fuss about this being caused by global warming and melting ice.

According to Zoologists the claims are "blatant nonsense" and it is infact a normal thing, 50 Walrus died in this gathering, 3000 died in a 2007 gathering.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10...led-year-after-year-a-climate-depot-rebuttal/


oh and Ice levels are now at 1930s\1940s levels. How did the ice melt so much before AGW?

#morefraud

 

Last of the day and I saved the best for last.
How Climate Change Helped ISIS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-b-strozier/how-climate-change-helped_b_5903170.html

This is the sort of complete hogwash they are pushing on a gullible public

 

The desire is created by subsidy and legislation.

Take the emissions legislation in the EU over the last 2 decades or so, that has driven engine technology to a level that was unthinkable 20 years ago.

Without the driver of the stick, then the outcome wouldn't have been the same, and certainly not within the challenging timescales that they gave the industry.

 

Engine tech, yet we still get the same mileage as we did 50 years ago there abouts.

Electric trains are one solution but deploying them in any real way is difficult, as things stand if enough people don't live in an area then no tracts get run by them, sure if there aint enough people you can't get broadband never mind railway laid

That's why this Paris accord is being signed this year, because it gives the UN the ability to alter economics and society in a way that they see as the best way to meet targets.

What does this mean to you and I, well actually it will take a few decades, so my kids will see this **** come to pass? Paying at least double for energy that you do now, probably more. Inconsistent supply based on hours possibly. Tons of new regulations that will deconstruct economies that are already hanging by a thread. Take any legislation on fuel use for transport will have a massive impact and again this will put the cost ultimately on your head, my head as always happens when things become more costly.

An increase in crop field for biofuels will double food prices. All increases in food prices of any significance kills people, that's just an empirical fact.
Replacing equipment that is no longer allowed under regulation but on a global scale.

You think this will just apply to industry, no mate, look at how environmentalists work. They see you as a problem, a virus the earth has because you ain't hugging trees eating pretentious fruit drinking wheatgrass and weaing sandels.

It's a restructuring of society, all controled by a central UN bureaucracy.. some might call it communism, I mean, I identify with much of the left but **** me am I agreeing we should start micromanaging how we live.

Then there is the hypocrisy, in the US there have been strong attempts to stop people growing tehir own veggies, taking people to court because they keep their own chickens, court over collecting rainwater, regulations about having plants no taller than 12" and it being illegal to let your garden die.
This is the level of control we are talking, yes we don't see it yet in the UK, well if you aint a farmer, they see it with these regulations from the UN

In Ireland people have been cutting bog peat on their own land and in wetlands for thousands of years, now the UN said it is illegal.

If you control carbon emissions you control almost every element of our lives.

Then there is a real danger. The world has 70 days of grain reserve. If as the Royal Astronomical Society as well as many astroners predict, that the solar shutdown will reduce solar activity and solar wind pressure and speed by 60% by 2035, IF.. that means we will start to soon see a decline in agriculture above the 40 degree lattitudes, I've been watching for reports. China Russia Algeria Southern Australia Europe are all experiencing colder winters and cold summer snaps. Stock markets are looking at food futures due to losses from cold weather, if that science is right, it is a certainty millions if not billions will die, epecially if we've been buying mankinis for a possible 2 degree rise by 2100.

So they say "even if we are wrong we did the right thing" but really no, they have consigned millions of people to starvation and death. Pretty big ****ing risk.


But we agree on the actual management of emissions and the advancement of tech, we can't push policy ahead of tech as you've rightly pointed out, the deadlines are meaningless when the tech just is not there. Then there is cost and it is a deciding factor. Especially with the economies the way they are.

IPCC targets are meangingless. CO2 will still go up. Even if we manage to magically reduce CO2 with a growing population.. we breathe 800lbs a year, muttiply that by every person on earth. That doesn't even account for termites who create 10 times what we do, and they multiply like **** the warmer it gets. There is just no credible way to claim anyone knows who and what creates the global content of CO2, especially when the only Co2 production monitored is man's CO2, 5% of sources. Pure hogwash

 

So you could drive a large family saloon in the 60's that achieved over 60mpg?

Ok mate.

 

I couldn't resist one more, you can't make this **** up
Climate Change Will Cause Rape and Murder and Assault and Robbery and Larceny and Make People Steal Your Car

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape
"Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099"



“Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime,” says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with policy consulting firm Abt Associates. “We think that is likely to continue in the future.”


Environmentalist nutbags.

Now if you don't mind it was nice weather today so I am going to break into my neighbour's apartment.

 

That was a horse and cart in Ireland and Manchester.

 

Good old horse and cart, now you need a giant pooper scooper if you wanna drive on of those

 

Average miles per gallon in the US has gone up 8 miles since the 60s, but not all because of combustion tech, it's tyres road quality, fuel improvements and cruse controls car computers and ****, dunno I dont drive but those improvements defenitely make up for some of that 8 miles per gallon since the 60s. Combustion energy output per gallon is pretty much the same output on a bog standard 4 door. Maybe you get a mile or two more per gallon, hardly advancement on actual combustion is it in 55 years.

oh and cars are lighter than those in the 60s, that is a factor too.

 

Sorry mate but that's totally incorrect. Engine efficiencies have improved dramatically in recent years. Lower capacity larger output engines that are incredibly efficient compared to the gas guzzling smokers of the 60's. They're worlds apart. You're being uber selective with your use of stat there. It's not an accurate reflection on the reality.