Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Climate change

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

edgie said:
I'll give it a go.

I've long been against getting new stuff if it is excessive and avoidable, I know that's a matter of interpretation, but what happens to the world when people decide they need less stuff? The world is largely built on providing stuff, much of which is not perishable and should not need replacement.
Click to expand...
This is true.

But what has led to us thinking that producing stuff that has inbuilt obsolescence or has a huge environmental impact (like plastics) is actually a good thing?

The universal measure of economic growth and wealth, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was adopted globally from the end of WW2. To this day it is still used to measure how well a nation is doing economically.

But it has huge flaws and drives much of the waste and poor decision making of governments.

For example the catastrophic bushfires across Australia a couple of years ago actually boosted our GDP because of the huge economic effort to not only fighting the fires but rebuilding what had been destroyed. GDP does not account for the huge social and environmental loss of wilderness, fire and lives that resulted from those fires. Similarly, the mere act of digging a huge hole and filling it in again gives a positive boost to GDP even though it contributes absolutely nothing sustainable.

And don't get me started on the flawed 'economic modelling' exercises that governments and private organisations use to convince us to billions of taxpayers money on new stadiums, olympics or 'big events' because of all the new jobs and extra wealth it will create. Blatant BS and I've been involved in producing a couple of them. The universities and economic institutes that put their name to them should be ashamed. Snake Oil quackery.

/rant.
 
edgie said:
I know it is not considered vogue to agree with Papa G but his views on the inner city teal politicians who's attitude toward climate change is 'can't someone else do it?', is better than nothing of the Morrison government, but no doubt they live their own quite unsustainable not carbon friendly lifestyles.

pdvd_056.jpg


Whatever happened to 'be the change you want to see in the world?'
Click to expand...

Being "in vogue" doesn't mean you are wordly, intelligent, still have your testicles and don't prescribe to daft lefty idealogy spouted by weak people? Who knew?
 
Papa G said:
Being "in vogue" doesn't mean you are wordly, intelligent, still have your testicles and don't prescribe to daft lefty idealogy spouted by weak people? Who knew?
Click to expand...
I like the bit where you misspelled two words in your sentence about how intelligent you are.
 
edgie said:
I know it is not considered vogue to agree with Papa G but his views on the inner city teal politicians who's attitude toward climate change is 'can't someone else do it?', is better than nothing of the Morrison government, but no doubt they live their own quite unsustainable not carbon friendly lifestyles.

pdvd_056.jpg


Whatever happened to 'be the change you want to see in the world?'
Click to expand...

What absolute horse shit. Complete utter rot edgie. You should know if you're agreeing with papa bigot you're probably looking at things wrong.

You know those inner city lefties you love to trash? Lots of them probably consume a lot less than you do. They ride bikes, they recycle religiously, they don't use plastic, they compost, don't own cars, etc etc.

But because they have a phone you can go haw haw HyPoCrItE!

They can do all that, but none of that has an impact on how their electricity is generated. It doesn't effect how much dirty diesel the global shipping industry burns. Some individuals not driving a car has minimal difference when 90% still drive fossil fuel cars.

It's absolute nonsense and a cheap shot right wingers love to take because they've got nothing else. People can and DO make all sorts of personal sacrifice in the name of being 'green'. That makes two fifths of **** all difference if governments and big multinationals keep pushing down the path of big fossil fuels. Hence the need for activism, which dumb **** spectators on the sidelines howl down as "virtue signalling".

If you're not gonna do anything useful, piss off and keep quiet, and get out of the way.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

sobrave said:
What absolute horse s**t. Complete utter rot edgie. You should know if you're agreeing with papa bigot you're probably looking at things wrong.

You know those inner city lefties you love to trash? Lots of them probably consume a lot less than you do. They ride bikes, they recycle religiously, they don't use plastic, they compost, don't own cars, etc etc.

But because they have a phone you can go haw haw HyPoCrItE!

They can do all that, but none of that has an impact on how their electricity is generated. It doesn't effect how much dirty diesel the global shipping industry burns. Some individuals not driving a car has minimal difference when 90% still drive fossil fuel cars.

It's absolute nonsense and a cheap shot right wingers love to take because they've got nothing else. People can and DO make all sorts of personal sacrifice in the name of being 'green'. That makes two fifths of * all difference if governments and big multinationals keep pushing down the path of big fossil fuels. Hence the need for activism, which dumb * spectators on the sidelines howl down as "virtue signalling".

If you're not gonna do anything useful, piss off and keep quiet, and get out of the way.
Click to expand...
Fire up.
 
The potential for under-utilulised desalination plants to become involved with hydrogen production presents a new string in the bow for these dormant facilities.
Presumably purified water will be needed for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. This will be important in diminishing/ removing electrode fouling, which will stuff up the process.
Well, that is right in a desal plant's wheelhouse.
I have some reservations about hydrogen vs batteries for a moving energy resource. I wonder whether one wins out, and one loses that contest.
Fortunately hydrogen is a valuable resource in other industries, and in particular in emerging industries such as green steel production. So it is a no brainer that green production of hydrogen using solar or wind for the electrolysis process should continue.
The current process for the production of hydrogen utilises a wet chemical reaction with methane (ie natural gas) at around 300C. It effectively transitions that 300C thermal energy into transportable chemical potential energy of hydrogen. This wet process generates carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide, depending on how hard the process is driven.
Overall in terms of vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide, natural gas processing is equivalent to taking natural gas into your vehicle and combusting it there.
The only advantage of producing hydrogen by this natural gas 300C wet process, is that the carbon dioxide is generated at a point source, ie the facility where the wet production is occurring, rather than from a multiplicity of vehicles using hydrogen from that source. Which brings back the old question of, "What will we do with it, even if we can efficiently capture it at source?".
Of course the capitalist answer response is: make carbon dioxide valuable!! That work is indeed happening.
None of these problems exist with hydrogen sourced by electrolysis of water.
If we are serious we will indeed address (hopefully) a problem with hydrogen combustion obtained from any source, which is destined for moving energy: the production of water. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and in itself is a worse greenhouse contributor than carbon dioxide.
Every 2grams of hydrogen combusted for energy will yield 18g of water vapour. If serious this must be captured. By the way, that will be potable water if collected correctly. May be useful in countries where drinking water availability is a problem.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

sobrave said:
It's using predictions yeah
Click to expand...
Pretty bold and extremely unlikely predictions I would have thought.

But more importantly if its showing the rate of change rather than climate then her caption doesnt at all match the visualisation. The hottest and most extreme temperature on that graph would be experienced at around 3 myr before present, nowhere near the big red arrow.
 
Unless of course she is extrapolating out the currently observed correlation between "weather events" and flux to the world millions of years ago... which is just wild lol and something I hadnt thought of before. Definitely possible.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

EskimoPAFC said:
Pretty bold and extremely unlikely predictions I would have thought.

But more importantly if its showing the rate of change rather than climate then her caption doesnt at all match the visualisation. The hottest and most extreme temperature on that graph would be experienced at around 3 myr before present, nowhere near the big red arrow.
Click to expand...

Not really that extreme, as far as predictions go.

Over the last 20 years we have been tracking pretty poorly against IPCC models, leaning more towards worst case scenarios, because we've done bugger all to stop CO2. The point is that's stretched out to 2200 rather than most predictions commonly shown which are based on 2100.

I'm not sure what you mean by rate of change? The current rate of change is more rapid than we've seen before. However obviously climate proxies for millions of years ago aren't as accurate so there isn't the same detail.

The graph is just showing a number of climate proxies going back millions of years against a baseline, which is usually defined as the sort of pre-1950 climate that humans are used to.

So it's not really about rate of change, it's global temperature against that baseline.
 
sobrave said:
Not really that extreme, as far as predictions go.

Over the last 20 years we have been tracking pretty poorly against IPCC models, leaning more towards worst case scenarios, because we've done bugger all to stop CO2. The point is that's stretched out to 2200 rather than most predictions commonly shown which are based on 2100.

I'm not sure what you mean by rate of change? The current rate of change is more rapid than we've seen before. However obviously climate proxies for millions of years ago aren't as accurate so there isn't the same detail.

The graph is just showing a number of climate proxies going back millions of years against a baseline, which is usually defined as the sort of pre-1950 climate that humans are used to.

So it's not really about rate of change, it's global temperature against that baseline.
Click to expand...
Ah got it, thanks. Yeah I knew I must be misreading it because it couldn't possibly be what I thought it was - it would have made no sense.

I still say we won't get anywhere near those extremes by 2200 though. If you think about the rate of technological advancement and the fact that a huge % of the world will be trying to solve this exact issue over the next 50 years I don't think we ever get close to any sort of extreme over the next 200 years.
 
EskimoPAFC said:
Ah got it, thanks. Yeah I knew I must be misreading it because it couldn't possibly be what I thought it was - it would have made no sense.

I still say we won't get anywhere near those extremes by 2200 though. If you think about the rate of technological advancement and the fact that a huge % of the world will be trying to solve this exact issue over the next 50 years I don't think we ever get close to any sort of extreme over the next 200 years.
Click to expand...

I sure hope so, and yeah I think you're right. Humans are like roaches and can survive a lot, but a lot of other things won't. If we manage to stop it at say 2.5-3.0 degrees that's a whole lot of ****ed in the next 200 years.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom