IPCC | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis 32

[cmoreride]

Climate change is widespread and intensifying
says the latest IPCC report.
It underscores the urgency of strong,
sustained cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

 

Anyone still have something relevant to say?

Yeah, we are sooooo cooked.

This is the mother of all existential threats, and if this report doesn't finally get leaders' attention then nothing will.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Iron Metallurgist -

You did a pretty strange pivot from "fox news lies" to "Trump causing deaths". The subject of this forum is Climate Change. The subject of this thread is the latest IPCC report.

Fox news was relevant because the articles from fox that I cited relate directly to those topics. Critiquing the reliability of Fox is certainly on topic and on thread.

The first part of your post (about Fox News' lies causing actual deaths) was already straying off topic. But, it's clear you did this deliberately so that you could rant against Trump.

That's fine in the Pub or such. But, let's try not do that to this forum. There is already enough controversy and discord when we stay on topic! LOL

 

[GregLocock]

So how do you get developing countries off coal and into nukes? Anything else is just hot air.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Greg -

You hit on something that makes this (CO2 emissions / Global Warming) a very, very, very difficult problem to overcome.

As a society (not just the US, but the world) we're addicted to energy. It's a cycle. The use of energy boosts your economy. The economy grows and demands more energy. For wealthy countries we may be able to get cleaner. Certainly California has done a good job of that, but it costs a lot to do this.

Other states here in the US could do a lot better if they got rid of coal and replaced it with Nuclear power. Heck, they'd still dramatically reduce CO2 emissions if they replaced coal with natural gas power plants.

These are all necessary steps we need to take (in California and the US). Definitely worth doing. But, it may not be enough if these reports are to be believed.

If you have a developing country that is concerned with IMMEDIATE problems (like starvation and basic survival), then it's hard to convince them to dramatically reduce their energy consumption or become totally reliant on outside countries for their energy production.

If developing countries can't get power (or that power is crazy expensive) then their people will have a very poor standard of living with all the societal ills associated with it.

 

[GregLocock]

The UK in particular (and the West in general) has got cleaner by exporting its CO2 emissions to the developing world. It would be interesting to see what the real clean up rate has been compared with the advertised numbers.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[1503-44]

Here's one way to do it. Morocco spends $3B yr on fossil fuel.
Divert some of that expense to (non-nuclear/coal/gas) solar.
The dates are fuzzy, but the plan is there.
Target is 42% renewable by what I think should be 2030.

https://www.ecomena.org/solar-energy-morocco/

Energy powers the economies of all nations. The two are virtually equal, have a direct relationship and cannot hardly be separated.

My feeling is that it will be far easier to convert developing nations to nonfossil.
Their demands are relatively low.
Fossil fuels will get more expensive and they require foreign reserve currency to pay for them.
Their existing power providers are relatively small.
Existing providers are not as organised to prevent or monopolise solar as developed country power providers do.
Vast areas of countries have no or minimal service and are wide open.
No long hard wires or pipeline networks are necessary.
Converting existing users is much more difficult than bringing power to green field users.
In certain countries and regions, its difficult to build even the smallest refinery, because demands are so low and construction costs so high, plus oil might still have to be imported. Kenya had one refinery, for refining imported oil, but its been mothballed for years. Local potential supplies are minimal, roads poor, pipelines expensive, demand is small. Solar, geothermal and wind suit the country's needs. Importing gasoline and diesel is very expensive.

Surely the problems will be worse with converting the infrastructure of existing technology customers.

 

[LionelHutz]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/england-banned-fox-news/

Quit making up garbage if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[rb1957]

thx for that.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[1503-44]

I didn't make it up and I really thought it was true.
BTW the link you posted is also #7 on my linked list.
Either way, it's not like they don't do it. That's fairly obvious to me and the millions of others that bought into it. That might be the bit of truth that all good lies are supposed to have to be believable. You could tell me MSNBC is banned for left wing stuff and I'd believe that too.
I dont mind being corrected when I'm wrong and If its OK with you, to be fair I think I can still edit and strike that bit.
In any case thank you for fact checking. Sorry if I led anyone astray. It was not deliberate.

 

JoshPlumSE,

I don't do 'pivots' because I don't do buzzwords parroted by the media and corporate so-called leaders.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Quit making up garbage if you want to be taken seriously.

I read that Snopes article too. However, I wouldn't call 1503-44's comment "garbage". They were misleading and an exaggeration that was flagged as "false" from Snopes in the very link he included in his post. He wasn't hiding anything. Just exaggerating what it said. Or, maybe he's guilty of the "did you even read the article before you linked to it" type of mistake. Wink.

To summarize the snopes post, FoxNews has NOT been banned (or even sanctioned) by the UK. However, there have been at least 10 incidents that were flagged for various reasons.... misleading stories, inadvertent broadcast of a suicide, violations of impartiality rules.

 

The use of energy boosts your economy.

True in the very short term, but it is time we resisted the zero-sum propositions that are an essential part of every politician's toolkit. We are digging our own graves by continuing down this road.

The environment IS the economy.

p.s., by 'politician' I mean 'reptile'. All parties.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I don't do 'pivots' because I don't do buzzwords parroted by the media and corporate so-called leaders.

Now you're objecting to the word "pivot"?! Okay. I think it was an accurate term to describe what was not. But, if you done like that term, just replace it with "sudden transition" or "quick change of direction" in your mind. Eye Roll.

For what it's worth, when I think of pivot, I don't think of media or corporate leaders at all. I usually think of Ross from Friends moving a couch. Wink.

 

Epic point miss. Language matters, and it is under attack.

Ever notice how many time a day you hear another media idiot parroting 'iconic' in a day?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

I recommend a book titled 'Death Sentences'.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

True in the very short term, but it is time we resisted the zero-sum propositions that are an essential part of every politician's toolkit. We are digging our own graves by continuing down this road.

Sure, that's a valid point. I think there is a lot that we can do in our own country. And, I think we should focus there.... Mostly because we don't have the authority to dictate to other countries how they should act.

However, if we want to impose tariffs or such on imported goods from other countries based on their carbon emissions that would be fine. Though I would argue we would need to do it gradually in order to make it palatable.

 

[IRstuff]

However, if we want to impose tariffs or such on imported goods from other countries based on their carbon emissions that would be fine.

It would certainly be a way to push manufacturing back into the home country

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

The solution is simple, and that is to build in all present and future costs into every product (enforce minimum labour standards while you're at it).

However the implementation of that simple principle is staggeringly difficult.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[IRstuff]

Certainly, the ability to predict future costs is pretty abysmal; we can't even accurately predict costs on engineering projects a couple of years into the future.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[rb1957]

nah, Mr Smith's "invisible hand" will take care of it ! (not !!)

"The solution is simple" ... really nah ! ... nothing about CC is "simple".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?