Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

Fosu-Mens said:
If the voters demand a more climate and environmentally friendly policies during the election (not that the GOP voters will, but some might), then Trump will say some generalizable garbage towards protecting/fixing the environment/climate. If he is re-elected he will not give a sh*t given that his moneymaking is dependent on renting out empty hotel rooms to oil states, which for the likes of Saudi A et.al. is a great return on investment.

As most politicians and especially somewhere with a two-party system, they are slaves to the polls and pandering the voters during the election regardless of what is actually needed.
Click to expand...

Understood. But surely the role of a leader is to lead and not wait to be led.

He doesn't wait on many other issues but dives in head first very often without any supporting evidence.
So why should the most important problem facing mankind have to wait for him to be pressurised.

The answer is quite simply the he is not interested in the big picture; just those which he agrees with.

And hopefully that will be his legacy. A president who ignored the biggest problem and focused on short termism. In order words not a leader and not a strategic thinker.
 
Buster15 said:
Understood. But surely the role of a leader is to lead and not wait to be led.

He doesn't wait on many other issues but dives in head first very often without any supporting evidence.
So why should the most important problem facing mankind have to wait for him to be pressurised.

The answer is quite simply the he is not interested in the big picture; just those which he agrees with.

And hopefully that will be his legacy. A president who ignored the biggest problem and focused on short termism. In order words not a leader and not a strategic thinker.
Click to expand...

That depends on how you define a leader, but in theory yes. Who is he beholden to? The voters, himself or the general populous? What timeframe? If the leader (politician) is beholden to himself (which is the case with a number of the politicians in many of the largest economic countries: USA, Britain will become like USA more and more when out of the EU, Brazil, Russia, China) then he will only focus on getting reelected. Whatever the means.

He can do that because his voters do not care about facts or what is right or wrong, only about what is perceived as right or wrong.

He cares about getting reelected (so that he will not be put in jail for treason) while taking advantage of his posts economical oppertunities. It is basically "get rich or die trying".

Hopefully, his legacy will be as a man who misused his power as a president and lost the election and was judged to life in prison for treason.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
That depends on how you define a leader, but in theory yes. Who is he beholden to? The voters, himself or the general populous? What timeframe? If the leader (politician) is beholden to himself (which is the case with a number of the politicians in many of the largest economic countries: USA, Britain will become like USA more and more when out of the EU, Brazil, Russia, China) then he will only focus on getting reelected. Whatever the means.

He can do that because his voters do not care about facts or what is right or wrong, only about what is perceived as right or wrong.

He cares about getting reelected (so that he will not be put in jail for treason) while taking advantage of his posts economical oppertunities. It is basically "get rich or die trying".

Hopefully, his legacy will be as a man who misused his power as a president and lost the election and was judged to life in prison for treason.
Click to expand...
Why people keeps attacking US when China pollutes twice as US? Why people keep using electronic devices that are the major cause for the levels of pollution? Why people who are so worry about the climate change travel all over the world creating more pollution, using smartphones, laptops all produced in China the biggest polluter in the world? The same country that has 121 mega coal plants under construction. I think we are doomed for a long run, animals and plants keep dying every day because of pollution and over population, unfortunately we need a super virus to level out the population and maybe for us to realize how small we are.
 
I realised that the tempmerature had gone below zero very few times this winter, so I googled warmest winter ever.
Results:
PSD2ecE.png


Top links from 2016, 17, and 18...
 
berbatrick said:
I realised that the tempmerature had gone below zero very few times this winter, so I googled warmest winter ever.
Results:
PSD2ecE.png


Top links from 2016, 17, and 18...
Click to expand...
We've had a 16°C day in January in Iceland. All the non-summer heat records have been broken here in the past 18 months and that's going back more than 100 years as we're a country that rigorously and meticulously note everything that happens here.
 
barros said:
Why people keeps attacking US when China pollutes twice as US? Why people keep using electronic devices that are the major cause for the levels of pollution? Why people who are so worry about the climate change travel all over the world creating more pollution, using smartphones, laptops all produced in China the biggest polluter in the world? The same country that has 121 mega coal plants under construction. I think we are doomed for a long run, animals and plants keep dying every day because of pollution and over population, unfortunately we need a super virus to level out the population and maybe for us to realize how small we are.
Click to expand...

If production was cheaper in the US or the UK or Hawaii then phones and laptops would be produced there. Don't blame China for supplying products everyone demands.

Even though you do make a valid point, I would take it more seriously if you were posting it on a phone or laptop you made yourself. It's a fair bet though, that you were using a phone or laptop much akin to the ones you were blaming climate change on.

One of the reasons everyone blames the US is because Trump removed his country from the Paris Accord and because he continually promotes causes of climate change, he mocks those who speak up about it, he abolishes laws made to protect the environment and he promotes the destruction of the environment for profit. He has removed many restrictions on pollution . Also the US IS a major contributor to pollution. Many still drive cars and trucks with ridiculous sized engines. Recycling varies from state to state and the US is the largest producer of beef in the world. So there's a few reasons why the US gets stick.

Trump also Tweeted yesterday for New Yorkers to get their mops and buckets ready on retort to a suggestion of a wall to prevent the city flooding all the time due to rising sea levels and the increasing ferocity of storms.

He just doesn't give a feck and has no clue either. Until the US gets a President that understands and wants to make a difference the country is going to get loads of shit and rightly so. But you're right, China deserves some too, as does India, and pretty much everywhere else too because we all need to do far more.
 
Red_toad said:
Possibly, I don’t have access to what the norms are, but Roos seeking water in the summer is pretty standard stuff.
Click to expand...

Roos do move in when things get dry but this isn't at all normal. I've lived on the edge of bush for much of that last 25 years and even though I was right in the middle of the 2013 Blue Mountains fires it was nothing like this, I've never seen anything like that. The sheer concentration of roos on lawns in that video is very different from a normal dry event.
 
Wibble said:
Roos do move in when things get dry but this isn't at all normal. I've lived on the edge of bush for much of that last 25 years and even though I was right in the middle of the 2013 Blue Mountains fires it was nothing like this, I've never seen anything like that. The sheer concentration of roos on lawns in that video is very different from a normal dry event.
Click to expand...

Would you expect something normal to happen right after massive spate of bushfires and loss of habitation for them?
 
barros said:
Why people keeps attacking US when China pollutes twice as US? Why people keep using electronic devices that are the major cause for the levels of pollution? Why people who are so worry about the climate change travel all over the world creating more pollution, using smartphones, laptops all produced in China the biggest polluter in the world? The same country that has 121 mega coal plants under construction. I think we are doomed for a long run, animals and plants keep dying every day because of pollution and over population, unfortunately we need a super virus to level out the population and maybe for us to realize how small we are.
Click to expand...
We've been over this on here before. If China polluted as much per capita as the US, then they'd pollute about four times as much in total.
Plus China are basically producing all the things consumers around the world demand. Stop consumerism before blaming producers.
 
Hmm, it's in the news section:wenger:

22nd January
LETTER: The earth is getting lighter and causing global warming

MAY I put a new “spin “ on the reason for global warming.

The Earth is just a large spinning ball Orbiting around the Sun and held in its orbit I assume, by gravity, and its weight has effect on the gravitation pull. What happens to that gravitational pull if you change and reduce its weight, for that is what we are doing. We are extracting million of tons of mineral from below its surface and therefore greatly reducing its weight. Another factor is from where we are reducing its weight. This weight reduction is not evenly spread across the whole planet but in specific areas.

So I ask is this human activity putting the earth in a different orbit and is it effecting the “spinning ball “ effect. As a simple example. Watch how a snooker player hits one side of the ball to make it curve and deviate in its path across the table. Is this happening to the Earth and causing Global Warming? I am not qualified to answer that question only to ask it.

John Armstrong

Address supplied

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/181...AqxXtVjH0fukONCNobRR-0xBtvZ7IxGosvx34oSSRIrbA
 
Jippy said:
Hmm, it's in the news section:wenger:

22nd January
LETTER: The earth is getting lighter and causing global warming

MAY I put a new “spin “ on the reason for global warming.

The Earth is just a large spinning ball Orbiting around the Sun and held in its orbit I assume, by gravity, and its weight has effect on the gravitation pull. What happens to that gravitational pull if you change and reduce its weight, for that is what we are doing. We are extracting million of tons of mineral from below its surface and therefore greatly reducing its weight. Another factor is from where we are reducing its weight. This weight reduction is not evenly spread across the whole planet but in specific areas.

So I ask is this human activity putting the earth in a different orbit and is it effecting the “spinning ball “ effect. As a simple example. Watch how a snooker player hits one side of the ball to make it curve and deviate in its path across the table. Is this happening to the Earth and causing Global Warming? I am not qualified to answer that question only to ask it.

John Armstrong

Address supplied

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/181...AqxXtVjH0fukONCNobRR-0xBtvZ7IxGosvx34oSSRIrbA
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he's even qualified to ask.
 
I was reading on another forum that central gas heating is another area which can be improved upon, by instead using heat pumps instead. Anyone got any info on this?
 
Jippy said:
Hmm, it's in the news section:wenger:

22nd January
LETTER: The earth is getting lighter and causing global warming

MAY I put a new “spin “ on the reason for global warming.

The Earth is just a large spinning ball Orbiting around the Sun and held in its orbit I assume, by gravity, and its weight has effect on the gravitation pull. What happens to that gravitational pull if you change and reduce its weight, for that is what we are doing. We are extracting million of tons of mineral from below its surface and therefore greatly reducing its weight. Another factor is from where we are reducing its weight. This weight reduction is not evenly spread across the whole planet but in specific areas.

So I ask is this human activity putting the earth in a different orbit and is it effecting the “spinning ball “ effect. As a simple example. Watch how a snooker player hits one side of the ball to make it curve and deviate in its path across the table. Is this happening to the Earth and causing Global Warming? I am not qualified to answer that question only to ask it.

John Armstrong

Address supplied

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/181...AqxXtVjH0fukONCNobRR-0xBtvZ7IxGosvx34oSSRIrbA
Click to expand...

Firstly we need to distinguish between weight and mass.
Mass remains the same irrespective of gravity while weight is affected by gravity. In earth with a gravity of 1g, they are the same.

Now. You talk about the minerals we are mining from below the surface and conclude that this is making the planet lighter.
But, for that to happen, the weight of those minerals would have to disappear.
They are simply moved from place to place so in effect the weight remains.

The vast majority of the weight/mass of our planet is made up of the water. And that is still the same.

The number of humans has increased massively but we are a small percentage of the overall weight.

If the planet suddenly became lighter in comparison to that of the sun then its orbit would be affected and it would orbit slightly further out. And that would make it slightly cooler.
 
Buster15 said:
Firstly we need to distinguish between weight and mass.
Mass remains the same irrespective of gravity while weight is affected by gravity. In earth with a gravity of 1g, they are the same.

Now. You talk about the minerals we are mining from below the surface and conclude that this is making the planet lighter.
But, for that to happen, the weight of those minerals would have to disappear.
They are simply moved from place to place so in effect the weight remains.

The vast majority of the weight/mass of our planet is made up of the water. And that is still the same.

The number of humans has increased massively but we are a small percentage of the overall weight.

If the planet suddenly became lighter in comparison to that of the sun then its orbit would be affected and it would orbit slightly further out. And that would make it slightly cooler.
Click to expand...
So if we fired our heavy rubbish, eg old ships and tanks etc, into space then Earth would get lighter and it would move our orbit further out, offsetting global warming?
 
Jippy said:
Hmm, it's in the news section:wenger:

22nd January
LETTER: The earth is getting lighter and causing global warming

MAY I put a new “spin “ on the reason for global warming.

The Earth is just a large spinning ball Orbiting around the Sun and held in its orbit I assume, by gravity, and its weight has effect on the gravitation pull. What happens to that gravitational pull if you change and reduce its weight, for that is what we are doing. We are extracting million of tons of mineral from below its surface and therefore greatly reducing its weight. Another factor is from where we are reducing its weight. This weight reduction is not evenly spread across the whole planet but in specific areas.

So I ask is this human activity putting the earth in a different orbit and is it effecting the “spinning ball “ effect. As a simple example. Watch how a snooker player hits one side of the ball to make it curve and deviate in its path across the table. Is this happening to the Earth and causing Global Warming? I am not qualified to answer that question only to ask it.

John Armstrong

Address supplied

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/181...AqxXtVjH0fukONCNobRR-0xBtvZ7IxGosvx34oSSRIrbA
Click to expand...

wow
 
Jippy said:
So if we fired our heavy rubbish, eg old ships and tanks etc, into space then Earth would get lighter and it would move our orbit further out, offsetting global warming?
Click to expand...

The mass of the planet is approximately 6x10 to the power of 24 kg. So 6 million million million million kg. That would require a hell of a lot of rubbish.

On a more serious note, I have often wondered whether it would be feasible to fire our nuclear waste at the sun. All it would need would be to get it out of the earth gravitational field and aim it toward the sun. And let gravity do the rest.
 
So Greta is demanding that emissions are reduced to absolute zero right now then.

No big deal. We just need to shutdown every power station in the world and stop using fossil fuels.

Starvation and the cold temperatures would only initially kill 4-5 billion people so it’s all good. Those that did survive would be left living in a pre industrial revolution world where every single day would be a struggle just to eat and survive. Basically a living hell.

But Greta would get her zero emissions in 2020 so all’s good.
 
Garethw said:
So Greta is demanding that emissions are reduced to absolute zero right now then.

No big deal. We just need to shutdown every power station in the world and stop using fossil fuels.

Starvation and the cold temperatures would only initially kill 4-5 billion people so it’s all good. Those that did survive would be left living in a pre industrial revolution world where every single day would be a struggle just to eat and survive. Basically a living hell.

But Greta would get her zero emissions in 2020 so all’s good.
Click to expand...

Did she not say start to....
 
0le said:
I was reading on another forum that central gas heating is another area which can be improved upon, by instead using heat pumps instead. Anyone got any info on this?
Click to expand...
It's one of the most significant energy uses in the UK. New building regs should mean that all new houses are non-gas heated, but heat pumps aren't a great solution for a lot of drafty old UK homes. There are possibilities for replacing natural gas with hydrogen, which would allow the use of most existing infrastructure but probably a decade or more away.
 
lynchie said:
It's one of the most significant energy uses in the UK. New building regs should mean that all new houses are non-gas heated, but heat pumps aren't a great solution for a lot of drafty old UK homes. There are possibilities for replacing natural gas with hydrogen, which would allow the use of most existing infrastructure but probably a decade or more away.
Click to expand...

The only caution is that when Hydrogen is burnt with Oxygen, the byproduct is water vapor which forms clouds which are also have a greenhouse effect.
But not as bad as CO2.
 
Buster15 said:
The mass of the planet is approximately 6x10 to the power of 24 kg. So 6 million million million million kg. That would require a hell of a lot of rubbish.

On a more serious note, I have often wondered whether it would be feasible to fire our nuclear waste at the sun. All it would need would be to get it out of the earth gravitational field and aim it toward the sun. And let gravity do the rest.
Click to expand...
Hilariously wrong. It takes more energy to travel into the Sun than it takes to leave the Solar System.
 
Red Stone said:
Hilariously wrong. It takes more energy to travel into the Sun than it takes to leave the Solar System.
Click to expand...

Not as hilariously wrong as you though.
The sun gravitational pull is so much stronger than anything else in the solar system.
You ought to think first.
 
Buster15 said:
Not as hilariously wrong as you though.
The sun gravitational pull is so much stronger than anything else in the solar system.
You ought to think first.
Click to expand...
I did think first, and I'm right.

If we send something just outside of Earth's orbit it will travel towards the Sun at approximately the same speed as Earth itself, and we're not about to plunge into the Sun any time soon.
 
Buster15 said:
Not as hilariously wrong as you though.
The sun gravitational pull is so much stronger than anything else in the solar system.
You ought to think first.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the poster's onto something here. You have to effectively stop the current momentum of the Earth's orbit to go to the Sun, which is not the case in leaving the Solar System surely?
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Pretty sure the poster's onto something here. You have to effectively stop the current momentum of the Earth's orbit to go to the Sun, which is not the case in leaving the Solar System surely?
Click to expand...

Exactly, the earth is travelling at 67,000 miles an hour in our orbit which is why we're not pulled into the sun. You would have to effectively stop the sideways motion of anything to get it to go into the sun. Leaving the solar system takes a lot loss energy.
 
Buster15 said:
If the planet suddenly became lighter in comparison to that of the sun then its orbit would be affected and it would orbit slightly further out.
Click to expand...

Huh? Surely Earth's mass has nothing to do with our orbit around the sun (as long as we're this small in comparison anyway)?

Also, @Red Stone is correct. Hitting the sun with anything is a lot more energy intensive than escaping its gravity. Though there's another problem with the idea of shooting nuclear waste into space. If something goes wrong and the rocket explodes, you've now created a global fallout situation. The risk just isn't worth it.
 
Red Stone said:
I did think first, and I'm right.

If we send something just outside of Earth's orbit it will travel towards the Sun at approximately the same speed as Earth itself, and we're not about to plunge into the Sun any time soon.
Click to expand...

OK. Just to be clear.
The earth is travelling at some 65000 mph around the Sun. That is how it remains in orbit. But once a rocket for example leaves the earth gravitational pull and is heading for the sun and not in orbit around the sun it will fall toward the sun due to its gravitational effect.

Anyway. I have made the mistake of digressing from the title of this thread so I will stick to climate change.
 
Buster15 said:
But once a rocket for example leaves the earth gravitational pull and is heading for the sun and not in orbit around the sun it will fall toward the sun due to its gravitational effect.
Click to expand...
The rocket doesn't magically lose its velocity because it escaped Earth's orbit. You still need a delta-v of 65,000mph in the opposite direction of Earth's trajectory. That's a lot. So much so that it's actually more energy-efficient to travel to Jupiter first and use it for a gravity assist.
 
Red Stone said:
The rocket doesn't magically lose its velocity because it escaped Earth's orbit. You still need a delta-v of 65,000mph in the opposite direction of Earth's trajectory. That's a lot. So much so that it's actually more energy-efficient to travel to Jupiter first and use it for a gravity assist.
Click to expand...

OK. Understood. I admit it was a stupid idea in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.