General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

[Talarin]

For starters the observation that CO2 acts a greenhouse gas. Arrhenius 1896
The observation that CO2 has risen to over 415 ppm as previously cited.

Excellent. Two verifiable observations that we can agree on. However, what do they mean? Why are they relevant to your post? I don't believe that anyone has suggested that those things are not true.

The observation that denialists will refer to anyone that contradicts them as socialists

Oh, dear. I don't think you're going to really be able to substantiate this one. And, top marks for hand-waving generalisation and labelling. Tell me, do I count as a "denialist"? And, if so, have I referred to anyone as a socialist?

The observation that referring to Guardian articles brings claims of propaganda.

Well yes - especially if it's the sole source of information (the point that @jasonbarron was making). Do you have any reason to contest that claim?

The definition of propaganda is: "information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions ". Click on the link I gave referring to the new editorial guidelines from the Guardian and then read the critique of the RCP8.5 "Business as Usual" I gave recently in this very thread. Tell me why that label shouldn't stick.

Absolutely anyone with an interest in the topic should read more than the Guardian and the BBC. Certainly they should check what they're saying about the research/opinion piece is actually what it says - as it's frequently not, or there are huge caveats attached which aren't discussed or acknowledged in the media article.

The claims that opinions and anecdotes somehow outweigh verifiable observations and constitute alternative facts and evidence, despite this being a contradiction in terms being the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

And you fail to substantiate your argument again. I don't even know what you're arguing against or for. What observations are being disputed? What is being put forward as opinion and anecdotal evidence versus these observations?

You've not mentioned the peer reviewed science, journal or conclusion which contradicts whatever you're arguing against. You brought this up, substantiate it please.

Am I correct in surmising that you're actually engaging in a poorly designed logical fallacy of an appeal to authority? The words "peer reviewed" and "relevant qualifications" tend to be a give-away for that sort of behavior - as neither of those things are actually relevant to discussing or even disagreeing with a point in science.

If you feel that they are, I really must ask you to demonstrate your scientific credentials and published literature before continuing to weigh in.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Excellent. Two verifiable observations that we can agree on. However, what do they mean? Why are they relevant to your post? I don't believe that anyone has suggested that those things are not true.

The effect of rising CO2 on temperature has been predicted and observed in the Arctic.

AS the average temperature is now above the melting point sea ice is retreating, this has the effect of releasing the brakes on the Greenland ice cap resulting in an accelerating loss of ice.

A similar trend is being observed in the Antarctic and is tracking at a faster rate than predicted by the RCP 8.5 scenario.

Well yes - especially if it's the sole source of information (the point that @jasonbarron was making). Do you have any reason to contest that claim?

The definition of propaganda is: "information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions ". Click on the link I gave referring to the new editorial guidelines from the Guardian and then read the critique of the RCP8.5 "Business as Usual" I gave recently in this very thread. Tell me why that label shouldn't stick.

Absolutely anyone with an interest in the topic should read more than the Guardian and the BBC. Certainly they should check what they're saying about the research/opinion piece is actually what it says - as it's frequently not, or there are huge caveats attached which aren't discussed or acknowledged in the media article.

The Guardian articles cite the sources used within the article, getting back to the peer reviewed papers shouldn't be beyond you.

What observations are being disputed? What is being put forward as opinion and anecdotal evidence versus these observations?

Meanwhile we see people claiming that climate change is disproven by a snowball in Washington. (Inhofe 2015)
A verifiable observation can be claimed as evidence either for or against a particular position but cannot be both or it is not evidence.
In the case of Washington cold weather was a result of an arctic air mass being drawn south due to the increasing amplitude of the jet stream, itself a result of climate change.

 

[Talarin]

The effect of rising CO2 on temperature has been predicted and observed in the Arctic.

AS the average temperature is now above the melting point sea ice is retreating, this has the effect of releasing the brakes on the Greenland ice cap resulting in an accelerating loss of ice.

A similar trend is being observed in the Antarctic and is tracking at a faster rate than predicted by the RCP 8.5 scenario.

Have they? Well put the links up to your sources and let's discuss them and the implications of their findings. You're bringing up RCP8.5 so I assume that's the source of your objection, so do you have any comment on the particular elements I brought up or are you going to base your entire argument on one metric?

In particular for Greenland, you going to have to square your accelerating loss of ice claim with the observations which show that loss has essentially flat-lined for the last 10 years. See Polar Science Cener and the last 10 years of the graph below. I'd be very interested to read about the model that predicted that in the RCP8.5 scenario.

We can also see that the DMI are reporting "a total SMB of 517bn tonnes, which is almost 150bn tonnes above the average for 1981-2010, ranking just behind the 2016-17 season as sixth highest on record."

The Guardian articles cite the sources used within the article, getting back to the peer reviewed papers shouldn't be beyond you.

Nice, but utterly irrelevant to the question that was asked. Also implies that all articles are sourced by peer reviewed academic papers, while as we can see from the last link that appeared in the thread is clearly not true.

Read the definition of propaganda again. Why shouldn't the label stick?

Meanwhile we see people claiming that climate change is disproven by a snowball in Washington. (Inhofe 2015). A verifiable observation can be claimed as evidence either for or against a particular position but cannot be both or it is not evidence. In the case of Washington cold weather was a result of an arctic air mass being drawn south due to the increasing amplitude of the jet stream, itself a result of climate change.

Inhofe = 1 Person <> People <> All people who disagree with you. It seems that you're arguing in the thread because one man has made a claim that hasn't been made in this thread.

We can add another logical fallacy to the list for you - "strawman" as well as "appeal to authority".

 

[Patrick_68000]

To fight against the pollution.

In Singapore, the smokers consume their cigarettes inside the cabins, which filter the smoke and turn it into clean air.

 

[Morbad]

It basically saying, you losing your working hours to Automation is good for the environment.

I can't imagine much menial labor (manual or otherwise) that isn't more efficient to automate in the long run, and the scope of what can be efficiently automated will only increase, so it probably is.

Well, not my working hours, as I don't have any, but that's a big part of why my overall environmental footprint is considerably smaller than average for someone in my area and of my means. No commute, no car even, and fairly miserly spending habits due to not having consistent surplus capital.

Much work people do in developed economies isn't even productive, let alone efficient, and a lot of it ultimately amounts to workfare...the sooner people stop turning that crank and expecting a handout for it, the better.

To fight against the pollution.

In Singapore, the smokers consume their cigarettes inside the cabins, which filter the smoke and turn it into clean air.

Since this is Singapore, I'm not sure why they haven't simply banned smoking outright. Maybe they want to track smokers by recording who uses these cabins...or maybe it's just a suicide booth.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Since this is Singapore, I'm not sure why they haven't simply banned smoking outright. Maybe they want to track smokers by recording who uses these cabins...or maybe it's just a suicide booth.

It is true that Singapore is known for having one of the most severe anti-smoking legislation in the world.

And concerning the suicide, the cabins can accommodate up to 10 people at the same time. Perfect for the collective suicide.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Have they? Well put the links up to your sources and let's discuss them and the implications of their findings. You're bringing up RCP8.5 so I assume that's the source of your objection, so do you have any comment on the particular elements I brought up or are you going to base your entire argument on one metric?

In particular for Greenland, you going to have to square your accelerating loss of ice claim with the observations which show that loss has essentially flat-lined for the last 10 years. See Polar Science Cener and the last 10 years of the graph below. I'd be very interested to read about the model that predicted that in the RCP8.5 scenario.

We can also see that the DMI are reporting "a total SMB of 517bn tonnes, which is almost 150bn tonnes above the average for 1981-2010, ranking just behind the 2016-17 season as sixth highest on record."

The source is Trusel et al 2018, It wouldn't be the IPCC as that was published several years before the relevant data was collected.
There is also Bevis et al 2019.
Also your graph shows the decline in Arctic Sea Ice, not the Greenland Ice Cap (though the article you linked to does show maps of the GIC).
Sea Ice is less important regarding sea level rise (you indicated that was of concern to you earlier) as it has already displaced it's tonnage, the Ice cap on land does not until it starts floating.

 

[Talarin]

The source is Trusel et al 2018, It wouldn't be the IPCC as that was published several years before the relevant data was collected.
There is also Bevis et al 2019.
Also your graph shows the decline in Arctic Sea Ice, not the Greenland Ice Cap (though the article you linked to does show maps of the GIC).
Sea Ice is less important regarding sea level rise (you indicated that was of concern to you earlier) as it has already displaced it's tonnage, the Ice cap on land does not until it starts floating.

Okay, but what is the point that you're trying to make - and how does it relate to being labelled "an anti-capitalist, anti-conservative, raving socialist" (the comment that triggered this sub-topic)? Because I can't see how anyone is going to refer to you (or anyone else) for that matter for pointing out that the Greenland Ice Sheet has shrunk.

What is it that you're trying to express here? That climate change is happening?

Edit: To complete the picture, you may be interested in Rignot et al. 2019. It's the same idea as the two papers you've referred to (and again draws on the GRACE satellite network for measurements) but relating to Antarctic ice loss, rather than Arctic.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Slightly OT, but then again.

I'm currently watching the HBO series called Chernobyl. I highly recommend seeing that, even though it's hard.

Back then I used to work with isotopes in the lab, and I studied the effects of radiation on humans. We didn't have a lot of data, and doing experiments on humans were ruled out after the plutonium injections on humans during the Manhattan Project. Therefore we mostly used data from early X-ray doctors, assumed that zero radiation would cause no deaths, and made a straight line between the two points, knowing this method was far from "scientific". Therefore I have been following reports of Chernobyl death tolls, out of "sick" curiosity. The thing that strikes me is that the numbers vary between zero and two million deaths. Not very reliable data...

We also had a conference back then, where Soviet scientists came and told about the accident, and now it's clear that they lied and tried to cover up. Or the story that is currently considered true is a cover up? They claimed that the accident was caused by lack of qualified personel.

What really makes me angry is the way the number of dead "Liquidators" seems to have been reduced. Those guys were true heroes, trying to save the rest of us, while facing certain death, and they deserve to be honored and remembered forever. Not to disappear in an attempt to blur the truth. The series focuses on those heroes, and I appreciate that.

Overall the series seems to be very true to the stories that has surfaced during the years, and it shows a horrifying picture of what happens when we mess with nature. A nuclear meltdown is obviously leading to some heartbreaking personal stories, and having once been against nuclear energy for the same reason, I have recently become less critical towards it. It is still killing less people than fossil energy, but when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

So now, thanks to the reminder, I'm back to saying no. Instead we HAVE to figure out a way to use and store the energy from the Sun efficiently. It's the only sustainable energy source we have, and we are in a hurry.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9APLXM9Ei8

 

[Talarin]

Instead we HAVE to figure out a way to use and store the energy from the Sun efficiently. It's the only sustainable energy source we have, and we are in a hurry.

I'd like to see R&D into the feasibility of a orbital solar array. It's a far, far better idea than the current model of solar PV deployment and has the bonus of not losing so much energy to the atmosphere. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotts...could-supply-the-world-with-limitless-energy/

 

[TruthSeeker]

Slightly OT, but then again.

I'm currently watching the HBO series called Chernobyl. I highly recommend seeing that, even though it's hard.

Back then I used to work with isotopes in the lab, and I studied the effects of radiation on humans. We didn't have a lot of data, and doing experiments on humans were ruled out after the plutonium injections on humans during the Manhattan Project. Therefore we mostly used data from early X-ray doctors, assumed that zero radiation would cause no deaths, and made a straight line between the two points, knowing this method was far from "scientific". Therefore I have been following reports of Chernobyl death tolls, out of "sick" curiosity. The thing that strikes me is that the numbers vary between zero and two million deaths. Not very reliable data...

We also had a conference back then, where Soviet scientists came and told about the accident, and now it's clear that they lied and tried to cover up. Or the story that is currently considered true is a cover up? They claimed that the accident was caused by lack of qualified personel.

What really makes me angry is the way the number of dead "Liquidators" seems to have been reduced. Those guys were true heroes, trying to save the rest of us, while facing certain death, and they deserve to be honored and remembered forever. Not to disappear in an attempt to blur the truth. The series focuses on those heroes, and I appreciate that.

Overall the series seems to be very true to the stories that has surfaced during the years, and it shows a horrifying picture of what happens when we mess with nature. A nuclear meltdown is obviously leading to some heartbreaking personal stories, and having once been against nuclear energy for the same reason, I have recently become less critical towards it. It is still killing less people than fossil energy, but when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

So now, thanks to the reminder, I'm back to saying no. Instead we HAVE to figure out a way to use and store the energy from the Sun efficiently. It's the only sustainable energy source we have, and we are in a hurry.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9APLXM9Ei8

But it was because of lack of qualified personal. The experiment was the cause for the explosion, and there was noone to assess properly the scale and magnitude of radiation. Even top politicians in Moscow weren't informed for days even though it happend in Ukraine and not Russia.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I'd like to see R&D into the feasibility of a orbital solar array. It's a far, far better idea than the current model of solar PV deployment and has the bonus of not losing so much energy to the atmosphere. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotts...could-supply-the-world-with-limitless-energy/

One of the (many) problems with using solar energy (that includes wind and water) is the lack of ability to store the energy for later use. That is what fossil fuels excel at. We have halfway solutions like batteries and hydrogen, but none of those will work on a global scale as they are. We do not have enough elements for making the batteries, and hydrogen is not as harmless as we think. Apart from hydrogen released by handling and storage spoiling the ozone layer, water vapor is a bad greenhouse gas, and I've yet to see calculations on the added effect of that. We use a LOT of energy right now, and we need to be able to continue doing that. Otherwise we won't be able to simply feed the global population. And food goes before energy, so in the long (short) run biofuels are dead in the water.

Since all this is relatively new to the wider public, a lot is still unknown. The Earth receives energy from the sun, mostly in the form of visible light, since UV is reflected by the atmosphere. The Earth radiates the same amount of energy in the form of IR. No energy stays. Otherwise Earth's temperature would build up much faster than what we see. Instead the light from the Sun is converted into IR, thereby creating a lot of entropy. That entropy normally leaves with the radiated IR into the Universe. It's the only place the system can dump entropy. That flow of energy and entropy is disrupted, when we use as much energy for doing work as we currently do.

I think, but I haven't done the math yet, that what we actually see is an entropy problem, as much as an energy problem. It shows up as pollution, depletion of non-renewables and rising temperatures. In that case we're up the creek without a paddle. I find this as urgent as if we knew humanity would be wiped out by an asteroid in 30 years.

It's not only energy. Most people, including many scientists and descision makers have no clue how bad it is. I'm personally stunned by the lack of wanting to know, but I also know how horrifying it is to learn about these problems. We are running out of energy, land, water, fertilizer and food, while the climate will reduce crop yields and the population is still rising. The only way to fix that is using more energy, doing more work, creating even more entropy. It's one giant positive feedback loop. And positive is bad in this case.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

But it was because of lack of qualified personal. The experiment was the cause for the explosion, and there was noone to assess properly the scale and magnitude of radiation. Even top politicians in Moscow weren't informed for days even though it happend in Ukraine and not Russia.

Generally, take whatever you see, read or hear about Chernobyl with a grain of salt the size of a minibus.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'd like to see R&D into the feasibility of a orbital solar array. It's a far, far better idea than the current model of solar PV deployment and has the bonus of not losing so much energy to the atmosphere. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotts...could-supply-the-world-with-limitless-energy/

I remember this from 10 years ago, when Japan wanted to build one. It looked like a terrbile idea back than, since it can be used as a weapon - and mostlikely will be it's primary function, its basically a Microwave in my eyes. And while Microwave is a very new addition to ways making food, i am concerned about lack of stydies on effect of it on Human health,and the food cooked in them.

 

[J_Rey55]

I don’t understand why, while vaping is strictly prohibited, smoking is still not banned in Singapore. I always considered (correct me if I’m wrong) that vaping causes less damage to the environment then cigarette butts. Here a good article about the impact of smoking on the ecosystem https://vapingdaily.com/support/environmental-responsibility/.

To fight against the pollution.

In Singapore, the smokers consume their cigarettes inside the cabins, which filter the smoke and turn it into clean air.

View attachment 132699

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Slightly OT, but then again.

I'm currently watching the HBO series called Chernobyl. I highly recommend seeing that, even though it's hard.

Back then I used to work with isotopes in the lab, and I studied the effects of radiation on humans. We didn't have a lot of data, and doing experiments on humans were ruled out after the plutonium injections on humans during the Manhattan Project. Therefore we mostly used data from early X-ray doctors, assumed that zero radiation would cause no deaths, and made a straight line between the two points, knowing this method was far from "scientific". Therefore I have been following reports of Chernobyl death tolls, out of "sick" curiosity. The thing that strikes me is that the numbers vary between zero and two million deaths. Not very reliable data...

We also had a conference back then, where Soviet scientists came and told about the accident, and now it's clear that they lied and tried to cover up. Or the story that is currently considered true is a cover up? They claimed that the accident was caused by lack of qualified personel.

What really makes me angry is the way the number of dead "Liquidators" seems to have been reduced. Those guys were true heroes, trying to save the rest of us, while facing certain death, and they deserve to be honored and remembered forever. Not to disappear in an attempt to blur the truth. The series focuses on those heroes, and I appreciate that.

Overall the series seems to be very true to the stories that has surfaced during the years, and it shows a horrifying picture of what happens when we mess with nature. A nuclear meltdown is obviously leading to some heartbreaking personal stories, and having once been against nuclear energy for the same reason, I have recently become less critical towards it. It is still killing less people than fossil energy, but when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

So now, thanks to the reminder, I'm back to saying no. Instead we HAVE to figure out a way to use and store the energy from the Sun efficiently. It's the only sustainable energy source we have, and we are in a hurry.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9APLXM9Ei8

I'm still in favor of nuclear fission (I'm sure you know that fusion is a completely different dog), the three mile island and Chernobyl happened because of human negligence and primitive nuclear reactor designs, (Fu)kushima* caused very few if any deaths at all. The only reason why I don't think we should rely solely on fission is because it is not renewable and you have to deal with the waste.

*Apparently, that's a bug of the automatic censorship.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm still in favor of nuclear fission (I'm sure you know that fusion is a completely different dog), the three mile island and Chernobyl happened because of human negligence and primitive nuclear reactor designs, ushima caused very few if any deaths at all. The only reason why I don't think we should rely solely on fission is because it is not renewable and you have to deal with the waste.

In the future we will probably find cost effective or desperate ways to dump waste in to space.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

In the future we will probably find cost effective or desperate ways to dump waste in to space.

Maybe though the costs new to go waaaaaay down and the reliability up because I don't want to know what could happen if a rocket with nuclear waste explodes in the upper atmosphere, buring it in caves is much more feasable and safe.

 

[Arry]

I don’t understand why, while vaping is strictly prohibited, smoking is still not banned in Singapore. I always considered (correct me if I’m wrong) that vaping causes less damage to the environment then cigarette butts. Here a good article about the impact of smoking on the ecosystem https://vapingdaily.com/support/environmental-responsibility/.

That link is a little over the top, don't you think? For a start, it so from; 'the voice of vaping'. Which are simply trying to promote, their own agenda.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I'm still in favor of nuclear fission (I'm sure you know that fusion is a completely different dog), the three mile island and Chernobyl happened because of human negligence and primitive nuclear reactor designs, (Fu)kushima* caused very few if any deaths at all. The only reason why I don't think we should rely solely on fission is because it is not renewable and you have to deal with the waste.

*Apparently, that's a bug of the automatic censorship.

The latest news from F u k ushima is that the attempt to make a frozen barrier to contain the water needed to cool the cores has failed, and that large amounts of radition is leaking into the ocean. Those news comes from Tepco, the owners of the plant.

Regarding the death toll: Noone knows. It's not only the immediate deaths caused by radiation sickness. It's the long term effects, and we still haven't got reliable data for that.

Maybe though the costs new to go waaaaaay down and the reliability up because I don't want to know what could happen if a rocket with nuclear waste explodes in the upper atmosphere, buring it in caves is much more feasable and safe.

It has been sugested to transport waste into space using rockets, but they have a bad habit of blowing up, spreading the waste into the atmosphere. A giant air cannon sounds like a better idea to me, but I'm not an expert on air cannons. It has to be shot more than a few hundred kilometers up. Otherwise It will rain down again.