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

Pretty much most of the decently sourced articles in this thread are directly related to the issues around AGW, be it directly related or not (for instance the issues of plastics in our environment is related to the oil industries activities etc). We just live in a world that has obvious boundaries (a 100KM deep atmosphere for example) and the more we transform things around us (through industrial process like oil extraction or plastic production etc) without care for the environmental damage it can cause, the more we get these scientific records to highlight the danger we are putting ourselves, and life in general on this planet, in.

'Hundreds of temperature records broken over summer':


Almost 400 all-time high temperatures were set in the northern hemisphere over the summer, according to an analysis of temperature records.

The records were broken in 29 countries for the period from 1 May to 30 August this year.

A third of the all-time high temperatures were in Germany, followed by France and the Netherlands.

The analysis was carried out by the California-based climate institute Berkeley Earth.

Over the summer, there were 1,200 instances of places in the northern hemisphere being the hottest they'd ever been in a given month.
For me all this is not so much depressing as just a series of statements of scientific facts that we all need to be more aware of, as ultimately we are all driving these changes by our actions and choices. We need to change our behaviors and that starts first with understanding and accepting the facts that scientists can show us the evidence for. This series of evidence just overwhelmingly supports that AGW is real, some people don't like that, but they are just wrong (factually).
 
Last edited:
Pretty much most of the decently sourced articles in this thread are directly related to the issues around AGW, be it directly related or not (for instance the issues of plastics in our environment is related to the oil industries activities etc). We just live in a world that has obvious boundaries (a 100KM deep atmosphere for example) and the more we transform things around us (through industrial process like oil extraction or plastic production etc) without care for the environmental damage it can cause, the more we get these scientific records to highlight the danger we are putting ourselves, and life in general on this planet, in.

'Hundreds of temperature records broken over summer':




For me all this is not so much depressing as just a series of statements of scientific facts that we all need to be more aware of, as ultimately we are all driving these changes by our actions and choices. We need to change our behaviors and that starts first with understanding and accepting the facts that scientists can show us the evidence for. This series of evidence just overwhelmingly supports that AGW is real, some people don't like that, but they are just wrong (factually).
Currently there is a heat wave in the United States. Yesterday on TV I saw that in Alabama the temperature is well above of the normal of seasons.

But for some Americans, global warming is a hoax ...
 
I'd click that video on the off chance it's not total nonsense, but I don't want want to give the Russian propaganda and misinformation network any views.
 
Yep, because anything that goes against the official party line is total nonsense amiright? Can't let that into your head. Have you ever heard the phrase "You've guzzled the Koolaid" by any chance?
 
When Morbad (and apparently you) can't bring himself to watch the video because it goes against his preconceived ideas than that is indeed bias whether I specify it or not.
 
Yep, because anything that goes against the official party line is total nonsense amiright? Can't let that into your head.
I'm going to assume you mean "scientific consensus on climate change" when you say "official party line".

Either way, your statement is clearly disingenuous, because I can reference several posts in this thread where I have responded to some positively ludicrous assertions, articles, and papers, that I clearly read...posts that you were witness to.

Why you would suddenly think I'm adverse to viewing conclusions contrary to my own escapes me, unless you're letting unrelated personal biases against posters dictate your position on these issues.

Have you ever heard the phrase "You've guzzled the Koolaid" by any chance?
I don't think you understand that reference and the irony of your use of it when you are suggesting I take RT seriously is acute.

When Morbad (and apparently you) can't bring himself to watch the video because it goes against his preconceived ideas
This is not a valid interpretation of my position and even if it were, would be hypocritical in the extreme.

If an ad hominem attack is the only argument you have, you could at least make it an accurate one.

than that is indeed bias whether I specify it or not.
I am highly biased against misinformation and correspondingly suspicious of sources that were created to peddle it.

If you have an alternate source for whatever the content of that video may be, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
 
Sorry Morbad, but that's a steaming pile of nonsense that you fabricated from lala land. You dismissed the video out of hand without watching it for the simple reason that you figured (based on me liking it and 6xes posting it) that it couldn't possibly align with your own view point and therefore was worthless. If that isn't (and an accurate summation of what happened) an example of bias, I don't know what is.
 
Sorry Morbad, but that's a steaming pile of nonsense that you fabricated from lala land. You dismissed the video out of hand without watching it for the simple reason that you figured (based on me liking it and 6xes posting it) that it couldn't possibly align with your own view point and therefore was worthless. If that isn't (and an accurate summation of what happened) an example of bias, I don't know what is.
Now you're trying to dictate my reasoning to me. If you don't believe that I believe what I say, then that is an unbridgeable impasse and there is no point in us engaging further. You can go on making up whatever you think I mean and I can put you on ignore.

For the record, I refrained on clicking the video because of the "RT" and "RT.com" in the preview. I know RT has a YouTube channel and if that video links to that channel, I am not clicking it because I do not want to patronize them. If you knew anything about them, I suspect you'd feel the same way.

Of course, 6xes posting it is a strong contraindication that it will be something meaningful, especially on the topic of climate or science, which he appears to be wholly ignorant of (no offense intended 6xes), but I've read plenty of his posts and clicked plenty of his links.
 
Now you're trying to dictate my reasoning to me. If you don't believe that I believe what I say, then that is an unbridgeable impasse and there is no point in us engaging further. You can go on making up whatever you think I mean and I can put you on ignore.

For the record, I refrained on clicking the video because of the "RT" and "RT.com" in the preview. I know RT has a YouTube channel and if that video links to that channel, I am not clicking it because I do not want to patronize them. If you knew anything about them, I suspect you'd feel the same way.

Of course, 6xes posting it is a strong contraindication that it will be something meaningful, especially on the topic of climate or science, which he appears to be wholly ignorant of (no offense intended 6xes), but I've read plenty of his posts and clicked plenty of his links.
Go ahead and put me on ignore if that's your flavah. That would make my day.
 
When Morbad (and apparently you) can't bring himself to watch the video because it goes against his preconceived ideas than that is indeed bias whether I specify it or not.
False, I merely avoid media outlets that are unrealiable to say the least, once more, you can't claim bias because I don't even know what sort of ideas are communicated in that video to begin with. Why do you think I asked the previous question Jason?
 
Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is "believed in" by this or that segment of this population or that population is irrelevant, the real issue is the response.

Given that climate projection models have substantially different outcome profiles 10, 20 and 50 years out - it is problematic to devise quantitative responses designed to reduce CO2 effects that will have predictable outcomes. Placing your attention on austerity is a flat out no go. Californians vote every year for gas taxes, "road diets", extra bike lanes etc., but 57% of car registrations are for SUVs. Austerity is not a sexy choice for wealthy people.

The chicken little Gretta ranting at no one that matters (the UN) after a carbon-fiber sailing yacht pleasure cruise is defocusing our attention from change effect mitigation.

Do you really want to screw Joe Blow commuter trying to get to work at his wage slave job by carbon taxing the manure out of his transportation expenses (the guy still has to work you idiots, and geography in other parts of the world is not equivalent to your dinky backwater island)?

Lobby for canceling insurance in floodplains. Lobby for canceling building permits and insurance along coastlines. Lobby for energy distribution infrastructure. Lobby for agricultural research, lobby for updated building codes that include better insulation - better storm tolerance - include passive heating and cooling etc. Positive responses people can get behind.

Jumping up and down screaming you Americans are rich, and everything is your fault, and you need to suffer because waaaa is less effective than an Open letter to FDEV.

Change the narrative. Go for what people can do, not what they can't do.
 
There should be little compassion for anybody's precious hurt little feelings, when extinction is facing us. And it is.
The problem is bigger than the political/tribal element so many are crying about here.

It's a Science and Engineering issue.
Yes, there will need to be diversion of funds to solve it, as there is with every such problem. But- I've never understood the suggestion that the problem could be tackled by taxation. No LAWYER ever solved an Engineering problem AFAIK- we sort of need the actual engineers.

But we simply can't buy a new planet. No matter how much money is available. Think you can escape this problem with money? Nope.

The approach cannot be made on an individual basis, it has to be done by policy at an international level. Let me illustrate:

For the first half of 2018, T&T exported 1820.2 thousand metric tonnes of ammonia. While this was a slight improvement of half of a percentage point on the 2017 figures, it was less than Russia’s 1874.1 thousand metric tonnes.
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!! Or we were. It's nothing to be proud of, let me tell you. The CO2 output is equivalent to 900 cars. And that is merely ONE industry we have here burning our methane.

On the local roads, there are 1 million vehicles registered, with a population of 1.3 million people, which includes people under 18 and over 90 who are obviously not driving, averaging out to 1.something cars per driver in my little country. We are too rich for our own good, and we need to invest in a train system or we shall die of road traffic. There isn't enough road to accommodate the cars. It can take 4 hours in traffic to cover 30 miles.

Every molecule of ammonia made generated a molecule of CO2.
The chemistry is the Haber process: https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/haber.html
The source of Hydrogen here is Natural Gas, or Methane: CH4. And Nitrogen from the atmosphere- N2.
Ammonia is NH3. To get the 3 H per half a Nitrogen molecule, the process byproducts are CO2 and 1/2 H2O.

Or:
2 N2 + 2 CH4 + oxygen = 2 NH3 + 2 CO2 + H2O.
A sizeable chunk of that nitrogen goes into soybean and corn feed, for animal protein biosynthesis in the meat industry. Yes, you may be eating our Trinidad & Tobago methane if you buy meat from the US, or feedstock from their farms- some of it is going to feed Hogs in China too. Some goes into the leafy greens eaten by Vegans.
It is all deliciously flatulent. Some of it gets recycled into methane by the animals. Or by the humans that ate the animals, that ate the feed, that grew off the fertilizer that came from the methane.

That's another problem. Farts. Let's leave that out.

This problem affects food supplies, international trade, the chemical industry, the shipping industry, restaurant chains, groceries, and livelihoods in multiple countries, and can't be magicked away or altered by anything you or me could possibly do individually. If Governments do not act together, we are going to pay. It's a Game of Thrones situation, with no means of stopping the apocalypse. And since Governments get voted in, people's beliefs matter.

The best solutions are NOT going to be popular.
They are GMO plants that fix their OWN nitrogen from the air, and Thorium nuclear power supplies to generate electricity. Renewables are insufficient, and not fast enough.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom