COP26

[Morrisandmoo]

But loads of people are looking at the last 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the chart and pretending like it's the only thing that matters in the context of the earth's climate. 

In the context of modern human life maybe, but not the earth's climate. 

[phart]

It's not pretending anything it's all labelled. It gives the temperature from the last ice age, if you don't read the axes and labelling it could suggest anything I guess. It's also not the point.

It's being ignorant of the argument.

The argument isn't we're in unprescedented global temperatures it's the direct affect of what temperatures do to human habitats and what will happen when those changes occur.

Crocodiles were in the artic 40 million years ago. that's 10 times longer ago than earliest evidence of bipedalism.

Pointing out it was warmer in the past isn't a relevant thing, no one is debating that. Go back 13.8 billion years it was really hot. Go forward a trillion years going to be really cold. That's how entropy and the arrow of time works.

Also it's the rate of change not the change, 2nd derivative not first.

It's what's going to happen when habitat and climate change in a way to be hostile to our species (and many others)

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by phart

[Morrisandmoo]

2 hours ago, phart said:

It's not pretending anything it's all labelled. It gives the temperature from the last ice age, if you don't read the axes and labelling it could suggest anything I guess. It's also not the point.

It's being ignorant of the argument.

The argument isn't we're in unprescedented global temperatures it's the direct affect of what temperatures do to human habitats and what will happen when those changes occur.

Crocodiles were in the artic 40 million years ago. that's 10 times longer ago than earliest evidence of bipedalism.

Pointing out it was warmer in the past isn't a relevant thing, no one is debating that. Go back 13.8 billion years it was really hot. Go forward a trillion years going to be really cold. That's how entropy and the arrow of time works.

Also it's the rate of change not the change, 2nd derivative not first.

It's what's going to happen when habitat and climate change in a way to be hostile to our species (and many others)

 

 

 

The stated purpose of the chart is to represent "when people say the climate has changed in the past they mean things like this". 

But they are either deliberately mis-representing what those people mean or they are, themselves, very bad at understanding things and people. When people say things like the climate has changed in the past - in fact, they mean the ferociously fast changes that have occurred over the life of the earth as summarised in the chart I shared. 

You can make the argument about which bits of the Earth's history you think is most relevant in interpreting our current situation and you can make the argument that what matters most is the impact on the human race. 

However, they are not making either a relevance or humanitarian argument (that you are making). They are just being dicks and mis-representing what other people say to try to make those people look stupid. In internet speak, it's just a big straw man they have done drawed.

 

[Morrisandmoo]

PS regarding other species, i've already made it clear that I am on the side of the crocs not the polar bears. 

[phart]

10 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

The stated purpose of the chart is to represent "when people say the climate has changed in the past they mean things like this". 

But they are either deliberately mis-representing what those people mean or they are, themselves, very bad at understanding things and people. When people say things like the climate has changed in the past - in fact, they mean the ferociously fast changes that have occurred over the life of the earth as summarised in the chart I shared. 

You can make the argument about which bits of the Earth's history you think is most relevant in interpreting our current situation and you can make the argument that what matters most is the impact on the human race. 

However, they are not making either a relevance or humanitarian argument (that you are making). They are just being dicks and mis-representing what other people say to try to make those people look stupid. In internet speak, it's just a big straw man they have done drawed.

 

The comic was drawn by physicist and former NASA employee Randall Munroe. They have some background in science.

Explaining a joke once is bad enough, twice would be overkill.

Scott Wing made that graph and he talks about climate catastrophes so it just lends to the point how our current problem is a climate catastrophe.

Also I doubt when people talk about climate has changed in the past they're all talking about a mutually agreed time-frame. In this very thread folk were talking only as far back as the 70's as opposed to 500 MYA. This should be obvious.

Anyway you don't like it fair enough , it's ubiquitus in the offices of the universities i've been in though.

 

 

 

[Morrisandmoo]

15 hours ago, phart said:

The comic was drawn by physicist and former NASA employee Randall Munroe. They have some background in science.

Explaining a joke once is bad enough, twice would be overkill.

Scott Wing made that graph and he talks about climate catastrophes so it just lends to the point how our current problem is a climate catastrophe.

Also I doubt when people talk about climate has changed in the past they're all talking about a mutually agreed time-frame. In this very thread folk were talking only as far back as the 70's as opposed to 500 MYA. This should be obvious.

Anyway you don't like it fair enough , it's ubiquitus in the offices of the universities i've been in though.

 

 

 

Aye, the most popular one I see is a temperature chart that goes back to the 1800s or something. Alongside quotes like "it's the hottest year on record". Ok fair enough. But we've been keeping records for 2 seconds and it's just about the coldest it's ever been on earth. It's obviously just a point of irritation to me!

The reason I think it matters though that people understand it's unusually cold today is (1) then recognising that it is going to get much hotter, with or without "net zero" (2) the planet and life as a whole will be fine when it does.

I do, however, accept that humans don't adapt well to change and the faster the change happens the worse it will be. So good to slow that down and buy ourselves a couple of seconds to work out what to do next (e.g let it get naturally hotter or fuck nature and keep it artificially cold for us (and the polar bears)). 

[phart]

1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said:

Aye, the most popular one I see is a temperature chart that goes back to the 1800s or something. Alongside quotes like "it's the hottest year on record". Ok fair enough. But we've been keeping records for 2 seconds and it's just about the coldest it's ever been on earth. It's obviously just a point of irritation to me!

The reason I think it matters though that people understand it's unusually cold today is (1) then recognising that it is going to get much hotter, with or without "net zero" (2) the planet and life as a whole will be fine when it does.

I do, however, accept that humans don't adapt well to change and the faster the change happens the worse it will be. So good to slow that down and buy ourselves a couple of seconds to work out what to do next (e.g let it get naturally hotter or fuck nature and keep it artificially cold for us (and the polar bears)). 

The temperature is just a leading indicator. So folk fixate on it. What its magnitude is is irrelevant though

The real problem is the habitat changes which follow on from a change of variables. The terrible burden that the poorest of our species will face cause of it. It's going to make covid passports seem the mildest of inconveniences. It will be hundreds of millions of people. Not just our own species either.

It's all happening too fast, these huge planetary equilibriums change but not in the timescale that's happening now bar extreme events.

Sure life will evolve and change we've had 6 mass extinction events already and got through them, however for someone championing the cause of the poorest people in society cause they can't go to nightclubs or might be excluded from society you seem remarkably flippant about folk not being able to feed their children. It's not a consistent viewpoint.

[aaid]

Shell pull out of Cambo. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by aaid

[hampden_loon2878]

11 hours ago, aaid said:

Shell pull out of Cambo. 

here's hoping it still goes ahead

 

[phart]

They're only 30% stakeholders or whatever the terminology is. So the majority still in it.

 

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, phart said:

They're only 30% stakeholders or whatever the terminology is. So the majority still in it.

 

As I understand it the other partner is a private equity firm, who presumably bought the rights at some point in the last 30 years.

They’re going to need a partner if the development is to go ahead. 

[phart]

16 minutes ago, aaid said:

As I understand it the other partner is a private equity firm, who presumably bought the rights at some point in the last 30 years.

They’re going to need a partner if the development is to go ahead. 

Ah well if they don't have the expertise or equipment then that will be a problem.

[hampden_loon2878]

sturgeon is trying to dismantle the case for independence brick by brick 

Edited December 3, 2021 by hampden_loon2878

[Freeedom]

The case for independence should never be predicated on oil production, a dying fuel source that has no place in the future of society. We need to be a forward thinking country with new ideas, that makes the transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

Scotland could be the first major oil producing country to completely move away from fossil fuels if we want it to be. We missed the boat on oil, it's too late now.

[thplinth]

They have been saying oil is going to run out since the 70’s at least. And yet they keep finding more and more… it is bullshit. Trust me they will keep finding more and more…

I know a bit about wind power and renewables 😃it is never replacing fossil fuels. 

You have to have a layered power supply. Wind etc can supply sizable percentages 20-30% for sure if done right but you are going to need fossil fuel and/or nuclear as well and significantly.

Each source has a different response time. Wind you can’t control, nor wave, nor solar… but a gas powered plant can be switched on almost instantly to deal with say everyone putting the kettle on at half time in the FA cup final… a famous example of the problems power grids face.

The SNP are borderline retards on this. Oh lets just switch to renewables… fuck me they are really dangerous idiots . 

Edited December 3, 2021 by thplinth

[hampden_loon2878]

17 minutes ago, Freeedom said:

The case for independence should never be predicated on oil production, a dying fuel source that has no place in the future of society. We need to be a forward thinking country with new ideas, that makes the transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

Scotland could be the first major oil producing country to completely move away from fossil fuels if we want it to be. We missed the boat on oil, it's too late now.

No it shouldn’t however it should and will be a part of an independent scotlands economy should we ever get it. It will consist of 10 to 20 platforms, there are still monster fields to be developed suchas cambos and bentley,. Look at the stance of norway, why not follow their blue print to future extraction? 

[Dave78]

30 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

 Look at the stance of norway, why not follow their blue print to future extraction? 

Now that, is an excellent question.

Edit: Can you elaborate? What's their stance?

Edited December 3, 2021 by Dave78

[thplinth]

Norway's stance is pretty obvious. Use the enormous wealth of their natural resources to build the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund. And that is exactly what they have done.

In contrast the people of Scotland will be saddled with their share of UK debt should they ever become independent. All their Norway wealth they sent to England who spent it on crap no one cares about... like sucking yank dick.

[Dave78]

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

Norway's stance is pretty obvious. Use the enormous wealth of their natural resources to build the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund. And that is exactly what they have done.

In contrast the people of Scotland will be saddled with their share of UK debt should they ever become independent. All their Norway wealth they sent to England who spent it on crap no one cares about... like sucking yank dick.

It irks me, i mean it really fucking irks me, that Scotland didn't 'do a Norway'. I.e. set up a state owned oil company to extract it, and bank the money in a sovereign wealth fund, which meant the financial benefits will last forever. Especially considering Thatcher used the oil to bankroll her de-industrialisation plan which decimated Scotland, Wales and NE England.

However, the Norwegians don't need the revenues from oil. They're set for life. So why are they taking a less eco-friendly attitude to oil? I'm guessing they are more realist about the impact.

[aaid]

9 hours ago, Dave78 said:

It irks me, i mean it really fucking irks me, that Scotland didn't 'do a Norway'. I.e. set up a state owned oil company to extract it, and bank the money in a sovereign wealth fund, which meant the financial benefits will last forever. Especially considering Thatcher used the oil to bankroll her de-industrialisation plan which decimated Scotland, Wales and NE England.

However, the Norwegians don't need the revenues from oil. They're set for life. So why are they taking a less eco-friendly attitude to oil? I'm guessing they are more realist about the impact.

Norway essentially are saying “Fuck the science, gimme the money” and are ploughing on regardless. 

[hampden_loon2878]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Norway essentially are saying “Fuck the science, gimme the money” and are ploughing on regardless. 

Norway essentially saying,” theres demand, we have supply, why import from Russia”. I suppose you stand with patrick harvey when he says “only the hard right support northsea drilling”??

[aaid]

3 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Norway essentially saying,” theres demand, we have supply, why import from Russia”. I suppose you stand with patrick harvey when he says “only the hard right support northsea drilling”??

I’d qualify what Harvie said, only those with self-interest support opening up new oil fields. 

[hampden_loon2878]

59 minutes ago, aaid said:

I’d qualify what Harvie said, only those with self-interest support opening up new oil fields. 

 its complete nonsense, to use norway as the marker again, we could only dream of being a balanced left leaning country like that, anyone describing them as hard right are lunatics, and harvey being one of them who holds sway over our parliament

 

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

 its complete nonsense, to use norway as the marker again, we could only dream of being a balanced left leaning country like that, anyone describing them as hard right are lunatics, and harvey being one of them who holds sway over our parliament

 

Since you don’t believe there’s any need to reduce fossil fuel use any time soon there’s really no point in debating the matter with you.

and while we’re at it, Norway is far from left leaning,   The current government is a conservative and Hard right coalition 

Edited December 4, 2021 by aaid

[hampden_loon2878]

49 minutes ago, aaid said:

Since you don’t believe there’s any need to reduce fossil fuel use any time soon there’s really no point in debating the matter with you.

and while we’re at it, Norway is far from left leaning,   The current government is a conservative and Hard right coalition 

hard right in Norway would be like labour here, having worked there for three years i understand the politics very well, you know as well as i do that they are not "hard right" haha. I do believe we will as a species need to move away from fossil fuels however importing from other countries at the expense of home jobs and revenue is insanity