Science Global Warming / Climate Change

[BloodOmen]

As Tom rather sarcastically said, even if it was bollocks... what have we got to lose ? got everything to gain, nothing to lose really. Even if it was bollocks, the very notion of climate change would force people to look further to the future, bring new innovative stuff to light that may change our entire way of life.

 

[Bodhi]

Nothing to lose other than the $1.5 trillion a year we are pissing up the wall trying to fight a problem which only exists if you interpret a certain set of data in a certain way. Money that could quite easily go to real problems, like fresh water in Africa, for instance. Something that normal people would benefit from, not government quangos, rich landowners and Elon Musk....

 

[Scouse]

a problem which only exists if you interpret a certain set of data in a certain way

lol

"Experts" eh?

 

[Moriath]

As Tom rather sarcastically said, even if it was bollocks... what have we got to lose ? got everything to gain, nothing to lose really. Even if it was bollocks, the very notion of climate change would force people to look further to the future, bring new innovative stuff to light that may change our entire way of life.

Yeah but the trouble with capitalism is that everything that isnt easy is vastly expensive. Therefore doesnt get the investment until the easy starts running dry and costing more and you readh a break even point or more.

 

[Tom]

True. But its not happening really is it with china making all those new coal powered generators and most of the third world unable to afford clean generation. Most of the western world just dabbling with renewables. Still burning gas and coal.

So the march towards utopia is slow and stuttering if at all.

China is rapidly moving away from coal.

China says it will drastically cut back on coal power

Third world countries will be more able to afford clean generation once we've pioneered its use. It's always the early adopters who pay the most [money]. We're the richest, so that'll be us.

 

[Bodhi]

lol

"Experts" eh?

Science is the belief in the ignorance of them

 

[Tom]

Awesome! Shame it's got us dirtier air (dash for diesel) and power generation that doesn't really work and is even more of an environmental disaster than before (wood pellets, wind farms, solar panels). It's also strange how the massive increases in life expectancy and general quality of life we've seen recently, have been possible by cheap and easy access to abundant power. Not 3 words ever used in conjunction with renewables sadly.

Diesel fumes are responsible for dirtier local air, but overall our environment is much less polluted than it was 50 years ago. I wonder, were you complaining about pollution and "dirtier air" when you were clattering around in your diesel car?

I don't agree that modern power generation is dirtier than its antecedent - I grew up playing around coal slag heaps, you don't see any of that these days. I know you think it's cool to be so dismissive of cleaner power generation, but the weight of opinion is firmly against you. Costs for renewable power generation are falling rapidly every year. Fossil fuel generation will be here for a long time to come, but it isn't the only way to do things. And frankly, if we want a cleaner environment, we have to pay for it.

 

[Scouse]

Science is the belief in the ignorance of them

Not by any rational definition. But if it helps you sleep at night unchallenged then I guess that's OK.

 

[Bodhi]

Not by any rational definition. But if it helps you sleep at night unchallenged then I guess that's OK.

It was as defined by a Nobel Prize winning physicist anyway. I'd probably listen to him above yourself in this case.

 

[Moriath]

China is rapidly moving away from coal.

China says it will drastically cut back on coal power

Third world countries will be more able to afford clean generation once we've pioneered its use. It's always the early adopters who pay the most [money]. We're the richest, so that'll be us.

Funny that after they spent a decade throwing them up as fast as they can.

 

[Moriath]

Diesel fumes are responsible for dirtier local air, but overall our environment is much less polluted than it was 50 years ago. I wonder, were you complaining about pollution and "dirtier air" when you were clattering around in your diesel car?

I don't agree that modern power generation is dirtier than its antecedent - I grew up playing around coal slag heaps, you don't see any of that these days. I know you think it's cool to be so dismissive of cleaner power generation, but the weight of opinion is firmly against you. Costs for renewable power generation are falling rapidly every year. Fossil fuel generation will be here for a long time to come, but it isn't the only way to do things. And frankly, if we want a cleaner environment, we have to pay for it.

We really import all our coal now. Though its not as much as it used to be. Which is why the slag heaps have gone.

 

[Tom]

Funny that after they spent a decade throwing them up as fast as they can.

So did we when we were industrialising.

 

[Moriath]

So did we when we were industrialising.

But we didnt know about climate warming then.

Is it therefore ok to any developing nation to put loads of coal power stations up? Or do we force them to use cleaner methods?

 

[Scouse]

Force?

China??

 

[Moriath]

Exactly. So how are you gonna force brazil. Or india. Or kenya or ....

 

[Job]

London used to be knee high in horseshit, the combustion engine was seen as a cleaner alternative.
All this bolax about diesels, they aren't going anywhere, they will just reduce the particles and nox with technology,
though probably your older diesels will be pushed out the door with cash back schemes.

Africa is the big one, if all Africans start driving cars and eating meat, then we might as well
start building seafront apartments in Manchester.

 

[Bodhi]

Diesel fumes are responsible for dirtier local air, but overall our environment is much less polluted than it was 50 years ago. I wonder, were you complaining about pollution and "dirtier air" when you were clattering around in your diesel car?

You are correct, our air is indeed much cleaner than it was 50 years ago, but this is nothing to do with legislation brought in to combat Manbearpig, as that was all around Co2 - which has no negative effects in the local environment in the quantities we release it. But thanks to laws passed 10 years ago to combat climate change, we all switched to diesels, lawmakers completely blind to anything that came out an exhaust that wasn't Co2, and all of us just trying to save some money on our fuels bills (as I believe you also did). So it's quite easy to argue air quality improved despite CC legislation, not because of it. Walk through a big city in the US where they focused on other particulates, then walk down Oxford Street and tell me which you think the correct approach was.

I don't agree that modern power generation is dirtier than its antecedent - I grew up playing around coal slag heaps, you don't see any of that these days. I know you think it's cool to be so dismissive of cleaner power generation, but the weight of opinion is firmly against you. Costs for renewable power generation are falling rapidly every year. Fossil fuel generation will be here for a long time to come, but it isn't the only way to do things. And frankly, if we want a cleaner environment, we have to pay for it.

Far from it, I'm a large proponent of cleaner power generation, whether it be through improving the efficiency and cleanliness of fossil fuels, using natural resources where appropriate and, most importantly, developing nuclear power sources until we get the Holy Grail of Fusion - I just think some of it is hopelessly misguided. Hydro in Norway? Perfect. Solar in North Africa? Windmills in the UK? Fuck right off.

 

[DaGaffer]

London used to be knee high in horseshit, the combustion engine was seen as a cleaner alternative.
All this bolax about diesels, they aren't going anywhere, they will just reduce the particles and nox with technology,
though probably your older diesels will be pushed out the door with cash back schemes.

Africa is the big one, if all Africans start driving cars and eating meat, then we might as well
start building seafront apartments in Manchester.

The economic case for diesels starts to get really shaky the more emissions crap you have to load onto them. Analysts are already saying the sub 2.0 is dead in the water because it will be impossible to make them hit Euro 6 regulations if they're applied properly (which they will be now). And that's before various governments decide to stiff motorists with punitive NOx taxes and ban diesels from city centres.

 

[Wij]

The economic case for diesels starts to get really shaky the more emissions crap you have to load onto them. Analysts are already saying the sub 2.0 is dead in the water because it will be impossible to make them hit Euro 6 regulations if they're applied properly (which they will be now). And that's before various governments decide to stiff motorists with punitive NOx taxes and ban diesels from city centres.

Surely they can't want to ban nice diesel cars like a 435 x-drive?

 

[Raven]

I think they will have to introduce some sort of attractive scrap scheme, many people and companies went diesel on advice and incentives from government. Now those experts that we keep hearing about have changed their mind (due to piss poor decision making and piss poor "research") people will be bent over again.

 

[Bodhi]

Surely they can't want to ban nice diesel cars like a 435 x-drive?

You mean I'll have to buy the 440i instead? Gutted....

 

[DaGaffer]

Surely they can't want to ban nice diesel cars like a 435 x-drive?

Yup. Fucked.

You mean I'll have to buy the 440i instead? Gutted....

For most people it's going to be some kind of hybrid in their future. At least until the next scandal (lithium related probably).

 

[Raven]

Nah lithium is perfectly fine, long term disposal isn't a problem at all. Recycling? A breeze

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993714000037

At the moment they are an extremely short term solution, in desperate need of standardisation. Only then can an energy efficient recycling system can come about, one that doesn't equal dumping large amounts of reactive chemicals into land fill.

 

[Job]

Battery technology is the most important, at first just make hybrid cars, people can plug them in at night and then we can actually use wind power for something, and a grid of charging batteries can store power to make solar/wind worthwhile.
It's a total win win, lots of carbon free battery charging and a big store for power peaks.

 

[Bodhi]

Yup. Fucked.



For most people it's going to be some kind of hybrid in their future. At least until the next scandal (lithium related probably).

To be fair the bigger Euro 6 diesels like the 335d will be fine for the forseeable - they have no real issues hitting Euro 6 spec - when the VW scandal broke in the US the people who found it ran two VW's and an X5 3.0D up the west coast of the USA, and the big diesel was well within limits - it was just the 2 litre models that were way above what was needed. All the upcoming charges are for pre-2005 diesels and petrols. BMW still see about 85% of the new 5 Series being diesel powered, so the black fuel isn't going anywhere soon. I agree smaller cars will probably move back to petrol/hybrid, but then if you were buying a diesel to potter around town you were a bit of a retard anyway.

And no, I won't be having a hybrid in future, as most of my miles are on the motorway, where hybrids aren't too great. I shall stick to pure petrol for quite some time to come.

I do have to wonder about diesel being the latest bogeyman however - if it was so bad for our airways and killed so many people, you would expect the incidences of Asthma and COPD in London to be through the roof compared to the rest of the country, but if we look at Asthma:

Asthma statistics | British Lung Foundation - London in 2nd from bottom.

And COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) statistics | British Lung Foundation - London also near the bottom.

I would have thought, if this 40,000 people a year killed by air polution was accurate, we'd be seeing much higher numbers in London, especially compared to that centre of polluted air that is Scotland (Princes Street excluded of course). Add in the fact that there have been zero deaths where the cause has been recorded as "Air Pollution", you do have to wonder who's arse they've pulled that particular number from.

 

[DaGaffer]

To be fair the bigger Euro 6 diesels like the 335d will be fine for the forseeable - they have no real issues hitting Euro 6 spec - when the VW scandal broke in the US the people who found it ran two VW's and an X5 3.0D up the west coast of the USA, and the big diesel was well within limits - it was just the 2 litre models that were way above what was needed. All the upcoming charges are for pre-2005 diesels and petrols. BMW still see about 85% of the new 5 Series being diesel powered, so the black fuel isn't going anywhere soon. I agree smaller cars will probably move back to petrol/hybrid, but then if you were buying a diesel to potter around town you were a bit of a retard anyway.

And no, I won't be having a hybrid in future, as most of my miles are on the motorway, where hybrids aren't too great. I shall stick to pure petrol for quite some time to come.

I do have to wonder about diesel being the latest bogeyman however - if it was so bad for our airways and killed so many people, you would expect the incidences of Asthma and COPD in London to be through the roof compared to the rest of the country, but if we look at Asthma:

Asthma statistics | British Lung Foundation - London in 2nd from bottom.

And COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) statistics | British Lung Foundation - London also near the bottom.

I would have thought, if this 40,000 people a year killed by air polution was accurate, we'd be seeing much higher numbers in London, especially compared to that centre of polluted air that is Scotland (Princes Street excluded of course). Add in the fact that there have been zero deaths where the cause has been recorded as "Air Pollution", you do have to wonder who's arse they've pulled that particular number from.

Not fucked because they won't hit emissions; like you said, the bigger/Adblue engines are generally OK, but if you're well off and want to drive your Range Rover or X5 into town, and you're actively banned from doing it; most people who can afford it, will switch to a Hybrid. Volvo have been quite smart about this by making their hybrids the most desirable and "performance"* models already. (*yes I know a XC90 T5 isn't a performance car, but its enough of one over the diesels, whereas for ze Germans, their hybrids are less good than their big diesels at the moment). Diesel has maybe 3-4 years left before people start to think about resale values as these bans loom, and like I said, that's not including greedy Finance ministers seeing a new bunch of suckers to fleece.

I expect to see a rash of hybrids from all the big manufacturers over the next few years, including some iconic cars like M-series' BMWs (definitely AMG Mercs as well, leveraging the F1 angle)

As for whether diesel is as harmful as its made out to be, I have no idea; but its filthy stuff, and speaking as someone who's father died from cancer after working on an oil refinery for 30 years (and more tellingly, most of his friends died early as well), I'd be prepared to bet we're probably better off without it.

 

[Tom]

I would have thought, if this 40,000 people a year killed by air polution was accurate, we'd be seeing much higher numbers in London, especially compared to that centre of polluted air that is Scotland (Princes Street excluded of course). Add in the fact that there have been zero deaths where the cause has been recorded as "Air Pollution", you do have to wonder who's arse they've pulled that particular number from.

It isn't that 40,000 people are being killed annually. It's that 40,000 people are seeing their life expectancy reduced, by a year, possibly more.

> you do have to wonder who's arse they've pulled that particular number from

Probably yours.

 

[Job]

Im watching ITV in Somalialand with a small village who are the latest photo op victims of climate change.
One of their goats has died and they've moved its body 40ft away to protect the herd...presenter prattling on about droughts etc.
Firstly how about burying the goat, secondly, they are just sat there letting something which obviously happens every few years, happen to them again.

 

[Bodhi]

It isn't that 40,000 people are being killed annually. It's that 40,000 people are seeing their life expectancy reduced, by a year, possibly more.

> you do have to wonder who's arse they've pulled that particular number from

Probably yours.

Wow. It would seem the transition to born again greenie has made you a rather unplasant character to debate with - not sure if it's the saddle rash or permanent guilt, but try to tone it down in future eh?

But it turns out there are still people out there qustioning these official figures, such as the chap below. Most notable is the margin for error on these numbers - i.e fecking huge.


View: https://medium.com/wintoncentre/does-air-pollution-kill-40-000-each-year-people-in-the-uk-ecca96fb3a1a#.wpiwar5s1


Given how readily these studies have been abused, and proved to be flat out wrong in the past, I will keep a healthy dose of scepticism for now. After all, that is how science is supposed to work.

 

[Moriath]

Im watching ITV in Somalialand with a small village who are the latest photo op victims of climate change.
One of their goats has died and they've moved its body 40ft away to protect the herd...presenter prattling on about droughts etc.
Firstly how about burying the goat, secondly, they are just sat there letting something which obviously happens every few years, happen to them again.

Probably the ground is rock hard from drought so they cant dig in it effectively.