dense wrote: » The equivalent of 18 nuclear power stations will be needed for the EU alone:https://www.magnuscmd.com/electric-vehicles-and-the-energy-sector/ Cribbing about vacuum cleaners using too much electricity whilst advocating electric cars seems ironic, to me at least.
2011 wrote: » I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations?? I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.
Europe as a whole can save up to 20 TWh of electricity per year by 2020.
dense wrote: » Not so long ago (in climactic terms) the scientists were saying they could see no end to the global cooling that was being caused by the ever increasing C02 concentrations as recorded at the time by the Moana Lua observatory. And that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere was going to push us headlong into a new ice age. The current wheeze is that the scientists say that more C02 might make it get a bit warmer. Or burn the earth to a cinder or something.https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/18/archives/us-and-soviet-press-studies-of-a-colder-arctic-us-and-soviet-press.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.htmlhttp://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Akrasia wrote: » What are you going on about? Nowhere, ever did any kind of consensus exist amongst scientists to say that extra CO2 in the atmosphere was cooling our planet.
dense wrote: » I would welcome any correction in these calculations, I posted them before in a different thread and no one including Akrasia disputed them.
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » Climate change has become one of the causes that the liberal left have attached themselves to. Like most issues these people become attached to it has become a sort of cult. Anyone who even questions the consensus is labelled a 'denier' There are climate scientists in top US colleges who complain that funding is only given to scientists who accept human caused climate change and some are even afraid to voice their opinion for fear of the backlash.
2011 wrote: » Please link to the post that contains these calculations in this other thread.
dense wrote: » Why?
johnnyskeleton wrote: » I would agree with you that people often accept the climate change narrative without question, without fully understanding it (it is incredibly complex after all) and can be very sanctimonious towards anyone who questions it.
Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Even still, that doesnt mean that climate change isnt happening and that there is cogent evidence that a significant contributor is human activity.
2011 wrote: » I gave you the reason when I asked to see this calculation, I said: "I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used." This was in response to your statement that you "did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU." Why are you reluctant to share this "unchallenged" calculation?
dense wrote: » Are you disputing them or accepting them?
dense wrote: » If it is happening, shouldn't those who say it's happening be able to demonstrate what weather events have occurred where human activities rather than nature, have been proven to be the significant causal factor?
This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate. The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaskahttps://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/
2011 wrote: » I do not see a calculation (by you) of how much energy is used in the EU by vacuum cleaners in the post that you linked to.
With more efficient vacuum cleaners, Europe as a whole can save up to 20 TWh of electricity per year by 2020.
Akrasia wrote: » There are already deadly weather events happening which scientists say were not possible without climate change thousands died in that Asian heatwave BTW
Akrasia wrote: » The EU has targeted a 20% reduction in energy use (compared with projected energy use) by 2020 and are committed to a 32.5% reduction by 2030 Vacuum cleaners are just one part of this strategy, they're mandating energy efficiency in all areas, from construction, to transport, to home appliances The incandescent lightbulb ban has saved 40tw of energy every year since 2000, and the upcoming ban on Halogen bulbs (from next week) will save an additional 53tw of energy, bringing the savings from lighting alone up to the equivalent of all the power Portugal uses every year Of course, Dense will claim that this too is 'insignificant' because it's only a few percent of the EU's energy requirements, but when all the measures are taken together, they add up to significant savings. These measures are energy savings for no real cost in terms of quality of life. Superior alternatives exist to old inefficient technology and they are absolute no brainer measures to everyone except people who have no brain.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » What can I say:
dense wrote: » Climate attribution scientists finally affirming climate attribution scientists? There is no way they can decide whether one weather event was man made and not natural or natural and not man made, when all they are basing their observations on is the "preindustrial period" of, get this, 1881–1920, a period which is way after the 1720-1800 reference period recommended elsewhere:https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1 You really need a bit of balance:https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0030.1
dense wrote: » Your tag line, it relates something about the affection you hold for your old diesel truck???? :P
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » Yep, and I no longer own it. New one is still diesel, but with DPF. That Tesla will have to wait a bit.
Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study revealshttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-pollution-causes-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
dense wrote: » All joking aside, do you really think a DPF is going to undo the environmental damage you've already done, not to mention the fact that scientists now say long term emissions exposure may have damaged the general public's intelligence? How can you sleep at night????
Akrasia wrote: » Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century. That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/ Breathing in polluted air reduces intelligence in the short term because CO2 is toxic to humans at the levels we have currently increased the atmosphere, and on days where air quality is especially low, the co2 levels are much higher than the background levels in the atmospherehttps://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/
Hypocrite: 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Akrasia wrote: » Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century. That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/
dense wrote: » Tell us again how you've persuaded yourself that your own carbon footprint is something you don't care about (and presumably neither do any of the rest of the climate-alarmed club) and how it is that your own careless usage of oil industry products permits you to preach to others who use the very same oil products and care just as little as you do about their carbon footprint? Theres a terrible smell of holier than thou from your emissions Akrasi.
Akrasia wrote: » right after you finish explaining to me why an individuals carbon footprint is important, but the carbon emissions of entire countries is 'insignificant'
Mr Jones, willing to preserve both his high consumption lifestyle and an image of a good and responsible citizen, may be tempted to forget the whole issue switching to another topics, denying the problem or saying that his emissions are only an insignificantly small part of the problem (or use a number of other well-known justifications for not-changing-anything). I wondered about it a lot and decided that doing my best to limit the "height of the carbon footprint bar" is the right thing to do (now it’s around 5.8 tons CO2/year). There are a few reasons, why: There are tipping points in the climate system. There may be a ton that will be "a ton too far". Lower carbon footprint means less spending, leading to savings instead of debt, less pressure to chase the money and more time for what’s really important in life. I’m very happy with this attitude. Pursuing happy selfish consumption now, at a price of extinction of countless species and cataclysmic future of our children is an attitude based on ethics I don't share (well, that's my opinion, some people may think otherwise). Credibility: if you tell others that we have to reduce the emissions, meanwhile driving SUV, flying around the world and buying a lot of stuff, you will be perceived as a hypocrite. This will do more harm then good. We have to walk the talk.
Akrasia wrote: » I've never said that i don't care about my own carbon emissions, I have consistently said that individuals are largely powerless to affect global climate on their own, and what we need is political action at every level, from local to supernational global treaties. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about it.
Akrasia wrote: » You are a hypocrite in demanding that individuals sacrifice everything to be more environmentally friendly so that they can be taken seriously, and then do nothing but scoff at those people who genuinely do take extreme measures to limit their own environmental impact. The solution to climate change is collective action, along with huge investments in technology and infrastructure and that's not going to work if people are berated into drastic lifestyle changes and self sacrifice. Your demands that people walk everywhere in their bare feet or else they're hypocrites is just another PR strategy by the coal and gas industry to avoid the debate.
Akrasia wrote: » The predictions made by climate scientists and climate models have been scarily accurate.
xckjoo wrote: » The same poor oil industry that's at the mercy of the global climate change conspiracy? Poor lads cant catch a break
The suppressors are usually oil companies, but can also be the government or special interest groups. Proponents of this conspiracy may also believe that governments and lobby groups are actively weakening renewable energy technologies like solar, biofuels and geothermal.
