The Earth On Fire: Solving The Climate Crisis

No. I've replied to the right one. Throughout you've failed to understand the distinction between a human timescale and a geological one and would, by all appearances, still appear to be fundamentally in the dark.

 

Disappointing that TVOR's valuable contribution has been dismissed on the grounds that he is/was a postman. Surely someone in that role has more experience of the changing weather than any of us and so is well qualified to comment on climate change?
I would also remind people that Abraham Lincoln was once a postman too. Imagine if his views on slavery had been similarly rudely ignored because he had 'Postman' on his CV

 

A hugely negative and sad post. What we need is for a more considered technology to rise above those that are currently destructive. Do you really think that if some other species were to 'inherit the earth' they'd be less selfish than us? See above. What don't we deserve? To be held to higher account than every other species that has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years?

Get a grip, quit doing yourself down and more especially me.

 

You've actually inadvertantly given an example of exactly what (I think) The Undeniable Truth is highlighting. The project was supposed to start in 2020, but the Westminster government pulled funding as they didn't see it as cost effective and the energy produced would be too expensive, so it was put on hold. Last I heard the Welsh government were touting for funding from private companies, but as yet nothing has been finalised.

This is the problem, we have some viable solutions but so far governments aren't willing to fund them. Maybe once things get more critical, they find a decent profit in it, or the voting public vocally call for more green policies then things will change, but for the time being we're stuck with half-arsed policies which give the impression of action whilst actually doing very little.

 

FYI I have never been a Postman

 

Fair enough mate. You're ahead of me on that one. There are a number of environmental problems surrounding any sort of tidal barrage when compared with other renewables though. Might that be the issue?

 

This is correct and thankfully most people have concentrated solely upon how flipping barmy his views are.

 

Fair enough. I took that on trust. Do you however photograph birds around Tring Reservoirs? And, to be fair, I have had aspirations to be a postman. I reckon it would be a 'pretty neat gig'.

 

No, the opposite. I have stressed that we are destroying the planet in record time vs geological timeframe and our action may be causing the trigger that will render our planet “atmosphere-less” before we realise and change our ways. You are just too thick to realise it.

 

OK. Does your job involve working with animals?

 

Really mate? Sailing a bit close to the wind there aren't you? Others will judge. But I'd suggest winding in your pessimistic neck a bit.

However, do you have any evidence to suggest that a few degrees warmer might trigger atmospheric escape? Did our atmosphere escape during the Deccan Flats episode previously mentioned? I don't think so.

Kindly stop resorting to Brian Cox on the telly. His contribution there will be for the populace. Why not try thinking for yourself?

 

Do you sell false teeth for cows?

 

Their perseverance in wearing shorts in every weather and season is a great analogy for humanity’s attitude to climate change.

 

There are many, many overdue natural disasters that will cause havoc before man destroys the Earth .
Yellowstone Park, Tokyo earthquake, Canary Island blowing etc etc .
This is not to say we shouldn't take care of our environment .
And whilst it's not for me to tell people how to spend their money why don't Billionaires adopt a river each for example and fund research into filtering the **** out of that river instead of having a jolly up
pointlessly blasting into the edge of space ?
Also it is a disgrace that we still flush dirty water away with clean water. I mean what the actual figg !
Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to be able to recycle shower/dish water to an acceptable level
store it and then use it to flush the bog ?

 

Also it doesn't take long for nature to reclaim what man has done . See Detroit for example.
You know your patio which is a nightmare to keep weed free ? Well imagine if you left it for
5 years ?

 

You’re right. Much better to draw your own conclusions than listen to some jumped up physics professor who has lost all credibility as he’s “there for the populace” on TV. Presume Attenborough and Packham aren’t worth listening to either when expressing their viewpoints for the same reason ?
I’ve given my own “thinking for myself” reasons in my first post on this thread.
As you will see from my later posts the point Cox was making was that our ecosystem is fragile and a small change can trigger further changes that themselves can accelerate the problem. My concern was that we may reach that point sooner than we think and real coordinated action may be too late. You think we’ll be fine and will change in time. I’m a natural pessimist, you’re an optimist- that’s fine.

 

The difference being, of course, that you don't need to be qualified in slavery to speak on the ethical bankruptcy that is slavery.

But you do need to be a climate scientist to have a worthwhile opinion on climate change.

I am quite frankly done with people thinking their ignorance trumps the collective knowledge of the world's best and brightest. You have the right to an opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. Unless you happen to read and understand very complex climate science studies you're hardly positioned to tell climate scientists, who have a greater than 99% consensus on the subject, that they're wrong.

It's not just postmen, though. You can add your job and mine to the list if it makes you feel better. I tried reading a climate research paper once and it's so out of my league I couldn't even understand a quarter of it.

 

This is actually a thing already. It's just that most people don't have them.

Don't me started on the billionaire space race phallus.

 

Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour

 

I was really worried and read every post until I learned this is all natural and will sort itself. I'm off to light a bonfire.

 

It should be part of every "new build" IMO

 

Geoengineering (unless I'm using it wrong is engineering the climate. Things like putting giant mirrors in orbit, clouds that reflect the sun etc

 

As I said earlier, unless all countries sign up to a plan anything anyone else does will be next to useless. I reckon most European countries will force their way to being carbon neutral particularly as the UK, Netherlands & Belgium could lose a lot of land from rising sea levels. Island states such as Nauru and Seychelles will also go that way, however those countries rely on tourism so it will be difficult.

The issue will be China, Russia, USA, India & Brazil.

China do not care one jot other than pursuing the goal of being the biggest superpower, they are already investing heavily in Africa and making islands in the South China Sea. Their lack of governance in business practices led to China being pinpointed as the source of a massive rise in CFC concentrations which affected the self-repairing ozone hole over Antarctica. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341

Russia is a difficult one, they produce gas that Europe relies on, however they are seeing the effect of rising temperatures in Siberia.

USA. The problem with the US is that energy is too cheap. It would be political suicide to raise petrol duty too much, and it would probably be too much to ask for people to cut down on air travel. On top of all of that (one for @luke_golden I guess), if a county or state puts a mandate for example "all new buildings must have solar panels installed" will lead to opponents taking it to the high court.

Brazil needs to simply stop allowing any more of the rain forest from getting cut down. I don't think Brazil has the resources even if they had a sane president, the simplest solution would be a UN resolution to take the rain forest from Brazil and administer centrally, extreme action maybe but we are in an extreme situation.

India (and many other countries) do not have the infrastructure to impose massive changes particularly as countries with high levels of poverty the population are more concerned with feeding themselves through the next week than worrying about the next 100 years. We saw during the worst of the Covid wave in India crematoria were running 24/7, poorer people were sending relatives' corpses down the Ganges.

 

My mother always told me not to laugh at the afflicted.

 

We actually have them at work, along with a dual-flush system (one for each "type" of flush, if you catch my drift).

They work well.

 

Too many people in the world. Unless the world does something to reduce the number of people then any environmental plans will never keep pace with increasing demand.


7.9 Billion (2021)
The current world population is 7.9 billion as of August 2021 [1] according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometer. The term "World Population" refers to the human population (the total number of humans currently living) of the world.

7 Billion (2011)
According to the United Nations, world population reached 7 Billion on October 31, 2011.
The US Census Bureau made a lower estimate, for which the 7 billion mark was only reached on March 12, 2012.

6 Billion (1999)
According to the United Nations, the 6 billion figure was reached on October 12, 1999 (celebrated as the Day of 6 Billion). According to the U.S. Census Bureau instead, the six billion milestone was reached on July 22, 1999, at about 3:49 AM GMT. Yet, according to the U.S. Census, the date and time of when 6 billion was reached will probably change because the already uncertain estimates are constantly being updated.

Previous Milestones
5 Billion: 1987
4 Billion: 1974
3 Billion: 1960
2 Billion: 1930
1 Billion: 1804

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

Population trends show a decline in that growth and there is reason for cautious optimism. The planet could probably manage another few billion.

It’s not generally in the areas of population growth, mostly confined now to Africa, where the significant consumption is. Most CO2 is produced elsewhere and there is great scope for introducing sustainable energy production to Africa.

The problem remains excessive Western and now Far East consumption with those economies predicated on growth being dependent on the lifestyles of a minority.

 

Never been to Tring, try again

 

No, and never has

 

people need to stop squeezing out so many horrible little ankle biters

consumerism will always overtake technological advances look at the energy requirements for bitcoin as an example

less people less demand on resources and less polution

it is not rocket science although a rocket could be used to carry a percentage of the population off to exhaust another planet