'Untold human suffering' is in the near future as U.N. warns climate change is pushing Earth closer to extreme warming

[Eleftheros]

Greta Thunberg seems to be growing up and developing her own opinions. She has decided not to go the COP27 climate talkfest in Egypt.

 

"The Cops are mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing," she said, in a Q&A in London, reported The Guardian.

 

Better late than never.

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Greta Thunberg seems to be growing up and developing her own opinions. She has decided not to go the COP27 climate talkfest in Egypt.

 

"The Cops are mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing," she said, in a Q&A in London, reported The Guardian.

 

Better late than never.

She's just finished her book, her opinions seem more than ever to confirm her stance as it was before:

 

The Climate Book THE FACTS AND THE SOLUTIONS

ABOUT THE CLIMATE BOOK

We still have time to change the world. From Greta Thunberg, the world’s leading climate activist, comes the essential handbook for making it happen.

You might think it’s an impossible task: secure a safe future for life on Earth, at a scale and speed never seen, against all the odds. There is hope – but only if we listen to the science before it’s too late.

In The Climate Book, Greta Thunberg has gathered the wisdom of over one hundred experts – geophysicists, oceanographers and meteorologists; engineers, economists and mathematicians; historians, philosophers and indigenous leaders – to equip us all with the knowledge we need to combat climate disaster. 

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/709837/the-climate-book-by-greta-thunberg/

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest you go back and read TBL’s post I was responding to.

 

And yes, power stations are more efficient than internal combustion engines.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station

I suggest you educate yourself on what engines do, and post data on the efficiency of an ICE to support your argument.

Power stations and ICE's both burn fossil fuel to generate kinetic energy. In a power station, that kinetic energy is converted to electricity via electromagnetic induction of a dynamo. In the ICE, the energy is transferred via mechanical linkages to the wheels.

 

I quote from the link you posted.

 

"Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 37% for coal and oil-fired plants,^[8]"

 

And from Wikipedia:

 

"In 2008 to 2015, GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) increased the efficiency of the engines equipped with this fueling system up to 35%.^{[citation needed]} Currently, as 2020, the technology is available in a wide variety of vehicles."

 

I also quote from your post:

 

"And yes, power stations are more efficient than internal combustion engines."

 

This is known as begging the question, or circular argument. The fact you are asserting something does not make it so.

 

Noted the information on Mae Moh was left to go through to the wicketkeeper.

 

 

[Eleftheros]

Well, what you would expect Greta's book publisher to say in the publicity blurb? Slate Greta's compendium of wisdom as though it were Bikini Girls on Dinosaur Planet?

 

They could have thought of a better title, though. 'The Climate Book' is a bit dull, though, unless they are trying to invoke comparisons with Mr. Mao's Little Red Book.

 

At $30 a throw, they could at least have called it "Trip to Utopia Without a Map" or something equally snappy.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I suggest you educate yourself on what engines do, and post data on the efficiency of an ICE to support your argument.

Power stations and ICE's both burn fossil fuel to generate kinetic energy. In a power station, that kinetic energy is converted to electricity via electromagnetic induction of a dynamo. In the ICE, the energy is transferred via mechanical linkages to the wheels.

 

I quote from the link you posted.

 

"Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 37% for coal and oil-fired plants,^[8]"

 

And from Wikipedia:

 

"In 2008 to 2015, GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) increased the efficiency of the engines equipped with this fueling system up to 35%.^{[citation needed]} Currently, as 2020, the technology is available in a wide variety of vehicles."

 

I also quote from your post:

 

"And yes, power stations are more efficient than internal combustion engines."

 

This is known as begging the question, or circular argument. The fact you are asserting something does not make it so.

 

Noted the information on Mae Moh was left to go through to the wicketkeeper.

 

 

You are cherry picking.

 

2019 world electricity generation by source (total generation was 27 petawatt-hours)^[1][2]

  Coal (37%)

  Natural gas (24%)

  Hydro (16%)

  Nuclear (10%)

  Wind (5%)

  Solar (3%)

  Other (5%)

 

63% of the world’s electricity is not produced by coal fired power stations.

 

Which is why I ignored your Mae Dit example, it is not representative of the majority of electricity generation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station

Edited October 31, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

Well, what you would expect Greta's book publisher to say in the publicity blurb? Slate Greta's compendium of wisdom as though it were Bikini Girls on Dinosaur Planet?

 

They could have thought of a better title, though. 'The Climate Book' is a bit dull, though, unless they are trying to invoke comparisons with Mr. Mao's Little Red Book.

 

At $30 a throw, they could at least have called it "Trip to Utopia Without a Map" or something equally snappy.

She was the one who wrote the book that includes 100 experts views, not the publisher. You said she had changed, her views remain the same.

[Lacessit]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are cherry picking.

 

2019 world electricity generation by source (total generation was 27 petawatt-hours)^[1][2]

  Coal (37%)

  Natural gas (24%)

  Hydro (16%)

  Nuclear (10%)

  Wind (5%)

  Solar (3%)

  Other (5%)

 

63% of the world’s electricity is not produced by coal fired power stations.

 

Which is why I ignored your Mae Dit example, it is not representative of the majority of electricity generation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station

So are you, a deflection. IIRC, the debate started concerning the efficiency of fossil-fuel powered electricity generators. Which, if my math is correct, is still 61% of all power generation.

 

I can read and comprehend the first time around, no need to repost a link.

 

BTW, the proposition natural gas is a cleaner fuel than coal and oil is false. Natural gas does not come out of the ground in a pure state, it is usually accompanied by up to 40% of carbon dioxide. Just thought I'd save you from posting another BS statement.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

So are you, a deflection. IIRC, the debate started concerning the efficiency of fossil-fuel powered electricity generators. Which, if my math is correct, is still 61% of all power generation.

 

I can read and comprehend the first time around, no need to repost a link.

 

BTW, the proposition natural gas is a cleaner fuel than coal and oil is false. Natural gas does not come out of the ground in a pure state, it is usually accompanied by up to 40% of carbon dioxide. Just thought I'd save you from posting another BS statement.

Nah, you haven’t grasped some realities.

 

Coal fired power stations are the least efficient fossil-field generators, they comprise around 37% of the world’s generating capacity.

 

Gas powered generators comprise around 24% of global generating capacity and are very much more efficient than at coal powered generators.

 

Hydro provides 16% of global generating capacity at zero use of fossil fuels.

 

Nuclear comprises 10% of global generating capacity at zero fossil fuels.

 

Wind and solar together comprise 8% of global generating capacity and both at zero fossil fuels.

 

There is 5% of global power generating capacity from other sources not stated

 

When a consumer plugs their EV in to charge it, the are receiving electricity that was generated at the combined efficiency of all generators to the grid.

 

Coal is the least efficient user of fossil fuels, other generators are either very much more efficient or don’t use fossil fuels.

 

Hence your cherry picked coal fired power stations are nowhere near representative of the efficiency and fossil fuel usage that needs to be compared with that of Internal Combustion Engines.

 

You’re arguments are flawed.

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

You’re arguments are flawed.

 

 

Your last sentence tells me all I need to know.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your last sentence tells me all I need to know.

At least I understand the fossil fuel/watt consumed to create the electricity I consume is the aggregate fossil fuel usage of the generating methods used to produce the power I consume.

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

At least I understand the fossil fuel/watt consumed to create the electricity I consume is the aggregate fossil fuel usage of the generating methods used to produce the power I consume.

 

 

 

We used to have a Prime Minister in Australia ( John Gorton ) who could utter sentences like that.

[nauseus]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. Germany began importing Russian gas in 1970, before climate change was even an issue. The motivation was the belief that commerce would lead to peaceful relations between the West and Russia. Actually, it wasn't Russia but the Soviet Union.  Have you already forgotten the cold war. The German phrase used to justify this commerce was Wandel durch Handel. Peace through trade

German imports of Russian gas in 1970 were miniscule compared to today. Five main gas lines were constructed over 5 decades. Over the last 25 years Germany became largely dependent on Russian supply, egged on by people like Herr Schroder, a big buddy of Vlad The Bad - an economic arrangement that created billionaires - but looking at what's happening in Europe now, I somehow doubt that peaceful relations were the top priority. 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

German imports of Russian gas in 1970 were miniscule compared to today. Five main gas lines were constructed over 5 decades. Over the last 25 years Germany became largely dependent on Russian supply, egged on by people like Herr Schroder, a big buddy of Vlad The Bad - an economic arrangement that created billionaires - but looking at what's happening in Europe now, I somehow doubt that peaceful relations were the top priority. 

Whoever it was I replied to asserted that the gas policy was due to the Greens. I pointed out that this was not so. Your argument that it turned into something done for private gain only reinforces my point.

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Whoever it was I replied to asserted that the gas policy was due to the Greens. I pointed out that this was not so. Your argument that it turned into something done for private gain only reinforces my point.

Cool.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/31/2022 at 4:05 PM, Eric Loh said:

Remote parts of the world are not contributing to greenhouse gas. They barely can afford transportation. Poor attempt at denialism and diversion.  

OK, electric vehicles are too expensive for anyone I know living in the western country ( with high vehicle ownership ) I reside in to buy, can't be fixed except in an expensive workshop, and the second hand market for them will be zilch if the batteries have to be replaced.

Also, the electricity infrastructure is apparently incapable of charging them all if ownership became large, unless using fossil fueled generation.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/31/2022 at 8:07 PM, Bkk Brian said:

We still have time to change the world. From Greta Thunberg, the world’s leading climate activist, comes the essential handbook for making it happen.

That begs the question- change the world to what, exactly?

It's not exactly a bed of roses for the hundreds/ ? thousands of species we have made extinct, is it?

 

On 10/31/2022 at 8:07 PM, Bkk Brian said:

You might think it’s an impossible task: secure a safe future for life on Earth, at a scale and speed never seen, against all the odds. There is hope – but only if we listen to the science before it’s too late.

If we are to believe your side of the debate, it has taken since the industrial revolution to change the world to what it is now , a period of about 300 years, and you claim it is possible to reverse it, to presumably 300 years ago, in a decade or so using "science" which created the problem in the first place.

I am unable to give credence to that theory, regardless of how many "experts" pontificate about it.

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That begs the question- change the world to what, exactly?

It's not exactly a bed of roses for the hundreds/ ? thousands of species we have made extinct, is it?

 

If we are to believe your side of the debate, it has taken since the industrial revolution to change the world to what it is now , a period of about 300 years, and you claim it is possible to reverse it, to presumably 300 years ago, in a decade or so using "science" which created the problem in the first place.

I am unable to give credence to that theory, regardless of how many "experts" pontificate about it.

 

Check the posts I was responding to. The poster claimed Greta may have changed her views, I was making it clear that was not the case at all. That's all.

[Eleftheros]

On 10/31/2022 at 2:07 PM, Bkk Brian said:

There is hope – but only if we listen to the science before it’s too late.

It's interesting to see how often collectivists refer to 'the science' as though this is something fixed and immutable, which only a high priesthood has access to, and claiming an unshakeable authority to which everybody else must bow down to in awe.

 

There are several things wrong with this.

 

First, politicians tend not to listen to the scientists who know best, but to the scientists they know best. Second, if you blindly accept 'the science' as it is currently understood, you would in the past have supported heliocentrism, phlogiston theory, blood-letting, and eugenics, to name just a few.

 

Science only prospers when its theories are open to question, debated and tested. To call something 'the science' as a fixed notion is therefore profoundly anti-science.

[Eleftheros]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Check the posts I was responding to. The poster claimed Greta may have changed her views, I was making it clear that was not the case at all. That's all.

I take it you are referring to me, as I'm the one who brought Greta into this thread.

 

I was actually making the narrower point that Greta had changed her views about the lack of value of the annual COP talkfests, and that that was a sign of her growing up and developing opinions of her own rather than being moved around like a robot by her handlers. That is evident from what I wrote.

 

I was not suggesting she had completely abandoned believing in the utopian Green fantasy scenarios. She's not that grown up.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I take it you are referring to me, as I'm the one who brought Greta into this thread.

 

I was actually making the narrower point that Greta had changed her views about the lack of value of the annual COP talkfests, and that that was a sign of her growing up and developing opinions of her own rather than being moved around like a robot by her handlers. That is evident from what I wrote.

 

I was not suggesting she had completely abandoned believing in the utopian Green fantasy scenarios. She's not that grown up.

Well the evidence suggests that was always her view, her last appearance there was one of utter disgust for those who were attending

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Science only prospers when its theories are open to question, debated and tested. To call something 'the science' as a fixed notion is therefore profoundly anti-science.

Agreed that exactly why Scientific consensus is important:

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

[Eleftheros]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Well the evidence suggests that was always her view, her last appearance there was one of utter disgust for those who were attending

Well, it was only 3 years ago that she was the subject of fawning media praise for planning to cross the Atlantic on a catamaran to attend the Madrid conference, so her disgust levels were much lower then.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Well, it was only 3 years ago that she was the subject of fawning media praise for planning to cross the Atlantic on a catamaran to attend the Madrid conference, so her disgust levels were much lower then.

Good to see she acts responsibly when traveling

[Eleftheros]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Agreed that exactly why Scientific consensus is important:

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

There is a whole discussion earlier on this thread the absurdity of trying to make capital out of a consensus that " humans are causing global warming and climate change". Everybody knows that human actions can affect the climate; I count myself among the 97% (which earlier in the thread was a breathless 99.9%).

 

The question as posed is irrelevant, except to feed the credulous media another morsel of apocalypse.

 

Better would be to ask how many scientists believe that any of the actions being proposed to counter climate change are necessary, effective or affordable.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Better would be to ask how many scientists believe that any of the actions being proposed to counter climate change are necessary, effective or affordable.

I take it you never read this which I posted for you in this thread:

 

Feel free to dig in:

 

SPECIAL REPORT: GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 ºC

CH00

Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[Eleftheros]

It's actually better to read the full paper rather than the Executive Summary, as that is heavily curated by political apparatchiks to make it acceptable to all parties.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

It's actually better to read the full paper rather than the Executive Summary, as that is heavily curated by political apparatchiks to make it acceptable to all parties.

The full papers are there for download pdf format, do I really need to hold your hand and guide you through this?

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Edited November 1, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[Eleftheros]

No, because I've read it.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Eleftheros said:

No, because I've read it.

yea right, lol, 7 different download papers and you read them all, yet claimed only the Executive Summary was there. 

 

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

yea right, lol, 7 different download papers and you read them all, yet claimed only the Executive Summary was there. 

 

*Sigh* . I didn't need to click your link because I have already read those papers.