Are we all fucked?

[Kurt Cocaine]

Hopping over to Birmingham to see Immolation or to Vienna to see Behemoth (lol) could be on the cards again soon.....

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/co2-was-just-converted-into-jet-fuel-and-it-could-reshape-aviation-for-good-42752

[Kurt Cocaine]

At least Tesco are making us all feel safer....

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40199379.html

[astfgyl]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1347871065666674688

[Caomhaoin]

At least Tesco are making us all feel safer....

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40199379.html

What is the point of that?

'It's for your security'.

Oh, right. Great!

[astfgyl]

Was reading this about global temperature modelling https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Then I found this https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/

Not saying either one is right or wrong but it was a bit of fun to see how this particular crisis has been laid out over the years with a lot of the predictions failing to materialise so far. My main takeaway from it was that computer modelling of future events is not the exact science one would be led to believe by the headlines. Too many variables I suppose, a sort of butterfly effect situation. Of course those headlines in the second article are just that; headlines designed to grab the attention and money of the readers, so it doesn't say as much as the author seems to think it does but still interesting enough to look at.

Anyway I wonder how many of the experts in any given field ever track back on their own predictions? Having a quick search I didn't find much. Sometimes they revised the predictions to be even more dire than before but not much of anyone saying it's not as bad as thought, in site of it not being as bad as thought so far. Is it a reputation thing where experts must constantly back up their expert opinion by doubling down on predictions or something to do with loss of funding at the admittance of not being sure about something? I notice a lot of the predictions don't take the sun itself into account, only what humans do which seems a bit silly when the earth revolves around the sun and spins on its' own axis and then there is the wobble known as precession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession which surely must have an effect on global temperatures or weather patterns.

Post isn't anti-green policy or anything like that, there is every argument for making the earth a nicer place to live and not to dirty it up with various pollutants and turn it into a giant landfill, but to me the temperature thing seems to be a little bit beyond simply being down to emissions and it would be interesting to see when we all go green on things and really reduce the emissions, will it make much difference to the actual outcome or is it delusions of grandeur to think that the shift in global climates is down to humans and not a natural ebb and flow over long periods of time.

It was this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-9-years-john-kerry/ which prompted me to look at the nasa predictions in the first place but much like Al Gore's dire warning, he seems awfully certain about something that is far from certain, although the general consensus is in agreement with him.

[Ollkiller]

Climate Ireland has some fantastic modelling software on their website. When I have time I can link some articles about where we're going (can do during the week, busy right now). And where we're going is fucked. Now we won't see the worst of it but by 2100 sea level will rise by 1.1 metres. The middle of cork city will be underwater. For us say to 2050 gonna be a lot more heatwaves. Less precipitation and do ya like storms. Cause were gonna get more of them. I work in the energy dept in UCC and we had a climate adaption course the last day given by the MAREI centre based in ringaskiddy (theyre a dept in UCC). A real opener. As i said the planet's fucked, for humans anyway, unless there's a serious change in carbon emissions.

[astfgyl]

Yeah but that's sort of what I was getting at. How accurate are these models and do they take account of any solar phenomena in the projections. Like you say cork underwater etc and may well be right, but that is exactly the sort of prediction that has been made so many times by modelling and hasn't come to pass as of yet. I'm not saying it's wrong either this time, I haven't a fucking clue if it is or isn't and I'm all on board with a cleaner greener future but at the same time it seems to be the consensus that the temperature is a man made problem or is in the hands of man to fix, when I don't see the proof so far. Like we could do everything right around emissions and what then if it doesn't make the difference we all hope for, because I'm not altogether certain from what I've read and watched that it would turn out to be as simple as that. I guess I'm saying that we might all be fucked no matter what way we go about mitigating our impact on the planet.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

We will all die one day, individuals and the species alike, that much is indeed guaranteed.

[astfgyl]

Yeah I guess the fact we are all fucked eventually is not really in dispute and it's just a case of how long.

[Ollkiller]

You can look at it more simply. The more carbon there is in the atmosphere the higher the temperature of the planet. We're fucking a shit load of carbon into the atmosphere since the 1950's and temperatures are increasing. So for me it's pretty simple but I'll dig out some of the literature during the week I was looking at.

[astfgyl]

I'm not disputing it makes a difference, logic would say that it does, but how much is the question and how much of climate change is simply beyond the capabilities of mathematical modelling? That doesn't mean don't reduce it or anything like that because no matter what, there are certainly benefits to having less or a stable amount of it. Planting more trees or not destroying the forests of the world might be as important as cutting emissions.

[Ollkiller]

I'm not disputing it makes a difference, logic would say that it does, but how much is the question and how much of climate change is simply beyond the capabilities of mathematical modelling? That doesn't mean don't reduce it or anything like that because no matter what, there are certainly benefits to having less or a stable amount of it. Planting more trees or not destroying the forests of the world might be as important as cutting emissions.

Take one large university. To offset the energy consumption of 1 month you would have to plant 28000 trees. So we would have to some amount of the trees to offset the world's energy. Yes we should plant more forests and not cut down what we have but we have to think of other solutions.

[astfgyl]

Fair point. I was looking at some thing lately which was calculating the amount of trees needed to offset however many tons of emissions. Can't remember what sort of number it was but it seemed almost doable. Saw something about whale shit as well, that might have been in this thread. Carbon capture might be a solution but I don't know what sort of weight is behind that initiative.

[Eoin McLove]

Whale shit is needed as a fertiliser in the oceans,  no? It's good for algae which emits oxygen and is also possibly food for certain fish. Might have that arseways.

[Ollkiller]

Fair point. I was looking at some thing lately which was calculating the amount of trees needed to offset however many tons of emissions. Can't remember what sort of number it was but it seemed almost doable. Saw something about whale shit as well, that might have been in this thread. Carbon capture might be a solution but I don't know what sort of weight is behind that initiative.

New technologies for carbon capture for sure. Nuclear for electricity. All fossil fuels have to stop. Harsh but unfortunately has to be done. Which it won't.