Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

[0x3000027E]

Temperatures up.
Water levels up.
Mass extinction.
Death.

Simple Math to me. I'm sure she can pull it of.

Sir! We have surely moved on from this dated subject matter, although I'm amused by your simple approach to such a complex system, so I will humor your response. Please, in the future, lets not waste each others time with such matters.

No need to go into a long-winded explanation here, as your response is quite easy to hand wave. The study of climate requires the implementation of non-linear systems and (often) a high-degree of calculus. I won't even bother getting into a further explanation of our very limited knowledge of the potential factors impacting climate in the first place: the motions of astral bodies, activity of the sun, a meteor passing several hundred light years away, etc, etc, etc.

Lastly, climate change has become a political matter, so no longer of any interest to me. Once a subject matter passes into the Left Wing/Right Wing "oblivion " it becomes absurd.

Please, let us move on.

 

[notimp]

the motions of astral bodies, activity of the sun, a meteor passing several hundred light years away, etc, etc, etc.

?

I think we pretty much know how the earths rotational axis is situated, how ebb and high tide work, activity of the sun you can meassure at the level of space, so to understand that you need no understanding of atmosphere at all, you just look at numbers, meteors 'several light years away' have no impact on climate - ehm, you sure made it sound difficult, but none of those are complex factors (afaik). If you want to read up on factors that go into the calculation of climate models, they are in this thread already. Should be a video from the chaos communication congress. (German hacking conference, where a young scientist working on a part of said models explained how the modeling works, and how you can take a look at the data and spin up your own (impact) models if you want to..)

edit: Here, its the second video:

Still not wrong. (Poles f.e.)

Now we are getting into 'resolution' of models. This is where the real complexity starts. You dont have to just model sunshine, or atmosphere (CO2/green house gasses) f.e. - but atmospheric pressure, or water circulation (golf stream), and a bunch of more stuff if you want to make predictions on what will happen - locally/regionally.

For most of the northern hemisphere though, it will get warmer. (Mostly extremes will become more common.)

If you are interested in the food shortage problem that this will produce:


edit: And you can watch this one on climate modeling / modeling resolution:

 

[0x3000027E]

?

I think we pretty much know how the earths rotational axis is situated, how ebb and high tide work, activity of the sun you can meassure at the level of space, so to understand that you need no understanding of atmosphere at all, you just look at numbers, meteors 'several light years away' have no impact on climate - ehm, you sure made it sound difficult, but none of those are complex factors (afaik). If you want to read up on factors that go into the calculation of climate models, they are in this thread already. Should be a video from the chaos communication congress. (German hacking conference, where a young scientist working on a part of said models explained how the modeling works, and how you can take a look at the data and spin up your own models if you want to..)

edit: Here, its the second video:

Believe me sir, I require no explanation, nor lecture, on the generation of theoretical and/or empirical models, given my line of work.

Your response here is inadequate; your cited examples are but a small sample of a large pool. Furthermore, If you refuse to admit the complexity of weather/climate models, I do fear our conversation here is over.

I have already explained (insufficiently perhaps), that this has become a political matter, and consequently is not deserving of our attention.

 

[notimp]

Thats not what you did. You listed three impact sources, all of which are largely irrelevant (as a source of uncertainty) to mainstream climate modeling. Then you cried - believe me, its complexity thats made political here for nefarious reasons.

Then you referred to personal (/professional?) status as proof.

My interpretation of your behavior is, that you picked up some reasonings for why climate change can not possibly be human made, from an ideological source, and ended with 'I'm better than you, I dont need any explaination - the only thing I need you to agree on is, that there are model uncertainties (none of which come from the issues you posted) --- at which point I (as in you) fill in uncertainty and doubt.'

From what you posted, you know nothing about the issue at hand.

So what exactly is your expertise?
-


If you need this broken down even more. Because of a lack of actual ability to falsify projections 'into the future', because you only have one system - and it is highly complex. You go not with 'scientific proof' (falsification based), but with scientific consensus (scientific canon), thats based on something akin to 'expert intuition', but averaged out across most of your experts, who create models, that have to predict historical climate activity with a low degree of variance.

Also - because of the amount of complexity you can add to your models, even currently - which exceeds computational modeling capacity, what 'obviously has to be in climate models', and 'by how much (resolution of constants)' - is impacted by scientific decision making. Meaning, opinions. Then in the end, you average all of it.

So the idea, that soemwhere in there you need the concept of a master manipulator, who just leaves out the obviously important stuff (as per your proclamation, earth rotational axis, moon cycles and solar activity), to then get 'politically desired results', makes no sense, based on several principals. The most obvious of which would be - its freaking easy to hide influencing factors somewhere in the margins. (How about at the stage where you segment models just so you can calculate them (in segments) at all?)

The idea, that - "No, no wait for it, its actually the solar cycle, and a meteor 100 lightyears away - someone, found out!" Is far more likely to be storytelling, than 'the specific filter bubbles capacity' to find a smoking gun of actual 'political manipulation'.


The entire thing is based on - "we cant say for sure", "we acknowledge that we cant say for sure", "here is our best estimate, of what will happen", and "here are forty of the estimates averaged".

So in essence, eff of with your story of 'its the solar cycle, thats the smoking gun, I know - because I know complexity'.

 

[0x3000027E]

that you picked up some reasonings for why climate change can not possibly be human made, from an ideological source, and ended with 'I'm better than you, I dont need any explaination (sic) - the only thing I need you to agree on is, that there are model uncertainties (none of which come from the issues you posted) --- at which point I (as in you) fill in uncertainty and doubt.'

Dear sir,

It is unfortunate you have assumed my opinions on this matter to be nefarious.

-I have never made claims that climate change was not "human made", nor otherwise, nor have I ever discussed the "cause" of climate change in this forum. It's a shame you would put these words in my mouth and guess at my position. So very askew from our previous interactions on this site; I am a bit disappointed!

-My original comment, (which has now become lost among the political ramblings), was that it would be difficult for a younger individual, (not nearly removed from grade school), to provide an accurate account of weather models and their predictive power. It is a reasonable perspective, that is all.

-I only disclose my profession to provide some merit to my opinion with respect to empirical/physical models and how they are generated. To claim instead I am somehow gloating is rather unfortunate. (I will refrain from revealing my profession here, in case you would further claim I am posturing).

The entire thing is based on - "we cant say for sure", "we acknowledge that we cant say for sure", "here is our best estimate, of what will happen", and "here are forty of the estimates averaged".

Certainly, so where have we gone astray? Do you still believe my motives are political, even though I have attempted to denounce such claims early in my conversation? On the other hand, why do you approach this matter with such conflict?

Sighhhh, well sir, I have stated earlier that I wanted to leave this subject matter be. I only responded here to defend myself and my positions, which you have completely fabricated (and even went so far as to suppose what I might say). I hope we can have more meaningful conversation in the future.

 

[notimp]

Fair.

I'm just irritated, by you listing earth rotational axis, lunar cycles (?), and solar flares, as sources of uncertainty - thats all.

Oh and projections, not estimates. Made that mistake myself, thought about correcting it, then didnt. Semantics..

 

[0x3000027E]

I'm just irritated, by you listing earth rotational axis, lunar cycles (?), and solar flares, as sources of uncertainty - thats all

Fair enough, perhaps I was overreaching with those particular examples. A bit exaggerated, perhaps.
I sincerely believe this matter does not deserve our attention, let us leave this be.

 

[notimp]

I sincerely believe this matter does not deserve our attention, let us leave this be.

*postpostingabouthowactualgoalsenactedintenyearstimewillchangehowsocietyfunctionsfundamentallyapageago*

*postsentireseriesofpostsonpoliticalandactivistdecisionmakingbeinginfluencedbyidentifyablepressuregroups*

*postsaboutstructuredaffortstoinfluencechildrentotheninfluenceboomersbehaviorally*
(To then provide investments needed. Also posted example of nudges in actual financial sector regulations I believe. (Like when the EU made it mandatory for every financial institution to also provide financial council on a 'sustainable option', when you are investing money with them.).)
edit: Basically stuff like this:
https://katten.com/esg-and-sustainable-finance-the-european-perspective

*postsaboutactulsocietaleffortsinbehavioralmodificationusingachangeinsocialnorms*

*postsaboutresultsofinternationalconferencesalteringtheconceptionofwhateconomicgrowthis*

*postsactualworkinggroups(thinktanks)effortstoalterthedefinitionofwhateconomicgrowthis*
https://gbatemp.net/threads/what-are-alternative-economic-indicators.572607/

*postsunsecretarygeneralsremarksonhowtousengostoinfluencenationalpolitics*

*postsbillionsspendoneffortsbothforandagainstitusingactualexamples*
(For: Costs and institutions involved on one artic factfinding mission on ice propagation properties.In this thread. Against: Rumored fossile fuel money financing the entire election campaign of the current supreme court replacement of SBJ. And the entire judicial system (making up procedural entities, under 20 different names, but having them financed by 4-5 private entities). In the SBJ thread.)

'But I think, that no attention is the right amount of attention.'

Sure, sure...

 

[notimp]

(To then provide investments needed. Also posted example of nudges in actual financial sector regulations I believe. (Like when the EU made it mandatory for every financial institution to also provide financial council on a 'sustainable option', when you are investing money with them.).)

Looked that one up again:

EU regulation for financial services, having come into place this year:

The Disclosure Regulation will require the integration of sustainability risks in financial market participants' investment decision-making processes or, where relevant, advisory processes and transparency as regards financial products which target sustainable investments, including reduction in carbon emissions. Specific requirements include pre-contractual disclosures; disclosures on websites and disclosures in periodic reports in relation to financial products.

The Disclosure Regulation forms part of a raft of legislation published by the European Commission as part of its Action Plan on sustainable finance in March 2018. This includes: a Regulation amending the Benchmarks Regulation in relation to low carbon benchmarks and positive carbon impact benchmarks (see briefing here); a Regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment (the Taxonomy Regulation); and a Delegated Regulation amending MIFID II Delegated Regulation 2017/565 to integrate ESG considerations and preferences into investment advice and portfolio management.

https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/esg-disclosures-regulation/

See also PWG ESG Paper page 7:
https://www.pwc.at/de/dienstleistungen/Advisory/esg-paper.pdf

Resulting organisational requirements:

Organisational requirements

The draft delegated act amending Delegated Regulation 2017/565 on organisational requirements also introduces the definitions of “sustainability preferences”, “sustainability risks” and “sustainability factors” into the Delegated Regulation. Under the draft delegated act, investment firms will be required to consider sustainability risks when establishing, implementing and maintaining risk management procedures which identify the risks relating to the firm’s activities, processes and systems.

When conducting the assessment of sustainability and providing suitability reports under Article 54, investment firms would under the draft rules need to take into account in the selection process to recommend financial products to their clients, including risks, costs and complexity of the financial instruments, and including any sustainability factors. The draft delegated act also requires firms to prepare a report for the client explaining how the investment recommendation meets their sustainability preferences alongside their investment objectives, risk profile and capacity for loss bearing.

https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/...ts-on-the-introduction-of-esg-considerations/

Thats nudging.

edit: Or in plain english:

A new EU law was agreed in April 2019 which compels professional investors and financial advisors to disclose, in quite some detail, how the risks of negative environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts may affect the value of the investment. In addition, they will have to be transparent about whether and how they take account of longer term negative ESG impacts. Investment products with sustainability claims have stricter disclose standards about their claims. This information needs to be made available to all (individual) potential investors. In the meantime, the European Commission (EC) has already regulated that advisors must ask potential individual investors whether they prefer investments with ESG considerations. In the long term, the EC wants to adopt binding regulations to ensure professional investors and advisors actually undertake assessments of ESG risks, and, to a certain extent, ESG impacts.

https://www.somo.nl/new-eu-law-obliges-investors-to-disclose-sustainability-risks/

Thats nudging.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Here's my two cents.

For years, a huge climate disaster has been around two years away. Did it ever come? No.
Besides, even if global warming was real (which it isn't), what's the solution? Destroying our only method of communication during this endemic?

 

[notimp]

Oh yeah, thats on top of the role of the EIBs:
https://www.eib.org/en/about/priorities/climate-action/index.htm

On top of making the CBA mechanism a new direct income source for the EU budget.
https://wiiw.ac.at/getting-serious-...en-deal-with-a-carbon-border-tax-dlp-5390.pdf

On top of the JTF:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/cl...limate-policy-endures-rough-eu-budget-summit/

On top of germanys green bond vehicle to absorb investment risk:
https://www.ceps.eu/germanys-inaugural-green-bond-not-so-green-after-all/

On top of the long term commitment from the EU budget:
https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/14...ke-europe-the-first-climate-neutral-continent

...



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Here's my two cents.

For years, a huge climate disaster has been around two years away. Did it ever come? No.
Besides, even if global warming was real (which it isn't), what's the solution? Destroying our only method of communication during this endemic?

If you only would read. Like - ever..

Posted the proposed action plan to make germany climate neutral by 2050 - two days ago.

You quadruple solar capacity until 2030, you triple offshore wind capacity, and you almost double on shore wind capacity.

Read the rest here:
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/e...w-germany-can-become-climate-neutral-by-2050/

Its like talking to morons.

'No its not true...'
'But its actually happening.'
'No, but even if true, how?'

How can I ever take any of your opinions in other fields seriously?

You have a mind thats literally resistant to reality at this point.

Thats two people that are telling me 'no I dont believe this is real' and 'I dont believe this is important to like, look at' back to back - after I told them how actual implementation would look like..

PS: Agora Energiewende is a joint initiative of the Mercator Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.

The European Climate Foundation is funded by the Nationale Postcode Loterij, The Arcadia Fund, The Children's Investment Fund Foundation, The ClimateWorks Foundation, The McCall MacBain Foundation, Oak Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

 

[notimp]

China, Japan and South Korea, also pledged to be carbon neutral 2050 in the last few days:
https://www.ft.com/content/185e5043-fd72-4fef-a05c-f2a5001c7f4b


Meanwhile (unrelated, but close in sentiment (oil industry interests)) in the US: Lets make the Iran sanctions irreversible:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/using-...hopes-to-tie-bidens-hands-on-iran-11603473828

You just know that Trump is just played like a fiddle here...

 

[notimp]

Freaking paywall... ft article is accessable without a paywall, when visiting from google news.

So go here, and click on the first link:
https://news.google.com/search?q=South Korea follows Japan and China in carbon neutral pledg&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

edit: Content dump:

South Korea follows Japan and China in carbon neutral pledge
Moon Jae-in promises green transition as part of coronavirus recovery package

South Korea has become the third big Asian economy to pledge carbon neutrality, marking a big victory for environmentalists after intensifying pressure on one of the world’s biggest polluters. President Moon Jae-in promised that his country would achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and pledged to spend Won8tn ($7bn) on green-focused growth as part of an unprecedented financial stimulus to combat the economic fallout from the coronavirus. “We will move towards the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 by actively responding to climate changes together with the international society,” said Mr Moon, who was speaking to the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday. “We will replace coal power with renewable energy and create a new market, industry and jobs.” Mr Moon made the pledge just two days after Yoshihide Suga, the Japanese prime minister, made the same announcement. This follows earlier similar promises by the EU, as well as China’s groundbreaking vow to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. Recommended AnalysisBig Hit Entertainment South Korean boy bands give investors a case of buyers’ remorse The shift away from fossil fuels poses a serious challenge for Asia’s fourth-biggest economy, which remains heavily reliant on coal to power its energy-intensive high-tech manufacturers. South Korea derives just 5 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources, the lowest proportion of any OECD country, according to International Energy Agency data. South Korea has the 12th largest economy, according to World Bank data, but is also the seventh largest emitter. The announcement came amid mounting criticism from environmentalists and international investors, who have accused South Korea of falling behind other advanced countries in taking action to comply with the Paris climate agreement, which Seoul ratified. Joojin Kim, managing director of Solutions for Our Climate, a Seoul-based non-government organisation, said much work was needed “to make this declaration actually meaningful”. “The most urgent tasks are enhancing its 2030 emissions reduction target, presenting a clear road map to phase out coal by 2030 and putting a complete stop to coal financing,” said Mr Kim.

South Koreans have grown increasingly concerned over choking pollution, which has been sourced to Chinese and local factories and at times forces residents to don masks and avoid outdoor activities. In response, the government has been shutting down ageing coal power plants. Mr Moon has also promised to phase out nuclear power by 2060 and increase the portion of renewable energy to 20 per cent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2030. But state-backed groups and private-sector companies and banks, including affiliates of tech powerhouse Samsung, have also been criticised for continued funding and involvement in new coal mines and power stations outside South Korea, in countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, despite promises to phase out those investments.

 

[notimp]

More PR:
https://www.visitaruba.com/news/gen...nited-nations-2020-climate-neutral-now-award/

 

[notimp]

Renewables, building and industrial sector shares are gaining traction in the US (following the Biden retrofitting and infrastructure project pledges. ):
https://www.dw.com/en/wall-street-drops-donald-trump-in-favor-of-joe-biden/a-55420944

 

[UltraSUPRA]

 

[notimp]

https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/britain-has-139-tons-of-plutonium-thats-a-real-problem/

Uranium isnt much better. Neither is Thorium.

Also that stuff stays highly problematic for thousands of years.
Then you have end of life problems ( https://www.dw.com/en/series-of-french-radiation-leaks-raise-new-safety-concerns/a-3511480 ) as all reactors are built for a finite lifetime, And then you are still using up a quite rare, limited resource. Which becomes an issue, if everyone in the world switches to it.

Short summery here: https://justenergy.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-energy-safety-cost-efficiency/ (Actuallly reads like PR, so be aware, but al least they list the negatives as well. All search results I came up with trying to find sources for the negatives for 5 minutes read like PR, btw - which is... interesting.)

On top of that you have the social exceptance issue. And accidents.

So - some countries will use it. But expanding the usage far beyond its current scope, is an issue. (Problems increase with it.)

edit: Also they are rather expensive up front, which you dont want, if you want to switch to higher clean energy usage rather quickly, at the same time as you increase reliance on electrical energy (because you want to phase out petrol and coal.).

edit: Here is the "not that cheap" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

 

[notimp]

F*ckers.

What is servitisation, and how can it help save the planet?

• Servitisation is where customers pay for a service - such as air conditioning - rather than buying the equipment themselves.
• This model can be a major contributor to the systemic efficiency approach to decarbonisation.
• It also has potential to assist the post-COVID-19 economic recovery.

src: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/what-is-servitization-and-how-can-it-help-save-the-planet/

(Please don't ban me for not editing the last post.)

 

[jimbo13]

https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/britain-has-139-tons-of-plutonium-thats-a-real-problem/

edit: Here is the "not that cheap" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

Nuclear power is the future. It is the only route that puts us toward becoming a type 1 civilization and moving up the Kardashev scale.

Here is the elephant in the room;

Plans for safe & clean nuclear plants exist and are totally viable, the problem is governments are not interested in these because they don't produce weapons grade material.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

I have to say that I'm so proud of these teens that are refusing to have kids until we fix the issue of climate change. God speed to these brave kids that are willing to sacrifice themselves for a brighter future.

It's great to know that they will not be breeding their ignorance and blind conformity into our next generation and, hopefully, stop the belief in this sham science to leave more room for the much smarter, less gullible humans of the future that we so desperately need now. I hope they stick to this plan for the sake of humanity

Hey is this only about the liberal children because if not I’m still gonna have conservative children live like John Brown and instead of kill pro-slave sympathizers I’ll kill liberals