• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

The Atheist said:
Of course it's their own making. They should just not be poor.
Click to expand...
What's the relevance of that song?
National Guy
...
None are so blind as those who can’t see
that there’s a price to be paid if we want to be free
some people might suffer but I’m glad it’s not me
yeah I’m alright, Jackit don’t grow on trees

And if you want to share some of mine
you can get to the back of the line
with the looney-leftie Greenie swineyeah you can forget about that
‘cause man, we’re all just national guys
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it now. The song's about:-

1. National party supporters, who

2. don't care about the plight of others so long as they're alright, and

3. call those of us who care about the environment "looney-leftie Greenie swine".

But that couldn't possibly describe anybody around here... right?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
But that couldn't possibly describe anybody around here... right?
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting when someone's position is attacked that they resort to a personal attack. (In this case, based on misleading quotes.)

It was you who typed this:

Many 'poor' people are caught in a trap of their own making.
Click to expand...

In my experience, most poor people never have the chance to not make that bed.
 


Try to keep roughly to the topic which is not each other, nor general politics of any country

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob
 
arthwollipot said:
Seriously? You wouldn't help a drowning person if it's their fault? You'd just let them drown. You would stand there on the shore and watch them drown.

I don't believe you'd do that.
Click to expand...

it was a reply to this:

Roger Ramjets said:
Many 'poor' people are caught in a trap of their own making.
Click to expand...


I am against any type of means-testing for anything involving basic necessities, including housing, healthcare and education.
Because it is just an excuse not to help.
Of course it is the only human thing to help first, and maybe then figure out why the crisis happened and how to prevent another.

But people who would never let anyone they see drown will happily vote for policies to let unhoused people die in the streets.
 
Last edited:
Ouch
Oh joy...doom approachs...:rolleyes::eek:
The system that moves water around the Earth is off balance for the first time in human history
By Laura Paddison, CNN
gettyimages-2160949856.jpg

Published 6:00 PM EDT, Wed October 16, 2024
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/16/climate/global-water-cycle-off-balance-food-production/index.html
Click to expand...
 
macdoc said:
Ouch
Oh joy...doom approachs...:rolleyes::eek:
Click to expand...

Oh, terrifying.

I read an article until I get to an obvious error then give up.

In this case, the article states:

The report calculates that, on average, people need a minimum of about 4,000 liters (just over 1,000 gallons) a day to lead a “dignified life,” far above the 50 to 100 liters the United Nations says is needed for basic needs, and more than most regions will be able to provide from local sources.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most idiotic statements I've seen about anything climate-related and is so clearly and demonstrably wrong that there's no point reading further.

We live in a country with extremely abundant water and with one of the lowest prices in the world for clean, drinkable, water supplied by one of our 12 friendly taps.

Our family of 4 uses an average of 413 litres of water a day, and we do not stint on its use. The statistics we get monthly with our water bill tell me we're slightly higher than average, so I'm going to say for certain the authors of the piece are out by a magnitude of 10 and can be safely ignored.
 
The Atheist said:
Oh, terrifying.

I read an article until I get to an obvious error then give up.

In this case, the article states:



That is one of the most idiotic statements I've seen about anything climate-related and is so clearly and demonstrably wrong that there's no point reading further.

We live in a country with extremely abundant water and with one of the lowest prices in the world for clean, drinkable, water supplied by one of our 12 friendly taps.

Our family of 4 uses an average of 413 litres of water a day, and we do not stint on its use. The statistics we get monthly with our water bill tell me we're slightly higher than average, so I'm going to say for certain the authors of the piece are out by a magnitude of 10 and can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

It may be you are thinking about direct personal use, and the statement refers to the indirect use, how much water is needed in the food you eat, to grow the lettuce in your BLT, to cool the servers that provide your internet, the air conditioning at work, the concrete to build your house, the steel to build your car etc.
 
The Atheist said:
Oh, terrifying.

I read an article until I get to an obvious error then give up.

In this case, the article states:



That is one of the most idiotic statements I've seen about anything climate-related and is so clearly and demonstrably wrong that there's no point reading further.

We live in a country with extremely abundant water and with one of the lowest prices in the world for clean, drinkable, water supplied by one of our 12 friendly taps.

Our family of 4 uses an average of 413 litres of water a day, and we do not stint on its use. The statistics we get monthly with our water bill tell me we're slightly higher than average, so I'm going to say for certain the authors of the piece are out by a magnitude of 10 and can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...


The figure does seem excessive, but the article is about global figures so it probably includes all water usage, rather than just household use. How much water is used to grow the crops that make the food you eat, manufacture the products you use, and run the government operations your taxes pay for? It's not easy to get a good estimate. I would guess the writers simply divided "first world" total water usage by "first world" population.
 
For example- my personal water use here in Australia is low (due to relying entirely on rainwater tanks fed from the roof- no town water in the middle of the bush lol) and is around 100-120l a day...
But that report uses the TOTAL water consumption- so I buy vegetables (need water to grow) I each meat (animals need water to live), I currently am still driving a diesel car (large amounts of water are used there) I personally am offgrid solar, but most of the population still relies on grid power (which for cooling and getting the fuel, takes HUGE amounts of water

A coal fired powerplant uses huge amounts of water for its cooling towers, and mining coal even more water- coal mines here in Qld where I live (population only 5.5 million) use approximately 200 litres (200kg) of water for every tonne (1000kg) of coal produced!!! and Qld's coal fired power generators (of which sadly there are still too much of) use approximately 40 tonnes per hour per 100MW generated (and Qld has about 60% of the installed 17000 megawatts of non renewable power generation is coal or about 10000MW) that means at full output, Qld coal fired power stations demand 4000 tonnes of coal an hour in total (about 75000 tonnes of coal is used per day!!!!- that uses 19000 tonnes of water per DAY to get out of the ground!!!)

That's a LOT of water!!!
 
To add to the previous- much of that water is taken from the Great Artesian Basin (which most inland Australian towns and farms rely on for their water) and since records started being kept in the early 1900's- the basin (average thickness is 200m) the water level has dropped up to 61m in areas that water has been used in large scale activities (coal mines are the biggest user in much of Qld) with other areas experiencing a 10m to 30m drop in water levels...

That water resource has taken millions of years to accumulate, and once its gone- much of inland Australia will become unliveable without water being pumped from the wetter coastal regions ($$$$$) and we are chewing through it at a phenomenal rate....
 
Planigale said:
It may be you are thinking about direct personal use, and the statement refers to the indirect use, how much water is needed in the food you eat, to grow the lettuce in your BLT, to cool the servers that provide your internet, the air conditioning at work, the concrete to build your house, the steel to build your car etc.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what they think they mean and they're still absurdly wrong.

Agriculture. Very little water is needed for agriculture in most of NZ, because it rains.

Internet. Negligible for each person. I doubt it would be a litre a month on average.

Aircond. Don't have one.

Housing & steel - also negligible. The house required a little water to make it, but it's been standing for 25 years and will stand a century more with no extra needed.

The idea that each person needs 1-4000 litres of water a day is abject crap.

Dabop said:
To add to the previous- much of that water is taken from the Great Artesian Basin (which most inland Australian towns and farms rely on for their water) and since records started being kept in the early 1900's- the basin (average thickness is 200m) the water level has dropped up to 61m in areas that water has been used in large scale activities (coal mines are the biggest user in much of Qld) with other areas experiencing a 10m to 30m drop in water levels...

That water resource has taken millions of years to accumulate, and once its gone- much of inland Australia will become unliveable without water being pumped from the wetter coastal regions ($$$$$) and we are chewing through it at a phenomenal rate....
Click to expand...

Given Australia being responsible for 80% of coal exports, you absolutely do not have my sympathy.
 
The things we do to avoid doing the right thing:-

A controversial plan to refreeze the Arctic is seeing promising results. But scientists warn of big risks
Real Ice's plan for protecting this icy ocean landscape involves inserting electric-powered, submersible pumps under sea ice to pump seawater onto the surface... The ultimate plan is to automate the process using underwater drones, each about 6.5 feet long and powered by green hydrogen. These will melt holes in the ice from below using heated drills.

Ceccolini estimates around 500,000 drones would be used at full scale, and would be deployed carefully to avoid animal migration paths or shipping lanes, he said.

'Extremely questionable'

The scalability of Real Ice's solution is "extremely questionable," said Liz Bagshaw, associate professor in polar environmental change at the University of Bristol. She also warned of potentially wide-ranging ecological impacts on a vulnerable region. "Such interventions are morally dubious at best, and at worst, ethically irresponsible," she told CNN.

Dozens of scientists expressed concerns in a recent report about polar geoengineering projects, including ice thickening. They warned of "the possibility of grave unforeseen consequences," including the environmental impact of "an unprecedented level of human presence" in the Arctic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the ticket. Keep burning fossil fuels and cutting down rain forest - just drill holes in the arctic ice and pump the seawater out in the hope that it refreezes. Problem solved! Until the pumps aren't enough. Humans. We think we are so smart...
 
Yet another misanthropic post!
Drop the 'we'! There is no 'we' in this question.
Some of 'us' were smart enough to discover that 'we' couldn't continue to pump out CO2 at the rate it was happening 50 years ago.
Others were smart enough to grasp the argument and warn against what was happening.
However, others were rich enough and profited enough from the extraction of fossil fuels to pay scam scientists and pretend experts to produce fake studies and false arguments and to pay politicians and media to spread the lies and make sure that nothing was done about the problem.
They didn't do so because they weren't smart! They did so because of an economic system that encourages and enables that kind of behaviour.
Instead of your "Humans. We think we are so smart...", it's actually: Capitalism. It's damaging vast majority of us while telling us that it's the best of all possible worlds.
 
We're expecting 40°C (104°F) tomorrow...

Not planning to do much.

I can remember hot Christmas days in the 1970's (1970 and 1971 were both over 35°C), but mainly dislike periods where the overnight temp is over 30.

Getting a 40 this early is a bid worrying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom