Saving the planet / IPCC report on Climate Change Aug ‘21

Bridgehouse

menamestom said:

Bridgehouse said:

How many of you set your domestic broadband router to switch off overnight?

We turn ours off as a measure (among others) to stop the kids staying up all night watching things.   I use a smart plug so it's at a certain time and I don't forget.

I've not checked but hopefully the smart plug doesn't use the power saved by switching the router off, I probably should check!

Some smart plugs do have a small parasitic load, but it will be a lot less than the router being on

Bridgehouse

ronnyb said:

But I’ve had no problems since I’ve left it on.

Might be the router itself…..

Bridgehouse

jpfamps said:

Bridgehouse said:

Here’s something for you to muse on whilst surfing the fretboard tonight.

How many of you set your domestic broadband router to switch off overnight?

Not worth it? 

Well, the average router consumes about 70Kwh/annum. Let’s assume you switched it off for a third of the average 24hr day overnight. That’s 23.3kwh per annum saved. On average 1kwh generates 300g of carbon equivalent. So, that’s 7kg of carbon per annum saved. 

If every regular fretboarder did that, then that’s 7 tonnes of carbon per year saved. If every U.K. household did it, it’s about 70,000 tonnes per annum saved. And that’s just one simple change that makes absolutely fuck all difference to most. Oh, and you’ve probably saved yourself an average of a fiver a year in electricity. 

Don't have the internet at home!

Lucky you! I work from home so can’t avoid it….

menamestom

Simonh said:

lets look at it another way, all of the climate funding available is available for proving how bad man made climate change is, by comparison how much funding is available for proving the opposite?

Funding provides studies and data, not the conclusions.  Scientists are led by the data, there's not 2 teams who believe different things and the one with the most funding wins.  

WiresDreamDisasters

menamestom said:

Simonh said:

lets look at it another way, all of the climate funding available is available for proving how bad man made climate change is, by comparison how much funding is available for proving the opposite?

Funding provides studies and data, not the conclusions.  Scientists are led by the data, there's not 2 teams who believe different things and the one with the most funding wins.  

Funding can easily lead to biases in the system and thus in the data and the studies, and thus in the conclusions. The idea that science funding is just provided impartially and without expectation of influence is pretty naive.

I'm not saying it's not been proven. It probably has. But if there are still open ended questions that need to be answered, then every scientist should get a seat at the table.

Kilgore

Simonh said:

monquixote said:

Simonh said:

lets look at it another way, all of the climate funding available is available for proving how bad man made climate change is, by comparison how much funding is available for proving the opposite?

Lots and lots:  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report

Also who do you think paid to hack UAE in Climategate?

Not to mention the governments and policymakers in any country or state that benefits from extracting or using large amounts of coal or oil.

I am not saying climate change does not exist, I am saying we should not just implicitly trust what climate scientist say, if you have a problem with the application of any level of critical thinking then there is nothing more I can say.

It's difficult to not implicitly trust climate scientists. By definition they are supposedly the people who know most about it.
 
With most things it doesn't matter. I know what a Quark is but it doesn't matter in the slightest that I have no idea of the complex maths underpinning it. We can leave that to the physicists. 

It's not the same with climate science, we either act on it or we don't. 

The important question is whether we persue policies that take current climate predictions and the science behind into account?

It seems to me that it's either yes or no? Which side are you on?

Greatape

Simonh said:

monquixote said:

Simonh said:

lets look at it another way, all of the climate funding available is available for proving how bad man made climate change is, by comparison how much funding is available for proving the opposite?

Lots and lots:  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report

Also who do you think paid to hack UAE in Climategate?

Not to mention the governments and policymakers in any country or state that benefits from extracting or using large amounts of coal or oil.

$200m sure is a lot, but is about the same as just the bottom 4 sources I linked to earlier, the top funding source alone in that list was $10322m, the top 4 amount to $27307m so I am not sure it is an apples for apples comparison.

I am not saying climate change does not exist, I am saying we should not just implicitly trust what climate scientist say, if you have a problem with the application of any level of critical thinking then there is nothing more I can say.

Those experts, eh? Wasting all that time in academia, studying and what not. Where was David Icke when NASA needed him? 

What do you believe to be the more reliable position? That of the vast majority of scientists working on understanding climate, or the fossil fuel companies looking at the possibility of billions of dollars of stranded assets? 

Just because there is more than one position, it does not mean that equal weight or credence should be given to both. Otherwise we start with a 50/50 teaching time split between evolution and Creationism.

WiresDreamDisasters

Greatape said:

Simonh said:

monquixote said:

Simonh said:

lets look at it another way, all of the climate funding available is available for proving how bad man made climate change is, by comparison how much funding is available for proving the opposite?

Lots and lots:  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report

Also who do you think paid to hack UAE in Climategate?

Not to mention the governments and policymakers in any country or state that benefits from extracting or using large amounts of coal or oil.

$200m sure is a lot, but is about the same as just the bottom 4 sources I linked to earlier, the top funding source alone in that list was $10322m, the top 4 amount to $27307m so I am not sure it is an apples for apples comparison.

I am not saying climate change does not exist, I am saying we should not just implicitly trust what climate scientist say, if you have a problem with the application of any level of critical thinking then there is nothing more I can say.

Those experts, eh? Wasting all that time in academia, studying and what not. Where was David Icke when NASA needed him? 

What do you believe to be the more reliable position? That of the vast majority of scientists working on understanding climate, or the fossil fuel companies looking at the possibility of billions of dollars of stranded assets? 

Just because there is more than one position, it does not mean that equal weight or credence should be given to both. Otherwise we start with a 50/50 teaching time split between evolution and Creationism.

No-one expects equal weight or credence.

Equal access however.....


Do you realise how much money and energy fossil fuel companies are investing in solving climate change related problems?

francer

Bridgehouse said:

ronnyb said:

But I’ve had no problems since I’ve left it on.

Might be the router itself…..

Some routers (such as the one Virgin supply) switch frequency each time they are power cycled. This is to help if multiple routers close by are on the same frequency. I’m sure there’s a setting somewhere to fix this once you’re happy on a particular freq but could be the reason.

I too used to always switch mine off overnight but that causes too much disruption to the teenager’s life so I can’t do it  any more.

Bridgehouse

The more I’ve become involved in net zero and decarbonisation for business and work, the more I’ve come to realise that the really key actions don’t just apply to climate science.

Some of our more pressing longer term problems don’t require scientific analysis or opinion:

- The depletion of fossil fuels and the the perceived energy crisis
- The increasing scarcity of certain rare materials due to single use, lack of repair and recycle
- Transport issues
- Housing issues
- Inequality of wealth and materials

Most of these issues aren’t  subject to opinion or science but are fact. Most of the remedies for climate change have significant impact on all of these issues. They can be solved by very similar actions.

The fact is, we are far too used to our “want it all, want it now, want rid and want new” mantra that it’s convenient to point the finger at climate science as an excuse not to change our behaviour, when there are many other problems that will be eased by the same solutions. 

We are wasteful. We don’t value resources as we should. We are too easily distracted by consumerism and prefer to challenge wherever we can to avoid having to change. Strangely, many if not most of those changes would be very beneficial to us all for quality of life, not detrimental. 

Simonh

it only takes one person to have a theory, and perhaps supporting evidence of that theory backed up by good experimentation and results that back up that theory.

The "mainstream" establishment can still roundly reject that for an extend period of time and be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener

You only have to look at all that has gone on with covid-19 to know that the "science" is far to often interspersed with politics and an agenda that means someone is going to make more money. 

If you are happy that there are no questions to answer then I am happy for you.

chillidoggy

I’ve tried very hard to stop farting and adding to greenhouse gas emissions.

viz

Bridgehouse said:

Here’s something for you to muse on whilst surfing the fretboard tonight.

How many of you set your domestic broadband router to switch off overnight?

Not worth it? 

Well, the average router consumes about 70Kwh/annum. Let’s assume you switched it off for a third of the average 24hr day overnight. That’s 23.3kwh per annum saved. On average 1kwh generates 300g of carbon equivalent. So, that’s 7kg of carbon per annum saved. 

If every regular fretboarder did that, then that’s 7 tonnes of carbon per year saved. If every U.K. household did it, it’s about 70,000 tonnes per annum saved. And that’s just one simple change that makes absolutely fuck all difference to most. Oh, and you’ve probably saved yourself an average of a fiver a year in electricity. 

This is so true. 

In our house the electronic stuff on standby is the only source of heating we use in winter. (In summer most stuff is on timer plugs, though I confess I hadn’t thought of the router - I’ll plug it into a timer - cheers!)

TTony

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ICBM said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I don't support zero growth, and never will. Zero growth is literally a pathway to global famine and death and destruction.

We don't have a population growth problem. We're not making enough people, full stop. What we have is a distribution problem, and a hoarding problem.

I don't agree with all of that. It's true that we no longer have a serious population growth problem - the rate of increase is falling drastically, and peak human population has been predicted - it may occur within both our lifetimes (mine only just if I live a very long one). And it's certainly true that the biggest problem is distribution - of all resources - not population.

But that doesn't mean we need *more* people. The projected peak of around 10 to 11 billion is at the upper end of what is truly sustainable, and if it stabilises there or very slowly falls, that will not be a bad thing. We still have to raise 90% of the population out of their relative poverty and to something approaching current Western standards, which will increase resource use per head again, so you will still have economic growth for a very long time - but even that cannot continue literally indefinitely. The Earth is a finite size.

Unless we really have started to colonise the other planets by then, possibly.

Okay, let me rephrase. We need more Elon Musk's and Drew Vernon's and ICBM's, and fewer Emp_Fab's

I think we need fewer apostrophe's.

Bridgehouse

viz said:

Bridgehouse said:

Here’s something for you to muse on whilst surfing the fretboard tonight.

How many of you set your domestic broadband router to switch off overnight?

Not worth it? 

Well, the average router consumes about 70Kwh/annum. Let’s assume you switched it off for a third of the average 24hr day overnight. That’s 23.3kwh per annum saved. On average 1kwh generates 300g of carbon equivalent. So, that’s 7kg of carbon per annum saved. 

If every regular fretboarder did that, then that’s 7 tonnes of carbon per year saved. If every U.K. household did it, it’s about 70,000 tonnes per annum saved. And that’s just one simple change that makes absolutely fuck all difference to most. Oh, and you’ve probably saved yourself an average of a fiver a year in electricity. 

This is so true. 

In our house the electronic stuff on standby is the only source of heating we use in winter. (In summer most stuff is on timer plugs, though I confess I hadn’t thought of the router - I’ll plug it into a timer - cheers!)

Another 7kg of carbon a year saved. We can do this fretboarders! Come on!

WiresDreamDisasters

TTony said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ICBM said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I don't support zero growth, and never will. Zero growth is literally a pathway to global famine and death and destruction.

We don't have a population growth problem. We're not making enough people, full stop. What we have is a distribution problem, and a hoarding problem.

I don't agree with all of that. It's true that we no longer have a serious population growth problem - the rate of increase is falling drastically, and peak human population has been predicted - it may occur within both our lifetimes (mine only just if I live a very long one). And it's certainly true that the biggest problem is distribution - of all resources - not population.

But that doesn't mean we need *more* people. The projected peak of around 10 to 11 billion is at the upper end of what is truly sustainable, and if it stabilises there or very slowly falls, that will not be a bad thing. We still have to raise 90% of the population out of their relative poverty and to something approaching current Western standards, which will increase resource use per head again, so you will still have economic growth for a very long time - but even that cannot continue literally indefinitely. The Earth is a finite size.

Unless we really have started to colonise the other planets by then, possibly.

Okay, let me rephrase. We need more Elon Musk's and Drew Vernon's and ICBM's, and fewer Emp_Fab's

I think we need fewer apostrophe's.

Nah's. It's possessive's. I own's them's all's.

Bridgehouse

WiresDreamDisasters said:

TTony said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ICBM said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I don't support zero growth, and never will. Zero growth is literally a pathway to global famine and death and destruction.

We don't have a population growth problem. We're not making enough people, full stop. What we have is a distribution problem, and a hoarding problem.

I don't agree with all of that. It's true that we no longer have a serious population growth problem - the rate of increase is falling drastically, and peak human population has been predicted - it may occur within both our lifetimes (mine only just if I live a very long one). And it's certainly true that the biggest problem is distribution - of all resources - not population.

But that doesn't mean we need *more* people. The projected peak of around 10 to 11 billion is at the upper end of what is truly sustainable, and if it stabilises there or very slowly falls, that will not be a bad thing. We still have to raise 90% of the population out of their relative poverty and to something approaching current Western standards, which will increase resource use per head again, so you will still have economic growth for a very long time - but even that cannot continue literally indefinitely. The Earth is a finite size.

Unless we really have started to colonise the other planets by then, possibly.

Okay, let me rephrase. We need more Elon Musk's and Drew Vernon's and ICBM's, and fewer Emp_Fab's

I think we need fewer apostrophe's.

Nah's. It's possessive's. I own's them's all's.

You are all of the dick’s

chillidoggy

Here’s one.

I sent a package to Australia last week. The tracking read as follows:-

 Margate, Paddock Wood, Stanford-No-Hope, Feltham, Slough, Stansted, Cologne, Paris, Philadelphia, Louisville, Honalulu, and finally Sydney.

How the fuck can that be 'green'? 

WiresDreamDisasters

Bridgehouse said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

TTony said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

ICBM said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I don't support zero growth, and never will. Zero growth is literally a pathway to global famine and death and destruction.

We don't have a population growth problem. We're not making enough people, full stop. What we have is a distribution problem, and a hoarding problem.

I don't agree with all of that. It's true that we no longer have a serious population growth problem - the rate of increase is falling drastically, and peak human population has been predicted - it may occur within both our lifetimes (mine only just if I live a very long one). And it's certainly true that the biggest problem is distribution - of all resources - not population.

But that doesn't mean we need *more* people. The projected peak of around 10 to 11 billion is at the upper end of what is truly sustainable, and if it stabilises there or very slowly falls, that will not be a bad thing. We still have to raise 90% of the population out of their relative poverty and to something approaching current Western standards, which will increase resource use per head again, so you will still have economic growth for a very long time - but even that cannot continue literally indefinitely. The Earth is a finite size.

Unless we really have started to colonise the other planets by then, possibly.

Okay, let me rephrase. We need more Elon Musk's and Drew Vernon's and ICBM's, and fewer Emp_Fab's

I think we need fewer apostrophe's.

Nah's. It's possessive's. I own's them's all's.

You are all of the dick’s

You are all of the tastingses

Bridgehouse

chillidoggy said:

Here’s one.

I sent a package to Australia last week. The tracking read as follows:-

 Margate, Paddock Wood, Stanford-No-Hope, Feltham, Slough, Stansted, Cologne, Paris, Philadelphia, Louisville, Honalulu, and finally Sydney.

How the fuck can that be 'green'? 

Stop using Parcel Farce?