Curry Recipes Online
Curry Chat => Talk About Anything Other Than Curry => Topic started by: Bob-A-Job on February 23, 2019, 05:26 PM
-
I meant to post this a couple of days ago... I guess the next generation of 'would be' chefs might have to invest in tandoor's and proper BBQ's ? (mine is an uncovered, single shelf, charcoal burner type - no good for windy, wet or colder days).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47306766
It seems to go against what fracking is trying to achieve by producing more emissions.
BAJ
-
At the risk of being slammed by leftist sheep, anthropogenic emissions are an insignificant factor in climate change, if it exists. CO2 is not a poisonous gas and human contribution of it to the atmosphere is minuscule by comparison to naturally occuring anyway. We are being told out here that we can't burn coal any more, but we keep digging it up and loading it on ships to China and India and elsewhere. As far as I know the atmosphere doesn't have country or continental borders. Where did Chernobyl end up? While this is going on we are paying more for energy from subsidised "green" technology and renewables. Subsidised meaning we, the tax payers and consumers, are paying twice. Someone is getting money in their pockets from this.
We are now "educating" our young to believe in climate change and blindly accept the fact that energy lines pockets. Bend the sapling to shape the tree.
Are humans bad for the planet? You bet. Is climate change the biggest issue? Nope. Over- population, clearing forests, depleting and poluting oceans, poisonous contamination of entire ecosystems, draining rivers, causing extinction of species. Take your pick.
-
Wow, so if anyone doesn't agree with your simple views they are Leftist sheep?
Do you work for Donald Trump by any chance?
Before you ask, I'm not gonna get into an argument on climate change with you, from past experience it's a waste of time.
I'll stick with the scientists views, who are actually educated in such matters.
-
Are humans bad for the planet? You bet. Is climate change the biggest issue? Nope. Over- population, clearing forests, depleting and poluting oceans, poisonous contamination of entire ecosystems, draining rivers, causing extinction of species. Take your pick.
ba-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
The sound of a rightist sheep, who agrees with your final paragraph but who is not so stupid as to be a climate-change denier.
** Phil.
-
Not all are climate change believers are leftist sheep but some are. You don't have to agree with my views just as I don't have to agree with yours. Some believe in a god. Others don't. Who's right and who's wrong? People feel threatened when their baseless beliefs are questioned. As you may or may not be aware, this planet has gone through many instances of climate change long before humans were in the present technologically advanced state and will likely do so again after we are gone.
A few years ago we had a Carbon Tax over here. Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme. Call it what you like, it was the perfect way to tax the air we breath. It was always said if they could find a way to do it they would. Well this was it. Fortunately we had a change of Government and it was abolished. At the time it was in place I made several contacts with the then Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, who was unable to provide any definitive argument convincing of the then Labour Government's ideology on the matter. He had no answers to the scientific numbers backing the actual amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans, Look it up yourself and keep reminding yourself that CO2 is not a poisonous gas. In fact it is required to sustain carbon based life on this planet.
Cleverly marketed by the use of black balloons and photographs and videos of water vapor emitted from power station cleaning stacks, this colourless, odorless, essential inert gas was demonized and entrenched into the mindset of millions of easily duped, gullible individuals as a dangerous world threatening byproduct of modern human existence. I don't count myself among them.
-
Baseless beliefs?
Fine, I think everyone should forget the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, that climate change is happening then and take your simple laymans views on it.
I shall look forward to reading your peer reviewed scientific paper on this.
Are you a anti-vaxxing, creationist, flat earther too by any chance?
Damn I said I wasn't gonna argue on this, but I am an easily duped, gullible individual.
-
I posted the topic and so I feel I should comment, since I have an opinion.
Would the planet be better off with less humans (half or a third), yes.
Can I define "sustainable" energies, not really, (I have a problem with describing anything that is not solar/wind/wave/organic related as sustainable).
Until the whole planet is subjected to the same restrictions, such as an EMP burst, there is IMHO little hope.
We all know the dinosaurs died, they are not producing any more fossil fuels.
We can be as conservative as we like but where is our next Fuel Revolution coming from?
BAJ
-
I shall look forward to reading your peer reviewed scientific paper on this.
A peer reviewed paper means nothing if the peers are all pushing the same barrow. Not all scientists agree and I'm tired of hearing "the science is in" from people who haven't actually read up on the science. The science paid for by vested interest "is in" perhaps. Not all scientists can say that there is a definite correlation between human output and CO2 in the atmosphere as there are too many other contributing factors and inconsistencies in actually gathering the data. They just don't know what is happening and true science does not jump to premature acceptance of unproven theory. I think the Max Planck Institute is a fairly reputable scientific opinion to observe.
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-growth-atmospheric-co2-stable-anthropogenic.html (https://phys.org/news/2016-11-growth-atmospheric-co2-stable-anthropogenic.html)
Can you tell me the percentage of anthropogenic CO2 in relation to total amount released in the atmosphere? If you've read the science, what is the number? Where exactly on the planet are these precise scientific measurements being made and by what method? What other factors might be affecting these results? Measurements made in Hawaii next to active volcanoes? Do you know that reducing Carbon emissions by 20 % here in Australia by 2020 in terms of reducing this amount will be the equivalent of removing 1 single grain of builders sand from a 13 tonne pile? These are the same questions I asked our then Minister of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and he couldn't answer them.
Along the way, keep reminding yourself that CO2 is not a poisonous gas and the fact that a single volcanic eruption like Iceland in 2010, Chile in 2011 or Indonesia last year will add more CO2 into the atmosphere in a couple of days than the entire population of the planet does. How do you propose we stop volcanoes from erupting? There have been 17 VEI 4 and 1 VEI 5 eruption this century along with other lesser magnitude ones. That's 1 per year.
Are you a anti-vaxxing, creationist, flat earther too by any chance?
No. Definitely not. Your joking aren't you?
Damn I said I wasn't gonna argue on this, but I am an easily duped, gullible individual.
Don't be afraid to argue your case martinvic.
If your happy to pay extra and line somebody else's pocket for your energy go right ahead. I'd rather not but thanks to this warm and fuzzy feeling that we are all going to save the planet, I now have no choice. How many climate change advocates have gone off-grid?
Having had the benefit of living sea-side for over 50 years I can assure you that the sea-level hasn't risen as we are led to believe should have happened by now.
-
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/
Science is the right approach, but science is not about believing and repeating things you
-
I wish I did. But then again not all involved in coal end up happy miners.
Bob-a-Job suggests a uniform global mandate. This is not going to happen. There are certainly 1 or 2, but probably 4 or 5, places in the world that can significantly influence the human impact of CO2 on the atmosphere if you think it is going to make a difference. China, USA, The EU, India and Russia. 60 - 70 % of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions emanate from these 5 areas. Australia contributes only about 1.3 % of the total but apparently, with our relatively small population, we rate pretty high in per capita figures.
If I'm wrong, (and I hope I'm not) good luck getting these regions to reduce their emissions.
If I am wrong, (and I hope I'm not) then the planet is on it's knees and there is little chance of stopping the disease.
If I'm right, (as I hope to be) then all of this argument is irrelevant, the planet is fine and we are just making someone very rich.
-
It is very difficult, Livo, for me anyway, to treat any of your arguments seriously when part of your evidence against global warming is:
Having had the benefit of living sea-side for over 50 years I can assure you that the sea-level hasn't risen as we are led to believe should have happened by now.
-
Not evidence, observation of the lack of supposedly inevitable consequence. I don't see why it would be hard to understand Garp. When water level rises it is observable and measurable. As a child my grandparents lived in a waterfront property directly adjacent to sea water affected by tides dependent upon water rising and falling in the adjoining Pacific Ocean. All around the area are wharfs and jetties, boat ramps, bridges, culverts and other permanent landmarks that can easily be used to measure water levels. There are whole suburban areas that are built on ground so close to high tide sea level that the canals and roadside drains throughout ebb and flow with the tide. This is not a unique location in that respect and it is found everywhere around the world. In the more than 50 years I've been aware of these water levels, they have not changed at all. The mud flats are still exposed at low tide and the high water marks are still at the same levels they always were.
As you know water finds its own level so apart from some sea surface level bulging due to atmospheric pressure and flow restrictions, if the sea level were to rise it would rise globally and be measurable everywhere. The point is it just hasn't. There's nothing better than fear to control the masses.
I'm just watching our morning news and once again the Paris targets, the costs involved, the partisan politics involved and figures on emissions and targets roll from the politicians tongues. Reliable power, renewables, big batteries, hydro extension, climate targets etc etc. It is a partisan political football and even the conservatives are split over the validity of the science. The hard right deny climate change exists but the moderates want to retain power and must appease the centre ground and hopefully drag some of the left swing voters over. Our elections are fought, won and lost on less than 5% of centre swing voters and so surprise surprise, our current Prime Minister has just announced. $2 billion funding for climate change which, as reported, is a hot issue for the voters. 2 months out from the election it would be forgiven to question the timing and reasoning for such a commitment of funding. This is while some parts of the country experience complete blackouts in peak demand. They won't replace old coal power stations with new technology as they are taken off grid, but will gladly sell millions and millions of tonnes of coal to be burnt overseas. Hypocrisy in its purest form. If these political leaders truly believe fossil fuel is killing the planet and Australia can do anything at all, the first and most obvious thing to do is to leave the coal in the ground. But they don't. Why do you think that is? Here's why. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/coal-pass-iron-ore-top-australian-export/ (https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/coal-pass-iron-ore-top-australian-export/)
Australian facts. 1.3% of total emissions. TOP 10 for per capita. Coal exports for 2018, nearly 400 Mt worth $60 billion. This is projected to keep rising with Asian demand for thermal coal adding another 200 Mt by 2023. If you add this exported 18 Tonnes of coal per capita in Australia to our actual locally used emissions it effectively doubles our per capita output which makes Australians the worst in the world.
If our politicians honestly expect me to believe that they believe there is a problem, this would be the best place to start. don't you think? We can immediately halve our contribution to global emissions by ceasing exports. Don't hold your breath.
-
Not evidence, observation of the lack of supposedly inevitable consequence. I don't see why it would be hard to understand Garp. When water level rises it is observable and measurable. As a child my grandparents lived in a waterfront property directly adjacent to sea water affected by tides dependent upon water rising and falling in the adjoining Pacific Ocean. All around the area are wharfs and jetties, boat ramps, bridges, culverts and other permanent landmarks that can easily be used to measure water levels. There are whole suburban areas that are built on ground so close to high tide sea level that the canals and roadside drains throughout ebb and flow with the tide. This is not a unique location in that respect and it is found everywhere around the world. In the more than 50 years I've been aware of these water levels, they have not changed at all. The mud flats are still exposed at low tide and the high water marks are still at the same levels they always were.
As you know water finds its own level so apart from some sea surface level bulging due to atmospheric pressure and flow restrictions, if the sea level were to rise it would rise globally and be measurable everywhere. The point is it just hasn't. There's nothing better than fear to control the masses.
There is much science which counters your assertion that sea level rise would be the same everywhere. I suggest you read some of it. If you are seriously denying that the global average sea level is on an upward trend, there really is little hope.
-
Of course I acknowledge it wont immediately or ever be the same everywhere, but water by it's fluid matter property will not hold up forever.
I've read this ]https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.shtml] (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.shtml)
and this https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.html (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.html) which shows clearly that it isn't globally equal. There are some places that will sink into the ocean. All I'm saying is that these trends are not showing the catastrophic scenarios we are led to believe will occur.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report estimates that the global sea level rise was approximately 1.7-1.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr) over the past century (IPCC, 2007), based on tide station measurements around the world, with projected increased trends in sea level in the 20th Century based on global climate models."
This calculates to 170 - 180 mm over the last century. I can't see it with my own eyes where I live is what I'm saying.
There are other factors that may be influencing these anomalies. Global tilt and shifting of the poles for example.
Here is further reading to show why Australia wont stop selling coal. https://www.minerals.org.au/coal-community (https://www.minerals.org.au/coal-community) As the 4th largest exporter of coal globally we have a significant role to play in reducing global CO2 emissions. Not going to happen with so much MONEY at stake. I'd like to know who is going to tell Glencore to stop digging coal out of the ground and selling it.
https://www.afr.com/business/mining/coal/time-for-glencore-bhp-to-demerge-their-way-out-of-coal-20190224-h1bnmj (https://www.afr.com/business/mining/coal/time-for-glencore-bhp-to-demerge-their-way-out-of-coal-20190224-h1bnmj)
-
I'm out.
-
Rest easy Garp. Me too!
-
Well being scientific and all that i know this forum has and is doing its bit for global warming and the fishes, think of all those plastic curry packs from supermarkets that have not been sold, :)
-
Rest easy Garp. Me too!
And to put things well and truly back into perspective on a personal level, today confirmation of THR Surgery next week. (ie; Total Hip Replacement).
My apologies for getting all worked up. Some things are best kept away. :-X
May not cook anything for a few weeks. :)
-
And to put things well and truly back into perspective on a personal level, today confirmation of THR Surgery next week. (ie; Total Hip Replacement).
"Total Hip Replacement" ? They give you a new kaftan, new beads, replace all your recordings of Mantovani with music from the 60's and then expect you to start behaving like a 20-year-old again ? Some hope ! Not unless they also give you a lifetime supply of pot, of course ...
Good luck with the THR, Livo.
** Phil.
-
Rest easy Garp. Me too!
And to put things well and truly back into perspective on a personal level, today confirmation of THR Surgery next week. (ie; Total Hip Replacement).
My apologies for getting all worked up. Some things are best kept away. :-X
May not cook anything for a few weeks. :)
Chef spoons crossed for that one Livo, i wish you a speedy recovery.
-
Climate change is a fact of life - with Nature doing things to it on a scale we could never come close to - volcanoes one of the best examples. History gives us periods of ice ages, tropical climates even in UK - and it will ever be thus.
Stopping gas cookers / heating in UK is going to do naff all - especially when China is building coal fired power plants at an astronomical rate to bring its industry up to par with the West - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/. China have agreed to slow down in 2030 once they are up to speed !
Charcoal it is then - or log burners
-
Well, be honest
-
Interesting thought - they would need fewer of them - and why not if the technology was sorted. The Chinese have a good trackre ord in getting stuff right - albeit they steal most of the technology / expertise, then improve on it
-
My belief is if there can be a nuclear disaster in Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster), it can happen anywhere. The Japanese are (IMHO) amongst the most technologically sophisticated nations in the world. Turbines, yes; nuclear energy no. Also we still have no way of safely disposing of nuclear waste
-
There are containment ways for disposing of nuclear waste Phil. I have been involved in concrete concerned for both building production facilities and waste containment. Very stringent specifications.
-
Agreed (that is what I meant by "glass") but all we are doing is burying it for future generations to worry about and ultimately dispose of properly. As ecologically and socially irresponsible as overtly contributing to global warming, IMHO.
-
As ecologically and socially irresponsible as overtly contributing to global warming, IMHO.
Not only is nuclear energy ecologically and socially responsible, it is an ecological and social necessity, at least until renewable energy (or other cleaner sources) are able to take up the base load in a reliable way.
If we continue to use fossil fuels for this purpose (which will eventually run out anyway), future generations will have a lot more serious issues to deal with than whether to disturb some nuclear waste or not.
-
I don't have children, and I don't plan to, but neither do I want my generation to leave their nuclear waste for future generations to have to deal with.
** Phil.
-
Baseless beliefs?
Fine, I think everyone should forget the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, that climate change is happening then and take your simple laymans views on it.
Are you referring to the 97%?
-
I don't have children, and I don't plan to, but neither do I want my generation to leave their nuclear waste for future generations to have to deal with.
** Phil.
So you'd rather leave them with the consequences of further climate change?
-
Absolutely.
-
No point continuing this debate then ::)
-
Climate change is a fact of life - with Nature doing things to it on a scale we could never come close to - volcanoes one of the best examples. History gives us periods of ice ages, tropical climates even in UK - and it will ever be thus.
Stopping gas cookers / heating in UK is going to do naff all - especially when China is building coal fired power plants at an astronomical rate to bring its industry up to par with the West - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/. China have agreed to slow down in 2030 once they are up to speed !
That article is a few years old now so we're probably well on the way to that number, and between China and India there was a planned construction of nearly 1600 new coal fired power plants, 2400 worldwide with an annual increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere of 6.5 billion tonnes. A measly 40 new plants in Japan. Australia wont build a single one, even to replace the old ones that are about to be taken off-grid, and yet we will gladly export a significant portion of the required coal for these new overseas plants. Something doesn't ring true with our Government telling us we can't build a single plant due to "global" climate change commitments while it's fine for China to build over 1000. Not that there would be much point telling the Chinese they can't have our coal.
Nuclear power plants are completely safe (until something happens to show that they really aren't). Google Nuclear waste to see just how big the problem is already. Taiwan with 3 plants. Orchid Island storage site. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3472965 (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3472965)
For the home enthusiast: https://www.drct.com/Decay_Drums.html (https://www.drct.com/Decay_Drums.html)
-
"Citizens' jury rejects push for South Australian nuclear waste dump (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/citizens-jury-rejects-push-for-south-australian-nuclear-waste-dump)"
-
Phil, I remember this from the time. It was news nationwide, not just in SA. There was the notion that South Australia's already radioactive deserts (British WWII testing) would be a good place to store the world's nuclear waste, for a fee. We don't have a nuclear power plant and we have a single medical grade reactor at Lucas Heights on the outskirts of Sydney. This proposal would have meant political death to any Party and leader had it gone ahead.
Some tried to argue we had an obligation to house this waste as it was Australia that supplied the original fuel. The problem with spent fuel waste, as we all know, is it's property of being quite long lived. It wouldn't just be our grandchildren that are left to deal with it. SNF containing U-233 has a half life of 159200 years. Areas used for this purpose can never be "cleaned up" by mankind.
The waste product of making luminous watch dials in the early 20th century, containing Radium, is thought to be responsible for the deaths of people who lived in the harbourside suburb that housed the factory. Google Nelson Parade Hunters Hill Attempts to relocate the contaminated earth from the site became a political hot potato.