Actually the average lifespan in the USA is decreasing.
True. I recall reading this was largely due to increasing opioid deaths. These comprised 2.3% of all deaths last year. While less than the 5% of US deaths that are due to air pollution it overtook the 1.5% due to guns (in 87's world, such things wouldn't be a concern even if they were going up by 30% a year).
@87654321
Your two last post would puzzle creationist and evolutionist concerning the anomalies.
87 doesn't understand that the way to forecast the future is to see how statistics are CHANGING and will CHANGE, not to blindly assume (indeed desperately demand) that they stay the same.
I feel only a psychiatrist can get any further in discussing this with him, and I lack the expertise to take that role.
The worlds oldest man has 3 cigarettes a day, a reasonably moderate amount,
So in your world smoking is good for health. Ha ha - don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your prejudices.
What catastrophe, you get temperature swings inland like Chicago, hot summers cold winters, If you want something more temperate I might suggest a coastal location, Have you considered moving to Florida.
What is it that makes you so short sighted? At 1 degree above pre-industrial temps we are seeing some impacts already. 2 degrees will be a lot worse and 4 degrees will be devastating. The catastrophe isn't now but in the future and if temperature keeps rising it is only a matter of time til we get there.
@87
UK renewables accounted for nearly 9% of energy generated in 2016. So not good enough (yet) but a lot more than the 1% you would love to see.
@87
UK renewables accounted for nearly 9% of energy generated in 2016. So not good enough (yet) but a lot more than the 1% you would love to see.
I'm not gonna listen to someone whose name sounds like a turntable scratching in the background of one of my saucy raps.
Not that far off the mark - 'wickywacky' comes from the track by the Fatback Band from the '80s.
Couldn't care less whether you listen or not. Facts are facts whether you believe in them or not.
And AGW is a fact.
This tiny house is ready for anything! Completely off the grid, this tiny home on wheels generates it's own solar power, collects rain water, uses solar water heating and even generates it's own bio gas for cooking.
ww the 1% reference was solar rather than the whole renewable sector.
You have to be pretty sharp eyed to find solar within the UK primary energy mix, as might be expected <1%.
Yes - there needs to be be much more solar installed. Especially in hot countries. Care to address the point I made in #7196. That the catastrophe is not now but in maybe 50 or 100 years.
Specifically, it would be good to hear what you think is an acceptable level of warming and when we will pass that point.
ww the 1% reference was solar rather than the whole renewable sector.
You have to be pretty sharp eyed to find solar within the UK primary energy mix, as might be expected <1%.
Yes - there needs to be be much more solar installed. Especially in hot countries. Care to address the point I made in #7196. That the catastrophe is not now but in maybe 50 or 100 years.
Specifically, it would be good to hear what you think is an acceptable level of warming and when we will pass that point.
It is perfectly reasonable that the choice of renewables depends on the availability of the resources (which affect price and time variation). The UK has a smaller solar resource than many countries. It also has a large, high quality, wind resource, especially as offshore wind farms (and even deep water and floating wind farms!) come on line. These developments were not anticipated in the early days of wind energy in the UK.
There is a larger annual energy resource in the North sea than the peak of North Sea oil production, but it will be available for billions of years rather than less than a century.
Solar is getting so cheap that it is becoming a useful complementary source in the UK. More energy is needed during the day, and low wind levels are more common in summer hot spells. UK solar has expanded by almost exactly 1000-fold in the last 12 years and currently supplies over 3% of generated electricity (to rise to over 5% by 2020, according to government plans).
It is a mistake that should not be made by anyone who understands thermodynamics to think of a kWh of electricity as equivalent to a kWh of energy from a chemical fuel. 1kWh of electricity can provide 4 kWh of heat through a heat pump. The cost of the fuel for 100 miles in an electric car is about 3.5 times lower than that of petrol at domestic electricity rates.
Nothing works better than running the FEAR campaign and maybe all the information that has been collected is correct or not...but what is the bottom line here? It is FEAR...Fear of the human race becoming extinct
I don't see the extinction of the human race as being likely. Extensive economic damage, severe damage to quality of life and large numbers of unnecessary deaths are however likely.
A very recent Nature publication by a group from Stanford and Cambridge MA quantifies the cost of not aggressively limiting the extent of climate change by radical changes and finds that the costs enormously outweigh the investment in a shift to renewable energy and low carbon economy. Uncertainties in the estimates are included and while the worst scenarios lead to 100 times as much economic damage as the cost saved on changes, even the best case scenarios would leave a "business as usual" policy as economically bad (such as the extremely misguided one chosen by one science denying government at present).
The costs of inaction are truly shocking when the various consequences of temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius are taken into account.
Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets - Nature, May 2018
Since we are facing severe economic damage from global warming,it is a bad time to put restrictive tarrifs on Chinese technology like solar panels. It's like Trump is giving us a one two punch combination since he welched on our commitments under the Paris accords. Make it a one two three since we abandoned the USA citizens in Puerto Rico also.
You didn't answer the question. How much warming is acceptable; 2 degrees? 3 ? 4?
Tell me, why is it so important for you to heard and noticed?
Are you trying to save the earth or/and it`s inhabitants?
Or does it go deeper than that?
... Specifically, it would be good to hear what you think is an acceptable level of warming and when we will pass that point.
@ ww you should bear in mind a warming trend is preferable to cooling. The worlds population is estimated to increase by 50% in the next 50 yrs which will mean change some of which may be climate related as more land is used for habitation, livestock, crops etc.
So yet again we are privileged to have a guess from 87 (on the back of the guess that refuted the body of research used by the WHO), so we can ignore all the analysis that comes to the conclusion that there will be dramatic costs from global warming including disruption of agriculture. Also, apparently rising sea levels are going to increase the amount of land for everything. How does that work, exactly?
Why the heck do you think your guesses carry so much weight? Is it the certainty that anything that supports your prejudice must be right?
That being said, the increasing world population is a pressure that makes dealing with climate change and all other environmental problems all the more pressing. More people means lower levels of emission per capita are acceptable: that is obvious.
There is a lot of uncertainty about global population growth, because it is dominated by the way fertility changes in developing countries. My personal inclination is to believe that urbanisation must result in a similar pattern to the whole of Europe, North America etc. with fertility levels around 2 becoming the norm. This will be a huge boon to developing countries with straining resources and environmental pressures. A Deutschebank population projection predicted a peak at less than 9 billion using such assumptions. The median prediction is over 11 billion. Improved healthcare and lower infant mortality appears (somewhat counterintuitively) to be the best way to moderate this huge threat to quality of life in poorer countries.
Solar remains at 1%.
No, you have it wrong again. The growth rate is definitely nearer 30% at present. I shouldn't have to tell you this more than once: it's not as if you have Alzheimer's or an IQ of 70.