Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77, for Donating to support the site

Thoroughly depressing

A virtual pub for off topic, light hearted pub related banter and discussion. No trainers
redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8963
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1324 times
Been thanked: 3694 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201723

Postby redsturgeon » February 16th, 2019, 9:35 am

Snorvey wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:The numbers are already baked in, global population will peak below 9 billion in 25 years and then decline.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722

John


let's face it, they think the global population will peak below 9 billion......

In any case, 9 billion is a LOT of people. And they all want to eat cows, have electricity, own stuff etc.


I think if you look at the numbers in detail you will see that it is a statistical and mathematical prediction rather than a wild theory.

John

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201724

Postby melonfool » February 16th, 2019, 9:49 am

zico wrote:If a first class seat on a plane takes the same space as 6 economy seats, then the first class passenger is consuming at least 6 times the resources to get from A to B that each individual economy passenger uses. (Actually it's even more because first class passengers also have extra cabin crew to serve them).

Fortunately I've discovered a carbon-neutral form of air travel as I only travel on airplanes with a spare seat for me, so the plane would be making its journey anyway!


Also, first class have bigger baggage allowances.

Mel

CryptoPlankton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 789
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1554 times
Been thanked: 876 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201729

Postby CryptoPlankton » February 16th, 2019, 10:20 am

redsturgeon wrote:
Snorvey wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:The numbers are already baked in, global population will peak below 9 billion in 25 years and then decline.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/101018722

John


let's face it, they think the global population will peak below 9 billion......

In any case, 9 billion is a LOT of people. And they all want to eat cows, have electricity, own stuff etc.


I think if you look at the numbers in detail you will see that it is a statistical and mathematical prediction rather than a wild theory.

John

It doesn't have to be a wild theory to be wildly wrong. Such projections make numerous assumptions so why should we believe that those made by Deutsche Bank are any more (or less, to be fair) reliable than those made by the UN in making their "11.2 billion by 2100" prediction in 2017? There are far too many variables...

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18938
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6675 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201775

Postby Lootman » February 16th, 2019, 1:31 pm

zico wrote:If a first class seat on a plane takes the same space as 6 economy seats, then the first class passenger is consuming at least 6 times the resources to get from A to B that each individual economy passenger uses. (Actually it's even more because first class passengers also have extra cabin crew to serve them).

Fortunately I've discovered a carbon-neutral form of air travel as I only travel on airplanes with a spare seat for me, so the plane would be making its journey anyway!

That is a strange way of looking at it. I look at it from the point of view of the plane rather than the passenger. Try this instead. Which would burn more fuel - a plane with 50 First class passengers or the same plane with 300 Economy passengers?

On that topic, BA1 and BA2 fly daily from London City airport to JFK and back in an Airbus A318. Eastbound it is non-stop. An ordinary A318 could never make that trip. It can do so because it has just 32 seats in an all-Business class configuration. That same plane in an Economy class configuration would burn far more fuel.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201779

Postby melonfool » February 16th, 2019, 1:49 pm

Sense of humour failure alert!

Mel

CryptoPlankton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 789
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1554 times
Been thanked: 876 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201792

Postby CryptoPlankton » February 16th, 2019, 3:04 pm

Lootman wrote:
zico wrote:If a first class seat on a plane takes the same space as 6 economy seats, then the first class passenger is consuming at least 6 times the resources to get from A to B that each individual economy passenger uses. (Actually it's even more because first class passengers also have extra cabin crew to serve them).

Fortunately I've discovered a carbon-neutral form of air travel as I only travel on airplanes with a spare seat for me, so the plane would be making its journey anyway!

That is a strange way of looking at it. I look at it from the point of view of the plane rather than the passenger. Try this instead. Which would burn more fuel - a plane with 50 First class passengers or the same plane with 300 Economy passengers?



Now that truly is a strange way of looking at it! I look at it from the point of view of considering overall energy efficiency rather than that of an inanimate object. Try this instead. Assume those 300 economy passengers chose to fly first class because someone bizarrely told them it's more efficient. Which would burn more fuel - one plane with 300 economy passengers or six similar planes each with just 50 first class passengers? :)

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18938
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6675 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201794

Postby Lootman » February 16th, 2019, 3:19 pm

CryptoPlankton wrote:
Lootman wrote:
zico wrote:If a first class seat on a plane takes the same space as 6 economy seats, then the first class passenger is consuming at least 6 times the resources to get from A to B that each individual economy passenger uses. (Actually it's even more because first class passengers also have extra cabin crew to serve them).

Fortunately I've discovered a carbon-neutral form of air travel as I only travel on airplanes with a spare seat for me, so the plane would be making its journey anyway!

That is a strange way of looking at it. I look at it from the point of view of the plane rather than the passenger. Try this instead. Which would burn more fuel - a plane with 50 First class passengers or the same plane with 300 Economy passengers?

Now that truly is a strange way of looking at it! I look at it from the point of view of considering overall energy efficiency rather than that of an inanimate object. Try this instead. Assume those 300 economy passengers chose to fly first class because someone bizarrely told them it's more efficient. Which would burn more fuel - one plane with 300 economy passengers or six similar planes each with just 50 first class passengers?

Perhaps at least we can all agree that there are different ways of looking at this?

Your example isn't realistic since those 300 Economy flyers would probably never pay for First fares. They'd end up going somewhere much closer or perhaps not going anywhere at all. And that would certainly save fuel.

Aggregate demand for different fare structures and cabin classes drives airline decisions about how to configure their planes. More demand for F and J seats leads to more premium-heavy plane configurations and, by my reasoning above, a plane with fewer passengers paying higher fares will burn less fuel.

You might be correct on a fuel-per-person basis, but that assumes there will always be a constant number of flyers, whereas I'd argue that demand for flying is at least partly elastic and price-sensitive.

In the end if there is a spare seat in First and a spare seat in Economy, then it's not going to make much difference which I choose. Either way, the plane weighs more by the amount of my weight and bags, and the seat I didn't buy will be empty. Much of the take-off weight of a plane is the plane itself - an A380 weighs about 400 tons before fuel and passengers. My body weight plus carry-on bag is about 1/10th of a ton.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201797

Postby melonfool » February 16th, 2019, 3:49 pm

It does come across as if sometimes people need to check their privilege before they tell everyone how being privileged is so much more green

Mel

panamagold
Lemon Slice
Posts: 614
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:31 pm
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201810

Postby panamagold » February 16th, 2019, 6:03 pm

Passengers, smaschengers.......Small beer.

If these stats and future projections are at all plausible then the world population growth between 1950 and 2050 will have seen an increase, if my maths is to be believed, of 265%

Work it out for yourselves where the real problem lies. Fortunately I will be long gone before all those chickens come home to roost. Oh, hang on, they'll also be wiped out along with human race. :(

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8286
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 919 times
Been thanked: 4137 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201840

Postby tjh290633 » February 16th, 2019, 10:11 pm

You guys are too pessimistic. The Earth is a great self regulating system and has been for a good few million years now. The Sun has a far bigger influence than anything else. The trouble with trying to regulate one element is that you disturb the equilibrium. You make matters worse instead of better.

Do you remember the celebrated J-curve effect? It was a load of cobblers. Al Gore was sucked in by a load of charlatans, and all those striking schoolgirls have been brainwashed by it. No original thought, just a parroting of the same old clichés. They should have been doing some original research instead of relying on misleading propoganda.

TJH

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6065
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1416 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201847

Postby Alaric » February 16th, 2019, 10:33 pm

tjh290633 wrote: The Sun has a far bigger influence than anything else.


The theory is that Carbon Dioxide and similar gases have the effect of absorbing the Sun's radiation and not radiating a balancing amount back into space when out of direct sunlight.

They are only trace gases though, cloud cover, wind direction etc have a much greater effect on day by day temperatures. For that matter, is it air, ground or water temperatures that are increasing?

Is the "average" temperature of the Earth even constant on a day by day basis? So when there's a heat wave in Australia, does this imply Arctic weather in the Northern Hemisphere to compensate?

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201849

Postby vrdiver » February 16th, 2019, 10:41 pm

tjh290633 wrote:The Earth is a great self regulating system

TJH

I agree with you: just watch what happens to any predator-prey relationship; when the predators get too good, they over-consume their prey and then the system crashes and they die off, allowing the prey to recover.

Currently, we're the biggest "predator" and we're over-consuming like crazy. Our population is increasing and each member of it wants to consume more.

Either we curb ourselves, or that great self regulating system is going to do it for us. Neither path is likely to be a happy one.

VRD

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201850

Postby vrdiver » February 16th, 2019, 10:47 pm

Alaric wrote:
tjh290633 wrote: The Sun has a far bigger influence than anything else.


The theory is that Carbon Dioxide and similar gases have the effect of absorbing the Sun's radiation and not radiating a balancing amount back into space when out of direct sunlight.

They are only trace gases though, cloud cover, wind direction etc have a much greater effect on day by day temperatures. For that matter, is it air, ground or water temperatures that are increasing?

Is the "average" temperature of the Earth even constant on a day by day basis? So when there's a heat wave in Australia, does this imply Arctic weather in the Northern Hemisphere to compensate?

You might want to take a look at this: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files ... arge-1.gif

It's an animated gif, so give it a moment - you'll see that whilst you are correct to question the day-to-day averages (which of course fluctuate), the direction of temperature change over time is very, very clear.

The page the gif is from also considers CO2 etc.

VRD

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2145
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1078 times
Been thanked: 1091 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201873

Postby zico » February 17th, 2019, 9:06 am

We're not doomed, but most other species are. Humans are very good at responding to sudden and large changes, but most animals and plants can't evolve quickly enough to survive. Alternatively, we actively make them extinct because they're in our way. Even before global warming the rise of humans coincided with mass extinction of other species, which wasn't a coincidence. It'll be a very different earth in 100 years, and fortunately for me, I prefer today's world to that future world.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4859
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 2706 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201884

Postby scrumpyjack » February 17th, 2019, 9:57 am

Yes the really long term trend in the earth's temperature is clear. It was 73f global average at the time of the dinosaurs and is about 60f now.

As someone said - lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Yes climate change could cause major changes on earth for a few million years, but we need to take the long view.

In the medium term I suspect Putin's and Kim's nukes are a greater threat to humanity. Hawking and Musk are right - if humanity is to survive it needs to colonise other planets, starting with Mars.

Leothebear
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1461
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:18 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 830 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201898

Postby Leothebear » February 17th, 2019, 11:50 am

The best thing for the planet would be a virus that would wipe out 75% of humanity. Enough people left to limit calamitous nuclear incidents.
Then once recovery is underway, we start doing things the right way.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10813
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1471 times
Been thanked: 3005 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#201913

Postby UncleEbenezer » February 17th, 2019, 1:47 pm

Leothebear wrote:The best thing for the planet would be a virus that would wipe out 75% of humanity. Enough people left to limit calamitous nuclear incidents.
Then once recovery is underway, we start doing things the right way.

Why do you think Dubya took the US out of the bio-weapon monitoring treaty that binds the rest of us?
A few kind-of grumbled (but were naturally more concerned about his refusing Kyoto and one or two other treaties), but all of that was conveniently forgotten - along with "read my lips" - on "9/11".

Leothebear
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1461
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:18 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 830 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202011

Postby Leothebear » February 18th, 2019, 7:53 am

Snorvey wrote:Then once recovery is underway, we start doing things the right way.

I admire your optimism. I envisage a final fight between the remaining 25% for what's left of the resources, technology and so on.


You're right of course. I think I'll start having a drink problem......

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202018

Postby BobbyD » February 18th, 2019, 9:18 am

Leothebear wrote:The best thing for the planet would be a virus that would wipe out 75% of humanity. Enough people left to limit calamitous nuclear incidents.


Yup, nothing like a humanitarian crisis, panic migration, the collapse of the world economy and the inability of states to maintain the rule of law to promote the stability of the security and regulation of civilian and military nuclear installations.

sunnyjoe
Lemon Slice
Posts: 277
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:11 pm
Has thanked: 1059 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202080

Postby sunnyjoe » February 18th, 2019, 12:44 pm

tjh290633 wrote:You guys are too pessimistic. The Earth is a great self regulating system and has been for a good few million years now. The Sun has a far bigger influence than anything else. The trouble with trying to regulate one element is that you disturb the equilibrium. You make matters worse instead of better.

Do you remember the celebrated J-curve effect? It was a load of cobblers. Al Gore was sucked in by a load of charlatans, and all those striking schoolgirls have been brainwashed by it. No original thought, just a parroting of the same old clichés. They should have been doing some original research instead of relying on misleading propoganda.

TJH


If you like data and research you can have a play with this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/examples


Return to “Beerpig's Snug”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests