The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 4,101 to 4,120 of 4120

  1. Post
    To all those anti-nuclear power protestors --- here is the result

    Japan now plans to build as many as 22 new coal-burning power plants
    It is one unintended consequence of the Fukushima nuclear disaster almost a decade ago, which forced Japan to all but close its nuclear power program. Japan now plans to build as many as 22 new coal-burning power plants — one of the dirtiest sources of electricity — at 17 different sites in the next five years, just at a time when the world needs to slash carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming.

  2. Post
    Oh boy ... Socks may be right after all

    A failure to get to grips with climate change and associated problems, from ecosystem collapse to worsening water and food shortages, is the most severe and probable threat facing humanity, more than 200 scientists have warned.

    The risks will also likely feed on each other - as intensifying heat and drought spur more wildfires and forest loss, for example - "in ways that might cascade to create a global systemic crisis", they said in a report.

    The situation could become "potentially uncontrollable in the future if we don't act very soon", said Owen Gaffney, an author of the report and a sustainability analyst with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
    http://news.trust.org/item/20200207175812-v7duh/



    Full report here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1frt...xH1tRnpXb/view

  3. Post

    Page 11 is worth a look, even if you look at nothing else.

  4. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    To all those anti-nuclear power protestors --- here is the result

    Japan now plans to build as many as 22 new coal-burning power plants
    Nuclear is a dangerous answer though.

  5. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    Nuclear is a dangerous answer though.
    Is it?

    Anyone compared the number of Nuclear Plant accident deaths to Coal pollution deaths? Yep

  6. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Is it?

    Anyone compared the number of Nuclear Plant accident deaths to Coal pollution deaths? Yep
    Well yeah, compared to coal. But wind and solar is best. Nuclear might not have killed many humans, but it causes untold environmental damage when it goes wrong. And the waste is still a big issue.

  7. Post
    Problem with wind and solar, is that it is dependent on weather and we know how unpredictable that is. It requires massive amounts of energy storage systems to level out the variability. e.g. Tesla battery farms (which have limited lifespans and need to replaced regularly)

  8. Post
    not to mention there have been massive leaps in new nuclear tech which is much safer now. Fukushima was built in the late 60s.

  9. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    not to mention there have been massive leaps in new nuclear tech which is much safer now. Fukushima was built in the late 60s.
    And apparently Fukushima could never melt through to the ground water, but it did. And an RBMK couldn't explode, but it did. Point is, shit goes wrong, intended or not. Nuclear is ridiculously bad when it fails. We don't need it, we just want it, because we are addicted to copious amounts of energy. To implement, globally, as the dominant source of energy? Risky as heck if you ask me.

    On another note, the new mock Aussie government ad cracks me up:


  10. Post
    "targeted actions to adapt to the impacts of climate change"

    https://www.europeandatajournalism.e...-now-in-Europe

  11. Post
    Gneiss Signal:

    I heard that many climate deniers think Climate Scientists are not true scientists, who study traditional sciences, like biology, physics and chemistry.

  12. Post
    Don’t know what you want me to say dude. I don’t interact with climate deniers to know what they think. I’d suggest if they don’t believe the scientific data, then they don’t understand what scientists are or do anyway.

  13. Post
    Trouble is I encounter them regularly, including my own brother and family members. And yes I do use your line of tough too.

    However, this is one of the better contrary sites as it uses scientific papers for reference.

    e.g. CO2 --- https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/20/...net-heat-loss/

  14. Post
    You need to learn how to filter idiots out of your life.

  15. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Trouble is I encounter them regularly, including my own brother and family members. And yes I do use your line of tough too.

    However, this is one of the better contrary sites as it uses scientific papers for reference.

    e.g. CO2 --- https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/20/...net-heat-loss/
    Usually these things are pretty easy to debunk. We've got years of climate science consensus, so it's pretty safe to assume that it's correct. In which case, take these articles with a grain of salt and perhaps do some of your own investigatory work.

    Let's take the first example on that website (Zhang et al., 2020). If we follow the link and read the report ourselves we find the following:

    Thus an increase of CO2 concentration in atmospheric air may result in either an increase or decrease of the air temperature in the atmosphere, depending on the balance of heat gain and loss. In other words, CO2 with substantially higher concentration may enhance the net heat loss to colder surrounding interfaces when the heat absorption capacity of CO2 was saturated or heat input was much limited.
    Does the above sound controversial? Not really. It's just saying, at super high levels of CO2, when fully saturated with heat, the gas will transfer that heat to colder surroundings at a greater rate than it can absorb additional heat.

    You also need to bear in mind this was at 16900ppm!! The Earth's atmosphere is at 410ppm, and according to the tests, it's only somewhere after 7500ppm that CO2 has a greater cooling effect.

    So basically, this does absolutely nothing to "debunk" climate science.

    If I could be bothered, I'd look at the rest, but you know. Time is precious. These sites rely on the fact that people like your brother won't bother checking the "evidence" themselves.

  16. Post
    ^That’s about as far as I got too. “If we put so much CO2 into the atmosphere that all human life is over, it will eventually cool down” is a stupid way to debunk climate science which is taking about ways to keep the planet at or near current liveable levels.

  17. Post
    I have been looking at the stats rolling out of the Coronavirus sites and wondering should we consider similar summaries for Climate Change.

    So we create a list of all countries and then itemise and categorise all the expected impacts and when expected will happen to the decade at least. General global predictions dont seem to be working at creating the desired effect of action. If we can find some way of personalising the impacts to countries, maybe enough people take notice and act.

  18. Post
    With coronavirus we can expect a small reduction in GHG emissions this year. But there are concerns it won't be sustained, and if anything, a recession will derail conversion to renewable energy sources.

  19. Post
    The recession will also mean less emissions though. Once things bounce back, so to will renewable tech, if not faster as governments will want to spend up large on such projects to stimulate the economy.

  20. Post
    I'm more interested to see what sort of warming a reduction in air pollution causes due to the loss of global dimming. We could be in for a warm year.