The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 3,951 to 3,975 of 3988

  1. Post
    That seems excessive. I got my bachelors degree in earth and ocean science in three years.

  2. Post
    You don't even have to graduate or follow course framework if you don't want to - you could just sign up to random papers on topics you are interested in. kiwi is retired already

  3. Post
    Yeah I was thinking of a full (and useful) qualification rather than papers of interest, sorry if that’s not what you meant Kiwi. Specialist stuff like climate science papers will likely have prerequisites that require lower level courses. I was looking (for my own research/career purposes) at MSc level papers purely because I already have a BSc Hons and don’t need anything lower level.

  4. Post
    SirGrim wrote:
    You don't even have to graduate or follow course framework if you don't want to - you could just sign up to random papers on topics you are interested in. kiwi is retired already
    That sounds like a plan. Maybe a selection of completed papers may lead to a degree in time.

    And Gneiss, you were right, I was thinking about a formal qualification like a degree in due course

  5. Post

  6. Post
    Carbon Taxes need to rise from $2 a tonne to $75 a tonne --- says IMF.

    Did not realise it was so low .... only $2 a tonne

  7. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    And Gneiss, you were right, I was thinking about a formal qualification like a degree in due course
    There are also Undergraduate Diplomas if you do not want to commit to a Bachelor's

  8. Post
    Gesellschaft wrote:
    There are also Undergraduate Diplomas if you do not want to commit to a Bachelor's
    Cool ... will look into that too

  9. Post
    A sobering read --- http://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/20...getting-wrong/

    Lets look at the maths
    “Suppose we agree on the goal to entirely replace fossil fuel energy by 2050. (We’re going to have to do it by some point, because oil, coal and natural gas are all depleting finite resources.)

    “With 2050 as a starting point we can run some simple math.

    “We start by converting the three main fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – into a common unit: the “millions of tons of oil equivalent” or Mtoe.

    “A million tons of oil = 1 Mtoe, obviously. And there’s an amount of coal, if burned that has the same energy as 1 Mtoe. Ditto for natural gas. If we add up all of the fossil fuels burned in a given year, then we can express that as a single number in the many thousands of Mtoe.

    “Roger Pilke has run the math for us in his recent article in Forbes:

    ‘In 2018 the world consumed 11,743 Mtoe in the form of coal, natural gas and petroleum. The combustion of these fossil fuels resulted in 33.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. In order for those emissions to reach net-zero, we will have to replace about 12,000 Mtoe of energy consumption expected for 2019’…

    “So, what would it take to replace those 12,000 Mtoe with alternative fuels by 2050?

    “Pilke answers that for us:

    Another useful number to know is that there are 11,051 days left until January 1, 2050.

    To achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions globally by 2050 thus requires the deployment of >1 Mtoe of carbon-free energy consumption (~12,000 Mtoe/11,051 days) every day, starting tomorrow and continuing for the next 30+ years…

    “But that’s only half of the story.

    “We’d also have to decommission and retire an equivalent 1 Mtoe amount of still-functioning fossil fuel property, plant and equipment. Do you have any idea how much money and embedded capital is contained in all the world’s current energy infrastructure — including our cars and homes — that’s built around fossil fuel use?

    “Somehow, the world would have to replace the equivalent of the energy contained within 2.4 Ultra Massive crude ships. Every. Single. Day. For 11,000 days straight, without missing a single day. A 7,000 mile long cargo train of ultra massive ships retired at the rate of 2.4 per day for the next 30 years…

    “What would that take? Again from Pilke:

    So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

    I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.”

    It has taken a Herculean effort in the developed western states just to deploy a relatively small number of wind turbines and solar panels into our electricity generation mix. The idea that we are going to replace the far larger fossil fuel consumption in transport, building temperature control, industry and agriculture is no more than magic thinking. As Martenson concludes:

    “Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the current green energy movement currently is little more than hot air. It’s just not going to happen in time.

    “We’re nowhere close to being able to build out the massive energy projects required. The equivalent of 3 nuclear plants every two days for the next 30 years? That’s a total pipe dream.

    “We lack the political will, the cultural readiness, the proper narrative. Even the appropriate resources.

    “Beyond those concerns, nearly everything about how we heat, move, cool and manufacture the components of our modern lives will have to be refashioned (and possibly jettisoned) as part of that project.”
    Last edited by KiwiTT; 21st October 2019 at 11:31 am.

  10. Post
    Yup. Clock is ticking. Enjoy your time people. At least it is going to be hella interesting.

  11. Post
    I keep saying, Thanos had it right.

  12. Post

  13. Post
    I think this decade is going to be very interesting. By 2030, if we haven't made much progress in emission reductions then I don't know what other "hopium" we can pull out of our arse. At the moment there is still a belief we can fix this, but in 10 years, if nothing has changed substantially, what will be the hope people cling to? There will surely come a point soon where the scientific consensus is that we are locked in to catastrophic warming and no existing technology can help.

  14. Post
    Might be what launches humanity into our first real geoengineering projects. We know carbon sequestration is possible, we could deliberately deploy stratospheric sulphide aerosols etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...osol_injection

  15. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Might be what launches humanity into our first real geoengineering projects. We know carbon sequestration is possible, we could deliberately deploy stratospheric sulphide aerosols etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...osol_injection
    Other than the fact we already started geoengineering by pouring carbon into the atmosphere in massive quantities, I think you are right that we will try something. But aerosol injection is just a band-aid. It doesn't address ocean acidification, for example, and it could easily have unintended consequences. It's a big risk. But I can totally see that people will cling to these sort of "solutions", so good point.

    Carbon sequestration is possible, but it cannot break the law of thermodynamics, so you are going to need more energy to sequester it than was released liberating it. That's a..... shit load of energy. Simply not viable with current tech.

  16. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    Other than the fact we already started geoengineering by pouring carbon into the atmosphere in massive quantities, I think you are right that we will try something. But aerosol injection is just a band-aid. It doesn't address ocean acidification, for example, and it could easily have unintended consequences. It's a big risk. But I can totally see that people will cling to these sort of "solutions", so good point.

    Carbon sequestration is possible, but it cannot break the law of thermodynamics, so you are going to need more energy to sequester it than was released liberating it. That's a..... shit load of energy. Simply not viable with current tech.
    Hmm, not sure I agree atm, but that's just because I don't fully understand the energy involved - like, does creating CO2 in a combustion process create energy, or is it just a byproduct?

  17. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    I think this decade is going to be very interesting. By 2030, if we haven't made much progress in emission reductions then I don't know what other "hopium" we can pull out of our arse. At the moment there is still a belief we can fix this, but in 10 years, if nothing has changed substantially, what will be the hope people cling to? There will surely come a point soon where the scientific consensus is that we are locked in to catastrophic warming and no existing technology can help.
    The hopium is going to run out waaay before 2030. If the current trend of 'do nothing' continues then all of those kids that are becoming invested in climate change and the future of humanity are going to get more and more desperate. They aren't going to just tolerate 10 more years of this, and rightly so.

    Global collapse is already well under way, looks like Chile is the latest to pop.

  18. Post
    Chile is collapsing? Weren’t the protests because they raised subway prices (which has now been pulled)?

  19. Post
    1.5 million people currently protesting in Lebanon, but it’s corruption, not climate collapse driving these protests.

  20. Post
    Which just highlights how climate change isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the larger issue.

    And yeah people are getting shot in Chile lol, the MSM coverage of all these protests is severely lacking(another symptom)

  21. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Hmm, not sure I agree atm, but that's just because I don't fully understand the energy involved - like, does creating CO2 in a combustion process create energy, or is it just a byproduct?
    Yes, it creates heat releasing that CO2. Energy is just heat. Put it this way. If you could sequester carbon from the atmosphere, using less energy than was created liberating it, then we'd have endless energy.

    The other issue is that it's a not a profitable business model unless you sell the captured carbon as a synthetic fuel. In which case it is just carbon neutral. It would have to become one of the biggest industries to exist, with no profit.
    Last edited by s0cks; 22nd October 2019 at 8:29 pm.

  22. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Chile is collapsing? Weren’t the protests because they raised subway prices (which has now been pulled)?
    Protests continued after the price increase was reversed which suggests it's much more than just subway prices. Like how the yellow vests was more than just fuel prices.

  23. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    Protests continued after the price increase was reversed which suggests it's much more than just subway prices. Like how the yellow vests was more than just fuel prices.
    Yeah but it’s not climate change related which is what I figured he was getting at given this thread topic \_(ツ)_/

  24. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Yeah but it’s not climate change related which is what I figured he was getting at given this thread topic \_(ツ)_/
    I wonder if it does play a subconscious role though. I'm serious. A lot of people do understand it is an extremely serious problem. They might not dwell on it. They might not be particularly outspoken about it. But it's there. It's now a part of their future outlook. It certainly doesn't increase optimism.
    Last edited by s0cks; 23rd October 2019 at 8:41 am.

  25. Post
    Saw a thing on CNN with their guy who’s over there. It’s 30 years of inequality finally bubbling to the surface. Like Lebanon, France, Puerto Rico, and others, it’s about corruption and inequality.