Posted by: tungsten
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/06/30/chernobyl-has-blown-up-twice/
I know nuclear reactors can be dangerous, and frankly, it takes so long to build them it may be too late, but I think it is worth the risk.
Climate Change - so I'm starting to panic a bit
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
- The high temperatures in France are due to the jetstream pulling hot air from the Sahara to the north in a similar way the polar vortex pulls cold air into North America. The jetstream is starting to get a little schizophrenic. The Equator may become unlivable at some point, but the effects that are most noticeable right now come from extreme weather.
- It may be too late, but scientists don't know, so surely you don't. Considering what is at stake, don't you think pouring resources into making our society carbon neutral is worth a try? You brought up taxes and cast doubt on mankind's role in climate change. These are your misguided assumptions. The science showing our role in climate change is undeniable and has been for a long time. Taxes go to all kinds of nonsense now and next to none go to fighting climate change, so just bringing them into the conversation is misguided.
So why do you doubt that all the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere (a known greenhouse gas) is the cause of the increasing heat that you seem to fully accept? My brother has a similar view to your own and I can never figure out why he repels the idea of taking any meaningful action. It seems more of an ideology than anything linked to logic. He lives on the equator too.
- Could we agree that the slowing of the Atlantic Conveyor may be responsible for both east and west types of Polar Vortex's? I havent heard anyone sciency talk about that in a while and I dont recall much of the polar vortex's before say... 2010?
- Bringing up something labelled a carbon tax that doesnt go to curbing carbon emissions is misguided? No, it's seeing bull shit for what it is. People think they're paying a carbon tax and thats it, they're job is done. And dont forget about countries trading carbon credits. So politicians can essentially cheat the system, no surprise.
- The science shows that because thats what they're looking for. I'm totally of the opinion that a) we will want more carbon in the air soon and b) we need to find a way to fix or replicate the Sun. The latter being the more feasible option (China's building a Sun) given the past 15 years of inconvenient truths. Why more carbon soon? Global cooling is coming.
Here's an answer that may not make sense. I dont doubt we're polluters. I just completely doubt that humans can stop this because it's not (totally) pollution and or human based. This is from the Sun and its cycles. Suns last low output era was around the time when the Thames froze. Minor side track here: The dark ages were caused by 1-2 Volcano's and another 1-2 Volcano's in the 6th century are being blamed for the blight then. Despite humans best intentions on War and outright destruction, we havent come close to that level of misery yet and thats to illustrate my old old point about Volcano's being more important than science cares for (because you cant tax a volcano.. well ok we probably could but whatever).
So imo, we're like this: (tiny tiny) ants on a basketball in a beach ball with a large honeycombed grid of super spot lights focused on us. Where earth is the basketball and the beachball is our atmosphere and if scaled to ratio right, the spot lights be our Sun. Now, change the frequency/bulbs in the spot lights and things are gonna change inside the beach ball right? Would the beachball itself change?
You should send your brother a forum invite ;)
- Linking any weather event to climate change is always controversial so the cause it open to speculation, but extreme weather is on the rise and I believe the link is obvious.
- The BC carbon tax reduced fuel use https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-s-carbon-tax-a-real-life-rebuttal-to-carbon-pricing-s-political-opponents-some-experts-say-1.4758484 but I am open to other ways to make fossil fuels less competitive.
- The science keeps being proven correct. Hottest year after the hottest year.
- If you think your basketball / beachball idea is accurate then you should reconsider your sources of information. The levels of CO2 are the highest they have been in millions of years, and that is on us.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: tungsten
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/06/30/chernobyl-has-blown-up-twice/
I know nuclear reactors can be dangerous, and frankly, it takes so long to build them it may be too late, but I think it is worth the risk.
cue in Flamanville and Olkiluoto, these are the state of the art reactors now, effin expensive and still not finished...
how many solar sites and wind turbines could you build for the same amount of money, faster?
Last edited by: Sethimus on July 5, 2019, 1:44 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: Sethimus
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: tungsten
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/06/30/chernobyl-has-blown-up-twice/
I know nuclear reactors can be dangerous, and frankly, it takes so long to build them it may be too late, but I think it is worth the risk.
cue in Flamanville and Olkiluoto, these are the state of the art reactors now, effin expensive and still not finished...
how many solar sites and wind turbines could you build for the same amount of money, faster?
I say we start building lots of them and find out. The problem with tech is that it is hard to know where it will go so we need to have projects going across the low carbon spectrum. Throwing the book at this problem is pretty much the only sensible approach IMO.
This could help a lot:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-07/miot-esd070119.php
Or.... meat 'n milk, has to go.....https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions
Last edited by: tungsten on July 5, 2019, 9:52 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: chupacabra
- Linking any weather event to climate change is always controversial so the cause it open to speculation, but extreme weather is on the rise and I believe the link is obvious.
- The BC carbon tax reduced fuel use https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-s-carbon-tax-a-real-life-rebuttal-to-carbon-pricing-s-political-opponents-some-experts-say-1.4758484 but I am open to other ways to make fossil fuels less competitive.
- The science keeps being proven correct. Hottest year after the hottest year.
- If you think your basketball / beachball idea is accurate then you should reconsider your sources of information. The levels of CO2 are the highest they have been in millions of years, and that is on us.
- I thought we were talking about changing weather patterns, ie: jet steams changing on both sides of the Atlantic. I provided an answer that lies literally in the depths of the Atlantic or the middle and you stick with your obvious CO2. Cant step outside the known and accepted comfort zone ?
- Cigarrette taxes being mandated to increase every quarter also contribute to lower smoking rates. That link is obvious.
- Really now? There's high and low records being set globally all over. Artic ice loss and Antarctic ice growth.
- That's if you believe carbon dating, fossil records and all that science to be absolute fact(s). If CO2 is the highest ever, why arent plants showing change/growing? Or is it only at the actual atmosphere elevations?
The thing about my beachball illustration was not to try show my sources, which is just how I think honestly. I dont have links for that one or every one for that matter. Other than trying to find sources about Sun output and our planet, which I can leave you to do if you're interested but you believe your science, which is based on an inconvenient political lie imo. That's something else I was trying to illustrate.
It's easier for me believe the +- of the Sun does more than our car exhaust, especially considering you argument gives zero credit to natural things like Volcano's. To me, that does compute other than your fixation on CO2 and Volcano's lack of. There is more than CO2 ya know.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Sethimus
I know nuclear reactors can be dangerous, and frankly, it takes so long to build them it may be too late, but I think it is worth the risk.
cue in Flamanville and Olkiluoto, these are the state of the art reactors now, effin expensive and still not finished...
how many solar sites and wind turbines could you build for the same amount of money, faster?
I say we start building lots of them and find out. The problem with tech is that it is hard to know where it will go so we need to have projects going across the low carbon spectrum. Throwing the book at this problem is pretty much the only sensible approach IMO.
What if the problem isnt our energy but just how we manage it? During the air travel ban post 9/11, global temps dropped 1-2c. Maybe we just need more trains and a much more locally centralized economy and overall model. But then globalism wouldnt truly succeed.
Also, how good is solar during a solar minimum and turbines kill birds and create 'noise'.
So Trudeau’s promise to direct pipeline profits to clean energy — as good as that sounds — is like allowing cigarettes to be sold to kids as long as tobacco companies make generous donations to cancer research.
Last edited by: tungsten on July 7, 2019, 8:52 p.m., edited 2 times in total.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
During the air travel ban post 9/11, global temps dropped 1-2c.
Incorrect. Local temperatures in US dropped due to weather patterns. Global temperatures did not drop, and any localized temperature drops were not attributable to less air travel.
Science!!! --> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008GL036108
"Thus, both datasets show that low clouds are the dominant cloud influence on DTR. High clouds, of which contrails are a subset, have a very minor, if any, influence on the DTR anomalies.
We conclude that the increase of the diurnal temperature range over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11 – 14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails. While missing contrails may have affected the DTR, their impact is probably too small to detect with a statistical significance. The variations in high cloud cover, including contrails and contrail-induced cirrus clouds, contribute weakly to the changes in the diurnal temperature range, which is governed primarily by lower altitude clouds, winds, and humidity"
Last edited by: KenN on July 8, 2019, 8:09 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: KenN
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
During the air travel ban post 9/11, global temps dropped 1-2c.
Incorrect. Local temperatures in US dropped due to weather patterns. Global temperatures did not drop, and any localized temperature drops were not attributable to less air travel.
Science!!! --> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008GL036108
"Thus, both datasets show that low clouds are the dominant cloud influence on DTR. High clouds, of which contrails are a subset, have a very minor, if any, influence on the DTR anomalies.
We conclude that the increase of the diurnal temperature range over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11 – 14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails. While missing contrails may have affected the DTR, their impact is probably too small to detect with a statistical significance. The variations in high cloud cover, including contrails and contrail-induced cirrus clouds, contribute weakly to the changes in the diurnal temperature range, which is governed primarily by lower altitude clouds, winds, and humidity"
From what I have read cloud cover is the main unknown in the models. They are so complicated and the type of cloud really changes the impact. With any luck, the greater temperatures create more low cumulus with a net cooling effect. I had no idea I would look in the sky and love seeing those rainy bastards as much as I do now.
Tra-lalalalalala....and you want a new carbon bike.....
http://news.mit.edu/2019/carbon-threshold-mass-extinction-0708
Forum jump:
