Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

 

 

Not just haaaard.  Impossible.
 

Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

 

It seems that reality has proven you wrong:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy

[crofter]

 

 

 

Not just haaaard.  Impossible.

 

Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

 

It seems that reality has proven you wrong:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy

 

Great news, but reality has proved me right!  Uraguay already produced 60% of its electricity from hydroelectric, & there are not many countries where that is the case.  Also, the guardian link you posted says "There is still a lot to do. The transport sector still depends on oil (which accounts for 45% of the total energy mix)"

 

Let me know when that 45% reality has changed.

[north]

This is a very interesting story, questioning the Science and methodology of measuring Carbon and other Greenhouse Gases. Not very encouraging. 

 

From Radio 4 no less. Oh, dear.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0901fqy

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

[Da Burra Shop]

This is a very interesting story, questioning the Science and methodology of measuring Carbon and other Greenhouse Gases. Not very encouraging. 

 

From Radio 4 no less. Oh, dear.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0901fqy

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

Maybe trump is not such a nutjob for pulling out of a meaningless agreement.

[Davie P]

This is a stark warning 

 

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

 

and

 

Trump Ignores The Impacts Of Climate Change At His Peril -- And Ours

[Ironwithin]

This is a stark warning 

 

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

 

and

 

Trump Ignores The Impacts Of Climate Change At His Peril -- And Ours

Wish I could believe them but organizations have been crying wolf for far to long. For example from an article in the Spectator:

 

"According to today’s IPCC report we now have 12 years to avert climate catastrophe. That might not sound long, but it means we are a good deal further away from doom that we were in 2007, when the WWF said we had five years to save the world. The doomsday clock hadn’t moved in 2011 when the International Energy Agency warned us that we had five years to start slashing carbon emissions or lose the chance forever. By last year it had shortened to three years, according to Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But now it’s right up at 12 years, presumably meaning that we can pretty twiddle our thumbs until 2030 – a whole 18 years after the WWF told us the world would come to an end if we didn’t slash carbon emissions."

[Colin]

I don't think that it's an "exact science" as there are far to many variables but, I do not believe that they are "crying wolf" either.  It's not a question of "if" but "when".

 

Bottom line is if we don't stop abusing the planet at breakneck speed  then, we and many other species are finished.

 

The big question is, what are you willing to give up in order to survive ?  It would have to be, imho, pretty much everything that you do not NEED to get by.

 

Failing that, we need to be "culled" on a massive scale in order to protect all the other species.  Volunteers ?

[George.]

Wish I could believe them but organizations have been crying wolf for far to long.

Of course there's no pollution or climate warming. The people that don't want to accept or believe reality keep telling us just what they want to tell us, and they tell us with a pretty loud voice  that there's nothing to worry about - regardless of whether they're telling the truth or not. They're the one's with loud voices that don't want to stop polluting the world or stop doing things that encourage climate warming. After all, that's how they make a living and don't have to make an effort. 

 

Idleness, ignorance and greed spreads further.

Edited October 11, 2018 by George.

[John Allan]

NASA scientists analysed ice samples for that last 400,000 years and noticed that in that time carbon dioxide never reached more than 300 parts in a million, with most changes due to orbital changes. In the last hundred years or so this has spiked to 400 parts in a million, a level never seen before. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  NASA have also reviewed data from other respected scientific organisations and the consensus is that this IS happening https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

I will probably err on the side of caution and come down on the side of NASA in regards to this issue, rather than the more unscientific research Donald Trump probably did on twitter.

[redrobbie]

Look on the bright side a warmer earth will mean a greener earth . The deserts could bloom again .https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[George.]

Look on the bright side a warmer earth will mean a greener earth . The deserts could bloom again 

A warmer earth would be great. Both the Arctic and Antarctica would melt, the sea level would then rise resulting in us having to learn to swim - not that we'd be able to swim for terribly long in the grand scheme of things. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by George.

[Colin]

The Arctic melting would have little or no effect on sea leavels.  It's already floating.  Greenland ice and the Antarctic ice plus Russian and Canadian permafrost are a different matter.

 

I suppose that most people will bumble along quite nicely until, that is, the water is slapping around their top lip.

[paulb]

however greenland's ice will. and the dump of freshwater could stop the gulf stream. which would make living in shetland interesting. 

[redrobbie]

 

Look on the bright side a warmer earth will mean a greener earth . The deserts could bloom again 

A warmer earth would be great. Both the Arctic and Antarctica would melt, the sea level would then rise resulting in us having to learn to swim - not that we'd be able to swim for terribly long in the grand scheme of things. 

 

According to NASA the Antarctic ice sheet is getting bigger not smaller .https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[George.]

According to NASA the Antarctic ice sheet is getting bigger not smaller .

They believed that to be true three year ago. Today they believe the opposite to be true.

 

New study bring Antarctic ice lo into sharper focus

Edited October 11, 2018 by George.