Jump to content
BANGKOK 22 April 2019 17:10
webfact

Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

These guys are talking about defects in modelling. They're right. However, the only part of my post which is a model is the Tibetan Plateau. The Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are facts happening NOW.

Nobody is disputing your facts, only the conclusions to be drawn from them. Maybe you need to revisit the video.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You seem to overlook ( ? intentionally ) that their lives WERE better. Just because it was <deleted> for some other ethnicities/ classes does not change that.

I could go on for hours how life was better then ( for me ), and why modern life sucks, but what would be the point?

BTW, life is still <deleted> for most people on the planet.

 

everyone loved each other

LOL. They didn't at all. Some people were really horrible and nasty, but that hasn't changed an iota. Some people are still horrible and nasty.

Thanks for confirming my point.

We all know your generation is just stuck in the past with a universal idea that 'modern life sucks'. It actually doesn't but it does mean you just have to get out of your rut and at least try and find the joy. There's plenty there if you take a moment to look.

In the meantime, try and stop dragging everyone else down with you. We know you're unhappy and angry; but there's only really one person to blame for that now isn't there?  

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Windmills kill large numbers of birds, or so I've been informed, and I have no reason to doubt that they do. They are also visually unpleasant and many don't like them where they live ( but they still want electricity ).

Solar has been around for decades. If it was so great it'd be more common than it is. I'd like to see governments mandate solar on every new roof, but seems there are reasons not to.

The two real alternatives are wave and nuclear. Wave power seems to be a non starter and nuclear is unpopular for many reasons, some of which are irrational. France has been using nuclear for decades, quite safely.

However, the biggest user of fossil fuels is transportation, and till an alternative can work as efficiently as a fossil fuelled vehicle without costing any more it's not going to happen.

Hydrogen. That's the future fuel of transportation. Split water with solar electricity, then combine with nitrogen to form ammonia. Transport liquid ammonia to anywhere in the world, then reconstitute as hydrogen using membrane technology. It's already been demonstrated by CSIRO on a pilot scale, and the Chinese are salivating.

Nuclear power can be made intrinsically safe using thorium -based reactors. However, it seems there is too much capital tied up in current reactors for that to happen yet.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take hope in the collective mindset of the oririentals. Individualism had had its day. Now we're facing problems that cannot be solved individuslly. Still, I do my best - I live by this rule, if everyone did as I do would the world be a better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are sometimes both positives and negatives on both sides of a situation involving differences of opinion.

 

One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming. The often quoted 97% consensus among scientists working in the various disciplines related to climate, that CO2 is the main driver of the current global warming which will eventually be very bad for us, is a political ploy which is necessary in order to motivate investment in alternative sources of energy.

 

Imagine what would happen if the media were to give more air to intelligent discussions highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the causes of changes in climate, because of the chaotic and very complex nature of weather and climate, the influence and interaction of so many different factors, and the long time scales involved before a continuous, global, trend can be identified.

 

Political action would be impossible in a democracy with such uncertainty, so let's assume that at least some progress towards more efficient renewables will continue, and let's consider the positives and negatives.

 

As the poor, undeveloped part of world, continues to develop economically, as China and India have been doing, there would come a time, eventually, when fossil fuel reserves would dwindle and become much more expensive as extraction costs rise. This could cause a truly catastrophic, world-wide economic collapse if the world became too reliant upon fossil fuels.

 

Creating a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels is actually very sensible, and even though I'm very skeptical about the claimed dangers of current CO2 emissions, I'm all in favour of developing alternative and additional sources of energy because I understand that reliable supplies of energy are a fundamental requirement for all economic development. The more energy, the better, and the cheaper the energy, the better, provided it is at least reasonably clean and doesn't cause excessive environmental damage and pollution.

 

The environmental pollution caused by coal-fired power plants can be very harmful to human health when old-fashioned and cheap power plants are used without adequate emission controls, as has happened in China and India in the interests of economic development.

 

However, modern coal-fired power plants, known as HELE (high energy low emissions) are much cleaner than the old technology and emit insignificant amounts of the real pollutants, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Heavy Metals, and Particulate Carbon. However, they still emit significant amounts of CO2, although in reduced quantities for the same amount of energy, because they burn the coal more efficiently.

 

Without the CO2 scare, coal would continue to be popular and all the old coal-fired power plants would gradually be replaced with modern Ultra-Supercritical power plants providing cheap and reliable energy with much lower emissions of the real pollutants that are a health concern. 

 

However, by promoting the false concept that CO2 is a pollutant, countries such as Australia are not replacing the old, inefficient power plants with the new technology, and electricity prices continue to rise, with frequent power outages when consumption is high due to heat waves, when everyone turns on their air-conditioning.

 

Nevertheless, if (or when) there is a major breakthrough in the development of battery storage, resulting in cheap, reliable and durable batteries that don't require that limited resource of Lithium (which also can cause environmental damage in its mining), the reliance upon fossil fuels as a back-up, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, might not be necessary.

 

In 10, 20 or 30 years time, when it might become obvious we are heading into another Little Ice Age, and the media and politicians start admitting that the climate change alarmists got it wrong and that CO2 levels are not the driving force behind climate change, we can then start using fossil fuels again, together with our advanced solar power and battery storage, to produce massive amounts of cheap energy so that we can build the dams, long water pipes, desalination plants, and sturdy homes and infrastructure to protect ourselves from the extreme weather events which we then understand are not caused by increased CO2 levels.

 

Unfortunately, in the meantime, there will continue to be disasters from extreme weather events, and loss of life, because we aren't spending nearly enough money (energy) to address the problem, and instead are kidding ourselves that reducing CO2 emissions will fix the problem.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the people that posted about the seriousness of Global Climate Change were serious about what they believe the effects will be why not advocate war with China and India to meaningfully reduce CO2 going into the atmosphere? The various climate accords are feel good, do nothing pieces of paper that would likely not even measurably change the trajectory of the earths temperature. So get serious about this problem or be quiet and adapt to the changing climate like all successful species have done throughout history.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There are sometimes both positives and negatives on both sides of a situation involving differences of opinion.

 

One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming. The often quoted 97% consensus among scientists working in the various disciplines related to climate, that CO2 is the main driver of the current global warming which will eventually be very bad for us, is a political ploy which is necessary in order to motivate investment in alternative sources of energy.

 

Imagine what would happen if the media were to give more air to intelligent discussions highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the causes of changes in climate, because of the chaotic and very complex nature of weather and climate, the influence and interaction of so many different factors, and the long time scales involved before a continuous, global, trend can be identified.

 

Political action would be impossible in a democracy with such uncertainty, so let's assume that at least some progress towards more efficient renewables will continue, and let's consider the positives and negatives.

 

As the poor, undeveloped part of world, continues to develop economically, as China and India have been doing, there would come a time, eventually, when fossil fuel reserves would dwindle and become much more expensive as extraction costs rise. This could cause a truly catastrophic, world-wide economic collapse if the world became too reliant upon fossil fuels.

 

Creating a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels is actually very sensible, and even though I'm very skeptical about the claimed dangers of current CO2 emissions, I'm all in favour of developing alternative and additional sources of energy because I understand that reliable supplies of energy are a fundamental requirement for all economic development. The more energy, the better, and the cheaper the energy, the better, provided it is at least reasonably clean and doesn't cause excessive environmental damage and pollution.

 

The environmental pollution caused by coal-fired power plants can be very harmful to human health when old-fashioned and cheap power plants are used without adequate emission controls, as has happened in China and India in the interests of economic development.

 

However, modern coal-fired power plants, known as HELE (high energy low emissions) are much cleaner than the old technology and emit insignificant amounts of the real pollutants, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Heavy Metals, and Particulate Carbon. However, they still emit significant amounts of CO2, although in reduced quantities for the same amount of energy, because they burn the coal more efficiently.

 

Without the CO2 scare, coal would continue to be popular and all the old coal-fired power plants would gradually be replaced with modern Ultra-Supercritical power plants providing cheap and reliable energy with much lower emissions of the real pollutants that are a health concern. 

 

However, by promoting the false concept that CO2 is a pollutant, countries such as Australia are not replacing the old, inefficient power plants with the new technology, and electricity prices continue to rise, with frequent power outages when consumption is high due to heat waves, when everyone turns on their air-conditioning.

 

Nevertheless, if (or when) there is a major breakthrough in the development of battery storage, resulting in cheap, reliable and durable batteries that don't require that limited resource of Lithium (which also can cause environmental damage in its mining), the reliance upon fossil fuels as a back-up, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, might not be necessary.

 

In 10, 20 or 30 years time, when it might become obvious we are heading into another Little Ice Age, and the media and politicians start admitting that the climate change alarmists got it wrong and that CO2 levels are not the driving force behind climate change, we can then start using fossil fuels again, together with our advanced solar power and battery storage, to produce massive amounts of cheap energy so that we can build the dams, long water pipes, desalination plants, and sturdy homes and infrastructure to protect ourselves from the extreme weather events which we then understand are not caused by increased CO2 levels.

 

Unfortunately, in the meantime, there will continue to be disasters from extreme weather events, and loss of life, because we aren't spending nearly enough money (energy) to address the problem, and instead are kidding ourselves that reducing CO2 emissions will fix the problem.

Where to start?!

 

Yes “One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming.”

 

But please do at least have the scientific evidence to back up your arguments.

 

So you would have us believe the 90% consensus amongst scientists is ‘a political ploy’. Perhaps you should examine the 3%.

 

‘Ultra-supercritical’ relates to the steam cycle, not the chemistry of combustion.

 

Man made CO2 is a pollutant.

 

Please provide the evidence for your prediction of another mini

iceage.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The people supporting fixing the problem are accused of being part of the problem by a guy who denies the problem exists.

 

 

You appear to be talking to someone whose views bears no resemblance to mine whatever.

 

The best science and economics say that extreme global warming could indeed be a problem in future, and so that's the position I stand behind.

 

What I don't believe is:

 

a) The problem is anything like as severe or urgent as the hysterical media tries to make out

b ) Trying to shut down debate using words like "deniers" is of any use whatever in solving the problem.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...