von_Bismarck
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Posts
- 6,587
Yes. This is actually helpful, if done properly. Kelp farms, too.
Climate continues to change.
- Thread starter phrodeau
- Start date
- Status
Yes. This is actually helpful, if done properly. Kelp farms, too.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,354
It has to be a global initiative. The coming of age countries like India, Viet Nam and many others couldn't afford it, the Russian economy is all about fossil fuel production. China just won't do it. We, the western world, could develop it and hope the Chinese steal it. It will take generations to convert over. The solution to our energy problems will be to solve 1. how to create cold fusion and 2. when we can take the heat energy of 8 rods and transfer that heat to the 9th rod and make it hotter.
Last edited:
von_Bismarck
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Posts
- 6,587
Perhaps not multiple generations, but I tend to agree that it's at least a generational solution in the making. Science and industry can make new renewable plus storage more cost-effective than existing fossil fuel plants, but it will still take time for old plants to reach their lifetime or be decommissioned early.
I'm not sure about the rods talk. But low energy nuclear reactions are still marginal science. There's lots of movement in high beta fusion research, though. Based on the rate of progress startups are making, it might only be ten years before a commercial fusion reactor is ready to be brought online.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,354
The rods theory works for solar energy conversion. Right now it would take a hybrid nuclear reactor for fusion, fission for heat to convert into fusion, problem is no-one want's to deal U-235/238, PU. The beta plasma/reactor I think using a high powered laser/ plasma and magnetism is kind of on the same idea as the 8 rods to make the 9th hotter. The principle is to use readily available solar energy on a collection of rods and transfer in order to superheat one rod. High beta is being worked on now and I believe the theoretical rod idea has been on a chalkboard for a few years. Can't overlook geothermal either.
Last edited:
Luk
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Posts
- 32,404
We should probably wait another 50 years to start. That way, it's all new growth.
Gottdamnit, these fuckwaffles hate the children.
butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 85,713
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
I'll take that one.
Carbon released from sources that grew are carbon neutral. So firewood, ethanol, biodiesel and so on are all carbon neutral. The carbon was already in our environment so no net increase.
Carbon essentially mined from the ground that was in the environment millions of years ago, that's new carbon (to us today anyway).
It's actually not a bad point but the climate scarolgists jump on that and suddenly all climate change is caused by us. Couldn't have anything to do with natural processes like that giant fusion reactor in the sky...
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,354
I think people are confusing climate change with global warming. Climates change all the time due to the rotation of the earth and it's elliptical path around the sun. Hal9000's point is; if enough carbon gasses ( CO, CO2, FLUORO CARBONS "METHANE, ETHANE and the deadliest 'SULFIDES' ) are released into the atmosphere they trap the heat from the suns rays. If sunlight is not allowed to bounce off the planet's surface and back into space the rays will collide with these gasses and heat the planet. More gas more trapped heat. Carbon derivatives ( coal, gasoline products, natural gas, wood ) through the process of rapid oxidation ( burning, combining with oxygen ) give off these gases at an alarming rate. Green things absorb CO2 and give off O2. So plant a tree, millions of them.
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
True. Just not the whole picture. The sun is a variable star. It varies output over time. Sometimes it is hotter, sometimes cooler. There are tons of other factors. The scarologists focus down to one factor and sya (maybe even believe) that it is the whole "reason" our climate changes.
By the way, ON AVERAGE, our use of fossil fuels IS carbon neutral. It just depends on how long a time span you look at. All that dinofuel carbon was in the environment at some point.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
It makes no difference at all to the atmosphere where the CO2 comes from.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,677
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,354
I was discussing the effects of man made gases on our atmosphere. Fossil fuel is a derivative of organic material ( carbon based ). Modern Bio-fuels are carbon neutral
since they absorbed as much CO2 in the present time as they produce when burned. Fossil fuels I don't believe are carbon neutral in the sense they add additional CO2 to the atmosphere. I believe 200 million years age, they're use then would have made them carbon neutral to that era. I believe the accelerated use of fossil fuel can overwhelm our environment. Cutting down our dense forest and polluting our oceans slows the ability to consume CO2 as an even exchange, but I see your point, interesting view point! Our oceans are our greatest scrubbers. I agree there are other factors to climate change as well as global warming and global cooling. We really don't have a baseline of what happened 2.6 million years ago at the beginning that ice age till now. What people are speculating about today could be a natural progression of our planet. Our core could be cooling, the sun could vary in size and output or a combination of all of them. I'll get back to you, I have to check with AOC, she seems to have all the answers.
Last edited:
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
MABA lol (make Alexandria bartend again)
Carbon is carbon. There's no difference what source it is from. It has the same effect no matter whether it is from a dead dinosaur or a fallen tree. But the scaroligists claim it's added and therefore bad. I contend it came from the atmosphere too, just a long time ago. Climate changes naturally. The fact that we're even alive is proof positive of that.
Regardless, it's just one factor among many. And imo not even the biggest.
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
How do you know this?
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
Our core has been cooling since Earth solidified from a molten glob.
Solar intensity has been measured and hasn't changed enough to explain the current global warming trend.
People have looked at every conceivable variable, and CO2 emissions stand out like a sore thumb among thousands of insignificant other variables.
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
Let me get this straight.
You're such an expert on climate that you KNOW mankind is solely responsible for the tenth of a degree change in temperature, but you didn't realize that Earth has previously been a hothouse and an ice House and everything else in between over the past few billion years?
How's 85C sounds to you for a day at the beach? LoL
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,354
I agree with you that carbon is carbon and nothing can change that other than a celestial collision of some sort. My point is that the accelerated burning of fossil fuels could overwhelm the environment. More CO2 is produce than our biosphere can consume. CO2 is not the only organic gas given off, we have methane and ethane, and a lot of it at the bottom of our oceans. The climate change issue is a cult and the science is theory. I wonder what the effects are when volcanoes erupt.
The forest service from S. Carolina told california 25 years ago to do controlled burns to help manage destructive fires. I guess we'll see in 12 years LOL.
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
How do you KNOW what Earth previously has been? You were there during these "hot and ice house" days?
of course not. You believe the scientific evidence that agrees with this theory.
Tree rings, isotopic analysis, ice cores, etc.
But...when this same evidence points to human interference in the climate patterns, you dismiss it as "natural changes".
"Natural changes" have happened, and have been linked to events such as massive volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes. (which cause cooling...)
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,082
"Earth's internal engine is running about 1,000 degrees Celsius (about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than previously measured"
I know it's out of fucking context........
I need some popcorn......
Last edited:
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
I was here, you dolt. From the dawn of time I came…moving silently down through the centuries. Living many secret lives, struggling to reach the time of the gathering, when the few who remain will battle to the last. No one has ever known I am among you ... until now.
Ok, seriously, you think the earth was DOH!
You're a creationist!
You think the earth was created whole as it is now!!! LOL
This is too precious.
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
The new measurement is more accurate. It doesn't mean the core is getting hotter.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
. . .except it *doesn't* support the tropes that:
a) the earth has only increased during antropogenic influenced periods which decimates your contention that "non-neutral carbon sources" <sic> are the only possible impact for current (minimal to no) warming that is taking place.
B) the falsely constructed "hockey stick" graph, since the actual data does not show the flatline that Mann falsified prior to the industrial revolution.
C) the idea that X ppm equals Y temperature since we have had warmer periods with lower CO2 concentrations and colder periods with higher concentrations.
The record shows various interglacial periods of which we have been coming out of one for all of humankind's existence. Over that time. The Earth has been steadily but slowly warming irrespective of humans use of fossil fuels. The argument is not, as you suggest, that all apparent warming (which has slowed and even stopped while CO2 increased stesdilly) but how much of that change can be imputed to mans influence (over time, likely not an insignificant amount) and how much is due to environmental systems that we know of and understand somewhat their likely effects, environmental systems we are aware exist, but not what the impact is. And environmental systems and feedback loops that we are not yet aware of
Based on nothing more than rapid increase in CO2 showing very little correlation to increase in temperature we do know that CO2 is not nearly as impactful in the actual environment as it is demonstrated in isolation in the lab.
You climate alarmist are so smugly Superior about the things that you know when you don't even seem to know the basics about what things are known what things are reasonably suspected and what things are unknown.
I was reading elsewhere the other day and there was a very lit like argument going on as to what effect if any the presence of water vapor has in regulating temperatures. The Church of Climate Alarmist acolytes asserted that water vapor could not have any effect, because they had seen with their own eyes that gravity causes water to fall from the sky. Entirely lost on them was the idea that water vapor exist as individual molecules and that such factors as dew-point humidity and temperature, not gravity determine on whom the rain falls and when.
You yourself earlier in the thread completely discount is the variance that we receive in solar radiation. These cycles of relative strengths and weaknesses are well-known and tend to run in 11 year cycles. We know that solar radiation is currently at an ebb, because we are able to measure cosmic radiation which always increases as solar radiation decreases.
The problem with this debate is all you have to do is join Frodo's church and announce that you "Believe!" global warming and Hallelujah!! you're an expert. Obviously, you know little about the subject.
RocketLauncher
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2016
- Posts
- 5,425
Just for giggles.
China has and will suffer some of the effects of global warming, including sea level rise, glacier retreat and air pollution.
The implications of climate change impose serious setbacks on global health and will hinder the economic development of various regions worldwide impacting countries on more than just the basic environmental scale. As in the case of China, we will see the effects on a social and economic level.
China's first National Assessment of Global Climate Change, released recently by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), states that China already suffers from the environmental impacts of climate change: increase of surface and ocean temperature, rise of sea level.[24] Qin Dahe,former head of China's Meteorological Administration, has said that temperatures in the Tibetan Plateau of China are rising four times faster than anywhere else.[25] Rising sea level is an alarming trend because China has a very long and densely populated coastline, with some of the most economically developed cities such as Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangzhou situated there. Chinese research has estimated that a one-meter rise in sea level would inundate 92,000 square kilometres of China's coast, thereby displacing 67 million people.[26]
There has also been an increased occurrence of climate-related disasters such as drought and flood, and the amplitude is growing. These events have grave consequences for productivity when they occur, and also create serious repercussions for natural environment and infrastructure. This threatens the lives of billions and aggravates poverty.
Furthermore, climate change will worsen the uneven distribution of water resources in China. Outstanding rises in temperature would exacerbate evapo-transpiration, intensifying the risk of water shortage for agricultural production in the North. Although China's southern region has an abundance of rainfall, most of its water is lost due to flooding. As the Chinese government faces challenges managing its expanding population, an increased demand for water to support the nation's economic activity and people will burden the government. In essence, a water shortage is indeed a large concern for the country.[26]
Lastly, climate change could endanger human health by increasing outbreaks of disease and their transmission. After floods, for example, infectious diseases such as diarrhea and cholera are all far more prevalent. These effects would exacerbate the degradation of the ecologically fragile areas in which poor communities are concentrated pushing thousands back into poverty.[27]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China
It goes on, this is just the tip of the melting iceberg.
China has and will suffer some of the effects of global warming, including sea level rise, glacier retreat and air pollution.
The implications of climate change impose serious setbacks on global health and will hinder the economic development of various regions worldwide impacting countries on more than just the basic environmental scale. As in the case of China, we will see the effects on a social and economic level.
China's first National Assessment of Global Climate Change, released recently by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), states that China already suffers from the environmental impacts of climate change: increase of surface and ocean temperature, rise of sea level.[24] Qin Dahe,former head of China's Meteorological Administration, has said that temperatures in the Tibetan Plateau of China are rising four times faster than anywhere else.[25] Rising sea level is an alarming trend because China has a very long and densely populated coastline, with some of the most economically developed cities such as Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangzhou situated there. Chinese research has estimated that a one-meter rise in sea level would inundate 92,000 square kilometres of China's coast, thereby displacing 67 million people.[26]
There has also been an increased occurrence of climate-related disasters such as drought and flood, and the amplitude is growing. These events have grave consequences for productivity when they occur, and also create serious repercussions for natural environment and infrastructure. This threatens the lives of billions and aggravates poverty.
Furthermore, climate change will worsen the uneven distribution of water resources in China. Outstanding rises in temperature would exacerbate evapo-transpiration, intensifying the risk of water shortage for agricultural production in the North. Although China's southern region has an abundance of rainfall, most of its water is lost due to flooding. As the Chinese government faces challenges managing its expanding population, an increased demand for water to support the nation's economic activity and people will burden the government. In essence, a water shortage is indeed a large concern for the country.[26]
Lastly, climate change could endanger human health by increasing outbreaks of disease and their transmission. After floods, for example, infectious diseases such as diarrhea and cholera are all far more prevalent. These effects would exacerbate the degradation of the ecologically fragile areas in which poor communities are concentrated pushing thousands back into poverty.[27]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China
It goes on, this is just the tip of the melting iceberg.
- Status
Similar threads
