Why is the climate changing. (Page 190) kittybobo34: Average world temps are going up, and its accelerating. Co2 is a part of it, the oceans absorb allot of it, and they are turning acidic from it. We can tell just how much of the co2 is from us because oil based co2 is a different isotope than plant expiration. Last I heard 50% of the co2 in the atmosphere is from us, and that is almost 3x the normal amount.... Last time this planet had a runaway greenhouse was called the great dying, 95% of the animal and plant species died. This is what you we are playing at if we keep it up.  Fractured fairy tale: So am I just supposed too forgot that the beuro of Meteorology admitted go going through all the Temps since records were started and raised them because they said oh it wasn't accurate back then I suppose they were Simpletons back then really wasn't that long ago What about the governments new Climate report there Using too Argue for there Carbon Cap too be Signed into law Am I just supposed too Pretend it was Written by Actual Scientists in the field Cos It's not there was not one Scientist Who contributed too said report Funny enough they were all political scientists and Abrogional rights activists Commer (Edited by Fractured fairy tale) Fractured fairy tale: Why do you always Use words like We think your talking for everyone Yo stop diving your Vehickle you stop catching plains you turn off your electricity Until you do that kitty Bobo your a Fraud as far as I'm concerned  GeraldtheGnome: No they are not, I still prefer using temperature rather than the slang word temps. Don’t use a comma before the word and. You just guessed that everything is as you think it is solely because you are told that it is so. How is that not like what creationists that you go against do ? Get away from the Greta Thunberg fan club please. Everyone can follow the far left agenda and dictatorship in every way possible, that however will not bring about everything that they think will happen if everyone goes along with their fantasy beliefs. When carbon dioxide was high in the past temperatures were high and at other times in the past temperatures were low, so if you want to keep pushing that causes of global warming in the past was due to increased carbon dioxide then you are guessing that it is so and you are also wrong about that. We are playing at nothing, we aren’t keeping up anything that you want you, myself and everyone else to feel some collective guilt about, a false sense of collective guilt never makes anything better for you, for me or for anyone else. The collective we does not apply at all. The green agenda is to deal with five percent of what is realistic and 95 percent of what is unrealistic that they believe to be true and should be forced onto everyone else. I want to believe in what is possible and I should also be for what is proven as well. No one should be brainwashed into believing that something is true just because they’ve been told that it is true. We have been told that we, in the collective sense, have done many things, in reality though they all remain unproven. It is arrogant and ignorant to think that human caused global warming is happening and it is even more ignorant and arrogant to think that humans can lower world temperatures globally. That is basically claiming that we have a god like ability to control the weather. I find that funny that even some people that don’t believe that even one god is around somewhere right now think that right now we can become like gods and goddesses (in the case of females) worldwide. As for those that are half way between that I’ll just refer to them as being like gods if they follow the far left way of thinking over the myth that you believe in. My 95 percent reference was about the current situation, not about whatever actually did and didn’t happen in the past. I’m not into symbols. If you treated this the way you deal with creationists then we wouldn’t be disagreeing with each other. If there was a way to get rid of every form of carbon in the atmosphere and of all that is on the planet then you, myself and every other life form will die. It won’t be a case of 95 percent of life will be wiped out but that of 100 percent. I enjoy looking at trees, there is no need for me to hug trees, You we doesn’t make any sense at all. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome)  wJust_woW: Not only world temp, its far away beyond that pathetic review ... where is temp or global warming 😅 now?!! ,specially at thime time of year. GeraldtheGnome: Global warming means that globally it is getting warmer. It’s something that isn’t noticed globally. Storm of end of the world doesn’t make sense, it also is an overly exaggerated claim by that one. Use capitals, don’t use too many full stops, use commas correctly and the now?! that you used and that I just used is grammatically incorrect. Certain parts of the world aren’t examples of everything happening around the world or even what is happening in most parts of the world. Is there anything else that you guess is certain is right ? You made two spelling errors and you added an extra word. Who is the biggest fanatic ? The one for global warming or the one for creationism ? It’s a a tie. One is followed by those who claims that it is about science when it’s not and the fanatic of the guess that a doomsday scenario is about proven science when it’s not. So either religious bias where creationism is falsely claimed to be a form of science or religious like far left bias where doomsday science is falsely claimed to be a proven form of science. There’s has been nothing to laugh at by anyone. Like most people, I’m not brainwashed by people that want to force creationism or doomsday science onto others or both. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome) Fractured fairy tale: Mate if you want too Argue about creationism and Idiotic stuff witch is your agenda What are are you doing here Fractured fairy tale: Mabye you should go back too the Twit a sphere if you have a melt down over spelling and comers and think your some kind of thought police cop Full stop Fractured fairy tale: Any way if any one is Interested in the Topic I've got a example There spent Millions over the last few years too get the great barrier Reef on the World heritage Thingy cos it was in danger of losing its accreditation Millions spent in International scientific studies too prove it was a healthy eco system and wasn't in danger of disapering Yet Just a few days ago the Governments own Supposed scientific report on Writing carbon Immisions into law Said it was dying and Global warming is gonna kill it So what is it then There lieing as usual GeraldtheGnome: Idiotic stuff ? You tied in something to do with a climate policy protest with some Coronavirus conspiracy protest. The first one was about this subject, the other protest was about a bunch of idiots that believed in rubbish. So if I want to put on something idiotic then I’ll make sure that I show something similar to that. I showed a comparison to creationism rubbish and that of doomsday science. The similarities of those two things. I have no agenda. Work on that grammar of yours. There is no need for you to insult me, I never told you that you are a twit and I never told you that you are not a twit. Concentrate on the subject of this forum and please cease being a hypocrite. No one has had a melt down and no one is the thought police. Independent thought over what we’re told is so without questioning it and challenging our own thoughts is what I am all about. That’s why I’m here. What are you doing here ? Actually it would be better if you didn’t tell me so do not tell me why at all please. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome) GeraldtheGnome: Grammatically incorrect fool, grow up and get back onto the subject instead of being very childish about everything. Fractured fairy tale: Blah blah blah I'm living the Dream and none of you Control freaks are gonna stop me Cos I'm not doing anything wrong Go ring the cops on someone else Tuff luck go away (Edited by Fractured fairy tale) GeraldtheGnome: I’m not being a control freak, it really is too hard to understand you at times because of how bad your grammatical errors are, I am not alone in having difficulty understanding you at times. If you at least tried to improve it then it would be better for everyone, especially for you. No one is living any dream and now you’ve completely gone off the subject, decided to be rude and now you’re just having a childish tantrum. Do grow up or go away instead of making silly attacks and telling those that don’t kiss your arse to go away. Suddenly it is you who is hypocritically no longer interested in the subject that this forum is about. It has been referred to as The Great Barrier Reef for quite a while, in reality it’s a very long chain of reefs, for quite some time there has been false claims that all of it will no longer be around due to various reasons, ever prediction that was made never came except for the current claim that all life there will be wiped out by global warming and so on. That’s the current prediction, there is no reason to think that all current predictions about there will come true. A myth that many had once was that the sky was falling, they didn’t understand what was going on, they didn’t understand what eclipses were all about. Now the current know it alls are into this myth about global warming all because they don’t understand what is going on. What is going on in some places is not happening on a global scale. They just keep on making excuses. They all have conflicting ideas on what the term means and some of them have ended up contradicting themselves after they made the false claim that something was not going to happen after that or that it was no longer going to happen as regularly after that. When what was predicted didn’t end up becoming true then instead of admitting that they were wrong they then changed their stories and made new predictions, in some cases those predictions are now proven to be false and with others their predictions are yet to be proven to be false. I don’t bow down to far left influence, no one else should either. Every side on here does have made good points.  ghostgeek: Who would have thought it: Although solar panels absorb energy from the sun, hotter temperatures actually make them less efficient. Surprisingly, they perform worse as the temperature rises! Solar panels work by using incoming photons to excite electrons in a semiconductor to a higher energy level. But the hotter the panel is, the greater the number of electrons that are already in the excited state. This reduces the voltage that the panel can generate and lowers its efficiency. Higher temperatures also increase the electrical resistance of the circuits that convert the photovoltaic charge into AC electricity. Modern hybrid solar panels are designed to suffer less from the heat, but they can still lose 10 per cent of their rated efficiency on hot days. [ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-solar-panels-work-better-on-hot-days/ ] ghostgeek: We also know that when the wind doesn't blow, windmills don't generate electricity but it gets more complicated: Understanding the limits of electricity generation from winds is a requirement for planning a renewable energy future. A difficulty in estimating such limits is that wind turbines remove kinetic energy from the atmosphere, so that many turbines should reduce wind speeds, ultimately setting a limit to how much kinetic energy can be taken out of the atmosphere. We show that this slowdown effect can be accounted for by detailed climate model simulations and a relatively simple method that does not directly simulate atmospheric dynamics. This slowdown effect is critical to consider, as it makes each turbine less productive and shows that few land areas can yield more than 1.0 We m−2 of electricity at large scales. [ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1602253113 ] ghostgeek: Thus it would seem that renewable energy has some very big limitations associated with it. ghostgeek: For one megawatt of power output, solar panels require roughly 2.5 acres of land, if we include the supporting infrastructure, and wind turbines require nearly 50 acres per megawatt. The direct footprint is about 1.5 acres, but the turbines need to be spread out to allow the wind to flow, raising the total land-use requirement substantially (in the case of wind farms, people can continue to live on the land in question, but cohabitation is problematic). Now, considering the growth of world energy consumption, which amounts to 2000 Terawatt hours per year, that adds up to 350,000 two-megawatt wind turbines. Just to meet yearly additional energy needs with wind power would thus require an area the size of the British Isles every year or half of Russia in 50 years. [ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-11-21/the-limits-of-renewable-energy-and-the-case-for-degrowth/ ] ghostgeek: We are used to having electricity on demand. And since it can’t be stored, it also has to be consumed when it is produced. Wind and solar energy, which are available when the sun shines and the wind blows, don’t meet these two conflicting demands. One idea often put forward is to store surplus energy in batteries. But these are costly, resource-intensive, and come up against major problems of scale. A lot of ink has been spilled over the giant lithium-ion battery that Tesla activated in Australia in 2017. But it was very expensive and has a limited capacity. At the prevailing price in Australia, a Tesla battery that can store the energy produced by a huge dam such as the Robert-Bourassa complex (LG2) in northern Québec for 24 hours would cost $33 billion. Even in the unlikely case that the price could be reduced tenfold, it would still be very hefty. [ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-11-21/the-limits-of-renewable-energy-and-the-case-for-degrowth/ ] ghostgeek: Renewable electricity cannot replace all the uses of liquid fuels. Batteries simply can’t meet the energy needs of heavy machinery, airliners and merchant ships. Certain industrial processes require liquid fuels as raw material such as the manufacture of steel, plastics and fertilizers. For others, like aluminium and cement production, intermittency is a serious stumbling block because stoppages damage the infrastructure. Some of these obstacles, such as limited battery capacity, are essentially insurmountable. The hope is to find a way around it, but right now it’s not at all clear how. In this instance we can’t really talk about a physical obstacle or a social constraint, but the technical impediment is greater than is generally acknowledged. [ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-11-21/the-limits-of-renewable-energy-and-the-case-for-degrowth/ ] ghostgeek: Due to the various constraints outlined above, it seems clear that renewables will not completely replace fossil fuels for existing energy needs. The transition will be partial, perhaps in the range of 30-50 per cent. Given that, in the meantime, the depletion of oil and gas resources will reduce the quantity of fossil fuels available, we may well have to rely on much less energy than is available to us at the current moment. This will put the nail in the coffin of economic growth as we know it. What also seems clear is that the energy transition would be easier if we set our sights lower and agreed to dial down our level of material consumption. The idea isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem. With a 30-per-cent drop in GDP, we would revert to a standard of living equivalent to that enjoyed in 1993, while a 50-per -cent drop would mean a standard of living equivalent to 1977. A 50-per-cent reduction in energy consumption would bring us back to the level prevailing in 1975, while an 80-per-cent reduction would be similar to the 1950s. This is hardly a return to the Middle Ages. Our parents and grandparents didn’t rub sticks together in caves! [ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-11-21/the-limits-of-renewable-energy-and-the-case-for-degrowth/ ] ghostgeek: So now you know. We've all become used to too high a standard of living. So give up your car, your fridge and your computer, forget about jetting off on your holidays and get busy sewing your own clothes. ghostgeek: Planet Earth is simultaneously approaching a number of ecological and resource limits. The resulting uncertainties will heavily impact future energy choices, both the level of primary energy used globally and the shares of fossil, renewable and nuclear fuels in the energy mix. This paper reviews the possible futures for the various types of renewable energy. To be viable, all potential energy sources must be assessed on their energy return on energy invested (energy return). Given that renewable energy RE growth is considered important for sustainability reasons, renewable energy must be assessed on its ecologically sustainable or 'green' energy return, which includes the energy costs of ecosystem maintenance as input energy costs. The green energy return is accordingly much lower than the conventional value, so that ecologically sustainable renewable energy is unlikely to deliver anything near existing global energy use. The paper further argues that such constraints on renewable energy growth rates mean it cannot be a timely response to global climate change. The paper concludes that energy reductions will be essential, mainly in high energy use countries. [ https://www.aimspress.com/article/doi/10.3934/energy.2021037 ] | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |