Climate Change and You

Started by Vekseid, December 02, 2013, 05:52:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

consortium11

To take this in a slightly different direction, it's been interesting how some of the tactics that climate change deniars/skeptics use have filtered out into other fields.

Despite the similar names I doubt many would think of there being much common ground between the climate change skeptics and atheist skeptics but in relatively recent times we've seen the likes of Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers use a similar approach when they criticise branches of science; conflating the media presentation of a topic with the topic itself, going after the more radical, fringe figures rejected by the mainstream rather than the mainstream itself, rubbishing peer-review and presenting it as a meaningless friends club etc etc.

Kythia

Climate change has found us the Franklin expedition.

By my count that's one major historical breakthrough to CFCs and deforestation while locally grown food and lack of pollution is yet to get started.  Your move, hippies.
242037

Retribution

I could not find the original article that I read on this and am not real proud of this one but it links the report. Essentially the earth showed an ozone improvement last year. Now the first article I read and cannot located pointed out this was due to an increase in green houses gases, but take what one can get I suppose.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/10/good_news_the_ozone_layer_is_showing_signs_of_improvement/


Hemingway

What the article may have been referring to is that we now use HFCs instead of CFCs; HFCs do not damage the ozone layer, but they do contribute to enhancing the greenhouse effect.

As an interesting aside: I was told at a recent lecture that, had we major companies decided to use bromine instead of chlorine ( evidently they can be used in much the same way; chlorine was cheaper ), we'd pretty much be done right about now, as bromine is much more damaging to the ozone layer than chlorine. Just something to consider.

Mera1506

The problem is that there's two sides of extremes again. One wanting to force supposed green energy before there's a reliable alternative and making people utterly dependant on one energy source namely electricity. This is the side that started to call this climate change rather than global warming. You can deny global warming, but there's no denying climate change.

The other side is in total denial..... So I think yes it's a mess, do what you personally can to help. But the biggest polluters is still the large companies. We need common sense in how to deal with this. You need a reliable alternative, not every function in your home should be relying on the same energy source. Also make it easier for people to take solar panels rather than having to jump through a bunch of hoops. Like the ability to generate electricity and possible store in homes for emergencies....

All in all sure we need greener energy sources and should innovate of course, but don't have people pay thousands for a a method that's going to be making us so reliant on one energy source.

TheGlyphstone

Er....what? You're right that everything is dependent on electricity, but that isn't a source of energy, it is energy itself. Coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, convicts running on giant hamster wheels, are all means of generating electricity. I think the point you're trying to make got a little muddled, or else your terminology is off, because I'm a little confused.

legomaster00156

Personally, I think that we should be using nuclear energy. The after-effects are extraordinarily dangerous, and we need a permanent deep-earth vault to store spent nuclear fuel in, but nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels and more efficient. It would serve as a good stepping stone until we have the infrastructure to run on entirely renewable energy: wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric.

Oniya

So this popped up on my Pocket - I've heard of video games being used to educate people, but not like this.

How a Fortnite squad of scientists is hoping to defeat climate change
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

TheGlyphstone

I saw that too, and thought it was neat.

QuackKing

What if we reduce emissions by subjecting populations to irl Fortnite battles. Only those with a victory royale get to keep on living/polluting.  8-)

Oniya

Quote from: QuackKing on October 11, 2018, 12:58:40 PM
What if we reduce emissions by subjecting populations to irl Fortnite battles. Only those with a victory royale get to keep on living/polluting.  8-)

I saw that movie.  It didn't end well for those instating the battle royales.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

gaggedLouise

Quote from: legomaster00156 on June 29, 2018, 10:31:12 AM
Personally, I think that we should be using nuclear energy. The after-effects are extraordinarily dangerous, and we need a permanent deep-earth vault to store spent nuclear fuel in, but nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels and more efficient. It would serve as a good stepping stone until we have the infrastructure to run on entirely renewable energy: wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric.

Agree! I used to be really against nuclear energy, but I've come around to viewing it as a necessary replacement for fossil fuels - especially when it comes to producing large-scale electricity and heating - and a stopgap while we try to develop more renewable energy sources. It's insane to be using oil and coal to produce electric power, it's indefensible both in terms of economy and ecology - and we need oil, in smaller quantities, for other things like medical and techno-chemical products. NUclear energy has its own set of problems but it's really preferable to continuing with oil and coal.

Also, coal is needed to produce steel. There is no workable method we know of to make steel without coal (and coke) and carbon is actually part of the alloy. Modern cities and communications couldn't exist without quality steel, so using coal for that purpose (and in smaller quantities) is preferable to burning it up just for fuel around the globe.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Isn’t there some type of reactor that isn’t as bad on reaction mass and radioactive materials but we have to like build up stock fuel for it but the big excuse is that the initial run up is too expensive?  I think I have notes on my pic but can’t recall the name of it right now

Orval Wintermute

You probably mean Thorium reactors. Is there anything those Hemsworth boys can't do?