Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Ruqaya101

Climate Change

Recommended Posts

The real way to fight climate change is research, not yammering on to politicians. If Greta wants to make a difference she should become a scientist and research the problems we have. 

The problem with energy consumption, the problems with greenhouse gases, the problems with food security, the problems with the growing population, the problems with distribution of wealth etc... 

We need chemists, biologists, geographists, not Gretas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Because of the video. A 13 year-old? Come-on. :(

I didn't say because of the video or because of the speech. I said because laws were changed, and the improvement has happened since the speech was given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ali~J said:

The real way to fight climate change is research, not yammering on to politicians. If Greta wants to make a difference she should become a scientist and research the problems we have. 

The problem with energy consumption, the problems with greenhouse gases, the problems with food security, the problems with the growing population, the problems with distribution of wealth etc... 

We need chemists, biologists, geographists, not Gretas.

Scientists have predicted and quantified climate change since the 1890s. Yes, we still need more research, especially on solutions, but we also need people to make it visible and meaningful to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ali~J said:

The real way to fight climate change is research, not yammering on to politicians. If Greta wants to make a difference she should become a scientist and research the problems we have. 

A lot of research has already been done, and more will be done. The scientific contribution is leaps ahead of the political willpower to solve these issues, so the latter is more needed. A young concerned child who will be most impacted by climate change is a good candidate to help spark change, and appeal to a political class compromised by short term profit. 

3 hours ago, Ali~J said:

The problem with energy consumption, the problems with greenhouse gases, the problems with food security, the problems with the growing population, the problems with distribution of wealth etc... 

We need chemists, biologists, geographists, not Gretas.

We have plenty of scientists already, but most are not into public relations, political activism, or social influencing. This is one young child doing her own thing, she's not detracting from scientific work, but reminding people of the scientific work. Not sure why you are presenting this as a zero sum game. 

Share this post


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

What the children and young adults think or know is actually much more important than what their elders know.

They will create and implement whatever policies they collectively choose when these children reach middle-age. It is just the way things work.

Share this post


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

They will create and implement whatever policies they collectively choose when these children reach middle-age. It is just the way things work.

I hope it won't be too late!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam everyone

Yes  indeed scientist have predicted the ways but these world leaders instead of implementing them they are at each others neck.Efforts for the preservation of human race and this world should be everyones agenda but on the contrary they have developed a haarp technology to destroy human race at will.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, notme said:

I hope it won't be too late!

Pollution wise, l think the NGOs and EPA are woeful.

Example -from research two decades ago, but I have to tell it story like.

Back in the 70s l was reading my Dad's farm magazines. He subscribed to a few. He brought up that some companies bought fertilizer plants -although at the time, because of EPA requirements and restrictions anhydrous ammonia was being imported. After l read a couple of more cases of this, l asked my Dad why these companies were buying all these fertilizer plants. Cursingly, he said he didn't.

Jump forward to nearly twenty years ago. l read where the state of Oregon investigated, prosecuted and banned most fertilizers (Maine followed suit somewhat later). The reason for both points is this: do to the inadequacies of EPA regulations and negligence by the environmental groups, what was being done was this: take any chemical, including dioxin, uranium compounds, whatever, put them into the top of a silo and by the wording of the regulations, when these are taken out the bottom, they are the bulk material allowed for (thinning the concentrations) of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (the NPK of fertilizer).

Most of this went into lawn and garden fertilizer, but also from one shipment, one-hundred square miles of Kansas was rendered unusable from heavy metal poisoning, in this case, uranium.

Here is an example of what happened only because -as l remember- PBB was loaded into the same railcar as a feed supplement:

https://wwmt.com/news/danger-unearthed/I-team-reveals-visits-rarely-seen-mass-grave-from-1973-chemical-disaster 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, notme said:

Scientists have predicted and quantified climate change since the 1890s. Yes, we still need more research, especially on solutions, but we also need people to make it visible and meaningful to the public.

I think that most people have already heard of it through the news ect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ali~J said:

I think that most people have already heard of it through the news ect. 

But nothing has changed yet! Clearly we still need people to convince the mindless masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 1:34 AM, Reza said:

A lot of research has already been done, and more will be done. The scientific contribution is leaps ahead of the political willpower to solve these issues, so the latter is more needed. A young concerned child who will be most impacted by climate change is a good candidate to help spark change, and appeal to a political class compromised by short term profit. 

There's still no mass production of good alternative to plastic, it's incredibly hard to make something which is biodegradable but still has the characteristics of plastic.... Every millions of commutes are made by car, locomotive, airplane, ship and other land vehicles. Nearly all of these commutes will use fossil fuels and there has been the development of electric vehicles, but these won't be enough to change the wider picture, besides electric technology has to be carbon neutral otherwise there's no point in that. There is no good alternative to fossil fuels atm, wind power, hydro dams etc produce way less energy than fossil fuels do...

This Greta Thunberg is just being used in a political game. 

On 9/27/2019 at 1:34 AM, Reza said:

We have plenty of scientists already, but most are not into public relations, political activism, or social influencing. This is one young child doing her own thing, she's not detracting from scientific work, but reminding people of the scientific work. Not sure why you are presenting this as a zero sum game. 

I don't really know what the purpose of Greta is...

Are politicians going to face more criticism because of this child? Yes. 

Will they do anything because of this child? No

The only way to help this planet is to help it yourself. If everyone in the whole world just made a tiny difference it would have a massive impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ali~J said:

There's still no mass production of good alternative to plastic, it's incredibly hard to make something which is biodegradable but still has the characteristics of plastic.... Every millions of commutes are made by car, locomotive, airplane, ship and other land vehicles. Nearly all of these commutes will use fossil fuels and there has been the development of electric vehicles, but these won't be enough to change the wider picture, besides electric technology has to be carbon neutral otherwise there's no point in that. There is no good alternative to fossil fuels atm, wind power, hydro dams etc produce way less energy than fossil fuels do...

The solutions are easy: consume less. Travel less. Walk more. Spend more time enjoying the people and community around you and the things you have. Buy locally produced foods, goods, and services whenever possible.

The world also ought to work toward more telecommuting, but individuals can't do much about that.

Mainly, consume less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the above note^ a lot of people are switching to solar and wind for household electricity, in favor of fossil fuel related sources for home electricity.

Though subtle now, I suspect that as fuel prices rise, it will become economically more and more feasible to make the switch. People who are researching and developing new technology now are going to be leaders in the market tomorrow.

Contrary to what some here have to say, fossil fuels are exceptionally limited. At least oil is, with the largest reserves in the world suggested to have perhaps 100 years of life. As we approach that 100 year mark, the shortage of oil will become more and more apparent. Demand and prices will rise.

Even if new technology came out allowing us to extend our supply another 50 years, it would be nothing in comparison to the hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of years in which alternatives last. And as populations continue to increase, so too will demand for oil, thereby further expediting it's exit from global markets.

Countries that aren't investing and conducting studies now, will lose in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ali~J said:

There's still no mass production of good alternative to plastic, it's incredibly hard to make something which is biodegradable but still has the characteristics of plastic.... Every millions of commutes are made by car, locomotive, airplane, ship and other land vehicles. Nearly all of these commutes will use fossil fuels and there has been the development of electric vehicles, but these won't be enough to change the wider picture, besides electric technology has to be carbon neutral otherwise there's no point in that. There is no good alternative to fossil fuels atm, wind power, hydro dams etc produce way less energy than fossil fuels do...

Nobody said it would be easy, but it has to be done. Research into alternative energy will be ongoing. 

 
Quote

 

This Greta Thunberg is just being used in a political game. 

 

For what exactly? What's the gain? And for who?

8 hours ago, Ali~J said:

I don't really know what the purpose of Greta is...

Are politicians going to face more criticism because of this child? Yes. 

Will they do anything because of this child? No

In other words, "children, shut up and everything will be ok". 

8 hours ago, Ali~J said:

The only way to help this planet is to help it yourself. If everyone in the whole world just made a tiny difference it would have a massive impact. 

This is a big misconception, and is completely false. Tiny individual feel-good actions to reduce the carbon footprint will have an overall negligible impact. The only solutions are policies on the macro industrial and governmental level, with international cooperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

What 'alternatives' are there that have not been in-inventory since the start of the Cold War?

Nuclear waste?

All around the world, people eat different foods, wear and build with different materials, play different games. Why should one energy supply for everywhere?

Hydroelectric, wind, waves, solar, biomatter, even nuclear, gas, or other petrocarbons, but it needs to be done with respect for people and place, not just as a throwaway one size fits all McSolution.

And as long as most energy research is funded by oil companies, innovation isn't going to be rewarding enough to motivate the thinkers, who also have to feed their families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion.

This seems like another distraction/ waste of time. Her emotions sound so fake and scripted. Maybe I’ve never met someone with aspergers but, she sounds fake and like someone is telling her what to do, not forgetting the fact she looks down to read from notes every 2 seconds. 

 

Edited by حسين

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, notme said:

And as long as most energy research is funded by oil companies, innovation isn't going to be rewarding enough to motivate the thinkers, who also have to feed their families.

Who else has the money . . . and does not waste too much of it?

I saw the former Chairman of Exxon, Lee Raymond, on PBS Charlie Rose, must be the December 2004 interview.

In it, Raymond said the corporation did a study and found that all of Los Angelos County would have to be covered by solar panel to equal the energy available as 3 gas stations.

And about 5 years ago, an MlT conference concluded that solar panel efficiencies have reached their maximum, so effort now should be on price reduction.

On the news in Sept19, solar panels started fires when their circuitry was interrupted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

And about 5 years ago, an MlT conference concluded that solar panel efficiencies have reached their maximum, so effort now should be on price reduction.

On the news in Sept19, solar panels started fires when their circuitry was interrupted.

Salam it only says current Technics reached to dead end but all of current ways for making solar panels are absolute ways  of start of 20th century when Eddison & Tesla created all current Technics but currently leader companies like as Tesla are inventing new way but in America & westerner countries everything passes through filter of commercialism & oil companies just do show off researches to calm down their costumers but they don't search for a real solution.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

just do show off

There is some of this.

l remember in school talk about nuclear powered cars and planes. 

Depending on your source, the GE developed nuclear plane engine worked or didn't work. So l don't know if it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact Point:

On the 31st of October 1923, Marble Bar, Western Australia, the first of a 160 straight days of 

100 degrees+ Fahrenheit temperatures began.

:fever:"lce. l need more ice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 10:10 PM, hasanhh said:

What 'alternatives' are there that have not been in-inventory since the start of the Cold War?

Nuclear waste?

Is there something wrong with the idea of using nuclear waste as fuel? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Is there something wrong with the idea of using nuclear waste as fuel? 

No there isn't, but l think this industry is not well managed/planned.

Only 1% of spent fuel is reprocessed.

Spent Fuel is ~93% of the original formulation.

Very wasteful and creates serious storage problems and expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

No there isn't, but l think this industry is not well managed/planned.

Only 1% of spent fuel is reprocessed.

Spent Fuel is ~93% of the original formulation.

Very wasteful and creates serious storage problems and expense.

All industries are poorly managed before they're invested in and developed.

Out of curiosity though, where did you get your 1% number? Is this the percentage proposed by bill gates in his planned reactor?

A lot of people bash on things like nuclear reactors and forms of green energy like solar and wind, suggesting inefficiencies. Well, were cars particularly efficient when they were first developed? These technologies have a long way to go and much development to undertake yet.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 8:56 PM, iCenozoic said:

Out of curiosity though, where did you get your 1% number?

Sorry for the long delay. l wasn't aware of this question. This is from a DeutscheWelle documentary said by an interviewee who was a nuclear engineer and industrial manager. l remember because this is when l became critical of that industry.

Now for something l personally find inane --because it only encourages pipedreams:  https://www.businessinsider.com/google-launching-accelerator-for-climate-change-social-impact-startups-2019-11 

l think you y'all like this here map and general information. What l contrast this with is last year's (?) post that North Carolina has never spent a penny on flood control.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-07/americans-start-adapting-to-climate-change-they-re-doing-it-wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Sorry for the long delay. l wasn't aware of this question. This is from a DeutscheWelle documentary said by an interviewee who was a nuclear engineer and industrial manager. l remember because this is when l became critical of that industry.

Now for something l personally find inane --because it only encourages pipedreams:  https://www.businessinsider.com/google-launching-accelerator-for-climate-change-social-impact-startups-2019-11 

l think you y'all like this here map and general information. What l contrast this with is last year's (?) post that North Carolina has never spent a penny on flood control.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-07/americans-start-adapting-to-climate-change-they-re-doing-it-wrong 

I'm not sure that I believe that 1% number. It doesn't sound much like ideas suggested by Bill Gates and his plans with Terrapower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...