/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14694493

Also, if the seas are really rising, why don't we just desalinate a bunch of it and dump in the Mojave Desert or Australian Outback and make new cities built on aqueducts? I don't see why it's necessarily a thing I need to shit my pants over. There's a lot of ways we could live with it.

>>14694503
I told my friend the other day that I wasn't sure if global warming was real, and she got hysterically angry at me saying I was a terrible person, like freaking out.

I realized there is absolutely nothing that someone could say to me that would get me that angry, short of saying they want to rape my mother and are planning to do that.

There is a cult-like obsession with some global warming believers, they really, really NEED it to be true. It is not a totally rational belief, people seem to really develop their identity to believing its true.

>>14694493
Yes. Corporations have no effect on the realness of things. Fuck off to /pol/ if you disagree.

Well, on one hand you have politicians and corporates telling you it's not happening.

On the other, you also have politicians and corporates telling it is happening.

Which side to believe? That's a trick question, politician and corporate opinions don't matter. Just listen to the scientists and the majority of them say it's happening. By the way when I say politician and corporate, that's a redundancy because politicians and the corporates are the one and the same today.

>>14694493
>I believed it was real and serious for nearly my entire life, but after the past 2 or 3 years of watching every institution go full libtard supernova, I'm not really able to take things that the science community at face value anymore.
Then you're fundamentally irrational and there is no point in trying to convince you. How about you try to convince us the science is wrong first?

The following will be merely for the purpose of any onlookers in this thread. I don't care if it convinces you.

>So give it to me straight, is the planet really warming due to human activity?
Yes, and this can now be directly observed: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14694504
>Also, if the seas are really rising, why don't we just desalinate a bunch of it and dump in the Mojave Desert or Australian Outback and make new cities built on aqueducts?
Because that would be a huge waste of money and resources. Do you understand how much water it takes to raise sea levels by a noticeable amount? More than humanity could ever move.

>There's a lot of ways we could live with it.
You could live with being punched in the face, so why would you try to avoid it?

>>14694504
>There is a cult-like obsession with some global warming believers, they really, really NEED it to be true.
Better to be right for the wrong reasons than wrong for the wrong reasons. Denial is always based on a lie.

As someone from northern europe
When i was kid coldest winter was -38c (also coldest i remember experiencing)
As a teen there was one new years which was something like -33c to -35c
And last winter it was -27c coldest (might have been -28 or -29 at some point who knows)
Although it seems linear its hard to tell more than 60/40 certainty since weather is changing all the time

>is global warming real
well it's getting hotter
>is the planet really warming due to human activity
yeah probably, i mean we've proven the shit we're doing COULD heat the planet. the alternative is that dumping all that shit into the air has no effect, which makes no sense.
>Ok, so the planet is getting hotter, and human activity is making the planet hotter. Therefore,
Nope, stop right there. Not proven! What I believe is not relevant here. Let us skip the impossible step, and ask instead:
>What is to be done? We don't know if our making the planet hotter is the actual problem. Maybe we should stop making the planet hotter, and hope that there's nothing else going on
Ah, yes, our developed countries with all our resources (gained by exploiting fossil fuels and so on) should force upon the entire world this idea, starting, of course, with the most polluting nations, which are, of course, not as developed. Sorry, China, India, and all of Africa, but we're sending you away now forever, it is a one-way trip, no more economies for you!
Wait, what do you mean the plan to tackle climate change has nothing to do with looking at the most polluting peoples and industries and stopping them? What, it's about... giving money to the goverment, and the same crooked organizations and fake charities that got us into the mess we are supposedly in? Well, that's just fucking insane, isn't it? I mean, what, taxes go up and the government uses them to push the "Fix Earth" button, and I lose my job, and then taxes go up again? Fuck that, man. Fuck all of that.
>Ok, I get it. We don't know if our activity is the whole thing, but we do know that it's happening. How do we fix it without acting horribly to niggers and also without giving money to governments and companies for no damn reason?
The Church of Science has no answer to your inquiry. Try again next reincarnation.

>>14694493
Oil corporations and their political front-ends like the Bushs tell you it's not happening. Does that mean it is happening? Oh, Trump is also telling you it's a hoax. He would never lie for financial gain, would he?

>>14694537
And corporates and politics has nothing to do with no effect on scientests?

>>14694567
>Sorry, China, India, and all of Africa, but we're sending you away now forever, it is a one-way trip, no more economies for you!
None of those regions lead in pollution per capita.

>>14694584
It's why you get many opinions and go with the overwhelming consensus. And, mate, even Exxon's own paid scientists acknowledged they were having an affect and then the corporation hid the info.

>>14694567
>the most polluting nations, which are, of course, not as developed
Only if you're an insidious small country and decide to ignore per-capita emissions. Why should an Indian reduce his emissions if they are a fraction of mine in a country that has less that a percent of their population?
But the question who has to reduce how much is political and I don't think it should or even can be answered on /sci/ or by climatologists. Ask political scientists, sociologists and/or philosophers, and let politicians decide.

You're right. We are where we are because we burned fossil fuels for over 100 years and then kept on going even though we knew it was bad.
The politically interested part of me finds this extremely unfair, but this should be separated from the evaluation of scientific work. We should neither guilt-trap ourselves and feel like we owe them because of our past pollution, nor should we let the idea "it's not our fault" make us reject scientific results.
>Nope, stop right there. Not proven!
Is that a theroretical objection because you cannot prove truths and attribute things with absolute certainty? Because they have modelled all other effects imaginable and they all don't explain the warming like the anthropogenic CO2 does...

>>14694493
>full libtard supernova
Wonders of the cosmos, anon

>>14694493

>>14694636

As someone trying to be absolutely unbiased and objective; aware that I do not absolutely know the truth of the details of this situation of nature, knowing there are two sides opposed. And that efforts to change are succesfully being implemented. And lack of changes still remain. And there is a push towards a direction of more change, it comes down to two factions of power. We do see how these have been boiled down to liberal and conservative.

Conservatives cannot trust liberals.

Liberals largely back something. Conservatives cannot trust their motives.

Conservatives and liberals largely inter mingle in industries, but there are some industries that are overwhelmingly one or the other.

Political ideals boil down to personality characteristic traits. Politics allows characters in a community, town, city, state, nation, to enact their character traits as law.

It is in each polticial parties best interest for their opposition to lose power/money, to lessen their chances of enacting their policies.

So the waters are muddied. It just so happens gas and oil and fraking and coal and farming are largely republican industries.

Even if they were absolutely horrifically ireversibly destroying the world; if liberals told them so; that their trillions of dollars industry needs to halt, so that clean new nerdy liberal tech can take it's place, they would first see this through the tinted glasses of: the liberals are trying to trick me, do they get more money and power and I get less.

The waters are muddied. Bad bad climate change is possible and real, or impossible or not, or possible and not currently occuring, or possible and starting to slowly occur.

What can science do to prove they are doing and presenting science in ummuddied water?

How can a possible free market industry be forced to stop? If it's causing the end of humanity that would be a good excuse? How would they be reimbursed?

We are in unprecedented territory, and waters muddy

Reminder that not believing in global warming is correlated with reduced cognitive function from all that lead boomers got exposed to in the environmental scandal before last.

Making idiots was the best investment energy companies ever made. They aren't your friends. They're your fucking predators.

>>14694636
>what are tides?
>>14694637
>that number proves the rock was never moved (spoiler: it was)

Come back with better ways to disprove the sea level rise. That can't even convince Facebook retards.
>>14694639
>What can science do to prove they are doing and presenting science in ummuddied water?
I recommend looking at countries with functioning democracies. Countries with more than two parties and less entanglement of politics and industry.

>>14694575
But the oil companies are fully involved in the environmental movement. They don't try to deny it.
If you believe in human caused catastrophic climate change then you are on the same side as the oil companies and politicians.

>>14694654
>the oil companies are fully involved in the environmental movement. They don't try to deny it.
Are they really? Like... what do they really do other than slap some green paint on their image? Of course they are not denying it if they just want to look better.
>If you believe in human caused catastrophic climate change then you are on the same side as the oil companies and politicians.
What fallacy is this? Where should this statement come from?

>>14694662
What else should they do? Stop producing gasoline? That would cause complete collapse of our society. They are investing in alternative energy sources, but nothing beat oil.

>>14694671
That's what you're implying if you say that they are "fully involved in the environmental movement".
Also, look at the history of these investments in alternative energies. They jumped on the train extremely late. And when they did, they immediately tried to muddy the waters and reject responsibility. That's where the personal carbon footprint comes from. They started blaming you and your mother.

>>14694518
Next time askt them what they do against it in their daily life. If it so important to them they surely do right? They don't just like to pick on controversial minds ... right ...?

Because it turns out, they rarely do. I've seen not much people who are mindful about it. The one that are, often don't even make a big deal about it, cut they know how draining and annoying it is to speak about it, which turns 4/5 into a debate.

>>14694646
>recommend looking at countries with functioning democracies. Countries with more than two parties and less entanglement of politics and industry.
America is one of the biggest countries, most industrious, most tied up in gas oil coal.

Smaller countries that are not as such, more easily switch their energy pollution situation.

A republican talking point would be: what about china and India and other developing nations polluting and using gas oil and coal?

If the liberals are not equally going after them strongly, then that is evidence they are not serious about it and just want to harm American republican business men

>>14694493
yes it has happened before it is not really a problem. if it was beach front property wouldnt be so expensive'

>>14694493
Something can being real and also be manipulated to someone's advantage at the same time.

>Socialists love global warming because it's convenient for their "capitalism is evil and destroying the world" agenda.
>Governments love climate change because it's an excuse to regulate and censor stuff.
>Big corporations love it because it's an excuse to sell overpriced green shit and to ruin small businesses.
>Right wing politicians love it because stupid climate activists are an easy punching bag.

Ultimately, climate activists' retardness is gonna make sure oil corporations and oil governments stay with the power, because most people aren't willing to abandon their quality of life for some global ideal.

>Coal and oil companies financed antinuclear activism because nuclear energy is the one thing that could pose a threat to their domain, as solar and wind energy just can't power the world by themselves and geothermal and hydroelectric power depend too much on local geography.
>Countries like Saudi Arabia would colapse without petrodollars, and they will make sure to keep the world buying their oil.

>>14694703
Yes. You don't have to be vegan, but just cutting put cow stuff is absolutely helping and is like done with zero effort.

But in general think it's one of the most problematic thing. It's so hard to see your daily life impact.

>>14694493

>>14694714
>be wildlife scientist
>the news somehow always loops every single fucking thing that happens outdoors back to climate change
>mfw media ignores real, actionable solutions in favor of promoting vague taxes that oil companies will figure out how to circumvent in a week
What if we continued to expand urban developments to provide housing for the cheap imported labor and then blamed animal decline in those areas on climate change? What if we rapidly urbanized the area above an aquifer? What if we replaced an old growth forest with a monoculture plantation? What if literally every living thing had plastic in it?

>>14694636
https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

>>14694654
>simping big oil
lol

>>14694739
Also, solar and wind power cause a lot of pollution from the panels and turbines and by leveling an area to place them etc.
>Carbon footprint is just a way to shift the blame to the common person

>>14694703
>Next time askt them what they do against it in their daily life. If it so important to them they surely do right? They don't just like to pick on controversial minds ... right ...?
fuck off, oil shill [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook

>>14694710
> if it was beach front property wouldnt be so expensive'
If sealevels weren't rising, flood insurance rates wouldn't skyrocket.

>>14694493
The truth is always somewhere in between.
Yes it's a real thing and the planets climate has never been static, neither is the Suns output.
Human activity can't be helping and cleaning our act up can only be good for everyone, but...Like the covid19 fiasco, it's been overblown and hijacked for a political agenda.
Politics + science will always equal politics

>>14694739
I took a birding course and the teachers showed us the number of birds here and that a lot are dwindling rapidly. You can already see which birds are going extinct here in the next 10 years. Global warming plays some role, but for birds that's not the major one. But what's your point? There are bad things that aren't due to global warming?

>>14694761
>solar and wind power cause a lot of pollution from the panels and turbines
The panels and turbines are basically what the two forms of electricity generations are based on. What exactly is your point? How does a turbine pollute? Especially compared to coal or fracking.

It'd be easier for me to take climate alarmists seriously if they weren't the same groups advocating for open immigration of fast breeding third worlders into the comforts of western world and also refuse to have nuclear as an interim option before fusion is viable

>>14694805
I'd take "skeptics" more seriously if they had a solution to nuclear waste and were more realistic about fusion. Don't get me wrong, fusion would be amazing and we should keep r&d up. But it has zero realistic timescale. It's always 20 years before it's another 20 years. If they have their breakthrough, great. But if you think we should hold our breath and wait for the saviour named fusion, you're a retard. It might never happen and if it does, we don't know when. We only know that they won't make the 2035 goals. Let's see. I've actually worked with people who tried muon-catalysed fusion, which could be a gamechanger. If you're not some "I fucking love fusion" retard, but actually dive into it a bit, you see that it's just a long history of disappointments. I still believe in it enough to justify spending taxpayer money, but I don't believe it enough for "only 20 more years"

>>14694805
>>14694815
Oh and it would be nice if the likes of you took an economics course for once. Nuclear energy is a lot more expensive than renewables and not really more reliable. The French are currently powered by their neighbours who have to burn coal and gas. Wow, amazing.
I haven't seen convincing concepts that make nukes economical, but then again we only have flawed concepts for storage outside of mountain ranges. Extremely ineffective hydrogen vs. expensive lithium. We should support both and if one begins to look more promising, ditch the other. But don't outsource insurance and waste management of nuclear power plants.

>>14694799
Because by shifting the focus of conservation to climate change, so much so that in the mind of the average urbanite the two are synonyms, solvable, local issues will lack funding. Will policy makers care about planting bunch grass species or preserving prairies if they stand to lose nothing by ignoring them? This same issue effects conservation on the rural side as well, with the amount of funding game animals get from state departments dwarfing non-game species. There are real issues that can be solved if people simply are told to give a shit about them. Truth be told we need more data scientists in this field to better organize everything.

>>14694493
Yeah Global warming is real.

>>14694821
We cut nuclear recycling funding over fears of terrorists stealing materials and making dirty bombs.

>>14694493
Yes, it's fucking real, case closed. Tired of these threads.

>>14694803
I should have specified its when the panels and turbines become trash, and turbines also kill a lot of birds

>>14694518
>she got hysterically angry at me saying I was a terrible person, like freaking out.
Maybe because this is a super emotional topic for some people? Like, it's basically equivalent to someone's house burning down and killing off half their family. Anyone who seriously pretends that the weather isn't getting hotter is either disingenuous or outright a shill.

>>14694823
So instead of bugging the government to spend enough to solve two problems at once, you attack people who talk about the problem that is competing?
Not-so-fun fact: Here in Switzerland, we have a problem with fish dying during heatwaves. For some inexplicable reason this happens more frequently. Here's an example of an English article I found:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/heat-wave_fish-dying-in-the-rhine/44305778
>Temperatures 25 degrees and above, especially for extended periods, amount to a death sentence.
This is the temperature curve of the Rhine from last week. Global warming kills wildlife.

And to all nuclear shills: they had to reduce the output of nuclear power plants because they warm the rivers even more. Nuclear is not an option.
>Then don't dump the cooling water back in the river, use a tower
They had to reduce the capacity of ships because the rivers carry so little water. That's not when you want to evaporate a significant part of the river water in cooling towers.

>>14694835
>We cut nuclear recycling funding
Why should "we" fund recycling, if the operators are profit oriented companies?

>>14694840
For solar panels we still have a couple of years before the ones built in the big boom will become inefficient and then let's see. Maybe it makes sense to keep operating them with 70-80% on cheap land, or maybe we get closer to recycling in 10 or 20 years.
And for turbines I really don't see the problem. They aren't made of anything fancy.

>>14694815
>>14694821
Not even as an interim huh? Fusion may be far off but progress is happening.
Why does cost matter to you if the world is at a catastrophic climate crisis? Surely nuclear waste is more manageable than CO2 and soot in the air.
What is wrong with putting money and research into more advanced fission plants if it saves the planet?

>>14694547
I wish I had that "THE sCiEnCe" soi meme right now because that's what your long winded answer boils down to

>>14694840
>turbines also kill a lot of birds
That's largely blown out of proportion by fossil fuel shills by the way. Yes, some birds die. Yes, a 6-digit number of dead birds looks shocking, but if the number of turbines is 5 digits, you end up with one dead bird per month per turbine. Most of them are little songbirds, which cats kill by the millions. Care about birds? Ban cats. But ok, let's not avoid the topic with cheap whataboutism. Two things that can be improved: one is technology that scares birds off and reduces the number of accidents. That should be made mandatory for new turbines. The second is location. I honestly don't shed a tear for a killed blackbird when windowpanes kill several times the amount of them. But if a wind turbine would kill one of the two bearded vultures in the alps? That would be terrible. So create sensible natural reserves. Don't create a 20km radius around every red kite sighting, but also don't build them wherever there's space.
Bottom line: "Wind turbines are bird shredders" is scare tactics by the fossil fuel lobby, but there is a grain of truth to it, which should be taken seriously.

>>14694850
We're working on molten salt batteries, which will multiply the efficiency of renewables. As for recycling, dont worry about, that's irrelevant. When you go to the store and buy some yogurt you dont thing "oh gee golly this plastics gonna end up in the ocean, guess I better just starve myself".

To answer your question recycling technology can only improve. Plastic recycling, for instance, is undergoing a neo renaissance of enzymatic recycling, which has the prospect to make cheaper plastic precursors from existing plastic than from oil. It's called upcycling. It's not unreasonable the same technology can be applied to solar panels.

>>14694844
>So instead of bugging the government to spend enough to solve two problems at once, you attack people who talk about the problem that is competing?
Yes, do you think that funding is unlimited, or that state governments love handing out big bucks to non-glamorous conservation work?
>This is the temperature curve of the Rhine from last week. Global warming kills wildlife.
Literally never said it doesn't. What I'm complaining about is this: what if in that article, instead of building cooling basins, funds were directed to NGOs that spend 90% of their budget on administrative work?
>And to all nuclear shills: they had to reduce the output of nuclear power plants because they warm the rivers even more. Nuclear is not an option.
Coal plants do this.
>In 2011, the Chicago Tribune accessed industry reports through the Freedom of Information Act, and discovered that numerous older power plants have been exempted from environmental regulations designed to prevent enormous industrial fish kills. These older plants, employing "once-through" cooling, pump massive amounts of water from lakes and rivers through the screens of water intake systems - some so powerful they could fill an Olympic swimming pool in less than a minute - and sucking up multiple fish. Dozens of older power plants that ring the Great Lakes kill hundreds of millions of fish each year as a consequence of employing outdated processes to cool their equipment.[2]
https://www.gem.wiki/Thermal_pollution_from_coal_plants
Wow, look at that, an environmental issue that could be solved by the media if they reported on it like they do climate change.

>>14694867
I'm not arguing against solar and wind, but we can't threat them like perfect solutions. They still can't fill our electricity needs, and I'm just pissed we don't adopt nuclear more often.

>>14694805
Do you actually believe some immigrant wants to come to some crowded and competitive 1st world city? Climate change is what's driving immigrants out of their homes in the first place. So they have either the option to stay and DIE from drought and heat, or immigrate. We solve climate change, we solve immigration. Until then yeah, we'll let the immigrants in to punish conservatives.

>>14694877
Solar and wind are garbage and should be removed and any solar and wind shill should be shot.
We should go full nuclear and anyone who disagrees is a retard.
>but muh waste
Build a massive concrete box in the middle of nowhere and store it there, it's still a lesser waste of space than solar/wind.

>>14694853
>Not even as an interim huh?
If your country already had them, by all means. But I really don't see building new ones as an option as of today. Fourth-generation plants are not yet scalable, so you'd have to build third-generation plants with all their disadvantages. In Germany and Switzerland it takes 10-15 years between the decision to build one and first operation. That is too slow and too late. We should have done that in the 1980s, but no one took global warming serious enough, so we kept burning coal. If you have the option to build a wind turbine in a year with no strings attached, why would you build a slow, expensive, uninsurable power plant that creates waste no country except Finland found a way to deal with, and relies on a finite resource that, as of today, lasts for 100-200 years. Double the amount of power plants and you have the time before we run out. Yes, concepts for future reactors would be much more fuel efficient, but we can't build them today. I honestly believe that we'll get there much sooner than we get fusion, but even with high investments, that adds another couple of years. I don't think we should keep burning oil and coal for another ~10? years before it's 10-15 years before we get the first usable joule out of them. And even then you can't build enough at a time to transform our entire portfolio to electrics.

My proposal: Use the nuclear plants we have now, build renewables until 4th gen power plants become economical (from fuel mining to storage, I don't want to pay hidden subsidies because the government has to deal with the waste). If they ever are, great, build them, especially where renewables are less efficient because of lack of wind and storage. And if one day fuel works, that's clearly what we should be doing from then on.
By electrifying things such as heating and mobility, we create additional demand, which has to be met soon, and not only when fusion becomes viable.

>>14694881
>We solve climate change, we solve immigration
Or you could, you know? Just close the fucking borders.

>>14694884
Nuke shill rope. Literally a technology left behind in the 70s. Theres a reason 0 to vanishingly few new reactors have been built in the past 40 years: because they fucking suck.

>>14694888
Nope. Gotta solve climate change, that's non negotiable. Until then I'll applaud whenever the next wave is given asylum.

>>14694886
Germuttny is going back to burning coal after closing down their nuclear plants because renewables are a meme.
Nuclear is the end goal you cretin it's not an interim, there is nothing better than nuclear.
I hope Germutts eat each other this winter it will be glorious.

>>14694890
>Theres a reason 0 to vanishingly few new reactors have been built in the past 40 years
Because idiots like you fell for the renewable meme.

>>14694870
>plastics
"Thermal processing" (burning) is already much better than dumping it in the ocean or shipping it to a third-word country where they burn it at lower temperatures and no filters. My home is heated with burning garbage and the plant is in the middle of the city, filtered so that you don't smell anything.
Yes, ultimately, extracting oil and burning it to keep warm is stupid, but if you already have a yoghurt cup, you might as well burn it and keep warm instead of dumping it in the ocean.

Insulation is another very important point btw. If your house loses half as much heat, then you need to burn half as many yoghurt cups, half as much gas, or run half as many power plants for your heat pump. That's a no-brainer and should have been subsidised decades ago.

>>14694893
>I'll applaud when brown immigrants kill and rape white people
kill yourself kike

>>14694871
>Coal plants do this.
I don't consider coal an alternative to anything. It's a relic of the past and due to lack of alternatives, we might have to use them for a while (I don't think that Estonia or Poland can transform anytime soon), but you're right. That's a feature of any thermal power plant. ~2/3 of the energy has to be dumped somewhere, either directly into a river or into vapour which takes water out of rivers.
I hoped this was common knowledge, and I hoped we were on the same grounds that we're looking beyond coal, not comparing things to coal. Virtually everything is better.

>>14694901
Whatever. As far as I'm concerned climate change induced disasters 100% qualify the victims for asylum. These are international agreements we've had in place forever, when war in Ukraine we take them in, but this is peoples homes literally becoming uninhabitable. So stfu and let them in.

>>14694910
>climate change induced disasters
Proof that this is real and they aren't coming for a better life in the west?

>>14694877
>I'm just pissed we don't adopt nuclear more often.
See >>14694886
we can't just adopt nuclear. France should keep theirs running. Germany should have kept theirs running, but oh well, no use in crying over spilled milk. Stupid decision by the Merkel administration in 2011 that can't be reverted sensibly. Maybe with the war, it makes sense to keep the last 2 ones beyond this year, but they can't reopen the ones that have started being decommissioned years ago.

>>14694915
I'm sure you can find plenty of information on climate change, how it increases the intensity of natural disasters, its links to heatwaves, droughts, etc. I wont spoonfeed you.

>>14694919
>I have nothing
Yeah figured. You're a kike who wants brown people in white majority areas and cheers when white people get brutalized by subhumans. Fuck you.

>>14694888
The borders are "closed". You can't just move from pooristan to Europe. But if you manage to reach it, you are legally allowed to apply for asylum. If you fulfil the criteria, according to current laws, you are granted it. Hunger is no reason, but sooner or later wars will erupt. And the Europe will have to ditch the Geneva convention, EU treaties and change most constitutions if they want to keep out asylum seekers. And frontex will have to start sinking boats of refugees. I don't think this will be a good political climate if our border police will kill thousands of hungry Africans every day. It's actually a threat to stability.
>>14694896
Germany never stopped burning coal, but I assume you've noticed the crazy world market, especially in energy when the war started? Given the context it's better to burn more coal and save the gas for heating and industry rather than burn gas for electricity now and shut down steel plants and have people freeze to death in winter. Don't you agree?

>>14694917
I'm still not convinced solar and wind could replace fossil without being absurdly more expensive than too keep burning and also having inefficient energy storage like artificial lakes or battery farms.
Can we at least expand hydro and geothermal to the max where it is possible?

>>14694923
We've had this exact same thread a billion times. You could read the sticky, go to that link and you'll find a climate change resource in the section called Earth Science.

Yet this is precisely the crux of you deniers, you have to constantly ask for the exact same sources and information over and over again, constantly pretending as if the past 5 threads didn't refute everything you said and then some because denialism is a religion, and a particularly dogmatic one at that.

>>14694937
>Yet this is precisely the crux of you deniers, you have to constantly ask for the exact same sources and information over and over again, constantly pretending as if the past 5 threads didn't refute everything you said and then some because denialism is a religion, and a particularly dogmatic one at that.
They're shills they get paid to disseminate as much disinfo as possible

>>14694910
>As far as I'm concerned climate change induced disasters 100% qualify the victims for asylum.
Not necessarily. At least legally speaking, moral is a different story, but this is not /moral/ here. War and political persecution are classic qualifications for asylum. Civil war can grant you a subsidiary protection status, but famine and drought themselves don't qualify you. If famine and drought lead to genocide where one tribe starts killing the other to have more food for themselves, then yes. If a country starts bombing their neighbours to get their water, then yes.
But quite frankly, we should act before this happens.

>>14694940
I personally think it's the exact same schizo obsessively making the same thread over and over. I guess if you think it's a shill group, go ahead.

>>14694946
>If famine and drought lead to genocide where one tribe starts killing the other to have more food for themselves, then yes. If a country starts bombing their neighbours to get their water, then yes.
That's practically a guarantee, though? I mean I've literally never heard of water scarcity not leading to war.

>>14694493
>So give it to me straight, is the planet really warming due to human activity?
yes
is it literally the end of the world?
no
will it make world shittier (in synergy with overpopulation and resource depletion)?
yes

>>14694935
They are already cheaper than coal, even if you neglect the externalised cost due to emissions. The problem is reliability though. Unless you're in the alps, you can't power a country 365 days per year with renewables. That's why the French pushed so hard for declaring nuclear and gas as green technologies. Nuclear served as a reliable base load (more or less if you look at the current situation) while gas is perfect for peak loads with power generation that can be ramped up in minutes. Unlike coal, gas has the future option of using bio-sourced gas and, if built accordingly, hydrogen that has been generated from excess renewable energy. Putin invading Ukraine and the outlook of being without Russian gas overnight has put quite a dent in this strategy though.
>Can we at least expand hydro and geothermal to the max where it is possible?
Isn't that already done? Geothermal isn't viable in many places, but Iceland uses a lot. Fjords and mountains are great for hydro, and Switzerland and Norway already source most of their energy this way.

>>14694940
>>14694948
Either way, ignore trolls trying to muddy the water. They always ask for the same plots, steady know which absurd argument they bring next and then they tell you that 500 million years ago it was much warmer on Earth, then post the graph of that Greenland ice core where it was warmer in the MWP than today, tell you it's the sun and start questioning how we can reconstruct "global" temperatures from local measurements. It's just noise. Don't engage, I like 90% of the discussions here, as they are factual and constructive, although people are disagreeing on certain subjects.

>>14694951
It will get ugly and no one really wants that. Okay, the extreme right in Germany was caught on tape saying "the worse Germany is off, the better for us", but apart from such wannabes Machiavellis, no one wants hundred thousands of Africans coming to Europe by boat. We either have to feed them or kill them. And most people don't want either, with the political extremes rejecting only one of the two options.

>>14694957
Is this considering that gasoline should ideally be replaced by electric or hydrogen cars? Because it would be necessary to expand the electric output by a lot.
Taking Brazil as an example, what could be done to squish that final 15% fossil power out? I guess solar could have a big expansion in the northeast, but then what? Not sure if hydro could be expanded more than it already is.

>>14694493
eh yeah kinda

>>14694984
Correct, either needs more electricity than today. My gut feeling says EVs > H2, just from a pure efficiency point of view, but we'll see if we have enough lithium and can recycle it to have the full transition to EVs.
In any case, transformation away from individual mobility would be beneficial in any case, not only for the energy problem, but also for space in cities etc.
But it's a very nuanced topic. You don't need a car to travel 2 km in London or Paris, you're faster with public transport anyway. You also don't need a car to travel that distance without any luggage anywhere if you can ride a bicycle. But you won't replace school buses collecting kids from rural areas 30km away with bicycles and metros.
I don't know enough about Brazil to answer what forms of transport can and what can't be replaced. Here in Switzerland, the most important axis is Bern-Zurich, so most people travelling or commuting between these two take public transport. In some rural villages in Valais or Grison you can't even buy groceries without a car. Do you have connections which many people travel by car and that could be covered with high-speed trains?
Does Brazil generate its hydropower at the coast or in rivers/mountains? I couldn't even tell you if/where they (you?) have mountain ranges, I'm really bad at geography on other continents. When I think Brazil I think of big, heterogeneous cities (having everything from favelas to luxury) and rainforests.

>>14694639
Respond to this genius

>>14694840
>and turbines also kill a lot of birds
Not more than any other structure with a comparable profile. The argument that turbines shouldn't be built is that NOTHING ABOVEGROUND should be built. And if the surface isn't transparent or reflective the birds most likely to run into it are already fucking in poor health and therefore not as alert.

Also, the actual fuck do you think this does to birds that get near it, to say fucking nothing of all the shit processing, transporting, and burning fossil fuels dumps into the fucking air?

>>14694984
Tidal. It's basically hydro power minus the whole massive droughts are going to fuck with supply issue.

>>14694957
>The problem is reliability though
You can actually store power. Initial construction costs are high, but PSH gravity batteries are very efficient.

>>14695028
A little sparrow (probably juvenile) once flew right under my foot while I was walking. A hedgehog one decided to cross the street while I was going 80km/h. It's impossible to exist without killing animals. We should minimise the killing, for example by using window decals to prevent birds 9/11-ing into buildings, but if someone asks to prevent every single death, they are arguing in bad faith.

>>14694815
How is the energy sucked out of plasma fusion? And what's the fuel? You get plasma going in an area, throw in hydrogen and they fuse and shoot out a bunch of radiation, that is captured through a tube to heat water?

>>14695063
>PSH gravity batteries are very efficient.
In Austria yes. In the Netherlands not so much. There's no one-size-fits-all solution. Solar makes more sense in Spain than in Iceland. Wind makes more sense in plains than in mountain ranges.
An alternative (or rather complement) to storage are better grids and overcapacity. In a grid large enough you'll always have wind and sun (during the day) somewhere. So when a certain region is currently fucked, they can be powered by other regions instead of relying on stored energy while the windy regions have to store their surplus somehow.
Obviously you can't remove all storage needs this way, but you can reduce the necessary capacity significantly.

>>14694639
Kek

>>14694853
>What is wrong with putting money and research into more advanced fission plants if it saves the planet?
10000 advanced fission plants were probably designed In the 50s-60s

>>14694654
I guess some well edited images and flowery language are enough to convince you they're "going hard on green energy" you fucking retard. Either that or you know what you're doing, shill.

>>14694843
Maybe we should just say jews are using fossil fuels to cause global warming and refugee crises to invade the west with subhuman genetics. They'll larp it up like retards.

>>14694815
Fusion won't be viable until 2090 at the earliest. Source ITER scientists.

>>14695002
Brazil is big, not very populated and populated heterogeneously. Metros would not be justifiable outside of the big cities. MAYBE long distance trains could make sense for connecting the countryside to some key locations, but most of the time buses would be justifiable, and most people would prefer the money to be invested into fixing the shitty roads than to build rails that won't directly benefit everybody.
>>14695063
Is tidal already a practical technology? I thought it was just another of those weird futuristic concepts but cool I guess

>>14695002
Not sure how to explain the hydro part, but AFAIK we do by building a dam in a big river since there are a lot of these here.

>>14695068
You got roughly the right idea, but the details are a bit wonky
>And what's the fuel? You get plasma going in an area, throw in hydrogen
The plasma is the hydrogen (different isotopes) and the hydrogen/plasma is the fuel
>and they fuse
Basically yes. Under pressure and using heat from the reaction itself. If a surplus can be used to extract energy while keeping the fusion running, you've achieved the goal.
> and shoot out a bunch of radiation, that is captured through a tube
Not quite. The radiation is neutrons, which aren't confined the same way plasma is. The neutrons are stopped in the walls (called blanket) where they heat up the material
>to heat water?
In the end, yes. But the blanket is also intended to create tritium (hydrogen with two neutrons), which is used as fuel and is difficult to obtain otherwise. So with one or two extra steps, the neutron radiation produces more fuel and heat that is then converted into electrical energy.

The main challenges are plasma confinement and blanket design. If the plasma touches the walls, it loses energy, cools down and then can't sustain the fusion reaction. Obtaining heat and fuel without introducing materials that corrode the rest of the reactor isn't trivial. But I think you got the most basic principle right.

>>14695087
Well, a friend of mine (physicist, but more into finance these days) invests in shell because he thinks that they will survive the transition away from fossil fuels. They surely aren't a driving force, but they seem to have strategies to get away from oil in the long term. Accusing those who push for the transition to act on behalf of shell is idiotic though. Oil companies aren't stupid and also not necessarily evil, they are just profit oriented. Them understanding the necessity of carbon reduction doesn't mean that carbon reduction plays into their cards, or even worse: benefits them at our cost.
But long story short, it seems like it could be a bit more than flowery language.
>>14695092
Really? My latest info was "surely not before 2035". Got a source on that? It's not like I'd be surprised at all.
>>14695097
In that case, EV or hydrogen buses might be the best alternative. How is the power grid? Does the countryside have reliable electricity to charge EVs?

>>14695119
The power grid is getting more unreliable as the years go by. Can't say much for the contryside as I live in a mid city but I've heard of places that don't have electricity at all.
Besides this, what do you have to say about the Helium 3 thing? Is it really a good fuel for fusion power or this is just some nonsense propagated by pop science publications?

>>14695103
Addendum: From the perspective of a physicist, the most dreadful fields of physics in my opinion are thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. You need both for fusion reactors, held together with complex magnetic fields, which has an honorary third place in my biggest dreads. To be more precise, magneto-fluid dynamics is like the final boss form of fluid dynamics. I have infinite respect what they already achieved with Wendelstein and Iter and I'm not mad at all for their "bad performance". Their job makes nuclear physics or rocket science look like one of these soda+vinegar volcanoes kids build in school.
That's why I am so doubtful, not because I think they are idiots.

>>14695103
So you have to keep the plasma away from the walls, and you are saying the neutrons that warm the walls,can possible decay them over time that's the trick?

And so in those recent videos of plasma in tokamak, did it work, did neutrons get shot at the walls and warm them? How did they make that among of plasma, and electro magnetic fields keep it away from the wall? If the walls were a big further it wouldn't work? How much more and easily can a larger amount of plasma be made in the tube/roundabout area?

Does it work better in cold conditions, but that's energy to make it cold?

>>14695126
>places that don't have electricity at all.
Yeah, I don't think there's much point in telling them to use heat pumps (if they need heating at all).
>what do you have to say about the Helium 3 thing?
I'm not a particular expert in fusion technology, but I work in a slightly related field (particle accelerators). Therefore I don't have much knowledge regarding fuels for different reactions. But considering that helium-3 basically doesn't exist on earth (all our helium comes from alpha decays) and that no concept I know is built around helium-3, I consider it a meme. They farm it in iron sky, but I don't see missions getting that stuff from the moon. Maybe there are some nuclear reactions that include it at a later stage, but I'm only aware of plans to use hydrogen fusion.

>>14694639
>How can a possible free market industry be forced to stop? If it's causing the end of humanity that would be a good excuse? How would they be reimbursed?

>>14695136
>So you have to keep the plasma away from the walls, and you are saying the neutrons that warm the walls,can possible decay them over time that's the trick?
Yeah. Well, not can possibly, but that's one of the concepts: to create fuel from reactions of neutrons in the wall on purpose.

>And so in those recent videos of plasma in tokamak, did it work, did neutrons get shot at the walls and warm them?
They've had quite a long self-sustaining reaction one or two years ago. But they also managed to induce fusion several years ago. In all those cases they couldn't get enough energy to extract usable amounts while keeping the reaction alive indefinitely. But I'm pretty sure that the walls got warmer from neutrons that are created in the reaction.
>How did they make that among of plasma, and electro magnetic fields keep it away from the wall?
Neutrons aren't confined in these electromagnetic fields. Plasma is a bunch of ionised atoms and electrons, so they are accelerated by electric fields and deflected by magnetic fields, so they can (in principle) be confined while neutrons can escape.
>If the walls were a big further it wouldn't work?
If the walls were further away you couldn't create the same fields. But yes, if you could magically get the EM fields while placing the walls further away, the problem would be solved.
>How much more and easily can a larger amount of plasma be made in the tube/roundabout area?
Not sure if the amount of plasma is the limiting factor and how easily this can be increased.
>Does it work better in cold conditions, but that's energy to make it cold?
Temperature is almost a bad description of plasma. Traditionally plasma is considered very hot, but in detail, hot means it's a bunch of particles which move fast (without a net direction). That's needed to overcome the repulsion between the nuclei and get them close enough to fuse in the first place. So, cooking the plasma is the opposite of what you want.

>>14694783
>I'm just one person. All I do will never enough. So why should I do anything.

Yeah, that's what like half the planet is thinking. One of the main problems my anonymous friend, that brought us here.
Everyone can do something to contribute. That is a fundamentally important aspect of that whole project, that we need to realize. Obviously we all can't do the same, which is fine.

>>14695275
That's not what I said and you're falling for their divide and conquer strategy. We need to unite and get governments to impose rules so we work together. If you bitch at me for taking hot showers, i bitch at the next guy for eating meat and that guy bitches at you for driving a car, we successfully lost the bigger picture.

>>14694710
>yes it has happened before
To humans? No. Humans have never experienced warming this rapid or a global climate this warm.

>it is not really a problem
Doesn't follow.

>if it was beach front property wouldnt be so expensive'
Doesn't follow.