This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
orr said:
I just think there's a bigger game being played with 'planet 'o' da hoomans'
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the whole issue is tied up in power (of the political kind) and money.

Technically, economically and in terms of human behaviour most of it's not rocket science but at just about every step someone's trying to leverage the issue for political or economic self advantage.

There's the odd one who just wants it fixed but they tend to not be the people making a fuss.
 
Look at coronavirus. The world basically banded together with a common goal. And we spent trillions doing it.
What's the issue with polluting less?
It's going to cause a lot more deaths.
A lot more damage.
And still there is huge resistance.

It's not big oil.
The fact is: the environmental movement was hijacked by dipshits.
 
SirRumpole is right "you can't read plain English."

Not so green energy: Hundreds of non-recyclable fiberglass wind turbine blades are pictured piling up in landfill
 
dutchie said:
SirRumpole is right "you can't read plain English."

Not so green energy: Hundreds of non-recyclable fiberglass wind turbine blades are pictured piling up in landfill
Click to expand...
They are recyclable, just like the tyres in the same picture are recyclable.
 
dutchie said:
What can fibreglass blades be recycled into?
Click to expand...
Just about everything can be recycled into something, it is just a lot of the time the something is useful for nothing, so you have spent time, money and used energy to recycle something into usless shyte.
But that doesn't matter to the recycling warriors, I'm of the opinion if it can't be recycled into something usefull, bury it because you never know in a 100 years they might be able to use it.
 
So far as recycling versus landfill is concerned, the first and most obvious point is that burying something is not necessarily a problem. Recycling has value to conserve mineral resources and in many cases energy not because putting things in a hole in the ground is or itself a major problem in any place where there's somewhere to put it.

There are exceptions, things which buried in landfill do become a very real issue with potential groundwater pollution and so on, but wind turbine blades don't seem overly concerning in that regard. Ultimately they're just a product that came from basic minerals - sand, petroleum, limestone, clay and so on.

Recycling would certainly have benefits but I won't be losing sleep over landfill, there's bigger problems to worry about than that.

I come back to a point I've made before, here and elsewhere, many times previously however. All Power Pollutes. All of it. We get to chose the nature and location of impact but there's no such thing as zero impact when it comes to energy and for any given source the details are generally case specific. A wind farm, hydro scheme or dumping stuff in landfill in one place can have a very different impact if it's done somewhere else.
 
I find it a bit disappointing that many posts here are about alternative energy and not climate change. One feels that many are turning the cheek on the real and devastating changes that are occurring now.

Surely we have good threads for alternative energy.
 
During 9/11 in the US all the planes were grounded. There was something from memory about the temperature or uv going up as the vapor trails from planes were masking it.
I wonder if anymore data from this was gathered during coronavirus?
 
moXJO said:
During 9/11 in the US all the planes were grounded. There was something from memory about the temperature or uv going up as the vapor trails from planes were masking it.
I wonder if anymore data from this was gathered during coronavirus?
Click to expand...
If global temperature peaked due to the absence of pollution and reduced co2 emission , will we ever know about it? No
My theory for which Basilio awarded me a nobel prize .. ironically of course, is that global warming is mostly cause by energy used, and co2 is not a problem.any dimwit with a calculator and 1/2 a day can show it with no use of complicated model to match increase measured temperature..real ones
Sadly the only solution to this is reduced population/energy used per inhabitant and Sun energy(and wind hydro which are recycled sun power)
Nuclear lobby does not like it ..nor the gas one
3 months of reduced activity will slightly reduced the warming but the co2 hysteria will carry on unabated and the reduced activity will also reduce pollution and atmospheric clouds which could very well increase the solar energy captured in our atmosphere
 
qldfrog said:
If global temperature peaked due to the absence of pollution and reduced co2 emission , will we ever know about it? No
Click to expand...
Really?
The opposite is true.
However, peaks are temporal.
A peak any time this year may be overtaken some time next year, or perhaps several years later.
More importantly we can and do measure CO2 levels:

Furthermore, interannual variability is a feature of the CO2 cycle:

So we would use "measurements" to determine exactly what was happening.
qldfrog said:
My theory for which Basilio awarded me a nobel prize .. ironically of course, is that global warming is mostly cause by energy used, and co2 is not a problem.
Click to expand...
This is just nonsense.
Different types of "used" energy will contribute or otherwise to warming the planet. Hydrogen would not of itself be a contributor, while nuclear energy would be negligible. The net "warming" effects of wind and solar energy use over their product lifespans is also comparatively low.
Pollution is statistically inconsequential to planetary warming.
 
rederob said:
Pollution is statistically inconsequential to planetary warming.
Click to expand...

Not quite the case actually. Air pollution does reduce global warming. It was significant enough from 1940-1970 to have an overall effect on global temperatures.

One of the consequences of closing coal fired power plants and reducing industrial emissions is that there will be an increase in global temperatures.

How Air Pollution Has Put a Brake on Global Warming
In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Norwegian climate scientist Bjørn H. Samset talks about the results of his team’s recent research showing that aerosols linked to human activities cool the planet far more than previously believed.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200218124405.htm
 
Thanks Bas.
Yes, we know that some aerosols have in the past made a large difference to the rate of warming.
And the present level of particulate matter/aerosols has continued to dampen the warming effect.
My point was more along the lines of the fact that pollution levels year to year are relatively stable, so the cooling effect is, for all intents and purposes, "locked in."
Over time we hope to reduce pollution levels and, as you note, that will definitely add to warming... little by little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...