As I posted on page 1 what I or you think is irrelevant. Human nature is what it is....
What climate change is not
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
Technically correct, kinda-sorta, but also... awfully misleading? Where have I seen this before?
The full quote, in context:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address
Spare us the disingenuous bullshit.
So - IN CONTEXT - the world will not actually end in 12 years but unless we correct climate change (stabilise at some optimum level by taking action now) but continue as we currently live, in 12 years time it will be to late to fix the climate problem
Is that in context?
Continue our lifestyle - in 12 years to late to change Earth climate - everyone will be suffering, due to climate conditions, which we have no hope of fixing - we are all doomed - Earth will end some period later
Got it
Still would like a countdown app
Where does that CO2 come from? Think hard! Harder! You can do it!
Really? Where are the mutated 3 eyed kids? Or even the mutated 3 eyed fish?
Our current problems are due to excessive CO2 emission. It boggles the mind that people want to increase that problem because "3 eyed fish" or "it's too late anyway" or "it's too hard to change." Good luck with that.
So it's correct but it doesn't have the correct "feel?" I should be more groupthinky?
OK. We're all going to die in 12 years because the fires in Australia will kill everyone and emit nearly infinite amounts of CO2 forever. Better?
???
Didn't think the added emphasis was necessary, but I was responding to this:
Really?
C'mon--I meant "correct" in the same way that "3 percent unemployment" is an accurate reflection of the real unemployment rate.
The second paragraph, well... something about fratboy rhetoric goes here.
maybe if you go first I will be inspired to bother...
The three eyed fish was a topic spin off about the new Russian floating nuclear power plants and how dangerous that will be when they start mass production. You seek to gloss over the risks they are taking with your life so easily..and consider the risks as somehow acceptable.....and claim three eyed fish is a better outcome than three eyed children...therefore the risk is acceptable?
Obviously you are too fearful to post rationally... need to mutate a spine perhaps....
Last edited:
I understand a rhetorical question but a answer would be The Simpsons
Plenty of these for real though
Google two headed snake
Yep. And strangely enough, they are generally found in places that are not nuclear power plants.
Navy has a few of them.
OK then.
CO2 comes from burning plant matter; that plant matter came from atmospheric CO2. Thus if you grow a forest to maturity you absorb a lot of CO2. If you then burn it you release that CO2. If you burn it more often you absorb less CO2 (less growing time) and release less CO2 (less fuel to burn.)
Coal power kills approximately 115,000 people around the world each year. Nuclear kills approximately 1 per year. Overall, per terawatt-hour generated every year, coal kills 161 people, natural gas kills 4, hydro kills 1.4 and nuclear kills .04.
I prefer the odds with nuclear.
When Japan had its Fukushima plant melt down, 0 people died. When they started burning more coal to compensate, 12,500 additional people died every year. Are you willing to be one of those 12,500?
you are really having difficulty in maintaining contextual credibility in your arguing.
When you answered with the following:
what was the question you were attempting to address?
same with
What was the question you are attempting to address?
You are providing great answers but not for the questions being debated but for some other questions not actually in dispute....
btw According to wiki the death toll from Fukushima stands at 1 not 0
The death toll does not include those who are suffering long term exposure related illnesses associated. The likely hood of the death toll being adjusted upwards is very likely as those persons succumb to their illnesses and die. According to reports at the time over 300 engineers volunteered to extreme radiation exposure to avoid civilian causalities, if I recall correctly...
History has of course been rewritten since then to fit the political narrative.
Either way your defense of the safety of land based nuclear power stations stands as reasonably valid. But that was NOT the question being argued.
Perhaps to aid you, you could quote the question you are debating as a heading.
ie.
Re:
Mass production of floating Russian built nuclear power stations and the risks of oceanic contamination.
Or
How carbon sequestration is too slow to absorb annual wild fire CO2 emissions.
It might help you be more persuasive in your debating...
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
If there is no time to regrowth then there is nothing the fire can destroy.
If we take into account the alarmism, then the amount of what is burning will be overestimated, and the regrowth will be underestimated (if it is not simply ignored). But there is simply, even in theory, no way of creating a permanent raise of CO2 by wildfires. Simply think about conservation of C atoms. The worst you can do is to burn all the trees. After this, there is simply no more wood to burn, until there is enough regrown to start new wildfires.
What matters for the actual state is simply how green the Earth is (leaf area). Here, some data are available, see here.
So, despite wildfires, the green area is not at all decreasing, but increasing.
You are assuming something unfortunately.
You are assuming that the wild fire involves the entire amount possible to burn.
If you have an area of say 1000 million hectares and only 17 million burn every year how many years will it take to burn through the entire forest ( for a first time)?
Now calculate how many years will it take for regrowth to be strong enough to sequester the CO2 released every year? ( assume enough rain fall to do the job which is currently absurd but hey who cares))
Consider that it takes anything up to 30 years and beyond to restore the first wild fire forest and sequester the CO2 released.
What sort of CO2 in excess of sequestrated CO2 is involved over 30 years if every year 17 million hectares is burned to the ground?
I'd do the math but I couldn't be bothered...the problem is obvious enough...
The map you have posted is laughable... gosh if Australia had a green center as shown, it would be a miracle... a bit of fantastic magical thinking involved there, hey?
The Antarctic needs some green as well, so they are saying in the media at the moment...
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/808187601/-antarctica-melts-nasa-says-showing-effects-of-record-heat
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Then it takes 60 years for everything to burn once. That means, there is not even a chance that everything burns down, because after 50% are burned down, the first 17 millions are again 30 years old. After this the situation will be stable. In fact, humans could also log another 17 million and the situation would be stable too.
This map is from this source. And the green color means an increase in leaf area in percent. It does not mean that it is very green there. It only means that there is now more green than in the past.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member