348341
Stick to the solutions for millionth time
A marine ecologist at Oregon State University has been tracking oxygen levels in the ocean and predicted a huge dead zone off the coast of Oregon and Washington this year. So far, the reality has been worse than they predicted. Jul 22, 2021
But, wait there’s more,
Oceans Are Absorbing Almost All of the Globe’s Excess Heat By TIM WALLACE, SEPT. 12, 2016 - www_nytimes_com/interactive/2016/09/12/science/earth/ocean-warming-climate-change_htmlThis year is on track to be the third consecutive hottest year on record. Where does that heat go? The oceans, mostly.
Where the Oceans Have Been Colder and Hotter Than AverageOcean temperatures have been consistently rising for at least three decades. Scientists believe that global sea surface temperatures will continue to increase over the next decade as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere.
According to a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature released last week, the Southern Hemisphere has experienced intense warming over the past decade, with strong heat accumulation in the midlatitude regions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. …
New Marine Heatwave Emerges off West Coast, Resembles “the Blob”
September 05, 2019 - www_fisheries_noaa_gov/feature-story/new-marine-heatwave-emerges-west-coast-resembles-blob
Researchers are monitoring a new marine heatwave off the West Coast for effects on the marine ecosystem.
About five years ago “the Blob” of warm ocean water disrupted the West Coast marine ecosyste and depressed salmon returns. Now, a new expanse of unusually warm water has quickly grown in much the same way, in the same area, to almost the same size.
New Study Looks at How the “Blob” Came Back Scripps Oceanography and CIRES scientists find that weak winds in the Pacific drove record-breaking 2019 summertime marine heat waveApril 21, 2020 | By Brittany Hook - https: //ucsdnews_ucsd_edu/pressrelease/new-study-looks-at-how-the-blob-came-back
Weakened wind patterns likely spurred the wave of extreme ocean heat that swept the North Pacific Ocean last summer, according to new research led by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder and Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
The marine heat wave, named the “Blob 2.0” after the 2013-2014 “Blob,” likely damaged marine ecosystems and hurt coastal fisheries. Waters off the U.S. West Coast—particularly Northern California, Oregon, and Washington—hit a record-breaking 2.5˚C (4.5˚F) above normal, the authors found. …
The study, “Physical drivers of the summer 2019 North Pacific marine heatwave,” was published April 20 in Nature Communications. Lead author Dillon Amaya conducted the research while a postdoctoral researcher at Scripps Oceanography, where he also obtained a PhD …
Tex, yes it sucks. You keep yelling solutions, but how do you solve two centuries of increasing global impacts, cryosphere melting away, oceans absorbing massive amounts of heat, absorbing immense amounts of CO2 leading to ocean acidification with it’s attendant changes, not to mention the thermohaline circulation disruption happening in the North Atlantic?
It’s all fine and good wishing for solutions, but what are they?
348358
Huge cut and paste slabs again
Look through the thread please and make a contribution. Don’t stay a boffin
Stick to the solutions for millionth time@djtexas, stop demanding what others post, for the billionth time
Tex, tex, tex… It’s all fine and good wishing for solutions, but what are they Bright Eyes?
Also why does it seem you actually don’t have the slightest interest in learning about how our Earth operates?
You must make for one hell of a boring date.
348383
Keep the discussion constructive. Join in with comments on solutions.
Keep the discussion constructive. Join in with comments on solutions.I did and you ignored or derided the practical solutions I offered. You are not engaging in constructive comments and solutions. You just want to blame everyone else for not doing anything about the situation, while you stand on the sidelines as member of the "save the trees" crowd.
No one owes you an explanation. It is you who should offer comments and solutions, can you be constructive?
Don’t come here and lecture me about Climate Change, I’ll lecture you about good manners.
348358
“It’s all fine and good wishing for solutions, but what are they?”
Well according to you the solution is everyone should give up. Everyone should join you and be a quitter
The only possible answer until we can’t see the sea for windmills and pave the deserts with virtuous solar, both of which have to be at least triply redundant, with hydrogen for backup and all vehicles larger than vans, is nuclear, the lowest risk extraction energy by a factor of at least 40.
348443
Welcome MPC. You have contributed more to the taking action conversation in one post than all the multiple post from multiple people here combined.
Thanks
Oh so has all this been a lead up to nuclear power being our salvation.
Now that’s a hoot.
No addressing population, no addressing consumption, no addressing what we are doing to our biosphere, or our oceans, or our atmosphere, or our over crowded human society - NUCLEAR IS HERE TO SAVE US!!!
Energy will be so cheap they won’t even have to meter it.
You go Tex, put a real tiger in your tank.
Love to see the plans on how that’s going to work
Oh hate to rain on the parade, actually it’s not me, it’s experts familiar with the situation, but I’m happy to share. Here’s a little something from a country that actually understands nuclear energy as well as any, since it’s :
Nuclear power : a false solution to climate changehttps://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/Nuclear-power-a-false-solution-to-climate-change-44206
CLIMATE PRESERVATION ? NUCLEAR WON’T DO
At best, nuclear power’s contribution would be minor…Even in France, which, unlike any other country in the world produces 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are four times too high to reach the climatic objectives. In 2014, fossil fuels still accounted for more than half of the country’s primary energy consumption.
75% of GHG emissions worldwide occur in sectors that have no link whatsoever to producing electricity (farming, deforestation), that are so far weakly electrified (transportation), or that use electricity wastefully (home heating, certain industrial processes).
… and definitely too late
The fight against climate change is a race against time. Emissions worldwide should reach their peak within the next 5 years before declining drastically. According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) study from 2010, even if one nuclear reactor per week got online over the next 15 years, this could only contribute to 9% of the global effort to stabilise CO2 concentration to 450 ppm (and since 1,5°C scenarios require an higher effort, the effective contribution would be even smaller) ! The industrial and financial capacities necessary for such nuclear growth are plainly lacking, rendering it impossible.
(Nuclear) A marginal form of energy in decline
Worldwide, nuclear provides hardly 2% of total energy consumption (approximately 16% in France). This amounts to only 10.8% of world electricity production, in sharp decline since the record 17.6% reached in 1996 [1]. Nuclear energy will continue to decline, as the reactors currently under construction are too few to replace the many ageing reactors that will close within the next decades.
Even China, which has the largest number of reactors under construction, produces more energy from wind turbines than from nuclear power since 2012. [2] Nuclear energy amounts to less than 3% of the energy consumed in the country. …
Nuclear energy also produces greenhouse gas …
Nuclear energy is too expensive …
Nuclear energy is not adapted to a deteriorating climate
If we take into account the whole life cycles, the nuclear kWh uses much more water than the wind or photovoltaic kWh [7] ; now, droughts and heat waves are becoming ever more frequent ! Moreover, such climatic events can disrupt the operation of nuclear power plants : one quarter of France’s nuclear reactors had to be shut down or operated at reduced capacity in the hot summer of 2003.
Fires caused by drought can also threaten nuclear installations, as happened at Mayak in Russia(2010) and at Los Alamos in the US (2011). In France, during the storm of 1999, the Blayais nuclear plant near Bordeaux was flooded and came very close to an accident. The electric grid can also be severely damaged. Even when shut down, a constant supply of electricity is required to cool down the reactors, so they will not undergo a core melt.
It goes on for the curious
MORE NUCLEAR DANGERS TO AVOID DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE ? Radioactivity and nuclear waste: more and more pollution ...Major accidents: a disaster is possible …
Proliferation: radiological terrorism, nuclear war …
THE TRUE SOLUTIONS FOR THE CLIMATE
Saving energy : the most efficient, the least expensive …100% renewables : yes we can ! …
Break out of the nuclear and fossil fuel stranglehold …
Energy transition: Germany shows the way …
Job creation: far greater potential than nuclear! …
I remember some advice I was given when I was a lad, first aim, then shoot! Somehow seems appropriate for this latest twist to our lil adventures in communication challenge.
Hmmmm let me see. Nuclear power vs do nothing???
Thinking thinking thinking
No it’s nuclear power vs. hand waving @djtexas! That’ll do it! Why did nobody think of that before?! That third rate French anti-nuclear site really does piss in and then dredge the bottom of the erstwhile dry barrel doesn’t it?
Nuclear power vs do nothing????So the solution is ignoring all the problems associated with nuclear energy. Seriously?
Can either of you two point to anything half way serious that provides any sort of realistic blueprint of how this conversion to nuclear is supposed to work?
I pulled up, what you term a third-rate Froggie site, still it summarizes the obvious problems with nuclear - what the heck do you two have to show us???
You think dismissing the problem, just like Republicans love ignoring and dismissing the reality that it’s our society’s Greenhouse Gas production that’s causing all the extreme warming (yes ALL of it, do your homework!). So let’s just keep them self-delusional spectacles on your nose. Heck of solution.
Do you know France has more experience with nuclear power supplying domestic power than anyone, considering it’s been supplying around 70% of their domestic energy use.
The world’s biggest energy-producing countries: Top ten by nuclear capacity United States – 98.2GW with a GDP 21,427,690, size of nation ~3,797,000 mi² France –-------- 63.1GW with a GDP 2,707,074, size of nation ~248,573 mi²_____________________________________________________________
I know Tex just hates it when I cut and paste facts and information.
But you know, that’s how learning happens, sharing information.
I’m honest and let you know that I think your nuclear notion is mud pies in the sky. You tell me it’s the solution to all our problems. So we know where we stand.
This is where you’re supposed to start producing some authoritative sources that do a reasonable job of explaining why I am wrong, and what I am missing. Explain what it is that you’re seeing and I’m not seeing.
Can anyone rise to the challenge?
Welcome MPC. You have contributed more to the taking action conversation in one post than all the multiple post from multiple people here combined. -- DJ@martin peter clarke,
DJ thinks he is the schoolmarm around here. Congratulations, you are one of the few to get a gold star.
Even in France, which, unlike any other country in the world produces 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are four times too high to reach the climatic objectives. In 2014, fossil fuels still accounted for more than half of the country’s primary energy consumption.75% of GHG emissions worldwide occur in sectors that have no link whatsoever to producing electricity (farming, deforestation), that are so far weakly electrified (transportation), or that use electricity wastefully (home heating, certain industrial processes).
As I said. Hydrogen. For what can’t run on LiPo. Generated by nuclear backbone electricity. The logic here is head shaking isn’t it? No more nuclear because we don’t use enough electricity and homes are badly insulated.
Got any disinterested sources for any of these claims?
Oh and
Emissions worldwide should reach their peak within the next 5 years before declining drastically.how's that then? In the 3/4s of GHG emission above? And that has what to do with CO2 levels for the next century?
MORE NUCLEAR DANGERS TO AVOID DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE ? Radioactivity and nuclear waste: more and more pollution …Major accidents: a disaster is possible …
Proliferation: radiological terrorism, nuclear war …
What pollution? With what quantified impact? You know, evidence.
Major accidents. Like what? Again, with what quantified impact. Ever? Excluding Soviet idiocy of course. Got any stats for Three Mile Island? Fukushima? Evidence.
Proliferation. Again, what about it? What evidence do you have? Nuclear weapons make war between nuclear armed powers impossible and no nuclear power can use nuclear weapons on any non-nuclear enemy either, not unless they face extinction. Unless you have historical examples to the contrary.
100% renewables eh? When? To give 10 bn people your lifestyle? When?
As for Germany.
Hmmm, I thought you were going to produce a blue print for getting to this LiPo / Hydrogen utopia?
Instead, I get a Gish Gallop of irrelevant questions, when it comes to supporting the claim you’re making.
100% renewables eh? When? To give 10 bn people your lifestyle? When?Interestingly you don't mention Earth's biosphere or its ability to support 10bn people living at your lifestyle, as though those considerations don't even exist within your imagination. The same flippant disregard that created and allowed today's monstrous problems to grow out of control.
Great, another person who has an agenda with nothing but questions to back it up. Who said 10 bn should have my lifestyle? How do you know what my lifestyle is? Evidence for nuclear accidents? None, if you diminish the impact of the accidents that happened. Use of nuke fuel for bombs? I guess the Iran nuclear treaty was just a big joke. The entire commission to be aware of, get satellite photos of, warn nations when we think they are doing it, that’s all just some 1984 hoax.
Thing is, I agree partially. We were overly fearful of nukes back in the 80s and 90s, we could have built more, we could have improved on the technology. But it’s really hard to agree with someone when they write a post like you just did. I like dialog, working toward solutions, not being challenged with questions that sound like Sean Hannity.
@citizenschallengev4, I love the projection. What challenge? What connection does a third rate, out of date, French anti-nuclear agenda site have with the facts of French nuclear power of which I am at least as aware as you? You’re the one claiming that that the world can live as comfortably as you, and you @laufen, of whom I didn’t ask any questions, on renewables.
So yes please, both, give me your quantified, objective facts, your evidence on nuclear risk, I already have them of course, but you must have different ones I’m not aware of. What has Iran’s nuclear weapons program got to do with nuclear power generation? Or Israel’s? Or Pakistan’s? Or the DPRNK? What is the risk from the full nuclear power generation cycle? Especially in greenhouse gases. Or anything. Why do you need the waste from a nuclear power station for radiological terrorism?
You are the people making empty claims. Without nuclear power we haven’t a hope in hell of running the world to your level of comfort with windmills (and it’s got to be virtuous solar) before we burn and drown and starve.