Deer in the Headlights

[flyboy77]

Not sure they're culprits.

They're just doing what they have to do to make their country and people more prosperous.

Can't blame them for that. After all, we in the west did it for centuries to get where we've got today?

[capcom]

Not sure they're culprits.

They're just doing what they have to do to make their country and people more prosperous.

Can't blame them for that. After all, we in the west did it for centuries to get where we've got today?

Fly .. they're an economic and military super power.  They're being treated leniently when they are by far the biggest polluter on Earth (double the U.S.) and that is insane on any level. To kick us on a per capita basis is BS when the country simply can't sustain a bigger population so China is afforded emissions leniency.  Last time I looked China wasn't 35% desert but we are. 

[flyboy77]

Sure, and no one is going to get them to change their ways in our lifetimes!

Which only goes to support the idea that's it's bloody stupid for us here to do anything (even if you believe the climate change stuff)....

[Thryleon]

I heard a story about the Netherlands.

Apparently they turned off their nuclear plants to go green and focus on solar and wind.

Apparently they had to have coal powered backup to cover the shortfall in green technology.

On a side note building a giant solar farm comes with it's own environmental drawbacks.  Bird populations suffer due to radiation and reflection of said panels.

Nuclear appears to be the most environmentally friendly of all the options available provided there's no meltdown...

[LP]

Nuclear appears to be the most environmentally friendly of all the options available provided there's no meltdown...

Not to mention Japan which is now building modern coal to supplement remaining nuclear, and it's turning nuclear plants back on slowly as are some of the European states as you mention. Two reasons seem to be primary concerns, reliability of energy supply and the unsubsidised ongoing cost of green energy. Green activists make claims that countries like Japan are addicted to nuclear, but that claim doesn't stack up as many of the same countries are actually providing the green energy innovation as well.

In fairness I don't think we can compare Three Mile Island or Chernobyl to a modern plant, and as much as screwushima(Cop this autocorrect mods, some activist is taking the piss!) Daiichi now presents some problems there may have been the odd external influence. Those old plants, the design, construction and location, are relics compared to modern plants. It's like comparing a Model-T Ford to a Tesla. But in fairness, even the situation with coal plants is pretty much the same, we talk about our Latrobe Valley facilities but these are dinosaurs compared to modern plants, the main difference being the old plants lack of ability to ramp production to meet demand, they are too slow to react so they leave them running wasting far too much resource. It's like leaving your car running overnight so it can ready to go at breakfast! In fairness nuclear plants are similar, they leave them idling 24x7, but they don't consume much resource or produce greenhouse gas in that state.

[Thryleon]

^^

Don't get me wrong, mother nature can and will cause a variety of unforseen circumstances, but fukushima is literally a freak act of nature that caused their problems.  If we dont do things because of the threat of mother nature, then realistically we may as well have remained in caves keeping the power off altogether.

The big question that I have that I have literally seen not one person talking about 13 pages about the environment is as follows:

Given what we understand about nature, and the fact that it is a well known fact that cloud seeding technology exists (yes we create the conditions which cause rain artificially read more here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/cloud.htm) what piques my interest is whether or not this is a bigger factor towards climate change than anything else we can conceive.

What is the ongoing effect of seeding our own clouds on the overall environment?

Im led to believe that the world is a delicate eco system (studies show this is true of every environment that occurs naturally) so modifying one part of a natural cycle would only naturally lead to modifications that are both foreseen and unforseen wouldnt it?

[Baggers]

Whist reading loads of stuff here and elsewhere re climate change v deniers I stumbled across this article/science (?) re climate change being a huge hoax. They actually gave us a satellite photo of how CO2 is greening the planet! The author of the article, Mike Adams, is widely quoted by deniers.

Anyway, here's the link to his shattering discoveries... the satellite photo (?) is great news for Namibia, our Gibson Desert, Nullabor... and how Alice Springs has changed... just to name a few who've benefitted from CO2 greening!!

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-c...ArQsqIbfAY

[LP]

Anyway, here's the link to his shattering discoveries... the satellite photo (?) is great news for Namibia, our Gibson Desert, Nullabor... and how Alice Springs has changed... just to name a few who've benefitted from CO2 greening!!

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-c...ArQsqIbfAY

Yeah, I've read so many of these and they all follow the same pattern.

Most common is flipping cause and effect which breaks causality, the laws of thermodynamics or the flow of time. Generalisations of land based effects to global conditions, ignoring that land, ice and ocean behave differently and that the critical effects and influences of climate change on weather patterns is more than 90% contained in the sea and ocean.

They confuse or correlate broad scientific findings from astronomy(in this case the effects of low altitude cloud cover and albedo over land) and localised physics(land observations) with "climate science" which is land(~10%) and sea or ocean(~90%).

Finally, they cherry-pick data often from already disproved and/or non-peer reviewed papers often by non-climate specialists. Quite a good plain language critique of the linked Jyrki Kauppinen(A Finnish Physicist not a Climate Scientist) paper used as evidence in this article is contained here at the website Climate Feedback, there are lots of others floating around.

For the uninitiated, one of the biggest warning signs of a dodgy scientific paper is not being peer reviewed or published before peer review, a lack of declare sources of data and generalised starting conclusions that are unsupported by data or reference sources. The Kauppinen paper is loaded with them, for example Richard Betts found;

This document only cites 6 references, 4 of which are the authors’ own, and of these 2 are not actually published.

That self referencing is Kauppinen basically claiming it's that way because I said so, without providing any data or evidence! :

[dodge]

I thought this topic was going to be ab out Paul Bowers or Simon Tregenza

[cookie2]

I thought this topic was going to be ab out Paul Bowers or Simon Tregenza

^-^