Climate change

Ah. This sounds so similar to those who were saying CFCs don’t create ozone holes. Oh the memories. It’s natural they said. We are still fixing it.

 

Environmentalists have long promoted renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind farms to save the climate. But what about when those technologies destroy the environment? In this provocative talk, Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and energy expert, Michael Shellenberger explains why solar and wind farms require so much land for mining and energy production, and an alternative path to saving both the climate and the natural environment. Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine Hero of the Environment and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. A lifelong environmentalist, Michael changed his mind about nuclear energy and has helped save enough nuclear reactors to prevent an increase in carbon emissions equivalent to adding more than 10 million cars to the road. He lives in Berkeley, California. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community

 

So - your suggestion is same old same old?

There are technologies that have been created - that far exceed what is currently on offer - but the rights have been bought by fossil fuel companies and put in the back cupboard.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10922/chapter/10

 

Where are these ↑ facts from ?

where is the list of 100% of scientists polled
and what was the exact question asked .

if your a climate scientist it is in your interest to push global warming
otherwise you're out of a job .

Again............ its all a load of Bupkis !

 

Of course they ask climate scientists - who do you think they'd ask? Someone studying typhus? What a stupid statement.

If you don't like the link provided - here's on from NASA saying the same thing:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Perhaps you somehow missed the news on how weather conditions are becoming more extreme worldwide - maybe didn't see how year on year the earth is breaking new "record temperatures" - how about the bit posted a few up by myself that shows CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been in human existence ... on a local note, the whales are heading north around a month earlier than normal (nature will tell us long before us sheltered human's will notice)

 

If there was credible evidence that man made climate change was not happening there would be huge labs of scientists employed by fossil fuel companies researching this. And they would be probably better equipped and better paid than government scientists. So where are these labs?

 

Did you read the page at all? "finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists." i.e. when a scientist publish their work and its reviewed by their peers and it adds to the body of the science and works towards a consensus, it's pretty much how all science works. So I guess your next argument might be that the human caused climate change denying scientists simply just don't publish as much work? More likely that they work they produced doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of their peers and falls by the wayside as bad science.

Why would a climate scientists be out of a job by arguing the contrary? The only ones to be out of a job would be the ones on the payroll of the coal giants paid to skew their "science" to show humans aren't causing warming so they can keep digging up more ***** from the ground to burn for profit.

I'm not clever enough to argue any of this, but I know how to follow the links to work backwards to see where claims originate, so far no one on this thread has provided any actual links, backed by actual science that show humans ARE NOT causing climate change other than a few links to papers written by poeple who work for organisations funded by companys who's primary interest is to ensure we don't believe that we are doing harm so they can continue to make money.

As I have said before on this thread, post up some genuine science to argue how humans are not contributing to climate change and I'll gladly read it and attempt to understand it enough to see if it will sway my own current beliefs based on what I've read to the contrary.

 

Did you actually view the video? I don't think so.

Even your reference has references to Nuclear energy.

HYDROGEN FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY
Why Nuclear?
Nuclear energy is a long-term energy resource that can serve the United States and the world for centuries. With major uranium supplies in the United States, Canada, and Australia, increased reliance on nuclear fuel supplies adds to U.S. energy security. Nuclear power reactors do not involve any CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, nor do they emit any toxic air pollutants such as are emitted by fossil-fueled power

Page 95
Suggested Citation:"8. Hydrogen Production Technologies." National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering. 2004. The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10922.
×



plants.3 The development of more efficient nuclear power stations requires technologies with high-temperature coolants—developments that are also required for efficient application of nuclear technology to hydrogen generation. The United States is making progress toward establishing a geologic repository for the spent fuel used in a once-through nuclear fuel cycle, while other fuel cycles are being investigated to optimize resource utilization and reduce the waste burden. Nuclear fuel cycles involving separation of fissile materials leave open the possibility of improper access to those materials (e.g., plutonium) through theft or diversion, but this risk can be mitigated through international cooperation (PCAST, 1999).

Status of Nuclear Power Technology
The United States derived about 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy in 2002 (EIA, Electric Power Monthly, 2003). The 103 power reactors operating today have a total capacity of nearly 100 gigawatts electric (GWe) and constitute about 13 percent of the installed U.S. electric generation capacity. The current U.S. plants use water as the coolant and neutron moderator (hence called light-water reactors, or LWRs) and rely on the steam Rankine cycle as the thermal-to-electrical power conversion cycle. Other countries use other technologies—notably CO2-cooled reactors in the United Kingdom and heavy-water-cooled reactors (HWRs) in Canada and India.

In the past 20 years, several advanced versions of the LWR, collectively called ALWRs, have been designed, but only one type has been built: the advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR), which was built in Japan. New versions of light-water reactors are now under review for safety certification by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). It is expected that a high-temperature helium-cooled reactor, if built in South Africa, would become of interest to U.S. utilities and would also be reviewed by the USNRC for certification.

In 2002, several reactor concepts were selected by an international team representing 10 countries, including the United States, as promising “Generation IV (GEN IV) technologies” that should be further explored for availability beyond 2025. The goals for the proposed advanced reactor systems are to improve the economics, safety, waste characteristics, and security of the reactors and the fuel cycle. The emphasis in the development was given to six options (see Appendix G), to be later narrowed to fewer options. The helium-cooled very high temperature reactor (VHTR) is an extension of the helium-cooled reactors built in the United States and in other countries so as to reach higher temperatures and to use gas turbines for their power generation.

Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Energy
Hydrogen can be produced using reactors for water splitting by electrolysis or by thermochemical processes without any CO2 emissions. Potentially more efficient hydrogen production may be attained by significantly raising the water temperature before splitting its molecules using either thermochemistry or electrolysis. Such approaches require temperatures in the range of 700°C to 1000°C. Current LWRs and near-term, water-cooled ALWRs produce temperatures under 350°C and cannot be used for such purposes. However, other coolants of several Generation IV reactor concepts are proposed to reach such high temperatures (above 700°C) and may be coupled to thermochemical plants (Brown et al., 2003; Doctor et al., 2002; and Forsberg, 2003). A recent report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) pointed out that the use of nuclear reactors to supply the heat needed in the steam methane reforming (SMR) process is potentially more economic than their use for water splitting (Sandell, 2003). Nuclear-assisted SMR would reduce the use of natural gas in the process as well as the CO2 emissions. The various options for nuclear hydrogen production are compared in Table 8-1.

 

... and ... ?

 

NASA didn't provide those figures or even do a study that page simply says
NASA says the warmest year in 138 years was 2016


There is a reason you cant provide the data for studies for the 97% scientist consensus figures.

Do you know why ???

* here's a tip -- the figures come from John Cook research assistant professor from the university of Queensland


facts not feelings produce the data .

 

You do have the option of following the links was on the NASA page - let me start for you:

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

and then go to subsequent links such as:

Search | Australian Academy of Science - and then put "climate change" in the search option

Or I can teach you to google if you'd like:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35529899/jones_hres.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1557910837&Signature=OhDGZpLF2t7OjYBXsZsX4XtST2U=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=High-quality_spatial_climate_data-sets_f.pdf

Global Climate Change and Intensification of Coastal Ocean Upwelling

Global Iron Connections Between Desert Dust, Ocean Biogeochemistry, and Climate

Actually - there are several hundred peer assessed published papers/documents - so if you go to this link Google Scholar and type in "data proving climate change". Click-laziness is no excuse for not educating yourself on such an important topic

Your turn

 

NO Geoff .......... facts not feelings
don't guess 80%

You cant provide the data for the 97%

 

Last time CO2 levels were this high, there were trees at the South Pole

 

There you go sport. But then you don't want to see the evidence, so you wont.

Climate change

 

Here you go...

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience

Your turn, please post some actual facts, data or published peer reviewed papers that show humans are not causing climate change.

 

Re-read in case I missed something - so there were tabled 7 options - four of which use renewable sources to produce hydrogen ... electrolysis - wind - solar - biomass ... and three that I'm not so keen on ... coal - gas - nuclear ... so why pick on nuclear when there were the four renewable options?

How about I try this option instead:

Hydrogen Production from Renewables | Hydrogen

 

If you don't care about the frogs and rodents - at least care about the Koalas.

The gene pool and birth rate is so decreased due to habitat loss and disease that they have become "functionally" extinct

Koalas 'functionally extinct' in Australia, according to conservation group