Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #41

    Sep 26, 2019, 07:18 PM
    Athos: A closed mind, no....a slow learner, yes.....give me time to make corrections....these things don't come overnight....there is a process involved.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #42

    Oct 1, 2019, 04:54 PM
    V7 - Respect
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #43

    Oct 2, 2019, 07:18 AM
    LOL, Vac, that's probably better than being a slow thinker like myself who needs a whole lot of information.
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #44

    Oct 2, 2019, 09:24 AM
    Talaniman: You'll find not arguments here: The balance comes between the "want" to be decisive, and not appear to vacillate, and the desire to not take a wrong decision.....In the times in my life where I'd taken the decisions more hurriedly than I had wished to, on some of those occasions were those were times where I made my biggest errors! And, it also goes against my own preaching: I tell youngsters to not be so quick to judgement before taking decisions and let their decision making process be "data driven"......then I catch myself not taking my own advice!
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #45

    Oct 2, 2019, 05:52 PM
    We could build breeder reactors in some far away place, a desert or salt flat, or the top of a mountain where the air is too thin for life. They've got be so far out of the way that piping their energy back to civilization is not feasible, to help mitigate any potential contamination. They would drill deep into the earth, plunging deep into salt water aquifers and purifying the waters with high pressure reverse osmosis. Creating a river, warm river, nourishing the land around it. Leaving it open for regular testing of any kind. Using only waste energy to bring life to a dead region.

    These breeder reactors would produce safe plutonium 238 that produces no dangerous radiation, and has a fairly high critical mass. Shipping it around the country with multiple well established infrastructures, trucking, and rail transport come to mind. Strategically placed small reactors are placed around dense grid areas, smart grid tech can help here to harden and prioritize the power. Conjuncting with this and some more feasible solar and wind and geothermal and whatever projects will help reduce load on the reactors, and keep competition alive for the power industry.

    Breeder reactor might be 10 high production reactors in the same location. The waste products can be refined onsite, others purified and sold off as chem supplies, manufacturing, and other commercial markets.

    Irritated products are stored in proper encasement after being reduced to their smallest volume and buried in even deeper wells. We could even experiment with rock melting/self burial techniques, or subduction zone bores. There are safe disposal methods.

    The landscaping could be tailored towards melt down scenarios, with sunflowers and other plants that soak up radiation, collapsible wells, and other containment strategies.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #46

    Oct 3, 2019, 11:07 PM
    Thunberg is still getting flack, some of it justified. Her argument is too simplistic, she proposes action or change but doesn't offer any suggestions excepting rallying for change. If you want action then you should be proposing a course of action, not good enough to bad mouth everyone because you don't like their answer. The fact is some of the problem is naturally occurring like volcanoes that destroy the ozone layer allowing solar radiation to heat the Earth, what does she propose we do about that, perhaps nuke the offending volcano?

    Thunberg is a victim, a victim of an education system that has provided some "facts" such as higher temperatures are being recorded but failing to correlate other facts
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #47

    Oct 4, 2019, 04:18 AM
    Paraclete: We call the effect of having facts but not being able to intelligently frame a problem or its solution as "Have just enough information to be dangerous".....and we see this all over the GLOBAL WARMING crowd......BTW: Polar Bear numbers are exploding! The G.W. crowd was saying that they were on the verge of extinction: that doesn't square with the facts. And this Winter is expected to be extremely harsh....not good for the G.W. narrative.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #48

    Oct 4, 2019, 07:03 AM
    Polar bears are but a small part of a bigger story on the impacts of GW. Nobody questions the rising seas or the effects of man's activities to keep the lights on or the cars running. Of course it's easy to ignore pollution of land, air, and water, or deforestation of entire eco systems, for man's convenience. I respectfully submit that there is so much human chaos and ignorance of the facts we have been reduced to talking points that distract us from the very real climate changes we as humans make worse.

    If you are suggesting we do nothing NOW then I must reject that notion because facts are out there but what's dangerous is ignoring those facts and listening to those with a narrow interest of profits that result from that activity and continuing the mass pollution of the air water and lands and not only the human costs but environment as well.

    I think we separate the weather from the climate to observe the global trends more efficiently and formulate a plan to improve not just the pollution. but general environment as well. It's a lot more complicated than just the polar bear population I think.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #49

    Oct 4, 2019, 09:10 AM
    Polar bears are but a small part of a bigger story on the impacts of GW. Nobody questions the rising seas or the effects of man's activities to keep the lights on or the cars running. Of course it's easy to ignore pollution of land, air, and water, or deforestation of entire eco systems, for man's convenience. I respectfully submit that there is so much human chaos and ignorance of the facts we have been reduced to talking points that distract us from the very real climate changes we as humans make worse.
    I can agree with you that global warming due to industrial age carbon pollution is a real thing. The problem comes when we try and figure out how to detach ourselves from the use of carbon based fuels. The completely ludicrous ideas put forward by AOC are an example of the liberal dem tendency to live in a fantasy world far removed from reality. Windmills and solar panels are not the answer. Nuclear might be a solution but the left is terrified of it. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel and we thankfully have a lot of it. Carbon sequestration might be of some help. But then the problem still remains of what to do about India and China. So it's a really tough problem so solve. The fed government, thanks to our stupid politicians and even more stupid voters, is so deeply in debt that to think the feds can do much about it is a pipedream. And no, taxing the wealthy more heavily is not the answer. It will be like giving a starving man a couple of crackers. So I'm open to solutions, but they have to be based in the real world.

    What do you suggest?
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #50

    Oct 4, 2019, 10:12 AM
    SUGGESTION: GO NUCLEAR! With some sense! Make the reactors like France has done.....NOT LIKE RUSSIA! Just don't do it cheap....it will cost, initially, but the payback is there, in more ways than one!
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #51

    Oct 4, 2019, 11:13 AM
    I watched this TED talk about desertification, it essentially says that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere produced by humans has more to do with desertification than anything else. When an acre of soil loses its life, all the microbes, fungi, and other plants and animals basically evaporate their carbon of into the atmosphere. An acre of deserted soil puts more carbon in the air than most anything else humans do.

    It even goes on about micro deserts like roadways and buildings and all the areas we clear and do not allow anything to grow.

    It would be worth considering this as one of the main causes of GW.

    Maybe going green really has more to do with green than all the craziness that's been proposed. We need to grow everywhere, and revitalize the deserts, and grow algae in lakes, and green roofs, and anything that will increase life.

    This particular scientist took grazing animals by the tens of thousands and used their defication and trampling the soil to bring new life to barren lands.

    Support the ecosystem, conserve what's there, and it can then support you and untold amounts of life.

    Alan Savory is the name if you want to look him up. Truly inspirational a and sound research.
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #52

    Oct 4, 2019, 11:50 AM
    InfoJunkie4Life: A few things to consider:

    If CO2 is an instigator of G.W., it is also CRAVED by green plants: they love it.....so there is something of a contradiction within the G.W. argument on this basis.

    We have to watch algae in lakes or any body of water: Algae consumes oxygen and robs oxygen from fish.....also, some algae is toxic to fish, and humans.

    Hooved animals are great: As long as they are CATTLE! For the most part, the lighter weight splayed-hooved animals are killers to any land: They densify the soil and will, often obliterate any vegetation because they bite down to the ground: My father told me about islands he saw in the South Pacific during WWII that were inhabited by goats: All trees had been killed, all bushes, too....the goats were surviving on meager lichen on rocks! And we all know about the Hog Infestation!
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #53

    Oct 4, 2019, 12:59 PM
    Algae absorbs CO2. When it dies it's decomposition is what depletes the water.

    As far as the herds, it is necessary that they must be moved regularly. They are given to trample and chomp and thin everything out, then when the land has a chance to recover, it does so tenfold. It's the rotation that is good for the land.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #54

    Oct 4, 2019, 03:30 PM
    If CO2 is an instigator of G.W., it is also CRAVED by green plants: they love it.....so there is something of a contradiction within the G.W. argument on this basis.
    There is no contradiction there. The GW advocates will happily admit that increased CO2 is somewhat beneficial for plants, but that has nothing to do with a rise in temperatures and it's that rise that they are concerned with.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #55

    Oct 4, 2019, 04:55 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    There is no contradiction there. The GW advocates will happily admit that increased CO2 is somewhat beneficial for plants, but that has nothing to do with a rise in temperatures and it's that rise that they are concerned with.
    Yes the problem is the failure to see the big picture when focused on a single issue, vulcanologists, geologists, etc will tell you that there is a correlation in their studies between temperature rise and various natural processes so that focusing on CO2 abatement won't solve the problem and may not even be the issue
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #56

    Oct 4, 2019, 07:50 PM
    Paraclete: Damn! Wish someone had told the G.W. bunch that information about the CO2 maybe not even be the culprit in G.W. before their tantrums relieved the U.S. of so many jobs to China!
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #57

    Oct 4, 2019, 08:55 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Vacuum7 View Post
    Paraclete: Damn! Wish someone had told the G.W. bunch that information about the CO2 maybe not even be the culprit in G.W. before their tantrums relieved the U.S. of so many jobs to China!
    Moving jobs to China just made a bad situation worse, if the situation could be made worse. The US got to look like it had achieved something in abatement and the atmospheric pollution in China just got worse, in the mean time we have solar and wind up the wazzoo and they are still calling for more abatement but are not willing to deal with the elephant in the room, population
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #58

    Oct 4, 2019, 09:05 PM
    More green plants = greater holding capacity
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #59

    Oct 4, 2019, 09:14 PM
    According to many estimates the world population will peak around 11 billion.

    By then I expect us to have a handle on food production and emissions. As wealth goes up world wide, technology will grow and the population can live comfortably without melting our planet.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #60

    Oct 4, 2019, 09:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    According to many estimates the world population will peak around 11 billion.

    By then I expect us to have a handle on food production and emissions. As wealth goes up world wide, technology will grow and the population can live comfortably without melting our planet.
    No really, more people means more consumption and more pollution there will be serious resource issues in developing nations, you see just looking at number doesn't help. 11 billion means 1 and 1/2 times the people we have now all wanting the best standard of living and this will mean forests are cut down, more plastic pollution in the oceans and there will be serious issues, water, available land, dealing with waste

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.



View more questions Search