Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 94 of 125 FirstFirst ... 4484909192939495969798104 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1249

Thread: The Climate Change Debate Thread (Second Thread)

  1. #931
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    19,534
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverharp View Post
    there is an excuse, the cost will go down in the future. As you say fusion could start being a thing in 20 to 30 years, its an engineering problem at this stage. give it 30 or 40 years and you could 3D print concrete blocks out of captured CO2 from the atmosphere. When did government become so negative and sadomasochistic instead of inspirational?
    Just imagine being back at the year 1718. You are in the company of a group of 9 people, 6 of whom are engineers with inventive minds. Coal is just catching on. How much of the modern world would be predicted. Next imagine the government is involved with a minister for invention. As the same question.

  2. #932
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    19,534
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trampas View Post
    That writer goes on...…….."the only certainty in our future is the next ice age". The reason it is a certainty is that we have had a dozen or so ice ages in the past couple of million years. Before "climate change"....aka "global warming" started to occupy minds the received wisdom is that we were living in an inter-glacial period. Perhaps we should prepare.
    I would rather be too hot than too cold and I think the public know it. The first thing is the lack of food, hunger. Hungry kids, hungry people and weapons =

  3. #933
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trampas View Post
    Excellent letter in today's IT. Perhaps somebody could link to it. There is nothing like a few statements of fact to show up the happy clappy Paris/Katowice brigade.
    Climate Change has been exposed as a religion for years now, anyone disagreeing with the doctrine of Climate Change gets labelled a blasphemer, it's a belief system with no evidence to back it up and completely based on doomsday prophecies.
    We made our bed.......

  4. #934
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,307
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Yes, because it would have to be deployed on a massive scale to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

    What I am pointing out is that it is high-risk. After many attempts, no feasible technology has been developed. By the way, the planet already has an excellent carbon capture technology - trees.

    You could say that same about another panacaea - nuclear fusion. At the best estimate, we probably will not see a working reactor before 2040, and then maybe never. Can't bet the farm, or the planet, on that either. But we already have an excellent source of nuclear fusion energy, it is called The Sun.

    I agree CCS and nuclear fusion are technologies that should be developed, but they are no excuse for inaction on de-carbonisation.
    I agree that de-carbonistation is essential but based on everything I've read on gradual reduction aims and the fact that it seems to be written into the recent report that these aims in themselves are inadequate what choice is there other than geo-engineering?

    I'm not personally arguing for a softly softly carbon emissions reduction plan so that economies do not suffer inordinately and lets work on other measures instead but it seems to be written into our chances of keeping the overall warming figure down sufficiently.

    What's happening now with emissions policy is just not going to work.

  5. #935
    Politics.ie Member Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI - USA
    Posts
    2,406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Like Steve Case, I am not comfortable with geo-engineering.
    Holy cow, after all these years we agree on something.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    There is no such thing as painless geo-engineering, and a global programme
    might well create worse problems than the ones it meant to solve.
    Yes, what could possibly go wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    And, by the way, it is mostly climate change deniers who seem to like geo-engineering.
    Uhm no. That's not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Bill Gates, by the way, funds this effort at CCS (carbon capture and storage)
    - I happen to know that many scientists, including ones in the IPCC, think we
    will need this technology.
    Sequestering CO2, removing a biologically essential component from the
    atmosphere, is stupid.

    Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds


    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Bill Gates Is Investing in a Technology That Turns CO2 into Clean Fuel
    I didn't know he was stupid enough to believe in perpetual motion machines.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    It should be added that many Government and privately funded efforts to invent
    a feasible CCS technology have failed.
    Good!
    Climatologists don't know what the temperature is today within 0.5C, and don't know
    what it was 100 years ago, but they know it's 0.8C 0.1C hotter now than it was then.

  6. #936
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    19,534
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    I agree that de-carbonistation is essential but based on everything I've read on gradual reduction aims and the fact that it seems to be written into the recent report that these aims in themselves are inadequate what choice is there other than geo-engineering?

    I'm not personally arguing for a softly softly carbon emissions reduction plan so that economies do not suffer inordinately and lets work on other measures instead but it seems to be written into our chances of keeping the overall warming figure down sufficiently.

    What's happening now with emissions policy is just not going to work.
    All governments should set up a fund to allow people like you pay in optionally and people like me not pay. Why can you force me to pay to Mugabe's palace fund.?

  7. #937
    Politics.ie Member owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NW of Dublin - Co. Meath
    Posts
    44,225
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    I agree that de-carbonistation is essential but based on everything I've read on gradual reduction aims and the fact that it seems to be written into the recent report that these aims in themselves are inadequate what choice is there other than geo-engineering?

    I'm not personally arguing for a softly softly carbon emissions reduction plan so that economies do not suffer inordinately and lets work on other measures instead but it seems to be written into our chances of keeping the overall warming figure down sufficiently.

    What's happening now with emissions policy is just not going to work.
    I think we would both agree on an aggressive carbon-reduction program, with research into carbon capture as a contingency.

    I agree that carbon-capture will almost certainly become vital later in the century - we will need to remove large quantities of carob dioxide from the atmosphere and store it. However, my concern is that it might become a substitute for de-carbonisation in the shorter term - I do not think that would work.
    "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" - David Hume

  8. #938

  9. #939
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    2,339
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    I think we would both agree on an aggressive carbon-reduction program, with research into carbon capture as a contingency.

    I agree that carbon-capture will almost certainly become vital later in the century - we will need to remove large quantities of carob dioxide from the atmosphere and store it. However, my concern is that it might become a substitute for de-carbonisation in the shorter term - I do not think that would work.
    Yes to reforestation and leaving the black stuff in the ground, and as far as the rest of it is concerned, necessity is the mother of invention. Humanity is very intuitive and resourceful, we know what's broke and we know how to fix it.
    ASAP.

  10. #940
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    2,339
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gandyalf View Post
    Yes to reforestation and leaving the black stuff in the ground, and as far as the rest of it is concerned, necessity is the mother of invention. Humanity is very intuitive and resourceful, we know what's broke and we know how to fix it.
    ASAP.
    Here's an interesting discussion:

    Decarbonising the electric power sector | s Physics

    .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •