• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Just Stop Oil Protesters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now I'm actually not seeking to downplay the dangers of radioactive waste but even if you factor in the highest and more questionable estimates of downstream casualties from chernobyl it's still objectively safer than multiple other forms of energy.
Click to expand...
That’s lucky, because all your figures are for now. Nuclear waste will be dangerous for the next 10,000 years, how many could die from it in that time?
 
Aqua sobriquet said:
That’s lucky, because all your figures are for now. Nuclear waste will be dangerous for the next 10,000 years, how many could die from it in that time?
Click to expand...
Why don't you tell me? Why you believe anyone will die from it at all, and why and how you imagine that death toll would be greater than from other sources of energy? Also, yes, my figures are "for now" but project them into the future and explain what you imagine would drive such dramatic reversal of those figures that it would totally invert them? How from your perspective is nuclear energy going to suddenly become much more lethal while all the others become much less so?
As I've pointed out this is also a problem only inherent to incredibly outdated reactor designs and where the problem already exists even if we were to entirely abandon nuclear energy today. It's not something that proponents of modern nuclear energy really need to address and we're not responsible for the shortcomings of outdated soviet reactor designs.
I think you would end up in outlandish scenarios like "but if an asteroid hit the deep undergroung storage facility....." in which case we would have much bigger problems. I'm a lot more worried about microplastics than I am nuclear waste.
 
@simon_the_plant_nerd. Kinda...
My wife was born in Clydebank. And I kind of learnt to understand my mother in law. She was brought up in the Gorbals. She was Glaswegian through 'n' through 🙂
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dw1305 said:
and <"Global CO2 levels"> they make pretty shocking viewing.
co2_data_mlo.png
Click to expand...


The rise in atmospheric CO2 conc. since 1958, measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory and graphically demonstrated by the Keeling Curve is very dramatic, there is no doubting that. However, the graph’s scale is hugely misleading, we’re talking ppm (parts per million). The y axis is just 1 10,000th of that.

In other words, when CO2 concentration is expressed in molecules the dramatic nature of the graph evaporates. To put it further in to perspective CO2 is a trace gas, and accounts for only 0.04% of the atmosphere, there simply isn’t very much of it.

Earth’s atmosphere is perhaps the most complex physical system known to science, and it’s extremely difficult to attribute cause and effect with any degree of certainty. There are many more factors that could, and probably do, have a much greater effect on the global energy budget.

dw1305 said:
People are concerned by illegal migration etc., and I understand that, but a lot of those scared and desperate people are fleeing climate change and it is only going to get worse if we carry on with "business as normal", and those graphs show me that some governments are good with words, but not with actions, and it really is "business as normal".
Click to expand...

I doubt that very much Darrel, most are young men of military age and are economic migrants, and not fleeing persecution or global warming.
 
The rise in atmospheric CO2 conc. since 1958, measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory and graphically demonstrated by the Keeling Curve is very dramatic, there is no doubting that. However, the graph’s scale is hugely misleading, we’re talking ppm (parts per million). The y axis is just 1 10,000th of that.

In other words, when CO2 concentration is expressed in molecules the dramatic nature of the graph evaporates. To put it further in to perspective CO2 is a trace gas, and accounts for only 0.04% of the atmosphere, there simply isn’t very much of it.

Earth’s atmosphere is perhaps the most complex physical system known to science, and it’s extremely difficult to attribute cause and effect with any degree of certainty. There are many more factors that could, and probably do, have a much greater effect on the global energy budget.



I doubt that very much Darrel, most are young men of military age and are economic migrants, and not fleeing persecution or global warming.
Click to expand...

Ok maybe you are right about some of that

but you are basically describing what Reform UK want for the country

do you realise they want to repeal the act of human rights????

That can never end well, look at what happened in the 1930s and 40s in Germany
 
Hi all,
we’re talking ppm (parts per million). The y axis is just 1 10,000th of that.

In other words, when CO2 concentration is expressed in molecules the dramatic nature of the graph evaporates. To put it further in to perspective CO2 is a trace gas, and accounts for only 0.04% of the atmosphere, there simply isn’t very much of it.
Click to expand...
I understand scale can be misleading in graphs, but do it as percentages? and then tell me it doesn't make any difference?

Here is the most up to date CO2 reading <"Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory"> = 422.38 ppm.

So we will call that 420 ppm, against 280 ppm pre the industrial revolution and 280 / 420, so just a third more (140 ppm) atmospheric CO2 than there was before the large scale combustion of fossil fuels: <"Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide">.

CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2022.png


You can scale either Y axis on that graph any way you like, it doesn't change what it shows.
Earth’s atmosphere is perhaps the most complex physical system known to science, and it’s extremely difficult to attribute cause and effect with any degree of certainty. There are many more factors that could, and probably do, have a much greater effect on the global energy budget.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you can attribute cause and effect to the combustion of fossil fuels, because all the variations across pre Anthropocene geological time (<"Anthropocene - Wikipedia">) are accounted for by natural factors.

This is just the Holocene (last 10,000 years), from <"Holocene CO2 Variability and Underlying Trends - CO2 Coalition"> - <"CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia">. They have their own agenda <"Trump adviser created group to defend CO2">, but even they <"can't spin"> the far right of that graph.

Picture1.jpg


cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
I kind of liked the super-severe new policy here for tending to keep posts relevant to fish-keeping here, rather than reading comments about immigrants and suchlike. People have many other places they can post such opinions / /thoughts / garbage. We learnt a lesson when we nearly lost the forum and I personally wish people would stick to only posting on topic.
 
AlecF said:
I kind of liked the super-severe new policy here for tending to keep posts relevant to fish-keeping here, rather than reading comments about immigrants and suchlike. People have many other places they can post such opinions / /thoughts / garbage. We learnt a lesson when we nearly lost the forum and I personally wish people would stick to only posting on topic.
Click to expand...
So where else can we talk with reasonable people? Have you seen youtube comments or facebook? It's total brainrot
 
At the pub, in the street, in the park, on the phone, and maybe on Bluesky, which seems quite calm and reasonable. Also, my Facebook never has stuff about immigrants, so maybe it's just a question of deleting some people, if that is you don't want to see that kind of thing. It wasn't so reasonable here, not that long ago, so I think that's my point, if we stick to fish, or fish plus nature, we help preserve the forum.
 
AlecF said:
I kind of liked the super-severe new policy here for tending to keep posts relevant to fish-keeping here, rather than reading comments about immigrants and suchlike. People have many other places they can post such opinions / /thoughts / garbage. We learnt a lesson when we nearly lost the forum and I personally wish people would stick to only posting on topic.
Click to expand...
Whilst this is a site is dedicated to aquascaping, plants and fish keeping, this particular discussion is in the 'off topic/chit chat' forum. So long as things do not become offensive to individuals or groups of people non aquarium related discussions are fine.

Edit: I'll also add that discussion should remain on topic of the OP.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top