6mo ago

‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating

www.theguardian.com ‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating

The leap in temperatures over the past 13 months has exceeded the global heating forecasts – is this just a blip or a systemic shift?

Temperatures above 50C used to be a rarity confined to two or three global hotspots, but the World Meteorological Organization noted that at least 10 countries have reported this level of searing heat in the past year: the US, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India and China.

In Iran, the heat index – a measure that also includes humidity – has come perilously close to 60C, far above the level considered safe for humans.

Heatwaves are now commonplace elsewhere, killing the most vulnerable, worsening inequality and threatening the wellbeing of future generations. Unicef calculates a quarter of the world’s children are already exposed to frequent heatwaves, and this will rise to almost 100% by mid-century.

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND @lemmy.world

Doug Holland @lemmy.world

6mo ago

"We should have better answers by now": climate scientists baffled by unexpectedly rapid pace of heating

www.theguardian.com /environment/article/2024/aug/15/we-should-have-better-answers-by-now-climate-scientists-baffled-by-unexpected-pace-of-heating

8 0

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

301 comments

You don't need any of those things....well other than the nickel in the coils I specificallymention and the other components that I clearly know nothing about......
Pipe dreams are lovely and all that but until we have something more solid, its best to dismiss the use of other isotopes as it'll take a decade just to build the power station needed to make the energy. Thats before we get to the time it will actually take to fully research it all.
You're attempting to argue that I don't know about renewables or the technology necessary to go green and you're talking about mining THE MOON in order to, wait for it, lower carbon emissions of all things.
The fucking moon
No wonder you found it so funny. I never said "the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate." Honestly, you're hilarious for attempting to twist what was said into that. Have some intellectual integrity please.
You've failed so hard at an "akshually" but please do carry on. As I guessed, you're against degrowth as anything but a temporary measure and rather than having the spine to come out and stand for it, you try waffle instead.
Just want to leave this here, in case you choose to delete it later
If you actually looked into it you would probably find that lost of the consuming of resources is to support the lower and middle classes
- You don't need any of those things....well other than the nickel in the coils I specificallymention and the other components that I clearly know nothing about......
  Nickel in generator coils? What? They are mode from copper. Sometimes aluminum because it's cheaper than copper. The majority of nickel isn't even used in things like batteries, it's used to make steel alloys like stainless steel and heat resistant alloys used for engine parts. Also you keep pretending all of these material aren't recyclable. Metals can be reshaped an indefinite number of times. It's like arguing you can only use water once.
  Pipe dreams are lovely and all that but until we have something more solid, its best to dismiss the use of other isotopes as it'll take a decade just to build the power station needed to make the energy. That's before we get to the time it will actually take to fully research it all.
  I am not talking about a pipedream. I am talking about something that was actually implemented in the soviet union. This isn't Thorium that has never had a commerical implementation that was successful. Both of these reactors are still operational:
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
  There is even a third one that has now been decommissioned, but still operated for around 20 years.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor
  You're attempting to argue that I don't know about renewables or the technology necessary to go green and you're talking about mining THE MOON in order to, wait for it, lower carbon emissions of all things.
  The fucking moon
  You're lost again. I am talking about doing that in the long term after we have decarbonized.
  No wonder you found it so funny. I never said "the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate." Honestly, you're hilarious for attempting to twist what was said into that. Have some intellectual integrity please.
  Given you kept talking about the elite and how they can't exist in your degrowth scenario, it seemed to me that blame was implied. I am not being dishonest here. If anything you are the one changing goal posts by doing the whole I didn't say that routine when it's clearly implied.
  You've failed so hard at an "akshually" but please do carry on. As I guessed, you're against degrowth as anything but a temporary measure and rather than having the spine to come out and stand for it, you try waffle instead.
  Yes. Did I not say it isn't necessary in the long term? I thought I stated it pretty clearly. I don't support long term degrowth anymore than I support shrinking the human population long term. Maybe the population of earth specifically, but not the population of all humanity.
  I am still waiting for a response to that last quote. I think you've found something you can't dispute.
  
  Good job there isn't a copper shortage coming ...
  Oh wait
  Nickel is used in the alloys needed in wind turbines and solar panels.
  Theres no factual basis to what you're saying. You're just declaring utter bollocks to be thus and such.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
  Youre saying they don't use uranium or are you trying to move the goal posts again?
  Oh, I see, mining the moon is a solution for when we've already fixed the problem. No wonder it was so confusing.
  it seemed to me that blame was implied.
  No, you just made that up and its not implied. They can't exist without vast amounts of excess labour being undertaken. Im saying its two birds with one stone. That doesn't mean I'm saying that they made all the emissions. If that's genuinely what you read from those words then you have a problem. Youre just grasping at straws here.
  It took a long time to drag out of you.
  Well, far be for me to have to explain to you the finite nature of the planet you find yourself on. Who knows, maybe perpetual growth on a finite planet is possible? Maybe all the scientists and the laws on entropy are wrong and youre right? Maybe thats a thing that could happen in the real world?
  I am still waiting for a response to that last quote. I think you’ve found something you can’t dispute.
  Omg, yeah, you got me. I can't dispute that there are more "lower" and middle class people in the world. Well done you.
  
  Youre saying they don't use uranium or are you trying to move the goal posts again?
  Nope not at all. Do you understand what an isotope is? The vast majority of Uranium on earth is U-238. Ordinary reactors mainly use U-235 with less usage of U-238. If you look at the composition of "spent" fuel you would see most of it is unreacted Uranium. Likewise the depleted uranium produced in manufacturing new reactor fuel can also be used by turning it into Plutonium.
  Normally when people talk about running out of Uranium they are talking about U-235. Since you have provided no source I can only presume this is what you mean. If you could link your source we could actually talk about it.
  You might want to actually read up on closing the fuel cycle, this is where you reuse previously used fuel. One of the reactors I am talking about uses plutonium as part of it's fuel source. Plutonium can only have come from other reactors, meaning it's reusing either material from nuclear weapons that was originally produced in military reactors, or from waste produced by other civilian power reactors. It's called a breeder reactor because it produces more fissile material than it actually burns. This fissile material comes from converting fertile U-238 into fissile Plutonium. All of this stuff is a google search away.
  Here are some places you can start learning about this stuff:
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor-grade_plutonium
  This is again without getting into the Thorium fuel cycle which involves converting Thorium-232 into Uranium-233. This has been done before in the USA but only on a small scale. If this could be scaled up you could make your own Uranium without mining it. It would require some U-235 to start with but would become self-sustaining in a couple of years. You can read about it here:
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
  Oh, I see, mining the moon is a solution for when we've already fixed the problem. No wonder it was so confusing
  I am talking about plans for expansion once the global warming situation is resolved. I probably should have stated this more clearly which is my fault. I apologize for causing confusion.
  Also pretending Nuclear is the only option is even more funny. Solar and wind are the cheaper energy sources. There are plenty of other options too like geothermal, tidal, hydro, and so on.
  Honestly man just take the loss and actually read up on stuff next time. It's great for your education to actually learn how science and technology works, instead of grasping at straws. You've painted yourself into a corner where regardless of whether you are correct or not you don't actually understand enough to defend your arguments. You aren't informed enough to determine if things like degrowth are actually necessary or not. Heck I am not informed enough to make those decisions either, and I understand this stuff better than you do, especially the basics of nuclear fuel cycles. Ultimately this comes down to engineering and scientific considerations, and frankly you don't strike me as an engineer. While I am a scientist this isn't my area either, and I shouldn't be called on to make policy decisions in this area.
  
  I mean, you could Google "uranium shortage" and find what you need very quickly. Again, I'm not spending my evening teaching you and providing you with sources that you're unable to refute in any way, despite your best efforts. I'm sure you've convinced yourself that anyone who doesn't do that for you must be wrong but thats just not how the world works.
  I've already told you how there isn't enough of the materials we need to make sufficient numbers of solar panels or wind turbines, let alone figure out a way to store the energy for when we need it later.
  Why is the default position that there has to be enough of what we need to do that, unless proven wrong?
  Degrowth doesn't have to mean smaller.
  I used to do research too but then I left for a career that paid more. Not that something like that would make me right or more believable, of course. No, that would be ridiculous.
  Im not really sure why you decided to bring up your career in an unrelated field. Honestly, if I was arguing for perpetual growth on a finite planet, I wouldn't tell anyone I was a scientist, let alone demand someone "take the L" for having to explain to you that our energy consumption can't grow perpetually.
  
  uranium shortage
  Fyi I had a quick look and all I can see is sources saying we need to build more uranium mines by 2030 to meet demand. Nothing about the earth running out.
  
  I mean, you could Google "uranium shortage" and find what you need very quickly. Again, I'm not spending my evening teaching you and providing you with sources that you're unable to refute in any way, despite your best efforts. I'm sure you've convinced yourself that anyone who doesn't do that for you must be wrong but thats just not how the world works.
  Yeah there will eventually be a shortage of U-235. I fully admit that. There isn't and won't be a shortage of either Th-232 or U-238 for over 100 years at least. By then we will probably have found something else. That's just thinking about nuclear fission as well. To me nuclear fission is about filling in the gaps that renewables can't cover until we work out energy storage, nuclear fusion, neutrinovoltaics, or something entirely new. Nuclear fission is one of the best power sources we have today, but I don't expect that to always be the case.
  Nuclear fusion uses completely different fuels (no uranium, plutonium, or thorium) that have their own sourcing considerations. Getting fuel sources for fusion might legitimately be a problem, but we don't know that yet as we haven't picked which kinds of fusion fuel we are going to use yet. Current experiments involve things like tritium which have to be made artificially from other isotopes like deuterium using particle accelerators or nuclear reactors. This is used at the moment because it's the easiest to do fusion with. There are other options though, and eventually we might work out how to do fusion with ordinary hydrogen (protium/H1). Since hydrogen (specifically protium/H1) is the most abundant material or isotope in the Universe and is found in everyday water that's obviously the best option if we can build a reactor to use it.
  I've already told you how there isn't enough of the materials we need to make sufficient numbers of solar panels or wind turbines, let alone figure out a way to store the energy for when we need it later.
  Why use solar panels? You can use concentrated solar power that doesn't rely on photovoltaics. You instead use mirrors to heat up water or salt, that then drives a turbine or a thermochemical reaction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
  Also what materials are we running out of for solar panels? From what I have seen there are multiple ways to make solar panels using different materials, some more efficient than others. Most of them seem to be made from a mixture of silicon, glass, and metal. All of which are fairly abundant material, and at least some of which can be recycled.
  Wind turbines are essentially glorified windmills with an electric generator hooked up. They can be made from any number of materials. Thus includes wood for the part that catches the wind. Likewise the generator portion can be made from any number of metals so long as they can be turned into wires. Steel and aluminum aren't as good as copper for sure, but they still work in a pinch. There are already multiple designs in use throughout the world and at different scales. They are built the way they are now because it gives the best return on investment. That's just how capitalism works, for better or for worse. It's not hard to imagine a world where we use something else because we ran out of the cheapest available material and it's cheaper to use something different than to recycle it.
  You also conveniently forget that recycling is a thing. In physics matter and energy is conserved. You can convert matter into energy and back again too. Even when you burn something like a fossil fuel it doesn't just disappear, it becomes things like carbon dioxide or water as I am sure you know. With enough time and energy you can turn that carbon dioxide back into coal or diesel or whatever is you started with, or into something else entirely. The only things you can truly run out of is lack of entropy. Entropy can only increase, so matter in a low entropy state is always at a premium.
  I've already told you how there isn't enough of the materials we need to make sufficient numbers of solar panels or wind turbines, let alone figure out a way to store the energy for when we need it later.
  Storage is indeed a problem I will give you that. Part of the solution to this is new technologies like sodium ion batteries that are gaining traction at the moment. Some of it will come from closing down factories when power is low, and starting them back up when there is a surplus.
  Degrowth isn't even a complete solution either. While I strongly disagree that the economy can grow to infinity like some economists believe, I also don't think it can shrink forever too. There needs to be give and take. I believe the economy should grow and shrink in accordance with people's needs and the available resources. To me the extreme pro growth and degrowth movements are both extremists.
  
  Jesus christ, is this the closest thing you've had to human interaction today or something?
  
  I was trying to be reasonable with you. It seems you're not actually capable of that if this is how you want to respond.
  
  If that was what you were trying to do, you failed. Honestly, I don't care enough about any subject to have to deal with you or your incessant ranting and poor social skills.
  You didn't like something you read online. Your objection is noted.
  
  Okay let's recap what actually happened here:
  You support an extremely radical economic policy. This would be fine except your reasons for supporting it are based on a misunderstanding of science, technology, and economics. I call you out on it and you repeatedly call me a liar for explaining stuff that's well known science and engineering just because you don't understand it and it goes against your position. Then you attack me personally and insult my social skills despite everything you just did.
  Honestly I hope I never have to deal with you again. You're incapable of admitting you don't know something if that something doesn't support your argument. Despite supporting what I thought was a left wing position you use the exact same tactic as right wing where everything you don't like or don't understand just doesn't exist.
  I really hope you were lying about working as a researcher. Someone with your attitude should never be allowed anywhere near academia or science. I am glad you stopped being a researcher, and I hope you never get a job in that field again. The amount of damage you could do or have already done I dread to think.
  
  You think you're arguing your point but you're not. You're arguing mine.
  
  Im not really sure why you decided to bring up your career in an unrelated field. Honestly, if I was arguing for perpetual growth on a finite planet, I wouldn’t tell anyone I was a scientist, let alone demand someone “take the L” for having to explain to you that our energy consumption can’t grow perpetually.
  I never argued for perpetual growth on earth. I think you've completely missed what I am talking about. I only started arguing with you because it became obvious you had no idea what you were talking about with regards to renewables and nuclear.
  If you had started off by explaining that degrowth to you just meant not expanding infinitely on earth then most of this argument wouldn't have even happened. I don't support infinite growth on one planet either. I support expanding out into the solar system and even further away in the long term, but even that obviously has it's limits somewhere.
  To me it sounded like you were saying we can't move to renewables without shrinking the economy massively and tanking standards of living.
  Looking back at this argument I can see it's one of those where neither party actually understands the others position, and is actually just arguing against what they think the other person believes.

301 comments