State of the (whole) world - 2022

[JDR13]

Yeah, but no one cares about China or India/Pakistan.

People will pay a little more attention when it starts affecting the first-world countries to a greater degree.

 

[OverIt]

No, the IPCC projections are not impossible.

There are likely feedback loops that we are approaching which will accelerate the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere a lot (if they do happen like they have calculated): Methane gas in northern Russia's tundra of immense proportions being released; less ice in the north and south poles means less and less reflections and higher absorption of the sun's energy; gas trapped under the poles and in other permafrost underwater areas being released; the forests reaching a point where they can no longer trap (use) the increased CO2 by increasing the amount of leaves; the oceans trapping more CO2 leads to an increase in the acidity, which means less sulphur production by plankton and therefore less cloud formation.

These are just the ones I thought about at the top of my mind.

And for the nuclear waste issue: read IAEA's reports or some other real experts, not the first random dude on the internet you find. I'll even link you to where you can read up on it: https://www.iaea.org/publications/1...approaches-for-radioactive-waste-repositories

Current State of Sea Ice Cover | Earth

earth.gsfc.nasa.gov

The ice has been increasing over the last 20 years in the north and south poles. Still less than it was 50 years years ago though.


On the nuclear waste issue. I was looking for when something is harmful and why. It isnt covered in that link you gave me.

This link covers it, why and how radiation is harmful.

Radiation: Key Terms and Definitions | Vision of Earth

That said reading all that and i still have no clue. We use many of these harmful radioactive materials in medicine too. I am not making the case that these materials are safe, rather that i have no idea on the subject. Do you have the knowledge about these things or no?

 

[GothicGothicness]

Current State of Sea Ice Cover | Earth

earth.gsfc.nasa.gov

The ice has been increasing over the last 20 years in the north and south poles. Still less than it was 50 years years ago though.


On the nuclear waste issue. I was looking for when something is harmful and why. It isnt covered in that link you gave me.

This link covers it, why and how radiation is harmful.

Radiation: Key Terms and Definitions | Vision of Earth

That said reading all that and i still have no clue. We use many of these harmful radioactive materials in medicine too. I am not making the case that these materials are safe, rather that i have no idea on the subject. Do you have the knowledge about these things or no?

I think people talk too much about Nuclear waste, I mean yes it takes forever to get rid of it, but we'll need electricity to save the environment. So I'd first worry about 10 years from now instead of 10000 years from now. The main problems with Nuclear power is that it is expensive and slow to build. On average it takes 16 years, so by the time they might be ready to produce some power it is already too late to cause any effect on the Paris Agreement for example. Also the cost is very high, and they need to go down for maintenance.

Much better to build wind power, solar power, hydro power, and offshore wind, cheaper, faster to build, and they don't go down for maintenance for several months, risk getting overheated, ( be used in a war like in Ukraine ), get destroyed in a natural disaster and cause a massive damage. It is just a plus that we don't need to store the waste. That said, I am not completely against Nuclear Power, but to say that Nuclear power is the solution to the climate disaster that is just plain out stupid. Besides the fact that it is too expensive and slow to build, How would building Nuclear power-plants reduce the amount of beef people eat, reduce flying, stop cutting down of Amazons , stop deforestation, the list goes on, so it is his statement that is stupid not Nuclear power in itself.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm tempted to start a poll about Putin's days left on this Earth (at least as a leader), but I guess that might be a bit crass.

Even so, I estimate around 21 days. I'll mark this and see if I'm close

 

[SveNitoR]

Current State of Sea Ice Cover | Earth

earth.gsfc.nasa.gov

The ice has been increasing over the last 20 years in the north and south poles. Still less than it was 50 years years ago though.


On the nuclear waste issue. I was looking for when something is harmful and why. It isnt covered in that link you gave me.

This link covers it, why and how radiation is harmful.

Radiation: Key Terms and Definitions | Vision of Earth

That said reading all that and i still have no clue. We use many of these harmful radioactive materials in medicine too. I am not making the case that these materials are safe, rather that i have no idea on the subject. Do you have the knowledge about these things or no?

Your NASA link says this in the introduction:

"[...] rapid changes have been occurring in the Arctic, where the ice coverage has been declining at a substantial rate. In contrast, in the Antarctic the sea ice coverage has been increasing although at a lesser rate than the decreases in the Arctic."

Not sure where you get that it is increasing in the arctic?

When it comes to radioactivity you said before in this thread:

"That is only if you are enriching to nuclear bomb level. When they enrich to nuclear power plant levels its only about 50 years. For example Chernobyl is fine now. It is a tourism spot now."

You are more or less saying here that nuclear waste is not dangerous after 50 years. Most of it is not, but some of it is very dangerous still. Take for example Ra226 which has a half-life of 1700 years, Plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24000 years, both of them, if inhaled (dust) or ingested (plants or animals who are contaminated) get deposited in the bones and can cause cancer.

If you want to know how dangerous Chernobyl is, there's an interview with a nuclear waste expert here who also worked there: https://www.businessinsider.com/che...ert-says-tours-are-safe-2019-6?op=1&r=US&IR=T

The summary of it is: If you stay on the decontaminated tour roads, wear fully covering clothing, don't touch anything like stones, trees, buildings, the ground, put anything on the ground, or sit down you will be fine. Wear Geiger counters because there can be unexpected spots with high radioactivity. If you do forget yourself and touch something or sit down, make sure to shower it off before going to bed.

Avoid forests or where ever they haven't been able to decontaminate, since the risk of dangerous radioactivity is too high.

There's also general danger information here: https://world-nuclear.org/informati...s/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

 

[Pladio]

I'm tempted to start a poll about Putin's days left on this Earth (at least as a leader), but I guess that might be a bit crass.

Even so, I estimate around 21 days. I'll mark this and see if I'm close

I think you underestimate these people's ability to stay in power... Assad is still there after years of war and rebellion.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think you underestimate these people's ability to stay in power... Assad is still there after years of war and rebellion.

The war in Europe scenario makes it very different, imo.

But we'll see - I'm just giving my best guess

 

[SveNitoR]

I think people talk too much about Nuclear waste, I mean yes it takes forever to get rid of it, but we'll need electricity to save the environment. So I'd first worry about 10 years from now instead of 10000 years from now. The main problems with Nuclear power is that it is expensive and slow to build. On average it takes 16 years, so by the time they might be ready to produce some power it is already too late to cause any effect on the Paris Agreement for example. Also the cost is very high, and they need to go down for maintenance.

Much better to build wind power, solar power, hydro power, and offshore wind, cheaper, faster to build, and they don't go down for maintenance for several months, risk getting overheated, ( be used in a war like in Ukraine ), get destroyed in a natural disaster and cause a massive damage. It is just a plus that we don't need to store the waste. That said, I am not completely against Nuclear Power, but to say that Nuclear power is the solution to the climate disaster that is just plain out stupid. Besides the fact that it is too expensive and slow to build, How would building Nuclear power-plants reduce the amount of beef people eat, reduce flying, stop cutting down of Amazons , stop deforestation, the list goes on, so it is his statement that is stupid not Nuclear power in itself.

Yes, the nuclear waste is likely not a huge issue considering the solutions that have been developed.

The uptime for nuclear power is actually higher than most of the other ones.

Wind depends on wind, which is unreliable, solar is not very effective above and below certain latitudes or if it is cloudy, and hydro is often very reliable but drought impacts that as well. Maintenance of hydro plants can be very costly and take a lot of time. Still, hydro seems to be one of the safest energy sources apart from their impact on fish and if a dam breaks.

 

[Capt. Huggy Face]

It's an interesting perspective on nuclear waste. I'm often surprised by the clever new things people are making, right on down to the little things I carry in my pockets.

Does anyone know how secure they're building these things now, waste storage and the plants themselves? We've seen how vulnerable the one in Ukraine is to old-school shelling in a war. How about weather, the increasingly extreme weather and changing landscape headed our way?

 

[SveNitoR]

It's an interesting perspective on nuclear waste. I'm often surprised by the clever new things people are making, right on down to the little things I carry in my pockets.

Does anyone know how secure they're building these things now, waste storage and the plants themselves? We've seen how vulnerable the one in Ukraine is to old-school shelling in a war. How about weather, the increasingly extreme weather and changing landscape headed our way?

I know in Sweden they take precautions by building more advanced cooling systems to be able to better use ocean water and handle drought and heat. How secure it is, I don't know.

 

[Capt. Huggy Face]

Me, neither, though I am curious. Maybe I'll look into it one of these days.