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
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.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.
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: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.
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 you underestimate these people's ability to stay in power... Assad is still there after years of war and rebellion.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
The war in Europe scenario makes it very different, imo.I think you underestimate these people's ability to stay in power... Assad is still there after years of war and rebellion.
Yes, the nuclear waste is likely not a huge issue considering the solutions that have been developed.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.
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.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?