Skip Navigation

‘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?

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

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.

303
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND @lemmy.world Doug Holland @lemmy.world

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

8 0

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
303 comments
  • 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.

303 comments