BBC 'Global Dimming' Documentary

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2013 7:20 AM GMT
    Quite scary!

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 24, 2013 8:50 PM GMT
    It's terrifying. It makes you wonder if people have much longer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2013 3:11 AM GMT
    HottJoe saidIt's terrifying. It makes you wonder if people have much longer.

    Yeah! That's one of the scariest speculations that came to my mind after watching this.
    We should learn to limit ourselves on what and how we use our natural resources instead of taking advantage on temporary over-abundance which will soon run out and also leaves a devastating footprint behind for the future(may be even our)generations to deal with its "side effects"!
    "KARMA"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2013 8:15 PM GMT
    The documentary does cover its ass by saying that discussing potential dire results is a warning, not a prediction.

    As we don't have the science yet to know how to balance dimming v warming, nor to bring back into balance to make the world good as new, what we have from this now are the practical considerations of our situation.

    Cheap energy: you can't kill a million people and say you've factored in all the costs. Seems either some repayment is in order or certainly some future support might be indicated.

    So immediately, even if someone says--oh this is too big, there's nothing we can do--there are things we can do, actions we need to own, ways we can change our thinking about the interconnectedness of life on this planet and our responsibilities to that.

    If only this planet came with an instruction book!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_Manual_for_Spaceship_Earth
    Spaceship_Earth_2.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2013 8:20 PM GMT
    I don't have time to watch it, what is it about?
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 25, 2013 8:52 PM GMT
    Aristoshark saidWe. Are. So. Fucked.

    Another said:

    It's terrifying. It makes you wonder if people have much longer.



    Problems have never been solved with an attitude of defeatism. There are solutions; we just have to get busy and implement them.

    Obviously we have to reduce the use of fossil fuels so that on a global basis, they will not generate more than perhaps 10% of our energy. That also requires stopping the burning of wood for heat and cooking which is common in some highly populated Asian countries and which has destroyed Haiti. We also have to consider that global energy production must greatly increase to lift the world's poor people out of poverty. And, greatly reducing energy usage in prosperous countries such as in the U.S. and European countries would be politically impossible.

    Most likely the ONLY solution that can work is a dramatic increase in nuclear power. Of course there are those who insist that nuclear power must be phased out because of its risks, but the risks associated with nuclear power are trivial compared with the risk of continuing to burn fossil fuels. Germany's attempts to phase out nuclear power have resulted in an increase in coal burning (lignite, which is the dirtiest type of coal), an increase in power imported from France which generates almost 80% of its power with nuclear reactors, and an increase in CO2 emissions.

    Unfortunately, the nuclear technology we have chosen to use is the pressurized water uranium reactor which is so inefficient that it utilizes less than 1% of the energy in the uranium fuel with the rest being discarded as waste; that is unacceptable. There are better nuclear technologies possible, but unfortunately, the R & D necessary to prepare them for implementation was halted more than 20 years ago because it was considered unnecessary, else we would now be using a better, safer, and more economical nuclear technology. Check the following link for one nuclear technology which seems very promising and is worthy of more R & D, although there are also other nuclear technologies which also should be considered:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

    History will not kindly treat those environmentalists which eschew nuclear power and have thereby contributed to our global climate problems.

    If we had abundant and cheap power available, then we could phase out motor vehicles that burn petroleum fuels; they could be powered with batteries, or with an artificial fuel. Air travel can be greatly reduced by using rail travel instead.

    Also, check our the following link:

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/the-great-progressive-reversal
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 25, 2013 9:04 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    Aristoshark saidWe. Are. So. Fucked.

    Another said:

    It's terrifying. It makes you wonder if people have much longer.



    Problems have never been solved with an attitude of defeatism. There are solutions; we just have to get busy and implement them.

    Obviously we have to reduce the use of fossil fuels so that on a global basis, they will not generate more than perhaps 10% of our energy. That also requires stopping the burning of wood for heat and cooking which is common in some highly populated Asian countries and which has destroyed Haiti. We also have to consider that global energy production must greatly increase to lift the world's poor people out of poverty. And, greatly reducing energy usage in prosperous countries such as in the U.S. and European countries would be politically impossible.

    Most likely the ONLY solution that can work is a dramatic increase in nuclear power. Of course there are those who insist that nuclear power must be phased out because of its risks, but the risks associated with nuclear power are trivial compared with the risk of continuing to burn fossil fuels. Germany's attempts to phase out nuclear power have resulted in an increase in coal burning (lignite, which is the dirtiest type of coal), an increase in power imported from France which generates almost 80% of its power with nuclear reactors, and an increase in CO2 emissions.

    Unfortunately, the nuclear technology we have chosen to use is the pressurized water uranium reactor which is so inefficient that it utilizes less than 1% of the energy in the uranium fuel with the rest being discarded as waste; that is unacceptable. There are better nuclear technologies possible, but unfortunately, the R & D necessary to prepare them for implementation was halted more than 20 years ago because it was considered unnecessary, else we would now be using a better, safer, and more economical nuclear technology. Check the following link for one nuclear technology which seems very promising and is worthy of more R & D, although there are also other nuclear technologies which also should be considered:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

    History will not kindly treat those environmentalists which eschew nuclear power and have thereby contributed to our global climate problems.

    If we had abundant and cheap power available, then we could phase out motor vehicles that burn petroleum fuels; they could be powered with batteries, or with an artificial fuel. Air travel can be greatly reduced by using rail travel instead.

    Also, check our the following link:

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/the-great-progressive-reversal

    Nuclear energy is terribly unpredictable. Not to mention it leads to mistrust. Look at what's going on in Iran. Or, on the environmental end, look at the ongoing problem at Fukushima.... Maybe geothermal energy and solar power would be safer.... I will do as you say and learn more about it, rather than be a total defeatist. Still, it's hard to see a way out of this mess from where we're sitting today.icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2013 9:08 PM GMT
    a 25% reduction in human population is a good start
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 25, 2013 9:09 PM GMT
    Check out this link regarding the consequences of opposing nuclear power:

    http://seekerblog.com/2013/11/25/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 25, 2013 9:11 PM GMT
    somersault saida 25% reduction in human population is a good start


    Two problems with that:

    It wouldn't even begin to solve the problem, and

    There would be the problem of whom to eliminate.

    Most likely if the global population were what it was two centuries ago, we wouldn't be having this problem, but that is basically useless information.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 25, 2013 9:17 PM GMT
    Here's another good link:

    http://seekerblog.com/2013/11/25/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/

    And here is a quote therefrom:

    "Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2013 1:24 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2013 6:57 AM GMT
    It's terrifying...
    however, there are solutions
    for a start, we can begin with something small that everyone could do...
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 27, 2013 6:59 PM GMT
    Harry7785 saidIt's terrifying...
    however, there are solutions
    for a start, we can begin with something small that everyone could do...


    That would help a little bit and should be done. However, I won't buy a hybrid car. My 2004 Mazda 3 has only 19,000 miles on it so on average, I've been driving it only about 2,000 miles per year which isn't very much. Most of my traveling since 2005 has been by motorcycle and I've put about 36,000 miles on motorcycles since then and they are quite fuel efficient.

    For people who do a lot of driving with most of it in city traffic, hybrid cars make a lot of sense. With improved technology, hybrid cars can be made even more efficient.

    Knowing how to drive efficiently also helps, but some of the advice for efficient driving is wrong. A skilled driver intent on maximizing fuel efficiency can get better fuel mileage with a manual transmission, although an unskilled driver might get better mileage with an automatic transmission. With a manual transmission, the best fuel efficiency is obtained by accelerating with a heavy foot but upshifting at very low speeds, perhaps at about 2,000 rpm depending on the car. Then, once it top gear, accelerate more gradually. Accelerating too slowly requires remaining in the lower gears longer and maximum efficiency is not obtained until the top gear is engaged. That approach will not work with an automatic transmission since a heavy foot will cause the transmission to stay in the lower gears longer so, with an automatic transmission, it is best to accelerate at a moderate rate.

    With a hybrid or electric car, it is most efficient to accelerate very gradually since the battery efficiency drops when it is heavily loaded.

    Also, avoiding unnecessary trips will save fuel.