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.

  • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
    1·
    4 months ago

    Sources aren’t necessarily for widely accepted facts. You just don’t like what you’re hearing and want to sealion it away.

    It’s not a widely accepted fact at all. Ask three different scientists and you will get three different anwsers.

    It isn’t sealioning when I provide sources and you don’t.

    Don’t worry, its clear that you’ve been making things up the whole time. I’m happy to provide sources for serious people, having serious conversations. Not you and your jokes.

    Where have I done that? I am the one coming at you with actual sources and reading material. You have no proof. They say every accusation is a confession, and that’s exactly what this is.

    You provided one source that fast breeder reactors were built in the former soviet union. Had you been refuting me saying “no other fuel can ever be used” it might have been a useful link. However, I didn’t. So, it wasn’t useful.

    Actually I did. Twice no less. I gave you the Thorium fuel cycle, where you make your own Uranium from Thorium. I also gave the fuel cycle using U-238, which is a different isotope to the U-235 used by current reactors.

    I am out right now but I can point you to more sources and better explanations of fuel cycles than mine feel free to ask. Honestly though I think you would just ignore them anyway. If you want to find them yourself look at the molten salt reactor experiments, progress made on LFTR reactors, or the third shipping port reactor in the USA. Those are all experimental I will admit, which is why I pointed to the Soviet and Russian reactors first that produce and use Plutonium, as those are less experimental.

    Note I am not talking about fusion reactor technology, as while that’s very promising it isn’t even close to being implemented. If that does become viable at some point then all of this becomes irrelevant anyway, as fusion is likely to be the best available power source at that point.

    Reactors don’t produce or create energy. They release it. Are you trying to tell me that you literally can’t understand a scenario where the energy cost of refining and or gathering something could be more than what is eventually released?

    Okay so maybe my wording is a little off I will give you that. You are correct that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      1·
      4 months ago

      They say every accusation is a confession, and that’s exactly what this is.

      Yeah, I stopped reading at the lazy recycled rhetoric.

      As you love sources to much, provide a source showing that our energy consumption can increase perpetually

      Or is that not how things work?

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        1·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, I stopped reading at the lazy recycled rhetoric.

        You mean like the rhetoric you have been using this entire time?

        As you love sources to much, provide a source showing that our energy consumption can increase perpetually

        Or is that not how things work?

        That’s not what I am saying. Go and read up on what fertile and fissile are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_material

        You can convert a fertile material to a fissile material, then fission that to produce energy. The energy though was already in the fertile material to begin with plus a little bit from the neutrons you added. Eventually you will run out of fertile material, but that’s a long way away. For example’s sake you would might start with Th-232 which is fertile, add a neutron to get U-233, then fission U-233 to get energy plus some smaller elements called fission products. All of this is nuclear engineering 101. I am not a nuclear physicist and even I understand this.

        You can’t call everything you don’t understand or don’t know about made up. It would actually be funny if it wasn’t so depressing. The lack of scientific literacy some people have, and the unwillingness to learn you and others demonstrate is truly sad. It wouldn’t even be so bad if you were willing to admit you don’t know and just walk away. I can understand and respect not caring about nuclear enough to actually research it so long as you are willing to admit that. Instead you are sat there arguing about basic principles of nuclear physics and engineering, the kind of things I learned in sixth form, and calling me a liar just because I know more than you do.