TED Conversations

Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed.

Why are the alternate power sources not being implemented on a world-wide scale? There is a tipping point and we must be close by now!!!

Solar panels
Wind Turbines
Hydro-Elecric

We all see the signs of the world changing. Ice caps disappearing, mega storms, tempature rise, ect.
Yet we are more concerned with royal babies, wars, and profits.
We will have none of that if this planet stops supporting life as we know it.
This is a back burner issue always used for politics but never solved by politics.
Turn the heat up on this, the Earth is!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 14 2013: 1. where is nuclear?
    2. could you please research how fast the south cap is melting?
    • thumb
      Aug 15 2013: "2. could you please research how fast the south cap is melting?":

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2013EGUGA..15.1640J

      "Summer melting is now at a level that is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years..." from:
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1787.html

      "...On the basis of the GRACE data, we conclude that most of the change in ocean mass is caused by the melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers. This contribution of ice melt is larger than previous estimates10, but agrees with reports11, 12, 13 of accelerated ice melt in recent years..." from:
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n7/full/ngeo1829.html

      (GRACE = Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellite mission)

      Please let me know if you need to see more research-based evidence.
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2013: number please
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2013: let me just help you out here. according to wikipedia, west antarctic contributes "around 0.14 mm of sea-level rise" per year. that is 10cm in hundred years. end this result is not even sure. east half is thought to be "lowering sea level or near to balance". the net effect is very close to zero.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_sea_level_rise#Antarctic_contribution
        • thumb
          Aug 15 2013: I don't really need help from Wikipedia thanks. I'd rather get my info first hand from research papers on the subject, where publicly available.

          Data variability in ice melt in Antarctica is thought to be down to differences in ambient air and ambient water temperatures, giving rise to ice formation on the surface, yet melting underneath. Global air currents and water currents behave very differently to each other, which may explain the differences and even why huge ice-shelves (like the Ross Ice Shelf) are breaking away.
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2013: so? in the original post, we have the statement that the south pole is disappearing, when in fact it does not do anything or even thickening. i'm not a fan of bombastic statements with no basis.

        btw the phrase "research papers vs wikipedia" almost sounds crackpot. wikipedia is based on research papers.
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2013: "btw the phrase "research papers vs wikipedia" almost sounds crackpot. wikipedia is based on research papers"

          Is that so?

          Harvard Referencing says otherwise:

          http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2013: Youre right, the Antarctic ice sheet appears to be stable or thickening, yet huge chunks of ice are breaking away. Why do you think that is?

          The temperature of the Southern ocean is increasing, which means the humidity of the air above it is also increasing. This translates to heavier snowfall on the ice surface, combined with base melting of sea-borne ice. The ice loses the strength it formerly had to bear the increased weight, so breaks off mainly at its periphery.

          Therefore, as surface area of sea-borne ice, the Antarctic is shrinking.
      • thumb
        Aug 17 2013: you might or might not be aware of a section on the bottom of each wikipedia page. if not, check it out. it is called "references". good stuff.

        i did not really care for your exposition of the antarctic water balance. there was a statement that reads "ice caps melting". i would suggest to stop spreading disinformation, and stick to true statements. the thing is, climate scientists cried wolf so many times, this behavior is a big contributor to the skepticism and general lack of concern.
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2013: The thing about cutting-edge research is that it has to contain a speculative element in the statements it makes, based on results and data that do not necessarily match what is expected, or even what is being observed - especially so in climate research.

          Despite the best efforts of NASA, The British Antarctic Survey etc in deepening our understanding of climate change, the "true statements" you want are sometimes not yet possible. You see it as "crying wolf" and "disinformation", when it should be seen as a necessary process in establishing certainty out of something incredibly complex and chaotic.

          Some of the speculative statements are released to the public before they should be, which understandably breeds scepticism and lack of concern. That seems to me to be more a problem related to misguided public relations, rather than flawed research.
      • thumb
        Aug 17 2013: sticking to truth is obviously possible. for example instead of saying "the south polar cap will melt", we could say "we don't know, but it might melt". see? it was easy.

        ps: i'm not blaming genuine climate scientists actually. they just present data most of the time. i blame some scientists that resort to what i call "media whoreism". they put up an article, and then rush to the media with some distorted and bloated interpretation. the goal is of course to get attention, and thus get funding. and i also blame all the government funded quasi scientific organizations like the ipcc, whose primary occupation is to cherry pick the scientific literature in a rather shameless manner.
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2013: Yes, cherry-picking scientific research data to bolster political ideologies is more common than we think.

          I hear what you say about scientists seeking funding and the occupation of the IPCC.

          Are we agreed then, that what funding can potentially buy, is one of the major distortions of what gets presented as legitimate science?
      • thumb
        Aug 18 2013: probably not. i don't mind private organizations or persons paying for the results they want. i of course mind the state to do that, because it is my money. but only because of that.

        the real solution would be to respect facts, and ignore those that do not respect facts. that includes every single politician.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.