Help with Project: Please fill in this questionnaire about Climate change

[alex_boothby]

Hi.
I was hoping you guys could help me for my university dissertation project. It's basically a questionnaire about climate change, it shouldn't take any longer than 10 minutes (or quicker) and it would be really helping me. If you have any comments about it please feel free to message me on here if anything isn't correct.

This is the link http://kwiksurveys.com?u=climatechange

Thank you for your time and I hope you decide to help, i will be eternally grateful.

Alex

[iPwn]

Interesting questions, but some were a little redundant. Anyway, completed.

[alex_boothby]

thanks that mate. What do you mean by a redundant? Maybe i could improve.

Cheers

[strollin]

Did it but had to leave some questions unanswered. In questions regarding information/news sources why would you leave out internet sources?

[arsenalbates]

Originally Posted by strollin

Did it but had to leave some questions unanswered. In questions regarding information/news sources why would you leave out internet sources?

Exactly what I was thinking

[iPwn]

Originally Posted by alex_boothby

What do you mean by a redundant?

After further review... you're good. After completing the survey, I just remember the multiple questions regarding information sources with all of those questions having the same response possibility. However, I went through it again and noticed the wording on each question. Apologies.

[jmacavali]

Done.

[connchri]

Done, although I didn't see Plaid Cymru or SNP listed there for political parties :P

Anyway, an interesting thing that I recently read is that human emissions of CO2 account to 0.3% of the global warming effect. That source could be wrong however.

But, what I find more interesting is that the Global Warming has apparently been calculated to have begun since the very begining of Industrialisation - when CO2 emissions would have been relatively low in comparison today. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the affect of cutting down ridiculous amount of trees during this industrialisation and the continuation of destroying thousands of acres of forest per year, tropical and otherwise, must have a greater effect on the equilibrium of CO2 content in the atmosphere than our 0.3% emissions.

This is just a thought mind, so I could be well out of touch from reality. But an interesting one nonetheless since all we here is CO2 CO2 CO2! And if the equilibrium is upset, and temperatures rise, resulting in oceans releasing more CO2 (as the ability of water to dissolve and hold solutes is indirectly proportional to temperature), then surely the earth’s ability to process CO2 is more important than us curbing our current CO2 emissions.

Even if we went to zero emissions overnight, the equilibrium has already been upset and must be corrected.

Again though, I've not looked into this any further than my thought experiment.

Opinions??????

[berry120]

My overall feeling with this is that no-one really knows. There's no universally held belief as to whether we are or aren't contributing to global warming and if so, with what and how much, etc. Everyone seems to think something different and it's just a bit of a mess.

With this in mind though, I think that because we don't know we should be reasonably careful. Sure, it might turn out that we don't need to worry about any of it for definite, but until we get that definitive universally accepted result I think it pays to tread carefully. Personally I think nuclear power is the way to go, I don't think it's practical to get all the energy we need from things like solar power and wind power alone, and I think there's a lot of myths around regarding its safety that's unfortunately stopping its adoption. But that's something else entirely

[connchri]

Originally Posted by berry120

I think there's a lot of myths around regarding its safety that's unfortunately stopping its adoption. But that's something else entirely

Ditto! According to my IET mag, there are 4000 fatalities in the Coal generation industry per every fatality in the nuclear industry. Sure, there was Chernobyl (Or however you spell it), 3 mile island and Japan this year. But Japan was, out of the 3, the most modern reactor and compared with today’s designs, still old and not passively safe. Yet it survived earthquakes, Tsunamis and loss of power to the active safety systems. Chernobyl was a ridiculous mess that cannot be repeated with modern reactors. 3 mile island I'm not in the know about, but I'm sure it wasn't the worst thing that could've happened.

Today’s reactors are so safe it's unbelievable, and I think the dangers of radiation are slightly over exaggerated. At least compared to the alternative of relying on coal forever. You can't replace it all with wind farms or solar panels - this is coming from a power engineer.

And there are options to deal with the waste also; it's just a hard decision that 99% of politicians don't have the backbone to make.