Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  4    6    8  9
Author: Subject: Say Goodbye to Global Warming
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
********




Posts: 3331
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-11-2011 at 23:46


What I basically understood from the last two pages of this thread:

Global warming is not true because:

- The UN made predictions about refugees which were wrong.
- Chevy Li-ion batteries catch fire.

It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless.

The discussion here contains the same hallmarks of those of 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions.

First of all, avoid pollution (no pun intended) of the debate. Global warming is a fact, the question is whether man made emissions are causing or contributing to it. Climate has changed greatly during the history of the earth, so the question is if we even should interfere. However, I also think that guarding and efficiently using natural resources is a priority regardless of what you think about global warming.

Secondly, be intellectually honest. Most of the "climate deniers" (if that should even be a term) are not against global warming but strongly against government intervention in what they perceive as their inalienable rights.

Government intervention is a political discussion which shouldn't taint or interfere with science, IMHO.

[Edited on 28-11-2011 by vulture]

[Edited on 28-11-2011 by vulture]




One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 28-11-2011 at 12:10


"It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless.

The discussion here contains the same hallmarks of those of 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions."

I find it interesting you say this and also wish to divorce politics from the subject. For this to be possible it would help to first get the 'scientists' to stop playing politics. 5,000 new emails giving direct evidence of corruption along multiple lines. One is data indicating CO2 is not having the large effect on GW as has been the mantra all along. Another is scientists colluding with government to lie, cover up and destroy evidence which disproves the mantra of the left. There is no 'conspiracy theory' needed when evidence exists on such a large scale proving the massive number of lies and corruption on the part of so many so called 'scientists'. So let us look at these words again: "It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless". Maybe not but when their work is proven to be a pack of lies and cover ups, this to me completely discredits their work. Go ahead, sweep it under the rug, be happy and be part of the cover up. Next:

"Secondly, be intellectually honest." I would say so should you. My comments about burning batteries had nothing to do with denial of any part of this subject. I was pointing out problems with the technology being developed in an attempt to counter GW. So to say:

"Global warming is not true because:

- The UN made predictions about refugees which were wrong.
- Chevy Li-ion batteries catch fire.";

is a bit of a stretch assuming we really are being intellectually honest. Second the incorrect UN predictions were in reference to the tainting of the so called 'science' of GW by the very subject of politics having become inextricably intertwined in all aspects. Hiding mistakes to cover honest errors which when discovered would work against GW claims is in my mind another form of tainted science based purely upon political motivation. Nowhere can you reach the conclusion "Global warming is not true because" concerning my motivations for any posts I made.

You cannot separate the science from the politics because the powers that be will not allow it. Usually in the form of grants for research either given or withheld depending upon where the scientists seeking these grants already stand, or in other words whether or not they are already biased in one direction or the other. If for grants given, if against grants denied. And so it goes. I would be most happy if the science were pure. It is only common sense to see that all the chemicals and heat we are pumping out on the planet is having weather altering consequences and none of them could be for the better to anyone with even a small amount of intelligence. So if people like myself point out errors it is not due to denial but rather to a desire to see proper actions being taken using reason and common sense. Carbon credits the way it is being structured serves to generate tremendous wealth for precisely the wrong entities and does nothing to reduce the problem. Regulations aimed at increasing power for a few and destroying liberty for all the rest is equally bad. Especially when both actions are enacted by false, politically motivated, and grossly exaggerated claims by biased science being directed by biased entities who serve to profit while lives are made to suffer as a consequence. If anyone doubts this just wail until only the wealthy can afford food and warmth. Corn is being burned on a monumental scale which increases exponentially as time goes by affecting every aspect up to and including the ability to support livestock. Meaning not only will grains become scarce, so will meat.

Those who see this as wrong and try to get out the truth are labeled 'deniers' yet this is often not the case at all. They do not see the need to chop off a leg because a toe has become infected. Those who are in the faction of 'rabid deniers' who would argue with the truth when it is proven are just as wrong as those who preach global destruction due to GW coming within a few days based upon false science which is completely politically motivated. I see nothing wrong with protecting 'inalienable rights' when they are being destroyed by politically motivated power and money seeking entities using lies to justify their robbery. Extremes are wrong on either side of the question, true science should be in the middle gathering facts and coming up with accurate models.

I fail to see how any of this is off topic if you go back to the beginning post which started this thread. "Evidently the climate change forecast for the next half century is cooler with increasing cloud cover." If true then the draconian actions being taken based upon GW claims would cause most to end up starving while they freeze due to no food and no way to heat their homes. As far as trying to protect the planet from overuse of energy and resources the one factor which would have the most dramatic benefit is population control in the form of educating the world to stop having very large families. Having 4 or more children by every set of parents sooner or later will be impossible to sustain.


Edited to add the letter 's' to make doubt doubts. Today's post has been brought to you by the letter S. As in the mantra of GW is so full of.


[Edited on 11-28-2011 by IrC]




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6331
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 28-11-2011 at 12:15


Quote: Originally posted by vulture  
What I basically understood from the last two pages of this thread:

Global warming is not true because:

- The UN made predictions about refugees which were wrong.
- Chevy Li-ion batteries catch fire.

It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless.


That message meant to be conveyed is that there is a deficiency of reliable science which has significant identified defects associated with the advocates of what are believed only by that advocacy to be effective countermeasures for global warming. There seems to be a lack of pragmatism inherent in the interventionist proposition which becomes the urgent agenda of global warming alarmists and interventionists. Good science is not inclined to throw out the baby with the bath water when reviewing research and findings and theory for reasonableness or validity. But politics and hysteria and paranoia are inclined to trample reason and truth in order to propagandize any agenda whatever, be it global warming or anything else which presents opportunity for deception and exploitation of ignorant people in order to advance any cause, particularly when that can be done for profit.
Quote:

The discussion here contains the same hallmarks of those of 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions.

The alarmist and interventionist position on global warming is dishonestly unscientific in a similar way as the truther hysteria, but that is a more general analogy. The proposition of a countermeasure created Global Cooling Antidote or the proposition of a "resurrected" twin towers are like Humpty Dumpty. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again, though many may wish it could happen that way.
Quote:

First of all, avoid pollution (no pun intended) of the debate. Global warming is a fact, the question is whether man made emissions are causing or contributing to it. Climate has changed greatly during the history of the earth, so the question is if we even should interfere. However, I also think that guarding and efficiently using natural resources is a priority regardless of what you think about global warming.
Conservation and efficient use of resources is sensible and there is no outcry against good sense prevailing. The matter at issue is what actions represent good sense and what actions do not.
Quote:

Secondly, be intellectually honest. Most of the "climate deniers" (if that should even be a term) are not against global warming but strongly against government intervention in what they perceive as their inalienable rights.

Government intervention is a political discussion which shouldn't taint or interfere with science, IMHO.


Yes, that is really the heart of the matter. Governments do not have a very good track record for efficient and economic sensible use of resources when managing or conducting and regulating even the business of smaller less ambitious projects than terraforming a water planet. Therefore the cynicism or skepticism of many in response to such a huge proposition and grand scheme should be understandable to any rational mind cognisant of history :D
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sedit
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1935
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Manic Expressive

[*] posted on 28-11-2011 at 13:16



Quote:

I fail to see how any of this is off topic if you go back to the beginning post which started this thread. "Evidently the climate change forecast for the next half century is cooler with increasing cloud cover." If true then the draconian actions being taken based upon GW claims would cause most to end up starving while they freeze due to no food and no way to heat their homes



This hits the nail on the head about how I feel on the topic of GW. There is not enough evidence for us to start to enforce any sort of laws and restrictions as we have no real idea on the consequences of such actions.

If we are right and humans are causing GW then possibly we can prevent it. If we are wrong and we try to prevent it we can also doom ourselves to a fate worse then the global warming end result.

What we are attempting to do right now with restrictions, regulations and the recent talk about using cloud machines and various technologies to combat GW is akin to trying to medicate a disease we know nothing about with a medication that is untested and are unaware of the full range of long term side effects. The "science" of global warming needs to tread with a much lighter footstep then it is at its current rate, else we may face side effects that are much worse then anything we could have predicted.





Knowledge is useless to useless people...

"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story before."~Maynard James Keenan
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
********




Posts: 3331
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 28-11-2011 at 15:03


I should mention that "intellectual honesty" was perhaps not the term I was looking for. I was implying that for certain people, GW is not the issue but government intervention is. I can understand the latter position, but then just say it. For certain hardcore republicans it seems to be the case that they cannot say "I don't want government intervention" so they use GW bashing as the alternative. Why? Debating government intervention should be a core aspect of any democracy.

Quote:

Go ahead, sweep it under the rug, be happy and be part of the cover up.


I do not wish to be part of the cover up. I get mightily annoyed when I read crap in the papers like "Everest climb completely ice free" this year, which should be obvious baloney to anyone who knows what a glacier is. I would be extremely happy if GW turned out to be a bunch of rubbish, I like my winters cold. ;)

Quote:

I see nothing wrong with protecting 'inalienable rights' when they are being destroyed by politically motivated power and money seeking entities using lies to justify their robbery.


There is nothing wrong with it. It's just that different people have different ideas about inalienable rights. Of course that's not limited to the GW debate. The problem is that it tends to provoke knee-jerk reactions and reason goes out the window.

Quote:

As far as trying to protect the planet from overuse of energy and resources the one factor which would have the most dramatic benefit is population control in the form of educating the world to stop having very large families. Having 4 or more children by every set of parents sooner or later will be impossible to sustain.


Would you also go as far to say that every human should be allotted the same amount of resources? Because then overpopulation pales in comparison with the "overspending" of western countries.

Quote:

Yes, that is really the heart of the matter. Governments do not have a very good track record for efficient and economic sensible use of resources when managing or conducting and regulating even the business of smaller less ambitious projects than terraforming a water planet. Therefore the cynicism or skepticism of many in response to such a huge proposition and grand scheme should be understandable to any rational mind cognisant of history


I agree and understand. The problem I have with it is that it becomes an easy scapegoat used to wipe unpopular topics under the rug. Conserving resources? UN conspiracy to limit my freedoms! See what I mean?

I don't trust corporations to get it done either. So where does that leave us?









One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DerAlte
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

[*] posted on 28-11-2011 at 21:28


A few good posts have been posted while I was trying to reply to Vulture. I am too slow and antique to keep up with you youngsters! However, here's my belated 2 cents worth:

Firstly, there is no problem with 'Science'. All GW theory is Applied Science, and maybe mis-Applied Science.

From Vulture:
Quote:
First of all, avoid pollution (no pun intended) of the debate.

Seconded and passed with acclamation!
Quote:
Global warming is a fact, the question is whether man made emissions are causing or contributing to it.


Herein lies a philosophical and scientific point. GW implies that the earth has a 'temperature' and that that 'temperature' has risen significantly over the last 100 years. Please

Define for me, scientifically, what this 'global temperature' is exactly.

The best I could say it that it is the averaged data taken by various meterological stations concentrated in locations where the population density and degree of techological advancement has allowed such measurements to be made. In other words, concentrated over a very small part of the land mass of the earth, and virtually nowhere over oceans. Today's standards did not exist 100 yrs. ago. The validity of the data is a statistical nightmare.

In my garden on a still summer day a shielded thermometer can show a 5C variation over a 60mX60M area; ten minutes later the air temp can fall from 32C to 22C due to a typical thunderstorm, an everyday summer occurrence here. What is the 'temperature' on this tiny plot on that day? A breeze from the local lake can make a 5C difference.

On any given day on the earth somewhere, spot temperatures vary from up to -70C to +60C (173K - 333K - reradiation factor of about 1:14!).

The earth is a dynamical chaotic system, driven by both diurnal and annual cycles. At no point is it ever in equilibrium. If it ever gets there the sun will have to be dead, at 0K, and the moon and planets far distant astronomically. So a 'global temperature' is meaningless except as a (philospophical? metaphysical? political?) concept.

I would agree, if defined as the average of sparsely located and strategically placed thermometers, this average of averages of averages may have risen 0.8+-0.4C over the last 100 yrs., at least in the Northern hemisphere... As for extensions back earlier, they are nothing more than anecdotal or based on fossil records, hardly hard evidence for accurate estimation.

For the documented effects of a sudden decrease in climate temperatures, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Far more scientifically valid is the rise of CO2 level in the atmosphere. Anyone who denies that is an ignoramus or a lunatic. So also is he who suugests that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere could do other than increase the level.

The question there is what is the major cause; just because it correlates with man's increased carbon fuel useage in recent years is no sure proof of a linear connection. The figures of fuel consumption worldwide are ill known (and subject to political manipulation).

The effect of a rise in ocean temperature on CO2 levels also very poorly understood (simplistic models show this may be fairly severe - for instance, at pH 7 {not realistic - ocean pH varies 7.9-8.2 according to recent data, depending (again!) on location} a 1C rise causes a 3.2% drop in ocean CO2 levels at 15C. Oceanic CO2 is said to be 80-90ppm, indicating a total sequestered CO2 of 1.2x10^17kg vs. atmospheric CO2 of 2.0x10^15kg.

For CO2 to cause really major changes alone, the increase has to be colossal(See the video I quoted above - wish this was available as text).. All the models use strong positive feeback reinforcement of very poorly understood phenomena in order to predict disaster.

Which is why I am very skeptical of it all.

Quote:
Climate has changed greatly during the history of the earth, so the question is if we even should interfere. However, I also think that guarding and efficiently using natural resources is a priority regardless of what you think about global warming.


Absolutely yes! And by all means protect the environment where possible. Sometime in the mid seventies I was in Upper NY state visiting the lakes. I remember Saranac and Placid. Placid looked lovely - crystal clear water, clean rock bottom. It was dead, devoid of life due to acid rain - but beautiful. Now I read that it is being restocked with fish and they are surviving, due to sensible measures taken to limit sufur emissions. Last time I was in the Appalachians at Mount Mitchell (6000 ft +) the trees had not recovered, however. But CO2 is not a pollutant but essential to life.

Quote:
Secondly, be intellectually honest. Most of the "climate deniers" (if that should even be a term) are not against global warming but strongly against government intervention in what they perceive as their inalienable rights.


I am very certainly neither a Republican (any more, due to near terminal idiocy exhibited by recent candidates and the apparent necessity for a card carrying member to believe in some form of fundamental religion) nor, almost more vehemently, a Democrat. An Independant at best; a libertarian, but not an anarchist. Government, as an ancient had it, is a necessary evil. And my motto is Nihil pro certo habete.

I am not a 'denier' but a skeptic. Deniers of GW appear to be such from ignorance; and strong advocates for AGW also seem to suffer from this.

If GW actually does exist in any significant manner, I request that, firstly, 'global temperature' be clearly defined, and secondly, adequate uncorrupted data that has not been massaged by meteorologists (for legitimate purposes - to better predict the weather on a very short term basis) be shown to prove it is significant (in many ways a statistical problem). Given GW, the next step is to show conclusively that this warming is AGW and not due to natural causes. I agree the top priority should be to determine why the CO2 level is rising so rapidly.

Governments, especially democratically elected ones, should have the well-being of their own constituents as a first priority, and not the whims of pseudo-enviromentalists, philosophers or that of International bodies such as the UN where a fifth world country of less than a million inhabitants has almost equal weight with say, India or China. Of course there is always the Security Council (The General Assembly elected Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan and Togo to serve as non-permanent members of the Security Council for two-year terms starting on 1 January 2012.) To say the UN is not political is sheer nonsense, but what party it represents is highly obscure.
Quote:
Government intervention is a political discussion which shouldn't taint or interfere with science, IMHO.


Yes, but... when government interferes with science, should not science at least reply?

Consider Ethanol from corn; or the ignorance of the crass idiots who suggested the ocean's pH be increased by loading lime (slaked or quick)
into the ocean. To make either requires both fuel and emitting copious CO2 into the atmosphere, unless kindergarten chemistry is wrong... I rest my case re political idiocy.

We had a climate change today. As I was writing the first part of this the temperature dropped 5C from 27.8C to 22.8C in a few hours - a front came through.

And, to Irc, who wrote

Quote:
I would let the occupy crowd die in the cold before I would hand them something they were able to work for but refused to simply because they decided all is owed to them.


So say I, too. But I would, and have, give a buck or pocket change to a bum in NYC for his next beer, wine or coffee, his choice. Go figure why. Just look at the mobs in Egypt, Occupy sites here, Greek riots, etc. The impression you get is brainless, senseless followers of some unknown cause, lost in Mob Think. At least the BBC saw fit to interview those outside Tafir (?) Square in Cairo and Alexandria. They realized that you have to have some form of government, and currently it had to be the military; mobs cannot rule.

Der Alte
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6331
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 29-11-2011 at 00:36


Quote: Originally posted by vulture  
Quote:

Yes, that is really the heart of the matter. Governments do not have a very good track record for efficient and economic sensible use of resources when managing or conducting and regulating even the business of smaller less ambitious projects than terraforming a water planet. Therefore the cynicism or skepticism of many in response to such a huge proposition and grand scheme should be understandable to any rational mind cognisant of history


I agree and understand. The problem I have with it is that it becomes an easy scapegoat used to wipe unpopular topics under the rug. Conserving resources? UN conspiracy to limit my freedoms! See what I mean?

I don't trust corporations to get it done either. So where does that leave us?


One place it should leave us is asking the question why
an "atoms for peace" cheap and safe nuclear power project
such as is promised by the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) design hasn't gotten more serious "scientific" interest
and commercial interest and of course government interest?

There already exists an undeveloped fifty plus year old "clean fission - thorium / U233 breeder reactor" technology which can produce electricity at about half the cost of coal burning plants, and produces low quantities of low level waste products 83% of which are completely decayed within 10 years, the remaining wastes completely decayed in 300 years .....so there is no "faustian bargain" which must be struck with environmentalists or mother nature over fears about long lived dangerous radioactive decay products requiring tens of thousands of years storage as a waste byproduct disposal concern.

Here is an interesting video about LFTR technology, and at the 40 minute time mark it gets especially interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

and a page here
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/08/faustian-bargains-w...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc The Thorium Dream

http://energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U Thorium Energy Future



Ho ho ho :D Merry Christmas to all



[Edited on 29-11-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
********




Posts: 3331
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 29-11-2011 at 10:37


Quote:

Define for me, scientifically, what this 'global temperature' is exactly. The best I could say it that it is the averaged data taken by various meterological stations concentrated in locations where the population density and degree of techological advancement has allowed such measurements to be made. In other words, concentrated over a very small part of the land mass of the earth, and virtually nowhere over oceans. Today's standards did not exist 100 yrs. ago. The validity of the data is a statistical nightmare.


That's a good point. One benchmark one could use is ice mass, both glacial and oceanic ice. Their large mass and hysteresis should provide a good safeguard against short term effects. As far as I'm aware, ice mass is mostly decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere, while it seems that the Patagonian icefield is actually increasing and Antarctica decreasing. What do you suggest?




One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6331
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 29-11-2011 at 11:38


Another "green nuclear energy" technology presently in development is
the Travelling Wave Reactor which is a breeder reactor fueled with depleted uranium as the fertile material and U235 as the "igniter" of the progressive
breed and burn core which basically burns for fifty to seventy-five years on one fueling. Microsofts Bill Gates is the CEO of the energy development company
presently trying to get permits for a test reactor to be built outside the U.S.
since the present regulatory environment makes nuclear technology R&D impossible in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

Perhaps it is a sociopolitical problem more than a scientific or technological challenge which accounts for the "death spiral" of all humanity in a world that is "circling the drain" which is the black hole consuming its conventional energy sources at the expense of the global environment. Consumers are being sacrificed upon the altar of ill conceived government regulation which lacks any worthwhile "vision of the future"
having practical or attainable goals involving energy needs
and sound methods for supplying those needs. Maybe a hard look should be taken at governments who bet the peoples wealth and hopes on losers while the authors of such policies line their pockets with bribes, kickbacks, and inflated salaries and bonuses undeserved for their piss poor performance for supplying only incompetent and or dishonest "leadership". The world would do much better
with a management team who actually know what they are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEO7_BV590 First Light

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApvYngDxta8 Look To The Future

Ask not for whom the bell tolls ......

[Edited on 29-11-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DerAlte
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

[*] posted on 1-12-2011 at 20:26


If you are not already bored, turned off, convinced etc., have a look at the following:

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/ClimChng-Suns-Role...

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Climate%20Change-N...

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SEAWATER%20pH%20&a...

An older overview:

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Primer6%2002.pdf

Not for general consumption:
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/When%20the%20Stars...

He has written in the media also:
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/GORACLE-USA%20Toda...

And, on a more political note:
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010-International...
......

Regards,
Der Alte
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6331
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 2-12-2011 at 02:43


Marsh is on the bullseye with his scientific analysis IMO.
Some of his philosphical analysis of the science / religion topic lacks depth....but his analysis otherwise seems sufficiently rational as a GW hysteria debunker. The following excerpt I was reading and thinking we are on the same page precisely on this topic.

Quote:
If the US government were primarily concerned with carbon dioxide emissions, it would
not be pursuing technologies like solar and wind. They are fully aware of the prediction
by the International Energy Agency that says that all alternative sources of energy will
contribute no more than 2% to the world’s energy-supply by 2030 or 2040. They also
know that over 40% of US emissions of carbon dioxide come from the burning of fossil
fuels for electricity generation. Rationally, one would formulate policy to eliminate the
largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions before going after the smaller sources.
If the government were serious about lowering carbon dioxide emissions they would
create significant incentives to replace power plants that burn fossil fuels with nuclear.
After all, nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide and the technology is mature. Moreover,
they do not emit the real pollutants that cause tens of thousands of premature deaths each
year.
For decades France has obtained almost all of its electricity from nuclear plants. In the
US, the principle impediment to constructing such plants is an irrational regulatory
process that greatly increases cost. The so-called “waste” problem is a political problem
not a technical one. The waste can be “burned” in fast-spectrum reactors—also a mature
technology—thereby using about 99% of the energy in the original uranium, rather than
the roughly 5% gotten today. Following this path means that nuclear power would
become an inexhaustible source of electricity. The radioactivity of the less than 1% of
real waste composed of fission products would fall below that of the original ore in less
than 500 years. Yucca Mountain could accommodate the quantity of real waste for the
indefinite future.
So if carbon dioxide emissions are not the real concern, what is? The answer lies in the
national security area and in particular with the necessity for guaranteeing the supply of
cheap oil.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 17 years of madness
Thread Split
2-12-2011 at 12:20
AJKOER
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2754
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-12-2011 at 12:57


I do accept the observation of global warming. As someone who also has a MS in Applied Statistics, I agree with the noisy data arguments on the macro level, however, what is most shocking to me is at the micro (or local city level) reporting of yearly record high temperatures for a given date with recurring frequency in the last ten years.

With random data, to get repeated max observations (in a universal of data keeping exceeding 100 data points or years) in the sample of the last ten observations (years), clearly suggests a phase shift as this is extremely unlikely.

To be clearer, I am looking at the temporal occurrence of maximum high temperature values at specific locations. In accord with global warming, some places could also be experiencing record lows. Using averages here would not, in my opinion, be the most efficient way to detect/verify a temperature shift associated with global warming, but perhaps studying max observations is and the data is troubling.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3919
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 3-12-2011 at 13:41


A real WTF moment here - US Will Not Air Climate Change Episode of Frozen Planet!!!
How sick is that?


View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6331
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 3-12-2011 at 14:24


Climate Change is a good exercise for critical thinking skills.

The climate change hysteria and interventionism debunkers can have a field day ridiculing the absence of critical thinking skills evident in both the characterization of the problem and the irrationality of the most popular of what are generally considered "earth friendly" alternative energy solutions but at the same time are entirely inadequate and unrealistic as practical proposed solutions. Wind and solar power generation won't solve the problem. They have niche applications but are not general solutions.

Even if it was stipulated that the most extreme pessimistic predictions of GW for the fate of the earth are even understated and imperatively something must be done to abate the threat and a remedy is possible .....a perplexity is found revealed by the fact that the hysterical activism and interventionism supporters in general haven't got any seriousness whatever about implementing nuclear technologies required as a problem solution by the circumstances they believe exist.

This is curiously like a situation where a hippie is dying with an infection and refuses to take synthetic antibiotics which would save their life, declaring it is their enlightened or religious view to rely instead on herbal medicine and chants and talismans since that "alternative" is more "organic" and wholesome, unthreatening, and karma enhancing.

The psychological aversion to nuclear power plants seems to accompany the embracing of "alternative" wind and solar technologies as more karma enhancing, but it really makes no substantive difference towards solving the energy problem except for squandering R&D dollars on what is already known is "alternative" technology inadequate as a solution.

The GW activist and inteventionist movement wants to have its cake and eat it too, evidently since that is more karma enhancing. Critical thinking got lost somewhere in that bargain along with dozens of nuclear power plants that should exist already but do not exist as a consequence.

Getting real about the energy problem means getting nuclear power generation implemented on a grand scale.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
fledarmus
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 187
Registered: 23-6-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-12-2011 at 16:32


Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  


With random data, to get repeated max observations (in a universal of data keeping exceeding 100 data points or years) in the sample of the last ten observations (years), clearly suggests a phase shift as this is extremely unlikely.


Really? How many times has that happened in the last hundred years? How many cities in any one year have reported a record high temperature? A string of record high temperatures of what length? A record low temperature? A string of record low temperatures?

One of the problems with random numbers is that if you collect enough data points, the odds are a lot higher that they will come in strings of highs and lows than that you will have a perfectly even distribution. This is what keeps people coming back to craps tables.

I'm not saying that we are not facing global warming, I am just saying that trying to use a string of isolated extremes as evidence without any context of how often such strings occur doesn't clearly suggest anything at all.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bquirky
National Hazard
****




Posts: 316
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-12-2011 at 05:12


It is like a dentist investing in the stock market. trying to divine direction in noisy chart
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3919
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 5-12-2011 at 13:17


This piece on global warming from HP's Bill McKibben makes for timely reading for anyone interested . . .



View user's profile View All Posts By User
DerAlte
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

[*] posted on 5-12-2011 at 14:55


@ Hissingnoise

Then tell it to China and India - the Us and the West was in recession during that period.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/201...

Der Alte
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 5-12-2011 at 17:57


Quote:

Critical thinking got lost somewhere in that bargain along with dozens of nuclear power plants that should exist already but do not exist as a consequence.

Getting real about the energy problem means getting nuclear power generation implemented on a grand scale.

~Rosco


I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.




U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6331
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 6-12-2011 at 09:23


You agree with me because you are a very intelligent man :D
Great minds think alike.

Of course the hydrogen fusion reactor presently in development is an elegant solution but yet decades in the future to be realized, and it is much more complicated than other different breeder reactor technology solutions which are more easily accomplished and less technically daunting and way less expensive to implement.

Therefore there is an obvious irrationality about "betting the entire future" on a hydrogen fusion or more accurately a deuterium fusion reactor technology that is so complicated to implement if and when that future implementation can be accomplished, since complex technology of that sort would not soon be found in widespread use. More simple breeder reactor concepts could be implemented and producing real power at dozens of locations decades before the first hydrogen fusion reactor ever goes online. So for practical consideration, a results oriented management decision by governments acting sanely and sensibly would be prioritizing the more easily implemented technology instead of "reaching for the stars" prematurely.....and putting all the eggs in one basket which is the yet to be realized hydrogen fusion reactor.

Agreed ? This is what bothers me about the GW alarmists and interventionist
"lobby" or "faction" : They are short on "facts" that are really facts and they are short on plans that are really sensible plans .....but they are long on arrogance that they would think qualifies themselves as the "enlightened intellectuals" who should tell the rest of us how its going to be and what we are all going to do,
when they obviously haven't got a clue what is or ought to be. That's what you get when the "experts" aren't really experts ....except in their own minds.

So long as politics instead of engineering governs energy policy, then there won't be any energy policy.

View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 6-12-2011 at 13:39


I also agree with Rosco. Considering that the new breeder reactor designs are going to revolutionise the nuclear industry, I place my bets on nuclear fission. We have uranium reserves that are good for another 6000 years if we ever decide to draw 50% of our energy from nuclear fission. Breeder reactors are not yet commercialised, but projections predict that they will be commercialised in ~30 years, that's sooner than any economically significant renewable energy sources.

For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste and can still produce massive amounts of electricity cheaply. The only other two energy sources that can continuously produce large amounts of power cheaply and without wastes are geothermal and hydro.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Steve_hi
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 196
Registered: 4-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 6-12-2011 at 15:50


"For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste"

I wonder If all the japaneese who can't return to their own homes and the farmers that can't sell their produce or the fisherman who can't sell their fish, feel that it's the nuclear industry alone who deal with their own waste
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6331
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 6-12-2011 at 16:08


Quote: Originally posted by Steve_hi  
"For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste"

I wonder If all the japaneese who can't return to their own homes and the farmers that can't sell their produce or the fisherman who can't sell their fish, feel that it's the nuclear industry alone who deal with their own waste


Clearly a case of thoughtlessness regarding site elevation requirements and/or inadequate flotation or snorkelling capabilities .....as well as being proof positive that shit happens....especially with that conventional type of fission reactor.....which is a different and inferior technology to the type of breeder reactors which are being advocated.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 6-12-2011 at 17:19


Quote: Originally posted by Steve_hi  
"For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste"

I wonder If all the japaneese who can't return to their own homes and the farmers that can't sell their produce or the fisherman who can't sell their fish, feel that it's the nuclear industry alone who deal with their own waste


The Fukushima power plant incident was not a reactor failure per se, it was due to the failure of the backup cooling system. It was due to the poor design of the backup safety systems, not the poor design of the reactor. They thought that a 6m wall was enough, and it wasn't. In hindsight it looks like stupidity of engineers, but I think it was just bad luck. The situation turned into possibly the worst case scenario.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 29-1-2012 at 23:58


Facts speak louder than theory.

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forge...


http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/17324885/article-Temper...





"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  ..  4    6    8  9

  Go To Top