BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

hrothgar, on 2019-March-24, 04:00, said:

As Ken said in another thread, "This is hard to respond to. I don't want to just ignore it but I also don't feel like mounting a defense of myself. I acknowledge your comments. I'll leave it at that."

I have to admit that I have been completely wrong about how to solve the climate change problem and I have to thank Senator Lee for setting me straight:

GOP Senator Says Having More ‘American Babies’ Is The Solution To Climate Change

Quote

The problem with trying to solve global warming today is that we don't have enough smart people working on the problem. Just wait for 20-30 years until a new generation of smart people become adults and solve the world's problems. And if they don't solve the global warming problem, wait 40-60 years until the children of the next generation solve the problem. It's good to know that the Republican party has more than 1 stable genius.

Is it getting warmer???

Temperatures In Alaska And Australia Hit Record-Breaking Highs Last Month

Quote

Quote

Quote

Climate change deniers had a scientific reason for the temperature increases. Basically they are saying that you can't believe those thermometers, that even if the thermometers are correct it was hotter in the past, and if you don't have a universally agreed upon theory about why there is global warming, it isn't happening.

The PDO explains Alaskan temperature declines in the 50s thru 70s (la nina cycle) followed by the warm el nino cycle of the last 30 years.
The BoM downunder has been caught fiddling the numbers repeatedly.
Now, what exactly was that relation between [CO2]a and global temperature (errr climate change) again? Try to be specific.

Al_U_Card, on 2019-April-04, 15:09, said:

One thing I know for certain after 40+ years (in my case) of climate change awareness, publicity, research, debate, policy (or lack of) is that its one of those topics that should probably never be discussed in polite company along with religion and politics

Some people will never accept scientific evidence above what they experience unless it confirms their beliefs and experience.

Also, some others will never accept the fallibility of research process and that some proponents of action over the years have been rather aggressive in pushing the issue and attacking people who do not understand science. I will go so far as to say that many scientists do not understand science and the fallibility of their methods. The good ones do (eg professors), but there a lot of ordinary ones in other areas of society who can cause problems with lack of full knowledge of what they are talking about. There is a distinct arrogance among a certain group in society, especially the more educated academic research types who like to talk down to less educated people. There is also an arrogance from parties on that side of politics towards the more ordinary working person. It happens all the time. Although those less educated are often manipulated by those with agendas and knowledge on all sides of debates. The result of all this is people like Trump or the equivalent in different countries

It has also sadly connected up with the conspiracy theorists and anti-government, anti-elites movements. All issues are combined into one big consipracy

The majority of (good) researchers keep doing their work and despairing 1) how it is communicated, 2) how it is interpreted or misinterpreted and 3) over many things I guess

However sadly, the level of scientific communication around the world is seriously flawed and often is filtered through journalism (and now social media - the main form of infomation now) by people with no real scientific knowledge at all

Conclusion

Climate change will never be fixed. Its like King Knut trying to mythically stop the tides. The scientists will keep producing evidence. Some people will try to make good policy. The conspirarcy theorists will never believe and will keep attacking. There will be misleading information from both sides (including sadly the more informed). There will be continuing arrogance by the educated elites agaisnt the less educated and consistent manipulation of everyone by vested interests.

Meanwhile the majority of people and businesses and governments of good faith will gradually continue to improve things through their personal decisions, choice,s market. People are already decided on a reduction of emissions around the world and act accordingly irrespective of the debate and the misinformation

Thats life and history. But I sincerely doubt anything humans do can halt anything as major climate change including the anthropogenic part of it. Human's still havent realised that some systems are bigger than us

Regards P

Just the fact that hardly 1% of GHG is our doing and that water vapour is the dominant GHG (20 times more than atmospheric CO2) and that climate doom only exists in over-heated computer models that use the RCP 8.5 scenarios that are totally unrealistic, makes the whole "projection" of our responsibility for the weather totally unrealistic. If the scientific basis relies on more than the current "expert opinion" offered by the IPCC then what is the exact, mathematical relationship that links our CO2 with a changing climate? Gravity has one. Electro-magnetism has one ....

thepossum, on 2019-April-04, 18:02, said:

Possum, you're new to the Climate Change thead

Please be aware that Al lies, all the time.
In addition to the climate change bullshiite that he spews forth, he is also a 9-11 "truther" who spent years trying to convince us that that 9-11 was a false flag operation.

His posts constantly contradict one another. At the moment he is claiming that the world is warming but that this a natural change.
Wait a couple weeks. he'll be claiming that the world isn't actually warming or perhaps that Freemason's are putting fluoride into the water supply.

hrothgar, on 2019-April-05, 09:40, said:

Al_U_Card apparently spends most of his time trying to find anything and everything that casts doubt on global warming, no matter the source. Claiming that the world is warming but is a natural cycle is just one thing he has promoted. He also has claimed that there is no warming at all and that temperatures were much warmer in the recent past. He has claimed that sea levels are not rising and that the cause of coastal flooding is that the land mass is sinking (related to post glacial rebound). He claimed that forest fires were burning fewer acres in the US (based on totally discredited information) because the US was actually getting cooler.

Al_U_Card is so committed to denying global warming that he declined a good paying position to be the marketing director for the flat earth society

thepossum, on 2019-April-04, 18:02, said:

Amen! I remember some time back seeing Nancy Pelosi shrieking, "I'M TRYING TO SAVE THE PLANET." I think she's grossly overestimating her capabilities. Compared to the forces of nature we humans aren't much more than a colony of ants.

From Nuclear Power Can Save the World by Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist and Steven Pinker:

Quote

I suspect this has more to do with getting Congress and taxpayers to assume 99 percent of the cost and risk of financing nuclear energy research and construction than something the Doobie brothers sang at a No Nukes concert. Corporations are so brave. But yeah, as gerben42 has pointed out for more than a decade, renewable energy alone will not save us. So, let's get going on this.

Renewables are an inconsistent, inefficient and ineffective power supply. A waste of time but especially energy. The energy density, reliability and accessibility of nuclear is clearly the way to go. Liquid salt (at least coolant systems) are safest and the tech is available (one among many Chinese initiatives...). Energy, like warm global temps, mean prosperity unlike what may be around the corner with an ever quitening sun. Climate changes but can we?

Chas_P, on 2019-April-06, 18:40, said:

One person on their own doesn't affect the world very much (unless it is Dennison in a psychotic state starting a nuclear war and causing a nuclear winter). 7-1/2 billion people can have a destabilizing effect and it's up to the leaders around the world to set environmental policy, whether it is good or bad for the environment. Like it or not, the USA is one of the leaders of the world.

As far as humans not being able to affect nature, you don't have to look any further than the effect of CFC's destroying the ozone layer and causing ozone holes in the polar regions. How could 1 person using an aerosol can do that? 1 can couldn't have much affect on the ozone layer, but billions or trillions of cans could and did. The Montreal Protocol reduced and eliminated the use of many ozone destroying agents and the ozone layer is gradually recovering.

Same with global warming and CO2. One family driving their gas powered car and heating and cooling their home with fossil fuels isn't going to put enough CO2 into the world's atmosphere to cause a blip in the overall CO2 levels. Multiply that by a billion cars and hundreds of millions of trucks and construction vehicles, billions of homes, hundreds of millions of factories that are powered by fossil fuels, millions of airplanes, fossil fuel power plants, etc. Add in massive deforestation due to the rapid increase in population and it doesn't take a genius to see how mankind is causing CO2 levels to rise.

Al_U_Card, on 2019-April-07, 16:43, said:

I usually just note that A1_U_Card has posted more mindless Yada and leave it like that. His latest post approaches his own record post for most ridiculous.

A1_U_Card is apparently afraid and ignorant about renewable energy sources. What's new?

I am not surprised that he espouses nuclear power. What could go wrong? Answering my own question, there was the Hanford nuclear leak, the Three Mile Island accident, the Chernobyl explosion, the Fukushima nuclear plant destroyed in a tsunami, just off the top of my head. There's also the huge problem that nuclear plants have a finite life of maybe 30 to 40 years. Trying to decommission them and removing and storing the nuclear waste is incredibly difficult and expensive. I won't even touch the possibility of terrorist attacks, either to cause explosions or to steal nuclear material.

Al_U_Card, on 2019-April-07, 16:43, said:

One of the stupidest things I have read on the internet, and that's saying a lot. Global climate change means prosperity???

johnu, on 2019-April-08, 15:12, said:

How much you wanna bet that he is going to start waxing rhapsodic about thorium

From Heaven or High Water by Sarah Miller at Popula:

Quote

Quote

Quote

All of the above -- mourn, retreat and get more efficient? And also rethink our consumption?

Les Grady at the Climate Action Alliance of the Shenandoah Valley reported this week that Nobel Prize laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz called on Europe and China to join forces against the U.S. at the WTO, saying America has become a “free-rider” on climate change under the Trump administration, in violation of global free trade rules.

hrothgar, on 2019-April-08, 15:42, said:

I'm unsure on the whole Thorium debate. The biggest proponent I know is a very green human caused climate change "science guy" but in the UK it is never even up for debate.

Cyberyeti, on 2019-April-09, 10:56, said:

I'm unsure about the viability of Thorium reactors, however, I do know that most of the folks promoting them are nutso...

Quote

The proponents of Thorium-based reactors mainly argue "well Thorium is so much more abundant than Uranium". But actually this is a non-problem and Th-based reactors don't really solve any existing problem. To create a closed nuclear fuel cycle what is really needed is breeder reactors like ASTRID.

The main argument against fission reactors is the nuclear waste which takes 200,000 years to decrease radioactivity back to the level of natural Uranium. What if we could reduce that to, say, 400 years? No one can claim to make a repository that is safe for 200,000 years. But 400 years is another story. Many buildings here are more than 400 years old (OK in the Americas not so many...) What if we could just turn all that nasty Americium and Curium into electricity? With that implemented, known Uranium deposits last for several centuries.

Quote

And after a nuclear accident, everybody dies, right? Oh, they don't? Darn...
(on 3/11/19 a German radio station reported 20,000 deaths from the Fukushima nuclear accident - seems like they have forgotten that these people died due to the deadliest tsunami in Japanese history).
So how can one evaluate how dangerous different power sources are? A good way is to say "I need a TWh of electricity how many people will die?"

Perhaps you do not know this, but the number of deaths per TWh of electricity for nuclear power is the lowest of all energy sources. Hydro is 2nd if only counting "Western" countries, otherwise Wind is 2nd.

In other news, the olympic fire relay for the Tokyo Olympics will actually pass the Fukushima Daiichi site. You can be sure that by then they will have removed any boats from temple roofs by then. If you are interested in an eye-witness report of the cleanup work, try the manga series "Ichi-F: A Worker's Graphic Memoir of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant"

Quote

Most plants have an extended life time of 60 years, which is in fact the design lifetime of new plants. What is your point here? This is true for any power plant. In fact most don't live that long. Solar panels for example won't even last 20 years before you are left with toxic waste.

Quote

You don't seem to have thought this through...
* No one is "trying" decommisioning, this is an existing industry. And expensive is relative. Nuclear power requires a big investment but consider a reactor supplying 1600 MW of electricity for 60 years (800 billion kWh), that is a huge amount of revenue and the initial investment and the decomissioning cost seem like small change.
* Nuclear waste see above - use breeder reactors to close the nuclear fuel cycle.
* Terrorists are not stupid enough to try attacking a nuclear power plant. It would be like blowing yourself up on top of Cheops' Pyramid. No one dies, you leave some bad stains.
* Nuclear material from commercial nuclear power plants does not consist of weapons-grade material. You still need to do the enrichment and before you know it you have the IAEA on top of you. Assuming you don't die first, that is.