Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3966
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:53 am

Both large hydro dams and nuclear power plants have the serious drawback of high up-front costs and long planing/building phases.
But whilst nuclear power technology is in flux right now, dam tech has been more or less constant for over a hundred years. We expect any reactor build today to become comparatively less competitive within the next 10 years. But the core functions of a dam (water regulation, energy storage) will not suddenly become way more effective with new technology.
Dam safety is largely a question of maintenance: most issues are obvious over a decade before they become serious. But because of that, it is easy to postpone repairs until it's too late. This is a human flaw of discounting the future, not a flaw in the concept of dams.
"I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to."
- Willard Gaylin

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11389
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:42 am

TO some extent that is true, EM, but dam failures tend to follow exceptional rain events, and these are often not predicted.

TJ
The 5 billion event is truly predictable, but kind of off topic. Bobbo tried to say that we would see a 300 foot sea level rise due to current global warming, but that will not happen.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Austin Harper » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:50 pm

According to a 1995 documenary when all of the ice caps have melted the sea level will rise 7600 m.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:30 pm

Austin Harper wrote:According to a 1995 documenary when all of the ice caps have melted the sea level will rise 7600 m.

That documenary went over budget by nearly $60 million.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:TO some extent that is true, EM, but dam failures tend to follow exceptional rain events, and these are often not predicted.

TJ
The 5 billion event is truly predictable, but kind of off topic. Bobbo tried to say that we would see a 300 foot sea level rise due to current global warming, but that will not happen.

"if...….then"

If we do nothing and co2 heating melts all the ice.....then we will have 300 foot sea level rise (whatever number).

Lance: if we don't stop co2 pollution, ((and we are only increasing it right now)), WHAT is going to stop sea level rise?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:33 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:TO some extent that is true, EM, but dam failures tend to follow exceptional rain events, and these are often not predicted.

TJ
The 5 billion event is truly predictable, but kind of off topic. Bobbo tried to say that we would see a 300 foot sea level rise due to current global warming, but that will not happen.

"if...….then"

If we do nothing and co2 heating melts all the ice.....then we will have 300 foot sea level rise (whatever number).

Lance: if we don't stop co2 pollution, ((and we are only increasing it right now)), WHAT is going to stop sea level rise?

Not a climate denier, but 3 inches ocean rise since '92? I don't want to do the math, but I think we have some breathing space before we have to take drastic action. After all, sea levels have been rising since the ice age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4700
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:10 pm

Interesting you would reference "breathing" when that is the very point.

I agree. You aren't denying science...…...you just don't know it. THAT plus some honest logic errors as in 3 inches since 92 has anything to do with the future. Same with rising sea levels since the ice age.

You have trouble dealing with hypos. Its pervasive...…….and much more prevalent than I had suspected.

………………..…………..every thing I learn...…..has a depressing element about it...…………………… (sarcasm/off)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11389
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:37 am

Bobbo

You need to learn to stick to good science when making claims. Saying that we have to prepare for 300 foot (90 meters) sea level rise when the predicted rise till 2100 is only half to one meter, is playing into the hands of deniers, who can then make you look like an ignorant idiot.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:55 pm

Well Lance: you are mixing up postings to make up your own straw man argument. Best as I know/remember: the current best guess of sea level rise by 2100 is as you say half a meter. but don't you THINK we have to prepare for life after 2100 as well? and that does bring into play the referenced 300 feet of sea level rise IF ALL THE ICE MELTS....whenever that will occur if we don't recapture what we've already spewed ((point of fact: I don't know how many ppm is predicted to melt all the ice...but my gut says if we stopped right now, which we cannot do, that indeed all the worlds ice would melt)).

Two different issue entirely. You aren't normally so confused. Sounds like a bit of cognitive dissonance precipitating a change of mind? Ha, ha. The mind is a terrible thing to waste on spurious arguments. Much more spurious attributions.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:14 pm

Isn't it obvious here that the climate debate is off the rails? Talking about treading water and losing coastal cities, when that may be centuries away? Using the term "denier" to include someone who wants to moderate the most severely dire predictions, is a bit extreme and inflammatory. It makes things much harder for those of us who want to approach the issue from a dispassionate scientific point of view, without riding the climate change activist's train.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:30 pm

landrew wrote:Isn't it obvious here that the climate debate is off the rails?
Only if you want only one rail. but rails go everywhere and you choose your ride. Start your own rail if you don't like the others. Contra: I mostly interested in the details of the worst case scenarious, and the best responses to avoid them, but most often we are sidetracked to THOSE rails by denial, or as I see in your case landrew: lackadaisical misplaced comfort on the issue.

landrew wrote:Talking about treading water and losing coastal cities, when that may be centuries away?
New Orleans has been swamped, Miami is now. New York considering building walls. The alternative to treading water is to drown or climb on your roof. I know: its not happening to you...…..so its not a worry.

landrew wrote: Using the term "denier" to include someone who wants to moderate the most severely dire predictions, is a bit extreme and inflammatory.
No, its not. You are denying the import of the issue. We must take corrective actions NOW......not centuries from now. If you don't agree....you don't understand the issues: build up, time lag, triggering events.

landrew wrote: It makes things much harder for those of us who want to approach the issue from a dispassionate scientific point of view, without riding the climate change activist's train.
What makes you think science is "dispassionate"? I thought it was neutral or had nothing to do with passions? "Just the Facts." Its the FACTS you want to avoid, not the science. (EDIT: ".....not the science passion. Passion is what makes life worthwhile, science just a tool to fulfil whatever those passions are. Maintaining hooman life on Earth seems like a worthwhile passion to me. silly to pose science as not supporting that.)

Answer me this dispassionate Science man: the way we are going, how many ppm co2 do you think our atmosphere will reach by 2100, 2150, 2200 etc...…...and at what levels would you apply "extreme, costly, but necessary" remedial carbon sequestration technology?
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:45 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
landrew wrote:Isn't it obvious here that the climate debate is off the rails?
Only if you want only one rail. but rails go everywhere and you choose your ride. Start your own rail if you don't like the others. Contra: I mostly interested in the details of the worst case scenarious, and the best responses to avoid them, but most often we are sidetracked to THOSE rails by denial, or as I see in your case landrew: lackadaisical misplaced comfort on the issue.

landrew wrote:Talking about treading water and losing coastal cities, when that may be centuries away?
New Orleans has been swamped, Miami is now. New York considering building walls. The alternative to treading water is to drown or climb on your roof. I know: its not happening to you...…..so its not a worry.

landrew wrote: Using the term "denier" to include someone who wants to moderate the most severely dire predictions, is a bit extreme and inflammatory.
No, its not. You are denying the import of the issue. We must take corrective actions NOW......not centuries from now. If you don't agree....you don't understand the issues: build up, time lag, triggering events.

landrew wrote: It makes things much harder for those of us who want to approach the issue from a dispassionate scientific point of view, without riding the climate change activist's train.
What makes you think science is "dispassionate"? I thought it was neutral or had nothing to do with passions? "Just the Facts." Its the FACTS you want to avoid, not the science.

Answer me this dispassionate Science man: the way we are going, how many ppm co2 do you think our atmosphere will reach by 2100, 2150, 2200 etc...…...and at what levels would you apply "extreme, costly, but necessary" remedial carbon sequestration technology?

I rest my case. This isn't about working together to solve a problem; it's about escalating the hysteria higher and higher to "win" some sort of tribal ideology battle.

I'm just as committed to the problem, but telling big whoppers and Chicken Little scare-stories just won't help.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:48 pm

landrew: NAME the big whopper.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:55 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:landrew: NAME the big whopper.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-c ... gore-2014/
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:19 pm

Gee whiz landrew. I thought you were being relevant. Sorry, please excuse me.

So...…….back up one step: The way we are going, how many ppm co2 do you think our atmosphere will reach by 2100, 2150, 2200 etc...…...and at what levels would you apply "extreme, costly, but necessary" remedial carbon sequestration technology?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:23 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gee whiz landrew. I thought you were being relevant. Sorry, please excuse me.

So...…….back up one step: The way we are going, how many ppm co2 do you think our atmosphere will reach by 2100, 2150, 2200 etc...…...and at what levels would you apply "extreme, costly, but necessary" remedial carbon sequestration technology?

It's coming. Once we eliminate fossil fuels, the planet will be nearly carbon-neutral. At that point, sequestration will begin to take carbon levels down again. I'm not getting hysterical about it, is all.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:51 pm

You should be.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:44 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You should be.

No. That's stupid. Getting hysterical makes nothing better.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:09 pm

It's too late for hysteria. Now it's time for mitigation.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:24 pm

Hysteria concentrates the attention. We are well past time to have gotten hysterical. Right now...….its the "only" thing that will make it better.

It will take hysteria to implement any mitigation.

mitigation: The action of lessening in severity or intensity

Actually, mitigation IS NOT ENOUGH. We need to reverse our co2 pollution to avoid WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

You know landrew: a known UNAVOIDABLE effect caused by actions already taken is not made less important just because its going to happen 200 years from now rather than tomorrow. I know: "time." Such a anesthetic.

landrew: I'll make the question simpler: how many ppm of co2 is acceptable to you? (before you agree hysterical is needed to motivate the bovines?)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11389
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:46 pm

Bobbo

You are getting into that fantasy world again.

1. Sea levels are not going to rise 300 feet, unless you are thinking on geological time scales, like half a billion years.
2. Humanity is not going to die out due to global warming. It would take something much more potent, like a massive nuclear war.

I strongly object to bull-shit and dishonesty. Please stick to the facts.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:17 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hysteria concentrates the attention. We are well past time to have gotten hysterical. Right now...….its the "only" thing that will make it better.

It will take hysteria to implement any mitigation.

mitigation: The action of lessening in severity or intensity

Actually, mitigation IS NOT ENOUGH. We need to reverse our co2 pollution to avoid WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

You know landrew: a known UNAVOIDABLE effect caused by actions already taken is not made less important just because its going to happen 200 years from now rather than tomorrow. I know: "time." Such a anesthetic.

landrew: I'll make the question simpler: how many ppm of co2 is acceptable to you? (before you agree hysterical is needed to motivate the bovines?)

I refuse to argue against hysteria. Saying "we are all going to die" is nothing short of stupid.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:33 pm

……….or it could be...…………………………………………………………...wait for it...…………………………………………. humorous??????

Naaaaa, THAT could never happen.

Ok Lance: I've been looking for the IPCC projections on ppm and their effects. Used to be easy to find...…...can't find it now. I'll give it an extended search now.

………..like landrew: you refuse to answer any question that would ground you to reality: what would happen if we don't stop burning fossil fuels?

The only "fact" you two stumble on is the human perception of time, and the refusal to take unpleasant action until absolutely required to do so...…………………………...which on the subject of AGW: is too late.

Silly Hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:00 am

Google: all knowledge is available "if" you discover the right search terms. I found a few good ones but I'm too sleepy to follow them up. So far: if we hit 490 ppm.....we will not be able to avoid a 200 foot sea level rise. Hard so ffar to find straight forward statements.....what is straight forward keeps changing the measurements. EG: from ppm to total temp rise required for certain effects to arise and always with ranges of estimates too wide in my view. Just lots of factors, variables, unknowns, and bias.

I'll try to put something together later...…….my first repeated view: its only getting worse...…….we are beyond correction absent huge sums of money spent now...……..and that's only "my" opinion. Can't find any authoritative article on how to stop AGW once we all decide we have to do it. Carbon Sequestration: just my own idea. Ha, ha.....nice article on how USA must become Carbon Neutral by 2050 for any chance at all to avoid catastrophe. Raise your hand: who thinks THAT is going to happen?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:01 pm

Oh......well about the third search was (when will Antarctica melt completely) and provided: https://www.quora.com/When-will-Antarct ... completely . This is not a scientific website so I almost skipped it but often it provides clues/links. the last post was relevant but I can't copy the illustrations. The conclusion is:
Thus, even if we burn every ounce of fossil fuel on the planet, the Antarctic ice will not drop to literally zero within the next 10,000 years.
Ha, ha....irritating....it switches the subject to gigatons of carbon rather than ppm or total temp rise. Language/terminology. It would be nice to find a consistent analysis.

The very end of the link provides another link to: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589 which may be the basis for the shared opinion? It reminds me that on of the feed back mechanisms of a warming earth is that it will snow more on Antarctica....so it will melt faster from ocean temps but gain more snow ….this keeping it more in balance with it going one way or the other based on assumptions?????

Interesting is the final sentence that seems to contradict the Qurom posting? " With unrestrained future CO2 emissions, the amount of sea-level rise from Antarctica could exceed tens of meters over the next 1000 years and could ultimately lead to the loss of the entire ice sheet."

My conclusion: sounds like sea level rise will be slower than what I thought.

More conclusions: ruinous sea level rise will take place with only a few meters rise if not just inches? The total melting of all ice just a side issue arising from Lance's failure to engage. So...….back to reality.....sea level rise only one of 50 different bad effects to disrupt human civilization. The mind is challenged to just deal with them one at a time...……..how will the fifty interact with one another????? Ha, ha...…………………...WE ARE ALL DOOMED!

Pessimism rules!

I give up on trying to piece together a logical/likely scenario of what will do us in. People spend their lives studying the issue: I'll wait for them.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:40 pm

I would like to see us start talking about the science again, and stop acting like warring tribes.

Fuel for a debate that should never have been declared "settled:"

Image
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:55 pm

The experts say it is settled. Why do you think you have any basis at all on which to disagree? Any evidence/chart/notion in contradiction, such as you present above, has been taken into account.

Simple fact is: you, lance, and myself KNOW NOTHING. I do pick thru the body of published materials trying to understand the conclusions reached by the experts. You do the opposite.

Who is "doing science?" Think of your answer, and check the spoiler for what you have already been told, is obvious, and you continue to ignore:

Spoiler:
THE EXPERTS ARE...………………...NOT YOU AND ME.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9331
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby TJrandom » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:46 pm

landrew wrote:I would like to see us start talking about the science again, and stop acting like warring tribes.

Fuel for a debate that should never have been declared "settled:"

Image
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature."


But in that graph, visually it does appear that carbon dioxide rose in advance of temperature increases. Are the lines mislabeled?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:51 pm

TJrandom wrote:
landrew wrote:I would like to see us start talking about the science again, and stop acting like warring tribes.

Fuel for a debate that should never have been declared "settled:"

Image
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature."


But in that graph, visually it does appear that carbon dioxide rose in advance of temperature increases. Are the lines mislabeled?

Digging a little deeper, this article: attempts to explain it further. The upshot seems to remain uncertain.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:18 am

IIRC: another article said it was "merely" that ice cores from Antarctica only reflect the snow that fell on Antarctica. The rest of the world is a very much larger sample. If you focus on local variations to the exclusion of the whole, you can cherry pick info to support any defectively supported position you wish to take.


The science IS settled. Only deniers remain confused.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:IIRC: another article said it was "merely" that ice cores from Antarctica only reflect the snow that fell on Antarctica. The rest of the world is a very much larger sample. If you focus on local variations to the exclusion of the whole, you can cherry pick info to support any defectively supported position you wish to take.


The science IS settled. Only deniers remain confused.

Perfect example of dogmatic belief system. Thank you.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:33 am

No...…..its a perfect example of accepting settled science.

Know the difference.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11389
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:33 am

Three things are clear cut.
1. Global warming is real.
2. It is due to human activity.
3. It is important that humanity take both remedial and adaptive action.

However, outside these three points is a lot of bull-shit and wild speculation. The sea level will not rise 200 or 300 feet. That is bull-shit. Humanity will not die out. Also bull-shit.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3966
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:38 am

Humanity will die out - it's just a question of time.
Given how depended we are on technology, it might happen much quicker than we think: if for some reason we wouldn't be able to reliably make fire anymore, we would starve.
"I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to."
- Willard Gaylin

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9331
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby TJrandom » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:25 am

If the world were to lose the electricity grids... requiring a replacement for all of the transformers, substations, high voltage power lines, etc. the world would not likely recover with half of the population left alive after three to four years. Food and medicine would take the firsts hits, causing widespread anarchy, death, and destruction.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby landrew » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:01 pm

TJrandom wrote:If the world were to lose the electricity grids... requiring a replacement for all of the transformers, substations, high voltage power lines, etc. the world would not likely recover with half of the population left alive after three to four years. Food and medicine would take the firsts hits, causing widespread anarchy, death, and destruction.

I heard that 90% would die.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9331
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby TJrandom » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:49 pm

landrew wrote:
TJrandom wrote:If the world were to lose the electricity grids... requiring a replacement for all of the transformers, substations, high voltage power lines, etc. the world would not likely recover with half of the population left alive after three to four years. Food and medicine would take the firsts hits, causing widespread anarchy, death, and destruction.

I heard that 90% would die.


The % of survivors should be higher for cooperative societies vs those imbued in rugged individualism and armed to the teeth for self-protection. Also higher for societies with a larger % of the population engaged in agriculture. Such a failure should boost non-distributed power generation – solar and wind, assuming that those factories can continue to crank out their systems.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:53 pm

Factories? ummm…..the POINT is society has fallen. Its each farming community on its own.

Factories...…….to make what? To sell to whom?

I don't think you yet appreciate the fall of society. I know: as Lance says: adapt to it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11389
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:45 am

All these ifs.

If we all owned an invisible pink unicorn, we would not have to walk. Duh !

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:33 pm

If: its what science is all about.

Pink Unicorns don't exist. AGW does. You should know the difference...……..and you don't.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests