Wind, solar and nuclear

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:48 pm

We haven't explored the full potential of Unobtainium yet.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:16 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:48 pm
We haven't explored the full potential of Unobtainium yet.
If you could obtain it.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Ken Fabos » Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:03 am

landrew - that would be Hydrogen-3, not Helium. ITER uses Hydrogen-2 (deuterium) and Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) together, aiming to fuse pairs of them as the 'easiest' fusion reaction to achieve. ITER doesn't expect any shortages of supply of H-3 from Earth based sources, not even with assumptions that Fusion will become the dominant global energy supply. I seriously doubt that will happen any time soon. Tritium won't ever be a high value Moon-mining commodity - a lot better resources are needed for justifying mining on the Moon than Hydrogen-3.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:29 am

Ken Fabos wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:03 am
landrew - that would be Hydrogen-3, not Helium. ITER uses Hydrogen-2 (deuterium) and Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) together, aiming to fuse pairs of them as the 'easiest' fusion reaction to achieve. ITER doesn't expect any shortages of supply of H-3 from Earth based sources, not even with assumptions that Fusion will become the dominant global energy supply. I seriously doubt that will happen any time soon. Tritium won't ever be a high value Moon-mining commodity - a lot better resources are needed for justifying mining on the Moon than Hydrogen-3.
Helium-3
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Austin Harper » Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:37 pm

BBC News wrote:
We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy.
...
Reaching "energy gain", the point at which we get out more energy than we put in, has been tantalisingly elusive. Not any more, fusion start-ups say. "This is the 'SpaceX moment' for fusion," says Christofer Mowry, chief executive of General Fusion, a Canadian company aiming to demonstrate fusion on a commercial scale within the next five years. "It's the moment when the maturation of fusion science is combined with the emergence of 21st Century enabling technologies like additive manufacturing and high-temperature superconductors. Fusion is no longer '30 years away'," he maintains.
...
The company has built three tokamaks so far, with the third, ST40, built from 30mm (1.2in) stainless steel and using HTS magnets. This June it achieved plasma temperatures of more than 15 million C - hotter than the core of the sun. The firm hopes to be hitting 100 million C by next summer - a feat Chinese scientists claim to have achieved this month. "We expect to have energy gain capability by 2022 and be supplying energy to the grid by 2030," says Mr Carling.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:39 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:37 pm
BBC News wrote:
We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy.
...
Reaching "energy gain", the point at which we get out more energy than we put in, has been tantalisingly elusive. Not any more, fusion start-ups say. "This is the 'SpaceX moment' for fusion," says Christofer Mowry, chief executive of General Fusion, a Canadian company aiming to demonstrate fusion on a commercial scale within the next five years. "It's the moment when the maturation of fusion science is combined with the emergence of 21st Century enabling technologies like additive manufacturing and high-temperature superconductors. Fusion is no longer '30 years away'," he maintains.
...
The company has built three tokamaks so far, with the third, ST40, built from 30mm (1.2in) stainless steel and using HTS magnets. This June it achieved plasma temperatures of more than 15 million C - hotter than the core of the sun. The firm hopes to be hitting 100 million C by next summer - a feat Chinese scientists claim to have achieved this month. "We expect to have energy gain capability by 2022 and be supplying energy to the grid by 2030," says Mr Carling.
This all sounds great, but there's a reason for my skepticism. I've been reading similar articles for over 30 years, always promising that a net energy gain from fusion is "just a few years away." It's only reasonable to question the same set of claims being made over and over, when they never seem to be supported.

I'm just as open to seeing the evidence for net energy gain from fusion as I am for seeing physical evidence of Bigfoot. But both have seemed to be tantalizingly close for years, but nothing seems to change.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Ken Fabos » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:02 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:29 am
Ken Fabos wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:03 am
landrew - that would be Hydrogen-3, not Helium. ITER uses Hydrogen-2 (deuterium) and Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) together, aiming to fuse pairs of them as the 'easiest' fusion reaction to achieve. ITER doesn't expect any shortages of supply of H-3 from Earth based sources, not even with assumptions that Fusion will become the dominant global energy supply. I seriously doubt that will happen any time soon. Tritium won't ever be a high value Moon-mining commodity - a lot better resources are needed for justifying mining on the Moon than Hydrogen-3.
Helium-3
My wrong, sorry.
Mining on the Moon is another subject, but I can't see mining Helium-3 being viable.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:35 pm

From Wikipedia:
Cosmochemist and geochemist Ouyang Ziyuan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is now in charge of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program has already stated on many occasions that one of the main goals of the program would be the mining of helium-3, from which operation "each year, three space shuttle missions could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world."
Of course, it goes without saying that the space shuttle won't be used for mining the moon. I think the intent was to convey that a shuttle-sized payload (X3) would provide enough energy to power the earth for a year. Of course this has been disputed, and the technology does not exist, so a proper estimate is not possible. But even if partially true, it's intriguing to think that such a concentrated source of energy may some day be available. It tends to make a moon-mining mission seem less daunting in a way.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11718
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by TJrandom » Sun Feb 03, 2019 6:18 am

Back here on earth, it seems like home solar power generation has its risks - home fires from systems installed as few as 7 years ago. In part due to poor installations and poor design, but others from the age of the equipment and not performing routine maintenance.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34815
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Gord » Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:27 am

Well, if I had one on the roof of my house I wouldn't perform routine maintenance on it either! The roof? Nobody goes up there, it's full of falling-offness!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:32 pm

According to my reading, solar cells on houses kill almost ten times as many people per megawatt hour of electricity generated, as nuclear. And it is mostly ladder accidents.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:52 pm

I was going to post pros and cons to all we do and that Terrorists would never target a home solar array for their dastardly deeds, but.....connected to the grid and home fires being possible.............seems to me that a cyber attack using a Stuxnet variant would be the way to go? Who knew? Solar Cells causing more deaths than Nuke or Dams combined.

Seems like we really should invest in clean coal technology.....I mean: Its always been safe.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:05 pm

The central problem is carbon emissions. It's a one-way street and it's unsustainable. We must eventually find a way to halt the liberation of carbon from sequestered fossil fuels. I'm sure we will be able to unlock the power of the atom in a safer way. I believe we will get there at some point, not through hysteria, but in spite of it.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:16 pm

Theres a lot of carbon released in any roof fire..................................

Haven't noticed the CURRENT co2 level reported on for about a year now. Last reported when we went over 400ppm. 350.com was created to inform the public that at 350 ppm co2 the Earth would be on a collision course with global climate change due to lag times alone, ie: not even including unknown tipping points and what not. Every element of disaster is proving to be even worse than estimated when 350.com was formed.

landrew: since you complain about my hysterics: on current trend lines (ie, not even getting worse than they are) when do you see any tipping point being reached?.............tipping point: when climate change is recognized as as the primary cause for some kind of societal collapse to a degree significant enough to notice.................ie: The drought in Syria from AGW leading to civil war and deaths of millions is NOT currently recognized as a consequence of AGW. I assume it will be a footnote on the subject in the future. Water Wars in Africa?

Too much lead time........................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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 No Life
Posts: 11718
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by TJrandom » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:32 pm
According to my reading, solar cells on houses kill almost ten times as many people per megawatt hour of electricity generated, as nuclear. And it is mostly ladder accidents.
We don't investigate ladder accidents looking for a systemic method of preventing them. Maybe we should. But with homes being in close proximity here, we do investigate the causes of fires. These solar caused fire investigations will contribute to changes and fewer such in the future.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:30 pm

Face it Bobbo, the world will never meet your timeline, and hysteria won't help get us there. Accounting for human nature, we will have to endure the negative effects of rising CO2 for some time to come, before action is taken to where eventually a stable carbon cycle is once again achieved.

No, I'm not frightened by "tipping points" because our climate has fluctuated more widely in the past, and no tipping points were observed. i tend to believe that the tipping point theories contain a measure of hysteria, and are intended for shock value in the media.

Of course a lot of carbon is released in a fire of any kind, but that's the nature of a carbon cycle. In a stable system the releases are equivalent to the sequestration. Our planet is resilient enough to sequester extra carbon long enough for us to pull our heads out and start restoring the carbon cycle back to equilibrium. It will take longer than most of us would like, but it will happen.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:43 pm

Thanks landrew. A very calm reasonable sounding deniers platform. You are not frightened by tipping points for reasons that have nothing to do with the concept? Ha, ha........................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:58 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:43 pm
Thanks landrew. A very calm reasonable sounding deniers platform. You are not frightened by tipping points for reasons that have nothing to do with the concept? Ha, ha........................
You just had to use a label. How very tribal of you.
Calm reasoning will solve climate change where tribal warfare will fail.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11718
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by TJrandom » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:15 pm

Wow – another breakthrough on solar, and already in production and application tests.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34815
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Two cock!

Post by Gord » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:16 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:58 pm
You just had to use a label. How very tribal of you.
Tu quoque!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:24 pm

Some labels are entirely valid. Just a short cut. And complaining about it doesn't hide the fact you have no response to the actual SUBJECT of the post. You do that alot. Do you wish to apologize for that now or later?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:24 pm
Some labels are entirely valid. Just a short cut. And complaining about it doesn't hide the fact you have no response to the actual SUBJECT of the post. You do that alot. Do you wish to apologize for that now or later?
Once again you spout complete nonsense in your weird fantasy that it might actually make sense. I don't respond to complete nonsense. Nearly all of your posts are intended to look like refutations, but in fact you are mostly just trying to be argumentative for it's own sake. I'm not interested.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:21 am

Just one non-sequitur after another. You don't know how to "explain yourself" very well at all. Perhaps very well in some areas of expertise....but not here.

What I completely legitimately asked you was "What tipping point do you see?" and your completely irrelevant answer was "our climate has fluctuated more widely in the past." COMPLETE NONSEQUITUR.

Who is zooming who? No whom's allowed.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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: 12934
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:47 am

Actually, landrews argument about tipping points is quite valid, and is not a denier argument. It is an anti-pessimist argument which is appropriate when arguing with Bobbo.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:58 am

OK Lance.......can you connect those dots? Here is a tipping point that may come to a head: Its warmer, ice is melting, water is getting wammer all resulting in less ice coverage at the North Pole resulting in even warmer weather and more ice melt and the process is repeating and building on itself which is why its getting warmer in the artic at twice the rate of Global Average. Permafrost is melting, the CONCERN IS: the tipping point for release of huge methane reserves may be reached and if that happens the cascade of pessimism is released.

Now.........how is that related to our climate fluctuating wildly in the past? I'll help you along: Note the tipping point argument is a process that is feared will take place in several hundreds of years whereas the climate fluctuations took place over millions of years. Also perhaps key is that in past climate fluctuations.....hoomans didn't have cities built on shorelines.

Ring any bells?

Just saw a show about 8 major cities facing climate destruction right now. Focus on Jakarta where they show sea walls built 20 years ago to prevent ocean inundation over the city are being overtopped now. Apparently, the 6 foot tall walls were sufficient for ocean rise, but was no guard against the city getting half its drinking water from the undercity aquifer. Drinking it dry and the city is sinking by 25 cm per year. I'll make up a tipping point for that scenario: ocean rise + ground subsidence + Perfect Storm + High Tide and Violet: storm walls are breached, large parts of the city inundated by salt water and the underground aquifer is rendered undrinkable.

I know.............that is not a concern because 75 million years ago Jakarta was underwater then too.

Excellent argument.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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: 12934
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:08 am

Bobbo

The permafrost/methane tipping point may or may not be real. Until it happens, we will not know. But landrew was correct in his argument. It is just that no argument will be definitive until events unfolding show what is real or not.

In the mean time, greenhouse gases are increasing, the world is warming, the sea level is rising, and it is all human generated. Yes, we need to do something about it. How urgent this need is viewed depends as much on the pessimism of the viewer as it does on data. Your assessment of urgency is kinda not credible, because we all know you are massively emotionally pessimistic.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:16 am

landrew is not correct in his argument unless a million year process is the same as a 300 year process and Cities on the Coastline are the same as no cities on the coastline. Don't be silly Lance.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:16 am
landrew is not correct in his argument unless a million year process is the same as a 300 year process and Cities on the Coastline are the same as no cities on the coastline. Don't be silly Lance.
We're all getting tired of your constant attempts to disrupt the discussion with twisted meanings and your constant placing on others the burden of proof to justify your absurd interpretations of what's been said. You're contributing nothing to the discussion with your combative attitude.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:11 am

Bobbo

Landrew was, indeed, correct in his argument. That does not prove his conclusion was correct, of course, and a lot more experience is needed to say yea or nay. But it is still a valid argument.

I think, Bobbo, that your extreme pessimism towards global warming blinds you. You cannot see any line of reasoning that fails to meet your standard of existential doom.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:54 pm

Lance: Q-1: Please connect the dots. How is a man made artificial issue that takes place and is important because it does take place in 3-4-5 Hundred years countered by reference to a natural process that takes 3-4-5 MILLION FREAKING YEARS.................even "an argument" at all?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:17 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:54 pm
Lance: Q-1: Please connect the dots. How is a man made artificial issue that takes place and is important because it does take place in 3-4-5 Hundred years countered by reference to a natural process that takes 3-4-5 MILLION FREAKING YEARS.................even "an argument" at all?
Stop shouting.
Your rationale makes no sense at all. I doubt that even you know what you're talking about. You're the one who raised the issue of tipping points, and I showed that they are irrelevant to the current situation. Now you are desperately throwing nonsense at it because you can't bear to lose an argument.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:05 pm

I said in an earlier thread that we have never witnessed a tipping point with regard to climate change. By way of analogy, we have witnessed a tipping point in the North Atlantic fishery. The cod fishery which was once worth billions, is now no more. It's doubtful it will ever return to it's former glory.

Over-fishing caused a biological tipping point according to a marine biologist I know. He said that the science had been clear for many years that over-fishing would eventually cause a collapse, but governments were afraid of the political consequences of shutting down the fishery even temporarily. Therefore it became a career-limiting move for a government biologist to recommend curtailment of commercial fishing. In such a climate of fear, the biologists continued to produce reports that recommended continued fishing until the cod fishery finally collapsed. Ironically it was the biologists who were blamed for the collapse after it happened. Not my story, but that's how it was explained to me by a marine biologist.

Lesson of the day: politics corrupts science. Unfortunately climate science is more political than scientific in these times.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:28 pm

Your evidence that tipping points are irrelevant is by showing one that was?

I don't get it.

Traditionally: CAPS INDICATE YELLING. Contra I use red and caps to highlight what is important.........and in "Q" format, what is going to be asked several times in order to get a response. I usually lose interest........i mean, beating a dead horse is no fun.

The most common reaction on this forum to getting an argument that defeats another is.....................A. Total Silence
B. Irrelevant Rejoinder
C. Offering an argument that actually supports the opposition and claiming victory.

................................Hint: its always the combo plate.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:18 pm

Most of the time a claim that "I demolished their argument" is false hubris.
Sometimes it's just stunned silence, often accompanied by head-shaking.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:19 pm

and you apply that to specific instances, how?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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: 18857
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:26 pm

Say landrew: Lance gave you a second but YOU never answered.

Generally or specifically: how does saying the same extremes in climate have existed in prior epochs at all relevant to AGW when epochs are natural and take millions of years to change whereas the ENTIRE IMPORT of AGW is that those same changes are taking place in 100's of years..................all with the recognition we are talking about hooman civilization that did not exist in prior epochs.

Do you actually think/maintain/argue that your position/response is at all relevant? .................................DO YOU?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:35 pm

The permafrost methane tipping point is hypothetical. So is the undersea methane clathrate tipping point.

Time will tell. If there is a tipping point, there is nothing we can do to stop it. CO2 in the atmosphere is going to continue to rise for at least a couple of decades. If this tipping point is reached within that time, it will tip. If it isn't, it won't.

Landrew is correct - the tipping point thing is meaningless. The focus needs to be on practicalities (including political ones, keeping in mind that over 90% of the population has a much lower standard of living than we do, and aspire to ours); mitigation, technology and those sorts of things.
. . . 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

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:55 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:35 pm
The permafrost methane tipping point is hypothetical. So is the undersea methane clathrate tipping point.

Time will tell. If there is a tipping point, there is nothing we can do to stop it. CO2 in the atmosphere is going to continue to rise for at least a couple of decades. If this tipping point is reached within that time, it will tip. If it isn't, it won't.

Landrew is correct - the tipping point thing is meaningless. The focus needs to be on practicalities (including political ones, keeping in mind that over 90% of the population has a much lower standard of living than we do, and aspire to ours); mitigation, technology and those sorts of things.
"Tipping point" is a hot-button phrase designed to exploit ignorance and create alarmism in hopes of furthering an eco-political agenda. Competent scientific modelling hasn't raised the alarm, but it is a distant threat, out there in the future like an asteroid strike or the eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera.
The thing about methane is that it breaks down in the atmosphere fairly rapidly, so a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the release of ocean-bed methane hydrates is very unlikely. Carbon dioxide is also eventually sequestered by plants and microorganisms, so a runaway greenhouse effect is also very unlikely. Besides, the earth has had far higher levels of CO2 in the past, which apparently never caused any tipping point leading to a runaway greenhouse effect.

The error that Bobbo and others make is to draw a false equivalency between a sensible non-hysterical approach, and climate denial. The choice is between a rational, intelligent approach to a problem, or a hysterical non-thinking approach. I know which one I want to entrust to my future.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:09 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:55 pm

The error that Bobbo and others make is to draw a false equivalency between a sensible non-hysterical approach, and climate denial.
That's one explanation.

Many folks I know are fear driven wrt climate change. For them it is not so much that they equate a practical approach to denialism, it is that they are afraid that a practical approach will be too slow.

There are factions within factions.
. . . 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

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Wind, solar and nuclear

Post by landrew » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:18 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:09 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:55 pm

The error that Bobbo and others make is to draw a false equivalency between a sensible non-hysterical approach, and climate denial.
That's one explanation.

Many folks I know are fear driven wrt climate change. For them it is not so much that they equate a practical approach to denialism, it is that they are afraid that a practical approach will be too slow.

There are factions within factions.
If you think the practical approach is slow, the hysterical approach is paralysis. History is our teacher; many of history's greatest blunders and disasters have been based on emotional decisions, where a calm, rational approach would have been much better. In fact most disasters are usually dealt with only when a calm, reasoned and methodical approach is eventually applied.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.