Atlas Shrugged fans

[Benm]

Regardless of climate change nuclear would be a sensible choice to make, espcially if we consider the amount of thorium available on earth.

I'm not against fossil fuel myself, but when there is an economically viable solution to avoid using them, this could be wise: There are applications where fossil fuel is not easily replaced (such as in aviation), and the amount available is limited.

Not limited in the sense that we will run out of oil in 10 years or so, but perhaps we still need it for chemical production in 1000 years, and then seriously regret burning it for power generation.

As for major nuclear disasters, lessons can be learned from them, and some of them are so simple people should still be banging their head on desks to this day:

Chernobyl:
- do not build reactors from which the moderator cannot be removed if possible
- if you do make sure the control rods are actually long enough

Fukushima:
- do not build reactors in earthquake and tsunami prone areas if possible
- if you do, do NOT put diesel backup generators for cooling in an area that can be flooded, those things need both diesel fuel AND AIR to operate, and hence will not work when under water
- do NOT turn off nuclear reactors in case a tsunami is coming, as those reactors could still work when flooded and could have powered the cooling system preventing a meltdown.

Another thing that has really changed is -why- countries build nuclear reactors. It used to be a combined use both generating power and plutionium for nuclear weapons. Nowadays many countries want the power but have no aspirations to build nuclear weapons, opening up the playing fields to technologies that are safer and cheaper, but insuitable for nuclear proliferation - a big win on all fronts.

 

[BobMc]

"Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming. Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record which extends back to the mid 19th century, and in paleoclimate proxy records over a thousand years.
In 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded 'it is highly likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Also search Global warming (disambiguation)

Edit: there were problems with the link earlier, but that has been fixed.

Wicipedia is not a reliable source.
Very deceiving and untrustworthy. Easy for people to edit the information there.

 

[H2Oxide]

Wicipedia is not a reliable source.
Very deceiving and untrustworthy. Easy for people to edit the information there.

Agreed. Wikipedia can not be a trusted for anything with any sort of political affiliation tied to it. However, the IPCC is not Wikipedia.

If you want to get a real grasp on the issue, I suggest at least skimming the IPCC AR5.

There's still probably some political bias there because that's a given with this issue, but it references several thousand peer-reviewed articles and isn't mere speculation or theories.

 

[paul1598419]

Agreed. Wikipedia can not be a trusted for anything with any sort of political affiliation tied to it. However, the IPCC is not Wikipedia.

If you want to get a real grasp on the issue, I suggest at least skimming the IPCC AR5.

There's still probably some political bias there because that's a given with this issue, but it references several thousand peer-reviewed articles and isn't mere speculation or theories.

Agreed. That's why I quoted their 2014 statement. If you are looking for the most unambiguous scientific reviews, this is a good place to start.

 

[BobMc]

Agreed. Wikipedia can not be a trusted for anything with any sort of political affiliation tied to it. However, the IPCC is not Wikipedia.

If you want to get a real grasp on the issue, I suggest at least skimming the IPCC AR5.

There's still probably some political bias there because that's a given with this issue, but it references several thousand peer-reviewed articles and isn't mere speculation or theories.

I see the controversy of gobal warming as two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on. Because it has already been stated that, "there will be seed time and harvest as long as the world shall last"

 

[paul1598419]

I see the controversy of gobal warming as two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on. Because it has already been stated that, "there will be seed time and harvest as long as the world shall last"

Quoting the old testament as a source of your scientific evidence is just making my case for me. If that is your final word on this subject, then there is no need for me to use further data to show this is not an issue up for debate. It was and still is settled science, though the countries whose economies depend on the release of green house gases are the ones less likely to pay attention to the melting polar regions and the loss of long standing glaciers in such a short period of time. Find comfort in your bible, you will need it before the end. The earth is not at stake here. It is humanity that will lose. The earth will continue with or without human beings.

 

[dden4012]

Oh the hypocrisy Paul. The dogma... it's killing me. John Kerry must be so proud. His do as I say not as I do attitude really shines though here. Not just a politician but a globe trotting climate pimp. Must be nice.

 

[BobMc]

Quoting the old testament as a source of your scientific evidence is just making my case for me. If that is your final word on this subject, ~~~~~~[/QUOTEQ

Quoting the old testment is wrong, if it is wrong.

If it is right, than it's right.

 

[paul1598419]

My thoughts on this subject transcend politics. I go with the science, and the bible has never been a source of science. There is no argument that green house gases have an effect on climate. There is far too much evidence to this effect. The amount of green house gases has been increasing exponentially since the 1950s. Far too quickly to be explained by anything other than human intervention. On the one hand, you explain that green houses gases come and go over millennia, but dismiss the huge spike in the last 70 years. I don't care if democrats or republicans deny the data, it is the data that concerns me.

 

[Benm]

ANY information on climate change will have some alterior motives behind it.

- Research by fossil fuel industry probably will bias towards 'no problem' as it is in their interest.

- Research by climate scientists will bias to 'huge problem' since they only have a job as long as there is a problem.

- Research by government will be biased depening on if the party in charge is pro- or anti- fossil fuel, and vary by country and year.

Also, we cannot really do a controlled study on the subject as we lack say 100 or so identical planets on half of which we could burn the fossil fuel and on the other half we could not. Politicians have tried a lot of things in this field, also proposing the exact opposite, i.e. coal exhaust causing a cooling effect. The motivation behind that was to get rid of coal dependence in the UK, as the coal miners got into unions demanding higher wages, and politics responded by proposing nuclear as a way of independence from coal (somwhere in the 70s, but it worked).

And this is exactly the point to the books and movies: politicians will do whatever suits them best personally with no regard for the population.

This is still valid today, and i'd say something like Trump makes a good example on how this works: politicians will endorse the fossil fuel industry just fine when it helps their voters, no science involved.

Mind you that the reverse is also true, with Gore making alarmistic claims whilst being heavily invested in alternative energy companies, mostly trying to maximize his own industries value with equally little regard for facts.

 

[paul1598419]

Controlled studies aren't the only science available. It isn't necessary to reach a scientific conclusion without having 100 planets like the earth to do a controlled study with. It has been done by taking ice core samples from millennia past to isolated gas deposits in the atmosphere. The temperature has to be gleaned from isotope studies in cave structures and the study of tree rings in old growth forests as well as other methods. So, it isn't necessary to do a controlled study as there are many things that cannot be accomplished in this fashion.

 

[BobMc]

Riddle this question;

Why is it that you have to teach a child to behave and never misbehave. Why does the misbehavior come naturally?

The answer is the heart of the issue.

 

[paul1598419]

You are talking about philosophy. I am talking about science. What happened to Galileo when he wrote that the earth orbited the sun and not the opposite? What happen to Socrates when he went against the politics of his time? Riddle me that.

 

[BobMc]

You are talking about philosophy. I am talking about science. What happened to Galileo when he wrote that the earth orbited the sun and not the opposite? What happen to Socrates when he went against the politics of his time? Riddle me that.

I'm talking reality. What is your answer?

 

[Benm]

Controlled studies aren't the only science available. It isn't necessary to reach a scientific conclusion without having 100 planets like the earth to do a controlled study with. It has been done by taking ice core samples from millennia past to isolated gas deposits in the atmosphere. The temperature has to be gleaned from isotope studies in cave structures and the study of tree rings in old growth forests as well as other methods. So, it isn't necessary to do a controlled study as there are many things that cannot be accomplished in this fashion.

It is not required to do a test with many planets to get an idea of the climate history of earth - as you mentioned there are numerous ways to resolve how climate developed in the past.

This only gives you the data, not any causal evidence. In some cases you can find the cause in mineral deposits and such (like the extiction of the dinosaurs), but that doesn't work too well for our current situation.

The important thing to know is what happens if you burn more or less fossil fuels right now and in coming decades. The current situation is new to the earth (there has never been een mass combustion of fossil fuels before).

Major climate changes in the past have been caused by huge volcanic eruptions and orbital mechanics. These could still occur today and totally throw things around at any given moment. The natural cycle of ice ages and warm periods is still there as that is due to the orbital mechanics of earth and sun, and we should get another ice age in several thousand years. One interesting question would be if global warming would be a good thing when that happens, keeping more of the planet habitable?

I honestly don't know, but carbon-taxing the current economy to shit will probably not yield a very nice result either