interesting climate article

[Westside Steve]

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-26/six-myths-about-climate-change-that-liberals-rarely-question

 

Submitted without comment.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Is that picture at the top East Cleveland?

[Westside Steve]

Is that picture at the top East Cleveland?

In 5 years.

In 20 years it will stretch from Cleveland Heights to Willowick.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I guess it was interesting. It was different at least. Any article that wants to make a lot of scientific claims but then not include a lot of sources and figures I'm skeptical of.

 

How would the group denying climate change and slowing efforts to fight it not be the most responsible?

 

Or the section on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I don't think anyone is expecting to do that with just wind and solar. So his long response there (with few numbers) is really irrelevant. The whole point would be continuing to develop new forms. Also, nuclear power will be hugely important.

[Westside Steve]

Well I guess you can dismiss it since there aren't a bunch of numbers. Frankly I don't think any amount of numbers can prove or disprove what these people are saying but it tends to follow my thinking. Here's why Woody .

If I've been feeling terrible for a while and go to my physician and an evangelical minister for instance.

Doctor thinks I have cancer and the minister believes this is the work of demons. Now the longer they argue about that the more time ticks off the clock. I hope that point is clear. While you guys waste time bickering with guy who claim there's no such thing as global warming time marches on and I bet even you think the time is a factor, right?

 

But frankly I think the Republicans and Democrats are playing a kabuki dance with this issue no matter which side is right. I do believe that if there is a chance we could start to reverse it we will all need to change our consumptive lifestyles and that's something no one wants to do. Not even president Obama.

He understood that in his first couple years he could have passed anything he wanted but chose to avoid the shitstorm that would have followed.

 

And nothing you have said is incorrect in my opinion. Wind Sun nuclear energy all of these things will help but I truly believe that if the situation is as important as many believe it will be too little and too late. But it remains a flag of honor for the left and right to fight over.

 

Remember my example, the longer we fight over the cause of my illness the longer it is before we even try to cure it.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

It is pretty hard to work on the "cure" when the other side doesn't even recognize the "illness" exists. That denial removes funding from any potential solutions, it masks the problem from youth that could be the next scientist with a big idea, etc. It will be hard to work on a solution to this large of an issue without any kind of agreement.

 

There are scientists out there right now growing our understanding of the issue and trying to develop solutions. Of course, a lot of time has to be spent just convincing those in denial. Either way, there are people working on "the cure" who aren't just bickering. More support will be needed though.

 

 

 

He was talking about how renewable energy won't ever be enough to replace fossil fuels. If you are making a claim like that, some facts and figures should be required. And again, he also had no mention of Nuclear Power in his article. This, I think, will be a major part o our future energy solution.

[Westside Steve]

I'll tell ya who the next billionaire scientist is going to be and that's the guy that figures out how to run an electricity plant on a bag of cat turds.

(or seriously the next giant breakthrough in energy which we all know is probably out there somewhere) And I guaran fucking tee they are out there on behalf of some giant corporation who will rake in the dough.

And sure I wish we had more nuclear and more led but we don't. One big reason is our friends on the left want nothing to do with nuclear power. Too damn dangerous!

But oil and gas aren't going to power the world forever. Everything has an end. We tend to think of history as beginning a hundred years ago. I've said that before but it is true.

But you have to admit it's more convenient to blame the tiny percentage of Americans who believe there is no climate change whatsoever than to make whatever sacrifices might be necessary.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Also I don't know where you believe the point of no return might be, the tipping point.

I'm sure you remember heck and his scientific data saying that it was not that long down the road before it was too late. And I won't argue with you about that I'm just asking what you think it might be. And how much the technology today needs to be changed and if it can be done in time. I'll just let you answer that in your own way.

It's only my opinion but if the predictions are dire I don't think we can put on the brakes in time. But I can't give you solid evidence one way or the other.

 

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I'll tell ya who the next billionaire scientist is going to be and that's the guy that figures out how to run an electricity plant on a bag of cat turds.

(or seriously the next giant breakthrough in energy which we all know is probably out there somewhere) And I guaran fucking tee they are out there on behalf of some giant corporation who will rake in the dough.

And sure I wish we had more nuclear and more led but we don't. One big reason is our friends on the left want nothing to do with nuclear power. Too damn dangerous!

But oil and gas aren't going to power the world forever. Everything has an end. We tend to think of history as beginning a hundred years ago. I've said that before but it is true.

But you have to admit it's more convenient to blame the tiny percentage of Americans who believe there is no climate change whatsoever than to make whatever sacrifices might be necessary.

 

WSS

We will all be dead in here in less then 60-80 years. Fuck it.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

We will all be dead in here in less then 60-80 years. Fuck it.

Then on to the next universe and another life.

[calfoxwc]

The oceans will start to boil and evaporate to complete dryness, and

the earth's core will melt by the end of Obamao's term...

 

so we just have to send our money to the gov so they can buy

foreign illegal alien votes with it.

[MLD Woody]

I'll tell ya who the next billionaire scientist is going to be and that's the guy that figures out how to run an electricity plant on a bag of cat turds.

(or seriously the next giant breakthrough in energy which we all know is probably out there somewhere) And I guaran fucking tee they are out there on behalf of some giant corporation who will rake in the dough.

And sure I wish we had more nuclear and more led but we don't. One big reason is our friends on the left want nothing to do with nuclear power. Too damn dangerous!

But oil and gas aren't going to power the world forever. Everything has an end. We tend to think of history as beginning a hundred years ago. I've said that before but it is true.

But you have to admit it's more convenient to blame the tiny percentage of Americans who believe there is no climate change whatsoever than to make whatever sacrifices might be necessary.

 

WSS

 

I am in full support of Nuclear Power, but the general American public can be easily persuaded. It is a complicated process, and I'm not expert by any means, but I understand enough about it. But most people just see the Japan disaster and freak out. Or idiots like Greenpeace try to scare everyone and basically blatantly lie, and then we make no progress. Nuclear power is our best option going forward, but we need to convince a good part of our country it is. With insanely rich oil companies funding everything they can to stop this progress, it won't be easy.

 

It isn't blaming those that don't believe in any climate change at all, it is those that don't believe it is man made. If it isn't man made, then there is nothing we realy can do, and it ends there. There is a sizable enough portion of America that chooses to deny man made climate change, and this hurts our ability to find a solution. The thing is, most of it is politically motivated. We are so god damn polarized on everything it is more important to disagree with the other side than anything else. Then, "foundations" pop up founded by politcal means, oil companies, etc, that twist data (or lie) and hurt our progress even more. It isn't a small group of Americans, and it is rooted in politics, where we need these changes to develop.

[Tour2ma]

Nuclear is uneconomical. The only new projects, by Southern Co. IIRC, have enormous government guarantees. By contrast solar, geothermal and wind are all better deals. Until large scale storage is practical gas turbine supplements for nights, etc. is the best pairing.

 

Nuclear concerns are (still) primarily around:

- site security, which has been shown to be lax.

- site stability, as in locations near fault lines and oceans.

- waste disposal, which runs into classic NIMB resistance every time a new sight is proposed. Nuclear waste is piling up at sights around the country as it is.

- and retired facility decommissioning.

 

The last is maybe the most imposing of all the obstacles. I forget the name of the facility, but there's a fascinating case study of a Brit site. The original cost estimates for the complete decontamination of the site vs. actual made the construction cost overruns look trivial.

 

 

EDIT: Long-term... fusion will be the solution. Just not in our lifetime.

[Westside Steve]

Well I can't post thousands of case studies but even those who believe that man is a factor are in disagreement as to how much. So there's that. Also yes nuclear is great and it's dangerous, so is everything, but it is not free. Unlike Sun and wind uranium must have some sort of finite amount?

 

And if tour is correct and it is not in our lifetime, that's quite a few years. Hopefully.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Well I can't post thousands of case studies but even those who believe that man is a factor are in disagreement as to how much. So there's that. Also yes nuclear is great and it's dangerous, so is everything, but it is not free. Unlike Sun and wind uranium must have some sort of finite amount?

 

And if tour is correct and it is not in our lifetime, that's quite a few years. Hopefully.

 

WSS

 

Harnessing solar and wind energy is not free. You still have to pay for the installation and upkeep. Even if extracting the material needed for nuclear energy adds more cost, it is an overall bang for the buck measurement you are looking for. You can get a lot more energy in a much smaller footprint from Nuclear energy than you can wind and solar.

[MLD Woody]

Nuclear is uneconomical. The only new projects, by Southern Co. IIRC, have enormous government guarantees. By contrast solar, geothermal and wind are all better deals. Until large scale storage is practical gas turbine supplements for nights, etc. is the best pairing.

 

Nuclear concerns are (still) primarily around:

- site security, which has been shown to be lax.

- site stability, as in locations near fault lines and oceans.

- waste disposal, which runs into classic NIMB resistance every time a new sight is proposed. Nuclear waste is piling up at sights around the country as it is.

- and retired facility decommissioning.

 

The last is maybe the most imposing of all the obstacles. I forget the name of the facility, but there's a fascinating case study of a Brit site. The original cost estimates for the complete decontamination of the site vs. actual made the construction cost overruns look trivial.

 

 

EDIT: Long-term... fusion will be the solution. Just not in our lifetime.

 

"site security" - I don't believe we have had any major issues in the US with this. Also, this is something that can be fixed with planning and funding

"site stability" - The US is a big place, we don't need to be by a fault line or an Ocean. Though, I'm not sure what the issue is with being by the Ocean. Yes, I guess you run the risk of contaminating the water, but that would take an awful big serious of unfortunate events

"waste disposal" - yes, this one is an issue, but to say it is "piling up" makes it sound worse than it is. The waste produced by nuclear power is still less than fossil fuels

"retire facility decommissioning" - if I remember correctly, there are a few Nuclear Power sites in the US that are pretty updated, and that definitely isn't good. Again, I think this comes from a lack of funding to what should be our main fuel source to replace fossil fuels.

 

 

 

I would say France has done a pretty good job of showing how practical nuclear power can be.