Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

Warning..... Very Strong Language

This is for my buddy Brian.

I fell off my chair laughing but, be warned, the language is foul!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/louis-ck-animation-destroys-glo...

Brian H's argument is just ludicrous. If anyone wants to know what is going on just research what an increase of more than 2 degree centigrade in the average global surface temp. will do to the world. If you do that, you will quickly find out these flat-earthers are playing the most dangerous game ever! The tobacco companies used to tell us also smoking was great for us just like the global warming deniers want to tell us global warming is great for us....just search for old cigarette ads on Youtube....you will probably find one of those absurd commercials!

Reefs warm and cool, polyps and algae transfer, build new, re-occupy, etc. Today's dead reef is tomorrow's new housing project for a different species mix. NBD.

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” -Ottmar Edenhoffer, UN IPCC

Germany’s exit from nuclear power could cost the country as much as 1.7 trillion euros ($2.15 trillion) by 2030, or two thirds of the country’s GDP in 2011, according to Siemens, which built all of Germany’s 17 nuclear plants. “This will either be paid by energy customers or taxpayers,” Siemens board member Michael Suess, in charge of the company’s Energy Sector, told Reuters.

I've always been a fan of BrianH and appreciate his humor and insight.

Perhaps not fully in his defense I probably disagree with many on these forums about nuclear power. While having a liberal leaning, I've always been for nuclear power. I realize there are downsides (how to deal with the waste), but if we wanted to solve that, we could --> refactor what we can, hole in the ground in Nevada, encase it in glass, whatever.

But I can point to a specific issue related to CO2 increases that directly affects me. Since 2003 I've needed to go on a DMARD (Enbrel specifically) to slow my rheumatoid arthritis (I'd like to continue to be active). This lowers my immune response to pollen allergies. I can tell you it isn't fun...at all. Monthly Kleenex bill is nearing previous ICE gasoline bill! ;-) Especially since I haven't hit 50 yet.

Even slight rises in C02 dramatically (at least to my eyes/sinuses) make weeds/trees go a bit crazy with the pollen production. Location: Northern California

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/12/1705761/as-co2-emissions-ris...

So, yeah, put me in the camp of "don't crap where you sleep".

Always grinning driving NKYTA, allergies or not. :-)

Brian, the costs of preserving the environment are not able to be evaluated without considering the cost of destroying the environment.

I did find the cost of Germany moving off its 17 nuclear plants as calculated by the company that built and runs the17 plants in Germany to be fascinating, and certainly fair and unbiased.

Regarding Germany:
According to both the Fraunhofer Institute and the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (German Institute for Economic Research) the costs for getting out of the nuclear power production are frequently overstated by the industry. They found that the cost would be ~EUR 200B-240B (~20B/yr) and the latter estimated the extra cost per 4-person household to be ~EUR 240/year.
However, those numbers are still too high as they include costs for other efforts that are not directly related to nuclear power (infrastructure buil-out, ren.energy research), but I won't get into those here.
We surely won't have a free lunch for sure.

Sidenote: the nuclear power plants here were basically paid for by the tax payers in the 60s/70s and the industry had fun with getting all the revenues whilst plants are long depreciated and neither do they pay for research into/final nuclear waste storage, afaik.

As my last remark to Brian H on this topic (for now):
we'll continue to disagree, no doubt about that. But what I found rather appaling during this discussion (and the thread in the general forum) is the constant degradation, belittling, name calling and accusation of corruption to a worldwide field and group of scientists.
This - excluding your other, fine TM-related posts - does not deserve any respect nor any "cutting slack" defense.

Good luck to you, too, sir. We'll all need it either way.

Brian H...what u r not getting is the cost of not wisely addressing global warming will dwarf any cost u r talking about by multitudes of factor. U just don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation.

Brian H....BTW, nuclear energy is not connected with global warming in anyway. So I don't know why you are bring the issue of nuclear energy. In fact nuclear energy is very good in regards to global warming since greenhouse emissions from nuclear are much less than fossil fuel.

@justineet
Brian mentioned it especially with regard to Germany as shortly after the Fukushima desaster it was politically decided after public outcry to end the use of nuclear power here completely almost instantaneously rather than the previously 2038 end date.
Its CO2 footprint advantage is lost, was the point here.
However, since nuclear power has been only 1/5 of overall energy production, the renewable energies and other mechanisms are to compensate that roughly, afaik.

@tobi_ger....he's making it sound like Germany has been moving away from nuclear energy because of pressure from global warming interest groups which is completely untrue. Countries like Germany have been moving away from Nuclear because of perceived or real safety threats...it doesn't have anything to do with global warming as he is implying.

That link is outdated and bogus. The southern hemisphere temperatures were much higher than displayed there. Studies from South America to South Africa to NZ to Japan and China show that clearly.

In general, SkepticalScience is a very poor site with terrible editorial and data manipulation policies and track record. Its owner is an ex-cartoonist, and it shows.
Author(s) John Cook
Website http://www.sev.com.au/
Current status / schedule Ended (mostly)
Launch date July 10, 1995
End date February 17, 2010

Science fiction cartoon site. Formally closed in 2013.

Yeah, they are all bogus in your eyes unless Monckton runs it.

Regional higher temperatures with short spikes whilst other regions being colder do not make the global temperature higher than today.
The temps of the past have been shown by seperate studies and your friends twist the data till their heads spin. Enjoy while it lasts.

I would just like to highlight the utter hypocrisy of those who accept AGW, yet are against nuclear power. Without paying for massive energy storage systems that are probably uneconomical to build and to maintain, nuclear power is the only plausible solution to virtually eliminate all power plants that generate pollutants. Renewable power is helpful, but too unreliable to provide the only power for the grid.

Even accounting for the tragic accidents that occurred at nuclear power plants in japan and in the USSR, nuclear power causes less deaths per unit of power than any other source with similar characteristics.

There are some individuals who propose the end of modern civilization , the end of the modern economy, and a return to living "off the grid" as a solution to AGW. These individuals, like deniers, are usually not familiar with the scientific consensus, use AGW to promote their particular political agenda, and discredit those who accept the science and who want to rationally solve the problem with the least change to our current economy and standard of living as possible.

To close, those who oppose nuclear power and other reasonable solutions for political reasons are, in my view, nearly as bad as those who deny AGW for political reasons.

PS You will not convince Brian H that he is incorrect. Many have tried and failed. It will not happen, because this is the same debate with the same points made as those in a previous thread. Attempting the same thing twice and expecting different results is...

xoviat... Agree on Nuc.

' Started the thread because even the most basic of common sense should tell BH he is off base and yet it does not. That affected my consideration of his past and current posts. Feeling slightly betrayed by my judgement I decided to dangle a bit of bait out there for him.

@xoviat. I am an AGW believer who is strongly against nuclear power in it's present configuration,and feel that Germany is doing the right thing by shuting down their nuclear plants. I believe that other clean energy options are available and just coming on line to handle energy needs without resorting to nuclear, which is expensive, dangerous (Fukushima, is currently leaking vast amounts of uncontrolled nuclear waste into the Sea of Japan), and have not resolved the nuclear waste issue after 50 years. I believe in doing a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, whatever clean works for a given geographical area utilizing a Smart Grid. The following is an example of ongoing solar innovation, which will may solve the issue that when the sun goes down, solar stops producing (http://www.solarreserve.com/what-we-do/csp-projects/crescent-dunes/). I remain unconvinced that nuclear energy is a real vialble alternatative to effectively deal with AGW given the long lead time to construct a plant, the safety and waste issues not withstanding. We are on a short time fuse to effectively deal with AGW, and Dr. James Hansen believes we have less than five years to come up with effective solutions that quickly move us off carbon based energy to clean renewable energy. I have solar panels, and am a net producer of energy at my home. I think if the poltical will existed to effectively push for better solutions, we could solve the AGW energy problem, but it is undoubably a tough sell in the current AGW denying poltical atmosphere that exists now. However, raising the price of dirty energy through a carbon tax is something that could quickly make clean energy alternatives more cost competitive and viable for mainstream use by raising the cost of dirty carbon energy at the source (mine, well head, etc.). All revenues generated (revenue neutral) should be returned directly to the people to offset the increased costs of energy as we transition to clean renewable energy. I don't think I am a hypocrite for my distaste for nuclear energy. My wife is Japanese, and the horror from the ongoing disaster at Fukushima and from previous disasters at Cheronobyl makes me oppose this form of energy.

I meant Republican AGW denying political atmosphere.

I believe that other clean energy options are available

For those areas where hydroelectric or geothermal is not an option (much of the world), nuclear power is the only option that provides a continuous supply of electricity. Solar and wind are good options but require expensive energy storage if they are to be the only source.

and just coming on line to handle energy needs without resorting to nuclear

As you can clearly see, germany is powered almost completely by coal during the nighttime. This problem will simply not disappear on its own.

which is expensive, dangerous

This is just a simple matter of numerical comparison. "Advanced Nuclear" is only slightly more expensive than "Advanced Coal" (all new coal plants) and significantly less expensive than "Advanced coal with CCS." One study found that nuclear is on-par with the safety of renewable sources, while others have reached similar conclusions. While these studies are not scientific, there is nothing to suggest that they are not approximately accurate.

(Fukushima, is currently leaking vast amounts of uncontrolled nuclear waste into the Sea of Japan)
As any scientist worth his salt knows, anecdotes are simply bad science.

and have not resolved the nuclear waste issue after 50 years

Here is the nuclear industry's own response to that question. However, the real proof comes from the fact that, in the united states, nuclear waste has been stored without any particular incident.

We are on a short time fuse to effectively deal with AGW
If you believe this, than the rational position would be to push for a rapid transition to nuclear power in the united states. This is the only method to quickly move the united states off of fossil fuels in a relatively short time with relatively minimal political opposition from powerful interest groups.

All of the other options will take a much longer time to implement or will greatly reduce economic activity and face massive political opposition.

Global warming has been going on since at least 1850. Fortunately. There is no evidence of detectable human effect at any point since then. The supposed anthropogenic increase from about '79-'98 is the ONLY period that "matches" the prediction, and almost all of that occurred in the '98-9 Super El Nino. The core of the theory is the model projections, which aren't even within 2 SD of reality, and show "no skill" at any time period or retro-cast not retroactively set.

Bull-feces. "... the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud" in recorded history.

@xoviat
I'm sorry, but saying that there haven't been enough deaths yet related to nuclear energy makes it safer long-term is ridiculous.
It completely neglects the extraodinary risks it poses.
Although we haven't had a catastrophe in Germany like in Japan, there have been plenty of "malfunctions" in the nuclear plants in the last decades related to failing cooling systems and such. Fortunately nothing serious happened, yet.
The safety of their plant domes is not trusted in the public. Cooling storage facilities for nuclear waste are not especially protected against impacts, but must be operated for years to come for ongoing cooling.
If an air or water spill would occur in any of the european plants (France has the most), which are located at rivers, it would cause severe physical and economic damage in usually densly populated areas.
The nuclear plants do not even have insurance for such cases, basically the tax payers pay for accidents, too.
In short: low probability doesn't make extraodinary damages any better.
With so many people banking on nuclear energy, I wonder why Thorium reactors aren't pushed more or are not even online yet. I thought India was interested in those.

As to alternatives, here is an example of 2172 MW water pump storage facility within the US:
Ludington Pumped Storage Plant Celebrates 40th Anniversary in 2013
The technology is already there, we just need the will to implement more of such solutions.

@Brian H....it's ridiculous to compare current human beings' impact on global warming to the 18OOs or anytime from distant past. Unlike past civilizations, current civilization has accumulated unprecedented technology which can contribute for great good or tremendous harm if not used wisely. U r spitting out lots of words and claims but they do not have much logic behind them.

@xoviat
You said "Without paying for massive energy storage systems that are probably uneconomical to build and to maintain, nuclear power is the only plausible solution to virtually eliminate all power plants that generate pollutants. Renewable power is helpful, but too unreliable to provide the only power for the grid."

Earlier in this topic I posted a link showing how most of our energy can be reliably produced with renewables:
http://skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-renewable-baseload-energy.html

Taking Germany as an example, new nuclear is now more expensive than solar:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/06/237150/stunner-new-nuclear-c...

Nuclear takes years to build a plant, but solar can be built incrementally. The world is now producing over 50GW peak PV panels per year and the outlook is far higher
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CF...

Here you can see just how much wind contributes to some countries power already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

There is also large potential in geothermal, tidal, wave and biogas. I can provide links if you cannot find them.

In summary, we have the proven technology and economic costs to justify moving to renewables rapidly. We do not need to rely on nuclear for new generation.

The more technology is developed and applied, the lower the impact on the environment. Primitive energy sources and so on are very intrusive and destructive (biofuels are a reversion, so are windmills, even solar).

If you want to see environmental devastation, keep much of the planet poor and desperate.

@Brian H

Do you have ANY solutions to offer?

Brian H...I say let's keep the planet prosperous in an environmentally sustainable way. Whether you keep the planet poor or rich, the end result is going to be ugly for most if not all if it's environmentally unsustainable.

Actually, this planet is no longer sustainable.

I dunno about climate change but what I do know, ocean levels seems to have rise. I quote a friend's place in Sri Lanka. When his parents build a house in the 80s, it was still some distance away from the water. Now, some parts of the house is under water.

I also believe in Icecaps/glaciers ARE melting (maybe even as you read this)

@JAFIC
You said "I also believe in Icecaps/glaciers ARE melting (maybe even as you read this)"
There is no need to 'believe' and there is no maybe. The evidence is documented via ground, air and and satellite monitoring. The visual retreat of the glaciers and icecaps, and the change in mass have been measured in multiple ways eg: volume and gravity changes. You can see this for yourself by watching the movie Chasing Ice or by watching this National Geographic link provided by tobi_ger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQ8Et-GBsQ. You can read about the arctic ice cap changes in this blog http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/ or go straight to the source in this link http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice...

@ AGW deniers

Please skip this post, you just risk popping a blood vessel... and I don't expect any productive reply anyway.

@ bb0tin, Tesla-David, justineet and anyone else interested

Just something I find useful sharing (with runtime):
Dr Jennifer Francis, Senate Testimony 07/18/13 (5:44)

Dr Richard Milne - Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial (1:19:56)

Dr David Reay - Climate change: the solutions (1:16:18)

Insurance Industry Warns of Climate Change and Extreme Weather (5:39)


X Deutschland Site Besuchen