• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,943
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed. Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.
Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?
Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.
Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,943
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.
Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?
No but the restriction means the decrease in natural gas availability will mean that some of the current usage will have to revert to coal or oil since nuclear is also opposed.
Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.
Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.
Exactly. So the U.S. could return to stone age usage of energy and a collapse of the nation and it would make no difference because China would continue to increase CO2 output since they would make up for the manufacturing production to supply the world's demand for doo-dads.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,438
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.
Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?
Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.
Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.
Sorry, I can't find the article, which was actually a book review, that I wanted to share. It had lots of details in it. But, the primary thing was that it will be close to impossible to accomplish the goals that the Democrats and the climate activists are hoping for in the next 10 or 20 years, unless almost every individual changes their habits. I don't see that happening.

China may be the worst offender, but the US isn't making much progress either. Think of all the plastics we use, all the unnecessary trips so many people take, all the air travel that Americans take, etc. For example, the closet elementary school near me, has a long line of cars waiting for school to let out, so they can pick up their kids. They at least could car pool if they don't want their kids to walk or take the school bus. We eat an insane amount of meat per capita. We even feed a lot of meat to our pets. If I ever find that book review, I'll share it.

It's very hard for people to change their habits, and that is one reason why it will be very difficult to reduce our carbon footprint in the near future. I'm not blaming anyone. We all grew up ignorant of how our habits were impacting the environment. Cars from my childhood got about 7 mpg. We may not have been as wasteful and we didn't use a lot of plastics, which I don't think were even available until the late 60s, but we had no idea that the things we did and used had a negative impact on the planet. It wasn't until the 80s that scientists became serious about climate change. And, one of the pieces in the link mentioned that only 60% of Americans believe that climate change is influenced by human activity. It will be a huge struggle to change things.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,438
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I found the article I wanted to share. Basically, he discusses why we need more reasonable goals than we have currently. Anyone who is interested can read the entire article.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...aZTutDUo67BX-6nyVqif_KOCpm4lB0&smid=url-share

The most important thing to understand is the scale. An energy transition affecting a country of one million people is very different from a transition affecting a nation of more than one billion. It is one thing to invest a few billion dollars, another to find one trillion. This is where we are in terms of global civilization: This transition has to happen on a billion and trillion scales. Now, according to
COP26,2
we should reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent by 2030 as compared with 2010 levels. This is undoable because there’s just eight years left, and emissions are still rising. People don’t appreciate the magnitude of the task and are setting up artificial deadlines which are unrealistic. Now, to answer your question. If you assume that carbon dioxide is our deadliest problem, then of course we should decarbonize totally. But people say by 2050 — they call it “net” carbon emissions. The I.P.C.C., they don’t say zero, they say “net zero.” Leaving that cushion — one billion, five billion, 10 billion tons of CO2 we will still be emitting but taking care of by carbon sequestration. Is it realistic that we’ll be
sequestering so rapidly on such a scale?3
People toss out these deadlines without any reflection on the scale and the complexity of the problem. Decarbonization by 2030? Really?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,068
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
As I see it it, it all goes back to ancient Zog when he learned to create fire and control it. The rest is history.

Two primary inventions that remain of importance today. Controlled fire and putting a durable cutting edge on metals. Controlled fire extended to controlled heat as in nuclear power ad electric heating.

Whitout fire and cutting edges there would be no barbecues.
That’s actually very close to how I believe it has gone. But the real genesis of the whole process had to do with … well, Genesis. Serpents and apples notwithstanding, a dawning self awareness and with it, the ability to correlate observations to make predictions, happened either before or concurrently with the “taming” of fire.
Maybe raw apples were just not satisfying enough.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,438
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
We did our advanced directives in 2003, after Jeb Bush ordered the feeding tube and ventilator to be reinstated for Terri Schiavo. It was concerning to us that a person's next of kin couldn't make the decision to end the suffering of someone like her. Do you all remember that? It was taken to court, and the judge allowed her G-tube and ventilator to be removed. That is why it's so important to have an advanced directive or living will, as some call it. Mine only says that I don't want to be placed on a ventilator. I need to add that unless I am in my right mind and ask for a feeding tube, don't insert one. This might make a good discussion in another place. Perhaps when I have more time, I 'll start one.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Let me guess, he either didn't even mention nuclear power, or wrote it off as too unpopular to implement.

Humanity's irrational dislike of the only technology that can save civilisation is beyond bizarre, and perhaps an indication that we don't deserve to have nice things (like a civilisation).
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.
Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?
Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.
Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.
Sorry, I can't find the article, which was actually a book review, that I wanted to share. It had lots of details in it. But, the primary thing was that it will be close to impossible to accomplish the goals that the Democrats and the climate activists are hoping for in the next 10 or 20 years, unless almost every individual changes their habits. I don't see that happening.

China may be the worst offender, but the US isn't making much progress either. Think of all the plastics we use, all the unnecessary trips so many people take, all the air travel that Americans take, etc. For example, the closet elementary school near me, has a long line of cars waiting for school to let out, so they can pick up their kids. They at least could car pool if they don't want their kids to walk or take the school bus. We eat an insane amount of meat per capita. We even feed a lot of meat to our pets. If I ever find that book review, I'll share it.

It's very hard for people to change their habits, and that is one reason why it will be very difficult to reduce our carbon footprint in the near future. I'm not blaming anyone. We all grew up ignorant of how our habits were impacting the environment. Cars from my childhood got about 7 mpg. We may not have been as wasteful and we didn't use a lot of plastics, which I don't think were even available until the late 60s, but we had no idea that the things we did and used had a negative impact on the planet. It wasn't until the 80s that scientists became serious about climate change. And, one of the pieces in the link mentioned that only 60% of Americans believe that climate change is influenced by human activity. It will be a huge struggle to change things.
Yeah, you are never going to stop people from wanting to use lots of energy.

Cutting energy use isn't going to solve the problem; We need to find a way to generate energy reliably and consistently without emitting carbon dioxide.

Or rather, we need to implement the way we found seventy years ago.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,727
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Unfortunately, he's probably right. The political will simply doesn't exist to take action whose benefits are on that long a timeframe. Too many people take a screw-the-future, I-want-it-NOW attitude. We make noise pretending to do something with garbage like Kyoto and Paris, but a government at is serious about it is going to get replaced by one that isn't. By itself, it's not an extinction level event but the wars that will no doubt happen very well might be.
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,383
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is how unhinged the climate cultists are;

An Extinction Rebellion chief has been slammed for proposing to 'euthanise boomers' in retaliation for climate change. Environmental radical Jessica Townsend, 59, said 'rich boomers' would be the 'first to go' under her sick purge even though she herself is a so-called boomer.

Daily Mail

A rapture like cult.

The real cult is climate change denialism, of which you are a star member.

Such a stupid statement, beyond stupid even. :rolleyesa:
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,332
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
As I see it it, it all goes back to ancient Zog when he learned to create fire and control it. The rest is history.

Two primary inventions that remain of importance today. Controlled fire and putting a durable cutting edge on metals. Controlled fire extended to controlled heat as in nuclear power ad electric heating.

Whitout fire and cutting edges there would be no barbecues.
That’s actually very close to how I believe it has gone. But the real genesis of the whole process had to do with … well, Genesis. Serpents and apples notwithstanding, a dawning self awareness and with it, the ability to correlate observations to make predictions, happened either before or concurrently with the “taming” of fire.
Maybe raw apples were just not satisfying enough.
An interconnect multi faceted evolutionary process.
point ini time a group of humans could make decisions that are predicable in the long run is imaginary. Unless yuu belive in a priori knowledge of some sort we humans learn as we go along.

The idea that boomers ruined the world is silly. It shows an ignorance of human history and the limitaitions of human thinking and human behavior..
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,332
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Awk Awk .. cult like behavior .. Awk Awk cult like bwevavior Awk Awk cult like behavior. Some birds hear a human speak and can mimic it.

Tune in nezt week when Batman and Robin face The Twizzler.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
This is how unhinged the climate cultists are;

An Extinction Rebellion chief has been slammed for proposing to 'euthanise boomers' in retaliation for climate change. Environmental radical Jessica Townsend, 59, said 'rich boomers' would be the 'first to go' under her sick purge even though she herself is a so-called boomer.

Daily Mail

A rapture like cult.

The real cult is climate change denialism, of which you are a star member.

Such a stupid statement, beyond stupid even. :rolleyesa:

Just not in any way you can articulate. :rolleyesa:
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,961
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Why would billions of tons of Co2 pumped into the atmosphere by human activity not have an effect on the climate......?
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,237
Location
Ignore list
Why would billions of tons of Co2 pumped into the atmosphere by human activity not have an effect on the climate......?
Because it never happened

CO2-climate-change-global-warming-021116-1280.jpg


if you keep your eyes firmly shut.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,509
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
In these discussions a common-sense point is often overlooked: Many changes to human behavior cannot be achieved except with coercion.

If paying taxes were optional, how many would pay? If there were no regulations against pollution, would lakes and rivers be kept clean by altruism? Even if most people were altruistic, a few miscreants could do much damage.

Many people will vote for a change even if they themselves would not make that change voluntarily.

So the U.S. could return to stone age usage of energy and a collapse of the nation and it would make no difference because China would continue to increase CO2 output since they would make up for the manufacturing production to supply the world's demand for doo-dads.

No. If the world were serious about reducing CO2 emissions, China would be boycotted until it reduced emissions. Coercion.

It may be difficult to achieve the required levels of coercion, but reversing climate change ain't happening without them.

. . . it will be close to impossible to accomplish the goals that the Democrats and the climate activists are hoping for in the next 10 or 20 years, unless almost every individual changes their habits. I don't see that happening.
. . . Think of all the plastics we use, all the unnecessary trips so many people take, all the air travel that Americans take, etc. For example, the closet elementary school near me, has a long line of cars waiting for school to let out, so they can pick up their kids. They at least could car pool if they don't want their kids to walk or take the school bus. We eat an insane amount of meat per capita. We even feed a lot of meat to our pets. . . . It will be a huge struggle to change things.

It is a delusion to imagine CO2 reduction without coercion. If most people car-pool voluntarily and gasoline becomes cheaper, a minority will be racing their gas guzzlers for fun on the now-emptied roads.

The recent rise in the price of gasoline should be viewed as a godsend. The price of gas should have been jacked up decades ago with revenues diverted to the U.S. Treasury. That couldn't happen in the American system, but now we achieve that goal with OPEC's help (though sending the extra revenue to the Saudi treasury instead of our own). But instead politicians of all stripes want to reduce the price of petroleum.

Many American voters would agree with legislation to enforce reductions in carbon usage, but will continue their carbon-intense life-style until laws or price hikes discourage it. It is futile to expect meaningful reductions in CO2 without coercion.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,943
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
In these discussions a common-sense point is often overlooked: Many changes to human behavior cannot be achieved except with coercion.

If paying taxes were optional, how many would pay? If there were no regulations against pollution, would lakes and rivers be kept clean by altruism? Even if most people were altruistic, a few miscreants could do much damage.

Many people will vote for a change even if they themselves would not make that change voluntarily.

So the U.S. could return to stone age usage of energy and a collapse of the nation and it would make no difference because China would continue to increase CO2 output since they would make up for the manufacturing production to supply the world's demand for doo-dads.

No. If the world were serious about reducing CO2 emissions, China would be boycotted until it reduced emissions. Coercion.

It may be difficult to achieve the required levels of coercion, but reversing climate change ain't happening without them.
No one is 'serious about reducing CO2' but a lot of people love to bitch about it. They want everyone else to stop producing CO2 but not themselves. The loudest among them fly their private jets (each one releasing more CO2 in a day than a family of four would in a couple years) every year to some exotic location for a meeting to discuss what they can convince other people to do to reduce CO2. They could teleconference their meeting but where is the fun in that? I notice that you are using electrical power that requires a release of CO2 to produce unless you have a hand cranked computer.

If 'those in charge' really wanted to reduce CO2 output then they would be demanding nuclear power plants to be built, enough of them to replace all current power plants. But again, if they actually did something reasonable to eliminate excess CO2 then they would lose a powerful tool they use to control so much other activity.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
If 'those in charge' really wanted to reduce CO2 output then they would be demanding nuclear power plants to be built, enough of them to replace all current power plants. But again, if they actually did something reasonable to eliminate excess CO2 then they would lose a powerful tool they use to control so much other activity.
My interpretation of that statement varies greatly depending on what "those in charge" means.

If "those in charge" are politicians, then there's a few of motivations not to go with nuclear:
  • They have a vested interest in protecting fossil fuel energy.
  • Voters don't want to pay for nuclear when solar/wind/gas is cheaper.
  • Voters are shit scared of radiation and meltdowns and therefore don't want to relax safety regulations to reduce costs.
  • Voters don't like the idea of nuclear waste disposal.
If "those in charge" are the people who run energy companies, then they are just doing whatever they can to maximise their bottom line. Right now that means getting into gas, wind and solar. It doesn't make business sense to go into nuclear.

Nuclear power desperately needs a brand overhaul to persuade people that it is worth pursuing, but there isn't a lot of incentive for anyone in power to do that. Energy companies aren't willing to incur the high costs stemming from nuclear power's excessive safety regulations, and politicians have nothing to gain by aligning themselves with such a feared and expensive technology.

I would also add that advocates for renewable energy are doing considerable damage to nuclear power's political viability. If we're still dependent on natural gas power plants in 2050 then part of the blame will lie with these purists.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.
Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.
Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?
No but the restriction means the decrease in natural gas availability will mean that some of the current usage will have to revert to coal or oil since nuclear is also opposed.
Some is a fun word.
Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.
Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.
Exactly. So the U.S. could return to stone age usage of energy and a collapse of the nation and it would make no difference because China would continue to increase CO2 output since they would make up for the manufacturing production to supply the world's demand for doo-dads.
Okay, so the US offshored its CO2 emissions to China, therefore we shouldn't do what exactly? What is the argument you are presenting?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Sorry, I can't find the article, which was actually a book review, that I wanted to share. It had lots of details in it. But, the primary thing was that it will be close to impossible to accomplish the goals that the Democrats and the climate activists are hoping for in the next 10 or 20 years, unless almost every individual changes their habits. I don't see that happening.

China may be the worst offender, but the US isn't making much progress either. Think of all the plastics we use, all the unnecessary trips so many people take, all the air travel that Americans take, etc. For example, the closet elementary school near me, has a long line of cars waiting for school to let out, so they can pick up their kids. They at least could car pool if they don't want their kids to walk or take the school bus. We eat an insane amount of meat per capita. We even feed a lot of meat to our pets. If I ever find that book review, I'll share it.

It's very hard for people to change their habits, and that is one reason why it will be very difficult to reduce our carbon footprint in the near future. I'm not blaming anyone. We all grew up ignorant of how our habits were impacting the environment. Cars from my childhood got about 7 mpg. We may not have been as wasteful and we didn't use a lot of plastics, which I don't think were even available until the late 60s, but we had no idea that the things we did and used had a negative impact on the planet. It wasn't until the 80s that scientists became serious about climate change. And, one of the pieces in the link mentioned that only 60% of Americans believe that climate change is influenced by human activity. It will be a huge struggle to change things.
Yeah, you are never going to stop people from wanting to use lots of energy.
Lots of homes in the US are underinsulated. Insulating these places would make a substantial impact on home energy consumption. In fact, it is likely the only thing that can be done for energy usage that would have an significant impact, immediate one as well. Otherwise, tech energy usage, we are making things more efficient, for instance, a 27" CRT TV used, what three times the energy a 55" LCD TV does. But that'll hit a wall, and it is only trimming small amounts of fat. Lightbulbs and TVs aren't getting us to Zero Carbon emissions.
Cutting energy use isn't going to solve the problem;
It addresses a part of the problem, but energy supply is a larger chunk of the solution for carbon emissions. Wait... just getting this in... they are now called "Freedom Emissions" and Jesus loves them.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,880
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think the question of how mammoths ended up frozen in ice with undersigned food in the belly and no physical trauma is unanswered.
They got stuck in the mud along the bank of a stream or a lake and died there. Or some other scenario where they died and were covered by mud before scavengers could get to their bodies. Why is this such a big mystery?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I think the question of how mammoths ended up frozen in ice with undersigned food in the belly and no physical trauma is unanswered.
They got stick in the mud along the bank of a stream or a lake and died there. Or some other scenario where they died and were covered my mud before scavengers could get to their bodies. Why is this such a big mystery?
Did this become a YEC thread?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,509
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Is this the best thread for discussing nuclear power? (There is also a The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy thread but no active thread specific to fission or fusion power.)

I've learned from Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTubes about cosmology or physics, so I watched her video on nuclear power. She seems intelligent, well-informed and objective. She covers many of the same topics discussed in this thread, but does a concise summary.

I'm afraid her conclusion is ultimately pessimistic: In part because nuclear power will be too late to prevent climate change, and in part because breakthroughs are still needed to reduce the costs of the new reactor types (e.g. thorium) needed to reduce dependence on scarce uranium
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,509
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
On the topic of FUSION power, let me ask a question which I'm pretty sure is very VERY stupid. Please be gentle with me!

Fusion power may require a locus of very high power density to ignite the energy production. But Europe already has a very expensive apparatus that produces points of very high power. Can the Large Hadron Collider be configured to trigger fusion?

I suppose that science experiments would have to be shut down during days that the LHC was used to provide ignition for power production. But would the idea even work at all? How much power could be produced? If the idea makes any sense at all, the LHC would presumably be used just for proof-of-concept, with some simpler commercial design in view.

I'm pretty sure this "idea" is not merely stupid, but breath-takingly ignorant! Please be gentle with me. :)
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I don't think triggering fusion is as much the problem as containment.

I was curious about matter/anti-matter. According to this, we'd need about 3.1 tons of anti-matter to power the Earth for a year. We currently can produce zero point a lot of zeros... then more zeros then 1 tons of it. I think we need to Dyson sphere the sun (black hole, though that wouldn't be solar) to make anti-matter production even technically possible from an energy input standpoint.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,332
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
As I undertaker it the problem is mostly containment. A magnetic bottle.

Initiating fusion takes a high peak energy. The decommissioned Princeton reactor spun up a large flywheel using off peak energy from the grid.

I don't think e grid could supply the instantaneous power.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,332
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I think the question of how mammoths ended up frozen in ice with undersigned food in the belly and no physical trauma is unanswered.
They got stuck in the mud along the bank of a stream or a lake and died there. Or some other scenario where they died and were covered by mud before scavengers could get to their bodies. Why is this such a big mystery?
They were flash frozen, little deterioration.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,068
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I think the question of how mammoths ended up frozen in ice with undersigned food in the belly and no physical trauma is unanswered.
They got stuck in the mud along the bank of a stream or a lake and died there. Or some other scenario where they died and were covered by mud before scavengers could get to their bodies. Why is this such a big mystery?
They were flash frozen, little deterioration.
Permafrost is a fairly anoxic environment. Like peat bogs, it tends to preserve. "Flash Frozen" evokes images of liquid nitrogen, but the process that actually happened could take hours or even a couple of days for it to freeze solid.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,332
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I think the question of how mammoths ended up frozen in ice with undersigned food in the belly and no physical trauma is unanswered.
They got stuck in the mud along the bank of a stream or a lake and died there. Or some other scenario where they died and were covered by mud before scavengers could get to their bodies. Why is this such a big mystery?
They were flash frozen, little deterioration.
Permafrost is a fairly anoxic environment. Like peat bogs, it tends to preserve. "Flash Frozen" evokes images of liquid nitrogen, but the process that actually happened could take hours or even a couple of days for it to freeze solid.
I guess that rules out god.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,727
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
On the topic of FUSION power, let me ask a question which I'm pretty sure is very VERY stupid. Please be gentle with me!

Fusion power may require a locus of very high power density to ignite the energy production. But Europe already has a very expensive apparatus that produces points of very high power. Can the Large Hadron Collider be configured to trigger fusion?

We have little problem with triggering fusion now. All of the current generation systems can do it. The issue is efficiency, you expend a lot of energy heating the target to tens of millions of degrees, you need enough fusion out of it to produce enough power to run the igniter and send the excess to the grid.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,509
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I don't think triggering fusion is as much the problem as containment.
It's hard to contain super-hot plasma, but in my proposal the fuel would be an ice-cold stream of tritium. The "heat" would be supplied by the super-speed protons (or deuterons) bombarding it.

I know little or nothing about the LHC but looking at some simple numbers it may be impossible to ignite directly as much as a milligram of fuel per hour. I think the fusion reaction would need to be amplified at least 1000-fold just to break even, and a million-fold to be a significant power generator.

So, never mind.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Is this the best thread for discussing nuclear power? (There is also a The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy thread but no active thread specific to fission or fusion power.)

I've learned from Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTubes about cosmology or physics, so I watched her video on nuclear power. She seems intelligent, well-informed and objective. She covers many of the same topics discussed in this thread, but does a concise summary.

I'm afraid her conclusion is ultimately pessimistic: In part because nuclear power will be too late to prevent climate change, and in part because breakthroughs are still needed to reduce the costs of the new reactor types (e.g. thorium) needed to reduce dependence on scarce uranium
Uranium isn't scarce. There's an effectively unlimited supply in seawater, which can be extracted at similar cost to current mining.

Seawater uranium will be replenished by erosion faster than we can use it, for orders of magnitude longer than humanity has existed so far.

You might as well call solar power 'scarce' because one day the sun will use up all its hydrogen.

Regardless, it's certainly true that a massive program of building existing reactor designs to replace fossil fuels would not run into fuel constraints before commercial scale fast reactors could be deployed en-masse. At which point, you can burn pretty much any Actinides. Including the 'waste' from existing fission plants.

All of the necessary technologies have been developed to testbed scale, so scaling up to full commercial reactors is no more difficult than scaling up any other industrial process. A decade of concerted effort should be enough. But we need to stop listening to people who say it can't be done, or it shouldn't be done, and just get on with doing it.

The French did it forty years ago. It's easier now than it was then.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,509
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Is this the best thread for discussing nuclear power? (There is also a The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy thread but no active thread specific to fission or fusion power.)

I've learned from Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTubes about cosmology or physics, so I watched her video on nuclear power. She seems intelligent, well-informed and objective. She covers many of the same topics discussed in this thread, but does a concise summary.

I'm afraid her conclusion is ultimately pessimistic: In part because nuclear power will be too late to prevent climate change, and in part because breakthroughs are still needed to reduce the costs of the new reactor types (e.g. thorium) needed to reduce dependence on scarce uranium
Uranium isn't scarce. There's an effectively unlimited supply in seawater, which can be extracted at similar cost to current mining.

U238 is plentiful but not enough to supply adequate U235. Reactors which operate with unenriched fuel (e.g. U238 or thorium) are needed, but not yet commercially viable.

Is she right? I don't know, but as I say she SEEMS well-informed and objective.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Is this the best thread for discussing nuclear power? (There is also a The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy thread but no active thread specific to fission or fusion power.)

I've learned from Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTubes about cosmology or physics, so I watched her video on nuclear power. She seems intelligent, well-informed and objective. She covers many of the same topics discussed in this thread, but does a concise summary.

I'm afraid her conclusion is ultimately pessimistic: In part because nuclear power will be too late to prevent climate change, and in part because breakthroughs are still needed to reduce the costs of the new reactor types (e.g. thorium) needed to reduce dependence on scarce uranium
Uranium isn't scarce. There's an effectively unlimited supply in seawater, which can be extracted at similar cost to current mining.

U238 is plentiful but not enough to supply adequate U235. Reactors which operate with unenriched fuel (e.g. U238 or thorium) are needed, but not yet commercially viable.

Is she right? I don't know, but as I say she SEEMS well-informed and objective.
Canada has been operating natural (unenriched) uranium reactors commercially since 1968 (1962, if you count the operational prototype NPD reactor).

Such reactors are the foundation of Ontario's ultra low emissions electricity grid. They have almost completely eliminated fossil fuel use in ON's electricity market.

"Not yet commercially viable" is simply and demonstrably false.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Things worldwide would be looking up if Japan reversed its nuke elimination with nuke upgrade and hardening policies and if Germany got serious about energy period. Two of the greatest technology driven countries in the world coming off wuss mode.

Oh no. FDI's joining the nuke party ..... WWIII and all that?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,943
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
..
Is this the best thread for discussing nuclear power? (There is also a The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy thread but no active thread specific to fission or fusion power.)

I've learned from Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTubes about cosmology or physics, so I watched her video on nuclear power. She seems intelligent, well-informed and objective. She covers many of the same topics discussed in this thread, but does a concise summary.

I'm afraid her conclusion is ultimately pessimistic: In part because nuclear power will be too late to prevent climate change, and in part because breakthroughs are still needed to reduce the costs of the new reactor types (e.g. thorium) needed to reduce dependence on scarce uranium
Uranium isn't scarce. There's an effectively unlimited supply in seawater, which can be extracted at similar cost to current mining.

U238 is plentiful but not enough to supply adequate U235. Reactors which operate with unenriched fuel (e.g. U238 or thorium) are needed, but not yet commercially viable.

Is she right? I don't know, but as I say she SEEMS well-informed and objective.
U238 becomes a fuel in fast neutron breeder reactors. U238 is converted into plutonium, americium, and curium which are fissionable fuel for the reactor. U238 is abundant so there is no fuel shortage for breeder reactors. Breeder reactors are certainly viable but governments don't want them commercially available because they create fissionable material. In other words, nuclear fuel is 'scarce' because of political reasons not technical reasons.
 
Last edited:

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,438
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I'm trying to use up my gift articles before the month is over. I found one about the effect how our carbon output is having a terrible impact on sea life.

nytimes.com/2022/04/28/climate/global-warming-ocean-extinctions.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DJDmwSiO8RAo2J50qKaq5kbdI3miuSXtpANrBqQ_d_x-kaMlxxSg-jvpqDno9DIzkwrcj7eFIK6K_3fOJy9y72PC7-If1jxba7s


A new study finds that if fossil fuel emissions continue apace, the oceans could experience a mass extinction by 2300. There is still time to avoid it.

On Thursday they published “Avoiding Ocean Mass Extinction From Climate Warming” in Science. It is the latest research that crystallizes the powerful yet paralyzed moment in which humanity finds itself. The choices made today regarding greenhouse gas emissions stand to affect the very future of life on Earth, even though the worst impacts may still feel far away.

Under the high emissions scenario that the scientists modeled, in which pollution from the burning of fossil fuels continues to climb, warming would trigger ocean species loss by 2300 that was on par with the five mass extinctions in Earth’s past. The last of those wiped out the dinosaurs.

“It wasn’t an ‘Aha’ moment per se,” said Dr. Penn, a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton, recalling the first time he looked at a graph comparing those past extinctions with their grim forecast. “It was more of an ‘Oh my God’ moment.”

'The new study builds on Dr. Deutsch and Dr. Penn’s earlier work: creating a computer simulation that detailed the worst extinction in Earth’s history some 252 million years ago. Often called “the Great Dying,” it claimed more than 90 percent of species in the oceans. The cause was global warming, triggered by volcanic eruptions. The oceans lost oxygen, and fish succumbed to heat stress, asphyxiation or both. The computer model found more extinctions at the poles as compared with the tropics, and the fossil record confirmed it.
To forecast the effects from global warming that is now driven by human activity, the scientists used the same model, with its intricate interplay between sunlight, clouds, ocean and air currents, and other forces like the chemical dances between heat and oxygen, water and air. They also took into account how much fish habitats could shift, estimating thresholds for survivability.
“It’s a lot of time spent on the computer,” Dr. Penn said.
While the study focused on the effects of warming and oxygen loss, ocean acidification and other snowball effects could worsen the species loss it predicted.'


Some species have already died out due to our carbon output. Read the entire article if you are interested.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,332
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Southernr Ca is restricting outdoor watering to one day a week. There is a potential shortfall in drinking water.

Tomatoes and oter produce may be in short supply this year.
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,383
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Under the high emissions scenario that the scientists modeled, in which pollution from the burning of fossil fuels continues to climb, warming would trigger ocean species loss by 2300 that was on par with the five mass extinctions in Earth’s past. The last of those wiped out the dinosaurs.

What utter nonsense. It’s modeling based off a scenario that can’t happen.

A rapture like cult.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It’s modeling based off a scenario that can’t happen.
Yeah, the idea that humanity will continue to burn more and more fossil fuel as more and more of the world becomes wealthy and industrialised is impossible.

That's why it's been ongoing for the last two hundred and fifty years. :rolleyesa:
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
654
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Under the high emissions scenario that the scientists modeled, in which pollution from the burning of fossil fuels continues to climb, warming would trigger ocean species loss by 2300 that was on par with the five mass extinctions in Earth’s past. The last of those wiped out the dinosaurs.

What utter nonsense. It’s modeling based off a scenario that can’t happen.

A rapture like cult.

Climate change denialism is a cult, a rapture-like cult.

Let’s go Dump!
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,383
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Ffs, they can’t get next week’s weather forecast correct never mind the next ten years. Every single prediction has been spectacularly wrong.

A doomsday, end of times, rapture like cult.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,332
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Ocean temperature is affecting life at the bottom of the food chain. Coral reefs are dieing. A Hannity would say who cares.
 
Top Bottom