Climate Change(d)?

[TSwizzle]

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.

 

[steve_bank]

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]

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]

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.

Just not in any way you can articulate.

 

[DBT]

Why would billions of tons of Co2 pumped into the atmosphere by human activity not have an effect on the climate......?

 

[Hermit]

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

if you keep your eyes firmly shut.

 

[Swammerdami]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.