The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All proven technology that has ZERO political support.

Governments won't build new nuclear plants- Japan stopped using it and using oil instead.

Solar plants could compete with oil in the 70s but not built

Solar roof tiles were available in the UK 20 years ago, but no government investment.

Technology to pump water up into lakes using cheap off peak hydro power at night to generate power during the day was developed last century.

Wave energy to pump sea water up into man made lakes to use for hydro power developed years ago.

 

Common theme is that it is all proven technology ( France has had massive amounts of safe nuclear power for decades ), but virtually no government investment. WHY???????

It's down to education. Dunderheads don't understand nuclear physics or why the latest plants are INTRINSICALLY safe.

 

Once again, the undereducated masses call the shots because of "democracy" and once again, they're very wrong. (They will probably be against fusion! Ask anyone in a Weatherspoons)

[Guest]

There is still quite a few nuclear power plants under construction. 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries (see Table below), notably China, India, UAE and Russia."

 

"Most reactors currently planned are in the Asian region, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

In all, over 160 power reactors with a total gross capacity of some 168,000 MWe are on order or planned, and over 300 more are proposed."

 

I remember reading that China was looking into Thorium reactors, but not have heard much since. Hopefully they'll get it working, which could start a real nuclear boom once again. 

[craigt3365]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All proven technology that has ZERO political support.

Governments won't build new nuclear plants- Japan stopped using it and using oil instead.

Solar plants could compete with oil in the 70s but not built

Solar roof tiles were available in the UK 20 years ago, but no government investment.

Technology to pump water up into lakes using cheap off peak hydro power at night to generate power during the day was developed last century.

Wave energy to pump sea water up into man made lakes to use for hydro power developed years ago.

 

Common theme is that it is all proven technology ( France has had massive amounts of safe nuclear power for decades ), but virtually no government investment. WHY???????

Ummmm....perhaps some are afraid of nuclear power due to 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Japan's disaster.  Good reasons to be cautious.

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Ummmm....perhaps some are afraid of nuclear power due to 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Japan's disaster.  Good reasons to be cautious.

It's good to be cautious, but it should not prevent us making better and safer nuclear power plants. 

 

Everyone remember those events, but the destruction and death toll is miniscule compared to what coal, oil and even solar panels cause. Yes, solar panels (installation) causes more deaths/MWh than nuclear power does :)

 

Coal and oil causes pollution which is not good for our environment and for us.

 

I guess more education is required. When there is complexity, there are more fears against the technologies, which people don't understand. As comparison each plane accident is huge news, while it's safer method of transportation than cars are. 

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

It's good to be cautious, but it should not prevent us making better and safer nuclear power plants. 

 

Everyone remember those events, but the destruction and death toll is miniscule compared to what coal, oil and even solar panels cause. Yes, solar panels (installation) causes more deaths/MWh than nuclear power does :)

 

Coal and oil causes pollution which is not good for our environment and for us.

 

I guess more education is required. When there is complexity, there are more fears against the technologies, which people don't understand. As comparison each plane accident is huge news, while it's safer method of transportation than cars are.

The impact of Chernobyl has been massive.  Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are still allocating a substantial portion of their GDP towards this.  How many years later?  And the real impact will never be known. 

 

So I'm not sure I'd call this minuscule.  There are now better alternatives.  Sadly, oil is relatively cheap and there's not much incentive to go aggressively after alternatives.  Sadly.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The impact of Chernobyl has been massive.  Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are still allocating a substantial portion of their GDP towards this.  How many years later?  And the real impact will never be known. 

Do you have source for this? I'd be interested to read it and learn more. 

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Do you have source for this? I'd be interested to read it and learn more. 

As you know, I visited there a few years ago.  Including Belarus and a bit of Ukraine.

 

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21697741-chernobyl-led-thousands-deaths-including-soviet-union-nuclear-disaster

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

It is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster. According to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union spent 18 billion rubles (the equivalent of US$18 billion at that time) on containment and decontamination, virtually bankrupting itself.^[3] In Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars).^[197] Ongoing costs are well known; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine is still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002.^[197] Much of the current cost relates to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries.^[197]

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The Economist is a newspaper, not a magazine!

 

Anyway, they do seem to be a bit casual with dates, the current issue is both dated November 16th and 18th at their web page. 

A newspaper published once a week in magazine format?  http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers?print_region=76980   

 

Where are these issues dated November 16 and 18?  I didn't find them on the above web-page.

[Guest]

Three Mile Island - 1979. There was both mechanical and human errors. I would think that these issues has been solved by now. Perhaps there are still some possibilities to have accidents.

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

 

Chernobyl - 1986. This was mainly because 'boys' wanted to test the reactor and disabled various safety features when doing that. Stupid human behaviour and mistakes. They could have been poking a nuclear bomb instead of playing with the reactor.

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

 

Fukushima - 2011. Huge earthquake, tsunami which killed 16.000 people. Nobody died due radiation from Daiichi power plant.  

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

 

All of these are big events, but when it's put to the comparison with the deaths and pollution oil and coal causes there is no real comparison. 

 

Mortality rates of different forms of energy creation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#592944af709b

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Three Mile Island - 1979. There was both mechanical and human errors. I would think that these issues has been solved by now. Perhaps there are still some possibilities to have accidents.

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

 

Chernobyl - 1986. This was mainly because 'boys' wanted to test the reactor and disabled various safety features when doing that. Stupid human behaviour and mistakes. They could have been poking a nuclear bomb instead of playing with the reactor.

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

 

Fukushima - 2011. Huge earthquake, tsunami which killed 16.000 people. Nobody died due radiation from Daiichi power plant.  

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

 

All of these are big events, but when it's put to the comparison with the deaths and pollution oil and coal causes there is no real comparison. 

 

Mortality rates of different forms of energy creation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#592944af709b

France has been running many reactors for decades without incident.

Japans problems occurred because the people that should have known better didn't account properly for the effects of a tsunami in a country subject to tsunamis. Far as I know, all serious accidents have happened due to human intervention or incompetence.

[partington]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that there is no way ALL scientists in the entire world have been asked as to their views on GW, to state that 97% agree on anything is frankly an untruth of huge proportions and completely unverifiable. Therefore any supposition that "man made GW" is true because 97% believe it must be ruled out as it is using propaganda and not fact as a basis, therefore, it is UNSCIENTIFIC. 

This is because you don't understand how science is communicated, and because you are (accidentally) trying to imply that 97% of scientists means all scientists and not just scientists working in geophysics, climatology and so on.

 

Clearly the opinion of an industrial chemist working on cement, or a biologist studying mating behaviour in crested grebes is of no more weight in assessing the evidence for human-caused climate change than that of an economist, or  professor of english literature of equivalent mental capacity.

 

Science is communicated basically in a single way, and research that is not communicated in this way is not considered science so is ignored .

 

That way is: geoclimatology scientists do actual experimental research, and/or make calculations on the basis of their own or previous observations, or statistically reanalyse data from previous publications.  They write this up in the form of a paper clearly stating the data, how they got it and how they statistically analysed it, in enough detail for anyone who wished to repeat the work to do it from reading the paper alone.

 

The final paper is sent for potential publication to a journal in that field who decide whether it is good and reliable.  The paper is judged quickly by the receiving editor- if nuts, clearly inadequate, or has a gigantic error it is rejected out of hand. If not the paper is sent to two different anonymous reviewers who are experts in the field the paper is about.

 

They go over the experiments, statistics and conclusions looking for holes, flaws, wonky statistics or unjustified conclusions. They either reject, (not good enough, reliable enough or important enough) or much more commonly send the paper back for corrections - do more experiments (this can take another year), do more appropriate statistics, take out this or that conclusion because the data doesn't show it even though they are claiming it does.

 

After the requested corrections the paper is reviewed again, and if the authors have fully satisfied the initial objections that led to its rejection, it is usually accepted as trustworthy enough to be published and at this point only it becomes "science", or what scientists believe. Books, Youtube videos, articles in newspapers and websites don't count in any of this.

 

Finally ALL journals that deal with climate science and all research papers that deal with it are online in searchable  databases, that can be searched with complex filter criteria to find anything you want. It is the work of a few days to find every single scientific paper dealing with any aspect of climate change that has been published in the last 20, 30, or 40 years, and then simply filter this data to find papers that support and papers that do not support climate change caused by human activity. Because these are exact numbers you can safely and accurately say 97% of scientists believe X.

 

Of course with climate change the scientists they are talking about are not research orthodontists.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

France has been running many reactors for decades without incident.

Japans problems occurred because the people that should have known better didn't account properly for the effects of a tsunami in a country subject to tsunamis. Far as I know, all serious accidents have happened due to human intervention or incompetence.

Sounds like a friend of mine.  Said he'd been going to Africa for years without using malaria meds.  Just cover up and us spray.  Guess what....

 

Far as I know, all nuclear reactors are managed by humans.  Whom are all susceptible to incompetence.

[Rimmer]

A troll post and replies have all been removed

[pkspeaker]

[pkspeaker]

The Univ. of Ill. graphs I talked about earlier-gone for good .. but here we can see the rebound from DMI quite impressive ..

Edited November 17, 2017 by pkspeaker

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

A newspaper published once a week in magazine format?  http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers?print_region=76980   

 

Where are these issues dated November 16 and 18?  I didn't find them on the above web-page.

18th: https://www.economist.com/printedition/2017-11-18

 

16th: http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers

 

Same issue.

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When I say nothing is being done, I know some things are being done, but they won't make ANY difference at all to the ultimate outcome, IMO.

A massive program of new nuclear plants, carbon sequestration, electric train lines and banning mass tourism using aircraft, PLUS immediate steps to reduce population by eliminating child payments, allowing free abortion on demand, free contraceptives and voluntary euthanasia might make a difference, if it isn't already too late and the tipping point hasn't been crossed.

The Internet is using more energy the all airlines combined. Should we also ban the Internet?

 

Already, data centres have mushroomed from virtually nothing 10 years ago to consuming about 3 per cent of the global electricity supply and accounting for about 2 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. That gives it the same carbon footprint as the airline industry.

[ExpatOilWorker]

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

Car emissions have dramatically reduced particularly COx though NOx will also come down. Electric cars are here now.

 

The idea of carbon taxes on air tickets is a good one though if air travel ceased completely it would only reduce carbon emissions by 5%. I would price low cost airlines out of existence and make formal dress compulsory on international flights ?

 

We should be investing in nuclear power and making coal and lignite unaffordable by carbon taxes

 

Major forest replanting is key as is modifying farming techniques.

 

Finally carbon sequestration on an industrial scale is needed; maybe electrolysing sea water as part of a process to produce carbonates

Nice ideas, but all projections points to higher oil/gas production and once it is produced, it will certainly be used and end up as CO2.

[Aussieroaming]

its pretty simple, if you don't have excess carbon emmissions then you can't impose a carbon tax. If they could charge trees with a carbon consumption tax then they would

[RickBradford]

This is for adults only: Roger Pielke Jr, an extremely well-credentialled climate scientist who has provided testimony in the past to the US Congress, has an article out today where he describes the decay of climate science, under the standfirst:  " Science and public policy collide in climate science as they have in few fields. Here Roger Pielke Jr., describes an example of how the resulting stress has begun to corrupt the field."

 

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/11/17/roger-pielke-jr-decay-of-climate-science/

 

That in turn draws from his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-litigious-climate-threatens-scientific-norms-1510789511

 

It doesn't make comfortable reading for those who babble about "97% consensus" as though that made it holy writ.

 

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

 

5 hours ago, partington said:

This is because you don't understand how science is communicated, and because you are (accidentally) trying to imply that 97% of scientists means all scientists and not just scientists working in geophysics, climatology and so on.

 

Clearly the opinion of an industrial chemist working on cement, or a biologist studying mating behaviour in crested grebes is of no more weight in assessing the evidence for human-caused climate change than that of an economist, or  professor of english literature of equivalent mental capacity.

You're responding to someone else, but I'll jump in:

 

Scientists in other fields are, in my opinion, better qualified to offer opinions/findings about research from fellow scientists.  That's because scientists, in general, understand scientific principles.  Relative few (my guess, less than 30% of) non-scientists understand scientific methodology.   Non-scientists are also a lot more likely to believe in weirdo conspiracy theories.  I know 2 Brits in Chiang Rai.  One believes literally in a flat earth, and both scoff at the idea that the Pentagon was bombed on 9-11, or that men ever stood on the moon.  100% of all the Brits I currently know have their heads up their butts, figuratively speaking. 

 

Jay Leno used to have a segment on his show called 'Jay Walking' ...where he would go out on a sidewalk in L.A. and ask passers-by simple questions.  It was amazing what people didn't know.  

 

I much prefer to trust scientists' findings about GW and climate issues, than rely on dufuses like Trump and Republican conspiracy theorists.  Scientists should be at the vanguard of scientific debate, not Republican politicians, some of whom believe that Noah's Ark happened exactly like it's depicted in the old testament.

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

Scientists should be at the vanguard of scientific debate,

Of course they should. But the Green/Left won't wear that at all.

 

"The science is settled and the debate is over!" they cry, in an attempt to deflect any criticism of their holy climate scripture.

 

Any heretic who objects, in whatever small way, with them, is immediately labelled a "denier", that very objectionable term, with its deliberate Holocaust associations.

 

So much for scientific debate.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I know 2 Brits in Chiang Rai.  One believes literally in a flat earth

You must introduce the person to me. I have been supporting the Flat Earth movement for few months now. We need more people to fulfil the dream of creating The Church of Flat Earth. We need true believers. 

 

Why? The reason lies on the last paragraph you wrote. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Of course they should. But the Green/Left won't wear that at all.

 

"The science is settled and the debate is over!" they cry, in an attempt to deflect any criticism of their holy climate scripture.

 

Any heretic who objects, in whatever small way, with them, is immediately labelled a "denier", that very objectionable term, with its deliberate Holocaust associations.

 

So much for scientific debate.

I'm socialists who thinks green. However I want nothing to do with the green party of my county as it is occupied by the soft sciences people, who don't think with their brains, but only with their feelings. Their negative attitude towards nuclear energy and the illogical thinking abou the clean air/nature was the main reason I jumped off their train.

I do agree that the climate science have become a political movement, not always a rational one. We all should remember the manipulated data, which was exposed by a hack, some years back. I have tried to ask questions, sometimes challenge their norms and got shoot back rather hostile responses.. by the people who I thought were open minded intellectuals.

However, I do think that we should do the most we can to stop the pollution of our one and only planet. This includes stop using coal and oil as energy sources and develop something much better ways to create energy. 

 

I fully support cheaper (much cheaper) solar panel development as well as much better small scale energy storage solutions. Meanwhile we need a backbone to our energy consumption and at this time it's nuclear fission energy. Hopefully in the next 20 years we'll have better solutions available. Until then, we better use the best practises we have available.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 16/11/2017 at 3:39 PM, Grouse said:

 

This takes a swipe at tabloid BS

There is indeed too much bad reporting and unresearched commentary that is made worse by bad and sensationalist headlines. Online there is also the "click-bait" headline problem that are usually even more misleading.

It is across the whole spectrum though, not just climate "news".

(The Telegraph isn't tabloid yet is it?)

 

 

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

18th: https://www.economist.com/printedition/2017-11-18

 

16th: http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers

 

Same issue.

A typo made by whoever put together the webpage. Does that make the once a week magazine less of a news magazine?  Does that change the credibility of the articles?

[jcsmith]

For Rick Bradford: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-issue-dire-warning-that-time-is-running-out-on-climate-change/

 

15,000 scientists disagree.

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

For Rick Bradford: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-issue-dire-warning-that-time-is-running-out-on-climate-change/

 

15,000 scientists disagree.

Not necessarily so.

 

CBS says that 15,000 scientists disagree. There's a big difference.

[boomerangutang]

15 hours ago, RickBradford said:

This is for adults only: Roger Pielke Jr, an extremely well-credentialled climate scientist who has provided testimony in the past to the US Congress, has an article out today where he describes the decay of climate science, under the standfirst:  " Science and public policy collide in climate science as they have in few fields. Here Roger Pielke Jr., describes an example of how the resulting stress has begun to corrupt the field."

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/11/17/roger-pielke-jr-decay-of-climate-science/

I tried reading the article above.  Maybe I'm not adult enough, but I couldn't find any substance in it.  It was a lot of intellectual words - but to me signified nothing.  To quote a line from the comedy movie 'Trains, Planes, and Automobiles', the Steve Martin character says to the John Candy character, "YOU TALK A LOT, BUT HERE'S A SUGGESTION: MAKE A POINT."

 

Bradford, I hate to break the news to you, but you're grasping at straws.  I know you won't change your steadfast fixation with trying to denigrate CC science, so I guess the rest of us will have to do what we've come to believe is right:  Namely:

>>>>   pollute less

>>>>   try to find ways to lessen the harm/damage done by a warming planet

 

Meanwhile, those who insist on denying CC is happening, and there's no cause for concern, can continue to sit in their air-conditioned abodes, above flood level, and enjoy comfortable lives.  No matter that desertification is increasing, sea levels are rising, coastal populated regions are flooding, and millions of people are so desperate to find safe places to reside, that they risk their lives (and the lives of their toddlers) to try to find habitable places.

 

I'm not saying a warming planet is the only cause of mass migrations of people ww.  But am saying it's a major contributing factor.