Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The prize for the most illogical AGW argument in this entire thread goes to ^^^

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Actually, we're currently not even talking about AGW, just deaths caused by continuing to burn oil and coal rather than using nuclear energy. Tell me, how does it make sense to continue to use an energy source that kills more people per unit of energy produced than any other in favor of an energy source that is MUCH safer, possibly the safest source of all?! Currently, burning oil and coal are killing hundreds of thousands every year but switching to nuclear MIGHT result in killing how many, hundreds or even thousands? Crunch the numbers, compare, and try to be at least somewhat logical in your answer.

[Kenomac]

I think the answer is to add a little solar where it makes sense, build some smaller nuclear reactors and exploit hydro ad geothermal whenever possible.

Of course nuclear and hydro are non starters here in the US mainly do to the greenies who only see returning to the Stone Age as the answer.

Still waiting after nearly 1500 posts to hear some new ideas from the GW zealots as to what they propose and what they plan to do personally to save mankind, other than declaring everything currently in use for energy except for wind and solar to be bad and evil.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Instead, the thread discussion was started by reference to an article written in a political journal that predicts that, based on the prior expanse of human history, humans will adapt to & overcome any such changes to the climate through the development of new technologies that are largely unforeseeable at this time.

A couple of books worth reading:

The Great Warming - Brian Fagan

Global warming is hardly new; in fact, the very long-term trend began about 12,000 years ago with the end of the Ice Age. Anthropologist Fagan (The Little Ice Age) focuses on the medieval warming period (ca. 800-1300), which helped Europe produce larger harvests; the surpluses helped fund the great cathedrals. But in many other parts of the world, says Fagan, changing water and air currents led to drought and malnutrition, for instance among the Native Americans of Northern California, whose key acorn harvests largely failed. Long-term drought contributed to the collapse of the Mayan civilization, and fluctuations in temperature contributed to, and inhibited, Mongol incursions into Europe. Fagan reveals how new research methods like ice borings, satellite observations and computer modeling have sharpened our understanding of meteorological trends in prehistorical times and preliterate cultures. Finally, he notes how times of intense, sustained global warming can have particularly dire consequences; for example, by 2025, an estimated 2.8 billion of us will live in areas with increasingly scarce water resources. Looking backward, Fagan presents a well-documented warning to those who choose to look forward.

http://www.amazon.ca/Great-Warming-C...+great+warming

A Short History of Progress - Ronald Wright

No hope, just an awareness of what's being done now and what's been done in the past, is what Ronald Wright will permit in A Short History of Progress, his grim, ammoniacal Massey Lectures, the 43rd in the series. In five lucid, meticulously documented essays, Wright traces the rise and plummet of four regional civilizations--those of Sumer, Rome, Easter Island, and the Maya--and judges that most, perhaps all, of humanity is making and will continue to make mistakes equally disastrous as theirs. He gives general reasons first for not reckoning we'll pull back from the brink. Important among them is an anthropological observation. As individuals, we live long lives. We evolve more slowly than we should, given our lack of vision and our aggressive, selfish nature. We seem to lack the collective wisdom and the insight into cause and effect to realize the limits to what Wright calls the "experiment" of civilization. What Wright calls natural "subsidies" underwrite civilizations' successes. The squandering of those gifts presages inevitable failure, but with careful, canny stewardship, a civilization can manage to muddle through eons. Wright cites Egypt's submission to the limits set by the Nile's annual floods and China's windblown "lump-sum deposit" of topsoil, used for hillside paddies instead of being put to the plough. Wright observes with unrelenting eloquence that our planetary civilization lives precariously, far beyond its means. "Hope drives us to invent new fixes for old messes," he acknowledges, neither claiming nor wanting to be a prophet. We certainly have the tools for change and remediation; we also know what our ancestors did wrong and what happened to them. We're faced, our author observes, with two choices: either do nothing--what he calls "one of the biggest mistakes"--or try to effect "the transition from short-term to long-term thinking." His evidence suggests we're taking the first alternative, which will include a swift, final ride into the dark future on the runaway train of progress. Wright's account tempts one to bet on the rats and roaches.

http://www.amazon.ca/Short-History-P...+Ronald+Wright

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

As Jackdale would say.... Do you have links to peer reviewed literature supporting your assertions?



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

They're actually not my assertions as much as they are a direct result of reading the chart Jackdale posted. Since Jackdale was the one who posted the chart comparing rates of death per TWH showing just how dangerous burning oil and coal are compared with nuclear, I guess you should ask him about the peer reviewed thing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ha-Ha! Of course you have issues with it, or you wouldn't have added what you did to the rest of your post! But that's fine, religious influence certainly has the potential to be relevant, but only if there's some evidence of actual bias affecting the science itself. Otherwise it's insinuation, and that's exactly what you and others repeatedly complain is being done to discredit the establishment position! No worries, I'll read it all, but you may want to examine the influence of your own bias in this regard.

I have no issues with their data. I have issues with some of the conclusions they draw.

Have you noticed that I also do not reject Curry out of hand.

[Kenomac]

Jack,

Reading books won't do squat, it's time to put your money where your mouth is and actually do something.

Placing some of your personal trash into a recycling bin and watching the trash truck haul it off the the incinerator ain't going to cut it if that's all you intend to do to change the climate.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Actually, we're currently not even talking about AGW, just deaths caused by continuing to burn oil and coal rather than using nuclear energy. Tell me, how does it make sense to continue to use an energy source that kills more people per unit of energy produced than any other in favor of an energy source that is MUCH safer, possibly the safest source of all?! Currently, burning oil and coal are killing hundreds of thousands every year but switching to nuclear MIGHT result in killing how many, hundreds or even thousands? Crunch the numbers, compare, and try to be at least somewhat logical in your answer.

You haven't produced any figures to back up your claims. If you're referring to jackdale's list I do hope you noticed that the figures quoted weren't indicated as being specific to HV power generation so could be extremely skewed. When was the last time someone blew themselves up cooking on their nuclear stove?



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK this is way off topic but may help some understand the ionizing radiation part of nuclear power ( BTW I have about half of the lifetime exposure limit)

WHO | Ionizing radiation, health effects and protective measures

Interesting, but how did you determine what your exposure has been in order to determine that you have about half of the limit? As an airline pilot for over 30 years and a resident of Maine where radon is very prevalent in the granite, I suspect that I might have even higher levels than you and I'd sort of like to find out. How do I determine my level of exposure?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Of course nuclear and hydro are non starters here in the US mainly do to the greenies who only see returning to the Stone Age as the answer.

James Hansen and some his colleagues have come out in support of nuclear energy.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ar-power/?_r=0

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A couple of books worth reading:

The Great Warming - Brian Fagan



The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations eBook: Brian Fagan: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store

A Short History of Progress - Ronald Wright




A Short History of Progress: Ronald Wright: 9780887847066: Books - Amazon.ca

Holy crap Jack! Haven't you already given me enough homework? Although your bio did say you had a career in education. If you were a high school principal, then there's a good chance I spent some time in your office.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You haven't produced any figures to back up your claims. If you're referring to jackdale's list I do hope you noticed that the figures quoted weren't indicated as being specific to HV power generation so could be extremely skewed. When was the last time someone blew themselves up cooking on their nuclear stove?



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Once again, Jackdale produced the figures in the form of a chart. If you think his chart is misleading or has skewed information, then tell me HOW the results are skewed and what the actual numbers should be and why. But right now I have no reason to disbelieve the information Jackdale provided us with.

I think that someone probably blew themselves up on their nuclear stove about the same time someone else blew themselves up on their coal generated electric stove, which is probably never in both cases. Not sure why you think that's relevant, but I suppose anything to avoid actually looking at the dramatic difference in death rates between coal and nuclear generation of electricity.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

James Hansen and some his colleagues have come out in support of nuclear energy.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ar-power/?_r=0

Australia has 30% of the world's economically viable uranium deposits, is arguably the most geologically stable continent and has vast uninhabited inland regions. Yet we have 0 nuclear powered generation plants.

There's got to be a reason for that.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

If you were a high school principal, then there's a good chance I spent some time in your office.

Junior high assistant principal - the disciplinarian.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Once again, Jackdale produced the figures in the form of a chart. If you think his chart is misleading or has skewed information, then tell me HOW the results are skewed and what the actual numbers should be and why. But right now I have no reason to disbelieve the information Jackdale provided us with.

I think that someone probably blew themselves up on their nuclear stove about the same time someone else blew themselves up on their coal generated electric stove, which is probably never in both cases. Not sure why you think that's relevant, but I suppose anything to avoid actually looking at the dramatic difference in death rates between coal and nuclear generation of electricity.

With 10.9% of the world using nuclear generation spread out across 30 countries you should raise your concerns with recalcitrant world leaders. They appear oblivious to the millions of their taxpaying constituents dieing as a result of their poor policies on nuclear generation.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Australia has 30% of the world's economically viable uranium deposits, is arguably the most geologically stable continent and has vast uninhabited inland regions. Yet we have 0 nuclear powered generation plants.

There's got to be a reason for that.

That is obvious. Now what is that reason?

Australia's Uranium | Uranium Mining in Australia

This whole site seems to be worth exploring. It clearly has a bias.