Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

… meanwhile I would really honestly love for the various gurus here to address the following questions, raised earlier in the thread but neglected for more fashionable lines of battle in this area:

....

With regard to the latter fact, I would very genuinely appreciate an explanation of the often heard argument that increased CO2 levels will cause ocean acidification to the extent that coral reefs will no longer survive. I have frequently, frequently heard this stated, including in argumentation on CF recently, and yet coral reefs have flourished over vast swathes of geologic time (since near the dawning of multicellular life), most of which featured CO2 levels FAR in excess of those currently envisaged. How is this particular circle to be squared?

This is one thing I don't understand. If my swimming pool had the 8.1 pH value of the ocean, I'd be chucking a bunch of acid in it to pull it back down to a more reasonable 7.2 or neutral 7.0.

I also note the term "acidification" used in referring to the ocean when it is in fact quite the opposite, being alkaline. Strikes me as yet more doomsayer speak. Funny thing is, with aquatic life best suited to live in pH between 5.0 to 9.0, if the pH is going to change, it's actually changing in the right direction. I guess it really is true that bad news sells which no doubt means there's a fair swathe of funded research papers out there that decry the "damage" a slightly lower, yet still alkaline, pH will do to the marine ecosystem.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educati...uar10f_ph.html




Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Salty Mike]

I don't believe in "Global Warming" at least not by us tiny humans.

That being said I'm in The Central part of North Carolina USA where is is supposed to be COLD at Christmas. Yesterday on Christmas Day I went for a ride on my Gold Wing (motorcycle) wearing an Hawaiian short sleeved shirt, If I go today I'll want to wear shorts and flip flops.

Climate change is real around here this week anyhow.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Salty Mike

I don't believe in "Global Warming" at least not by us tiny humans.

That being said I'm in The Central part of North Carolina USA where is is supposed to be COLD at Christmas. Yesterday on Christmas Day I went for a ride on my Gold Wing (motorcycle) wearing an Hawaiian short sleeved shirt, If I go today I'll want to wear shorts and flip flops.

Climate change is real around here this week anyhow.

Well, we are not that "tiny" anymore vis a vis this little blue dot. The anthropocene is aptly named.

[Mike OReilly]

Without trying to reprise the climate change discussion, I think you guys (Exile & LE) are probably correct about the political price of expanded nuclear energy being too high right now. There are very real physical and security challenges with managing fission power, but just like with human-made climate change (sorry ... couldn't resist), the real barriers are political and social, not technological or physical.

Nuclear power is incredibly expensive. It should be, given the challenges already mentioned. And yes, it probably requires a lot of government/taxpayer support. All good things. The cost will allow market forces to do their thing, and leaving it in the hands of government vs private hands means we, The People, have at least a theoretical ability to direct the action.

But I feel I need to reiterate, I am not advocating more nuclear power as the best solution to the problems facing human civilization. I think real solutions lie in humanity coming back into balance with the planetary ecosystem(s) that support our species. This means lowering population AND reducing the resources/capita that we currently use. This is what I'd like to see happen.

But the realist in me knows this is not going to happen anytime soon (especially not the reduced resource-use part that we are responsible for). Given this, and given that I think human civilization is worth sustaining, expanded nuclear fission is the best of the bad options available to us right now.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Fair enough. TBH I did not have the energy to read through the thread in great detail, for precisely that reason. I read as much as I could bear and skimmed the rest. Apologies for that. CC is the entire reason for the thread, however.

Thanks, no harm no foul.

The nuclear discussion seems ...honest, useful and informative. Kind of more in the mood for that, than the CC bunfight. Must be the tryptophan overload from Christmas dinner.

No doubt I'll read something anti-AGW that's inane, and I'll respond, and if the mods don't card me, it's off to the races again. Would be nice to have a serious discussion here about AGW, but it doesn't seem possible.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The extreme left and right are both totalitarian. The ultimate goal of Marxism is the "withering away of the state." Fascists glorified the state.

Jackdale. You couldn't be more wrong. Marxists hold that the State is all supreme and the individual is submerged into the good of the State.

Both Fascism and Communism are State centric and are the antithesis of personal liberty and freedom. The freedom of the individual is best protected and expressed in a true free market society where the individual is free to choose.

A capitalist free market based society is the proven form of social organization that has produced the greatest freedom, social mobility and advancement for the masses. It is a shame that those opposed to personal liberty and a true free market have infected our schools, government and even business. Time for a free market counter revolution of thought I think.

[Reefmagnet]

Nuclear power. Where failure is not an option.






Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Jackdale. You couldn't be more wrong. Marxists hold that the State is all supreme and the individual is submerged into the good of the State.

Both Fascism and Communism are State centric and are the antithesis of personal liberty and freedom. The freedom of the individual is best protected and expressed in a true free market society where the individual is free to choose.

A capitalist free market based society is the proven form of social organization that has produced the greatest freedom, social mobility and advancement for the masses. It is a shame that those opposed to personal liberty and a true free market have infected our schools, government and even business. Time for a free market counter revolution of thought I think.

Have you read Marx or Engels?

"The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...ring/index.htm

Do not confuse it with Stalinism.

+++++++++++++++++++



The countries in the top left have a history of social democracy or democratic socialism.

+++++++++++++++++++

The American Dream is alive and well in Sweden | Business Insider

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Without trying to reprise the climate change discussion, I think you guys (Exile & LE) are probably correct about the political price of expanded nuclear energy being too high right now. There are very real physical and security challenges with managing fission power, but just like with human-made climate change (sorry ... couldn't resist), the real barriers are political and social, not technological or physical.

Nuclear power is incredibly expensive. It should be, given the challenges already mentioned. And yes, it probably requires a lot of government/taxpayer support. All good things. The cost will allow market forces to do their thing, and leaving it in the hands of government vs private hands means we, The People, have at least a theoretical ability to direct the action.

But I feel I need to reiterate, I am not advocating more nuclear power as the best solution to the problems facing human civilization. I think real solutions lie in humanity coming back into balance with the planetary ecosystem(s) that support our species. This means lowering population AND reducing the resources/capita that we currently use. This is what I'd like to see happen.

But the realist in me knows this is not going to happen anytime soon (especially not the reduced resource-use part that we are responsible for). Given this, and given that I think human civilization is worth sustaining, expanded nuclear fission is the best of the bad options available to us right now.

Your position strikes me anyway as perhaps one of a pragmatic idealist focused on realistic solutions, even if they ultimately only amount to the best of any number of bad choices. I find this much different than someone who is closer to a utopian ideologue with fixed, unrealistic desires but no viable solutions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

Your position strikes me anyway as perhaps one of a pragmatic idealist focused on realistic solutions, even if they ultimately only amount to the best of any number of bad choices. I find this much different than someone who is closer to a utopian ideologue with fixed, unrealistic desires but no viable solutions.

Definitely meant this to be positive towards Mike's approach, even though in hindsight it definitely could have been worded better!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nuclear power. Where failure is not an option.

Agreed ... it seems absolutely nuts to place a nuclear power plant in a tectonically active location like Fukushima. But we do this all the time. We have evolved to be very good at assessing small scale problems in the here and now, but appear to struggle with large scale issues that are distant and remote. This is why we constantly face the frontier and believe "us tiny humans" could never affect something as vast as all the fish in the sea, all the bison of the plains, or all the trees of the "endless" forests.

History is littered with our failures to appreciate Humanity's power and shortsightedness. Extinctions, ecological devastation, resource depletions, and now global climate change, is part of our legacy.

Luckily our genetic legacy also includes inventiveness, compassion, and an awareness of the future. I still believe it is possible for Humanity to step out of Nature and stop behaving like all other animals do. No other animal on this planet has voluntarily limited its impact on its ecosystem. Species hit natural barriers and then are forced to come into balance, either gently or harshly -- Nature doesn't care.

I think it's possible for Humanity to become the most unnatural species this planet has ever produced. We could step outside of Nature b/c unlike any other animal, we can see the where the ecological boundaries are, and we can predict the future. Perhaps most importantly, we can feel compassion about those in this future.

We can do it ... but I also think it's unlikely that we will.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Definitely meant this to be positive towards Mike's approach, even though in hindsight it definitely could have been worded better!

I took it as positive Exile. Just that it's a little melancholy ... which is a pretty accurate assessment of my views, especially after re-read my last message .

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Without trying to reprise the climate change discussion, I think you guys (Exile & LE) are probably correct about the political price of expanded nuclear energy being too high right now. There are very real physical and security challenges with managing fission power, but just like with human-made climate change (sorry ... couldn't resist), the real barriers are political and social, not technological or physical.

Nuclear power is incredibly expensive. It should be, given the challenges already mentioned. And yes, it probably requires a lot of government/taxpayer support. All good things. The cost will allow market forces to do their thing, and leaving it in the hands of government vs private hands means we, The People, have at least a theoretical ability to direct the action.

But I feel I need to reiterate, I am not advocating more nuclear power as the best solution to the problems facing human civilization. I think real solutions lie in humanity coming back into balance with the planetary ecosystem(s) that support our species. This means lowering population AND reducing the resources/capita that we currently use. This is what I'd like to see happen.

But the realist in me knows this is not going to happen anytime soon (especially not the reduced resource-use part that we are responsible for). Given this, and given that I think human civilization is worth sustaining, expanded nuclear fission is the best of the bad options available to us right now.

Well… with great respect (and I mean that) this view and that of reefmagnet and some others is seriously out of date with regard to the potential of nuclear power. Fukushima was a terrible and stupid incident, but it was so precisely because its reactors were hopelessly out of date, rod and core style set ups. Suggesting that all nuclear power is massively expensive and massively dangerous based upon the likes of Fukushima is like saying all air travel is horrifically dangerous and tenuous based on the Hindenburg disaster. Fukushima was comissioned in 1970 to a design dating from the 1950s.

Reactors can be made very small, and absolutely failsafe. Fukushima et all occurred because the control rods vs fuel rods in the core idea allows for rods to overheat, bend, jam, and come together in a runaway post critical reaction, mediated only by a failure of the cooling systems. This is a really stupid set up. Pebble bed reactors have "pebbles", not rods, and do not rely on control rods to slow the reaction down, nor cooling systems. The fuel is contained within many layers of extremely high temperature resistant ceramics, such that no matter what happens to the reactor core in terms of "accident" etc. the fuel pellets cannot get closer to one another, making the system intrinsically failsafe and totally independent of the likes of Fukushimas (and Chernobyls) dreadfully tenuous reliance on the mobility of fuel rods and the functioning of massive cooling systems. It is also (and partly for this reason) far cheaper to build and run. Such systems can be used to electrolise seawater to produce hydrogen (and oxygen), providing unlimited fuel for hydrogen fuel cell powerplants, vehicles, etc. whose only by product is water, as the reaction on the return side catalyses hydrogen and oxygen into H20, producing electrical energy as part of the process.

Such reactors can be modular, down to the size of small containers.

http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/papers...r%20Energy.pdf

Small Nuclear Power Reactors.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Have you read Marx or Engels?

"The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...ring/index.htm

Do not confuse it with Stalinism.

+++++++++++++++++++



The countries in the top left have a history of social democracy or democratic socialism.

+++++++++++++++++++

The American Dream is alive and well in Sweden | Business Insider

Quite right, but unfortunately humans just don't do what Marx and Engels said/hoped they would, though the greatest flaw in Marx was his, to me inexplicable except his impatience, suggesting that the dialectic process would not in and of itself be sufficient to bring this about, and that consequently violent revolution would be necessary. This not only eviscerated his dialectical theory of social history, but allowed for the rise of all manner of monsters, such as Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Rather than magically bringing about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" it effectively caused a dramatic de ratcheting of the dialectical process, allowing these states to slip back to what amounted to a robber baron fuedalism in all but name.

[SV THIRD DAY]

If MMGW was real....we would have Pebble Bed rectors in every city...CO2 emission problem solved....next up for the racist left would be.....drum roll.....