Discussion:
[OT] Flee Global Warming to the Safety of a New Ice Age!
Add Reply
Quadibloc
2021-08-07 20:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Remember when Dr. James Hansen noted that one possible consequence
of global warming could be a disturbance of the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic that could lead to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, with
a new ice age as a possible result?

Looks like he may have been right.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-07 22:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Remember when Dr. James Hansen noted that one possible consequence
of global warming could be a disturbance of the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic that could lead to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, with
a new ice age as a possible result?
Looks like he may have been right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html
I have been saying for years that the fancy computer models don't
model the glaciation cycle, and, since the ice core data shows that we
are very close to the transition point chronologically, their
neglecting this was a grievous error. Nobody wants to listen, they're
so sure that the narrative they've been fed about astronomical forcing
is The Truth even though all but one of the astronomical forcings
appear as noise in the climate record, and the one that has a duration
on the same scale as the glaciation cycle is the weakest of them.

So the trigger triggers, global warming ends, and the do-gooders have
to find something else to whine about. Where's the problem?

Oh, I know, numrous Dire Consequences are predicted by the models.
Funny thing, humans survived the last glaciation without all our fancy
technology. And did it in those places where the fancy models say
that the Consequences will be Direst.
Quadibloc
2021-08-08 02:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Funny thing, humans survived the last glaciation without all our fancy
technology.
The human race did. I would hesitate to claim that every individual's
chances for survival were unaffected.

And today we have a world divided into nations with borders, which
interferes with migrating away from changes in climate in any direction.

What is optimal for survival is a perfectly stable continuation of what
we've gotten used to, and we could have used our scientific knowledge
to avoid doing anything to interfere with that happening.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-08 05:05:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Funny thing, humans survived the last glaciation without all our fancy
technology.
The human race did. I would hesitate to claim that every individual's
chances for survival were unaffected.
And today we have a world divided into nations with borders, which
interferes with migrating away from changes in climate in any direction.
What is optimal for survival is a perfectly stable continuation of what
we've gotten used to, and we could have used our scientific knowledge
to avoid doing anything to interfere with that happening.
We would have to interfere to make it _not_ happen.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-08 14:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
What is optimal for survival is a perfectly stable continuation of what
we've gotten used to, and we could have used our scientific knowledge
to avoid doing anything to interfere with that happening.
We would have to interfere to make it _not_ happen.
Certainly it is true that ice ages and stuff happened naturally.

What is happening now, though, is happening much sooner and much more
quickly because of what people have been doing: burning vast amounts of
fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow, and now the bill is coming due.

If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2021-08-08 18:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
What is optimal for survival is a perfectly stable continuation of what
we've gotten used to, and we could have used our scientific knowledge
to avoid doing anything to interfere with that happening.
We would have to interfere to make it _not_ happen.
Certainly it is true that ice ages and stuff happened naturally.
What is happening now, though, is happening much sooner and much more
quickly because of what people have been doing: burning vast amounts of
fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow, and now the bill is coming due.
If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.
No, if energy use grows at the past and current rate of 2.3% per year, in
four hundred years the surface temperature of the earth will
be 212F just from the waste heat alone (in 1000 years, it
will rival the surface of sun).

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

"Let me restate that important point. No matter what the
technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would
require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun
within 1400 years."
James Nicoll
2021-08-08 20:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
What is optimal for survival is a perfectly stable continuation of what
we've gotten used to, and we could have used our scientific knowledge
to avoid doing anything to interfere with that happening.
We would have to interfere to make it _not_ happen.
Certainly it is true that ice ages and stuff happened naturally.
What is happening now, though, is happening much sooner and much more
quickly because of what people have been doing: burning vast amounts of
fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow, and now the bill is coming due.
If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.
No, if energy use grows at the past and current rate of 2.3% per year, in
four hundred years the surface temperature of the earth will
be 212F just from the waste heat alone (in 1000 years, it
will rival the surface of sun).
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
"Let me restate that important point. No matter what the
technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would
require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun
within 1400 years."
But wouldn't the invisible hand of the market provide people with the means to
survive being as hot as the surface of the sun?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Quadibloc
2021-09-15 06:30:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
But wouldn't the invisible hand of the market provide people with the means to
survive being as hot as the surface of the sun?
Even I don't believe that the free market can be trusted to deal with
externalities properly.

Thus, I congratulate Governor Newsom for staving off the victory of the
forces of evil in California.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-09-15 06:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Quadibloc
If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.
No, if energy use grows at the past and current rate of 2.3% per year, in
four hundred years the surface temperature of the earth will
be 212F just from the waste heat alone (in 1000 years, it
will rival the surface of sun).
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
"Let me restate that important point. No matter what the
technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would
require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun
within 1400 years."
You do raise a valid point.

However, fossil fuels heat up the planet by means of the greenhouse
effect, not just because of the energy they provide. So switching to nuclear
improves the situation considerably.

Of course, solar power is even better from this standpoint, since it uses
energy that is already coming in, whether we use it or not.

So I do think that switching to nuclear will give us breathing room, time in
which to find a way to reduce our energy usage.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2021-09-15 14:11:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Quadibloc
If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.
No, if energy use grows at the past and current rate of 2.3% per year, in
four hundred years the surface temperature of the earth will
be 212F just from the waste heat alone (in 1000 years, it
will rival the surface of sun).
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
"Let me restate that important point. No matter what the
technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would
require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun
within 1400 years."
You do raise a valid point.
However, fossil fuels heat up the planet by means of the greenhouse
effect, not just because of the energy they provide. So switching to nuclear
improves the situation considerably.
That is incorrect. All power is dissipated as work (i.e. heat).

The aformentioned analysis does not rely on the greenhouse effect
as the source of the warming.
Quadibloc
2021-09-15 14:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
However, fossil fuels heat up the planet by means of the greenhouse
effect, not just because of the energy they provide. So switching to nuclear
improves the situation considerably.
That is incorrect. All power is dissipated as work (i.e. heat).
The aformentioned analysis does not rely on the greenhouse effect
as the source of the warming.
Huh? Yes, nuclear power warms the Earth to an extent - the power it
generates all ends up as heat, due to the laws of thermodynamics. That
much is right.

However, fossil fuels do that too, but _in addition_ they cause the greenhouse
effect - preventing the Earth from radiating away the heat from the Sun as
effectively. So they warm the Earth up *much more* than nuclear power
producing the same amount of energy. In what way is that wrong?

While solar power doesn't warm the Earth, since it takes energy that is
coming to the Earth anyways, making it warmer whether it is used for
work or not.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2021-09-15 14:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
However, fossil fuels heat up the planet by means of the greenhouse
effect, not just because of the energy they provide. So switching to nuclear
improves the situation considerably.
That is incorrect. All power is dissipated as work (i.e. heat).
The aformentioned analysis does not rely on the greenhouse effect
as the source of the warming.
Huh? Yes, nuclear power warms the Earth to an extent - the power it
generates all ends up as heat, due to the laws of thermodynamics. That
much is right.
Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Fossil Fuels all generate heat as the byproduct.

Dr. Murphy's analysis assumed non-fossil fuels (since there aren't enough
of them to produce a 2.3% energy growth rate for 400 years much less 1000
years).
Post by Quadibloc
However, fossil fuels do that too, but _in addition_ they cause the greenhouse
effect - preventing the Earth from radiating away the heat from the Sun as
effectively. So they warm the Earth up *much more* than nuclear power
producing the same amount of energy. In what way is that wrong?
While solar power doesn't warm the Earth, since it takes energy that is
coming to the Earth anyways, making it warmer whether it is used for
work or not.
Solar power collectors are using energy that may otherwise have been reflected
back into space. There is a balance between the percentage of TSI that
is reflected back into space that is perturbed when either CO2 molecules
redirect the reflected TSI back to the planet or a solar panel absorbs
the energy and converts it to electrical work. Even wind power
removes solar energy from the wind and converts it to electrical work.

Re-read Dr. Murphy's fine articles.

The transuranics should be considered fossil fuels technically. They're
just a few :-) years older than coal/oil/gas.
J. Clarke
2021-09-15 20:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
However, fossil fuels heat up the planet by means of the greenhouse
effect, not just because of the energy they provide. So switching to nuclear
improves the situation considerably.
That is incorrect. All power is dissipated as work (i.e. heat).
The aformentioned analysis does not rely on the greenhouse effect
as the source of the warming.
Huh? Yes, nuclear power warms the Earth to an extent - the power it
generates all ends up as heat, due to the laws of thermodynamics. That
much is right.
However, fossil fuels do that too, but _in addition_ they cause the greenhouse
effect - preventing the Earth from radiating away the heat from the Sun as
effectively. So they warm the Earth up *much more* than nuclear power
producing the same amount of energy. In what way is that wrong?
While solar power doesn't warm the Earth, since it takes energy that is
coming to the Earth anyways, making it warmer whether it is used for
work or not.
That depends on whether the use of solar power means that more is
retained than would otherwise be the case.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-08 18:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
What is optimal for survival is a perfectly stable continuation of what
we've gotten used to, and we could have used our scientific knowledge
to avoid doing anything to interfere with that happening.
We would have to interfere to make it _not_ happen.
Certainly it is true that ice ages and stuff happened naturally.
What is happening now, though, is happening much sooner
For certain values of "much". According to the ice cores we are at
the point where it should be happening. And it is. Maybe it would
have been 100 years later. Maybe 500. As much as 1000 seems
unlikely.
Post by Quadibloc
and much more
quickly
Whenever it happens it seems to be quick. The peak actually seems to
be broadened a bit compared to prior cycles.
Post by Quadibloc
because of what people have been doing: burning vast amounts of
fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow, and now the bill is coming due.
What, a natural cycle follows its course?
Post by Quadibloc
If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.
Nope. No way it would have been that long. The spike in previous
transitions has been very narrow.
Quadibloc
2021-08-08 22:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.
Nope. No way it would have been that long. The spike in previous
transitions has been very narrow.
While the spike is also narrower because this change is artificial, it might
have been 10,000 or 100,000 years from now before any transition took place
at all.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-08 23:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
If we had switched over to nuclear before this started, then we might have had
to worry about an ice age coming 10,000 years from now.
Nope. No way it would have been that long. The spike in previous
transitions has been very narrow.
While the spike is also narrower because this change is artificial, it might
have been 10,000 or 100,000 years from now before any transition took place
at all.
The entire glaciation cycle is 100,000 years. It's 100,000 years
since the last transition. It's not going to wait another 10,000 or
100,000 years.
Quadibloc
2021-08-09 04:12:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The entire glaciation cycle is 100,000 years. It's 100,000 years
since the last transition. It's not going to wait another 10,000 or
100,000 years.
Are you seriously going to claim that global warming is not anthropgenic,
and is not an urgent world crisis? This is not in agreement with the
consensus of the world's qualified and accredited climate scientists.

I think there is only _one_ maverick climate scientist who has not been
found to have been on the payroll of the oil companies, which is why I
find it difficult to assign any credibility whatsoever to "climate skepticism".

After all, science depends on objectivity - and a very common source of
error is wishful thinking. If nuclear energy is excluded from consideration -
as it often is - then it seems as if the only alternative to business as usual
would be to wreck the economy and imperil national defense. No wonder
people are tempted to deny that there is a global warming crisis!

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-09 06:19:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
The entire glaciation cycle is 100,000 years. It's 100,000 years
since the last transition. It's not going to wait another 10,000 or
100,000 years.
Are you seriously going to claim that global warming is not anthropgenic,
and is not an urgent world crisis? This is not in agreement with the
consensus of the world's qualified and accredited climate scientists.
No, I am claiming that the glaciation cycle has a known duration, that
there is a periodic trigger that switches from warming to cooling or
cooling to warming, that when the warming trigger occurs the rise time
until the cooling trigger is about 10,000 years, that the cooling
trigger occurs somewhere between 250 and 300 ppm CO2, that the warming
trigger occurred about 10,000 years ago, and that the CO2 passed
300ppm about 100 years ago.

Ergo the cooling trigger is due to flip.
Post by Quadibloc
I think there is only _one_ maverick climate scientist who has not been
found to have been on the payroll of the oil companies, which is why I
find it difficult to assign any credibility whatsoever to "climate skepticism".
Now let's see, we're discussing an article that says that the cooling
trigger may flip, I'm agreeing with the article, and for some reason
you're attacking me as if I was claiming that global warming wasn't
occurring.
Post by Quadibloc
After all, science depends on objectivity - and a very common source of
error is wishful thinking. If nuclear energy is excluded from consideration -
as it often is - then it seems as if the only alternative to business as usual
would be to wreck the economy and imperil national defense. No wonder
people are tempted to deny that there is a global warming crisis!
And objectivity recognizes the existence of a glaciation cycle.

Have you ever LOOKED at the Vostok Ice Core data? Invert the
horizontal sweep signal in an analog television and you have something
that looks an awful lot like the temperature trace during the
glaciation cycle.
Robert Carnegie
2021-08-09 13:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
The entire glaciation cycle is 100,000 years. It's 100,000 years
since the last transition. It's not going to wait another 10,000 or
100,000 years.
Are you seriously going to claim that global warming is not anthropgenic,
and is not an urgent world crisis? This is not in agreement with the
consensus of the world's qualified and accredited climate scientists.
No, I am claiming that the glaciation cycle has a known duration, that
there is a periodic trigger that switches from warming to cooling or
cooling to warming, that when the warming trigger occurs the rise time
until the cooling trigger is about 10,000 years, that the cooling
trigger occurs somewhere between 250 and 300 ppm CO2, that the warming
trigger occurred about 10,000 years ago, and that the CO2 passed
300ppm about 100 years ago.
Ergo the cooling trigger is due to flip.
Post by Quadibloc
I think there is only _one_ maverick climate scientist who has not been
found to have been on the payroll of the oil companies, which is why I
find it difficult to assign any credibility whatsoever to "climate skepticism".
Now let's see, we're discussing an article that says that the cooling
trigger may flip, I'm agreeing with the article, and for some reason
you're attacking me as if I was claiming that global warming wasn't
occurring.
Post by Quadibloc
After all, science depends on objectivity - and a very common source of
error is wishful thinking. If nuclear energy is excluded from consideration -
as it often is - then it seems as if the only alternative to business as usual
would be to wreck the economy and imperil national defense. No wonder
people are tempted to deny that there is a global warming crisis!
And objectivity recognizes the existence of a glaciation cycle.
Have you ever LOOKED at the Vostok Ice Core data? Invert the
horizontal sweep signal in an analog television and you have something
that looks an awful lot like the temperature trace during the
glaciation cycle.
So the claim is that natural global warming /causes/
an Ice Age. And human global warming causes it sooner.

So it's still bad and also we won't have any fossil fuels left
when it comes.
J. Clarke
2021-08-09 16:27:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 06:24:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
The entire glaciation cycle is 100,000 years. It's 100,000 years
since the last transition. It's not going to wait another 10,000 or
100,000 years.
Are you seriously going to claim that global warming is not anthropgenic,
and is not an urgent world crisis? This is not in agreement with the
consensus of the world's qualified and accredited climate scientists.
No, I am claiming that the glaciation cycle has a known duration, that
there is a periodic trigger that switches from warming to cooling or
cooling to warming, that when the warming trigger occurs the rise time
until the cooling trigger is about 10,000 years, that the cooling
trigger occurs somewhere between 250 and 300 ppm CO2, that the warming
trigger occurred about 10,000 years ago, and that the CO2 passed
300ppm about 100 years ago.
Ergo the cooling trigger is due to flip.
Post by Quadibloc
I think there is only _one_ maverick climate scientist who has not been
found to have been on the payroll of the oil companies, which is why I
find it difficult to assign any credibility whatsoever to "climate skepticism".
Now let's see, we're discussing an article that says that the cooling
trigger may flip, I'm agreeing with the article, and for some reason
you're attacking me as if I was claiming that global warming wasn't
occurring.
Post by Quadibloc
After all, science depends on objectivity - and a very common source of
error is wishful thinking. If nuclear energy is excluded from consideration -
as it often is - then it seems as if the only alternative to business as usual
would be to wreck the economy and imperil national defense. No wonder
people are tempted to deny that there is a global warming crisis!
And objectivity recognizes the existence of a glaciation cycle.
Have you ever LOOKED at the Vostok Ice Core data? Invert the
horizontal sweep signal in an analog television and you have something
that looks an awful lot like the temperature trace during the
glaciation cycle.
So the claim is that natural global warming /causes/
an Ice Age. And human global warming causes it sooner.
No, the claim is that the conditions for the trigger occurred some
time ago and now we're just watching the hammer fall.
Post by Robert Carnegie
So it's still bad and also we won't have any fossil fuels left
when it comes.
Which is pretty much a given unless you think that there are enough
fossil fuels to last the 120,000 or so years to the next temperature
peak. For the last three cycles the CO2 peak was 300, 275, and 280,
roughly. So 275 seems to be enough to trigger cooling and we hit that
more than 1000 years ago.
Quadibloc
2021-08-09 17:51:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Which is pretty much a given unless you think that there are enough
fossil fuels to last the 120,000 or so years to the next temperature
peak.
In that case, it's time for plan B. Self-reproducing machines in the asteroid
belt to enable us to harness an appreciable fraction of the energy output
of the Sun.

That should be enough to put paid to any ice age. In fact, the main problem
would be avoiding melting the entire Earth.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-09 17:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Now let's see, we're discussing an article that says that the cooling
trigger may flip, I'm agreeing with the article, and for some reason
you're attacking me as if I was claiming that global warming wasn't
occurring.
A lot of the people who do clain global warming isn't anthropogenic
claim that instead it is the result of natural cycles, and humans burning
fossil fuels have no real effect.

Yes, back in the 1970s, it had been noted that the world was getting
cooler, and there were indications that we were nearing the end of an
interglacial period. As far as I know, though, indications aren't definite
enough to be able to say that a natural return to ice age conditions
is imminent.

Global warming can interfere with the Gulf Stream in such a way as
to hasten colder conditions dramatically, although it's still speculative
as to whether or not this is actually happening. But it is a distinct
possibility.

The idea that if a new ice age comes, it is going to be solely due to
natural cycles, immune to any disturbance from human activity, certainly
appears to me to be of a piece with the thinking of those who claim that
any warming trend in the climate we see is solely due to natural cycles,
immune to human interference.

With a growing population, and the industrialization of additional parts
of the globe, Man's impact on the environment has been increasing.
The "ozone hole" was the first indication that human activity has ceased
to be insignificant on the scale of the global environment. AGW is now
a case in which it is going to be vital for us to show that we have heeded
the warning that gave us.

That in the future we might have to take control of the Earth's climate
to maintain stable conditions - until we're in a position to let go, because
we have other means of protecting Earth's population from harm due to
a climate change - is another question. At present, we have the means to
do neither - we can't transport a large proportion of Earth's population to
O'Neill-style space colonies, and we can't safely and predictably affect the
Earth's climate, even if we seem to be able to disturb it in unpredictable
but potentially catastrophic ways.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-09 18:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Now let's see, we're discussing an article that says that the cooling
trigger may flip, I'm agreeing with the article, and for some reason
you're attacking me as if I was claiming that global warming wasn't
occurring.
A lot of the people who do clain global warming isn't anthropogenic
claim that instead it is the result of natural cycles, and humans burning
fossil fuels have no real effect.
Yes, back in the 1970s, it had been noted that the world was getting
cooler, and there were indications that we were nearing the end of an
interglacial period. As far as I know, though, indications aren't definite
enough to be able to say that a natural return to ice age conditions
is imminent.
Global warming can interfere with the Gulf Stream in such a way as
to hasten colder conditions dramatically, although it's still speculative
as to whether or not this is actually happening. But it is a distinct
possibility.
Something causes glaciation to start. It has done this repeatably and
reliably for at least 7 cycles. Given that the Antarctic ice is 4 or
more glaciation cycles deep while the Greenland ice is at most
slightly over 1 glaciation deep, it would seem likely that a
substantial amount of melting in Greenland is part of the process. So
that interference with the Gulf Stream may very well be part of the
process.
Post by Quadibloc
The idea that if a new ice age comes, it is going to be solely due to
natural cycles, immune to any disturbance from human activity, certainly
appears to me to be of a piece with the thinking of those who claim that
any warming trend in the climate we see is solely due to natural cycles,
immune to human interference.
There is no "if". A new ice age is due. It is going to happen unless
humans take positive action to circumvent the natural climate cycle.
The conditions that occurred at the end of each previous interglacial
seem to have happened a thousand or so years ago. If humans causes
that it's way, way, way too late to undo it.
Post by Quadibloc
With a growing population, and the industrialization of additional parts
of the globe, Man's impact on the environment has been increasing.
The "ozone hole" was the first indication that human activity has ceased
to be insignificant on the scale of the global environment. AGW is now
a case in which it is going to be vital for us to show that we have heeded
the warning that gave us.
Which has exactly what to do with the glaciation cycle?
Post by Quadibloc
That in the future we might have to take control of the Earth's climate
to maintain stable conditions - until we're in a position to let go, because
we have other means of protecting Earth's population from harm due to
a climate change - is another question.
If we are going to prevent glaciation there is no "might" about it.
Post by Quadibloc
At present, we have the means to
do neither - we can't transport a large proportion of Earth's population to
O'Neill-style space colonies, and we can't safely and predictably affect the
Earth's climate, even if we seem to be able to disturb it in unpredictable
but potentially catastrophic ways.
Well there you go, you admit that we can't predict the effects of our
actions on climate. Which means that you reject the validity of the
existing climate models.
Quadibloc
2021-08-10 03:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
If we are going to prevent glaciation there is no "might" about it.
If we are going to prevent glaciation _ever_, yes. But preventing
glaciation happening much earlier than it would naturally take place,
due to our disturbance of natural phenomena such as the Gulf
Stream, is another matter.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-10 04:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If we are going to prevent glaciation there is no "might" about it.
If we are going to prevent glaciation _ever_, yes. But preventing
glaciation happening much earlier than it would naturally take place,
due to our disturbance of natural phenomena such as the Gulf
Stream, is another matter.
Since it already due to take place, your concern over having it happen
"much earlier than it would naturally take place" is pointless.

Have you looked at the Vostok Ice Core data yet? Please answer "yes"
or "no".
Quadibloc
2021-08-10 05:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Have you looked at the Vostok Ice Core data yet? Please answer "yes"
or "no".
I hadn't, so I went here:

http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

If the pattern of the previous temperature peaks had continued, the temperature
would have started falling from its maximum as soon as it hit that maximum, about
8,000 years ago, as best I can make out from the diagram. Ah, a later one is on a
larger scale - 12,000 years ago.

However, I see that this site is called "Energy Matters", and so it could be
intended to decieve or confuse people in the interests of oil companies.

If I go here, the new ice age should be thousands of years away:

https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-ocean/abrupt-climate-change/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-little-ice-age/

And then there's this:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

On the other hand, this page

https://sites.google.com/site/bensonfamilyhomepage/Home/ice-age-and-global-warming

again, frankly in opposition to the scientific consensus about AGW,
shows explicitly that only a small areaea around the temperature peaks
is considered an interglacial period.

However, in a quick Google search, I have _not_ been able to locate any
site in which the Vostok ice core data is directly confronted, to explain why
we are not actually long overdue for the end of the current interglacial,
with a return to normal ice age conditions that our fossil fuel use has only
briefly delayed.

It's still possible that more moderate fossil fuel use could continue delaying
this return, while current high levels, leading to unnaturally high recent temperatures,
could hasten the return by turning off the Gulf Stream.

But it is not clear that those concerned with global warming are taking our
interglacial status under consideration from what I can find.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-10 12:22:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Have you looked at the Vostok Ice Core data yet? Please answer "yes"
or "no".
http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/
If the pattern of the previous temperature peaks had continued, the temperature
would have started falling from its maximum as soon as it hit that maximum, about
8,000 years ago, as best I can make out from the diagram. Ah, a later one is on a
larger scale - 12,000 years ago.
However, I see that this site is called "Energy Matters", and so it could be
intended to decieve or confuse people in the interests of oil companies.
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-ocean/abrupt-climate-change/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-little-ice-age/
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/
On the other hand, this page
https://sites.google.com/site/bensonfamilyhomepage/Home/ice-age-and-global-warming
again, frankly in opposition to the scientific consensus about AGW,
shows explicitly that only a small areaea around the temperature peaks
is considered an interglacial period.
However, in a quick Google search, I have _not_ been able to locate any
site in which the Vostok ice core data is directly confronted, to explain why
we are not actually long overdue for the end of the current interglacial,
with a return to normal ice age conditions that our fossil fuel use has only
briefly delayed.
It's still possible that more moderate fossil fuel use could continue delaying
this return, while current high levels, leading to unnaturally high recent temperatures,
could hasten the return by turning off the Gulf Stream.
But it is not clear that those concerned with global warming are taking our
interglacial status under consideration from what I can find.
Bingo. Now you see it.

Read the last paragraph of your second link above.

"Researchers always tell you that more research funding is needed, and
we are not any different. Our main message is not just that, however.
It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt
climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the
capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the
consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living
around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for
climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might
actually occur."

By the way, Vostok used to be the goto, and still is because it's the
most studied and most accessible, but there are deeper cores. EPICA
is starting to become easily accessible and recently there have been
cores drilled that should go back more than 2 million years--they are
still being processed though so no easily accessible results seem to
be available.

There is also Greenland data and it tells its own interesting story.
You noted that cooling should have begun around 10,000 years ago. The
Greenland cores (google "GISP ice core") show that it did and was
interrupted. And now there's a small amount of evidence surfacing
that there was a large meteoric impact on Greenland around that
time--how it would have interrupted the cooling is not clear though.
Quadibloc
2021-08-11 02:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, Vostok used to be the goto, and still is because it's the
most studied and most accessible, but there are deeper cores. EPICA
is starting to become easily accessible and recently there have been
cores drilled that should go back more than 2 million years--they are
still being processed though so no easily accessible results seem to
be available.
Of course, though, Vostok and Epica are saying the same thing.

It's possible to reconcile them with AGW on the basis of this data being
related to a longer timescale, while AGW will cause disastrous excessive
warming on a much shorter timescale.

And _if_ that reconciliation is done, that this "much shorter timescale"
might include the Gulf Stream shutting down, and Ice Age conditions
starting up shortly - that wouldn't be a problem.

Except, of course, that the Vostok and Epica data shows that historically
interglacials usually were quite short... and our current one has lasted
for longer than usual. If we're overdue for an ice age, then it seems
reasonable to say that if one comes, it's "natural".

I don't have a problem, though, with people coming to this conclusion, despite
it being hard to see it as consistent with Vostok/EPICA, and easy to see it as
a rationalization:

Yes, fossil fuel use delayed the end of the interglacial. And if it continued
at *1960s* levels, it might continue to do that. Of late, though, its increased
enough to not only cause dangerously warm temperatures - but also to
upset the climate system. Trigerring the Gulf Stream shutting down is one
of the possible consequences.

So totally abandoning fossil fuel use (except perhaps as a temporary
measure) isn't the right answer either - limiting it to the historical levels
that have prolonged the interglacial is what we need to do.

And my personal input is: since we can't afford to cut energy use, good thing
we've got nuclear.

Of course, this is now getting into the realm of *micromanaging* the
climate, as opposed to human actions being the sole cause of catastrophe.

If climate scientists are avoiding explaining this complicated stuff because
it's a harder sell, I'm not worried.

The ice core data does say that previous interglacials didn't get as warm
as we are now, nor did they behave the way this one is behaving. So even
though it says we're overdue for an ice age, it can be argued that it doesn't
refute global warming.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-11 11:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, Vostok used to be the goto, and still is because it's the
most studied and most accessible, but there are deeper cores. EPICA
is starting to become easily accessible and recently there have been
cores drilled that should go back more than 2 million years--they are
still being processed though so no easily accessible results seem to
be available.
Of course, though, Vostok and Epica are saying the same thing.
Well yes, they are. That's expected and desirable.
Post by Quadibloc
It's possible to reconcile them with AGW on the basis of this data being
related to a longer timescale, while AGW will cause disastrous excessive
warming on a much shorter timescale.
Why do you need to "reconcile" anything? "AGW" is noise in the
signal.
Post by Quadibloc
And _if_ that reconciliation is done, that this "much shorter timescale"
might include the Gulf Stream shutting down, and Ice Age conditions
starting up shortly - that wouldn't be a problem.
Which is what is expected.
Post by Quadibloc
Except, of course, that the Vostok and Epica data shows that historically
interglacials usually were quite short... and our current one has lasted
for longer than usual. If we're overdue for an ice age, then it seems
reasonable to say that if one comes, it's "natural".
And Greenland, which you conveniently ignore, just as you
conveniently ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your narratives,
shows that something extraordinary happened about 12,000 years ago.
Which, unless Doctor Who was involved or there really was an Atlantis
with a high tech civilization or some such, pretty much lets out human
activity.
Post by Quadibloc
I don't have a problem, though, with people coming to this conclusion, despite
it being hard to see it as consistent with Vostok/EPICA, and easy to see it as
Yes, fossil fuel use delayed the end of the interglacial. And if it continued
at *1960s* levels, it might continue to do that. Of late, though, its increased
enough to not only cause dangerously warm temperatures - but also to
upset the climate system. Trigerring the Gulf Stream shutting down is one
of the possible consequences.
That would be true if you had evidence that cooling was occurring
until the 1960s. The cooling started in the Younger Dryas and then
stopped.
Post by Quadibloc
So totally abandoning fossil fuel use (except perhaps as a temporary
measure) isn't the right answer either - limiting it to the historical levels
that have prolonged the interglacial is what we need to do.
In terms of the glaciation cycle, totally abandoning fossil fuel is a
given. There might be enough to last another hundred years, or
another thousand, there almost certainly isn't enough to last another
100,000.

And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the interglacial"
even though the evidence suggests that the preservation started
thousands of years ago.
Post by Quadibloc
And my personal input is: since we can't afford to cut energy use, good thing
we've got nuclear.
Of course, this is now getting into the realm of *micromanaging* the
climate, as opposed to human actions being the sole cause of catastrophe.
If climate scientists are avoiding explaining this complicated stuff because
it's a harder sell, I'm not worried.
They are avoiding it becauase creating models that account for it
would actually require them to do their jobs and might lead to a
result that ends the current panic and restores their funding to
pre-panic levels.
Post by Quadibloc
The ice core data does say that previous interglacials didn't get as warm
as we are now, nor did they behave the way this one is behaving. So even
though it says we're overdue for an ice age, it can be argued that it doesn't
refute global warming.
Since nobody here is trying to "refute global warming" why do you keep
belaboring that point. So it's warming, SO FUCKING WHAT.
Quadibloc
2021-08-11 15:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
If climate scientists are avoiding explaining this complicated stuff because
it's a harder sell, I'm not worried.
They are avoiding it becauase creating models that account for it
would actually require them to do their jobs and might lead to a
result that ends the current panic and restores their funding to
pre-panic levels.
Post by Quadibloc
The ice core data does say that previous interglacials didn't get as warm
as we are now, nor did they behave the way this one is behaving. So even
though it says we're overdue for an ice age, it can be argued that it doesn't
refute global warming.
Since nobody here is trying to "refute global warming" why do you keep
belaboring that point. So it's warming, SO FUCKING WHAT.
Apparently there's a lack of comprehension here. When I say "refute global
warming", I mean to refute the claim that the current "panic" is entirely the
appropriate and required response to the urgent crisis created by human
use of fossil fuels causing dangerously high levels of global warming.

By referring to it as a panic, it does seem that you are trying to do that.

I'm not saying you're trying to deny the weather.

But I am concerned, because it is indeed reasonable to have doubts if
my position is simply that whatever the High Priests of Science have
said must be right, and if the facts seem to say otherwise, it's just because
we poor ignorant laypersons are incapable of sorting out the confusion.

So I would indeed like the climate science community to explain carefully
why the apparent indications of an imminent end to the current interglacial
don't matter - while "the timescale is different, and much longer" is a
_possible_ reason, the shape of the graph doesn't quite seem to support it.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-11 16:39:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
If climate scientists are avoiding explaining this complicated stuff because
it's a harder sell, I'm not worried.
They are avoiding it becauase creating models that account for it
would actually require them to do their jobs and might lead to a
result that ends the current panic and restores their funding to
pre-panic levels.
Post by Quadibloc
The ice core data does say that previous interglacials didn't get as warm
as we are now, nor did they behave the way this one is behaving. So even
though it says we're overdue for an ice age, it can be argued that it doesn't
refute global warming.
Since nobody here is trying to "refute global warming" why do you keep
belaboring that point. So it's warming, SO FUCKING WHAT.
Apparently there's a lack of comprehension here. When I say "refute global
warming", I mean to refute the claim that the current "panic" is entirely the
appropriate and required response to the urgent crisis created by human
use of fossil fuels causing dangerously high levels of global warming.
By referring to it as a panic, it does seem that you are trying to do that.
I'm not saying you're trying to deny the weather.
But I am concerned, because it is indeed reasonable to have doubts if
my position is simply that whatever the High Priests of Science have
said must be right, and if the facts seem to say otherwise, it's just because
we poor ignorant laypersons are incapable of sorting out the confusion.
So I would indeed like the climate science community to explain carefully
why the apparent indications of an imminent end to the current interglacial
don't matter - while "the timescale is different, and much longer" is a
_possible_ reason, the shape of the graph doesn't quite seem to support it.
I'm going to give you a piece of advice. When someone agrees with
you, stop attacking them.
Quadibloc
2021-08-12 09:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm going to give you a piece of advice. When someone agrees with
you, stop attacking them.
My apologies, then. I misunderstood, and it appeared to me you did not
agree with me, even if I had to agree with you that your doubts indeed
seemed credible.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-11 15:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the interglacial"
even though the evidence suggests that the preservation started
thousands of years ago.
There are two explanations that come to mind.

1) Humans discovered fire thousands of years ago.

While burning wood is carbon-neutral, that assumes more wood is grown
in order that we have it to burn. If the pre-existing situation is that wood was
just growing, and the wood being burned was gathered rather than harvested
from agricultural activity, there could have been a net input.

2) The current ice age has come to an end, and so the current warm
period is not an interglacial. Hence, the Vostok cores pose no problem
for AGW.

Trend lines aren't always the way to play the stock market. However, if this
is the case, a scientific justification would also be desirable.

John Savard
pete...@gmail.com
2021-08-11 15:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the interglacial"
even though the evidence suggests that the preservation started
thousands of years ago.
There are two explanations that come to mind.
1) Humans discovered fire thousands of years ago.
While burning wood is carbon-neutral, that assumes more wood is grown
in order that we have it to burn. If the pre-existing situation is that wood was
just growing, and the wood being burned was gathered rather than harvested
from agricultural activity, there could have been a net input.
2) The current ice age has come to an end, and so the current warm
period is not an interglacial. Hence, the Vostok cores pose no problem
for AGW.
Trend lines aren't always the way to play the stock market. However, if this
is the case, a scientific justification would also be desirable.
There's a third one, less well known:

Human interference in the climate started earlier, about 3000 BC. The
mechanism wasn't CO2 from burning, but rather methane from wet
rice farming and cattle herding in Eurasia.

Example:

https://tinyurl.com/38rwp3cm

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254097442_The_contribution_of_rice_agriculture_and_livestock_pastoralism_to_prehistoric_methane_levels_An_archaeological_assessment
(you can browse researchgate without paying or setting up an account)

also:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/06/environment.theobserver

pt
J. Clarke
2021-08-11 16:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the interglacial"
even though the evidence suggests that the preservation started
thousands of years ago.
There are two explanations that come to mind.
1) Humans discovered fire thousands of years ago.
While burning wood is carbon-neutral, that assumes more wood is grown
in order that we have it to burn. If the pre-existing situation is that wood was
just growing, and the wood being burned was gathered rather than harvested
from agricultural activity, there could have been a net input.
2) The current ice age has come to an end, and so the current warm
period is not an interglacial. Hence, the Vostok cores pose no problem
for AGW.
Trend lines aren't always the way to play the stock market. However, if this
is the case, a scientific justification would also be desirable.
Human interference in the climate started earlier, about 3000 BC. The
mechanism wasn't CO2 from burning, but rather methane from wet
rice farming and cattle herding in Eurasia.
https://tinyurl.com/38rwp3cm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254097442_The_contribution_of_rice_agriculture_and_livestock_pastoralism_to_prehistoric_methane_levels_An_archaeological_assessment
(you can browse researchgate without paying or setting up an account)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/06/environment.theobserver
However the temperature has been fairly stable now for about 10,000
years.
Post by ***@gmail.com
pt
Quadibloc
2021-08-12 09:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by ***@gmail.com
Human interference in the climate started earlier, about 3000 BC. The
mechanism wasn't CO2 from burning, but rather methane from wet
rice farming and cattle herding in Eurasia.
However the temperature has been fairly stable now for about 10,000
years.
And, of course, that _seems_ to mean that what the IPCC is asking us
to believe is that...

Methane from wet rice farming and cattle herding in pre-industrial times caused
just exactly the right amount of global warming to keep the interglacial from
ending... as can clearly be seen from Vostok and EPICA, so it agrees with the
facts... but now our expanded agriculture, fossil fuel use, and so on is causing
additional global warming which will lead to catastrophe!

Even if one could argue that the ice core records substantiate that, since that
would mean that we had been the beneficiaries of an amazing coincidence,
some justification would be required. Or am I mistaken, and is the weak
anthropic principle sufficient?

In the latter case, we now have an explanation for the Fermi paradox.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-12 10:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by ***@gmail.com
Human interference in the climate started earlier, about 3000 BC. The
mechanism wasn't CO2 from burning, but rather methane from wet
rice farming and cattle herding in Eurasia.
However the temperature has been fairly stable now for about 10,000
years.
And, of course, that _seems_ to mean that what the IPCC is asking us
to believe is that...
Methane from wet rice farming and cattle herding in pre-industrial times caused
just exactly the right amount of global warming to keep the interglacial from
ending... as can clearly be seen from Vostok and EPICA, so it agrees with the
facts... but now our expanded agriculture, fossil fuel use, and so on is causing
additional global warming which will lead to catastrophe!
Even if one could argue that the ice core records substantiate that, since that
would mean that we had been the beneficiaries of an amazing coincidence,
some justification would be required. Or am I mistaken, and is the weak
anthropic principle sufficient?
In the latter case, we now have an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
To wit:

When an intelligent species arises on a given planet, it will do so
in an interglacial period, and 99.9999% of the time, one of two things
will happen:

- it will be wiped out by an ice age, or
- it will invent agriculture, which will cause catastrophic global warming,
which will wipe it out.

Earth just happens to be in the 0.0001% of worlds where what
happened instead was balanced on the knife-edge between those
two possibilities.

Of course, though, one might expect intelligent species to arise
on other planets where the climate is more stable - or on Earth,
during normal ice age conditions, humans could have evolved
in a part of the world that had a pleasant climate... like Africa,
say.

And of course, Africa *is* where humans evolved on Earth.
Hmm...

ObSF:
Fallen Angels (Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Michael Flynn)
Reunion (Arthur C. Clarke)

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-12 10:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 03:06:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by ***@gmail.com
Human interference in the climate started earlier, about 3000 BC. The
mechanism wasn't CO2 from burning, but rather methane from wet
rice farming and cattle herding in Eurasia.
However the temperature has been fairly stable now for about 10,000
years.
And, of course, that _seems_ to mean that what the IPCC is asking us
to believe is that...
Methane from wet rice farming and cattle herding in pre-industrial times caused
just exactly the right amount of global warming to keep the interglacial from
ending... as can clearly be seen from Vostok and EPICA, so it agrees with the
facts... but now our expanded agriculture, fossil fuel use, and so on is causing
additional global warming which will lead to catastrophe!
Even if one could argue that the ice core records substantiate that, since that
would mean that we had been the beneficiaries of an amazing coincidence,
some justification would be required. Or am I mistaken, and is the weak
anthropic principle sufficient?
In the latter case, we now have an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
When an intelligent species arises on a given planet, it will do so
in an interglacial period, and 99.9999% of the time, one of two things
- it will be wiped out by an ice age, or
- it will invent agriculture, which will cause catastrophic global warming,
which will wipe it out.
Earth just happens to be in the 0.0001% of worlds where what
happened instead was balanced on the knife-edge between those
two possibilities.
Of course, though, one might expect intelligent species to arise
on other planets where the climate is more stable - or on Earth,
during normal ice age conditions, humans could have evolved
in a part of the world that had a pleasant climate... like Africa,
say.
And of course, Africa *is* where humans evolved on Earth.
Hmm...
Fallen Angels (Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Michael Flynn)
Reunion (Arthur C. Clarke)
Very good. You _do_ have a sense of humor.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-13 01:31:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Very good. You _do_ have a sense of humor.
Why, thank you. It's about time someone noticed.

However, I have now come to another possible way to reconcile
the apparent incompatibility between well-known historical ice
core data and the universal acceptance of the danger of AGW
by the world's competent climate scientists.

I certainly have no evidence of anyone actually behaving in a
conspiratorial way...

Given:
The rich and powerful are not stupid, or they wouldn't have
become rich and powerful.

Given:
The consensus of the world scientific community is that the
continued large-scale use of fossil fuels at the present rate
makes catastrophe inevitable.

Then:
Why is so little being done to reduce fossil fuel use; enough
is being done to create photo ops, but not enough to prevent
cataclysm.

Possible explanations that have been put forward:
1) Cutting fossil fuel use to the degree required would result
in economic dislocation that would be a cure worse than the
disease; it would also weaken the industrial base of countries
that took action, leaving them open to foreign conquest.

2) Politicians are dependent on donations, and oil companies
have been making a lot of campaign donations.

However, excepting Donald Trump, I didn't think that all
politicians were _that_ stupid to allow (2) to lead us to
cataclysm, or to accept (1) without remembering that we
do know how to split the atom.

The ice core data showing that a new ice age is imminent -
but on a somewhat longer time scale than the global
warming catastrophe...

now supplies a sinister third possible explanation.

When the glaciers start rolling, the people of Europe
and North America are going to need *somewhere
to go*.

Spaceships to Mars aren't going to do the job, we
all know that.

In the ancient days of the cavemen, it would all be so
simple; we would just migrate south.

Today, well, there are a lot of people living in the tropical
countries of the world. Which are already poor due to
having more people than they can feed properly. Are they
going to welcome an influx of people who are accustomed
to both a higher standard of living and to getting their way?

I remember reading a news story about how global warming
could lead to heat waves in tropical countries with temperatures
so high as to be incompatible with human life - thus with
possible mass casualties.

So, there we are. Somewhere, there is the sinister cabal
of the Great White Conspiracy, and global warming is
being allowed to proceed unchecked because it's all
part of the plan: to wipe out the population of the
world's tropics, so that when the glaciers start rolling,
we will be easily able to move into the newly depopulated
tropical areas of the planet.

Of course this is a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but
the new data I have recieved is so inconsistent with
previous, also apparently valid, data that reconciliation
seems to lead to extreme conclusions.

I'm starting to understand how Norman felt when smoke
started coming out of his ears.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-12 09:45:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Human interference in the climate started earlier, about 3000 BC. The
mechanism wasn't CO2 from burning, but rather methane from wet
rice farming and cattle herding in Eurasia.
Ah, thank you. No doubt that is the correct answer.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2021-08-11 16:11:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the interglacial"
even though the evidence suggests that the preservation started
thousands of years ago.
There are two explanations that come to mind.
1) Humans discovered fire thousands of years ago.
While burning wood is carbon-neutral, that assumes more wood is grown
in order that we have it to burn. If the pre-existing situation is that wood was
just growing, and the wood being burned was gathered rather than harvested
from agricultural activity, there could have been a net input.
2) The current ice age has come to an end, and so the current warm
period is not an interglacial. Hence, the Vostok cores pose no problem
for AGW.
And the third explanation:

3) Neither of you have a clue about climate science.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-08-11 16:33:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:49:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the
interglacial" even though the evidence suggests that the
preservation started thousands of years ago.
There are two explanations that come to mind.
1) Humans discovered fire thousands of years ago.
While burning wood is carbon-neutral, that assumes more wood is
grown in order that we have it to burn. If the pre-existing
situation is that wood was just growing, and the wood being
burned was gathered rather than harvested from agricultural
activity, there could have been a net input.
2) The current ice age has come to an end, and so the current
warm period is not an interglacial. Hence, the Vostok cores pose
no problem for AGW.
3) Neither of you have a clue about climate science.
Why the three extra words at the end?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
J. Clarke
2021-08-11 16:43:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 08:36:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the interglacial"
even though the evidence suggests that the preservation started
thousands of years ago.
There are two explanations that come to mind.
1) Humans discovered fire thousands of years ago.
While burning wood is carbon-neutral, that assumes more wood is grown
in order that we have it to burn. If the pre-existing situation is that wood was
just growing, and the wood being burned was gathered rather than harvested
from agricultural activity, there could have been a net input.
Enough to have a major impact on climate? I'm not buying it without a
lot more evidence than there is.
Post by Quadibloc
2) The current ice age has come to an end, and so the current warm
period is not an interglacial. Hence, the Vostok cores pose no problem
for AGW.
That is indeed a possibility, but if that is the case then regardless
of what we do it's going to get a _lot_ warmer and there is going to
be no ice to speak of. That would indicate a return to the _normal_
state of the planet which is about 20 degrees warmer than at present.
Post by Quadibloc
Trend lines aren't always the way to play the stock market. However, if this
is the case, a scientific justification would also be desirable.
John Savard
Joe Bernstein
2021-08-21 22:17:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 08:36:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And you are assuming that fossil fuel use "preserved the
interglacial" even though the evidence suggests that the
preservation started thousands of years ago.
There are two explanations that come to mind.
2) The current ice age has come to an end, and so the current warm
period is not an interglacial. Hence, the Vostok cores pose no problem
for AGW.
That is indeed a possibility, but if that is the case then regardless
of what we do it's going to get a _lot_ warmer and there is going to
be no ice to speak of. That would indicate a return to the _normal_
state of the planet which is about 20 degrees warmer than at present.
What I've heard from writers who *may* know what they're talking
about is that the fundamental driver of glaciation is the position of
Antarctica at the South Pole. Until plate tectonics puts water there
again, we're going to be in a cold phase.

Could be wrong, but could be right, in which case there are still two
possibilities:

1) We're still in the glacial cycle, or
2) We've moved into a cold-but-not-glacial period. Antarctica was
already there in the Pliocene, for example, but the glaciers
weren't all over yet.

2) would obviously be the relatively happy ending, as compared both
to widespread glaciation and to a warm period. Of course, there's
no reason to think it would be stable, but it would buy us time.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer <***@gmail.com>
Hamish Laws
2021-08-28 05:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
If climate scientists are avoiding explaining this complicated stuff because
it's a harder sell, I'm not worried.
They are avoiding it becauase creating models that account for it
would actually require them to do their jobs and might lead to a
result that ends the current panic and restores their funding to
pre-panic levels.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=366&&a=53
has an actual explanation.
But that wouldn't fit with your desire to have a fig leaf for not giving a damn about the effects of human driven climate change so I'm sure you'll just ignore it and pull your favored bullshit story out again in the future.
Quadibloc
2021-08-13 15:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
However, in a quick Google search, I have _not_ been able to locate any
site in which the Vostok ice core data is directly confronted,
I have now come across _this_ site, which at least _claims_ to do so:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/what-does-the-vostok-ice-core-tell-us/

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-13 16:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
However, in a quick Google search, I have _not_ been able to locate any
site in which the Vostok ice core data is directly confronted,
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/what-does-the-vostok-ice-core-tell-us/
This site

https://climateilluminated.com/CO2_facts/CO2_history/Review_NASA_ice_core_data.html

is written from the perspective of global warming being a hoax. So their point is that if one
applies a sufficiently large smoothing filter, simulating the precision of ice core data, to a
composite graph, including both ice core data, and what we know about present-day
carbon dioxide concentrations directly... we can't see the present-day rise in carbon dioxide
concentrations.

So there's nothing to rule out previous drastic rises in carbon dioxide concentrations that
we are unable to see.

True enough, but we know how much fuel we're burning, so we know where today's
carbon dioxide is coming from.

In any case, the composite graph shows the "hockey stick" - that while we may have been
due for a natural ice age, our current carbon dioxide levels are *far above* those shown in
the ice core graph.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-13 17:29:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
However, in a quick Google search, I have _not_ been able to locate any
site in which the Vostok ice core data is directly confronted,
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/what-does-the-vostok-ice-core-tell-us/
This site
https://climateilluminated.com/CO2_facts/CO2_history/Review_NASA_ice_core_data.html
is written from the perspective of global warming being a hoax. So their point is that if one
applies a sufficiently large smoothing filter, simulating the precision of ice core data, to a
composite graph, including both ice core data, and what we know about present-day
carbon dioxide concentrations directly... we can't see the present-day rise in carbon dioxide
concentrations.
So there's nothing to rule out previous drastic rises in carbon dioxide concentrations that
we are unable to see.
True enough, but we know how much fuel we're burning, so we know where today's
carbon dioxide is coming from.
In any case, the composite graph shows the "hockey stick" - that while we may have been
due for a natural ice age, our current carbon dioxide levels are *far above* those shown in
the ice core graph.
Note that he does the old trick of not putting his baseline at zero.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-08-13 21:02:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, the composite graph shows the "hockey stick" - that while we may have been
due for a natural ice age, our current carbon dioxide levels are *far above* those shown in
the ice core graph.
Note that he does the old trick of not putting his baseline at zero.
a) He is not trying to convince anyone that global warming is a real
threat; instead, his purpose is to debunk it. So he was fooled by
someone else pulling that trick into copying graphs that exaggerated
the severity of global warming. Hence: wrong pronoun on your part.

c) In any case: in the depths of an ice age, CO2 is at 180 ppm. During
a natural interglacial, it goes up to around 280 ppm. What is it now?
Over 400 ppm. The baseline isn't far enough from zero to have made
an inconsequential change look large; the change _is_ large.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-21 23:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, the composite graph shows the "hockey stick" - that while we may have been
due for a natural ice age, our current carbon dioxide levels are *far above* those shown in
the ice core graph.
Note that he does the old trick of not putting his baseline at zero.
a) He is not trying to convince anyone that global warming is a real
threat; instead, his purpose is to debunk it. So he was fooled by
someone else pulling that trick into copying graphs that exaggerated
the severity of global warming. Hence: wrong pronoun on your part.
c) In any case: in the depths of an ice age, CO2 is at 180 ppm. During
a natural interglacial, it goes up to around 280 ppm. What is it now?
Over 400 ppm. The baseline isn't far enough from zero to have made
an inconsequential change look large; the change _is_ large.
John Savard
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period. I do suspect that many
species might be uncomfortable with 0.8% CO2 in the atmosphere though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere

Lynn
J. Clarke
2021-08-21 23:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:04:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, the composite graph shows the "hockey stick" - that while we may have been
due for a natural ice age, our current carbon dioxide levels are *far above* those shown in
the ice core graph.
Note that he does the old trick of not putting his baseline at zero.
a) He is not trying to convince anyone that global warming is a real
threat; instead, his purpose is to debunk it. So he was fooled by
someone else pulling that trick into copying graphs that exaggerated
the severity of global warming. Hence: wrong pronoun on your part.
c) In any case: in the depths of an ice age, CO2 is at 180 ppm. During
a natural interglacial, it goes up to around 280 ppm. What is it now?
Over 400 ppm. The baseline isn't far enough from zero to have made
an inconsequential change look large; the change _is_ large.
John Savard
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period. I do suspect that many
species might be uncomfortable with 0.8% CO2 in the atmosphere though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
This is something that is systematically ignored by the alarmists.
They also tell us that we'll all starve due to massive drought and no
plant life, and yet somehow the massive drought and no plant life was
able to support whale-sized land herbivores.
Quadibloc
2021-08-22 06:53:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
They also tell us that we'll all starve due to massive drought and no
plant life, and yet somehow the massive drought and no plant life was
able to support whale-sized land herbivores.
Assume that when climate change causes crops to fail in a Third World
country, the countries next door won't welcome migrants from there.

*Some* people will starve. People in other countries will find a way.

I don't want *anyone* to die. Hopefully, someday you will realize that this
is the only ethical viewpoint.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-22 12:22:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
They also tell us that we'll all starve due to massive drought and no
plant life, and yet somehow the massive drought and no plant life was
able to support whale-sized land herbivores.
Assume that when climate change causes crops to fail in a Third World
country, the countries next door won't welcome migrants from there.
*Some* people will starve. People in other countries will find a way.
I don't want *anyone* to die. Hopefully, someday you will realize that this
is the only ethical viewpoint.
So with all these crop failures what did dinosaurs eat?
Hamish Laws
2021-08-28 06:24:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:04:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period. I do suspect that many
species might be uncomfortable with 0.8% CO2 in the atmosphere though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
This is something that is systematically ignored by the alarmists.
They also tell us that we'll all starve due to massive drought and no
plant life, and yet somehow the massive drought and no plant life was
able to support whale-sized land herbivores.
Once our ancestors all lived in the sea so you should survive fine in the ocean...
pete...@gmail.com
2021-08-22 04:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, the composite graph shows the "hockey stick" - that while we may have been
due for a natural ice age, our current carbon dioxide levels are *far above* those shown in
the ice core graph.
Note that he does the old trick of not putting his baseline at zero.
a) He is not trying to convince anyone that global warming is a real
threat; instead, his purpose is to debunk it. So he was fooled by
someone else pulling that trick into copying graphs that exaggerated
the severity of global warming. Hence: wrong pronoun on your part.
c) In any case: in the depths of an ice age, CO2 is at 180 ppm. During
a natural interglacial, it goes up to around 280 ppm. What is it now?
Over 400 ppm. The baseline isn't far enough from zero to have made
an inconsequential change look large; the change _is_ large.
John Savard
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period. I do suspect that many
species might be uncomfortable with 0.8% CO2 in the atmosphere though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
The problem is that atmospheric changes that in the past occurred over hundreds
Of thousands, or millions of years, are now taking place in decades or centuries.
Organisms can't adapt that fast.

Pt
Quadibloc
2021-08-22 06:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period.
Since that doesn't cause current carbon dioxide levels to cease to be
unprecedented since the start of human civilization, that doesn't mean that
they are necessarily compatible with the smooth continuation of human
civilizations.

And there aren't even any dinosaurs around to enjoy the new conditions.

Yes, though, it is evidence we don't have to worry about the Earth turning into
another Venus, since even dinosaurs would have trouble with temperatures hot
enough to melt lead. So *some* alarmism is indeed refuted. Just not enough
to establish that letting carbon dioxide levels even stay where they are now isn't
a very bad idea.

Assuming:

1) Hardly anyone will be able to migrate across national borders, and
2) We are genunely profoundly concerned to avoid any loss of life due to
AGW even if it takes place in tropical Third World countries, instead if in our
own countries,

then reducing carbon emissions to stop AGW is an urgent priority.

Since we can do so - by converting massively to nuclear power - without
hampering America's military readiness, or seriously damaging the economy -
we should therefore do so.

At least in my opinion, which, however, in one particular or another seems not
to be widely shared.

It seems that most everyone *either* doesn't care about America's national
security and economy, so they think we can depend on wind or solar, or they
don't care about lots of poor people in far-away countries dying, so we can
just keep on using fossil fuels for quite a bit longer... and so nothing is getting
done.

Exaggerated panic about nuclear power contributes to this situation - it is,
indeed, the driver over the political war over global warming, preventing a
solution that satisfies both sides of the political divide.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-22 12:31:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:51:50 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period.
Since that doesn't cause current carbon dioxide levels to cease to be
unprecedented since the start of human civilization, that doesn't mean that
they are necessarily compatible with the smooth continuation of human
civilizations.
So? The issue is that all sorts of Dire Consequences are being
predicted that seem to have been ideal for producing profuse growth of
plant life. Think about how much an Apatosaurus has to eat. Think
about where it comes from. Think about how common they had to be for
T-Rex to be able to get enough food to survive. This is not the
picture of a desert.
Post by Quadibloc
And there aren't even any dinosaurs around to enjoy the new conditions.
So we breed them. Tastes like chicken.
Post by Quadibloc
Yes, though, it is evidence we don't have to worry about the Earth turning into
another Venus, since even dinosaurs would have trouble with temperatures hot
enough to melt lead. So *some* alarmism is indeed refuted. Just not enough
to establish that letting carbon dioxide levels even stay where they are now isn't
a very bad idea.
Nobody has proposed changing carbon dioxide levels from where they
are. Not even IPCC. They are trying to prevent increase. And if you
think that IPCC should be disregarded because their predictions are
not dire enough, you mark yourself as a crackpot.
Post by Quadibloc
1) Hardly anyone will be able to migrate across national borders, and
2) We are genunely profoundly concerned to avoid any loss of life due to
AGW even if it takes place in tropical Third World countries, instead if in our
own countries,
People seem to have little difficulty migrating across national
borders when they want to. In some cases they die trying but that's
another story.
Post by Quadibloc
then reducing carbon emissions to stop AGW is an urgent priority.
Since we can do so - by converting massively to nuclear power - without
hampering America's military readiness, or seriously damaging the economy -
we should therefore do so.
So why doesn't Canada implement a massive nuclear expansion with the
intent to profiteer by selling electricity to the Americans?
Post by Quadibloc
At least in my opinion, which, however, in one particular or another seems not
to be widely shared.
Ya THINK?
Post by Quadibloc
It seems that most everyone *either* doesn't care about America's national
security and economy, so they think we can depend on wind or solar, or they
don't care about lots of poor people in far-away countries dying, so we can
just keep on using fossil fuels for quite a bit longer... and so nothing is getting
done.
Who is this "we"? You are not part of the United States. If you
think that nuclear is the solution lobby _your_ government. And what
leads you to believe that solar and wind are not viable? 40 years ago
I thought they were crazy. Now I'm seeing that they do work and the
prices are becoming reasonable.
Post by Quadibloc
Exaggerated panic about nuclear power contributes to this situation - it is,
indeed, the driver over the political war over global warming, preventing a
solution that satisfies both sides of the political divide.
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
Quadibloc
2021-08-22 20:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Nobody has proposed changing carbon dioxide levels from where they
are. Not even IPCC. They are trying to prevent increase. And if you
think that IPCC should be disregarded because their predictions are
not dire enough, you mark yourself as a crackpot.
For one thing, the IPCC represents the consensus of the scientific
community. Thus, they are the middle of the road, *not* extreme
eco-warriors just one step short of being crackpots.

For another, I think you're misunderstanding the IPCC. Yes, they're
trying to prevent increase in CO2 levels. That is going to be hard
enough to achieve possibility. I'm saying that the *theoretical ideal*
would be to bring them back to 1950 levels, or even lower, and keep
them there - but I _would_ be a crackpot if I was advocating cutting
our energy consumption low enough to achieve that - because it
will obviously never happen.

Instead, I'm advocating nuclear power - the no pain option that
no one is talking about.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-22 21:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nobody has proposed changing carbon dioxide levels from where they
are. Not even IPCC. They are trying to prevent increase. And if you
think that IPCC should be disregarded because their predictions are
not dire enough, you mark yourself as a crackpot.
For one thing, the IPCC represents the consensus of the scientific
community. Thus, they are the middle of the road, *not* extreme
eco-warriors just one step short of being crackpots.
So do you agree with them or not?
Post by Quadibloc
For another, I think you're misunderstanding the IPCC. Yes, they're
trying to prevent increase in CO2 levels. That is going to be hard
enough to achieve possibility. I'm saying that the *theoretical ideal*
would be to bring them back to 1950 levels, or even lower, and keep
them there - but I _would_ be a crackpot if I was advocating cutting
our energy consumption low enough to achieve that - because it
will obviously never happen.
Since it is not possible. IPCC is proposing ZERO emissions by 2050.
They are not asserting that that will result in a reduction in CO2
levels.

To reduce CO2 levels you have to start actively removing CO2, which
involves expenditure of energy.
Post by Quadibloc
Instead, I'm advocating nuclear power - the no pain option that
no one is talking about.
Because the rest of the world disagrees with you on the degree of pain
it imposes.
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-23 01:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nobody has proposed changing carbon dioxide levels from where they
are. Not even IPCC. They are trying to prevent increase. And if you
think that IPCC should be disregarded because their predictions are
not dire enough, you mark yourself as a crackpot.
For one thing, the IPCC represents the consensus of the scientific
community. Thus, they are the middle of the road, *not* extreme
eco-warriors just one step short of being crackpots.
For another, I think you're misunderstanding the IPCC. Yes, they're
trying to prevent increase in CO2 levels. That is going to be hard
enough to achieve possibility. I'm saying that the *theoretical ideal*
would be to bring them back to 1950 levels, or even lower, and keep
them there - but I _would_ be a crackpot if I was advocating cutting
our energy consumption low enough to achieve that - because it
will obviously never happen.
Instead, I'm advocating nuclear power - the no pain option that
no one is talking about.
John Savard
There are about 50 new nuclear power plants under construction in the
world today, including two in the USA. A new nuclear power plant have
been completed in the USA in the last five years.

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

"Today there are about 445 nuclear power reactors operating in 32
countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In
2020 these provided 2553 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."

"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Emirates."

Lynn
Quadibloc
2021-08-22 20:54:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
So why doesn't Canada implement a massive nuclear expansion with the
intent to profiteer by selling electricity to the Americans?
Probably because I'm not Prime Minister.

Of course, saving the environment is worth it even if we were selling
the electricity at a loss - which would happen, unless we _also_
did stuff like changing the approval process for new nuclear reactors.

Public consultation? Sure, but if environmental groups try to use the
process to obstruct or delay construction, they'll find their access shut
down so fast their heads will spin.

And if they decide to try blockading roads or stuff like that... to quote
a former Canadian prime minister, "Just watch me".

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-22 21:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So why doesn't Canada implement a massive nuclear expansion with the
intent to profiteer by selling electricity to the Americans?
Probably because I'm not Prime Minister.
Well start lobbying instead of haranguing _us_.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, saving the environment is worth it even if we were selling
the electricity at a loss - which would happen, unless we _also_
did stuff like changing the approval process for new nuclear reactors.
So get right on that.
Post by Quadibloc
Public consultation? Sure, but if environmental groups try to use the
process to obstruct or delay construction, they'll find their access shut
down so fast their heads will spin.
Access to what?
Post by Quadibloc
And if they decide to try blockading roads or stuff like that... to quote
a former Canadian prime minister, "Just watch me".
Having seen what passes for roads in Canada it would appear that they
have been rather successful.
Quadibloc
2021-08-22 21:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.

Nuclear power will satisfy the relevant core imperative of the left:
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.

It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.

Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get. Combine that with presenting the facts about nuclear
power, and I am... hopeful... that only die-hard anti-nuclear fanatics, who
will be in the minority will not accept such a chance to save the environment.

Of course, this assumes some politician providing strong leadership in a
rational direction. If Biden had chosen to act as forcefully as Trump did in
achieving his far-out agenda, he could have kept American troops in Afghanistan
until victory was achieved... by having them achieve that victory in his first term.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-22 21:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
Post by Quadibloc
Combine that with presenting the facts about nuclear
power, and I am... hopeful... that only die-hard anti-nuclear fanatics, who
will be in the minority will not accept such a chance to save the environment.
The die hard fanatics are the ones who get elected to office.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, this assumes some politician providing strong leadership in a
rational direction. If Biden had chosen to act as forcefully as Trump did in
achieving his far-out agenda, he could have kept American troops in Afghanistan
until victory was achieved... by having them achieve that victory in his first term.
You do know that Biden finished a process that Trump started.

How do you propose to achieve victory in Afghanistan in 4 years when
it hasn't been achieved in 20? The only way I can think of to do that
is to round up all the Afghanis and kill them, which I do not believe
is considered to be an acceptable solution.
Quadibloc
2021-08-23 02:03:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
How do you propose to achieve victory in Afghanistan in 4 years when
it hasn't been achieved in 20? The only way I can think of to do that
is to round up all the Afghanis and kill them, which I do not believe
is considered to be an acceptable solution.
Some commentators have alleged that the U.S. effort in Afghanistan
was half-hearted - on the part of the nation, not of the men and women
who served there. So different political choices could perhaps have meant
better progress. For example, in a recent opinion piece, Condoleeza Rice
claimed that America could have done much better.

I do not know if this is the case. Perhaps more air support could have lead
to more victories with fewer American military casualties, but it might also
have led to more Afghan civilian casualties.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-23 02:21:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:03:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
How do you propose to achieve victory in Afghanistan in 4 years when
it hasn't been achieved in 20? The only way I can think of to do that
is to round up all the Afghanis and kill them, which I do not believe
is considered to be an acceptable solution.
Some commentators have alleged that the U.S. effort in Afghanistan
was half-hearted - on the part of the nation, not of the men and women
who served there. So different political choices could perhaps have meant
better progress. For example, in a recent opinion piece, Condoleeza Rice
claimed that America could have done much better.
I do not know if this is the case. Perhaps more air support could have lead
to more victories with fewer American military casualties, but it might also
have led to more Afghan civilian casualties.
I did come across an interesting statistic the other day--at the peak
of the US occupation the ratio of US soldiers to Afghanis was about
the same as the ratio of cops to civilians in the US. So it's no
surprise that they were unable to keep order given that they were
dealing with an organized resistance and not just a few criminals.
pete...@gmail.com
2021-08-23 02:04:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
Post by Quadibloc
Combine that with presenting the facts about nuclear
power, and I am... hopeful... that only die-hard anti-nuclear fanatics, who
will be in the minority will not accept such a chance to save the environment.
The die hard fanatics are the ones who get elected to office.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, this assumes some politician providing strong leadership in a
rational direction. If Biden had chosen to act as forcefully as Trump did in
achieving his far-out agenda, he could have kept American troops in Afghanistan
until victory was achieved... by having them achieve that victory in his first term.
You do know that Biden finished a process that Trump started.
How do you propose to achieve victory in Afghanistan in 4 years when
it hasn't been achieved in 20? The only way I can think of to do that
is to round up all the Afghanis and kill them, which I do not believe
is considered to be an acceptable solution.
Out of curiosity, I compiled this little table:

Invasions of Afghanistan
(Move list for The Great Game)

* US/Nato 2001-2021
* USSR 1979-1989
* USSR 1930
* USSR 1929 (different from 1930)
* UK 1918
* UK 1878-1880
* UK 1838-1842
* Sikh Empire 1834-1838
* Mughal Empire 1506
* Tamerlane 1383-1386
* Mongols 1219-1221
* Muslim conquests 7th-12th centuries
* Kushans 1st century AD
* Alexander the Great 330 BC
* Achaemenid Empire (Darius I) 516 BC
* Medes ~ 600 BC

The area is the proof of the maxim
"Never get involved in a land war in Asia"


Pt
Titus G
2021-08-24 03:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23/08/21 2:04 pm, ***@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Post by ***@gmail.com
Invasions of Afghanistan
(Move list for The Great Game)
* US/Nato 2001-2021
* USSR 1979-1989
* USSR 1930
* USSR 1929 (different from 1930)
* UK 1918
* UK 1878-1880
* UK 1838-1842
* Sikh Empire 1834-1838
* Mughal Empire 1506
* Tamerlane 1383-1386
* Mongols 1219-1221
* Muslim conquests 7th-12th centuries
* Kushans 1st century AD
* Alexander the Great 330 BC
* Achaemenid Empire (Darius I) 516 BC
* Medes ~ 600 BC
The area is the proof of the maxim
"Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
http://youtu.be/YmT0_hKSUrw
Thank you for that. With the UK being part of NATO, I guess they win the
slow learner award. NEXT.
Quadibloc
2021-08-27 20:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
* Muslim conquests 7th-12th centuries
See? It _is_ possible to invade Afghanistan and win. Afghanistan still
follows the Muslim faith to this very day!

John Savard
p***@hotmail.com
2021-08-28 00:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by ***@gmail.com
* Muslim conquests 7th-12th centuries
See? It _is_ possible to invade Afghanistan and win. Afghanistan still
follows the Muslim faith to this very day!
What religion or religions were practiced in Afghanistan before the Muslim conquests?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Quadibloc
2021-08-28 04:44:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by ***@gmail.com
* Muslim conquests 7th-12th centuries
See? It _is_ possible to invade Afghanistan and win. Afghanistan still
follows the Muslim faith to this very day!
What religion or religions were practiced in Afghanistan before the Muslim conquests?
Buddhism is presumably one of them, given the UNESCO World Heritage site that
the Taliban took the trouble to destroy as idolatrous... the various statues of
Buddha carved into a cliff at Bamiyan.

John Savard
Robert Woodward
2021-08-28 04:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by ***@gmail.com
* Muslim conquests 7th-12th centuries
See? It _is_ possible to invade Afghanistan and win. Afghanistan still
follows the Muslim faith to this very day!
What religion or religions were practiced in Afghanistan before the Muslim conquests?
There were a significant number of Buddhists, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Afghanistan
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Quadibloc
2021-08-28 05:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
What religion or religions were practiced in Afghanistan before the Muslim conquests?
Looking at Wikipedia's page on the history of Afghanistan, in addition to Buddhism,
Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were also present.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2021-08-28 16:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 22:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by p***@hotmail.com
What religion or religions were practiced in Afghanistan before the Muslim conquests?
Looking at Wikipedia's page on the history of Afghanistan, in addition to Buddhism,
Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were also present.
I suspect that, if you go back farther, more obscure and
less-well-known forms of religion preceded those.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2021-08-29 06:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 22:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by p***@hotmail.com
What religion or religions were practiced in Afghanistan before the Muslim conquests?
Looking at Wikipedia's page on the history of Afghanistan, in addition to Buddhism,
Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were also present.
I suspect that, if you go back farther, more obscure and
less-well-known forms of religion preceded those.
Oh, of course, but the people who practiced them may not have left
written records, leaving us in the dark about the details.

John Savard
Joe Bernstein
2021-09-12 04:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 22:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:20:09 PM UTC-6,
Post by p***@hotmail.com
What religion or religions were practiced in Afghanistan before
the Muslim conquests?
Looking at Wikipedia's page on the history of Afghanistan, in
addition to Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were also present.
I suspect that, if you go back farther, more obscure and
less-well-known forms of religion preceded those.
Oh, of course, but the people who practiced them may not have left
written records, leaving us in the dark about the details.
Basically everyone in that part of the world spoke Indo-Iranian
languages at some point not long before recorded history. (Treating
some Hindu religious texts as irrelevant, anyway. If you want to
take those seriously, multiply each millennium in question by about
a hundred, and have humans evolve in India.)

Indo-Iranian is mostly now seen as having three branches:

Indo-Aryan - Sanskrit, Hindi, etc. Kashmiri is an outlier from the
Dardic group of Indo-Aryan languages.

Iranian - Persian, "Kurdish", etc. Pashto is not so much of an
outlier in this group.

Nuristani - A small part of Afghanistan, between Kashmiri and Pashto,
is believed still to speak these in-between languages.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuristani_languages>

Unsurprisingly, these languages' speakers had, until 19th-century
jihads, a pantheon sort of in between the Hindu and Magian pantheons.
(The Magian religion is the one Zoroaster reformed into dualism.)

It's probably a safe bet that in any given part of Afghanistan until
maybe AD 200, you'd find people who worshipped some recognisably
Indo-European pantheon. There were Greeks, there were Scythians,
and there were lots of speakers of Indo-Iranian languages. (Most
Scythians spoke Iranian languages, probably, anyway.) After AD 200
it gets muddier, not least because Buddhism takes more serious hold
by then.

I researched this in 2004 because some aspect of my miscellaneous
historical researches convinced me that the people in question were
relevant to the potential survival of the *Greek* pantheon until
early modern times. I'd been living with my mother and then in her
house until she died in 2004, and a friend found me a distraction by
asking me to research things for his planned role-playing game. I
knew of a legend of a lost Roman legion somewhere in Central Asia,
and the only way they could've stayed polytheist up to the campaign
date (1640) would've been to be in, let's say, Nuristan. This was in
keeping with badly informed notions of British scholars of the early
19th century, for example. Mind, we have no reason to think such a
legion ever existed - this was a 19th century scholarly legend, not
something from the actual ancient world - but for a game, it was good
enough to go on with.

So I imagined a scenario with a lot of conflict. Some gonzos in the
Italian Renaissance actually went as far into paganism as the papacy
worried they would, the Greek gods got some additional energy from
their worship, and used it to transport both the Italians and a bunch
of Roman/Nuristani descendants to the New World, the campaign setting.
Where, since the Nuristani pantheon wasn't really all *that*
homologous to the Greek one, and of course the Greek gods had
forgotten to install translation software, lots of conflict ensued.
I figured to put them somewhere near Virginia, where of course none
of them, to make matters worse, would have a clue how to farm.

The campaign, unfortunately, fell apart long before this could be
relevant, since the characters never got out of New York (or, then,
New Amsterdam).

Sorry this is so late. I can't yet afford Windows DVD Player, which
I'd prefer since its ancestor was much more tolerant of damaged
library DVDs than what I use in Linux, VLC. But until I can afford
that, I have very little incentive to spend time in Windows, except
that that's where I post from.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer <***@gmail.com>
Quadibloc
2021-08-24 03:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved.
I see that as a _non sequitur_, as I haven't noticed any of the major
political parties having even shown an interest in _trying_.
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
Based on the fact that we are experiencing unusual weather now,
and so it hasn't been possible to persuade people to cut carbon
emissions enough to avoid bad changes to the climate...

I've concluded that the only way we will get the carbon cuts that
are needed is if they won't interfere with using lots of energy.

That makes sense to me. Of course people are going to fight really
hard against anything they fear will make them lose their jobs.

And there's a really solid constituency for keeping the U.S. military
in shape to keep the U.S. from being taken over by Russia or China, too.

Maybe wind and solar and energy conservation can do better than I
expect, but it still seems to me that if energy use has to continue going
up exponentially for the next little while (of course, it can't go up
_forever_ that way, but fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect are much
worse for unit of energy; we can solve the fundamental problem later)...
nuclear is the only way we can pull that off.

So, as I can see no way out of that logic, I can't give up nuclear.

Now, although you haven't specifically indicated *this* issue,

perhaps you do have the valid objection

that I am living in the past. In that halcyon age when all that had
to happen was that Walter Cronkite and Carl Sagan (or Neil de
Grasse Tyson these days) could just say "Nuclear is good for you",
and the plots of the small minority of fanatics spreading lies about
the safety of nuclear power would be soundly foiled.

Since then, of course, we've moved to the days of 500
cable channels, and beyond them to this thing I'm posting to
the USENET part of, called "The Internet", which has allowed
stuff like QAnon to thrive.

And *that's* why "nuclear is dead".

Now, I could at least get my teeth into that kind of argument, as opposed
to a bare assertion.

My immediate impulse would be to say that the Internet certainly
enables people who want to listen to QAnon stuff to find it, but surely
it must be only a small minority of people to whom that kind of wackiness
holds any appeal.

Trump almost getting re-elected, of course, could be held out as
evidence for the other side...

And one has the problem that it will be a long time before Supreme
Court justices could be appointed who would find the reinstatement
of the Fairness Doctrine to be Constitutional...

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-24 11:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 20:25:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved.
I see that as a _non sequitur_, as I haven't noticed any of the major
political parties having even shown an interest in _trying_.
If you can't even get politicians to try then it's not politically
achievable.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
Based on the fact that we are experiencing unusual weather now,
and so it hasn't been possible to persuade people to cut carbon
emissions enough to avoid bad changes to the climate...
I've concluded that the only way we will get the carbon cuts that
are needed is if they won't interfere with using lots of energy.
That makes sense to me. Of course people are going to fight really
hard against anything they fear will make them lose their jobs.
And there's a really solid constituency for keeping the U.S. military
in shape to keep the U.S. from being taken over by Russia or China, too.
Maybe wind and solar and energy conservation can do better than I
expect, but it still seems to me that if energy use has to continue going
up exponentially for the next little while (of course, it can't go up
_forever_ that way, but fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect are much
worse for unit of energy; we can solve the fundamental problem later)...
nuclear is the only way we can pull that off.
So, as I can see no way out of that logic, I can't give up nuclear.
You can keep beating your head against an unyielding wall or you can
look for a door. Your choice.
Post by Quadibloc
Now, although you haven't specifically indicated *this* issue,
perhaps you do have the valid objection
that I am living in the past. In that halcyon age when all that had
to happen was that Walter Cronkite and Carl Sagan (or Neil de
Grasse Tyson these days) could just say "Nuclear is good for you",
and the plots of the small minority of fanatics spreading lies about
the safety of nuclear power would be soundly foiled.
Neal de Grasse Tyson saying "nuclear is good for you" would just
damage his credibility with the masses who think he is something other
than a theater manager.
Post by Quadibloc
Since then, of course, we've moved to the days of 500
cable channels, and beyond them to this thing I'm posting to
the USENET part of, called "The Internet", which has allowed
stuff like QAnon to thrive.
And *that's* why "nuclear is dead".
Now, I could at least get my teeth into that kind of argument, as opposed
to a bare assertion.
There is this person called "Jane Fonda", there is this movie called
"The China Syndrome" in which she had the lead role, there is this
incident called "Three Mile Island" that, due to an accident of timing
is believed by many to have been accurately depicted in "The China
Syndrome". There is a 1000 square mile exclusion zone in Ukraine
surrounding a place called "Chernobyl"--the popular understanding of
this is I suspect motivated by the "Stalker" computer games which take
place in that area. There was a little incident at a place called
"Fukushima", that was run by the Japanese, who, whether deserved or
otherwise, have a reputation as the most competent managers and most
meticulous implementors of quality control on the planet. If their
power plants are't safe nobody's will be.
Post by Quadibloc
My immediate impulse would be to say that the Internet certainly
enables people who want to listen to QAnon stuff to find it, but surely
it must be only a small minority of people to whom that kind of wackiness
holds any appeal.
Trump almost getting re-elected, of course, could be held out as
evidence for the other side...
And one has the problem that it will be a long time before Supreme
Court justices could be appointed who would find the reinstatement
of the Fairness Doctrine to be Constitutional...
QAnon and Trump have nothing to do with political non-viability of
nuclear power--if you think that _they_ are the opposition you are
totally out off touch with political reality. As for the Fairness
Doctrine, it has never applied to any form of media other than
over-the-air commercial broadcast. In any case there is no
Constitutional issue, it was removed by unanimous vote of the FCC
commissioners.
Quadibloc
2021-08-25 14:26:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
QAnon and Trump have nothing to do with political non-viability of
nuclear power--if you think that _they_ are the opposition you are
totally out off touch with political reality.
No, I don't. I think that other groups, with different agendas, but
a similar level of merit, are the opposition to nuclear.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-25 16:24:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
QAnon and Trump have nothing to do with political non-viability of
nuclear power--if you think that _they_ are the opposition you are
totally out off touch with political reality.
No, I don't. I think that other groups, with different agendas, but
a similar level of merit, are the opposition to nuclear.
You'll find that hippies and rednecks are in agreement on one point,
they don't want no damned atoms around here.
Thomas Koenig
2021-08-25 16:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
QAnon and Trump have nothing to do with political non-viability of
nuclear power--if you think that _they_ are the opposition you are
totally out off touch with political reality.
No, I don't. I think that other groups, with different agendas, but
a similar level of merit, are the opposition to nuclear.
You'll find that hippies and rednecks are in agreement on one point,
they don't want no damned atoms around here.
Hard to survive in total vacuum.
Titus G
2021-08-26 02:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
QAnon and Trump have nothing to do with political non-viability of
nuclear power--if you think that _they_ are the opposition you are
totally out off touch with political reality.
No, I don't. I think that other groups, with different agendas, but
a similar level of merit, are the opposition to nuclear.
Would you consider the residents in the following link to be of a
similar level of merit?
Co-incidentally there was a negative report this week:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/24/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-radioactive-waste-unsafe
which raised concerns, regarding the waste from a closed USA nuclear
plant, of nearby "residents and experts".
Reassurance of safety is claimed at:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
which may have been written by a PR firm?
I know little about this topic so enjoy the brief discussions here but
won't mind being labelled Nimby in this instance.
Quadibloc
2021-08-26 19:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/24/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-radioactive-waste-unsafe
The problem here is that the waste isn't taken from the decomissioned nuclear
power plant to a waste burial site - and the _cause_ of that problem is anti-nuclear
hysteria.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-24 03:34:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
...

Nuclear is far from dead. As I mentioned, there are about 50 new
nuclear power plants under construction in the world today, including
two in the USA. A new nuclear power plant has been completed in the USA
in the last five years.

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

"Today there are about 445 nuclear power reactors operating in 32
countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In
2020 these provided 2553 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."

"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Emirates."

Lynn
J. Clarke
2021-08-24 11:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 22:34:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
...
Nuclear is far from dead. As I mentioned, there are about 50 new
nuclear power plants under construction in the world today, including
two in the USA. A new nuclear power plant has been completed in the USA
in the last five years.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
"Today there are about 445 nuclear power reactors operating in 32
countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In
2020 these provided 2553 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."
"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Emirates."
China, India, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates are not the US. As
for a new nuclear plant being completed in the US, that was the first
new plant to come online in 20 years, with construction starting in
1973--if it is going to take nearly 50 years from start to operation
that is not a viable alternative. The last time a license to start
construction was granted was 2012.
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-24 19:54:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 22:34:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
...
Nuclear is far from dead. As I mentioned, there are about 50 new
nuclear power plants under construction in the world today, including
two in the USA. A new nuclear power plant has been completed in the USA
in the last five years.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
"Today there are about 445 nuclear power reactors operating in 32
countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In
2020 these provided 2553 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."
"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Emirates."
China, India, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates are not the US. As
for a new nuclear plant being completed in the US, that was the first
new plant to come online in 20 years, with construction starting in
1973--if it is going to take nearly 50 years from start to operation
that is not a viable alternative. The last time a license to start
construction was granted was 2012.
Vogtle 3 is forecast to come online this December. Vogtle 4 is forecast
to come online next November 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant

Lynn
J. Clarke
2021-08-24 20:53:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 14:54:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 22:34:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
...
Nuclear is far from dead. As I mentioned, there are about 50 new
nuclear power plants under construction in the world today, including
two in the USA. A new nuclear power plant has been completed in the USA
in the last five years.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
"Today there are about 445 nuclear power reactors operating in 32
countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In
2020 these provided 2553 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."
"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Emirates."
China, India, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates are not the US. As
for a new nuclear plant being completed in the US, that was the first
new plant to come online in 20 years, with construction starting in
1973--if it is going to take nearly 50 years from start to operation
that is not a viable alternative. The last time a license to start
construction was granted was 2012.
Vogtle 3 is forecast to come online this December. Vogtle 4 is forecast
to come online next November 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant
Licenses to start construction granted in 2012.

If we are going to use nuclear to meet the IPCC objectivs we need to
have start construction on 1,465 Vogtle 3 sized power plants this
year. Think that's going to happen?
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-24 21:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 14:54:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 22:34:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
...
Nuclear is far from dead. As I mentioned, there are about 50 new
nuclear power plants under construction in the world today, including
two in the USA. A new nuclear power plant has been completed in the USA
in the last five years.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
"Today there are about 445 nuclear power reactors operating in 32
countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In
2020 these provided 2553 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."
"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Emirates."
China, India, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates are not the US. As
for a new nuclear plant being completed in the US, that was the first
new plant to come online in 20 years, with construction starting in
1973--if it is going to take nearly 50 years from start to operation
that is not a viable alternative. The last time a license to start
construction was granted was 2012.
Vogtle 3 is forecast to come online this December. Vogtle 4 is forecast
to come online next November 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant
Licenses to start construction granted in 2012.
If we are going to use nuclear to meet the IPCC objectivs we need to
have start construction on 1,465 Vogtle 3 sized power plants this
year. Think that's going to happen?
No freaking way.

I do think that we will get SMRs built in the USA in the future.
Probably in Alaska to start in remote locations.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/

Lynn
J. Clarke
2021-08-24 22:00:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 16:27:17 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 14:54:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 22:34:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Nuclear power will not satisfy the left side of the political divide.
You really don't seem to understand where that divide lies.
As you make a valid point, I will clarify.
to reduce carbon emissions in line with what the science says is
necessary.
What leads you to believe that that is "the relevant core imperative
of the left"?
Post by Quadibloc
It will not, as you correctly point out, satisfy existing parties or politicians
on the left, who have bought into the current false anti-nuclear hysteria.
Because it satisfies their core imperative, and it is politically achievable
as it also satisfies what the other side insists on - America being militarily
and industrially strong - it is a compromise that saves the environment that
they can actually get.
If it was politically achievable it would have been politically
achieved. Nuclear is dead. Get used to it.
...
Nuclear is far from dead. As I mentioned, there are about 50 new
nuclear power plants under construction in the world today, including
two in the USA. A new nuclear power plant has been completed in the USA
in the last five years.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
"Today there are about 445 nuclear power reactors operating in 32
countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 400 GWe. In
2020 these provided 2553 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."
"About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Emirates."
China, India, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates are not the US. As
for a new nuclear plant being completed in the US, that was the first
new plant to come online in 20 years, with construction starting in
1973--if it is going to take nearly 50 years from start to operation
that is not a viable alternative. The last time a license to start
construction was granted was 2012.
Vogtle 3 is forecast to come online this December. Vogtle 4 is forecast
to come online next November 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant
Licenses to start construction granted in 2012.
If we are going to use nuclear to meet the IPCC objectivs we need to
have start construction on 1,465 Vogtle 3 sized power plants this
year. Think that's going to happen?
No freaking way.
I do think that we will get SMRs built in the USA in the future.
Probably in Alaska to start in remote locations.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/
Could be. My reaction to "SMRs" is <s>what could _possibly_ go
wrong</s>.
Hamish Laws
2021-08-28 06:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, this assumes some politician providing strong leadership in a
rational direction. If Biden had chosen to act as forcefully as Trump did in
achieving his far-out agenda, he could have kept American troops in Afghanistan
until victory was achieved... by having them achieve that victory in his first term.
The withdrawal agreement from Afghanistan was signed in February 2020, Trump drew troops down from 13000 to 2500...
and how exactly do you think he could have achieved a victory in 4 years against a guerilla force?
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-23 00:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:51:50 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period.
Since that doesn't cause current carbon dioxide levels to cease to be
unprecedented since the start of human civilization, that doesn't mean that
they are necessarily compatible with the smooth continuation of human
civilizations.
So? The issue is that all sorts of Dire Consequences are being
predicted that seem to have been ideal for producing profuse growth of
plant life. Think about how much an Apatosaurus has to eat. Think
about where it comes from. Think about how common they had to be for
T-Rex to be able to get enough food to survive. This is not the
picture of a desert.
Post by Quadibloc
And there aren't even any dinosaurs around to enjoy the new conditions.
So we breed them. Tastes like chicken.
...

I like chicken.

Lynn
Hamish Laws
2021-08-28 06:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
You do know that the CO2 has been in the thousands in the past, right ?
Reaching 8,000 ppm before the Jurassic period. I do suspect that many
species might be uncomfortable with 0.8% CO2 in the atmosphere though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
The sun was cooler back then and the Earth's orbit different so the temperature if we got to that level now it'd have much more impact than the +10-14 degrees celsius over 1960-1990 averages that the planet was back then.
It's been around the 280ppm for over 20 million years
J. Clarke
2021-08-13 17:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
However, in a quick Google search, I have _not_ been able to locate any
site in which the Vostok ice core data is directly confronted,
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/what-does-the-vostok-ice-core-tell-us/
He's not really confronting the data other than to say that "it's just
one point", he's confronting some blog post or other.
Ninapenda Jibini
2021-08-08 05:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 4:17:46 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Funny thing, humans survived the last glaciation without all
our fancy technology.
The human race did. I would hesitate to claim that every
individual's chances for survival were unaffected.
But that's true ever time it rains. Or doesn't rain. Or it's cloudy.
Or sunny.
And today we have a world divided into nations with borders,
which interferes with migrating away from changes in climate in
any direction.
What is optimal for survival is a perfectly stable continuation
of what we've gotten used to, and we could have used our
scientific knowledge to avoid doing anything to interfere with
that happening.
The climate has been changing continuously for as long as there has
been a climate. We can't "avoid doing anything to interfere" if the
goal is stable continuation.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Paul S Person
2021-08-08 16:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Remember when Dr. James Hansen noted that one possible consequence
of global warming could be a disturbance of the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic that could lead to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, with
a new ice age as a possible result?
Looks like he may have been right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html
Yeah, I saw that movie too. (/The Day After Tomorrow/, to be
specific.)

Not news == olds
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John Halpenny
2021-08-08 17:37:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
Remember when Dr. James Hansen noted that one possible consequence
of global warming could be a disturbance of the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic that could lead to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, with
a new ice age as a possible result?
Looks like he may have been right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html
Yeah, I saw that movie too. (/The Day After Tomorrow/, to be
specific.)
Not news == olds
Isn't it marvelous!! We now have technology that is capable of changing the climate, and the wisdom to decide what climate we want.

Don't we???

John
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-09 18:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Halpenny
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
Remember when Dr. James Hansen noted that one possible consequence
of global warming could be a disturbance of the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic that could lead to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, with
a new ice age as a possible result?
Looks like he may have been right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html
Yeah, I saw that movie too. (/The Day After Tomorrow/, to be
specific.)
Not news == olds
Isn't it marvelous!! We now have technology that is capable of changing the climate, and the wisdom to decide what climate we want.
Don't we???
John
Only if SpaceX puts up my motorized space umbrellas.

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2021-08-11 15:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Remember when Dr. James Hansen noted that one possible consequence
of global warming could be a disturbance of the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic that could lead to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, with
a new ice age as a possible result?
Looks like he may have been right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html
The IPCC says, "Fuck your shit", did we cover that?

https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/

(Direct quote.)
Jonathan
2021-08-22 11:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Remember when Dr. James Hansen noted that one possible consequence
of global warming could be a disturbance of the thermohaline circulation
in the North Atlantic that could lead to a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, with
a new ice age as a possible result?
Looks like he may have been right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html
John Savard
Without looking up the exact numbers, ice ages tend to
occur about every 100,000 years, and it's been around
100,000 years since the start of the last one.

So we should be due, however most climate scientist
believe global warming should delay the next ice
age perhaps by a very long time.

But that's from a linear perspective where total change
is usually used. From my hobby and a non-linear perspective
where output can be greatly amplified by feed back loops
the more important trend isn't total change, but
rate of change.

In stock trading you can see during Obama an ideal
pattern of growth, 2 steps forward with one step back.
That allows for a sustainable and stable rate of
growth.

But when the rate of change is too fast, a boom and bust
cycle is often the case. The bigger the boom the bigger
the bust as well.

Look at this NASA chart of Co2 change over the last
800,000 years. Steady growth, or boom and bust?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Global warming due to the extremely high rate of change
historically speaking could well bring the next ice age
upon us, rather than delay the next one.

And since significant change in nature occurs suddenly
and massively like an earthquake, the next ice age
could suddenly appear at any time imho.

And like an earthquake, it's foreshadowed by many small
tremors. For the planet warming effects the poles first
and the most. Due to the time spans involved it may
be hard to feel or see these 'tremors'

But icebergs the size of states breaking away from the
ice sheets is a tremor one shouldn't be able to miss.
--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Loading...