Aragorn, i may have asked you this before, but do I read you correctly when I conclude that you do in fact believe in anthropogenic climate change?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
what I won’t accept is pseudo scientific nonsense like anthropogenic climate warming/cooling.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call it pseudo-scientific nonsense. I would call it bitterly political perhaps, but not pseudo-scientific. It’s real science and it needs consideration.[/quote]
That’s the problem I have with “real science” it tends to favor the group who are paying the bills for the research.
Grants don’t come dropping out of the sky completely neutral.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so. [/quote]
How about a masters in biochemistry and biophysics combined with current research career? That about do it for you?
And I’m not a naysayer. I’ve been on DB’s ass about his and the IPCC’s asinine attitude towards it, not denying that GC exists. I’m only forced into the role because people who have zero appreciable knowledge of chemistry like to post the sort of thing that he does and paint all skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as illiterates. You will notice, if you read attentively, that I’ve never made that blanket claim in reverse and that most scientifically active research personnel at major research universities are not making that claim either, which belongs only on fringe publications.[/quote]
You’ve been on my ass about my catastrophic anthropogenic claims, and yet, I’ve never made the claim that climate change in and of itself is or will be catastrophic. The catastrophes will occur when incremental climate change continues to take place and we do nothing to raise our level of preparedness. It’s kinda hard for the country to raise such preparedness levels if half the politicians in position to enact such preparations are in denial that any sort of significant climate change is occurring. THAT is the catastrophe, and quite frankly, there is no argument against the point that I have repeatedly made: that failing to acknowledge the preparations that should be made will be catastrophic.
[/quote]
I have no disagreement about that point, and you’ll note that I’ve never brought it up.
However, that is not the only point you’ve been asserting.
If you had said simply “let’s leave aside the argument about AGW for now, I want to focus this thread on assuming it is an imminent danger and id like to hear people’s ideas for solutions and/or what new problems the country might face” neither I nor anybody else would have had a problem with that. But you didn’t. You surrounded the above sentence with a lot of belittling and rather arrogant rhetoric–rhetoric which I know for a fact you do not have the subject matter expertise to back up in the degree you are asserting, while I have considerably more and more relevant–and then posited that this wasn’t a place for illiterates, though not in so many words.
Incidentally, you will notice in the previous thread I was on your ass that I had just finished taking C-dog to task for similar bullshit from the other side of the issue. I was equal opportunity.
[/quote]
Ah, so you’re the ethics police around here, eh? Fair enough. Of course I inserted some inflammatory language in my initial post. Don’t underestimate my knowledge of the science behind the issue. Reading up on the science behind the issue consumes a considerable amount of my free time. Granted, I do not have a degree in a science-related field (I won’t lump my political science degree into that category) and I will defer to you on the really esoteric aspects of this debate.
[/quote]
No I am not at all the ethics police. I believe that would be fruitless and frustrating. I am only after some consistency is all. You’re obviously intelligent and you’re arguing below your potential sir.
What irks me most however is the inflammatory coming from a person with zero formal science background which implies that I am borderline illiterate on a subject I have infinitely more training to understand. I don’t mind disagreeing, but that rather irritates me. You are obviously passionate about the subject and that is fine as well. I very much dislike blanket statements from someone who is not even a scientific peer implying I am a ‘hick’ ‘redneck’ or ‘science illiterate’. Obviously you have not come out and said that directly to me–however the implications from your repeated blanket comments are obvious and distasteful to me. Also I wanted you to know I wasn’t picking only on you–c-dog irritates the ever living fuck out of me as do people who uniformly paint all climate scientists in poor light.
At any rate, back on subject. You are most likely correct about the mass migration. My point was simply, why are we not doing anything about it already?
Seen through your perspective almost anything can become a national security issue, and although I agree and understand those implications I rather define “national security” more closely. Habit, perhaps.
It could be interesting to watch places farther north than the ‘bread basket’ states suddenly become the new grain farming center. That would wreak havoc on the midwest’s economy.[/quote]
Apologies if you feel that I referring to you, I hadn’t seen you comment on the thread. I’m familiar with your scientific background, of which I have none to speak of. I was writing toward those who are wholly dismissive of the climate change literature who had made no effort to insider it’s methodology or implications, which obviously isn’t you.
As far as nuclear energy goes, I believe that government regulation is necessary to ensure that anti proliferation technology is implemented, such as light water reactors. The last thing an earth reaching it’s biophysical limits is a wave of horizontal nuclear proliferation.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Several middle eastern countries are trying to contract with international firms to build small nukes on their coastlines to power their desalination plants…they are the only things that have enough juice to run them cost effectively.
We need to start building our own, with massive desalination plants on our coastlines.
We have a finite amount of resources, and yet we have open borders?
That needs to change…sorry, only so much pie to go around.
One last thing, one must be careful throwing around terms like “90% of scientists”… as to my previous point 90% of scientists once believed that Eugenics was undisputed scientific fact.[/quote]
The condition of our infrastructure as a whole has been surveyed by the ASCE and virtually none of it is in “good” condition, most of it rating at about a C average.
Not that it isn’t a good idea, but I don’t want a nuclear power plant maintained at a C.
[/quote]
The majority of nukes are maintained by huge energy corporations like Mid-American Energy and Duke Energy…they take good care of their multi-billion dollar investments.[/quote]
Agreed and that’s where they should stay frankly. One of my best friends is a nuclear engineer at Honeywell now, but while he was with Kiewit he had a hand in building some very very expensive nuke projects. They take excellent care of those facilities and they do it on their own dime and far cheaper.[/quote]
That is pretty much what I was getting at. It would be a disservice all the way around if a nuclear plant/desalination plant became the object of a politically motivated budget battle like our highways and other national projects have.
Which leads me to the next question- If it is such a good idea, why isn’t it being done yet? (in the US) My understanding of it is that small reactor technology is a direction that the field has taken, so why aren’t we using them?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Several middle eastern countries are trying to contract with international firms to build small nukes on their coastlines to power their desalination plants…they are the only things that have enough juice to run them cost effectively.
We need to start building our own, with massive desalination plants on our coastlines.
We have a finite amount of resources, and yet we have open borders?
That needs to change…sorry, only so much pie to go around.
One last thing, one must be careful throwing around terms like “90% of scientists”… as to my previous point 90% of scientists once believed that Eugenics was undisputed scientific fact.[/quote]
The condition of our infrastructure as a whole has been surveyed by the ASCE and virtually none of it is in “good” condition, most of it rating at about a C average.
Not that it isn’t a good idea, but I don’t want a nuclear power plant maintained at a C.
[/quote]
The majority of nukes are maintained by huge energy corporations like Mid-American Energy and Duke Energy…they take good care of their multi-billion dollar investments.[/quote]
Agreed and that’s where they should stay frankly. One of my best friends is a nuclear engineer at Honeywell now, but while he was with Kiewit he had a hand in building some very very expensive nuke projects. They take excellent care of those facilities and they do it on their own dime and far cheaper.[/quote]
That is pretty much what I was getting at. It would be a disservice all the way around if a nuclear plant/desalination plant became the object of a politically motivated budget battle like our highways and other national projects have.
Which leads me to the next question- If it is such a good idea, why isn’t it being done yet? (in the US) My understanding of it is that small reactor technology is a direction that the field has taken, so why aren’t we using them?
[/quote]
Mucho spensive!! and as long as there is cheaper water to drill for you will not see many if any built.
And when they are it will be because of the West and the shrinkage of the Colorado river. The water wars are just getting real here, with Las Vegas and Phoenix growing rapidly and consuming massive amounts of water.
There have been plans discussed to build 30-40 story tall vertical farms in the Southwestern desert that would be irrigated by desalination plants. But until things get REAL desperate (like a 20+ year extreme drought) it’s just too expensive.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Which leads me to the next question- If it is such a good idea, why isn’t it being done yet? (in the US) My understanding of it is that small reactor technology is a direction that the field has taken, so why aren’t we using them?
[/quote]
Mucho spensive!! and as long as there is cheaper water to drill for you will not see many if any built.
And when they are it will be because of the West and the shrinkage of the Colorado river. The water wars are just getting real here, with Las Vegas and Phoenix growing rapidly and consuming massive amounts of water.
There have been plans discussed to build 30-40 story tall vertical farms in the Southwestern desert that would be irrigated by desalination plants. But until things get REAL desperate (like a 20+ year extreme drought) it’s just too expensive.[/quote]
Do you suppose that there could be a two bird with one stone solution sitting there?
Like using evaporative cooling towers to desalinate, producing solar electricity and fresh water simultaneously?
Seems too good to be possible.
It’s all about cost…water is still relatively cheap, if you own shares.
But it will be gone soon and then shit is really gonna hit the fan…folks back East really don’t grasp how valuable water is here.
This was 1934 IMO it could get a lot worse . Water is a real issue . The Colorado river used to end in the Sea of Cortez , it dies in the desert today . It is way over taxed and soon all will know
AZ is talking about going down to the Sea of Cortez Desalting and Pipe lining the water to it’s major Metro areas , BIG FUCKING MONEY and I am sure Mexico is going to say " Sure come on down and fuck up our environment all you Crackers 
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Several middle eastern countries are trying to contract with international firms to build small nukes on their coastlines to power their desalination plants…they are the only things that have enough juice to run them cost effectively.
We need to start building our own, with massive desalination plants on our coastlines.
We have a finite amount of resources, and yet we have open borders?
That needs to change…sorry, only so much pie to go around.
One last thing, one must be careful throwing around terms like “90% of scientists”… as to my previous point 90% of scientists once believed that Eugenics was undisputed scientific fact.[/quote]
The condition of our infrastructure as a whole has been surveyed by the ASCE and virtually none of it is in “good” condition, most of it rating at about a C average.
Not that it isn’t a good idea, but I don’t want a nuclear power plant maintained at a C.
[/quote]
The majority of nukes are maintained by huge energy corporations like Mid-American Energy and Duke Energy…they take good care of their multi-billion dollar investments.[/quote]
Agreed and that’s where they should stay frankly. One of my best friends is a nuclear engineer at Honeywell now, but while he was with Kiewit he had a hand in building some very very expensive nuke projects. They take excellent care of those facilities and they do it on their own dime and far cheaper.[/quote]
That is pretty much what I was getting at. It would be a disservice all the way around if a nuclear plant/desalination plant became the object of a politically motivated budget battle like our highways and other national projects have.
Which leads me to the next question- If it is such a good idea, why isn’t it being done yet? (in the US) My understanding of it is that small reactor technology is a direction that the field has taken, so why aren’t we using them?
[/quote]
Mucho spensive!! and as long as there is cheaper water to drill for you will not see many if any built.
And when they are it will be because of the West and the shrinkage of the Colorado river. The water wars are just getting real here, with Las Vegas and Phoenix growing rapidly and consuming massive amounts of water.
There have been plans discussed to build 30-40 story tall vertical farms in the Southwestern desert that would be irrigated by desalination plants. But until things get REAL desperate (like a 20+ year extreme drought) it’s just too expensive.[/quote]
This, and in addition there is a bit of a phobia of nuclear energy, for lack of a better word. I’m not sure exactly where it resides, but I know gov’t doesn’t want to touch it in general. It was a huge “next-gen” power production possibility until Three Mile Island in '79. There’s never been a huge recovery for widespread use as far as I know, but you would probably have to ask my engineering friend.
The technology is far, far better now but for some reason nobody really wants to touch it–I think cost is a major issue but also it has to do with negative perception. Greenpeace is strongly against it, although I don’t think their opinion is worth shit. They are, however, not the only actively opposed organization.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
Climate change = global ________
is it warming or cooling?
the threat is greatly diminished once you say cooling, which it could be (no longer global warming right?)
DB, your OP assumes the world will be warming, but will it?[/quote]
The trend has been to warm. We are experiencing a “pause” right now, one that has lasted roughly 17 years. There have been some fluctuation during that “pause” in which global temperatures have dropped slightly. But the average global temp over the course of that 17-year period has still been much higher than anything in recent memory.
A large part of why the pause happened has to do with the ocean. The majority of the evidence thus far indicates that the ocean has absorbed much of the carbon dioxide that has not been absorbed into the atmosphere. As some of the carbon is refracted back toward the surface, it heats the cool layer of water at the ocean’s surface. When the surface heats up, the gradient spanning across the top layer of surface water does not conduct heat as well, so more heat stays trapped in the ocean instead of the atmosphere.
We’ll probably see this in effect next winter out here in California. There is a very large likelihood that we experience an El Nino winter on the scale of the one we experienced in 1982-83 and 1997-98. If the Pacific Ocean has been heating up due to increased absorption of carbon dioxide, this will exacerbate a weather pattern that is already potentially very destructive. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that El Ninos like the ones in 82-83 and 97-98 begin to happen with more frequency. As the warmer water continues upwelling, it will force fish populations along the coast to dwindle, which will have a huge impact on the fishing industry out here and ultimately, the price of fish in general.[/quote]
Sounds like a long-winded answer of “no one has a fucking clue what is going on.”
This is why people should question Climate Change.
The Dept. of Water and Power caught hiding $40 Million in ratepayer funds.
Coop, your default position of CC deniers having their heads in the sand, when shit like this ^ is going on, shows exactly why people should be skeptical of everything.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
what I won’t accept is pseudo scientific nonsense like anthropogenic climate warming/cooling.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call it pseudo-scientific nonsense. I would call it bitterly political perhaps, but not pseudo-scientific. It’s real science and it needs consideration.[/quote]
That’s the problem I have with “real science” it tends to favor the group who are paying the bills for the research.
Grants don’t come dropping out of the sky completely neutral.[/quote]
This is true, but for all the failures of the current grant funding system it is not widely super politicized. Except for this topic. There is a very real attempt to put money where it is likely to do the most good in the vast majority of research fields–although often times it is so laughably inept as to approach the ridiculous. We are talking about “intent” here though, not actual efficiency.
One of the greatest disservices ever done to science was the successful tagging of “grant” to “corporate evil” or “big money profit/politics motive” or any similar identifier. It is not that it never happens–it does–but that generally speaking you do not have this sort of NWO kind of alliance for grant funding that you seem to hint at.
I believe it is similar in many ways to this sort of pharmacophobia or chemophobia movement we find ourselves in the midst of these days. Are there adverse affects to drugs? Sure. Is it some sort of NWO/evil pharma conspiracy? No.
It’s interesting, one of our engineers is from the midwest and they are trying to get pipelines from the coasts to there built, to replenish the Ogallala Aquifer which has been hammered over the last 50 years.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It’s all about cost…water is still relatively cheap, if you own shares.
But it will be gone soon and then shit is really gonna hit the fan…folks back East really don’t grasp how valuable water is here.
We’re going to see agriculture gone from the west in our lifetimes. Cities are going to be able to pay for water and our limited supplies are going to go to them.
To some degree we’ve definitely done this to ourselves though. I mean we have cities in the middle of the desert and farming where there’s little to no water.
We will see desalination makinging financial sense before we know it though.
james
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Several middle eastern countries are trying to contract with international firms to build small nukes on their coastlines to power their desalination plants…they are the only things that have enough juice to run them cost effectively.
We need to start building our own, with massive desalination plants on our coastlines.
We have a finite amount of resources, and yet we have open borders?
That needs to change…sorry, only so much pie to go around.
One last thing, one must be careful throwing around terms like “90% of scientists”… as to my previous point 90% of scientists once believed that Eugenics was undisputed scientific fact.[/quote]
The condition of our infrastructure as a whole has been surveyed by the ASCE and virtually none of it is in “good” condition, most of it rating at about a C average.
Not that it isn’t a good idea, but I don’t want a nuclear power plant maintained at a C.
[/quote]
The majority of nukes are maintained by huge energy corporations like Mid-American Energy and Duke Energy…they take good care of their multi-billion dollar investments.[/quote]
Agreed and that’s where they should stay frankly. One of my best friends is a nuclear engineer at Honeywell now, but while he was with Kiewit he had a hand in building some very very expensive nuke projects. They take excellent care of those facilities and they do it on their own dime and far cheaper.[/quote]
That is pretty much what I was getting at. It would be a disservice all the way around if a nuclear plant/desalination plant became the object of a politically motivated budget battle like our highways and other national projects have.
Which leads me to the next question- If it is such a good idea, why isn’t it being done yet? (in the US) My understanding of it is that small reactor technology is a direction that the field has taken, so why aren’t we using them?
[/quote]
Mucho spensive!! and as long as there is cheaper water to drill for you will not see many if any built.
And when they are it will be because of the West and the shrinkage of the Colorado river. The water wars are just getting real here, with Las Vegas and Phoenix growing rapidly and consuming massive amounts of water.
There have been plans discussed to build 30-40 story tall vertical farms in the Southwestern desert that would be irrigated by desalination plants. But until things get REAL desperate (like a 20+ year extreme drought) it’s just too expensive.[/quote]
This, and in addition there is a bit of a phobia of nuclear energy, for lack of a better word. I’m not sure exactly where it resides, but I know gov’t doesn’t want to touch it in general. It was a huge “next-gen” power production possibility until Three Mile Island in '79. There’s never been a huge recovery for widespread use as far as I know, but you would probably have to ask my engineering friend.
The technology is far, far better now but for some reason nobody really wants to touch it–I think cost is a major issue but also it has to do with negative perception. Greenpeace is strongly against it, although I don’t think their opinion is worth shit. They are, however, not the only actively opposed organization.[/quote]
IIRC, nukes are big capital investment and require lots of water, and they have failed to meet their expectations of actually producing cheap energy relative to the required risk associated with the upfront capital investment. I think you’d see more of them if they were actually a good economic bet for a private company, frankly.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Apologies if you feel that I referring to you, I hadn’t seen you comment on the thread. I’m familiar with your scientific background, of which I have none to speak of. I was writing toward those who are wholly dismissive of the climate change literature who had made no effort to insider it’s methodology or implications, which obviously isn’t you.
As far as nuclear energy goes, I believe that government regulation is necessary to ensure that anti proliferation technology is implemented, such as light water reactors. The last thing an earth reaching it’s biophysical limits is a wave of horizontal nuclear proliferation.
[/quote]
No problem friend. It is a rather touchy subject to be sure but I appreciate the clarification very much. It is aggravating for me.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The technology is far, far better now but for some reason nobody really wants to touch it–I think cost is a major issue but also it has to do with negative perception. Greenpeace is strongly against it, although I don’t think their opinion is worth shit. They are, however, not the only actively opposed organization.[/quote]
That “some reason” is Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, etc. There is still a lot of fear about reactors and the public and our politicians tend to react to that fear.
james
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So if you are going to come in here and argue that climate change isn’t occurring or whatever, get lost. Take it back to the local chapter of the circle jerk society.[/quote]
Don’t take a position if you’re not willing to defend it.[/quote]
Really? So, if you take the position that the sun will rise tomorrow, do you then feel it necessary to defend that position when others argue to the contrary?
I don’t waste my time arguing about whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring or not. It’s a position I’ve taken and defended ad nauseum on this forum in the past.
[/quote]
I can say with absolute certainty that THE SUN WILL NOT RISE TOMORROW
The Sun will not rise or move in any way. We, on Earth, will spin in our orbit around the Sun and when we are facing the Sun, it is “daytime”
but most assuredly, the Sun will not rise tomorrow.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The technology is far, far better now but for some reason nobody really wants to touch it–I think cost is a major issue but also it has to do with negative perception. Greenpeace is strongly against it, although I don’t think their opinion is worth shit. They are, however, not the only actively opposed organization.[/quote]
That “some reason” is Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, etc. There is still a lot of fear about reactors and the public and our politicians tend to react to that fear.
james[/quote]
Unfortunately, nuclear power is now probably the safest least impactful large scale power source out there.
France is the world leader in modern nukes, and they are freaking awesome machines.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So if you are going to come in here and argue that climate change isn’t occurring or whatever, get lost. Take it back to the local chapter of the circle jerk society.[/quote]
Don’t take a position if you’re not willing to defend it.[/quote]
Really? So, if you take the position that the sun will rise tomorrow, do you then feel it necessary to defend that position when others argue to the contrary?
I don’t waste my time arguing about whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring or not. It’s a position I’ve taken and defended ad nauseum on this forum in the past.
[/quote]
I hope you realise that I am merely pointing out that even the most bleedin’ obvious can be argued about, and argued well.