[johnu]

 Gerben42, on 2019-April-09, 14:27, said:

And after a nuclear accident, everybody dies, right? Oh, they don't? Darn...
(on 3/11/19 a German radio station reported 20,000 deaths from the Fukushima nuclear accident - seems like they have forgotten that these people died due to the deadliest tsunami in Japanese history).
So how can one evaluate how dangerous different power sources are? A good way is to say "I need a TWh of electricity how many people will die?"

I actually didn't mention anybody dying, but now that you have brought it up, how many megawatts is a human life worth? Comparing tsunami deaths to leaking radiation is a strawman argument. Unless you got an immediately fatal dose of radiation, you won't see increased deaths for years. The deaths from radiation overexposure are going to happen many decades later for most people so comparing deaths in the short term is a waste of time.

 Gerben42, on 2019-April-09, 14:27, said:

Most plants have an extended life time of 60 years, which is in fact the design lifetime of new plants. What is your point here? This is true for any power plant. In fact most don't live that long. Solar panels for example won't even last 20 years before you are left with toxic waste.

Most energy plants don't have nuclear waste to cleanup after the plant closes. Do you understand the difference between normal industrial waste and nuclear waste? I'm waiting for you to explain the Hanford cleanup and how things are going there.

 Gerben42, on 2019-April-09, 14:27, said:

You don't seem to have thought this through...
* No one is "trying" decommisioning, this is an existing industry. And expensive is relative. Nuclear power requires a big investment but consider a reactor supplying 1600 MW of electricity for 60 years (800 billion kWh), that is a huge amount of revenue and the initial investment and the decomissioning cost seem like small change.

If it's private companies you are talking about, they can go out of business or declare bankruptcy if they don't want to pay and who do you think it going to pick up the tab? And where does that nuclear waste go? Nobody wants to store nuclear waste, not the states where the waste was created, and not states like Nevada where storage has been going on for years.

 Gerben42, on 2019-April-09, 14:27, said:

* Nuclear waste see above - use breeder reactors to close the nuclear fuel cycle.

May or may not be ready for prime time, and only reduces but doesn't eliminate nuclear waste.

 Gerben42, on 2019-April-09, 14:27, said:

* Terrorists are not stupid enough to try attacking a nuclear power plant. It would be like blowing yourself up on top of Cheops' Pyramid. No one dies, you leave some bad stains.

Terrorists killing themselves while committing terrorist acts? Have you heard of something known as 9/11? Or countless suicide bombers who blow themselves up along with innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Terrorist infiltrating a nuclear plant and sabotaging all the safety equipment and causing an explosion? I hope you don't have a job in the nuclear power plant security business. Frankly, you've lost all credibility with your last comment.

 Gerben42, on 2019-April-09, 14:27, said:

* Nuclear material from commercial nuclear power plants does not consist of weapons-grade material. You still need to do the enrichment and before you know it you have the IAEA on top of you. Assuming you don't die first, that is.

Nobody is talking about weapons grade material, and I don't know why you are deflecting by talking about enrichment. Just the act of blowing up a nuclear plant leads to widespread radiation fallout (see Chernobyl, see Fukushima, etc). If the plant is close to a major population center, huge numbers of people are going to be forced to permanently evacuate. And if terrorists steal nuclear material, they can explode a dirty bomb. No enrichment necessary, no weapons grade material required. It won't create nearly as much damage as a nuclear bomb, but large areas will still be rendered uninhabitable.

I am actually not a complete opponent of nuclear power, but there are some crucial safety issues that need to be addressed before I would favor any expansion.

[Al_U_Card]

 hrothgar, on 2019-April-08, 15:42, said:

How much you wanna bet that he is going to start waxing rhapsodic about thorium

Good idea!

http://youtu.be/2U9HVIFt2GE

[johnu]

Dennison congressional clown grills John Kerry over political science degree.

John Kerry fires back at GOP congressman questioning his 'pseudoscience' degree

I would say this is one of the stupidest lines of questioning I have ever heard, but 2 years of Dennison has raised the bar to new heights.

Quote

During the hearing, Massie, who holds two engineering degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, asked Kerry about his “science degree” from Yale University, where the former senator graduated from with a bachelor of arts in political science.

“How do you get a bachelor of arts in a science?” the Kentucky Republican asked Kerry.

“Well, it’s liberal arts education and degree, it’s a bachelor,” Kerry said.

“OK, so it’s not really science,” Massie said. “So I think it’s somewhat appropriate that someone with a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today.”

“Are you serious? I mean, this is really a serious happening here?” Kerry asked in apparent disbelief.

In fairness to Massie, he spent all night thinking up his zingers about Kerry's college degrees.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

For anyone worried about climate change, Jerry Taylor is an intriguing figure.

He “spent years as a professional climate denier at the Cato Institute, arguing against climate science, regulations, and treaties in op-eds, speeches, and media appearances,” the MIT Technology Review explains. Taylor’s view, as he told Vox’s David Roberts, was that “it’s unclear how big a problem it is, there’s a lot of uncertainty, and there’s probably more of a chance that it’s going to be a relative non-problem than it will be a problem.”

But then Taylor began to change his mind.

First, he was willing to continue reading the scientific evidence with an open mind. And it became strong enough to persuade him. “While one can do some gymnastics to continue to defend the ‘there’s nothing to see here, folks’ argument, it became harder and harder,” he told Roberts.

Second, he was influenced by a couple of arguments from other conservatives — much as I hope that his own arguments may now persuade still other conservatives. One argument pointed out that climate change damages private property and impinges on people’s freedom. Another came from the risk-management ideas of Wall Street — that even small risks with terrible potential consequences must be taken seriously.

“If this sort of risk were to arise in any other context in the private markets, people would pay real money to hedge against it,” Taylor said.

In 2014 Taylor founded the Niskanen Center, which is doing important work imagining what a healthy conservative party could look like in this country. (David Brooks and New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait have written more broadly about Niskanen’s work.) Having a non-destructive climate policy is, of course, a big part of the answer.

For anyone looking for other conservatives making the case for climate action, try:

Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post, who — perhaps not coincidentally — is based in the coastal state of South Carolina. “Make no mistake,” she wrote after Hurricane Harvey battered Texas. “We are being warned.”

Debbie Dooley, a pro-Trump conservative whom The Times has profiled.

Students for Carbon Dividends, a group with multiple college chapters.

Several of these conservatives think a carbon tax is more politically realistic than I do. Taylor, for example, makes the case for such a tax in his recent critique of the Green New Deal. But I’ll say this: If the conservatives who are worried about the climate can win enough Republicans to their side, a carbon tax may become more feasible than it is today. That would be very good news.

Our biggest disagreement

I thought of Taylor this week, because my colleague Ross Douthat suggested we devote another segment of “The Argument” podcast to climate change. He did so after I told him that it had been the hardest subject for me to discuss with him. On many other subjects — health care, religion, abortion, criminal justice and more — I understand where Ross is coming from even when I disagree with him. But I don’t understand how someone as smart as he is can be blasé about climate change.

In this follow-up conversation, we managed to find more common ground, just as he predicted. If you listen and have thoughts, send me an email at leonhardt@nytimes.com.

[PassedOut]

 y66, on 2019-April-25, 06:26, said:

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

Second, he was influenced by a couple of arguments from other conservatives — much as I hope that his own arguments may now persuade still other conservatives. One argument pointed out that climate change damages private property and impinges on people’s freedom. Another came from the risk-management ideas of Wall Street — that even small risks with terrible potential consequences must be taken seriously.

“If this sort of risk were to arise in any other context in the private markets, people would pay real money to hedge against it,” Taylor said.

And that is exactly on point. Along with everyone else, I hope that the most extreme scenarios won't come to pass. Nevertheless, the risk is great enough and the potential consequences so severe that action must be taken to curtail CO₂ emissions. I think it fair to say that everyone who says otherwise is a liar, a crook, or dumb as a post.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2019-April-25, 08:46, said:

And that is exactly on point. Along with everyone else, I hope that the most extreme scenarios won't come to pass. Nevertheless, the risk is great enough and the potential consequences so severe that action must be taken to curtail CO₂ emissions. I think it fair to say that everyone who says otherwise is a liar, a crook, or dumb as a post.

What is the exact relation between the changing climate and human CO2 generation? It should be easy as you are none of the above...

[y66]

Now I see why some people say the climate is very stable.

[johnu]

 y66, on 2019-April-27, 07:20, said:

Now I see why some people say the climate is very stable.

Exactly. I've been measuring the amount of ice in my refrigerator for many years and there is just as much ice as when I first bought it. So much for global warming.

[Winstonm]

 johnu, on 2019-April-28, 17:23, said:

Exactly. I've been measuring the amount of ice in my refrigerator for many years and there is just as much ice as when I first bought it. So much for global warming.

You think that is something, I went to every elementary school in Tulsa and in every classroom the alphabet was exactly the same size it was 62 years ago when I was in school - so much for rising C's.

[Al_U_Card]

So, despite the "science" associated with climatology and the trillions invested in its modelling and the proposals for its mitigation by the reduction of anthropogenic CO2, I would have thought that some of its "projections" would have come to pass seeing as we have now had at least 30 years (of CLIMATE) to go on. I am having difficulty finding anything but failed prognostications. At least for specifics. DIsappearing arctic sea-ice comes to mind as the poster-child for this lack. When a "science" fails to predict anything, is it really scientific or is it something else?

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-April-30, 07:38, said:

...
More Yada that Al_U_Card has cut and pasted without explanation or context (or understanding?)
...

from the NSIDC.com (which the graph was linked to) homepage

Quote

Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles) on March 13, 2019, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado Boulder. The 2019 maximum is effectively tied with the 2007 maximum at seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record.

“While this is not a record low year for the Arctic sea ice maximum extent, the last four years have been the lowest in our record, reflecting a downward trend in winter sea ice extent,” said NSIDC senior research scientist Walt Meier. “This is just another indicator of the rapid changes that are occurring in the Arctic due to climate change.”

Both my refrigerator and global warming deniers would disagree that ice levels are shrinking.

Worth noting is this quote “While this is not a record low year for the Arctic sea ice maximum extent, the last four years have been the lowest in our record"

[Al_U_Card]

 johnu, on 2019-April-30, 14:20, said:

from the NSIDC.com (which the graph was linked to) homepage


Both my refrigerator and global warming deniers would disagree that ice levels are shrinking.

Worth noting is this quote “While this is not a record low year for the Arctic sea ice maximum extent, the last four years have been the lowest in our record"

So, no "death spiral" then? Just a low in the arctic climate cycle and we happen to be at a low point (cherry-pick) that "explains" the current situation better than "ever-rising" CO2 levels.How's that mathematical CO2 to global climate relation coming?

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-April-30, 19:37, said:

So, no "death spiral" then? Just a low in the arctic climate cycle and we happen to be at a low point (cherry-pick) that "explains" the current situation better than "ever-rising" CO2 levels.How's that mathematical CO2 to global climate relation coming?

Are you trying the be the William Barr of climate change? You are certainly doing a good impression. 4 of the last 5 years had the lowest arctic sea ice measurements in the 40 year history of satellite measurements. The latest year is the 7th lowest.

In case you want to point this out, why didn't people didn't do satellite measurements of the arctic ice before 40 year years ago? Why didn't they do satellite measurements back in the days of George Washington? What's more, why didn't they do satellite measurements back when the Clovis people were the only human inhabitants of North America? Why aren't they using European satellite data from the days of the Neanderthals? Why is this organization ignoring hundreds of thousands of years of satellite photography that could prove there is no global warming. According to you, obviously they are cherry picking the data to falsely show global warming

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-April-30, 19:37, said:

How's that mathematical CO2 to global climate relation coming?

Although you have taken the Dennison approach to logic, greenhouse gases are explained:

Greenhouse gas

As to an exact formula, global climate is very complicated and it can't be explained in 1 formula. Look at a 3/7/10 day local weather forecast. What is the formula for predicting the weather next week? It takes hundreds of thousands of measurements, historical records, supercomputers running many simulations. What is the one formula that forecasters use? There isn't one. Does that mean that meteorologists can't predict the weather?

On the other end, I can accurately predict that the average August temperatures in my area are going to significantly higher than the average January temperatures. I don't have any single formula at all to back up my prediction. There are scientific reasons to predict this will be the case, but no single formula.

Of course, I know that you don't care about any reasons if they contradict your climate change denier gurus.

[Al_U_Card]

Meteorologists know that their computer models must be up-dated with current atmospheric values every 6 hours (because it is NOT exactly what their simulations showed 6 hours before) and their forecasting ability is really limited to 2-3 days with more than 50% accuracy. 20 years in the future?

No need for gurus to share their knowledge and analysis when we have the IPCC.

IPCC AR5 (2014): “It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 (1.5 to 1.9) mm/year between 1901 and 2010…and 3.2 (2.8 to 3.6) mm/year between 1993 and 2010. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.”

IPCC AR5 (2014): There is not enough evidence to support medium or high
confidence of attribution of increasing trends to anthropogenic forcings as a result of observational uncertainties and variable results from region to region…we conclude consistent with SREX that there is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century.


IPCC AR5 (2014): In summary there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

IPCC AR5 (2014): Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in
global cyclone frequency over the past century… No robust trends in annual
numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes have been identified in the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”


And so on and so on. The alarmist bag of tricks is now empty and they have to rely on little girls that can see CO2... Rainmakers anyone?

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-May-03, 04:57, said:

...
More Yada cut and pasted out of context and without links
...

[Al_U_Card]

A 12 minute explanation of why and how climate models are not "fit for purpose".




https://www.youtube....h?v=0gDErDwXqhc

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2019-May-04, 05:25, said:

...
More Yada from a climate change denier
...

As Paris talks approach, not even Donald Trump's fringe can hide desperation of climate science denialists

Quote

Nobel prize in the offing for Evans for disproving more than a century of science without ever having published a single paper on climate change in any peer reviewed journal?

Quote

Prof Matt England, of the University of New South Wales climate change research centre, had this to say:

David Evans has a superb track record of dodgy claims and bizarre climate change theories. He has zero credibility in the field and it’s staggering that any credible journalist could fall for this rubbish.

[Al_U_Card]

As the next, in a long line of CO2 splurging junkets approaches:


"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair

[Al_U_Card]

BTW, aside from Lindzen, Happer, Dyson etc. there's:

Dr David Evans earned six degrees related to modeling and applied mathematics over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University. He was instrumental in building the carbon accounting system Australia uses to estimate carbon changes in its biosphere, for the Australian Greenhouse Office

But he wouldn't be an appropriate critic for climate models...