Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 Next
Comments 14351 to 14400:
-
Riduna at 11:48 AM on 16 June 2018New research, June 4-10, 2018
In their Paper, Hansen et al 2016 note that . . . . ‘sea level reached +6.9 m in the Eemian, a time that we have concluded was probably no more than a few tenths of a degree warmer than to-day’. Mean global temperature is predicted to be well in excess of the Eemian by 2100.
While the Paper does specify the magnitude of sea level rise likely by 2100, it can be argued that, given that CO2/CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere already exceed by 40%/267% the levels present during the Eemian thermal meximum, sea level rise in excess of the level then reached is at least possible by 2100.
You may also be interested in this video in which Dr Hansen discusses the work embodied in Hansen et al 2016. Based on decadal doubling of ice mass loss during the 21st century, I estimate SLR by 2100 would exceed 6 metres. This view seems to be supported by recent research undertaken by the IMBIE Team and published on 12 June 18 in Nature.
-
nigelj at 07:48 AM on 16 June 2018New research, June 4-10, 2018
Other research: Antarctic ice is melting three times as fast as a decade ago. This is obviously very concerning. What are implications for sea level rise by 2100? Has anyone calculated this?
I find the list of research above very comprehensive, but in a confusing order. Wouldn't it make more sense to order it science first, then human impacts, then mitigation?
-
william5331 at 07:34 AM on 16 June 2018The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground
The only way tar sands will be stopped is if they are made uneconomical by, for instance, the continual reduction of the cost of renewable electricity and the continual uptake of electric vehicles. At the risk of having my comment removed, we thought that the recent Canadian election would solve the problem. Sadly no. We must try again next election.
-
KanKnapper at 22:29 PM on 15 June 2018The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground
What absolute tripe. The majority of tar sands production comes from in-situ technologies and is in general no worse than any other oil production mechanism and in the preferred embodiment, is cleaner than other oil production methods.
Petcoke can be put to good use such as the CVR refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas does by converting it to ammonia for fertilizer.
Rather than all the caterwauling why not put your considerable brain power to use to solve carbon emissions. There's plenty of evidence to show that new soil science methods technically can store all anthropogenic emissions in the soil and if implemented widely could reduce atmospheric carbon to pre-industrial levels within 50 years.
Moderator Response:[JH] Inflammatory sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:40 PM on 15 June 2018The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground
Riduna, keep an eye on Norway. They're well ahead of the rest of the world on EV adoption (~50% of new car sales and >5% of total fleet) and in 2017 they saw a corresponding reduction in petroleum fuels usage for the first time.
Thus, as Norway continues down this road it will likely provide guideposts for how much EV adoption in other countries will be required to reach a given level of petroleum fuel reduction, how quickly that can happen, where any inflection points might occur, etc.
-
Riduna at 14:26 PM on 15 June 2018The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground
In an essay on coming problems for oil producers, I argued that up-take of electric and hybrid vehicles by 2023-25 was likely to result in reduced demand for oil and its refined products. The essay concluded that, possibly as soon as 2023, demand for oil-based fuels could contract by 2 million bbl/day resulting in a continually growing oil glut as EV sales increased.
Faced with the disruption of a contracting market, refineries would reduce and eventually cease purchase of those crude oils which were the most difficult and expensive to refine. These are the Extra Heavy and Heavy oils produced by Canada, Venezuela, Indonesia and several other countries.
Extra Heavy crude are undeniably the most polluting and damaging to the environment but are likely to be the first to cease production, probably by 2023 and will be followed by Heavy crude oil, not because of their damaging effect but for purely commercial reasons.
Uninformed or ignorant politicians and judges may prolong use of Extra Heavy crude and this should be resisted now but over the next 5 years it is likely to occur anyway. In the meantime it is good to see people like John Abraham and James Hansen call-out those who produce and use these oils.
-
scaddenp at 13:59 PM on 15 June 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
Worth noting that there is now comprehensive review published here concluding "it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation). "
More importantly, it discusses the reasons behind the different estimates and why the variation, especially with ICESet altimetry data.
-
nigelj at 07:51 AM on 15 June 2018The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground
This horrible tar sands oil is expensive and hard to extract, so is dependent on low oil prices continuing, and a friendly american and european market. Looks like a big gamble.
Canada has become very reliant on oil exports (20% of exports), and the boom bust oil cycle prices affects their currency hurting manufacturing.
They spend 3 billion a year propping up their oil industry, and the effects of tar sands oil on the local environment, indigenous peoples, and climate are horrendous and well known.
Looks like Canada has made a deal with the devil.
-
nigelj at 07:29 AM on 15 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #21
It seems mysterious why tar sand oil is minded in the first place, given its such a low quality, high extraction cost, environmentally devastating resource. I found some brief background on Canadas tar sands and environmental impacts here, and a history of extraction, export strategies, and pipelines controversies here.
It appears the primary reasons for mining tar sands are that Canada has huge reserves of tar sands, so is influenced by this , and has close ties with the American market, and oil and fuel products comprise approximately 20 % of Canadas exports, so there's already a large inbuilt dependency .
But it seems to me like Canada has taken a huge long term gamble that demand will continue be sufficient to pay for the high capital costs, and this goes against climate policies in its export countries to reduce oil consumption that are likely to increase, and cheap oil resulting from fracking in the USA.
This tar sand oil is only truly economic at $100 barrel, and this figure fluctuates wildly. The boom and bust oil cycle leads to swings in the Canadian curreny value that hurt their substantial manufacturing sector. Canada also gives the oil industry three billion dollars each year in subsidies here so its artificially propped up.
The environmental impacts are huge, off the scale.
Its like Canada has made a deal with the devil.
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 15 June 201897% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree
Related research: Climate scepticism in the media. Brilliant article.
-
Evan at 00:44 AM on 15 June 2018The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground
The fact that we burn gasoline in Minnesota derived from the Alberta Tar sands was one of the factors that influenced my wife and I to switch to driving an EV.
-
william5331 at 06:11 AM on 14 June 2018Benefits of curbing climate change far outweigh costs
It has seemed likely for quite some time that at least in the conversion to renewable energy and even after we have converted, we will be better off economically. Countries are now even conemplating a universal wage whether you work or not. How much better to have high employment with the satisfaction that comes with it. The extraction of fossil fuel uses less and less people as more and more automation is employed. Installing and maintaining renewable energy facilities employs far more people. The way we are going, soon there will be no one left to buy the goods produced by automated factories. For heaven sake, they are now automating the massive trucks that shift the iron ore up in the Pilbara in WA. However conversion to renewables doesn't benefit the companies who finance our politicians. Who pays the piper calls the tune. It isn't rocket science. Until our politicians are financed from the public purse they will do the bidding of their financiers. Does it sound expensive that we finance the politicians. The present system is costing us so much more in so many ways.
-
Hank11198 at 21:23 PM on 13 June 2018Benefits of curbing climate change far outweigh costs
Do any of these studies consider how much the US will be disadvantaged when other countries are using free source energy generation while the US is still paying for energy sources if it falls behind in converting?
-
Trevor_S at 19:51 PM on 13 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
@nigelj That sounds like the Fermi Paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
perhaps they too polluted their atmosphere with CO2 from burning fossil fuels :)
-
nigelj at 09:44 AM on 13 June 2018Benefits of curbing climate change far outweigh costs
There is a school of thought that says not only is continued endless economic growth implausible, given resources are finite, the world should deliberately aim for zero economic growth in the short term, to avoid painfall longer term shocks and severely depleted resources. Of course poor countries can't be expected to stop growing their economies and would have to be exempted or assisted.
However it depends on the nature of the economic growth, and whether it's based around resources or the services sector, and the ability of some materials to be recycled. It also relates to increasing population growth trends which obviously magnify the problems, and which simply have to slow right down.
-
nigelj at 07:05 AM on 13 June 2018Benefits of curbing climate change far outweigh costs
Climate change will indeed reduce rates of economic growth. Heat stress is not going to be helpful in terms of increasing labour productivity, crop yields, etcetera, and these are some of the basic causal factors in generating economic growth.
But economic growth is going to decrease for other reasons as well adding to this. This means there's just no way continued economic growth can pay for adaptation to climate change. Its utterly delusional to believe otherwise. This is why mitigation has to be the preferred principal option, so that we avoid as much adaptation as possible.
The following graph shows how economic growth rates have been steadily falling in America and the UK for the last 50 years. The trend is rather starkly obvious. Many people think they will continue to fall. Look at how much public spending and newly created money has been thrown at economies since the global financial crash of 2008, and it has barely managed to get growth to about 2% pa in western countries. (I'm not saying these were the wrong things to do as such). But its been the same for about 20 years, in that high levels of public and private spending, much based on borrowing, are not generating much gdp growth in western countries.
The following book summarises the key reasons and the following in depth article goes into the details, and related published economic research.
Growth will most probably continue to fall in developed countries until it hits zero or close to it, and it probably increase in developing countries medium term then fall.
The causal factors relate to saturating markets, lower rates of technological advance (this may be counter intuitive but read the article), costs of extraction of finite resources, and poor labour productivity rates. And none of this is likely to improve, given the nature of the issues.
Sounds rather doomy and gloomy, but growth in some aspects of the economy will probably continue, and zero or steady state growth can still deliver a high quality of life and will be more sustainable long term.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:52 PM on 12 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #23
Studies like the DICE study appear to fail to recognize (perhaps deliberately) that any economic activity that is unsustainable (like the consumption of non-renewable resources or creation of accumulating environmental impacts) will have no future value and create no lasting value, only create negative future impacts.
The assumptions of continued growth presume something that will justify the growth will always exist.
In the 1960s, as the ability to extract wealth from non-renewable resources in less powerful nations was starting to become a little more difficult, increased consumer debt became a major tool to boost the appearance of economic growth.
An increase in consumer debt, or an increase in the ability to extract wealth from non-renewable resources somewhere cheaper than has been available in the past, is not available into the future. And developed activities that create accumulating environmental impact need to be curtailed.
There is little justification for the hope of continued growth just because there has been a history of growth so far. The ability of the more fortunate to extract even more benefit from unsustainable activities appears to have reached the point where a careful climb-down was required decades ago (the 2008 debt-triggered crash was a warning that things have already developed too far in the wrong direction).
Unfortunately, popularity and profitability can be seen to lead to development that favours the members of the current generation of humanity to the detriment of the future generations. It also develops more benefit for the already more fortunate. Global wealth has risen faster than population - though admittedly they are unsustainable perception of wealth - yet many still suffer brutal short existences. And the divide between the richest and poorest has increased (which is another unsustainable direction of development).
-
nigelj at 12:20 PM on 12 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #23
Related to my previous comments. Looks like the DICE study was even more wrong in claiming deaths from heat waves are cancelled out by fewer deaths from cold: "Climate skeptics sometimes like to claim that although global warming will lead to more deaths from heat, it will overall save lives due to fewer deaths from cold. But is this true? Epidemiological studies suggest the opposite."
-
nigelj at 10:53 AM on 12 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #23
The 'Dice' economic model predicts a 10% reduction in economic output. Summary of the dice model here. While the model does not appear to have some hidden agenda, even just a brief examination of the summary shows some considerable oddities:
1) I can't see any reference to quantifiyng the effects of climate refugees. Clearly with higher temperature scenarios this could become a huge economic issue like Riduna says. Regardless of effects on gdp growth, this has a range of other effects such as on house prices and road congestion.
2) The Dice study assumes population at 8.6 billion by 2100 which seems odd to me, because all the estimates I have read suggest 11 billion is the most likely number.
3) The Dice study assumes fatalities from heatwaves and reduced winter cold will cancel out. This seems optimistic to me given 1)the serious and yet very plausible scenarios for increased heatwaves and 2) the argument that deaths from winter cold are largely related to people congregating inside, so transmission of infections, and this is something that would not change much even in a warming climate.
4) It's very hard to reconcile even middle range estimates for increased hurricanes and flooding, and only a 10% reduction in economic output.
5) Dice assumes on advice of experts of a 6.8% chance at 6 degrees of 'catastrophic' climate change (defined as a 25% reduction in economic output on a near permanent basis. My note - this equates to the reduction during the 1930s great economic depression). The climate science field is moving quickly, and this looks like a totally outdated and conservative figure, but its still not partcularly good odds even at 6.8%, especially given the disastrous potential economic consequences.
6) No price appears to be put on species decline. But animal and plant species have economic value particularly the pharmaceutical industry.
7) No obvious recognition of realistic future economic growth trends. Economists mostly assume gdp growth will just continue at good rates and the dice study almost certainly assumes this, but reality suggests this is far too optimistic. Economic growth is already slowing, and has fallen from 6% in the 1950's to about 3% now in western countries, and there are convincing reasons to think we are heading to a world of zero economic growth this century. So in a world of static economic output, any reduction due to climate change will hurt even more.
-
Riduna at 08:16 AM on 12 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #23
Cost-benefit analysis is not required to show the stupidity of the DICE model (a 6-degree rise in global average temperature — which the physical sciences characterize as an unlivable hellscape — would only dent global GDP by 10 percent). Nor is it needed to realise that a rise in temperature of >2°C by 2100 producing severe climate conditions, partial collapse of agriculture and sea level rise flooding some major coastal cities could to have a negative effect of more than 10% on global GDP.
Continuing increase in the incidence of infrastructure damage through fire and severe climate events is also likely to occur and contribute to GDP contraction. Such outcomes, accompanied by expected increase in global population to >11 billion by 2100 is likely to result in starvation in some parts of the world and uncontrolled, possibly violent population movement in others.
We live in ‘interesting times’ yet do far too little to avoid catastrophic outcomes, while debating the merits of cost benefit analysis as a prognostic tool. Bit like the 14th century when some debated the number of angels who could stand on the point of a needle while the Black Death raged throughout Europe killing 60 % of the entire population.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 12 June 2018The Wall Street Journal keeps peddling Big Oil propaganda
The Wall Street journal would beneft from knowing just a tiny little bit of history, and they would see climate science has never been some political scam. Climate science and greenhouse gas theory dates back several centuries now.
Imho the only feasible solution to climate change is a combination of individual initiative and action, and government support for renewable energy and some sort of carbon tax or cap and trade scheme. This sort of combined individual and government response was how countries effectively dealt with other environmental problems historically. Sulphate aerosols form coal burning were partly resolved with a cap and trade scheme for example.
However the science leads to a requirement for some level of government response and this upsets people who have anti government agendas, so they try to undermine the science, and falsely claim its somehow become politicised by the left. The so called left are happy with a revenue neutral carbon tax to avoid money being captured by "big government", and the left simply accept the science which is supported now by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
However the fact that even a revenue neutral carbon tax is dismissed suggests vested business interests is probably an even larger driver of climate denial. Climate denial has it's own "gish gallop" of causes.
-
nigelj at 07:32 AM on 12 June 2018The Wall Street Journal keeps peddling Big Oil propaganda
Fred Singers many sea level claims are stated in this article. He claims recent sea level rise is just driven by historical warming going back many centuries before emissions significantly increased. He argues that sea level continued to rise even although ocean temperatures didn't increase over the period 1940 -1975 , showing sea level rise is independent of recent ocean temperatures (and by implication CO2 emissions), and is driven entirely by some very distant past historical processes.
However he is wrong. While some of the sea level rise is from previous centuries of warming much isn't. Sea surface temperatures did actually increase over the period 1940 - 1975, its only land temperatures that stalled. Sea level rise also has some level of medium decade level intertia and could be responding to warming in the 1920's. In addition, much of the sea level rise is driven by melting ice - so land surface temperatures.
I'm just an arm chair amateur, no atmospheric physics degree, so how can someone like Singer not even know sea surface temperature trends? The rest of what he claims makes no sense either, and is inconsistent with the evidence.
-
michael sweet at 23:24 PM on 11 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
John ONiel,
From your reference to Chinese nuclear plants:
- The title of the article is "Is China losing interest in nuclear power?" (the title is in your link).
- The subtitle is "Slowing demand for electricity and competition from renewables have halted new reactor approvals".
- It states "China has 20 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity under construction but plans for additional capacity are being delayed." and "The National Energy Administration did not approve any new nuclear plants between 2016 and 2017" and "“achieving targets set in the past now looks uncertain, with reactors that have been built and that are ready for fuelling and going into operation also on hold.” (!!!) and "“Work out supply and demand and you can see that the market is unable to absorb any more nuclear power,” (my emphasis)
- Their designs have been criticized by Western nuclear supporters as unsafe and outdated.
It seems to me that your reference would be a better citation for someone opposed to nuclear power. It appears that China is finishing off plants started 10 years ago before renewables became economic and are finally being completed. Since renewable energy is now cheaper they are ending their nuclear adventure. Look at Nijelj's reference for updated costs of power. If that is the best you can find I think it confirms my point so I will not add any to it.
Congratulations on finding a peer reviewed paper that supports your position! Unfortunately, my earlier reference showed that Hansen has given up on his claims that nuclear has to be a major part of future energy supplies and will at most be a minor energy source. Since my reference is from 2016 and yours is from 2013 it appears that Hansen changed his mind. Perhaps he read Abbott 2011.
Doing background reading I noticed that nuclear reactor disasters release I-131 and not I-129 as you suggested here. When someone uses the incorrect isotope it suggests they do not understand radioactivity. I-129 has a half-life of 16 million years, is a low energy beta emitter and only a small amount is produced in reactors so it is not a big concern in accidents. I wonder who you used as your source of information that does not use the correct isotope. Was it the Breakthrough Institute?
-
newairly at 19:45 PM on 11 June 2018Tiny shrimp could influence global climate changes
This reminds me of something I saw many years ago about the cumulative effect of Lyrebirds on the geography of the New South Wales Blue Mountains.
It was shown that over the millions of years that these ground scratching birds have been present that they can account for virtually all the erosion which has shaped the scenery of this area. Small effects multiplied can have huge consequences.
-
nigelj at 15:56 PM on 11 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
John ONeill @35
Selecting China with its low nuclear costs is an example of confirmation bias, ie looking for one country that supports your case. In fact the Lazard energy analysis find that both wind and solar energy have lower costs than nuclear power and coal 'globally', and its november 2107 so is more up to date. This is a much wider, more realistic, reliable and useful review of costs than picking a media comment from one country.
Do you want to live in a communist dicatatorship? And how many corners have been cut in the construction?
-
nigelj at 14:08 PM on 11 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #23
The article on economic modelling is persuasive. But do these economic models do a cost benefit analysis over the next 100 years, or do they consider costs over 1000 years, which is the time frame of the most significantly elevated CO2 levels? It would seem to me a 1000 year period of more destructive weather globally would be a pretty massive total cost. I don't think we could limit the studies to just this generation of people (picking up on what OPOF said)
How would you even put an economic cost on animal species extinctions, loss of habitat, ocean acidification etc? Yet these are all intuitively negative sorts of consequences.
I have total respect for people trying to model all this, because its obviousy exceptionally complicated with so many factors to consider. It may be a case of trying to think more widely than economic modelling. There are many reasons to reduce carbon footprints in addition to crude cost factors, we will run out of fossil fuels anyway, etcetera. This is how I rationalise it all.
-
John ONeill at 13:32 PM on 11 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
Michael Sweet -
'Nuclear is uneconomic. If you check through my old posts I do not question nuclear power on its abysmal safety record, which is the basis of your argument. The fact that you bring an argument here that we do not use proves that nuclear is unsafe.'
I was actually responding to nigelj's comment.
'In price terms, the ( Chinese ) National Energy Administration’s National Electricity Pricing report, published in 2016, ranks nuclear power second only to coal on cost, and says it is much cheaper than electricity generated from natural gas, wind and solar. In an interview last year, Ye Qizhen of the Chinese Academy of Engineering Sciences, was also upbeat about the economics of nuclear power in China. He told China Energy News that power costs from China’s Generation II+ reactor designs, which are now entering operation on the south-east coast, will be on a par with those from coal-fired power, and some may even be cheaper.' https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10506-Is-China-losing-interest-in-nuclear-power-
Of course, what they manage in China now is completely unattainable in the West these days. Glad your not bringing up nuclear's abysmal safety record.
'Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes' - paper by James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha, 2013, 142 citations https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed links. Please learn to do this yourself with the link icon in the comments editor.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:15 AM on 11 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #23
It must become understood that future generations are "Others". The future is not "Our Future", and the present is not "Their Present".
It also must be understood that it is morally/ethically unacceptable to try to benefit in a way that can be understood to be causing harm to Others.
And an undeniable understanding is that many pursuits of personal benefit among today's generation are causing harm to the future generations.
That leads to understanding that pursuing a better present to the detriment of the future is inexcusable.
That means there is no economic justification for any already fortunate people to continue benefiting from burning of non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons. Only the least fortunate should benefit, and only temporarily, and only if burning fossil fuels produces a significant to benefit the poorest (very temporarily).
Economic analysis attempting to balance 'lost opportunity for benefit today if the harmful burning is stopped' with 'the magnitude of negative impacts in the future' is undeniably absurd excuse making, yet remains popular among supposedly more advanced and educated people.
Self-interest can have a powerful negative affect on thinking.
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 11 June 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
Regarding intelligence I heard an astonomer discuss an interesting theory. Some people think the reason alien life has not visited our planet is that alien civilisations have probably destroyed their environments with environmental impacts and perhaps even climate change, causing a collapse of their civilisations before they were able to develop interstellar space flight. They ended up simply trying to survive.
-
dudo39 at 03:24 AM on 11 June 2018Climate Science websites around the world
In Série negacionismo: “não há consenso científico”
Por cienciaeclima on 2018/05/06. Please see my previos comment -
dudo39 at 03:19 AM on 11 June 2018Climate Science websites around the world
It is interesting to note that the Brazilian site has the paragraph
The study concluded that the debate about the authenticity of global warming and the role of human activity seems to be largely absent among those who know the details and the scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, in fact, seems to be the way to communicate this fact to those who determine public policy and the public in general (...).
just before the last graph....
-
michael sweet at 00:04 AM on 11 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
John ONiel,
It is clear from your post that you do not know the difference between acute radiation poisoning and chronic radiation damage. You obviously do not know the chronic effects of long term exposure to radiation or the amount of radiation that causes that damage. You do not know why Cesium137 causes different problems than Iodine 129 so the tolerable dose is different. Since you have claimed only training in History you look like an idiot lecturing knowledgeable scientists about a subject you know nothing about.
As I previously said, I have years of training and experience working directly with radiation. Experience you know nothing about. I do know the acute and chronic problems of radiation. I know the difference between Cesium, Iodine, vitamin D and Mercury. Your diatribe above, supported only by your reputation as a history major- you do not say where you found this misinformation, is simply ignorant ranting. Since you have provided no references I will not provide them.
Nuclear is uneconomic. If you check through my old posts I do not question nuclear power on its abysmal safety record, which is the basis of your argument. The fact that you bring an argument here that we do not use proves that nuclear is unsafe.
These posts are off topic so I will not continue.
John ONiel should be banned for sloganeering off topic and complaining about the moderators that he is too ignorant to get his posts on the board.
Moderator Response:[PS] Over the line.
-
nigelj at 16:51 PM on 10 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
Plus we will probably never know the true numbers for cancer related to Chernobyl. I don't think the data would be terribly reliable, for obvious political reasons.
-
nigelj at 16:44 PM on 10 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
John ONeill @31
What you have appeared to argue is a low dose of radiation affecting farmland like those after Chernobyl and Fukushima are harmless, because only an extremely high dose killed all dogs within a year. This is not the case. While risk level is proportional to the dose, low doses at the levels we are discussing have clearly been determined to still have a significant risk particularly for iodine. And you have also omitted the fact this low dose will be ingested many times over by many people as they eat agricultural produce.
I stand to be corrected on this, but I think they consider a probability of a 5% or 10% increase in risk of cancer as significant. They also look at other health affects.
I also think you missed the point of what I'm saying a little. Regardless of the 'actual' level of risk, the public perceive theres a high level of risk, people won't want to buy contaminated food, and politicians will "play safe" with setting standards, and what agricultural produce can be sold. You are unlikely to ever change this, so the only answer is safer nuclear power. Yes you and I know its possible to get excessively hysterical about risk, and many things in life have risks, but not everyone reacts this way. You have to look at nuclear power in the context of people and the real world, as well as theory and technicalities.
-
John ONeill at 12:45 PM on 10 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
OK, I'll try again.
'Fukushima polluted the local ocean and Chernobyl polluted a lot of farmland and had huge impacts on the Ukraines food exports.'
Radioactivity is a carcinogen, but a weak one. For example, cesium 137 decays mainly with the emission of a beta ray - an electron - at an energy of up to about 0.5 million electron volts. Potassium 40, in every cell of your body, emits beta rays at about 1.3 MeV. Since it has a half life of about 1.25 billion years, the K40 background radiation when life originated would have been ten times stronger. Cells have had a long time to optimise their repair mechanisms. Cesium 137 is used to irradiate tumours, to kill them; the tissue surrounding the tumour gets about half a lethal dose, yet induced cancers resulting are uncommon.
' In July 2011, meat from 11 cows shipped to Tokyo from Fukushima Prefecture was found to have 1,530 to 3,200 becquerels per kilogram of Cs-137, considerably exceeding the Japanese legal limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram at that time. In March 2013, a fish caught near the plant had a record 740,000 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive caesium, above the 100 becquerels per kilogram government limit.' ( Wiki )
'A 1972 experiment showed that when dogs are subjected to a whole body burden of 3800 μCi/kg (140 MBq/kg, or approximately 44 μg/kg) of caesium-137 (and 950 to 1400 rads), they die within 33 days, while animals with half of that burden all survived for a year.' ( Also Wiki ). That's 140 MILLION becqerels per kilo - 190 times higher than the fish, which was still 1480 times above the then regulatory limit. ( That fish was inside the closed-off dock of the plant, and had a far higher reading than any out in the ocean. ) So the lethal whole-body dose was about 280,000 times higher than the Japanese regulatory limit just for food - which subsequently, ' to reassure people ', they reduced by a further factor of 5 , to 100 becquerels per kilo.
As a comparison, vitamin D, essential to life, can also be toxic. ' The daily requirement of vitamin D is about 200-600 units. The skin produces 10,000 units of vitamin D after total body exposure to UV light. The current tolerable upper intake level in both Europe and North America is 50 ug/day (2000 iu/day) but overwhelming bulk of clinical trial evidence indicates that prolonged intake of 10,000 units of vitamin D3 likely poses no risk. Because of this wide therapeutic index, vitamin D toxicity is extremely rare, but does occur at excessively high doses. Doses more than 50,000 IU/day raise levels of 25(OH) vit D to more than 150 ng/ml and are associated with hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia.'
So a vitamin becomes a poison at about a hundred times the recommended therapeutic dose, but radiation is required to be a million times below lethal dose - and that's the whole body dose, whereas food eaten will be another two orders of magnitude lower again.
The estimated amount of cesium 137 deposited over the whole of Germany after Chernobyl was estimated at half a kilo. The annual figure for mercury, from the coal they burn, is about seven tons. http://www.dw.com/en/why-is-environmental-role-model-germany-among-the-largest-mercury-polluters-in-europe/a-18959309
All the measured increase in cancer after Chernobyl, apart from the firefighters, was from iodine 129, not cesium 137. The difference is that cesium is taken up over the whole body, and takes thirty years to deliver half its beta rays.( Meanwhile, the body replaces half its cesium in about 110 days.) Iodine concentrates in the thyroid, a ~ 3,000 times smaller target, and blasts it with all its energy inside two months. The cell's efficient mechanisms can repair damage happening at normal rates - oxygen causes far more strand breaks than background radiation - but a brief assault at 500,000 times the intensity can overwhelm them. At Fukushima, people were told to avoid local milk and vegetables for the critical period, and took non-radioactive iodine supplements. A measurable increase in thyroid cancer is unlikely. Psychological effects, from being told they'd been poisoned, are likely to be much more serious, as they were in Ukraine and Belorusia.
Moderator Response:[PS]If you are writing very long comments,you might being hitting a character-limit in the Sks database. (maybe 65k??). Writing your comment in a text editor and then pasting into Sks is always a good idea when putting a lot of effort into a post (on any system). If it doesnt show, then try splitting it.
-
John ONeill at 09:10 AM on 10 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
I see my posts aren't appearing, so will desist. Last word from James Hansen.
"Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change," Hansen said during a panel discussion yesterday. ( 2015, reported by Scientific American.) "The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won't use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy."
For his trouble, he was labelled ' a new kind of denier ' by Naomi Oreskes.
Moderator Response:[DB] None of your comments have been removed. Your ability to post comments has not been restricted.
-
MarcoR at 00:52 AM on 10 June 2018Climate Science blogs around the world
http://www.wetter-center.de/blog/
German Blog about climate and weather. The author is a meteorologist.
-
michael sweet at 23:36 PM on 9 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
John Oneil,
Your first reference is to the Breakthrough Institute. The Harvard University for Ethics says about them:
"The Breakthrough Institute has a clear history as a contrarian outlet for information on climate change and regularly criticizes environmental groups. One writer describes them as a “program for hippie-punching your way to fame and fortune.”
A bunch of paid deniers. Hardly a suitable reference for a scientific blog. Your second reference is to a random blog by someone with a BA in a non-scientific field and little relevant experience. You claim that you wrote an essay that contradicts Abbott 2011 on your own authority. Then you dis Abbott who has over 16,000 citations in the scientific literature and is a world recognized expert in electrical Engineering.
Since I have a Masters in Chemistry, have taught college chemistry for 10 years, worked for years with radiation and have held a Curie of high energy Beta radiation (for the untrained like you that is an immense amount of radiation) in my unshielded hand, I have much more experience and authority than you. How much radiation have you held in your hand? So much for your radioactive training.
Reviewing our posts, I see that invariably I have cited the scientific literature and not relied on my experience while you have cited only blog posts, astroturf nuclear organizations and your own authority as a History major with a BA.
Since this is a scientific board perhaps you should start by learning how to support your claims on a board that requires you to provide bonafide evidence. Astroturf organizations and blog posts from random internet persons do not cut it. If you cannot find a paper to support your claims, as in this case, that generally means that scientists agree that you are incorrect.
-
nigelj at 07:13 AM on 9 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
The considerable and ongoing impacts of Chernobyl on farming in former Soviet union countries.
www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c06.html
www.cbsnews.com/news/chernobyl-radiation-belarus-farm-produce-milk-high-level-radiation/
-
nigelj at 06:46 AM on 9 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
John ONeil, I think you suffer from some confirmation bias yourself. It's a common problem with everyone. I try to avoid this bias, so I did a simple google search "advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy" and had a quick read of several different websites that covered this, so that I get a wide picture of what people are saying, rather than just a narrow view.
I would suggest nuclear energy stands out from other forms of energy in the rather long lists of advantages - and disadvantages. You also need to look beyond just the physics, technology and time farmes of construction to the full picture of all the issues, so also include safety issues, environmental impacts of accidents and waste disposal, construction costs, public concerns etcetera.
Cancer also takes decades to develop so nobody really knows the outcome form Fukushima yet. It's wise to apply some commonsense, so given radioctivity is a known carcinogen, there are likely to be problems.
You are also only looking at one side of the problems at Fukushima and Chernobyl. These accidents caused considerable property damage and required mass evacuations of urban areas on a permanent basis. The costs of containing the cores of these reactors are huge, and will be ongoing for centuries. Fukushima polluted the local ocean and Chernobyl polluted a lot of farmland and had huge impacts on the Ukraines food exports.
As a result nobody wants to be anywhere near nuclear plants. Its probably no accident that the only countries building them have autocratic or dictatorial governments, or a lack of other potential energy sources.
However I have no opposition, provided safer nuclear designs are developed that offer affordable electricty. I also see no problem with a mix of energy sources, and we get a bit obsessed with the one perfect source which might not exist.
-
John ONeill at 22:41 PM on 8 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
2.michael sweet at 07:48 AM on 5 June, 2018
Hi Michael, I see you are on the Skeptical Science team, so presumable saw my long riposte to Derek Abbott's 2011 paper dissing nuclear power.
' As I said, I have never seen a response to Abbotts clain that materials are severely limited for nuclear energy. Since his claim has not been challenged I presume it is correct.'
All Abbott's claims ( well, nearly all ) can and have been refuted, though not, maybe, directly in response to him. If you haven't come across the case for nuclear, I suspect you're suffering from confirmation bias. Nuclear plants were built in Europe and the US in the seventies, and in Korea, China, and Japan till now, at affordable cost and on timescales of about five years per reactor. The growth in non-fossil power generated ( as opposed to capacity built ) was considerably faster then than it has been for wind and solar more recently.
Opponents will claim that these earlier reactors were only cheap because they were dangerous, but despite Fukushima, no deaths from radiation outside the plant boundaries have ensued.
'Many Japanese Medical experts said these frequencies ( of thyroid nodules in Fukushima children ) were probably not unusual for Japan when the extreme sensitivity of the survey and type of cancer was considered. They pointed to similar screenings which were run in three far-distant Prefectures in 2012 and early 2013, the numbers of which were publically posted. Results showed that the Fukushima child thyroid cancer frequencies were relatively consistent with the other three Prefectures. In fact, the other three Prefectures had child thyroid anomaly rates slightly higher than with Fukushima. 5. The three tested prefectures, far from Fukushima, were Nagasaki, Aomori and Yamanashi. While the percentage of Fukushima children with detectible nodules/cysts was 41.2%, the combined percentage found in the other three prefectures was 56.6%! Further, while 0.6% of the Fukushima children with the anomalies were considered worthy of further testing, the other three prefectures had a rate of over 1%. The total number of children tested in the far-from-Fukushima prefectures was 4,300, thus the data was considered scientifically and statistically valid.'
https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-child-thyroid-issue.html
However, if you're not going to print what I write, I'll leave off. If you do want a factual rebuttal to Abbott's arguments, I can provide it. I don't have a physics degree ( mine is in history ), but the physics here is not really in dispute.
Yours sincerely, John ONeill
Moderator Response:[PS] "so presumable saw my long riposte to Derek Abbott's 2011 paper dissing nuclear power." No comment from you has been deleted. Computer glitch somewhere but nothing here. Links fixed. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link button in the comment editor.
[DB] You will need to furnish a source citation for this claim:
"All Abbott's claims ( well, nearly all ) can and have been refuted
-
MA Rodger at 17:11 PM on 8 June 2018Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
swt94025 @84,
The answer is 'No it's not' but but I can see the appearance of "no statistically-significant trend in CO2 growth" in the OP's quote from IPCC 2007 is perhaps a little too unexpected and thus potentially confusing. As it happens, over the long-term, both the Airborne Fraction and the increase in total human annual CO2 emissions remain remarkably constant since 1958 when MLO CO2 measurements began. (The latter increase measures some 1.4Gt(C)/decade. Given reported emissions in recent years, hopefully that constant level of increase is becoming a thing of the past.)
-
swt94025 at 08:12 AM on 8 June 2018Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Is the OP confusing the "airborne fraction" with the CO2 levels themselves? As defined, the constancy of the airborne fraction would simply mean that the amount of increase in global CO2 for each kg released would remain constant. If it were to increase suddenly, that would be cause for greater alarm, and if it were to precipitously drop we might be able to take some comfort, but the fact that it remains the same essentially means the problem will continue to grow as expected.
-
nigelj at 08:07 AM on 8 June 2018Tiny shrimp could influence global climate changes
Shrimp populations have declined quite substantially in many global fisheries, due to global warming affecting reproduction, predator species etcetera. So with smaller shrimp populations it would seem to me that this mixing of the ocean layers would decrease, leaving warmer waters near the surface where they affect places like Greenland and Antarctica, and decreasing the ability of oceans to absorb CO2.
-
nigelj at 07:16 AM on 8 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
John ONeill, thank's for the reading references.
Dr Abbott is a physicist and electronics engineer, according to his wikipedia page. I think a physics degree would be pretty ideal to review nuclear power. People directly specialising in the industry have vested interests so would not be that objective (no disrespect intended).
It doesn't matter anyway. His qualifications and background is not the point and neither proves him right or wrong, and what counts is what he has published. It has not been formally refuted, which leaves the suspicion that the nuclear advocates find it hard to refute.
I'm pretty agnostic on nuclear power, in the sense of neither being particularly for or against it. Really I'm just an interested observer on this issue. We could debate the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power forever, and there are many of them going both ways. But right now in America they are slow and expensive to build, and some article I read claimed this was largely due to poor project and cost management.
I'm not convinced nuclear eanergy has enough fundamental, overwhelming advantages such that government should somehow favour it, so it seems like its up to the industry to sort its own problems out.
Nuclear energy is a complicated debate, but I think the safety concern is still the main issue. If the world had thousands of reactors using current known technology, more accidents would be inevitable with the significant potential for something far worse than chernobyl. The public are not stupid, they probably sense this, and so you get resistance at least in western democracies which have free speech.
I don't see that nuclear energy has enough advantages such that governments would have some right to force nuclear power onto an unwilling population. So basically the nuclear issue is rather political in the west, like a lot of things, (nimbyism) and this resistance to nuclear power can probably only be overcome with safer designs as opposed to endlessly debating the advantages and disadvantages at a technical and cost level.
-
ubrew12 at 05:27 AM on 8 June 2018New Video: Hot Ocean, Hurricanes, Houston, and Harvey
nigelj@2: I think you're right the first time, and thanks for posting that astounding finding (I think hurricanes are just a class of 'tropical storm' with max windspeed >119 km/h).
-
BaerbelW at 02:58 AM on 8 June 2018Climate Science blogs around the world
SirCharles
Thanks, but Klimafakten and Cienciaeclima were already included in the first article featuring climate science websites. Neither Bildungsserver.hamburg nor the climate change content of Alpenverein quite fit the blog- or the website category I had in mind for the posts.
-
SirCharles at 00:17 AM on 8 June 2018Climate Science blogs around the world
https://cienciaeclima.com.br/
-
SirCharles at 00:15 AM on 8 June 2018Climate Science blogs around the world
http://bildungsserver.hamburg.de/klimawandel/
https://www.klimafakten.de/
More links here:
https://www.alpenverein.de/natur/klimaschutz/klimawandel-klimaschutz-nachhaltigkeit-weblinks-wo-steht-was_aid_15504.html -
John ONeill at 23:03 PM on 7 June 2018The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels
D Abbott's field of expertise appears to be medical imaging and terahertz waves, and his current home page has no reference to energy systems, climate, or nuclear power. He's more interested in cryptanalysis and solving a cold-case body mystery. I had to track his publications list down and scroll to 2011 to find any reference to this paper, to be sure it was the same D Abbott. There must be enough other venues for those concerned to battle it out.
Prev 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 Next
