Climate change

[y66]

From Nuclear Power Can Save the World by Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist and Steven Pinker:

 

Opinions are also driven by our cultural and political tribes. Since the late 1970s, when No Nukes became a signature cause of the Green movement, sympathy to nuclear power became, among many environmentalists, a sign of disloyalty if not treason.

 

Despite these challenges, psychology and politics can change quickly. As the enormity of the climate crisis sinks in and the hoped-for carbon savings from renewables don’t add up, nuclear can become the new green. Protecting the environment and lifting the developing world out of poverty are progressive causes. And the millennials and Gen Z’s might rethink the sacred values their boomer parents have left unexamined since the Doobie Brothers sang at the 1979 No Nukes concert.

 

If the American public and politicians can face real threats and overcome unfounded fears, we can solve humanity’s most pressing challenge and leave our grandchildren a bright future of climate stability and abundant energy. We can dispatch, once and for all, the self-fulfilling prophesy that we’re cooked.

I suspect this has more to do with getting Congress and taxpayers to assume 99 percent of the cost and risk of financing nuclear energy research and construction than something the Doobie brothers sang at a No Nukes concert. Corporations are so brave. But yeah, as gerben42 has pointed out for more than a decade, renewable energy alone will not save us. So, let's get going on this.

[Al_U_Card]

Renewables are an inconsistent, inefficient and ineffective power supply. A waste of time but especially energy. The energy density, reliability and accessibility of nuclear is clearly the way to go. Liquid salt (at least coolant systems) are safest and the tech is available (one among many Chinese initiatives...). Energy, like warm global temps, mean prosperity unlike what may be around the corner with an ever quitening sun. Climate changes but can we?

[johnu]

Amen! I remember some time back seeing Nancy Pelosi shrieking, "I'M TRYING TO SAVE THE PLANET." I think she's grossly overestimating her capabilities. Compared to the forces of nature we humans aren't much more than a colony of ants.

 

One person on their own doesn't affect the world very much (unless it is Dennison in a psychotic state starting a nuclear war and causing a nuclear winter). 7-1/2 billion people can have a destabilizing effect and it's up to the leaders around the world to set environmental policy, whether it is good or bad for the environment. Like it or not, the USA is one of the leaders of the world.

 

As far as humans not being able to affect nature, you don't have to look any further than the effect of CFC's destroying the ozone layer and causing ozone holes in the polar regions. How could 1 person using an aerosol can do that? 1 can couldn't have much affect on the ozone layer, but billions or trillions of cans could and did. The Montreal Protocol reduced and eliminated the use of many ozone destroying agents and the ozone layer is gradually recovering.

 

Same with global warming and CO2. One family driving their gas powered car and heating and cooling their home with fossil fuels isn't going to put enough CO2 into the world's atmosphere to cause a blip in the overall CO2 levels. Multiply that by a billion cars and hundreds of millions of trucks and construction vehicles, billions of homes, hundreds of millions of factories that are powered by fossil fuels, millions of airplanes, fossil fuel power plants, etc. Add in massive deforestation due to the rapid increase in population and it doesn't take a genius to see how mankind is causing CO2 levels to rise.

[johnu]

Renewables are an inconsistent, inefficient and ineffective power supply. A waste of time but especially energy. The energy density, reliability and accessibility of nuclear is clearly the way to go. Liquid salt (at least coolant systems) are safest and the tech is available (one among many Chinese initiatives...).

 

I usually just note that A1_U_Card has posted more mindless Yada and leave it like that. His latest post approaches his own record post for most ridiculous.

 

A1_U_Card is apparently afraid and ignorant about renewable energy sources. What's new?

 

I am not surprised that he espouses nuclear power. What could go wrong? Answering my own question, there was the Hanford nuclear leak, the Three Mile Island accident, the Chernobyl explosion, the Fukushima nuclear plant destroyed in a tsunami, just off the top of my head. There's also the huge problem that nuclear plants have a finite life of maybe 30 to 40 years. Trying to decommission them and removing and storing the nuclear waste is incredibly difficult and expensive. I won't even touch the possibility of terrorist attacks, either to cause explosions or to steal nuclear material.

 

Energy, like warm global temps, mean prosperity unlike what may be around the corner with an ever quitening sun. Climate changes but can we?

One of the stupidest things I have read on the internet, and that's saying a lot. Global climate change means prosperity??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hrothgar]

I am not surprised that he espouses nuclear power.

 

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

[y66]

From Heaven or High Water by Sarah Miller at Popula:

 

Another agent came in to look at the apartment and joined our conversation. She was young. If indeed we are talking thirty years before Miami Beachpocolypse, the first realtor and I will very possibly be dead, or close to it, when the ***** really hits the fan here, but this woman will still be relatively young. Still, she did not seem to be losing a great deal of sleep over sunny day flooding, sea level rise, any of it.

 

“From what I understand,” she said as she took in a turn in the apartment, her heels clacking across the pale floors, “Everybody has done these, like, research, and they have these like—like…” she was back, posed behind the kitchen island, her pastel nails splayed out on the varnished counter top. “I can’t think of the word now.”

 

“Studies?” said the first realtor helpfully.

 

“Yeah,” the younger woman. She said she knew about a guy that had “paid for like, a study. And basically it said, we shouldn’t be concerned . . . because it’s being figured out, and we shouldn’t be concerned. Unless you have a family, and you’re planning on staying here.”

There are several problems with comparing Miami to the Netherlands. One of these is that Amsterdam has spent billions of dollars on climate change and Miami has spent millions. The Dutch strategy is holistic, looking at how this thing will affect that thing, etc., whereas in Miami they have just installed some pumps and raised roads and buildings, which kind of neglects to consider that a place to live is really only useful insofar as nearby goods and services, and roads, are not underwater.

 

I kind of thought that I was crazy, listening to these people tell me these streets were raised, the buildings were raised, there were pumps, it was all good. I spoke to Astrid Caldas, a senior climate scientist with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to their projections, by 2030, there will be fifty days of sunny day flooding per year. By 2045, there will be 250 per year. She then confirmed my suspicion that while the raising of buildings was good for the buildings, it didn’t do much for the well-being of those living inside. “Yes, you do need to be able to get out of the building to get medicine and groceries,” she said. “If all the streets are flooded, what then?

This is the neoliberal notion, that the reasonable and mature way to think about this stuff is: Get more efficient and find the right incentives to encourage the right kinds of enterprise. But my friend wondered, what if the mature thing to do is to mourn – and then retreat?

All of the above -- mourn, retreat and get more efficient? And also rethink our consumption?

[y66]

Les Grady at the Climate Action Alliance of the Shenandoah Valley reported this week that Nobel Prize laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz called on Europe and China to join forces against the U.S. at the WTO, saying America has become a “free-rider” on climate change under the Trump administration, in violation of global free trade rules.

[Cyberyeti]

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

 

I'm unsure on the whole Thorium debate. The biggest proponent I know is a very green human caused climate change "science guy" but in the UK it is never even up for debate.

[hrothgar]

I'm unsure on the whole Thorium debate. The biggest proponent I know is a very green human caused climate change "science guy" but in the UK it is never even up for debate.

 

I'm unsure about the viability of Thorium reactors, however, I do know that most of the folks promoting them are nutso...

[Gerben42]

I'm unsure about the viability of Thorium reactors, however, I do know that most of the folks promoting them are nutso...

The proponents of Thorium-based reactors mainly argue "well Thorium is so much more abundant than Uranium". But actually this is a non-problem and Th-based reactors don't really solve any existing problem. To create a closed nuclear fuel cycle what is really needed is breeder reactors like ASTRID.

 

The main argument against fission reactors is the nuclear waste which takes 200,000 years to decrease radioactivity back to the level of natural Uranium. What if we could reduce that to, say, 400 years? No one can claim to make a repository that is safe for 200,000 years. But 400 years is another story. Many buildings here are more than 400 years old (OK in the Americas not so many...) What if we could just turn all that nasty Americium and Curium into electricity? With that implemented, known Uranium deposits last for several centuries.

 

I am not surprised that he espouses nuclear power. What could go wrong? Answering my own question, there was the Hanford nuclear leak, the Three Mile Island accident, the Chernobyl explosion, the Fukushima nuclear plant destroyed in a tsunami, just off the top of my head.

 

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?"

 

Perhaps you do not know this, but the number of deaths per TWh of electricity for nuclear power is the lowest of all energy sources. Hydro is 2nd if only counting "Western" countries, otherwise Wind is 2nd.

 

In other news, the olympic fire relay for the Tokyo Olympics will actually pass the Fukushima Daiichi site. You can be sure that by then they will have removed any boats from temple roofs by then. If you are interested in an eye-witness report of the cleanup work, try the manga series "Ichi-F: A Worker's Graphic Memoir of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant"

 

There's also the huge problem that nuclear plants have a finite life of maybe 30 to 40 years.

 

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.

 

Trying to decommission them and removing and storing the nuclear waste is incredibly difficult and expensive. I won't even touch the possibility of terrorist attacks, either to cause explosions or to steal nuclear material.

 

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.

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

* 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.

* 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.

[johnu]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

* 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.

 

* 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.

 

* 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]

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.

 

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:

 

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]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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

 

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]

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]

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 :rolleyes:

[johnu]

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? B-)

 

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?