A dismantling of one of the last bastions of climate-change deniers

[K1052]

Funny story about that one. The NRC failed its welds - too porous. TVA then hired some mathematicians, engineers and/or physicists to calculate the amount of radiation leakage and prove it was within legal limits. They then presented that to the NRC. The response was "You people don't listen. We didn't ask you if the amount of radiation leakage was within legal limits, we told you to cut out your welds and redo them." TVA then cut out the welds and redid them.

Sometimes when a big fish visits the big pond, it forgets that there it is no longer considered a big fish. Until it is reminded by an actual big fish.

Yeaaa, when the NRC tells you to redo something is really isn't a suggestion or an invitation for debate. The plant isn't going to open until they're 100% satisfied.

 

[Paratus]

How about because some models are verifiable and some are not?

Any model that isn't verifiable doesn't make predictions and is therefore useless.

None of the models I mentioned or used in climate change for that matter are unverifiable.

So if that's your reason for disregarding the consensus on climate change you might want to reconsider.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are 60 reactors under construction worldwide currently.



Moonbeam, I wonder if you would be supportive of reducing yearly uranium mining by 80% and burning off our currently stored waste?

However if you do want to launch nuclear material into the sun I'm sure NASA could do it. Although we might take the long route.....:sneaky:

I favor an economy based on fuel cell technology, hydrogen production via hydrolysis using sunlight and inexpensive catalysts, solar and wind, etc. for direct electricity production and a massive national government moralization of industry to install it pronto.

Nuclear power is insane. Sending nuclear waste to the sun is one of the most insane ideas I have ever heard. You singularly left hemisphere thinkers have no idea how far off kilter from reality your thinking can get. You theorize in the abstract and never think of what it will mean to have nuclear contamination all over the place, the gigantic risk to life nuclear energy poses, the colossal amount to time and money it would take to clean up a single disaster, the fucking hubris nuclear proponents have.

A non nuclear route will eliminate 100% of uranium mining. We evolved from apes that shit from trees, swing on and never looking back. Our shit today will kill all the trees and we will have no place to swing. Wake the fuck up. Look around, our nuclear problems are never solved, they just accumulate.

 

[chucky2]

Or we could just do nuke and build a sufficient number of reactors to 'eat' the waste from the other reactors, rather than some kind of massive hydrogen project that will never be as reliable as nuclear power.

 

[Paratus]

I favor an economy based on fuel cell technology, hydrogen production via hydrolysis using sunlight and inexpensive catalysts, solar and wind, etc. for direct electricity production and a massive national government moralization of industry to install it pronto.

Nuclear power is insane. Sending nuclear waste to the sun is one of the most insane ideas I have ever heard. You singularly left hemisphere thinkers have no idea how far off kilter from reality your thinking can get. You theorize in the abstract and never think of what it will mean to have nuclear contamination all over the place, the gigantic risk to life nuclear energy poses, the colossal amount to time and money it would take to clean up a single disaster, the fucking hubris nuclear proponents have.

A non nuclear route will eliminate 100% of uranium mining. We evolved from apes that shit from trees, swing on and never looking back. Our shit today will kill all the trees and we will have no place to swing. Wake the fuck up. Look around, our nuclear problems are never solved, they just accumulate.

I understand your concern but it's misplaced. First off the reason you can be concerned about this in the first place is your basic needs have been met, (food, water, shelter, safety, companionship, etc). Most of those require energy/power. Generating it causes waste and currently MMGW. Lack of it is a hallmark of poverty.

People who are in poverty do not have their needs met and therefore won't really care about whether what little energy they receive comes from burning the forest, coal or nuclear.

Your ability and mine to be concerned is a privilege of having a first world lifestyle. If you want the rest of the world to be equally concerned with waste then they need to be first world too.

So there's tough choice to make. To raise everyone to first world standards requires a lot more power. Nuclear accidents are bad. Global warming is going to do more damage over the next several decades/century than any credible number of nuclear accidents.

We need to use the cleaner technologies we have now to reduce CO2 to work towards the power infrastructure we do want. More renewables, natural gas in the short term, nuclear in the short to medium term. As renewable improves phase out natural gas and nuclear.


Nuclear waste contamination "will not end up all over the place" and solar does have an impact.

The impacts from the worst disasters ever contaminated:

• Three Mile Island - Contained on site
• Fuykishima - 310 square mile exclusionary zone.
• Chernobyl - 1000 square mile exclusionary zone

This was bad. These accidents were due to either negligence in the case of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island or multiple natural disasters coupled with negligence.

Here's the thing though. Unlike all other fossil fuel generation technologies, aside from accidents, the nuclear industry isn't allowed to spread their shit everywhere.

Coal, oil, and natural gas spread there waste over the entire planet. I know you know this.

Unlike renewable power nuclear is compact and doesn't take up much area.

Here's the amount of uranium used in 2013:

Here's the amount of oil used in 2013. (Coal would be a similar sized block)

I happened to do a calculation to figure out how much uranium was needed to provide everyone in the world a 1st world lifestyle. I also did it for solar.

Turns out 1/5 of that uranium block could power the world for a year in a breeder reactor. The kind that also reduce the waste we've already made. A centuries worth of fuel rods would fit in the parking lot of that plant.

For solar it would take 18,000miles^2 of the best solar arrays we have to provide the same power. Even if we had "perfect" solar arrays and perfect fuel cells we'd still need about 9000miles^2.

There is no easy solution and allowing the fear that nuclear will destroy the world or a move away from coal will destroy the economy are flip sides of the same defect of excessive fear. It simply clouds the options we do have.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here's the amount of oil used in 2013. (Coal would be a similar sized block)

This is the amount of oil produced in the US not how much is consumed to produce electrical power. There are very few oil fired power plants operating in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

[Paratus]

This is the amount of oil produced in the US not how much is consumed to produce electrical power. There are very few oil fired power plants operating in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_States_by_state

Those charts are for worldwide production of various minerals

http://www.mining.com/web/infograph...-of-metal-shown-next-to-landmarks-and-cities/

While we don't use much oil for electricity it's still part of the energy mix we'll need to replace even if it's mostly used for transportation.

 

[bshole]

Any model that isn't verifiable doesn't make predictions and is therefore useless.

None of the models I mentioned or used in climate change for that matter are unverifiable.

So if that's your reason for disregarding the consensus on climate change you might want to reconsider.

Verifiable in 100 years or more.... not veriable today. Verification happens when the predictions prove out, not before. The gap between predictions and reality are currently inidicating a problem with the models.

 

[Paratus]

Verifiable in 100 years or more.... not veriable today. Verification happens when the predictions prove out, not before. The gap between predictions and reality are currently inidicating a problem with the models.

Your data looks to be wrong. It looks like they are comparing IPCC surface temps to satellite and balloon measurements of the mid/upper troposphere temps.

To verify a model you have to compare it to the things it predicts not to things it doesn't.

If you go back a couple of pages to the post by bluewolf47 you can see the measured temps fall inside the predicted area of the models.

 

[bshole]

Your data looks to be wrong. It looks like they are comparing IPCC surface temps to satellite and balloon measurements of the mid/upper troposphere temps.

To verify a model you have to compare it to the things it predicts not to things it doesn't.

If you go back a couple of pages to the post by bluewolf47 you can see the measured temps fall inside the predicted area of the models.

Meh, whatever, not going to get into that. Still doesn't disprove my contention that the models will not be verified until at least 2100 or later. The models are for long term climate and long term climate measurements are what are required to verify them. Therefor the science is not settled and cannot be settled until it is verified in a century. If the science is wrong, you and I will never know. What we will know for a scientific fact is the exact amount of damage the new EPA rules do to the American economy.... that will be painfully clear in the upcoming decade as China absorbs the last vestiges of American manufacturing.

 

[fskimospy]

Meh, whatever, not going to get into that. Still doesn't disprove my contention that the models will not be verified until at least 2100 or later. The models are for long term climate and long term climate measurements are what are required to verify them. Therefor the science is not settled and cannot be settled until it is verified in a century. If the science is wrong, you and I will never know. What we will know for a scientific fact is the exact amount of damage the new EPA rules do to the American economy.... that will be painfully clear in the upcoming decade as China absorbs the last vestiges of American manufacturing.

So I just want to be clear about what you're saying:

1. The science on the future effects of greenhouse gas emissions isn't settled because because we won't be able to see if our models are correct until their predictions actually happen.

2. The science on the effects of EPA regulations over the next few decades is a scientific fact and we don't need to see if the predictions of our economic models actually happen.

Wut.

 

[First]

Meh, whatever, not going to get into that.

Well that about sums it up. Haha wow.

 

[Moonbeam]

Paramus, you see the problem, in my opinion, with only the left hemisphere of your brain. The only way that nuclear energy can work is if women are kept from the political process by men as they are in all those third world countries you describe. The problem with your theory of need is that you do not know what your needs are.

 

[dphantom]

Your data looks to be wrong. It looks like they are comparing IPCC surface temps to satellite and balloon measurements of the mid/upper troposphere temps.

There is no such thing as IPCC surface temps. Surface temp data products come from one of 3 sources: GISS, HADCRUT or NCEI. Dr Christy's data I believe is lower troposphere in that chart.

If you go back a couple of pages to the post by bluewolf47 you can see the measured temps fall inside the predicted area of the models.

He used CMIP3 chart which is outdated. The skepticalscience page he got that from also shows a CMIP5 model. In either, the "predicated area" is also known as the margin of error. As you can see it is quite large.

 

[dphantom]

Your data looks to be wrong. It looks like they are comparing IPCC surface temps to satellite and balloon measurements of the mid/upper troposphere temps.

To verify a model you have to compare it to the things it predicts not to things it doesn't.

If you go back a couple of pages to the post by bluewolf47 you can see the measured temps fall inside the predicted area of the models.

One more thing. Both are charting anomalies in temperatures. So that is why UAH/RSS lower troposphere data can be compared to the surface data products of GISS, HADCRUT and NCEI.

 

[CZroe]

Paramus, you see the problem, in my opinion, with only the left hemisphere of your brain. The only way that nuclear energy can work is if women are kept from the political process by men as they are in all those third world countries you describe. The problem with your theory of need is that you do not know what your needs are.

LOLWUT?! /caps

 

[uclaLabrat]

We should be able to safely store waste until we develop the ability to send it to the Sun. We've come a long way in 100 years from the horse and carriage era and it's quite likely that technology in another 100 years will make this problem moot. If the planet is truly in imminent peril from ever increasing carbon dioxide levels, nuclear is the only pragmatic solution imo.

Disagree...closing the carbon cycle by recapturing consumed carbon in the form of CO2 and converting it back to reduced forms of carbon such as hydrocarbons, coal or graphite are also in the realm of reason and I would argue, far superior. It involves the use of modified "photosynthesis" type reactions that would use solar energy input that catalyze the reaction needed.

If it could be made to scale, it would nicely solve the energy problem altogether; CO2 would be recaptured and solar power would be used to drive an energy cycle that already has billions (if not trillions) of dollars worldwide devoted to the supporting infrastructure, minimizing switching costs.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Any model that isn't verifiable doesn't make predictions and is therefore useless.

None of the models I mentioned or used in climate change for that matter are unverifiable.

So if that's your reason for disregarding the consensus on climate change you might want to reconsider.

I'm with werepossum on this one. Any model that predicts the temperature of the sun billions of years ago is unverifiable by default, unless you're stashing a time machine somewhere in your lab and making bank off it

 

[JockoJohnson]

LOLWUT?! /caps

Lmao. I think the bot was trying to respond to two different topics at one time and combined the answer.

 

[werepossum]

Disagree...closing the carbon cycle by recapturing consumed carbon in the form of CO2 and converting it back to reduced forms of carbon such as hydrocarbons, coal or graphite are also in the realm of reason and I would argue, far superior. It involves the use of modified "photosynthesis" type reactions that would use solar energy input that catalyze the reaction needed.

If it could be made to scale, it would nicely solve the energy problem altogether; CO2 would be recaptured and solar power would be used to drive an energy cycle that already has billions (if not trillions) of dollars worldwide devoted to the supporting infrastructure, minimizing switching costs.

That is the Holy Grail, especially given that graphite is massively useful. Same with hydrocarbons, as we still have nothing better for mobile energy.

I'm with werepossum on this one. Any model that predicts the temperature of the sun billions of years ago is unverifiable by default, unless you're stashing a time machine somewhere in your lab and making bank off it

Exactly. We've gotten to the point of ludicrousness, where someone "solved" the problem of Mars also heating up by positing dust clouds that somehow spring up and change its reflectance & adsorption, and then mainstream climate scientists jumped all over it. That's not even bad science, it's merely speculation.

On the other hand, I am fine with carbon reduction schemes. I don't think we are even close to understanding Earth's exquisite feedback mechanisms, but I seriously doubt any of them depend on us running atmospheric carbon up to 400 ppm.

 

[Paratus]

There is no such thing as IPCC surface temps. Surface temp data products come from one of 3 sources: GISS, HADCRUT or NCEI. Dr Christy's data I believe is lower troposphere in that chart.



He used CMIP3 chart which is outdated. The skepticalscience page he got that from also shows a CMIP5 model. In either, the "predicated area" is also known as the margin of error. As you can see it is quite large.

The IPCC CMIP5 are predictions of surface temperature.

The synthesis figure (Fig. 11.25) is shown below, and assesses near-term global surface temperature changes. The top ‘spaghetti’ panel shows the raw CMIP5 output using one ensemble member per model. This is designed to illustrate the role of variability in the climate and that the emissions scenarios (colours) show little difference in this period.

It's nice that bsholes plot from Watts Up With That chose to plot the maximum margin of error on the high side only and then compare it to naturally cooler satellite measurements of the troposphere. But that's the kind of hack site they are.

(I mean they even had an article trying to show Venus isn't a case of CO2 induced greenhouse. What's up with that?!)

But as you'll agree observed measurements are with the margin of error.

One more thing. Both are charting anomalies in temperatures. So that is why UAH/RSS lower troposphere data can be compared to the surface data products of GISS, HADCRUT and NCEI.

I see nothing that allows you assume a temperature anomaly for the troposphere can be directly compared the surface, or to the stratosphere, or ocean for that matter. Not without knowing which datasets and whether they are using:

• TLT
• T2
• T3
• T4

( BTW did you ever find the link to sea level rise plot I asked you for?)

I'm with werepossum on this one. Any model that predicts the temperature of the sun billions of years ago is unverifiable by default, unless you're stashing a time machine somewhere in your lab and making bank off it

While we can't travel back in time and directly measure the sun, as it turns out astronomers do have a time machine. It's called a telescope.

The main sequence makes predictions about the size, age, and luminosity of stars. Luckily with a telescope we can directly view stars just like ours at various points in their life. So plenty of observable data to check our predictions on.

That way we can be reasonably confident in predicting how our own sun behaved, with appropriate error bars.

 

[werepossum]

The IPCC CMIP5 are predictions of surface temperature.

It's nice that bsholes plot from Watts Up With That chose to plot the maximum margin of error on the high side only and then compare it to naturally cooler satellite measurements of the troposphere. But that's the kind of hack site they are.

(I mean they even had an article trying to show Venus isn't a case of CO2 induced greenhouse. What's up with that?!)

But as you'll agree observed measurements are with the margin of error.



I see nothing that allows you assume a temperature anomaly for the troposphere can be directly compared the surface, or to the stratosphere, or ocean for that matter. Not without knowing which datasets and whether they are using:

• TLT
• T2
• T3
• T4

( BTW did you ever find the link to sea level rise plot I asked you for?)


While we can't travel back in time and directly measure the sun, as it turns out astronomers do have a time machine. It's called a telescope.

The main sequence makes predictions about the size, age, and luminosity of stars. Luckily with a telescope we can directly view stars just like ours at various points in their life. So plenty of observable data to check our predictions on.

That way we can be reasonably confident in predicting how our own sun behaved, with appropriate error bars.

Nope. Certainly we can make predictions, but we are still struggling with even solar cycles which have repeated several times during our assisted observations. We can know nothing of longer duration cycles. Stars are not nice simple mathematical equations that progress linearly throughout time. We can observe stars reasonably like ours and compare them to our models, but let's not forget that we also determine their relative ages from those same models. We're fitting data points onto curves without any independent way to determine whether the curve itself is correct.

 

[Paratus]

Nope. Certainly we can make predictions, but we are still struggling with even solar cycles which have repeated several times during our assisted observations. We can know nothing of longer duration cycles. Stars are not nice simple mathematical equations that progress linearly throughout time. We can observe stars reasonably like ours and compare them to our models, but let's not forget that we also determine their relative ages from those same models. We're fitting data points onto curves without any independent way to determine whether the curve itself is correct.

All you have done is list uncertainties which I'm sure have been taken into account by the astronomers.

 

[werepossum]

All you have done is list uncertainties which I'm sure have been taken into account by the astronomers.

lol Of course they have. Because knowing you don't know something is just like knowing it.

 

[OverVolt]

You know I'm actually starting to come around a little bit

Now if only we could see the error bars on the doom & gloom predictions.