What Climate Wars Did To Science

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Seriously! That's the best you have?!

No, but why waste it on people who've made up their minds and will not listen to anything?

I closed down political threads on this site for similar reasons.

Just a bunch of people talking past each other and getting mad in the process.

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Seriously! That's the best you have?!

FYI, I am 64 years old! When people ask me how I can be so cynical, I tell them that I've been alive on this planet for 64 years, and I've seen enough that I think I've earned it!

And you're right in that the U.S. is far cleaner than it was back in the 60's. Show me a socialist or communist country that has made the same progress! You can't! Why? We are, or are supposed to be, a capitalist society, and we can raise the money to clean up our messes!

And you're going to try to pass off India and China as lacking in resources, demographics, and economies? you have to be kidding me!

India is severely lacking in resources compared to its population. Something like 50% of the population doesn't access to sanitary facilities. China has resources, but there entire focus is economics at the moment at the cost of environment and they know it will hurt them in the long run. The mayor of Beijing said he took the job knowing that living there would take 10 years off his life. And please don't confuse me with someone who approves of communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism etc. as a better form of government. They fail for obvious reasons, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

But we can't, can't let our drive for profit outweigh our need to protect our beautiful country. Sure we need a strong economy, but there are ways to achieve both. And who says that alternate energy can't be profitable? Wind and solar are much more commonplace now regardless of Federal Government assistance. Recycling has become a standard now. My company practically demands that all of our packaging have at least 10% recycled content. There are ways to achieve both goals.

The harder thing for us as a nation is to convince other countries to follow our lead. Countries with poor economies will not be able to. Countries with unstable governments won't either. We are in a very difficult spot.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 12/17/2016 at 0:39 AM, iacas said:

No, but why waste it on people who've made up their minds and will not listen to anything?

I closed down political threads on this site for similar reasons.

Just a bunch of people talking past each other and getting mad in the process.

I can appreciate your point, but I could say the same thing about the "pro warmers". Just the other day I was thinking to myself that there is no way I can convince them that I am right, just as there is no way they can convince me that they are right! It's almost become religious!

On 12/17/2016 at 7:36 AM, boogielicious said:

India is severely lacking in resources compared to its population. Something like 50% of the population doesn't access to sanitary facilities. China has resources, but there entire focus is economics at the moment at the cost of environment and they know it will hurt them in the long run. The mayor of Beijing said he took the job knowing that living there would take 10 years off his life. And please don't confuse me with someone who approves of communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism etc. as a better form of government. They fail for obvious reasons, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

But we can't, can't let our drive for profit outweigh our need to protect our beautiful country. Sure we need a strong economy, but there are ways to achieve both. And who says that alternate energy can't be profitable? Wind and solar are much more commonplace now regardless of Federal Government assistance. Recycling has become a standard now. My company practically demands that all of our packaging have at least 10% recycled content. There are ways to achieve both goals.

The harder thing for us as a nation is to convince other countries to follow our lead. Countries with poor economies will not be able to. Countries with unstable governments won't either. We are in a very difficult spot.

Some good points. I can't speak for India, but it would surprise me that a subcontinent that large could be so lacking in natural resources, but China is loaded! The only problem in China is their form of government, which is trying to produce a sort of hybrid somewhere between Capitalism and Communism, leaning toward Communism.

As far as "alternative" energies being profitable, we have the most recent example of Solyndra. An alternative energy company that cost the American taxpayers over half a Billion dollars! And if you look at other, associated, articles that go along with the Solyndra fiasco, you'll find any number of other "wannabes" who failed supposedly because of lack of government subsidy,

My question is this. If your idea and technology are sound, and your business plan is solid, why on earth do you need a government subsidy? There are plenty of places to acquire private capital for worthwhile projects. If you can really make money, there will be no shortage of investors!

Could it be that the government money (our money!) comes a little too easily?!

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I can appreciate your point, but I could say the same thing about the "pro warmers".

Not really.

[saevel25]

If we want clean energy, by clean I mean air clean, then we should have nuclear power. No nuclear power plant has failed by faulty design. 3-mile island was only a partial meltdown and there was some human error at the plant that exacerbated the situation. The two biggies both had human error.  

Chernobel failed because Russia was doing stupid experiments.
Japan's issue was they didn't adequately protect theirs from being flooded. 

Nuclear power is much safer than coal and natural gas. This country could easily support half of it's power on Nuclear power. Heck, France's power generation is primarily nuclear power. Their nuclear power designs are what we had before we went overboard of the regulations after 3-mile island. They haven't had any issues at all. 

12 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

My question is this. If your idea and technology are sound, and your business plan is solid, why on earth do you need a government subsidy? There are plenty of places to acquire private capital for worthwhile projects. If you can really make money, there will be no shortage of investors!

Could it be that the government money (our money!) comes a little too easily?!

Nope, renewable energy is not profitable in terms of power generation. Renewable energy is a great for small projects, not for a national grid. In the end the investment will be in personal renewable sources for home and business. There will be some industries that will always draw too much power for renewables, like steel or vehicle production. 

Also, there are some big players pushing it. Look at Tesla. They are shoving money big time into batteries and the charging stations they can install into homes. They want to put a solar panel and their battery station in your home. Heck their car alone can power your home incase of a blackout. Its coming quickly. Technology is becoming more efficient, and batteries are soon going to make a big jump. When this happens then the energy usage in this country will drop. 

I suspect the rich and the upper middle class will be able to get units that will take them off the grid. As it gets cheaper there will always be the poor who can not. This will hurt the power generation in this country to the point it might become government controlled. Let's say that 80% of the country goes off the grid. Power generation is not cheap and money has to come from somewhere to sustain it. There is not enough money in the bottom 20%. 

Technology is getting there. It's just not produce the splash needed to get venture capitalists behind it. 

[carpediem4300]

On 17/12/2016 at 0:36 PM, boogielicious said:

India is severely lacking in resources compared to its population. Something like 50% of the population doesn't access to sanitary facilities.

India has a nuclear submarine programme and a multi-billion dollar space programme, India is not lacking in any resource whatsoever 

India is simply corrupt

[boogielicious]

5 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

India has a nuclear submarine programme and a multi-billion dollar space programme, India is not lacking in any resource whatsoever 

India is simply corrupt

Exactly. They lack the economic and political resources for infrastructure to reduce pollution. They have no political or cultural desire to make change. Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, etc. are all the same way.

[14ledo81]

On 12/16/2016 at 11:04 PM, Lihu said:

What's also interesting and kind of embarrassing for me is that I appear to be the youngest person taking on the "conservative view". 

 

Nope.... 

[Lihu]

5 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

 

Nope.... 

LOL

 

[Buckeyebowman]

23 hours ago, iacas said:

Not really.

Uh, yeah, really! It's nice to claim to be an empiricist who only considers the data. But then, to be a true empiricist, one has to consider ALL the data!

Let's consider the data provided by paleo-climatologists who can demonstrate, with data, that the earth in the prehistoric past has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now! All without man's influence.

23 hours ago, saevel25 said:

If we want clean energy, by clean I mean air clean, then we should have nuclear power. No nuclear power plant has failed by faulty design. 3-mile island was only a partial meltdown and there was some human error at the plant that exacerbated the situation. The two biggies both had human error.  

Chernobel failed because Russia was doing stupid experiments.
Japan's issue was they didn't adequately protect theirs from being flooded. 

Nuclear power is much safer than coal and natural gas. This country could easily support half of it's power on Nuclear power. Heck, France's power generation is primarily nuclear power. Their nuclear power designs are what we had before we went overboard of the regulations after 3-mile island. They haven't had any issues at all. 

Nope, renewable energy is not profitable in terms of power generation. Renewable energy is a great for small projects, not for a national grid. In the end the investment will be in personal renewable sources for home and business. There will be some industries that will always draw too much power for renewables, like steel or vehicle production. 

Also, there are some big players pushing it. Look at Tesla. They are shoving money big time into batteries and the charging stations they can install into homes. They want to put a solar panel and their battery station in your home. Heck their car alone can power your home incase of a blackout. Its coming quickly. Technology is becoming more efficient, and batteries are soon going to make a big jump. When this happens then the energy usage in this country will drop. 

I suspect the rich and the upper middle class will be able to get units that will take them off the grid. As it gets cheaper there will always be the poor who can not. This will hurt the power generation in this country to the point it might become government controlled. Let's say that 80% of the country goes off the grid. Power generation is not cheap and money has to come from somewhere to sustain it. There is not enough money in the bottom 20%. 

Technology is getting there. It's just not produce the splash needed to get venture capitalists behind it. 

Which is why they need government grants provided by hare brained apparatchiks in positions of power! Thus, fiascos like Solyndra!

Also, your idea about Chernobyl is not exactly right. The AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) of the US, and nuclear regulatory agencies around the world were after Russia to get rid of the old "Eastern Style reactors" based on old technology. The West had developed new technologies for the nuclear fuel rods in that they would "expand" when subjected to excessive heat, moving the radioactive pellets farther from each other, thus shutting down a runaway reactor.

The Russkis were suspicious and did not adopt such new technology.

And 80% of the country will never belong to the upper and middle upper class, so 80% of the people in this country will not leave the grid! It's more like 10 to 20%.

And for the poor who cannot. There's rich ground for yet another government "program"!

And how does Tesla stay in business? Every time I see something on the news about them it's that they are going broke once again!

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Let's consider the data provided by paleo-climatologists who can demonstrate, with data, that the earth in the prehistoric past has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now! All without man's influence.

Rate matters.

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And 80% of the country will never belong to the upper and middle upper class, so 80% of the people in this country will not leave the grid! It's more like 10 to 20%.

You are wrong on the 10-20% being off the grid. 

I might have slightly off on the 80%. With the way technology is going, and how more efficient it is becoming. With how batteries will be come way more efficient then they are now. You will not need much power to run a household, especially when people are only running power for a third of the day. So yes, I could say at least 66% of this country could be off the US power grid. 

23 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And how does Tesla stay in business? Every time I see something on the news about them it's that they are going broke once again!

Don't read every false thing on the internet. Tesla is fine. They are diversifying into the market that is going to boom over the next 20 years, sustainable home energy sources. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/18/no-tesla-motors-isnt-going-bankrupt-in-6-months.aspx

Yes, if a high percentage of people get off the grid, then someone will have to help provide power to those who can't afford it. Power is a necessity. 

 

[Abu3baid]

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You are wrong on the 10-20% being off the grid. 

I might have slightly off on the 80%. With the way technology is going, and how more efficient it is becoming. With how batteries will be come way more efficient then they are now. You will not need much power to run a household, especially when people are only running power for a third of the day. So yes, I could say at least 66% of this country could be off the US power grid. 

Don't read every false thing on the internet. Tesla is fine. They are diversifying into the market that is going to boom over the next 20 years, sustainable home energy sources. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/18/no-tesla-motors-isnt-going-bankrupt-in-6-months.aspx

Yes, if a high percentage of people get off the grid, then someone will have to help provide power to those who can't afford it. Power is a necessity. 

 

The truth is that you are just throwing numbers around now.. one little comment made you bring down your estimate from 80% to 66%.  A few more comments and you'll be down to 33%.

He is just as right in his opinion as you are I think. As far as telsa being fine, only time will tell..  

[Buckeyebowman]

On 12/19/2016 at 11:23 PM, saevel25 said:

You are wrong on the 10-20% being off the grid. 

I might have slightly off on the 80%. With the way technology is going, and how more efficient it is becoming. With how batteries will be come way more efficient then they are now. You will not need much power to run a household, especially when people are only running power for a third of the day. So yes, I could say at least 66% of this country could be off the US power grid. 

Don't read every false thing on the internet. Tesla is fine. They are diversifying into the market that is going to boom over the next 20 years, sustainable home energy sources. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/18/no-tesla-motors-isnt-going-bankrupt-in-6-months.aspx

Yes, if a high percentage of people get off the grid, then someone will have to help provide power to those who can't afford it. Power is a necessity. 

 

Excuse me, but I've been waiting for this technological efficiency for 30 years! It's been promised forever, but where is it?

And I might be wrong on the 10 to 20% being off the grid, it might wind up being only 5%! What happens to those of us who live in cloudy areas? We had about 10 straight days when we didn't see a ray of sunshine! That'll recharge our batteries.

And I don't believe everything I read on the internet, since I read very little on the internet. The reports on Tesla's demise that I heard was broadcast on general media, usually radio. Whoever is backing Tesla has to have some really deep pockets, since their vehicles can only be available to Hollywood movie stars and dotcom millionaires!

Well, unless they have some back channel source of taxpayer funding a la Solyndra!

[jsgolfer]

CHRISTMARS CHEER Humanity DOOMED because Earth is destined to become lifeless red planet just like Mars, scientist warns

Our home world is losing its atmosphere with every second that passes, meaning that every living being is in peril.

EARTH is slowly turning into a barren red world just like Mars and it spells DOOM for every living being on the planet.

That’s the terrifying warning from a top scientist who wants our species to wake up to the grim fate awaiting us.

Anjali Tripathi, an astrophysicist at Harvard University, has spoken out about a “frightening” natural effect called atmospheric escape.

In a recent TED talk, she said that 400 pounds of hydrogen and almost 6.6 pounds of helium escape from Earth into space with every single minute that passes.

Eventually, this will cause such a massive change in the makeup of Earth’s atmosphere that life will be unable to cling on any longer and the surface will be become blood red and barren.

…

“Our hydrogen from water breaking down will escape into space more rapidly, leaving us with a dry, reddish planet.”

Happily, we have a few billion years left until this grim scenario plays out, so we’ve plenty of time to prepare for the inevitable apocalypse.

Merry Christmas everyone.

…

[Gunther]

33 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

CHRISTMARS CHEER Humanity DOOMED because Earth is destined to become lifeless red planet just like Mars, scientist warns

Our home world is losing its atmosphere with every second that passes, meaning that every living being is in peril.

EARTH is slowly turning into a barren red world just like Mars and it spells DOOM for every living being on the planet.

That’s the terrifying warning from a top scientist who wants our species to wake up to the grim fate awaiting us.

Anjali Tripathi, an astrophysicist at Harvard University, has spoken out about a “frightening” natural effect called atmospheric escape.

In a recent TED talk, she said that 400 pounds of hydrogen and almost 6.6 pounds of helium escape from Earth into space with every single minute that passes.

Eventually, this will cause such a massive change in the makeup of Earth’s atmosphere that life will be unable to cling on any longer and the surface will be become blood red and barren.

…

“Our hydrogen from water breaking down will escape into space more rapidly, leaving us with a dry, reddish planet.”

Happily, we have a few billion years left until this grim scenario plays out, so we’ve plenty of time to prepare for the inevitable apocalypse.

Merry Christmas everyone.

…

Right, but mankind's irresponsible influence on atmospheric escape will hasten this apocalypse by at least 5 or 6 years.

[Buckeyebowman]

And we can all be absolutely sure that "atmospheric escape" did not exist before Anjali Tripathi discovered it, right?

[phillyk]

http://vonscience.blogspot.com/2016/12/science-modeling-example-climate-models.html

This is a blog post by my former Physics teacher.  He talks very briefly about computer modeling and how they have made models for past events given the conditions of the time and the model's predictions were closely related to what actually happened.  

In the TED talk, they make a good point about models.  Of course they are always wrong, because you're talking about something that hasn't happened yet.  But the models can point you in the right direction within reason.