|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
08-24-2011, 08:27 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezz
There have now been four major scares in either direction within the past 100 years. Two prophesising a massive warming and two a massive cooling.
Among the few things we do know for sure about it, the climate has been changing quite dramatically since the rise of mammals. We aren't sure what causes ice ages or warmer periods (like the one we are in now) to occur but it certainly isn't us because we've only been contributing to the emission of gases into the atmosphere in any noticeable quantity within the last 150 years or so.
In any event and without getting into any GW science (which is extremely and embarrassingly flawed) an ice event is going to be 1000 times more devasting to human life on the planet than warming (which might actually be quite beneficial to us despite all the absolute B.S. that the moronic Al Gore and his fanatical supporters would like you to believe). Since we are statistically overdue for an ice age now perhaps we should be preparing for that instead (maybe figuring out how we can warm the planet if that is even possible instead of wasting cycles on a huge heap global warming lies).
|
Well shit.
Reckon I can forget about selling you them carbon credits I got stuck with after Big Al's scam folded.
Hey Oerets, want a real deal on some carbon credits??? It's your big chance to save the planet and be sanctimonious at 50 cents on the dollar!!!
Just kidding, they put smart ass in the water down here in Bugtussell. I can't help myself at times.
Chas
|
08-25-2011, 08:47 AM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezz
There have now been four major scares in either direction within the past 100 years. Two prophesising a massive warming and two a massive cooling.
Among the few things we do know for sure about it, the climate has been changing quite dramatically since the rise of mammals. We aren't sure what causes ice ages or warmer periods (like the one we are in now) to occur but it certainly isn't us because we've only been contributing to the emission of gases into the atmosphere in any noticeable quantity within the last 150 years or so.
In any event and without getting into any GW science (which is extremely and embarrassingly flawed) an ice event is going to be 1000 times more devasting to human life on the planet than warming (which might actually be quite beneficial to us despite all the absolute B.S. that the moronic Al Gore and his fanatical supporters would like you to believe). Since we are statistically overdue for an ice age now perhaps we should be preparing for that instead (maybe figuring out how we can warm the planet if that is even possible instead of wasting cycles on a huge heap global warming lies).
|
Care to explain how climate science is "embarrassingly flawed?" Is this a conclusion you have reached on you own analysis, or do you rely on the scientific opinions of others? If it is based on your own analysis, you might want to enlighten us on your scientific training so that we might have some perspective when we evaluate your view in comparison to the view of the scientists that have spent years and years studying the subject. If it is the opinions of others upon which you rely, you might share the sources that support your conclusion about the flawed nature of climate science. Might those sources be Rick Perry or Michelle Bachman?
Frankly, your apparent need to demean those who hold an opposing view seems to demonstrate a significant lack of confidence in the ability of your opinions to survive on their own merits.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
08-25-2011, 09:43 AM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 543
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Care to explain how climate science is "embarrassingly flawed?" Is this a conclusion you have reached on you own analysis, or do you rely on the scientific opinions of others? If it is based on your own analysis, you might want to enlighten us on your scientific training so that we might have some perspective when we evaluate your view in comparison to the view of the scientists that have spent years and years studying the subject. If it is the opinions of others upon which you rely, you might share the sources that support your conclusion about the flawed nature of climate science. Might those sources be Rick Perry or Michelle Bachman?
Frankly, your apparent need to demean those who hold an opposing view seems to demonstrate a significant lack of confidence in the ability of your opinions to survive on their own merits.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Before weighing in on the topic some 7 or 8 years ago I open mindedly studied the available science being used to explain the advent of alarm over Anthropological Global Warming in adequate enough depth to formulate my own conclusions.
In summary the science is inconclusive enough on so many levels and points imo as to render alarmism on the issue as an elaborate and particularly irresponsible (in that people try to pass it off as the truth) travesty.
From the sobering application of geological time, to issues with claims about the absorption characteristics of various atmospheric gases and the behavour of their molecules in relation to radiation retention, as well as widely assumptive deductions with regards to the interactions and interdependencies of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their effects on one another including the completely theoretical premise of positive feedback, to glaring lack of completeness of any and all atmospheric models relied upon by IPCC scientists studying the issue, the science, by necessity is so speculative and creative as to better resemble an elaborate artistic indulgence for entertainment (as boring as it is) than any objective and measured scientific endeavour. Coming from a professional background rooted in mathematic science one would be inclined to view these conclusions supposedly gleaned from the prevailing science as applied to AGW theory to be premature at best, dishonest at worst, and embarrassing at the very least.
|
08-26-2011, 07:14 AM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezz
Before weighing in on the topic some 7 or 8 years ago I open mindedly studied the available science being used to explain the advent of alarm over Anthropological Global Warming in adequate enough depth to formulate my own conclusions.
In summary the science is inconclusive enough on so many levels and points imo as to render alarmism on the issue as an elaborate and particularly irresponsible (in that people try to pass it off as the truth) travesty.
From the sobering application of geological time, to issues with claims about the absorption characteristics of various atmospheric gases and the behavour of their molecules in relation to radiation retention, as well as widely assumptive deductions with regards to the interactions and interdependencies of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their effects on one another including the completely theoretical premise of positive feedback, to glaring lack of completeness of any and all atmospheric models relied upon by IPCC scientists studying the issue, the science, by necessity is so speculative and creative as to better resemble an elaborate artistic indulgence for entertainment (as boring as it is) than any objective and measured scientific endeavour. Coming from a professional background rooted in mathematic science one would be inclined to view these conclusions supposedly gleaned from the prevailing science as applied to AGW theory to be premature at best, dishonest at worst, and embarrassing at the very least.
|
I'm discounting my carbon credits to 10 cents on the dollar, they won't last long at that price.
Sure, they're worthless as tit on a boar, but how do you put a price on feeling good about yourself? Even John D. Rockefeller liked to give a dime to a child.
While I haven't studied GW as extensive as yourself, I've come to the same conclusions from just a few simple observations.
For one, just from watching the leader of the band, the Maestro Big Al Gore. First, he lives in an energy hog house, but that's cool, because he buys "green" energy. Must have one of them "smart meters" which separates the "green" electrons from the dirty ones.
Then he has marine bio diesel engines on his tub houseboat, which BTW is larger than my house. The last time I was at the marina, I didn't see any bio diesel pumps...but Al's ready once they get them installed.
Then he wins both an Oscar and a Nobel for his "documentary" on GW, while pushing for legislation which would require that carbon credits be purchased from folks like, well, Al Gore.
Somehow, I don't think saving the planet is his true agenda, at least on a personal level.
Another place where I glean my information is from the National Weather Service. Every day, they give the particulars for the weather. And seldom do we break any records for rainfall, snowfall, high or low temperatures, etc.
Just a couple of small observations. And I smell a scam.
Chas
|
08-24-2011, 08:21 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Derby City U.S.A.
Posts: 8,214
|
|
On this issue I would rather be considered being over cautious then foolhardy by the future inhabitants with the planet we left to them!
Barney
|
08-25-2011, 07:03 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
The only reason nuclear is dead here is the reliance on high pressure enhanched urainium reactors. It most certainly is not dead in Canada with the CANDU reactor that uses unenriched uranium, in fact it could even burn the spent fuel from our reactors.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
08-25-2011, 04:01 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 103
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
The only reason nuclear is dead here is the reliance on high pressure enhanched urainium reactors. It most certainly is not dead in Canada with the CANDU reactor that uses unenriched uranium, in fact it could even burn the spent fuel from our reactors.
|
And then there's the "thorium cycle". As engineering types like to say..."technically-sweet". Thorium's far more abundant than uranium, requires little processing & no expensive (and proliferation-prone) enrichment, and much simpler & safer reactor designs. And, the ability to re-burn spent conventional nuclear fuel is built right in. Better get on the stick, USA...India's putting their eggs in the thorium basket.
__________________
Irritatingly Inconsistent
|
08-26-2011, 07:45 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by electronjohn
And then there's the "thorium cycle". As engineering types like to say..."technically-sweet". Thorium's far more abundant than uranium, requires little processing & no expensive (and proliferation-prone) enrichment, and much simpler & safer reactor designs. And, the ability to re-burn spent conventional nuclear fuel is built right in. Better get on the stick, USA...India's putting their eggs in the thorium basket.
|
Based on the CANDU design, India has several of them at the moment. The Bruce peninsula in Ontario is the world's second largest installation.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
08-26-2011, 04:35 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
Based on the CANDU design, India has several of them at the moment. The Bruce peninsula in Ontario is the world's second largest installation.
|
I just looked at that plant on the web. That is quite an impressive plant. The only downside to the CANDU design that I see is the need for heavy water and a large nearby cooling source. The ability to burn less energetic fuels is a big plus.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
08-27-2011, 07:33 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
I just looked at that plant on the web. That is quite an impressive plant. The only downside to the CANDU design that I see is the need for heavy water and a large nearby cooling source. The ability to burn less energetic fuels is a big plus.
|
The other point about the design is that it is inherently fail safe, not like that GE system in Japan. But of course it was not invented here, so . . .
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Last edited by merrylander; 08-28-2011 at 07:28 AM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 AM.
|