Global Warming Debate

[camaraderie]

Stu...you said...I think there's nothing more than an unreferenced claim. I fail to see how (he figures) 1000 nuclear plants would cut carbon emissions by only 10%

Stu...you're right...the slide show I gave you was part of a power point show/speech to a scientific group in Huntsville and as such did not contain references but since he is :
...best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for his version of the satellite temperature record. He is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He was appointed Alabama's State Climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."^[1] In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.^{[citation needed]}
Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[2
.....
...my guess is his data in the graph is accurate....and 1000 nuke plants in 20 years doesn't have a prayer in hell of happening. Hell...the green thumbs will probably successfully stall even ONE being built in that time...but I digress. Point is...if you believe in global warming...and the nuke data is right, then there ain't much hope of "solving the problem" no matter what we do...so lets cure malaria and save the whales or something instead.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by StuMyers

Climate change is exponentially expensive to deal with, the faster it comes. I want to slow it.

Wouldn't it be wiser to know for sure the source ?

Originally Posted by StuMyers

Unfortunately we can't even have that rational conversation in our society because groups like the American Enterprise Institute are still pushing: denial denial denial. (cigarettes don't cause cancer!)

This sounds like the rhetoric of someone with an agenda, not a motive

BTW, cancer is caused by many things, cigarettes are only one source, eliminating cigarettes won't cure cancer, nor will eliminating our CO2 imput cure global warming

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Stu...you said...I think there's nothing more than an unreferenced claim. I fail to see how (he figures) 1000 nuclear plants would cut carbon emissions by only 10%

Stu...you're right...the slide show I gave you was part of a power point show/speech to a scientific group in Huntsville and as such did not contain references but since he is :
...best known, jointly with
snip...
...my guess is his data in the graph is accurate....and 1000 nuke plants in 20 years doesn't have a prayer in hell of happening. Hell...the green thumbs will probably successfully stall even ONE being built in that time...but I digress. Point is...if you believe in global warming...and the nuke data is right, then there ain't much hope of "solving the problem" no matter what we do...so lets cure malaria and save the whales or something instead.

His numbers make NO sense to me. The ONLY possible way I can think that he came up with them, is he's figuring on NOT REPLACING any existing power plants, and only adding for a small fraction of new capacity. And, as a conceit, I'd argue that I'm probably far more qualified than he is to talk about nuclear engineering. Scientific expertise quickly drops to near zero once you leave your specialty (which is why I don't claim to be a credible source on climate science analysis... all I'm qualified to do is read the journals and report the results).

The greens are actually coming on board with regards to nuclear. And one thousand nuclear plants, though a daunting challenge, is less expensive than the occupation of Iraq.

Curing malaria is important, and it's important to have the cost-benefit conversation in regards to how much you want to slow global warming. It's important however that the scientific conversation be had by climate scientists, and NOT by lawyers/lobbyists for AEI and ExxonMobil or other amateurs. If I'm not qualified to analyze raw climate science data, THEY sure as hell aren't.

[k1vsk]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

k1vsk,
You're better at stating the certainty of man-made global warming than you are at acknowledging the costs of changing that behavior. You blithely advocate a policy of better safe than sorry, yet fail to so much as even imply that there might be a cost to safety, a significant cost. I'll stand by my original post and characterization of your position until such time as you choose to defend your position in some way other than the "better safe than sorry" stand.

I never implied there was no cost - clearly there is. Scientisits, some of whom have already posed here and who are far more knowledgeable than me about the contribution of man to climate change, have already provided overwhelming support for their position. That's not my point as I believe it has already been made.
If one wnats to debate the economic impact of climate change mitigation, that's much more of a challenge given the uncertainties of how and when implementation occurs but clearly the economics are far less now than later so the cost argument is moot. Whatever the cost is, it is less now than later.
Any way you choose to look at the issue, either in terms of socioeconomic impact or in terms of the political climate to make the requisite changes, advocating a wait-and-see attitude is self-destructive at best and irreversible at worst - your argument, not to make this personal, appear to be - "pick one".
For the record, I respect your opinion; I simply choose to disagree with it

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

Wouldn't it be wiser to know for sure the source ?



This sounds like the rhetoric of someone with an agenda, not a motive

BTW, cancer is caused by many things, cigarettes are only one source, eliminating cigarettes won't cure cancer, nor will eliminating our CO2 imput cure global warming

Outside of AEI and the Shell Oil answer man, the source is well known to a very high degree of certainty. 100% certainty is scientifically impossible.

The rest of your post is a straw man fallacy. Mis characterize and attack said mis characterization. Cigarettes are an important source of cancer to smokers, and carbon dioxide (and methane) is an important source of anthropogenic global warming.

[PBzeer]

Oddly enough, I know of no one who espouses the radical lifestyle changes and/or the necessary economic upheaval required to make only a miniscule reduction of human generated greenhouses gases, that doesn't also believe in evolution. Yet, their arguements are such to discount the adaptation and change that are a necessary part of evolution.

Also, lets be perfectly clear about one other thing here. The alarmists, contrary to what they say, are not concerned with saving the planet, they are concerned with saving mankinds place on the planet.

I am unaware of any rational problem that needs fabrications, distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies, to make it's salient point. And when, such tactics are used, I am not only skeptical of the messenger, but the message as well. Add in the fact that the alarmists of the world have been wrong about every "crisis" they have warned us about, with the evidence of the much larger role of non-man made components to "global warming", I find not only their warnings, but their obvious rhetoric, to be flimsy at best, and completely disingenious at worst.

There may come a time when they "get it right", but their decades of alarmism have lost them all measure of credibility with any thinking person.

[camaraderie]

Stu... I will endeavor to find out the source of that curve from Christy. I believe the 10% reduction in CO2 from the UN curve is GLOBAL reduction of 10% rather than a US reduction. Does that help? He is saying that 1000 nuke plants of 1.4GW each would reduce CO2 by 10% worldwide. Anyway...I will try to look up the source for more detail.

I am not objecting at all to the $$ required to build 1000 plants...and whether or not they would affect GW is unimportant to me. They WOULD affect our dependence on coal and foreign oil and be cost effective and safe and that is enough for my support. My fear is that the fringe environmentalists will continue to delay, stall, file "snail darter" suits and otherwise obstruct construction so that it is uneconomical to plan and build one...and they will be boltered by the NIMBY's in each case. I do believe we will need a significant crisis to blow by this and provide the impetus needed to start building again.

BTW...what IS the cost of a nuke plant if you can separate the real costs of planning and building from the "legal/environmental" costs that must be factored in today?

Finally...points of view that are biased are present on the left and the right. It ain't just the oil companies that skew the data or use only data that supports their point of view. Mr. Gore's little movie is but one example of this. Nevertheless I WELCOME all those skewed views since it gives both sides the opportunity to attack the underlying data and premises resulting in more information for those of us who are interested in making up our own minds.

I continue to disagree that "the source is well known to a very high degree of certainty". IF there is some minor long term warming happening, the data I've seen indicates that man has in insignificant role and that natural causes are at work as always and out of our control. I do note your comments about methane levels and hope that you are wrong about their impact since mandated Vegan diets would be my personal version of hell! (g)

[xort]

Originally Posted by StuMyers

His numbers make NO sense to me.

Considering his credentials as posted by Cam, your statement speaks more about you than him.


"And, as a conceit, I'd argue that I'm probably far more qualified than he is to talk about nuclear engineering."

So? The actual engineering of nuclear power plants has little to do with the fact that they won't spew gasses like coal powered plants do. Your arguement doen't serve the discussion.


"Scientific expertise quickly drops to near zero once you leave your specialty (which is why I don't claim to be a credible source on climate science analysis"

Thanks for admitting that.

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by cam

I do note your comments about methane levels and hope that you are wrong about their impact since mandated Vegan diets would be my personal version of hell! (g)

Would life even be worth living without beef?

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by xort

Considering his credentials as posted by Cam, your statement speaks more about you than him.

...meaning of course that I refuse to attempt analysis beyond my own field of expertise, right?

The actual engineering of nuclear plants has everything to do with analysis on how much carbon dioxide they emit.

Cam,

Hard data on nuclear plant construction is difficult to do back of the envelope, especially given that the 100th plant is far less expensive to construct than the 1st, and so on. Nuclear has the distinction of being the only power source which is required to factor in all aspects of environmental cost (in construction, operation, and decommissioning) making it appear more expensive (relative to others) than it actually is. An order of magnitude estimate would be 1 billion dollars each. Zero emissions. Consider that 300 (not a thousand) today would be capacity enough to completely replace coal and natural gas (in the US in 2007). More hundreds, even thousands would indeed be needed globally. However, consider that society's energy needs will likely continue to expand exponentially in the near future. Only two existing technologies can meet those expanding needs: coal and nuclear.

I don't care about politics. I find it as uninteresting as the details of the plumbing in my house.

Finally, when you are looking at an analysis of scientific data, consider the source. Don't let some civil engineer try and tell you something about ocean currents, or some economist tell you something about ice cores. The ONLY scientific data and analysis that matters is that which is in reviewed journals. If the claim isn't backed up by published data in a climate science journal, it's not worth even looking at, if you yourself are not an expert.

And about vegan diets and whatnot, again it's a law of diminishing returns. Yes, farming produces methane. Coal and natural gas produce much more. Let's worry about the BIG things, and not worry too much about the smaller sources. Anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and it is inevitable. The rate is what we have reasonable control over.

I'm writing as a taxpayer, not an expert on climate science.