Pages

Jump to bottom

25 comments

1 researchok  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 5:52:47pm

Listened for almost an hour.

Ought to be required core science college courses.

2 Ericus58  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 6:53:15pm

This is the LVQ I have come to enjoy.
Well done.

3 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:00:57pm

re: #2 Ericus58

This is the LVQ I have come to enjoy.
Well done.

Thank you very much.

4 freetoken  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:06:03pm

When Dr. Abraham first went online with his critique the Lord High Denier was hysterical as usual, making threats, etc. Of course the LHD didn't follow up with it, being that all he has is bluster.

The LHD inherited his "lordship" title from his grandfather, who served in the UK government under Churchill. When about 2 years ago Monckton testified in Congress as the GOP "expert" Monckton addressed the Congressional panel saying (paraphrasing) "Greetings from Parliament". But that was a total fraud as the LHD has nothing to do with Parliament and does not sit in the House of Lords. The LHD ought to have been called on that breech of protocol (in other words, just lying) by both Congress the HoL.

5 lostlakehiker  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:31:28pm

A very sobering new book by Peter D. Ward, Flooded Earth, presents a non-sugarcoated picture of one reasonably likely future.

The San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys are relegated to kangaroo ranching. Salt infiltration, the absence of snowmelt because it no longer snows in the Sierra Nevada, and summer temperatures that kill cattle have combined to reduce the valley to that.

Agricultural production in the U.S. has dropped by 20 percent. In much of the world it is worse. Sea levels are up ten feet from today's levels, and that in just one century. Miami is no longer subject to U.S. jurisdiction for any practical purpose, nor eligible for any aid-and that happened mid-this-century. The new frontier for farming is Greenland.

World population has held up, despite the death of 1 billion people due to climate change, but a mass extinction event is reaching epic proportions. The Antarctic ice cap is a goner, and further shocking rises in sea level have become inevitable.

I knew things could get bad, but reports so far have steered clear of positing events that are fairly likely but cannot be proved beyond a shadow of doubt to be effectively inevitable. Scientists have, in Ward's account, been reticent to a fault. It's in the nature of the profession to not over-claim, but this sometimes gets in the way of clear communication of the range of possibilities, especially on the downside.

6 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:38:39pm

re: #5 lostlakehiker

A very sobering new book by Peter D. Ward, Flooded Earth, presents a non-sugarcoated picture of one reasonably likely future.

The San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys are relegated to kangaroo ranching. Salt infiltration, the absence of snowmelt because it no longer snows in the Sierra Nevada, and summer temperatures that kill cattle have combined to reduce the valley to that.

Agricultural production in the U.S. has dropped by 20 percent. In much of the world it is worse. Sea levels are up ten feet from today's levels, and that in just one century. Miami is no longer subject to U.S. jurisdiction for any practical purpose, nor eligible for any aid-and that happened mid-this-century. The new frontier for farming is Greenland.

World population has held up, despite the death of 1 billion people due to climate change, but a mass extinction event is reaching epic proportions. The Antarctic ice cap is a goner, and further shocking rises in sea level have become inevitable.

I knew things could get bad, but reports so far have steered clear of positing events that are fairly likely but cannot be proved beyond a shadow of doubt to be effectively inevitable. Scientists have, in Ward's account, been reticent to a fault. It's in the nature of the profession to not over-claim, but this sometimes gets in the way of clear communication of the range of possibilities, especially on the downside.

Many of us have been screaming for years. People don't want to believe news like this. It is much easier to believe that nothing is wrong. The lie machine preys on this and the general scientific illiteracy of the masses.

I have been arguing for years that the tact is to be completely open about how bad, bad really is.

I have backed it up with study after study and data set after data set.

LGF became by happenstance to be one little corner of the world where I get as much of these hard and sobering truths out there. I am not alone though in the view that enough is enough. With the best case predictions the ones that are just as unlikely as the worst case predictions, we are still looking at over a meter rise in sea level and massive droughts, famines, migrations of disease vectors, extreme weather events and mass extinctions by 2100, in a process that is happening now and will only get worse if nothing is done.

The worst case is terrible to the extent of mass die offs of humans, in the biological sense of mass die off.

7 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:41:00pm

We should remember that there is still time to prevent the worst. We really do have the technology and capacity to change course if we act.

This is the most frustrating and hopeful part of it for those who know the science. We have the means but not the will, because of the obstruction of self serving morons.

8 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:47:47pm

re: #4 freetoken

When Dr. Abraham first went online with his critique the Lord High Denier was hysterical as usual, making threats, etc. Of course the LHD didn't follow up with it, being that all he has is bluster.

The LHD inherited his "lordship" title from his grandfather, who served in the UK government under Churchill. When about 2 years ago Monckton testified in Congress as the GOP "expert" Monckton addressed the Congressional panel saying (paraphrasing) "Greetings from Parliament". But that was a total fraud as the LHD has nothing to do with Parliament and does not sit in the House of Lords. The LHD ought to have been called on that breech of protocol (in other words, just lying) by both Congress the HoL.

Yes the Lord High Denier threatened a libel suit. Alas, he learned that in American law, the provable truth is an unassailable defense. The best thing that could happen for the climate world would be for one of these twits to have to face a Dover type trial.

9 SpaceJesus  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:51:50pm

Hey Ludwig, I'm doing research for a climate law class this semester.

Do you know much about nuclear power and how it figures or could figure with regard to climate change? If not, do you know of a good source of info? I just need scientific and economic points of view, I can fill in the legal stuff myself.


thanks.

10 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 8:14:39pm

re: #9 SpaceJesus

Hey Ludwig, I'm doing research for a climate law class this semester.

Do you know much about nuclear power and how it figures or could figure with regard to climate change? If not, do you know of a good source of info? I just need scientific and economic points of view, I can fill in the legal stuff myself.

thanks.

The answer is that we could easily run the entire nation off of nuclear power and set up an entire fuel cycle to do it in a way that was vastly more efficient than present models using new reactor designs and produces vastly less waste.

Nuke plants are expensive though. There are many areas where an updated grid and judicious use of wind and solar would serve better.

As to climate change, the combination of nuclear, wind, solar and a better grid could - with the deployment of the new batteries create an entirely fossil fuel free, domestic energy based economy.

Here are some papers and books on the economics of it all.

This book is fantastic.

[Link: cdsweb.cern.ch...]

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

[Link: ceem.unsw.edu.au...]

11 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 8:22:17pm

re: #9 SpaceJesus

PIMF

The answer is that we could easily run the entire nation off of nuclear power and set up an entire fuel cycle to do it in a way that is vastly more efficient than present models using new reactor designs and produces vastly less waste.

As to nuclear power itself:

Nuclear power is part of the answer if your goal is to mitigate emissions as quickly as possible - particularly if the new designs. It is a proven technology that generates many megawatts of power that can be quickly deployed. However, it is only part of the solution because without an updated grid we would have to build many reactors at prohibitive costs - and given the history of industry cutting corners, this presents serious risks and issues with waste management. It would be necessary to have the strictest government oversight.

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 8:29:53pm

re: #9 SpaceJesus

Ohh and do you use google scholar? If you were to google nuclear power cycle in google scholar you would find many resources.

13 SpaceJesus  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 9:27:29pm

re: #12 LudwigVanQuixote

No, never tried it. Thanks for all the info though, I need to present by the 15th, so this should be enough to go on.

14 SpaceJesus  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 9:29:12pm

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote


Yeah, the government oversight is mainly what I'll be covering from an administrative law perspective. I just need the science and the figures to along with my presentation as a whole.

15 Pythagoras  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 9:35:39pm

Long but worth it.

16 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 10:21:41pm

re: #13 SpaceJesus

No, never tried it. Thanks for all the info though, I need to present by the 15th, so this should be enough to go on.

It is a very useful resource.
re: #14 SpaceJesus

Yeah, the government oversight is mainly what I'll be covering from an administrative law perspective. I just need the science and the figures to along with my presentation as a whole.

From now until the 15th is a short short time to learn enough about reactor designs and different types of reactors.

17 SpaceJesus  Mon, Nov 8, 2010 10:56:46pm

re: #16 LudwigVanQuixote


Yeah I've got about a week. It's my fault, but in my defense I am writing a paper on the legality of the Israeli blockade of Gaza for an international law journal competition. That's taken lots of my time.

Anyway, I really just need enough info to conclude that a substantial increase in nuke plants combined with a phase-out of fossil fuel plants will reduce GhG by a certain (reasonably accurate) figure. Also info on storage and safety concerns would be nice to tie in.

18 freetoken  Tue, Nov 9, 2010 12:05:42am

re: #17 SpaceJesus

Also info on storage and safety concerns would be nice to tie in.

The wingnuts whine about the Department of Energy, saying it has failed to deliver us from oil imports, and thus in the last election we heard some of the tea partying candidates saying they wanted to close down the department, etc.

What the nuts don't realize is that by "Energy" in the title of that department what is meant primarily is "Nuclear." The DoE was created out of bringing together various elements of the entire US nuclear program. So, while the DoE has the task of developing alternate fuel supplies, it is not responsible for managing oil and coal resources (though it does have the agency which tracks the consumption.)

I say all that to point out that the DoE has a tremendous amount of information online about nuclear energy.

The agency that tracks (according to the OECD treaty) consumption and status of energy supplies:
[Link: www.eia.doe.gov...]
Their nuclear page:
[Link: www.eia.doe.gov...]
Their CO2 (and other) emissions page:
[Link: www.eia.doe.gov...]
which leads us to the page where the data is on total emissions:
[Link: tonto.eia.doe.gov...]
and emissions from coal consumption:
[Link: tonto.eia.doe.gov...]
From which we can conclude that almost 40% of US CO2 emissions is from burning coal.
In the US coal burning is almost all for electricity generation. So replacing coal with nukes for electricity would significantly reduce emissions.

Note that nuclear does cause some CO2 emissions, mostly due to the mining, refining, shipment, and the concrete needed for plant construction. Also, in the US because of our extreme use of oil our CO2 emissions from oil are quite considerable, so switching to a non-petroleum based means of transportation is just as important as replacing coal with nukes for electricity generation.

Additionally we generate emissions from other activities besides energy consumption but energy consumption is the biggest source by far. Also we do other things that affect the climate, but that is probably beyond the scope of your paper.

The EIA numbers are "official" in that the EIA is the officially tasked entity to track these sort of things.

19 freetoken  Tue, Nov 9, 2010 12:07:47am

re: #18 freetoken

PIMF

From which we can conclude that almost 40% of US CO2 emissions is from burning coal.

Should be:

From which we can conclude that almost 40% of US CO2 emissions (from energy consumption) is from burning coal.

20 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 9, 2010 9:48:19am

I also want to be clear, when I said that we could easily run the country off of nuclear power - I should have been more precise. I mean there is no law of physics reason we couldn't do it. In terms of policy though if we tried that alone, without updating the grid, we would have to build many, many reactors. I mean that with the appropriate infrastructure built in terms of updating the grid, we could do it more feasibly. We have more than enough fissionable material to run the nation for quite some time.

I do not mean that this is the cheapest option or the most risk free option.

Honestly, the number one goal in terms of emmisions as a low hanging fruit is updating the grid.

Adding distributed wind and solar (where appropriate) is an essential next low hanging fruit. In terms of energy budget we could run the whole nation off of wind also - assuming we could distribute the power with the right grid.

Because of the technical challenge of distributing the power from wind - with wind farms somewhere far away from larger urban areas, and solar being a difficult proposition when there is very little roof area per person in a building, nuclear becomes a primary option for powering large cities.

21 SpaceJesus  Tue, Nov 9, 2010 10:20:58am

re: #17 SpaceJesus

the blockade is legal by the way ;)


Oh and thanks a lot for the info token, and thanks again ludwig. i got a busy tuesday reading and writing all this down now.

22 aagcobb  Tue, Nov 9, 2010 11:54:52am

re: #7 LudwigVanQuixote

We should remember that there is still time to prevent the worst. We really do have the technology and capacity to change course if we act.

This is the most frustrating and hopeful part of it for those who know the science. We have the means but not the will, because of the obstruction of self serving morons.

I know that it must drive you to tears to realize that over the next two years, not only will there be nothing done by Congress to resolve the problem, but instead Congress will devote considerable time and effort to promoting the notion that global warming science is part of an evil conspiracy to destroy America and impose a one-world government.

23 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 9, 2010 12:55:17pm

re: #22 aagcobb

I know that it must drive you to tears to realize that over the next two years, not only will there be nothing done by Congress to resolve the problem, but instead Congress will devote considerable time and effort to promoting the notion that global warming science is part of an evil conspiracy to destroy America and impose a one-world government.

You have no idea how furious it makes me. I know for a fact we are being murdered by idiots.

24 calochortus  Tue, Nov 9, 2010 4:18:37pm

I watched the whole thing last night, but have been out most of the day and haven't had a chance to post. I think the biggest problem here is the usual "preaching to the choir" aspect. Yes, it does give the reality-based segment of society specific answers to climate change denier points, but there is no reason to believe the deniers will change their minds.

As I seem to keep pointing out, people don't like changing their minds, and when presented with facts contradicting their opinion, conservatives tend to dig in their heels and double down on their bet. (Liberals just ignore those pesky facts.) Deniers aren't likely to sit through an hour-plus power point presentation and analyze the facts and if the facts are brought to their attention, I'd be willing to bet most deniers would simply say that Dr. Abraham is lying.

I'm not sure if the short versions on YouTube would be effective or not. I'd be interested to know what others think about ridiculing Lord Monckton and his "facts". I know it can be an effective method, but it could also set people's backs up, so to speak.

25 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Nov 10, 2010 10:10:04am

re: #24 calochortus

The people with backs up already believe - because they have been brainwashed to - that AGW is a commie plot to take over the world led by corrupt government scientists who are doing it for money. Therre back is quite against the wall already.

As to the standard response from good thinking people about not being to harsh, because that might not work, I ask you to consider the whole data set.

The bad guys on the denial end could not be more shrill. They could not use more invective or slander. It works really well for them and has garnered them many followers.

How much more can we do, if we just call the lies, lies, and fight hard - but actually use the truth?


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 112 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 271 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1