Nuclear disasters and AGW fears

[r-j]

About the only thing I've ever seen regarding these seasonal predictions in relation to AGW is that, on a globally averaged basis, over climatically relevant periods, we will see more warming records than cooling records.

Then you actually know almost nothing about global warming theory, or how CO2 warms the planet.

 

[Trakar]

Then you actually know almost nothing about global warming theory, or how CO2 warms the planet.

ROFLOL, this statement in response to my statement, demonstrates your own lack of understanding, not mine.

Model simulations of U.S. 20th century climate show a greater ratio of about four to one due to more uniform warming across the U.S. than in
observations. Following an A1B emission scenario for the 21st century, the U.S. ratio of record high maximum to record low minimum temperatures is projected to continue to increase, with ratios of about 20 to 1 by mid-century, and roughly 50 to 1 by the end of the century. Citation: Meehl, G. A., C. Tebaldi, G. Walton, D. Easterling, and L. McDaniel (2009), Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S., Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L23701, doi:10.1029/2009GL040736.

If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf

 

[macdoc]

r-j

how CO2 warms the planet.

let's hear it your own words.

 

[r-j]

Wrong thread.

 

[Trakar]

Wrong thread.

Your thread, you brought it up, don't blame MacDoc for asking you to clarify and explain your assertion.

 

[r-j]

Discussion of the physics, mechanisms and theory involved goes in the global warming thread.

 

[Trakar]

Discussion of the physics, mechanisms and theory involved goes in the global warming thread.

So keep your irrelevant and unsupported assertions in the threads where they possess relevance.

 

[macdoc]

The vacuum of space perhaps? Thoroughly irradiated of course for sanitary reasons.

 

[r-j]

It's dose that matters. The mere presence of radioactive material isn't by itself cause for alarm.

It's the degree that matters. The mere presence of extra CO2 and a little warming would actually benefit the world, not hurt it.

See how similar the attitudes are?

 

[3point14]

The strange similarity is how people who 100% love nuclear can't see any danger, no matter what. This is like the people who don't fear the AGW, no matter what they are not afraid.

There seems to be zero communication or willingness to learn anything. Once the mind is made up, nothing will matter.

I'm pretty pro-nuclear power, but I think the above is, quite frankly, bobbins.

All power generation (energy conversion) has a danger, all of it. One just has to weigh up the (known) dangers of each type of power generation and find one with the best fit given one's energy needs.

I can see the danger in nuclear power, it's just much, much easier to mitigate than any other power generation method capable of generating sufficient power.

 

[r-j]

You probably don't know how that sounds.

"The Fukushima disaster is much easier to mitigate than any other power source problem"

Of course since I see both sides, I can actually argue that in regards to coal, or rather the massive pollution from coal, Fukushima is easier to deal with. Because Fukushima is only causing problems for a small area, while coal is polluting the entire world, especially the arctic.

Then there is the deaths issue. If death is the ultimate metric for safety, coal is much worse than nuclear. Unless you live near a reactor that is melting down and exploding of course.

 

[3point14]

You probably don't know how that sounds.

When you said 'that', did you mean 'this'?

If not, to what are you referring when you say 'that'?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It's the degree that matters. The mere presence of extra CO2 and a little warming would actually benefit the world, not hurt it.

ahem, NOT! You just sent me a link to a paper explaining how counter-intuitively a "little warming" has caused colder winters.

Let me tell you what "a little warming" along with "colder winters" means to me as a farmer. It means my entire broccoli crop this fall was killed off with the broccoli heads the size of a quarter. It means last spring I was a full 3 weeks late getting my pepper and tomato crop out, and still had to plant my peppers twice, after frost killed 90% of my first planting. It means I still had to deal with 100 degree F + temps through the summer.

It is a miracle I made any profit at all. I did, but only 25% of what I would have expected, and that was primarily due to my own experimental project! A lot of guys had a complete bust. In fact part of the reason I had a profit is because the niche I grow for was basically empty of product for miles around except for me and I was able to command a premium price and still sell out every day.

One vendor drove by my stand and screamed at me that it was IMPOSSIBLE that I actually grew the tomatoes displayed at my stand and I had to have bought them out of state and shipped them in! She was so convinced and so angry she refused to even look at the plants right behind me! True story.

So you can sit there behind your little computer screen and type whatever fantasies you like. But here in the real world

"The mere presence of extra CO2 and a little warming would actually benefit the world"

is about as ridiculous a statement as can be made.

 

[macdoc]

I'm pretty pro-nuclear power, but I think the above is, quite frankly, bobbins.

the common response to r-j's weird speculative flights of fancy interspersed with melodrama.

You are absolutely correct...all technology carries risk. Driving being one of the highest...yet we still drive.

Nuclear power along with flying in airplanes carries a low risk given the incredible benefits.

But some like to fear monger about phantom risks and ignore the actual risks of everyday technological and even non-technological life.

More people are killed by donkeys annually than airline accidents. And LOTS more people are killed annually by coal pollution but where is the outrage threads...about that and say antibiotic use by the cattle industry which is a large scale threat to many.

Perhaps common sense is none too prevalent as thought.

 

[Cayvmann]

I don't fear either, but I support trying to do something about AGW, and support the use of modern nuclear power.

 

[r-j]

But here in the real world is about as ridiculous a statement as can be made.

Well that was the point! dismissing everything because you want something to be true is ridiculous.

Be it nuclear reactors melting down and leaking radiation into the entire world, or disastrous climate change, just hand waving it away, and not feeling any worry at all, because of what you believe, is ridiculous.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Well that was the point! dismissing everything because you want something to be true is ridiculous.

Be it nuclear reactors melting down and leaking radiation into the entire world, or disastrous climate change, just hand waving it away, and not feeling any worry at all, because of what you believe, is ridiculous.

If that was your point sorry. I didn't read it that way.

On the other hand I learned long ago trying to tell someone how they should "feel" is a fruitless endeavor.

Ultimately the only thing capable of teaching someone when it is appropriate to feel worried or not, is life experience and thoughtful reflection, if anything at all. It's not really a debate topic.

That's why I was somewhat curious why "fears" is even in the title of this thread. We can address real life problems associated with nuclear and AGW with science. But the fears of both? I don't really see as science. More like an unscientific opinion poll you set up here with this thread.

 

[r-j]

Let me tell you what "a little warming" along with "colder winters" means to me as a farmer. It means my entire broccoli crop this fall was killed off with the broccoli heads the size of a quarter. It means last spring I was a full 3 weeks late getting my pepper and tomato crop out, and still had to plant my peppers twice, after frost killed 90% of my first planting. It means I still had to deal with 100 degree F + temps through the summer.

I know exactly what you mean. But I don't want to talk too much about AGW in specifics, as that would cause Mod actions that are not wanted. I do want to say that what you are experiencing is a real problem, and one that has a potential to cause extreme financial and human suffering.

On the other hand I learned long ago trying to tell someone how they should "feel" is a fruitless endeavor.

yes, and trying to "make" somebody feel bad because they don't just buy your story, your fears, is even worse. I just find the similarities between the two issues (AGW and Nuclear) so remarkably the same, in regards to attitudes and dismissing of any evidence.

Like when I try to talk about Fukushima with a retired navy nuclear supporter. I kept increasing the disaster levels, asking if he still supported nuclear reactors all over the world. No level of disaster would change his mind. Even if Japan, Korea and large parts of China were made uninhabitable from Fukushima, he still supports nuclear, because it can't happen here. The only place I see that kind of denial in regards to something threatening is AGW. People just dismiss the predictions and fears, and say "it can't happen".

Even if climate isn't threatened with disaster, the oceans turning to acid and wiping out the reefs and fish and clams and seafood is a terrible danger. It's basic chemistry. They just dismiss it, and claim it will be solved in the future.

Just like when people bring up the spent fuel problem, which is huge! Hands are waved, the problem will be solved, it's "them people to blame, anything other than discussing it. Or worry about it at all.

 

[Cuddles]

That's why I was somewhat curious why "fears" is even in the title of this thread.

Ultimately, empathy. People tend to assume that other people are basically the same as them; that even when the conclusions they come to are different, the form of reasoning and feelings involved must be similar. We wince when we see someone else get hurt, we laugh and yawn along with other people, and if we're scared we assume other people must be as well.

So someone who is scared of the word "nuclear" and encounters others who aren't often won't understand that people who don't share their fear aren't actually scared at all. Rather, it must simply be that they are scared of something else. Their conclusion is based on fear, so even though other people have reached different conclusions, those conclusions must also be based on fear.

The problem comes when fear isn't actually an appropriate response. Being attacked by a bear is a good reason to be scared. Knowing that a small proportion of people will die younger than they otherwise would have if we don't make changes to energy policy over the next few decades really isn't. It's a good reason to think about the problem and what we might be able to do about it, but the fight-or-flight fear response just isn't useful. Unfortunately, since we're rather imperfect evolved creatures, such responses can still kick in in completely inappropriate cases, and when that happens people are hard-wired to assume it's happened to everyone else as well.

It's particularly noticeable here, because the thread cited in the OP has very little mention of global warming at all, and in fact the only mention of it in the last couple of months was when r-j brought it up himself. There's comparison to deaths directly caused by the coal industry, comparison to other radioactive releases, and various other points brought up, but almost no mention of global warming at all. So r-j cannot have noticed anything about people fearing global warming while reading that thread. But since he's scared of nuclear power, clearly everyone else must be scared of something even if they don't actually mention it as the reason they disagree with him.

 

[r-j]

When someone who is scared of global warming encounters others who aren't scared, they often won't understand that people who don't share their fear aren't actually scared at all.

The problem comes when fear isn't actually an appropriate response. Being attacked by a bear is a good reason to be scared. Thinking that a small amount of CO2 over the next few decades will kill millions really isn't.