Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Climate Change] : Paris Agreement Signed

1810121314

Posts

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Fukushima. A twenty year-old plant gets hit by one of largest earthquakes on record AND a tsunami.

    That might be an outlier situation.

    The problem is that Japan is a country that is hit by earthquakes on a semi-regular basis, as well as tsunami waves (the plant was not seriously damaged by the quake in any case) and that TEPCO was warned when they laid out the plans for the plant 20 years ago that it would be at risk from tsunami impact. TEPCO built it there anyway because it gave them cheap access to coolant. Then, on top of that, they built the back-up generator housing to the minimum possible standard (even though that standard is still relatively high compared to the rest of the world).

    If the generators had been in a sealed underground environment, the coolant pumping wouldn't have been cut-off and the plant wouldn't have melted down.


    It is a bit of an outlier, but the details make it plain that it was perfectly avoidable if corners hadn't been cut.
    Germany shutting down nuclear power because of Fukushima is one of the dumbest things Germany has done in the last ten years. Like, number one is the balls stupid way they set up the Euro and then this.

    I would agree.

    The solution to seeing a safety concern with a technology is not just to bury your head in the sand and declare the technology unfit for use.

    With Love and Courage
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    Tuvalu.

    that's the one I'm thinking of.

    Huh.

    So i can't blame that on higher water.

    *glare*


    I can still complain about the hole in the ozone though, right?

    You seem disappointed that you cannot blame man for that, shouldn't you be, you know, happy that we're not responsible for that?

    steam_sig.png
  • ZephiranZephiran Registered User regular
    I don't recall if this is my spiteful side projecting wishful thinking onto my peers, but I seem to recall that, during the time Germany's decision to coal it up in this bitch was recent, a number of social psychology students I was talking to applauded the move away from nuclear.

    Like, Jesus, I don't want to live on this planet anymore. And of course, rather than decommission aging, unsafe plants and introduce newer and safer molten salt Thorium reactors, they switch out the whole shebang for fucking coal.

    Good job Germany, good fucking job. It's not just the direct repercussions of the move that I'm worried about, it's the fact that it gives a pretty clear message to developing countries still on the fence about energy that they also can forgo nuclear energy entirely - because fuck it, Germany's doing it too, why shouldn't we get a slice of that cheap, cheap coalcake.

    Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.

    I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Good job Germany, good fucking job. It's not just the direct repercussions of the move that I'm worried about, it's the fact that it gives a pretty clear message to developing countries still on the fence about energy that they also can forgo nuclear energy entirely - because fuck it, Germany's doing it too, why shouldn't we get a slice of that cheap, cheap coalcake.

    In fairness to Germany, developing countries would probably prefer the coal route anyway, for the bolded reason you mentioned at the end. Do we ('we' as in 'humans in general') want to wait, spend a lot of money, train specialists & nuclear engineers, etc... or would we rather just shovel some coal out of the ground and toss it into a furnace?

    For a developing country that probably doesn't have the widespread dissemination of climate 'awareness', so to speak, the choice is an absolute no-brainer. If you either weren't aware of the consequences of CO2 emissions or didn't care about them, going nuclear instead of going coal would be totally insane.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    The problem with Germany's decision is that France simply do not give a fuck and are happy to continue building new reactors and supplying energy to those who don't 'want' nuclear power.

    steam_sig.png
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Oakey wrote: »
    The problem with Germany's decision is that France simply do not give a fuck and are happy to continue building new reactors and supplying energy to those who don't 'want' nuclear power.
    #
    I don't know whether that is really a problem. Germany can develop other alternative energies, France can develop nuclear. Sounds okay to me.

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    Tuvalu.

    that's the one I'm thinking of.

    Huh.

    So i can't blame that on higher water.

    *glare*

    I can still complain about the hole in the ozone though, right?
    Not Tuvalu! What'll happen to all out .tv domains?
    edit: I do not mean this to belittle the plight of that island. I was just sort of bringing up the domain thing, because I find it interesting that there are these tiny islands where they get a significant amount of income from cheap domains.

    The island of Nauru has previously financed itself through selling passports to terrorists and laundering money.

    Gotta make that money :whistle:

    etxvv5.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Oh neither I or Yar are saying that there isn't any truth to it. But it's a thoroughly uninteresting thing. We've done a lot of things. Saying it was a huge mistake to come down from the trees and walk upright isn't helpful. I also don't agree with it if the implication is that it's immoral for us to strive for advancement. The shits I give about the planet and the environment outside of those factors necessary for the continued existence of humanity are not a lot.

    And this sort of attitude is what got us here in the first place.

    It's nonsensical to talk about the Earth as if it's some disposable second-fiddle to humanity; our future is tied to it's future. Until we've decided to, say, terraform Mars or the moon and are travelling freely from planet to planet, there's no sense in treating the Earth / talking about the Earth as if we can trash it without consequence. Saying, "I want us to advance as a species, and I also do not care if we ruin the global ecosystem as we do so," is a contradiction: if we decide that ecosystems are unimportant, we won't be able to advance. If we become totally careless, we'll go extinct.
    Certainly. But what I'm saying is that it's also silly to pretend the earth is important outside of just being important for us.
    And it's especially just plain stupid to focus on the blame when there is no real clear blame to give. I mean, the main parties advocating for quickly switching to alternative energy are also the ones who fucking screwed us over by attacking nuclear power. Green parties everywhere are still against nuclear power!

    A small minority of uninformed protesters are against nuclear power. None of the academic environmentalists are. You might be thinking of the environmental / nuclear concerns in previous decades, when we were running nuclear plants with extremely poor safety standards & the line between weapons proliferation & civilian reactors was much more blurry.

    No I might be very much thinking of the current political climate. I didn't make up the fact that Green parties are opposed to nuclear energy. The ones protesting the loudest against global warming and fossil fuels are also the ones disregarding the science on nearly everything else.


    I mean, yeah academics have gotten over it but political environmentalism is still heavy on the anti-nuclear buzz.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Oakey wrote: »
    The problem with Germany's decision is that France simply do not give a fuck and are happy to continue building new reactors and supplying energy to those who don't 'want' nuclear power.

    It looks like the next election will give France a socialist government that is planning on reducing nuclear power.

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.

    We're not the Soviets.

    Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).

    Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.

    It's much better today.

    Nope. Middle managers will always be cutting corners, embezzling, and shoving it up their nose. We do not need the majority of assholes going into nuclear because 'that's where the money is'.

    Edith Upwards on
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.

    We're not the Soviets.

    Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).

    Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.

    It's much better today.

    Nope. Middle managers will always be cutting corners, embezzling, and shoving it up their nose. We do not need the majority of assholes going into nuclear because 'that's where the money is'.

    Even if it becomes the dominant form of energy production in the US, it'll never be "where the money is" for the simple fact that you aren't going to see nuclear airliners and nuclear cars any time soon (or ever).

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.

    We're not the Soviets.

    Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).

    Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.

    It's much better today.

    Nope. Middle managers will always be cutting corners, embezzling, and shoving it up their nose. We do not need the majority of assholes going into nuclear because 'that's where the money is'.

    Even if it becomes the dominant form of energy production in the US, it'll never be "where the money is" for the simple fact that you aren't going to see nuclear airliners and nuclear cars any time soon (or ever).

    If the government goes big into nuclear, there will be a gold rush in that industry. Combined with the United States current pitiful federal inspection system and utterly corrupt "free market" politicians, there's a damned good chance that a rush to nuclear would come at the cost of a state or two.

    There's nothing wrong with nuclear technology when applied prudently. There is a lot wrong with the American government and business cultures.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.

    We're not the Soviets.

    Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).

    Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.

    It's much better today.

    Nope. Middle managers will always be cutting corners, embezzling, and shoving it up their nose. We do not need the majority of assholes going into nuclear because 'that's where the money is'.

    Even if it becomes the dominant form of energy production in the US, it'll never be "where the money is" for the simple fact that you aren't going to see nuclear airliners and nuclear cars any time soon (or ever).

    If the government goes big into nuclear, there will be a gold rush in that industry. Combined with the United States current pitiful federal inspection system and utterly corrupt "free market" politicians, there's a damned good chance that a rush to nuclear would come at the cost of a state or two.

    There's nothing wrong with nuclear technology when applied prudently. There is a lot wrong with the American government and business cultures.

    The cost of a state or two? You understand that Chernobyl was literally the WORST thing that could happen to a power plant that you can build, and that it's design made it practically a time bomb. A child could have pointed out the flaws in it in a Q and A session.

    "Comrade Daddy, if you say the rods make the reactor go. What would happen if they fell in and you couldn't take them out? Like when I snapped the chain on the plug in the bath."

    "Well little Smolensko, then we'd.... err.... I guess the reactor would explode! Lets not do that"

    Bad design decisions for nuclear plants don't save money, they are just stupid. Passive safety is the cheapest and most effective method.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Germany shutting down nuclear power because of Fukushima is one of the dumbest things Germany has done in the last ten years. Like, number one is the balls stupid way they set up the Euro and then this.

    Fucking pointless NIMBY bullshit.

    Germany has been anti-nuclear for decades, they really weren't any kind of player to start with. The reactors they were using were well past their useful lives at this stage. It's the rest of the worlds reaction that is so stupid.

    The most annoying thing to me was that during the incident at Fukushima YOU COULD SEE A DAMN OIL REFINERY ON FIRE IN THE BACKGROUND! Billions of gallons of oil burning merrily away out of control putting thousands of tonnes of CO2 into the air, along with numerous other radioactive and chemical poisons and noone was calling for oil refineries to be banned.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.

    We're not the Soviets.

    Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).

    Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.

    It's much better today.

    Nope. Middle managers will always be cutting corners, embezzling, and shoving it up their nose. We do not need the majority of assholes going into nuclear because 'that's where the money is'.

    Even if it becomes the dominant form of energy production in the US, it'll never be "where the money is" for the simple fact that you aren't going to see nuclear airliners and nuclear cars any time soon (or ever).

    If the government goes big into nuclear, there will be a gold rush in that industry. Combined with the United States current pitiful federal inspection system and utterly corrupt "free market" politicians, there's a damned good chance that a rush to nuclear would come at the cost of a state or two.

    There's nothing wrong with nuclear technology when applied prudently. There is a lot wrong with the American government and business cultures.

    The cost of a state or two? You understand that Chernobyl was literally the WORST thing that could happen to a power plant that you can build, and that it's design made it practically a time bomb. A child could have pointed out the flaws in it in a Q and A session.

    "Comrade Daddy, if you say the rods make the reactor go. What would happen if they fell in and you couldn't take them out? Like when I snapped the chain on the plug in the bath."

    "Well little Smolensko, then we'd.... err.... I guess the reactor would explode! Lets not do that"

    Bad design decisions for nuclear plants don't save money, they are just stupid. Passive safety is the cheapest and most effective method.

    That doesn't mean those bad decisions won't be made to save money. I am very leery of a nuclear expansion in our free market economy. Let France and the rest of the well-regulated EU nations lead the way on this one.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    The thing that all ways throws me for a loop when people talk about the nuclear meltdowns is that the number of of people killed(via higher long term cancer rates) by Chernobly is estimated at something like 25k, Fukushima will probably be in the hundreds, and 3 mile island is at 0. While US coal plants shorten 24,000 lives a year.

    It's like someone who smokes 2 packs a day worrying about the dangers of air travel.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    That doesn't mean those bad decisions won't be made to save money. I am very leery of a nuclear expansion in our free market economy. Let France and the rest of the well-regulated EU nations lead the way on this one.

    You're assuming that passive safety systems are more expensive. I'm willing to bet money that active safety systems not only cost more to engineer and construct up front, but also require more to maintain and test throughout the life of the reactor.

    I also think you are underestimating the scrutiny that a new plant would have to go through in all phases of construction. These things are not built lightly or in a hurry. No one wants another Chernobyl or Fukashima.

    Sticks on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    The other thing is most the proposed new plants are basically the same handful designs.

    CANDU, Westinghouse AP 1000, ABWR, APWR, a couple others. Fewer designs, a lot less variance.

    Also having actual dealt with making equipment for nuclear plants(but not hot components), these guys are QA sticklers like no others. The full time inspectors have inspectors(I'm serious), and the amount of forms/paperwork for even trivial changes are insane. And this was for stuff that in no way interacts with safety/hot components in the plant.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    It's not cheaper to cut corners when the feds will end you when they find out.

    NIMBY.

    Bullshit.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Fukushima. A twenty year-old plant gets hit by one of largest earthquakes on record AND a tsunami.

    That might be an outlier situation.

    So, a Japanese Thursday.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Nuclear plant leaks enough radiation that may end in 1000 deaths in above average cancer rates, during disaster that kills 20k people. Nuclear power is so dangerous.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    The other thing is most the proposed new plants are basically the same handful designs.

    CANDU, Westinghouse AP 1000, ABWR, APWR, a couple others. Fewer designs, a lot less variance.

    Also having actual dealt with making equipment for nuclear plants(but not hot components), these guys are QA sticklers like no others. The full time inspectors have inspectors(I'm serious), and the amount of forms/paperwork for even trivial changes are insane. And this was for stuff that in no way interacts with safety/hot components in the plant.

    Indeed, and when you get into building nuclear plants you don't design a new one for each spot. You build the same one (which you've built before) lots of times in places where it will work. There aren't corners to cut, changing things would cost more money, not less.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Fukushima. A twenty year-old plant gets hit by one of largest earthquakes on record AND a tsunami.

    That might be an outlier situation.

    So, a Japanese Thursday.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Fukushima. A twenty year-old plant gets hit by one of largest earthquakes on record AND a tsunami.

    That might be an outlier situation.

    So, a Japanese Thursday.

    If it only takes twenty years for something that expensive to become dangerous, it isn't a viable energy source.

  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    The Japanese plant was much older, the first reactor was started in 1971. In fact, it was already on the schedule for decommission.

    That doesn't excuse the fact that there was a nuclear power plant in Japan, at sea, that was apparently highly susceptible to flooding damage (especially during a power failure). It was, in hindsight, a pretty dumb design/risk analysis, and the way it was handled was also baffling.

    Nuclear power is still pretty damn expensive though. The plants are enormous investments, the waste management is a huge pain, the refining of fissile material from ore is a chemically nasty process.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    3595-i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore.jpg

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Fukushima. A twenty year-old plant gets hit by one of largest earthquakes on record AND a tsunami.

    That might be an outlier situation.

    So, a Japanese Thursday.

    If it only takes twenty years for something that expensive to become dangerous, it isn't a viable energy source.

    Err, that is true of ALL energy sources. And the plant wasn't dangerous simply due to its age. It was dangerous due to numerous poor design decisions, and a refusal to set up a system of proper waste management by Japan which led to spent fuel being stored in ponds onsite.

    A 20 year old coal power plant is dangerous too, and has been choking out tonnes of radioactive material for 20 years. Wind turbines are dangerous due to their age at 20 years.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    3595-i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore.jpg

    Wow, thats even crazier than I thought it would be.

    Don't deny the problem, say that the problem is a good thing!

    That's like a site run by a cigarette company saying that cell division is a good thing since your cells need to divide for you to live. Yes, thats true but have you heard of the idea of too much of a good thing?

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    "Warmer is better than colder."

    "Plants need CO2."

    I'm persuaded. Climate change is a hoax perpetuated by Big Warming!

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    Thats gotta be a joke...

    **braces self for reality**

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Nuclear plant leaks enough radiation that may end in 1000 deaths in above average cancer rates, during disaster that kills 20k people. Nuclear power is so dangerous.

    And one 14 lb ball of plutonium killed multiple scientists on different occasions at Los Alamos, under controlled conditions, as a result of very minor slip-ups.

    Handling fissile material is not a joke, and a few decades ago many people didn't treat it with enough respect. Like I said, it's much better today so long as people aren't cutting corners, but skepticism is well warranted.
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    *facepalm*

    ...I believe this is the same group that points to the abundance of CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago as 'proof' that CO2 is harmless.

    Of course, they neglect to mention that the Sun was many orders of magnitude dimmer at the time.

    With Love and Courage
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    Thats gotta be a joke...

    **braces self for reality**

    Nope! They just organized a somewhat publicized letter from 49 former NASA employees (none of whom are climate scientists) decrying their "extreme" position of believing that anthropogenic global warming is, in fact, a real thing.

  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Nuclear plant leaks enough radiation that may end in 1000 deaths in above average cancer rates, during disaster that kills 20k people. Nuclear power is so dangerous.

    And one 14 lb ball of plutonium killed multiple scientists on different occasions at Los Alamos, under controlled conditions, as a result of very minor slip-ups.

    Handling fissile material is not a joke, and a few decades ago many people didn't treat it with enough respect. Like I said, it's much better today so long as people aren't cutting corners, but skepticism is well warranted.
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    *facepalm*

    ...I believe this is the same group that points to the abundance of CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago as 'proof' that CO2 is harmless.

    Of course, they neglect to mention that the Sun was many orders of magnitude dimmer at the time.
    If the sun was even one order of magnitude dimmer, the Earth would be a frozen lump.

    It is steadily getting brighter as time wears on, but the difference is nowhere close to an order of magnitude. The sun was a few percent dimmer 150 million years ago.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Nuclear plant leaks enough radiation that may end in 1000 deaths in above average cancer rates, during disaster that kills 20k people. Nuclear power is so dangerous.

    And one 14 lb ball of plutonium killed multiple scientists on different occasions at Los Alamos, under controlled conditions, as a result of very minor slip-ups.

    Handling fissile material is not a joke, and a few decades ago many people didn't treat it with enough respect. Like I said, it's much better today so long as people aren't cutting corners, but skepticism is well warranted.
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    *facepalm*

    ...I believe this is the same group that points to the abundance of CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago as 'proof' that CO2 is harmless.

    Of course, they neglect to mention that the Sun was many orders of magnitude dimmer at the time.
    If the sun was even one order of magnitude dimmer, the Earth would be a frozen lump.

    It is steadily getting brighter as time wears on, but the difference is nowhere close to an order of magnitude. The sun was a few percent dimmer 150 million years ago.

    Yeah. The evidence to point to there is that it was before the evolution (which I somehow doubt they're big fans of, either) of large-scale ground life and that after plant life became abundant, CO2 spikes can be generally correlated with extinction events.

  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Nuclear plant leaks enough radiation that may end in 1000 deaths in above average cancer rates, during disaster that kills 20k people. Nuclear power is so dangerous.

    And one 14 lb ball of plutonium killed multiple scientists on different occasions at Los Alamos, under controlled conditions, as a result of very minor slip-ups.

    Handling fissile material is not a joke, and a few decades ago many people didn't treat it with enough respect. Like I said, it's much better today so long as people aren't cutting corners, but skepticism is well warranted.
    Want to read something that will make you want to kill yourself?

    Check out this site run by a coal industry group.

    *facepalm*

    ...I believe this is the same group that points to the abundance of CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago as 'proof' that CO2 is harmless.

    Of course, they neglect to mention that the Sun was many orders of magnitude dimmer at the time.
    If the sun was even one order of magnitude dimmer, the Earth would be a frozen lump.

    It is steadily getting brighter as time wears on, but the difference is nowhere close to an order of magnitude. The sun was a few percent dimmer 150 million years ago.

    Yeah. The evidence to point to there is that it was before the evolution (which I somehow doubt they're big fans of, either) of large-scale ground life and that after plant life became abundant, CO2 spikes can be generally correlated with extinction events.

    Were these high CO2 levels not around the time of the dinosaurs? I recall reading somewhere that the flora of the time was stupidly oversized. Like giant ferns and stuff like that.

    steam_sig.png
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    CO2, O2, and temperature were all generally a lot higher during the Triassic/Jurassic/Cretacious. Big insects, plants, lots of food, big critters. Note that it can also drastically go the other way, and there is some discussion if there have been 'snowball earths' in the past.

    The argument isn't that life isn't somehow sustainable with different concentrations of these, and different circumstances, it's that a change in the circumstances will have devastating 'short term' ecological effects (Where short term is in thousands of years). It's also really hard to predict how nature reacts exactly. Especially because we humans are also constantly meddling with nature on other levels (Like fishing out the oceans, removing rainforests and other pretty much global events).



    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    I know that, I was just addressing the comment that these levels were before 'large scale ground life and plant life became abundant' because that seems false.

    steam_sig.png
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Oakey wrote: »
    I know that, I was just addressing the comment that these levels were before 'large scale ground life and plant life became abundant' because that seems false.

    I've never seen the data, so I'm just guessing. I had forgotten that megafauna persisted into the dinosaur period.

  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    My brief recollection (and I stand to be corrected) is that the high CO2 levels is what allowed everything (dinosaurs included) to grow so large. That may explain why the youth of today all seem to be giants. That or steroids.

    steam_sig.png
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Wikipedia seems to imply that both CO2 and O2 levels were elevated, so the higher CO2 levels would have enabled large plants while the high O2 levels would have enabled large oxygen-breathing animals. Either way, it seems unlikely that our impending CO2 increase is going to bring a corresponding O2 concentration increase, so the crazy people are still dumb :P

    a5ehren on
Sign In or Register to comment.