Thread for discussing climate change

[canpakes]

I think you are reading Mikes argument exactly backwards. He was very clear in what he said. In fact, he argued against my position that voluntary individual action is insufficient to address the problems posed by climate change.

That is fair. And not incorrect.

I am not making much of a conclusion about his argument, I am restating his point as I see it. He may be yammering on and on about chickens and CO2, most of it just yammer, but the point was solid. The point being, get your eggs and chicken how you like it or how you can because, minor pimple of a factor in anything.

Res says, small factor in a big problem.
Atlanticmike says, small factor so what? Have fun and eat fresh!

I see agreement.

You probably missed a post or two. Mike was stating that it’s a big enough factor to claim that folks discussing climate change but not raising their own chickens are hypocrites:

I ask why you didn't raise your own meat and vegetables instead of buying them at a grocery store. You see!! People like you, chap and Gunner will read and learn all about climate change, but you're never willing to make REAL changes because you're hypocrites. You spend hours reading and understanding climate change when you could be spending that time riding a bike instead of driving or raising your own meat instead of buying it from the store.

From: viewtopic.php?p=2747496#p2747496

The problem with Mike’s approach is that he’s making a bad faith argument - first, by stating that others are hypocrites and shouldn’t discuss climate change mitigation unless they do the thing that he does, and then by using - as example of the thing - something that actually makes no real difference.

Mike would make a bigger ‘difference’ if he just made one less trip to his favorite store, per year. Once and done.

[Chap]

That's a relatively easy one to answer. If you have two wires connecting a generator to a power consuming unit such as a motor, then the power input into the wires by the generator is:

Pin = I x V, where I is the current passing through the wires, and V is the potential difference (voltage) between the generator output terminals.

If the total resistance of the transmission wires is R, then the power lost as heat in the transmission wires is Ploss = I^2 x R

The trick therefore is to keep transmission losses low by keeping the current small. But you can still transmit a lot of power by making the voltage V very high, since it is I x V that determines the power.

So long distance power lines have very high voltages, and (relatively) small currents. They often also use DC rather than AC, but that is not the main point.

I literally didn’t understand any of that. Do I feel ashamed? Yes. Am I going to pretend that sending electricity over long distances isn’t a problem based off your post? Yes. Am I confused by your statement regarding DC and transmission? Yes. But that’s only because I read this cartoon by the Oatmeal:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Could I google DC vs AC and something something power grids to be less ignorant? Yes. Am I going to do it? I dunno. Maybe.

- Doc

DrC seems to be an energetic, intelligent, and capable person (also a rather honest person, to judge from his admission above). But it appears that his education and experience have not fitted him to understand statements that express elementary and important facts about the way electric currents through wires can act as a means of transferring energy, a physical phenomenon on which major parts of 21st century life is based.

Can I just do a quick straw poll here, and ask posters who feel that they DO understand my post to indicate briefly?

[canpakes]

Can I just do a quick straw poll here, and ask posters who feel that they DO understand my post to indicate briefly?

Yes, from a question I had once about step-up and step-down transformers back in the day, and knowing a little about electrical resistance. : )

[Gunnar]

Can I just do a quick straw poll here, and ask posters who feel that they DO understand my post to indicate briefly?

Having worked with electronic and electrical devices during most of my Air Force career, and having taken science courses in high school and college, including chemistry, physics and biology, I understood your post quite well, and was about to explain much the same thing to Doc cam myself. I'm glad you did it first, though, because you are undoubtedly much better versed in these topics than I am. I am a bit surprised, though, that Doc cam wasn't better versed in these subjects than he is, because he seems generally well informed about so many other topics in general, including topics bearing on the science of climate change. I admire his honesty in admitting his relative ignorance about how things electrical work. I don't think he will have much trouble bringing his knowledge on that subject up to speed with a bit of research and study of the readily available information concerning this topic on line. He certainly doesn't lack the intelligence to do so. I suspect that in his case it is more a case of what he has forgotten about what he already learned in school about it than about never having learned anything about it. If he has ever taken even a rather basic physics course during the course of his schooling, he must have been at least introduced to the subject at some time in his life, it seems to me.

[canpakes]

I am a bit surprised, though, that Doc cam wasn't better versed in these subjects than he is, because he seems generally well informed about so many other topics in general …

Are you saying that you were a little shocked?

[Gunnar]

I am a bit surprised, though, that Doc cam wasn't better versed in these subjects than he is, because he seems generally well informed about so many other topics in general …

Are you saying that you were a little shocked?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "shocked."

[Chap]

I suspect that in his case it is more a case of what he has forgotten about what he already learned in school about it than about never having learned anything about it. If he has ever taken even a rather basic physics course during the course of his schooling, he must have been at least introduced to the subject at some time in his life, it seems to me.

That is also my own view. I suspect he must have learned this basic electrical stuff a long time ago, but has now forgotten it.

[canpakes]

Are you saying that you were a little shocked?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "shocked."

I’ll bet that even though Doc may not be current on his electrical knowledge, he’ll show no resistance or reluctance to getting up to speed. It never hertz to be more grounded on watt to know.

[Gunnar]

Here! Watch this then spend the next couple of post calling this man a complete fool.
https://youtu.be/vb-52nlv0qs

THERE WILL BE NO DISSENSION!! Sound familiar?

So, you going to tell us the main source of CO2 from your backyard chickens, or have you finished congratulating yourself on your last public display of self-righteous ignorance and ready to repeat the same pointless crap?

I would agree with Atlanticmike that Patrick Moore, who was interviewed in the link Atlanticmike provided, is not a complete fool. But neither is he completely honest. Patrick Moore background information
On this page
Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry

In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source. This page contains information about how to accurately describe Mr. Moore and to judge his credibility.

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).

Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power

In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) journal entitled "Nuclear Re-think." According to Mr. Moore, "Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment."(2)

Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn't even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in "a significant release of radiation…"(3)

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, which published Mr. Moore's article, acknowledges that the TMI meltdown released radiation into the surrounding community. As a result, the IAEA ranks the accident as a Level 5 on a scale of 7, an Accident With Wider Consequences. (Only Chernobyl & the Soviet nuclear waste tank explosion in 1957 rank worse than the Three Mile Island meltdown.)(4)

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the damaged reactor core. However, nuclear engineers who reexamined the accident estimate that as much as 150 million curies of radiation may have escaped from the reactor.(5) The meltdown at Three Mile Island turned a multimillion dollar asset into a multibillion dollar liability overnight and helped seal the fate of nuclear power in the United States. To claim otherwise is nothing but public relations spin.

Unfortunately, Mr. Moore's pro nuclear spin is not confined to the Three Mile Island meltdown. While praising the Bush Administration for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol(6), Moore promotes nuclear power as a solution to global warming because,"(i)t produces no harmful greenhouse gases…"(7)

However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) already determined in 1999 that the Nuclear Energy Institute's claims touting nuclear power's supposed environmental benefits were misleading because it did not disclose the fact that the production of nuclear fuel produced greenhouse gases. The FTC concluded that NEI's claims could not be substantiated, "(s)ince there is not yet any permanent disposal system for radioactive waste and since the process of uranium enrichment that fuels nuclear reactors emits greenhouse gases…"(8)

Patrick Moore's Own Words

Consider Patrick Moore's own words when considering his claims and those of the nuclear industry: "It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile,"(9) he wrote before becoming a spokesman for polluters.

I think that Dr. Moore is probably right, though, about the unreasonable hype over the supposed evils of GMO foods

However his claim that global temperatures have not been rising significantly over the last couple of decades is flat out wrong and dishonest, as is his complete dismissal of climate change concerns.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... l-pursuit/

[Chap]

Well, at least Moore is honest enough to lie when he is paid to lie! If he told the truth he would be cheating his employers.