What climate change is not

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,864
    I have no problem with you thinking I have no credibility!

    It was not a question. It was your comment "The sum outcome is massive CO2 with out any time for regrowth to sequester the CO2 produced." No regrowth? No fuel, no new fires.
    You seem very confused. I am not answering any questions. I am responding to your statements. That is how an online discussion works; not by one party asking a series of questions and the other party answering them, but by a two way conversation where people express points of view.
    OK then. In your home town, would you rather have 1 person killed, or 115,000? (That WAS a question BTW.)
    Neither the coal death toll nor the nuclear death toll includes those who are suffering from long term exposure related illnesses. If they did, coal would kill millions a year.
    See, this is why that hyperbole comes back to bite you. Let's say someone looks up your hyperbolic claim, and discovers that those 300 workers were not subject to "extreme radiation exposure" but were exposed to the regulatory limit that any nuclear worker can be exposed to, then they were evacuated. Further, let's say they find out that the worst-case scenario is that one third of the emergency workers have a somewhat increased cancer risk. They would then conclude that you could not be trusted; that anything you say is likely an extreme exaggeration at best, or an outright lie at worst.

    Would that be a good outcome for you?
    Yes, it has. The Fukushima story has been re-written as a devastating disaster risking thousands of lives by anti-nuclear activists.
    I have zero desire to persuade you of anything; you have to want to learn before you can. Generally I post here because it's possible that others find this material interesting.

    But let's look at that floating nuclear power plant.

    First off, what can happen? A LOCA is the biggest problem for plants like that; loss of cooling can rapidly cause a meltdown as decay heat drives the temperatures higher and higher. A barge, with five sides submerged in water, has a huge natural heatsink and thus has a built-in advantage there. There is both cooling and water available at all times.

    But let's say that a LOCA occurs where all the coolant is lost and none can be replenished. What happens then? That depends on the size of the plant. Large plants, due to the square/cubed law, cannot radiate away heat fast enough, so they melt down. Smaller plants can eliminate heat fast enough via thermal radiation and air convection to prevent a meltdown. Large land based plants are around 1000 megawattts; these plants use two KLT-40 35MWe reactors, which are 30x smaller than the larger reactors. So they have a much stronger inherent resistance to meltdown.

    But let's say that, somehow, a meltdown still occurs; say a foolish (or malicious) worker wraps the entire reactor in asbestos insulation for some reason so it can't get rid of decay heat. The reactor could melt down and the corium would melt its way to the bottom of the barge, where it would be stopped by the water-cooled bottom of the barge. (Note that there is no way to prevent this cooling from happening, since the barge is literally floating in the ocean.) So now you have a very radioactive barge that can't be cleaned up easily, but that has not released any radioactive material. What do you do? Simple answer - tow it away from people, and park it someplace remote while the core cools down and becomes less radioactive. Hard to do that with Fukushima.

    Refueling accident? The barge is towed away and refueled at a remote, protected location. Terrorism? You can imagine a scenario where a terrorist sinks the barge. Then the reactors, with plenty of cooling, sit underwater and cool themselves for the next 30 years while their radioactivity decays.

    Certainly not an ideal form of power. But far cleaner and safer than coal - and with a far lower death toll overall.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    Lets ignore a future with out wild fires due to nothing to burn for the moment...
    from the wiki on the 2019-20 Australian fires.:
    In mid-December 2019, a NASA analysis revealed that since 1 August, the New South Wales and Queensland bushfires had emitted 250 million tonnes (280 million short tons) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[266] As of 2 January 2020, NASA estimated that 306 million tonnes (337 million short tons) of CO2 had been emitted.[27][28] By comparison, in 2018, Australia's total carbon emissions were equivalent to 535 million tonnes (590 million short tons) of CO2.[266] While the carbon emitted by the fires would normally be reabsorbed by forest regrowth, this would take decades and might not happen at all if prolonged drought has damaged the ability of forests to fully regrow.[266]


    337million tons of CO2 were emitted. 2019-20 wild fires
    For comparison: Total national emissions for 2018 were 590 million tons.

    How long will it take for the regrowth forest to sequester the CO2? ( ans: Decades)
    How long will the bulk of the CO2 emitted remain in the atmosphere before it is sequestrated? (ans: decades)
    How many similar fires can take place before the first fire's CO2 emissions are sequestrated? ( ans: many)

    Consider a cascading feedback loop has formed meaning that the rapidly increasing CO2 further adds to Global warming which increases the likely hood of wildfire which then goes on to add to the global warming effect which then increases the likely hood of fires and so on....

    Summary: Runaway global warming...
    Prediction: Wild fires will continue to burn until there is nothing left to burn...How long: perhaps decades.
    Is there any way to verify their data?

    What actions have you taken to verify the map? Or are you just accepting it as true?
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    deleted off topic
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    Actually this is worthy of comment.
    By the end of 2050 how many people will have died due to fossil fuel use? ( include the effects of AGW) (Rhetorical.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,864
    At least 3 million. Likely closer to 10 with the buildout of coal and the ramping effects of climate change. Wouldn't it be great if we could reduce that number significantly by switching from coal to nuclear?
    At the beginning of this post you said "Lets ignore a future with out wild fires due to nothing to burn for the moment." Odd that you are now proposing just that.

    But in any case - we can determine whether your prediction has any validity fairly easily in a few years. Go back to one of the burn areas in about 3 years; see if it is regrowing. If not, your prediction may come to pass. However, I suspect that regrowth will have started.

    Time will tell.
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    I'd be surprised if you could provide a credible link to support your guess....of "at least 3 million".
    have a read of this one of many you can find if you choose to look...
    https://www.livescience.com/64535-climate-change-health-deaths.html
    Deaths from predicted starvation alone are considerable...
    Another:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_humans

    It has been estimated that 526000 lives have been lost due to climate change extreme events between the years 1998 and 2017
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...he-past-two-decades-infographic/#77d631b7dc78

    That was as of 2 years ago...since then the data has not been consolidated or published adequately...
    By 2050 the death toll will be considerably higher than a mere 3 million.

    A single wet bulb 35deg C event of a few hours duration in Central India alone would probably kill millions...
    so you do understand that a cascading feedback loop will eventually lead to no ( mature) forests being available to burn?

    And yes time will tell... as it has already with this last years 17mil hectare wild fire...and that is just Australia. You have Spain, Italy, USA, Russia, South America and other hot spots to consider as well...
    Statistically there is every reason to predict that this years fire season in Australia ( now starting around July which is mid winter) will be worse than last years. Certainly that is what our fire crews are preparing for.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2020
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,864
    Sure. 30 years, 115,000 a year - total of 3.4 million, plus or minus.

    https://endcoal.org/health/

    If they build out more coal plants? That goes up.
    If climate change gets worse? That could add another 250,000 a year. Thus likely closer to 10 million.

    https://www.livescience.com/64535-climate-change-health-deaths.html

    That's 28,000 a year, considerably lower than my estimates. But if you want to go with that, by all means, do so.

    [quote] That was as of 2 years ago...since then the data has not been consolidated or published adequately...
    By 2050 the death toll will be considerably higher than a mere 3 million.[/quote]

    It might be, yes. Which is why I estimate it could be as high as 10 million.

    You OK with that? Or are you willing to make the hard calls and replace coal with nuclear and renewables?
    Non-sequitur. The number of people dying does not equal "no more forests to burn." As climate change progresses, southern forests will burn; northern forests will change their biome to warmer-climate trees and tundra will turn to forest. There will still be plenty of forests, just in different locations.
    Like I said, wait three years. Here, even though fires have become larger and more frequent, they still grow back.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    scary for sure...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Just proves that one constant is still held... freezing point of water... 0 deg C
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    and get burned down before they fully mature...
    every year the global average temp is climbing.... every year the forest are becoming more prone to wild fire...
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    You really have a problem with mixing the issues don't you?
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,864
    Might happen. It happens here sometimes. (And always has.)
    Yep.
    Nope. I'm not the one who tried to prove "that a cascading feedback loop will eventually lead to no ( mature) forests being available to burn" by estimating the number of people who die due to pollution and climate change. They really are two different topics, no matter how much you try to conflate them.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    how bizarre!

    So you are suggesting that I am justifying my comment by estimating deaths caused by climate change and ( new topic) pollution?
    How fascinating!

    What would you like to discuss today?
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,864
    I am not suggesting it. I am quoting your own post. (Which is indeed bizarre.)
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    Until you take the time to quote me using the forum quote system we can only assume you are making it up..
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,864
    That's fine with me; assume whatever you like. Everyone else can go back and read your post.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    As they can yours...
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    There's a suspiciously large amount of green on that map in areas of Australia that are desert. Just for starters...
     
    sculptor likes this.
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,831
    If there is not much vegetation in a region, it can increase, and how much it increases is observable. If it increases a lot, it will be marked green, as explained in the picture itself. You may name it, nonetheless, desert before as well as after such an increase, because even after the increase there is not much green. This does not yet make the data suspicious.

    Suspicious this becomes only in the extreme, if there is no observable vegetation at all, so that the increase would be 0/0. There are such regions - like Sahara or Antarctica. But they are not colored green, but neutral. Instead, in the Australian deserts there is some vegetation:
    Whatever, the source of the map, nasa.gov, does not look very freaky. The journal where the corresponding research has been published, which is Nature Climate Change, does not look very freaky too. Feel free to argue against mainstream science.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    and where oh where is the water going to come from to facilitate this growth?

    You have no idea about the actual conditions in that region. Most often water evaporates with in 10 minutes of hitting the ground. last time I was there in 1990 ( I lived and worked at Ayers Rock Resort for 9 months on contract) it was 48 deg C in the shade.

    If and when it rains it can rain heavy for short periods due to low pressure systems of old cyclones coming in from North Western Australia.
    After such rains there can be even flooding that flows eventually South towards Lake Eyre about 700ks away in South Australia.
    Any greening though spectacular last about 2 weeks and is dead and gone shortly after the water evaporates.

    The whole process is quite fascinating to witness but the idea of sustainable plant growth beyond the existing is a pipe dream of making use of artesian bores via de-salination plants and is just that a dream.
    Given that average temperatures have increased the situation in the Australian Central regions are getting worse not better.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,864
    OK. So no more growth; no more fuel; no more fires. You don't get fires in a dead desert.
    So again - no fuel.
     

Share This Page