Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Not me, leading climate scientists James Hansen and Michael Mann.

No, they did not say that. Juan Cole, the author, did; he is a history professor with degrees in religious and Middle Eastern studies.

A Phd pontificating on climate. He is no less qualified than Hansen or Mann.

[gowlerk 2,205]

brenthutch

"Climate scientist James Hansen has described our current emissions as like setting off 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs each day, every day of the year. "

James Hansen did not say that. It's just a claim by someone who has no business making it. It appears hyperbolic idiocy is not the exclusive province of the denier sites.

Here is a link to what he does say.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

Listen to his TED talk, he makes the claim at 7min 50sec mark.

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change

[billvon 2,998]

>Climate scientist James Hansen has described our current emissions as like setting
>off 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs each day, every day of the year.

Right, and that's fairly accurate. Measuring energy via "Hiroshima equivalents" is common; it's one of the few very energetic events most people have heard of.
=========================
Strange but true: Hurricane equal to 500,000 atomic bombs
By Bill Sones & Rich Sones Ph.D.
Published: Oct. 28, 2004 12:00 a.m.
Deseret News

Question: As all too many in the world know all too well, a hurricane can be a fearsome thing. How much power does one have, and where does it come from?

Answer: Hurricanes are among the most powerful of Earthly phenomena, unloosing some 1,000,000,000,000,000 watts, 3,000 times the total electrical power generated in the world, say physicists Andrew Gavrin and Gregor Novak of Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis. This is equivalent to exploding 500,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs per day.
==========================
Oklahoma tornado packed more energy than atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima

David Knowles
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 8:53 PM

It really was as if a bomb went off.

The tornado that leveled Moore, Okla., on Monday contained more energy than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, five separate meteorologists have found.

Using real-time measurements, the meteorologists contacted by the Associated Press calculated the energy released during the tornado's 40-plus minutes on the ground and concluded that it ranged from eight to more than 600 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb.
===========================
The Hiroshima-Equivalent
by Alex Wellerstein, published June 7th, 2013
Nuclear Secrecy Blog

Given that the media community seems to love comparing all manners of energy release to Hiroshima, no matter how inappropriate, I humbly propose a new scientific unit: the Hiroshima-equivalent, abbreviated as H-e.

The Hiroshima-equivalent has been pegged at exactly 15 kilotons of TNT,1 which is itself defined as being equivalent to 62.76 terajoules, or 15 teracalories.

One of the many benefits of using the H-e is that one can apply it to any type of energy release, not simply things physically similar to atomic bombs. Indeed, one should not, in any way, worry about whether the phenomena one is applying it to is anything like the actual bombings of Hiroshima. The H-e is in no way logically connected to blast phenomena, heat phenomena, ionizing radiation, radioactive fallout, or deaths upwards of a hundred thousand people. It can be applied to situations involving energy releases that occur over vastly larger areas of time and space, and in situations where only handful of people are hurt or injured.

. . . .

The Sun deposits 61.34 billion Hiroshimas worth of energy onto the Earth every year — that's 168 million Hiroshimas a day, 7 million Hiroshimas an hour, 117 thousand Hiroshimas a minute.

The USA uses about 24 thousand Hiroshima-equivalents worth of electricity per year.

The Haitian Earthquake of 2010 was equivalent to around 32 Hiroshimas. (Alas, not a new conclusion.)

My electric bill for last month was for 4.42 micro-Hiroshima-equivalents. (Which is 126.2 nano-Hiroshima-equivalents less than this month last year!)
=================

[billvon 2,998]

>A Phd pontificating on climate. He is no less qualified than Hansen or Mann.

So you get your surgery done by your local liberal arts PhD, then? After all, they're all doctors.

[brenthutch 444]

No but apparently you get your climate science from a meteorologist.

[billvon 2,998]

>No but apparently you get your climate science from a meteorologist.

I get my climate science from climate scientists, and I get surgery done by a surgeon. I'm funny that way.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>No but apparently you get your climate science from a meteorologist.

I get my climate science from SOME climate scientists, and I get surgery done by a surgeon. I'm funny that way.

FIFY

[ryoder 1,590]

A former strip mine would be converted into a solar farm under a proposal announced Tuesday by an Appalachian coal company that says it wants to place hundreds of thousands of panels in the Kentucky mountains.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-04-18/what-to-do-with-a-former-coal-mine-make-it-a-solar-farm

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[brenthutch 444]

" the proposed solar farm would likely not be possible if it weren't for subsidies of this sort of energy"

Not possible=not economically viable

[brenthutch 444]

What do you say now, that you have heard the words coming out of his head?

[gowlerk 2,205]

brenthutch

" the proposed solar farm would likely not be possible if it weren't for subsidies of this sort of energy"

Not possible=not economically viable

Probably also not possible without the subsidized land clearing called "mountaintop removal". Let's level more of the Appalachians! Maybe Trump can get the Chinese to buy the coal.
Win-win.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,998]

>Not possible=not economically viable

Given two forms of power, neither possible without government assistance, I prefer the one that kills fewer people.

[DJL 235]

brenthutch

" the proposed solar farm would likely not be possible if it weren't for subsidies of this sort of energy"

Not possible=not economically viable

I'm sure we all realize that economic viability has other factors than instantaneous cash value. Do we wait until fossil fuels are gone before developing other forms of energy? Do we keep sending soldiers to get killed and pumping money into keeping regions stable so we get a good deal on their fuel? And YES, do we factor the environmental impact of energy production. Energy subsidies are just one of many types that help to stabilize our own economy whether it be food production or all forms of energy. We don't live in some sort of economocracy where the only thing that matters is an the bottom line at the end of the month. We're humans with brains and know that there is a future to plan for in which we need to have technology to power our lives in a world that's safe to live in.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

DJL

...We don't live in some sort of economocracy where the only thing that matters is an the bottom line at the end of the month. We're humans with brains and know that there is a future to plan for in which we need to have technology to power our lives in a world that's safe to live in.

Bolding mine.

Human history is full of examples where "planning for the future" simply didn't happen. And a lot of bad things happened because of it.

We tend, as a species, to be pretty short sighted.
And stupid.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SkyDekker 1,465]

DJL

***" the proposed solar farm would likely not be possible if it weren't for subsidies of this sort of energy"

Not possible=not economically viable

I'm sure we all realize that economic viability has other factors than instantaneous cash value. Do we wait until fossil fuels are gone before developing other forms of energy? Do we keep sending soldiers to get killed and pumping money into keeping regions stable so we get a good deal on their fuel? And YES, do we factor the environmental impact of energy production. Energy subsidies are just one of many types that help to stabilize our own economy whether it be food production or all forms of energy. We don't live in some sort of economocracy where the only thing that matters is an the bottom line at the end of the month. We're humans with brains and know that there is a future to plan for in which we need to have technology to power our lives in a world that's safe to live in.

Nuh hu, I've been told free market and capitalism is best. Plus we need to run the country like a company...yeah.

What are you? Some kind of communist?

[billvon 2,998]

> the proposed solar farm would likely not be possible if it weren't for subsidies of this
> sort of energy . . .

And in any case, something tells me that you will soon start to be in favor of all kinds of new subsidies. Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at Bloomberg:

"After the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world – sometimes by a factor of two. . . . It’s a whole new world: even though investment is down, annual installations are still up; instead of having to subsidize renewables, now authorities may have to subsidize natural gas plants to help them provide grid reliability.”

http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2017.pdf

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Not possible=not economically viable

Given two forms of power, neither possible without government assistance, I prefer the one that kills fewer people.

I think you got that one a bit backwards. Government could not function without the assistance of fossil fuels. Unplug 80% of America and see how quickly the bodies pile up. Without the tax revenues generated by fossil fuels the government(s) would be powerless (pun intended) to help us.

[billvon 2,998]

Quote

Government could not function without the assistance of fossil fuels. Unplug 80% of America and see how quickly the bodies pile up. Without the tax revenues generated by fossil fuels the government(s) would be powerless (pun intended) to help us.

So there are reasons to support dirtier forms of power beyond economic necessity! Great; we'll keep fossil fuels for the tax base and alternative energy for the millions of jobs (and rising) it enables, and the US exports it creates.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

Quote

Government could not function without the assistance of fossil fuels. Unplug 80% of America and see how quickly the bodies pile up. Without the tax revenues generated by fossil fuels the government(s) would be powerless (pun intended) to help us.

So there are reasons to support dirtier forms of power beyond economic necessity! Great; we'll keep fossil fuels for the tax base and alternative energy for the millions of jobs (and rising) it enables, and the US exports it creates.

You are forgetting the number one reason. 80% of our power!!! and like it or not it will be for the rest of your life. Sorry for the reality check.

[billvon 2,998]

>You are forgetting the number one reason. 80% of our power!

At one point 80% of our power came from draft animals. We moved on.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>You are forgetting the number one reason. 80% of our power!

At one point 80% of our power came from draft animals. We moved on.

Only when the economics compelled us.

[DJL 235]

brenthutch

***>You are forgetting the number one reason. 80% of our power!

At one point 80% of our power came from draft animals. We moved on.

Only when the economics compelled us.

Part of those economics were planning for a better future many times with no foreseeable economic gain. The steam engine goes all the way back to the 12th century but wasn't viable for hundreds of years.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

***>You are forgetting the number one reason. 80% of our power!

At one point 80% of our power came from draft animals. We moved on.

Only when the economics compelled us.

The US power Grid is a fine example of the opposite IMO.

When fully privatized and without regulation, power was only available in urban areas. It wasn't until after the great depression and with heavy regulation that the current grid formed. It wasn't until the government picked the winners and loser and allowed them to form a monopoly that the "economics compelled".

[brenthutch 444]

An exception that proves the rule.