Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I am skeptical (Score 1) 167

As we have agreed, I thought, 0 != 3.

You could make the same argument for 0 != 0.0000003. That's not a serious argument. I don't consider 3 significantly different than 0, as I've already stated.

Pure alarmism.

They are proposing carbon emission reductions of up to 80% globally without an inkling of how that's going to be achieved. That massive, uninformed manipulation of societies easily departs from the "pure alarmism" space.

Don't be absurd. While projections (in any field) will inevitably be inaccurate (as all predictions of the future are bound to be), they, or these, are clearly evidence based. We are trapped in history and can only ever base our policy, if we base our policy on science, upon the best available science. There is no ambiguity as to what that is as pertains to this topic.

What makes you think we're basing this on the best available science? I think it's just another lazy assertion.

That is because climate-related discussion is science based and reliance upon due authority is a central tenet of the methodology of science. On matters of science one ought be more concerned about appeals to inappropriate authority.

It's not. It's based on evidence and models that explain that evidence well. There is no due authority. I think this profound misunderstanding of science is a key part of the problem with human thought today. There is this huge emphasis on consensus and authority rather than on whether the models actually work to explain the climate observed.

As regards the science of global warming, the work of scientists such as Lindzen, Landsea and Pielke, gives us reason to trust its robustness.

That's a pretty dishonest way to characterize their work since they instead have provided reasons to distrust its robustness.

Comment: Re:So? Old news. (Score 1) 48

by khallow (#47725015) Attached to: Experimental Drug Stops Ebola-like Infection

It is not a 'drug'.
It is a short 20 - 25 bases long RNA strand. (You know what DNA and RNA is?)

Let's actually look at the definition of drug:

a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body

Sure, we could come up with a new phrase every time we do anything slightly differently, but there's no point to it. It just makes communication overly complex.

That works exactly the same in every life form based on cells with a nucleus. No idea how the exact english name for it is, as I don't know the proper spelling of the german/latin word and can mot google it. Something like Eukariots.

The human body is not a cell nucleus. For example, if this drug triggers an allergy response, then you have both harm and the destruction of the drug before it can do something useful.

Comment: Re:Population declines (Score 1) 116

by khallow (#47724199) Attached to: Fukushima's Biological Legacy
Do you have a point to all this? Magnitude doesn't mean what you claim it means. It's not a "curve" of a seismograph or its amplitude. It just isn't what you claim it is.

That is peak acceleration. And when you discuss that with respect to magnitude, you still need to discuss the duration of the earthquake because longer earthquakes have more energy and hence are higher magnitude than shorter earthquakes when all is equal.

I linked to moment magnitude. Read up on it.

Comment: Re:I am skeptical (Score 1) 167

-do not amount to an "assumption" that humanity's sole purpose is "to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850.

They do when both it requires extraordinary effort to achieve that goal, basically meaning the sacrifice of a considerable portion of humanity's other priorities and they advocate doing this.

Rather the proposal is not to allow warming, which in the opinion of recognised experts in the field, would seriously begin to impact upon the habitability of the planet.

An assertion which is not based on evidence.

With all due respect, allow me the conservatism to defer to orthodox opinion in preference to your (or indeed my) own.

This is the argument from authority fallacy. It keeps happening again and again with any climate-related discussion.

Comment: Re:Population declines (Score 1) 116

by khallow (#47717609) Attached to: Fukushima's Biological Legacy

So you claim now, the city of Fukushima got hit by a mag 9 quake? Is that your claim? So what mag had the quake/epicenter 450 miles away?

Look, this is like claiming that a 250 horsepower car is 3 horsepower, if you stand a few hundred feet away. Or a hot dog has a lot more energy content, if it's on your plate rather than on some other plate halfway across the restaurant. You're completely ignoring the meaning of earthquake magnitude. It doesn't mean peak acceleration.

So you claim now, the city of Fukushima got hit by a mag 9 quake? Is that your claim? So what mag had the quake/epicenter 450 miles away?

The city/precinct whatever of Fukushima did get hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake with an epicenter some distance away. There's no "claim" to it. That's just what happened.

If you like to live in a pipe dream that it is possible for humans to build a "construction" that can survive a mag 9 quake: dream on!

I can do a whole lot better than that. It is possible to construct a oil tank that can survive a direct hit by the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs. It requires some heavy duty sci fi bullshit and geological eras of time, but it's doable.

Cool the Earth down to room temperature - all the way to the center of the planet. Then drill a 4000 mile long hole, drop your 50,000 gallons of oil in there, and presto! you have an oil tank with 4000 mile thick walls. Your average extinction level asteroid impact isn't going to do much more than scuff the paint.

Now, normally, it'd go without saying that nobody would do that, just like most people don't build tanks to withstand magnitude 9 earthquakes. It's not "pipedream" territory, but it is costly and impractical.

And this brings us back to the earliest post in this thread:

Gas tanks. Oil Tanks. Diesel tanks. Cleaning supplies. Light industrial supplies.

Just to name a few of the blatantly obvious. Those chemicals are ubiquitous. Every flood of a modern habituated area is an 'environmental disaster", you just don't hear about it.

Even Germany with its vaunted regulations has this problem - every single time it floods. The regulations keep that level of normal accidental release of pollutants at a tolerable level - which is their purpose.

But I find it ridiculous that you then glibly downplay the huge earthquake and tsunami flooding on the basis that well the earthquake isn't actually that big (despite having an energy release roughly 30,000 times greater than your frequently cited hypothetical example of a point blank magnitude 6 earthquake) and flooding is flooding whether it be a rather sudden 15 meter surge of water (capable of pushing around large buildings and tanks) or a few centimeters of river overflow puddling in the street down the road.

Comment: Re:Population declines (Score 1) 116

by khallow (#47717023) Attached to: Fukushima's Biological Legacy

The length of a quake has nothing to do with its magnitude.

That depends on what you're doing. If you're integrating earthquake power over time, then it does matter. There's an obvious time dependency in that case, for example, the earthquake can continue (releasing yet more energy) rather than stop.

For reference: the Fukushima earthquake was slightly above 9 on the Richter scale, no idea on what measurement it was on MMS

Magnitude 9.0.

You are the one arguing that a quake 450 miles away from its epicenter has the same power as at the epicenter ... ignoring the fact that it then, by common logic, would have the same power 1000miles away, and 10,000 miles away and 25,000 miles away ... on the other side of the globe.

And I've already corrected you on this misconception. Why continue to claim such things?

Comment: Re:Population declines (Score 1) 116

by khallow (#47715751) Attached to: Fukushima's Biological Legacy

As far as I know the length of a quake has nothing to do with its magnitude, only the peak "power" has.

Then you don't know enough to carry on this discussion. From Wikipedia,

The seismic moment M_0 is a measure of the total amount of energy that is transformed during an earthquake.

There is a lot of nuance here such as most of the energy of an earthquake gets transformed into heating not shaking. But it remains that magnitude doesn't measure peak "power" of an earthquake. It doesn't matter if the slipping fault takes a fraction of second or ten minutes to slip.

Ofc it does. We only need to find a reliable source how strong the effect of an earthquake is declining over, lets say over 10km distance.

Why don't you find this "reliable source"?

Comment: Re:I am skeptical (Score 1) 167

I should have been on stronger ground to challenge the Straw Man that the "assumption" that humanity's sole purpose is "to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850" is seriously entertained (by serious people).

It's not a straw man argument. For example, a number of organizations and governments including the IPCC and UK law are proposing heroic efforts and a huge curbing of human activity over the next few decades to avoid a modest 2 C rise in global temperature. That's only roughly 3 C over the 1850 climate baseline. And such a proposal ignores the actions of the countries who don't have restraining that climate change as a high priority (such as most of the developing world or the US).

Comment: Re:I am skeptical (Score 1) 167

But I misunderstood what it was you were getting at. You are saying that the moral hazard is that we continue to construct coal-fired power stations (in place of nuclear or other green energy ;p), on the basis that geo-engineering solutions are believed to be practicable, yes?

Or whatever else could make global warming (or similar climate-related risk) worse in absence of the geoengineering solution.

My opinion is that these climate risks are greatly overstated as is, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the potential moral hazard in geoengineering approaches.

Comment: Re:Did I miss the breakthrough? (Score 1) 294

by khallow (#47708857) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

we're probably talking about a few gigantic power generators, which would mean we probably need to do something about that decades-old power line infrastructure.

I suggest crossing that bridge when we come to it. If a few gigantic power generators turn out to be much cheaper than alternatives, then that can fund a renewal of the power line infrastructure to support them.

try again