Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Climate change 15
I don't care if you believe in AGW or CGCCC- man caused global warming or cyclic global chaotic climate change- it's TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT and has been for over 4 years now. Can we get back to aiding vulnerable populations and the victims of earthquakes, tsunami, volcanoes, and mild nuclear accidents now?
What do you mean? (Score:2)
"mild" ?
Re: (Score:2)
EXTREMELY mild. The peak, this morning's spike from unit for, was only 489.8Sv/hr - it takes 100 Sv to kill a man.
For comparison- summer in Denver will give you more radiation exposure, and the average background radiation we evolved to live with permanently is 340Sv/hr.
If anything, the events at the Fujushima plant prove that the "Deep Safety" design works, even if you have to do the last and most destructive resort to prevent meltdown, pumping sea water and boric acid into the cooling system. The reason
Re: (Score:2)
Alright- for some reason slashdot stripped out the "micro" character from the above. That's 489.8 MICRO Sv/hr, not 489.8 Sv/hr- and it was only there for a few minutes.
Current readings *inside* the reactor Unit 1 and Unit 3 buildings are 23.9 microSv/hr.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And a light water reactor isn't going to do that. Can't. Once the water boils away, the nuclear moderator is gone, and all that is left is low level decay of the rods.
heretic (Score:1)
What? Aiding the very species that the Leftist religion claims caused the alleged problem in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said- old argument and therefore moot since 2006,
Re: (Score:1)
You're sounding almost like a Conservative Protestant in this JE. That is, the earth's days are numbered and no one can change that, so all we can do is try to alleviate human suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet I still pray what Methodists call the Doxology, 5x as a part of my nightly rosary with my son:
Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the Beginning, Is Now and Ever Shall Be
World Without End
Amen
In reality, it's the complete OPPOSITE belief of the Conservative Protestants, who, in the example of James Watt from the Reagan Presidency say "Use it all up, the world's ending soon." My version is "Conserve what makes sense, remember our past, there are ways to adapt an
Re: (Score:1)
Then you pray with misunderstanding. Here [wikipedia.org] is that doxology and its various translations and variations. The alternate phrasing of "world without end" is variations on the phrase "to the ages of ages", which disambiguates the word "world" and makes clearer what it means in this context. I.e. it doesn't mean "the earth", it means the heavenly world, and its eternalness. Heaven is an eternity of being close to and praising God. (And anyone who doesn't find it appealing to spend all of eternity praising God, li
How are the too related? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is global warming real (and you don't have to "believe" in it any more than you have to "believe" in that table), but the poor are *expected* to bear the brunt of the harm! So, yes, we should direct our economic resources towards improving the lot of our fellow people, *and*, as part of that, we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. If we need to burn fossil fuels to control HIV or Malaria, you do it. Hell, if fossil fuel fertilizer helped to make third world agriculture viable, that would be a worthwhile trade: although, actually, it tends to have the opposite effect.
Why do we need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels? And in fact, can fossil fuels be truly called fossil if they're regenerate from the increased plant life due to global warming? I'm all for using permaculture techniques to increase yield, the only thing that is keeping third world agriculture not viable is unfair trade practices.
sniping down since you obviously didn't bother to read the link
This has been the plan of the oil industry all along, and they've been happy to tell people about it! But apparently, the need for "balance" in the media is so great, that you have to give equal time to someone even if they just sent a position paper out to their stockholders explaining that they were about to go on television and lie.
Except for this didn't come from the oil industry. RTFA.
Regardless of what anyone "believes", the facts are actually quite straightforward: there is a great deal of uncertainty, but we can be >95% certain that human activity has raised the temperature of the earth somewhere between 1 and 10 degrees C, over the next century or so.
Once again, tipping point was reached in 2006, from the
Re: (Score:1)
Just because we're past the point where the siberian thaw becomes self-sustaining, that means we must be past the point where the same thing becomes self-sustaining in Antarctica?
Global climate *is
Re: (Score:2)
"What makes you - or anyone else - think there is only one tipping point?"
Doesn't matter if there is only one, or more. One is enough to guarantee that no matter what mankind does, global warming will become cyclic.
"What makes you (or this guy in the article you linked, which I'd already read elsewhere) so certain that we've crossed the tipping point that's crucial in determining the average temperature of the globe in the next century?"
Methane is a hydrocarbon greenhouse gas that has a heavier molecular w