Another Reason Christians are Dangerous

[Faith No More]

Those reactors use obsolete technology. The next generation of nuclear power would be immeasurably safer because the fuel rods are designed in such a way that  melt-downs are physically impossible. Even before that Thorium was generally safer, but not developed for practical applications because of higher start-up costs than uranium based reactor.

Besides, what is wrong with taking one kind of loose radioactive material out of the ground, sealing it up in virtually impregnable containers, and putting it back in the ground after a few years.

Oh, you think Fukishima simply had a meltdown? Do tell me how you plan to make nuclear reactors invulnerable to natural disaster.

Yes, let's bury all of this irradiated water in "virtually" impregnable containers where we live and get drinking water. What could go wrong? Not only will that also somehow be invulnerable to natural disasters, I'm sure it will be super cost-effective.

That's because only recently has battery technology improved to make long-distance electric travel possible. In addition the life of lead-cell based batteries is relatively short so there was the added cost of replacing batteries.

And you're missing the point. A major reason that battery technology has been slow to evolve to the point of usefulness is because big businesses like the oil companies have done everything thing in their power to stifle research and development. Those very companies whose own research showed that burning fossil fuels was heating up the environment but went on a massive spin campaign to dupe people into allowing them to pollute the planet for profit, just like they did when it was discovered that their lead-based gasoline was poisoning us.

---

Glob...

What does digging into ice tell you? more carbon it was warmer???

Retard I am not disputing that their isn't more carbon or that it is warmer. I'm disputing the reason why.

Solar output and the earth's proxcimity to the sun is my/The standing explaination the world had for hundreds of years.

You blindingly trusting anything popular with a 'science' label on it is akin to blind faith in God. WFT are YOU doing?!?!

The reason I'm right/superior here is I know how heat transfer works. There is only So Many BTU's of potential heat energy in a Solar ray. One of the links I posted in my opening post explains "heat transfer" from radiant to measurable air temp, another article I posted explains once the heat is released and converted from radiant to convective heat Co2's role is that of facilitating said transfer more efficiently, but has a poor "green house effect." Meaning if you fill a vessel witha high concentration of co2 and a like one with just a normal mix of 'air' the co2 vessel will get warmer quicker, but will also platue @ or just marginally higher than the vessel with plain air in it.

The Following article puts all of these factors together and takes it one step further, in saying that water vapor is almost 50x better at producing a 'green house effect' than co2 ever could be.

To summarize: I've demonstrated that while CO2 has about 2x the HTEV of water at the molecular level, it is actually less effective a GHG when appropriately measured by weight equivelancy. Because the atmosphere contains on average 40 x as much water in than CO2, water has essentially 50 x the influence on climate as CO2. Water and CO2 combined only account for 1/36th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat. At just 1/1800th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat, CO2 can simply not be statistically relevant to climate change other than the fact that in cycle, a warmer earth and ocean during interglacials such as the present Holocene, should lead to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere even without humans. Warmer ocean surfaces evaporate more CO2 into the air than smaller, colder oceans do during ice ages. From these simple facts of physics and math one can readily see that AGW alarmists are perpetrating a hoax

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-trap-heat

So, are you through disputing that we have thousands of years of data?  Are you admitting that you called people "f-ing morons" for something about which you were in fact the actual moron?  Come on, Drich, let's hear an admission.  Prove that you have more introspection than a common slug.

Yes, I'm sure you understand heat transfer.  I'm sure you understand it as well as you understand evolution, the economy, Thomas Jefferson's religious views and everything else you've completely failed to grasp.  An overwhelming majority of people that spend their lives studying this kind of thing say that burning fossil fuels is heating the environment, but I'm the moron for not believing the dickhead fundamentalist on the internet that has stupidly misinterpreted everything he has ever read.  

Face it. You trying to use science is like a quadriplegic trying to complete a triatholon. You're just not equipped to do it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How do you not see that if you are right and global warming is due to increased carbon emissions the only way to stop this is to reduce the population? Or learn a cheaper way to 'scrub' carbon from oxygen that will work on a planetary scale?

I am not recommending a long-term reliance on fossil fuels. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions then we need to develop and start to use technologies that produce energy without emitting carbon. And since solar, wind, geothermal and the like are not realistic options, that leaves only one remaining option within reach: nuclear power. It would be pretty cool if fusion energy became available but that's not viable...yet.

I'm old enough to remember when passive-solar, earth-homes, and super-insulation were seen as necessary routes for reducing energy consumption. Seems silly today. Other indirect technological advances that are already making bigger difference than those kinds of hippy-dippy solutions. Examples include "lights-out" factories, LED lighting, and digital commuting. It remains to be seen but I think additive manufacturing will greatly reduce the impact of fulfillment and shipping. My point is that most environmental groups are anti-technology and actually impede the progress that would produce the very goals they seek. Or they embrace technologies, like hybrid cars, that are actually worse for the environment just so they can virtue signal how much they care.

I think anyone who cares about human rights should find population control scary. The measures required to effectively implement those programs sound a lot like forced sterilization, eugenics, and "soylent green". Tax incentives and/or penalties to promote lower birth rates don't have a particularly good history either. They tend to distort the social structures in very negative ways. Top-down coercive government interference will never be as effective as improving the standards of living of third-world countries. The declining birth rates in Europe, North America, and Japan are sufficient proof. And maybe just maybe someday, space colonization will be an option. The meek shall inherent the Earth; the rest of us will go to the stars.

So I think it is ironic that I'm being called backwards thinking just for being Christian when in fact I seem to be the biggest advocate for overall technological progress and improving standards of living in the third-world. Right now we are on track to have a labor-less society (for good or ill). If so then the real challenge is figuring out how to share that blessing, if it is one, with the less fortunate.

---

...tell me how you plan to make nuclear reactors invulnerable to natural disaster....A major reason that battery technology has been slow to evolve to the point of usefulness is because big businesses like the oil companies have done everything thing in their power to stifle research and development.

FNM, I know you have the best intentions. The solutions you seek will not come from saying no, no, no, and then blaming big corporations. People need to get out into various industries, including the energy sector, and push to make a positive impact within the system. You say nuclear isn't safe. Fine. Let's work to make it safe. That's what humans do. They solve problems and when the solutions create new problems we solve those too. Landfills are filling up? Make packaging materials biodegradable and then convince companies that they will save money by not over-packaging. Urban heat islands and overloaded municipal sewers? Make green roofs and recyclable thermo-plastics more attractive options than traditional modified-bitumen.

I have worked on LEED certification projects and preformed life-cycle analysis for various building materials. I've converted entire buildings from T-12 to T-8 fluorescent. Now am managing the transition of all my companies facilities to LED lighting. My guess is that facilities managers, motivated to save their organizations money, have done more to save the planet than all the environmental lobbyists put together. Hopefully, you are doing something in your organization too. if not, get out there. Make something happen. Don't tell other people what they shouldn't do. They probably already know and are working on it from within. Times are tough. Money is tight. Everyone wants to spend less and a really really good way to do that is to get the most out of the resources you already use.

[Drich]

Those reactors use obsolete technology. The next generation of nuclear power would be immeasurably safer because the fuel rods are designed in such a way that  melt-downs are physically impossible. Even before that Thorium was generally safer, but not developed for practical applications because of higher start-up costs than uranium based reactor.

Besides, what is wrong with taking one kind of loose radioactive material out of the ground, sealing it up in virtually impregnable containers, and putting it back in the ground after a few years.

Oh, you think Fukishima simply had a meltdown?  Do tell me how you plan to make nuclear reactors invulnerable to natural disaster.

Yes, let's bury all of this irradiated water in "virtually" impregnable containers where we live and get drinking water.  What could go wrong?  Not only will that also somehow be invulnerable to natural disasters, I'm sure it will be super cost-effective.

That's because only recently has battery technology improved to make long-distance electric travel possible. In addition the life of lead-cell based batteries is relatively short so there was the added cost of replacing batteries.

And you're missing the point.  A major reason that battery technology has been slow to evolve to the point of usefulness is because big businesses like the oil companies have done everything thing in their power to stifle research and development.  Those very companies whose own research showed that burning fossil fuels was heating up the environment but went on a massive spin campaign to dupe people into allowing them to pollute the planet for profit, just like they did when it was discovered that their lead-based gasoline was poisoning us.

---

Glob...

What does digging into ice tell you? more carbon it was warmer???

Retard I am not disputing that their isn't more carbon or that it is warmer. I'm disputing the reason why.

Solar output and the earth's proxcimity to the sun is my/The standing explaination the world had for hundreds of years.

You blindingly trusting anything popular with a 'science' label on it is akin to blind faith in God. WFT are YOU doing?!?!

The reason I'm right/superior here is I know how heat transfer works. There is only So Many BTU's of potential heat energy in a Solar ray. One of the links I posted in my opening post explains "heat transfer" from radiant to measurable air temp, another article I posted explains once the heat is released and converted from radiant to convective heat Co2's role is that of facilitating said transfer more efficiently, but has a poor "green house effect." Meaning if you fill a vessel witha high concentration of co2 and a like one with just a normal mix of 'air' the co2 vessel will get warmer quicker, but will also platue @ or just marginally higher than the vessel with plain air in it.

The Following article puts all of these factors together and takes it one step further, in saying that water vapor is almost 50x better at producing a 'green house effect' than co2 ever could be.

To summarize: I've demonstrated that while CO2 has about 2x the HTEV of water at the molecular level, it is actually less effective a GHG when appropriately measured by weight equivelancy. Because the atmosphere contains on average 40 x as much water in than CO2, water has essentially 50 x the influence on climate as CO2. Water and CO2 combined only account for 1/36th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat. At just 1/1800th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat, CO2 can simply not be statistically relevant to climate change other than the fact that in cycle, a warmer earth and ocean during interglacials such as the present Holocene, should lead to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere even without humans. Warmer ocean surfaces evaporate more CO2 into the air than smaller, colder oceans do during ice ages. From these simple facts of physics and math one can readily see that AGW alarmists are perpetrating a hoax

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-trap-heat

So, are you through disputing that we have thousands of years of data?  Are you admitting that you called people "f-ing morons" for something about which you were in fact the actual moron?  Come on, Drich, let's hear an admission.  Prove that you have more introspection than a common slug.

Yes, I'm sure you understand heat transfer.  I'm sure you understand it as well as you understand evolution, the economy, Thomas Jefferson's religious views and everything else you've completely failed to grasp.  An overwhelming majority of people that spend their lives studying this kind of thing say that burning fossil fuels is heating the environment, but I'm the moron for not believing the dickhead fundamentalist on the internet that has stupidly misinterpreted everything he has ever read.  

Face it.  You trying to use science is like a quadriplegic trying to complete a triatholon.  You're just not equipped to do it.

We have "thousands of years" of a single perspective, 1000's of years of 1 single data point, and that is the measure of carbon on ice core samples which means nothing in of itself. all it means is the world got warmer and then it got cooler then warmer and then again cooler, but we have nothing that tells us why. just a correlation with carbon deposited in the ice. (which is not co2)

Again smart guy, I'm not disputing we been getting warmer since our last ice age. That all your ice samles can point to. They can not account for solar out put. Nothing we have access to could until the 1950's! and it is with this 67 year window you and your scientist want to make grandiose claims to millions of years of weather changes.

Which contradict the previous 500 years of scientific observation and study.

Again the part you don't seem to get is 'my side of the argument' is not some faith based well wishing. What I am talking about is based on the predominate scientific model Pre Al's Gore's documentary. There is over 500 years of science and math that back up the other climate change theory.

Again no one saying climate change is not happening or irradically so. I'm just saying it has nothing to do with green house gasses.

Again the study I left conclusively shows that co2 the biggest of the green house gasses is 500 times less effective that an equal amount of water vapor.

There is a green house effect on this planet but it is not primarly cause by co2 emissions it is cause by WATER, And Solar output!

So what now? What happens when Global temp change is no longer in your perception of control?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Those reactors use obsolete technology. The next generation of nuclear power would be immeasurably safer because the fuel rods are designed in such a way that  melt-downs are physically impossible. Even before that Thorium was generally safer, but not developed for practical applications because of higher start-up costs than uranium based reactor.

Besides, what is wrong with taking one kind of loose radioactive material out of the ground, sealing it up in virtually impregnable containers, and putting it back in the ground after a few years.

Oh, you think Fukishima simply had a meltdown?  Do tell me how you plan to make nuclear reactors invulnerable to natural disaster.

Yes, let's bury all of this irradiated water in "virtually" impregnable containers where we live and get drinking water.  What could go wrong?  Not only will that also somehow be invulnerable to natural disasters, I'm sure it will be super cost-effective.

That's because only recently has battery technology improved to make long-distance electric travel possible. In addition the life of lead-cell based batteries is relatively short so there was the added cost of replacing batteries.

And you're missing the point.  A major reason that battery technology has been slow to evolve to the point of usefulness is because big businesses like the oil companies have done everything thing in their power to stifle research and development.  Those very companies whose own research showed that burning fossil fuels was heating up the environment but went on a massive spin campaign to dupe people into allowing them to pollute the planet for profit, just like they did when it was discovered that their lead-based gasoline was poisoning us.

---

Glob...

What does digging into ice tell you? more carbon it was warmer???

Retard I am not disputing that their isn't more carbon or that it is warmer. I'm disputing the reason why.

Solar output and the earth's proxcimity to the sun is my/The standing explaination the world had for hundreds of years.

You blindingly trusting anything popular with a 'science' label on it is akin to blind faith in God. WFT are YOU doing?!?!

The reason I'm right/superior here is I know how heat transfer works. There is only So Many BTU's of potential heat energy in a Solar ray. One of the links I posted in my opening post explains "heat transfer" from radiant to measurable air temp, another article I posted explains once the heat is released and converted from radiant to convective heat Co2's role is that of facilitating said transfer more efficiently, but has a poor "green house effect." Meaning if you fill a vessel witha high concentration of co2 and a like one with just a normal mix of 'air' the co2 vessel will get warmer quicker, but will also platue @ or just marginally higher than the vessel with plain air in it.

The Following article puts all of these factors together and takes it one step further, in saying that water vapor is almost 50x better at producing a 'green house effect' than co2 ever could be.

To summarize: I've demonstrated that while CO2 has about 2x the HTEV of water at the molecular level, it is actually less effective a GHG when appropriately measured by weight equivelancy. Because the atmosphere contains on average 40 x as much water in than CO2, water has essentially 50 x the influence on climate as CO2. Water and CO2 combined only account for 1/36th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat. At just 1/1800th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat, CO2 can simply not be statistically relevant to climate change other than the fact that in cycle, a warmer earth and ocean during interglacials such as the present Holocene, should lead to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere even without humans. Warmer ocean surfaces evaporate more CO2 into the air than smaller, colder oceans do during ice ages. From these simple facts of physics and math one can readily see that AGW alarmists are perpetrating a hoax

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-trap-heat

---

So, are you through disputing that we have thousands of years of data?  Are you admitting that you called people "f-ing morons" for something about which you were in fact the actual moron?  Come on, Drich, let's hear an admission.  Prove that you have more introspection than a common slug.

Yes, I'm sure you understand heat transfer.  I'm sure you understand it as well as you understand evolution, the economy, Thomas Jefferson's religious views and everything else you've completely failed to grasp.  An overwhelming majority of people that spend their lives studying this kind of thing say that burning fossil fuels is heating the environment, but I'm the moron for not believing the dickhead fundamentalist on the internet that has stupidly misinterpreted everything he has ever read.  

Face it.  You trying to use science is like a quadriplegic trying to complete a triatholon.  You're just not equipped to do it.

Mars is cold.  It has an atmosphere but no surface water and there's nothing there that burning fossil fuels.

So let's go to Mars  and burn some fossil fuels.  If the planet warms up then it will because of the fossil fuel burning.

Or let's go to Mars and flood the planet with water from magic water comets.  If the planet warms up it will be because of all of that new surface water.

[The Industrial Atheist]

How do you not see that if you are right and global warming is due to increased carbon emissions the only way to stop this is to reduce the population? Or learn a cheaper way to 'scrub' carbon from oxygen that will work on a planetary scale?

I am not recommending a long-term reliance on fossil fuels. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions then we need to develop and start to use technologies that produce energy without emitting carbon. And since solar, wind, geothermal and the like are not realistic options, that leaves only one remaining option within reach: nuclear power. It would be pretty cool if fusion energy became available but that's not viable...yet.

I'm old enough to remember when passive-solar, earth-homes, and super-insulation were seen as necessary routes for reducing energy consumption. Seems silly today. Other indirect technological advances that are already making bigger difference than those kinds of hippy-dippy solutions. Examples include "lights-out" factories, LED lighting, and digital commuting. It remains to be seen but I think additive manufacturing will greatly reduce the impact of fulfillment and shipping. My point is that most environmental groups are anti-technology and actually impede the progress that would produce the very goals they seek. Or they embrace technologies, like hybrid cars, that are actually worse for the environment just so they can virtue signal how much they care.

I think anyone who cares about human rights should find population control scary. The measures required to effectively implement those programs sound a lot like forced sterilization, eugenics, and "soylent green". Tax incentives and/or penalties to promote lower birth rates don't have a particularly good history either. They tend to distort the social structures in very negative ways. Top-down coercive government interference will never be as effective as improving the standards of living of third-world countries. The declining birth rates in Europe, North America, and Japan are sufficient proof. And maybe just maybe someday, space colonization will be an option. The meek shall inherent the Earth; the rest of us will go to the stars.

So I think it is ironic that I'm being called backwards thinking just for being Christian when in fact I seem to be the biggest advocate for overall technological progress and improving standards of living in the third-world. Right now we are on track to have a labor-less society (for good or ill). If so then the real challenge is figuring out how to share that blessing, if it is one, with the less fortunate.

---

...tell me how you plan to make nuclear reactors invulnerable to natural disaster....A major reason that battery technology has been slow to evolve to the point of usefulness is because big businesses like the oil companies have done everything thing in their power to stifle research and development.

FNM, I know you have the best intentions. The solutions you seek will not come from saying no, no, no, and then blaming big corporations. People need to get out into various industries, including the energy sector, and push to make a positive impact within the system. You say nuclear isn't safe. Fine. Let's work to make it safe. That's what humans do. They solve problems and when the solutions create new problems we solve those too. Landfills are filling up? Make packaging materials biodegradable and then convince companies that they will save money by not over-packaging. Urban heat islands and overloaded municipal sewers? Make green roofs and recyclable thermo-plastics more attractive options than traditional modified-bitumen.

I have worked on LEED certification projects and preformed life-cycle analysis for various building materials. I've converted entire buildings from T-12 to T-8 fluorescent. Now am managing the transition of all my companies facilities to LED lighting. My guess is that facilities managers, motivated to save their organizations money, have done more to save the planet than all the environmental lobbyists put together. Hopefully, you are doing something in your organization too. if not, get out there. Make something happen. Don't tell other people what they shouldn't do. They probably already know and are working on it from within. Times are tough. Money is tight. Everyone wants to spend less and a really really good way to do that is to get the most out of the resources you already use.

I literally did not say what I'm quoted a saying. I think Drich has said it at least 3 times now.

[robvalue]

I see you met Drich. That is standard for him, it's not just you. His philosophy is to never admit a mistake, even when it's blatantly obvious to everyone, including him, that he's made one. He thinks that makes him stronger somehow.

Christians can be totally safe, you just have to make sure you turn them off at the power switch before unplugging them from the wall.

[Rhondazvous]

While there were scientists that predicted we would be out of oil by now, they were actually not so wrong and don't let that confuse you. Oil extraction changed dramatically over the last century and still does.

Not so wrong !?! They were completely wrong. They made predicted a disaster that did not come to pass precisely because they discounted human ingenuity and the power of market forces to efficiently allocate resources. Environmentalists are generally anti-technology and big government types. In their ideal world progress means forcing everyone to live in organic sustenance agricultural communes. No one other than hippy douches (thanks Drich) are going back on the farm to avoid theoretical ecological disasters based on unfalsifiable computer models tweeked to satisfy liberal/"progressive" political agendas. That's not "progressive"; its regressive. Environmentalists won't be happy until we revert to pre-industrial technologies.

In the meantime they hamstring research and development in the only viable zero-emissions power source, nuclear energy. We could move beyond 60-year old technology and learn to scale up new clean and safe technologies, but the enviro-wackos won't have it - another cafe-mocha latte, please. Cities aren't going to go without power. Once the existing reactors have been retired with no replacements in the offing, there will be no choice but to build fossil fuel plants (which of course they'll try to block). Wind farms and solar panel just cannot meet demand, not even in theory with 100% conversion and land coverage.

Human ingenuity and market forces cannot increase the amount of oil buried in the Earth. That amount is finite. Their "efficient allocation" means people in Ghana are getting electricity for 12 hours every other day and people in the US are paying through their noses for oil they are being told will never run out. But it doesn't take an advanced degree in science to realize that that which is finite will eventually run out.

The human population is increasing exponentially while the amount of time needed for fossils to turn into oil is astronomically long. Do the math..

[account_inactive]

I don't see how that is dangerous.

[The Industrial Atheist]

Here's a reason why Christian's are dangerous: They'll vote for anyone who says they are a Christian often enough. I mean they voted for a greedy, malicious,vindictive,petty adulterer in Trump, who's also an immature manchild that obviously can't be trusted to talk to other world leaders without supervision, let alone make crucial decisons.

[Mr Greene]

I don't see how that is dangerous.

Ordinarily the excess CO2 would be taken up by plant growth, however coupled with deforestation it is increasing the CO2 concentration. As we pass a critical summer temperatjre the permafrost in the Tundra melts and releases methane which accelerates the process of warming. We have now reached that point. In addition the level of oxygen is falling and is now 19%. Arctic Sea ice is retreating driving polar bears to seek food inland coming into contact with people.
deserts are growing farmland is being reduced to dust.
Atolls are being inudated.
Typhoons hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming more frequent and powerful.