Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

apps.seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#161

Post by danielharan »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #8

So, how do we build solar faster? The energy is there, there is ~89 petawatts of incoming solar hitting the ground and we apparently use ~18 terawatts and it looks technically achievable using current technology, so the main restriction would seem to be production capacity and capital costs.

We are building both solar and wind extremely fast, and prices keep coming down as a result.

Historic: http://io9.com/solar-powers-epic-price-drop-visualized-51044... Recent: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/13/2455121/solar-ge...

Financing has helped with the capital costs. Many people can now get solar panels installed with no money down.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#162

Post by patrickg_zill »

tsotha wrote: post #97
craigyk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima hasn't released anywhere near enough radioactivity (in quantity or kind) to worry about making all seafood in the Pacific inedible.

It didn't even make the seafood off the coast of Japan inedible.

"Today only 16 types of fish are considered safe to catch here, compared with 150 types they caught before the disaster. " (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fish...)

South Korea has banned importation of all Japanese fish from 8 prefectures in the areas near Fukushima.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#163

Post by lutusp »

Mithaldu wrote: post #153
lutusp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The key is not to educate people about overpopulation, but to educate them effectively in how to remove the need for high reproduction while increasing their life quality. This doesn't take the Population Paradox into account. I'm not saying such measures shouldn't be pursued. To do otherwise would be to abandon democratic principles and the uncontroversial advantages of education. But it won't make any difference.…

> This doesn't take the Population Paradox into account. Because it's bullshit. The core of it is this statement: > Insensitive, unintelligent, uncompassionate listeners don't -- they will have the usual number of children. It entirely ignores the fact that having children and rearing them is WORK, EFFORT. People in poor countries do the work for a single reason: They NEED their kids to care for them in old age. As y…

> As you remove this need, even dumb people will want to avoid having kids, because it's less work.

Yes, that explains why people who lived in the early agricultural societies, who had easy lives, also had a lot of children. It explains why, today, those with the highest birthrate end up becoming the majority, consistent with the principles of natural selection.

You need to realize something about natural selection -- the future population belongs to those with the highest birth rate, whoever and wherever they are. You should know this, but you clearly do not.

In Israel, arabs are outbreeding Jews and will eventually become an absolute majority:

Title: "High Arab birth rate in Israel raises concerns about country’s Jewish identity":

http://www.ibtimes.com/high-arab-birth-rate-israel-raises-co...

In the U.S., groups other than White descendants of Europeans are outbreeding them and will soon become an absolute majority, as they already are in California:

Title: "California: Whites are no longer the majority"

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/01/california-whites-are-no-long...

I'm not complaining about the ethnic makeup of the future, I'm only making the point that natural selection blindly chooses those with the highest birthrate, and it is that group that becomes the future population of the world.

> Don't just write massive posts, also ask "why?" a LOT more.

It is you who needs to educate yourself on this issue. You posted opinions, I posted facts. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

Quote: "As of September 10, 2013 the world's human population is estimated to be 7.11 billion by the United States Census Bureau, and over 7 billion by the United Nations. Most contemporary estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred. Nevertheless, the rapid recent increase in human population is causing some concern. The population is expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion between the year 2040 and 2050. In May 2011, the United Nations increased the medium variant projections to 9.3 billion for 2050 and 10.1 billion for 2100."

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#164

Post by Steko »

refurb wrote: post #155
Steko wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"didnt that just happen?" No. The claim that AGW implies that mean global temperature will increase every single year is a naked straw man. http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/GlobalSurfaceTem...

Ok, but what would need to happen to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed over a 5 year period? 10? 20? 50? Never?

"to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed"

You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent.

If it's not happening you need better data showing it isn't happening or reasons why the current data is being massively misread.

If, all else being equal[1], global warming is happening and then stopped/reversed without anthropogenic carbon emissions going down then the case for rejecting AGW gets stronger. You'll need a replacement theory/model though. At what point does the new model become more convincing then the current one? Scientific consensus might be a good starting point.

[1] obviously if a bunch of volcanos or nuclear winter are responsible for the cooling that's not going to falsify the ideas behind AGW. For example, cooling in the 1940's.

"5 year period? 10? 20? 50?"

How much reversing are we talking about? We have 100+ years of warming to reverse. The fact that it's hard to easily falsify AGW isn't because AGW is unfalsifiable, it's because the science and data supporting AGW is enormous.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#165

Post by lutusp »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #159
lutusp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are making a straw man argument, conflating a bad map with supposed bad science... The map was bad, and the science was worse, but there's no meaningful connection between them, certainly not in my presentation. > Japan's own testing showed contamination even in 2011, by cesium isotopes, some 2000km out to sea from Fukushima. Yes, measurable with specialized equipment, but not significantly above the natural ba…

Neither you, nor I, have any idea as to the ultimate fate of the cores that have melted, the other (spent or not) fuel rods, any other radioactive materials on site. We do know, that they are not contained as of today. We also know that some unknown amount of radioactive material of unknown composition (Iodine-131, Strontium-90, Cesium-137 - but in what ratio?) enters the atmosphere or the Pacific. TEPCO does not kno…

The argument was that the fish in the Pacific aren't safe to eat. That argument is false.

Because of Fukushima, Germany has decided to abandon nuclear power entirely. The German's aren't stupid --- they recognize what Fukushima means, i.e. nuclear power is incredibly difficult to make safe, and to an increasing number of people, simply not worth the risk. As a result, Germany is becoming a pioneer in alternative energy sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Quote: "Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 34.499 gigawatts (GW) at the end of July 2013.[2] The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.[3] Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.[4] Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050."

We in the U.S. are far behind countries like Germany, and we have no excuse.

> Really, your response is arrogant.

Translation: "I know better than to argue using facts, so I will argue using opinions." Sadly noted.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#166

Post by 001sky »

Steko wrote: post #164
refurb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but what would need to happen to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed over a 5 year period? 10? 20? 50? Never?

"to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed" You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent. If it's not happening you need better data showing it isn't happening or reasons why the current data is being massively misread. If, all else being equal[1], global warming is happening and then stopped/reversed without anthropogenic carbon emissio…

You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent.

You'll need a replacement theory/model though.

Wait, what??

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#167

Post by tsotha »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #162
tsotha wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't even make the seafood off the coast of Japan inedible.

"Today only 16 types of fish are considered safe to catch here, compared with 150 types they caught before the disaster. " ( http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fish... ) South Korea has banned importation of all Japanese fish from 8 prefectures in the areas near Fukushima.

Considered by whom, based on what evidence?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#168

Post by patrickg_zill »

lutusp wrote: post #165
patrickg_zill wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither you, nor I, have any idea as to the ultimate fate of the cores that have melted, the other (spent or not) fuel rods, any other radioactive materials on site. We do know, that they are not contained as of today. We also know that some unknown amount of radioactive material of unknown composition (Iodine-131, Strontium-90, Cesium-137 - but in what ratio?) enters the atmosphere or the Pacific. TEPCO does not kno…

The argument was that the fish in the Pacific aren't safe to eat. That argument is false. Because of Fukushima, Germany has decided to abandon nuclear power entirely. The German's aren't stupid --- they recognize what Fukushima means, i.e. nuclear power is incredibly difficult to make safe, and to an increasing number of people, simply not worth the risk. As a result, Germany is becoming a pioneer in alternative ener…

What facts do you have? More than TEPCO or the Japanese government, who are now admitting that they don't know anything and don't know when they will have the radiation leaks controlled? Are you reading what I actually wrote?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#169

Post by Steko »

001sky wrote: post #166
Steko wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed" You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent. If it's not happening you need better data showing it isn't happening or reasons why the current data is being massively misread. If, all else being equal[1], global warming is happening and then stopped/reversed without anthropogenic carbon emissio…

You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent. You'll need a replacement theory/model though. Wait, what??

What follows is a brief outline of my post above:

I. points out incoherence. {first he says show it isn't happening, then he assumes it's happening but it stops or reverses}

II. you could show warming is not happening this way (data)

III. if it was warming and then started reversing falsification might happen this way (new theory/model)

IV. additional considerations about falsification

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#170

Post by Steko »

indefatigable wrote: post #77
mikeyouse wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a ridiculous statement. Leftists like Bill Gates, Newt Gingrich, John Hunstman, Frederick Smith, Susan Collins, Tim Pawlenty? Cap and Trade was a free-market republican idea originally [1], but now that it's being advocated by the 'Leftists', it's become much more politicized. A plurality of scientists agree that steps should be taken, the FUD denial is all paid for by a dozen companies who stand to prof…

Most scientists agreed that fire involved phlogiston not so very long ago.

Thank god the coal companies of the day discredited them. Oh no, it was science that discarded phlogiston? Carry on.
Post reply on HN