|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:30 am Post subject: RE: Global Warming part deux |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fallacy wrote: |
| The research shows that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are still melting, so the "reverse" cannot be claimed. |
Indeed? I could have sworn that the majority of the links posted by the two of us had the research showing that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are experiencing greater sea ice extent. |
Objection is only to diction. Does "reverse" mean "no melting?" As in: a vehicle. Drive. Forward direction. Stop. Reverse direction. Is there a word which contains the meanings of both loss and gain simultaneously? Probably "net" is better to describe the effect, especially given this statement:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The ice caps may be melting...but if gains exceed losses as they seem to be doing I'd say that's cause for celebration ( as I said before) |
Agreed: this is a "net" positive, and celebratory. There are still ongoing losses, unfortunately. More importantly, at least for your arguments, research shows natural factors having influence. Not bad, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| the costs of regulation are rather small. Certainly nothing that would lead to wars or dramatic planetary upheaval. . |
This is the kind of costs we would be facing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/06/study-45-trillion-investm_n_105600.html
45 trillion dollars and that's just to HALVE the amount of greenhouse gases and that's only until 2050. Plus some of the measures seem a little unrealistic like this one.
| Quote: |
| In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year |
https://www.oecd-nea.org/press/press-kits/economics-FAQ.html
| Quote: |
| It is typically expected to take 5 to 7 years to build a large nuclear unit (not including the time required for planning and licensing). Currently in countries such as South Korea and China, typical construction times range from 4 to 6 years, and in European countries construction may take between 6 and 8 years |
Obviously it's going to take some doing to meet this ambitious target of 32 nuclear plants per year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:37 pm Post subject: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Obviously it's going to take some doing to meet this ambitious target of 32 nuclear plants per year. |
The Chinese are apparently in agreement with this statement, as just last month they announced an agressive nuclear power plant construction scheme to build 6~8 units annually for the next 5 years! However, this may have no connection to climate change, as the key word here is "construction," thus leading off-topic for this thread. These are labor employment and business enrichment projects first and foremost; whether the plants actually attach to the grid and run is secondary. The possibility of these becoming "ghost" facilities that are built, then idled, as so many large-scale housing and retail developments have been in recent years, is there for comparison. Additionally, Chinese companies are agressively marketing these same nuclear power plant construction projects for buyers overseas, so it is not unreasonable to imagine that they alone could be responsible for delivering up to a 1/3 or more of that "unrealistic" number in the OECD report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:11 am Post subject: Re: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| Fallacy wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Obviously it's going to take some doing to meet this ambitious target of 32 nuclear plants per year. |
The Chinese are apparently in agreement with this statement, as just last month they announced an agressive nuclear power plant construction scheme to build 6~8 units annually for the next 5 years! However, this may have no connection to climate change, as the key word here is "construction," thus leading off-topic for this thread. These are labor employment and business enrichment projects first and foremost; whether the plants actually attach to the grid and run is secondary. The possibility of these becoming "ghost" facilities that are built, then idled, as so many large-scale housing and retail developments have been in recent years, is there for comparison. Additionally, Chinese companies are agressively marketing these same nuclear power plant construction projects for buyers overseas, so it is not unreasonable to imagine that they alone could be responsible for delivering up to a 1/3 or more of that "unrealistic" number in the OECD report. |
I wish they would stick to a passive nuclear power plant construction scheme. Since some of their cities are ghost cities, and ipso facto so must be some of the nuclear power plants they are planning to build, then some of the PLA must also be a ghost army! Nay, a few of the provinces must also be ghost, fictional, provinces too.
That's the robust logic we're using here...right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
No.
Just posting a link is in itself proof of the point being made. Links are the trump card in internet forums. This is why you you must always sententiously say "Can you provide a link please?" or "I provided links, did you?"
TUM will agree. He posted links first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:51 pm Post subject: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| Fallacy wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Obviously it's going to take some doing to meet this ambitious target of 32 nuclear plants per year. |
blah blah blah agressive blah blah |
I wish they would stick to a passive nuclear power plant construction scheme. Since some of their cities are ghost cities, and ipso facto so must be some of the nuclear power plants they are planning to build, then some of the PLA must also be a ghost army! Nay, a few of the provinces must also be ghost, fictional, provinces too. That's the robust logic we're using here...right? |
How about continuing "ambitious" and striking "agressive" then? Or continuing the statement with no such qualifier at all? As for ambitious agressive passivity, Arabica rather than Robusta is the more tasty variety of coffee bean, comparatively, if the "a" can be appended as a logical suffix here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Deepwater Horizon's Corexit failed miserably
| Quote: |
| By simulating the Deepwater spill in their laboratory, Joye's team found that the dispersants actually suppressed oil-busting bacteria and slowed their ability to degrade oil. Instead, they favored microbes that, well, excel at digesting dispersants. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:00 pm Post subject: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Once I was a Volkswagen skeptic. Now I am just a Volkswagen denier. Volkswagen's clean diesel is real! It's a conspiracy by governments and academics to deceive us! |
This! I got a good laugh here, thanks for that. I have a friend with a VW diesel who is now fretting over what to do about it, and this will be funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
No.
Just posting a link is in itself proof of the point being made. Links are the trump card in internet forums. This is why you you must always sententiously say "Can you provide a link please?" or "I provided links, did you?"
TUM will agree. He posted links first. |
TUM seemed so invested in this thread a couple days ago. I wonder what happened? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| Fallacy wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Obviously it's going to take some doing to meet this ambitious target of 32 nuclear plants per year. |
The Chinese are apparently in agreement with this statement, as just last month they announced an agressive nuclear power plant construction scheme to build 6~8 units annually for the next 5 years! However, this may have no connection to climate change, as the key word here is "construction," thus leading off-topic for this thread. These are labor employment and business enrichment projects first and foremost; whether the plants actually attach to the grid and run is secondary. The possibility of these becoming "ghost" facilities that are built, then idled, as so many large-scale housing and retail developments have been in recent years, is there for comparison. Additionally, Chinese companies are agressively marketing these same nuclear power plant construction projects for buyers overseas, so it is not unreasonable to imagine that they alone could be responsible for delivering up to a 1/3 or more of that "unrealistic" number in the OECD report. |
It however will take 4-5 years to build these "6-8 units annually" it's not like they are going to be producing finished units every year. As already pointed out above
| Quote: |
| Currently in countries such as South Korea and China, typical construction times range from 4 to 6 years |
So by the time they have built these units they are already several times behind the 6-8 annual target. Let's say it takes them four years and let's also say they build 7 (midway between the 6-8 mark). So four years pass and they have built 7. 7*4=28 So they've only built 1/4 of the mark. Of course you could start building 28 plants the first year...but even so that's a lot of money, construction equipment and highly trained specialists all at once. And as stated they are only building 6-8 annually so that doesn't look likely to happen. Plus as already mentioned how many of these will be functioning power plants and hooked up to the grid? And finally they are only doing this for about 5 years or so. 7*5=35 35 is only slightly more than what the world requires for 1 year (32). So altogether they will account for 1-2 years production out of the forty (40) or so years required in the report. That's what I mean by "unrealistic". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fallacy wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Obviously it's going to take some doing to meet this ambitious target of 32 nuclear plants per year. |
The Chinese are apparently in agreement with this statement, as just last month they announced an agressive nuclear power plant construction scheme to build 6~8 units annually for the next 5 years! However, this may have no connection to climate change, as the key word here is "construction," thus leading off-topic for this thread. These are labor employment and business enrichment projects first and foremost; whether the plants actually attach to the grid and run is secondary. The possibility of these becoming "ghost" facilities that are built, then idled, as so many large-scale housing and retail developments have been in recent years, is there for comparison. Additionally, Chinese companies are agressively marketing these same nuclear power plant construction projects for buyers overseas, so it is not unreasonable to imagine that they alone could be responsible for delivering up to a 1/3 or more of that "unrealistic" number in the OECD report. |
It however will take 4-5 years to build these "6-8 units annually" it's not like they are going to be producing finished units every year. As already pointed out above
| Quote: |
| Currently in countries such as South Korea and China, typical construction times range from 4 to 6 years |
So by the time they have built these units they are already several times behind the 6-8 annual target. Let's say it takes them four years and let's also say they build 7 (midway between the 6-8 mark). So four years pass and they have built 7. 7*4=28 So they've only built 1/4 of the mark. Of course you could start building 28 plants the first year...but even so that's a lot of money, construction equipment and highly trained specialists all at once. And as stated they are only building 6-8 annually so that doesn't look likely to happen. Plus as already mentioned how many of these will be functioning power plants and hooked up to the grid? And finally they are only doing this for about 5 years or so. 7*5=35 35 is only slightly more than what the world requires for 1 year (32). So altogether they will account for 1-2 years production out of the forty (40) or so years required in the report. That's what I mean by "unrealistic". |
*Continues to ignore the idiocy of the OP. Nice work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Cigarette smoking is self-evidently bad for one's health. It's basic common sense that such a thing would have destructive impacts. Sure you had some paid/quack doctors who claimed it wasn't bad back in the 50s, but people weren't that dumb.
Man-made pollution having destructive effects on the planet is as self-evident as smoking and the "science" against it is about as believable as "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Chesterfields". |
From my OP
| Quote: |
| Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average |
Guess NASA is just on a par with those "paid/quack doctors" then. 
Instead of spouting off the trendy sound bites on global warming how about giving me something based on science? I've given you the latest NASA backed evidence that supports my point...you got anything from a source as least as credible and as recent? |
TUM,
I cannot be bothered to go to deep with this with links or graphs, but the general scientific consensus seems to be this:
Atmospheric warming and ice cap diminution have come under climactic models. Nonetheless, ocean acidification is well beyond climactic models. Basically, the ocean has been absorbing a lot of the carbon and heat that scientists thought would go into the atmosphere.
That is why scientists call it "climate change" and not usually global warming. Although the entire globe is warming, certain areas may stay the same temperature or become cooler for years or even decades.
Plus, what you presented is a kind of snapshot. We would expect May ice to be more robust anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I cannot be bothered to go to deep with this with links or graphs, but the general scientific consensus seems to be this: |
🤔😂 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could have posted this next link in any of ten different threads. This one is suitable and nearest to the top.
Coal CEO Thanks Lamar Smith, Asks Him to Expand Probe of Climate Scientists
| Quote: |
In June, NOAA scientists published a study* in the peer-reviewed journal Science that refutes claims that global warming has “paused” or slowed down, a popular argument among climate change deniers, including Smith. In response, Smith issued subpoenas to the scientists who participated in the study, as well as to NOAA director Kathryn Sullivan.
Smith’s subpoena goes beyond scientific data and asks for all “communications between or among employees.” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, the ranking Democrat on the committee, charged Smith of “furthering a fishing expedition.”
Critics say Smith’s investigations are designed to intimidate scientists whose research may pose a financial threat to the fossil fuel industry, which donates heavily to Republican Party politicians. Slate writer Phil Plait notes that Smith’s subpoenas appear “more like politically motivated strong-arm tactics than an actual attempt at oversight.”
“Scientists should not be subjected to fraud investigations or harassment simply for providing scientific results that some may see as politically controversial,” wrote seven leading scientific societies in a tersely worded letter sent to Smith on November 24.
Murray, the founder of Murray Energy, disputes government data on global warming, claiming that regulators are “not telling hardly any truth.” “The earth has actually cooled over the last 17 years,” Murray told a trade publication last year, explaining a lawsuit he has pending against the Environmental Protection Agency. |
*Here is the abstract of that study:
| Quote: |
| Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature. |
Always be denying. Always be denying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
