Changes in Atlantic currents

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by tp12

You’ve completely misrepresented that article and also misrepresented the nuclear sub position.

But then I’m not surprised.

I'm pretty sure if Australia wanted to go nuclear, and had a few billion extra, they could easily send a few dozen of their top scientists to nuclear university in the US, and have working technology in a few years.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The difference is, we only need a few dozen nuclear plants, and can build them at the same time.



Solar cells are built, they are manufactured at the molecular level in a semiconductor plant.



We would need to build hundreds of new semiconductor plants to meet that kind of demand.



Which will take a decade, only THEN will you be able to start making massive amounts of solar cells, then start manufacturing panels.



Solar cells are the least profitable semiconductor.



Look at the current chip shortage, and call up those Semiconductor companies, and tell them to stop producing chips they can sell for $100 each, and start making $1 solar cells.

You can build the nuclear plants at the same time and they’ll all still be built too late as they take a decade plus to build, depending on how late each particular project is. As is all nuclear.

Solar is infinitely easier and faster to build than nuclear yet look at what you’re claiming. It’s simply so far from being credible it’s laughable.

You have a propensity for making up numbers that are in no way supported by the real world.

Try addressing the points made in the articles I’ve posted. I’ll be dismissing any more of your made up posts

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by tp12

You’ve completely misrepresented that article and also misrepresented the nuclear sub position.

But then I’m not surprised.

And I was trying so hard to surprise you...
How did I misrepresent the sub position? Did France not recall their ambassador to the United States?
How did I misrepresent the article? Here is the quote I was talking about.

Why not? Because Australia is not a significant player in nuclear energy. The country's only nuclear energy education facility, the former School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), was closed in 1986. We have substantial reserves of uranium but we don't have the depth of technical experience required to create and maintain a nuclear power industry. It will take more than a decade, at the very least, to develop the capabilities we would need before we could even begin building
This is why countries that are good at something sell their knowledge to other countries, ie. France building bullet trains for other countries or diesel subs(hehe).

[tp12]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I'm pretty sure if Australia wanted to go nuclear, and had a few billion extra, they could easily send a few dozen of their top scientists to nuclear university in the US, and have working technology in a few years.

We don’t need to, thank you.

As I’ve already shown you, it’s more expensive and slower to build than renewables and storage. It’s not a few years - that’s simply fantasy. Like all the numbers you tend to make up

[tp12]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

And I was trying so hard to surprise you...
How did I misrepresent the sub position? Did France not recall their ambassador to the United States?
How did I misrepresent the article? Here is the quote I was talking about.

Why not? Because Australia is not a significant player in nuclear energy. The country's only nuclear energy education facility, the former School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), was closed in 1986. We have substantial reserves of uranium but we don't have the depth of technical experience required to create and maintain a nuclear power industry. It will take more than a decade, at the very least, to develop the capabilities we would need before we could even begin building
This is why countries that are good at something sell their knowledge to other countries, ie. France building bullet trains for other countries or diesel subs(hehe).

You misrepresented the sub position because the French were actually building them. Not just showing us.

And you’ve misrepresented the nuclear knowledge component by singling it out when it’s multi factorial.

Regarding importing knowledge, as the subs have shown us, it makes things even slower than just paying people to do it. The bit in the article you’ve rather conveniently left out shows us that it’s already too late for nuclear. It takes too long to build to be effective for keeping warming to below 1.5c. The horse has bolted, leave the gate alone.

Again, we already have CHEAPER and FASTER to build alternatives that meet our needs - read the article I linked.

[Lake-Effect]

... so Atlantic currents aren't interesting enough?

Let the record show that I've pretty much stayed out of this one. Carry on.

[GordMay]

... As an example I quote the following that you posted one page back. If you'll notice the font size is quite large where it states the current "may collapse completely.", but if you continue reading into the fine print(most won't) you will see where the study's author states they don't know IF and WHEN the current will collapse...

The font sizes and underlining are my emphasis, not the paper authors’.
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3519665

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by tp12

And you’ve misrepresented the nuclear knowledge component by singling it out when it’s multi factorial.

Yet the paper you linked doesn't seem to even consider importing the technology; the bulk of its argument against nuclear is that it would take too long to develop the expertise and infrastructure domestically. If you bought a reactor or two from the French, it might improve the relationship.

Regarding importing knowledge, as the subs have shown us, it makes things even slower than just paying people to do it. The bit in the article you’ve rather conveniently left out shows us that it’s already too late for nuclear. It takes too long to build to be effective for keeping warming to below 1.5c. The horse has bolted, leave the gate alone.
.

Just how much does Oz contribute to the global carbon load? One percent or less? So it really has very little actual effect on the imaginary 1.5 degrees.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I've been around since the "experts" were predicting an impending ice age and don't fall for the BS coming out of these modern secular religions.

In the 1970's the experts were 6:1 warming : cooling.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...bams2370_1.xml

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... so Atlantic currents aren't interesting enough?

Let the record show that I've pretty much stayed out of this one. Carry on.

Good example of restraint.
Montpelier Vermont and Montpellier France are basically the same lattitude, but have far different winters thanks to the stream. It boggles the mind how much heat is conveyed by that sucker.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In the 1970's the experts were 6:1 warming : cooling.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...bams2370_1.xml

There is a big difference between "predicting" and "implying or providing supporting evidence (in retrospect)". Anyone who is of a certain age, and I'm certain that includes you will remember that the only "science" that got any press about climate change in the 70s to early 80s was predicting an impending ice age. You can try to re-write history, but those of us who saw it, know the truth.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

There is a big difference between "predicting" and "implying or providing supporting evidence (in retrospect)". Anyone who is of a certain age, and I'm certain that includes you will remember that the only "science" that got any press about climate change in the 70s to early 80s was predicting an impending ice age. You can try to re-write history, but those of us who saw it, know the truth.

That is why it is important to get you science from scientists. Peter Gwynne who wrote the Newsweek article that led to media frenzy has this to say.

My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong
It's time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story against climate scientists.

BTW - I am not re-writing history, I am correcting an historical myth.

[davil]

we used to have the "silent majority"
now we have the vocal/noisy minority
and the planet is flat.


Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy" sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642.

Sayonara

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is why it is important to get you science from scientists. Peter Gwynne who wrote the Newsweek article that led to media frenzy has this to say.

Do you get the science directly from the scientists? Not likely - you likely read about it in an article. The articles from that era were almost exclusively touting "global cooling." Gwynne wasn't the only one, and it's fairly egotistical of him to consider that he was a lone voice crying "freezing!" Saying otherwise is re-writing history.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I don't need to read a clutch of papers by a bunch of desk bound academics to know the deficiencies of what the "renewables" crowd propose.



I live on a boat and have lived exclusively on a boat for the last twenty years during which I have had two wind generators (useless damned things) a plethora of solar panels (I live in dread of hail storms) and have been a major financial supported of a number of battery manufacturers.



You cannot run a decent civilization on wind and solar and it's pure fantasy to claim you can.



As to the argument of nuclear being too expensive, get on the internet and compare the prices of electricity in European countries and look at who impoert from where?

We’re done with experts “ Michael Gove” I see you’re a fellow traveller