Watch, Follow, &
Connect with Us

For forums, blogs and more please visit our
Developer Tools Community.


Welcome, Guest
Guest Settings
Help

Thread: Winter storm Delphi?


Thread Locked This thread is locked - replies are not allowed.



Permlink Replies: 517 - Last Post: Jan 4, 2016 11:27 PM Last Post By: Rudy Velthuis (...
Carl Olsen

Posts: 124
Registered: 3/29/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Nov 30, 2015 10:18 AM   in response to: Phillip Woon in response to: Phillip Woon
"Winter Storm" would be a pretty cool product name.
Joseph Mitzen

Posts: 392
Registered: 6/9/02
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Nov 30, 2015 9:41 PM   in response to: Phillip Woon in response to: Phillip Woon
Phillip Woon

Posts: 189
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Nov 30, 2015 10:36 PM   in response to: Joseph Mitzen in response to: Joseph Mitzen
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 12:48 AM   in response to: Joseph Mitzen in response to: Joseph Mitzen
Joseph Mitzen wrote:

Phillip Woon wrote:
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/30/winter-storm-delphi-to-bring-more-snow-to-northern-plains-upper/21274845/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-67969109

Is that woman carrying David Intersimone's beard?

LOL!

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Maybe her popularity stems from the fact that watching her is
sometimes like watching a train wreck."
-- John McCain's daughter Meghan about Ann Coulter
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 12:49 AM   in response to: Phillip Woon in response to: Phillip Woon
Phillip Woon wrote:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/30/winter-storm-delphi-to-bring-more-snow-to-northern-plains-upper/21274845/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-67969109

I noticed she says "Delph-ee", not "Delph-eye".

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly
intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them."
-- Laurence J. Peter
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 3:48 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
I noticed she says "Delph-ee", not "Delph-eye".

When we were having dinner in a secluded Tuscan farm, in September,
there were two other tables. One seated a bunch of Americans and we
started talking. Turns out one of the lads was a retired developer and
when he found out I was an unretired one, he asked what I used. Being
very accommodating, I said "Delpheye." The lad jumped up and
immediately handed me a fist bump, yelling "Delpheeee!"

It's still a very very popular tool among retired developers, I tell
you. :)
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 4:41 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

It's still a very very popular tool among retired developers, I tell
you. :)

And practising ones.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 4:51 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:
And practising ones.

Thank you, Bruce, for politically correcting this message. People in
here would have gotten really confused otherwise.
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 5:13 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

Bruce McGee wrote:
And practising ones.

Thank you, Bruce, for politically correcting this message. People in
here would have gotten really confused otherwise.

Just correcting

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 5:23 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:
Just correcting

Nope. 'fraid not. My statement was quite correct. You just added stuff
to "politically correct."
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 7:23 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

Bruce McGee wrote:
Just correcting

Nope. 'fraid not. My statement was quite correct. You just added stuff
to "politically correct."

Added accuracy. People seem to be confusing the two lately.

You can have the last word if you want to do more sniping.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Van Swofford

Posts: 397
Registered: 6/28/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 7:48 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

Dominique Willems wrote:

Bruce McGee wrote:
Just correcting

Nope. 'fraid not. My statement was quite correct. You just added
stuff to "politically correct."

Added accuracy. People seem to be confusing the two lately.

You can have the last word if you want to do more sniping.

I'm for more snipping and less sniping. Unless you're talking about
hunting snipe. That's a bird of a different color of course. :-)

--
Cheers,
Van

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." - Will Rogers
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 7:59 AM   in response to: Van Swofford in response to: Van Swofford
Van Swofford wrote:

Unless you're talking about
hunting snipe. That's a bird of a different color of course. :-)

Never had snipe.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Van Swofford

Posts: 397
Registered: 6/28/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 11:24 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

Van Swofford wrote:

Unless you're talking about
hunting snipe. That's a bird of a different color of course. :-)

Never had snipe.

Snipe's not so much about the having, but rather it's all in the
hunting. :-)

--
Cheers,
Van

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." - Will Rogers
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 12:02 PM   in response to: Van Swofford in response to: Van Swofford
Van Swofford wrote:

Snipe's not so much about the having, but rather it's all in the
hunting. :-)

Damn hard to catch, that's for sure.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 4:39 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Van Swofford wrote:

Snipe's not so much about the having, but rather it's all in the
hunting. :-)

Damn hard to catch, that's for sure.

Easy to spot, but mostly just annoying.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 8:12 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:
Added accuracy. People seem to be confusing the two lately.

Lighten up. The message really didn't need any additional accuracy. It
was just a little anecdote with some tongue-in-cheek. I think most got
the point.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 8:37 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

Lighten up. The message really didn't need any additional accuracy. It
was just a little anecdote with some tongue-in-cheek. I think most got
the point.

Lighten up yourself. It seems to me that you feel the need to take a
dig at Delphi every time you see an opportunity. Don't be surprised
when people react to that in a way that you don't like.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 9:00 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Your input is a huge surprise.

I thought you'd be in Paris wearing a big sandwich board with "Jesus
loves climate change" on it.
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 9:05 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
It seems to me that you feel the need to take a
dig at Delphi every time you see an opportunity.

Btw, can you prove that or did you just pull that out of the usual
place?
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 10:13 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

Btw, can you prove that or did you just pull that out of the usual
place?

I'm the world's foremost authority on how things seem to me. You can
take my word for it.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 10:18 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
You can
take my word for it.

I'm the world's foremost authority on whose word I can take for it.
It's not yours. ;)
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 1, 2015 10:37 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

I'm the world's foremost authority on whose word I can take for it.
It's not yours. ;)

Okay, fair enough. If you refuse to accept the word of the world's
foremost authority, then I guess I can't help you.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 2, 2015 2:53 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Dominique Willems wrote:

I'm the world's foremost authority on whose word I can take for it.
It's not yours. ;)

Okay, fair enough. If you refuse to accept the word of the world's
foremost authority, then I guess I can't help you.

Hmmm... ISTM you don't accept the words of the world's foremost
authorities on climate change either. <g>

And note, I am the world's foremost authority on how it seems to me. <g>

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"If you give a man a fish, he will eat for today. If you teach
him to fish, he'll understand why some people think golf is
exciting." -- P.G. Wodehouse
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 2, 2015 9:31 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Hmmm... ISTM you don't accept the words of the world's foremost
authorities on climate change either. <g>

HA, because they can create flawed models/simulations as fast and inaccurate
as anyone.
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 5:25 AM   in response to: Mark Marks in response to: Mark Marks
Mark Marks wrote:

Hmmm... ISTM you don't accept the words of the world's foremost
authorities on climate change either. <g>

HA, because they can create flawed models/simulations as fast and
inaccurate as anyone.

So you, too, rather trust the few who are paid by industry than the
rest of them? OK, I am not surprised.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

Goebel's Observation On Utopia: If everyone believed in Peace
they would immediately begin fighting over the best way to
achieve it.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 5:32 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

So you, too, rather trust the few who are paid by industry than the
rest of them? OK, I am not surprised.

And the alarmists aren't paid by the alarmist industry?

And you should know that who pays for something has no bearing on the
science. It may have bearing on the spin, but science is science.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 5:56 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
the alarmist industry?

In the Santa Claus factory...?

And you should know that who pays for something has no bearing on the
science.

Science is the human endeavour to interpret the facts. Money has no
bearing on humans, eh? Santa Claus land again?
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 6:33 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

Science is the human endeavour to interpret the facts. Money has no
bearing on humans, eh?

Of course it does. But it doesn't have any bearing on facts.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 6:35 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
But it doesn't have any bearing on facts.

Absolutely! Glad you're finally coming around.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 6:41 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Dominique Willems wrote:

Absolutely! Glad you're finally coming around.

Coming around to the truth? Indeed I am. Sorry to see you are not,
though.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 8:53 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Dominique Willems wrote:

Science is the human endeavour to interpret the facts. Money has no
bearing on humans, eh?

Of course it does. But it doesn't have any bearing on facts.

It has a significant bearing on interpreting the facts. <g>

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"A language is a dialect with an army and a navy."
-- Max Weinreich
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 8:57 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

It has a significant bearing on interpreting the facts. <g>

Indeed it does.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 8:52 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

So you, too, rather trust the few who are paid by industry than the
rest of them? OK, I am not surprised.

And the alarmists aren't paid by the alarmist industry?

No, because there is no "alarmist industry". But there certainly is
industry, which has a stake in not paying for the problems they cause.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"It is not easy to find happiness in ourselves; it is not
possible to find it elsewhere."
-- Agnes Repplier
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 8:58 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

No, because there is no "alarmist industry".

Sure there is. The competition for government grants is quite stiff,
and if one isn't politically correct, one doesn't get the grant.

But there certainly is
industry, which has a stake in not paying for the problems they cause.

Stop breathing, Rudy. You're part of the problem. ;-)

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Quentin Correll


Posts: 2,412
Registered: 12/1/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 5:23 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick,

| Stop breathing, Rudy. You're part of the problem. ;-)

<giggle ;->

--

Q -- XanaNews 1.19.1.372 - 2015-12-03 17:23:37
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 11:17 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

No, because there is no "alarmist industry".

Nope.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"When you start off by telling those who disagree with you that
they are not merely in error but in sin, how much of a dialogue
do you expect ?"" -- Thomas Sowell
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 4:59 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Nope.

You deny that there are millions if not billions of dollars of grant
money at stake?

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 5:06 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
You deny that there are millions if not billions of dollars of grant
money at stake?

If you're hoping to catch any grants because you're siding with the
vast majority consensus, good luck.

If you're out to catch a big bundle of cash by siding with the loonies,
chances are you'll get in touch with a few lads in a dark back room.
Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 3:39 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 7:49 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Mark Marks wrote:

Hmmm... ISTM you don't accept the words of the world's foremost
authorities on climate change either. <g>
HA, because they can create flawed models/simulations as fast and
inaccurate as anyone.
So you, too, rather trust the few who are paid by industry than the
rest of them? OK, I am not surprised.

No, I have a mind, that I use, and the "facts" are not facts. This whole
argument is based on "models/simulations".

By the by, trust is not a factor.
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 8:54 AM   in response to: Mark Marks in response to: Mark Marks
Mark Marks wrote:

So you, too, rather trust the few who are paid by industry than the
rest of them? OK, I am not surprised.

No, I have a mind, that I use,

So you know better than the foremost experts do? OK.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Laugh and the world laughs with you, snore and you
sleep alone." -- Anthony Burgess
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 9:12 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Mark Marks wrote:

So you, too, rather trust the few who are paid by industry than the
rest of them? OK, I am not surprised.
No, I have a mind, that I use,
So you know better than the foremost experts do? OK.

Rudy, congratulations, you made circle.

HA, because they can create flawed models/simulations as fast and inaccurate
as anyone.
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 3, 2015 11:30 PM   in response to: Mark Marks in response to: Mark Marks
Mark Marks wrote:

Mark Marks wrote:

So you, too, rather trust the few who are paid by industry than
the >>> rest of them? OK, I am not surprised.
No, I have a mind, that I use,
So you know better than the foremost experts do? OK.

Rudy, congratulations, you made circle.

Your mere mind, without the need for facts or acquired expertise, can
judge very complex matters better than the foremost experts in the
field. You must be a genius.

But I am not. I simply trust what most of the experts say and distrust
the "experts" that are paid by those who have a stake in denying it. It
is clear that industry wants to be able to go on polluting without
being made responsible for the consequences.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Facts are the enemy of truth."
-- Don Quixote - "Man of La Mancha"
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 5:00 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

I simply trust what most of the experts say and distrust
the "experts" that are paid by those who have a stake in denying it

What about the experts that don't have such a stake?

What, exactly, is the stake in denying it? Doing something that is
inevitable -- burning all the fossil fuels on the planet?

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 7:05 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 04.12.2015 um 14:00 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

I simply trust what most of the experts say and distrust
the "experts" that are paid by those who have a stake in denying it

What about the experts that don't have such a stake?

What, exactly, is the stake in denying it? Doing something that is
inevitable -- burning all the fossil fuels on the planet?

Why is this inevitable? Just because it's cheap monetary wise?
That means mankind cannot learn and overcome a strictly monetary sight
on things? Or is it just Nick the pure capitalist who think so? ;-)

Greetings

Markus
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 7:41 AM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm wrote:

Why is this inevitable?

It's not inevitable that we burn everything. It is inevitable that
we'll continue to burn fossil fuels until something whose actual cost
(as opposed to subsidized costs) are less.

The problem is the world runs on fossil fuels. What things like the
Kyoto Treaty are asking the world to do is to go back to the Dark Ages,
literally. They want to cut fossil fuel emissions to levels that would
quite literally destroy the world's economy.

Fortunately, no one is that dumb, and we continue to burn fossil fuels,
providing CO2 for all those crops to grow so we can eat.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 8:29 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

...and we continue to burn fossil fuels,
providing CO2 for all those crops to grow so we can eat.

Now I suddenly realize what scary future the world is facing.

An intellecutal person, capable of writing books on programming, is
suddenly beleiving in fairy tales, probably ones he invented himself.

And this is in a country that is maybe going to elect Donald Trump as
the next US president. And they really believe in him!

/Anders
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 8:37 AM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Anders Gustavsson wrote:

An intellecutal person, capable of writing books on programming, is
suddenly beleiving in fairy tales, probably ones he invented himself.

It's a fairy tale that plants need CO2 to grow? It's a fairy tale that
more CO2 means that more plants grow?

Where did I go wrong -- please enlighten me.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
david hoke

Posts: 616
Registered: 2/9/07
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 8:54 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

An intellecutal person, capable of writing books on programming, is
suddenly beleiving in fairy tales, probably ones he invented
himself.

It's a fairy tale that plants need CO2 to grow? It's a fairy tale that
more CO2 means that more plants grow?

Where did I go wrong -- please enlighten me.

Not sure, but a little more info (accurate? don't know) relative to the
greenpeace fellow's statements...
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/#sthash.boPheqfn.dpbs
and from a link in the above:
https://books.google.de/books?id=HVDluoCh-rQC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=CO2+at+150+ppm&source=bl&ots=4FkSK4m1Ve&sig=v1MwPQ1OohShPHgKM6asylZDwys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_uVUavNAYrUswaL7oGADw#v=onepage&q=CO2%20at%20150%20ppm&f=false

so the increasing co2 may actually be a boon for crop growth.
(The only one of those plants I recognize is 'soybean'.)

I suppose warmer temperatures might as well, possibly yielding more
flexible (tibetan plateau?), longer, and/or multiple, growing seasons
in some locations...
Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 9:06 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

An intellecutal person, capable of writing books on programming, is
suddenly beleiving in fairy tales, probably ones he invented
himself.

It's a fairy tale that plants need CO2 to grow? It's a fairy tale that
more CO2 means that more plants grow?

Where did I go wrong -- please enlighten me.

CO2 is hardly the limiting factor when it comes to growth. Do you
really believe our woods and plants had a harder life before mankind
started drilling for and burning oil?

On the contrary the balance we have today is due to a lot of CO2 stored
in the inner of the earth. That CO2 has been stored for billions of
years, and now for a few hundred years or so mankind has suddenly
letting it all lose. That is what the discussion is about. You might
argue that there are othere reasons for increased earth temperature,
but why look somewhere else?

The argument about providing food for plants in my ears are just plain
ridiculous!

/Anders
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 10:27 AM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Anders Gustavsson wrote:

CO2 is hardly the limiting factor when it comes to growth. Do you
really believe our woods and plants had a harder life before mankind
started drilling for and burning oil?

No, but I understand that they concentration of CO2 was higher. See
the links David supplied.

You might
argue that there are othere reasons for increased earth temperature,
but why look somewhere else?

Because maybe the reasons for the warming lie elsewhere?

The argument about providing food for plants in my ears are just plain
ridiculous!

Okay.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 3:37 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Because maybe the reasons for the warming lie elsewhere?

Maybe, I am - like you - no expert in the field. But there is an
overwhelming crowd of scientists that are, and say the situation is
dangerous. How much are you willing to gamble?

/Anders
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 4:22 PM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Anders Gustavsson wrote:

How much are you willing to gamble?

I'm not willing to gamble my future that those scientists are right.
I'm very skeptical.


--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 5, 2015 12:39 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

How much are you willing to gamble?

I'm not willing to gamble my future that those scientists are right.
I'm very skeptical.

scary perspective!

/Anders
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 5, 2015 6:36 AM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

How much are you willing to gamble?
I'm not willing to gamble my future that those scientists are right.
I'm very skeptical.
scary perspective!

/Anders

Which really is the point of global warming propaganda.
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 5, 2015 7:02 AM   in response to: Mark Marks in response to: Mark Marks
Mark Marks wrote:
Which really is the point of global warming propaganda.

There is no global warming propaganda. There is a psychological
condition, however, that causes a strong sense of paranoia in those
that hold strong individualist values combined to the lack of a sense
of control (feeling of powerlessness in one's own life). It's called
"agency panic" and is quite well documented.

But of course, the entire concept of "agency panic" is a conspiracy
to take away your freedom by declaring you insane. You just can't win.
Stand by, some kind people will be along any moment now.
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 5, 2015 7:41 AM   in response to: Dominique Willems in response to: Dominique Willems
Which really is the point of global warming propaganda.
There is no global warming propaganda.

I hope you have a strong and worthy boat for the river you travel.
Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 5, 2015 8:09 AM   in response to: Mark Marks in response to: Mark Marks
Mark Marks wrote:

Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

How much are you willing to gamble?
I'm not willing to gamble my future that those scientists are
right. >> I'm very skeptical.
scary perspective!

/Anders

Which really is the point of global warming propaganda.

No, I meant looking into the thinking of the deniers...

/Anders
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 7, 2015 12:08 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

An intellecutal person, capable of writing books on programming, is
suddenly beleiving in fairy tales, probably ones he invented
himself.

It's a fairy tale that plants need CO2 to grow?

Yes and we (humanity) are destroying plants at an alarming pace.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public
office."
-- Aesop
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 7, 2015 5:05 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Yes and we (humanity) are destroying plants at an alarming pace.

Really.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 8:51 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 04.12.2015 um 16:41 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Markus Humm wrote:

Why is this inevitable?

It's not inevitable that we burn everything. It is inevitable that
we'll continue to burn fossil fuels until something whose actual cost
(as opposed to subsidized costs) are less.

The problem is the world runs on fossil fuels. What things like the
Kyoto Treaty are asking the world to do is to go back to the Dark Ages,
literally. They want to cut fossil fuel emissions to levels that would
quite literally destroy the world's economy.

No. Read the book "factor 5" which provides quite a few examples how we
can reduce energy consumption for various things with today's technology
by a factor of 5 without loosing much if any convenience.

Example: creating cement for building things is quite energy consuming.
But: there's a new process available which can produce cement of the
same quality with a 5th of the energy needed for the traditional
porocess. So where's the stone age here?

And there are numerous other examples readily available. No need to
destroy world economics to reduce CO2 output.

Greetings

Markus

Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 10:28 AM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm wrote:

Example: creating cement for building things is quite energy
consuming. But: there's a new process available which can produce
cement of the same quality with a 5th of the energy needed for the
traditional porocess. So where's the stone age here?

If that is the case, cement makers will be rapidly moving to this new
technique.

And there are numerous other examples readily available. No need to
destroy world economics to reduce CO2 output.

Well, to do it at the rate the Kyoto asks for, it would.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Quentin Correll


Posts: 2,412
Registered: 12/1/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 1:47 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick,

| | Example: creating cement for building things is quite energy
| | consuming. But: there's a new process available which can produce
| | cement of the same quality with a 5th of the energy needed for the
| | traditional porocess. So where's the stone age here?

| If that is the case, cement makers will be rapidly moving to this new
| technique.


Depending on the relative cost to present methodology.

--

Q -- XanaNews 1.19.1.372 - 2015-12-04 13:46:17
John Treder

Posts: 349
Registered: 8/2/02
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 4, 2015 8:06 PM   in response to: Quentin Correll in response to: Quentin Correll
Quentin Correll wrote:

Nick,

| Example: creating cement for building things is quite energy
| consuming. But: there's a new process available which can produce
| cement of the same quality with a 5th of the energy needed for the
| traditional porocess. So where's the stone age here?

If that is the case, cement makers will be rapidly moving to this new
technique.

Depending on the relative cost to present methodology.

Which includes the cost of "refactoring" their kilns. Large capital investments there, and I have no idea what the capital costs of the "new process" might be.

--
Tredmill
Quentin Correll


Posts: 2,412
Registered: 12/1/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 6, 2015 10:49 AM   in response to: John Treder in response to: John Treder
John,

| I have no idea what the capital costs of the "new process" might be.

Neither do I. However, I would wager it's expensive.

--

Q -- XanaNews 1.19.1.372 - 2015-12-06 10:49:12
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 7, 2015 12:07 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Markus Humm wrote:

Why is this inevitable?

It's not inevitable that we burn everything. It is inevitable that
we'll continue to burn fossil fuels until something whose actual cost
(as opposed to subsidized costs) are less.

That is the problem. It should not be inevitable.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to
write with." -- Marty Feldman.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 7, 2015 5:06 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

That is the problem. It should not be inevitable.

Welcome to Economics 101.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 7, 2015 8:50 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

That is the problem. It should not be inevitable.

Welcome to Economics 101.

Economics are considered too important, indeed. That is the problem.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Dieu me pardonnera. C'est son métier."
Translation: God forgive me. It's his job.
-- Heinrich Heine, dying words.
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 7, 2015 2:00 PM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Am 07.12.2015 um 17:50 schrieb Rudy Velthuis (TeamB):
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

That is the problem. It should not be inevitable.

Welcome to Economics 101.

Economics are considered too important, indeed. That is the problem.

+1

Not all markets are ideal and not all of those factor all costs in they
ultimatively create. Anybody any safe deposits for the hughe pile of
atoomic waste available yet?

Greetings

Markus
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 5:33 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:


Economics are considered too important, indeed. That is the problem.

You cannot avoid economics. Economics is just a study of the reality
of how things work. It's not like you can ignore it.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 6:16 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:


Economics are considered too important, indeed. That is the problem.

You cannot avoid economics.

No, but economics currently play a too important role in what we
(mankind) do. Money rulez, and this not necessarily good.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"You will kill ten of our men, and we will kill one of yours,
and in the end it will be you who tire of it."
-- Ho Chi Minh
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 7:35 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

(mankind) do. Money rulez, and this not necessarily good.

If you think Economics = "Money Rulez", then you have no idea what
economics is.

As I said -- you can't get away from economics. It hits you no matter
what.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 8:15 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

(mankind) do. Money rulez, and this not necessarily good.

If you think Economics = "Money Rulez"

No, I don't.

But fact is that money rulez and that economics play a far too
important role in many decisions.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"A dentist at work in his vocation always looks down in the
mouth." -- George D. Prentice
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 8:35 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

But fact is that money rulez and that economics play a far too
important role in many decisions.

<shaking head and walking away>

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 9:20 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

But fact is that money rulez and that economics play a far too
important role in many decisions.
<shaking head and walking away>

Yeah, I did that a couple of post ago.
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 9:44 AM   in response to: Mark Marks in response to: Mark Marks
Mark Marks wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

But fact is that money rulez and that economics play a far too
important role in many decisions.
<shaking head and walking away>

Yeah, I did that a couple of post ago.

You guys really think that is the only way to think, right? I won't
walk away, but I'll shake my head.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"War doesn't make boys men, it makes men dead." -- Ken Gillespie
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 12:19 PM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
You guys really think that is the only way to think, right? I won't
walk away, but I'll shake my head.

No it is just useless to continue and I could better spend my time taking
deep breaths to warm the atmosphere.
Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 9:05 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:


Economics are considered too important, indeed. That is the problem.

You cannot avoid economics. Economics is just a study of the reality
of how things work. It's not like you can ignore it.

Well, if we really knew "how things work", it would be just for good.
Economics today, as run by banks, industry and states, are often VERY
shortsighted. Economics today develop better with lots of oil. That we
at the same time are destroying our future may not have an impact on
economics until later. That is also "how things work". But is it taken
into account?

/Anders
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 10:33 AM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Am 08.12.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Anders Gustavsson:
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:


Economics are considered too important, indeed. That is the problem.

You cannot avoid economics. Economics is just a study of the reality
of how things work. It's not like you can ignore it.

Well, if we really knew "how things work", it would be just for good.
Economics today, as run by banks, industry and states, are often VERY
shortsighted. Economics today develop better with lots of oil. That we
at the same time are destroying our future may not have an impact on
economics until later. That is also "how things work". But is it taken
into account?

No it's not.In one post I already said that certain markets do not
properly factor all related costs in and that's a failure.

btw. Nick still hasn't told me if I can deposit my atomic waste in his
garden now or not (means if that would be a safe place for it) ;-)

Greetings

Markus
Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 11:15 AM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm wrote:

btw. Nick still hasn't told me if I can deposit my atomic waste in his
garden now or not (means if that would be a safe place for it) ;-)

Would like to see that answer, too :-)

/Anders
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 11:39 AM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm wrote:

btw. Nick still hasn't told me if I can deposit my atomic waste in his
garden now or not (means if that would be a safe place for it) ;-)

There is no such thing as Atomic Waste. It's only laws that "creates"
it.

All "Atomic Waste" is valuable to someone -- we just aren't allowed to
use it for anything.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 8, 2015 11:21 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Markus Humm wrote:

btw. Nick still hasn't told me if I can deposit my atomic waste in
his garden now or not (means if that would be a safe place for it)
;-)

There is no such thing as Atomic Waste.

Duh. That says it all.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the
world and moral courage so rare."
-- Mark Twain
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 5:34 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Duh. That says it all.

Agreed -- that about sums it up.

Do some research on the topic and you'll discover that when it comes to
"atomic waste", one man's trash is another man's treasure, only we
aren't allow to use that treasure.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 6:23 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Do some research on the topic and you'll discover that when it comes
to "atomic waste", one man's trash is another man's treasure, only we
aren't allow to use that treasure.

Allow your mind to expand and accept things that seem
counter-intuitive, and which have the added advantage of being true:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123690627522614525

In the US, "Nuclear Waste" is a legal conceit, concocted in the 70's to
prevent terrorists from getting the stuff. But of course, it's not any
good for making a bomb, as it turns out, yet we continue on with the
silly law.

The French, who get 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants, don't
have a "nuclear waste" problem, because they use the stuff.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Olivier Sannier

Posts: 424
Registered: 8/26/01
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 8:13 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

The French, who get 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants, don't
have a "nuclear waste" problem, because they use the stuff.

Hum, I beg to differ, we do have a problem with waste and we are having
issues finding proper burial sites:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockage_des_d%C3%A9chets_radioactifs_en_couche_g%C3%A9ologique_profonde#France
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratoire_de_Bure
http://burestop.free.fr/spip/

(sorry, links in French)

This last one is the one from the official government agency:

http://www.andra.fr/dechets-radioactifs/enfouissement-dechets-nucleaires.htm

And you can get it in English if you like.

All in all, there is an issue with nuclear waste and it's very real.
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 11:27 PM   in response to: Olivier Sannier in response to: Olivier Sannier
Olivier Sannier wrote:

Nick Hodges wrote:

The French, who get 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants,
don't have a "nuclear waste" problem, because they use the stuff.

Hum, I beg to differ, we do have a problem with waste and we are
having issues finding proper burial sites:

I guess Nick thinks that the stuff can be recycled and then, er...,
then... dunno, we can produce more of it? Perhaps he believes the
stories that the stuff is not dangerous? Who knows?

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God,
but to create him."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 6:04 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

I guess Nick thinks that the stuff can be recycled and then, er...,
then... dunno, we can produce more of it? Perhaps he believes the
stories that the stuff is not dangerous? Who knows?

Did I say the stuff wasn't dangerous (i.e. radioactive)? No, I didn't
say that. I said it wasn't waste, as it is useful and reusable.

You are ignorant about the usability of spent nuclear fuel. You
clearly are. Stop being so bloogy ignorant and dmit it for once that
you don't know what you are talking about.

Get your facts straight, and stop making up stuff for me.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 1:06 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 10.12.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

I guess Nick thinks that the stuff can be recycled and then, er...,
then... dunno, we can produce more of it? Perhaps he believes the
stories that the stuff is not dangerous? Who knows?

Did I say the stuff wasn't dangerous (i.e. radioactive)? No, I didn't
say that. I said it wasn't waste, as it is useful and reusable.

You are ignorant about the usability of spent nuclear fuel. You
clearly are. Stop being so bloogy ignorant and dmit it for once that
you don't know what you are talking about.

Get your facts straight, and stop making up stuff for me.


While that can be recycled most of the plants doing it (at least the 2 I
know) create toxic/radioactive oceans as a byproduct...

Are those costs factored in?

Greetings

Markus
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 2:34 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

I guess Nick thinks that the stuff can be recycled and then, er...,
then... dunno, we can produce more of it? Perhaps he believes the
stories that the stuff is not dangerous? Who knows?

Did I say the stuff wasn't dangerous (i.e. radioactive)? No, I didn't
say that. I said it wasn't waste, as it is useful and reusable.

Then why no one wants it? It is waste alright. And bloody dangerous
waste too.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Imitation is the sincerest form of television."
-- Fred Allen (1894-1956)
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 6:49 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Then why no one wants it?

People do want it, but they are legally barred from having it. That's
the whole point.

Come on, Rudy, for once, admit I have a point, especially given that
I do.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 12:56 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 11.12.2015 um 15:49 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Then why no one wants it?

People do want it, but they are legally barred from having it. That's
the whole point.

Hello,

just claiming people want it is not a good argument.

1. Which kinds of people? Surely not ordinary Joe and Jane

2. For which purposes? You mentioned medicine and I mentioned that the
amount needed for those medical prposes is way less than the amount
produced by nuclear plants today.

So which other demands for thosen substances are there?

Greetings

Markus
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 1:03 PM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm wrote:

1. Which kinds of people? Surely not ordinary Joe and Jane

Smart people who know what to do with it.


2. For which purposes? You mentioned medicine and I mentioned that the
amount needed for those medical prposes is way less than the amount
produced by nuclear plants today.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uses+for+nuclear+waste


So which other demands for thosen substances are there?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uses+for+nuclear+waste


--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 13, 2015 11:38 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Markus Humm wrote:

1. Which kinds of people? Surely not ordinary Joe and Jane

Smart people who know what to do with it.

It would solve a lot of problems governments have who don't know where
to bury it. It would not be barred, it would be accepted. But
apparently you know more than the experts.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is
about telescopes" -- Edsger W. Dijkstra.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 5:08 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

It would solve a lot of problems governments have who don't know where
to bury it.

It sure would.

It would not be barred, it would be accepted. But
apparently you know more than the experts.

No, I don't know more than the experts. I just know that they should
stop it being illegal to use it.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 13, 2015 11:36 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Then why no one wants it?

People do want it, but they are legally barred from having it.

Bullshit. It is extremely toxic waste no one wants and that remains
toxic for the next few millenia.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 5:09 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:


Bullshit.

No, I'm afraid that it is true, at least in the US.

It is extremely toxic waste no one wants and that remains
toxic for the next few millenia.

No, it's useful and can be reprocessed for other uses.

Read up on it and don't beleive everything you are told.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Triest

Posts: 687
Registered: 3/24/05
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 8:30 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
David Erbas-White

Posts: 202
Registered: 10/11/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 8:41 AM   in response to: Robert Triest in response to: Robert Triest
On 12/9/2015 8:30 AM, Robert Triest wrote:

Other than Chernobyl, very limited number of fatalities. It would be
interesting to compare that to number of fatalities in, for example,
coal-fired power plants for comparison. Folks tend to ignore that
almost all industrial operations 'calculate' a certain number of
fatalities for both construction and operation.

David Erbas-White
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:05 AM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
Am 09.12.2015 um 17:41 schrieb David Erbas-White:
On 12/9/2015 8:30 AM, Robert Triest wrote:

Other than Chernobyl, very limited number of fatalities. It would be
interesting to compare that to number of fatalities in, for example,
coal-fired power plants for comparison. Folks tend to ignore that
almost all industrial operations 'calculate' a certain number of
fatalities for both construction and operation.

David Erbas-White

Sure. But compare what happens if a coal power plant would explode and
what if a nuclear plant had the same issue. How many people would be
affected by each and for how long would those be affected which weren't
immediatelly killed by the incident?

Greetings

Markus
David Erbas-White

Posts: 202
Registered: 10/11/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:11 AM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
On 12/9/2015 10:05 AM, Markus Humm wrote:
Am 09.12.2015 um 17:41 schrieb David Erbas-White:
On 12/9/2015 8:30 AM, Robert Triest wrote:

Other than Chernobyl, very limited number of fatalities. It would be
interesting to compare that to number of fatalities in, for example,
coal-fired power plants for comparison. Folks tend to ignore that
almost all industrial operations 'calculate' a certain number of
fatalities for both construction and operation.

David Erbas-White

Sure. But compare what happens if a coal power plant would explode and
what if a nuclear plant had the same issue. How many people would be
affected by each and for how long would those be affected which weren't
immediatelly killed by the incident?

Greetings

Markus

You're talking about hypotheticals. Now talk about the reality of both
immediate and long-term deaths in the coal industry (just getting it out
of the ground, long before it even gets to the power plant) -- cave-ins,
underground fires, black lung, etc.

Don't get me wrong, we have to take precautions, but it always amazes me
how in some areas we won't allow anybody to get a skinned knee, whereas
in other areas massive human damage is completely ignored...

David Erbas-White
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:26 AM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

Don't get me wrong, we have to take precautions, but it always amazes
me how in some areas we won't allow anybody to get a skinned knee,
whereas in other areas massive human damage is completely ignored...

For once we agree.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:35 AM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

You're talking about hypotheticals. Now talk about the reality of
both immediate and long-term deaths in the coal industry (just
getting it out of the ground, long before it even gets to the power
plant) -- cave-ins, underground fires, black lung, etc.

Don't get me wrong, we have to take precautions, but it always amazes
me how in some areas we won't allow anybody to get a skinned knee,
whereas in other areas massive human damage is completely ignored...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/33-million-die-every-year-because-of-air-pollution_55fb1ad3e4b00310edf64af4

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
David Erbas-White

Posts: 202
Registered: 10/11/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:52 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
On 12/9/2015 10:35 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
David Erbas-White wrote:

You're talking about hypotheticals. Now talk about the reality of
both immediate and long-term deaths in the coal industry (just
getting it out of the ground, long before it even gets to the power
plant) -- cave-ins, underground fires, black lung, etc.

Don't get me wrong, we have to take precautions, but it always amazes
me how in some areas we won't allow anybody to get a skinned knee,
whereas in other areas massive human damage is completely ignored...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/33-million-die-every-year-because-of-air-pollution_55fb1ad3e4b00310edf64af4

Thanks! You posted a perfect example of complete and total BS!

The article starts off by stating that there are "3.3 million deaths per
year from air pollution" -- but you actually have to READ AND INTERPRET
the article to determine that IF you accept their study, those are the
numbers of PREMATURE deaths. There is no accounting for HOW premature
those deaths are, or how they've determined that those folks might not
have died from some OTHER cause (for example, if you state that someone
died at age 69 when they should have died at age 70, what are the odds
that the person would have died from some OTHER cause, including old
age, in that intervening year?).

I'm not disputing that air pollution is "a bad thing" or that it leads
to health problems. But if we took all the fear-mongers numbers for the
number of deaths per year from all of the possible causes, I'd bet we'd
come close to the entire world population dying off each year...

I get particularly ticked off with all of those who (to this day) try to
come up with spurious numbers for number of deaths from second-hand
smoke - with all of the laws currently on the books in the United States
(and particularly here in Kalifornia) regarding smoking, it astonishes
me that they are STILL trying to sell that particular brand of malarkey...

David Erbas-White

P.S. I'm not a smoker, BTW. Nor is anyone in my immediate family.

Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:58 AM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

that they are STILL trying to sell that particular brand of malarkey

Two agreements in one day? Unprecendented.

Oh, wait, I think he has me in the bozo bin. Anyway, still amazing.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 12:27 PM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

Thanks! You posted a perfect example of complete and total BS!

Those pesky scientists...

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 11:35 PM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

On 12/9/2015 10:35 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:
David Erbas-White wrote:

You're talking about hypotheticals. Now talk about the reality of
both immediate and long-term deaths in the coal industry (just
getting it out of the ground, long before it even gets to the power
plant) -- cave-ins, underground fires, black lung, etc.

Don't get me wrong, we have to take precautions, but it always
amazes >> me how in some areas we won't allow anybody to get a
skinned knee, >> whereas in other areas massive human damage is
completely ignored...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/33-million-die-every-year-because-of-air-pollution_55fb1ad3e4b00310edf64af4

Thanks! You posted a perfect example of complete and total BS!


And you beleive those who say: "Nothing to see here, please go on."
Sheesh. That is not complete and total BS at all. But, like proving
that smoking is bad for your health, or too much fat, etc. it can't be
shown directly.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but
that is not the reason we are doing it" -- Richard Feynman
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 9:23 AM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

On 12/9/2015 10:35 AM, Bruce McGee wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/33-million-die-every-year-because-of-air-pollution_55fb1ad3e4b00310edf64af4

Thanks! You posted a perfect example of complete and total BS!


I thought it was appropriate since you brought up deaths from mining
coal.

It's a stark reminder that the cost of air pollution, largely from
burning fossil fuels, has a greater cost attached to it. Though I'm not
sure how to put a dollar value on early deaths.

There is a lot more information on the subject if anyone is so inclined.

And then there are the costs of health care and lost productivity due
to air pollution related illness.

So if someone is going to talk about economics, I hope they consider
these and not just compare coal with something like
wind/solar/hydro/thermal/etc.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Van Swofford

Posts: 397
Registered: 6/28/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:55 AM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

Don't get me wrong, we have to take precautions, but it always amazes
me how in some areas we won't allow anybody to get a skinned knee,
whereas in other areas massive human damage is completely ignored...

For instance, highway fatalities. According to Wikipedia, 1.24 million
in 2010.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)

But I never hear any outrage over that. Just the cost of doing
business...

--
Cheers,
Van

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." - Will Rogers
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 11:31 PM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

You're talking about hypotheticals.

No. There have been many accidents already. Chernobyl and Fukushima are
only among the most well known.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Am I lightheaded because I'm not dead or because I'm still
alive?" -- Heidi Sandige.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 6:08 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

No. There have been many accidents already. Chernobyl and Fukushima
are only among the most well known.

There have been many "accidents", but an "accident" doesn't necessarily
result in the release of radiation which ends up harming poeple.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 1:10 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 10.12.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

No. There have been many accidents already. Chernobyl and Fukushima
are only among the most well known.

There have been many "accidents", but an "accident" doesn't necessarily
result in the release of radiation which ends up harming poeple.

Yes, but there were numerous ones who did already.

Greetings

Markus
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 1:35 PM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm wrote:

Yes, but there were numerous ones who did already.

Which ones? I searched and couldn't find a definitive list.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bernd Maierhofer

Posts: 161
Registered: 9/27/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 11:52 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
There have been many "accidents", but an "accident" doesn't necessarily
result in the release of radiation which ends up harming poeple.

Yes, but there were numerous ones who did already.

Which ones? I searched and couldn't find a definitive list.

In Chernobyl a total of 500.000 persons were harmed directly, because they
got ill or had to relocate because of severe danger for their wellbeing.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
http://www-ns.iaea.org/appraisals/chernobyl.asp
http://www-ns.iaea.org/appraisals/chernobyl-living-advice.asp?s=8&l=58

I am not going to post pictures of malformed children and babies nor people
suffering from cancer.

Accidents releasing radiation usually(!) harm people - in a most dangerous
way. So I think - keep your hands off that technology. And yes: turn off the
lights when leaving the room, don´t use your car when you can avoid it. Be
aware of what you do.

Bernd
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 6:50 AM   in response to: Bernd Maierhofer in response to: Bernd Maierhofer
Bernd Maierhofer wrote:

In Chernobyl

We all know Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, we
don't build reactors like that anymore.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bernd Maierhofer

Posts: 161
Registered: 9/27/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 13, 2015 11:34 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Sigh.

It seems, as if one can learn one of two lessons from Chernobyl (and
Fukushima and Tokai-mura and Sewersk and Gore and ...):
- Keep your fingers off
- We made a mistake and will avoid this in future

However the latter produces mistakes that last 1000s of years.

Why deal with such a dangerous thing, if there are alternatives?

Bernd
BTW:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Unf%C3%A4llen_in_kerntechnischen_Anlagen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

"Nick Hodges" wrote in message news:753070 at forums dot embarcadero dot com...

Bernd Maierhofer wrote:

In Chernobyl

We all know Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, we
don't build reactors like that anymore.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 12:17 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Bernd Maierhofer wrote:

In Chernobyl

We all know Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, we
don't build reactors like that anymore.

But you employ reactors that are perhaps a little less unsafe.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 5:10 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

But you employ reactors that are perhaps a little less unsafe.

A lot less unsafe.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Achim Strauch

Posts: 13
Registered: 4/12/02
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 1:14 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:


Which ones? I searched and couldn't find a definitive list.

Nick

Definitive - I don't know. But have a look at

http://www.reaktorpleite.de/ines-und-die-liste-der-akw-stoerfaelle.html#Liste%20der%20St%C3%B6rf%C3%A4lle

Achim Strauch

Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 6:51 AM   in response to: Achim Strauch in response to: Achim Strauch
Achim Strauch wrote:

http://www.reaktorpleite.de/ines-und-die-liste-der-akw-stoerfaelle.html#Liste%20der%20St%C3%B6rf%C3%A4lle

Thanks -- sadly, I can't read it.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Achim Strauch

Posts: 13
Registered: 4/12/02
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 7:58 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Nick

At the upper right corner you can switch to english.

Achim Strauch

Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 8:01 AM   in response to: Achim Strauch in response to: Achim Strauch
Achim Strauch wrote:

At the upper right corner you can switch to english

Ahh, thanks, missed that.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Ian Branch

Posts: 442
Registered: 9/23/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 8:21 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
It's sad that we need such a table/scale....:-(
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 1:00 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 10.12.2015 um 22:35 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Markus Humm wrote:

Yes, but there were numerous ones who did already.

Which ones? I searched and couldn't find a definitive list.

Hello,

just look in Wikipedia.
And some just didn't out of pure luck, but not because the personell
responsible knew what they were doing...

There were some in the US, in the UK and in Russia. Those are at least
the ones I vaguely remember.

A new starting point for your search might be this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Greetings

Markus
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 2:35 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

No. There have been many accidents already. Chernobyl and Fukushima
are only among the most well known.

There have been many "accidents"

Forget the quotes. They were accidents (assuming no one did it on
purpose), and they were dangerous.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, 'Where have I gone
wrong?' Then a voice says to me, 'This is going to take more
than one night.'" -- Charlie Brown.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 6:52 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Forget the quotes. They were accidents (assuming no one did it on
purpose), and they were dangerous.

How many actually harmed people? I suspect the number is vastly less
than you think.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 13, 2015 11:38 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Forget the quotes. They were accidents (assuming no one did it on
purpose), and they were dangerous.

How many actually harmed people?

Why, all of them. Either directly or indirectly.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Where humor is concerned there are no standards - no one can
say what is good or bad, although you can be sure that everyone
will." -- John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006)
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 5:11 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Why, all of them. Either directly or indirectly.

Really? I don't think so. Read the chart better and you'll see that
basically on 7's harmed people, with 6's showing potential harm.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 1:08 PM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
Am 09.12.2015 um 19:11 schrieb David Erbas-White:


You're talking about hypotheticals. Now talk about the reality of both
immediate and long-term deaths in the coal industry (just getting it out
of the ground, long before it even gets to the power plant) -- cave-ins,
underground fires, black lung, etc.

Don't get me wrong, we have to take precautions, but it always amazes me
how in some areas we won't allow anybody to get a skinned knee, whereas
in other areas massive human damage is completely ignored...

David Erbas-White

I'm not for coal power plants either. And I'm not sure if mining of the
Uranium etc. needed for nuclear plants hasn't created any atomic hazards
for those workers or not.

Greetings

Markus
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 11:29 PM   in response to: David Erbas-White in response to: David Erbas-White
David Erbas-White wrote:

On 12/9/2015 8:30 AM, Robert Triest wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

Other than Chernobyl, very limited number of fatalities.

Not directly, perhaps. Indirectly, entire areas have been
uninhabitablre (and still are) for many years and will be, for many
centuries to come.

So now you guys are atomic-waste deniers too and believe the claims
that nuclear plants are safe? Sheesh.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under
God."
-- President George Bush, August 27, 1988
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 10:04 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 09.12.2015 um 15:23 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Nick Hodges wrote:

Do some research on the topic and you'll discover that when it comes
to "atomic waste", one man's trash is another man's treasure, only we
aren't allow to use that treasure.

Allow your mind to expand and accept things that seem
counter-intuitive, and which have the added advantage of being true:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123690627522614525

In the US, "Nuclear Waste" is a legal conceit, concocted in the 70's to
prevent terrorists from getting the stuff. But of course, it's not any
good for making a bomb, as it turns out, yet we continue on with the
silly law.

The French, who get 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants, don't
have a "nuclear waste" problem, because they use the stuff.

They have other problems with their nuclear sites...
...leading to near blackouts short before christmas a few years ago.
They had to turn of christmas lighting in the streets.

Greetings

Markus
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 9, 2015 11:25 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Duh. That says it all.

Agreed -- that about sums it up.

Do some research on the topic and you'll discover that when it comes
to "atomic waste", one man's trash is another man's treasure

Not all of it. First, the stuff is bloody dangerous and much of it
remains like that for many many years. Second, if the stuff were so
precious, then why doesn't anyone want it?

Third. People can recycle other things too, like plastics, etc. and yet
they are waste.

So whatever nice stories you tell, there certainly is atomic waste (or
radiating waste, as I would call it).

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close
to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to
California." -- George W. Bush
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 6:01 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Second, if the stuff were so
precious, then why doesn't anyone want it?

Businesses and medical labs and services do want it. It's useful to
them.

Third. People can recycle other things too, like plastics, etc. and
yet they are waste.

Waste: material that is not wanted; the unusable remains or byproducts
of something

If it is recyclable, it's not waste, since it is both wanted and usable.

So whatever nice stories you tell, there certainly is atomic waste (or
radiating waste, as I would call it).

Rudy, I know you'll never, ever, ever, ever, ever do it, but it really
is okay to say "Wow, that's really interesting. I learned something
from you today that I didn't know before".

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 1:12 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 10.12.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Nick Hodges:
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Second, if the stuff were so
precious, then why doesn't anyone want it?

Businesses and medical labs and services do want it. It's useful to
them.


Which businesses?
The amout of waste medical labs would/do consume is minor in comparison
with the amount producted by the power plants.

Greetings

Markus
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 10, 2015 1:36 PM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm

Posts: 5,113
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 1:03 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Am 10.12.2015 um 22:36 schrieb Nick Hodges:

I guess that most of the isotopes needed there aren't the ones produced
after using uranium for generating power, but I admit to not having read
the stuff due to lack of time.

Greetings

Markus
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 3:13 PM   in response to: Markus Humm in response to: Markus Humm
Markus Humm wrote:

I guess that most of the isotopes needed there aren't the ones
produced after using uranium for generating power, but I admit to not
having read the stuff due to lack of time.

They aren't. See my response to Nick.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 2:35 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

Second, if the stuff were so
precious, then why doesn't anyone want it?

Businesses and medical labs and services do want it.

Waste from nuclear plants? No way.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
-- George W. Bush
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 6:52 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:


Waste from nuclear plants? No way.

Yes way.

Do some research on the topic before you shoot your mouth off.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 9:33 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:


Waste from nuclear plants? No way.

Yes way.

Do some research on the topic before you shoot your mouth off.

Radioisotopes for medical use and research have an extremely short half
life and are generated in specialised reactors.

As far as I know, they can't simply be harvested from the waste product
of nuclear power reactors.

And after radioisotopes have decayed, they present their own long term
storage concerns.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/non-power-nuclear-applications/radioisotopes/radioisotopes-in-medicine/

p.s.

I'm pro-nuclear

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 10:30 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

As far as I know, they can't simply be harvested from the waste
product of nuclear power reactors.

I understand that they can be.

In any event, the material remains useful, and sadly unused.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 11:56 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Bruce McGee wrote:

As far as I know, they can't simply be harvested from the waste
product of nuclear power reactors.

I understand that they can be.

From where?

If medical radioisotopes could be harvested from regular waste, then we
wouldn't need the dedicated Chalk River reactor, which is an enormous
pain.

In any event, the material remains useful, and sadly unused.

I'd be curious to know what uses.

I know that Plutonium is a by-product of so-called fast breeder
reactors, which can be used for nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure I
would call that very useful.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 12:08 PM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

I know that Plutonium is a by-product of so-called fast breeder
reactors, which can be used for nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure I
would call that very useful.

Sorry, I couldn't resist:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uses+for+nuclear+waste

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 12:16 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Safe and cost effective uses was kind of implied.

I especially liked the one titled "6 Things to do with Nuclear Waste:
None of them Ideal".

This is one of those areas where listening to scientists and the
occasional nuclear engineer makes sense.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 12:25 PM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

This is one of those areas where listening to scientists and the
occasional nuclear engineer makes sense.

Indeed.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 12:38 PM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

I especially liked the one titled "6 Things to do with Nuclear Waste:
None of them Ideal".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/06/a-modest-proposal-for-nuclear-waste-disposal/

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 3:08 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Bruce McGee wrote:

I especially liked the one titled "6 Things to do with Nuclear
Waste: None of them Ideal".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/06/a-modest-proposal-for-nuclear-waste-disposal/

I'm not sure I want to get my advice on nuclear waste disposal from
people who think that virtually every scientist in the world is
involved in some kind of climate change conspiracy.

I think the preferred method is deep geological repository.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 6:18 AM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

I'm not sure I want to get my advice on nuclear waste disposal from
people who think that virtually every scientist in the world is
involved in some kind of climate change conspiracy.

I think it's a good idea.


--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Bruce McGee

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 9/30/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 12:20 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Bruce McGee wrote:

I know that Plutonium is a by-product of so-called fast breeder
reactors, which can be used for nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure I
would call that very useful.

Sorry, I couldn't resist:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uses+for+nuclear+waste

But if there is money to be made, I'm sure someone will take advantage
of it.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 11, 2015 12:25 PM   in response to: Bruce McGee in response to: Bruce McGee
Bruce McGee wrote:

But if there is money to be made, I'm sure someone will take advantage
of it.

Sadly, it is illegal to do so. That's why you don't see it being done.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 4:59 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Bruce McGee wrote:

But if there is money to be made, I'm sure someone will take
advantage of it.

Sadly, it is illegal to do so. That's why you don't see it being
done.

After having followed this discussion for a while, I have come to
understand that Nick is a hard core economical liberal: The market will
always fix everything, we just have to lean back and let things happen.
No regulations. No interference from anywhere.

In some sense this works just fine - as long as you don't take some
things into consideration, eg the future development, people in Ukraina
(accidents happen), people in the Pacific Ocean (woops, my island just
sank) and som other minor issues. Nick is one of those, for whom the
system has been just beneficial. So that is why he is so scared - not
from global warming, which for the logical thinking might be relevant,
but from all changes in the US "business as usual" approach. If 97% of
scientist say that human acitivities cause global warming, we don't
listen to them, because it just simply cannot be true. Must not be true.

Logical reasoning seems impossible here...

/Anders
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 6:20 AM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Anders Gustavsson wrote:

No regulations. No interference from anywhere.

That's wrong.

Logical reasoning seems impossible here...

I know exactly how you feel.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 9:07 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

No regulations. No interference from anywhere.

That's wrong.

Of course it is!


Logical reasoning seems impossible here...

I know exactly how you feel.

Sharp one! Could have been fun, if the situation hadn't been so serious!

/Anders
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 9:16 AM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Anders Gustavsson wrote:

Of course it is!

And your view that I believe it is wrong as well.


--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Anders Gustavsson

Posts: 26
Registered: 9/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 9:21 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Anders Gustavsson wrote:

Of course it is!

And your view that I believe it is wrong as well.

Then there might be hope for you :-)
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 9:27 AM   in response to: Anders Gustavsson in response to: Anders Gustavsson
Anders Gustavsson wrote:

Then there might be hope for you :-)

I doubt that. ;-)

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Dominique Willems

Posts: 591
Registered: 10/26/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 12, 2015 2:25 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
Then there might be hope for you :-)

I doubt that. ;-)

Ditto. :)
Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 13, 2015 10:21 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
now that the whole world has signed on to reduce dependence on fossil fuels to limit global warming at the latest climate summit,
you are best to get in behind that and support that now everyone
(unless you think you know better?)
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 13, 2015 1:30 PM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
now that the whole world has signed on to reduce dependence on fossil
fuels to limit global warming at the latest climate summit,

you are best to get in behind that and support that now everyone

(unless you think you know better?)

There you go again, the "whole world" did not sign on to the hoax.
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 12:31 AM   in response to: Mark Marks in response to: Mark Marks
Mark Marks wrote:

There you go again, the "whole world" did not sign on to the hoax.

Indeed, only all countries that attended, which was, er, the whole
world. And you may like to stick your head in the sand, fortunately
"the world" doesn't.

This is not a hoax like the "yellow cake" and the WMD trucks. This is
real and confirmed by almost all experts, except for a few deniers.
Therse deniers are like the "scientists" who will claim that smoking is
not bad for your health.

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs,
then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy
civilisation." -- Gerald Weinberg
Mark Marks

Posts: 269
Registered: 9/11/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 6:05 AM   in response to: Rudy Velthuis (... in response to: Rudy Velthuis (...
And there you go again, again.

Indeed, only all countries that attended, which was, er, the whole
world.

Just because the current occupant of our executive branch (one man) agreed
does
not mean the USA agrees. In fact, our House of Representative has already
voted it down and
our Senate will do the same. The agreement was dead before it was signed.
So, I guess
the "whole world" does not agree.

Pointing at two other, non related, issues to "prove" your point; the indication
of a loser in
any debate format.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 14, 2015 5:11 AM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
Brian Hamilton Hamilton wrote:

(unless you think you know better?)

I know I'm not going to stop driving my car.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 17, 2015 11:01 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
I am a weather expert, weather software is what I do

if people want to be deniers despite all the evidence thats OK,
just to note, November was the 7th month in a row this year to break global temperature records since records going back to 1880
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 17, 2015 11:39 AM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
Brian Hamilton Hamilton wrote:

if people want to be deniers despite all the evidence thats OK,
just to note, November was the 7th month in a row this year to break
global temperature records since records going back to 1880

I don't doubt that for a second.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
david hoke

Posts: 616
Registered: 2/9/07
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 17, 2015 11:39 AM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
Brian Hamilton Hamilton wrote:

I am a weather expert, weather software is what I do

if people want to be deniers despite all the evidence thats OK,
just to note, November was the 7th month in a row this year to break
global temperature records since records going back to 1880

So, is that seasonally, warm enough to grow millet in the Tibetan
plateau yet?

"Science" has indicated it apparently was possible to do so several
thousand years ago, apparently without anything we currently blame for
warming, but has not been warm enough for several thousand years since,
even with our modern contributions... although its suggested millet
might be viable again with rising temperatures..
david hoke

Posts: 616
Registered: 2/9/07
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 17, 2015 12:01 PM   in response to: david hoke in response to: david hoke
david hoke wrote:

millet might be viable again with rising temperatures..
...............become......
Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 17, 2015 12:33 PM   in response to: david hoke in response to: david hoke
nobody said the climate has not changed in the past
ie there has been regional climate changes in the past
(most likely due to long term changes in ocean current circulations)
and those long term changes still occur (long period cycles..in fact there are cycles on top of cycles)
but there is still a background warming trend that is occuring (behind long term cycles)

despite alot of La Nina weather patterns during the last 18 years and despite the sun going through its deepest solar minimum in a long time, the global tempeatures did not drop
now that El Nino is back, which brings warmer global temperatures (except for New Zealand), the trend is for warmer global temperatures again..but because of the background warming trend that is occuring, this El Nino is causing records to be broken...this year is going to be the warmest on record,..smashing the last record (last year)

Edited by: Brian Hamilton Hamilton on Dec 17, 2015 12:34 PM
Don Abel

Posts: 49
Registered: 7/22/11
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 19, 2015 11:55 AM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
Brian Hamilton Hamilton wrote:

I am a weather expert, weather software is what I do

if people want to be deniers despite all the evidence thats OK,
just to note, November was the 7th month in a row this year to break
global temperature records since records going back to 1880

At one point in earth's history, it was warm enough in northern Alaska
to create large amounts of oil. Far more recently, there were large
bodies of water in the Sahara desert and glaciers where I'm sitting now
in the northern USA. Yes, the climate does change. That's very
perceptive of you.

Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 19, 2015 12:19 PM   in response to: Don Abel in response to: Don Abel

At one point in earth's history, it was warm enough in northern Alaska
to create large amounts of oil. Far more recently, there were large
bodies of water in the Sahara desert and glaciers where I'm sitting now
in the northern USA. Yes, the climate does change. That's very
perceptive of you.

continental drift is also at play there if you go far enough back in time
(which also changed ocean currents and who and where got warm currents or cold currents)
(i.e the continents have not always been in the place they are now, and have migrated from the original one land mass (gondwanaland)
i.e some places that are artic now were once more temperate simply because they were closer to the equator
and yes there has been many ice ages in the past (where the sea level even has been up to 150 feet below current level), and one day in the future (100,000 years?) we will probably get another ice age (due to small shifts in the earth's orbit and or prolonged and widespread volcanism)
Don Abel

Posts: 49
Registered: 7/22/11
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 19, 2015 1:35 PM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
Brian Hamilton Hamilton wrote:


At one point in earth's history, it was warm enough in northern
Alaska to create large amounts of oil. Far more recently, there
were large bodies of water in the Sahara desert and glaciers where
I'm sitting now in the northern USA. Yes, the climate does change.
That's very perceptive of you.

continental drift is also at play there if you go far enough back in
time (which also changed ocean currents and who and where got warm
currents or cold currents) (i.e the continents have not always been
in the place they are now, and have migrated from the original one
land mass (gondwanaland) i.e some places that are artic now were once
more temperate simply because they were closer to the equator and yes
there has been many ice ages in the past (where the sea level even
has been up to 150 feet below current level), and one day in the
future (100,000 years?) we will probably get another ice age (due to
small shifts in the earth's orbit and or prolonged and widespread
volcanism)

I'm not a geologist, but continetal drift maps I recall show most
current movement to be East and West, not North and South.

The current estimated rate of plate drift is about 2.5cm or 1 inch per
year. The circumference of the earth is about 40,000,000m. If a plate
moved directly from the equator to the North pole, it would require
40,000,000/4=10,000,000m distance from equator to the North pole. Then,
10,000,000x10=100,000,000cm from equator to North pole. Then,
100,000,000/2.5 cm/year= 40 million years. In short, It's unlikely that
continental drift is a viable explaination for oil near the north pole.
Especially since drift was unlikely to go directly from south to North.

The last ice age and wet Sahara was less than 20,000 years ago:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/01_1.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

These were obviously not caused by continental drift.

That's a lot of climate change without human intervention. A lot more
than what climate change believers have been predicting in their
models. I say models because there's been no appreciable increase in
average worldwide temperatures for amlost 20 years. This is at a time
when "Greenhouse Gas" outputs are higher than ever and predicted
temperatures should be increasing rapidly.
Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi?
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 19, 2015 8:24 PM   in response to: Don Abel in response to: Don Abel
. I say models because there's been no appreciable increase in
average worldwide temperatures for amlost 20 years.

utter rubbish

last year was the globes hottest on record and this year is going to smash that record and next year is forecast to beat that again (helped by El Nino effects lasting into the first half of next year)

also note that alot of oil deposits are from plankton (which is rich in cold nutrient rich ocean currents)

Edited by: Brian Hamilton Hamilton on Dec 19, 2015 8:25 PM
Don Abel

Posts: 49
Registered: 7/22/11
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 19, 2015 9:04 PM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
Brian Hamilton Hamilton wrote:

. I say models because there's been no appreciable increase in
average worldwide temperatures for amlost 20 years.

utter rubbish

Official NOAA chart:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201401-201412.png

or

http://tinyurl.com/opvwy8g

The last 20 years look rather flat to me. At the very least, the rate
of increase is dramtically lower. This is strong evidence that global
warming models are very flawed.

But this strong evidence doesn't matter to true believers. Do you or
your customers receive funding partly due to to global warmimg theories?

Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 19, 2015 9:48 PM   in response to: Don Abel in response to: Don Abel
"Don Abel" <don dot abel at abelusa dot com> wrote
[...]
But this strong evidence doesn't matter to true believers.

Your chart appears to be over 10 years old. On the warming hiatus, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

as to true believers,
--is the planet getting warmer? the data supports that
--are we the only responsible factor? seems unlikely. Complex systems and
all.
--does human activity contribute? almost certainly. We're very good at
generating known greenhouse gases, and atmospheris composition shows
corresponding changes.
--does human activity contribute significantly ? Seems probable, but
'significantly' seems rather vague. I'm not aware of any scientific
concensus on the exact amount of warming that's our fault.

What percent would you like it to be?

But simple analogy to ponder: if your house is burning down, do you continue
to spread tinder on the floor until you're proven to be the main problem?
Or do you try to stop making the situation worse--by however big or small an
anount that might be?

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 20, 2015 5:00 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

But simple analogy to ponder: if your house is burning down, do you
continue to spread tinder on the floor until you're proven to be the
main problem? Or do you try to stop making the situation worse--by
however big or small an anount that might be?

How about this:

If your house is on fire, do you risk your life by getting close enough
to use a squirt gun to put out the flames?

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 20, 2015 10:04 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

If your house is on fire, do you risk your life by getting close enough
to use a squirt gun to put out the flames?

Probably, yes, unless you have somewhere else to go?

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 20, 2015 11:24 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

Probably, yes, unless you have somewhere else to go?

Too each his own. Me? I'm not willing to burn to death.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 20, 2015 1:04 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

Too each his own. Me? I'm not willing to burn to death.

So you do have an excape planned? My transporter and starship aren't ready
yet.

Or would you characterize your position as modeled on Louis XV?
"Après moi le déluge"
http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.com/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 20, 2015 1:47 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

So you do have an excape planned? My transporter and starship aren't
ready yet.

Are you arguing that "climate change" is going to destroy the planet?
That's a bit much.


--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 20, 2015 3:02 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

Are you arguing that "climate change" is going to destroy the planet?

Absolutely not--the planet will be fine. That all you're worried about? I
thought you had kids.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 20, 2015 4:19 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:


Absolutely not--the planet will be fine. That all you're worried
about? I thought you had kids.

I do, and I'm not the least bit worried about the world they will live
in. In fact, I feel quite the opposite.

Human beings are really, really, really smart. If you asked people in
1900 what our biggest energy problem would be in 100 years, they would
have said "Disposing of all the horse manure". They had no idea about
atomic energy and natural gas turbines. They hadn't an inkling about
jet airplanes and interstate highways. Not a clue.

It's sheer hubris to believe that we even have an inkling of knowledge
about what the world will be like in 50, 75, or 100 years. My children
will see things that we can't even conceive of, just as my grandparents
did.

Rose Wilder, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, was born in 1886 in
a log cabin on the American frontier during the time of cattle drives,
horses, and railroads. She died in 1968.

During her life she saw the advent of: the automobile, the airplane,
telephone, radio, the atomic bomb, computers, space flight, and she
almost lived to see a man walk on the moon -- all of which would have
been inconceivable to her parents generation on the day she was born.
(As it was, Laura herself lived until 1958, and saw most of that, BTW).

And you are worried about the world my kids are going to live in?

I'm guessing that you don't have the slightest idea about how they'll
generate electricity in 2100. I'm guessing by then they'll be well past
cold fusion on to something we can't even think of.

Shoot, they might use something besides electricity (another thing the
we currently use in ways that couldn't be imagined of 150 years ago).
The world getting ruined? We're too smart.

I firmly believe that you and I can't even conceive of the world my
kids will see before they pass on to my grandkids. And I'm supremely
confident it is going to be amazing.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Per Larsen, Nex...

Posts: 28
Registered: 3/19/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 21, 2015 9:44 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

you don't have the slightest idea about how they'll
generate electricity in 2100

In 2100, electricity will be so passé ;)
Robert Evans

Posts: 114
Registered: 10/16/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 21, 2015 11:35 AM   in response to: Per Larsen, Nex... in response to: Per Larsen, Nex...
In article <781879 at forums dot embarcadero dot com>, Per Larsen
<?@Larsen.?.invalid> wrote
Nick Hodges wrote:
you don't have the slightest idea about how they'll
generate electricity in 2100

In 2100, electricity will be so passé ;)

Whereas now it is (quite) current.

--
Bob Evans
Van Swofford

Posts: 397
Registered: 6/28/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 21, 2015 11:49 AM   in response to: Robert Evans in response to: Robert Evans
Robert Evans wrote:

In article <781879 at forums dot embarcadero dot com>, Per Larsen
<?@Larsen.?.invalid> wrote
Nick Hodges wrote:
you don't have the slightest idea about how they'll
generate electricity in 2100

In 2100, electricity will be so passé ;)

Whereas now it is (quite) current.

<groan> :-)

--
Cheers,
Van

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." - Will Rogers
Per Larsen, Nex...

Posts: 28
Registered: 3/19/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 21, 2015 3:38 PM   in response to: Robert Evans in response to: Robert Evans
Robert Evans wrote:

In article <781879 at forums dot embarcadero dot com>, Per Larsen
<?@Larsen.?.invalid> wrote
Nick Hodges wrote:
you don't have the slightest idea about how they'll
generate electricity in 2100

In 2100, electricity will be so passé ;)

Whereas now it is (quite) current.

hahaha
Rudy Velthuis (...


Posts: 7,731
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 21, 2015 11:24 PM   in response to: Robert Evans in response to: Robert Evans
Robert Evans wrote:

In article <781879 at forums dot embarcadero dot com>, Per Larsen
<?@Larsen.?.invalid> wrote
Nick Hodges wrote:
you don't have the slightest idea about how they'll
generate electricity in 2100

In 2100, electricity will be so passé ;)

Whereas now it is (quite) current.

<groan>

--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de

"He has Van Gogh's ear for music." -- Billy Wilder
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 22, 2015 4:34 AM   in response to: Per Larsen, Nex... in response to: Per Larsen, Nex...
Per Larsen, NexusDB Larsen wrote:

In 2100, electricity will be so passé ;)

Probably.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 28, 2015 3:27 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
Robert Dawson wrote:

And you are worried about the world my kids are going to live in?

Well, yeah, that would be the general concern.

But I note that again your answer is apparently rooted in little more than an optimistic faith.

No, I don't know how our increasing energy demands will be met in 2100. But again, I'd analogize your position:

We should all just continue to smoke. Sure, the chemicals in cigarette smoke are known carcinogens, and death by lung cancer and other deseases have known positive correlations with smoking. But
--no one has ever eliminated all possible alternative causes for lung cancer: every person who ever smoked also breathed a lot of other stuff. So no sense rushing into any conclusions.
--if anyone has ever had a cigarette, it's probably too late anyway
--besides, we don't really know anything about what medical treatment options might exist 85 years from now--we'll probably have a cure by then.

Light 'em if you got 'em.
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 28, 2015 3:38 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:


But I note that again your answer is apparently rooted in little more
than an optimistic faith.

Well, and the whole of human history.

We should all just continue to smoke.

Sorry, but for once, you've missed the mark.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 28, 2015 3:42 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Sorry, but for once, you've missed the mark.

Allow me to expand on that.....

We should all just continue to smoke. Sure, the chemicals in
cigarette smoke are known carcinogens, and death by lung cancer and
other deseases have known positive correlations with smoking. But
--no one has ever eliminated all possible alternative causes for lung
cancer: every person who ever smoked also breathed a lot of other
stuff. So no sense rushing into any conclusions. --if anyone has
ever had a cigarette, it's probably too late anyway --besides, we
don't really know anything about what medical treatment options might
exist 85 years from now--we'll probably have a cure by then.

Your analogy is utterly unfounded. We have historical data about
cigarettes and lung cancer, emphysema, etc.

We don't have any idea what the average temperature of the earth will
be in 2065. Not a clue. It's all conjecture and educated guess work.

There's no such thing as the "science" of predicting the future.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 28, 2015 7:23 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
Nick Hodges wrote:

Sorry, but for once, you've missed the mark.

No, you're attempting to evade the point

We have tons of data on the effects of many elements in cigarette smoke
We have, similarly, tons of data on climate change, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and the effects of those.
And neither case is static--science doesn't work that way.

But, of course, we cannot prove that any specific cigarette ever killed anyone. Just as we cannot prove that any single country industrializing contributes to global warming. So the statements "Smoking causes cancer" and "human civilization is causing global warming" are on pretty equal footing scientifically. Neither can be proven. Nevertheless, both seem reasonable bets, given what limited amounts we do know in each case.

All we can say, in either case, is that, while every cellular pathway isn't charted (far from it), while any exact percentage of contribution to the final outcome isn't demonstrable, it still seems a very good idea not to smoke. It still seems a very good idea to start working harder on cleaner energy, and generally cleaning up our act.

As for 'we can't predict the future'--as an absolute statement, that's sheer la-la land poppycock. Here's a prediction: roll a standard pair of dice a couple dozen times and you'll get a normal curve of results around seven. Do it more and your curve smooths. This isn't about trying to establish the temperature of Paris on a specific date 50 years from now (not something any existing model can do, any more than we have a model of what your 42nd roll will be), but 'the general trend'--the normal curve of results given our current understanding of things is pretty much predictable. Science as a whole would collapse if that weren't true. Rules out miracles. Oh well.

But you should know, in any case, that most of the scientific arguments that global warming is still manageable already assume scientific breakthroughs--that at some point in the not too distant future, given enough immediate research, we can stop pumping green house gases into the atmosphere and start extracting them--something no one actually knows how to do.

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 29, 2015 6:14 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

We have, similarly, tons of data on climate change, the chemical
composition of the atmosphere, and the effects of those.

Do we. The only one we have "Tons of data" on is the middle one. The
others we simply do not.

So the statements "Smoking causes cancer" and "human civilization is
causing global warming" are on pretty equal footing scientifically.

No, they aren't. "Smoking causes cancer" is actually an inaccurate
statement, since not all people that smoke get cancer. A better
statement is "Smoking greatly increases your chances of getting cancer".

"Human civilization is causing global warming" is a hypothesis at best.
We simply don't know that. 40 years ago, I was taught that human
civilization was causing the globe to cool. Who knows what they'll
teach 40 years from today.

Man-made global warming is a hypothesis at best.

As for 'we can't predict the future'--as an absolute statement,
that's sheer la-la land poppycock.

Point taken. You can predict the result of dice rolls -- an amazingly
simple system.

You cannot predict the future of a system as complex as the earth and
it's atmosphere. It's not even remotely comparable to predicting dice
rolls.


--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 29, 2015 7:51 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
Robert Dawson wrote:

Do we. The only one we have "Tons of data" on is the middle one. The
others we simply do not.

Come on, Nick. CO2 and Nitrous Oxide are greenhouse gases. We produce them--lots of them. Therefore, we contribute to global warming. You're only objecting to the third statement of the syllogism--if you want to defeat a logical conclusion, you have to undermine the premises. Do keep up
[http://climate.nasa.gov/]

No, they aren't. "Smoking causes cancer" is actually an inaccurate
statement

Which was my point. Yet the reasonable thing to do is still to avoid smoking. It's 'close enough' to be actionable. Working the analogy a bit more, back when most of the smoking cancer research was being done, most science was based on the premise that somehow the process of cell reproduction was going wild. A more modern view is that cancer cells split/reproduce absolutely normally--what's broken is in the metabolic processes that function as brakes on cell division. So our model of some cancers can be said to have reversed itself. Doesn't mean you should start smoking again.

"Human civilization is causing global warming" is a hypothesis at best.

The same might be said of smoking causing cancer--it's a hypothesis. Yet you avoid the exact same transformation:
"A better statement is "Human civilization greatly increases the chances of global warming." Yes, it does.

We simply don't know that. 40 years ago, I was taught that human
civilization was causing the globe to cool. Who knows what they'll
teach 40 years from today.

You seem to forget I'm as old as you. If you were 'taught' that people were causing global warming, you had a really weird science teacher. Yes, I saw the popular press articles as well, but was that scientific consensus at the time? Not even close. The myth is debunked [here:|https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm]

But a bit more on that meme more broadly: The idea that somehow any field that ever found the need to revise things may thereafter safely be ignored is profoundly anti-scientific. Revisions happen in science all the time. In this case, however, the primary revision has been in increasing model consensus, not reversal. How are the models tested and revised? hindcasting. See [http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm]

You cannot predict the future of a system as complex as the earth and
it's atmosphere. It's not even remotely comparable to predicting dice
rolls.

It's a matter of degree perhaps, but not of kind. The cases are oddly very similar. The number of molecular interactions a pair of dice will encounter is phenomenal--nevertheless, we can make really reliable probabilistic assertions about system outcome over time. Climate models essentially do the same--looking at hundreds of millions of measurement points in time/space, and iterating results, they evolve statistical generalizations of overall system behavior: a normal curve of expected system behavior.

bobD
david hoke

Posts: 616
Registered: 2/9/07
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 30, 2015 7:36 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

will encounter is phenomenal--nevertheless, we can make really
reliable probabilistic assertions about system outcome over time.

Is this true for models constructed as guesswork, where we have not
seen complete cycles (and therefore do not have data for even one
complete cycle)?

Or are the successful (useful?) models based on having been able to
observe 1 or more (preferably many more) complete cycles of the
system?

Climate models essentially do the same--looking at hundreds of
millions of measurement points in time/space, and iterating results,
they evolve statistical generalizations of overall system behavior: a
normal curve of expected system behavior.

Have we been able to observe a complete cycle, or are we just guessing
about the cycle's path?


bobD
david hoke

Posts: 616
Registered: 2/9/07
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 30, 2015 7:44 AM   in response to: david hoke in response to: david hoke
david hoke wrote:

Robert Dawson wrote:

will encounter is phenomenal--nevertheless, we can make really
reliable probabilistic assertions about system outcome over time.

Is this true for models constructed as guesswork, where we have not
seen complete cycles (and therefore do not have data for even one
complete cycle)?

Or are the successful (useful?) models based on having been able to
observe 1 or more (preferably many more) complete cycles of the
system?

Climate models essentially do the same--looking at hundreds of
millions of measurement points in time/space, and iterating results,
they evolve statistical generalizations of overall system behavior:
a normal curve of expected system behavior.

Have we been able to observe a complete cycle, or are we just guessing
about the cycle's path?

And, if you've only seen one cycle iteration, even then how reliable do
you think you're assertions/assumptions about what cause the cycle to
occur are?
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 31, 2015 4:43 AM   in response to: david hoke in response to: david hoke
"david hoke" wrote

Have we been able to observe a complete cycle, or are we just guessing
about the cycle's path?

Many complete cycles, effectively. Climate prediction models do not operate
over unlimited time, but rather over defined durations. So, for example, for
a 30 year prediction, feed in start point data for amy given year in the
past, then compare the predicted outcome to the actual results--the data for
30 years later that the model didn't have, but predicted. A 30 year model
that can maintain effective accuracy for amy given start point more than 30
years in the past with x degree of accuracy may be expected to have the same
accuracy given today as a start point.A model that cannot deliver required
accuracy needs it's assumptions and calculations improved.

That's how it works, and why, increasingly, different models independently
get closer and closer to consensus. You see the same thing, at a much
different scales, when the weatherman displays a half dozen different
predicted storm tracks for a hurricane, or tomorrow's weather: active
competing models that, through testing against thousands of known
storm-tracks or 24hr traces in the past, start to converge. Not perfect yet,
but actionable.

again, process explained here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 30, 2015 8:53 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

Come on, Nick. CO2 and Nitrous Oxide are greenhouse gases. We produce
them--lots of them. Therefore, we contribute to global warming.

Come on, Bob -- you can't say that. We are adding CO2 to the
atmosphere, but you can't say that our contribution is contributing to
global warming. You can't even say that the globe has been warming
over the last twenty years. The globe has warmed and cooled over it's
long history. That humans suddenly are responsible for things that
have happened naturally long before we were on the seen seems like
nothing but hubris to me.

Doesn't mean you should start smoking again.

Never said it did.

But a bit more on that meme more broadly: The idea that somehow any
field that ever found the need to revise things may thereafter safely
be ignored is profoundly anti-scientific.

Revise or utterly reverse?

It's a matter of degree perhaps, but not of kind. The cases are oddly
very similar. The number of molecular interactions a pair of dice
will encounter is phenomenal--nevertheless, we can make really
reliable probabilistic assertions about system outcome over time.
Climate models essentially do the same--looking at hundreds of
millions of measurement points in time/space, and iterating results,
they evolve statistical generalizations of overall system behavior: a
normal curve of expected system behavior.

I'll stand by my statement: The earth and it's eco-system is orders of
magnitude of orders of magnitude too complex for the puny computers we
have to measure, much less predict what the world will be like in 50
years.


--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 31, 2015 4:51 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote
global warming. You can't even say that the globe has been warming
over the last twenty years.

see
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63402-you-are-entitled-to-your-opinion-but-you-are-not

That global warming is occuring is not, at this point, under dispute.

I'll stand by my statement: The earth and it's eco-system is orders of
magnitude of orders of magnitude too complex for the puny computers we
have to measure, much less predict what the world will be like in 50
years.

The same can be said of rolling dice. No model exists that can calculate the
next throw. Nevertheless, statistical abstracts can be calculated with
actionable precision.

And scale is arbitrary if you can abstract relevant data and iteratively
test your model.

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 31, 2015 1:44 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

That global warming is occuring is not, at this point, under dispute.

Why do I keep reading everywhere that it's actually declined over the
last twenty years?

In any event, I'm fine saying the globe is warming.

The same can be said of rolling dice.

Indeed -- which further proves my point.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit] [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 1, 2016 1:06 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

In any event, I'm fine saying the globe is warming.

Great-we're making progress <g>

On the hiatus, this seems a reasonable summation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
while here's a more polemic one
http://thebulletin.org/global-warming-%E2%80%9Chiatus%E2%80%9D7639

As for the idea that it's "hubris" to think human activity might be capable
of altering the planet (an interesting charge, rooted as it is in
religious/moral concerns), I'd offer this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
Yep--biological environmental transformation is just not all that new.

If anything is hubris, it's the notion that we're not just part of the
larger system.

bobD
Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 28, 2015 7:26 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
ysema, etc.

We don't have any idea what the average temperature of the earth will
be in 2065. Not a clue. It's all conjecture and educated guess work.

but we do
we know that it will be warmer than it is now
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 28, 2015 8:37 PM   in response to: Brian Hamilton ... in response to: Brian Hamilton ...
Brian Hamilton Hamilton wrote:
ysema, etc.

We don't have any idea what the average temperature of the earth will
be in 2065. Not a clue. It's all conjecture and educated guess work.

but we do
we know that it will be warmer than it is now

Exactly. it's educated guesswork in the same way that saying if you drop a stone into water it will sink rather than fly away. Just an educated guess. Unless you're in a science class, where it would be marked as the correct answer. <g>

Issue not being discussed, in any case, is not even global warming itself but the human response. Things like the little ice age in Europe and wet/drought cycles in Asia are known to correlate with rather large population/power shifts. How does that work with no unclaimed land, and nuclear-armed countries?

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 29, 2015 5:22 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

Exactly. it's educated guesswork in the same way that saying if you
drop a stone into water it will sink rather than fly away.

Well, no, not exactly. Dropping a stone in water has the benefit of
50,000 years of experimentation to back it up. The "educated guess
work" is based on man-made, and therefore flawed, computer models.

It's a touch different.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 29, 2015 5:42 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
Robert Dawson wrote:

work" is based on man-made, and therefore flawed, computer models.

I hesitate to point out two things: a great number of the objects you see and use every day--and to which you inevitably and repeated risk your life, were designed via computer models. Cars, elevators, The idea that a model must be perfect to be useful and reliable is nonsense. And second--that doesn't really matter to you. The demand that climate analysis be absolutely perfect to x decimal places isn't logical or reasonable, it's ideological.

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 30, 2015 8:46 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

The idea that a model must be perfect to be useful and reliable is
nonsense.

Agreed. However, all of the things you mention are about
999,999,999,999,999 time les complex than the earth and its eco-system.

The notion that anything and everything can be modeled well by a
computer is nonsense.

And second--that doesn't really matter to you. The demand that
climate analysis be absolutely perfect to x decimal places isn't
logical or reasonable, it's ideological.

Okay -- but that's true for everyone.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Dan Barclay

Posts: 889
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 31, 2015 9:16 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

Nick Hodges wrote:
Robert Dawson wrote:

work" is based on man-made, and therefore flawed, computer models.

I hesitate to point out two things: a great number of the objects you
see and use every day--and to which you inevitably and repeated risk
your life, were designed via computer models. Cars, elevators, The
idea that a model must be perfect to be useful and reliable is
nonsense. And second--that doesn't really matter to you. The demand
that climate analysis be absolutely perfect to x decimal places isn't
logical or reasonable, it's ideological.

No doubt about it. I used to do a fair amount of that, modeling
chemical plants. One of my daughters uses structural models routinely
in retrofitting buildings for seismic resistance. I feel perfectly
comfortable in whatever building she has worked on.

BUT, everyone understands the limitations of the models. The output is
verified experimentally and, by the way, passes the verification!
before it is used. The importance of that last point seems to be lost
on a lot of people.

My own experience with models gives me a great deal of skepticism on
the claims these "scientists" have been making over the years. Models
based on fundamental physics and chemistry are pretty limited without a
lot of assumptions. As a result, they are generally used for pretty
straightforward problems.

For climate study there are WAY too many variables and reactions with
unknown constants involved for them to be anything but somebody's ass
wild guess. Verification has failed spectacularly. When they try to
adjust parameters, they are guessing (rather than having explicit
reason to change one constant vs another).

That's fun to do, but it's not science or engineering or modeling.

For the record, modeling is modeling. That I (and others) aren't
"Climate Scientists" <cough> is irrelevant in the discussion so just
skip that part.

Dan
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 31, 2015 11:36 AM   in response to: Dan Barclay in response to: Dan Barclay
Dan Barclay wrote:

BUT, everyone understands the limitations of the models. The output is
verified experimentally and, by the way, passes the verification!
before it is used. The importance of that last point seems to be lost
on a lot of people.

Obviously, one cannot create a duplicate earth and run it 40 years into the future. But that doesn't mean that experimental testing isn't possible. And I doubt seriously that the seismic strengthening plans for many buildings are tested by repeatedly building duplicate buildings and waiting for earthquakes. So different models get tested differently--doesn't mean they're not tested, or theoretically untestable. Buildings are tested with mathematical models and physical miniatures, climate progression models are tested against known data/outcomes from the past. How you test depends on the type of modeling problem and data available.

On model limitations, I'm not sure anyone doubts those, but it's an interesting point of difference between climate models and building failure models. The latter (building failure) are system limit prediction models; climate models are 'normal expected behavior' prediction models. Obviously, no one can rule out the Yellowstone blanketing the American midwest with a foot of ash and clouding the skies for however long that might be. No one can rule out another major epochal comet/asteroid impact. But, barring such black swan events, how can we expect the system to evolve? Rather than modeling building failure, it's more like modeling average expected building lifetime based on prior experience with the materials and techniques--things for which lots of data can be gathered.

Might think of city traffic flow as a similar modeling situation: there are a virtually unlimited number of variables in how traffic flows in a city on any given day, and no one can say for sure that on any given day, someone won't cause a wreck at a chokepoint that will affect the entire system for hours.

Nevertheless, modeling can predict with actionable accuracy for city planning to proceed. How any change of traffic patterns, traffic-light patterning, new routes or traffic demands will most likely alter existing traffic patterns. Perfect? No. Actionable? You bet.

Climate models obviously cannot include, nor prevent, future black swan events. To that extent, they cannot guarantee accuracy based on any amount of statistical testing with past data. But that's not the point.

For the record, modeling is modeling. That I (and others) aren't

As above--modeling, like most abstract words, resolves to a great many very specific things. Saying 'it's all a model and therefore just a guess' is a non-starter. Some psychologist would argue that conscious thought is itself a modeling activity: internal representations (models) of the world.

bobD
Dan Barclay

Posts: 889
Registered: 11/9/03
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 4, 2016 11:03 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

Dan Barclay wrote:

BUT, everyone understands the limitations of the models. The
output is verified experimentally and, by the way, *passes the
verification!* before it is used. The importance of that last
point seems to be lost on a lot of people.

Obviously, one cannot create a duplicate earth and run it 40 years
into the future.

Right.

But that doesn't mean that experimental testing
isn't possible.

Experimental testing is always going on. The models fail the tests!!
It's not that they aren't verified to be correct, they are verified to
be WRONG.

And I doubt seriously that the seismic strengthening
plans for many buildings are tested by repeatedly building duplicate
buildings and waiting for earthquakes.

And you would be wrong. The models are tested against explicit
experiments, and by inspecting/evaluating structural failures of every
earthquate. After every major quake (any with significant damage) you
will find teams of structural engineers combing the sites for data.
Most firms that do this for a living will send several engineers half
way around the world after an earthquake.

So different models get tested
differently--doesn't mean they're not tested, or theoretically
untestable. Buildings are tested with mathematical models and
physical miniatures, climate progression mode ls are tested against
known data/outcomes from the past. How you test depends on the type
of modeling problem and data available.

Again, they are tested and they failed. Then, when they try to make
adjustments, they are simply guessing. They do not know why the model
failed, only that it did. As you said, you can't model the entire
earth. The problem is that climate is so complex, they don't even know
for certain what elements are most important (e.g. need adjustment in
the model).

<snip>

Climate models obviously cannot include, nor prevent, future black
swan events. To that extent, they cannot guarantee accuracy based on
any amount of statistical testing with past data. But that's not the
point.

What does Black Swan have to do with it? By definition, you can't
model Black Swans! These models are not failing on black swans, they
are failing on fundamentals that are not well enough understood.

For the record, modeling is modeling. That I (and others) aren't

As above--modeling, like most abstract words, resolves to a great
many very specific things. Saying 'it's all a model and therefore
just a guess' is a non-starter. Some psychologist would argue that
conscious thought is itself a modeling activity: internal
representations (models) of the world.

YOu are trying to defend models that are guesses at what is going on in
the world. The models are verified wrong.

You would be correct in stating that it's not impossible to model
climate, but you seem to want to believe that it has been done. It
could be done, IF they can identify a relatively small number of
interrelated reactions that define the results. They are not even
close to this. They don't even know enough to size the computing
requirements, they just build partial models (Hail Mary) that run on
the machines they have and hope they work.

Heck, we don't even know how complex (how many significant
inputs/outputs) the system is. For all experts know, the price of tea
in China is a factor. That is not a failure on their part, the problem
is simply that large. The failure is in believing that they understand
it. For some context, go back and do some research on the state of
physical/nuclear science when it seriously began (late 19th century).

By the way, it hasn't been that many centuries since 99% of scientists
understood that the world was flat.

Dan
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 4, 2016 6:55 PM   in response to: Dan Barclay in response to: Dan Barclay
"Dan Barclay" wrote

Experimental testing is always going on. The models fail the tests!!
It's not that they aren't verified to be correct, they are verified to
be WRONG.

As with Nick--cite your sources. Don't bother with anything written by a
political 'think-tank'

Here are some of mine:

cliamte modeling is robust, contentious, and varied, hardly a unified
conspiracy scenario
http://phys.org/search/page2.html?search=climate+model

Tweaks are occuring all the time
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-global-climate.html

including some that deal with understanding the 'hiatus'
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vindicates-climate-accused.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1863.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5379/930.summary

Nevertheless, there is considerable room for improvement
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1435-x

And rather than Nick's suspicion about climate scientists all beling closet
tax and spend fanatics, the actual economic use of climate change models is
itself a matter of inquiry:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-17700-2_2

I'll quote only from the Science magazine article: "the question now is not
whether global warming exists--it clearly does--but what should be done
about it."

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Dec 31, 2015 2:04 PM   in response to: Dan Barclay in response to: Dan Barclay
Dan Barclay wrote:

For climate study there are WAY too many variables and reactions with
unknown constants involved for them to be anything but somebody's ass
wild guess. Verification has failed spectacularly. When they try to
adjust parameters, they are guessing (rather than having explicit
reason to change one constant vs another).

As usual, you are more eloquent on the subjec than I.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 1, 2016 12:49 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

As usual, you are more eloquent on the subjec than I.

Just as wrong, sadly.

What's interesting in both cases are the generality of the rejections: it's
all too complicated, it can't be known, no one can predict the future,
they're just guessing, etc. It reminds one of nothing more that the
obfuscations of the tobacco industry 40 years ago about cigarettes not
having been proven to be addictive or health hazards. Nothing to see here
...

There's a great line in the movie The Big Short (recommended, by the way)
that also comes to mind
http://cheeseblab.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-truth-is-like-poetry-and-most.html

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 1, 2016 7:03 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

it's all too complicated,

I'm willing to concede that the earth is warming. It seemly likely,
though the way that alarmists reject anything to the contrary -- and I
believe there is good evidence that the last twenty years have not
warmed.

I'm not willing to concede that mankind is causing it. It is very
difficult to "prove" (however you want to take the meaning of that
word) causation in one of the most complex systems we know.

It reminds you of the tobacco industry. What it reminds me of is
Galileo and the church. The church knew what it knew and wouldn't
broach anything that might prove them wrong.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 1, 2016 7:05 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

I'm willing to concede that the earth is warming. It seemly likely,
though the way that alarmists reject anything to the contrary -- and I
believe there is good evidence that the last twenty years have not
warmed.

.... makes me wonder.

And I should add, the staggering falsehoods to come out of the College
of East Anglia give me pause as well.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 1, 2016 10:28 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

I'm not willing to concede that mankind is causing it. It is very
difficult to "prove" (however you want to take the meaning of that
word) causation in one of the most complex systems we know.

You keep trying to turn this into a boolean. Whether human activity is
'causing' global warming is, perhaps, unproveable in any strict sense--no
matter how much the earth warms. There are records of relatively rapid
climate flucuations in the past--for example, the medieval little ice age.
The issue of 'contributes to,' however, is much simpler: are we
substantially changing such things as atmospheric composition in ways that
might be expected to heat the planet up? Seems a reasonable question to ask
to me.

It reminds you of the tobacco industry. What it reminds me of is
Galileo and the church.

I've deliberately avoided that analogy--I didn't think you'd want to be
compared to the inquisition. Why do you find the idea of human-accelerated
(prefer that to 'caused'?) global warming so unpalatable?

bobD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#The_ice_age_fallacy
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 2, 2016 5:43 AM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

Seems a reasonable question to ask to me.

I agree it is a reasonable question to ask.

I don't agree that it's been definitively answered.

I didn't think you'd want to be compared to the inquisition.

Hehe, you got it backwards. The "Inquisition" are the folks that
viciously shut down any doubt about man-made global warming.

Why do you find the idea of human-accelerated (prefer that to
'caused'?) global warming so unpalatable?

I don't find it unpalatable, I find it unreasonable, and I think there
is little to believe that it is so. I think the fact that the
"inquisition" will not quarter any dissent very telling.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Jim Gallagher

Posts: 17
Registered: 2/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 2, 2016 10:44 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:


I don't find it unpalatable, I find it unreasonable, and I think there
is little to believe that it is so. I think the fact that the
"inquisition" will not quarter any dissent very telling.

Dissent is a political reaction, and there is plenty of that. The modeling that tries to quantify known factors (the approximate number of cars * average emissions, the number of coal-fired electrical generators and their emissions, rainforest degradation/cattle ranching, etc.) is a scientific methodology, and if anyone could refute the science there would be a boatload of relieved climatologists, believe me. The contribution of human activities to the composition of the atmosphere is something that modeling is perfectly suited to.

-Jim
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 2, 2016 10:44 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

I agree it is a reasonable question to ask.

I don't agree that it's been definitively answered.

And I don't know what would satisfy your demand for 'definitively'--I
suspect nothing.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Hehe, you got it backwards. The "Inquisition" are the folks that
viciously shut down any doubt about man-made global warming.

Actually, there's quite a bit of debate and disagreement in the field. Just
not about the fact of warming, nor as to whether we contribute. Exactly how
much? Under debate. What are the detailed machanisms involved? Highly
complex--no precise consensus. If we suddenly disappeared, how much of a
cooling/reversal effect would that have? Never read anyone who thought he
knew. Is it currently possible to limit the current rise to under 2 degrees?
No consensus. What happens, and how fast, if we don't? General agreement on
some unpleasantness, but no exact 'tipping point' or single dominant
projection.

But to compare to my own problem domain (DNA) for the last decade plus:
there are hot debates about how specific desease processes are linked to
genes, which genes, and how best to advance genetic medicine. But there's
really no debate whatsoever about whether DNA is the carrier of genetic
information. That part of the debate is long settled. Inheritance works via
DNA. Period.

So too here. Maintaining that the planet isn't warming, and that we can't
possibly know that we're contributing to it, aren't really a big issue in
the scientific literature. They just mean you haven't done your homework.
Questioning how our signature might be altered, and by how much, do remain
very much in play--multiple climate models exist, and are hotly contested.

I don't find it unpalatable, I find it unreasonable, and I think there
is little to believe that it is so. I think the fact that the
"inquisition" will not quarter any dissent very telling.

I'd offer two counter observations: the notion that "there is little
[reason] to believe that it is so" is entirely denial--it provides no reason
whatsoever to believe it is not. You've said nothing to indicate a breadth
of reading in the field And it sounds, in it's justifying arguments of
hubris and unknowability, the very model of the churches response to
Galileo: the charge of hubris and false certainty on matters better taken on
faith than observation.

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 2, 2016 4:14 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

You've said nothing to indicate a breadth of reading in the field
And it sounds,

I'll confess to not being an expert, but I've read most of the links
posted here.

I also know that if I post a link pointing out that, say, the antarctic
snow base is actually increasing that I am shouted down, despite the
alarmists having in the past pointed to an alleged decreasing antarctic
ice base as "proof" of global warming.

Despite your observations, my experience is more of a person who, when
questioning something, is shouted down -- i.e. Galileo. That's my
personal feeling on the matter.

I did read extensively on the utter lies put out by the College of East
Anglia and their brazen hiding of data that countered what .

What are your views on their utterly unscientific behaviour and the
utter lack of concern about that in the scientific community, despite
the fact that East Anglia's research was the basis for the UN report
that guides so many people's thinking?

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 2, 2016 4:22 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

that countered what .

that countered what they didn't want to hear or believe.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Brian Hamilton ...

Posts: 556
Registered: 10/14/04
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 2, 2016 8:31 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
I also know that if I post a link pointing out that, say, the antarctic
snow base is actually increasing that I am shouted down, despite the
alarmists having in the past pointed to an alleged decreasing antarctic
ice base as "proof" of global warming.

antartica is actually a "desert" in many ways, with actually much less now falling than you would think (due in part to a peristant polar high pressure)
at very cold temperatures the air is actually very dry

to get more snow, you need to actually provide warmer air containing more moisture...which is often via a weather system passing through bringing that warmer and moister air mass from lower latitudes

global warming, where the largest temperature increases are in the sub antartic/sub artic areas,could very well be a mechanism to provide more moisture for snow

i.e things are not always as simple and clear cut as they seem

Asbjørn Heid

Posts: 267
Registered: 11/12/12
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 6:29 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:

Despite your observations, my experience is more of a person who, when
questioning something, is shouted down -- i.e. Galileo. That's my
personal feeling on the matter.

How would you treat someone who, in this day and age, refuses to acknowledge that the earth is round?

The climate is changing in a non-insignificant way and humans have contributed to it. Anyone claiming otherwise is saying the earth is flat.

I did read extensively on the utter lies put out by the College of East
Anglia and their brazen hiding of data that countered what.

Minor nitpick: you mean the University of East Anglia, the college is in West Anglia.

As for their "utter lies" I haven't had time to read much about it. If you do not feel comfortable with their work, just ignore it. It won't change the overall picture, climate science is a much bigger field than that.

- Asbjørn
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 7:14 AM   in response to: Asbjørn Heid in response to: Asbjørn Heid
Asbjørn Heid wrote:


The climate is changing in a non-insignificant way and humans have
contributed to it. Anyone claiming otherwise is saying the earth is
flat.

Well, I think that's a gross overstatement.

As for their "utter lies" I haven't had time to read much about it.

I wouldn't think so. It would -- or at least should -- change your
opinion.

If you do not feel comfortable with their work, just ignore it. It
won't change the overall picture, climate science is a much bigger
field than that.

Well, how would you know if you haven't read it? Actually, those
horrible "scientists" have been enormously influencial.

You should read up on it, and if you truly believe that science should
rule all, then it should change your views.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Asbjørn Heid

Posts: 267
Registered: 11/12/12
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 7:58 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
Asbjørn Heid wrote:


The climate is changing in a non-insignificant way and humans have
contributed to it. Anyone claiming otherwise is saying the earth is
flat.

Well, I think that's a gross overstatement.

Really? I was deliberately very cautious in my statement, and made it as broad as possible. For example, I deliberately did not specify the level of human contribution. I believe it is significant, but I can concede that there is some uncertainty.

As for their "utter lies" I haven't had time to read much about it.

I wouldn't think so. It would -- or at least should -- change your
opinion.

My opinion about what?

If you do not feel comfortable with their work, just ignore it. It
won't change the overall picture, climate science is a much bigger
field than that.

Well, how would you know if you haven't read it? Actually, those
horrible "scientists" have been enormously influencial.

I didn't say I haven't read it at all. I said I haven't read much. There's been an enormous amount of material produced regarding this case, I've just read some of it. I did read that none of the eight official inquiries into the case found anything significant.

Anyway, I get the impression you're into politics here, a field I deliberately tried to ignore in my post. How we should act on the information science is giving us is a political choice, and thus one where your view of non-action is as valid as my view of action.

- Asbjørn
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 1:47 PM   in response to: Asbjørn Heid in response to: Asbjørn Heid
Asbjørn Heid wrote:

but I can concede that there is some uncertainty.

Great!

My opinion about what?

The veracity of what you "know".

I did read that none of the eight official inquiries into the case
found anything significant.

Of course not.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 2:42 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote
Asbjørn Heid wrote:

I did read that none of the eight official inquiries into the case
found anything significant.

Of course not.

Let the tinfoil hats emerge! All of modern climatology is a conspiracy!

The number of people holding that opinion may be decreasing, incidentally...
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2015/12/10/the-market-has-spoken-funders-flee-free-market-climate-denial-group/

I say may (warning: It's an activism group)

bobD
Asbjørn Heid

Posts: 267
Registered: 11/12/12
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 5:03 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
Nick Hodges wrote:
Asbjørn Heid wrote:

I did read that none of the eight official inquiries into the case
found anything significant.

Of course not.

Here's the thing I really don't get: why does it matter to you what the climate scientists have found?

As you've said earlier, you don't think action is warranted anyway. That is a political viewpoint and one you absolutely should be allowed to have, along with your views on age of consent, taxes and so on. There's absolutely no need to buy in on some huge conspiracy theory for that!

- Asbjørn
Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 9:06 AM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" wrote

I did read extensively on the utter lies put out by the College of East
Anglia and their brazen hiding of data that countered what .

Why does that not surprise me--it was widely covered as a decisive evidence
of conspiracy by those addicted to that sort of thing. Who funded your
source?

For a neutral but fairly detailed account, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

bobD
Nick Hodges

Posts: 2,414
Registered: 9/22/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 1:49 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
Robert Dawson wrote:

For a neutral but fairly detailed account, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

I guess I see it differently after reading the emails for myself.

I see, again, a closing of ranks.

But I guess we all see what we want to see.

--
Nick
Delphi Programming is Fun

Robert Dawson

Posts: 211
Registered: 7/28/00
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 3, 2016 2:36 PM   in response to: Nick Hodges in response to: Nick Hodges
"Nick Hodges" <nickhodges at gmail dot com> wrote in message
news:793885 at forums dot embarcadero dot com...

I guess I see it differently after reading the emails for myself.

You read all of them? Link please. There were thousands.

Or only the cherry-picked handful provided by some political action
committee front group? Link please.

I see, again, a closing of ranks.

Perhaps you're the only one who didn't get the memo ...?

But I guess we all see what we want to see.

That's intellectually dishonest. Again:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63402-you-are-entitled-to-your-opinion-but-you-are-not

I'm perfectly happy with you saying you prefer to ignore or deny science
when it's inconvenient. Because that's all you're doing.

bobD
David Erbas-White

Posts: 202
Registered: 10/11/99
Re: Winter storm Delphi? [Edit]
Click to report abuse...
  Posted: Jan 2, 2016 7:51 PM   in response to: Robert Dawson in response to: Robert Dawson
On 1/2/2016 10:44 AM, Robert Dawson wrote:

I'd offer two counter observations: the notion that "there is little
[reason] to believe that it is so" is entirely denial--it provides no reason
whatsoever to believe it is not. You've said nothing to indicate a breadth
of reading in the field And it sounds, in it's justifying arguments of
hubris and unknowability, the very model of the churches response to
Galileo: the charge of hubris and false certainty on matters better taken on
faith than observation.

I had an interesting conversation at a New Year's Eve party the other
night. Let's pretend it was Abbott, Costello, and myself (to leave
names out of it).

Abbott is an extremely bright post-doc biochemist. He is adamantly in
favor of (for example) greenhouse gas caps. Costello is an extremely
bright, educated, and successful businessman. He is adamantly opposed
to the idea of 'carbon credits' and similar items as unjustified (and
uncontrolled taxation). As you may have gathered from my posts I'm not
a believer in anthropomorphic causes of global warming, IF global
warming exists. I say this because I'm in the sensor/measurement
business myself, and have seen numerous examples of changing technology
creating it's own source of problems, for data to be manipulated to
achieve a purposes, etc. I've had some peripheral involvement in
emissions and temperature issues, and my wife (was) an environmental
engineer dealing with hazardous waste sites and emissions (I say 'was'
because she changed careers to become a college professor, but she did
environmental work for a number of years). Erego, a number of our
acquaintances and colleagues have a more-than-passing interest in
'climate change' issues.

During the course of our conversation, during which Abbott and Costello
very nearly came to blows, Abbott could simply not deviate from the
track that man-made global warming was a reality that must be addressed
immediately through higher-and-higher taxation until target goals were
achieved. When questioned what those goals were, he had no answer.
When questioned whether unanticipated consequences to taxation to things
such as gasoline to low-income folks, he had no answer. When asked how
change would occur when it requires the entire world to cooperate, he
had no answer. And when pressed as to what would happen if mankind
suddenly disappeared and generate zero greenhouse gases, he stated that
we're already in a runaway condition and that CO2 levels would continue
to clim