Global Warming

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The scheme had been to design each plant from the ground up.
What is called for is a single design, with options.

Err, please don't tell me that you have an engineering background.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The scheme had been to design each plant from the ground up.
What is called for is a single design, with options.

Err, please don't tell me that you have an engineering background.

It ("custom"😉 was apparently what was actually occuring. This is
another reason costs were higher than they would have been otherwise.
(A moving regulatory environment sure wouldn't help matters, and are
perhaps a partial cause in this.)

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It ("custom"😉 was apparently what was actually occuring. This is
another reason costs were higher than they would have been otherwise.
(A moving regulatory environment sure wouldn't help matters, and are
perhaps a partial cause in this.)

Here's the underscoring -

1) A large installation such as a nuclear power plant costs nearly the same
designed from scratch or "mass produced". These are huge buildings with
equipment that is so large that it must be produced at the time or order
anyway. Since you can't mass produce it there's no savings from mass
production which is where MOST volume savings occur. Why do you think that
skyscrapers are all different? Because it doesn't cost any more.

2) The equipment inside the plant is pretty much designed already because
you have to use stuff already tested. So while scale might change somewhat,
it isn't really "custom" core, heat transmission stuff, etc.

3) Each site is different from every other site. This demands that changes
be made to each design to fit such sites. You can't use a seaside design in
the desert.

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Ahh, then you know what I mean. So can you refer me to your atmospheric CO2
paper?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

It's Tom's life story: a guy who doesn't understand (name the subject) is always
discussing it as if it was so simple. And calling those who do understand it "fools."

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Michael Press said:

Yikes! I just remembered. Pawed through the pile and came up with a TI-59.
Plug in ROM problem solvers and a magnetic strip read-write head.

I remember those. They used to have Romberg integration and matrix
determinants etc. I seem to recall attempting to write a Gaussian
elimination program myself.

Now where is rec.nostalgia.calculators.

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
I'll put my evil-brain cards on the table: I have been to several places
in the world that are already under water.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Amsterdam and Richmond, BC, are doing okay.
To put it another way, I think we have a way better chance of making
Bangladesh rich than we do of changing the weather 100 years from now.
And I'm virtually certain the fiscal and social returns will be better.

There's a lot of coastline in the world. And just
because we can defend Amsterdam now doesn't mean
it will be equally practical later. By the time
this problem gets more pressing, the first world
countries will be so busy keeping the Connecticut
River out of Bill's ground floor and keeping the
Atlantic out of Myrtle Beach that alleviating the
Bangladeshis' problem by lifting them out of poverty
will take a back seat.

To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.

Quoted message said:

Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part. In any case,
trying to continue with emissions-as-usual and
figuring we can grow economies to pay our way out
of it is hoping to cure the disease by palliating
the symptoms.

You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.

There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.

Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.

But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

Quoted message said:

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

Ben

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

On Apr 15, 6:01 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> I'll put my evil-brain cards on the table: I have been to several places
> in the world that are already under water.

Quoted message said:

> Amsterdam and Richmond, BC, are doing okay.
> To put it another way, I think we have a way better chance of making
> Bangladesh rich than we do of changing the weather 100 years from now.
> And I'm virtually certain the fiscal and social returns will be better.
There's a lot of coastline in the world. And just
because we can defend Amsterdam now doesn't mean
it will be equally practical later. By the time
this problem gets more pressing, the first world
countries will be so busy keeping the Connecticut
River out of Bill's ground floor and keeping the
Atlantic out of Myrtle Beach that alleviating the
Bangladeshis' problem by lifting them out of poverty
will take a back seat.

To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.

Quoted message said:

Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part. In any case,
trying to continue with emissions-as-usual and
figuring we can grow economies to pay our way out
of it is hoping to cure the disease by palliating
the symptoms.

You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.

There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.

Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.

But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

PWhat is the estimated amount of sea level rise? Bangladesh has a very
specific problem because half the country is less than 3' ASL. I live
considerably less than a mile from the coastline, and my house is 50'
ASL.

Doomsayers seem to be reaching a consensus estimate of 28-34 cm on sea
level rise. That's about a foot.

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

How many new houses will need to be built, really?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Standard_of_living_an
d_GDP

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Air_Quality
/02.html

making this up:

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

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

email hidden said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

On Apr 15, 6:01 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> I'll put my evil-brain cards on the table: I have been to several places
> in the world that are already under water.

Quoted message said:

> Amsterdam and Richmond, BC, are doing okay.
> To put it another way, I think we have a way better chance of making
> Bangladesh rich than we do of changing the weather 100 years from now.
> And I'm virtually certain the fiscal and social returns will be better.
There's a lot of coastline in the world. And just
because we can defend Amsterdam now doesn't mean
it will be equally practical later. By the time
this problem gets more pressing, the first world
countries will be so busy keeping the Connecticut
River out of Bill's ground floor and keeping the
Atlantic out of Myrtle Beach that alleviating the
Bangladeshis' problem by lifting them out of poverty
will take a back seat.

To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.

Quoted message said:

Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part. In any case,
trying to continue with emissions-as-usual and
figuring we can grow economies to pay our way out
of it is hoping to cure the disease by palliating
the symptoms.

You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.

There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.

Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.

But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

Quoted message said:

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.

Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.

Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.

Hobbes@spnb&s.com said:

Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.

I agree! Since there is little heavy industrial production in the New
York area anymore, air and water quality have improved markedly. Still
some rather serious problems, such as the Superfund cleanup site
centered in Newtown Creek from the old refineries, but once we begin
importing cars from China I'm sure the formerly-industrial midwest will
also reap even more of the economic and environmental benefits of
outsourcing.

You betcha. Fargo would have been a different movie if they did it in
bikinis.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.

Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Quoted message said:

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Ahh, then you know what I mean. So can you refer me to your atmospheric CO2
paper?

Wait a second. I'm the one who's saying it's complicated. You're
saying it's simple. Since you're the one saying it's so simple, by
your own argument you need to demonstrate that you understand it.
Where's your paper?

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
> engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Quoted message said:

Ahh, then you know what I mean. So can you refer me to your atmospheric CO2
paper?

Wait a second...

SchwartzSoft deliberately left that feature out. Sent to /dev/null
fer sure.

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Quoted message said:

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Standard_of_livin...
d_GDP

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Air_Qua...

making this up:

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

You're making stuff up about what "many doomsayers swear up and down
will be insufficient," and "more probable."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The scheme had been to design each plant from the ground up.
What is called for is a single design, with options.

Err, please don't tell me that you have an engineering background.

Putting extra effort on a good design then repeating and
improving it is better than many borderline designs.
The latter approach is good for bicycles, automobiles,
and computers. (Today there is really only one or two home
dishwasher designs. My pump developed a leak, and I went
to the vendor who sold me a pump-motor assembly that drops
into all home dishwashers. Cost half a new dishwasher,
but saved dumping the old, or paying for an installation
job I can do myself.) When the design is as complex, easily
buggered up, and dangerous as a nuclear power plant, I
prefer the design team be all the best available. And
they can put a good team on day to day running procedures
to avoid the "Damn, red light is on again. Will somebody
shut it off?" syndrome. You know the plant in Monroe,
Michigan almost blew its top?

--
Michael Press

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/17/national/w123418D68.DTL

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/17/national/w123418D6
8.DTL

And what's more, there were no great "cries of GLOBAL COOLING" when Ku Ku the
Clown claims there were:
_________________________

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s ‹ frequently
offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their
minds ‹ is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and
National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the
unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of
peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven
supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were
neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth
was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming
even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping
Earth's climate on human time scales."
_________________________

http://tinyurl.com/2lvdxo

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted post said:

But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

PWhat is the estimated amount of sea level rise? Bangladesh has a very
specific problem because half the country is less than 3' ASL. I live
considerably less than a mile from the coastline, and my house is 50'
ASL.

Doomsayers seem to be reaching a consensus estimate of 28-34 cm on sea
level rise. That's about a foot.

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

How many new houses will need to be built, really?

Well, lots, but like I said, I think more-frequent
flooding in areas with changing rainfall patterns
will be a problem long before actual sea inundation.
I used to live just north of Washington DC. My
apartment was well above even the local creek level,
but after a heavy rain my bike route to work could
easily be flooded out, and it wouldn't always drain
quickly, in part because the Potomac is a tidal
estuary and the whole area gets fairly soaked by
a combination of rain and tides. It wouldn't take
much rise to put the Jefferson Memorial footings
underwater for several days a year and flood the
basements of many buildings on the National Mall.

If you live close to a coastline, water rise will
change your life even if it doesn't flood your house.
But unpredictable weather extremes are a more
pressing issue. This is also why I think studies
that say "Maybe warming will have economic benefits!"
are whistling past the graveyard. It's unpredictable,
and rainfall patterns may change which could be a
huge problem.

Also, I live in Arizona now and if it gets any hotter
and drier, I'm going to move up there and steal your
water, water down your beer, and pester you by continually
asking you to explain the jokes on the Red Green Show.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Quoted message said:

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Standard_of_livin...
d_GDP

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Air_Qua...

making this up:

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

It was the "It gives some hope" that I was responding to.
It reminded me of this old S. Harris cartoon where two
boffins are at a chalkboard. One has written a set of
formulae, and in one of the middle steps, "Then a
miracle occurs ..."

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math07.gif

Ben

Hobbes@spnb&s.com said:

Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.

Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.

Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.

Some of the cleaner environment came from bad old
govmint regulation too. Like on cars, and steel plants.

It's a question of timescale. People, animals and
plants can adapt to changes that occur on 20,000
year timescales. Put the same change on a 50-100 year
timescale and there will be a lot of dislocation.
It's not that we'd all go extinct (though some of
the plants and animals will) it's that the quality
of life will be substantially affected. Think of it
as a lifestyle issue.

Ben

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

> As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
> capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
> industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
> economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
> environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
> up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Quoted message said:

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product>

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Air_Qua...

making this up:

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

You're making stuff up about what "many doomsayers swear up and down
will be insufficient," and "more probable."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/nov/23/guardiansocietysupplement.p
olitics

"Kyoto is insufficient and has many faults, But at least there is a
basis for moving forward."

Tell me that isn't emblematic of the Kyoto Accord's general reception.
Admittedly, none of the doomsayers suggest Kyoto would be the full
solution, but the Kyoto protocol, in practice, seems mentioned in the
breach more than the observance.

As for more probable, I'll concede I'm too lazy to back that one up. But
that graph that looks like a hockey stick is extraordinarily compelling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_GDP_Capita_1-2003_A.D.png

Those claiming this curve is about to go S-shaped had better have some
pretty good arguments.

My essential sense of things is along the lines of the Evil Economist
model of problem-fixing, which is essentially that it will cost less
(economically speaking, this is practically synonymous with "be easier"😉
to create prosperity in Bangladesh and start selling them houses on
stilts than it will to make the kinds of changes to human civilization
that will result in a dramatic and relatively rapid change in CO2
emissions, which is the sort of thing that will pay major dividends 100
years from now.

Also, I'll bet the Bangladeshis will like my "you guys have to start
getting rich" plan better than your "blame this weather on China and
America" plan.

Well, maybe they won't, but their kids will have Playstation 9s and
whine to their parents about not being allowed to borrow the family
flying car. So it works out.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."