4 ms·

I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that show that it is safe to inject millions upon millions of gallons of toxic waste wa

by frakr 10y ago

I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that show that it is safe to inject millions upon millions of gallons of toxic waste water deep underground. They say that it's safe over a timeline of hundreds of years, but we don't even have computer models that can predict the weather above ground for next week.

nisa 10y ago
Even if the models turn out to be correct: There are accidents, things can break and release chemicals in other regions also typical shortcuts for cost saving are likely: Chemicals used are different than mandated to reduce costs, most of these chemicals are also patented and restricted trade secrets that have seen little unbiased research afaik. It's similar to nuclear power. Nice on paper but if you add all real-life risks and costs and let the managers make the decisions that the engineers won't support or have scepticism about, bad things will happen. Germany does not really need the technology and it's highly unpopular here so risking potential environmental harm is probably not worth it. The results from the USA are also rather mixed in regards to being harmless. Here is some data that is rather sceptical: http://www.mweimh.nrw.de/energie/_pdf_container/gutachten_uba_kurz.pdf http://www.mweimh.nrw.de/energie/_pdf_container/gutachten_ub... (german only, sorry)
piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that show that the Earth will become warmer and warmer. They even say that it's caused by human activity and it can be stopped if we avoid burning fuels, but we don't even have computer models that can predict the weather above ground for next week. So how can they predict exact temperature for next few hundreds years?
- nisa 10y ago
  I get your point but you are wrong. Climate change is based on a lot of historical data and measurements and theoretical models from various sources. Fracking depends on the geology and certain assumptions about what's going on while fracking and that everything is going according to a plan. Might be harmless in certain regions might be a problem in others. There is little data on fracking as it's recent technology - results on earthquakes are just in and don't look particular harmless.
- thangalin 10y ago
  Predicting exact temperature is impossible. Rather, we look at previous measurements (both direct and indirect) then use our knowledge of basic chemistry and physics to do what the dinosaurs could not: envision the future. 1. Experiment. https://youtu.be/kwtt51gvaJQ?t=36 https://youtu.be/kwtt51gvaJQ?t=36 2. Measure. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ 3. Extrapolate (from rate of change).
exabrial 10y ago
Comparing weather to geology is not fair. Geology has the benefit that its own history is recorded in a way that is scientifically repeatable, and is recorded by an independent third-party: the Earth. If you create a theory about a rock layer and observe things and one part of the world, another scientist can go and repeat your observations on the same rock layer elsewhere in the world. You can't do that with the weather from a hundred years ago (Well actually you can, examining the geological record). The real proof that was how many places in the world do you just see toxic crude oil squirting out of the ground? Almost nowhere. There is a reason why the rock layers are called impermeable. Again, you should look up what actually happens in the fracking process. The substances initially injected are hydrocarbon derivatives (when you're drilling for hydrocarbons that's not a big deal) and then sand is injected to keep the rock layers from relapsing. Most of the chemicals now injected flow back out of the formation and can be recaptured.

by frakr 10y ago

nisa 10y ago

Even if the models turn out to be correct: There are accidents, things can break and release chemicals in other regions also typical shortcuts for cost saving are likely: Chemicals used are different than mandated to reduce costs, most of these chemicals are also patented and restricted trade secrets that have seen little unbiased research afaik. It's similar to nuclear power. Nice on paper but if you add all real-life risks and costs and let the managers make the decisions that the engineers won't support or have scepticism about, bad things will happen. Germany does not really need the technology and it's highly unpopular here so risking potential environmental harm is probably not worth it. The results from the USA are also rather mixed in regards to being harmless. Here is some data that is rather sceptical: http://www.mweimh.nrw.de/energie/_pdf_container/gutachten_uba_kurz.pdf http://www.mweimh.nrw.de/energie/_pdf_container/gutachten_ub... (german only, sorry)

piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago

I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that show that the Earth will become warmer and warmer. They even say that it's caused by human activity and it can be stopped if we avoid burning fuels, but we don't even have computer models that can predict the weather above ground for next week. So how can they predict exact temperature for next few hundreds years?

nisa 10y ago
I get your point but you are wrong. Climate change is based on a lot of historical data and measurements and theoretical models from various sources. Fracking depends on the geology and certain assumptions about what's going on while fracking and that everything is going according to a plan. Might be harmless in certain regions might be a problem in others. There is little data on fracking as it's recent technology - results on earthquakes are just in and don't look particular harmless.
thangalin 10y ago
Predicting exact temperature is impossible. Rather, we look at previous measurements (both direct and indirect) then use our knowledge of basic chemistry and physics to do what the dinosaurs could not: envision the future. 1. Experiment. https://youtu.be/kwtt51gvaJQ?t=36 https://youtu.be/kwtt51gvaJQ?t=36 2. Measure. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ 3. Extrapolate (from rate of change).

exabrial 10y ago

Comparing weather to geology is not fair. Geology has the benefit that its own history is recorded in a way that is scientifically repeatable, and is recorded by an independent third-party: the Earth. If you create a theory about a rock layer and observe things and one part of the world, another scientist can go and repeat your observations on the same rock layer elsewhere in the world. You can't do that with the weather from a hundred years ago (Well actually you can, examining the geological record). The real proof that was how many places in the world do you just see toxic crude oil squirting out of the ground? Almost nowhere. There is a reason why the rock layers are called impermeable. Again, you should look up what actually happens in the fracking process. The substances initially injected are hydrocarbon derivatives (when you're drilling for hydrocarbons that's not a big deal) and then sand is injected to keep the rock layers from relapsing. Most of the chemicals now injected flow back out of the formation and can be recaptured.