"how malleable the human mind is...another 20 years of failed climate disaster predictions"
Another 20 years? Sorry u will have to explain that one given that nobody predicted "disaster" as soon as now. What we are seeing now is barely a warm up(excuse the pun)
So how much extra co2 in the atmosphere is needed to warm the earth? Figures please!
I want to learn - educate me and all the feeble minded GW commie hippie fantasists
Behold the alarmist pinheads peacefrog,yourkids and nightversionn.Spongebrains who have been fooled into thinking the climate is going to go crazy because of co2.These three jokers are a perfect example of how malliable the human mind is when bombarded by years of indoctrination thru education,media and entertainment.Maybe another 20 years of failed climate disaster predictions from the climate models and from extremists like Hansen will wake them from their slumber.
That's cute! Do you like me reminding everyone about your theory that the CFC ban was unnecessary? That the hole in the ozone layer was discovered b4 CFCs were even used?!
As for "scalping" UT001 LMFAO
you haven't scalped anyone you moron
"emotive bullshit" is your speciality with the emphasis on BULLSHIT
It is amazing how some people are brainwashed & the things are turned upside down.
Those appealing to take measures against the CO2 bacchanalia are the bad guys & the good guys are the people urging to exhaust the resources (regardless of the consequences).
Let me tell you s.th Prerie Dog-the expansion of the deserts (incl in Africa), the melting of the snow cap of Kilimanjaro, the forest fires, the drying of the Chad lake, etc. are all due to climate change which is not 'less clouds & more sun'
"Much of Kilimanjaro's ice is vanishing by sublimation -- where ice at very low temperatures converts straight to water vapor without going through a watery phase -- rather than by melting, the scientists said.
Fluctuating weather patterns related to the Indian Ocean also could affect the shifting balance between the ice's increase, which might have occurred for decades before the first explorers reached Kilimanjaro's summit in 1889, and the shrinking that has been going on since."
Let's see what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about Kilimanjaro, shall we, shitfire?
(Time Mag, 11/3/09)
"Lead author Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University... says that while the glaciers did start melting a century ago, their retreat has sped up dramatically in recent years. "We've lost 26% of the ice since 2000 alone. And that, unfortunately, is just what we predicted would happen."
I am not specialist in physics, but as far as I know sublimation requires additional energy & is an endodermic change. In the past no sublimation at such a great scale was observed (with most of the glaciers). As soon as CO2 in the air became a 'hockey stick' and taking into account its GHG properties to reflect IR no-one will be surprised if it turns to be 'the main suspect on the scene of the vanishing glaciers'. Yet, you should ask some physicist about that.
@U1T001 This is like a duck shoot on the water *o)
"Lake Chad, once one of Africa's largest freshwater lakes, has shrunk dramatically in the last 40 years. Two researchers from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, have been working to determine the causes.
In a report published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, they conclude that human activities are to blame for the shrinking of Lake Chad."
"The lake's decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population."
"Changes in rainfall, temperature and sunlight between 1982 and 1999 increased the overall productivity of land plants by 6 percent. This map shows productivity increases in green, while decreases are shown in brown. Productivity increased the most in tropical regions, where climate change resulted in fewer clouds and more sunlight. [Image by Robert Simmon, NASA Earth Observatory, based on data provided by the University of Montana Numerical Terradynamic Simulations Group (NTSG)]"
Tallying disasters and gauging a greenhouse impact
. It's not easy to tally up disasters in 2011, but according to the global insurance industry, the $380 billion in losses was the most expensive year on record.
131 years? bahhahaha! ..... how old is the Earth? Nighty. what a Ninny. That's like comparing how long your shit takes to disappear after you flush to how long the stench lingers. Other words 131 years is a pittance in time.
RE: 'The hypothesis that man controls the Earth's temperature'
The hypothesis is a little bit different: For years on end we were not knowing of what we were doing. Now that we do know we don't want to accept it. Where is the control here?
The things stay this way: we emit 29 Gt CO2 per year→additional heat into the system→changes the kinetic energy→extreme weather→natural disasters→climate change deniers claim that nothing has happened (as if they know what actually is going on)
President Obama forgot to mention his biggest "accomplishments": sticking the American people with liberal policies, like ObamaCare and the $814 billion dollar Stimulus, that destroy jobs, pile up debt, burden our small businesses with runaway regulations, and focus on redistributing wealth rather than make our entire economy stronger.
@deeptruthhunter I think you mean Exxon and other Big Energy companies right? Billions of dollars in profits, billions in U.S. taxpayer subsidies every single year.
In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment:
"This toxic poisonous desert that remains is destroying the lives of Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem. Britain’s government should be ashamed of the catastrophe taking place in China in the name of green power here in the UK."
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are all being totally screwed.
The CO2 driver theory of weather and climate is delusional nonsense propagated by a self-serving failed sect. Their ‘theory’ fails to explain past weather and climate; all its predictions over the last ten years have failed and it cannot and never will predict anything.
It can predict for example that the currently accumulated CO2 in the air (& in the ocean) with the current pace of operating vehicles & TPPs could not be reduced and cannot stop increasing. The processing of CO2 requires energy, which on its turn releases CO2 emissions.
The general idea of the climate change deniers is: 'So and so it is difficult to manage it let's make it a mess. The faster the speed (of increase) - the bigger the mess'.
RE: 'Digging into the core:The cold truth about CO2'
I am very glad that this article was marked as scam (not by me) because:
CO2 in the air is NOT increased by 0.011% per year. It is increased by 0.0002% but this corresponds to 29 Gt CO2. It is the pH of the ocean that is acidified by 0.11 'going West'.
The human footprint in Nature for the period 1751÷2008 is 346 Gt CO2 (by data of NASA).
It is not the amount of CO2 but rather the shake of the thermodynamic equilibrium & its unpredictability.
New report says that birds prefer to die by wind turbine than any other means of pollution ~ lmfao.
Some of us see that a death of a bird or bat is a tragedy no matter how it was killed but to try to condone huge destruction of both these species because they were culled/killed in the name of the eco-system is nothing short of diabolical and only hypocrites would try to use their demise in such a callous manner ~ shame on them.
@PrairLeDogged, let's see, wind turbines or global climate change. My point still stands, "lugheadbush" "N ii ghtversionn" et al, the reverse risk of doing nothing on climate change is worse for birds, and everyone else
"On 12 January 2012, the Scientific Congress on Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation the Spanish Society of Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) ~ Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18M birds and bats . The average per turbine comes down to 333 – 1,000 deaths pa, which is a far cry from the 2 – 4 birds claimed by the American wind industry, or the 400,000 birds a year estimated by the American Bird Conservancy for the whole United States, which has about twice as many turbines as Spain."
I wonder whether the eco-nuts have thought of bringing in retrospective tax for past climate changes? there must be a crimate model that can pin them on our consumerism and decadence.
Please type into Google "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2" to see my article on global warming and why the IPCC have grossly exaggerated the predicted warming from CO2.
Looks like Al Gore and about 100 Koolaiders are going to the Antarctic during it's late summer season to film some melting ice for a new propaganda campaign. I suppose there are still some dimwits who will still swallow Al's scare spew. I wouldn't be surprised they come back saying there were no Polar bears there because of Global warming.....Oh..one more thing Al, Penguins don't fly.
Global warming is kind of an urgent problem that needs to be resolved as soon as possible. Why people don't want to utilize nuclear power, which has demonstrated 3rd order parity in the past (being on equal terms with coal) is beyond any rational level of thinking. Mass hysteria over accidents that have yet to kill anyone is not a good excuse. Panic over accidents resulting from once-in-a-millenium natural disasters is also not a good excuse, especially when said accidents never harm anyone.
@OfficeThug "Global warming is kind of an urgent problem that needs to be resolved as soon as possible" Not! There is absolutely no evidence of this so-called urgent problem.
" Panic over accidents resulting from once-in-a-millenium natural disasters is also not a good excuse, especially when said accidents never harm anyone." Really? Tell that to all the people that died in Cherynoble (however you spell it) and all the severe birth defects that continue to plague Russia from that.
@MrOTLChamp There's more than enough evidence for AGW. And even if there wasn't, there is still the insurmountable evidence that fossil fuels are running out and that coal kills hundreds of thousands of people every year through particulate emissions.
Chernobyl wasn't a natural accident. It was the result of A) attrocious reactor design, B) illegal operator actions, C) the state completely mishandling the situation. Russia has a history of bad nuclear decisions.
@OfficeThug I have no problem with nuclear power, but don't pretend that there is not a risk. No one ever has died from AGW, and many have died from NPP's
@MrOTLChamp Cretin, I don't know the overall figures, but I'm sure they are TRAGIC.
What about Pakistan, Guatemala, Russia, Thailand, Phillippines alone, they have been very badly hit by extreme weather events, and tens of thousands of LOST LIVES. Every country has been affected, even here in the US, add two more billion-dollar weather disasters to the total.
Please let your other denier sock puppets know and also make sure to tell your Exxon and other Big Energy pay masters
@YourKidsAreRetarded In Kofi Annan's report...There is not one connection to Man-made climate change. And climate change is always happening. Duh, what an idiot.
@MrOTLChamp Climate change is always happening and we're accelerating it dangerously you've been told over and over countless times but you pretend you don't get it, duh?
@YourKidsAreRetarded " Not very Christ-like," LMAO Like you would know Chris,t to say such a thing. Kind of like the lack of knowledge you have regarding global warming. lol
@MrOTLChamp There is a risk but it is overblown. Even counting Chernobyl, the worst possible nuclear accident that could have happened, nuclear still kills less people on average than any other source of energy on a yearly basis, including solar and wind.
"Many" doesn't say much relative to other sources of power. Would you rather have more people die, or less? Because you can't have zero people die from power generation, although nuclear comes close.
RE "throughout history poverty is the normal condition"
Poverty is created by the banking system & before were acting the same mechanisms backward to 3000 yrs ago.
There always have been people wanting to be lazy, to satisfy their greed in various ways, to deceive the market (the other people trading on the market) & to receive from society much more than they have provided to it. Nobody can convince me that a person possessing USD 500 BLN has provided goods & services to society for that price.
"throughout history poverty is the normal condition of man"
That is a fair point(not your own idea though) but you do know that we have come a long way since we hunted with spears? Is poverty inevitable for all eternity?
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck.'"
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England warned
.
The huge reserves of coal, oil and gas are "sub-prime" assets that pose a systemic risk to economic stability, a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists has warned Bank of England.
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck.'"
And according to Newman, Mark. "A Mathematical Model for Mass Extinction". Cornell University. May 20, 1994. Retrieved July 30, 2006, the math model running on a supercomputer has estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on the Earth are now extinct (failed to adapt). So. please don't talk me about 'observed changes consistent with warming trends'. What about the CO2 in the ocean and in the rocks?
It is not a 'warming trend' -it is energy problem (constrained energy resources).
Take a look at the 500 mya/CO2-temp diagram & the claim of the climate skeptics that the increase of temp. is preceding the increase of CO2, most probably coming from the rocks (in the prehistoric times, when there were no TPPs & vehicles).
Then consider this: If the changes observed in the 1MLN (years) moving average have caused this and this, what will changes at a speed of decade do
Where are the non-rigged computer models then? Surely there's lots of money to be made proving GW is a lie
Or is the best strategy to just rubbish science in general & appeal to people's distrust of authority & cynicism
I wouldn't want live in your world pal Where everyone is lying to you all the time. You do realise that people who have a different philosophy to you are not all manipulating liers don't you?
Now that north America is again being hammered by "Children will not know what snow is" AGAIN! Where are all the alarmists who claimed last year that it was "Lake effect"? This year it is blowing over cold sea surface temperatures so better gather some more bullshit.
@23peacefrog No because it's still too expensive for most people to afford. And independance is a stupid libertarian idea. We live in a society, all of our industrial and economic progress and the fact that we aren't living in caves is thanks to mankind being a social animal that can colaborate to solve problems impossible to any individual. Global warming is a problem that no amount of individuals will be able to solve, we need to cooperate and find solutions that work for everyone
Don't forget, buddy, Mother Nature has been "manipulating" systems like animal migratory patterns, seasonal shifts, rising sea levels, doubling sever weather events, and increasing species extinctions... matching or EXCEEDING model projections... all in a bid to help "climate scientists" take your beer money.
You dimwits should SUE her!
Maybe you'll have better luck with that than your "lawsuit" against Al Gore.
According to "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change" Rosenzweig et al, 2008, (From an article at earth(dot)columbia(dot)edu) "In physical systems, 95% of observed changes are consistent with warming trends. These include wastage of glaciers on all continents; melting permafrost; earlier spring river runoff; and warming of water bodies. Among living creatures inhabiting such systems, 90% of changes are consistent with warming."
"Currently, wind power generation only accounts for about 1%, roughly 3 million homes, of all the energy being generated in the US, the greater concern here is that if renewable energy is mandated to increase to 20% over the years to help curb global warming, the number of bird deaths associated with wind power could increase 20 fold, to roughly 900,000 to 1.8 million deaths a year. This figure is far more damaging and should be taken a little more seriously."
The future is 'green' but not bright. 15 T out of 45 T world debt is due by the USA. A country printing the bank reserve currency and the currency in which fuels are traded could not virtually go bankrupt. In the worst case scenario it will print one banknote with a nominal value of 15 T and will pay up its debt. But what will happen with the rest of the world. Woe to us for being that stupid and ignorant.
So, c'mon. If fossil fuels take $400 billion a year in government subsidies, and Green industries take one tenth of that, which 'thick school of reverse backwards dumb convenient untruth' did you stupid bastards attend, to suppose that the latter is higher than the former?
Not duh but DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!
You're like the stupid dog that chases its tail. "Wuf! WTF. What's that long hairy thing in the cowner of ma iiiiiiiiii?"
@TheElasticJesusRez That is right, If I remember correctly, but anyone can look it up, Exxon got 4 BILLION is subsidies last year, but that pales in comparison to the 40 BILLION in profits it made last year. Exxon alone. And remember the billions and billions they gave to the finance industry to bail them out? And we're supposed to be all wringing our hands over austerity and willingly give up the little social safety nets we have left here in the U.S. Yeah right
Which Exxon also uses its vast profits to fund denier lies they pay pay people to spam and harass people (me case in point) all over the internet who speak their mind. To make sure they keep getting their tax breaks and subsidies and renewables DON'T
and let's not also forget Exxon and the other Big Oil outfits get US military to go secure more oil for them and provide security, also on the backs of the American tax payer. We work out ass to afford those people a lavish lifestyle beyond anything anything imaginable. And now we're supposed to be so concerned about austerity, lmao
"Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless."
.
"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken
Haven't you ever asked yourself the question why among all the proposals for a global financial system it was exactly the Modern Money Mechanics that was chosen. Because it is a perfect model of greed without limits and mania for control with no constraints. The same is happening with CO2 now. Among all the incredible proposals will be chosen some nuclear solution, for it provides an opportunity to a handful of people to exercise their ambitions to control and blackmail everything they touch to.
@U1T001 You are not going to beat the establishment that dictates the goods that you are allowed to have. The Economic system isn't perfect for sure, but it's not a problem we can resolve until we can present alternatives or make certain aspects (like commodity speculation) redundant.
The Economic system isn't perfect. Are you kidding me? or Are you joking?. Modern Money Mechanics is the worst case scenario of an economy. Suppose you have two choices: Op.1: 1 person has 500 BLN and 499 have some pennies and Op.2: 500 people have almost by 1 BLN. Which of the two options facilitates better the consumption and the economic growth?
I have another question: If a whole continent cannot guarantee that something will not collapse, what are all those insurers doing there?
What about radioactivity. What will happen when people like you start introducing radioactive carbon into fuels -> into the air-> the plants-> in the fruit & fodder-> etc.
IMV the problem with CO2 and with the financial system are not a problem of the technologies and the feasibility (for there is a wide abundance of these at present) - it is all about greed and control. Hence the last two are part of the Great Filter in the context of the Fermi Paradox.
@U1T001 Carbon can't absorb neutrons, so it never becomes radioactive. Carbon makes an excellent moderator specifically because neutrons "bounce" off of it, imparting energy resulting in slower neutrons.
CO2 capture and use in syngas produces fuel at a tremendous energy loss. There's no way to get around this. The economy is not going to sabbotage itself to produce syngas when there are far cheaper alternatives. With energy cheap enough to make energy costs redundant, we can have syngas
RE: 'syngas produces fuel at a tremendous energy loss'
This 'tremendous energy loss' is at present almost 100% wasted (unused solar thermal). Nothing could be tremendous if it is wasted before that.
The economy is not going to sabbotage itself but we have no choice. If we continue to accumulate the CO2 into the atmosphere we may pass the event horizon, when in the hysteria it will become impossible to process it, not more expensive
@U1T001 carbon-14 is the daughter isotope of nitrogen-14 through cosmic radiation capture followed by beta decay, not carbon-13 neutron capture.
By "unused solar thermal" do you mean as of yet existant solar thermal? In that case, we are wasting about 7.76 x 10^19 kg of thorium (total thorium content of the earth), which is equivalent to 7.68 x 10^20 GWe*hr of power generation, or enough energy to power human civilization at 1000 times its current capacity for 5.8 trillion years.
@U1T001 And as for the economy destroying itself, is this really what you want? Your economy is litterally what ensures you have food to eat, water to drink, a place to live, you know, basic necessities. I know you think you're superman but reality is cruel and I honestly don't know how you expect to fix climate change on a thin gruel of energy and without a healthy economy.
The economy is self-destroying not because it needs more energy (it has enough of it wasted at present). It is destroying itself because it stroke off the middle class from the economic equation. It concentrated shameless amounts of money in the hands of a handful of people that are spending it in the utmost possible inefficient &inappropriate way & energy waste that one can possibly imagine (like for example private jets and SUVs).
BTW I am not sure that solar energy is 'thin gruel'
@U1T001 That is not the sole factor to an economy. You're forgetting industry has to foot the bill for higher energy costs. Bayer is threatening to leave Germany due to their opt-out of nuclear (which will cost an estimated 1.7 trillion euros over the next 20 years to make up for it in renewables).
You don't know how bad solar is because you never bother crunching the numbers. You throw it up on the table in conversations and hail it as the panacea. I have data to back my claims.
Which solar you are talking about. Maybe it is 'bad' in terms to making bases for blackmailing (yes, by this indicator nuclear is much better). Maybe you don't understand s.th. There are a lot of solutions & at the present level of technologies we can live twice better (at least) but some people will loose the control and that is the bad news. The financial crisis for example could be fixed in several nanoseconds with several computer algorithms.
@U1T001 In addition, because solar installations span such vast distances they are far more vulnerable to wear-and-tear's impact on their economics. Most of the major solar plant installations around the world also suffer considerable losses in their maximum capacity from year to year. Nuclear plants have a much longer lifetime, especially when they use special alloys that strengthen over time under irradiation conditions.
It is amazing when the nuclear lobby talks about the great possibilities of the nuclear energy it never talks about nuclear waste, price of handling and storage of nuclear waste, risks of breakdown, risks of occupational disease to which the personnel is subjected during operation of the NPP, the actual price of building a NPP (taking in consideration the interests that are to be paid to the banks, penalty interests), the safety costs, the parasitic units draining money around a NPP.
@U1T001 There is no nuclear lobby, or if there is one it is spectacularly bad. Nuclear is regulated to near-death in the US and in many countries it's outright banished in favor of fossil fuels.
Nuclear "waste" can be bred into fissionable materials, which can be subsequently burned up in a reactor. Problem solved.
New nuclear designs are intrinsically safe and shut down by themselves through the laws of physics if the system breaks. Nuclear regulation won't allow their construction.
@U1T001 Not counting Chernobyl: 14 accident-related deaths from peaceful nuclear usage total since 1960.
Chernobyl adds 56 direct deaths and an estimated 4000 from eventual cancer deaths (shortened lifespan).
I can think of a lot of things that have killed many times more people than that, even counting Chernobyl and its expected cancer deaths. And if you think renewables alone will get you off of cheap coal, which kills tens of thousands yearly, you are living in a fantasy.
@OfficeThug * Coal kills over ten thousand in the US every year, it's well above hundreds of thousands globally every year. It does this through toxic particulate emissions, NOx and SOx gasses paired with soot and carcinogenic organic compounds. Coal emissions are also radioactive, containing thorium and uranium. A single coal plant emits more than 180 times the radiation a same-output nuclear plant does through normal operation.
@OfficeThug " Coal kills over ten thousand in the US every year, it's well above hundreds of thousands globally every year"
I doubt that is proven. More than likely that is a number given from a WWF, or a Greenpeace organization. A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl. 4000 sounded a little low to say the least.
@Nightversionn that's weird. Because I know a lot of people that are called deniers by you scare mongerers, and not one of them has ever said anything of the sort.
The 4000 future death figure was estimated by the World Health Organization based on the medically accepted Linear No-Threshold model. Depending on who you go to for advice (with increasingly anti-nuclear organizations placing the number more and more into ridiculous territory) you will get different numbers.
@MrOTLChamp Here's some problems with your publication Chernobyl:
- It includes many cases caused by pathological diseases having nothing to do with radiation. It also ties socioeconomic-related cases to radiation, which is absurd.
- It does not account for the imrpovements in screening, which led to higher occurence of detected cancers and diseases, thanks to medical advancements.
- Many cited figures and data are not explained at all
@OfficeThug I don't have a problem with the NPP's. But I do have a problem with suggesting that CO2 is causing global warming, and killing people. Neither of which has been substantiated yet.
@MrOTLChamp CO2 causing global warming is substantiated quite well. There's this field of science called Climatology you see, they specifically study this type of thing.
Emissions killing people is substantiated with medical reports and post-mortems. And it makes fucking sense. If you breathe in soot composed of noxious fumes and particulate matter containing heavy metals, odds are you will get sick and statistically are likelier to die after prolonged exposure.
@OfficeThug No, actually it's not well established. In fact, You would be hard pressed to even find one example of someone that died from CO2 in our atmosphere. It might make sense if CO2 was something life on earth didn't need to survive. But, we all know that nothing will survive without it
. And these extremely low levels of CO2 of today, are not helping these tree's grow very fast like they used too. Tree's used to get a lot bigger when the earth had more CO2. Now that makes sense.
@YourKidsAreRetarded I'll just make the same point I made last time you posted that article that NEVER ATTRIBUTED ANY OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE TO BE MAN-MADE.
And because anyone with a brain already knows climate change has been happening since the beginning of time. Your little article is a worthless attempt to support an argument proving anyone died from AGW. Next!
@MrOTLChamp Burning coal produces more than just CO2. That "other" stuff is what I'm referring to, the stuff that kills people.
Also the whole "plants will do better with more CO2" argument is trash. It begins by hindering their photosynthesis process, resulting in less nutritional plants. Then you need to remember that insects get hungry: w w w . pnas . org/content/105/6/1960
@PrairleDogged If you bothered reading the entirety of any article, ever, you'd have known that in your very own link they are cautioning us against thinking further global warming will continue to be a good thing. For an example of why it may very well turn on us, go read the link I posted.
"Our study suggests that increased insect herbivory is likely to be a net long-term effect of anthropogenic pCO2 increase and warming temperatures."
So lets get this right you think that by increasing the flora on this planet will bring about a plague of insects? and this is a reason not to rejoice at a greening planet?
Kind of perverse thinking is it not? ~ shall we cut down more rain forest to reduce the risk of this potential insect infestation?
@PrairleDogged It won't be "greening". The effect of increased CO2 actually stiffles photosynthesis while increasing the amount of water and other nutrients plants require to grow normally. Plants end up becoming far less nutritional, so insects eat more.
In addition, higher global temperatures will cause increasing dessertification and droughts in some regions, and intense rain and flood in others, neither case being good for plant growth.
@OfficeThug By that one report, insects will have to eat more because the plant will be less nutritious, all because of CO2? Insects as well as most other species will do just fine with a little more CO2.
How much CO2 does there need to be to get the results you claim? Are we talking thousands of ppm, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? Because the nearly 400 doesn't seem to do anything.
RE: 'Because the nearly 400 doesn't seem to do anything'
It has done what it has done. Write in Google [2011 natural disasters] & read the stories. Obviously some people don't understand what does 'increase of the kinetic energy mean'. FTW let's consider the following:
Let's have a car driving on a highway, and every 10 min the kinetic energy (the speed) is increased (by some Automatic Gear Wobble-AGW) along some 'hockey stick' series: 50 -150 -300 -500 -750km/h.How far will this go?
@PrairleDogged You need to look very fucking carefully at whether or not global alterration of the ecosystem is a good thing, because without the ecosystem, we as a species will become extinct as well.
@U1T001 Reactor operators are some of the healthiest people in the world thanks to frequent scannings and medical checkups.
The price of building a nuclear plant in the US is 4 times as much as it was in the 1970s, including inflation, due to regulatory ratcheting by the NRC. That includes redundant safety systems.
I don't know anything about "parasitic units", I guess NPPs are a new kind of animal?
RE: solar installations are vulnerable to wear and tear'
... and so is nuclear equipment. Every machinery and equipment is subjected to wear and tear with the time (even the computers).
RE: 'most solar plants suffer ..'
Probably you are talking about the rate of degradation of the semiconductor with the time, but this is about the PV technologies 10-15 years ago. The present day semiconductors use nanotechs.
BTW solar energy is also nuclear, but the reactor is at a distance of 1 AU
@U1T001 The magnitude of wear and tear depends on the size of the installations. That's why solar arrays degrade far quicker than coal and nuclear plants.
Nanotechnology is not impervious to degradation by a long-shot. In fact, it's one of their biggest problems. Nanorod p-i-n assemblies and dye-sensitized assemblies using colloid particles are extremely fragile. Graphene is even worse. Plus they're expensive.
We're not going to build a Dyson sphere around the sun.
RE: solar installations are vulnerable to wear and tear'
... and so is nuclear equipment. Every machinery and equipment is subjected to wear and tear with the time (even the computers).
RE: 'most solar plants suffer ..'
Probably you are talking about the rate of degradation of the semiconductor with the time, but this is about the PV technologies 10-15 years ago. The present day semiconductors use nanotechs.
BTW solar energy is also nuclear, but the reactor is at a distance of 1 AU.
RE: solar installations are vulnerable to wear and tear'
.. and so are nuclear. Every machinery and equipment is subjected to wear and tear with the time (even the computers).
RE:'most solar plants suffer ..'
Probably you are talking about the rate of degradation of the semiconductor with the time, but this is about the PV technologies 10-15 years ago. The present day semiconductors use nanotechs.
BTW solar energy is also nuclear, but the reactor is at a distance of 1 AU
@OfficeThug read this... Bank of England being advised about what are sub-prime assets in yesterday's Guardian:
.
Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England warned
.
The huge reserves of coal, oil and gas are "sub-prime" assets that pose a systemic risk to economic stability, a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists has warned Bank of England (and I think many people here have noted we can put nuclear in this category as well)
@23peacefrog Define "neglected". Governments spending billions of dollars subsidizing renewables does not sound like neglect to me. More than 30% of inorganic chemistry research is based on solar-cell type technologies right now in the west.
You want to talk about neglect? Look at your nuclear industry and research programs. No new reactors since 1976, your waste is in regulatory limbo costing you tons of money, and you're still burning U-235 which is basically nuclear platinum.
@OfficeThug I think if we put even a small part of the money that nuclear plants cost into renewable energy, we'd better off as well, not to mention fossil fuels
@OfficeThug Forget sea level rise, once in a hundred year tsunami events, forget cost, what about terrorist? What about as the world destabilizes geopolitically due to the impacts of climate change, which are already manifesting themselves, how are we going to manage these nuclear planets safely? Seems to me the cost, the true cost is very high for society and the world, the world meaning human civilization
@Nightversionn What cost? Nuclear kills less people per year than solar power, even after counting Chernobyl which was the WORST possible nuclear accident where every single thing went wrong. Passively safe new generation reactors cannot melt down and cannot release radiation, those scenarios are physically impossible, and the terrorist bogeyman won't be able to touch them unless they change the laws of physics (hey maybe they can! Anything's possible in the public imagination).
@OfficeThug You did not address my points about nuclear facilities being susceptible to terrorism, political instability, mismanagemnt, sea level rise. The cost to society is too high.
All those billions need to be invested in green power
@Nightversionn Climate change can be reversed, pollution can be cleaned up, but that process isn't free. It will require more energy than what we have gained from burning fossil fuels thus far, because we'll be fighting both the enthalpy of the system and entropy of the system, which favors CO2 production and diffusion.
1.3 kW per square meter is the maximum amount of full spectra energy you can get with solar. 20 MW per square meter is just the beginning for nuclear.
@OfficeThug I'm sorry, Fukushima didn't happen because the reactor was old. It happened due to once in a hundred year earthquake/tsumani which the bonehead planners don't PLAN for and you know no one is planning for those eventualities
If we had LFTRs, we'd be producing synthetic fuels from water and atmospheric CO2 using current CCS technolgoies, which are more than adequate for CO2 air-scrubbing and even prepping for chemical synthesis. The versatility of these reactors would allow us to produce fuel almost anywhere at much higher rates than what can be drilled today, making oil drilling for fuel redundant (we'll still be using oil for chemical production). We'd also gain zero-net emission fuels.
This isn't all bullshit either. An LFTR was built and operated at the ORNL in the 70s and early 80s. The Nixon administration killed it in favor of sodium-cooled breeders for weapons-grade plutonium-239 production. China is currently building a new prototype LFTR with massive government support in Shanghai, with aims of reaching criticality in 2015, and plans to mass-produce modular LFTRs on assembly lines by 2031.
The estimated cost of a prototype LFTR would be 3 cents per killowatt electric. Estimated costs of a near-100% efficiency LFTR with product recovery and reselling (Pu-238 for NASA, Th-228 for nuclear clocks, batteries, etc., Bi-213 for cancer treatment, platinum metals for chemistry and industry) will amount to hundredths of a cent per killowatt electric.
Excess heat can be used to crack water using the iodine and sulfuric acid catalytic cycles to produce hydrogen, leading to synthetic fuels.
Current nuclear is being phased out. All of our plants are ancient, 70s-80s era designs that are beginning to stay past their bedtimes. Because nuclear energy has been deemed taboo by the public and the government, we have barely conducted any new nuclear initiatives, especially into intrinsically safe nuclear reactors, since the 80s. So we will be replacing these old plants with coal plants just as Germany is currently doing.
Granted, current nuclear SUCKS big time. Plants get 0.7% fuel burnup efficiencies, which is pathetic. They use pressurized water cooling which cannot reach the optimal temperatures of nuclear reactions and which has a tendency to flash into steam and explode. They don't even breed-fission their waste for disposal so they're left with long-standing radioactive waste which is 99+% unspent fuel and 0.7+% not even supposed to be long-lasting radioactive hazards if they just handled it properly.
Next up is nuclear. Nuclear used to be cheaper than coal, but now it's rather expensive, so much so that no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since 1976. Regulatory ratcheting essentially destroyed the nuclear industry, with new plants taking more than a decade to build (compared to 2-3 years prior), sporting massive amounts of complex safety systems deemed necessary by the NRC, and running huge costs over spent fuel disposal limbo.
Because solar and wind energy outputs fluctuate, lack of electrical production needs to be supplemented by a "backup" system, typically open-cycle NG plants. Surplus energy is rarely stored for later use as a backup due to the expenses of large-scale intermittent storage (batteries are expensive, and so are physical storage methods). So to make renewables effective, you'd also need to conduct better intermittent energy research. I'm a battery chemist and let me tell you my field is pretty barren
Many of you argue renewables are the way to go, however they have met very little success in the physical world, especially once the government starts reducing their subsidies. They suffer compared to coal because of physical limitations; for solar and wind, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, with average operation output being expressed as Capacity Factor. They also exhibit lower energy densities and specific energies, requiring more land/material to instal.
Stop attacking people on a personnal level. It doesn't work. It will never work. Start looking at how you can change the infrastructure, starting by uprooting the fossil fuel industry. This can only be accomplished by adopting a SUPERIOR source of energy. Your choices are renewables or nuclear.
@Gilgamesh2020
"how malleable the human mind is...another 20 years of failed climate disaster predictions"
Another 20 years? Sorry u will have to explain that one given that nobody predicted "disaster" as soon as now. What we are seeing now is barely a warm up(excuse the pun)
So how much extra co2 in the atmosphere is needed to warm the earth? Figures please!
I want to learn - educate me and all the feeble minded GW commie hippie fantasists
23peacefrog 2 minutes ago
Behold the alarmist pinheads peacefrog,yourkids and nightversionn.Spongebrains who have been fooled into thinking the climate is going to go crazy because of co2.These three jokers are a perfect example of how malliable the human mind is when bombarded by years of indoctrination thru education,media and entertainment.Maybe another 20 years of failed climate disaster predictions from the climate models and from extremists like Hansen will wake them from their slumber.
Gilgamesh2020 11 minutes ago
@PrairieDogged
That's cute! Do you like me reminding everyone about your theory that the CFC ban was unnecessary? That the hole in the ozone layer was discovered b4 CFCs were even used?!
As for "scalping" UT001 LMFAO
you haven't scalped anyone you moron
"emotive bullshit" is your speciality with the emphasis on BULLSHIT
23peacefrog 14 minutes ago
PrairieDogged
Who claims he has yet to be convinced that CFCs destroy ozone & believes the cfc ban was a mistake!
According to him the hole in the ozone layer was discovered before humans started producing CFCs
PrairieDogged who is really just pissed cos his son came back from uni a vegan
lol what a sad cretinous buffoon
23peacefrog 11 hours ago
@23peaceToad
Hey hippie toady ~ see I scalped your comrade U1T001 coming here spouting emotive bulldust like yourself ;)
Knocking them down like ducks at the fairground and you turn up for a barrel or two of buckshot *o)
Tell us about the fallin sky we like that one.
PrairleDogged 10 hours ago
@DoggyStyle
Lake Chad, shitfire?
"Climate change, human pressure shrink Lake Chad" Reuters 2/2/07.
"Ducks in a barrel," buddy?
This is more like "dunking the clown," bub.
YourKidsArentSpecial 9 hours ago
It is amazing how some people are brainwashed & the things are turned upside down.
Those appealing to take measures against the CO2 bacchanalia are the bad guys & the good guys are the people urging to exhaust the resources (regardless of the consequences).
Let me tell you s.th Prerie Dog-the expansion of the deserts (incl in Africa), the melting of the snow cap of Kilimanjaro, the forest fires, the drying of the Chad lake, etc. are all due to climate change which is not 'less clouds & more sun'
U1T001 16 hours ago
@U1T001
"Much of Kilimanjaro's ice is vanishing by sublimation -- where ice at very low temperatures converts straight to water vapor without going through a watery phase -- rather than by melting, the scientists said.
Fluctuating weather patterns related to the Indian Ocean also could affect the shifting balance between the ice's increase, which might have occurred for decades before the first explorers reached Kilimanjaro's summit in 1889, and the shrinking that has been going on since."
PrairleDogged 16 hours ago
@DoggyStyle
Let's see what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about Kilimanjaro, shall we, shitfire?
(Time Mag, 11/3/09)
"Lead author Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University... says that while the glaciers did start melting a century ago, their retreat has sped up dramatically in recent years. "We've lost 26% of the ice since 2000 alone. And that, unfortunately, is just what we predicted would happen."
Uh oh.
Somebody made you look stupid again.
YourKidsArentSpecial 9 hours ago
@PrairleDogged
RE: The sublimation
I am not specialist in physics, but as far as I know sublimation requires additional energy & is an endodermic change. In the past no sublimation at such a great scale was observed (with most of the glaciers). As soon as CO2 in the air became a 'hockey stick' and taking into account its GHG properties to reflect IR no-one will be surprised if it turns to be 'the main suspect on the scene of the vanishing glaciers'. Yet, you should ask some physicist about that.
U1T001 5 hours ago
@U1T001 he's lying on purpose. In denier troll land everything reads in reverse
Nightversionn 16 hours ago
@U1T001 This is like a duck shoot on the water *o)
"Lake Chad, once one of Africa's largest freshwater lakes, has shrunk dramatically in the last 40 years. Two researchers from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, have been working to determine the causes.
In a report published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, they conclude that human activities are to blame for the shrinking of Lake Chad."
PrairleDogged 16 hours ago
..cont
"The lake's decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population."
.
Bwaaaaahhhhahhhhaaaaa!!!!!
PrairleDogged 15 hours ago
"Changes in rainfall, temperature and sunlight between 1982 and 1999 increased the overall productivity of land plants by 6 percent. This map shows productivity increases in green, while decreases are shown in brown. Productivity increased the most in tropical regions, where climate change resulted in fewer clouds and more sunlight. [Image by Robert Simmon, NASA Earth Observatory, based on data provided by the University of Montana Numerical Terradynamic Simulations Group (NTSG)]"
PrairleDogged 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
moron, did you see the record heat in texas and the rest of the country the last two years, look up texas
drought, new mexico wilfires, geogia drought with 2010 2011 in the search terms, fools!
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record,
beginning in 1880. This was the 34th ...
NASA - NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record
livingproofof 18 hours ago
Who is Al Gore?
408Magenta 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence/impacts of climate change series...
.
Tallying disasters and gauging a greenhouse impact
. It's not easy to tally up disasters in 2011, but according to the global insurance industry, the $380 billion in losses was the most expensive year on record.
.
New York Times
January 22, 2012
Nightversionn 1 day ago
131 years? bahhahaha! ..... how old is the Earth? Nighty. what a Ninny. That's like comparing how long your shit takes to disappear after you flush to how long the stench lingers. Other words 131 years is a pittance in time.
spreckt 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
131 years of warming in 26 seconds
.
A 26-second video from NASA depicts how temperatures around the globe have warmed since 1880.
That year is what scientists call the beginning of the “modern record.”
.
Climate Central
26 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 day ago
The hypothesis that man controls the earths temperature is a lie laying top of the ash heap of history
PhilJonesLIED 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhilJonesLIED
RE: 'The hypothesis that man controls the Earth's temperature'
The hypothesis is a little bit different: For years on end we were not knowing of what we were doing. Now that we do know we don't want to accept it. Where is the control here?
The things stay this way: we emit 29 Gt CO2 per year→additional heat into the system→changes the kinetic energy→extreme weather→natural disasters→climate change deniers claim that nothing has happened (as if they know what actually is going on)
U1T001 22 hours ago
President Obama forgot to mention his biggest "accomplishments": sticking the American people with liberal policies, like ObamaCare and the $814 billion dollar Stimulus, that destroy jobs, pile up debt, burden our small businesses with runaway regulations, and focus on redistributing wealth rather than make our entire economy stronger.
GreenChurchReject 1 day ago
AL GORE IS ..LAUGHING AND FULLING HIS POCKETS
WITH YOUR MONEY
deeptruthhunter 1 day ago 2
@deeptruthhunter I think you mean Exxon and other Big Energy companies right? Billions of dollars in profits, billions in U.S. taxpayer subsidies every single year.
With OUR money. You got it
Nightversionn 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment:
"This toxic poisonous desert that remains is destroying the lives of Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem. Britain’s government should be ashamed of the catastrophe taking place in China in the name of green power here in the UK."
PrairleDogged 2 days ago
headline news:
" Arctic native ribbon seal swims to Seattle to escape global cooling"
siliggy 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are all being totally screwed.
1000frolly 2 days ago
@PrairLedogged More nonsense from the resident denier troll.
Once again, the reverse risk of not acting on climate change will be much worse not just for birds but for much of us
Nightversionn 3 days ago
@Nightversionn Clara, I bought some new chainsaws
RyanMonckton3610 2 days ago
@RyanMonckton3610 First of all, my name is not Clara, secondly, that sounds menacing so I guess I will report you to "report abuse" on this website.
Get lost troll
Nightversionn 2 days ago
@Nightversionn Clara, I hope youtube can look at the insane and "menacing" remarks you left me on my comments page.
RyanMonckton3610 1 day ago
@RyanMonckton3610 Not me, probably someone else you've been cyberbullying
Nightversionn 1 day ago
@RyanMonckton3610 Deniers will say and do anything to troll videos so as to disrupt discussion about climate change.
Sorry, it don't work with me, troll away denier ding rod
Nightversionn 2 days ago
@RyanMonckton3610 Oh, by the way, the great thing about science is that it's true, whether you are a denier troll or not
Nightversionn 2 days ago
The CO2 driver theory of weather and climate is delusional nonsense propagated by a self-serving failed sect. Their ‘theory’ fails to explain past weather and climate; all its predictions over the last ten years have failed and it cannot and never will predict anything.
ezeeskank 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ezeeskank
RE: 'it cannot & will never predict anything'
It can predict for example that the currently accumulated CO2 in the air (& in the ocean) with the current pace of operating vehicles & TPPs could not be reduced and cannot stop increasing. The processing of CO2 requires energy, which on its turn releases CO2 emissions.
The general idea of the climate change deniers is: 'So and so it is difficult to manage it let's make it a mess. The faster the speed (of increase) - the bigger the mess'.
U1T001 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RE: 'Digging into the core:The cold truth about CO2'
I am very glad that this article was marked as scam (not by me) because:
CO2 in the air is NOT increased by 0.011% per year. It is increased by 0.0002% but this corresponds to 29 Gt CO2. It is the pH of the ocean that is acidified by 0.11 'going West'.
The human footprint in Nature for the period 1751÷2008 is 346 Gt CO2 (by data of NASA).
It is not the amount of CO2 but rather the shake of the thermodynamic equilibrium & its unpredictability.
U1T001 3 days ago
New report says that birds prefer to die by wind turbine than any other means of pollution ~ lmfao.
Some of us see that a death of a bird or bat is a tragedy no matter how it was killed but to try to condone huge destruction of both these species because they were culled/killed in the name of the eco-system is nothing short of diabolical and only hypocrites would try to use their demise in such a callous manner ~ shame on them.
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
@PrairLeDogged, let's see, wind turbines or global climate change. My point still stands, "lugheadbush" "N ii ghtversionn" et al, the reverse risk of doing nothing on climate change is worse for birds, and everyone else
Nightversionn 3 days ago
@Nightversion'n' laotian78 - unspammer1 - unspammer2 et al
I am sure the family of Ospreys wiped out in Sweden recently would share your views.
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
"On 12 January 2012, the Scientific Congress on Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation the Spanish Society of Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) ~ Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18M birds and bats . The average per turbine comes down to 333 – 1,000 deaths pa, which is a far cry from the 2 – 4 birds claimed by the American wind industry, or the 400,000 birds a year estimated by the American Bird Conservancy for the whole United States, which has about twice as many turbines as Spain."
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
If we tax Wind Turdbines per bird and bat death it would make fossil fuels ridiculously cheap.
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
@PrairLeDogged, if you had genuine care for birds you would admit the reverse risk of not acting on climate change is worse for them
Nightversionn 3 days ago
Well, it's been said if we tax carbon sufficiently, then carbon free sources of energy would become cheaper
Nightversionn 3 days ago
I wonder whether the eco-nuts have thought of bringing in retrospective tax for past climate changes? there must be a crimate model that can pin them on our consumerism and decadence.
.
htt p: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_famines
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please type into Google "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2" to see my article on global warming and why the IPCC have grossly exaggerated the predicted warming from CO2.
CHIPSTERO7 4 days ago
Looks like Al Gore and about 100 Koolaiders are going to the Antarctic during it's late summer season to film some melting ice for a new propaganda campaign. I suppose there are still some dimwits who will still swallow Al's scare spew. I wouldn't be surprised they come back saying there were no Polar bears there because of Global warming.....Oh..one more thing Al, Penguins don't fly.
spreckt 4 days ago
More rain ~ more droughts
More heatwaves ~ more cold spells
More Hurricanes ~ less Hurricanes
More Ice ~ Less Ice
More BULLSHIT ~ Check
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
Your vid went viral on Taipei
chrlsnewsom5 5 days ago
Global warming is kind of an urgent problem that needs to be resolved as soon as possible. Why people don't want to utilize nuclear power, which has demonstrated 3rd order parity in the past (being on equal terms with coal) is beyond any rational level of thinking. Mass hysteria over accidents that have yet to kill anyone is not a good excuse. Panic over accidents resulting from once-in-a-millenium natural disasters is also not a good excuse, especially when said accidents never harm anyone.
OfficeThug 5 days ago
@OfficeThug "Global warming is kind of an urgent problem that needs to be resolved as soon as possible" Not! There is absolutely no evidence of this so-called urgent problem.
" Panic over accidents resulting from once-in-a-millenium natural disasters is also not a good excuse, especially when said accidents never harm anyone." Really? Tell that to all the people that died in Cherynoble (however you spell it) and all the severe birth defects that continue to plague Russia from that.
MrOTLChamp 5 days ago
@MrOTLChamp There's more than enough evidence for AGW. And even if there wasn't, there is still the insurmountable evidence that fossil fuels are running out and that coal kills hundreds of thousands of people every year through particulate emissions.
Chernobyl wasn't a natural accident. It was the result of A) attrocious reactor design, B) illegal operator actions, C) the state completely mishandling the situation. Russia has a history of bad nuclear decisions.
OfficeThug 4 days ago
@OfficeThug I have no problem with nuclear power, but don't pretend that there is not a risk. No one ever has died from AGW, and many have died from NPP's
MrOTLChamp 5 days ago
@LilChump
"No one ever has died from AGW"
You mean, of course, no one of any consequence, right Chump?
"Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank" Guardian, 5/29/09
"Climate Change and Displacement:
- 42 million displaced by sudden natural disasters in 2010" Norwegian Refugee Council
Stupid AND unsympathetic? Not very Christ-like, Chump.
YourKidsArentSpecial 5 days ago
@YourKidsArentSpecial everything you just said is made up. Go ahead a prove 300,000 deaths from AGW LMAO. What a crock! I mean idiot!
MrOTLChamp 5 days ago
@MrOTLChamp Cretin, I don't know the overall figures, but I'm sure they are TRAGIC.
What about Pakistan, Guatemala, Russia, Thailand, Phillippines alone, they have been very badly hit by extreme weather events, and tens of thousands of LOST LIVES. Every country has been affected, even here in the US, add two more billion-dollar weather disasters to the total.
Please let your other denier sock puppets know and also make sure to tell your Exxon and other Big Energy pay masters
Nightversionn 5 days ago
@YourKidsAreRetarded In Kofi Annan's report...There is not one connection to Man-made climate change. And climate change is always happening. Duh, what an idiot.
MrOTLChamp 5 days ago
@MrOTLChamp Climate change is always happening and we're accelerating it dangerously you've been told over and over countless times but you pretend you don't get it, duh?
Nightversionn 5 days ago
@YourKidsAreRetarded " Not very Christ-like," LMAO Like you would know Chris,t to say such a thing. Kind of like the lack of knowledge you have regarding global warming. lol
MrOTLChamp 5 days ago
@MrOTLChamp If you don't "believe" in man-made catastrophic climate change, that's fine, but rest assured it "believes" in you
Nightversionn 5 days ago
@Nightversionn Don't make me laugh. If you can prove any of it, hasn't happened before, and that's it's man's fault..."Go ahead, make my day"
MrOTLChamp 5 days ago
@MrOTLChamp Sorry, I will go with scientists over a denier sock puppet on youtube, if it's all the same to you
Nightversionn 5 days ago
@MrOTLChamp There is a risk but it is overblown. Even counting Chernobyl, the worst possible nuclear accident that could have happened, nuclear still kills less people on average than any other source of energy on a yearly basis, including solar and wind.
"Many" doesn't say much relative to other sources of power. Would you rather have more people die, or less? Because you can't have zero people die from power generation, although nuclear comes close.
OfficeThug 4 days ago
RE "throughout history poverty is the normal condition"
Poverty is created by the banking system & before were acting the same mechanisms backward to 3000 yrs ago.
There always have been people wanting to be lazy, to satisfy their greed in various ways, to deceive the market (the other people trading on the market) & to receive from society much more than they have provided to it. Nobody can convince me that a person possessing USD 500 BLN has provided goods & services to society for that price.
U1T001 6 days ago
@PrairieDogged
"throughout history poverty is the normal condition of man"
That is a fair point(not your own idea though) but you do know that we have come a long way since we hunted with spears? Is poverty inevitable for all eternity?
NO
23peacefrog 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck.'"
-- Robert Heinlein
PrairleDogged 6 days ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England warned
.
The huge reserves of coal, oil and gas are "sub-prime" assets that pose a systemic risk to economic stability, a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists has warned Bank of England.
.
Guardian, United Kingdom
19 January 2012
Nightversionn 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck.'"
-- Robert Heinlein
PrairleDogged 6 days ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 1 week ago
And according to Newman, Mark. "A Mathematical Model for Mass Extinction". Cornell University. May 20, 1994. Retrieved July 30, 2006, the math model running on a supercomputer has estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on the Earth are now extinct (failed to adapt). So. please don't talk me about 'observed changes consistent with warming trends'. What about the CO2 in the ocean and in the rocks?
It is not a 'warming trend' -it is energy problem (constrained energy resources).
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001
"estimated that 99.9% of all species... are now extinct"
As interesting as that might be, it is irrelevant to every facet of AGW, whether to its effects or mitigation.
Here's an analogy:
Just because the Holocaust happened doesn't mean that it's okay if it happens again.
And what about the "CO2 in the ocean and in the rocks?"
Explain.
YourKidsArentSpecial 1 week ago
@YourKidsArentSpecial
RE: 'Explain'
Write in google: 'ocean acidification wiki' 'carbonate rocks wiki' & read.
Take a look at the 500 mya/CO2-temp diagram & the claim of the climate skeptics that the increase of temp. is preceding the increase of CO2, most probably coming from the rocks (in the prehistoric times, when there were no TPPs & vehicles).
Then consider this: If the changes observed in the 1MLN (years) moving average have caused this and this, what will changes at a speed of decade do
U1T001 1 week ago
@siliggy
Where are the non-rigged computer models then? Surely there's lots of money to be made proving GW is a lie
Or is the best strategy to just rubbish science in general & appeal to people's distrust of authority & cynicism
I wouldn't want live in your world pal Where everyone is lying to you all the time. You do realise that people who have a different philosophy to you are not all manipulating liers don't you?
23peacefrog 1 week ago
Now that north America is again being hammered by "Children will not know what snow is" AGAIN! Where are all the alarmists who claimed last year that it was "Lake effect"? This year it is blowing over cold sea surface temperatures so better gather some more bullshit.
siliggy 1 week ago
@OfficeThug
"solar installations span such vast distances..far more vulnerable"
You can have solar panels on the roof of your home or business
This reduces demand for mass produced energy
it is efficient to produce energy at the point of use & reduce co2 emissions & give independence to people!
That is a good thing, yes?
23peacefrog 1 week ago
@23peacefrog No because it's still too expensive for most people to afford. And independance is a stupid libertarian idea. We live in a society, all of our industrial and economic progress and the fact that we aren't living in caves is thanks to mankind being a social animal that can colaborate to solve problems impossible to any individual. Global warming is a problem that no amount of individuals will be able to solve, we need to cooperate and find solutions that work for everyone
OfficeThug 5 days ago
@siliggy
"climate models are fixed by changing the algorithms"
Yeah that is how they work, thanks for clearing that up
23peacefrog 1 week ago
@23peacefrog Race fixing and climate model model fixing, different methods same crime.
siliggy 1 week ago
@sluggo
"climate model fixing"
Don't forget, buddy, Mother Nature has been "manipulating" systems like animal migratory patterns, seasonal shifts, rising sea levels, doubling sever weather events, and increasing species extinctions... matching or EXCEEDING model projections... all in a bid to help "climate scientists" take your beer money.
You dimwits should SUE her!
Maybe you'll have better luck with that than your "lawsuit" against Al Gore.
YourKidsArentSpecial 1 week ago
Comment removed
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001
According to "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change" Rosenzweig et al, 2008, (From an article at earth(dot)columbia(dot)edu) "In physical systems, 95% of observed changes are consistent with warming trends. These include wastage of glaciers on all continents; melting permafrost; earlier spring river runoff; and warming of water bodies. Among living creatures inhabiting such systems, 90% of changes are consistent with warming."
YourKidsArentSpecial 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YourKidsArentSpecial
RE: 'Mother Nature has been "manipulating" systems'
IF it has the time to make the 'manipulation', and what about the case it didn't have the time (to allow species to adapt).
It is true that some are exceeding model projects, but they are less than 5%. What about the other 95% — Where are they, where are we?
U1T001 1 week ago
If you still believe is man made global warming I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
GreenChurchReject 1 week ago
The future is bright Green.
.
"Currently, wind power generation only accounts for about 1%, roughly 3 million homes, of all the energy being generated in the US, the greater concern here is that if renewable energy is mandated to increase to 20% over the years to help curb global warming, the number of bird deaths associated with wind power could increase 20 fold, to roughly 900,000 to 1.8 million deaths a year. This figure is far more damaging and should be taken a little more seriously."
PrairleDogged 1 week ago
@PrairleDogged
RE: 'the future is bright green'
The future is 'green' but not bright. 15 T out of 45 T world debt is due by the USA. A country printing the bank reserve currency and the currency in which fuels are traded could not virtually go bankrupt. In the worst case scenario it will print one banknote with a nominal value of 15 T and will pay up its debt. But what will happen with the rest of the world. Woe to us for being that stupid and ignorant.
U1T001 1 week ago
lol
Still on a brighter note we still have infinite potential!!
23peacefrog 1 week ago
@U1T001
"the financial crisis...could be fixed in several nanoseconds with several
computer algorithms"
and that's what hurts the most
We can have the world any way we choose
but we choose mediocrity and slavery
23peacefrog 1 week ago
@23peacefrog Do you mean like climate models are fixed by changing the Algoreithms.
siliggy 1 week ago
TAX DOLLARS BLAH BLAH!
So, c'mon. If fossil fuels take $400 billion a year in government subsidies, and Green industries take one tenth of that, which 'thick school of reverse backwards dumb convenient untruth' did you stupid bastards attend, to suppose that the latter is higher than the former?
Not duh but DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!
You're like the stupid dog that chases its tail. "Wuf! WTF. What's that long hairy thing in the cowner of ma iiiiiiiiii?"
TheElasticJesusRez 1 week ago
@TheElasticJesusRez That is right, If I remember correctly, but anyone can look it up, Exxon got 4 BILLION is subsidies last year, but that pales in comparison to the 40 BILLION in profits it made last year. Exxon alone. And remember the billions and billions they gave to the finance industry to bail them out? And we're supposed to be all wringing our hands over austerity and willingly give up the little social safety nets we have left here in the U.S. Yeah right
Nightversionn 1 week ago
Which Exxon also uses its vast profits to fund denier lies they pay pay people to spam and harass people (me case in point) all over the internet who speak their mind. To make sure they keep getting their tax breaks and subsidies and renewables DON'T
duh
Nightversionn 1 week ago
and let's not also forget Exxon and the other Big Oil outfits get US military to go secure more oil for them and provide security, also on the backs of the American tax payer. We work out ass to afford those people a lavish lifestyle beyond anything anything imaginable. And now we're supposed to be so concerned about austerity, lmao
Nightversionn 1 week ago
our, rather
Nightversionn 1 week ago
There is a difference between climate change and man made climate change
georgemuse 1 week ago
@georgemuse
Of course there is TAX DOLLARS *o)
PrairleDogged 1 week ago
The ice cap melting would lower the sea level, not make it rise...
lifeofanidiot 1 week ago
"Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless."
.
"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken
PrairleDogged 1 week ago
@U1T001
"economic system isn't perfect. Are you kidding me?"
Id like to add that the economic system is literally killing our planet
The best way to make money is to plunder as many of the earth's resources as quickly as we can
To make as much stuff as we can and to throw it away as often as we can to replace it with more stuff
if you happen to mention that this is complete insanity nobody wants to hear
all this talk about commies, greens & hippies is just a smoke screen for the truth
23peacefrog 1 week ago
Haven't you ever asked yourself the question why among all the proposals for a global financial system it was exactly the Modern Money Mechanics that was chosen. Because it is a perfect model of greed without limits and mania for control with no constraints. The same is happening with CO2 now. Among all the incredible proposals will be chosen some nuclear solution, for it provides an opportunity to a handful of people to exercise their ambitions to control and blackmail everything they touch to.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 You are not going to beat the establishment that dictates the goods that you are allowed to have. The Economic system isn't perfect for sure, but it's not a problem we can resolve until we can present alternatives or make certain aspects (like commodity speculation) redundant.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug
The Economic system isn't perfect. Are you kidding me? or Are you joking?. Modern Money Mechanics is the worst case scenario of an economy. Suppose you have two choices: Op.1: 1 person has 500 BLN and 499 have some pennies and Op.2: 500 people have almost by 1 BLN. Which of the two options facilitates better the consumption and the economic growth?
I have another question: If a whole continent cannot guarantee that something will not collapse, what are all those insurers doing there?
U1T001 1 week ago
RE: the 'Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor'
What about radioactivity. What will happen when people like you start introducing radioactive carbon into fuels -> into the air-> the plants-> in the fruit & fodder-> etc.
IMV the problem with CO2 and with the financial system are not a problem of the technologies and the feasibility (for there is a wide abundance of these at present) - it is all about greed and control. Hence the last two are part of the Great Filter in the context of the Fermi Paradox.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 Carbon can't absorb neutrons, so it never becomes radioactive. Carbon makes an excellent moderator specifically because neutrons "bounce" off of it, imparting energy resulting in slower neutrons.
CO2 capture and use in syngas produces fuel at a tremendous energy loss. There's no way to get around this. The economy is not going to sabbotage itself to produce syngas when there are far cheaper alternatives. With energy cheap enough to make energy costs redundant, we can have syngas
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug
RE: Carbon never becomes radioactive
And what is C14
RE: 'syngas produces fuel at a tremendous energy loss'
This 'tremendous energy loss' is at present almost 100% wasted (unused solar thermal). Nothing could be tremendous if it is wasted before that.
The economy is not going to sabbotage itself but we have no choice. If we continue to accumulate the CO2 into the atmosphere we may pass the event horizon, when in the hysteria it will become impossible to process it, not more expensive
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 carbon-14 is the daughter isotope of nitrogen-14 through cosmic radiation capture followed by beta decay, not carbon-13 neutron capture.
By "unused solar thermal" do you mean as of yet existant solar thermal? In that case, we are wasting about 7.76 x 10^19 kg of thorium (total thorium content of the earth), which is equivalent to 7.68 x 10^20 GWe*hr of power generation, or enough energy to power human civilization at 1000 times its current capacity for 5.8 trillion years.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@U1T001 And as for the economy destroying itself, is this really what you want? Your economy is litterally what ensures you have food to eat, water to drink, a place to live, you know, basic necessities. I know you think you're superman but reality is cruel and I honestly don't know how you expect to fix climate change on a thin gruel of energy and without a healthy economy.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug
The economy is self-destroying not because it needs more energy (it has enough of it wasted at present). It is destroying itself because it stroke off the middle class from the economic equation. It concentrated shameless amounts of money in the hands of a handful of people that are spending it in the utmost possible inefficient &inappropriate way & energy waste that one can possibly imagine (like for example private jets and SUVs).
BTW I am not sure that solar energy is 'thin gruel'
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 That is not the sole factor to an economy. You're forgetting industry has to foot the bill for higher energy costs. Bayer is threatening to leave Germany due to their opt-out of nuclear (which will cost an estimated 1.7 trillion euros over the next 20 years to make up for it in renewables).
You don't know how bad solar is because you never bother crunching the numbers. You throw it up on the table in conversations and hail it as the panacea. I have data to back my claims.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug
RE: 'You don't know how bad solar is'
Which solar you are talking about. Maybe it is 'bad' in terms to making bases for blackmailing (yes, by this indicator nuclear is much better). Maybe you don't understand s.th. There are a lot of solutions & at the present level of technologies we can live twice better (at least) but some people will loose the control and that is the bad news. The financial crisis for example could be fixed in several nanoseconds with several computer algorithms.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 In addition, because solar installations span such vast distances they are far more vulnerable to wear-and-tear's impact on their economics. Most of the major solar plant installations around the world also suffer considerable losses in their maximum capacity from year to year. Nuclear plants have a much longer lifetime, especially when they use special alloys that strengthen over time under irradiation conditions.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug
It is amazing when the nuclear lobby talks about the great possibilities of the nuclear energy it never talks about nuclear waste, price of handling and storage of nuclear waste, risks of breakdown, risks of occupational disease to which the personnel is subjected during operation of the NPP, the actual price of building a NPP (taking in consideration the interests that are to be paid to the banks, penalty interests), the safety costs, the parasitic units draining money around a NPP.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 There is no nuclear lobby, or if there is one it is spectacularly bad. Nuclear is regulated to near-death in the US and in many countries it's outright banished in favor of fossil fuels.
Nuclear "waste" can be bred into fissionable materials, which can be subsequently burned up in a reactor. Problem solved.
New nuclear designs are intrinsically safe and shut down by themselves through the laws of physics if the system breaks. Nuclear regulation won't allow their construction.
OfficeThug 5 days ago
@OfficeThug
RE: 'New nuclear designs are intrinsically safe and shut down by themselves'
You may write in Google 'list of nuclear disasters wiki' and read the first 4 references, appearing there.
U1T001 5 days ago
@U1T001 Not counting Chernobyl: 14 accident-related deaths from peaceful nuclear usage total since 1960.
Chernobyl adds 56 direct deaths and an estimated 4000 from eventual cancer deaths (shortened lifespan).
I can think of a lot of things that have killed many times more people than that, even counting Chernobyl and its expected cancer deaths. And if you think renewables alone will get you off of cheap coal, which kills tens of thousands yearly, you are living in a fantasy.
OfficeThug 4 days ago
@OfficeThug * Coal kills over ten thousand in the US every year, it's well above hundreds of thousands globally every year. It does this through toxic particulate emissions, NOx and SOx gasses paired with soot and carcinogenic organic compounds. Coal emissions are also radioactive, containing thorium and uranium. A single coal plant emits more than 180 times the radiation a same-output nuclear plant does through normal operation.
OfficeThug 4 days ago
@OfficeThug " Coal kills over ten thousand in the US every year, it's well above hundreds of thousands globally every year"
I doubt that is proven. More than likely that is a number given from a WWF, or a Greenpeace organization. A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl. 4000 sounded a little low to say the least.
MrOTLChamp 4 days ago
@MrOTLChamp The global denier familiar mantra
1. Cigarettes won't kill you
2. Letting billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere is wonderful
3. Species extinction is nothing to care about
4. Human life is nothing to be concerned about.
Nightversionn 4 days ago
@Nightversionn that's weird. Because I know a lot of people that are called deniers by you scare mongerers, and not one of them has ever said anything of the sort.
Please provide sources.
MrOTLChamp 3 days ago
oh, and being a denier sock puppet and impersonating people on Youtube is nothing to worry about either! lmao
Nightversionn 4 days ago
@MrOTLChamp The deaths caused by coal emissions are well-established, just follow the links:
nextbigfuture . com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source
The 4000 future death figure was estimated by the World Health Organization based on the medically accepted Linear No-Threshold model. Depending on who you go to for advice (with increasingly anti-nuclear organizations placing the number more and more into ridiculous territory) you will get different numbers.
OfficeThug 4 days ago
@MrOTLChamp Here's some problems with your publication Chernobyl:
- It includes many cases caused by pathological diseases having nothing to do with radiation. It also ties socioeconomic-related cases to radiation, which is absurd.
- It does not account for the imrpovements in screening, which led to higher occurence of detected cancers and diseases, thanks to medical advancements.
- Many cited figures and data are not explained at all
- Cites "hot particles" and other absurdities.
OfficeThug 4 days ago
@OfficeThug I don't have a problem with the NPP's. But I do have a problem with suggesting that CO2 is causing global warming, and killing people. Neither of which has been substantiated yet.
MrOTLChamp 4 days ago
@MrOTLChamp CO2 causing global warming is substantiated quite well. There's this field of science called Climatology you see, they specifically study this type of thing.
Emissions killing people is substantiated with medical reports and post-mortems. And it makes fucking sense. If you breathe in soot composed of noxious fumes and particulate matter containing heavy metals, odds are you will get sick and statistically are likelier to die after prolonged exposure.
OfficeThug 4 days ago
@OfficeThug No, actually it's not well established. In fact, You would be hard pressed to even find one example of someone that died from CO2 in our atmosphere. It might make sense if CO2 was something life on earth didn't need to survive. But, we all know that nothing will survive without it
. And these extremely low levels of CO2 of today, are not helping these tree's grow very fast like they used too. Tree's used to get a lot bigger when the earth had more CO2. Now that makes sense.
MrOTLChamp 3 days ago
@LilChump
"even find one example of someone that died from CO2"
Let's qualify that, Chump. No one a "Christian" hypocrite would care about.
After all, it's people in Africa, Asia and Central and South America that are disproportionately affected by AGW induced climate change.
I'll go ahead and re-post the article you ignored already:
"Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank" guardian, 5/29/09
Oops.
YourKidsArentSpecial 3 days ago
@YourKidsAreRetarded I'll just make the same point I made last time you posted that article that NEVER ATTRIBUTED ANY OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE TO BE MAN-MADE.
And because anyone with a brain already knows climate change has been happening since the beginning of time. Your little article is a worthless attempt to support an argument proving anyone died from AGW. Next!
MrOTLChamp 3 days ago
@MrOTLChamp Burning coal produces more than just CO2. That "other" stuff is what I'm referring to, the stuff that kills people.
Also the whole "plants will do better with more CO2" argument is trash. It begins by hindering their photosynthesis process, resulting in less nutritional plants. Then you need to remember that insects get hungry: w w w . pnas . org/content/105/6/1960
OfficeThug 2 days ago
@OfficeThug
htt p: //earthobservatory. nasa. gov/Features/GlobalGarden/
PrairleDogged 2 days ago
@PrairleDogged If you bothered reading the entirety of any article, ever, you'd have known that in your very own link they are cautioning us against thinking further global warming will continue to be a good thing. For an example of why it may very well turn on us, go read the link I posted.
OfficeThug 2 days ago
@OfficeThug
"Our study suggests that increased insect herbivory is likely to be a net long-term effect of anthropogenic pCO2 increase and warming temperatures."
So lets get this right you think that by increasing the flora on this planet will bring about a plague of insects? and this is a reason not to rejoice at a greening planet?
Kind of perverse thinking is it not? ~ shall we cut down more rain forest to reduce the risk of this potential insect infestation?
PrairleDogged 2 days ago 2
@PrairleDogged It won't be "greening". The effect of increased CO2 actually stiffles photosynthesis while increasing the amount of water and other nutrients plants require to grow normally. Plants end up becoming far less nutritional, so insects eat more.
In addition, higher global temperatures will cause increasing dessertification and droughts in some regions, and intense rain and flood in others, neither case being good for plant growth.
High CO2 is only good in greenhouses.
OfficeThug 1 day ago
@OfficeThug
If high CO2 is only good in greenhouses what do you attribute the greening of the planet to then?
You really are quite mixed up aren't you.
PrairleDogged 1 day ago 2
@PrairleDogged Last I checked the planet wasn't greening.
OfficeThug 22 hours ago
@OfficeThug By that one report, insects will have to eat more because the plant will be less nutritious, all because of CO2? Insects as well as most other species will do just fine with a little more CO2.
How much CO2 does there need to be to get the results you claim? Are we talking thousands of ppm, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? Because the nearly 400 doesn't seem to do anything.
MrOTLChamp 20 hours ago
@MrOTLChamp
RE: 'Because the nearly 400 doesn't seem to do anything'
It has done what it has done. Write in Google [2011 natural disasters] & read the stories. Obviously some people don't understand what does 'increase of the kinetic energy mean'. FTW let's consider the following:
Let's have a car driving on a highway, and every 10 min the kinetic energy (the speed) is increased (by some Automatic Gear Wobble-AGW) along some 'hockey stick' series: 50 -150 -300 -500 -750km/h.How far will this go?
U1T001 19 hours ago
@U1T001
htt p: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_famines
PrairleDogged 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OfficeThug
NASA said it is so are you in the know and them not?
htt p: //earthobservatory. nasa. gov/Features/GlobalGarden/
You replied to this link before so why the head in sand?
PrairleDogged 18 hours ago
@PrairleDogged You need to look very fucking carefully at whether or not global alterration of the ecosystem is a good thing, because without the ecosystem, we as a species will become extinct as well.
OfficeThug 1 day ago
@U1T001 Reactor operators are some of the healthiest people in the world thanks to frequent scannings and medical checkups.
The price of building a nuclear plant in the US is 4 times as much as it was in the 1970s, including inflation, due to regulatory ratcheting by the NRC. That includes redundant safety systems.
I don't know anything about "parasitic units", I guess NPPs are a new kind of animal?
OfficeThug 5 days ago
@OfficeThug
RE: solar installations are vulnerable to wear and tear'
... and so is nuclear equipment. Every machinery and equipment is subjected to wear and tear with the time (even the computers).
RE: 'most solar plants suffer ..'
Probably you are talking about the rate of degradation of the semiconductor with the time, but this is about the PV technologies 10-15 years ago. The present day semiconductors use nanotechs.
BTW solar energy is also nuclear, but the reactor is at a distance of 1 AU
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 The magnitude of wear and tear depends on the size of the installations. That's why solar arrays degrade far quicker than coal and nuclear plants.
Nanotechnology is not impervious to degradation by a long-shot. In fact, it's one of their biggest problems. Nanorod p-i-n assemblies and dye-sensitized assemblies using colloid particles are extremely fragile. Graphene is even worse. Plus they're expensive.
We're not going to build a Dyson sphere around the sun.
OfficeThug 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OfficeThug
RE: solar installations are vulnerable to wear and tear'
... and so is nuclear equipment. Every machinery and equipment is subjected to wear and tear with the time (even the computers).
RE: 'most solar plants suffer ..'
Probably you are talking about the rate of degradation of the semiconductor with the time, but this is about the PV technologies 10-15 years ago. The present day semiconductors use nanotechs.
BTW solar energy is also nuclear, but the reactor is at a distance of 1 AU.
U1T001 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OfficeThug
RE: solar installations are vulnerable to wear and tear'
.. and so are nuclear. Every machinery and equipment is subjected to wear and tear with the time (even the computers).
RE:'most solar plants suffer ..'
Probably you are talking about the rate of degradation of the semiconductor with the time, but this is about the PV technologies 10-15 years ago. The present day semiconductors use nanotechs.
BTW solar energy is also nuclear, but the reactor is at a distance of 1 AU
U1T001 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OfficeThug read this... Bank of England being advised about what are sub-prime assets in yesterday's Guardian:
.
Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England warned
.
The huge reserves of coal, oil and gas are "sub-prime" assets that pose a systemic risk to economic stability, a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists has warned Bank of England (and I think many people here have noted we can put nuclear in this category as well)
Nightversionn 6 days ago
@officethug
"renewables not been able to usurp fossil fuels despite decades of hard research development and almost unilateral public support"
Woah there! Excuse me? Renewables have been neglected for a long time
23peacefrog 1 week ago
@23peacefrog Define "neglected". Governments spending billions of dollars subsidizing renewables does not sound like neglect to me. More than 30% of inorganic chemistry research is based on solar-cell type technologies right now in the west.
You want to talk about neglect? Look at your nuclear industry and research programs. No new reactors since 1976, your waste is in regulatory limbo costing you tons of money, and you're still burning U-235 which is basically nuclear platinum.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug Are you saying we've invested too much in renewable energy? lol. No.
Nightversionn 1 week ago
@OfficeThug I think if we put even a small part of the money that nuclear plants cost into renewable energy, we'd better off as well, not to mention fossil fuels
Nightversionn 1 week ago
@OfficeThug Forget sea level rise, once in a hundred year tsunami events, forget cost, what about terrorist? What about as the world destabilizes geopolitically due to the impacts of climate change, which are already manifesting themselves, how are we going to manage these nuclear planets safely? Seems to me the cost, the true cost is very high for society and the world, the world meaning human civilization
Nightversionn 1 week ago
@Nightversionn What cost? Nuclear kills less people per year than solar power, even after counting Chernobyl which was the WORST possible nuclear accident where every single thing went wrong. Passively safe new generation reactors cannot melt down and cannot release radiation, those scenarios are physically impossible, and the terrorist bogeyman won't be able to touch them unless they change the laws of physics (hey maybe they can! Anything's possible in the public imagination).
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug You did not address my points about nuclear facilities being susceptible to terrorism, political instability, mismanagemnt, sea level rise. The cost to society is too high.
All those billions need to be invested in green power
Nightversionn 1 week ago
@Nightversionn Climate change can be reversed, pollution can be cleaned up, but that process isn't free. It will require more energy than what we have gained from burning fossil fuels thus far, because we'll be fighting both the enthalpy of the system and entropy of the system, which favors CO2 production and diffusion.
1.3 kW per square meter is the maximum amount of full spectra energy you can get with solar. 20 MW per square meter is just the beginning for nuclear.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug I'm sorry, Fukushima didn't happen because the reactor was old. It happened due to once in a hundred year earthquake/tsumani which the bonehead planners don't PLAN for and you know no one is planning for those eventualities
Nightversionn 1 week ago
If we had LFTRs, we'd be producing synthetic fuels from water and atmospheric CO2 using current CCS technolgoies, which are more than adequate for CO2 air-scrubbing and even prepping for chemical synthesis. The versatility of these reactors would allow us to produce fuel almost anywhere at much higher rates than what can be drilled today, making oil drilling for fuel redundant (we'll still be using oil for chemical production). We'd also gain zero-net emission fuels.
Every. Problem. Solved.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
This isn't all bullshit either. An LFTR was built and operated at the ORNL in the 70s and early 80s. The Nixon administration killed it in favor of sodium-cooled breeders for weapons-grade plutonium-239 production. China is currently building a new prototype LFTR with massive government support in Shanghai, with aims of reaching criticality in 2015, and plans to mass-produce modular LFTRs on assembly lines by 2031.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
The estimated cost of a prototype LFTR would be 3 cents per killowatt electric. Estimated costs of a near-100% efficiency LFTR with product recovery and reselling (Pu-238 for NASA, Th-228 for nuclear clocks, batteries, etc., Bi-213 for cancer treatment, platinum metals for chemistry and industry) will amount to hundredths of a cent per killowatt electric.
Excess heat can be used to crack water using the iodine and sulfuric acid catalytic cycles to produce hydrogen, leading to synthetic fuels.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The earth on it's own can easily affect the temperature, with the rotation, ocean currents, tectonic plates, etc, etc, etc.
You would have to ignore all these and more, to come to the conclusion that it has to be CO2.
To ignore the obvious would be foolish.
MrOTLChamp 1 week ago
Let me give you an example of what nuclear could have been: the LFTR.
Fuel cycle: Th-232 (n,2b-) U-233 [30 days - 10 half-lives]
Operating temperatures: 700+ C
Fuel state: molten salt
Online fuel reprocessing/product recovery
Long-term storage time for products: 300 years, 15% composition of total products, can be seperated.
Overheat event: molten salt melts through a frozen salt plug and drains into a passively cooled tank
Leak event: molten salt leaks and solidifies, staying put for cleanup
OfficeThug 1 week ago
Current nuclear is being phased out. All of our plants are ancient, 70s-80s era designs that are beginning to stay past their bedtimes. Because nuclear energy has been deemed taboo by the public and the government, we have barely conducted any new nuclear initiatives, especially into intrinsically safe nuclear reactors, since the 80s. So we will be replacing these old plants with coal plants just as Germany is currently doing.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
Granted, current nuclear SUCKS big time. Plants get 0.7% fuel burnup efficiencies, which is pathetic. They use pressurized water cooling which cannot reach the optimal temperatures of nuclear reactions and which has a tendency to flash into steam and explode. They don't even breed-fission their waste for disposal so they're left with long-standing radioactive waste which is 99+% unspent fuel and 0.7+% not even supposed to be long-lasting radioactive hazards if they just handled it properly.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
Next up is nuclear. Nuclear used to be cheaper than coal, but now it's rather expensive, so much so that no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since 1976. Regulatory ratcheting essentially destroyed the nuclear industry, with new plants taking more than a decade to build (compared to 2-3 years prior), sporting massive amounts of complex safety systems deemed necessary by the NRC, and running huge costs over spent fuel disposal limbo.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
Because solar and wind energy outputs fluctuate, lack of electrical production needs to be supplemented by a "backup" system, typically open-cycle NG plants. Surplus energy is rarely stored for later use as a backup due to the expenses of large-scale intermittent storage (batteries are expensive, and so are physical storage methods). So to make renewables effective, you'd also need to conduct better intermittent energy research. I'm a battery chemist and let me tell you my field is pretty barren
OfficeThug 1 week ago
Many of you argue renewables are the way to go, however they have met very little success in the physical world, especially once the government starts reducing their subsidies. They suffer compared to coal because of physical limitations; for solar and wind, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, with average operation output being expressed as Capacity Factor. They also exhibit lower energy densities and specific energies, requiring more land/material to instal.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
Stop attacking people on a personnal level. It doesn't work. It will never work. Start looking at how you can change the infrastructure, starting by uprooting the fossil fuel industry. This can only be accomplished by adopting a SUPERIOR source of energy. Your choices are renewables or nuclear.
OfficeThug 1 week ago
@OfficeThug
RE 'Your choices are renewables or nuclear.'
... or recycling of CO2 and fuel synthesis by using renewables.
U1T001 1 week ago