Electroliner 1935 schlimm And I second that. Anyone had to have their house checked for Radon Gas? No one knew about houses having Radon gas seeping up from the ground until a worker coming into work at a Nuclear Plant in (I believe Pennsylvania) set off the radiation alarms. When challenged to say where he had been in the plant, he said "nowhere, I'm coming from home". When they tested his house, they found radiation from Radon. Nuclear plants are clean and safe. I have worked in them and the concern for safety is excellent. Three Mile Island harmed no one. All U.S Nuclear plants have containment vessels unlike Chernoble which did not. They do not release any CO2 or particulates into the air. But, the timing of the movie, The China Syndrome in 1979 released with the Three Mile Island event created a "perfect storm" in the publics mind which only saw images of Nuclear Bombs and since then, nobody wants a Nuclear Plant. Today, they are having problems competing with cheap natural gas. When the supply of fracking gas runs out, it will be interesting to see whether they are again built.
schlimm
And I second that. Anyone had to have their house checked for Radon Gas? No one knew about houses having Radon gas seeping up from the ground until a worker coming into work at a Nuclear Plant in (I believe Pennsylvania) set off the radiation alarms. When challenged to say where he had been in the plant, he said "nowhere, I'm coming from home". When they tested his house, they found radiation from Radon. Nuclear plants are clean and safe. I have worked in them and the concern for safety is excellent. Three Mile Island harmed no one. All U.S Nuclear plants have containment vessels unlike Chernoble which did not. They do not release any CO2 or particulates into the air. But, the timing of the movie, The China Syndrome in 1979 released with the Three Mile Island event created a "perfect storm" in the publics mind which only saw images of Nuclear Bombs and since then, nobody wants a Nuclear Plant. Today, they are having problems competing with cheap natural gas. When the supply of fracking gas runs out, it will be interesting to see whether they are again built.
Want to become the next multi-billionaire? Find a viable commercial use for spent Nuclear fuel rods.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidThe consensus shows we are approaching a tipping point...
Which consensus - the 1.5C consensus, or the 4.5C consensus?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I agree 100% with nuclear energy...it is the only true green energy....so if somehow this were enacted throughout would this end the argument? or do we yet all still have to live in caves and crawl out on all fours each morning to go grazing on the grass in order to save the world?
schlimm oltmannd Electroliner 1935 How many years did the tobaco industry dispute the claim that smoking cigerettes cause cancer in smokers by dismissing the science. I think the glaciers have made it clear that warming is real. Greenland, Alaska, Canada all have significant ice melt. But like Tree68, I think we should move toward a reduction in coal and an increase in renewables. But we should not destroy our economy nor our lifestyle. I support increased home insulation and higher efficiency equipment. And Rail transport is more energy efficient than trucks and planes so what is not to like on that. +1 sounds reasonable and practical to me! Add to that nuclear power, based on the improvements available now compared to 30-40 years ago. But it got a bad rep and so the public needs re-education.
oltmannd Electroliner 1935 How many years did the tobaco industry dispute the claim that smoking cigerettes cause cancer in smokers by dismissing the science. I think the glaciers have made it clear that warming is real. Greenland, Alaska, Canada all have significant ice melt. But like Tree68, I think we should move toward a reduction in coal and an increase in renewables. But we should not destroy our economy nor our lifestyle. I support increased home insulation and higher efficiency equipment. And Rail transport is more energy efficient than trucks and planes so what is not to like on that. +1 sounds reasonable and practical to me!
Electroliner 1935 How many years did the tobaco industry dispute the claim that smoking cigerettes cause cancer in smokers by dismissing the science. I think the glaciers have made it clear that warming is real. Greenland, Alaska, Canada all have significant ice melt. But like Tree68, I think we should move toward a reduction in coal and an increase in renewables. But we should not destroy our economy nor our lifestyle. I support increased home insulation and higher efficiency equipment. And Rail transport is more energy efficient than trucks and planes so what is not to like on that.
How many years did the tobaco industry dispute the claim that smoking cigerettes cause cancer in smokers by dismissing the science. I think the glaciers have made it clear that warming is real. Greenland, Alaska, Canada all have significant ice melt. But like Tree68, I think we should move toward a reduction in coal and an increase in renewables. But we should not destroy our economy nor our lifestyle. I support increased home insulation and higher efficiency equipment. And Rail transport is more energy efficient than trucks and planes so what is not to like on that.
+1 sounds reasonable and practical to me!
Add to that nuclear power, based on the improvements available now compared to 30-40 years ago. But it got a bad rep and so the public needs re-education.
I like the idea of nuclear, but so far, Southern Co. efforts so far with their new build haven't made it seem reasonable or practical. All it does is bulldoze deadlines and run up cost. We're already paying....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndI like the idea of nuclear, but so far, Southern Co. efforts so far with their new build haven't made it seem reasonable or practical. All it does is bulldoze deadlines and run up cost. We're already paying....
See Electroliner's post on that. People remember what they want to remember...
We're seeing the same thing with wind in my area - people are fighting it left and right. One woman is reduced to tears any time she discusses it...
tree68 Euclid The consensus shows we are approaching a tipping point... Which consensus - the 1.5C consensus, or the 4.5C consensus?
Euclid The consensus shows we are approaching a tipping point...
I am not sure which. I just meant the scientific consenus that has confirmed the call to action. It also confirms that there is a tipping point, so it won't help to do a little action and see if it does a little good. We have to do enough action to reverse the trend before we reach the tipping point, and that is not far off.
BaltACD: Want to become the next multi-billionaire? Find a viable commercial use for spent Nuclear fuel rods.
I think that is coming. erikem would know details but I read two years ago of a small power reactor developed at MIT that uses spent nuclear rods for fuel, reducing the contaminated waste product by about 90%.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 oltmannd I like the idea of nuclear, but so far, Southern Co. efforts so far with their new build haven't made it seem reasonable or practical. All it does is bulldoze deadlines and run up cost. We're already paying.... See Electroliner's post on that. People remember what they want to remember... We're seeing the same thing with wind in my area - people are fighting it left and right. One woman is reduced to tears any time she discusses it...
oltmannd I like the idea of nuclear, but so far, Southern Co. efforts so far with their new build haven't made it seem reasonable or practical. All it does is bulldoze deadlines and run up cost. We're already paying....
As I said, nuclear got a bad reputation, deserved or not, after the incidents. The public does not understand so a strong, factual campaign is needed to point out the safety and benefits.
schlimm tree68 oltmannd I like the idea of nuclear, but so far, Southern Co. efforts so far with their new build haven't made it seem reasonable or practical. All it does is bulldoze deadlines and run up cost. We're already paying.... See Electroliner's post on that. People remember what they want to remember... We're seeing the same thing with wind in my area - people are fighting it left and right. One woman is reduced to tears any time she discusses it... As I said, nuclear got a bad reputation, deserved or not, after the incidents. The public does not understand so a strong, factual campaign is needed to point out the safety and benefits.
It's unbelievable that there are people who think the risks associated with nuclear power (accidents, spent fuel storage, & nuclear terrorism) are greater than those posed by climate change as stated by climatologists.
AnthonyVIt's unbelievable that there are people who think the risks associated with nuclear power (accidents, spent fuel storage, & nuclear terrorism) are greater than those posed by climate change as stated by climatologists.
A fellow was called on the carpet by his boss over a fifty cent expense.
He asked his boss, "you deal with millions of dollars every day, why are you so upset about a mere fifty cents?"
"To tell the truth," answered the boss, "millions of dollars is really hard to wrap my head around. But fifty cents, that I understand!"
oltmannd MidlandMike Volcanoes put out many other gases besides CO2, principally H2O (the most abundant) and SO2, both of which cause climatic cooling. They can also put out lots of ash and dust into the atmosphere, which also causes cooling. Except that volcanism is pretty much been flat https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-significant-increase-in-volcano-eruptions.t6225/
MidlandMike Volcanoes put out many other gases besides CO2, principally H2O (the most abundant) and SO2, both of which cause climatic cooling. They can also put out lots of ash and dust into the atmosphere, which also causes cooling.
Volcanoes put out many other gases besides CO2, principally H2O (the most abundant) and SO2, both of which cause climatic cooling. They can also put out lots of ash and dust into the atmosphere, which also causes cooling.
Except that volcanism is pretty much been flat
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-significant-increase-in-volcano-eruptions.t6225/
I think we are saying the same thing, that volcanism is not a significant contributor to the present global warming discussion.
MidlandMike oltmannd MidlandMike Volcanoes put out many other gases besides CO2, principally H2O (the most abundant) and SO2, both of which cause climatic cooling. They can also put out lots of ash and dust into the atmosphere, which also causes cooling. Except that volcanism is pretty much been flat https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-significant-increase-in-volcano-eruptions.t6225/ I think we are saying the same thing, that volcanism is not a significant contributor to the present global warming discussion.
The effects of volcanism act as a subtractor in the global warming discussion. Were there Krakatoa magnitude volcanism taking place, we might be discussiong global cooling instead.
schlimm BaltACD: Want to become the next multi-billionaire? Find a viable commercial use for spent Nuclear fuel rods. I think that is coming. erikem would know details but I read two years ago of a small power reactor developed at MIT that uses spent nuclear rods for fuel, reducing the contaminated waste product by about 90%.
What Schlimm is referrin to is the design studies being by Transatomic, which is a molten slat reactor design using an Uranium - Plutonium cycle rather than the Thorium - Uranium cycle taked about by the "Thorium Reactor" fans. big advantage is that it can use reprocessed spent fuel to get the initial Plutonium inventory, where the Thorium cylce reactors will need some means of getting the startup inventory of 233U.
My understanding is that Transatomic is planning to keep the transuranics in the molten salt/fuel mix to "burn up" some of the longer living radionuclides. In this way, the waste will only need to be stored for a few thousand years (about the time that King Tut's tomb laid undisturbed).
Downsides of the molten salt reactor design is that the fission products will be separated as part of the normal operation and thus some means for temporary and permanent storage will need to be developed. Spent fuel bundles make a fair short to medium term (i.e. up to a few centuries) means of isolating the fission products. FWIW, most of the fission products will be gone in about a thousand years and what's left will be close to the levels of the original uranium ore.
Other ways of using spent fuel would be fast breeder reactor, both the traditional type and the integral fast reactor. The latter was demo'ed by the EBR II project in Idaho, and the fuel elements were arc melt reprocessed keeping the metallic fission product with the fuel.
tree68 AnthonyV It's unbelievable that there are people who think the risks associated with nuclear power (accidents, spent fuel storage, & nuclear terrorism) are greater than those posed by climate change as stated by climatologists. A fellow was called on the carpet by his boss over a fifty cent expense. He asked his boss, "you deal with millions of dollars every day, why are you so upset about a mere fifty cents?" "To tell the truth," answered the boss, "millions of dollars is really hard to wrap my head around. But fifty cents, that I understand!"
AnthonyV It's unbelievable that there are people who think the risks associated with nuclear power (accidents, spent fuel storage, & nuclear terrorism) are greater than those posed by climate change as stated by climatologists.
The sad thing is that there are those who believe climate change poses a mortal threat to the planet yet believe the risks posed by nuclear power are too great to implement as a means to reduce CO2 emissions.
There are those who believe climate change poses a mortal threat to the planet yet don't want to hurt the economy in any way.
These people have no credibility to me. Either we are facing a crisis and must take decisive action or we aren't. It's that simple.
I do not want to lump everybody on one side or the other as there are sincere people on both sides. However, the political dialogue seems to imply that the "deniers' are saying what they say because they are being political or are bought and the "believers" are sincere. Make no mistake about it, "believers" can be just as political as "deniers" in terms of what technologies are favored through government funding, tax breaks, and regulation. Some "believers" are jockying for position to make money off this as much as some "deniers" are.
AnthonyV ... the political dialogue seems to imply that the "deniers' are saying what they say because they are being political or are bought and the "believers" are sincere. Make no mistake about it, "believers" can be just as political as "deniers" in terms of what technologies are favored through government funding, tax breaks, and regulation. Some "believers" are jockying for position to make money off this as much as some "deniers" are.
Yes, we are told that the believer scientists have no agenda, but the scientists that support the deniers always have an agenda that renders their findings false. They are said to be working for the energy companies, and thus cannot be fair and objective like the believer scientists who have no financial stake in their findings.
From the link below:
“In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
BaltACD MidlandMike oltmannd MidlandMike Volcanoes put out many other gases besides CO2, principally H2O (the most abundant) and SO2, both of which cause climatic cooling. They can also put out lots of ash and dust into the atmosphere, which also causes cooling. Except that volcanism is pretty much been flat https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-significant-increase-in-volcano-eruptions.t6225/ I think we are saying the same thing, that volcanism is not a significant contributor to the present global warming discussion. The effects of volcanism act as a subtractor in the global warming discussion. Were there Krakatoa magnitude volcanism taking place, we might be discussiong global cooling instead.
While often the most notable effect following big eruptions is a cool down, there are many products of an eruption, each with its own timeline, the full understanding of which would require its own scientific study. I don't want to simply get into trading anecdotal points with climate change doubters. So I will stick with the factual summation given in the USGS links posted earlier by Oltmannd, which show volcanic CO2 to be of insignficant volume compared to man made CO2.
Euclid AnthonyV ... the political dialogue seems to imply that the "deniers' are saying what they say because they are being political or are bought and the "believers" are sincere. Make no mistake about it, "believers" can be just as political as "deniers" in terms of what technologies are favored through government funding, tax breaks, and regulation. Some "believers" are jockying for position to make money off this as much as some "deniers" are. Yes, we are told that the believer scientists have no agenda, but the scientists that support the deniers always have an agenda that renders their findings false. They are said to be working for the energy companies, and thus cannot be fair and objective like the believer scientists who have no financial stake in their findings. From the link below: “In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
1. The Nat Review is hardly an objective magazine and Zero citations. Let's see evidence that big oil is funding climate change mitigation research.
2. If climate change is a such a hoax (as it appears to be in your conspiracy-bent mind) why is Exxon-Mobil pushing for a carbon tax?
schlimm1. The Nat Review is hardly an objective magazine and Zero citations. Let's see evidence that big oil is funding climate change mitigation research. 2. If climate change is a such a hoax (as it appears to be in your conspiracy-bent mind) why is Exxon-Mobil pushing for a carbon tax?
Must be Exxon-Mobil sees money to be made...
schlimm Euclid AnthonyV ... the political dialogue seems to imply that the "deniers' are saying what they say because they are being political or are bought and the "believers" are sincere. Make no mistake about it, "believers" can be just as political as "deniers" in terms of what technologies are favored through government funding, tax breaks, and regulation. Some "believers" are jockying for position to make money off this as much as some "deniers" are. Yes, we are told that the believer scientists have no agenda, but the scientists that support the deniers always have an agenda that renders their findings false. They are said to be working for the energy companies, and thus cannot be fair and objective like the believer scientists who have no financial stake in their findings. From the link below: “In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne 1. The Nat Review is hardly an objective magazine and Zero citations. Let's see evidence that big oil is funding climate change mitigation research. 2. If climate change is a such a hoax (as it appears to be in your conspiracy-bent mind) why is Exxon-Mobil pushing for a carbon tax?
I would not call it a hoax or conspiracy theory. Both terms are only cheap shots to discredit any doubt that the so called “settled science” by consensus is actually scientifically proven. Both terms intend to achieve that discrediting by painting a picture of world leaders hunched over a table on a dark night hatching out a secret plan to steal the world’s wealth. Maybe the fact that the Exon CEO has jumped on the bandwagon discredits the idea that all science not on the bandwagon must be wrong because it is funded by those with a pro-carbon agenda.
IMO More research needs to be done to study the earth's history. With ice core samples, rock science etc maybe we can get a better idea of what has the history has been. Until we can understand the cycles of the earth and maybe more important what the sun has done . The reason the sun is mentioned I believe the sun's surface temp is about 7000 K. A ten percent change means 700 degrees. Is that enough to cause the earth's cycles of hot and cold ?. This poster has no idea.
Add to all that history is what are the effects of man ? If research shows that the earth will go thru a warming cycle folowed by cooling then we must prepare the coastal cities. But we may even be at the peak of global warming. Past geogical history shows Florida under water and the shore line near Columbus, Ga. But also the continental shelf was out of water and dry at other times.
blue streak 1......you mentioned past history via geological remains, here at home in Northeast Arkansas a 60' bore for a foundation of an auditorium piling showed evidence of the Gulf of Mexico being up here. Alaskan glacier history shows receeding AND growing front of the ice mass. The dates of these observations are way before the industrial revolution and thus not subject to man made problems. it is simply called WEATHER that has gone on ever since earth was formed
(personal note: "blue streak 1" that is a Cotton Belt "thang" or is there another source ?.... curious since i am in Blue Streak/Cotton Belt country)
Agree w/you all this hub bub about global warming, then climate change, etc etc. Dudes,.... it is called weather! endmrw1231161149
blue streak 1IMO More research needs to be done to study the earth's history. With ice core samples,
Much of that has been done for years. Climatologists use ice core samples extensively. I believe they use those and tree ring samples to gauge carbon levels.
The ratio of 16O to 18O in water gives an indication of ocean temperature (water with Oxygen atomic weight of 16 evaporates a bit faster than water with Oxygen atomic weight of 18).
The kinds of pollen found in lake sediments also gives an indication of nearby temperatures, the presence of dryas pollen is an indication of a centuries long cold snap, e.g. Younger Dryas.
Historical records give an indication of climate. One example is the records of the dates of charry blossoms in Japan going back moe than 1300 years. Another example is the Viking settlements in Greenland, there were working farms on land that is now permafrost.
Another method is temperature logging of boreholes, one major problem with the technique is that time resolution gets worse the farther back in time.
Another is looking at the locations of tree lines.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.