climate humor

You are scrambling pollution and climate. The Sun calls the shots. The world has not warmed in 17+ years. Historically that says we're about to enter a mini ice age (or worse... freeze the balls off of all leftists :-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142     Skype: skypeanalog  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

How is that worse?

Why a video? If there's a real issue, it ought to be published in the peer reviewed literature on climate, weather, atmospheric sciences. This is obviously not reliable (ought to be ignored until and unless the author submits his work properly for scrutiny).

Einstein was once confronted with a pamphlet "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein" ( A Hundred Authors Against Einstein); he mused,

"Why a hundred? If I am wrong, it only takes one".

The trick is, it has to be one objector with facts and cogent reasoning.

CO2 is good for the planet because plants love it. It's been tens of times higher concentrations in the past, and things flourished.

The poor people of the world want food, clean water, lighting, communications, transportation, clean fuel for heating and cooking. They need energy, and aren't going to get it from windmills.

It's not realistic to control CO2, or even an obviously good idea to do so.

What we should control is particulates. They are harmful and can be controlled at modest cost.

The climate models are erratic and worthless, and mostly dishonest. They probably always will be.

Imagine what it would be

People want their heaters, air conditioners, cars, lights, computers, hot and cold running water and washing machines. They like to have food and stuff delivered to their towns. They want to travel. There are 300 million evil greedy conspiritors in the USA alone.

Progress. Health. Education. Things that need fuel.

You posted this on a computer, probably in a room with electric lights, in a climate-controlled house. You probably own a car or three. All that needs energy.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

The answer seems obvious. Thorium Based Molten Salt Reactors. Very little dangerous nuclear waste to deal with. Burn up all the high level waste from pressurized water reactors. Intrinsically safe. Cannot melt down. No high pressure containment building needed. Orders of magnitude more efficient fuel burn. Has already been demonstrated.

We need to get past the politics and entrenched business interests and start putting serious money into developing production models. Solve the remaining problems and phase out the old and dangerous pressurized water reactors.

No more Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and others just waiting to happen.

And stop burning coal and gas.

Chernobyl was insane. The non-insane-reactor accidents were expensive, but probably didn't kill anyone.

Coal mining kills lots of people.

We will probably have some cool new energy source, like thorium or fusion or something, before we run out of oil. That will leave us lots of oil and gas to make plastics and fertilizers and stuff from.

Coal is nasty, not from CO2 so much as from other junk.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

It figures that he would complain. It turns his sacred cow into hamburger. This is why I filtered him, long ago.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to 
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Watch it. The scientist who started the crap said he was wrong. The video was produced by someone who was in the weather business for 60 years. He started the Weather Channel.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to 
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

We get more radiation from coal than from nuclear.

--
Les Cargill

One can envision a future of electric cars recharged from thorium reactors. Cheap and efficient. But most of the USA would be beyond the range of electrics, and charging stations would be too far away from sources to be efficient. This means hybrid cars would be needed and gas would still be essential. Tractor-trailer rigs would probably stay with diesel.

The main benefit of electric vehicles would be in the city where power is plentiful. UPS and FedEx would probably want to switch to electric to reduce operating and maintenance cost. Buses and other start/stop vehicles, such as garbage trucks, would benefit from regeneration during braking.

With most of the vehicles switched over to electic, smog and health- related issues would be drastically reduced.

Aviation would still need kerosene for jet engines. No chemical battery has the power and light weight needed.

That's why huge coal plants are moved far away from cities. But this increases the power lost in transmission. Small molten salt reactors could be much closer to the load and respond much quicker to changes in demand, such as afternoon air conditioning and suppertime.

So we will probably see a huge reduction in burning fossil fuel, but there will likely be a blend of hybrid cars for long distance, diesel for trucking, and kerosene for aviation.

NOAA publishes a lot of data. The anti-AGW folks pick out just the little tidbits that suit their argument.

I do agree with some of the quotes in the film. I seem to recall when they were trying to make it seem that Dr Revelle had changed his stance to not believing in AGW when in fact he only said that more information should be collected before the rate of AGW could be determined and "drastic" actions taken. I do agree with Dr Revelle on that. But so far no one is even considering "drastic" actions.

--

Rick

There is your first mistaken assumption.

--

Rick

This is exactly the sort of mindless crap that people keep repeating. Tell that to my Hungarian friend who has thyroid cancer... along with thousands of others they estimate have or will have cancer due to Chernobyl. There may not be thousands of deaths from Fukushima, but there will be deaths because the exposure happened. From wikipedia...

There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none[27] to 100[28] to a non-peer-reviewed "guesstimate"[29] of 1,000.[21]

I don't like to quote wikepedia, but this does include references to the sources.

When everything goes well nuclear is the safest energy source on the planet. When things don't go well it has the potential for being the worst disaster to happen. Then there is the problem of disposal of nuclear waste. But then we have lots of time to solve that. It can sit in the cooling ponds and the dry fuel casks until well after all of us are dead. So we can let others worry about that little problem.

--

Rick

Exactly. :)

--

Rick

This is the sort of crap that people keep spouting. The scientist who "started the crap" never said he was wrong. He said they needed to pay attention to the facts and not take "drastic" measures to counteract AGW. But the guy who was in the weather business for decades (how could it be 60 years when he wasn't even 80 yet) is the one distorting the facts. All you need to do is listen to what he says rather than they way he says it and you will realize that he uses very little info and a lot of spin. Notice how it keeps showing that one data graph of temperatures with a level line through the last 8 years or so of data? What is that line? Is it a least squares fit? No, it is a level line drawn to take your eye away from the data which still shows an upward trend during that period. Regardless, the last 8 years are not the only years to look at for an assessment of AGW.

--

Rick

Here is an example of a reason why nuclear will never be as safe as is touted. From wikipedia again...

"In the internal report TEPCO said that before the accident it had been afraid to consider the risk of such a large tsunami as the one in March

2011 which hit Fukushima, fearing admissions of risk could result in public pressure to shut plants down."

Basically they are saying that if people really knew the various dangers of nuclear, they wouldn't want it.

That is also illustrated by the fact that VEPCO lied in their application to the NRC for the North Anna plant by intentionally omitting info on a nearby geological fault. They were caught and fined, but only $60,000 which was later reduced to $30,000 on appeal. They built the plant anyway and three years ago an earthquake hit within 10 miles of the plant moving dry storage casks and taking the plant offline. One of the backup generators failed. The problem was traced to a faulty *procedure* for installing the head gaskets, a fault that could have disabled every one of the backup generators since there is no redundancy for a faulty procedure.

I learned about this because it affects me directly and I dug around after the earthquake and accident. How many more problems have there been that were as close to becoming a major accident that we just haven't uncovered because the nuclear industry doesn't want us to know for fear they would be shut down?

--

Rick

[%X]

Perhaps if you had done some looking around you would have come across this article. I hope that this is a source you can accept as a valid scientific reporting of the situation.

What happens with the waste has more to do with political ineptitudes than with engineering and scientific capabilities. Fast Breeders could be set to burn and reduce the level of high level waste we have to deal with. Processes are already in place for dealing with most medium level and low level waste. It will take some political will to build the required facilities.

Regards

Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET Systems Engineer

--
******************************************************************** 
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET..... 
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy............. 
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. 
********************************************************************

The two problems with fast breeders are instability (see the SuperPhe'nix problem) and nuclear proliferation.

High levels of radiation make an excellent deterrent for would-be bomb makers, but fast breeders make a lot of plutonium.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC 
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

160 North State Road #203 
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 

hobbs at electrooptical dot net 
http://electrooptical.net

Fast Breeders can also be set up to burn a lot of Plutonium too (thus reducing the stock-pile).

--
******************************************************************** 
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET..... 
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy............. 
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. 
********************************************************************