Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Saru

Could a nuclear 'binge' solve global warming?

39 posts in this topic

You over the ogallala?

Also there is the massive water consumption of coal-fired plants. Upwards of 2 Billion gallons per year for a 500 megawatt generator, which is unrecoverable. Our local plant draws reserves from an already stressed aquifer via water rights purchased from area farmers and ranchers, and has secured more water rights ahead of a planned expansion of the plant. Being situated in a remote, rural area, I'm guessing that poisoning and depleting the water here isn't a big concern since it won't affect as many people.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is free energy out there. it is known how to access it. There is absolutely no good reason why The People cannot access it.

Our inability to have free energy has to do with some of the people and their money god, it has to do with their greed and avariceness, certainly qualities no one wants to see in their fellow man.

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i honestly believe that cheap fusion is just around the corner.

Even when they overcome the technical issues - optimistic estimates are 20-30 years into the future. Again this is just to late to avoid global warming.

There is also the small issue that if cheap energy were to be introduced, it would accelerate all the other resource crisis which we face.

A rebalanced Civilization, which really understands and applies the principles of sustainability, is what we really need.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back in the late '70s, pointed headed liberal scientists were screaming about global cooling and the next ice age that was just around the corner. Humorously, just as this pointed headed scientist blathers on about making white clouds to reflect sunlight, the pointy heads back in the '70s talked about making black clouds to absorb more sunlight. LMAO.

There was a slight dip in global temps in 1964 to 1965 and 1974 to 1976. No scientist is going to claim that a three-year downturn is anything more than a blip on the radar. This was entirely the work of popular writers who wrote up stuff without doing any research to see if it was true. To the best of my knowledge there are no research articles that made that claim.

This ranks right up there with deniers who try to use the slight dip in temps between 1999 and 2003 to claim that global warming has ended.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are keeping on the front edge of the science, it appears that issue has been conquored. Look on eurekalert. I think I found it on phys.org as well.

We cannot avoid global warming. It is a natural process. It has to do with the evolution of the sun and cosmos.

Did you know that another galaxy went right thru our own recently? Look it up. That surely has an effect on our own galaxy. But did this news make mainstream media? Nope.

While I reject the mindset that man again is at the center of the universe and harming it, I do agreed on the remedies. We should certainly be doing them, no question about it.

i also have a serious question on who actually made CO2 the warming culprit and where is the science to back it up?

Even when they overcome the technical issues - optimistic estimates are 20-30 years into the future. Again this is just to late to avoid global warming.

There is also the small issue that if cheap energy were to be introduced, it would accelerate all the other resource crisis which we face.

A rebalanced Civilization, which really understands and applies the principles of sustainability, is what we really need.

Br Cornelius

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are keeping on the front edge of the science, it appears that issue has been conquored. Look on eurekalert. I think I found it on phys.org as well.

We cannot avoid global warming. It is a natural process. It has to do with the evolution of the sun and cosmos.

Did you know that another galaxy went right thru our own recently? Look it up. That surely has an effect on our own galaxy. But did this news make mainstream media? Nope.

While I reject the mindset that man again is at the center of the universe and harming it, I do agreed on the remedies. We should certainly be doing them, no question about it.

i also have a serious question on who actually made CO2 the warming culprit and where is the science to back it up?

A galactic interaction takes millions of years - it is impossible to attribute the warming of the last 100 years to an event of such long duration.

I researched Fusion about 6months ago - in some considerable depth. i cannot imagine that the technical difficulties have been overcome in 6 months since they have been lingering for about 50yrs at this point. The technology is reasonably robust - but it is the transfer from research based fusion to commercial fusion which will take 20-30years to develop. Fusion is demonstrated on a daily basis around the world, but never in a way which produces more energy than was needed to initiate the process. The current stage of development is to produce a reactor which overcomes this over unity payback and that means building a generator at least twice as big as the current reactors. Even then it will be many years before a commercially viable version becomes available.

It is not earth centric or even anthropomorphic to suppose that we can effect the system in which we live. It is plain common sense based upon empirical evidence. The example of the Ozone hole and acid rain should be all you need to prove to yourself that we are more than capable of changing our biosphere in radical and far reaching ways. There is nothing arrogant in measuring this and stating it.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, well, I have read that all the other planets are warming as well. Wonder what kind of fossil fuel they are burning.

And you are wanting me to find the link for it, because if I did, it would mess with your thinking on this?

Technologiy is not at it's apex at the current time.

We do indeed affect the system we live in, no doubt about that. I will not challenge you on that. But to think that warming is all our fault is rather abstract thinking and it puts man again in the place of the sun.

i have read that the ozone hole is closing.

Now I don't go to the GOP talking point sites because I am not GOP. I just it here and watch the science. I didn't see Gores movie because it still, to this day, costs money to see. And I will not pay for a mind-set that I did not choose for myself. But I did ask Gore's foundation to link me to site that show the science behind his claims, a request that was ignored. Why do you suppose that is, to ignore someone who really just wants to read the science behind his claims?

A galactic interaction takes millions of years - it is impossible to attribute the warming of the last 100 years to an event of such long duration.

I researched Fusion about 6months ago - in some considerable depth. i cannot imagine that the technical difficulties have been overcome in 6 months since they have been lingering for about 50yrs at this point. The technology is reasonably robust - but it is the transfer from research based fusion to commercial fusion which will take 20-30years to develop. Fusion is demonstrated on a daily basis around the world, but never in a way which produces more energy than was needed to initiate the process. The current stage of development is to produce a reactor which overcomes this over unity payback and that means building a generator at least twice as big as the current reactors. Even then it will be many years before a commercially viable version becomes available.

It is not earth centric or even anthropomorphic to suppose that we can effect the system in which we live. It is plain common sense based upon empirical evidence. The example of the Ozone hole and acid rain should be all you need to prove to yourself that we are more than capable of changing our biosphere in radical and far reaching ways. There is nothing arrogant in measuring this and stating it.

Br Cornelius

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other planets are not all warming, this is factually incorrect. Certain of the planets are warming and certain of the planets are cooling. this is all attributable to their own respective position within their solar orbit and localised climate conditions specific to their seasonal progressions.

The ozone hole is closing because we took action to stop pumping CFC's into the atmosphere.

No serious scientist claims that current warming is entirely attributable to CO2, there are well recognized cyclic influences playing their part and that is why we have seen a halt to warming over the last decade or so. Still we should have seen a drop in temps - which most certainly has not happened. As you can see - it is only the ill informed who attribute all warming to CO2.

By mentioning Gore and the GOP you show that you are not deriving your opinion from scientists and as such you have no credibility on the issue.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You over the ogallala?

Yes, whats left of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing as "global warming". Climate always change no matter what.

http://burtrutan.com...ueCAGW-v4o3.pdf

Here is one small critique of Rutans cherry picking of data to conceal the actual trend;

One of the signatories to the letter about global warming recently published in the Wall Street Journal is aerospace engineer Burt Rutan. A recent post on WUWT features his exchange with Brian Angliss at Scholars and Rogues. According to the post Rutan, in an email to Anthony Watts, stated “I usually ignore these diatribes.” If you read the post he refers to, it’s abundantly clear that it’s not a “diatribe.”

Rutan also states

You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized.

My main question is about a graph which Rutan presents, but before we get to that, Mr. Rutan, I have to ask because we’re all so eager to know: on what basis do you claim that arctic ice content has stabilized? I’ll happily point you to my basis for claiming that it has not, that in fact arctic ice content has destabilized. Do tell us, Mr. Rutan — we’re all ears.

But what really piqued my curiosity was Rutan’s “research” on global warming. It strikes me as a “gish gallop” of the worst global warming arguments. Perhaps Mr. Rutan and I can discuss them some day, but at the moment what I’m most curious about is this graph on page pg. 35 of his pdf report:

summerheat.jpg?w=500&h=394

It’s Rutan’s basis for for arguing that the statement “May, 2010 was the hottest May on record” is unimportant.

It seems that what he has done is take the temperature change from December to May, then expressed that as a percentage. He seems to regard the fact that the December-May increase hasn’t itself increased, and/or was unexceptional in 2010, as some sort of refutation of the validity or importance of 2010 having the hottest May on record.

Me personally, I don’t regard the fact that 2010 had the hottest May on record as especially meaningful. I do regard the fact that this record was the continuation of a trend as meaningful — May has been getting hotter. As has January. And February, and March, and … you get the idea.

What puzzles me, what I find completely mystifying, is why Rutan would regard the December-May temperature change as a meaningful indicator.

After all, if we plot December temperature (in blue) and May temperature (in red), we can clearly see that both have increased over the last century and more:

decmay.jpg?w=500&h=325

Since all months of the year have gotten hotter, we would expect little change in the annual December-May difference. So please, please, tell us Mr. Rutan, why do you regard the December-May difference as meaningful? I’ll be honest with ya, this claim strikes me as irrelevant nonsense.

One more thing, Mr. Rutan — you express the December-May change as a percentage. Percentage of what?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/

That's right, he chose a completely meaningless indice to conceal the obvious trend in the data. Should we trust a man who would do exactly what he accuses others of doing in torturing the data.

How many other deception lie hidden in that 93 page monstrocity ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, maybe there isn't that much of a warming.

Public release date: 13-Sep-2012

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/asu-wht091112.php

Arizona State University

World’s hottest temperature cools a bit

Team of meteorologists overturn a reading from 90 years ago and make Death Valley the holder of the world’s hottest temperature

IMAGE: This is a drawing of the Six-Bellini thermometer. Image supplied by Paolo Brenni, President of the Scientific Instrument Commission, and courtesy of Library of the Observatorio Astronomico Di Palermo, Gisuseppe…

Click here for more information.

TEMPE, Ariz. – If you think this summer was hot, it’s nothing compared to the summer of 1913, when the hottest temperature ever recorded was a searing 134 F in Death Valley, Calif. But while that reading was made 99 years ago, it is only being recognized today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as the most extreme temperature ever recorded.

That’s because an international team of meteorologists recently finished an in-depth investigation of what had been the world-record temperature extreme of 58 C (136.4 F), recorded on Sept. 13, 1922 in El Azizia, Libya. The group found that there were enough questions surrounding the measurement and how it was made that it was probably inaccurate, overturning the record 90 years to the day it was recorded.

“We found systematic errors in the 1922 reading,” said Randy Cerveny, an Arizona State University President’s Professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning. “This change to the record books required significant sleuthing and a lot of forensic records work,” added Cerveny, who also is the Rapporteur of Climate and Weather Extremes for the WMO, the person responsible for keeping worldwide weather records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

commentary to my post.

If they have been wrong about this, finding flaws in calculations and interpretations going back to 1922, what else surrounding the global warming issue might need to be adjusted? I hear the man that initially named CO2 as the warming culprit had faulty studies as well.

Wait, maybe there isn't that much of a warming.

Public release date: 13-Sep-2012

http://www.eurekaler...u-wht091112.php

Arizona State University

World’s hottest temperature cools a bit

Team of meteorologists overturn a reading from 90 years ago and make Death Valley the holder of the world’s hottest temperature

IMAGE: This is a drawing of the Six-Bellini thermometer. Image supplied by Paolo Brenni, President of the Scientific Instrument Commission, and courtesy of Library of the Observatorio Astronomico Di Palermo, Gisuseppe…

Click here for more information.

TEMPE, Ariz. – If you think this summer was hot, it’s nothing compared to the summer of 1913, when the hottest temperature ever recorded was a searing 134 F in Death Valley, Calif. But while that reading was made 99 years ago, it is only being recognized today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as the most extreme temperature ever recorded.

That’s because an international team of meteorologists recently finished an in-depth investigation of what had been the world-record temperature extreme of 58 C (136.4 F), recorded on Sept. 13, 1922 in El Azizia, Libya. The group found that there were enough questions surrounding the measurement and how it was made that it was probably inaccurate, overturning the record 90 years to the day it was recorded.

“We found systematic errors in the 1922 reading,” said Randy Cerveny, an Arizona State University President’s Professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning. “This change to the record books required significant sleuthing and a lot of forensic records work,” added Cerveny, who also is the Rapporteur of Climate and Weather Extremes for the WMO, the person responsible for keeping worldwide weather records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have no problem with climate change it's not like the planet hasn't done it before. are we the cause? maybe a little. it's a big world that has proven before it can take care of itself which scares me because it might decide it doesn't need or want us anymore. But anyway can chaging our habit of using fossil fuels and polluting the enviroment have an effect on reversing the current trend of global warming? these studies you site do show global warming and i'm fine with that but how much have we caused and how much can we effect the trend? If the planet is warming on it's own then this whole global warming caused by man scare is a colossal waste. Is anyone studing that what impact we can have? I think we need to move past the pointing fingers and figure out what the solution is if there is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.