The (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has given its 2018 report on world climate.
* IPCC estimates that global model pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C are projected to involve the annual average investment needs in the energy system of around 2.4 trillion USD2010 between 2016 and 2035 representing about 2.5% of the world GDP. $48 trillion of investment.
* Carbon emissions would have to be cut by 45% of 2010 level by 2030 – compared with a 20% cut under the 2C pathway – and come down to zero by 2050, compared with 2075 for 2C.
World PPP GDP is doubling from 2007 to 2020 and the emissions increase by about 20% at the same time. World emissions are already over 10% higher than the level in 2010. The IPCC report is calling for halving current emissions by 2030. This would be about one-third of the current trend.
IPCC indicates the need to generate more emission free energy. But despite the urgency of massively cutting emissions, the IPCC still attacks nuclear energy. The report is conflicted as parts written by some researchers includes growing nuclear power as part of the energy mix.
* India, Asia and the rest of the world are still growing their economies and generating more emissions
* IPCC asserts that climate change will be harder on the poor of the world but the poor of the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by using more energy
* nuclear waste never hurts anyone, while seven million die prematurely each year from air pollution. Nuclear energy has caused very few deaths and is a very important part of enabling reduction in fossil fuels.
Two major scientific papers published by Harvard University professors found that “the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.”
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion. This research supports more than 10 other studies that observed warming near operational U.S. wind farms. The warming effect of wind turbines in the continental U.S. was actually larger than the effect of reduced emissions for the first century of its operation.
The average power density for wind farms — meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant — was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts. For solar energy, the average power density (measured in watts per meter squared) is 10 times higher than wind power, but also much lower than estimates by leading energy experts.
Solar farms (like California’s Ivanpah) require up to 5,000 times more land per unit of energy than nuclear plants (like California’s Diablo Canyon
Below GDP PPP is in billions and Emission are in millions of tons per year Year GDP PPP Emissions GDP % E growth 2007 78000 30079 2008 82630 30382 5.94% 1.01% 2009 83420 29714 0.96% -2.20% 2010 89000 31072 6.69% 4.57% 2011 95100 31971 6.85% 2.89% 2012 100000 32318 5.15% 1.09% 2013 105600 32887 5.60% 1.76% 2014 111000 33018 5.11% 0.40% 2015 115600 33444 4.14% 1.29% 2016 120800 33875 4.50% 1.29% 2017 126900 34313 5.05% 1.29% 2018f 134679 34755 6.13% 1.29% 2019f 142928 35204 6.12% 1.29% 2020f 151500 35658 6.00% 1.29% 2021f 160100 36118 5.68% 1.29% 2022f 168786 36584 5.43% 1.29% 2023f 177993 37056 5.45% 1.29% 2024f 187783 37534 5.50% 1.29% 2025f 198111 38018 5.50% 1.29% 2026f 209007 38509 5.50% 1.29% 2027f 220502 39006 5.50% 1.29% 2028f 232630 39509 5.50% 1.29% 2029f 245424 40019 5.50% 1.29% 2030f 258923 40535 5.50% 1.29%
* California and Germany have added the highest proportion of solar and wind and have seen their electricity prices rise a lot
* Britain is pushing ahead with gas fracking, Norway with oil exploration in the Arctic, and the German government wants to tear down Hambach forest to dig for coal.
They forecast that if global emissions continue at the current rate, then the world will reach 1.5 degrees by as early as 2040.
This means we have roughly 10 to 14 years to avoid a scenario we thought we had decades to prevent.
The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C.
Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (over 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.
And if we hold warming to 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees, the report suggests global sea level rise will be a whole 10 centimeters lower – potentially stopping what the report describes as a “disproportionately rapid evacuation” of people from the tropics.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
“Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or ‘overshoot’ 1.5°C would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5°C by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.
Geoengineering during the overshoot and Massive ocean farming is the realistic way
Geoengineering can be done for a less than a few billion dollars per year. The cost has been estimated at about $5 to $8 billion per year. Not only is SRM relatively inexpensive, but we already have the technological pieces that assembled properly would inject the skies with particles that reflect sunlight back into space. For instance, a fleet of modified Boeing 747s could deliver the necessary payload. Advocates of geoengineering are not too concerned about developing the technology to effect SRM.
Among methods expected to have extensive potential impacts on the climate, the expectation applies mainly to the use of stratospheric aerosols (SAs), but is also attributed to a lesser degree to the use of space mirrors. Much debate about GE concentrates on aerosols, partly because of the existence of a partial analogue (volcanic eruptions, especially at Mount Pinatubo) but also because of the idea that the cost of aerosol deployment will be extremely low by comparison with climate mitigation technologies. One estimate reported by the Royal Society (2009) suggests that SAs might be around 1,000 times cheaper than average mitigation costs.
2017, research from an international team of atmospheric scientists published by Geophysical Research Letters investigates for the first time the possibility of using a “cocktail” of geoengineering tools to reduce changes in both temperature and precipitation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Iron fertilization of the ocean could be used to remove one trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
100 tons of iron were placed into the ocean off of Canada in 2012 with 100 tons of iron.
In the fall of 2013, 226 million pink salmon were caught. They stopped at 226 million because there was no longer any capacity to accept more fish. All of the fish handling facilities were filled. Reports from villages and communities indicate that half a billion pink salmon came back. This was ten times the predicted 50 million and a record.
The background level of iron in the open ocean is only 3 parts per trillion. Iron dust in dirt fall from the deserts can boost the level of iron to 100 parts per trillion.
Before the ice age, the Earth became dry and dusty. Restoring the ocean to a pre-ice age level would store 1 trillion tons of CO2 which is about all of the emissions that humans have put into the air. However, the pace of emissions has not slowed down. If it started slowing down the world might emit another 3 trillion tons from now to 2100 but if the emissions continued to increase then the world might emit another 6 trillion tons of CO2 by 2100. Storing 1 trillion tons by 2100 would lower temperature by about 1 degree. Storing 1 trillion tons of CO2 is about 20 years worth of emissions.
If we restore the oceans we will have ten to fifty times as many fish as today.
It would be easy to get the iron into the ocean. As noted by Goatguy when Nextbigfuture blogged about the iron fertilization 5 years ago, iron could be released from simple barges towed on the back of commercial ships (container ships, cruise ships, oil ships, fishing ships, etc…).
Massive kelp farms in the ocean can be like forests on land and agriculture on land
We are going to have to deploy negative emission technology at scale.
Usually the graphs showing temperature stabilization show the fairy tale of massive and immediate emissions drops to zero. They also show negative emissions in the future.
The negative emissions can start being scaled in parallel with to adopting cleaner energy and technology.
These methods will be faster to scale then complicated and industrial intensive carbon capture at coal and natural gas plants and factories and creating massive national and global pipelines to move the captured gas into underground storage.
Expand Commercial Kelp Growth by 100 times
There is a proposal to use about 9% of the oceans surface for massive kelp farms. The Ocean surface area is about 36 billion hectares. This would offset all CO2 production and provide 0.5 kg of fish and sea vegetables per person per day for 10 billion people as an “incidental” by-product. 9% of the world’s oceans would be equivalent to about four and a half times the area of Australia.
In 2016, seaweed farms produce more than 25 million metric tonnes annually. The global value of the crop, US$6.4 billion (2014), exceeds that of the world’s lemons and limes.
A 2016 report from the World Bank estimates that the annual global seaweed production could reach 500 million dry tons by 2050 if the market is able to increase its harvest 14% per year. Hitting that 500 million mark would boost the world’s food supply by 10% from the current level, create 50 million direct jobs. The Ocean forest plan would accelerate growth of seaweed farming to 25-50% per year growth and reach about 20-60 billion tons per year of production. The world currently produces about 4 billion tons per year of agricultural product.
Ocean Afforestation (aka Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (OMA)), has the potential to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations through expanding natural populations of macroalgae, which absorb carbon dioxide, then are harvested to produce biomethane and biocarbon dioxide via anaerobic digestion. The plant nutrients remaining after digestion are recycled to expand the algal forest and increase fish populations.
Ocean Afforestation research suggests 12 billion tons per year of biomethane could be produced while storing 19 billion tons of CO2 per year directly from biogas production and 34 billion tons per year from carbon capture. These rates are based on macro-algae forests covering 9% of the world’s ocean surface, which could produce sufficient biomethane to replace all of today’s needs in fossil fuel energy, while removing 53 billion tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere. This amount of biomass could also increase sustainable fish production to potentially provide 200 kg/yr/person for 10 billion people.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 Normally 3-4.5 MW output. During the incident the core power level reached nearly 20 GW in just four milliseconds, precipitating the steam explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1Normally 3-4.5 MW output. During the incident the core power level reached nearly 20 GW in just four milliseconds precipitating the steam explosion.
Oddly IPCC’s 12 year deadline was the time it took France to more or less solve the AGW issue. France went to carbon free nuke electricity and heat decades ago in a little over 10 years, at no net cost over fossils, saving millions of lives from air pollution. The only thing missing at the time were EV’s. By contrast, Big Oil’s and the IPCC’s green darling Germany has spent $2 Trillion over ten years on wind/solar/coal/biofuel backup without reducing its GHG’s or air pollution, at a cost of 100K German lives. Big Oil’s IPCC’s Greenpeace wing rejects France’s proven no cost nuclear solution to global warming by fooling voters with unworkable wind/solar/fossil and green backup solutions that end up taking millions of lives annually from air pollution and potentially billions from the fast approaching civilization ending AGW holocaust. Big Oil owned media is now promoting replacing fossil fuel backup for wind/solar with batteries, skipping the add $8 a kWh it would add to your bill. Impossible and they know it but it convinces us to let the Oil business go on as usual fooling us that solutions are imminent.
So CNSC stage 1 licensing approval is hype?
From the CNSC executive summary: The CNSC has completed a Phase 1 VDR of the Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI) 400-thermalmegawatt integral molten salt reactor (IMSR400). Based on the documentation submitted, CNSC staff have concluded that: 1. TEI has demonstrated an understanding of CNSC requirements applicable to the design and safety analysis of the IMSR400 2. TEI has demonstrated its intent to comply with CNSC regulatory requirements and expectations for NPPs. 3. TEI is integrating Fukushima lessons learned into IMSR design provisions 4. Additional work is required by TEI to address the findings raised as part of this review, including the need to establish robust quality-assured processes for design and safety analysis activities So, that doesn’t sound like a “sit-down” to you? The four bullets of the executive summary say basically that TEI understands the regulatory requirements, intends to comply with them, will incorporate Fukushima lessons learned (whatever that means) and that ADDITIONAL WORK IS REQUIRED BY TEI TO ADDRESS FINDINGS IN THIS REVIEW. You can’t spin it. The Canadian regulator is required to give audience; it is a democratic process. Having discussions with the regulator is what the regulator does. Dozens of companies have not taken it further than this. Bro.
From the CNSC executive summary:The CNSC has completed a Phase 1 VDR of the Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI) 400-thermalmegawatt integral molten salt reactor (IMSR400). Based on the documentation submitted CNSC staff have concluded that:1. TEI has demonstrated an understanding of CNSC requirements applicable to the design and safety analysis of the IMSR4002. TEI has demonstrated its intent to comply with CNSC regulatory requirements andexpectations for NPPs.3. TEI is integrating Fukushima lessons learned into IMSR design provisions4. Additional work is required by TEI to address the findings raised as part of this reviewincluding the need to establish robust quality-assured processes for design and safetyanalysis activitiesSo that doesn’t sound like a sit-down”” to you?The four bullets of the executive summary say basically that TEI understands the regulatory requirements”” intends to comply with them”” will incorporate Fukushima lessons learned (whatever that means) and that ADDITIONAL WORK IS REQUIRED BY TEI TO ADDRESS FINDINGS IN THIS REVIEW.You can’t spin it. The Canadian regulator is required to give audience; it is a democratic process. Having discussions with the regulator is what the regulator does. Dozens of companies have not taken it further than this. Bro.”””
Keep watching Markko. See if it gets built. Additionally, Terrestrial is only in the earliest “sit down” phase of discussion with the Canadian regulator. I’ve commented on it before. Government serves the people so it is obligated to have whatever discussions…
Keep watching Markko. See if it gets built. Additionally Terrestrial is only in the earliest sit down”” phase of discussion with the Canadian regulator. I’ve commented on it before. Government serves the people so it is obligated to have whatever discussions…”””
The Warrentheape presidency. I can see that.
The Warrentheape presidency. I can see that.
There is some nice work on this floating around. I found a detailed paper from Australian National University. Which I can’t find again or link if I did. In summary: – There are significant areas of the ocean where iron is short, but all the other stuff is not short. At least a lot more plankton could grow than currently before you run out of other stuff. Not all, or even most of the ocean is like this. But even a fraction of the ocean is a very big area. – Yes, this DOES use up the other nutrients, and yes this DOES mean that when that cubic km of water flows into another part of the ocean you might now be reducing the growth in that location. – Sometimes the water in this area is about to sink down to the ocean depths or something. Using up all the nutrients in this spot is probably fine because we may not see that water again until it’s well and truly different from now with lots of new nutrients. – You want to start your testing small and check carefully before you jump in and try to alter the whole ocean.
There is some nice work on this floating around. I found a detailed paper from Australian National University. Which I can’t find again or link if I did.In summary:- There are significant areas of the ocean where iron is short but all the other stuff is not short. At least a lot more plankton could grow than currently before you run out of other stuff. Not all or even most of the ocean is like this. But even a fraction of the ocean is a very big area.- Yes this DOES use up the other nutrients and yes this DOES mean that when that cubic km of water flows into another part of the ocean you might now be reducing the growth in that location.- Sometimes the water in this area is about to sink down to the ocean depths or something. Using up all the nutrients in this spot is probably fine because we may not see that water again until it’s well and truly different from now with lots of new nutrients. – You want to start your testing small and check carefully before you jump in and try to alter the whole ocean.
with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 ” Make that – with predictions of catastrophe coming in 1990 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 1995 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2000 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2010 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2020 – with revised and now probably not so embarrassing (at least not for a long time) predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 Yeah there may be an effect but the catastrophe has been postponed time and time again. And I still remember the global COOLING catastrophe that was due in 1976.
with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 “”Make that- with predictions of catastrophe coming in 1990 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 1995- with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2000- with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2010- with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2020- with revised and now probably not so embarrassing (at least not for a long time) predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100Yeah there may be an effect but the catastrophe has been postponed time and time again.And I still remember the global COOLING catastrophe that was due in 1976.”””
From the CNSC executive summary: The CNSC has completed a Phase 1 VDR of the Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI) 400-thermalmegawatt integral molten salt reactor (IMSR400). Based on the documentation submitted, CNSC staff have concluded that: 1. TEI has demonstrated an understanding of CNSC requirements applicable to the design and safety analysis of the IMSR400 2. TEI has demonstrated its intent to comply with CNSC regulatory requirements and expectations for NPPs. 3. TEI is integrating Fukushima lessons learned into IMSR design provisions 4. Additional work is required by TEI to address the findings raised as part of this review, including the need to establish robust quality-assured processes for design and safety analysis activities So, that doesn’t sound like a “sit-down” to you? The four bullets of the executive summary say basically that TEI understands the regulatory requirements, intends to comply with them, will incorporate Fukushima lessons learned (whatever that means) and that ADDITIONAL WORK IS REQUIRED BY TEI TO ADDRESS FINDINGS IN THIS REVIEW. You can’t spin it. The Canadian regulator is required to give audience; it is a democratic process. Having discussions with the regulator is what the regulator does. Dozens of companies have not taken it further than this. Bro.
From the CNSC executive summary:The CNSC has completed a Phase 1 VDR of the Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI) 400-thermalmegawatt integral molten salt reactor (IMSR400). Based on the documentation submitted CNSC staff have concluded that:1. TEI has demonstrated an understanding of CNSC requirements applicable to the design and safety analysis of the IMSR4002. TEI has demonstrated its intent to comply with CNSC regulatory requirements andexpectations for NPPs.3. TEI is integrating Fukushima lessons learned into IMSR design provisions4. Additional work is required by TEI to address the findings raised as part of this reviewincluding the need to establish robust quality-assured processes for design and safetyanalysis activitiesSo that doesn’t sound like a sit-down”” to you?The four bullets of the executive summary say basically that TEI understands the regulatory requirements”” intends to comply with them”” will incorporate Fukushima lessons learned (whatever that means) and that ADDITIONAL WORK IS REQUIRED BY TEI TO ADDRESS FINDINGS IN THIS REVIEW.You can’t spin it. The Canadian regulator is required to give audience; it is a democratic process. Having discussions with the regulator is what the regulator does. Dozens of companies have not taken it further than this. Bro.”””
From the CNSC executive summary:
The CNSC has completed a Phase 1 VDR of the Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI) 400-thermalmegawatt integral molten salt reactor (IMSR400). Based on the documentation submitted, CNSC staff have concluded that:
1. TEI has demonstrated an understanding of CNSC requirements applicable to the design and safety analysis of the IMSR400
2. TEI has demonstrated its intent to comply with CNSC regulatory requirements and
expectations for NPPs.
3. TEI is integrating Fukushima lessons learned into IMSR design provisions
4. Additional work is required by TEI to address the findings raised as part of this review,
including the need to establish robust quality-assured processes for design and safety
analysis activities
So, that doesn’t sound like a “sit-down” to you?
The four bullets of the executive summary say basically that TEI understands the regulatory requirements, intends to comply with them, will incorporate Fukushima lessons learned (whatever that means) and that ADDITIONAL WORK IS REQUIRED BY TEI TO ADDRESS FINDINGS IN THIS REVIEW.
You can’t spin it. The Canadian regulator is required to give audience; it is a democratic process. Having discussions with the regulator is what the regulator does. Dozens of companies have not taken it further than this. Bro.
Oddly IPCC’s 12 year deadline was the time it took France to more or less solve the AGW issue. France went to carbon free nuke electricity and heat decades ago in a little over 10 years, at no net cost over fossils, saving millions of lives from air pollution. The only thing missing at the time were EV’s. By contrast, Big Oil’s and the IPCC’s green darling Germany has spent $2 Trillion over ten years on wind/solar/coal/biofuel backup without reducing its GHG’s or air pollution, at a cost of 100K German lives. Big Oil’s IPCC’s Greenpeace wing rejects France’s proven no cost nuclear solution to global warming by fooling voters with unworkable wind/solar/fossil and green backup solutions that end up taking millions of lives annually from air pollution and potentially billions from the fast approaching civilization ending AGW holocaust. Big Oil owned media is now promoting replacing fossil fuel backup for wind/solar with batteries, skipping the add $8 a kWh it would add to your bill. Impossible and they know it but it convinces us to let the Oil business go on as usual fooling us that solutions are imminent.
Oddly IPCC’s 12 year deadline was the time it took France to more or less solve the AGW issue.France went to carbon free nuke electricity and heat decades ago in a little over 10 years at no net cost over fossils saving millions of lives from air pollution. The only thing missing at the time were EV’s.By contrast Big Oil’s and the IPCC’s green darling Germany has spent $2 Trillion over ten years on wind/solar/coal/biofuel backup without reducing its GHG’s or air pollution at a cost of 100K German lives.Big Oil’s IPCC’s Greenpeace wing rejects France’s proven no cost nuclear solution to global warming by fooling voters with unworkable wind/solar/fossil and green backup solutions that end up taking millions of lives annually from air pollution and potentially billions from the fast approaching civilization ending AGW holocaust.Big Oil owned media is now promoting replacing fossil fuel backup for wind/solar with batteries skipping the add $8 a kWh it would add to your bill. Impossible and they know it but it convinces us to let the Oil business go on as usual fooling us that solutions are imminent.
So CNSC stage 1 licensing approval is hype?
So CNSC stage 1 licensing approval is hype?
Oddly IPCC’s 12 year deadline was the time it took France to more or less solve the AGW issue.
France went to carbon free nuke electricity and heat decades ago in a little over 10 years, at no net cost over fossils, saving millions of lives from air pollution. The only thing missing at the time were EV’s.
By contrast, Big Oil’s and the IPCC’s green darling Germany has spent $2 Trillion over ten years on wind/solar/coal/biofuel backup without reducing its GHG’s or air pollution, at a cost of 100K German lives.
Big Oil’s IPCC’s Greenpeace wing rejects France’s proven no cost nuclear solution to global warming by fooling voters with unworkable wind/solar/fossil and green backup solutions that end up taking millions of lives annually from air pollution and potentially billions from the fast approaching civilization ending AGW holocaust.
Big Oil owned media is now promoting replacing fossil fuel backup for wind/solar with batteries, skipping the add $8 a kWh it would add to your bill. Impossible and they know it but it convinces us to let the Oil business go on as usual fooling us that solutions are imminent.
So CNSC stage 1 licensing approval is hype?
Like I said horseshit. Completed first phase licensing isn’t a sit down. I imagine they covered all your silly objections in earlier sitdown – after all that’s why all involved have advanced degrees in nuke engineering/physics. You?
Lookuup “terrestrial-energy-imsr-first-commercial-advanced-reactor-assessed-regulator”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 Normally 3-4.5 MW output. During the incident the core power level reached nearly 20 GW in just four milliseconds, precipitating the steam explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1Normally 3-4.5 MW output. During the incident the core power level reached nearly 20 GW in just four milliseconds precipitating the steam explosion.
Keep watching Markko. See if it gets built. Additionally, Terrestrial is only in the earliest “sit down” phase of discussion with the Canadian regulator. I’ve commented on it before. Government serves the people so it is obligated to have whatever discussions…
Keep watching Markko. See if it gets built. Additionally Terrestrial is only in the earliest sit down”” phase of discussion with the Canadian regulator. I’ve commented on it before. Government serves the people so it is obligated to have whatever discussions…”””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
Normally 3-4.5 MW output. During the incident the core power level reached nearly 20 GW in just four milliseconds, precipitating the steam explosion.
The Warrentheape presidency. I can see that.
The Warrentheape presidency. I can see that.
There is some nice work on this floating around. I found a detailed paper from Australian National University. Which I can’t find again or link if I did. In summary: – There are significant areas of the ocean where iron is short, but all the other stuff is not short. At least a lot more plankton could grow than currently before you run out of other stuff. Not all, or even most of the ocean is like this. But even a fraction of the ocean is a very big area. – Yes, this DOES use up the other nutrients, and yes this DOES mean that when that cubic km of water flows into another part of the ocean you might now be reducing the growth in that location. – Sometimes the water in this area is about to sink down to the ocean depths or something. Using up all the nutrients in this spot is probably fine because we may not see that water again until it’s well and truly different from now with lots of new nutrients. – You want to start your testing small and check carefully before you jump in and try to alter the whole ocean.
There is some nice work on this floating around. I found a detailed paper from Australian National University. Which I can’t find again or link if I did.In summary:- There are significant areas of the ocean where iron is short but all the other stuff is not short. At least a lot more plankton could grow than currently before you run out of other stuff. Not all or even most of the ocean is like this. But even a fraction of the ocean is a very big area.- Yes this DOES use up the other nutrients and yes this DOES mean that when that cubic km of water flows into another part of the ocean you might now be reducing the growth in that location.- Sometimes the water in this area is about to sink down to the ocean depths or something. Using up all the nutrients in this spot is probably fine because we may not see that water again until it’s well and truly different from now with lots of new nutrients. – You want to start your testing small and check carefully before you jump in and try to alter the whole ocean.
with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 ” Make that – with predictions of catastrophe coming in 1990 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 1995 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2000 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2010 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2020 – with revised and now probably not so embarrassing (at least not for a long time) predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 Yeah there may be an effect but the catastrophe has been postponed time and time again. And I still remember the global COOLING catastrophe that was due in 1976.
with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 “”Make that- with predictions of catastrophe coming in 1990 – with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 1995- with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2000- with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2010- with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2020- with revised and now probably not so embarrassing (at least not for a long time) predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100Yeah there may be an effect but the catastrophe has been postponed time and time again.And I still remember the global COOLING catastrophe that was due in 1976.”””
Keep watching Markko. See if it gets built. Additionally, Terrestrial is only in the earliest “sit down” phase of discussion with the Canadian regulator. I’ve commented on it before. Government serves the people so it is obligated to have whatever discussions…
The Warrentheape presidency. I can see that.
There is some nice work on this floating around. I found a detailed paper from Australian National University. Which I can’t find again or link if I did.
In summary:
– There are significant areas of the ocean where iron is short, but all the other stuff is not short. At least a lot more plankton could grow than currently before you run out of other stuff. Not all, or even most of the ocean is like this. But even a fraction of the ocean is a very big area.
– Yes, this DOES use up the other nutrients, and yes this DOES mean that when that cubic km of water flows into another part of the ocean you might now be reducing the growth in that location.
– Sometimes the water in this area is about to sink down to the ocean depths or something. Using up all the nutrients in this spot is probably fine because we may not see that water again until it’s well and truly different from now with lots of new nutrients.
– You want to start your testing small and check carefully before you jump in and try to alter the whole ocean.
“with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 ”
Make that
– with predictions of catastrophe coming in 1990
– with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 1995
– with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2000
– with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2010
– with updated predictions of catastrophe coming in 2020
– with revised and now probably not so embarrassing (at least not for a long time) predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100
Yeah there may be an effect but the catastrophe has been postponed time and time again.
And I still remember the global COOLING catastrophe that was due in 1976.
If we’ve got to have those emojis, could we at least have an eye roll?
If we’ve got to have those emojis could we at least have an eye roll?
If we’ve got to have those emojis, could we at least have an eye roll?
If we’ve got to have those emojis could we at least have an eye roll?
I understand your concern. It runs along the lines of … • We’ve measured CO₂ rising, inexorably, since the 1950s • It correlates with increasing fossil fuel use • And with instrumental records of rising whole-earth temperature • Theorists hypothesize that rising CO₂ may be positive-feedback • Which projects to be an absolute disaster… • … for Humanity • … for the whole-world’s ecosystems • … for the oceans • We’re all going to die! Horrible gruesome cooked-to-starvation deaths. Thing is, Gaucho, that rather astoundingly inconvenient for the we’re-all-going to-die narrative, it would appear — today! — that the putative effects of slightly rising world temperature are balanced toward the POSITIVE than negative. CO₂ fertilized food production has revolutionized farm output, worldwide. CO₂ forest fertilization has increased timber growth by at least 20% since 1950. CO₂ decreased winter duration, has increased growing seasons, mitigated famines CO₂ phytokinetic H₂O transpiration reduction has expanded savannas into deserts. The widely hyperventillated “barrier reef coral bleaching” has now been determined to have happened, quite aperiodically, over the last 5,000+ years all on its own; the anguished marine biologists corals have surprisingly recovered, with apparently no loss of diversity. The coral reef thing reminds me of the 1950s and forestry: with increasingly vigilance, forest fires were being detected early, and stamped out vigorously. By the 1960s and 1970s, the action was an ostensible huge success. Only thing was, that in so doing, Nature’s brush-clearing mechanism … occasional modest forest fires … was put aside for Humanity’s Better Sense of how The World Should Be. Brush built up. Now — some 50 years later — the number of catastrophic wildfires is rising fast. No question why. And it ain’t global warming. OR CO₂ fertilization of the forests. That’s the point. Beware of popular “science” when it pushes a correlation-must-be-causation narr
I understand your concern. It runs along the lines of …• We’ve measured CO₂ rising inexorably since the 1950s• It correlates with increasing fossil fuel use• And with instrumental records of rising whole-earth temperature• Theorists hypothesize that rising CO₂ may be positive-feedback• Which projects to be an absolute disaster…• … for Humanity• … for the whole-world’s ecosystems• … for the oceans• We’re all going to die! Horrible gruesome cooked-to-starvation deaths.Thing is Gaucho that rather astoundingly inconvenient for the we’re-all-going to-die narrative it would appear — today! — that the putative effects of slightly rising world temperature are balanced toward the POSITIVE than negative. CO₂ fertilized food production has revolutionized farm output worldwide.CO₂ forest fertilization has increased timber growth by at least 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} since 1950.CO₂ decreased winter duration has increased growing seasons mitigated faminesCO₂ phytokinetic H₂O transpiration reduction has expanded savannas into deserts.The widely hyperventillated barrier reef coral bleaching”” has now been determined to have happened”” quite aperiodically over the last 5000+ years all on its own; the anguished marine biologists corals have surprisingly recovered with apparently no loss of diversity. The coral reef thing reminds me of the 1950s and forestry: with increasingly vigilance forest fires were being detected early and stamped out vigorously. By the 1960s and 1970s the action was an ostensible huge success. Only thing was that in so doing”” Nature’s brush-clearing mechanism … occasional modest forest fires … was put aside for Humanity’s Better Sense of how The World Should Be. Brush built up. Now — some 50 years later — the number of catastrophic wildfires is rising fast. No question why. And it ain’t global warming. OR CO₂ fertilization of the forests. That’s the po”
I understand your concern. It runs along the lines of … • We’ve measured CO₂ rising, inexorably, since the 1950s • It correlates with increasing fossil fuel use • And with instrumental records of rising whole-earth temperature • Theorists hypothesize that rising CO₂ may be positive-feedback • Which projects to be an absolute disaster… • … for Humanity • … for the whole-world’s ecosystems • … for the oceans • We’re all going to die! Horrible gruesome cooked-to-starvation deaths. Thing is, Gaucho, that rather astoundingly inconvenient for the we’re-all-going to-die narrative, it would appear — today! — that the putative effects of slightly rising world temperature are balanced toward the POSITIVE than negative. CO₂ fertilized food production has revolutionized farm output, worldwide. CO₂ forest fertilization has increased timber growth by at least 20% since 1950. CO₂ decreased winter duration, has increased growing seasons, mitigated famines CO₂ phytokinetic H₂O transpiration reduction has expanded savannas into deserts. The widely hyperventillated “barrier reef coral bleaching” has now been determined to have happened, quite aperiodically, over the last 5,000+ years all on its own; the anguished marine biologists corals have surprisingly recovered, with apparently no loss of diversity. The coral reef thing reminds me of the 1950s and forestry: with increasingly vigilance, forest fires were being detected early, and stamped out vigorously. By the 1960s and 1970s, the action was an ostensible huge success. Only thing was, that in so doing, Nature’s brush-clearing mechanism … occasional modest forest fires … was put aside for Humanity’s Better Sense of how The World Should Be. Brush built up. Now — some 50 years later — the number of catastrophic wildfires is rising fast. No question why. And it ain’t global warming. OR CO₂ fertilization of the forests. That’s the point. Beware of popular “science” when it pushes a correlation-must-be-causation narr
I understand your concern. It runs along the lines of …• We’ve measured CO₂ rising inexorably since the 1950s• It correlates with increasing fossil fuel use• And with instrumental records of rising whole-earth temperature• Theorists hypothesize that rising CO₂ may be positive-feedback• Which projects to be an absolute disaster…• … for Humanity• … for the whole-world’s ecosystems• … for the oceans• We’re all going to die! Horrible gruesome cooked-to-starvation deaths.Thing is Gaucho that rather astoundingly inconvenient for the we’re-all-going to-die narrative it would appear — today! — that the putative effects of slightly rising world temperature are balanced toward the POSITIVE than negative. CO₂ fertilized food production has revolutionized farm output worldwide.CO₂ forest fertilization has increased timber growth by at least 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} since 1950.CO₂ decreased winter duration has increased growing seasons mitigated faminesCO₂ phytokinetic H₂O transpiration reduction has expanded savannas into deserts.The widely hyperventillated barrier reef coral bleaching”” has now been determined to have happened”” quite aperiodically over the last 5000+ years all on its own; the anguished marine biologists corals have surprisingly recovered with apparently no loss of diversity. The coral reef thing reminds me of the 1950s and forestry: with increasingly vigilance forest fires were being detected early and stamped out vigorously. By the 1960s and 1970s the action was an ostensible huge success. Only thing was that in so doing”” Nature’s brush-clearing mechanism … occasional modest forest fires … was put aside for Humanity’s Better Sense of how The World Should Be. Brush built up. Now — some 50 years later — the number of catastrophic wildfires is rising fast. No question why. And it ain’t global warming. OR CO₂ fertilization of the forests. That’s the po”
Ok yes, and then do you add phosphates and nitrates and what-have-you to replenish the Great Consumption that would take place from adding the iron and producing tonnes of plankton? While iron might be the limiting resource, how much is used per plankton synthesis? And now, how much phosphorous, and nitrogen, and ad nauseam of other critical resources for other marine life in the local area?
Ok yes and then do you add phosphates and nitrates and what-have-you to replenish the Great Consumption that would take place from adding the iron and producing tonnes of plankton? While iron might be the limiting resource how much is used per plankton synthesis? And now how much phosphorous and nitrogen and ad nauseam of other critical resources for other marine life in the local area?
Ok yes, and then do you add phosphates and nitrates and what-have-you to replenish the Great Consumption that would take place from adding the iron and producing tonnes of plankton? While iron might be the limiting resource, how much is used per plankton synthesis? And now, how much phosphorous, and nitrogen, and ad nauseam of other critical resources for other marine life in the local area?
Ok yes and then do you add phosphates and nitrates and what-have-you to replenish the Great Consumption that would take place from adding the iron and producing tonnes of plankton? While iron might be the limiting resource how much is used per plankton synthesis? And now how much phosphorous and nitrogen and ad nauseam of other critical resources for other marine life in the local area?
A handful of millions (like 10 total) and Moltex hasn’t even started development yet? Yes basically hype and talk outside of China. China is at 3.3 billion in funding.
A handful of millions (like 10 total) and Moltex hasn’t even started development yet? Yes basically hype and talk outside of China.China is at 3.3 billion in funding.
A handful of millions (like 10 total) and Moltex hasn’t even started development yet? Yes basically hype and talk outside of China. China is at 3.3 billion in funding.
A handful of millions (like 10 total) and Moltex hasn’t even started development yet? Yes basically hype and talk outside of China.China is at 3.3 billion in funding.
If we’ve got to have those emojis, could we at least have an eye roll?
Feedback isn’t the problem. Fuel handling is the problem. Mundane fuel handling is easily accomplished under 20 feet of crystal clear water using grapples and racks. Fuel handling is not mundane if the fuel is salt that must be maintained at 800F and is not contained in sealed rods. It’s a big deal. Many don’t appreciate it. You’re just not thinking past the fact that the core concept appears simple. Fission is simple; you got that right. MSR are dirty as he11 – you gotta set the boundary conditions farther out away from the bucket of slop. Shipping. Handling. Storage. Maintenance. The chemistry of hypo-fluorides. Control of atmosphere. Practical stuff. In your back yard handled by meat-bags stuff. Discussion of fuel cycle is soooo sexy – everybody loves to talk about thorium and fuel utilization, yet 40-year operability is where the engineering needs to focus – where it will find its most difficult compromises. MSR are BS. They havn’t been built for 100 reasons.
Feedback isn’t the problem. Fuel handling is the problem. Mundane fuel handling is easily accomplished under 20 feet of crystal clear water using grapples and racks. Fuel handling is not mundane if the fuel is salt that must be maintained at 800F and is not contained in sealed rods. It’s a big deal. Many don’t appreciate it. You’re just not thinking past the fact that the core concept appears simple. Fission is simple; you got that right. MSR are dirty as he11 – you gotta set the boundary conditions farther out away from the bucket of slop. Shipping. Handling. Storage. Maintenance. The chemistry of hypo-fluorides. Control of atmosphere. Practical stuff. In your back yard handled by meat-bags stuff. Discussion of fuel cycle is soooo sexy – everybody loves to talk about thorium and fuel utilization yet 40-year operability is where the engineering needs to focus – where it will find its most difficult compromises. MSR are BS. They havn’t been built for 100 reasons.
Feedback isn’t the problem. Fuel handling is the problem. Mundane fuel handling is easily accomplished under 20 feet of crystal clear water using grapples and racks. Fuel handling is not mundane if the fuel is salt that must be maintained at 800F and is not contained in sealed rods. It’s a big deal. Many don’t appreciate it. You’re just not thinking past the fact that the core concept appears simple. Fission is simple; you got that right. MSR are dirty as he11 – you gotta set the boundary conditions farther out away from the bucket of slop. Shipping. Handling. Storage. Maintenance. The chemistry of hypo-fluorides. Control of atmosphere. Practical stuff. In your back yard handled by meat-bags stuff. Discussion of fuel cycle is soooo sexy – everybody loves to talk about thorium and fuel utilization, yet 40-year operability is where the engineering needs to focus – where it will find its most difficult compromises. MSR are BS. They havn’t been built for 100 reasons.
Feedback isn’t the problem. Fuel handling is the problem. Mundane fuel handling is easily accomplished under 20 feet of crystal clear water using grapples and racks. Fuel handling is not mundane if the fuel is salt that must be maintained at 800F and is not contained in sealed rods. It’s a big deal. Many don’t appreciate it. You’re just not thinking past the fact that the core concept appears simple. Fission is simple; you got that right. MSR are dirty as he11 – you gotta set the boundary conditions farther out away from the bucket of slop. Shipping. Handling. Storage. Maintenance. The chemistry of hypo-fluorides. Control of atmosphere. Practical stuff. In your back yard handled by meat-bags stuff. Discussion of fuel cycle is soooo sexy – everybody loves to talk about thorium and fuel utilization yet 40-year operability is where the engineering needs to focus – where it will find its most difficult compromises. MSR are BS. They havn’t been built for 100 reasons.
Yes,geoengeneering keep pouring us with more alluminun and borium and who knows what else, can’t you see the trees dying and wild fires so hot firemans have trouble putting them out. If the trees go so do we. That ‘s what happens when you give matches to kids.
Yesgeoengeneering keep pouring us with more alluminun and borium and who knows what else can’t you see the trees dying and wild fires so hot firemans have trouble putting them out. If the trees goso do we. That ‘s what happens when you give matches to kids.
Yes,geoengeneering keep pouring us with more alluminun and borium and who knows what else, can’t you see the trees dying and wild fires so hot firemans have trouble putting them out. If the trees go so do we. That ‘s what happens when you give matches to kids.
Yesgeoengeneering keep pouring us with more alluminun and borium and who knows what else can’t you see the trees dying and wild fires so hot firemans have trouble putting them out. If the trees goso do we. That ‘s what happens when you give matches to kids.
Gaucho… The global warming and sea level rising thang are less important than some other core phenomena. Are we in a great extinction event? Yes. Is it caused by man? Yes. Are we turning the globe into England where the only living creatures are people, goats, pigs, chickens, cows, some horses, and tilapia? Yes. Should we phase out coal in favor of Nuclear and renewables? Yes. Why? Lots of reasons besides climate change. Has the shyyt hit the fan? Not yet. No denying anthropomorphic causes for desertification, extinction, pollution, etc. Is it a crisis? Only if you’re an elephant. Climate change is psyops. What is their goal? That is the interesting question.
Gaucho… The global warming and sea level rising thang are less important than some other core phenomena. Are we in a great extinction event? Yes. Is it caused by man? Yes. Are we turning the globe into England where the only living creatures are people goats pigs chickens cows some horses and tilapia? Yes. Should we phase out coal in favor of Nuclear and renewables? Yes. Why? Lots of reasons besides climate change. Has the shyyt hit the fan? Not yet. No denying anthropomorphic causes for desertification extinction pollution etc. Is it a crisis? Only if you’re an elephant. Climate change is psyops. What is their goal? That is the interesting question.
Gaucho… The global warming and sea level rising thang are less important than some other core phenomena. Are we in a great extinction event? Yes. Is it caused by man? Yes. Are we turning the globe into England where the only living creatures are people, goats, pigs, chickens, cows, some horses, and tilapia? Yes. Should we phase out coal in favor of Nuclear and renewables? Yes. Why? Lots of reasons besides climate change. Has the shyyt hit the fan? Not yet. No denying anthropomorphic causes for desertification, extinction, pollution, etc. Is it a crisis? Only if you’re an elephant. Climate change is psyops. What is their goal? That is the interesting question.
Gaucho… The global warming and sea level rising thang are less important than some other core phenomena. Are we in a great extinction event? Yes. Is it caused by man? Yes. Are we turning the globe into England where the only living creatures are people goats pigs chickens cows some horses and tilapia? Yes. Should we phase out coal in favor of Nuclear and renewables? Yes. Why? Lots of reasons besides climate change. Has the shyyt hit the fan? Not yet. No denying anthropomorphic causes for desertification extinction pollution etc. Is it a crisis? Only if you’re an elephant. Climate change is psyops. What is their goal? That is the interesting question.
I understand your concern. It runs along the lines of …
• We’ve measured CO₂ rising, inexorably, since the 1950s
• It correlates with increasing fossil fuel use
• And with instrumental records of rising whole-earth temperature
• Theorists hypothesize that rising CO₂ may be positive-feedback
• Which projects to be an absolute disaster…
• … for Humanity
• … for the whole-world’s ecosystems
• … for the oceans
• We’re all going to die! Horrible gruesome cooked-to-starvation deaths.
Thing is, Gaucho, that rather astoundingly inconvenient for the we’re-all-going to-die narrative, it would appear — today! — that the putative effects of slightly rising world temperature are balanced toward the POSITIVE than negative.
CO₂ fertilized food production has revolutionized farm output, worldwide.
CO₂ forest fertilization has increased timber growth by at least 20% since 1950.
CO₂ decreased winter duration, has increased growing seasons, mitigated famines
CO₂ phytokinetic H₂O transpiration reduction has expanded savannas into deserts.
The widely hyperventillated “barrier reef coral bleaching” has now been determined to have happened, quite aperiodically, over the last 5,000+ years all on its own; the anguished marine biologists corals have surprisingly recovered, with apparently no loss of diversity.
The coral reef thing reminds me of the 1950s and forestry: with increasingly vigilance, forest fires were being detected early, and stamped out vigorously. By the 1960s and 1970s, the action was an ostensible huge success. Only thing was, that in so doing, Nature’s brush-clearing mechanism … occasional modest forest fires … was put aside for Humanity’s Better Sense of how The World Should Be. Brush built up. Now — some 50 years later — the number of catastrophic wildfires is rising fast. No question why. And it ain’t global warming. OR CO₂ fertilization of the forests.
That’s the point. Beware of popular “science” when it pushes a correlation-must-be-causation narrative when entirely different mechanisms are actually causal, and moreover, the suddenly NOTICED phenomenon has been quietly going on for millennia, only locally observed if at all.
AT THIS MOMENT of my short time on Earth, I cannot find very many truly negative consequences of CO₂ increase; I can however see — every day — the remarkable prosperity that having ubiquitous, inexpensive tranportation and very inexpensive electrical power has done for most of the peoples who’ve had the luck and prosperity to embrace it.
Would I like most-every kilowatt hour generated by some other means than burning fossil fuels? OF COURSE SO! I remain a pragmatist though, a rustic in a world of sophisticates, where the calculus is obvious. Nuclear: good. Solar: good. Wind: maybe good. Biofuels: ridiculous. Fossil fuels: cheap, good, but will increasingly be expensive to use.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
Increase the limits – not thresholds. Sorry. Regulatory framework is ok if you just increase occupational limits based on ‘over conservatism’ (read nonsense) of LNT.
Increase the limits – not thresholds. Sorry. Regulatory framework is ok if you just increase occupational limits based on ‘over conservatism’ (read nonsense) of LNT.
Increase the limits – not thresholds. Sorry. Regulatory framework is ok if you just increase occupational limits based on ‘over conservatism’ (read nonsense) of LNT.
Increase the limits – not thresholds. Sorry. Regulatory framework is ok if you just increase occupational limits based on ‘over conservatism’ (read nonsense) of LNT.
It should be noted that the world currently invests over $1.8 trillion annually mostly on fossil fuel power plants, ans on oil and gas exploration. This number will increase every year as energy demand increases. So that $48 trillion will not all be spent on renewable, in fact most of it will be spent on fossil fuel energy.
It should be noted that the world currently invests over $1.8 trillion annually mostly on fossil fuel power plants ans on oil and gas exploration. This number will increase every year as energy demand increases. So that $48 trillion will not all be spent on renewable in fact most of it will be spent on fossil fuel energy.
It should be noted that the world currently invests over $1.8 trillion annually mostly on fossil fuel power plants, ans on oil and gas exploration. This number will increase every year as energy demand increases. So that $48 trillion will not all be spent on renewable, in fact most of it will be spent on fossil fuel energy.
It should be noted that the world currently invests over $1.8 trillion annually mostly on fossil fuel power plants ans on oil and gas exploration. This number will increase every year as energy demand increases. So that $48 trillion will not all be spent on renewable in fact most of it will be spent on fossil fuel energy.
That is my own lorus ipsum. I had a bad typo in the first post; deleted it and tried to repost it, but was forced to make the corrected post uniq.
That is my own lorus ipsum. I had a bad typo in the first post; deleted it and tried to repost it but was forced to make the corrected post uniq.
That is my own lorus ipsum. I had a bad typo in the first post; deleted it and tried to repost it, but was forced to make the corrected post uniq.
That is my own lorus ipsum. I had a bad typo in the first post; deleted it and tried to repost it but was forced to make the corrected post uniq.
Yeah, acid rain. Definitely real, you can see it in the effect on marble monuments and facades. They probably cared because government uses a lot of marble facades… Now, the hole in the ozone layer, I’m not so sure about; It was there the first time we looked, and may just be due to a mechanism, formation of high altitude CO2 crystals, that doesn’t function anywhere but the polls during the dead of winter.
Yeah acid rain. Definitely real you can see it in the effect on marble monuments and facades. They probably cared because government uses a lot of marble facades…Now the hole in the ozone layer I’m not so sure about; It was there the first time we looked and may just be due to a mechanism formation of high altitude CO2 crystals that doesn’t function anywhere but the polls during the dead of winter.
Yeah, acid rain. Definitely real, you can see it in the effect on marble monuments and facades. They probably cared because government uses a lot of marble facades… Now, the hole in the ozone layer, I’m not so sure about; It was there the first time we looked, and may just be due to a mechanism, formation of high altitude CO2 crystals, that doesn’t function anywhere but the polls during the dead of winter.
Yeah acid rain. Definitely real you can see it in the effect on marble monuments and facades. They probably cared because government uses a lot of marble facades…Now the hole in the ozone layer I’m not so sure about; It was there the first time we looked and may just be due to a mechanism formation of high altitude CO2 crystals that doesn’t function anywhere but the polls during the dead of winter.
Exactly: It heats up, and the reaction slows down. If it’s designed right, you don’t get massive excursions, you get stable negative feedback. Would it be possible to deliberately design a molten salt reactor that was capable of exploding? Probably, but why would you?
Exactly: It heats up and the reaction slows down. If it’s designed right you don’t get massive excursions you get stable negative feedback.Would it be possible to deliberately design a molten salt reactor that was capable of exploding? Probably but why would you?
Exactly: It heats up, and the reaction slows down. If it’s designed right, you don’t get massive excursions, you get stable negative feedback. Would it be possible to deliberately design a molten salt reactor that was capable of exploding? Probably, but why would you?
Exactly: It heats up and the reaction slows down. If it’s designed right you don’t get massive excursions you get stable negative feedback.Would it be possible to deliberately design a molten salt reactor that was capable of exploding? Probably but why would you?
SOO you support the argument that Global warming does not exist. While you wax philosophically basking in your own brilliance casting doubt the earth warms. I guess the barrier reefs bleaching and the melting glaciers and the Amazon rain forest going dry are all just a coincidence. Great spell checker you remind me of the supporters of the Nazi denial folks who say there are hundreds of papers that show the Jews were not killed. Well genius explain to your kids and grand kids how you supported the denialists. That way they can urinate on your grave as the future world burns. This will be the same way Nazi supporters were respected decades after their deliberate blind eye on the tragedy unfolding. This is no longer a joke or something to sharpen you superiority chops on. This is a crime against humanity and you are your buddy Warren are active participants. I show lack of respect for people who cannot support their arguments especially when they regurgitate alt right lines constantly. Show just one recognized scientific organization in the world that supports you claims . Show the source of you BALANCED position claims. Otherwise you in the same camp as the monkey you are supporting. OK now do a spell check.
SOO you support the argument that Global warming does not exist. While you wax philosophically basking in your own brilliance casting doubt the earth warms. I guess the barrier reefs bleaching and the melting glaciers and the Amazon rain forest going dry are all just a coincidence. Great spell checker you remind me of the supporters of the Nazi denial folks who say there are hundreds of papers that show the Jews were not killed. Well genius explain to your kids and grand kids how you supported the denialists. That way they can urinate on your grave as the future world burns. This will be the same way Nazi supporters were respected decades after their deliberate blind eye on the tragedy unfolding. This is no longer a joke or something to sharpen you superiority chops on. This is a crime against humanity and you are your buddy Warren are active participants. I show lack of respect for people who cannot support their arguments especially when they regurgitate alt right lines constantly. Show just one recognized scientific organization in the world that supports you claims . Show the source of you BALANCED position claims. Otherwise you in the same camp as the monkey you are supporting. OK now do a spell check.
SOO you support the argument that Global warming does not exist. While you wax philosophically basking in your own brilliance casting doubt the earth warms. I guess the barrier reefs bleaching and the melting glaciers and the Amazon rain forest going dry are all just a coincidence. Great spell checker you remind me of the supporters of the Nazi denial folks who say there are hundreds of papers that show the Jews were not killed. Well genius explain to your kids and grand kids how you supported the denialists. That way they can urinate on your grave as the future world burns. This will be the same way Nazi supporters were respected decades after their deliberate blind eye on the tragedy unfolding. This is no longer a joke or something to sharpen you superiority chops on. This is a crime against humanity and you are your buddy Warren are active participants. I show lack of respect for people who cannot support their arguments especially when they regurgitate alt right lines constantly. Show just one recognized scientific organization in the world that supports you claims . Show the source of you BALANCED position claims. Otherwise you in the same camp as the monkey you are supporting. OK now do a spell check.
SOO you support the argument that Global warming does not exist. While you wax philosophically basking in your own brilliance casting doubt the earth warms. I guess the barrier reefs bleaching and the melting glaciers and the Amazon rain forest going dry are all just a coincidence. Great spell checker you remind me of the supporters of the Nazi denial folks who say there are hundreds of papers that show the Jews were not killed. Well genius explain to your kids and grand kids how you supported the denialists. That way they can urinate on your grave as the future world burns. This will be the same way Nazi supporters were respected decades after their deliberate blind eye on the tragedy unfolding. This is no longer a joke or something to sharpen you superiority chops on. This is a crime against humanity and you are your buddy Warren are active participants. I show lack of respect for people who cannot support their arguments especially when they regurgitate alt right lines constantly. Show just one recognized scientific organization in the world that supports you claims . Show the source of you BALANCED position claims. Otherwise you in the same camp as the monkey you are supporting. OK now do a spell check.
You add iron where iron is the limiting nutrient, until you run up against the next limiting nutrient, at which point you’re adding Iron and whatever, then you run up against the next one. But mostly iron is the limiting nutrient.
You add iron where iron is the limiting nutrient until you run up against the next limiting nutrient at which point you’re adding Iron and whatever then you run up against the next one.But mostly iron is the limiting nutrient.
You add iron where iron is the limiting nutrient, until you run up against the next limiting nutrient, at which point you’re adding Iron and whatever, then you run up against the next one. But mostly iron is the limiting nutrient.
You add iron where iron is the limiting nutrient until you run up against the next limiting nutrient at which point you’re adding Iron and whatever then you run up against the next one.But mostly iron is the limiting nutrient.
The salt expands and the reactions slow down. You have dreamed up this super fast explosive scenario that was not seen in the Oak Ridge experiments that went on for years.
The salt expands and the reactions slow down. You have dreamed up this super fast explosive scenario that was not seen in the Oak Ridge experiments that went on for years.
The salt expands and the reactions slow down. You have dreamed up this super fast explosive scenario that was not seen in the Oak Ridge experiments that went on for years.
The salt expands and the reactions slow down. You have dreamed up this super fast explosive scenario that was not seen in the Oak Ridge experiments that went on for years.
That makes sense, but why is there literally nothing to eat in the first place? Scarce resources. By seeding the area with iron, you’re providing Resource A in the alphabet soup needed to make plankton, but where does Resource B, C, etc. come from? The local environment, which is already scarce in resources. A sudden bloom of algae can suck up resources that other marine life need to survive. Hence my question, because in my mind you might end up altering the ecosystem in negative direction with a massive resource vacuum. And as far as I know, in order for plankton to actually sequester away the CO2 for any meaningful length of time, shouldn’t they instead die and float down as far as they can (ideally to the seabed)?
That makes sense but why is there literally nothing to eat in the first place? Scarce resources. By seeding the area with iron you’re providing Resource A in the alphabet soup needed to make plankton but where does Resource B C etc. come from? The local environment which is already scarce in resources. A sudden bloom of algae can suck up resources that other marine life need to survive. Hence my question because in my mind you might end up altering the ecosystem in negative direction with a massive resource vacuum. And as far as I know in order for plankton to actually sequester away the CO2 for any meaningful length of time shouldn’t they instead die and float down as far as they can (ideally to the seabed)?
That makes sense, but why is there literally nothing to eat in the first place? Scarce resources. By seeding the area with iron, you’re providing Resource A in the alphabet soup needed to make plankton, but where does Resource B, C, etc. come from? The local environment, which is already scarce in resources. A sudden bloom of algae can suck up resources that other marine life need to survive. Hence my question, because in my mind you might end up altering the ecosystem in negative direction with a massive resource vacuum. And as far as I know, in order for plankton to actually sequester away the CO2 for any meaningful length of time, shouldn’t they instead die and float down as far as they can (ideally to the seabed)?
That makes sense but why is there literally nothing to eat in the first place? Scarce resources. By seeding the area with iron you’re providing Resource A in the alphabet soup needed to make plankton but where does Resource B C etc. come from? The local environment which is already scarce in resources. A sudden bloom of algae can suck up resources that other marine life need to survive. Hence my question because in my mind you might end up altering the ecosystem in negative direction with a massive resource vacuum. And as far as I know in order for plankton to actually sequester away the CO2 for any meaningful length of time shouldn’t they instead die and float down as far as they can (ideally to the seabed)?
That is a pretty good ratio. Still, my central question remains unanswered. Given iron seeding, would you not also seed other ingredients so as to not deplete other resources used in the creation of the plankton that other critters need? Found an article that explains it better (replace foreslashes with backslashes): https:\phys.orgews2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html
That is a pretty good ratio. Still my central question remains unanswered. Given iron seeding would you not also seed other ingredients so as to not deplete other resources used in the creation of the plankton that other critters need? Found an article that explains it better (replace foreslashes with backslashes): https:\\phys.orgews\2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html
That is a pretty good ratio. Still, my central question remains unanswered. Given iron seeding, would you not also seed other ingredients so as to not deplete other resources used in the creation of the plankton that other critters need? Found an article that explains it better (replace foreslashes with backslashes): https:\phys.orgews2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html
That is a pretty good ratio. Still my central question remains unanswered. Given iron seeding would you not also seed other ingredients so as to not deplete other resources used in the creation of the plankton that other critters need? Found an article that explains it better (replace foreslashes with backslashes): https:\\phys.orgews\2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html
Warren doesn’t produce sources, I find. He just handwaves requests away and says that you should instead find the sources (which is just silly).
Warren doesn’t produce sources I find. He just handwaves requests away and says that you should instead find the sources (which is just silly).
Warren doesn’t produce sources, I find. He just handwaves requests away and says that you should instead find the sources (which is just silly).
Warren doesn’t produce sources I find. He just handwaves requests away and says that you should instead find the sources (which is just silly).
Note: I have had to work hard on achieving raving loonie-dom. It’s the sanguine safe that comes naturally. Hence why I love what Trump is doing! It’s like a WarrenTheApe Presidency…only much, much more watered down.
Note: I have had to work hard on achieving raving loonie-dom. It’s the sanguine safe that comes naturally.Hence why I love what Trump is doing! It’s like a WarrenTheApe Presidency…only much much more watered down.
Note: I have had to work hard on achieving raving loonie-dom. It’s the sanguine safe that comes naturally. Hence why I love what Trump is doing! It’s like a WarrenTheApe Presidency…only much, much more watered down.
Note: I have had to work hard on achieving raving loonie-dom. It’s the sanguine safe that comes naturally.Hence why I love what Trump is doing! It’s like a WarrenTheApe Presidency…only much much more watered down.
Name calling” That’s rich from someone who calls others names on here all the time. “Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist” So what? Publishing the IPCC report does not prove that Global Warming exists, either. What we have for proof is reams of it proving that fraud is being conducted in the name of science. Namely fraudulent modification of data when said data doesn’t jive with the Grant Whoring Bullshyte of the AGW ‘industry’.
Name calling””That’s rich from someone who calls others names on here all the time.””””Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist””””So what? Publishing the IPCC report does not prove that Global Warming exists”””” either.What we have for proof is reams of it proving that fraud is being conducted in the name of science. Namely fraudulent modification of data when said data doesn’t jive with the Grant Whoring Bullshyte of the AGW ‘industry’.”””
Name calling” That’s rich from someone who calls others names on here all the time. “Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist” So what? Publishing the IPCC report does not prove that Global Warming exists, either. What we have for proof is reams of it proving that fraud is being conducted in the name of science. Namely fraudulent modification of data when said data doesn’t jive with the Grant Whoring Bullshyte of the AGW ‘industry’.
Name calling””That’s rich from someone who calls others names on here all the time.””””Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist””””So what? Publishing the IPCC report does not prove that Global Warming exists”””” either.What we have for proof is reams of it proving that fraud is being conducted in the name of science. Namely fraudulent modification of data when said data doesn’t jive with the Grant Whoring Bullshyte of the AGW ‘industry’.”””
⋅⋅⋅ Name calling and no evidence. Not really, fellow troll. You earn that title by doing what you have been doing. Trolling. Repeatedly authoring a comment that is nothing more than flame bait. Wikipedia is fairly definitive: https:||en.wikipedia.org|wiki|Internet_troll (replace all | characters with slashes for the linkie to work…) ⋅⋅⋅ (citing) Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist. By that criterion, citing the IPCC report’s provable facts without acknowledging that numerous sources of quite contrary facts also exist DOES NOT PROVE that AGW exists, either. Can’t have the cake without the creamy tûrd frosting. ⋅⋅⋅ There are hundreds of studies that support the argument. And there are dozens — actually scores — of studies that REFUTE the IPCC’s central claims. No small few of them also use the IPCC’s own flawed metrology to falsify their hypothesis. And the IPCC’s almost forehead-smashingly ridiculous propensity to … yet again … every 5 years … predict the end of All Things … unless civilization deals the Death Blow to its continued … and (to my mind, hilariously in context) INCREASING burning of fossil fuels as the world prosperity and globalism’s beautiful child is coming of age. ⋅⋅⋅ If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect. The IPCC’s? Of course, munchkin. My First Grade teacher also cited all sorts of linguistics rules that worked every time. Until I got to the third grade, where the exceptions began to pile up. By the 8th grade, we all were well indoctrinated with chestnuts like “I before E except after C, or when sounding like A as in Neighbor and Weigh”. Its the funniest thing, yo. When you take your car to a transmission expert, 8 times out of 10 you will be diagnosed with a transmission problem. Take the car to a tire seller, and they’ll be siting unbalanced tire wear for the rumble. The mechanic will likely wnat to replace timing belts, spark plugs and rocker arms. The muffler guy
⋅⋅⋅ Name calling and no evidence.Not really fellow troll. You earn that title by doing what you have been doing. Trolling. Repeatedly authoring a comment that is nothing more than flame bait. Wikipedia is fairly definitive: https:||en.wikipedia.org|wiki|Internet_troll (replace all | characters with slashes for the linkie to work…)⋅⋅⋅ (citing) Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist.By that criterion citing the IPCC report’s provable facts without acknowledging that numerous sources of quite contrary facts also exist DOES NOT PROVE that AGW exists either. Can’t have the cake without the creamy tûrd frosting. ⋅⋅⋅ There are hundreds of studies that support the argument.And there are dozens — actually scores — of studies that REFUTE the IPCC’s central claims. No small few of them also use the IPCC’s own flawed metrology to falsify their hypothesis. And the IPCC’s almost forehead-smashingly ridiculous propensity to … yet again … every 5 years … predict the end of All Things … unless civilization deals the Death Blow to its continued … and (to my mind hilariously in context) INCREASING burning of fossil fuels as the world prosperity and globalism’s beautiful child is coming of age. ⋅⋅⋅ If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect.The IPCC’s? Of course munchkin. My First Grade teacher also cited all sorts of linguistics rules that worked every time. Until I got to the third grade where the exceptions began to pile up. By the 8th grade we all were well indoctrinated with chestnuts like I before E except after C”” or when sounding like A as in Neighbor and Weigh””. Its the funniest thing”” yo. When you take your car to a transmission expert 8 times out of 10 you will be diagnosed with a transmission problem. Take the car to a tire seller and they’ll be siting unbalanced tire wear for the rumble. The mechanic will likely wnat to replace timing belts spark plugs and rocker ar”
⋅⋅⋅ Name calling and no evidence. Not really, fellow troll. You earn that title by doing what you have been doing. Trolling. Repeatedly authoring a comment that is nothing more than flame bait. Wikipedia is fairly definitive: https:||en.wikipedia.org|wiki|Internet_troll (replace all | characters with slashes for the linkie to work…) ⋅⋅⋅ (citing) Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist. By that criterion, citing the IPCC report’s provable facts without acknowledging that numerous sources of quite contrary facts also exist DOES NOT PROVE that AGW exists, either. Can’t have the cake without the creamy tûrd frosting. ⋅⋅⋅ There are hundreds of studies that support the argument. And there are dozens — actually scores — of studies that REFUTE the IPCC’s central claims. No small few of them also use the IPCC’s own flawed metrology to falsify their hypothesis. And the IPCC’s almost forehead-smashingly ridiculous propensity to … yet again … every 5 years … predict the end of All Things … unless civilization deals the Death Blow to its continued … and (to my mind, hilariously in context) INCREASING burning of fossil fuels as the world prosperity and globalism’s beautiful child is coming of age. ⋅⋅⋅ If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect. The IPCC’s? Of course, munchkin. My First Grade teacher also cited all sorts of linguistics rules that worked every time. Until I got to the third grade, where the exceptions began to pile up. By the 8th grade, we all were well indoctrinated with chestnuts like “I before E except after C, or when sounding like A as in Neighbor and Weigh”. Its the funniest thing, yo. When you take your car to a transmission expert, 8 times out of 10 you will be diagnosed with a transmission problem. Take the car to a tire seller, and they’ll be siting unbalanced tire wear for the rumble. The mechanic will likely wnat to replace timing belts, spark plugs and rocker arms. The muffler guy
⋅⋅⋅ Name calling and no evidence.Not really fellow troll. You earn that title by doing what you have been doing. Trolling. Repeatedly authoring a comment that is nothing more than flame bait. Wikipedia is fairly definitive: https:||en.wikipedia.org|wiki|Internet_troll (replace all | characters with slashes for the linkie to work…)⋅⋅⋅ (citing) Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist.By that criterion citing the IPCC report’s provable facts without acknowledging that numerous sources of quite contrary facts also exist DOES NOT PROVE that AGW exists either. Can’t have the cake without the creamy tûrd frosting. ⋅⋅⋅ There are hundreds of studies that support the argument.And there are dozens — actually scores — of studies that REFUTE the IPCC’s central claims. No small few of them also use the IPCC’s own flawed metrology to falsify their hypothesis. And the IPCC’s almost forehead-smashingly ridiculous propensity to … yet again … every 5 years … predict the end of All Things … unless civilization deals the Death Blow to its continued … and (to my mind hilariously in context) INCREASING burning of fossil fuels as the world prosperity and globalism’s beautiful child is coming of age. ⋅⋅⋅ If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect.The IPCC’s? Of course munchkin. My First Grade teacher also cited all sorts of linguistics rules that worked every time. Until I got to the third grade where the exceptions began to pile up. By the 8th grade we all were well indoctrinated with chestnuts like I before E except after C”” or when sounding like A as in Neighbor and Weigh””. Its the funniest thing”” yo. When you take your car to a transmission expert 8 times out of 10 you will be diagnosed with a transmission problem. Take the car to a tire seller and they’ll be siting unbalanced tire wear for the rumble. The mechanic will likely wnat to replace timing belts spark plugs and rocker ar”
Name calling and no evidence. Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist. There are hundreds of studies that support the argument. If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect. You keep claiming fraud and yet you cannot identify your valid sources for this position. Man you are no very bright are you?
Name calling and no evidence. Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist. There are hundreds of studies that support the argument. If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect. You keep claiming fraud and yet you cannot identify your valid sources for this position. Man you are no very bright are you?
Name calling and no evidence. Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist. There are hundreds of studies that support the argument. If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect. You keep claiming fraud and yet you cannot identify your valid sources for this position. Man you are no very bright are you?
Name calling and no evidence. Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist. There are hundreds of studies that support the argument. If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect. You keep claiming fraud and yet you cannot identify your valid sources for this position. Man you are no very bright are you?
Stop trolling, Greentard. Science isn’t conducted by ‘consensus’. It is conducted by 100% reproducible experimentation on falsifiable hypothesis — none of which the AGW Scam has ever come close to meeting the standards thereby. “…the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans” Take away all that grant money and then see what they say. “All you can do is create childish terms like “libertard” and other name calling” I never call anyone ‘libertard’. Learn to read. “Yet you have no credentials…” Ah, yes…’credentialism’. The lame last ditch effort to silence opposition! As if credentials can be proven here on NBF.
Stop trolling Greentard.Science isn’t conducted by ‘consensus’. It is conducted by 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} reproducible experimentation on falsifiable hypothesis — none of which the AGW Scam has ever come close to meeting the standards thereby….the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans””Take away all that grant money and then see what they say.””””All you can do is create childish terms like “”””libertard”””” and other name calling””””I never call anyone ‘libertard’. Learn to read.””””Yet you have no credentials…””””Ah”””” yes…’credentialism’. The lame last ditch effort to silence opposition! As if credentials can be proven here on NBF.”””
Stop trolling, Greentard. Science isn’t conducted by ‘consensus’. It is conducted by 100% reproducible experimentation on falsifiable hypothesis — none of which the AGW Scam has ever come close to meeting the standards thereby. “…the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans” Take away all that grant money and then see what they say. “All you can do is create childish terms like “libertard” and other name calling” I never call anyone ‘libertard’. Learn to read. “Yet you have no credentials…” Ah, yes…’credentialism’. The lame last ditch effort to silence opposition! As if credentials can be proven here on NBF.
Stop trolling Greentard.Science isn’t conducted by ‘consensus’. It is conducted by 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} reproducible experimentation on falsifiable hypothesis — none of which the AGW Scam has ever come close to meeting the standards thereby….the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans””Take away all that grant money and then see what they say.””””All you can do is create childish terms like “”””libertard”””” and other name calling””””I never call anyone ‘libertard’. Learn to read.””””Yet you have no credentials…””””Ah”””” yes…’credentialism’. The lame last ditch effort to silence opposition! As if credentials can be proven here on NBF.”””
Oh yeah. But they went after the SO2 as well, didn’t they? I know the US did.
Oh yeah. But they went after the SO2 as well didn’t they? I know the US did.
Oh yeah. But they went after the SO2 as well, didn’t they? I know the US did.
Oh yeah. But they went after the SO2 as well didn’t they? I know the US did.
Who cares what you ask for? You are like a Blind Man who sez, “What are your sources?” when I tell him the sky is colored blue. Not falling for your troll scam of sending me off on some snipe hunt to prove that which is already proved, troll.
Who cares what you ask for? You are like a Blind Man who sez What are your sources?”” when I tell him the sky is colored blue. Not falling for your troll scam of sending me off on some snipe hunt to prove that which is already proved”””” troll.”””
Who cares what you ask for? You are like a Blind Man who sez, “What are your sources?” when I tell him the sky is colored blue. Not falling for your troll scam of sending me off on some snipe hunt to prove that which is already proved, troll.
Who cares what you ask for? You are like a Blind Man who sez What are your sources?”” when I tell him the sky is colored blue. Not falling for your troll scam of sending me off on some snipe hunt to prove that which is already proved”””” troll.”””
You really should stop doing the drugs while posting on the internet, dude!
You really should stop doing the drugs while posting on the internet dude!
You really should stop doing the drugs while posting on the internet, dude!
You really should stop doing the drugs while posting on the internet dude!
Who cares what you asked for, troll? As for the IPCC reports…they are all there for you to read, by yourself. Why do I have to waste my time backfilling for your poor Google search skills? “overwhelming evidence” What ‘evidence’? Evidence does not matter if the theory can not be falsifiable. And the AGW Fraud is not falsifiable.
Who cares what you asked for troll?As for the IPCC reports…they are all there for you to read by yourself. Why do I have to waste my time backfilling for your poor Google search skills?overwhelming evidence””What ‘evidence’? Evidence does not matter if the theory can not be falsifiable. And the AGW Fraud is not falsifiable.”””
Who cares what you asked for, troll? As for the IPCC reports…they are all there for you to read, by yourself. Why do I have to waste my time backfilling for your poor Google search skills? “overwhelming evidence” What ‘evidence’? Evidence does not matter if the theory can not be falsifiable. And the AGW Fraud is not falsifiable.
Who cares what you asked for troll?As for the IPCC reports…they are all there for you to read by yourself. Why do I have to waste my time backfilling for your poor Google search skills?overwhelming evidence””What ‘evidence’? Evidence does not matter if the theory can not be falsifiable. And the AGW Fraud is not falsifiable.”””
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Soooo, what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors? Mr. Obvious here: because we already have well tested, well vetted, mature reactor technology in about a half-dozen variants, each adequately addressing nuclear power generation. Because a quarter million nuclear reactor technicians, opeators, administrators, certifiers, engineers, designers, risk evaluators … are functioning. Because a dozen major insurers, 10 major smelters, 27 mines of the ore … enrichers, fabricators… ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up if they lose power? News Flash… molten salt most certainly can blow to smithereens. It turns out that molten salts like all liquids have boiling points. A few thousand degrees kelvin. If a reactor goes super-critical to uncontrolled degree, its fission rate ramps up in MILLISECONDS from (say) 1.0× to 2× to 4× to … to 32,000× to 64,000× to … 1,000,000× and beyond. In milliseconds. No mechanical fusable trap door is going to melt fast enough to prevent that doubling-and-redoubling-and-reredoubling from happening. Indeed: anecdotal records on the earliest government research reactors, where when a reactor went supercritical, there was a loud (as in felt by the whole building thru the walls and floors) click, as the almost instantaneous super-criticality expanded the “stuff” of the core by 10% or more just to superheating in those same milliseconds. One fellow was pinned to the ceiling by a moderator rod of a supercritical core after he accidentally dropped it out of his clamp-and-insertion tool. Megabar steam shot the thing thru him, pinning him to the ceiling like a dead bug. ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under if they don’t get this going. The bigger question, “Why again are the molten salt reactors getting so much press these days?” Because non-proliferation of these reactors, their highly-touted (which no one has actually run them this way) ability to be run long-and-hard, to
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Soooo what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors?Mr. Obvious here: because we already have well tested well vetted mature reactor technology in about a half-dozen variants each adequately addressing nuclear power generation.Because a quarter million nuclear reactor technicians opeators administrators certifiers engineers designers risk evaluators … are functioning.Because a dozen major insurers 10 major smelters 27 mines of the ore … enrichers fabricators…⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up if they lose power?News Flash… molten salt most certainly can blow to smithereens. It turns out that molten salts like all liquids have boiling points. A few thousand degrees kelvin. If a reactor goes super-critical to uncontrolled degree its fission rate ramps up in MILLISECONDS from (say) 1.0× to 2× to 4× to … to 32000× to 64000× to … 1000000× and beyond. In milliseconds. No mechanical fusable trap door is going to melt fast enough to prevent that doubling-and-redoubling-and-reredoubling from happening. Indeed: anecdotal records on the earliest government research reactors where when a reactor went supercritical there was a loud (as in felt by the whole building thru the walls and floors) click as the almost instantaneous super-criticality expanded the “stuff” of the core by 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or more just to superheating in those same milliseconds. One fellow was pinned to the ceiling by a moderator rod of a supercritical core after he accidentally dropped it out of his clamp-and-insertion tool. Megabar steam shot the thing thru him pinning him to the ceiling like a dead bug. ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under if they don’t get this going.The bigger question “Why again are the molten salt reactors getting so much press these days?”Because non-proliferation of these reactors their highly-touted (which no one
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Soooo, what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors? Mr. Obvious here: because we already have well tested, well vetted, mature reactor technology in about a half-dozen variants, each adequately addressing nuclear power generation. Because a quarter million nuclear reactor technicians, opeators, administrators, certifiers, engineers, designers, risk evaluators … are functioning. Because a dozen major insurers, 10 major smelters, 27 mines of the ore … enrichers, fabricators… ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up if they lose power? News Flash… molten salt most certainly can blow to smithereens. It turns out that molten salts like all liquids have boiling points. A few thousand degrees kelvin. If a reactor goes super-critical to uncontrolled degree, its fission rate ramps up in MILLISECONDS from (say) 1.0× to 2× to 4× to … to 32,000× to 64,000× to … 1,000,000× and beyond. In milliseconds. No mechanical fusable trap door is going to melt fast enough to prevent that doubling-and-redoubling-and-reredoubling from happening. Indeed: anecdotal records on the earliest government research reactors, where when a reactor went supercritical, there was a loud (as in felt by the whole building thru the walls and floors) click, as the almost instantaneous super-criticality expanded the “stuff” of the core by 10% or more just to superheating in those same milliseconds. One fellow was pinned to the ceiling by a moderator rod of a supercritical core after he accidentally dropped it out of his clamp-and-insertion tool. Megabar steam shot the thing thru him, pinning him to the ceiling like a dead bug. ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under if they don’t get this going. The bigger question, “Why again are the molten salt reactors getting so much press these days?” Because non-proliferation of these reactors, their highly-touted (which no one has actually run them this way) ability to be run long-and-hard, to
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Soooo what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors?Mr. Obvious here: because we already have well tested well vetted mature reactor technology in about a half-dozen variants each adequately addressing nuclear power generation.Because a quarter million nuclear reactor technicians opeators administrators certifiers engineers designers risk evaluators … are functioning.Because a dozen major insurers 10 major smelters 27 mines of the ore … enrichers fabricators…⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up if they lose power?News Flash… molten salt most certainly can blow to smithereens. It turns out that molten salts like all liquids have boiling points. A few thousand degrees kelvin. If a reactor goes super-critical to uncontrolled degree its fission rate ramps up in MILLISECONDS from (say) 1.0× to 2× to 4× to … to 32000× to 64000× to … 1000000× and beyond. In milliseconds. No mechanical fusable trap door is going to melt fast enough to prevent that doubling-and-redoubling-and-reredoubling from happening. Indeed: anecdotal records on the earliest government research reactors where when a reactor went supercritical there was a loud (as in felt by the whole building thru the walls and floors) click as the almost instantaneous super-criticality expanded the “stuff” of the core by 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or more just to superheating in those same milliseconds. One fellow was pinned to the ceiling by a moderator rod of a supercritical core after he accidentally dropped it out of his clamp-and-insertion tool. Megabar steam shot the thing thru him pinning him to the ceiling like a dead bug. ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under if they don’t get this going.The bigger question “Why again are the molten salt reactors getting so much press these days?”Because non-proliferation of these reactors their highly-touted (which no one
In the mean time I will keep keying
In the mean time I will keep keying
In the mean time I will keep keying
In the mean time I will keep keying
Decreasing? I do not think so and still very very high. I rely on statistics
Decreasing? I do not think so and still very very high. I rely on statistics
Decreasing? I do not think so and still very very high. I rely on statistics
Decreasing? I do not think so and still very very high. I rely on statistics
Cut the forest down, but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.” Well duh, priorities.
Cut the forest down” but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.””Well duh”””” priorities.”””
Cut the forest down, but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.” Well duh, priorities.
Cut the forest down” but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.””Well duh”””” priorities.”””
Crazy tail to your reply. What was all that about?
Crazy tail to your reply. What was all that about?
One of the big problems in those areas is that there’s literally nothing to eat. And plankton’s the base of the oceanic food chain. Increase that, and all the critters that chow down on plankton will… chow down on plankton.
One of the big problems in those areas is that there’s literally nothing to eat. And plankton’s the base of the oceanic food chain. Increase that and all the critters that chow down on plankton will… chow down on plankton.
It was chlorofluorocarbons that were supposedly responsible for killing the ozone layer.
It was chlorofluorocarbons that were supposedly responsible for killing the ozone layer.
IIRC the sulfur dioxide issue was more ‘acid rain’. So – you had a very visible problem, and any remediation efforts would be quick to see results. CO2 and warming? ‘According to computer models’, ‘adjusted data’, black-box modeling software proving there’s a problem, retroactive ‘cooling’ of archived data… with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 if we don’t cure our bad habits now and go on a restricted diet of ethanol and wind/solar power… Yeah, something just doesn’t smell right. And dolts like Gauche-25 just love to get in and muddy the waters on it.
IIRC the sulfur dioxide issue was more ‘acid rain’. So – you had a very visible problem and any remediation efforts would be quick to see results.CO2 and warming? ‘According to computer models’ ‘adjusted data’ black-box modeling software proving there’s a problem retroactive ‘cooling’ of archived data… with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 if we don’t cure our bad habits now and go on a restricted diet of ethanol and wind/solar power…Yeah something just doesn’t smell right. And dolts like Gauche-25 just love to get in and muddy the waters on it.
Thing is, the sequestration — in suitable waters — can be up to 100,000 to 1 CO₂ to iron. Sequestration. In most average suitable water, its more like 5,000 to 1. Still… 5,000 to 1 is pretty good, considering the abundance of (literally) mountains of FeSO₄ (ferrous sulfate). Byproduct of making white titanium pigment, you know. Just spread it out by storm seeding. just like the volcanoes
Thing is the sequestration — in suitable waters — can be up to 100000 to 1 CO₂ to iron. Sequestration. In most average suitable water its more like 5000 to 1. Still… 5000 to 1 is pretty good considering the abundance of (literally) mountains of FeSO₄ (ferrous sulfate). Byproduct of making white titanium pigment you know. Just spread it out by storm seeding. just like the volcanoes”
Works for me – I’d love to see that. Deep sea fertilization is quick to implement, quick to see results, and completely ‘reversible’ – you stop doing it and a couple of years later the effects should be gone. Nuclear power long-term is a good thing. But I think that results aren’t ‘wanted’ – as such. The threat of AGW is too convenient a wrench that can be used to turn society in a ‘proper’ direction.
Works for me – I’d love to see that. Deep sea fertilization is quick to implement quick to see results and completely ‘reversible’ – you stop doing it and a couple of years later the effects should be gone. Nuclear power long-term is a good thing.But I think that results aren’t ‘wanted’ – as such. The threat of AGW is too convenient a wrench that can be used to turn society in a ‘proper’ direction.
Heads – we win. Tails – you lose. There’s a guy who did an audit of the HadCRUT database. To say it’s got a lot of errors is an understatement. You’d THINK someone would notice if their town had an average temperature of 80 centigrade, wouldn’t you? ——— “Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month – twice. Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships. Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean. When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends. ———— You can’t get good results from bad data. You can ‘adjust’ data, but if you’re not keeping track of why or how you’re adjusting it (and there’s no records of amounts or reasons for adjustments) then any results you have from that are useless. There will be plenty of folks discarding this because it’s WUWT, those damned deniers of SCIENCE! – but the data’s the problem here, not the source. If the data can’t stand an impartial audit, if the errors are so obvious – there’s a
Heads – we win. Tails – you lose.There’s a guy who did an audit of the HadCRUT database. To say it’s got a lot of errors is an understatement. You’d THINK someone would notice if their town had an average temperature of 80 centigrade wouldn’t you?———Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts” a Caribbean island was recorded at 0°C for a whole month – twice.Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.Sea surface temperatures represent 70{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the Earth’s surface but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.When a thermometer is relocated to a new site the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880 old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.————You can’t get good results from bad data. You can ‘adjust’ data but if you’re not keeping track of why or how you’re adjusting it (and there’s no records of amounts or reasons for adjustments) then any results you have from that are useless.There will be plenty of folks discarding this because it’s WUWT those damned deniers of SCIENCE! – but the data’s the problem here not the sourc
Ok yes, and then do you add phosphates and nitrates and what-have-you to replenish the Great Consumption that would take place from adding the iron and producing tonnes of plankton?
While iron might be the limiting resource, how much is used per plankton synthesis? And now, how much phosphorous, and nitrogen, and ad nauseam of other critical resources for other marine life in the local area?
Produce your evidence? Link to NASA and look up scientific-consensus and they show the warming temperatures. But these guys are stupid according you genius. Look up “Union of Concerned scientists” and their numbers. But for monkeys scientists and scientific organizations are stupid. Look up WIKI and “Scientific opinion on Climate Change” and the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans. Yet you cannot supply just one scientific organization or any sources at all. All you can do is create childish terms like “libertard” and other name calling. Yet you have no credentials nor evidence.
Produce your evidence? Link to NASA and look up scientific-consensus and they show the warming temperatures. But these guys are stupid according you genius. Look up Union of Concerned scientists”” and their numbers. But for monkeys scientists and scientific organizations are stupid. Look up WIKI and “”””Scientific opinion on Climate Change”””” and the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans. Yet you cannot supply just one scientific organization or any sources at all. All you can do is create childish terms like “”””libertard”””” and other name calling. Yet you have no credentials nor evidence.”””
Where are your sources? I have asked you for your sources again and again and again. Produce your sources or your just another troll.
Where are your sources? I have asked you for your sources again and again and again. Produce your sources or your just another troll.
Ya see they are peeing in the swimming pool more than me argument?
Ya see they are peeing in the swimming pool more than me argument?
Here AGAIN. I asked you for just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier crap. Yet you cannot produce just one. I asked you for your sources and you do not produce any. Yet you keep at it with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Here AGAIN. I asked you for just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier crap. Yet you cannot produce just one. I asked you for your sources and you do not produce any. Yet you keep at it with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
A handful of millions (like 10 total) and Moltex hasn’t even started development yet? Yes basically hype and talk outside of China.
China is at 3.3 billion in funding.
Nuclear is expensive enough it doesn’t make economic sense to build it while leaving coal running elsewher. It is way cheaper to shut down coal use while replacing it with just about anything else to abate CO2. And since CO2 is a worldwide not local issue, building a lot of nuclear in your own country while others use huge amounts of coal won’t solve anything. Until basically the entire world agrees on a minimum carbon price and enforces it, improvements will only be driven by cost reductions in things that substitute for coal. Solar and wind have been doing nicely as a “fuel replacement” but they’re not great at replacing fossil fuels for heat and neither for dealing with solar radiance drops in winter. Sure there are Allam cycle plants in the pipeline that can easily capture the CO2, but they’d never make sense to do that step unless the carbon price pays for it.
Nuclear is expensive enough it doesn’t make economic sense to build it while leaving coal running elsewher. It is way cheaper to shut down coal use while replacing it with just about anything else to abate CO2.And since CO2 is a worldwide not local issue building a lot of nuclear in your own country while others use huge amounts of coal won’t solve anything.Until basically the entire world agrees on a minimum carbon price and enforces it improvements will only be driven by cost reductions in things that substitute for coal. Solar and wind have been doing nicely as a fuel replacement”” but they’re not great at replacing fossil fuels for heat and neither for dealing with solar radiance drops in winter. Sure there are Allam cycle plants in the pipeline that can easily capture the CO2″””” but they’d never make sense to do that step unless the carbon price pays for it.”””
I’ve often wondered why this is such a hot idea. If you dump 100x the amount of iron into the ocean to (let’s say) produce 100x the amount of plankton, would that not also necessitate the uptake of other inorganics (well, and organics too) from the local environment to create those plankton? Sure CO2 will be sequestered, but will not a sudden removal of those other in/organics on a large scale disrupt the local environment and lead to a starvation of those resources for other species?
I’ve often wondered why this is such a hot idea. If you dump 100x the amount of iron into the ocean to (let’s say) produce 100x the amount of plankton would that not also necessitate the uptake of other inorganics (well and organics too) from the local environment to create those plankton? Sure CO2 will be sequestered but will not a sudden removal of those other in/organics on a large scale disrupt the local environment and lead to a starvation of those resources for other species?
Pretty much, yes. Especially since we Americans are not buying into this BS. We already figured out that AGW is just a fraud for discredited communists to use to continue on with their quest for power.
Pretty much yes. Especially since we Americans are not buying into this BS. We already figured out that AGW is just a fraud for discredited communists to use to continue on with their quest for power.
or, the folks running our governments know that Global Warming is all BS. Strongest evidence: They sure got their acts together over controlling and reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. Ergo, the depletion of the ozone layer was thus very real. Yet, they won’t do anything but use GW as a means to demagogue for political advantage over the useful idiøts who buy in to it, instead.
or the folks running our governments know that Global Warming is all BS. Strongest evidence: They sure got their acts together over controlling and reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. Ergo the depletion of the ozone layer was thus very real. Yet they won’t do anything but use GW as a means to demagogue for political advantage over the useful idiøts who buy in to it instead.”
Cut the forest down, but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.
Cut the forest down but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.
But! But! NUKULAR! Mutants! I learned all I need to know about this not in a science class, but by playing a gazillion hours of Fallout on my PS4! ^^^^ In politics, perception is reality. And the perception is just that, as far as the regulators and politicians are concerned.
But! But! NUKULAR! Mutants!I learned all I need to know about this not in a science class but by playing a gazillion hours of Fallout on my PS4!^^^^ In politics perception is reality. And the perception is just that as far as the regulators and politicians are concerned.
We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation, but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report ” Watermelon Greentardism is real, kiddies.
We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation” but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report “”Watermelon Greentardism is real”””” kiddies.”””
In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK” That’s right. It IS fine. If only because it ticks you off. 🙂
In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK””That’s right. It IS fine. If only because it ticks you off. :)”””
US has already brought its CO2 levels down to pre 1992 levels. And it will continue to go down. All because of natural gas adoption. So why would we need nuke plants? More like the rest of the world does…like those hypocritical Euroweenies about to clear a 1,000 year old German forest to get to the coal underneath while lecturing to us about leaving the bogus Paris Farcegreement.
US has already brought its CO2 levels down to pre 1992 levels. And it will continue to go down. All because of natural gas adoption. So why would we need nuke plants? More like the rest of the world does…like those hypocritical Euroweenies about to clear a 1000 year old German forest to get to the coal underneath while lecturing to us about leaving the bogus Paris Farcegreement.
The IPCC reports have always been filled with contradictions. They are all bulshît, after all. This is just further proof thereof.
The IPCC reports have always been filled with contradictions. They are all bulshît after all. This is just further proof thereof.”
this guy wants to make Chemtrails legit
this guy wants to make Chemtrails legit
OIF FTW! Ocean Iron Fertilization For the Win! Too bad the last person to do it almost went to jail. Don’t expect leadership from the West on this one. Maybe China will commercialize it.
OIF FTW!Ocean Iron Fertilization For the Win!Too bad the last person to do it almost went to jail. Don’t expect leadership from the West on this one. Maybe China will commercialize it.
Your ridiculous. He claimed the technology was not pursued and there were reasons why. It takes billions to develop new reactors and LWRs were funded billions so they could build bomb materials. The decision made to scrap MSRs was political. With the NRC controlled by congress and congress unwilling to act or even admit global warming exists who is going to develop MSRs in the US. That is why so many MSRs startups have moved overseas. The lack of effort on global warming in this country is political funded by the oil companies. They got what they paid for by paying the Republicans an average of 600K in “campaign contributions. The Republicans will even lie and say Global Warming is a hoax. In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars on the MSR development and Norway and India and even Canada are spending monies. GW is a crime against humanity. Billions will dies and billions will starve and it will spark wars and kill 1/2 of the world species. If Hitlers troupes gas millions in real time and kill millions more for some ideology iy is a crime against humanity. It a bunch of rich oil boys and prostitutes in congress kill billions in 50 years it is NOT a crime. Naysayers and deniers like you are the problem.
Your ridiculous. He claimed the technology was not pursued and there were reasons why. It takes billions to develop new reactors and LWRs were funded billions so they could build bomb materials. The decision made to scrap MSRs was political. With the NRC controlled by congress and congress unwilling to act or even admit global warming exists who is going to develop MSRs in the US. That is why so many MSRs startups have moved overseas. The lack of effort on global warming in this country is political funded by the oil companies. They got what they paid for by paying the Republicans an average of 600K in campaign contributions. The Republicans will even lie and say Global Warming is a hoax. In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars on the MSR development and Norway and India and even Canada are spending monies. GW is a crime against humanity. Billions will dies and billions will starve and it will spark wars and kill 1/2 of the world species. If Hitlers troupes gas millions in real time and kill millions more for some ideology iy is a crime against humanity. It a bunch of rich oil boys and prostitutes in congress kill billions in 50 years it is NOT a crime. Naysayers and deniers like you are the problem.”
The American populace is large and varied. Energy consumption per individual is decreasing If you want to pick on a particular type of individual you should see for yourself exactly what it is in their lives that is really happening. Not rely on third person accounts inferred from ten second tv clips. It may not take all kinds, but there are all kinds. IT appears to me the mining of bit coins is a far more energy wasteful endeavour than using a new nearly pollution free car to move you where you have to be.
The American populace is large and varied. Energy consumption per individual is decreasing If you want to pick on a particular type of individual you should see for yourself exactly what it is in their lives that is really happening. Not rely on third person accounts inferred from ten second tv clips. It may not take all kinds but there are all kinds. IT appears to me the mining of bit coins is a far more energy wasteful endeavour than using a new nearly pollution free car to move you where you have to be.
Feedback isn’t the problem. Fuel handling is the problem. Mundane fuel handling is easily accomplished under 20 feet of crystal clear water using grapples and racks. Fuel handling is not mundane if the fuel is salt that must be maintained at 800F and is not contained in sealed rods. It’s a big deal. Many don’t appreciate it. You’re just not thinking past the fact that the core concept appears simple. Fission is simple; you got that right. MSR are dirty as he11 – you gotta set the boundary conditions farther out away from the bucket of slop. Shipping. Handling. Storage. Maintenance. The chemistry of hypo-fluorides. Control of atmosphere. Practical stuff. In your back yard handled by meat-bags stuff. Discussion of fuel cycle is soooo sexy – everybody loves to talk about thorium and fuel utilization, yet 40-year operability is where the engineering needs to focus – where it will find its most difficult compromises. MSR are BS. They havn’t been built for 100 reasons.
Yes,geoengeneering keep pouring us with more alluminun and borium and who knows what else, can’t you see the trees dying and wild fires so hot firemans have trouble putting them out. If the trees go
so do we. That ‘s what happens when you give matches to kids.
Gaucho… The global warming and sea level rising thang are less important than some other core phenomena. Are we in a great extinction event? Yes. Is it caused by man? Yes. Are we turning the globe into England where the only living creatures are people, goats, pigs, chickens, cows, some horses, and tilapia? Yes. Should we phase out coal in favor of Nuclear and renewables? Yes. Why? Lots of reasons besides climate change. Has the shyyt hit the fan? Not yet. No denying anthropomorphic causes for desertification, extinction, pollution, etc. Is it a crisis? Only if you’re an elephant. Climate change is psyops. What is their goal? That is the interesting question.
You could 100x all the dose limits and keep the regulatory framework, which works. The regulator will eventually budge, and it will budge by raising thresholds eventually. Protect people from 1REM/12-hours not to exceed 25REM/30-days and track it all with existing regulatory infrastructure. 80mREM/hr is a pretty good dose rate; you might even be able to get that MSR cleanup system valve unstuck if each radworker in the bucket brigade gets 5 minutes to wrench in turn on the valve. That is called a compromise… and it doesn’t involve pendulum swinging all the way to the absurdity of radiation hormesis. Data supports that people could take 5-10REM/12-hours without symptoms.
You could 100x all the dose limits and keep the regulatory framework which works.The regulator will eventually budge and it will budge by raising thresholds eventually.Protect people from 1REM/12-hours not to exceed 25REM/30-days and track it all with existing regulatory infrastructure. 80mREM/hr is a pretty good dose rate; you might even be able to get that MSR cleanup system valve unstuck if each radworker in the bucket brigade gets 5 minutes to wrench in turn on the valve.That is called a compromise… and it doesn’t involve pendulum swinging all the way to the absurdity of radiation hormesis.Data supports that people could take 5-10REM/12-hours without symptoms.
Increase the limits – not thresholds. Sorry. Regulatory framework is ok if you just increase occupational limits based on ‘over conservatism’ (read nonsense) of LNT.
Actually the opposite. Wisdom. Slop buckets of liquid fuel – on the shelf since the ’70s.
Actually the opposite. Wisdom. Slop buckets of liquid fuel – on the shelf since the ’70s.
Right. Everything would be so much better if we made our electric power with corrosive slop buckets that effervesce megawatts of fission gas. What a great idea! Tell me something, other than a conspiracy theory, why these great machines haven’t been built since MSRE?
Right. Everything would be so much better if we made our electric power with corrosive slop buckets that effervesce megawatts of fission gas. What a great idea! Tell me something other than a conspiracy theory why these great machines haven’t been built since MSRE?
Idiocity.
Idiocity.
It should be noted that the world currently invests over $1.8 trillion annually mostly on fossil fuel power plants, ans on oil and gas exploration. This number will increase every year as energy demand increases. So that $48 trillion will not all be spent on renewable, in fact most of it will be spent on fossil fuel energy.
Mainly political pressure, and a deliberate lack of basis for abandoning the LNT model that makes nuclear so expensive. (Most of the cost of nuclear comes from protecting large numbers of people from minute amounts of radiation.) We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation, but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report which was, according to rumors, going to demonstrate conclusively that the LNT model was garbage. Without that evidence, any change in radiation regulations would probably be shut down by the judiciary.
Mainly political pressure and a deliberate lack of basis for abandoning the LNT model that makes nuclear so expensive. (Most of the cost of nuclear comes from protecting large numbers of people from minute amounts of radiation.)We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report which was according to rumors going to demonstrate conclusively that the LNT model was garbage.Without that evidence any change in radiation regulations would probably be shut down by the judiciary.
That is my own lorus ipsum. I had a bad typo in the first post; deleted it and tried to repost it, but was forced to make the corrected post uniq.
Yeah, acid rain. Definitely real, you can see it in the effect on marble monuments and facades.
They probably cared because government uses a lot of marble facades…
Now, the hole in the ozone layer, I’m not so sure about; It was there the first time we looked, and may just be due to a mechanism, formation of high altitude CO2 crystals, that doesn’t function anywhere but the polls during the dead of winter.
Soooo, what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors, or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up and spew radioactive material all over the country if they lose power? Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under someone or forced retirement if they don’t get these regulations corrected.
Soooo what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up and spew radioactive material all over the country if they lose power? Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under someone or forced retirement if they don’t get these regulations corrected.
Exactly: It heats up, and the reaction slows down. If it’s designed right, you don’t get massive excursions, you get stable negative feedback.
Would it be possible to deliberately design a molten salt reactor that was capable of exploding? Probably, but why would you?
SOO you support the argument that Global warming does not exist. While you wax philosophically basking in your own brilliance casting doubt the earth warms. I guess the barrier reefs bleaching and the melting glaciers and the Amazon rain forest going dry are all just a coincidence.
Great spell checker you remind me of the supporters of the Nazi denial folks who say there are hundreds of papers that show the Jews were not killed. Well genius explain to your kids and grand kids how you supported the denialists. That way they can urinate on your grave as the future world burns. This will be the same way Nazi supporters were respected decades after their deliberate blind eye on the tragedy unfolding.
This is no longer a joke or something to sharpen you superiority chops on. This is a crime against humanity and you are your buddy Warren are active participants. I show lack of respect for people who cannot support their arguments especially when they regurgitate alt right lines constantly. Show just one recognized scientific organization in the world that supports you claims . Show the source of you BALANCED position claims. Otherwise you in the same camp as the monkey you are supporting.
OK now do a spell check.
You add iron where iron is the limiting nutrient, until you run up against the next limiting nutrient, at which point you’re adding Iron and whatever, then you run up against the next one.
But mostly iron is the limiting nutrient.
Like, oh, widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization?
Like oh” widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization? “” “””
The US, simply by not spending more than they need to on fuels, meets the target.
The US simply by not spending more than they need to on fuels meets the target.
The salt expands and the reactions slow down. You have dreamed up this super fast explosive scenario that was not seen in the Oak Ridge experiments that went on for years.
That makes sense, but why is there literally nothing to eat in the first place? Scarce resources. By seeding the area with iron, you’re providing Resource A in the alphabet soup needed to make plankton, but where does Resource B, C, etc. come from? The local environment, which is already scarce in resources. A sudden bloom of algae can suck up resources that other marine life need to survive. Hence my question, because in my mind you might end up altering the ecosystem in negative direction with a massive resource vacuum.
And as far as I know, in order for plankton to actually sequester away the CO2 for any meaningful length of time, shouldn’t they instead die and float down as far as they can (ideally to the seabed)?
That is a pretty good ratio. Still, my central question remains unanswered. Given iron seeding, would you not also seed other ingredients so as to not deplete other resources used in the creation of the plankton that other critters need?
Found an article that explains it better (replace foreslashes with backslashes):
https:\\phys.org\news\2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html
Warren doesn’t produce sources, I find. He just handwaves requests away and says that you should instead find the sources (which is just silly).
Note: I have had to work hard on achieving raving loonie-dom. It’s the sanguine safe that comes naturally.
Hence why I love what Trump is doing! It’s like a WarrenTheApe Presidency…only much, much more watered down.
“Name calling”
That’s rich from someone who calls others names on here all the time.
“Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist”
So what? Publishing the IPCC report does not prove that Global Warming exists, either.
What we have for proof is reams of it proving that fraud is being conducted in the name of science. Namely fraudulent modification of data when said data doesn’t jive with the Grant Whoring Bullshyte of the AGW ‘industry’.
Last I heard from NBF, no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2, maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed.” Because, when you promise to lose 50 lbs, and instead gain 10, any rational person concludes the answer to to promise to lose 100? Maybe you should just accept that nation-states lack the political capacity/will to comply with even current demands, let alone more extreme demands? And start thinking about approaches that don’t require politically impossible immiseration? Like, oh, widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization? Maybe just holding the climate conferences by teleconference instead of flying to nice vacation destinations, so that people don’t rationally conclude the warming fanatics don’t believe their own propaganda?
Last I heard from NBF no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2″ maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed.””Because”” when you promise to lose 50 lbs and instead gain 10 any rational person concludes the answer to to promise to lose 100?Maybe you should just accept that nation-states lack the political capacity/will to comply with even current demands let alone more extreme demands? And start thinking about approaches that don’t require politically impossible immiseration?Like oh widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization?Maybe just holding the climate conferences by teleconference instead of flying to nice vacation destinations”” so that people don’t rationally conclude the warming fanatics don’t believe their own propaganda?”””
⋅⋅⋅ Name calling and no evidence.
Not really, fellow troll. You earn that title by doing what you have been doing. Trolling. Repeatedly authoring a comment that is nothing more than flame bait. Wikipedia is fairly definitive: https:||en.wikipedia.org|wiki|Internet_troll (replace all | characters with slashes for the linkie to work…)
⋅⋅⋅ (citing) Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist.
By that criterion, citing the IPCC report’s provable facts without acknowledging that numerous sources of quite contrary facts also exist DOES NOT PROVE that AGW exists, either. Can’t have the cake without the creamy tûrd frosting.
⋅⋅⋅ There are hundreds of studies that support the argument.
And there are dozens — actually scores — of studies that REFUTE the IPCC’s central claims. No small few of them also use the IPCC’s own flawed metrology to falsify their hypothesis. And the IPCC’s almost forehead-smashingly ridiculous propensity to … yet again … every 5 years … predict the end of All Things … unless civilization deals the Death Blow to its continued … and (to my mind, hilariously in context) INCREASING burning of fossil fuels as the world prosperity and globalism’s beautiful child is coming of age.
⋅⋅⋅ If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect.
The IPCC’s? Of course, munchkin. My First Grade teacher also cited all sorts of linguistics rules that worked every time. Until I got to the third grade, where the exceptions began to pile up. By the 8th grade, we all were well indoctrinated with chestnuts like “I before E except after C, or when sounding like A as in Neighbor and Weigh”.
Its the funniest thing, yo.
When you take your car to a transmission expert, 8 times out of 10 you will be diagnosed with a transmission problem. Take the car to a tire seller, and they’ll be siting unbalanced tire wear for the rumble. The mechanic will likely wnat to replace timing belts, spark plugs and rocker arms. The muffler guys will definitely think that all that rust along the tailpipe has something to do with the problem.
And not a one of them is right, are they?
⋅⋅⋅ You keep claiming fraud and yet you cannot identify your valid sources for this position.
No… our friend and contrary-opinion wizard, Warren⋅The⋅Ape has put the onus for lookin’ around upon you, dear Trollie. Now get your bing or google chops on, and go hither. Forthwith.
⋅⋅⋅ Man you are no very bright are you?
WTA? He ranges from a raving loonie to a sanguine sage at times. I wouldn’t question his mental abilities. I have NEVER successfully won an argument with him when I was essentially on the wrong side of Facts.
Have fun…
GoatGuy
Looking at their graph, “Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5C”, am I reading this right? The range of uncertainty is so freaking large that warming could basically screech to a halt tomorrow without any efforts at remediation at all, and they could still claim they hadn’t been wrong?
Looking at their graph Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5C””” am I reading this right? The range of uncertainty is so freaking large that warming could basically screech to a halt tomorrow without any efforts at remediation at all”” and they could still claim they hadn’t been wrong?”””
Name calling and no evidence. Errors in the IPCC report does not prove Global Warming does not exist. There are hundreds of studies that support the argument. If they all aligned perfectly then it would be suspect. You keep claiming fraud and yet you cannot identify your valid sources for this position. Man you are no very bright are you?
Stop trolling, Greentard.
Science isn’t conducted by ‘consensus’. It is conducted by 100% reproducible experimentation on falsifiable hypothesis — none of which the AGW Scam has ever come close to meeting the standards thereby.
“…the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans”
Take away all that grant money and then see what they say.
“All you can do is create childish terms like “libertard” and other name calling”
I never call anyone ‘libertard’. Learn to read.
“Yet you have no credentials…”
Ah, yes…’credentialism’. The lame last ditch effort to silence opposition! As if credentials can be proven here on NBF.
Oh yeah. But they went after the SO2 as well, didn’t they? I know the US did.
Who cares what you ask for?
You are like a Blind Man who sez, “What are your sources?” when I tell him the sky is colored blue.
Not falling for your troll scam of sending me off on some snipe hunt to prove that which is already proved, troll.
You really should stop doing the drugs while posting on the internet, dude!
Who cares what you asked for, troll?
As for the IPCC reports…they are all there for you to read, by yourself. Why do I have to waste my time backfilling for your poor Google search skills?
“overwhelming evidence”
What ‘evidence’? Evidence does not matter if the theory can not be falsifiable. And the AGW Fraud is not falsifiable.
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Soooo, what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors?
Mr. Obvious here: because we already have well tested, well vetted, mature reactor technology in about a half-dozen variants, each adequately addressing nuclear power generation.
Because a quarter million nuclear reactor technicians, opeators, administrators, certifiers, engineers, designers, risk evaluators … are functioning.
Because a dozen major insurers, 10 major smelters, 27 mines of the ore … enrichers, fabricators…
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up if they lose power?
News Flash… molten salt most certainly can blow to smithereens. It turns out that molten salts like all liquids have boiling points.
A few thousand degrees kelvin. If a reactor goes super-critical to uncontrolled degree, its fission rate ramps up in MILLISECONDS from (say) 1.0× to 2× to 4× to … to 32,000× to 64,000× to … 1,000,000× and beyond. In milliseconds.
No mechanical fusable trap door is going to melt fast enough to prevent that doubling-and-redoubling-and-reredoubling from happening.
Indeed: anecdotal records on the earliest government research reactors, where when a reactor went supercritical, there was a loud (as in felt by the whole building thru the walls and floors) click, as the almost instantaneous super-criticality expanded the “stuff” of the core by 10% or more just to superheating in those same milliseconds.
One fellow was pinned to the ceiling by a moderator rod of a supercritical core after he accidentally dropped it out of his clamp-and-insertion tool. Megabar steam shot the thing thru him, pinning him to the ceiling like a dead bug.
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under if they don’t get this going.
The bigger question, “Why again are the molten salt reactors getting so much press these days?”
Because non-proliferation of these reactors, their highly-touted (which no one has actually run them this way) ability to be run long-and-hard, to “burn up” the “bad” nucleotides (nuclear isotopes) that bedevil the waste stream of conventional water reactors sounds mighty attractive.
That and a few countries like India are “swimming” in the ores that are enriched in thorium. The world doesn’t appreciate its complete dependence on keeping nuclear energy working by way of purchasing super-refined-and-enriched uranium from … the US, Russia, China and a few countries of Europe. They’d like cheaper stock.
Many believe in a “micro nuclear” market for countries, groups, business parks across the world. Especially if “operator free”. Molten salt appears to be ideal this. But no one REALLY knows, including me.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
In the mean time I will keep keying
Decreasing? I do not think so and still very very high.
I rely on statistics
I wonder what it would cost – in dollars and weight – to retrofit our commercial and military airplane fleet with aerosols, so we don’t have to add more air traffic to already crowded skies. Also, is it possible to cause volcanic eruptions in remote areas, like the ring of fire in Alaska, to get nature to do our “dirty work?” Geothermal energy, hydropower with “water battery” lifting of water up mountains to control electricity production, weren’t mentioned. The effects of replacing ALL taxes with taxes on resource use, including land/location, and pollution, including CO2, wasn’t mentioned. I.e. tax bads not goods. Last I heard from NBF, no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2, maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed. The article suggests many good starts, but not all.
I wonder what it would cost – in dollars and weight – to retrofit our commercial and military airplane fleet with aerosols so we don’t have to add more air traffic to already crowded skies.Also is it possible to cause volcanic eruptions in remote areas like the ring of fire in Alaska to get nature to do our dirty work?””Geothermal energy”””” hydropower with “”””water battery”””” lifting of water up mountains to control electricity production”” weren’t mentioned.The effects of replacing ALL taxes with taxes on resource use including land/location and pollution including CO2 wasn’t mentioned. I.e. tax bads not goods.Last I heard from NBF no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2 maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed. The article suggests many good starts”” but not all.”””
Car use is declining in the US… but remember as the population in the US gets older and self driving cars emerge your advice essentially gets worse.
Car use is declining in the US… but remember as the population in the US gets older and self driving cars emerge your advice essentially gets worse.
“Cut the forest down, but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.”
Well duh, priorities.
Crazy tail to your reply. What was all that about?
One of the big problems in those areas is that there’s literally nothing to eat. And plankton’s the base of the oceanic food chain. Increase that, and all the critters that chow down on plankton will… chow down on plankton.
It was chlorofluorocarbons that were supposedly responsible for killing the ozone layer.
IIRC the sulfur dioxide issue was more ‘acid rain’. So – you had a very visible problem, and any remediation efforts would be quick to see results.
CO2 and warming? ‘According to computer models’, ‘adjusted data’, black-box modeling software proving there’s a problem, retroactive ‘cooling’ of archived data… with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 if we don’t cure our bad habits now and go on a restricted diet of ethanol and wind/solar power…
Yeah, something just doesn’t smell right. And dolts like Gauche-25 just love to get in and muddy the waters on it.
Thing is, the sequestration — in suitable waters — can be up to 100,000 to 1 CO₂ to iron. Sequestration. In most average suitable water, its more like 5,000 to 1.
Still… 5,000 to 1 is pretty good, considering the abundance of (literally) mountains of FeSO₄ (ferrous sulfate). Byproduct of making white titanium pigment, you know.
Just spread it out by storm seeding.
just like the volcanoes
Works for me – I’d love to see that. Deep sea fertilization is quick to implement, quick to see results, and completely ‘reversible’ – you stop doing it and a couple of years later the effects should be gone. Nuclear power long-term is a good thing.
But I think that results aren’t ‘wanted’ – as such. The threat of AGW is too convenient a wrench that can be used to turn society in a ‘proper’ direction.
Heads – we win. Tails – you lose.
There’s a guy who did an audit of the HadCRUT database. To say it’s got a lot of errors is an understatement. You’d THINK someone would notice if their town had an average temperature of 80 centigrade, wouldn’t you?
———
“Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C.
One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C.
These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month – twice.
Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.
————
You can’t get good results from bad data. You can ‘adjust’ data, but if you’re not keeping track of why or how you’re adjusting it (and there’s no records of amounts or reasons for adjustments) then any results you have from that are useless.
There will be plenty of folks discarding this because it’s WUWT, those damned deniers of SCIENCE! – but the data’s the problem here, not the source. If the data can’t stand an impartial audit, if the errors are so obvious – there’s a real problem with the data that trillions of dollars of policy implementations are based on.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/07/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
Produce your evidence? Link to NASA and look up scientific-consensus and they show the warming temperatures. But these guys are stupid according you genius. Look up “Union of Concerned scientists” and their numbers. But for monkeys scientists and scientific organizations are stupid. Look up WIKI and “Scientific opinion on Climate Change” and the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans. Yet you cannot supply just one scientific organization or any sources at all. All you can do is create childish terms like “libertard” and other name calling. Yet you have no credentials nor evidence.
Where are your sources? I have asked you for your sources again and again and again. Produce your sources or your just another troll.
Ya see they are peeing in the swimming pool more than me argument?
Here AGAIN. I asked you for just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier crap. Yet you cannot produce just one. I asked you for your sources and you do not produce any. Yet you keep at it with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Nuclear is expensive enough it doesn’t make economic sense to build it while leaving coal running elsewher. It is way cheaper to shut down coal use while replacing it with just about anything else to abate CO2.
And since CO2 is a worldwide not local issue, building a lot of nuclear in your own country while others use huge amounts of coal won’t solve anything.
Until basically the entire world agrees on a minimum carbon price and enforces it, improvements will only be driven by cost reductions in things that substitute for coal. Solar and wind have been doing nicely as a “fuel replacement” but they’re not great at replacing fossil fuels for heat and neither for dealing with solar radiance drops in winter. Sure there are Allam cycle plants in the pipeline that can easily capture the CO2, but they’d never make sense to do that step unless the carbon price pays for it.
I’ve often wondered why this is such a hot idea. If you dump 100x the amount of iron into the ocean to (let’s say) produce 100x the amount of plankton, would that not also necessitate the uptake of other inorganics (well, and organics too) from the local environment to create those plankton?
Sure CO2 will be sequestered, but will not a sudden removal of those other in/organics on a large scale disrupt the local environment and lead to a starvation of those resources for other species?
Pretty much, yes.
Especially since we Americans are not buying into this BS. We already figured out that AGW is just a fraud for discredited communists to use to continue on with their quest for power.
or, the folks running our governments know that Global Warming is all BS.
Strongest evidence: They sure got their acts together over controlling and reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. Ergo, the depletion of the ozone layer was thus very real.
Yet, they won’t do anything but use GW as a means to demagogue for political advantage over the useful idiøts who buy in to it, instead.
Cut the forest down, but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.
But! But! NUKULAR!
Mutants!
I learned all I need to know about this not in a science class, but by playing a gazillion hours of Fallout on my PS4!
^^^^ In politics, perception is reality. And the perception is just that, as far as the regulators and politicians are concerned.
“We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation, but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report ”
Watermelon Greentardism is real, kiddies.
“In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK”
That’s right. It IS fine. If only because it ticks you off. 🙂
US has already brought its CO2 levels down to pre 1992 levels. And it will continue to go down. All because of natural gas adoption.
So why would we need nuke plants? More like the rest of the world does…like those hypocritical Euroweenies about to clear a 1,000 year old German forest to get to the coal underneath while lecturing to us about leaving the bogus Paris Farcegreement.
The IPCC reports have always been filled with contradictions. They are all bulshît, after all. This is just further proof thereof.
this guy wants to make Chemtrails legit
* IPCC asserts that climate change will be harder on the poor of the world but the poor of the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by using more energy -> What is this suppsed to mean? The poor have to stay poor and do not use energy as the fat americans need to put their fat buttocks on their new highly pollting SUV?? Please, americans, diet and use the bycicle. It works better for the environment and or your hairy buttocks
* IPCC asserts that climate change will be harder on the poor of the world but the poor of the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by using more energy-> What is this suppsed to mean? The poor have to stay poor and do not use energy as the fat americans need to put their fat buttocks on their new highly pollting SUV?? Please americans diet and use the bycicle. It works better for the environment and or your hairy buttocks
OIF FTW!
Ocean Iron Fertilization For the Win!
Too bad the last person to do it almost went to jail. Don’t expect leadership from the West on this one. Maybe China will commercialize it.
Your ridiculous. He claimed the technology was not pursued and there were reasons why. It takes billions to develop new reactors and LWRs were funded billions so they could build bomb materials. The decision made to scrap MSRs was political. With the NRC controlled by congress and congress unwilling to act or even admit global warming exists who is going to develop MSRs in the US. That is why so many MSRs startups have moved overseas. The lack of effort on global warming in this country is political funded by the oil companies. They got what they paid for by paying the Republicans an average of 600K in “campaign contributions. The Republicans will even lie and say Global Warming is a hoax.
In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars on the MSR development and Norway and India and even Canada are spending monies.
GW is a crime against humanity. Billions will dies and billions will starve and it will spark wars and kill 1/2 of the world species. If Hitlers troupes gas millions in real time and kill millions more for some ideology iy is a crime against humanity. It a bunch of rich oil boys and prostitutes in congress kill billions in 50 years it is NOT a crime.
Naysayers and deniers like you are the problem.
The American populace is large and varied.
Energy consumption per individual is decreasing
If you want to pick on a particular type of individual you should see for yourself exactly what it is in their lives that is really happening. Not rely on third person accounts inferred from ten second tv clips.
It may not take all kinds, but there are all kinds.
IT appears to me the mining of bit coins is a far more energy wasteful endeavour than using a new nearly pollution free car to move you where you have to be.
You could 100x all the dose limits and keep the regulatory framework, which works.
The regulator will eventually budge, and it will budge by raising thresholds eventually.
Protect people from 1REM/12-hours not to exceed 25REM/30-days and track it all with existing regulatory infrastructure. 80mREM/hr is a pretty good dose rate; you might even be able to get that MSR cleanup system valve unstuck if each radworker in the bucket brigade gets 5 minutes to wrench in turn on the valve.
That is called a compromise… and it doesn’t involve pendulum swinging all the way to the absurdity of radiation hormesis.
Data supports that people could take 5-10REM/12-hours without symptoms.
Actually the opposite. Wisdom. Slop buckets of liquid fuel – on the shelf since the ’70s.
Right. Everything would be so much better if we made our electric power with corrosive slop buckets that effervesce megawatts of fission gas. What a great idea! Tell me something, other than a conspiracy theory, why these great machines haven’t been built since MSRE?
Idiocity.
Mainly political pressure, and a deliberate lack of basis for abandoning the LNT model that makes nuclear so expensive. (Most of the cost of nuclear comes from protecting large numbers of people from minute amounts of radiation.)
We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation, but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report which was, according to rumors, going to demonstrate conclusively that the LNT model was garbage.
Without that evidence, any change in radiation regulations would probably be shut down by the judiciary.
Soooo, what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors, or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up and spew radioactive material all over the country if they lose power? Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under someone or forced retirement if they don’t get these regulations corrected.
” Like, oh, widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization? ” <-- Let's do both.
The US, simply by not spending more than they need to on fuels, meets the target.
“Last I heard from NBF, no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2, maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed.”
Because, when you promise to lose 50 lbs, and instead gain 10, any rational person concludes the answer to to promise to lose 100?
Maybe you should just accept that nation-states lack the political capacity/will to comply with even current demands, let alone more extreme demands? And start thinking about approaches that don’t require politically impossible immiseration?
Like, oh, widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization?
Maybe just holding the climate conferences by teleconference instead of flying to nice vacation destinations, so that people don’t rationally conclude the warming fanatics don’t believe their own propaganda?
Looking at their graph, “Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5C”, am I reading this right? The range of uncertainty is so freaking large that warming could basically screech to a halt tomorrow without any efforts at remediation at all, and they could still claim they hadn’t been wrong?
I wonder what it would cost – in dollars and weight – to retrofit our commercial and military airplane fleet with aerosols, so we don’t have to add more air traffic to already crowded skies.
Also, is it possible to cause volcanic eruptions in remote areas, like the ring of fire in Alaska, to get nature to do our “dirty work?”
Geothermal energy, hydropower with “water battery” lifting of water up mountains to control electricity production, weren’t mentioned.
The effects of replacing ALL taxes with taxes on resource use, including land/location, and pollution, including CO2, wasn’t mentioned. I.e. tax bads not goods.
Last I heard from NBF, no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2, maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed. The article suggests many good starts, but not all.
Car use is declining in the US… but remember as the population in the US gets older and self driving cars emerge your advice essentially gets worse.
* IPCC asserts that climate change will be harder on the poor of the world but the poor of the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by using more energy
-> What is this suppsed to mean?
The poor have to stay poor and do not use energy as the fat americans need to put their fat buttocks on their new highly pollting SUV?? Please, americans, diet and use the bycicle. It works better for the environment and or your hairy buttocks
Crazy tail to your reply. What was all that about?
Crazy tail to your reply. What was all that about?
One of the big problems in those areas is that there’s literally nothing to eat. And plankton’s the base of the oceanic food chain. Increase that, and all the critters that chow down on plankton will… chow down on plankton.
One of the big problems in those areas is that there’s literally nothing to eat. And plankton’s the base of the oceanic food chain. Increase that and all the critters that chow down on plankton will… chow down on plankton.
It was chlorofluorocarbons that were supposedly responsible for killing the ozone layer.
It was chlorofluorocarbons that were supposedly responsible for killing the ozone layer.
IIRC the sulfur dioxide issue was more ‘acid rain’. So – you had a very visible problem, and any remediation efforts would be quick to see results. CO2 and warming? ‘According to computer models’, ‘adjusted data’, black-box modeling software proving there’s a problem, retroactive ‘cooling’ of archived data… with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 if we don’t cure our bad habits now and go on a restricted diet of ethanol and wind/solar power… Yeah, something just doesn’t smell right. And dolts like Gauche-25 just love to get in and muddy the waters on it.
IIRC the sulfur dioxide issue was more ‘acid rain’. So – you had a very visible problem and any remediation efforts would be quick to see results.CO2 and warming? ‘According to computer models’ ‘adjusted data’ black-box modeling software proving there’s a problem retroactive ‘cooling’ of archived data… with predictions of catastrophe coming in 2100 if we don’t cure our bad habits now and go on a restricted diet of ethanol and wind/solar power…Yeah something just doesn’t smell right. And dolts like Gauche-25 just love to get in and muddy the waters on it.
Thing is, the sequestration — in suitable waters — can be up to 100,000 to 1 CO₂ to iron. Sequestration. In most average suitable water, its more like 5,000 to 1. Still… 5,000 to 1 is pretty good, considering the abundance of (literally) mountains of FeSO₄ (ferrous sulfate). Byproduct of making white titanium pigment, you know. Just spread it out by storm seeding. just like the volcanoes
Thing is the sequestration — in suitable waters — can be up to 100000 to 1 CO₂ to iron. Sequestration. In most average suitable water its more like 5000 to 1. Still… 5000 to 1 is pretty good considering the abundance of (literally) mountains of FeSO₄ (ferrous sulfate). Byproduct of making white titanium pigment you know. Just spread it out by storm seeding. just like the volcanoes”
Works for me – I’d love to see that. Deep sea fertilization is quick to implement, quick to see results, and completely ‘reversible’ – you stop doing it and a couple of years later the effects should be gone. Nuclear power long-term is a good thing. But I think that results aren’t ‘wanted’ – as such. The threat of AGW is too convenient a wrench that can be used to turn society in a ‘proper’ direction.
Works for me – I’d love to see that. Deep sea fertilization is quick to implement quick to see results and completely ‘reversible’ – you stop doing it and a couple of years later the effects should be gone. Nuclear power long-term is a good thing.But I think that results aren’t ‘wanted’ – as such. The threat of AGW is too convenient a wrench that can be used to turn society in a ‘proper’ direction.
Heads – we win. Tails – you lose. There’s a guy who did an audit of the HadCRUT database. To say it’s got a lot of errors is an understatement. You’d THINK someone would notice if their town had an average temperature of 80 centigrade, wouldn’t you? ——— “Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month – twice. Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships. Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean. When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends. ———— You can’t get good results from bad data. You can ‘adjust’ data, but if you’re not keeping track of why or how you’re adjusting it (and there’s no records of amounts or reasons for adjustments) then any results you have from that are useless. There will be plenty of folks discarding this because it’s WUWT, those damned deniers of SCIENCE! – but the data’s the problem here, not the source. If the data can’t stand an impartial audit, if the errors are so obvious – there’s a
Heads – we win. Tails – you lose.There’s a guy who did an audit of the HadCRUT database. To say it’s got a lot of errors is an understatement. You’d THINK someone would notice if their town had an average temperature of 80 centigrade wouldn’t you?———Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts” a Caribbean island was recorded at 0°C for a whole month – twice.Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.Sea surface temperatures represent 70{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the Earth’s surface but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.When a thermometer is relocated to a new site the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880 old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.————You can’t get good results from bad data. You can ‘adjust’ data but if you’re not keeping track of why or how you’re adjusting it (and there’s no records of amounts or reasons for adjustments) then any results you have from that are useless.There will be plenty of folks discarding this because it’s WUWT those damned deniers of SCIENCE! – but the data’s the problem here not the sourc
Produce your evidence? Link to NASA and look up scientific-consensus and they show the warming temperatures. But these guys are stupid according you genius. Look up “Union of Concerned scientists” and their numbers. But for monkeys scientists and scientific organizations are stupid. Look up WIKI and “Scientific opinion on Climate Change” and the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans. Yet you cannot supply just one scientific organization or any sources at all. All you can do is create childish terms like “libertard” and other name calling. Yet you have no credentials nor evidence.
Produce your evidence? Link to NASA and look up scientific-consensus and they show the warming temperatures. But these guys are stupid according you genius. Look up Union of Concerned scientists”” and their numbers. But for monkeys scientists and scientific organizations are stupid. Look up WIKI and “”””Scientific opinion on Climate Change”””” and the hundreds of scientific sources that says global warming is real and caused by humans. Yet you cannot supply just one scientific organization or any sources at all. All you can do is create childish terms like “”””libertard”””” and other name calling. Yet you have no credentials nor evidence.”””
Where are your sources? I have asked you for your sources again and again and again. Produce your sources or your just another troll.
Where are your sources? I have asked you for your sources again and again and again. Produce your sources or your just another troll.
Ya see they are peeing in the swimming pool more than me argument?
Ya see they are peeing in the swimming pool more than me argument?
Here AGAIN. I asked you for just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier crap. Yet you cannot produce just one. I asked you for your sources and you do not produce any. Yet you keep at it with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Here AGAIN. I asked you for just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier crap. Yet you cannot produce just one. I asked you for your sources and you do not produce any. Yet you keep at it with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Nuclear is expensive enough it doesn’t make economic sense to build it while leaving coal running elsewher. It is way cheaper to shut down coal use while replacing it with just about anything else to abate CO2. And since CO2 is a worldwide not local issue, building a lot of nuclear in your own country while others use huge amounts of coal won’t solve anything. Until basically the entire world agrees on a minimum carbon price and enforces it, improvements will only be driven by cost reductions in things that substitute for coal. Solar and wind have been doing nicely as a “fuel replacement” but they’re not great at replacing fossil fuels for heat and neither for dealing with solar radiance drops in winter. Sure there are Allam cycle plants in the pipeline that can easily capture the CO2, but they’d never make sense to do that step unless the carbon price pays for it.
Nuclear is expensive enough it doesn’t make economic sense to build it while leaving coal running elsewher. It is way cheaper to shut down coal use while replacing it with just about anything else to abate CO2.And since CO2 is a worldwide not local issue building a lot of nuclear in your own country while others use huge amounts of coal won’t solve anything.Until basically the entire world agrees on a minimum carbon price and enforces it improvements will only be driven by cost reductions in things that substitute for coal. Solar and wind have been doing nicely as a fuel replacement”” but they’re not great at replacing fossil fuels for heat and neither for dealing with solar radiance drops in winter. Sure there are Allam cycle plants in the pipeline that can easily capture the CO2″””” but they’d never make sense to do that step unless the carbon price pays for it.”””
I’ve often wondered why this is such a hot idea. If you dump 100x the amount of iron into the ocean to (let’s say) produce 100x the amount of plankton, would that not also necessitate the uptake of other inorganics (well, and organics too) from the local environment to create those plankton? Sure CO2 will be sequestered, but will not a sudden removal of those other in/organics on a large scale disrupt the local environment and lead to a starvation of those resources for other species?
I’ve often wondered why this is such a hot idea. If you dump 100x the amount of iron into the ocean to (let’s say) produce 100x the amount of plankton would that not also necessitate the uptake of other inorganics (well and organics too) from the local environment to create those plankton? Sure CO2 will be sequestered but will not a sudden removal of those other in/organics on a large scale disrupt the local environment and lead to a starvation of those resources for other species?
Pretty much, yes. Especially since we Americans are not buying into this BS. We already figured out that AGW is just a fraud for discredited communists to use to continue on with their quest for power.
Pretty much yes. Especially since we Americans are not buying into this BS. We already figured out that AGW is just a fraud for discredited communists to use to continue on with their quest for power.
or, the folks running our governments know that Global Warming is all BS. Strongest evidence: They sure got their acts together over controlling and reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. Ergo, the depletion of the ozone layer was thus very real. Yet, they won’t do anything but use GW as a means to demagogue for political advantage over the useful idiøts who buy in to it, instead.
or the folks running our governments know that Global Warming is all BS. Strongest evidence: They sure got their acts together over controlling and reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. Ergo the depletion of the ozone layer was thus very real. Yet they won’t do anything but use GW as a means to demagogue for political advantage over the useful idiøts who buy in to it instead.”
Cut the forest down, but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.
Cut the forest down but shut down 2.4GWe of mid-life BWRs last New Year’s Eve.
But! But! NUKULAR! Mutants! I learned all I need to know about this not in a science class, but by playing a gazillion hours of Fallout on my PS4! ^^^^ In politics, perception is reality. And the perception is just that, as far as the regulators and politicians are concerned.
But! But! NUKULAR! Mutants!I learned all I need to know about this not in a science class but by playing a gazillion hours of Fallout on my PS4!^^^^ In politics perception is reality. And the perception is just that as far as the regulators and politicians are concerned.
We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation, but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report ” Watermelon Greentardism is real, kiddies.
We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation” but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report “”Watermelon Greentardism is real”””” kiddies.”””
In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK” That’s right. It IS fine. If only because it ticks you off. 🙂
In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK””That’s right. It IS fine. If only because it ticks you off. :)”””
US has already brought its CO2 levels down to pre 1992 levels. And it will continue to go down. All because of natural gas adoption. So why would we need nuke plants? More like the rest of the world does…like those hypocritical Euroweenies about to clear a 1,000 year old German forest to get to the coal underneath while lecturing to us about leaving the bogus Paris Farcegreement.
US has already brought its CO2 levels down to pre 1992 levels. And it will continue to go down. All because of natural gas adoption. So why would we need nuke plants? More like the rest of the world does…like those hypocritical Euroweenies about to clear a 1000 year old German forest to get to the coal underneath while lecturing to us about leaving the bogus Paris Farcegreement.
The IPCC reports have always been filled with contradictions. They are all bulshît, after all. This is just further proof thereof.
The IPCC reports have always been filled with contradictions. They are all bulshît after all. This is just further proof thereof.”
this guy wants to make Chemtrails legit
this guy wants to make Chemtrails legit
OIF FTW! Ocean Iron Fertilization For the Win! Too bad the last person to do it almost went to jail. Don’t expect leadership from the West on this one. Maybe China will commercialize it.
OIF FTW!Ocean Iron Fertilization For the Win!Too bad the last person to do it almost went to jail. Don’t expect leadership from the West on this one. Maybe China will commercialize it.
Your ridiculous. He claimed the technology was not pursued and there were reasons why. It takes billions to develop new reactors and LWRs were funded billions so they could build bomb materials. The decision made to scrap MSRs was political. With the NRC controlled by congress and congress unwilling to act or even admit global warming exists who is going to develop MSRs in the US. That is why so many MSRs startups have moved overseas. The lack of effort on global warming in this country is political funded by the oil companies. They got what they paid for by paying the Republicans an average of 600K in “campaign contributions. The Republicans will even lie and say Global Warming is a hoax. In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars on the MSR development and Norway and India and even Canada are spending monies. GW is a crime against humanity. Billions will dies and billions will starve and it will spark wars and kill 1/2 of the world species. If Hitlers troupes gas millions in real time and kill millions more for some ideology iy is a crime against humanity. It a bunch of rich oil boys and prostitutes in congress kill billions in 50 years it is NOT a crime. Naysayers and deniers like you are the problem.
Your ridiculous. He claimed the technology was not pursued and there were reasons why. It takes billions to develop new reactors and LWRs were funded billions so they could build bomb materials. The decision made to scrap MSRs was political. With the NRC controlled by congress and congress unwilling to act or even admit global warming exists who is going to develop MSRs in the US. That is why so many MSRs startups have moved overseas. The lack of effort on global warming in this country is political funded by the oil companies. They got what they paid for by paying the Republicans an average of 600K in campaign contributions. The Republicans will even lie and say Global Warming is a hoax. In the mean time spending 15 billion on a new aircraft carrier is fine while spending 85 million on MSR is OK. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars on the MSR development and Norway and India and even Canada are spending monies. GW is a crime against humanity. Billions will dies and billions will starve and it will spark wars and kill 1/2 of the world species. If Hitlers troupes gas millions in real time and kill millions more for some ideology iy is a crime against humanity. It a bunch of rich oil boys and prostitutes in congress kill billions in 50 years it is NOT a crime. Naysayers and deniers like you are the problem.”
The American populace is large and varied. Energy consumption per individual is decreasing If you want to pick on a particular type of individual you should see for yourself exactly what it is in their lives that is really happening. Not rely on third person accounts inferred from ten second tv clips. It may not take all kinds, but there are all kinds. IT appears to me the mining of bit coins is a far more energy wasteful endeavour than using a new nearly pollution free car to move you where you have to be.
The American populace is large and varied. Energy consumption per individual is decreasing If you want to pick on a particular type of individual you should see for yourself exactly what it is in their lives that is really happening. Not rely on third person accounts inferred from ten second tv clips. It may not take all kinds but there are all kinds. IT appears to me the mining of bit coins is a far more energy wasteful endeavour than using a new nearly pollution free car to move you where you have to be.
You could 100x all the dose limits and keep the regulatory framework, which works. The regulator will eventually budge, and it will budge by raising thresholds eventually. Protect people from 1REM/12-hours not to exceed 25REM/30-days and track it all with existing regulatory infrastructure. 80mREM/hr is a pretty good dose rate; you might even be able to get that MSR cleanup system valve unstuck if each radworker in the bucket brigade gets 5 minutes to wrench in turn on the valve. That is called a compromise… and it doesn’t involve pendulum swinging all the way to the absurdity of radiation hormesis. Data supports that people could take 5-10REM/12-hours without symptoms.
You could 100x all the dose limits and keep the regulatory framework which works.The regulator will eventually budge and it will budge by raising thresholds eventually.Protect people from 1REM/12-hours not to exceed 25REM/30-days and track it all with existing regulatory infrastructure. 80mREM/hr is a pretty good dose rate; you might even be able to get that MSR cleanup system valve unstuck if each radworker in the bucket brigade gets 5 minutes to wrench in turn on the valve.That is called a compromise… and it doesn’t involve pendulum swinging all the way to the absurdity of radiation hormesis.Data supports that people could take 5-10REM/12-hours without symptoms.
Actually the opposite. Wisdom. Slop buckets of liquid fuel – on the shelf since the ’70s.
Actually the opposite. Wisdom. Slop buckets of liquid fuel – on the shelf since the ’70s.
Right. Everything would be so much better if we made our electric power with corrosive slop buckets that effervesce megawatts of fission gas. What a great idea! Tell me something, other than a conspiracy theory, why these great machines haven’t been built since MSRE?
Right. Everything would be so much better if we made our electric power with corrosive slop buckets that effervesce megawatts of fission gas. What a great idea! Tell me something other than a conspiracy theory why these great machines haven’t been built since MSRE?
Idiocity.
Idiocity.
Mainly political pressure, and a deliberate lack of basis for abandoning the LNT model that makes nuclear so expensive. (Most of the cost of nuclear comes from protecting large numbers of people from minute amounts of radiation.) We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation, but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report which was, according to rumors, going to demonstrate conclusively that the LNT model was garbage. Without that evidence, any change in radiation regulations would probably be shut down by the judiciary.
Mainly political pressure and a deliberate lack of basis for abandoning the LNT model that makes nuclear so expensive. (Most of the cost of nuclear comes from protecting large numbers of people from minute amounts of radiation.)We had an ongoing program to research the effects of low dose radiation but the Obama administration shut it down a few months short of it issuing a report which was according to rumors going to demonstrate conclusively that the LNT model was garbage.Without that evidence any change in radiation regulations would probably be shut down by the judiciary.
Soooo, what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors, or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up and spew radioactive material all over the country if they lose power? Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under someone or forced retirement if they don’t get these regulations corrected.
Soooo what is stopping the US from building molten salt reactors or reactors that are non-pressurized and won’t blow up and spew radioactive material all over the country if they lose power? Sounds like a fire needs to be lit under someone or forced retirement if they don’t get these regulations corrected.
Like, oh, widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization?
Like oh” widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization? “” “””
The US, simply by not spending more than they need to on fuels, meets the target.
The US simply by not spending more than they need to on fuels meets the target.
Last I heard from NBF, no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2, maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed.” Because, when you promise to lose 50 lbs, and instead gain 10, any rational person concludes the answer to to promise to lose 100? Maybe you should just accept that nation-states lack the political capacity/will to comply with even current demands, let alone more extreme demands? And start thinking about approaches that don’t require politically impossible immiseration? Like, oh, widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization? Maybe just holding the climate conferences by teleconference instead of flying to nice vacation destinations, so that people don’t rationally conclude the warming fanatics don’t believe their own propaganda?
Last I heard from NBF no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2″ maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed.””Because”” when you promise to lose 50 lbs and instead gain 10 any rational person concludes the answer to to promise to lose 100?Maybe you should just accept that nation-states lack the political capacity/will to comply with even current demands let alone more extreme demands? And start thinking about approaches that don’t require politically impossible immiseration?Like oh widespread adoption of nuclear power? Deep sea fertilization?Maybe just holding the climate conferences by teleconference instead of flying to nice vacation destinations”” so that people don’t rationally conclude the warming fanatics don’t believe their own propaganda?”””
Looking at their graph, “Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5C”, am I reading this right? The range of uncertainty is so freaking large that warming could basically screech to a halt tomorrow without any efforts at remediation at all, and they could still claim they hadn’t been wrong?
Looking at their graph Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5C””” am I reading this right? The range of uncertainty is so freaking large that warming could basically screech to a halt tomorrow without any efforts at remediation at all”” and they could still claim they hadn’t been wrong?”””
I wonder what it would cost – in dollars and weight – to retrofit our commercial and military airplane fleet with aerosols, so we don’t have to add more air traffic to already crowded skies. Also, is it possible to cause volcanic eruptions in remote areas, like the ring of fire in Alaska, to get nature to do our “dirty work?” Geothermal energy, hydropower with “water battery” lifting of water up mountains to control electricity production, weren’t mentioned. The effects of replacing ALL taxes with taxes on resource use, including land/location, and pollution, including CO2, wasn’t mentioned. I.e. tax bads not goods. Last I heard from NBF, no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2, maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed. The article suggests many good starts, but not all.
I wonder what it would cost – in dollars and weight – to retrofit our commercial and military airplane fleet with aerosols so we don’t have to add more air traffic to already crowded skies.Also is it possible to cause volcanic eruptions in remote areas like the ring of fire in Alaska to get nature to do our dirty work?””Geothermal energy”””” hydropower with “”””water battery”””” lifting of water up mountains to control electricity production”” weren’t mentioned.The effects of replacing ALL taxes with taxes on resource use including land/location and pollution including CO2 wasn’t mentioned. I.e. tax bads not goods.Last I heard from NBF no country was even meeting the American-ignored Paris Treaty on CO2 maybe by half. The Paris accords are useless and voluntary. Much larger efforts are needed. The article suggests many good starts”” but not all.”””
Car use is declining in the US… but remember as the population in the US gets older and self driving cars emerge your advice essentially gets worse.
Car use is declining in the US… but remember as the population in the US gets older and self driving cars emerge your advice essentially gets worse.
* IPCC asserts that climate change will be harder on the poor of the world but the poor of the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by using more energy -> What is this suppsed to mean? The poor have to stay poor and do not use energy as the fat americans need to put their fat buttocks on their new highly pollting SUV?? Please, americans, diet and use the bycicle. It works better for the environment and or your hairy buttocks
* IPCC asserts that climate change will be harder on the poor of the world but the poor of the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by using more energy-> What is this suppsed to mean? The poor have to stay poor and do not use energy as the fat americans need to put their fat buttocks on their new highly pollting SUV?? Please americans diet and use the bycicle. It works better for the environment and or your hairy buttocks