1,600-plus Scientists Say Climate "Emergency" Is a Myth

[Flopper]

About 180 were build last century in the US There were lots of problems with those built in 60's and 70's which resulting in many closing, about 30. This century we have only opened a few plant and there are only about 8 or 10 in the planning stages.

I believe we have learned a lot from our mistakes of the past plus there has been a lot of technological changes that have been introduced new plants, that make them safer, and more environmentally friendly. Also there are some promising new ideas in plants being planted and and constructed now such as using liquids sodium as a coolant which is a far better coolant than water, more friendly for the environment and much less likely to lead to a meltdown.

 

[EMH]

Never happened.

YOU LIE!!!

NBC is one of many who did report it. Your side has deleted all but MSNBC.

NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2, the TRUTH of the DATA.

 

[EMH]

HE'S A SELF PROCLAIMED GW skeptic as I am.

Then YOU BOTH LIE...

Can you explain a map of the Arctic??

The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

The map is clear. 7% of Earth ice is on Greenland. Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska? Co2 and sun do not explain this. The only explanation is the Greenland is within 600 miles of the pole at the top, and hence...

www.usmessageboard.com

The Co2 FRAUD has lied and lied and lied about two things.


1. Atmospheric temps
2. Antarctic ice increases

 

[EMH]

So this is ALL MADE UP....???

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

LOL!!!!


No, the satellites and balloons showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere prior to being FUDGED in 2005, and Dr. Roy Spencer is FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD...

 

[Crick]

About 180 were build last century in the US There were lots of problems with those built in 60's and 70's which resulting in many closing, about 30. This century we have only opened a few plant and there are only about 8 or 10 in the planning stages.

I believe we have learned a lot from our mistakes of the past plus there has been a lot of technological changes that have been introduced new plants, that make them safer, and more environmentally friendly. Also there are some promising new ideas in plants being planted and and constructed now such as using liquids sodium as a coolant which is a far better coolant than water, more friendly for the environment and much less likely to lead to a meltdown.

I'm not sure "more friendly for the environment" is how I would describe liquid sodium vs water.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia. It shows that sodium has several significant advantages over water in the safe operation of fast reactors, one of which is that zero transuranic elements are produced, drastically reducing the radioactive waste stream. Let me point out that the USS Seawolf (SSN 575), the second US nuke sub tried a sodium cooled reactor (the S-2G) but had several problems. It was eventually removed and replaced with a pressurized water reactor, primarily for safety reasons.

Advantages​

All fast reactors have several advantages over the current fleet of water based reactors in that the waste streams are significantly reduced. Crucially, when a reactor runs on fast neutrons, the plutonium isotopes are far more likely to fission upon absorbing a neutron. Thus, fast neutrons have a smaller chance of being captured by the uranium and plutonium, but when they are captured, have a much bigger chance of causing a fission. This means that the inventory of transuranic waste is non existent from fast reactors.

The primary advantage of liquid metal coolants, such as liquid sodium, is that metal atoms are weak neutron moderators. Water is a much stronger neutron moderator because the hydrogen atoms found in water are much lighter than metal atoms, and therefore neutrons lose more energy in collisions with hydrogen atoms. This makes it difficult to use water as a coolant for a fast reactor because the water tends to slow (moderate) the fast neutrons into thermal neutrons (although concepts for reduced moderation water reactors exist).​

​

Another advantage of liquid sodium coolant is that sodium melts at 371K and boils / vaporizes at 1156K, a difference of 785K between solid / frozen and gas / vapor states. By comparison, the liquid temperature range of water (between ice and gas) is just 100K at normal, sea-level atmospheric pressure conditions. Despite sodium's low specific heat (as compared to water), this enables the absorption of significant heat in the liquid phase, while maintaining large safety margins. Moreover, the high thermal conductivity of sodium effectively creates a reservoir of heat capacity that provides thermal inertia against overheating.[7] Sodium need not be pressurized since its boiling point is much higher than the reactor's operating temperature, and sodium does not corrode steel reactor parts, and in fact, protects metals from corrosion.[7] The high temperatures reached by the coolant (the Phénix reactor outlet temperature was 560 C) permit a higher thermodynamic efficiency than in water cooled reactors.[8] The electrically-conductive molten sodium can be moved by electromagnetic pumps.[8] The fact that the sodium is not pressurized implies that a much thinner reactor vessel can be used (e.g. 2 cm thick). Combined with the much higher temperatures achieved in the reactor, this means that the reactor in shutdown mode can be passively cooled. For example, air ducts can be engineered so that all the decay heat after shutdown is removed by natural convection, and no pumping action is required. Reactors of this type are self-controlling. If the temperature of the core increases, the core will expand slightly, which means that more neutrons will escape the core, slowing down the reaction.​

Here is a quote and comments from Admiral Hyman G Rickover about the Navy's experience

Admiral Rickover described the frustrating nature of the sodium-cooled plant to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in 1957:​

​

"We went to full power on the Seawolf alongside the dock on August 20 of last year. Shortly thereafter, she developed a small leak. It took us 3 months, working 24 hours a day, to locate and correct the leak. This is one of the serious difficulties in sodium plants."​

​

Rickover then told the JCAE that the Seawolf had had about 10 percent of its heat-exchanger capacity cut out (by plugging tubes) and that the cutting out of the superheaters reduced power another 10 percent on the Seawolf. "With the reduced power, she makes about 90 percent speed," he told the members.​

​

Of course, another problem (which Rickover pointed out) was the risk of radiation exposure to the crew from the sodium, which prevented rapid repairs (as the shielded area of the reactor compartment could not be entered until some time after shutdown). "Sodium becomes 30,000 times as radioactive as water," he told the Committee. "Furthermore, sodium has a half life of 14.7 hours, while water has a half-life of about 8 seconds." But this didn't compare to what Rickover considered the primary problem - safety, not only because of the half-life consideration but because of sodium's violently reactive nature with water. "There may be advantages for sodium for shore-based atomic power plants but I cannot see it for a ship. It is too dangerous for a ship," he directly told the JCAE.​

Seawolf Tries Sodium

www.ans.org

 

[flacaltenn]

So this is ALL MADE UP....???

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

LOL!!!!


No, the satellites and balloons showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere prior to being FUDGED in 2005, and Dr. Roy Spencer is FUNDED BY THE Co2 FRAUD...

Well I was right. You cant or wont read graphs that I put in front of your face. Lie to me again how the "sat data showed no warming prior to 2005. You're useless to try to work with because you do no work. Here it is again...

Shows the GMAST temperature anomaly took a HUGE leap concurrent with the EL Nino spike in 1998. And that is how GW rolls. It "seems" to plateau after high El Nino years for awhile.

And Dr Spencer gets funded from the folks that launched and OWN the satellites -- as it should be. You should actually read his book "Skeptical Global Warming". It'll make you a lot more useful. I aint wasting the time.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then YOU BOTH LIE...

Can you explain a map of the Arctic??

The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

The map is clear. 7% of Earth ice is on Greenland. Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska? Co2 and sun do not explain this. The only explanation is the Greenland is within 600 miles of the pole at the top, and hence...

www.usmessageboard.com

The Co2 FRAUD has lied and lied and lied about two things.


1. Atmospheric temps
2. Antarctic ice increases

Sure useless dude. THe arctic ice is all over water. Can't isolate the Arctic Ocean from the rest of the oceans -- so it's not thermally isolated. Greenland is solid ground and rough terrain that protects the ice shield.

In the Arctic if you open up big holes in the ice thru melting it ACCELERATES the melting because the reflectivity of the ice is broken up and whatever GW or direct insolation is available further warms the Arctic Ocean.

Further more -- Ice on water TRAVELS. Ice on Greenland -- outside of glaciers does not. Makes it a LOT HARDER to even measure.

 

[EMH]

You cant or wont read graphs that I put in front of your face

IQ under 5

Doesn't understand the difference between data and fudge. Parrots fudge "charts" simply because he has the ability to cut and paste, without a clue how the chart was actually constructed...

Lie to me again how the "sat data showed no warming prior to 2005.

So you are saying NBC just made this up...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

which is a lot easier than TRYING TO DEFEND THE ACTUAL EXCUSES FOR THE DOCUMENTED FUDGING....



Co2 PARROTS can't even begin to debate, and don't want to....

 

[flacaltenn]

YOU LIE!!!

NBC is one of many who did report it. Your side has deleted all but MSNBC.

NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2, the TRUTH of the DATA.

You're using the SAME REFERENCE to a WEAK paper from 2005. As for the TV networks credibility on GW -- there is none. CBS actually ran a picture of the oceans boiling with the embedded title box of "212 degrees Fahrenheit". DONT get your science news from network news....

 

[EMH]

Sure useless dude. THe arctic ice is all over water. Can't isolate the Arctic Ocean from the rest of the oceans -- so it's not thermally isolated. Greenland is solid ground and rough terrain that protects the ice shield.

In the Arctic if you open up big holes in the ice thru melting it ACCELERATES the melting because the reflectivity of the ice is broken up and whatever GW or direct insolation is available further warms the Arctic Ocean.

Further more -- Ice on water TRAVELS. Ice on Greenland -- outside of glaciers does not. Makes it a LOT HARDER to even measure.

This is good....

THe arctic ice is all over water"

Actually that is called SEA ICE, which melts dramatically when undersea Arctic Volcanoes go off, primarily under Gakkel Ridge...

https://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+underwater+volcanoes&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS1003US1003&oq=arctic+undersea+vo&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0i22i30l3j0i390i650l2.14670j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and since it did that in 2005 and 2007, the sea ice grew right back...


Meanwhile, this completely misinformed idiot has no idea where Earth ice actually is....

90% on land mass Antarctica
7% on land mass Greenland
0.3% on land mass Ellesmere Island


that leaves 2.7% for mountains, really small islands within 600 miles of a pole, and .... SEA ICE...


Nice.


So, you did not even attempt to explain why there is ice age glacier on Greenland south of Arctic Circle but no such ice age glacier on Alaska north of Arctic Circle, because your Co2 FRAUD hates that question, and with an IQ under 5 you have no clue how to answer it...

 

[EMH]

You're using the SAME REFERENCE to a WEAK paper from 2005.

This is the DATA. The DATA showed NO WARMING until it was FUDGED in 2005, and even NBC reported it, because in real time dozens reported it, but have since ERASED it because they do not want anyone to know...


Theory - increasing atmospheric Co2 causes atmospheric warming

DATA - nope

THEORY REJECTED


THAT is how actual science is practiced...

 

[HikerGuy83]

About 180 were build last century in the US There were lots of problems with those built in 60's and 70's which resulting in many closing, about 30. This century we have only opened a few plant and there are only about 8 or 10 in the planning stages.

I believe we have learned a lot from our mistakes of the past plus there has been a lot of technological changes that have been introduced new plants, that make them safer, and more environmentally friendly. Also there are some promising new ideas in plants being planted and and constructed now such as using liquids sodium as a coolant which is a far better coolant than water, more friendly for the environment and much less likely to lead to a meltdown.

Better get after it.

And we should plan on building a ton of them in India and China as they are getting set to load up the atmosphere with CO2.

 

[EMH]

they are getting set to load up the atmosphere with CO2.

Because they know Co2 does absolutely nothing... and they are correct.

 

[Crick]

And we should plan on building a ton of them in India and China as they are getting set to load up the atmosphere with CO2.

What makes you say that?

 

[otto105]

Over 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel Peace Prize winners, have signed a declaration that says that the claim of a climate "emergency" is a myth.

More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate 'emergency' a myth

EXCERPT:

A coalition of 1,609 scientists from around the world have signed a declaration stating “there is no climate emergency” and that they “strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy” being pushed across the globe. The declaration does not deny the harmful effect of greenhouse gasses, but instead challenges the hysteria brought about by the narrative of imminent doom. . . .

“Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures,” the declaration says.

How many are actual climate scientists?

 

[otto105]

What makes you say that?

China increased renewable energy 400% last year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

China increased renewable energy 400% last year.

Do they still emit more than twice the CO2 as the US?

 

[otto105]

Do they still emit more than twice the CO2 as the US?

Yeah, bet that makes you feel sad about second place.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, bet that makes you feel sad about second place.

Does it make you sad that they're killing the planet?

 

[otto105]

Does it make you sad that they're killing the planet?

So, now CO2 is an issue.