Hurricane Otis' Wind Speed Increased by 115 mph in 24 Hours. That's Normal... Right?

[Mushroom]

How many died from radiation at Three-Mile Island and Fukushima?

Oh, that is an easy question to answer. None, zero, zilch, nada.

Unlike the design the Soviets used, both of those plants had a lot of shielding in their construction, so there was no significant release of radioactive contaminants. Both plants were shut down because of the damage to the plant itself and the contamination inside, but the actual radioactive release was insignificant.

 

[Crick]

You idiot. You don't know jackshit about science. Only that stupid AGW religion you have.

Is that like my stupid physics? My stupid chemistry? My stupid thermodynamics? My stupid mathematics?

How would there have been tacking on a hurricane say in 1903?

Tacking? Not a clue what you're talking about.

A coastal city would have recorded that it hit. Maybe even a guesstimate at the intensity. If it was a large city with a primitive weather station maybe measure rainfall and wind.

If another population area inland recorded it passing they would have a rough idea of the path.

They would have no idea on the marine path of the storm or how it intensified.

Ship's at sea and coastal residents record it over a period of days as it accelerates. It's not as difficult as you'd like to believe. And given our understanding of how storms form and what parameters control their wind speed and acceleration, this is not the completely intractable problem you'd like to believe it is.

Maybe a ship at sea days earlier would have logged in seeing the storm. However, there was no database to connect the two.

There could have been thousands of these rapidity intensifying storms hit in the past and we wouldn't know.

Not as fast as the one hitting Mexico but Hurricane Andrew that hit Miami 30 years ago had rapid intensification pretty close to landfall. In fact it was Hurricane Andrew that caused NOAA to greatly increase its tracking capabilities.

Nothing to do with your AGW God, you moron.

I've got a good idea. Why don't you actually familiarize yourself with some of that science you claim to favor regarding rapid storm intensification instead of putting up post after post after post of your vapid and uninformed guesswork as you have been doing.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, I am not actually a "geologist"

Clearly no climate scientist either. We had a real geologist here a few years back named Old Rocks. He loved Nick Zentner's videos as well. Only, he was no AGW denier. Go figure. I believe Crick also has geology bonafides. Climate science ones too. Again, not a denier. Hmm.. Think about it.. Perhaps you're too emotional? Plenty of those in your camp.

In the meantime, you and ding really need to get a room.

 

[Crick]

Interesting sidebar, in the mid-1990s I was working for a GIS company in the Mojave Desert. And one of the projects we got was taking the old hand drawn geological strata maps that had been created for the oil fields around Bakersfield (many dating back to the turn of the century) and digitizing them into AutoCad. I left before the project was completed, but the ultimate goal was to turn them into a 3D representation of the layers under the surface.

And this was in around 1996, when creating such and actually tying them into hard map coordinates was a very new and radical concept that had only recently been available.

And in going over hundreds of these giant hand drawn strata maps of differing depths and scanning them on a massive scanner (these were mostly 3x4 foot blueprints) and then laying the strata lines by hand in a computer took many months. And spending 8 hours a day just doing that gave me an even greater fascination for what lay under our feet. It's funny, but for most of the 1990s into the late 2000s I was actually in IT. But even then, it led me to many projects like that, or actually working at the huge open pit borax mine in the Mojave Desert.

And why I love living where I do now in SW Oregon. I got a huge variety of geology I can easily go to and explore on my time off for relaxation.

I am not any kind of "engineer", most of my career was actually in the military. But that allowed me to see much of the world, and things most others could never have imagined. But also being a computer tech and the son of an early computer programmer, the use of logic has long been a critical requirement. And my mom fostered that, as when my dad took me on vacations it was normally a place of historical interest (which I also love). But my mom, she took me to places where geology and other hard sciences were involved. From inside of hydroelectric dams and coal beds with their power plants in Wyoming, to the first atomic power plant, CotM and Yellowstone.

But to me, none of this is, was, or should ever be "emotional". I view it all about as coldly as possible, because facts and logic should be the foundation of science and not emotion. And the more somebody tries to push emotional aspects, the more I realize they are almost always completely lacking in the actual science and make no logical sense.

Earth's Next Supercontinent Could Wipe Out Mammals in 250 Million Years

Termed “Pangea Ultima,” the predicted future landmass might be extremely hot, plagued by volcanoes and largely inhospitable, per a new modeling study

www.smithsonianmag.com

That is a great example of what I mean. It is based entirely to build fear and terror, and is almost completely lacking in actual science. Mammals actually first evolved over 205 mya, when the continents were still configured in Pangea. And it is trying to form a fear of extinction in 250 my, when who knows what the major life forms will even look like? Who is even to say mammals will even be a major species then, that is a hell of a lot of time in evolutionary terms.

And notice the maps that article uses, it is a complete joke.

In 250 my, the planet will not look like that at all. Many of our current mountain ranges will have eroded by then to a fraction of what they are now. And new Orogeny will have created new mountain ranges that we can not even really speculate on at this time. And they literally just moved the continents around, with all the mountains and flora in the future in the exact same place it is sitting in now.

That is completely and 100% wrong. If one goes back to post #51, I posted a great video by a geologist who explained what the actual climate and foliage on Pangea was like. And why it was the way it was. And the map shown above is completely wrong. The "West Coast" which is where the Americas are will be dry and barren, much of the inland dry and arid due to rain shadow effects. And the Eastern region will be wet and lush. With the entire planet much warmer than it is now with massive tropical storms slamming into the new East Coast, fueled by the huge warm water ocean that will allow them to grow in strength all the way across that ocean.

The more I have learned about geology, the more I am fascinated with how incorrect most people think about it.

Oh, and another fascination arose when I was dating my ex-wife. Because during that time her uncle came up to the US for a lecture tour by the National Geographic. A very famous paleontologist from Argentina that I was lucky enough to spend many hours talking with. It even ticked off my girlfriend, as I was spending less time with her during those weeks and more time with her uncle.

Evening,

Mind if I ask if you're published? Because of the eight authors that got that "100% wrong / joke" into Nature Geoscience, seven are extensively published.

 

[Crick]

Oh, that is an easy question to answer. None, zero, zilch, nada.

Unlike the design the Soviets used, both of those plants had a lot of shielding in their construction, so there was no significant release of radioactive contaminants. Both plants were shut down because of the damage to the plant itself and the contamination inside, but the actual radioactive release was insignificant.

Fukushima Daiichi Accident​

(Updated August 2023)

• Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days.
• The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).
• All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage in the accident – 2719 MWe net.
• After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was announced in mid-December.
• Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
• There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the return of many.
• Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami.

Fukushima Daiichi Accident - World Nuclear Association

This information paper describes in detail the causes of the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 and the actions taken since.

world-nuclear.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fukushima Daiichi Accident​

(Updated August 2023)

• Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days.
• The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).
• All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage in the accident – 2719 MWe net.
• After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was announced in mid-December.
• Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
• There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the return of many.
• Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami.

Fukushima Daiichi Accident - World Nuclear Association

This information paper describes in detail the causes of the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 and the actions taken since.

world-nuclear.org

There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident

Exactly.

 

[Mushroom]

Only, he was no AGW denier.

Once again, how am I a "denier" when I think that things are going to get a hell of a lot hotter than even the most rabid AGW fanatics believe?

 

[Mushroom]

Mind if I ask if you're published?

Ahhh, so typical. Don't like something so try and attack the individual.

Are you published? If not, then stop calling the kettle black, two can play that game.

However, I am not here to play games. Care to discuss actual facts, or just continue the same games you have been doing since this thread started?

 

[Mushroom]

There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the return of many.

There, for all that word salad, that is the part that answers the question.

So your point was what there, exactly? Other than confirming that there have been no deaths?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Once again, how am I a "denier" when I think that things are going to get a hell of a lot hotter than even the most rabid AGW fanatics believe?

Simples. Quote yourself ever simply acknowledging any of these cold, hard, evidence driven facts:

human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Over the last century, there are no alternative explanations supported by the evidence that are either credible or that can contribute more than marginally to the observed patterns. There is no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of and the pattern of global warming observed over the industrial era.

Your "I think that things are going to get a hell of a lot hotter" due to nothing actually evident makes for a slightly clever political grift, but should convince only those mentally born yesterday.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There, for all that word salad, that is the part that answers the question.

So your point was what there, exactly? Other than confirming that there have been no deaths?

You really expect the "WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION" to admit Fukushima remains a disaster?

 

[Crick]

I see, so to you, tropical storms are like puppies.

Maybe we should spank it and send it to bed without dinner for being a bad hurricane.

I'm sorry you lost track. That was an example of the use of the term in a dictionary. I think the increasing frequency and intensity of rapid intensification is another piece of evidence that AGW is creating more energetic (destructive) weather extremes.

 

[Crick]

So you can't actually explain any of it, and obviously don't understand it. And instead of trying to explain things in a scientific manner, all you can do is throw around insults and slurs.

Let's see... "Insult, insult. Insult". Do you ever read what you post?

 

[Crick]

Ahhh, so typical. Don't like something so try and attack the individual.

I am the OP in this thread. You attacked the source article to which I linked. It's rather my job to discuss and defend it. And you have made that same complain repeatedly and all the while, you yourself have done nothing but.

Are you published? If not, then stop calling the kettle black, two can play that game.

I didn't say you weren't published. I was attempting to discern the basis for your judgements, because you failed to provide any.

However, I am not here to play games.

You most certainly are. It's what humans do, innit

Care to discuss actual facts, or just continue the same games you have been doing since this thread started?

So I am wondering what qualifications you were relying on when you said that a study published in Nature Geoscience, conducted and written by 8 heavily published and cited PhDs and post grads a "joke" and 100% wrong" when you, as far as we can tell, were speaking off the top of your head; linking no references or sources whatsoever and you tell us besides that you aren't even actually a geologist.

I would love to discuss some facts. What is the evidence and reasoning behind the opinions you've expressed re the OP's article?

I am a retired ocean engineer. I have published hundreds of reports on behalf of my employer but they have nothing to do with global warming or geology. Like you, I am an interested amateur. Unlike you, I don't think I'm the smartest thing on two feet. I have been actively participating in this forum for several years and, during that time, have developed well-justiifed opinions of several of my fellow posters. Ms Skye's total verbal output could be printed on the head of a pin. She posts very close to nothing but cute pictures. Enjoy.

 

[Mushroom]

Quote yourself ever simply acknowledging any of these cold, hard, evidence driven facts:

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

 

[Mushroom]

You really expect the "WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION" to admit Fukushima remains a disaster?

Simple fact, did anybody die?

You know, I notice you can absolutely never actually discuss anything with facts. You attack, insult, then demand. How about some actual facts instead of a single sentence response that is nothing more than "I am right, you are wrong"?

 

[Mushroom]

I am the OP in this thread

OK, and? You are acting like this is impossible if not for humans, and that is outright silly.

Until not all that long ago, we did not even know tropical storms were coming until they hit. That gives us an amazingly narrow history of hard scientific evidence to either support or deny your claim if it is normal or not.

This is the kind of thing that multiple people have pointed out to you, yet you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact. And now I guess because you are the OP, that gives you the right to post anything you want?

And I never claimed I am the smartest one. However, I am quoting and sourcing from well recognized geological facts. Do you deny any of the things I have posted? That the planet goes through this exact same pattern every interglacial? That we are not going to lose most of Florida before it is over?

Once again, simply more "baffle with bullcrap" response. And funny, you almost never discuss the actual issues I bring up in response. Simply attack me, attack anything you think I believe, and ignore the actual facts I bring up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You really expect the "WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION" to admit Fukushima remains a disaster?

What's your backup for unreliable wind and solar?

 

[Mac-7]

What does this mean?

It means you may be Chicken Little

 

[Grumblenuts]

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

Noted: your opinion repeated. "Facts" is plural, btw.

Simple fact, did anybody die?

That's actually just a question. Yes, aside from those dying directly from the tsunami, many died during the mandated evacuation, and since due to various factors related to the nuclear power plants. Injury or death from radiation, being extremely unpopular politically, was poorly documented even in Japan's hospitals. Then for years after the very near, multiple meltdowns. Once pressured the industry pretended to somehow study and document it in retrospect. No one actually knows because those in charge, like the WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, still don't want anyone knowing.

Of course, plenty reportedly died from radiation exposure after Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, but do you give a toss? Of course not. You (and ding) run from facts. Get a room.