Nearly All the sciencist and the president both are taking global warming serious

[itfitzme]

As far as we can tell, the US Navy has never had a nuclear accident.

"Indeed, the U.S. Navy turned to nuclear power in the 1950s to make its submarines faster and able to stay submerged longer. They are also quieter, more stealth. Since commissioning the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus , in 1954, the Navy has steamed 139-million miles around the world on various nuclear-powered vessels. Currently, there are 102 nuclear reactors aboard 80 Navy combat vessels, mainly submarines and aircraft carriers.

"We have never had an accident or release of radioactivity which has had an adverse effect on human health or the environment," said Lukas McMichael, a public affairs officer for Naval Reactors, the U.S. government office that oversees the operation of the Navy's nuclear propulsion program. "His (McCain's) statement is correct."

How awesome is that?

PolitiFact | Navy's record unblemished

 

[westwall]

Politics as usual drive these sort of statements. Whose politics you ask? These politics. This is what it is all about.....


Instead, “there is need for the global community to start solving the problem,” said the President.

Commonwealth Secretariat - More action needed to combat climate change, says Guyana’s president

Humans: the real threat to life on Earth

Humans ? the real threat to life on Earth | Environment | The Observer

Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change

Editorial: Population growth and climate change

The biggest contribution UK couples can make to combating climate change would be to have only two children or at least have one less than they first intended, argues an editorial published on BMJ.com today.

Family planning and reproductive health expert Professor John Guillebaud and Dr Pip Hayes, a GP from Exeter, call on UK doctors to break their silence on the links between population, family planning and climate change. They point to a calculation by the Optimum Population Trust that "each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions … than a new birth in Ethiopia."


Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change


Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.

Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance

 

[itfitzme]

Politics as usual drive these sort of statements. Whose politics you ask? These politics. This is what it is all about.....


Instead, “there is need for the global community to start solving the problem,” said the President.

Commonwealth Secretariat - More action needed to combat climate change, says Guyana’s president

Humans: the real threat to life on Earth

Humans ? the real threat to life on Earth | Environment | The Observer

Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change

Editorial: Population growth and climate change

The biggest contribution UK couples can make to combating climate change would be to have only two children or at least have one less than they first intended, argues an editorial published on BMJ.com today.

Family planning and reproductive health expert Professor John Guillebaud and Dr Pip Hayes, a GP from Exeter, call on UK doctors to break their silence on the links between population, family planning and climate change. They point to a calculation by the Optimum Population Trust that "each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions … than a new birth in Ethiopia."


Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change


Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.

Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance

Your opinion, prove otherwise.

 

[itfitzme]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

 

[Old Rocks]

Fusion, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, thermal....

The only thing we lower is coal and oil. How hard is it?

Come on, Matt, they haven't demonstrated sustained fission with net plus power out yet, have they? *Have they demonstrated sustained at all? *

Besides, did we learn nothing from Dr. Octopus?

Renewables, like hydro, wind, and geothermo are a bit geographic specific. *Solar would be great, a bit less geo specific. We have some large tracts of land available and the dust problem might be diminished by putting something over the ground there. It could even be a nice eco boost, creating habitats under the panels.*

Nuclear, on the other hand, was trending nicely before the recession. *The Navy has nuclear subs! *Proven technology. *It's compact. *They have no meltdown systems. *The main reactor module can be fully sealed and buried under ground.

Power 10-20k homes for $25 mil for 5-30-60 years on a 1.5 sq m footprint. *

"Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world," said John Deal, CEO of Hyperion. "[The nuclear plants] will cost approximately $25 million each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home."

Urenco has called for European development of very small – 5 to 10 MWe – 'plug and play' inherently-safe reactors based on graphite-moderated HTR concepts. It is seeking government support for a prototype "U-Battery" which would run for 5-10 years before requiring refueling or servicing.*

They are awesome. And we can be the global leader. Built in America, shipped anywhere in the world. Installation is free, when you buy four or more.

If they can actually build these things at that kind of price, with the safety they claim, I am totally for them doing it. However, when I was a child in the '50's, I remember speaking of the present reactors, claiming that they would make electricity so cheap there would be no need to meter it. And they would be totally failsafe. So I have a somewhat jaundiced view of the nuclear industries claims.

I do like the aspect that they would be community sized units, so that a storm taking down the primary grid would not affect them, and local repairs could put the power back into homes and hospitals quickly.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whether its real or not is a moot point. It really is irrelevant in the bigger picture!!

This article pretty much nails it.....only people who embrace shooting themselves in the face keep ringing the bell on the global warming stuff.......its really is a simple exercise of connecting the dots ( or not )

Obama?s Global-Warming Folly | National Review Online



Most of the population have no clue about the differences between intelligence and thought processing. There are exceedingly smart people who have significant thought processing difficulties. Such is the case for people who are hyper-advocates of "doing something now" to combat global warming........these same people completely either ignore or seriously undervalue the "costs" of "doing something". It is as if these costs are a pronounced afterthought. But it is exactly why they are losing in epic fashion........because their solutions are spectacularly impossible to implement and will never be implemented.

Wow, if only that were true. *The author is a complete moron if he actually believes that there has been no warming for 16 years. *I see he doesn't actually support this statement.

This is the global land-ocean mean temperature.

This is the metorological station data

" The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. "

This is the troposphere UAH satellite data.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, who has his own ideas of AGW, notes that the 1998 spike as El Nino warming.

The other measures do not support this 16 year, by any stretch of the imagination.

At best, the five year average, which is insufficient to gauge climate change, is within the limits of variability such that we can't say either way.*



Here is a better analysis;

"Humans have continued to contribute to the greenhouse warming of the planet over the past 16 years. The myth arises from two misconceptions. Firstly, it ignores the fact that short term temperature trends are strongly influenced by a variety of natural factors and observational limitations which must be analyzed to isolate the human contribution. Secondly it focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans)."

*"If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability".

This 16-year bs is the same thing that has been claimed repeatedly.

"One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change "skeptics" is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. *This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). *Isn't it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? "



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

Climate Graphics by Skeptical Science: The Escalator

I need a direct link and quote to the part I hilighted in red above.. Remember the terms of the user agreement?

The 1998 spike is a red herring. Not required to make a solid statistical case for the halting of significant warming over even the last dozen years... (without starting at 1998).
Using of course a 10 year average.

I'm sure Dr Spencer knows the likely cause of that spike.. I HIGHLY DOUBT he's stupid enough to declare the warming rate according to his more modern satellite method -- as significant as of today...

Link please...

BTW:: That Skeptical Science Blog link you provided is filthy with spin and lies. It's all a deflection from the actual MEASUREMENTS. Essentially they are whining because that "Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature" number that's there merely for public consumption is a stinking fraud. And when it goes in THEIR FAVOR -- they love it. When it fails to produce Global Warming --- they write a 2 page agit-prop complaint about what it doesn't take into account. That's as hypocritical as I've EVER witness modern science to become...

 

[itfitzme]

Whether its real or not is a moot point. It really is irrelevant in the bigger picture!!

This article pretty much nails it.....only people who embrace shooting themselves in the face keep ringing the bell on the global warming stuff.......its really is a simple exercise of connecting the dots ( or not )

Obama?s Global-Warming Folly | National Review Online



Most of the population have no clue about the differences between intelligence and thought processing. There are exceedingly smart people who have significant thought processing difficulties. Such is the case for people who are hyper-advocates of "doing something now" to combat global warming........these same people completely either ignore or seriously undervalue the "costs" of "doing something". It is as if these costs are a pronounced afterthought. But it is exactly why they are losing in epic fashion........because their solutions are spectacularly impossible to implement and will never be implemented.

Wow, if only that were true. *The author is a complete moron if he actually believes that there has been no warming for 16 years. *I see he doesn't actually support this statement.

This is the global land-ocean mean temperature.

This is the metorological station data

" The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. "

This is the troposphere UAH satellite data.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, who has his own ideas of AGW, notes that the 1998 spike as El Nino warming.

The other measures do not support this 16 year, by any stretch of the imagination.

At best, the five year average, which is insufficient to gauge climate change, is within the limits of variability such that we can't say either way.*



Here is a better analysis;

"Humans have continued to contribute to the greenhouse warming of the planet over the past 16 years. The myth arises from two misconceptions. Firstly, it ignores the fact that short term temperature trends are strongly influenced by a variety of natural factors and observational limitations which must be analyzed to isolate the human contribution. Secondly it focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans)."

*"If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability".

This 16-year bs is the same thing that has been claimed repeatedly.

"One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change "skeptics" is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. *This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). *Isn't it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? "



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

Climate Graphics by Skeptical Science: The Escalator

I need a direct link and quote to the part I hilighted in red above.. Remember the terms of the user agreement?*

The 1998 spike is a red herring. Not required to make a solid statistical case for the halting of significant warming over even the last dozen years... (without starting at 1998).
Using of course a 10 year average.*

I'm sure Dr Spencer knows the likely cause of that spike.. I HIGHLY DOUBT he's stupid enough to declare the warming rate according to his more modern satellite method -- as significant as of today...*

Link please...

BTW:: That Skeptical Science Blog link you provided is filthy with spin and lies. It's all a deflection from the actual MEASUREMENTS. Essentially they are whining because that "Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature" number that's there merely for public consumption is a stinking fraud. And when it goes in THEIR FAVOR -- they love it. When it fails to produce Global Warming --- they write a 2 page agit-prop complaint about what it doesn't take into account. That's as hypocritical as I've EVER witness modern science to become...

Remember the terms of the user agreement?

Oh, so when you don't get your way, you resort to threats and accusations of lying... nice. *

Yeah, Mr. "cut and paste", you do that, show that the highlighted text is "cut and paste". You got google. You can have a great day searching for it.

flatulance=Abusive personallity. Loser....