Pay no attention to man made climate change folks

[flacaltenn]

The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters

Not the newer designs.. They don't use multi-ton fuel rods or some designs don't even require water cooling.. Inherently safer...

0.7 ounces of nuclear fuel will power one household for a year.. There's no other source of energy with that small a footprint.. If we can handle the battery waste stream from all those electric cars -- we can certainly handle a chunk of nuclear fuel the size and weight of AAA battery for each house per year...

And heavy toxic metals from battery and other waste have INFINITE half-lives in our waste stream and we handle Megatons of that crap.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

You don't think wind and solar isn't NOW driven by greedy people who want those subsidies? There IS a "big Wind and Big Solar" industry... You just think they are cute and cuddly...

LOTS of folks bilking money out of subsidized wind and solar.. BIG BUCKS.....

 

[toobfreak]

Pay no attention to man made climate change folks
It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history

Get back to us when it hits 100° I like numbers with three digits.

 

[Kilroy2]

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

You don't think wind and solar isn't NOW driven by greedy people who want those subsidies? There IS a "big Wind and Big Solar" industry... You just think they are cute and cuddly...

LOTS of folks bilking money out of subsidized wind and solar.. BIG BUCKS.....

Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar as most energy industries so big deal I just pointed out how right wing like deregulation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

There is adequate consensus to call for action. Show me hpw many climatologist are suggesting we do nothing because we can continue what we were doing 0 years ago with no negative results.

The science say it takes many decades for the Earth to absorb all this extra CO2 to reduce or slow warmng.

Your plan is to ignore it & wait until we are all fucked & then we can't do anything.

You pretend know-it-alls are just ridiculous.

As a practicing meteorologist and atmospheric physicist I can say with 100% certainty, man is not causing our current warming. The empirical evidence shows is it naturally occurring and mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system.

 

[Kilroy2]

The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters

Not the newer designs.. They don't use multi-ton fuel rods or some designs don't even require water cooling.. Inherently safer...

0.7 ounces of nuclear fuel will power one household for a year.. There's no other source of energy with that small a footprint.. If we can handle the battery waste stream from all those electric cars -- we can certainly handle a chunk of nuclear fuel the size and weight of AAA battery for each house per year...

And heavy toxic metals from battery and other waste have INFINITE half-lives in our waste stream and we handle Megatons of that crap.....

yeah except power plants have been around for a while and some are still operational. There life span is about 50 - 80 years but in the beginning they were looking at 40 years. The oddest plants are coming up to the 50 year mark.

As they plants are doing long term they have yet to study the long term affects on steel and concrete of the buildings. I guess it will be up to the scientist to figure it out before its to late

GOA says US generates about 80,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. Spent nuclear fuel is a serious hazard to humans and the environment. This is enough to fill a football stadium 20 meters deep. and that just the civilian portion. U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades

 

[Kilroy2]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

There is adequate consensus to call for action. Show me hpw many climatologist are suggesting we do nothing because we can continue what we were doing 0 years ago with no negative results.

The science say it takes many decades for the Earth to absorb all this extra CO2 to reduce or slow warmng.

Your plan is to ignore it & wait until we are all fucked & then we can't do anything.

You pretend know-it-alls are just ridiculous.

As a practicing meteorologist and atmospheric physicist I can say with 100% certainty, man is not causing our current warming. The empirical evidence shows is it naturally occurring and mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system.

Then why do other scientist and professionals disagree with you.

And 100 percent that is pretty certain for a scientist no room for error
what is it about 95 percent that is the gold standard

Still I would ask have you measured everything that man can put out there that would cause warming on top of how the eco system operates.

They know that the earth has had warming trends in its history and certain radiation lives the earth
I guess they disagree about the effect that man has on it.

Still you might want to come off that 100 percent certainty

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then why do other scientist and professionals disagree with you.

Because they have been feed misinformation and falsified data. They rely on modeling and they refuse to look at that modelings ability to predict. About 30 years ago, when all modeling failed inside 6 months they decided to change how they looked at the information from them. They were upset and dismayed at the predictive failure after predictive failure falsifying their hypotheses.

Simply put, they have chosen to be fooled by their failing models.

I have chosen to look at the raw data and take it for what it tells me. Natural variation and the Null Hypothesis tell me their modeling fails empirical review. Its way past time for a new hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And 100 percent that is pretty certain for a scientist no room for error
what is it about 95 percent that is the gold standard

This is why I can say with 100% certainty that MMCC is bogus.. The modeling fails without exception indicating their understanding of the system is so bad that they are unable to model it.

Dr Spencer's work show the predictive failures:

Note that Dr Spencer includes radiosondes balloon data showing the actual temps as well as the Satellite records. The failure is massive and irrefutable.

 

[Kilroy2]

Then why do other scientist and professionals disagree with you.

Because they have been feed misinformation and falsified data. They rely on modeling and they refuse to look at that modelings ability to predict. About 30 years ago, when all modeling failed inside 6 months they decided to change how they looked at the information from them. They were upset and dismayed at the predictive failure after predictive failure falsifying their hypotheses.

Simply put, they have chosen to be fooled by their failing models.

I have chosen to look at the raw data and take it for what it tells me. Natural variation and the Null Hypothesis tell me their modeling fails empirical review. Its way past time for a new hypothesis.

Modeling is about prediction based on whatever data your using and at the beginning it was new and still recorded measurements are what about 120 years and the earth is a lot older

Well you would expect it to fail as it is a prediction and they were trying to figure out how to do this. They came up with a plan if it didn't work out then they will change it. They are smarter that what you give them credit for.

and it will depend on long they been doing it but they will get better. Still predictions are based on measurements taken

still it is not about the measurements, its about the effects. Is ocean levels rising to the point that they threaten coastal cities. What effect will the Arctic ice have on the ocean as it shrinks. The loss of ice mass in the Antarctic.

Can u predict what would happen in the future with any certainty

Still NASA seems to be on board. I mean they can put a man on the moon and have this big project for mars. You would think that that if they believe in global warming that there might be something to it.

I can accept that the eco system ebbs and flows but earth never had the population that it has now. To say Man does not affect the earth is a bold statement but you say its small.

How long will it stay small in the future

 

[Billy_Bob]

They came up with a plan if it didn't work out then they will change it. They are smarter that what you give them credit for.

I work and went to school with many of these people and they live and die by their modeling. The base hypothesis hasn't changed in 50 years and they refuse to change it, even with massive predictive failures.

They do what the grant looks for rather than science... Follow the money!

 

[Markle]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "GodFather of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

What is flaky about wind and sun,there plenty of it and as technology becomes better over time as most things do then flaky is a term that you use

Saying that you can solve the CO2 problem with nuclear power well you can solve it by limited the cause of the CO2 problem

The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

Who has said that there should be no regulations on nuclear energy? So desperate you have to lie. Pitiful!

 

[Markle]

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust coWmpanies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

You don't think wind and solar isn't NOW driven by greedy people who want those subsidies? There IS a "big Wind and Big Solar" industry... You just think they are cute and cuddly...

LOTS of folks bilking money out of subsidized wind and solar.. BIG BUCKS.....

Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar as most energy industries so big deal I just pointed out how right wing like deregulation.

What percentage of gross sales of both solar and oil are subsidies?

 

[xband]

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened. In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[RealDave]

I have a news flash: You are a fucking idiot.

The planet naturally emits CO2 & naturally absorbs CO2.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution & now we have emissions my man. These emissions push the total emitted past the amount the Earth can absorb. This raised the CO2 concentration & this heightened the greenhouse effect & this leads to warming.

Get t yet? Dumbass.

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

The 15 nuclear reactors of the same design as Fukushima along the New Madrid fault line comes to mind.

Or the shut down of Three Mile Island taking 60 years.

Or the leaking reactors in Illinois upwind from Chicago.

Chernobyl

Fukushima

Expensive

A threat to millions of Americans

 

[RealDave]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "Father of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

^
This.

More afraid of Climate Change & consider other options. Nuclear power is not the only solution.

 

[bodecea]

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened. In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

It's too late to do anything anyways.....those with money will be able to adjust fine, others....not so much.

 

[bodecea]

Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.

They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.

Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.

Yes, by following the path of Watermelons everywhere, and embracing Socialism to tell us how to live our lives (while the elites keep their air-conditioning and jet travel, and the rest of us revert to the 1800's)

Good for you marty. 4 comments in and you manage to post a raving political diatribe carbon dioxide.

Only thing your "WE HAZ TO DOES SOMETINGS!!!" reply warranted.

No...we are too late to do anything.

 

[RealDave]

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

You don't think wind and solar isn't NOW driven by greedy people who want those subsidies? There IS a "big Wind and Big Solar" industry... You just think they are cute and cuddly...

LOTS of folks bilking money out of subsidized wind and solar.. BIG BUCKS.....

Nuclear energy is te most subsidized.

 

[Erinwltr]

Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.

They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.

Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.

Yes, by following the path of Watermelons everywhere, and embracing Socialism to tell us how to live our lives (while the elites keep their air-conditioning and jet travel, and the rest of us revert to the 1800's)

Good for you marty. 4 comments in and you manage to post a raving political diatribe carbon dioxide.

Only thing your "WE HAZ TO DOES SOMETINGS!!!" reply warranted.

No...we are too late to do anything.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. Kind of scary. I thought I'd be dead and gone when the worst of it comes around.