Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

The idea of removing carbon from the atmosphere relies on massive decomposition. Decomposition produces natural gas:
natural gas from decomposition + nitrogen from the air + nuclear power which is required for all other functions = almost free ammonia

It is better to trap natural gas rather than vent it because natural gas is about 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Turning it into ammonia to go back into the plants is probably more environmentally friendly than burning it anyway. Yet another win-win-win situation.

 

[dorsetknob]

+ nuclear power

you forgot about 3 mile island Chernobyl wind scale fuckajima and the fear Nuclear put into the ill informed masses of the world

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It would likely use a pebble bed reactor which is incapable of melting down. They also aren't fussy about fuel source.

 

[dorsetknob]

the fear Nuclear put into the ill informed masses of the world

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You do know that the "fear" is wholly sponsored by the coal and oil industry which kill thousands every year. Only a few dozen people ever died from nuclear and they were people at Chernobyl during and shortly after the explosion. Nuclear is among the safest energy sources man has devised.

Fusion would be ideal and perhaps those nuclear fission reactors could be replaced as the technology improves. They should be able to supply their own hydrogen to boot.

 

[dorsetknob]

And Japan once one of the most heavy user of nuclear power 30% of total capacity went from 50 reactors to ZERO

The last of Japan's 50 reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012,[18] leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970.

And this was as a result of the "fear"which you say is wholly sponsored by the coal and oil industry

Grow up Get off your ass even look to wilki crap for info if need be


An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, stated that "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the Fukushima disaster, and called for a reduction in the nation’s reliance on nuclear power

Don de la fordgtconcept Quixote find another windmill to tilt at

 

[FordGT90Concept]

And Japan once one of the most heavy user of nuclear power 30% of total capacity went from 50 reactors to ZERO

They needed to verify the integrity of the reactors post-tsunami to make sure another Fukashima wasn't in the works. The core itself can only be checked when it is in cold shutdown. I'd probably do the same thing in their situation. The operator of Fukashima lied about how bad the damage was so it escalated as they tried to bury it. If they were up front that it was really bad, it probably wouldn't have gotten as bad as it did. USA could have had ships there within days to pump water over the reactors to stop it from getting worse. It was NEI measuring radiation outside the facility that proved Fukashima's operator was lying and the exclusion zone was put in place.

The last of Japan's 50 reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012,[18] leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970.

They're starting some of them back up. More detailed info here. 24 reactors are in the process of getting approval to restart. Japan did not benefit from the shutdown:

JAIF has said that increased fuel imports are costing about ¥3.8 to 4.0 trillion ($40 billion) per year (METI puts total fossil fuel imports at ¥9 trillion in FY2013). The trade deficit in FY2012 was ¥6.9 trillion ($70 billion), and in 2013 ¥11.5 trillion ($112 billion), up 65% on 2012's figure. For fiscal 2013 the trade deficit was ¥13.75 trillion ($134 billion), 70% up on FY 2012, according to the Ministry of Finance. The total trade deficit from April 2011 to end of March 2014 was thus ¥23.25 trillion ($227 billion), compared with previous surpluses of at least ¥2.5 trillion per year (¥6.6 trillion in 2010).

Only 5 reactors are going to be permanently shutdown because they're small and very old (40+ years). It's more economical to build a new reactor than get those restarted.



This is irrelevant anyway. The reactors on barges would be closer in design to what is in nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers than what is used for grid power generation. I can't recall any scenarios where radiation was leaked from them.

 

[dorsetknob]

This is irrelevant anyway. The reactors on barges would be closer in design to what is in nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers than what is used for grid power generation. I can't recall any scenarios where radiation was leaked from them.

And the Russian submarine fleet they have a spotless record on Nuclear Safety

Apart from the Subs that sank or caught on fire that is

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Kursk is the only one that came to mind. There were concerns that it leaked radiation but it did not (it successfully went into cold shutdown).

 

[dorsetknob]

Kursk is the only one that came to mind. There were concerns that it leaked radiation but it did not (it successfully went into cold shutdown).

there is one sitting at the Bottem of the Alantic ocean suffered reactor fire and failure
fully armed with nuclear missiles ( leaking radiation into the surrounding water )
Its too Deep and in to poor a condition to salvage
another sits in the Archangel/white sea in similer condition again to difficult and costly to salvage

those are the one's Russia HAD TO ADMIT TO there are probably others not admitted to (Kremlin Secrets)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What were their names?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

• Thresher (SSN-593), the first submarine in its class, sank April 10, 1963 during deep-diving trials after flooding, loss of propulsion, and an attempt to blow the emergency ballast tanks failed, causing it to exceed crush depth. All 129 men on board died. Location: 350 km (190 nmi) east of Cape Cod.
• Scorpion (SSN-589), a Skipjack-class submarine, sank May 22, 1968, evidently due to implosion upon reaching its crush depth. What caused the Scorpion to descend to its crush depth is not known. All 99 men on board died. Location: 740 kilometres (400 nmi) southwest of the Azores.

Soviet Union[edit]

K-27

K-141

K-159
The location of sunken nuclear submarines in the Arctic

• K-27: The only Project 645 submarine (a variant of the Project 627 November class with liquid metal cooled reactors), it was irreparably damaged by a reactor accident (control rod failure) on May 24, 1968. 9 were killed in the reactor accident. After shutting down the reactor and sealing the compartment, the Soviet Navy scuttled it in shallow water (108 ft (33 m)) in theKara Sea on September 6, 1982,[1] contrary to the recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA).[2]
• K-8: A Project 627 November class submarine was lost on April 11, 1970 while being towed in rough seas following a fire on board. The submarine was initially evacuated, but 52 reembarked for the towing operation. All hands on board were lost (52), while 73 crewmen survived on the rescue vessel.[1]Location: Bay of Biscay, 490 kilometres (260 nmi) northwest ofSpain in the North Atlantic Ocean.
• K-219: A Project 667A Yankee I class sub was damaged by a missile explosion on October 3, 1986, then sank suddenly while being towed after all surviving crewmen had transferred off. 6 crew members were killed. Location: 950 kilometres (510 nmi) east of Bermuda in the North Atlantic Ocean.
• K-278 Komsomolets: The only Mike-class sub built sank due to a raging fire April 7, 1989. All but 5 crewmen evacuated prior to sinking. 42 died, many from smoke inhalation and exposure to the cold waters of the Barents Sea. A total of 27 crew members survived.
• Soviet submarine K-429 sank twice, but was raised after each incident.

EDIT
sorry there are 2 more

• K-141 Kursk: The Oscar II class sub sank in the Barents Sea on August 12, 2000 after an explosion in the torpedo compartment. See Kursk submarine disaster. All 118 men on board were lost. All except the bow section was salvaged.
• K-159: The hulk of the decommissioned Soviet-era November class submarine sank in the Barents Sea on August 28, 2003, when a storm ripped away the pontoons necessary to keep it afloat under tow. Nine men died in the accident.

 

[dorsetknob]

@FordGT90Concept

Enough detail for you Don Q ( look i see a windmill charge )

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Scorpion and Thresher: "Once the two wrecks had been visited, and the radioactive threat from both was established as small, Ballard was able to search for Titanic." Makes sense. The water is extremely cold down there so even if the containment structure failed, it's cold enough to keep the core from melting down.

K-27: "The K-27 was officially decommissioned on 1 February 1979[1] and its reactor compartment was filled with a special solidifying mixture of furfuryl alcohol and bitumen during the summer of 1981 to seal the compartment to avoid pollution of the ocean with radioactive products." It appears there is disagreement on whether or not it needs to be properly decommissioned.

K-141: Is Kursk. It was properly recovered and dismantled.

K-159: Is a threat and needs to be recovered (plans are in the works).

K-8: Very little info on this submarine. Appears to be a threat and no plans to recover.

K-219: Is below crush depth. Radiation leaking should be minimal.

K-278: Contained.

K-429: Contained and decommissioned.

Appears only two require attention. Note that most of these submarines are 40+ years old. Modern nuclear submarines have very different reactor designs.

 

[dorsetknob]

"" Glad to see you have Extended your Education hope you remember the information or its been a pointless exercise ""

 

[qubit]

Oh look, an inconvenient truth for climate alarmists.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...orld_returns_to_sea_ice_levels_seen_in_1980s/

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Relevent Dyson quote is relevant:

When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.

 

[magibeg]

Relevent Dyson quote is relevant:

Meanwhile...

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ay-2015-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Correlation does not prove causation.

 

[SK-1]

YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE VENAL, WEIRD AND CREEPY TO WORK IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS…

The cream of the crop!


Dr Rajendra Pachauri – former chairman of the IPCC

(Alleged) sexual harassment; rank hypocrisy; greed; baseless smearing

John Cook – President Obama’s favourite inventor of climate factoids

Dishonesty; fabrication; smearing; promulgation of junk science (notably the false “97 per cent Consensus” claim); identity theft

Peter Gleick – President (and co-founder) of environmental think tank the Pacific Institute

Dishonesty; identity theft; smearing; document faking; libel

Michael Mann – Creator of the Hockey Stick; inventor of Mann-made global warming; Nobel Prize “winner”

Indefatigable promulgation of junk-science; vexatious litigation; data-fiddling; bullying

David Suzuki – Canada’s Al Gore

Dirty Old Man; greedhead

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rk-in-climate-science-but-it-certainly-helps/

 

[magibeg]

YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE VENAL, WEIRD AND CREEPY TO WORK IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS…

The cream of the crop!


Dr Rajendra Pachauri – former chairman of the IPCC

(Alleged) sexual harassment; rank hypocrisy; greed; baseless smearing

John Cook – President Obama’s favourite inventor of climate factoids

Dishonesty; fabrication; smearing; promulgation of junk science (notably the false “97 per cent Consensus” claim); identity theft

Peter Gleick – President (and co-founder) of environmental think tank the Pacific Institute

Dishonesty; identity theft; smearing; document faking; libel

Michael Mann – Creator of the Hockey Stick; inventor of Mann-made global warming; Nobel Prize “winner”

Indefatigable promulgation of junk-science; vexatious litigation; data-fiddling; bullying

David Suzuki – Canada’s Al Gore

Dirty Old Man; greedhead

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rk-in-climate-science-but-it-certainly-helps/

You actually believe that?.....

My favorite there is probably Michael Mann. I'll quote from your article:

Michael Mann – Creator of the Hockey Stick; inventor of Mann-made global warming; Nobel Prize “winner”

Indefatigable promulgation of junk-science; vexatious litigation; data-fiddling; bullying

Never in the field of heroic non-achievement has a scientist achieved such prominence on the basis of so little. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick – once the IPCC’s single-most-promoted piece of “evidence” for the threat of man-made global warming – has been repeatedly exposed as a worthless fabrication. Yet despite this – and all those Climategate emails revealing “Mike’s nature trick” to “hide the decline” and showing him to be an intolerant thug by no means averse to trying to destroy the careers of scientists or journal editors who dared to disagree with him – Mann still has tenure as director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and still commands high fees on the lecture circuit. In almost any field other than climate science, certainly if he worked in the private sector, his failures would have surely have got him fired by now.

What I love the most about this one in particular is that the hocket stick chart has been one of the most criticised charts in all of climate science most likely..... and yet it has been repeatedly found to be correct. Over and over again it has been verified. The only controversy is the fact that it had controversy, to this day the graph is actually being expanded upon because of how correct it was.

Those 2 climategate e-mails are also hilarious choices if you actually read the e-mails they were coming from, or had any context at all.

David Suzuki being a dirty old man is also a classic, how dare he charge $30K to give a speech, definitely not to cover some of his time, the fact he had to fly there (also fly a few of his assistants, also pay the assistants), bring equipment with him, stay at a hotel etc etc. The asking for body guard of attractive female students? Awesome, that definitely sounds like a crazy request that many make while creating their list of requirements. Take Van Halen famously saying no brown M&M's for his munchies, the reason for hiding a crazy request is to make sure the other person actually read through the contract.

I hope you don't seriously believe what you're reading here?

 

[magibeg]

Correlation does not prove causation.

Very good, that's the perfect way to ignore all other evidence, and an excellent point which can be applied indefinitely.

If you would like to argue correlation and causation as well I would love it, tell me more about how causation of variables isn't far and away the most important aspect of the scientific method. Literally the most important thing in the process of discovery. I realize of course you would taking a cheap shot and ignoring all other factors but given you don't seem to learn when we talk for hours I'm not quite sure where to go with you anymore.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Earth's climate is controlled by two major factors:
1) sun which should be in solar minimum but has had an awfully active minimum. Flares are occurring more frequently than expected.
2) water vapor. Very little information is known about changes in atmospheric water vapor despite it being 97% responsible for greenhouse radiation. A minute change is all it takes for the changes in temperatures that have been measured.
3) cloud cover is a huge factor in terms of warming/cooling. The models are years away yet from being able to simulate it to a reasonable degree and even so, it is strongly connected to weather which is very difficult to forecast more than a few days out.
4) CH4 has been rising faster than CO2 yet little focus is placed on it despite it being 20 times more potent per volume as a greenhouse gas. The models did not forecast nor explain why CH4 stopped increasing for a few years a while back.
5) Wind plays a huge component of CO2 absorption on land because without wind, the air is not stirred and it does not come within reach of the plants to remove it from the air. A simple average decrease in wind speeds can lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2.

I could go on and on. There's too many variables to single out any one source as the cause. Many are likely the cause but there's not enough information to weed out which are responsible and to what extent. The overemphasis on carbon dioxide has created major deficits in research on other areas. I suspect carbon is playing a minor role compared, especially, to average albedo (function of cloud cover).

 

[SK-1]

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'...OR..."How Bullshit Spreads"

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Have to sign in to read it but I suspect it is related to that Skeptical Science blog "research" we discussed a few pages back. In short, that's not an opinion of "scientists" but rather search results from a database query for specific words ("carbon dioxide" and "climate change" I believe). There's never been a poll done of "climate scientists" but when "scientists" are polled, the result was 84% believe warming is caused by human activity. Note that it deliberately left carbon dioxide out of the question.

13% lower than Skeptical Science would have everyone believe and likely even lower if carbon were injected into the question.