Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[dorsetknob]

Radon gas
http://www.ukradon.org/information/
http://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...silent-killer-in-the-countryside-2047987.html
and for the USA

Read up on Radon Gas " Do you feel safe in your home"

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I have a radon vacuum in my basement and yeah, I'm concerned about it considering how much time I spend down here.

I'm in high/zone 1. Even with the radon vacuum installed and functioning, radon tests higher than considered safe.

 

[Steevo]

So we are essentially agreeing on everything, "Breeder" reactors that can use reprocessed fuel even if we pay subsidies towards their cost are better for the enviroment overall and could give us the energy to start considering things like CO2 capture or make a 20 year serious dent in carbon emissions if done right and right now. Neither solar or wind have the energy density or infrastructure to make this happen in the next 20 years.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I never argued that nuclear is not clean for the environment. I pointed out why the US market is not considering them in the near future (huge investment, lots of risks).

Your average nuclear reactor (500MW) costs $10-15 billion to reach the point of supplying the grid. They also usually take about 10 years from securing the funds, to planning, to construction, to certification.

The entire greenie craze (solar and wind) is actually damaging the prospects of nuclear because nuclear is a base-load supply. It can't respond to solar cycles nor changes in weather. About the only way there will be a huge transition away from them towards nuclear is by taking subsidies away and putting them towards nuclear. Realistically, that isn't going to happen.

Fusion is really the only path forward for nuclear future in the next 20-30 years. That path will only exist if there's research investment however.

 

[Ahhzz]

There's only been 22 known cases of ARS (if memory serves) and all of them occurred as Chernobyl NPP. The strict safety testing at any facility that handles radioactive material is for the express purpose of stopping the problem before it gets to the point of causing ARS.

Nuclear detonations aren't reasonably capable of causing ARS. Decaying nuclear warheads could.


Water is corrosive, salt water especially so. The gamma and beta radiation coming off the spent fuel is also potentially lethal to the wildlife.

The pools they keep spent fuel in have no life in them and they're constantly circulating to prevent the water from boiling.

I would note that due to past personal experience, I have knowledge that your number is incorrect.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Clarification: deaths. As long as there are iodine tablets available, ARS is rarely lethal.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That intense of a beam? Probably not. Neutron beams that intense don't occur naturally on Earth though. Hell, photons are harmless too, unless they're weaponized.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

don't bother, my post got deleted,
surely if an experiment/application require an intenser beam with more(more being redundant to intenser in this case?) faster particles could be done.
Anyways I found squat so far related to a corpse of whatever origin going / not going into natural decay in an environment with extreme levels of radiation, tough its just a couple of searches.
le: thought experiment to much for this community?

 

[Aquinus]

le: thought experiment to much for this community?

I think the problem is that your English is so broken that it's hard to understand what you're trying to say. Just an observation.

 

[AphexDreamer]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/30/sib...ses-of-methane-could-pose-broad-problems.html

Great, more greenhouse gases.... Example of positive feedback happening.

 

[yogurt_21]

^ kind of an example of a resource that should be used rather than left alone. Left alone it can explode or simply release into the atmosphere. Used for fuel it will release CO2 instead.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

The star that sustains life on Earth has no influence on the current global temperature increase



Scientists investigating the sun’s influence on the current climate have found that, over the last few decades, there has been no increase in brightness – and instead, they found a slight decrease, suggesting it has not played a role in recent warming

https://www.mpg.de/11447068/climate-engine-earth

 

[FordGT90Concept]

 

[dorsetknob]

sorry but thats the Guy who cherrypicked rules that made pluto a non planet

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They redefined what a planet was because of new discoveries in other stellar systems. Pluto didn't meet the requirements. Fear not though, Planet X may take Pluto's former spot.

 

[dorsetknob]

Sorry and its off topic
but they are considering backtracking and re instating Pluto (ABOUT TIME in my Opinion)
for god sake it has 5 confirmed moons ( more Suspected ) a suspected ring system and it orbits well outside of the inner Oort Cloud for most of its orbit
those other minor planets are justifiably KBO but pluto is not

 

[StrayKAT]

That's the newspaper headline, anyway.

So, could the "global warming" crisis just be one big scandal?

From what I've read, the earth is actually due an ice age anytime now, which would kinda put a spanner in the works of the global warming advocates. Oh dear.

I'm not completely sure, but I'm leaning towards scandal. There's just too much power, politics and money corrupting the science with something like this. Looks like all those who suspected that the "global warming" crisis of the last 20+ years was just a scam to foist higher taxes and "green" policies aka austerity on everyone, may just be right.

Have a read and let us know what you think.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

I'm not a denier, but I'm sure some of it is a scam.. simply because of the money and taxes involved, yeah. There's no freaking way people demand/get a hold of tens.. nay, hundreds of billions, purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Especially politicians. And shame on normal people for being that stupid. This is elementary. It's also especially fishy that they ask one country to pay the bulk of their ambitions (i.e. Paris Treaty/US). Even when that country has done much to curb environmental recklessness.

I also hate idealists just out of principle. Especially hysterical ones. I'm all for curbing pollution and recycling, but spare me the apocalyptic tones. It's even more infuriating when mixed with science.

 

[dorsetknob]

It's even more infuriating when mixed with science.

To Extort Tax payers for money

 

[qubit]

I'm not a denier, but I'm sure some of it is a scam.. simply because of the money and taxes involved, yeah. There's no freaking way people demand/get a hold of tens.. nay, hundreds of billions, purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Especially politicians. And shame on normal people for being that stupid. This is elementary. It's also especially fishy that they ask one country to pay the bulk of it (i.e. Paris Treaty/US).

I also hate idealists just out of principle. Especially hysterical ones. I'm all for curbing pollution and recycling, but spare me the apocalyptic tones. It's even more infuriating when mixed with science.

Totally agree that scamming money and imposing unnecessary draconian austerity measures is the order of the day with this and I hate this politically correct BS too. This would also put pressure on scientists to make their data fit what the politicians want, thus wrecking/corrupting the science and hence making me doubt what they're saying.

However, since I made that post over 2.5 years ago (doesn't time fly! ) I've changed my mind about climate change. Yes, while those corrupting pressures are there on scientists, from everything I've seen, still they're not lying about what's happening. Their claims are backed up by hard evidence that anyone can see without even trying such as the unprecedented melting of the ice at the poles, record weather events eg hurricanes, mud slides, heatwaves etc, to see that the global climate is changing and quickly. Couple that with the sheer speed at which it's happening and I don't think there's much doubt that man has something to do with it. This is true even though the details of this issue isn't completely understood yet.

I really should edit my OP post to reflect my updated viewpoint.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'd argue carbon tax and other forms of taxation "solutions" main purpose is scoring political victories. The real solutions are technology (smart grids, improved fuel efficiency standards, research into battery technology and recycling, research into better and cheaper nuclear fission reactors, research into fusion reactors, deploying smart heating/cooling solutions, etc.) and moratorium on the construction of the worst offenders (especially coal fired power plants). Countries where the latter is a problem can be solved by the former (e.g. mass produced nuclear reactors can completely negate market for coal). Even in urban sprawl, planting parks on building roofs instead of a bed of asphalt has numerous benefits and little downsides. Everyone benefits from a little fresher air from a park like that.

The science is settled. The time for arguing whether we should do better by our planet and children is over (the fact there was ever an argument is appalling). It's time to act. And by act, I mean start a new age that considers environmental impact with every endeavor. A "green age."

 

[dorsetknob]

Even the Tree hugging anti nucler power Greens now grudgling admit Nucler power is probably our best planned future

 

[StrayKAT]

I'd argue carbon tax and other forms of taxation "solutions" main purpose is scoring political victories. The real solutions are technology (smart grids, improved fuel efficiency standards, research into battery technology and recycling, research into better and cheaper nuclear fission reactors, research into fusion reactors, deploying smart heating/cooling solutions, etc.) and moratorium on the construction of the worst offenders (especially coal fired power plants). Countries where the latter is a problem can be solved by the former (e.g. mass produced nuclear reactors can completely negate market for coal). Even in urban sprawl, planting parks on building roofs instead of a bed of asphalt has numerous benefits and little downsides. Everyone benefits from a little fresher air from a park like that.

The science is settled. The time for arguing whether we should do better by our planet and children is over (the fact there was ever an argument is appalling). It's time to act. And by act, I mean start a new age that considers environmental impact with every endeavor. A "green age."

You had me until you yourself steeped a bit into hysteria at the end there..

This kind of stuff makes me want to do nothing, simply out of spite. And I'm not even the worst of opponents.

Besides, I live in Texas. I can survive floods and blistering heat as it is....even when Hollywood actresses say it's divine punishment.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Even the Tree hugging anti nucler power Greens now grudgling admit Nucler power is probably our best planned future

The problem is government (specifically, regulation) gets in the way of major change. Yes, things have to be done safely but instead of barking saying "you can't do that," government regulation should come in the form of "do this instead because it's better for everyone." We need prefab nuclear reactors that are certified safe and install them in a modular environment to meet regional demands. We seriously need a return of the mid 20th century "can do" mentality. Even if it's not clearly possible, "can do!" For how much humanity has advanced in the last 50 years, it seems mired in old ways in a lot of regards.

 

[StrayKAT]

The problem is government (specifically, regulation) gets in the way of major change. Yes, things have to be done safely but instead of barking saying "you can't do that," government regulation should come in the form of "do this instead because it's better for everyone." We need prefab nuclear reactors that are certified safe and install them in a modular environment to meet regional demands. We seriously need a return of the mid 1900th century "can do" mentality. Even if it's not clearly possible, "can do!" For how much humanity has advanced in the last 50 years, it seems mired in old ways in a lot of regards.

On a sidenote, one sad side effect of that Paris Treaty is it destroys any kind of "can do" mentality especially for third world nations. It prevents any of them from even having their own "19th" century industrial age equivalents.

For all of the crap about colonial guilt from Europeans, they sure like to keep them in a state of dependence still.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You had me until you yourself steeped a bit into hysteria at the end there..

This kind of stuff makes me want to do nothing, simply out of spite. And I'm not even the worst of opponents.

Besides, I live in Texas. I can survive floods and blistering heat as it is....even when Hollywood actresses say it's divine punishment.

It's hysteria to want clean air and clean water? That's fundamentally what it comes down to.

On a sidenote, one sad side effect of that Paris Treaty is it destroys any kind of "can do" mentality especially for third world nations. It prevents any of them from even having their own "19th" century industrial age equivalents.

For all of the crap about colonial guilt from Europeans, they sure like to keep them in a state of dependence still.

I don't support political solutions (that's not even a thing...politics solves nothing...it's like hiring a room full of architects when you only need a single engineer), I support tangible solutions. Third world nations shouldn't have to experience an industrial age if the technology is made available to them, at a price they can afford, to circumvent it. I think modular fusion reactors would go a very long way to achieving that. It's paramount nations with the means puts everything it can afford to making the breakthrough.