There is no calculable risk from nuclear power waste. Apart from whatever incidents there have been in 65 years per TW. I’ll research that. My money says that there is only a theoretical contribution to cancer risk. And I’ll ask the guy who cleaned up Fukushima who is an acquaintance. We have that level of relationship. Waste is nothing but a political issue of ignorant electorates.
Scientist argues that we cannot just wait for the world order to change to tackle the climate crisis
It hasn’t been done.
Yeah it has. How many people died as the result of Fukushima? How many will because of the water release?
It’s incalculable.
Sorry? You mean you have no idea. No data. I do. It’s all readily available.
I’m not dead set against it, but we are talking about radioactive nuclides with half-lives in the thousands and tens-of-thousands of years. One thing in favor of it is the new compact modular and scalable designs using conventional technology.
And then there is the human factor against it in plant operations. I was in “Rickover’s Nuclear Navy”, and my initial training and qualifications and written and oral exams were very rigorous, but subsequent requalifications were a hand-wave. There were some things that were more intrinsically engaging and demanding, like reactor startups and shutdowns, maneuvering during entering and leaving port, connecting and disconnecting from shore power and a variety of drills and war games. Transoceanic crossings, on the other hand, were deadly boring. Guess which steady state operations at a land-based utility would most resemble. Of course, the advantages of half a century of new technology and automation needs to be factored in, too.
So I am way more in favor of conservation and a conservative lifestyle along with renewable energy than I am of headlong promotion of nuclear power.
Renewables can’t give you conservation and righteousness as quick, if at all, as headlong nuclear power as well.
Please recheck your settings.
Insulating wrap: Okay, let’s add something into the analogy for the greenhouse effect. I would use some sort of pot cover / lid as a symbol for that, starting with a fairly open mesh splash screen, with the potential to adjust to slightly tighter mesh to represent increasing CO2 ghg effect.
While adding something in the place of added warming from increased CO2, the main point is the same - the primary source of heat does not have to continually increase in order to add warming. It can go up and down or not change at all and still add warming, so long as it is more than the system can handle. Adding in the screen on the pot would shift the system balance point slightly, which has the effect of adding in extra warming with the same amount of primary heat input. But, just as before, when we try to compare the warming in the latter part of the 20th century with that of the early part, the same, or more, heat input will give at least as much warming in both instances, plus whatever increased warming there would be from the greenhouse effect. To claim that essentially all of the warming in the latter part of the 20th century was due to CO2 ghg effect, because the sun didn’t / couldn’t have contributed any of that warming (IPCC-AR5), is preposterous and a giant, unsubstantiated leap outside of any scientific basis for such a leap.
I know that many people have been persuaded by catchy phrases and colourful charts, but too many of them really don’t tell us what we are told they do. They are very effective debating tools, but not necessarily sound science. I’m trying my darnedest to be rigorous, patient, open and objective with the data around global warming and its drivers. I hope those in positions of influence and policy-setting are doing the same. Unfortunately, that process is very much politicized and driven by public opinion. As a result, it is important that you and I do our best to get it right and help others do the same.
And climate scientists are not.
1 Like
Are people here so disconected from reality?ITS POLITICS.If you want the climate change to end go tell the politicians and the big corperations.And they will hear us of course as they do with everything lol.Businesses and politicians do whatever they want in this world.Till they get their head out of their *** you know climate change wont end period
And because money,greed etc etc are the new god in our society this wont change .
1 Like
I wonder how rigorous they are being when they can make such an absurd assertion that the same amount of heat input at one time is the primary cause of a significant warming and then has a negligible impact at another time. I have no doubt that everyone is working hard, but some appear to be working on a potentially false basis, which then amounts to a meaningless house of cards.
I don’t know specifically what you are referring to, but the presence or absence of a thermal insulator would do exactly that. (And recall, please, that you forgot to put one around your pot.)
The reason the book “Uncertain” is so important is that real climate scientists see the data in different ways. Below is a link to a long discussion by several CLIMATE scientists, including the world’s most important CLIMATE SCIENTIST, Richard Lindzen who has held endowed chairs at Chicago, Harvard, and MIT. There is a lot of detail. First is an article that spurred the debate, then the debate about criticism of the article.
https://co2coalition.org/2021/05/27/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/
Don’t need no stinkin’ oceans, don’t need no stinkin’ healthy marine environments or biodiversity.
But the ocean is useful for one thing–you can throw plastic into it. By 2050 scientists predict that the ocean will contain more plastic by weight than fish.
They need to rake the forest floors.
And of course, there’s no drought in the western states.
Of course not!
And of course, large regional droughts could not be effected by climate change.
Neither of your sources have any political or industry affiliations, right?
never!