|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Agriculture : Environment |
|
Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years - and it _is_ Mankind's Fault |
Current rating: 0 |
by Steve Connor
(No verified email address) |
04 May 2006
|
|
"There is widespread evidence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans...It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 years." |
Global warming is made worse by man-made pollution and the scale of the problem is unprecedented in at least 20,000 years, according to a draft report by the world's leading climate scientists.
The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth's climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity.
A draft copy of the report by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are at the highest for at least 650,000 years.
It predicts that global average temperatures this century will rise by between 2C and 4.5C as a result of the doubling of carbon dioxide levels caused by man-made emissions.
These temperatures could increase by a further 1.5C as a result of "positive feedbacks" in the climate resulting from the melting of sea ice, thawing permafrost and the acidification of the oceans.
The draft report will become the fourth assessment by the IPCC since it was established in 1988 and was meant to be confidential until the final version is ready for publication next year.
However, a copy of the report has been made available by a US government committee and can be found on the internet by anyone who makes an e-mail request for a password to access the area on its website.
The US Climate Change Science Programme, which yesterday released its own report saying climate change was being affected by man-made pollution, said it wanted as many experts and stakeholders as possible to comment on the draft IPCC report.
The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, however, did not learn of the decision to, in effect, publish the report until it was posted online, according to the journal Nature. The IPCC assessment is written by scores of scientists - who can draw on the expertise of hundreds more researchers - to produce the most definitive and authoritative assessment of climate change and its impacts.
Global warming sceptics will get little comfort from the confident language in the draft report, which dismisses suggestions that climate change is an entirely natural rather than man-made phenomenon.
"There is widespread evidence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans," it says.
"It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 years.
"And it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more warming than has been observed during this period, with some warming offset by cooling from natural and other anthropogenic factors." Since its last report in 2001, the IPCC's working group says it has amassed convincing evidence showing that climate change is already happening.
It also finds that climate change is set to continue for decades and perhaps centuries to come even if man-made emissions can be curbed.
"2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years on record. Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years (2001-2005)," the report says.
Satellite data since 1978 shows that the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about 2.7 per cent each decade, with even larger losses of about 7.4 per cent during the warmer summer months.
"The smallest extent of summer sea ice was observed in 2005. Average Arctic temperatures have been rising since the 1960s and 2005 was the warmest Arctic year," the draft IPCC report says.
"An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate, including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation," it says.
Melting glaciers and polar ice sheets could cause sea levels to rise by up to 43cm by 2100, and the rise for the next two centuries is predicted to be nearly double that figure.
Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have probably already caused the increase in sea levels observed over the past century, says the report.
"Anthropogenic forcing, resulting from thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier and ice sheet melt, is likely the largest contributor to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century," the report says.
"Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to recent decreases in Arctic sea ice extent. There is evidence of a decreasing trend in global snow cover and widespread retreat of glaciers consistent with warming and evidence that this melting has also contributed to sea-level rise," it adds.
Evidence of climate change
* Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade since 1978 and by 7.4 per cent each decade during the summer months.
* Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years, with 2005 and 1998 being the two warmest years on record.
* Global average sea levels rose at a rate of about 2mm a year between 1961-2003, and by an average of more than 3mm a year between 1993-2003.
* Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than they have formed over the past 40 years.
* Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50 years.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
http://www.independent.co.uk |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Re: Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years - and it _is_ Mankind's Fault |
by Ed
crazyhawk22 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 May 2006
|
*Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than they have formed over the past 40 years.
* Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50 years.
The first point would have started in 1966 & the second point would have started in about 1956. During the 1970's, there was a tremendous fear about a coming "ice age" based on the evidence at that time. During the course of my life experience, I place little regard with articles that attempt to instill fear inspired by the decrees of expert sources. When I was younger, the word of doctors were considered beyond the question of the common man. As far as this article is concerned, I suspect the major culprit responsible for any evidence of global warming is "the sun". |
|
Re: Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years - and it _is_ Mankind's Fault |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 May 2006
|
Greetings Steve.
It is time for you to begin to understand the realities that are presented by the materials OF the 'environment', rather than platform misinforming support for an insular (and small) group of individuals you would title 'scientists'.
With regard to:- http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/450 with title:- "Earth First! In US initiates EF! Climate Caucus"
There is no SCIENCE to support the 'anti corporate mentality' so often expressed (as within the above link), or to make possible even the 'greenhouse effect' (see below *) that is platformed to justify so much of this misdirected angst.
Meanwhile, the Amazonian Forests, the people who live within it AND those trying to protect it are being MURDERED with little indication such 'groups' as mentioned in the link above are even aware, let alone concerned.
Let US ALL notice a section from this (May 5th 2006) mornings paper ('The Daily Telegraph' in NSW) on page 22 (no internet link), under the title "Atomic Power: a great bright hope" attributed to Bob Carr (yes the ex-NSW Premier signed up by the "Climate Institute"):-
["The debate is over. Yesterday WWF Australia, one of the nation's largest environmental groups, accepted the realist of peaceful nuclear power."]
["In other words you won't save the planet from global warming without Nuclear Power."]
["As Premier I made similar comments. I was surprised by the response. It wasn't the outrage and indignation that one would have got in the 70's and 80's."]
["Renewable energy -wind, solar- is a part of the solution. But a smallish part. WE could build windmills from the Blue Mountains to Broken Hill and they would not provide the seven-day-a-week flow of energy that we call base load power."]
These individuals (as in the above link), and the 'groups' they have overrun (as exampled in the above link) are now IGNORING reality, ignoring the Public, and ignoring the Environment, expressing only their 'self interests' wrapped in a veneer of 'environmental concern'.
I would also reprise (in short) my outlines, given as warning, over the past YEARS in various Yahoo groups (especially). "Greenhouse platforming" will be rendered moot by:-
1) The increased use of hybrid bio-diesel vehicles.
2) The increased use of Uranium Fuelled Power generation as backbone generation.
So infact there will be a vast reduction in 'greenhouse pollution'. Thus the incessant (and POINTELESS) 'greenhouse rhetoric' will fall from 'public notice' (from what ever level that is NOW) as pollution OVERALL is reduced. Any INTEREST in listening to CONTINUED claims of 'climate change due to greenhouse warming' will also disappear, as the ENTIRE 'climate/greenhouse' sociopolitical VAPIDITY is rendered MOOT as 'Human additions' of supposed 'greenhouse gases' ARE infact removed in reality AND as a 'climate issue'.
=========
Welcome to the URANIUM age induced by 'greenhouse' nonsense.
=========
Next with regard to http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/439 with the title "New Film: The Great Warming":- To quote from the MOVIE script:- ["Over the past 10,000 years, the amount of 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere has been relatively constant"]
Well INFACT over the past ~15000 years the CLIMATE has been rising from a GLACIATION, so it seems that in terms of CLIMATE 'greenhouse concepts' have NO application.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Without greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be -19 degrees C instead of 14 degrees C, or 33 degrees C colder.']
As yet NO valid reason to even BELIEVE these figures has been provided (see *), just a LOT of OPINION being REPEATED.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Earth is heated by sunlight. Most of the Sun's energy passes through the atmosphere to warm the earths surface, oceans and atmosphere."]
Blatantly incorrect as can be seen in slides I have already provided in links, ONLY those photons within the upper and lower VISIBLE spectrum as well as the lower THIRD of the UV spectrum are able to become surface incident. This is on the 'inward' leg, i.e. FROM the outer edge of the atmosphere.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, in order to keep the atmosphere's energy budget in balance, the warmed earth also emits heat energy back to space as infrared radiation."]
WRONG AGAIN, the photons escaping the CASCADE are infact NOT representing 'heat energy' in ANY manner. These PHOTONS represent NON kinetic interactions by the molecules of the atmosphere with PHOTONS within the cascade. It is the energy NOT released by the interaction that is retained as HEAT. This is the energy recorded within measures of ALBEDO
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, because the energy is recycled downward, surface temperatures become much warmer than if the greenhouse gases were absent form the atmosphere."]
Complete nonsense, the energy is NOT recycled downward with ANY trend, again ALL photons within the atmosphere are absorbed as seen in the slides I have already provided within links (see below).
(*) INFACT photons NOT in the upper/lower VISIBLE spectrum, or the lowest one third of the UV spectrum, or that small portion in and just above the RADIO spectrum DO NOT become surface incident, EVER. So there is NOT POSSIBLE any 'surface warming' from a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. The WARMING that is seen as unnatural is due to humanity rematerialing the surface, end of 'debate'.
This (and other) 'movie(s)' is(are) dispensing POINTLESS nonsense which is leading us all into the URANIUM age.
Boycott these movies, and they will cease attempting to produce their PROPAGANDA.
Ignore those attempting to defend and support these 'movies' and the 'information' they propaganda, THEY are leading us all into the URANIUM AGE (this at present Steve unfortuantley includes yourself).
You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links and please try to find some aspect of the 'greenhouse theory' that has not already been 'ripped to shreds' please:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Federal Study Finds Accord on Warming |
by Andrew C. Revkin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 May 2006
|
A scientific study commissioned by the Bush administration concluded yesterday that the lower atmosphere was indeed growing warmer and that there was "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."
The finding eliminates a significant area of uncertainty in the debate over global warming, one that the administration has long cited as a rationale for proceeding cautiously on what it says would be costly limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases.
But White House officials noted that this was just the first of 21 assessments planned by the federal Climate Change Science Program, which was created by the administration in 2002 to address what it called unresolved questions. The officials said that while the new finding was important, the administration's policy remained focused on studying the remaining questions and using voluntary means to slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
The focus of the new federal study was conflicting records of atmospheric temperature trends.
For more than a decade, scientists using different methods had come up with differing rates of warming at Earth's surface and in the midsection of the atmosphere, called the troposphere. These disparities had been cited by a small group of scientists, and by the administration and its allies, to question a growing consensus among climatologists that warming from heat-trapping gases could dangerously heat Earth.
The new study found that "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere," in the words of a news release issued by the Commerce Department and approved by the White House. The report was published yesterday online at climatescience.gov.
The report's authors all agreed that their review of the data showed that the atmosphere was, in fact, warming in ways that generally meshed with computer simulations. The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.
All other industrial powers except Australia have accepted mandatory restrictions on such gases under the Kyoto Protocol, but efforts to extend and expand that treaty face hurdles.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that conducts an exhaustive periodic review of causes and impacts of warming, has just finished reviewing drafts of its next assessment, to be published next year.
Scientists involved in that effort, while refusing to comment on specific findings, said that research since the last assessment, in 2001, had generated much greater certainty that humans are the main force behind recent warming, and that much more warming is in store unless emissions are curtailed.
Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said, "We welcome today's report" and added that it showed that President Bush's decision to focus nearly $2 billion a year on climate monitoring and research was "working."
Thomas Karl, the director of the National Climatic Data Center in the Commerce Department and the lead editor of the report, said it was not simply a review of existing work but also, by forcing scientists with differing views to meet repeatedly, resulted in breakthroughs.
"The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases," Dr. Karl said.
John R. Christy, an author of the new report whose analysis of satellite temperature records long showed little warming above Earth's surface, said he endorsed the conclusion that "part of what has happened over the last 50 years has clearly been caused by humans."
But Dr. Christy, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said the report also noted that computer simulations of the climate system, while good at replicating the globally averaged temperature changes, still strayed in projecting details, particularly in the tropics.
This implied that the models remained laden with uncertainties when used to study future trends, he said.
Dr. Christy also said that even given what the models projected, it would be impossible to slow warming noticeably in the coming decades. Countries would be wise to seek ways to adapt to warming, he added, even as they seek new sources of energy that do not emit heat-trapping gases.
http://climatescience.gov
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com |
|
Is Nuclear Power A Solution for Global Warming? |
by fyi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 May 2006
|
http://www.neis.org/Content/Global_Warming.htm
http://www.neis.org/Content/NuclearInsecurity.htm
"Desperate times call for desperate measures", an old saying goes. The world needs more energy for development – the International Energy Agency sees demand rising by 52% between now and 2030. But if governments want to combat climate change, fossil fuel use – which provides by far the largest (and rising) share of primary energy – will have to be reduced.
So what, if any, is nuclear's role, and how should it be assessed?
After decades without new build in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area, it is no secret that nuclear power is back on the agenda. The main drivers are rising concern about climate change, oil and gas prices, and energy security.
But already the debate has become stereotyped. Depending on whom you listen to, we should either be building many more reactors, or phasing them out over the next decades.
Here is a set of questions that the nuclear industry should answer if it is to make a convincing case.
Uranium?
Uranium, like oil, is a non-renewable resource. By some accounts, there are less than 50 years of relatively cheap uranium left at current rates of use. One German institute puts the figure as low as 20 years. Uranium prices have risen sharply in the past years. The World Nuclear Association expects that demand will exceed supply in the period to 2015, meaning further price rises.
If nuclear power is scaled up, energy planning will need to be explicit about fuel prices and reserves. Reprocessing, and other fuels such as thorium, offer possibilities. However, as the experience with nuclear fusion research has shown – where billions have been invested over decades without lighting a single bulb – caution is needed.
Time?
Being the most complex piece of energy kit yet invented, construction of a nuclear power station takes time. Finland's decision to proceed with a fifth nuclear plant is illustrative. First proposed in 2000, the 1600 MW Olkiluoto plant was approved in 2002. Construction started in early 2005 and it is expected to go into commercial operation in 2009, with a 50 to 60 year lifetime.
In other words, it can be nearly a decade before nuclear power is displacing coal. Is this fast enough to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, and still meet energy needs? And that is not taking into account the fact that most existing reactors are 25 to 40 years old and will need to be shut down and decommissioned in the coming decades.
Money?
In the 1950s and 1960s, the full economic costs of nuclear power were largely hidden, being partly covered by defence budgets and other government investment. With decommissioning, insurance underwriting, waste storage and disposal, spent fuel shipment and the like, nuclear's costs have never been fully built into energy costs.
With reactors costing several billions of dollars apiece, the opportunity/cost arguments become vital.
Given that much of the capital investment will be public money or guaranteed – private investors will not step up without some form of subsidies – is it too much to ask what other energy services a fully-costed nuclear reactor would buy? What, for example, could energy efficiency or renewables deliver for the same money? The work in this area of energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins deserves a close review.
Security?
Ever since the September 11 attacks on the US, the potential risk of nuclear power plants has had to be reassessed. Apart from releases of radioactive materials as a result of a terrorist attack, the nuclear cycle offers the determined and disaffected various options, including "dirty" bombs and potentially even a nuclear weapon.
While International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards have done basically a good job in tracking nuclear use, the current confrontation with Iran highlights the dilemmas. If it were decided to expand nuclear power, a serious strengthening of the international safeguards regime – from mine to long-term disposal – would seem to be essential.
Public support?
It is a long time since large-scale public demonstrations against nuclear power. But it has been a long time since there was a proposal to build new nuclear capacity in the OECD region, Finland aside.
While the public appears to let by-gones be by-gones as far as existing reactors are concerned, no one really knows what the response will be to a proposal to build new plants.
CO2 budget?
Nuclear is being sold as part of the answer to climate change. However the mining, processing and enrichment of uranium require fossil fuels.
Nuclear reactors and long-term containment sites need huge quantities of steel and concrete, production of which is also greenhouse gas intensive. If the "nuclear is good for the climate" argument is to be convincing, a sound greenhouse gas life-cycle analysis will be needed to show how nuclear stacks up against other energy sources and systems.
Nuclear has a carbon footprint: let's see it and let's see how the carbon cost avoided stacks up against the other options.
Technology?
Ever since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the nuclear industry has pinned its hopes on "inherently safe" next generation reactors. The problem is that there is limited experience of these.
China has built a 10 MW high-temperature gas-cooled pebble bed reactor (HTR-10), which is claimed to be "passively safe". It is reported to have plans to put a full-scale 200 MW version on line this decade, at an estimated cost of US$300 million.
China's nuclear industry has not disguised its hope to sell the 200 MW reactors throughout China, and to world markets. If the technology proves cost-effective and safe, low-cost competition from China seems likely to add a new element to the economics of the debate.
For the time being, nuclear power is a part of the energy mix. If nuclear is genuinely a contribution to efforts to deal with climate change, as ecologists like James Lovelock contend, it should be considered. The case, however, is yet to be made and the unseemly rush in this direction at present brings to mind the old adage that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread"
http://www.evworld.com/ |
|
Yet the report mentioned seems NOT to be able to detail.. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 May 2006
|
Andrew, the 'report' you mention seems NOT to be able to detail around the PRIOR expectation that the LOWER atmosphere was ALWYS EXPECTED to be warming 'faster' as:-.
a) The close proximity to the SURFACE,
and
b) The constrained presence of atmospheric WATER.
You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links and please try to find some aspect of the 'greenhouse theory' that has not already been 'ripped to shreds' please:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
So the ATTEMPT to platform this 'report' as 'support' for the supposed 'greenhouse concept' is simply more blind propaganda from a few individuals.
There is still no debate needed, the 'greenhouse effect' is not real, the process cannot exist with the materials it involves and 'heat' cannot be trapped, the gravitational distribution of mass within the atmosphere IS showing its affect and 'heat' cannot escape into open space.
The 'trapping' you mention Andrew is INFACT of the photons within the Cascade that has a gravitational distributional component (via mass stratification) to its intensity. However the overall trend of photons within the cascade is OUTWARD.
These photons cannot make it back to the ground, and 'opinion' will NOT make it otherwise possible for such to occur (see slide in links for atmospheric absorbance with relating to surface incidence).
Regardless of what is 'said' by a particular 'talking head', these will remain as an outline of HOW the materials REALLY behave with no interest at all in 'greenhouse opinion'.
The IPCC is STILL only a committee that is still expressing the OPINION of the political lobby that garnered its 'creation' and is NOT presenting anything except predetermination of opinion.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
FYI, there is no room for 'rhetoric' anymore. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 May 2006
|
The actions are already been planned FYI. "Generation' is only HALF of the required process, and as such there is NOT practical implementations OF 'alternative generation process', and this is NOT debatable due to the SCIENCE pertinent to the processes within 'electricity distribution'.
You need to REALISE FYI, as do many others. Either way, 'greenhouse concepts' will be reduced in relevance. Either those still platforming 'greenhouse issues' will REALISE the ERRORS within the THEORY that renders a 'greenhouse effect' non existent, or IT WILL be rendered moot by the use of URANIUM.
Let US ALL again notice a section from this (May 5th 2006) mornings paper ('The Daily Telegraph' in NSW) on page 22 (no internet link), under the title "Atomic Power: a great bright hope" attributed to Bob Carr (yes the ex-NSW Premier signed up by the "Climate Institute"):-
["The debate is over. Yesterday WWF Australia, one of the nation's largest environmental groups, accepted the realist of peaceful nuclear power."]
["In other words you won't save the planet from global warming without Nuclear Power."]
["As Premier I made similar comments. I was surprised by the response. It wasn't the outrage and indignation that one would have got in the 70's and 80's."]
["Renewable energy -wind, solar- is a part of the solution. But a smallish part. WE could build windmills from the Blue Mountains to Broken Hill and they would not provide the seven-day-a-week flow of energy that we call base load power."]
I would also reprise (in short) my outlines, given as warning, over the past YEARS in various Yahoo groups (especially). "Greenhouse platforming" will be rendered moot by:-
1) The increased use of hybrid bio-diesel vehicles.
2) The increased use of Uranium Fuelled Power generation as backbone generation.
Near ALL States of Australia now have bio-diesel programmes, as does the USA, for example.
So infact there will be a vast reduction in 'greenhouse pollution'. Thus the incessant (and POINTELESS) 'greenhouse rhetoric' will fall from 'public notice' (from what ever level that is NOW) as pollution OVERALL is reduced. Any INTEREST in listening to CONTINUED claims of 'climate change due to greenhouse warming' will also disappear, as the ENTIRE 'climate/greenhouse' sociopolitical VAPIDITY is rendered MOOT as 'Human additions' of supposed 'greenhouse gases' ARE infact removed in reality AND as a 'climate issue'.
=========
Welcome to the URANIUM age induced by 'greenhouse' nonsense.
=========
Next with regard to http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/439 with the title "New Film: The Great Warming":- To quote from the MOVIE script:- ["Over the past 10,000 years, the amount of 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere has been relatively constant"]
Well INFACT over the past ~15000 years the CLIMATE has been rising from a GLACIATION, so it seems that in terms of CLIMATE 'greenhouse concepts' have NO application.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Without greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be -19 degrees C instead of 14 degrees C, or 33 degrees C colder.']
As yet NO valid reason to even BELIEVE these figures has been provided (see *), just a LOT of OPINION being REPEATED.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Earth is heated by sunlight. Most of the Sun's energy passes through the atmosphere to warm the earths surface, oceans and atmosphere."]
Blatantly incorrect as can be seen in slides I have already provided in links, ONLY those photons within the upper and lower VISIBLE spectrum as well as the lower THIRD of the UV spectrum is able to become surface incident. This is on the 'inward' leg, i.e. FROM the outer edge of the atmosphere but also in general by the overall properties OF the materials OF the atmosphere AND their presented structure.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, in order to keep the atmosphere's energy budget in balance, the warmed earth also emits heat energy back to space as infrared radiation."]
WRONG AGAIN, the photons escaping the CASCADE are infact NOT representing 'heat energy' in ANY manner. These PHOTONS represent NON kinetic interactions by the molecules of the atmosphere with PHOTONS within the cascade. It is the energy NOT released by the interaction that is retained as HEAT. This is the energy recorded within measures of ALBEDO
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, because the energy is recycled downward, surface temperatures become much warmer than if the greenhouse gases were absent form the atmosphere."]
Complete nonsense, the energy is NOT recycled downward with ANY trend, again ALL photons within the atmosphere are absorbed as seen in the slides I have already provided within links.
(*) INFACT photons NOT in the upper/lower VISIBLE spectrum or the lowest one third of the UV spectrum, or that small portion in and just above the RADIO spectrum DO NOT become surface incident, EVER. So there is NOT POSSIBLE any 'surface warming' from a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. The WARMING that is seen as unnatural is due to humanity rematerialing the surface, end of 'debate'.
This (and other) 'movie(s)' is(are) dispensing POINTLESS nonsense which is leading us all into the URANIUM age.
Boycott these movies, and they will cease attempting to produce their PROPAGANDA.
Ignore those attempting to defend and support these 'movies' and the 'information' they propaganda, THEY are leading us all into the URANIUM AGE.
You need to REALISE FYI, as do many others. Either way, 'greenhouse concepts' will be reduced in relevance. Either those still platforming 'greenhouse issues' will REALISE the ERRORS within the THEORY that renders a 'greenhouse effect' non existent or IT WILL be rendered moot by the use of URANIUM.
Either way FYI (and others), either way.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Whose Advice You Gonna Take? |
by open-minded
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 May 2006
|
|
If you're not an expert, whose advice are you gonna take? Peer-reviewed work by several hundred of the world's climate experts with a PhD after their names or a rather repetitive crank with a (tm) after his name? |
|
Being open minded to reality. |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 May 2006
|
There are no 'experts' to heed 'open minded', there is just SCIENCE.
It is in their attempt to LABEL THEMSELVES as 'expert' that has made you "openminded" to overlook, in the actions of the 'peer' reviewers, the 'passing' of material presented FOR review that is NOT VALID SCIENCE.
The process you mention "openminded" is, with reference to 'greenhouse science', in fact NOT anymore valid in SCIENCE than the 'climate science' it 'rubber stamps'.
The IPCC is NOT an 'expert body' in reality, IT IS a committee formed from the actions of a POLITICAL lobby that is there EXPRESSLY to position that lobbies OPINION.
The 'greenhouse science' platformed has REVERSED the actions that the REAL materials WILL produce, and this IS realised. AS such, the 'greenhouse platform' IS being now used to launch URANIUM as the main used fuel.
=====
You should "openminded" possibly be more believing of those who HAVE been successfully PREEMPTIVE of events by MONTHS and/or YEARS and who CONTINUE to issue REAL WARNINGS.
**These people would include ME 'open minded'.**
=====
Lastly 'open minded', you should try BEHAVING in the manner of the 'label' you use, and actually BE open minded "openminded".
=========
Welcome to the URANIUM age induced by 'greenhouse' nonsense.
=========
You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links and please try to find some aspect of the 'greenhouse theory' that has not already been 'ripped to shreds' please:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com
In response to:-
Whose Advice You Gonna Take?
by open-minded |
|
First Things First |
by open-minded
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 May 2006
|
OK, for the moment, let's suppose that the all these experts with various specilaized degrees, hundreds of years of experience between them, and with access to the best data and technology to analyze climate have somehow got it completely wrong.
Let us turn to _your_ qualifications, Mr. Trademark. What are they? What degrees do you have that make it so easy for you to dismiss the preponderance of scientific opinion? What expertise do you have that sets you apart from them and gives your opinion (since that is truly all it is, for all you're ranting about science-in-all-caps) more weight than the consensus of the scientific community?
I'd like you to explain yourself here, rather than refer to old postings that are pendantic, inexplicable, and rambling. The only thing I've seen from you is a willingness to argue over semantics, rather than any real ability to evaluate the evidence and draw a conclusion based on how it supports or undermines hypothesis and theory. For a person to give weight to your arguments, you need to impress the readers that you are more qualified than those you critique. This does not necessarily mean you need a PhD after you name, but you do need to support your overwhelming and complete dismissal of the work of others with something other than the occasional use of all caps and constant referral to a couple of URLs that really don't seem to offer much more than your opinion of SCIENCE. |
|
Which 'experts' do 'you' mention? |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 May 2006
|
There is NOTHING relevant in what you mention 'open-minded'.
There is NOT 'hundreds of years' of experience that is applied, there is NOT any use of VALID SCIENCE and there are NO 'specialised' degrees as you like to allude to.
Infact, I KNOW one individual who has a 'Masters' from within a 'discipline' of 'environmental knowledge' that has TOLD me that this was gained within an 'exam' where they where TOLD:-
"There are no wrong answers".
The 'qualification' is infact a Graduate Diploma, but the PREREQUISITES to make SENSE of the information would involve SCIENCE that seem lacking so INFACT the 'qualification' is POINTLESS and would be REMOVED from any individual that did NOT have a suitable level OF prerequisite knowledge, and if they did it would be revised to a GRADUATE DIPLOMA.
So spare me your prattle 'open-minded'.
Your 'foot stomping' is also IGNORED 'open-minded' as what YOU want is presented as MISINFORMATION.
YOU, 'open-minded' explain YOURSELF.
You 'open-minded' tell us WHO you are, with STREET ADDRESS AND contact PHONE DETAILS.
All this is READILY determined about ME, from my Trademark and with those details the Australian White Pages.
Otherwise 'open-minded' you seem unable to add anything to this discussion.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Regarding 'Global Warming' & discussion. |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 May 2006
|
What is the REAL problem for the few individuals masquerading behind and endless string of anonymous 'internet identities' is that the SCIENCE I present IS valid AND is even common knowledge and practice.
As such they are NOW near immediately attempting to attack, harass and/or belittle myself knowing FULL WELL that every point they would otherwise raise has already been indicated as flawed in SCIENCE in 'numerous other places'.
So too are the attempts to indicate ANYTHING about my use of a TRADEMARK that is NOT noticing the already rendered information that such TRADEMARK is to IDENTIFY myself as a REAL person. Not only is it associated with my CURRENT residential address (always), it was gained with MORE personal identity information that was needed for a PASSPORT (at the time I gained such TRADEMARK) and the information can be used IN the Australian White Pages (online also) to gain my PRESENT phone contacts AND verify the ADDRESS I reside at.
I have even given the links to the Australian Intellectual Property Site AND the Australian White Pages site, but these FEW seem NOT to wish to look at REAL information. Also, the email address I is use, being Hartlod (at) bigpond.com is infact my ISP ACCOUNT email address, NOT a 'free account' as the few HAVE attempted to make innuendo of.
There few have even attempted to ridicule my reference of Temperature as a measure of 'kinetic energy', so to aid all and forestall such repeated vapidity, below is an extract from a primer, with reference to the Text it is extracted from, sorry I do NOT have the ISBN of that text. A decent library should have it.
-----
This brief summary is abridged from a more detailed discussion to be found in Quinn's "Temperature"
About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale.
The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K).
-----
Still however these self interested few attempt to PROTECT these 'greenhouse concepts', but NOW they attempt to not even associate these concepts with their 'comment's knowing already the inherent flaws within these 'greenhouse concepts'.
Meanwhile the path to Uranium as a major fuel is getting shorter.
* You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Sooooooo |
by open-minded
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 May 2006
|
Apparently you do NOT want to talk about what, if any, qualifications YOU have.
I think when you say nothing about that it says a lot
BTW, I am a real person. The lack of a trademark has so far not affected me. I even have a passport. At least I don't seem to be fading away without a trademark. The fact that you seem to feel you need to trademark your name in order to exist indicates to me that your grasp of science might be a bit suspect as well. Others can make up their own minds.
The experts I was referring to are the many scientists from a number of different insitutions and representing many different nations who contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, plus the scientists working for the US government on the US Climate Change Science Programme committee. I'm sure there are a few that aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, as there is in any group, but I'd imagine -- without being knowledgable about the particular individuals in the field -- but in general they are probably the best minds in science working on this problem. The fact that even nations, like the US, who officially remain skeptical about the need to do anything about global warming at least admit that it is happening.
Finally, you throw the Boltzmann constant out as if this is supposed to impress the audience. Unfortunately, you failed to make any direct connection between it and the topic you're discussing. An unconnected fact is just that, it sure isn't an alternative theory of atmospheric thermodynamics or climatology. You don't bother to put it in context, but you insist that we should just trust your interpretation, whatever it so mysteriously is.
These are not my fields, but unless you can make some claim to expertise beyond the average person on the street and show some ability to communicate the essence of it in a straightforward manner to the reader, I think I'll pay more attention to those who at least seem well-qualified to evaluate the evidence. Try harder next time to actually explain yourself, instead of simply insisting that everyone else has it wrong, if you want people to to understand your point. |
|
Re: Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years - and it _is_ Mankind's Fault |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2006
|
Perhaps you are a real person "openminded", but there is nothing to say that YOU are a unique person as you post anonymously from behind a 'contrived label'.
As such I am not at all required to answer to 'demands' of such 'anonymous identities' and your pretense of demanding 'personal information' is as totally irrelevant now as such attempts have been always.
Many seem intent to call themselves 'hydrologists', but with no manner to identify who is posting, there is no point made in such 'claims' is there.....
You also attempt to ignore the actual material within the quotation to attempt to avoid the issue, so I will reprise the quote, notice the relation to KINETIC ENERGY via kinetic velocity of measures of temperature and pressure:-
-----
This brief summary is abridged from a more detailed discussion to be found in Quinn's "Temperature"
About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale.
The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K).
-----
How 'openminded' could one expect to 'impress' anyone with lower highschool grade reference material?
There is no speciality required to undermine the 'greenhouse theory', one need not even rise to 'undergraduate level SCIENCE' to do so.
The IPCC is still a committee formed by the actions of a Political Lobby and continues to promote the 'opinion' of the lobby that formed it. There is NOT any reason to accept the IPCC 'opinion' when it is not even noticing the actual PROPERTIES of the materials it would pass opinion of.
Perhaps you should attempt LESS "openminded' to NOT UNDERSTAND, for few REAL people have any issue with what I have mentioned, or the manner in which I mention it, but then they are REAL and earnest in attempts of discussion and comphrension, not attempting belittlement and contrivence from behind anonimity.
Your's,
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years - and it _is_ Mankind's Fault |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2006
|
To reiterate, Climate is and has always been 'changing'; only ever offering PERSISTENCE. The sea level WILL rise a little within the current 'warm peak', but that IS natural. It will lower again when the motion towards the next glaciation begins, this IS natural. There is also NOTHING to validly produce ANY link of, or even a natural process of, a 'greenhouse effect' or related concepts to ANY 'warming' process, and most certainly NOT any valid link to 'climate change' that utilises the SCIENCE of the materials such 'greenhouse opinion' attempts to involve.
As example, those Glaciers within China are only at a median 13,000 feet (~3900 meters) after all. Mount Kosciusko in Australia is, at 2228 meters actually 300 meters BELOW the level needed to have permanent snow (as of 'now') and has within the same 50 square kilometer region 9 other peaks above 2100 meters (within 50 square kilometers) with that region subjected to glaciation 20,000 to 30,000 years before present. So at some point of time within the past 20000 to 30000 years the glaciers within this region of Australia ALSO melted. The ONLY relevant situation regarding the glaciers within China is that they are melting NOW, and that is ALL that is unique. The extra ~1000 meters of this location within China has given this Ice an existence some number of centuries years longer than that 'ice' left within the Australian 'Alps' after the last 'glaciation event'.
This has all happened before, some ice melting, and the World has continued from the Past till NOW, and WILL continue from NOW into the FUTURE with ice forming and melting again and again. There IS a clash with natural climate change and production of weather patterning alterations within such processes, but it is NOT involving of 'greenhouse pollution', and there is NO component involving a 'greenhouse effect'.
The 'consensus' is only for the MEDIAN surface temperature; this is altering as the materials OF the surface are altered within the sprawl of Humanity production of habitat, not by a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. It is that Humanity IS rematerialing still over the land surface AND has already material sufficient surface to being altering the induction characteristics of kinetic energy by the (now remade) surface materialing. This is EVEN SEEN in plots of data produced BY the 'greenhouse lobby' and these plots even display the NOW 15 year lag from land surface alterations to Ocean surface alterations in median temperature. The Oceans display muting of this effect due to the liquid displaying reactions involving Turbulence to these kinetic energy inputs. Kinetic energy involved in producing Turbulence is NOT then measured as 'Temperature' (observed in the drop in measured temperature once 'water at the boil' begins to 'roil and bubble').
ALSO, those alterations to the Land surface made within the past 15 years are still to be expressed in observations, as is the cumulative effect 'building up' within the past 15 years of kinetic energy induction from the past 400 years of Human produced surface alterations 'IN TOTAL'. Only within the last ~250 years has the technology to make reproducible measures OF temperature as required by SCIENCE been available, so CLAIMS involving mentions OF 600 years are NON FACTUAL. Also, regardless of WHERE/HOW CO2 is produced; the actual properties of this molecule will NOT produce a warming effect within the situation presented within the Atmosphere.
For a short comment with slides, see:-
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
=============================================
## Welcome to the 'greenhouse' induced Uranium Age. ##
=============================================
* You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod
hartlod (at) bigpond.com
(The word 'Hartlod' in the registered Trademark of Peter K Anderson.) |
|
The result of 'greenhouse politicking will be Uranium.... |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Today I read one of the first (if not the first) mentions in the 'popular press' of proposals for 'Consortia' to construct civilian Uranium fuelled Power Utilities. The Consortium will comprise European, Russian companies, with regard to construct such utilities in Iran. I am sure however that on the International stage, companies from Japan, the USA and China would also be involved. The USA is re-establishing 'diplomatic ties' with Libya, hoping that Iran can be convinced to cease it's internal enrichment program and accept externally produced enriched Uranium fuel for its civilian power generation needs.
The above mentioned consortia are expansions on the 'idea' that Iran could have the Russians produce Uranium fuel within Russia, for use in Iran. A recent proposal has also been mentioned, that of the formation of a Uranium processing cartel involving the USA, Britain, France, Russia, China and Japan. There was mention that Australia should be responsible for the 'waste' within a 'recovery' process for unspent fuel, but that seems to have been a 'furfy', such reprocessing would be best attached to the enrichment facilities to begin with, within the installations of the 'cartel' and is as such the reason such a cartel is needed, security of 'fuel resources'.
It seems that 'fossil oil' is being replaced after all. After Uranium is installed the 'minority politicised and advocated remediations', including those of the "Kyoto Treaty", will be quietly pushed to the 'side of the table'. "Greenhouse Issues" will become reduced in relevance as Uranium produces NONE, and the overall valid notice OF any supposed 'greenhouse issue' will again recede to that level it has always needed, NONE. But that 'NOW' will be 'NONE' but with Uranium installed, rather than equally efficient Gas utilities. I notice that Gas is still being preemptively 'provisioned' within applications for infrastructure being forwarded in renewed discussions.
The oft mentioned renewables are NOT being limited by the 'technology' and so 'more research' will NOT make these any more practical for backbone generation utilities. Solar energy is limited NOT by 'technology' but by the energy IN surface incident Radiation (see slides in links below). Already over 80% of this energy is being 'converted' to 'electrical energy'. Wind power is restricted by remote locations of installation and the SCIENCE of the Metal wire grid technology still used to distribute 'electrical energy'. Also, development in turbine/generator technology will advantage ALL utilities including Uranium fuelled processes.
Performance is the primary criteria (electricity IS needed), if unfulfilled secondary or tertiary criteria (like 'renewable') are not considered, and still the 'renewable' cannot PERFORM. This is NOT open to opinion any longer, after 20 years literally 'enough is enough' is the motive behind recent events and actions. There are 20 year old utilities needing rapid replacement, so there is NOT more 'conference time' for 'debate of opinion'. Even if used, a backbone generation system WILL be still needed, so it is seemingly being installed NOW (as it is needed NOW).
The attempted political allusions still seen, of 'right and left', within 'greenhouse politicking' are equally pointless & misdirected rhetoric from those only able to understand political process and it is those few who will be producing the 'Uranium Age' for Human Society.
## Welcome to the 'greenhouse' induced Uranium Age. ##
I have been attempting to warn of this whilst being harassed (still) by the 'climate brigands', perhaps NOW that their platforming is SEEN for what it is AND what it is achieving, these few will cease attempting pretence, censorship, and further harassment. Greenhouse concepts WILL be rendered moot, one way or another it seems.....
PS: There is information drawn from within the pages of the NSW "The Daily Telegraph" (May 17th, 2006) within this post.
PSS: For a short outline with slides, see: -
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
A False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is No Remedy for Climate Change |
by Mary Olson
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations
Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office [1]
Nuclear Information and Resource Service [2]
May 3, 2006 New York— Nuclear power is being widely promoted as a “solution” to global climate change. Unfortunately nuclear power is not a solution and it is further counterproductive to any real remedy for human impacts on climate. [3] Those selling the expansion of nuclear power are on a par with any salesman of counterfeit medicine; one must closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind. [4]
In the service of this disinformation campaign U.S. Vice President Cheney has publicly stated [5] a falsehood: he asserted that nuclear power is carbon-free. Nuclear power is not free from carbon emissions. A number of recent studies have found that when mining, processing, and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power. [6] Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increase this CO2 output substantially. [7]
Nuclear power is not only dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of uranium fuel, decommissioning, and the disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources of energy, typically coal. This is due to the simple fact that nuclear reactors cannot “black start” [8] – in other words, they depend on electric power from the external power grid to be able to come on-line. Transition away from the combustion of fossil fuels cannot be accomplished solely by the expansion of nuclear power since it depends on the grid being powered up before reactors can come on-line. [9]
A second false facet of the promotion of nuclear power as a “solution” hinges on the claim that nuclear energy is clean. [10] The implication: if you cannot see it, there is no pollution. In truth nuclear power can only operate because it enjoys some of the most lenient public “protection” standards in the world. [11] The destructive activity of radioactivity is to disrupt the structures of living cells, especially DNA. [12] The international regulatory regime for exposure to radiation results in an unfortunate level of human sacrifice. Considering only the exposure of “standard” adult males in the US civilian population to “permissible” levels of radiation, one official estimate of risk finds that of every 57 men exposed, one will suffer fatal cancer. [13] Obviously this same level of radiation exposure will produce more cancers in children and others who are more vulnerable. [14] US worker standards have recently been revealed to produce cancer in 1 in 4 workers. [15] Recent revelations of massive tritium releases from US reactors, often contaminating ground water in residential neighborhoods exposes the lie that these operations are “clean.” [16]
The vast majority of radioactivity in nuclear waste worldwide is from the production of electricity. Even in the United States, where for decades a robust nuclear weapons program operated, more than 95% of the total radioactivity is in waste from commercial nuclear power. [17] Reactor waste contains materials with half-lives measured in tens of thousands, and some in millions of years. More than 12,000 human generations -- are required to reduce the hazard of these materials to acceptable levels. The most concentrated waste is irradiated fuel from electric power reactors, and the residual wastes from attempts to “recycle” or reprocess the fuel. [18] Other wastes include the entire massive reactor structure itself when the facility is shutdown. [19]
In addition to radiological pollution, nuclear power also contributes massive thermal pollution to both our air and water. [20] It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal energy –heat-- that is in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb blast. [21] In addition to horrendous direct impact of this heat on aquatic ecosystems, nuclear power contributes significantly to the thermal energy inside Earth’s atmosphere, making it contraindicated at this time of rapid global warming.
A fundamental element in finding that nuclear power is a false solution to climate change is the the economics of nuclear power are not sound – in open markets nuclear does not compete. [22] Since splitting atoms is not a cost-effective source of electric power, it is even less cost-effective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions. Life cycle costs for nuclear power generation (in the USA) have been estimated at 12 cents a kilowatt hour, whereas life cycle costs for wind power in the same analysis is estimated at 4 cents a kilowatt hour. [23] Others find that expanding nuclear generating capacity is about twice as expensive as expanding generating capacity through investment in wind power. [24] Since the same amount of money will buy 2 -- 3 times more electric power when used to purchase wind power, it is obvious that the prevention of greenhouse emissions will also be 2 – 3 times greater when buying electric power from wind energy.
Wind energy is the fastest growing form of electric power generation in the world. [25] This technology leads the portfolio of renewable energy options, but solar power is also making enormous strides with significant annual drops in cost of photovoltaic hardware. [26]
In the USA, the ongoing waste of electric power makes investment in energy efficiency [27] protocols and hardware an even more cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Amory Lovins [28] finds that a combination of assertive efficiency programs combined with decentralized industrial cogeneration of electric power from heat results in 7 times more reduction of CO2 emissions than a comparable investment in expanding nuclear power. A comprehensive strategy for the USA – a real remedy for reducing greenhouse gases – is contained in the Sustainable Energy Blueprint: A Plausible Strategy for Achieving a No-Nuclear, Low-Carbon, Highly Efficient and Sustainable Energy Future. [29]
The finding that nuclear energy is not profitable, that it is not compatible with public health, and that it releases massive heat directly contradicting basic climate goals calls into question the basis upon which individuals, governments and corporations are seeking to invest public funds in nuclear expansion. Inquiring minds will ask if there is an additional agenda underlying this gambit to “revive” nuclear power. Before offering some conjecture about such motives, there remain several points about why nuclear power is not qualified to remedy our climate fever.
An extensive 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [30] investigated the future of nuclear power, including its potential to combat climate change. MIT’s nuclear boosters project that 25 – 35 Gigawatts of new nuclear generating capacity would be required to address the climate problem to any degree. This would roughly mean adding one new reactor every two weeks until 2050. In the USA, some of the last reactors to be built (Vogtle 1 & 2) cost more than $4 billion each! The industry has recently asserted that it will be possible to build reactors for $ 2 billion [31]-- ½ the previous actual figure; this however, is speculative. Even taking the $2 billion industry “guestimate,” it would require trillions of dollars to implement this supposed “fix.” It is plain that a similar investment in efficiency in the USA and other energy-hog nations, and investment in wind energy worldwide would be a far more cost-effective use of capital. One can only imagine the results if a fraction of the residual funds were invested in technology development in solar, appropriate hydro, appropriate biomass and other sustainable power innovations!
The economic factors outlined above do not consider the considerable risk associated with operating facilities that are effectively pre-deployed nuclear weapons. [32] In the USA the prospective costs associated with such risks are effectively relegated to future victims. [33]
The financial analyses, as unfavorable as they are already, assume that splitting uranium is a bona-fide source of energy. There is the assumption that one does, in fact, achieve the production of new energy over and above the investment of energy required to create, fuel, and run the reactor. An in-depth analysis by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith [34] challenges this assumption. These authors find that operating a nuclear power reactor does not always result in new power production. When all of the energy used to produce uranium fuel, build the reactor and decommission it (not including long term waste disposition) are considered, some of the scenarios show that no new energy achieved – in some cases no matter how long the reactor is run! Outcome of the calculations is directly tied to the quality of the uranium ore used. Clearly it does not make sense to spend trillions of dollars on a technology that does not reliably produce the desired product – energy. Given the steep curve on technology costs associated with implementing hydrogen as a transportation fuel, using uranium as the base for producing hydrogen production may simply amplify this black-hole effect.
Storm and Smith show that uranium, similar to oil, is subject to a “peak” in the availability of high-grade uranium ores, and that these premium ores are already being exhausted. “Peak uranium” is a driver in the push to “close the fuel cycle” and move to plutonium as the fuel in atomic reactors. Plutonium may be used either in combination with uranium – as MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, [35] or alone in high-temperature breeder reactors, both of which are vulnerable to diversion of plutonium for nuclear weapons proliferation. [36]
2005 marked a deeply disturbing turn in US nuclear policy toward a plutonium economy. [37] The Energy Policy Act of 2005 [38] awarded billions of dollars in direct tax subsidy, tax credits, guaranteed loans [39] and other inducements to spawn a new generation of (partially) publicly funded commercially owned nuclear power reactors in the US. Nonetheless a major Wall Street credit analyst, Standard and Poors [40] responded to the legislation stating that nuclear power is still “a risky business practice” and suggested that it would require “progress” in traditional problem areas, such as long-term nuclear waste disposition for Wall Street to jump into new reactor investments. High-level nuclear waste is currently stored on corporate reactor sites.
For the past two decades the nuclear waste program in the US has been based on the goal of deep geologic burial. Reprocessing was tried (and abandoned) 40 years ago – to disastrous environmental and economic consequences in West Valley, New York. [41] The industry found reprocessing to be unprofitable, and US Presidents Ford and Carter banned it thanks to the demonstration by India that this technology results in the separation of nuclear weapons-usable plutonium-239 from the waste. [42]
In November 2005 Congress reversed US policy on reprocessing -- in part driven by the technical failure of the Yucca Mountain repository program, [43] and perhaps in part by a desire on the part of the French nuclear interests (AREVA, Cogema, Framatome) to access the US tax base. The French have been leaders in nuclear fuel reprocessing and yet their plutonium MOX fuel business has run dry – lacking international customers. [44] In any case, this reversal of decades of US commitment to a “once through” fuel program is deeply disturbing. Aside from global security issues, plutonium generates even more heat for our planet to absorb, [45] has even worse emissions and in the event of “a Chernobyl” is twice as deadly. [46]
Finally, as a crowning point – nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. As cited above, nuclear reactors – all of them – depend on energy from the grid to operate. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years, even “off-line,” it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. As is sensible, every reactor site is equipped with back-up power, most often in the form of diesel generators. Unfortunately these generators, in part because of intermittent use, are not terribly reliable. [47] When both the grid and the back-up power fail, the site is said to be in “station blackout.” According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations. [48]
Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat, drought, blizzards, tornados, and perhaps most compelling – hurricanes and cyclones. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis, but there is an elevated risk. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times.
Nuclear power is also incapable of operating in hot water, as evidenced by the heat waves of 2004. A number of nuclear reactors in France were not operable. [49] The reactors were at low power not because of nuclear safety issues – but rather because of the basic design of a nuclear reactor. Basically an expensive, dangerous “tea pot,” a nuclear power reactor harvests the heat from splitting atoms to make steam to turn a turbine. The system then relies on a heat differential between the temperature of the steam and the temperature of a condenser to turn the steam back into liquid inside a closed loop, to repeat the process. When the water used to cool the condenser gets too warm this differential is lost, and the steam no longer condenses back to liquid. When river and lake water gets too hot electric power cannot be generated. [50] As temperatures rise, nuclear power will be less and less qualified as a means to even try to generate electric power.
Now some conjecture about why anyone would campaign for the “revival” of an unprofitable, unreliable, dangerous, even fraudulent technology like nuclear “power.” In a nutshell: to retain centralized control of the supply of energy, as well as control over the timing of the availability of any “alternative.”
Fossil fuels – and uranium – are traditionally centralized energy production models. Efficiency is the ultimate in “decentralization" since the factors that will optimize efficiency are unique to each operation. Wind, solar and other renewable resources can be centralized, however the inherent value of distributed generation has become clear in helping to increase overall efficiency of power usage and minimization of power loss throughout the system. Distributed generation is also recognized as means to increase grid stability. [51]
Given the urgency of the climate challenge we face, it is vital to note that energy efficiency, wind, appropriate hydro, biomass and solar are all viable, and all are available, even at industrial scale, NOW. [52] However for those holding the reigns on fossil fuels – particularly oil – there is a distinct (and highly profitable) advantage to forestalling the implementation of any alternative until the full impact of the oil “peak” and resulting energy shortages are experienced. [53] While oil is primarily tied to transport, it is important to note that the Bush administration projects the use of nuclear power reactors to make hydrogen for use in vehicles. [54] Further, electric cars charged on the grid would vastly increase the demand for electric power – far exceeding traditional electric energy guzzlers like hot water heaters.
Those who promote nuclear expansion are simultaneously promoting a deeper agenda to dominate civil society with a model of central control. Given the security issues associated with nuclear power, (even more so plutonium fuel) this control may exceed compatibility with democracy. Yet one more reason to oppose this false solution. [55]
______________________________________________
[1] Contact: Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802, 828-675-1792, nirs (at) main.nc.us and www.nirs.org
[2] National Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, Maryland, 20912. 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 nirsnet (at) nirs.org; www.nirs.org
[3] Amory Lovins, More Profit With Less Carbon, Scientific American: September 2005.
[4] See for instance, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, (updated edition) W.W. Norton 1994.
[5] Cheney was speaking on C-Span in 2004 when he made the statement that there is already an alternative fuel developed that “is carbon-free” – incorrectly referring to nuclear power.
[6] Felix Christian Matthes, Nuclear Energy and Climate Change, 2005. Issue Paper # 6, Heinrich Boll Foundation & World Information Service on Energy, at: http://www.nirs.org/ch20/publications/nrandclimate.htm
[7] Andrew Sims, Mirage and Oasis—Energy Choices in an Age of Global Warming, 2005. Posted at: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/sewyo355prhbgunpscr51d2w29062005080838.pdf
[8] See Wikipedia on line at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_start
[9] See also Lovin’s footnote #44 in Amory Lovins: Nuclear Power Economics and Climate Protection Potential 2005, Rocky Mountain Institute, E-05-08, posted at: http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-08_NukePwrEcon.pdf.
[10] Nuclear Energy Institute advertising campaign.
[11] Mary Olson, the Myth of the Millirem, 2004. See http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/mythmiliremfctsht.htm
[12] Cindy Folkers, Radiation Basics, 1999. See http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationbasics.pdf
[13] US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, published in the Federal Register: Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement 1990 establishes that the US radiation standard of 100 millirems a year would result (at government assessed levels of risk) in 1 in 286 people exposed suffering fatal cancer. US regulations promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 10, Part 20 allow the public to be exposed to up to 500 millirems a year from combined sources of air, water and sewage, raising the cumulative level of risk, as assessed by that agency (which assumes a linear dose-response relationship) to 1 in 57.
[14] Cindy Folkers and Mary Olson, Radiation and Children: The Ignored Victims, 2004. See http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationandchildren.pdf
[15] National Academy of Sciences, Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII, 2005. Also, Cindy Folkers, US Panel Recognizes No Safe Dose of Radiation, 2005. See: http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radtech/nosafedose072005.pdf
[16] See: http://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/tritiumhome.htm.
[17] US Department of Energy, Integrated Spent Fuel Database, 1994.
[18] See High-Level Nuclear Waste Fact Sheet, 1997, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm
[19] See Low-Level Radioactive Waste Fact Sheet, 1992, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/llwfct.htm
[20] Paul Gunter and Linda Gunter, et al, License to Kill, 2000. See: www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensedtokill/LiscencedtoKill.pdf
[21] See news report posted at: http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
[22] Amory Lovins, Mighty Mice, Nuclear Engineering International, December, 2005. http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-15_MightyMice.pdf There are many other citations given by Lovins in his recent review article on economics of nuclear power, see note #51.
[23] Nuclear Economics, Safe Energy Communication Council, 1992. This figure does not reflect full costs of long term waste disposition, or any health impacts.
[24] Lovins, More Profit with Less Carbon, see note #3.
[25] Jim Moltivalli, Catching the Wind, E Magazine, January 2005. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2176
[26] See http://www.eande.tv/transcripts/?date=092805
[27] Efficiency and conservation are not the same. Conservation is the suspension of use – efficiency is wise use. The opportunity to develop using energy efficient hardware, protocols and strategies is the opportunity to avoid emissions through wise use and relative reduction in overall demand.
[28] See note #3
[29] Sustainable Energy Blueprint: A Plausible Strategy for Achieving a No-Nuclear, Low-Carbon, Highly Efficient and Sustainable Energy Future. See: http://healthandenergy.com/sustainable_energy_blueprint.htm
[30] J. Deutsch and E. Moniz (co-chairs), The Future of Nuclear Power, MIT, 2003.
[31] Seattle Times, April 28, 2006, Nuclear Power’s New Generation. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002958091_nuclear28.html
[32] On September 18, 2001 Mohamed El Beredei was quoted in the world press admitting that if a jumbo jet hit a nuclear reactor it would result in a Chernobyl level release of radioactivity and that in fact, no reactor in the world could withstand such a hit. Unfortunately it does not take an airplane to cause a major reactor accident as has been portrayed in a number of dramatic presentations including China Syndrome; Meltdown; 24 (2005) and West Wing. See also Frank von Hippel, Revisiting Nuclear Power Plant Safety, Science 291:201, 2003.
[33] The USA relies upon a publicly administered insurance program for nuclear power (the Price-Anderson Act) that provides a system whereby all reactor operators pay in the event of any one unit having a major accident – and a liability cap, beyond which the industry does not have to pay. It is of interest that while an act of terror would be covered by the program, acts of war are not. The Bush War on Terror has neutralized all liability for the industry.
[34] Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance, 2002 (revised and posted in 2005 with updates at: http://www.stormsmith.nl/ )
[35] See Basic Info on MOX Fuel: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/basicmoxinfo.htm
[36] Frank von Hippel, No Hurry to Recycle, May 2006 Mechanical Engineering.
[37] Margaret Meade and Rene Dubos, The Plutonium Economy: A Statement of Concern, 1974 for the US Council of Churches, resulted in a 1976 resolution calling for a moratorium on plutonium fuel use.
[38] Energy Policy Act of 2005 – Conference Report -- http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/ConferenceReport0.pdf
[39] Mary Olson, Nuclear Power: The Next Degeneration, 2005.
[40] See: http://www.mineweb.net/sections/energy/783025.htm
[41] Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Wreck, The Nuclear Monitor, 2006. See: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm643.pdf
[42] Plutonium does not occur on Earth except in trace residues, where it is produced in tonnage quantities inside all nuclear reactors that use uranium fuel. In the USA irradiated reactor fuel contains about 1% plutonium.
[43] See note 41.
[44] Cogema is a partner in the US MOX fuel program, ostensibly for the “disposition” of weapons grade plutonium in partnership with Russia. AREVA is a full partner in the new Bush/Cheney Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
[45] See: MOX at a Nuclear Power Reactor Near You, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/moxandreactor.htm
[46] Dr. Edwin Lyman – Public Health Consequences of Substituting Mixed-Oxide Fuel For Uranium Fuel in Light Water Reactors, 1999. Nuclear Control Institute -- http://www.nci.org/k-m/moxsum.htm
[47] Summary of findings given in: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/mox/nirsmcguirecatawbacontentions.htm
[48] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-1150, 1990.
[49] French reactors off line 2004
[50] David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists
[51] See article by Amory Lovins cited in note # 9
[52] Renewables are Ready – a guide to teaching about renewable energy, published by Union of Concerned Scientists.
[53] It should be noted that not all subscribe to the necessity or value of experiencing peak oil – see Amory B. Lovins: Winning the Oil Endgame, 2004. Cosponsored by the US Pentagon.
[54] Cindy Folkers: Hydrogen Production By Nuclear Power, 2003. See www.nirs.org/
[55] See also, NIRS/WISE, Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change, published in the Nuclear Monitor, February, 2005 posted at: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm |
|
The only falsehood is in claims that climate change is Human induced. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
Neither emotive jargon nor OPINION will produce electricity, the need is to choose tween continuance of supposed 'greenhouse issues', or VALID SCIENCE. Greenhouse concepts WILL be on the path to Uranium; VALID SCIENCE allows safe use of Gas, Oil and Coal.
*-* However the reason there is seen some interest renewed in 'climate policy' is also realised behind the notices relating to Uranium and Gas. *-*
Within the pages of 'The Daily Telegraph', May 17th, 2006 (NSW, Australia) I read one of the first (if not the first) mentions in the 'popular press' of proposals for 'Consortia' to construct civilian Uranium fuelled Power Utilities. This is also, and so far, after a continuance of material within the PRINTED publication (NOT the web site).
The Consortium will comprise European, Russian companies, with regard to construct such utilities in Iran. I am sure however that on the International stage, companies from Japan, the USA and China would also be involved.
The USA is re-establishing 'diplomatic ties' with Libya, hoping that Iran can be convinced to cease it's internal enrichment program and accept externally produced enriched Uranium fuel for its civilian power generation needs. The above mentioned consortia are expansions on the 'idea' that Iran could have the Russians produce Uranium fuel within Russia, for use in Iran.
A recent proposal has also been mentioned, that of the formation of a Uranium processing cartel involving the USA, Britain, France, Russia, China and Japan. There was mention that Australia should be responsible for the 'waste' within a 'recovery' process for unspent fuel, but that seems to have been a 'furfy', such reprocessing would be best attached to the enrichment facilities to begin with, within the installations of the 'cartel' and is as such the reason such a cartel is needed, security of 'fuel resources'.
It seems that 'fossil oil' is being replaced after all. It is that the 'starry eyed few' just like to 'believe', read novels, promote movies and march in 'opinioned unison'...
## Welcome to the 'greenhouse' induced Uranium Age. ##
The oft mentioned renewables are NOT being limited by the 'technology' and so 'more research' will NOT make these any more practical for backbone generation utilities. Solar energy is limited NOT by 'technology' but by the energy IN surface incident Radiation (see slides in links *). Already over 80% of this energy is being 'converted' to 'electrical energy'. Wind power is restricted by remote locations of installation and the SCIENCE of the Metal wire grid technology still used to distribute 'electrical energy'. Also, development in turbine/generator technology will advantage ALL utilities including Uranium fuelled processes.
Performance is the primary criteria (electricity IS needed), if unfulfilled secondary or tertiary criteria (like 'renewable') are not considered, and still the 'renewable' cannot PERFORM. This is NOT open to opinion any longer, after 20 years literally 'enough is enough' is the 'attitude motif' behind recent events and actions. There are 20 year old utilities needing rapid replacement, so there is NOT more 'conference time' for 'debate of opinion'.
Consider again those Glaciers (recently mentioned) within China at a median 13,000 feet (~3900 meters). In comparison Mount Kosciusko in Australia is, at 2228 meters actually 300 meters BELOW the level needed to have permanent snow (as of 'NOW') and has within "its" 50 square kilometer region 9 other peaks above 2100 meters. This region was subjected to glaciation 20,000 to 30,000 years before present and thus at some point of time within the past 20000 to 30000 years these glaciers ALSO melted.
The ONLY relevant situation regarding the glaciers within China is that they are melting NOW, and that is ALL that is unique. At some point within the recent past the 'Ice-point Altitude' was around 2000 meters, perhaps even 1500 meters. Now it is rising above 2500 meters, but then CLIMATE is 'rising' from a Glaciation event and has been doing so for ~20,000 years. At that time of around 20,000 years a go the 'Polar adapted' fauna would have had a larger 'habitat range', but 'NOW" as CLIMATE 'rises away' from that Glaciation event, the reversion of 'Polar preferred' habitat will increase in MORE regions also so there WILL be attrition of overly adapted fauna populations.
This IS a natural process.
After Uranium is installed the 'minority politicised and advocated remediations', including those of the "Kyoto Treaty", will be quietly pushed to the 'side of the table'. "Greenhouse Issues" will become reduced in relevance as Uranium produces NONE, and the overall valid notice OF any supposed 'greenhouse issue' will again recede to that level it has always needed, NONE. But that 'NOW' will be 'NONE' but with Uranium installed, rather than equally efficient Gas utilities. I notice that Gas is still being preemptively 'provisioned' within applications for infrastructure being forwarded in renewed discussions.
There IS a clash with natural climate change and production of weather patterning alterations within such processes, but it is NOT involving of 'greenhouse pollution', and there is NO component involving a 'greenhouse effect'. It is that Humanity IS active in producing a rematerialed surface AND has already rematerialed sufficient surface to begin altering the induction characteristics of kinetic energy. This is EVEN SEEN in plots of data produced BY the 'greenhouse lobby' and these plots even display the NOW 15 year lag from land surface alterations to Ocean surface alterations in median temperature.
Also, those alterations to the Land surface made within the past 15 years are still to be expressed in observations, as is the cumulative effect 'building up' within the past 15 years of kinetic energy induction from the past 400 years of Human produced surface alterations 'IN TOTAL'.
For a short comment with slides, see:-
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
PS: Uranium as fuel is placed to solve electrical generation needs AND 'greenhouse concerns'. There is little REAL issue involving supposed 'climate change problems'.
PPS: Are "Climate-issue NGO's" still relevant, even noticing the REAL world, or now building the Uranium Path (the 'yellow brick road') with their disassociated opinions...Climate is ALWAYS changing, has always been changing and only ever has offered PERSISTENCE of 'situation'.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years - and it _is_ Mankind's Fault |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 May 2006
|
It is time to realise that we will see Uranium as the major fuel of 'electrical energy generation' if the supposed 'greenhouse issues' are NOT returned to the 'box' they grew from, that being as basic Air Pollutions within monitoring from Government/Public Office Pollution Watchdogs (not from NGO's), the entire 'production' of 'climate concerns' is now (and always was) a large furfy now filled with over importance but little actuality.
I have noticed that a "Wind farm" proposal has been withdrawn after a "Government policy revision" was refused. It seems that without a manner of forcing others to pay, by having Government increase the 'renewable percentage', the company behind the proposal did not wish to invest its own money in furthering the project. It seems that even those directly involved realise that the level of electricity supplied will NOT provide the company with sufficient income for continued operations and/or to make a return to its investors.
It is also then easy to realise that the level of supply provided makes these 'renewables' incapable of BASELOAD generation, both in terms of real level of SUPPLY, and the fiscal surety of the 'renewable involved' companies. I suppose that insurance against provision default might go towards a Uranium utility...... Realise that the USER of generated electricity only pays for what they USE, and so the INCOME for these companies is made from the electrical power that is DISTRIBUTED. This distribution is made into and though a Metal Wire Grid, but this issue I HAVE already outlined sufficiently.
Today we hear our 'Finance Minister' say 'Nuclear will not be viable for 100 years' (an old line given often over the past 20 years) only to have little (none that has been printed and noticed by myself) support with the "Prime Minister distancing himself" from this Ministers comments, whilst also the PM has said that 'Uranium is closer than many realise', or words to that affect. It seems that 'fossil oil' is being replaced after all. It is that the 'starry eyed few' just like to 'believe', read novels, promote movies and march in 'opinioned unison'. The oft mentioned renewables are NOT being limited by the 'technology' and so 'more research' will NOT make these any more practical for backbone generation utilities.
Solar energy is limited NOT by 'technology' but by the energy IN surface incident Radiation (see slides in links *). Already over 80% of this energy is being 'converted' to 'electrical energy'. Wind power is restricted by remote locations of installation and the SCIENCE of the Metal wire grid technology still used to distribute 'electrical energy'. Also, development in turbine/generator technology will advantage ALL utilities including Uranium fuelled processes. Performance is the primary criteria (electricity IS needed), if unfulfilled secondary or tertiary criteria (like 'renewable') are not considered, and still the 'renewable' cannot PERFORM.
This is NOT open to opinion any longer, after 20 years literally 'enough is enough' is the 'attitude motif' behind recent events and actions. There are 20 year old utilities needing rapid replacement, so there is NOT more 'conference time' for 'debate of opinion'. There IS a clash with natural climate change and production of weather patterning alterations within such processes, but it is NOT involving of 'greenhouse pollution', and there is NO component involving a 'greenhouse effect'. It is that Humanity IS active in producing a rematerialed surface AND has already rematerialed sufficient surface to begin altering the induction characteristics of kinetic energy.
For a short comment with slides, see:-
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Neither emotive 'climate doom' jargon nor 'politicknic opinion' will produce electricity, and after 20 years of too much of both, aging utilities need to be replaced and the 'renewables' simply do NOT perform. Water supply and sewerage management, as one example, all require electricity to continue pumpage and pressurisation. The entire fabric of Society at all levels requires reliable AND adequate supplies of electricity. Juvenile pouting and disaffected protestations WILL NOT remediate these REAL requirements; neither will the oft mentioned 'renewables'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years? - it is only natural but.. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
Temperature is rising naturally in response to natural climate processes that are actually present. With the FIRST intelligible meteorological records dating from the late 1600's and reproducible temperature measure from the 1720's, there is little that can be validly made of median 'temperature' trends with regard to climate, even to understanding WHY such trends are at all relevant TO climate and if so in what manner, within the 1000's of years these REAL climate processes generally move within.
There is not infact even any valid 'historical temperature record' beyond ~250 years that is made within the requirements of valid SCIENCE. Also Temperature is linked to Pressure; both via molecular kinetic velocity (i.e. molecular kinetic energy) and that alteration to kinetic energy within a system can be expressed by production of Turbulence rather than measured as alteration to Temperature. As such supposed 'temperature proxies are NOT valid references for 'temperature' and never have been regardless of 'climate scientist opinion', which is NOT a replacement for SCIENCE
Next, the 'renewable technologies' are NOT being limited directly by the 'technology', Solar energy is limited by the energy IN surface incident Radiation, with over 80% of this energy already being 'converted' by present technologies there is simply not enough energy available to allow Base Load generation to be realistically considered.
Wind power is restricted by remote locations of installation (often untouched wilderness in its own right) and the SCIENCE of the Metal wire grid technology. Consider next, as example, that to even sustain via 'wind farming' the power output of a 'medium' gas or coal plant would it seems (from a quoted figure) require 3200 sq. kilometers of 'windmills' whilst to actually 'replace' that medium gas/coal power utility (which was not attentioned by the journalist) would require that this wind farm to be a peak output 24/7/356 (with a few days 'below peak' allowed for running maintenance), which is simply not possible to expect from wind to begin with.
Thus it is still needed to install 'backup' for 'renewable' utilities so the question is why bother, and so far it is ONLY 'greenhouse' related 'claims of issue' as response, which are already seen as presenting with highly questionable veracity. However, these supposed "Greenhouse' issues are pushing Base Load utilities towards Uranium fuel at a rapid rate, as there is now many 20+ year old utilities needing rapid replacement after 2 decades of 'greenhouse stalling'. Hence, with Gas (and Coal Oil) utilities constantly rounded upon by 'greenhouse protestations', Uranium is firmly entrenched NOW in the path to a persistent future.
It is NOW that the supposed 'greenhouse issues' should be removed, being unrealistic in the 'inferences' they have presented to begin with, or there WILL be Uranium installed as the major backbone Peak Load generation fuel with the Metal Wire grid. It is readily observed; 'greenhouse platforming' will only lead to wider use of Uranium, and then once Uranium is widely used, 'greenhouse platforming' will become irrelevant.
Climate is always altering, has always been altering with only RATE of natural alteration varying within a natural irregularly periodic oscillation set. Better to make 'greenhouse platforming' irrelevant NOW rather than AFTER Uranium is installed...
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
An Inconvenient Truth |
by fyi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ |
|
Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years? - it is only natural but.. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
Temperature is rising naturally in response to natural climate processes that are actually present. With the FIRST intelligible meteorological records dating from the late 1600's and reproducible temperature measure from the 1720's, there is little that can be validly made of median 'temperature' trends with regard to climate, even to understanding WHY such trends are at all relevant TO climate and if so in what manner, within the 1000's of years these REAL climate processes generally move within.
There is not infact even any valid 'historical temperature record' beyond ~250 years that is made within the requirements of valid SCIENCE. Also Temperature is linked to Pressure; both via molecular kinetic velocity (i.e. molecular kinetic energy) and that alteration to kinetic energy within a system can be expressed by production of Turbulence rather than measured as alteration to Temperature. As such supposed 'temperature proxies are NOT valid references for 'temperature' and never have been regardless of 'climate scientist opinion', which is NOT a replacement for SCIENCE
Next, the 'renewable technologies' are NOT being limited directly by the 'technology', Solar energy is limited by the energy IN surface incident Radiation, with over 80% of this energy already being 'converted' by present technologies there is simply not enough energy available to allow Base Load generation to be realistically considered.
Wind power is restricted by remote locations of installation (often untouched wilderness in its own right) and the SCIENCE of the Metal wire grid technology. Consider next, as example, that to even sustain via 'wind farming' the power output of a 'medium' gas or coal plant would it seems (from a quoted figure) require 3200 sq. kilometers of 'windmills' whilst to actually 'replace' that medium gas/coal power utility (which was not attentioned by the journalist) would require that this wind farm to be a peak output 24/7/356 (with a few days 'below peak' allowed for running maintenance), which is simply not possible to expect from wind to begin with.
Thus it is still needed to install 'backup' for 'renewable' utilities so the question is why bother, and so far it is ONLY 'greenhouse' related 'claims of issue' as response, which are already seen as presenting with highly questionable veracity. However, these supposed "Greenhouse' issues are pushing Base Load utilities towards Uranium fuel at a rapid rate, as there is now many 20+ year old utilities needing rapid replacement after 2 decades of 'greenhouse stalling'. Hence, with Gas (and Coal Oil) utilities constantly rounded upon by 'greenhouse protestations', Uranium is firmly entrenched NOW in the path to a persistent future.
It is NOW that the supposed 'greenhouse issues' should be removed, being unrealistic in the 'inferences' they have presented to begin with, or there WILL be Uranium installed as the major backbone Peak Load generation fuel with the Metal Wire grid. It is readily observed; 'greenhouse platforming' will only lead to wider use of Uranium, and then once Uranium is widely used, 'greenhouse platforming' will become irrelevant.
Climate is always altering, has always been altering with only RATE of natural alteration varying within a natural irregularly periodic oscillation set. Better to make 'greenhouse platforming' irrelevant NOW rather than AFTER Uranium is installed...
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Doesn't Matter Whether It's Natural or Not: Bush Says UR Getting Uranium |
by Thanks for helping Bush make his case with the rednecks, Hartlod(tm)
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
Solution to Greenhouse Gases Is New Nuclear Plants, Bush Says
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 25, 2006
LIMERICK, Pa., May 24 — With Democrats seizing the national stage on gasoline prices and the environment, President Bush came here Wednesday to take it back, calling for the construction of more nuclear power plants to help reduce the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.
"Let's quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by natural causes; let's just focus on technologies that deal with the issue," Mr. Bush told workers at the Limerick Generating Station, a nuclear power plant here in Montgomery County. "Nuclear power will help us deal with the issue of greenhouse gases."
Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Democrats have accused Mr. Bush, who grew up in the Texas oil country and was in the business, of being too cozy with the petroleum industry. He and his fellow Republicans had previously shrugged off such charges, as well as those from environmental groups that his administration was ignoring scientific findings on global warming and human involvement in its causes.
But during this crucial election year for Republicans, Democrats have been trying to place the blame for high gas prices at the feet of Mr. Bush and his Congressional allies.
Speaking in front of this town's twin nuclear cooling towers on Wednesday, Mr. Bush promoted the 2005 energy bill he signed into law, which provides tax incentives, loan guarantees and federal risk insurance for companies building nuclear plants. Before the law, he said, only 2 companies were considering building plants, but now 16 are.
"For the sake of economic security and national security," he said, "the United States of America must aggressively move forward with the construction of nuclear power plants."
Mr. Bush also spoke of his administration's efforts to research alternative energy sources, like solar panels, ethanol and wind turbines. He said of the last, "They ought to put one big one in Washington, D.C." |
|
Key Questions on Nuclear Power Must be Addressed, Says NRDC |
by NRDC
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
Bush Speech Highlights Need to Put All Issues on the Table
WASHINGTON - May 24 - Amid the rush to embrace nuclear power as a solution to global warming, critical questions about this technology are being overlooked, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
President Bush's remarks today on nuclear power at the Limerick Generating Station in Pennsylvania serves as a reminder that the debate needs to fully address such vital issues as the exorbitant cost of building new nuclear facilities, the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the disposal of radioactive wastes, said Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, director of NRDC's nuclear program.
Until such matters are answered satisfactorily, we need to adopt a realistic view toward the promises -- and the pitfalls -- of nuclear power, Cochran said.
"Nuclear plants are very expensive to build. That is why the industry's K Street lobbyists ran to Capitol Hill to get some $10 billion in taxpayer subsidies to build five or six new nuclear plants. Subsidizing a few new nuclear plants is unlikely to solve nuclear power's economic woes," Cochran said.
A growing reliance on nuclear power globally also will increase the risk of a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, according to Cochran.
"The international regime meant to prevent countries from using civilian nuclear technology and materials for weapons has major unresolved problems. Today Iran is taking advantage of loopholes in the existing safeguards regime to get close to a nuclear weapons capability," Cochran added. "The same reactors and fuel-processing facilities used for energy production can be used to manufacture weapons. Only a few kilograms of this material could destroy an area the size of Lower Manhattan."
"At the same time, we still don't have a safe way to dispose of high-level waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. There simply are no geologic repositories in operation anywhere in the world. And here in the United States, the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain will leak far worse than originally thought. And now the U.S. government is trying to solve this problem by relaxing the disposal regulations instead of searching for a new disposal site," Cochran said.
http://www.nrdc.org/ |
|
It's a Fact |
by not complicated at all
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
Hartlod(tm): wrote:
"Solar energy is limited by the energy IN surface incident Radiation, with over 80% of this energy already being 'converted' by present technologies there is simply not enough energy available to allow Base Load generation to be realistically considered."
Last time I checked, over 80% of the land around me was not covered in solar panels here in the Midwest. Mostly, it''s corn and beans.
Out west, where the wide open spaces are, yeah, you see a solar panel every once in awhile. But covering 80% of the land and sucking up all the sun's energy? I don't know what you're smoking, but it's some good stuff.
On the other hand, I don't think you're as much interested in facts as playing games with rhetoric. |
|
No Practical Way For Nuclear Power To Solve Global Warming |
by just a reminder
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
MIT’s nuclear boosters project that 25 – 35 Gigawatts of new nuclear generating capacity would be required to address the climate problem to any degree. This would roughly mean adding one new reactor every two weeks until 2050.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climatetalk_mary_un_050306.htm
OK, do the math, That is 26 new reactors a year, every year, between now and 2050. That's 1,144 reactors. It won't work, even if it was a solution -- which it is not.
And riddle me this, Hartlod(tm). If what you say does come to pass, will all this nuclear power be naturally-induced or the result of bad decisions by humans about what to do about global warming?
The "uranium" economy will be either natural or human-initiated, but it clearly can't be both. Which is it? |
|
TV Ads That Doubt Climate Change are 'Misleading' |
by Andrew Buncombe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2006
|
David Doniger, the climate policy director with the Natural Resources Defence Council, said climate change sceptics did not even represent "the minority ... they're the fringe". He added: "It's the same as with tobacco. To claim that fossil fuel emissions don't cause global warming is like saying cigarettes don't cause cancer."
A senior scientist has condemned as "a deliberate effort to mislead" a series of television adverts produced by an oil industry-funded lobbying group that seeks to portray concern over global warming as alarmism.
The adverts, produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), seek to argue that despite widespread agreement about the growing evidence of climate change, other evidence suggests the opposite. The adverts catchphrase says: "Carbon dioxide - they call it pollution, we call it life."
But a scientist whose report about the Antarctic ice-sheet is featured in the adverts has denounced the CEI and said they have quoted his study out of context. Professor Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia, said: "I think they are confusing and misleading the public."
Asked if he doubted the evidence of global warming, he replied: "Personally, I have no doubts whatsoever." Mr Davis's June 2005 study examined the ice-sheets of east Antarctic which showed an increase in mass. However, he said his study did not look at coastal areas which are known to be losing ice and said the "fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global warming".
Green campaigners have long accused the CEI of producing misleading and inaccurate claims about global warming and the role of mankind's use of fossil fuels. In reality, there is a broad scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that human activity is an important factor in this change. Last year, the national academies of science from the UK, US, Japan and other nations cited "strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
Kert Davies, a Washington-based campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "The bottom line is that we are seeing a series of last gasps from the sceptics. They are losing ground so quickly. They are so laughable they do not need to be parodied."
David Doniger, the climate policy director with the Natural Resources Defence Council, said climate change sceptics did not even represent "the minority ... they're the fringe". He added: "It's the same as with tobacco. To claim that fossil fuel emissions don't cause global warming is like saying cigarettes don't cause cancer."
The CEI has powerful friends. The organisation has received more than $1.5m (ÂŁ800,000) in funding from ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, to help fund its efforts to question the evidence of climate change.
Last year The Independent revealed how one of the CEI's officials was behind a lobbying effort to undermine support for the Kyoto treaty among European nations. The plan sought to bring together corporations, academics, commentators and lobbyists to undermine EU support for the treaty. The official, Chris Horner, met with representatives from a number of leading companies including Lufthansa, Ford Europe and the German utility giant RWE. Mr Horner said his approaches failed to interest the corporations.
Myron Ebell, CEI's director of global warming policy - who was censured by the House of Commons last year after criticising the Government's chief scientist - defended the adverts and said "alarmists were swamping the ability to have a reasonable debate". He dismissed Mr Davis' claim that his Antarctic study had been misrepresented and said the media chose to report only reports which highlighted the evidence of climate change and ignored those that questioned it. He said: "There is no consensus about the extent of the warming or the consequences."
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
http://www.independent.co.uk/ |
|
Nasty Foes Now Owe Apology to Gore |
by Joe Conason
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2006
|
Long before the release of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the new film about climate change starring Al Gore, the scientific consensus had ratified the warnings he has delivered over the past two decades. Leading business executives in the insurance, investment and even energy industries have conceded that he was right. Conservative politicians who scoffed at him have since traveled in his footsteps to the shrinking polar ice caps—and returned to Washington as fervent environmentalists.
The truth that the former vice president has been trying to tell us for most of his public career is no longer subject to serious dispute. The real questions are no longer whether climate change is occurring or whether that change is caused by human activity, but how much damage the world’s rising temperature will do to civilization, and how much time we have to change course before we suffer a catastrophe.
Even more impressive than Gore’s mastery of this grave matter is his remarkably consistent and courageous effort to save the planet. In 1997, he went to the Kyoto conference in pursuit of a global accord, despite advisers who said his role there would jeopardize his political future. In the spring of 2000, he reissued “Earth in the Balance,” his 1992 book on the subject, on the eve of his presidential nomination. Just to be sure that nobody misunderstood him, he added a new foreword and postscript emphasizing his commitment to “completely eliminating” the internal-combustion engine.
Like many prophets, Gore has often been derided as an annoyance, an extremist and possibly a madman. Every great American mind of our time felt compelled to take a shot at him.
Admiral James Stockdale called him a “fanatic.” Dan Quayle said his views were “bizarre, detached from reality, and devoid of common sense.” P.J. O’Rourke called him “nutty.” Grover Norquist compared him to the Unabomber. David Frum accused him of wanting to “dismantle the American economy in the name of environmental regulation.”
Meanwhile, in the oil-funded think tanks as well as in the pages of the right’s intellectual journals, such certified sages as Tucker Carlson and R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. firmly assured us all that the world wasn’t really getting warmer, and that nobody should worry anyway. Jeff Jacoby, the resident reactionary at The Boston Globe, celebrated global warming as a boon to the economy.
Indeed, Gore became a safe, easy target for nearly every Republican politician and right-wing commentator, some brandishing “Earth in the Balance” as if it were the Communist Manifesto. “This is a book written by an extremist, and it’s filled with extremism. . . . He wants to do away with the automobile as we know it today,” complained Jim Nicholson, then the Republican national chairman (and now the secretary of veterans affairs). What was once the most controversial recommendation in Gore’s book—phasing out that infernal combustion engine—is today the official objective of the Bush administration.
And, of course, the same hacks who shrieked back then about the damage this radical proposal would inflict on the American economy would surely praise President Bush for his farsighted leadership.
The Bush presidents, father and son, were naturally among the most intemperate critics of Gore; they attacked him not only as a political opponent but because he didn’t share their abject fealty to the oil bidness. During the 1992 campaign, the first President Bush raged against him incessantly and sometimes incoherently, sputtering, “Ozone Man, Ozone. He’s crazy, way out, far out, man.”
Eight years later, Dubya tried to have it both ways, attacking Gore for environmentalist excess while promising to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Upon entering the Oval Office, he promptly abandoned that pledge, and has since flipped and flopped more times than a dying fish.
As president, he has tried to suppress government data that back the world scientific consensus, while promoting the “contrarian” opinions of quacks and mountebanks. “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,” sneered the president when asked about a study on climate change issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. He used to sneer at Gore’s book, too, which he never actually read, and says he doubts that he will bother to see “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Now that nearly everyone else acknowledges Al Gore’s point, however grudgingly, those who attacked him so viciously owe him copious apologies. He would be wise, unfortunately, to anticipate further assaults instead. The inevitable intrusion of reality has restored his stature, but the mean character of his enemies remains depressingly the same.
© 2006 TruthDig.com, LLC
http://www.truthdig.com/ |
|
Uranium is being used to produce Electricity. |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 May 2006
|
This 'greenhouse syndrome' is being produced and perpetuated by disaffected individuals and lobbies of minority value and little knowledge. The generally developing attitude to these disaffect 'global warmists' is that they are trying to produce Natural effects as somehow 'Human produced', attempting to contrive a platform involving CO2, but with no regard to the actual abilities of CO2 and SCIENCE.
The sooner these individuals (and lobby sets of) find less interest directed to them, the sooner we can all get back to practical AND realistic remediations of REAL and existent problems. If such IS the desired conversation, then there is no need for more 'groups', it can be discussed 'here'.
Which probably brings us all to a mention of another area of my interests, to wit:-
===========================================
'Individual Psychological Development'
-a Population based study of the 'greenhouse syndrome'.
===========================================
A warmer or colder climate is neither unnatural nor threatening; it is simply that a few would seem to have a need to fulfill, and to find problems to platform seems to fulfill a psychological need within them.
Some link this to the alienation of the individual in the technological 'society' that is growing. The need to feed the 'id' is become the management of 'issue identification', even when the problem is not actual.
Such is the generator of the 'greenhouse clamor'. Even when the 'opinion' flies in the face of all reason and SCIENCE, the 'few' that see themselves as 'needed organisers' just demand that 'we' all realise the 'importance' of their 'problem issue'.
This individual psychological development in modern society is also seen within overly litigious attitude, where the need to BLAME is become over developed so as to assuage feelings of personal fault or under performance.
The need to be better constantly is driven into children too often in modern society, and such is how adult manifestation of these developed physiologies is behaviorally expressed.
========
It is simple; there is not a real need to believe that there is any unnatural alteration to natural Climate Processes. Such natural processes are constantly and persistently producing an altering climate. That there is NOW some alterations are simply that NOW is when they are occurring, nothing else can be otherwise validly shown.
That Humanity is rematerialing vast amounts of surface and altering kinetic energy induction IS however observable and this IS leading to alterations in regional weather patterning and behavior. This can be remediated by alterations to HOW Humanity builds, with what MATERIALS Humanity builds and WHERE Humanity builds.
See linked article with slides at:-
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments (*)
===============================================================
It seems that for some REALITY is simply not sufficient a problem already however, and all these few produce is a shortening 'yellow brick road' leading to wide spread use of Uranium...
===============================================================
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Uranium is still planned to produce electricity. |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 May 2006
|
Uranium is planned for 'electricity generation'; many aging utilities need rapid replacement. 'Renewables' have technology limitations that are NOT directly within those technologies, 'research' thus unhelpful.
There is NOT unlimited 'solar energy', our atmosphere permits near 90%+ 'transmission to surface' within the lower/upper 'visible spectrum' and the lowest third of the UV Spectrum (predominately in UV-A) only.
'Technology' is using 80%+ of this energy already, there is not enough energy being surface incident, and then there is still the issue of periodic darkness.
'Wind farms', to produce a peak load rating near that of a 'medium standard utility', need around 3200 sq. km's (already mentioned) of generally pristine and remote 'windy location'.
However the 'wind farm', to 'replace by function', must also 'make' peak load for 24/7/356 (with a few days below peak allowed for maintenance), not a reasonable expectation for 'Solar' or 'Wind'.
These 'renewables' as utilities cannot then circumvent the need to construct also those 'standard' utilities; and so the 'Billion Dollar Question' asked is "Is there any point to build both?" to which is replied "No!"
However the 'greenhouse syndrome' has fabricated concerns within claims of 'climate change effects' when REAL and natural climate is only persistent in its production OF 'changes'.
With Uranium generally unwanted, and 'renewables' being unable to be validly substituted then it is either we ignore those sufferers of "greenhouse syndrome" and sensibly use Gas and Coal, or we 'get' Uranium.
Uranium is much harder to ignore and 'electricity' is NOT a luxury anymore.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Global Warming platforming, and Uranium for electricity. |
by Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 May 2006
|
To look at supposed 'greenhouse amplification', if you notice the plot of atmospheric absorbance within the link (*): - http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
You will see that the supposed 'greenhouse radiation' is not even seen being surface incident. So there cannot be 'amplification of warming' in ANY real and VALID manner. As such there is NOT real a supposed 'greenhouse effect' in any manner and as such there is NOT produced a 'greenhouse warming effect' NOR can there be shown to be 'unnatural alteration' to natural climate change.
One wonders when "Greenpeace' (and all NGO's) will realise the REALITY of 'renewables'.
The 'wind farm' concept is itself pointless, these 'installations' are left as skeletons all over the USA already it seems. The companies cannot be profitable, the process is NOT thus 'sustainable' and this IS shown NOT related to 'wind'. There is not needed more debate, it is that the 'Wind Farm' itself is NOT NEEDED, will NOT function as it is propagandised as doing, and will NOT prevent the need for a base load generation system of Uranium utilities (unless sensible use is made of Gas and Coal).
To see how, notice the link:- http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19243237-5001032,00.html
-: which I present in part below
["Split atoms, not hairs - May 25, 2006, by Piers Akerman
CONTRARY to the grim maunderings of Australia's Green Left, there is no mystique about the nuclear energy debate.
It's driven by three entirely understandable factors: Concerns over the security of energy supply, the possible effects of CO2 on climate change and pure economics.
Put at its simplest, the global demand for oil, coal and gas is outstripping supply and forcing prices beyond the reach of ordinary consumers. Don't believe that? Check the pump prices.
Labor MP Peter Garrett, a former anti-nuke campaigner, and the cohorts of enviro-nuts and eco-nazis who appear to be writing a chunk of the ALP's schizoid nuclear policy find it difficult to deal with reality so there's not much of any substance coming from that quarter.
There is, however, a lot of sense being spoken by the people who actually do keep the wheels of industry turning, the folk who make sure that new medicines are developed, and new technologies explored to make the world a safer place. ......."]
The 'renewable technologies' are NOT being limited directly by the 'technology', and so 'more research' will NOT make these any more practical for backbone generation utilities. Solar energy is limited by the energy IN surface incident Radiation (see slide of atmospheric absorbance in link *). Also over 80% of this energy is being 'converted' already to 'electrical energy' by present technologies. There is simply not enough energy available to begin with however.
I have noticed that a "Wind farm" proposal has been withdrawn after an "Australian Government policy revision" was refused. It seems that without a manner of forcing others to pay, by having Government increase the required 'renewable percentage', the company behind the proposal did not wish to invest its own money in furthering the project. It seems that even those directly involved realise that the level of electricity supplied will NOT provide the company with sufficient income for continued operations and/or to make a return to its investors. To outline again the unsuitability of 'renewables', consider that to even sustain via 'wind farming' the power output of a 'medium' gas or coal plant would it seems require 3200 sq. kilometers (in usually pristine landscape) of 'windmills', whilst to actually replace that medium gas/coal power utility would require that wind farm to be a peak output 24/7/356 (with a few days below peak allowed for maintenance), which is simply not possible to expect from 'wind', so it would be needed to have both. Such then is heard "Well if we need both what is the point with the wind farm?" to which is replied 'NONE!'.
So there is little valid point to large scale 'wind farming', less in large scale 'solar collecting', and supposed "Greenhouse' issues are however making otherwise VALID use of Gas (and Coal) too difficult, pushing thus towards Uranium at a rapid rate as there is now many 20+ year old utilities needing rapid replacement after 2 decades of 'greenhouse stalling'. It is then realised that the level of supply provided makes the 'renewables' incapable of BASELOAD generation, both in terms of real level of SUPPLY, and the fiscal surety of the 'renewable involved' companies. I suppose that insurance against provision default might go towards a Uranium utility......
Realise that the USER of generated electricity only pays for what they USE, and so the INCOME for these companies is made from the electrical power that is DISTRIBUTED. This distribution is made into and though a Metal Wire Grid, but this issue I HAVE already outlined sufficiently. It is also that Electrical Supply is also in need to maintain Basic living standards AND community health, Water and Sewerage pumpage REQUIRES adequate electrical supply 24/7/365. "NGO outrage' at supposed ' private extravagances' is as puerile now as it was 20 years ago.
It is time to realise that we will see Uranium as the major fuel of 'electrical energy generation' if the supposed 'greenhouse issues' are NOT returned to the 'box' they grew from, that being as basic Air Pollutions within monitoring from Government/Public Office Pollution Watchdogs (not from NGO's), the entire 'production' of 'climate concerns' is now (and always was) a large furfy now filled with over importance but little actuality. There is NO evidence of 'human induced greenhouse global warming', there is NO evidence at all that NATURAL climate change is even being interfered with, and there is NOT viable even a 'greenhouse effect' as the 'theory' attempts to outline, and 'climate scientist or politicknic opinion' is NOT a valid replacement for SCIENCE instead only producing the path heading to URANIUM.
Wake up, grow up, or realise there WILL be Uranium. Better to cease platforming the supposed 'greenhouse concerns' NOW...
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Global Warming and Presidential platforming... |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 May 2006
|
With the mention of 'Bush' it also seemingly needs to be shown to the 'politicknics' exactly how pointless their rhetoric is, with direct relevance to 'Gore'.
There is a large problem with associations to reality in connection to the fabrication of an opposing 'Gore to Bush' process that a small number of cynical and atypical suffers of the 'greenhouse syndrome' miss, but is being realised by the actual majority these 'greenhouse few' always attempt to impose themselves as representing.
Millions are spent on the 'pro greenhouse documentary style' book publishing and various movie releases, but the cynical view of 'we against the oil company' is long seen as dead. Millions more are needed for any "Presidential Campaign' within the USA. The only 'game' is tween Uranium and Gas/Oil, always has been, and the greenhouse wagon now has a yellow and black logo on its side after the whitewash has been removed. That is where the "Gore movie" monies flow from, Uranium and any potential resources for 'Presidential Campaigning', hence the renewed interest from the 'Gore Camp' in environment, and "Bush' in Uranium.
I have been attempting to warn, within Yahoo groups and other places, for years of the end destination of the 'greenhouse wagon, but cynical censorship and belittlement/ridicule is being attempted, and is only preventing these FEW politicknic 'want to be public carers' from not realising, seen in attempts NOW to blame others (such as myself) for the situation unfolding.
It is that this attempted 'battle' with 'Gas & Oil', this supposed "Gore is in, Bush is out" political rhubarb, is that is conducted from the Grand Ship URANIUM, and always has been so organised.
To see how, notice the link:-
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19243237-5001032,00.html
All that continued support for, and platforming of, the 'greenhouse issues' will achieve is wide spread use of Uranium. This is already NOW obvious, and I have been mentioning such for years The 'Money' so often mentioned would appear to be tween the providers of Uranium and those of Gas/Oil, and the 'greenhouse platform' is, intentionally or otherwise, firmly on the side of Uranium.
However, myself I am only concerned with practical alternatives to Uranium, and that seem to mean that the 'greenhouse platform' needs to be ousted, as I have also mentioned for years previous to now. Gas is so often wasted that there is NO EXCUSE to not use it. There really is nothing wrong or needing great concern with regard to natural climate process, and so there is no valid excuse there.
What we observe in Climate is simply the continued natural processes continuing to 'push' the last glaciation back to the 'start position', but it is having attached a classic 'false positive' by the 'greenhouse warmers'. There is not possible within the atmosphere a 'greenhouse effect', nor is the possible an 'enhanced' greenhouse effect. The enhanced effect is not possible as there is not ground incident any radiation within the infra red REGION that contains sufficient energy to produce such.
This is near a constant situation, and is seen in the slide of atmospheric absorbance seen in those few yahoo groups I bother with, and also in (*) http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ (Created for convenience of open discussion.)
Next, the rise in median surface temperature that is seen is consistent with alterations TO the 'median materialing' of the surface produced within the sprawl of human population within its rapid increases of the past 400 years. This is seen with a lag of 15 years as the trend also in Ocean surface median temperature rise, the lag produced within the processes of Turbulence in transportation of the involved kinetic energy, the reduced Ocean effect due to turbulence of the liquids of the Ocean in reaction to the additions of kinetic energy.
For convenience see http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ (*) where in will I be assembling slides for open discussion.
The only 'game' is tween Uranium and Gas/Oil, always has been, and the greenhouse wagon now has a yellow and black logo on its side after the whitewash has been removed. That is where the "Gore movie" monies flow from, Uranium and any potential resources for 'Presidential Campaigning', hence the renewed interest from the 'Gore Camp' in environment, and "Bush' in Uranium.
THIS is what the 'greenhouse platform' is, and always has been after the 'greenhouse theory' was removed as the SCIENCE REJECT and transported into being the POLITICAL "POTENTIAL". Time for the political "Potential" to realise they where the 'original SCIENCE reject', and move aside ELSE there WILL be Uranium, the 'renewables' have NEVER been 'a valid option'' for BASE LOAD generation utilities. This IS known by all except the 'politicknic'...
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Unlikely Fan of Global Warming: Poison Ivy |
by NPR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 May 2006
|
Audio for this story will be available at approx. 7:30 p.m. ET
All Things Considered, May 30, 2006 · Global warming may spell bad times for polar bears but it seems to be a boon to poison ivy. A six-year experiment to find out how increased levels of carbon dioxide affect forests uncovered a surprising result: In the area used for the experiment, poison ivy grew like crazy. Melissa Block talks with ecologist Jacqueline Mohan is a scientist at the Ecosystems Center in Woods Hole, part of the Harvard Forest in central Massachusetts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5440235 |
|
Global warming? |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 May 2006
|
Firstly, realise there is not shown 'unnatural climate change' nor infact is there of any 'greenhouse warming' of the globe nor the surface. What IS seen is natural progression of Climate in its continuation and weather patterning alterations due to Human produced effects on the Land surface.
As has been mentioned, overly adapted species for 'glacial dip' climate are going to face population attrition at the opposing end of the 'glaciation cycle'. This is natural, whilst poison ivy 'weedish' in its reactions to environmental change, generally rapidly able to adapt to altering environments, as 'weeds' are so will be able to 'outperform' more highly adapted and perhaps 'pedestrian' species. I am aware of a number of 'nettle soups'; perhaps humanity can still eat this plant?
See the slides and outline titled "Glaciers reborn" at the (recently made)
http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ ...(*)
Next, there is no ability to show that a 'greenhouse effect' exists and a very clear indication that it has NEVER existed. Infact the largest issue with the AGW 'effect' is it's non existence.
It is kinetic energy (KE) that is not involved directly within the processes of Turbulence that can be measured as a Temperature of the mass being effect by turbulence. The Land surface median rise in temperature is only that residual, retained within the surface after the processes of Conduction and Convection have dispersed the induced KE from within that surface after interaction with incident Photons. The measure of Temperature of Ocean and Atmosphere only registers the kinetic energy NOT involved in production OF turbulence.
It is that the actual real rise in Land surface kinetic energy is much higher than is noted by simple measure of temperature. The increase in Sea surface is actually in a 15 year lag to surface temperature, this is seen even within any charts. One is seen in the outlines at (*).
These effects are infact due to the alterations to the surface materials by Humanities production of habitat sprawl. The alteration to materials is producing altered interaction behavior to that energy actually surface incident, within the Lower and Upper Visible spectrums and the lower one third of the UV spectrum. Again this is seen within a chart at the above link of atmospheric absorbance.
Due to the 15 year lag evidenced, the surface due to Human population effect is infact of import for around 1994, which is also shown in a chart at the above link.
It is the misinterpretation of what is KE that over produces attention of 'current rate' and 'argument' over 'future rises' within 'greenhouse science'. Most of the 'future' effect is already 'dialed in'; it is the observation of delayed effect that is being given 'regard' as a 'greenhouse issue'. The 'greenhouse effect' (including AGW) is not infact possible, there is not possible any validly produced 'heat trapping effect'.
To consider the claims of 'greenhouse warming' from one arena of SCIENCE, if you also look at the atmospheric absorbance of energy (in outline at *), you will see how relevant the behavior of atmospheric water actually is in shaping the scavenging of IrR (especially Microwave Spectrum) energy BEFORE surface incidence is achieved.
Realise that H2O has a very low remittance behavior, retaining absorbed energy as a gain in intrinsic KE manifested as increase in kinetic velocity of the molecular unit.
The very existence of Humanity in its current bio-form indicates that 'Infrared energy' has NOT been surface incident with any great intensity, and for at least 5 Million years (to allow for 'Human progenitor species').
Realise that most surface life is made of over 90% saline WATER. The (microwave) energy within the Infrared Region (IrR) will not produce 'sun burn' (a mild radiation burn from UV-A and UV-B) but would induct too much intrinsic KE (measured as temperature) in outer cellular structures, stopping internal cellular processes, killing those cells, and preventing even the formation of 'life' not only 'as we know it', but as 'we are'.
The remainder of 'life' indicates that due to evidenced bio-forms there could not have been any intensity within supposed 'greenhouse radiation' that could have produced an induction of KE within the surface to produce the needed temperature, and still allowed for the production of 'life' as 'we are' and 'as we know it'.
The 'storms are 'more intense' not due to 'AGW', nor are the 'Polar Bears' thus threatened, as there is not such an unnatural "GW" process in reality, but as there is now a remade surface inducting more KE into our biosphere than natural surface will from interaction with available incident energy. The Human made materials are predominately better able than natural surface coverings to induct KE within interactions with Photons in the UV spectrum.
So the surface is simply becoming hotter as the materials are altered, these new materials producing the rising median surface temperature whilst more KE is available to processes of Turbulence and with the 15 year lag there is a muted but similar trend in Ocean median surface temperatures in a near match for the original Land surface rise. All whilst there is no sign of any possible AGW effect involving a supposed 'greenhouse effect' in any real manner for the entire time that present life was bio-forming.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
|
Re: Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years - and it _is_ Mankind's Fault |
by Someome in the know
wankap (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Jun 2006
|
|
I beg to differ, on what usable spectrum of the Sun's output is currently utilized and what can be accomplished with the remainder. I was also looking for another (Marcian) Ted Hoff to implement the IONIC Battery.....so far no takers. So that development is on the slow boat to China also. |
|
