Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[HomoSapiensLapto picus]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
If you want people to believe you are right then you need better than the junk William Connonelly [SIC] wrote for wikipedia.
So if all you have is wikipeidia [SIC] then you in reality have no proof at all. Most teachers will not even accept wikipeida [SIC] and the site even has an entry saying that you should not trust them either.

Then you're posting in the wrong place. If you don't like what ANYone says on Wiki, then you should try to develop a TINY bit of courage, sign on there & tell them EXACTLY how they're wrong. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. Period.

I reference Wiki because it's usually pretty accessible, plus they have lots of live links to reputable sources. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they're a LOT more accurate than the average site out there. The fact that so many people can input their own knowledge tends to push the site toward the truth.

So you're talking to the wrong guy in the wrong place. Either post on Wiki & tell them exactly HOW they're wrong - or SU.

You might also show a BIT more respect by learning how to spell proper names. It's "Wikipedia" & "William Connolley."

[PHD]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Sir, you do not know science fiction, just science friction.

You bet sir. Scientific science fiction is all the same.Now if you are talking about science that would be another issue. Science corrects errors to discover more errors to their corrections.

[Teddy R]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text>
... we simply MUST switch to non-carbon emitting energy, & switch ASAP. It's notable that nuclear power doesn't emit carbon, & it would be VASTLY preferable to burning more fossil fuel. We just need to use fast neutron "breeder" reactors, or make the switch to liquid thorium; both these have the advantage of much, MUCH less dangerous waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter time.

Right on.

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text> ... Ultimately, mining the lunar mare for Helium-3, which can fuse with deuterium without releasing excess neutrons, may be much better over the longer term. The amount of energy is enormous. The lack of excess neutrons means reactor vessels last much, much longer. The Chinese will probably dominate this industry in the future; they're the ones who are foresightful enough to be returning to the moon.

Simple geometry says fusion will never be competitive with fission. Here's why -

1) All that lovely energy is useless until & unless you get it transferred into a working fluid that drives a turbine. Heat transfer is a function of surface area, which is in turn a function of the square of the cross-sectional diameter. A PWR fuel rod is less than 1/2" in diameter, while the fusion plasma in a tokamak (if they can ever keep one lit) is several inches in diameter. Thus, fission plants will always be an order of magnitude more thermally efficient than fusion plants. Simple geometry.

2) Fusion plants will have all the same radwaste issues that fission plants do - their reactor components will get just as 'hot' from induced radioactivity as in fission reactors. But fusion reactors will present an additional radwaste/environmental radioactivity release problem on top of that, for which there is no apparent solution - tritium, and lots of it. How do you contain and prevent release of a radioactive gas that diffuses right thru steel itself?

Nope - fission will always be more competitive as a baseload generation technology than fusion.

[Teddy R]

Largelanguage wrote:

Power stations are usually coal or nuclear. Switch to nuclear. Easy option. Is it too expensive, fellow republicans?

Not too expensive - too risky.

We have too many farking lawyers in the USA, especially in government. Shakespeare was right.

Exposure to lawsuits from the environmental slip/trip & fall shysters makes financing and insurance unobtainable on the scale we need to save the planet from planetary heat death.

Government needs to chivvy the f**king lawyers out of the building and do something truly useful for once, by stepping up and underwriting the extreme "tail" of nuclear risk exposure, i.e., the extremely unlikely events. Doesn't cost government a nickel - just the ink for signatures. This puts commercial power producers in a position to raise finding and obtain insurance on a normal commercial basis for nuclear plants.

Hit the "Easy" button - problem solved, and planet saved.

[Teddy R]

Wait - I know many will be disappointed but it looks like planetary death by AGW may be too late to the party:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/23...

Gaia's pissed, it seems ...

[HomoSapiensLapto picus]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Right on.
<quoted text>
Simple geometry says fusion will never be competitive with fission. Here's why -
1) All that lovely energy is useless until & unless you get it transferred into a working fluid that drives a turbine. Heat transfer is a function of surface area, which is in turn a function of the square of the cross-sectional diameter. A PWR fuel rod is less than 1/2" in diameter, while the fusion plasma in a tokamak (if they can ever keep one lit) is several inches in diameter. Thus, fission plants will always be an order of magnitude more thermally efficient than fusion plants. Simple geometry.
2) Fusion plants will have all the same radwaste issues that fission plants do - their reactor components will get just as 'hot' from induced radioactivity as in fission reactors. But fusion reactors will present an additional radwaste/environmental radioactivity release problem on top of that, for which there is no apparent solution - tritium, and lots of it. How do you contain and prevent release of a radioactive gas that diffuses right thru steel itself?
Nope - fission will always be more competitive as a baseload generation technology than fusion.

Teddy R

I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that Helium-3 fusion obviates, or at least reduces, both of these concerns. He-3 fusion doesn't release neutrons, just protons. Their interaction with the magnetic field generates power directly, at least theoretically eliminating the need for heating something to run a turbine. They claim theoretical efficiences of ~70%. Not releasing neutrons also means the vessel doesn't break down or become radioactive, dramatically reducing waste.

The Chinese & Indians have already noted that one of their prime goals in wanting to explore the Moon is to mine the regolith for He-3. Many barriers remain, but there is significant long-term potential. He-3 + D "runs hot," & He-3 + He-3 is an even "hotter" reaction, meaning difficult confinement.

I'm sure you know the joke - fusion power (at least "traditional" D + T) is 30 years away - & will ALWAYS be 30 years away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

[HomoSapiensLapto picus]

Teddy R wrote:

Wait - I know many will be disappointed but it looks like planetary death by AGW may be too late to the party:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/23...
Gaia's pissed, it seems ...

Teddy R

AGW/CC & epidemics unresponsive to antibiotics are hardly mutually exclusive. We've often discussed how we expect climate change to "bring tropical diseases north again."

Even now, e.g., Anopheles mosquitoes might be able to survive in Florida, allowing malaria to make a comeback in the US. Treatment remains very, very problematic, with widespread resistence.

[litesong]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

You might also show a BIT more respect by learning how to spell proper names.

'tiny-minded anne' has 3000+ misspellings. She has no respect for other people & certainly none for herself.

[gcaveman1]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Well than you didn't follow the money.Do you know what riches they have?I didn't think so.

You state it as fact. Let's see your proof.

I've had this debate with deniers/trolls before. No one has ever answered my question satisfactorily. Can you?

If climatologists like Mann, Trenberth, Jones, etc., are scamming the government and getting rich, shouldn't there be some material proof? Their salaries/grants are legal and taxed, so they have nothing to hide. They are free to buy any and as many homes and cars and yachts as they can afford. Just direct us to the pictures of their mansions.

Or shut the fuggup about what YOU don't know.

[PHD]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You state it as fact. Let's see your proof.
I've had this debate with deniers/trolls before. No one has ever answered my question satisfactorily. Can you?
If climatologists like Mann, Trenberth, Jones, etc., are scamming the government and getting rich, shouldn't there be some material proof? Their salaries/grants are legal and taxed, so they have nothing to hide. They are free to buy any and as many homes and cars and yachts as they can afford. Just direct us to the pictures of their mansions.
Or shut the fuggup about what YOU don't know.

First I don't have to prove anything to you. You do a fine job proving that it is all scientific science fiction. Second you spoke of riches I agreed with the exception that riches does not necessary include money, cars, boats airplanes and mansions. It’s your issue that you are a small minded person. Your last sentence explains it all. You suffer from what is called the rodent effect. Your back is against the wall so you launch a personal attack. See you don't have a clue what you’re talking about. Now you need to shut your pie hole. See I do respond in kind.

[Largelanguage]

Obama is making people poor through Obamacare.

[PHD]

They all are making everyone poor with their 6th grade school yard nonsense. More spending more taxes more cut backs.Say By By to the Middle class.

[Largelanguage]

The rich have to much taxes. Twinkies had to opt out of business!

[Teddy R]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text>
Teddy R
I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that Helium-3 fusion obviates, or at least reduces, both of these concerns. He-3 fusion doesn't release neutrons, just protons. Their interaction with the magnetic field generates power directly, at least theoretically eliminating the need for heating something to run a turbine. They claim theoretical efficiences of ~70%. Not releasing neutrons also means the vessel doesn't break down or become radioactive, dramatically reducing waste.
The Chinese & Indians have already noted that one of their prime goals in wanting to explore the Moon is to mine the regolith for He-3. Many barriers remain, but there is significant long-term potential. He-3 + D "runs hot," & He-3 + He-3 is an even "hotter" reaction, meaning difficult confinement.
I'm sure you know the joke - fusion power (at least "traditional" D + T) is 30 years away - & will ALWAYS be 30 years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Yes - you're totally correct, I think. If someone figures out how to make a He3-D fusion reactor go, with an MHD direct electric power generation plant on the back end, that will certainly be the tits, no question. Then all we have to figure out is how to deal with all that radioactive plasma spewing out the back of that MHD unit ...

[Teddy R]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text>
Teddy R
AGW/CC & epidemics unresponsive to antibiotics are hardly mutually exclusive. We've often discussed how we expect climate change to "bring tropical diseases north again."
Even now, e.g., Anopheles mosquitoes might be able to survive in Florida, allowing malaria to make a comeback in the US. Treatment remains very, very problematic, with widespread resistence.

Good news - so the AGW problem is self-limiting ... a die-off of all those pesky humans ... now that's attacking the problem at source!

[Largelanguage]

Humans aren't the problem, not finding a way to cool the earth through technology is, the democrat way is the problem.

[SpaceBlues]

The the world’s biggest ice sheets have been stable for most of the current interglacial period. However, since temperatures began to soar a couple of decades ago, Greenland and Antarctica have been losing ice fast. Between 1992 and 2011, they lost around 2,700 billion and 1,350 billion tonnes of ice, respectively — enough to raise sea levels by about 0.6 mm per year. Scientists think that by 2100, the global sea level will rise by 0.5–1.2 metres above current levels.

Given ice loss is so far greater in Greenland, that could change: some parts of Antarctica are warming almost twice as fast as known, and glaciers in western Antarctica have retreated at a worrisome rate in the past few decades. Furthermore, Eemian sea-level rise seems to have proceeded in drastic jumps, rather than gradually, suggesting that the ongoing sea-level rise could further accelerate.

If Antarctica’s massive ice sheets disintegrate as they did before, we would face an extremely rapid sea-level rise around the world like the past Eemian in consequence.

[Largelanguage]

SpaceBlues wrote:

The the world’s biggest ice sheets have been stable for most of the current interglacial period. However, since temperatures began to soar a couple of decades ago, Greenland and Antarctica have been losing ice fast. Between 1992 and 2011, they lost around 2,700 billion and 1,350 billion tonnes of ice, respectively — enough to raise sea levels by about 0.6 mm per year. Scientists think that by 2100, the global sea level will rise by 0.5–1.2 metres above current levels.
Given ice loss is so far greater in Greenland, that could change: some parts of Antarctica are warming almost twice as fast as known, and glaciers in western Antarctica have retreated at a worrisome rate in the past few decades. Furthermore, Eemian sea-level rise seems to have proceeded in drastic jumps, rather than gradually, suggesting that the ongoing sea-level rise could further accelerate.
If Antarctica’s massive ice sheets disintegrate as they did before, we would face an extremely rapid sea-level rise around the world like the past Eemian in consequence.

Do they have statistics? The north pole isn't melting!

[SpaceBlues]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text>
Teddy R
I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that Helium-3 fusion obviates, or at least reduces, both of these concerns. He-3 fusion doesn't release neutrons, just protons. Their interaction with the magnetic field generates power directly, at least theoretically eliminating the need for heating something to run a turbine. They claim theoretical efficiences of ~70%. Not releasing neutrons also means the vessel doesn't break down or become radioactive, dramatically reducing waste.
The Chinese & Indians have already noted that one of their prime goals in wanting to explore the Moon is to mine the regolith for He-3. Many barriers remain, but there is significant long-term potential. He-3 + D "runs hot," & He-3 + He-3 is an even "hotter" reaction, meaning difficult confinement.
I'm sure you know the joke - fusion power (at least "traditional" D + T) is 30 years away - & will ALWAYS be 30 years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Neither is Teddy,[my guess] but if he were he would not know about fusion. Few people on Earth could deal with both fission reactors and fusion research machines.

Any way, you are merely getting excited about science fiction with the Moon and everything else. At least we've managed D-T reaction in certain machines but not reactions with He-3. I frankly think you are way off in your optimism dealing with alpha particles and protons for power production. You could read more carefully your link, especially study the comparison table.

There are fundamental problems like power density that Teddy hinted.

[Largelanguage]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Neither is Teddy,[my guess] but if he were he would not know about fusion. Few people on Earth could deal with both fission reactors and fusion research machines.
Any way, you are merely getting excited about science fiction with the Moon and everything else. At least we've managed D-T reaction in certain machines but not reactions with He-3. I frankly think you are way off in your optimism dealing with alpha particles and protons for power production. You could read more carefully your link, especially study the comparison table.
There are fundamental problems like power density that Teddy hinted.

Few people? Nothing wrong with it is the experts do it! People can get educated! Cool the earth, don't try to stop the heat. Make the earth itself cooler with chemicals! The earth can be cooled!