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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
32,921 - 32,940 of 45,854 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34883
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere....
'cricket...... even Watts showed how extreme AGW deniers have misinterpreted the NASA report.

CO2 in the high atmosphere sends much of the sporadic, low percentage, but hi energy Short wave energy from solar flare activity radiation back to space.

AGW refers to Long Wave infra-red energy radiated to the atmosphere from the Earth's surface, half which is re-radiated back toward Earth, as warming.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34884
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

"We must be guided by the word of the great scientists for only the scientists know the truth and if we do as they say our children's future will be saved and we must do our part as Nature is tender and fragile and delicate and needs our constant help so it can .........ah cough....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH Can't fu*&in do it! I need a shower!! How do you believers spew this crap and not throw up?
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34885
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And every source I've read (not connected to the nuclear industry), says it will cost more to decommission them (even inflation adjusted) than it did to bring them on line.
The latest word I heard about Fukishima was that it would take thirty years to clean it completely up.
How cheap is that?
A classic irrational antinuke argument. You don't "decommission" perfectly serviceable & licensed carbon-free generation capacity - that's stupid. You refurbish & re-commission them with SGRs and reactor replacement programs - INDEFINITELY.

The extremely rare outlier like Fukushima is all included in the economics, via insurance, self-insurance, and capital renewal/replaceent reserves, and still advanced nuclear costs out FAR less costly than Solar and competitive with other modes. However impressive the cost figures might appear for the isolated rare once-a-generation event like Fukushima (or the BP well blowout), in the grand scheme of things, as a % of total capital maintenance & renewal costs, they're close to immaterial.

"Not connected to the nuclear idustry" too often = half-informed, ideologically biased, and unqualified to comment on technical matters. Caveat emptor.
PHD

Smithville, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34886
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
Yes, they made this GREAT COUNTRY a space hitchhiker.
TrollBot

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34887
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
(Juvenile and inane content-free troll snipped)
Troll. Ignore.

"Helping ignore trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34888
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that ONE "flukey accident" in the nuclear industry terrifies, kills rapidly, kills slowly, and contaminates for long periods of time. I'm not defending coal, but the fact that coal pollutes doesn't justify the vastly expensive and dangerous technology involved in nuclear power, IMO.
So you choose planetary death by AGW out of childish and baseless fear and scaremongering of the only immediately available, proven green alternative to replace carbon-fueled electric power base load capacity 100% within our generation.

Making you, in practical effect, as big an obstacle to dealing effectively with AGW as any "denier" out there.

Noted.
cricket

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34889
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>He's 72 yo.
No reason you are happy, lol.
That's all your response? rofl @ YOU.

lol. Don't need any reason to be happy.

I know & understand the truth and rofl @ the brainwashed believers in the lies.

Anyway, I'll still wager that senile old man Hansen still won't keep his million dollar scamming mouth shut. Why? Because he has made millions in his scare mongering the ardent believers with all his lying hot air.

Keep on inhaling the BS.

BTW, walking your hot air talk yet?

No?

lol.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34890
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
So-called "Principia Scientific" is a Denier propaganda organization run by boasting liars and cranks. For more (very detailed) information about the founders and their inflated credentials, etc. see:

http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co...

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012...

Obviously, nothing they say about NASA or scientific matters can be trusted in any way.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34891
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cricket wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all your response? rofl @ YOU.
lol. Don't need any reason to be happy.
I know & understand the truth and rofl @ the brainwashed believers in the lies.
Anyway, I'll still wager that senile old man Hansen still won't keep his million dollar scamming mouth shut. Why? Because he has made millions in his scare mongering the ardent believers with all his lying hot air.
Keep on inhaling the BS.
BTW, walking your hot air talk yet?
No?
lol.
Your post makes it clear that you're a Denier troll, not a serious poster. Get lost.

Your smears and lies about Dr. Hansen are particularly offensive.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34892
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mememine69 wrote:
"We must be guided by the word of the great scientists for only the scientists know the truth and if we do as they say our children's future will be saved and we must do our part as Nature is tender and fragile and delicate and needs our constant help so it can .........ah cough....
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH Can't fu*&in do it! I need a shower!! How do you believers spew this crap and not throw up?
How do you post ignorant twaddle like that and call it an argument?

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34893
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
So you choose planetary death by AGW out of childish and baseless fear and scaremongering of the only immediately available, proven green alternative to replace carbon-fueled electric power base load capacity 100% within our generation.
Making you, in practical effect, as big an obstacle to dealing effectively with AGW as any "denier" out there.
Noted.
Your hysterical, dishonest strawman is also noted. Only a moron would call nuclear power "green," obviously.

Get bent.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34894
Apr 3, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't comparing the cost of a city to the cost of a nuclear power plant. I was being sarcastic about all the claims that have been made about nuclear from the beginning, from "too cheap to meter" to cheaper than converting to wind and solar.
But if you wish, let's discuss how expensive nuclear can really be.
1. Nuclear has already missed the boat. In the time it would take to build the 100 or so more plants that we might need, you will already have lost NOLA, Norfolk, NYC, LA, Boston, and Miami. When's the last time one was licensed? When was construction started? What is the completion date? Solar, wind, natural gas, and some other technological breakthrough have already or may soon establish a foothold for energy production that nuclear might never be able to defeat.
2. The nuclear industry has assured us that reactors are so safe that there would only be one major accident every 100 years. So far, we've had three in 60 years. Nuclear power may be safe, but as long as humans are involved...no. All three of the major accidents THAT WE KNOW OF were caused by humans, from poor planning to paper clips holding switches open.
3. The waste problem still hasn't been addressed. And (refer to my original post), decommissioning and dismantling each site will be the equivalent of finding somewhere to put a small town's worth of radioactive construction debris for each one.
4. Looking at the prevailing winds and what has happened at Fukashima and Chernobyl, you could just as easily lose NYC, Boston, or Chicago in one nuclear accident. Maybe the chances ARE small, but the CONSEQUENCES of that very small chance are monumental.
5. Like solar and wind, nuclear does not address the automobile and aviation industries at the present time. A total switch to electric of all ground transportation immediately would be very compatible with nuclear, but that ain't happening either, right now.
6. Then there's the other very, very rare possibilities associated with a major malfunction, like terrorists, earthquakes, floods, and even meteorites.
So, I agree, nuclear is an alternative, but not a very good one. It's cheap until it isn't. THEN, it's very expensive, in lives, land, and money.
Fundamentally, I don't disagree with you. I've always said we need to focus on conservation & renewables at this time.

Remember, 3 Mile Island, though it was expensive, relased virtually no radiation & caused no deaths. Chernobyl & Fukushima were genuinely dangerous to humans, but not TMI.

Newer reactors, including fast neutron uranium & liquid salt thorium, release MUCH less waste that is dangerous for a much, MUCH shorter time. This really does dramatically reduce the waste problem. Fast neutron reactors can even burn most of what we now call "waste."

I'm not sure that nuclear is EVER cheap. There are environmental impacts, long construction times, decommissioning, etc. Utilities don't want to commit to them now because they don't know what the market will be in 20 years.

BTW, New Orleans is already gone. Lots of other areas are in deep trouble, including Norfolk & Miami. Multiple California cities are at some risk, but there are lots of hills. The Central Valley, OTOH, currently very productive farmland, could all be under water in the future.
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34895
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But if you wish, let's discuss how expensive nuclear can really be.
Ah. So here comes an anti-nuke polemic instead of an objective assessment.

At least you're honest about the practical uselessness of what you're about to extrude.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Nuclear has already missed the boat. In the time it would take to build the 100 or so more plants that we might need, you will already have lost NOLA, Norfolk, NYC, LA, Boston, and Miami. When's the last time one was licensed? When was construction started? What is the completion date?
The 1970s just called - they want their bullshit anti-nuke propaganda back.

All political - exactly what TRUE friends of the planet seeking to change our current trajectory towards planetary death by AGW should be dedicated to CHANGING.

The latest FERC license app for a planet-saving advanced nuclear plant to replace planet-killing coal-fired generation (Calvert Cliffs) was just denied this month - and why?? Because the proponents (Areva) were FRENCH-OWNED. No technical or safety concerns whatsoever. Just because of POLITICS.

And you're defending this kind of chickenshit bureaucratic behavior that's dooming the planet?

Noted. Your attitude here is that of an enemy of the planet - as dangerous as any AGW denier.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Solar, wind, natural gas, and some other technological breakthrough have already or may soon establish a foothold for energy production that nuclear might never be able to defeat.
Natural gas = CARBON-BASED FOSSIL FUEL. Irresponsible avoidance behavior and not attacking the problem at the root.

"Solar, wind ... and some other technological breakthrough" (I have to laugh at that that childish reference to some deus ex machina that's just around the corner and is going to magically fix AGW if only we wait long enough DOING NOTHING). Completely delusional - and the numbers prove it. There is no hope that solar or wind is EVER going to replace more than a minor fraction of the massive carbon-fuelled generation we need to replace NOW if the planet is to be saved from death by AGW.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
2. The nuclear industry has assured us that reactors are so safe that there would only be one major accident every 100 years. So far, we've had three in 60 years. Nuclear power may be safe, but as long as humans are involved...no. All three of the major accidents THAT WE KNOW OF were caused by humans, from poor planning to paper clips holding switches open.
Fallacious argument. NO technology is 100% safe. LIFE is not 100% safe. Planetary death by AGW or nuclear made as safe as humanly possible.

Choose. You magical delusions aren’t real-life presently available options.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
3. The waste problem still hasn't been addressed.
Rank nonsense. Modern fast-neuron reactors recycling spent fuel makes nuclear nearly 100% renewable, with the entire volume of waste generated making power for you to enjoy over your entire lifetime fitting in a soda can.

Let us know what your solution and cost estimate is for the waste problem posed by 40 million acres of highly-toxic waste PV panels when they must be replaced, mmm-k? Oh. Oh, dear - there isn't one, is there.

(Cont'd ...)
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34896
Apr 3, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And (refer to my original post), decommissioning and dismantling each site will be the equivalent of finding somewhere to put a small town's worth of radioactive construction debris for each one.
Once again, your 1970s anti-nuke propaganda mindset is showing. You need to send your bell-bottoms to Goodwill and update your knowledge, dude.

Modern advanced nukes - SMRs - won't be "decommissioned and dismantled." They'll be re-cycled, refurbished, re-fueled & put back into service - indefinitely.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Looking at the prevailing winds and what has happened at Fukashima and Chernobyl, you could just as easily lose NYC, Boston, or Chicago in one nuclear accident. Maybe the chances ARE small, but the CONSEQUENCES of that very small chance are monumental.
More scaremongering not supported by facts or authoritative analysis. Fukashima & Chernobyl are not relevant - we're not talking about obsolete 60-year old reactor designs like the GE Mark 1 or the Chernobyl graphite reactor.

Your argument here is the intellectual equivalent of pointing to 19th-century steamboat boiler explosions as evidence that ocean liners today are unsafe.

Ludicrous.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
5. Like solar and wind, nuclear does not address the automobile and aviation industries at the present time. A total switch to electric of all ground transportation immediately would be very compatible with nuclear, but that ain't happening either, right now.
“It’s not a perfect solution to all our problems, so that makes it suboptimal.” THAT’s your “logic?” Really?

Nuclear = gateway to the hydrogen economy that DOES address automotive and aviation fuel replacement, in fact.
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
6. Then there's the other very, very rare possibilities associated with a major malfunction, like terrorists, earthquakes, floods, and even meteorites.
Now you’re REALLY reaching. You forgot the comet-hits-NYC scenario. Equally relevant.
Let’s stay real, shall we?
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I agree, nuclear is an alternative, but not a very good one. It's cheap until it isn't. THEN, it's very expensive, in lives, land, and money.
When examined objectively, advanced nuclear is the ONLY option for completely replacing the carbon-fuelled base load power capacity that’s killing the planet, and doing it within this generation.

And land?? You’re seriously suggesting there’s ANY comparison to be made between nuclear and permanently blighting 40 million acres of land with solar collectors & turbines?? That’s just absurd.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34897
Apr 3, 2013
 
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, they made this GREAT COUNTRY a space hitchhiker.
No, we turned over transport to & from LEO (low earth orbit) to the PRIVATE SECTOR. I thought conservatives liked the private sector.

The Space Shuttle was a bad vehicle from the start. It was poorly designed & extremely dangerous, as we found out the hard way. Good riddance.

We are considerably better off now. Elon Musk will succeed.
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34898
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Your hysterical, dishonest strawman is also noted. Only a moron would call nuclear power "green," obviously.
Get bent.
Hysterical? How?

Dishonest strawman? Please be specific.

Only an intellectually dishonest political idealogue would deny modern advanced nuclear is not a green, 100% carbon-free, renewable energy technology - the ONLY available proven green renewable technology currently capable of powering a modern, power-hungry information society of 300 million.

Now, if you don't mind, we have a planet to save from AGW. You and your archaic anti-nuke ideological baggage are standing in the way - you are as dangerous an enemy of the planet as any AGW denier.

Get with the program or get out of the way.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34899
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
A classic irrational antinuke argument. You don't "decommission" perfectly serviceable & licensed carbon-free generation capacity - that's stupid. You refurbish & re-commission them with SGRs and reactor replacement programs - INDEFINITELY.

>>Um, so you're claiming that radiation levels don't increase over time at a nuclear site (including power plants) requiring their decommissioning, usually nowadays at about a 40-60 year time frame?
Replacing steam generation equipment isn't the same as "re-commissioning" a decomissioned, contaminated, and unusable site, you realize?

The extremely rare outlier like Fukushima is all included in the economics, via insurance, self-insurance, and capital renewal/replaceent reserves, and still advanced nuclear costs out FAR less costly than Solar and competitive with other modes. However impressive the cost figures might appear for the isolated rare once-a-generation event like Fukushima (or the BP well blowout), in the grand scheme of things, as a % of total capital maintenance & renewal costs, they're close to immaterial.

>>Unbelievable...the deaths and environmental and long-term health damage from a horrific nuclear disaster like Fukushima is essentially "immaterial" to you? Your claims are more and more inhman and outlandish. And of course the INDUSTRY doesn't pay many of the cleanup and social and health costs, government and the taxpayers do. Your cost claims related to green energy are simply absurd, as well.

"Not connected to the nuclear idustry" too often = half-informed, ideologically biased, and unqualified to comment on technical matters. Caveat emptor.

>>"Connected to nuclear industry" all too often = greedy, dishonest, unconcerned with people and the environment. Caveat emptor INDEED.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34900
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Hysterical? How?
Dishonest strawman? Please be specific.
Only an intellectually dishonest political idealogue would deny modern advanced nuclear is not a green, 100% carbon-free, renewable energy technology - the ONLY available proven green renewable technology currently capable of powering a modern, power-hungry information society of 300 million.
Now, if you don't mind, we have a planet to save from AGW. You and your archaic anti-nuke ideological baggage are standing in the way - you are as dangerous an enemy of the planet as any AGW denier.
Get with the program or get out of the way.
Laughable. A nuclear troll....you don't see THOSE every day.

Nuclear is dead or dying. Get with the program yourself, witless.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34901
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Incidentally, the strawman was here:

"So you choose planetary death by AGW out of childish and baseless fear and scaremongering of the only immediately available, proven green alternative to replace carbon-fueled electric power base load capacity 100% within our generation."

Obviously I don't "choose planetary death," nor do I reject green technology (nuclear isn't "green," of course). Therefore your claim that I DO is a strawman argument. You invent it, then knock it down.

Always funny how trolls like you think you invented the idea...LOL
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34902
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

me me me getting mine in the 69 position wrote:
"We must be guided by the word of the great scientists for only the scientists know the truth and if we do as they say our children's future will be saved.......
Yeah, eliminate all education. Don't need it. Paper pushers & people shovers hired off the street with no training can design & construct all skyscrapers, vehicles, locomotives, airplanes, electronic development, & international creation & development companies. Its good you agree with many other toxic topix AGW deniers that schooling is not necessary for anything. That's why a large percentage of toxic topix AGW deniers had no hi skule DEE-plooomaas or hi skule DEE-plooomaas without science & mathematics classes.

Hey, we never asked "me me me getting mine in the 69 position" if he didn't have a hi skule DEE-plooomaa like 5 or 6 other toxic topix AGW deniers. If it does, it must be very lonely, being one of the few toxic topix AGW deniers with a hi skule DEE-plooomaa. & we don't need to ask it, if it ever had upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

82 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min John Galt 1,082,599
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 5 min SamBee 68,426
10 “Active Militia Teams” Securing The US-Mexic... 15 min Good luck 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min Jacques from Ottawa 174,991
Global Elite Agitating for War Against Russia 22 min Kurt Nimmo video 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 28 min CDC 48,961
Abby 7-29 42 min Sublime1 10
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••