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

Full story: Newsday 46,616
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34906 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>To unready-nanowatt:

Laughable. A nuclear troll....you don't see THOSE every day.
Nuclear is dead or dying. Get with the program yourself, witless.
True.

It must be an English major.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34907 Apr 3, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
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.
The Shuttle was touch & go, needing the best technology we had to keep it going. & when we started sloughing off(paying more attention to penny pinchers, than the engineers), then it failed. Initially designed to fly 99 missions, shuttles were exceedingly lucky to get 50 missions each without more failures than they had.

Don't think they were poorly designed, except to expect technology to survive through MANY dozens of 17,500 mph slammings into the atmosphere was just too too.......

I'm so thankful (& surprised) that the shuttles didn't start failing multiple times in a row & that our astronauts were so brave. I think the astronauts knew the problems of the shuttle, were asked to keep quiet, & bravely soldiered on, as their duty. Most certainly engineers knew the problems, & tried to work to solve problems within the limits of the penny pinching budgets.

No other country even attempted shuttles. The russians just played a Pee-R game with their vaporware shuttle espionage copy of the U.S. shuttle.

Actually, american budgets weren't penny pinching. It was the russians who got the most bang for the buck. A genius russian scientist in the 60's designed the basic rocket lifters that were modified & used for decades. That's why the russian rockets had their own style. The rocket, when extra lift capacity was needed, was modified for strapping together many multiple boosters. Instead of new rocket design programs, the same rocket was carried forward, decade after decade. The russian rockets were great, able to launch in colder conditions than american rockets that just weren't able to do(or usually didn't need to).

But the russians probably got to the point where nothing they did with their basic rocket could match the magnificence of the Saturn 5 booster, that was needed for a manned moon mission.
PHD

Montalba, TX

#34908 Apr 3, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
After the wheels of the space shuttle roll to a stop for the final time, NASA astronauts will have to rely on Russian spaceships for their rides. Commonly know as hitchhikers. Yes and as we found out the hard way NASA scientific science fiction climate change will be proven to be a hoax.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34909 Apr 3, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...Since you people refuse to prove that your actions won't kill billions of people...Oh, believe me, you WILL die or get out of the way of climate change mitigation & CO2 reduction. That's not a threat, it's a guarantee. It's unbelievable how much your progeny will despise you. I guess it's comforting for you to be in this profound denial. It lets you spew this incessant stream of equine excrement from your brain cavity to the outside world.
Fire produces CO2, nature has had a million years to adapt to man made CO2 emissions. It's a little late to argue about the invention of fire.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34910 Apr 3, 2013
b_gone is wrong again. Modern humans have lasted about 30,000 years since the Neanderthals. Development of agriculture started in the Middle East about 8,000 years ago.

Furthermore, it was the ancient Greeks that used forest fire as a weapon, followed by the Romans.

Not a million years!

Also, b_gone needs to accept that fossil fuels and their combustion products are toxic, radioactive, and carcinogenic.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#34911 Apr 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> Fire produces CO2, nature has had a million years to adapt to man made CO2 emissions. It's a little late to argue about the invention of fire.
Oranges are round, and have a sweet, juicy pulp which nature has had a million years to adapt to man. It's a little late to argue about the invention of Screwdrivers.

;)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34912 Apr 3, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The Shuttle was touch & go, needing the best technology we had to keep it going. & when we started sloughing off(paying more attention to penny pinchers, than the engineers), then it failed. Initially designed to fly 99 missions, shuttles were exceedingly lucky to get 50 missions each without more failures than they had.
Don't think they were poorly designed, except to expect technology to survive through MANY dozens of 17,500 mph slammings into the atmosphere was just too too.......
I'm so thankful (& surprised) that the shuttles didn't start failing multiple times in a row & that our astronauts were so brave. I think the astronauts knew the problems of the shuttle, were asked to keep quiet, & bravely soldiered on, as their duty. Most certainly engineers knew the problems, & tried to work to solve problems within the limits of the penny pinching budgets.
No other country even attempted shuttles. The russians just played a Pee-R game with their vaporware shuttle espionage copy of the U.S. shuttle.
Actually, american budgets weren't penny pinching. It was the russians who got the most bang for the buck. A genius russian scientist in the 60's designed the basic rocket lifters that were modified & used for decades. That's why the russian rockets had their own style. The rocket, when extra lift capacity was needed, was modified for strapping together many multiple boosters. Instead of new rocket design programs, the same rocket was carried forward, decade after decade. The russian rockets were great, able to launch in colder conditions than american rockets that just weren't able to do(or usually didn't need to).
But the russians probably got to the point where nothing they did with their basic rocket could match the magnificence of the Saturn 5 booster, that was needed for a manned moon mission.
The problem is that chemical rockets always use very cold propellants like liquid oxygen or hydrogen, etc. Ice always forms on the outsides of propellant tanks, & since launches are always violent, it always breaks off during early flight.

The crew module should never, EVER have been mounted alongside propellant tanks. The Russians realized this & couldn't understand why the Americans did it. A Columbia-type disaster was guaranteed the minute they made that stupid decision.

Incautious maintenance may have contributed to the Challenger disaster, but again, the 2 O-ring design was probably inadequate all along.

Perhaps the Russian rocket designer you're referring to is Sergei Korolev, 1907-1966. He was indeed a genius.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#34913 Apr 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> Fire produces CO2, nature has had a million years to adapt to man made CO2 emissions. It's a little late to argue about the invention of fire.
It's like none of you guys even consider even acknowledging man's impact on the environment. Despite 1000's of years of land clearing, a world population that has grown by billions without the planet growing with them. Ignoring just one example like the Chinese adding almost a million extra cars a month to the worlds inventry emitting green house gases. But that is compared to a couple of cavemen lighting a fire to cook a meal 1000's of years ago.
Please give us a break, and all these so called skeptics choose to ignore all that obvious in your face data to say it's all a hoax.
Despite every country experiencing extreme weather events every year now just like in the climate change modeling and that is dismissed as normal weather patterns because it happened once in 1912.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34914 Apr 3, 2013
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' flopped:
......they made this GREAT COUNTRY a space hitchhiker.
//////////
gcaveman1 wrote:
Talk to Congress about that. They are usually the main obstacle to our space program.
//////////
litesong wrote:
As reported in Space.com :
Republican-led House began debating today (as of May 8, 2012) would fund NASA ......next year — the lowest level since 2008......
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34915 Apr 3, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
“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.
<quoted text>
Now you’re REALLY reaching. You forgot the comet-hits-NYC scenario. Equally relevant.
Let’s stay real, shall we?
<quoted text>
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.
For this post and the others answering me.

You need to learn how to read.

I said what I said. I didn't say what you twisted into your own words.

Where are your SMR's now?

You seem to have a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34916 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Then there's the nuke plants that didn't make it 30 years.

Having, for years, the best Congress money can buy, no INDUSTRY pays for cleanup and social and health costs, government and the taxpayers do. The chemical, oil, mining, etc. companies all walk off, leaving their messes. Even McDonald's and Wal-Mart...do they pay anything for picking up their disposable products?
Reddy Kilowatt

Houston, TX

#34917 Apr 4, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
>>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?
Strawman. Properly designed & operated advanced nuclear reactors do NOT inevitably result in "contaminated, and unusable sites." That's a bullshit strawman.

Yes, steam generators, reactor islands, balance-of-plant equipment can and do get refurbished, upgraded, replaced, routinely, extending plant life ON THE SAME SITE and WITHIN THE SAME CONTAINMENT indefinitely - and that's all factored into the economics - which still remain competitive.

Oh - and don't presume to lecture me on the difference between an SGR and other kinds of plant extension operations, "Professor" - you're in my wheelhouse now.
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
>>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.
Oh, please. More bullshit strawmen. Climb down off you moral high horse - you just look silly up there. And stop with the bullshit scaremongering.
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Your cost claims related to green energy are simply absurd, as well.
O rly. I linked my cost data sources - where are yours? You have something more authoritative than the USDOE? Let's see your data.

But of course, you continue to evade the essential point, which is that wind and solar CAN NEVER replace the entirety of the carbon-fueled generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY - AT ANY COST. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Those technologies are NOT AN OPTION for this imperative on the scale required - regardless of their economics.

In suggesting otherwise, you are simply saying "no problem - AGW isn't really the planetary emergency the AGW jihadis are screaming it is - we have plenty of time to continue fiddle-fcuking around indefinitely at the margins with inconsequential and hopelessly uneconomic little solar and wind demonstration projects so we can think well of ourselves."

That's just another form of denier behavior. You're a dangerous enemy of the planet, man.

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

You're certainly made your piles of ideological baggage & lack of objectivity quite clear.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#34918 Apr 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there's the nuke plants that didn't make it 30 years.
Having, for years, the best Congress money can buy, no INDUSTRY pays for cleanup and social and health costs, government and the taxpayers do. The chemical, oil, mining, etc. companies all walk off, leaving their messes. Even McDonald's and Wal-Mart...do they pay anything for picking up their disposable products?
Exactly - 60 years for a nuclear plant would be the OUTSIDE estimate for MODERN reactors.

I think the first time I realized how bad nuclear power was wasn't when I heard about Three Mile Island but when I realized these things turned into gigantic, radioactive tombs after 30-60 years. I was appalled.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#34919 Apr 4, 2013
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman. Properly designed & operated advanced nuclear reactors do NOT inevitably result in "contaminated, and unusable sites." That's a bullshit strawman.
Yes, steam generators, reactor islands, balance-of-plant equipment can and do get refurbished, upgraded, replaced, routinely, extending plant life ON THE SAME SITE and WITHIN THE SAME CONTAINMENT indefinitely - and that's all factored into the economics - which still remain competitive.
Oh - and don't presume to lecture me on the difference between an SGR and other kinds of plant extension operations, "Professor" - you're in my wheelhouse now.
<quoted text>
Oh, please. More bullshit strawmen. Climb down off you moral high horse - you just look silly up there. And stop with the bullshit scaremongering.
<quoted text>
O rly. I linked my cost data sources - where are yours? You have something more authoritative than the USDOE? Let's see your data.
But of course, you continue to evade the essential point, which is that wind and solar CAN NEVER replace the entirety of the carbon-fueled generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY - AT ANY COST. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Those technologies are NOT AN OPTION for this imperative on the scale required - regardless of their economics.
In suggesting otherwise, you are simply saying "no problem - AGW isn't really the planetary emergency the AGW jihadis are screaming it is - we have plenty of time to continue fiddle-fcuking around indefinitely at the margins with inconsequential and hopelessly uneconomic little solar and wind demonstration projects so we can think well of ourselves."
That's just another form of denier behavior. You're a dangerous enemy of the planet, man.
"Not connected to the nuclear idustry" too often = half-informed, ideologically biased, and unqualified to comment on technical matters. Caveat emptor.
You're certainly made your piles of ideological baggage & lack of objectivity quite clear.
I was going to go through this point by point until I realized there was no need - you didn't actually refute a single point.

Your whole post was just bluster and bullshit.

Dismissed.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#34920 Apr 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
For this post and the others answering me.
You need to learn how to read.
I said what I said. I didn't say what you twisted into your own words.
Where are your SMR's now?
You seem to have a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.
LOL...that seems a likely diagnosis.

For those like myself who didn't know what Dunning-Kruger was before looking it up, here's the definition:

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes." -- Wikipedia

Is that on the money, or not? I see this effect on Topix all the time, just didn't know it had a NAME!:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34921 Apr 5, 2013
On August 6th, 1945, a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japan. Before that, there was the Trinity test on July 16th. Before that, numerous tests called tickling the dragons tail, where different nuclear materials were tested for criticality. On December 2nd, 1942, a self sustaining nuclear reactor was operated under the Stagg Field stadium in Chicago Illinois. Before that, years of experimental tests on radioactive elements.

What does this have to do with climate change mitigation? There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation. This is where man made global warming alarmism and climate change mitigation splits from real science.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#34922 Apr 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
On August 6th, 1945, a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japan. Before that, there was the Trinity test on July 16th. Before that, numerous tests called tickling the dragons tail, where different nuclear materials were tested for criticality. On December 2nd, 1942, a self sustaining nuclear reactor was operated under the Stagg Field stadium in Chicago Illinois. Before that, years of experimental tests on radioactive elements.
What does this have to do with climate change mitigation? There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation. This is where man made global warming alarmism and climate change mitigation splits from real science.
"What does this have to do with climate change mitigation? Not a damn thing. What does mitigation have to do with the question of warming, climate change, and human causation? Ditto."

:)
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34923 Apr 5, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...that seems a likely diagnosis.
For those like myself who didn't know what Dunning-Kruger was before looking it up, here's the definition:
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes." -- Wikipedia
Is that on the money, or not? I see this effect on Topix all the time, just didn't know it had a NAME!:)
What do you call a scientist who blatantly puts out a press release stating proof of increased warming over the past 100 years that is unprecedented and shows a huge hockey stick graph to "prove" it and then with no fanfare backtracks and states that his paper shows that "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes."

Maybe con artist?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34924 Apr 5, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call a scientist who blatantly puts out a press release stating proof of increased warming over the past 100 years that is unprecedented and shows a huge hockey stick graph to "prove" it and then with no fanfare backtracks and states that his paper shows that "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes."
Maybe con artist?
Yes, you are a con artist.

You come here to falsify science and scientists.

Shame, shame. Your denier buddies are gone by the way.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#34927 Apr 5, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call a scientist who blatantly puts out a press release stating proof of increased warming over the past 100 years that is unprecedented and shows a huge hockey stick graph to "prove" it and then with no fanfare backtracks and states that his paper shows that "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes."
Maybe con artist?
No, I'd call someone who lies about science and the actions of scientists a "con artist," Kristy.

You, IOW...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Lake Forest Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Patrick 1,109,555
Overpaid Firefighters (Sep '10) 1 hr Righteous 332
the outlaws motorcycle gang in south Florida is... (Feb '11) 3 hr reese 226
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr Pearl Jam 305,564
FL August 23 Florida Primary Election: Will you vote? (Aug '10) 10 hr Real Person 2,482
Review: Moving Forward Inc 13 hr jeff 2
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 15 hr Eric 69,368
•••
•••
Lake Forest Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Lake Forest Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Lake Forest People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Lake Forest News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Lake Forest
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••