Scientists back 'nuclear power' to he...

Scientists back 'nuclear power' to help slow down global warming - Indiatalkies.com

There are 9 comments on the India Talkies story from Nov 4, 2013, titled Scientists back 'nuclear power' to help slow down global warming - Indiatalkies.com. In it, India Talkies reports that:

Melbourne, Nov. 4: Top climate scientists have claimed that the development of safer nuclear power can help in decelerating the effects of global warming by cutting down on fossil fuel pollution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at India Talkies.

dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1 Nov 4, 2013
Statistically significant "warming" temperatures,(globally) have not been RECORDED for the better part of the last two decades. Any slower and the planet will be cooling.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2 Nov 4, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Statistically significant "warming" temperatures,(globally) have not been RECORDED for the better part of the last two decades. Any slower and the planet will be cooling.
.. recorded coolaid in the better part of your brain.. cooling globally..

P.S. Nonsense is not funny about the man-made global threat to the planet's living.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#3 Nov 4, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Statistically significant "warming" temperatures,(globally) have not been RECORDED for the better part of the last two decades. Any slower and the planet will be cooling.
Foolish babble from an ignorant old man.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#4 Nov 4, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Statistically significant "warming" temperatures,(globally) have not been RECORDED for the better part of the last two decades. Any slower and the planet will be cooling.
Deniers seem to be emboldened by each other's claims about cooling or lack of warming to make even more outrageous and stupid claims.

First it's no warming for 10 years, then 15, then 17 and now 20?

Just look at the graph, does it really look like no statistically significant warming for 20 years?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#5 Nov 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Deniers seem to be emboldened by each other's claims about cooling or lack of warming to make even more outrageous and stupid claims.
First it's no warming for 10 years, then 15, then 17 and now 20?
Just look at the graph, does it really look like no statistically significant warming for 20 years?
This silliness has a long history of error..
http://tinyurl.com/k42f2n2

http://tinyurl.com/2errrod
"To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content."
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#6 Nov 5, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Statistically significant "warming" temperatures,(globally) have not been RECORDED for the better part of the last two decades. Any slower and the planet will be cooling.
True believers in AGW have missed the point of the thread.

This is about RECORDED measurements of warming or in the case of much of the last two decades -the lack of recorded measurements of warming.

The study used in a irronious attempt to debunk the "pause" in warming was an old paper that relied on models to present the appearance of warming because the available measurements did not show any statistically significant warming:

"...using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We..."

There are other areas in the full report that confirm that these temps are NOT arrived at through measurements (particularly regarding "ocean" temps) and instead, relies on computer models to "suggest" average global warming.

So far the only arguments that have been made to refute these facts are a misinterpreted paper from the previous decade and their most common of stratagies... Cyber Bullying.

The acknowledgment of the irrelevance of their appeal to authority, an effort to find additional examples which support this threads premise and the end of personal insults would show a reasonable, rational, and scientific approach to this very important topic. Based on previous behavior by the devout believers in AGW one can expect to see no improvement in their future behavior. What can be expected is more of the same ad hominem attacks that pervade posts that proclaim 'The one and only truth of CAGW'.

May your faith bring you peace.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Nov 5, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
This silliness has a long history of error..
http://tinyurl.com/k42f2n2
http://tinyurl.com/2errrod
"To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content."
...and if there were any actual temperature measurements that support the idea of an "energy imbalance" resulting in Global Warming during the last 15 years it is likely that the 'climate science' community would jump at the chance to see it.

In the mean time I will expect to experience warming significant enough to result in a mild winter season here in the Midwest.

Blessings to all those who continue to keep their faith in TACDDCGCDO.
litesong

Everett, WA

#8 Nov 5, 2013
drink the KKK-aid wrote:
Statistically significant "warming" temperatures,(globally) have not been RECORDED for the better part of the last two decades. Any slower and the planet will be cooling.
Yet, 10,000 km3 of ice have melted to 10,000 km3 of water. Altho temperature didn't increase, the energy of fusion adds to the total of energy. You need to keep looking for the energy you aren't counting. But "drink the KKK-aid" knows about NOT counting, being biased & denying, because it ain't got science or mathematics degrees & had no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#9 Nov 5, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, 10,000 km3 of ice have melted to 10,000 km3 of water.
Ice floats so the density is not 1.0 as it would need to be to make the above claim accurate.

10,000 km3 of ice will melted to 9,170 km3 of water

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.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Electric cars can serve as mobile power storage... 4 hr Solarman 1
News Lava flow enters Hawaii geothermal plant property 5 hr YouDidntBuildThat 2
News Who's Afraid of Tom Steyer? Billionaire Targete... 8 hr Carol 2
News West Texas oil, gas growth means more electrici... Sat judy 2
News El Paso Electric expands community solar program Sat judy 3
News New plan could use renewable resources for near... May 25 Solarman 1
News "Green" Energy, an Environmental Disaster May 25 Solarman 2