Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 Full story: Kansas.com 28,107

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Read more
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26812 Apr 21, 2013
Money wasted?

"Two-thirds of a trillion" dollars were spent last year alone in fossil-fuels exploration when only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future.

Plus nature destruction and exploration accidents.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#26813 Apr 21, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
27 years of "maybe" proves it "won't be" a crisis.
Not one single scientific study in 27 years has ever said a climate crisis from Human CO2 is as inevitable and eventual as an asteroid hit and the IPCC has never said it "WILL" happen, only might.
The ultimate crisis is a climate crisis and for that we need certainty not "maybe" and could be and might be and.....
Are you remaining believers ready to be mocked as Reefer Madness clowns and end of the world freaks for the history books? "Maybe" is unsustainable and someday perpetuating an exaggerated crisis for 27 years will be a war crime.
REAL progressives know that Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.
When we see the signatures of extra-terrestrial impacts all over our planet, during all the Ages of the Earth; when we look to the Moon, Mars, Mercury, and the moons of other planets, and we see the scars and craters remaining through all the eons of their existence; when we witness impacts with the gaseous planets now, using our modern sky-gazing equipment; yes, we know more impacts are inevitable.

But we are not sure that we have ever seen warming on this planet progressing at the rate the current warming is, and we have a pretty firm idea that our actions are causing it. The "maybe" and "could be" is now at the 95% confidence level. You are backing a 5% uncertainty and I certainly hope that isn't the way you place most of your bets.

If so, you're going to lose your ass at the racetrack.

You've already lost your credibility on this thread. Don't ask me to loan you any money to go to the track.

(BTW, if you go back and watch "Reefer Madness", you may notice that there was a lot of drinking going on also, before the girl was raped. Alcohol does that to people, not the weed.)
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#26814 Apr 21, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Human error decides whether there will be a failure. The design defines whether it fails safe. None of the mentioned designs had fail safe designs. The AP1000 approaches it more fully. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers can be made fail safe; not fail PROOF, fail safe.
Excellent.

There were design flaws involved in at least two of the three accidents I mentioned. What guarantee is there that design flaws won't be incorporated into ANY new design?

There is still human involvement, and humans make mistakes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#26815 Apr 21, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Money wasted? "Two-thirds of a trillion" dollars were spent last year alone in fossil-fuels exploration when only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future. Plus nature destruction and exploration accidents.
Not money wasted, more supply means lower prices. Besides, who says "only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future"? Maybe we shouldn't depend on people who hate fossil fuel to tell us how much we need?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#26816 Apr 21, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"] Maybe we shouldn't depend on people who hate fossil fuel.........[QUOTE]

"lyin' brian" shows its insecurity complex (as well as inferiority), looking for hatred under every......... oil well.

Me..... I find "lyin' brian" hatred under every one of its slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms AND alleged & proud threats.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#26817 Apr 21, 2013
kiteman sass wrote:
Human error decides whether there will be a failure.
How many failures do you find in the errors of 'lyin' brian', amounting to 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES. Of course, people know that 'lyin' brian' isn't human, so a general guess is what I ask you.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26818 Apr 21, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
BF:
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree since I am quite positive that we have reached the level of technical maturity,(at least here in the west) to safely handle radioactive materials. I am also pretty sure that without the anti-nukes spreading lies hither and yon, the politics would soon catch up. So it seems the lack of maturity lies with the anti-nukes. Please understand that I refer to commercial systems, not military. So far, they seem to have bit of a problem taking care of their stuff.
I'd kind of like to see a UN Corporation that provides LFTRs at cost+%, under UN control, to any country that is willing to turn over all rights to nuclear research; i.e., they would agree not to do any nuclear research/development. The LFTR would be designed for optimum breeding with an emergency denaturing system to prevent diversion of fuel to weapons projects.
It need not be UN specifically, but it should include buy-in from all the major nuclear powers so that all agree that countries that attempt to violate their agreement are appropriately disciplined.
Kiteman; Your simple dismissal of the facts that illuminate what I have proposed does not relieve us from our obligations to hold fission accountable. Merely by accusing the anti-nukes as immature will require evidence that supports that accusation. Other wise it is dismissed as simple rhetoric.
You have reached a position that you are positive that we have reached our technological maturity for fissionable energy is just your opinion with no facts to support that position.
UN corporation for LFTR’s dispersals is interesting. However their record for maintaining security. as it is, a hit or miss dependent to the strengths of their adversaries. Thus terrorist would seek to obtain the fuel of these LFTR’s and then we can anticipate what that would entail.
Think GE has a program for that, they want to produce these mini atomic reactors for less fortunate energy deprived areas of the world. They face the same dilemma. How can they guarantee security 24/7 for life of the plant? Maturity level of the world is even less than what is in this nation.
Now once again; why such determination for a complex centrally controlled energy program, when the Sunshine is just outside your window. Individuals have the ability to be INDEPENDENT from central energy sources Temptations will forever be within a centrally controlled energy system to exploit their customers. Our Fusion Reactor is already on line and we call it the SUN. Each of us has the ability to extract that energy for less cost than any centralized energy system can ever accomplish for those of us, that choose INDEPEDENCE.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26819 Apr 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've seen citations of lab experiments that show a climate sensitivity far below the IPCC's guesses but no field experiments. Can you cite?
Brian; It was stipulated that you provide links to sources that demonstrates what your implying is correct. All you have offered is something about what you saw. Then you want me to cite something. NO, NO, NO, that’s not how it works. I have given you a site to find a greater knowledge for what you are trying to converse in. There are other sites but why bother look at you. Stumbling about asking others to give you the answerer and then you will not comprehend it and off on to another of some useless opinionate rhetoric.
You have to cross that lonesome valley all by yourself for no one can do it for you… Here try this; Just one small part of Paleoclimatology and one brief epoch of time. Go to Snowball Earth and study the theories that led us to that snowball . How did it get reversed? After all snow reelects the sun. This might make cheer you up. Observe what the atmosphere was. I know you’re a CO2 fan. Now that should not take more than about an hour of your time to study. Be careful though, knowledge is an addictive process.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26820 Apr 21, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Human error decides whether there will be a failure. The design defines whether it fails safe. None of the mentioned designs had fail safe designs. The AP1000 approaches it more fully. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers can be made fail safe; not fail PROOF, fail safe.
Once again you have demonstrated the failure of your Fail Safe gizmo. Humans made the Fail Safe and Humans Are the prime causes of failure of systems. Paradox.“Its no Fail Proof”; that is no more than saying six of one ½ dozen of another. What this implies is a foundation is being laid for semantically dismissing various obstacles and highlight the benefits. Semantics aside there is no 24/7 /life of reactor guarantee that insures us that it will not continue to add to the radioactivity that is already a-washed world wide. Accumulation of radioactivity is compounding to the top of the food chain. When we get to space and safely out of orbit. Then we can fire up these fissionable reactors. There the probability of the humans employed will be matured enough to comprehend the nature of fissionable material. A simple safety feature to insure that the Earth is no longer threatened with additional radioactivity from these energy sources is to have them in an escaping orbital trajectory. Fail and off they go. Perhaps to the Sun if we should so choose. Adding any more radioactivity pollution to our fragile eco system is no longer tolerable from radioactive generators. Especially all the energy required falls from a huge Fusion Reactor and the pickings are easy and non TOXIC. No need for Fail Safe or worries of Terrorist pursuits.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26821 Apr 21, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
How many failures do you find in the errors of 'lyin' brian', amounting to 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES. Of course, people know that 'lyin' brian' isn't human, so a general guess is what I ask you.
No reply to my questions and my answers to yours go ignored? Is that how your preacher man advises you? Nay, nay never question and when questioned never answerer. Perhaps those other questions were too much for you. Lets get real Simple; {PUN} What I f Adam and Eve were the first two humans and only humans? Then we can deduce that their off springs would have to commit to incest to keep the ball rolling. Hmmm a religion based on incest? Hmm Oh I know abracadabra and hocus pocus and you can have your answerer to that question. Go ahead ask any preacher, priest, rabbi, etc. etc. Then watch how their magic works…

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26822 Apr 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Besides, who says "only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future"?
Every scientific academy on the planet.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#26823 Apr 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Every scientific academy on the planet.
Can you cite one that claims: "only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future"?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#26824 Apr 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Can you cite one that claims: "only a quarter of the known reserves can be burned in any conceivable future"?
Have you invested in the carbon bubble?

Since: Mar 13

Washington, DC

#26825 Apr 22, 2013
Bernard Forand wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you have demonstrated the failure of your Fail Safe gizmo. Humans made the Fail Safe and Humans Are the prime causes of failure of systems. Paradox.“Its no Fail Proof”; that is no more than saying six of one ½ dozen of another.
Your saying this suggests to me that you are not technically trained. The difference between fail proof and fail safe is not "symantics" it is the difference between what is technically increadible and technically achieveable.
Bernard Forand wrote:
What this implies is a foundation is being laid for semantically dismissing various obstacles and highlight the benefits. Semantics aside there is no 24/7 /life of reactor guarantee that insures us that it will not continue to add to the radioactivity that is already a-washed world wide.
Why should it? Radiation exists, gets created, and goes away. Adding small amounts to the existing field just takes us to where our species evolved. Small amounts are good for us. And yes, I do think there is a reason to believe that the generl level of world radioactivity will not go up, even if there are caverna and other geologic fetures where the level may go up significantly.
Bernard Forand wrote:
Accumulation of radioactivity is compounding to the top of the food chain.
Radiation does not compound, but various chemicals do. Some of the chemicals may have radioactive isotopes, like Iodine. Iodine actually bio-accumulates... to a level. That is why it is so effective to take Iodine tablets if there has been an event like Fukushima (which, by the way, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers CAN'T have). The Iodine in the tablet fills the reservoir so to speak so the leaked radio-Iodine just washes thue the body. Other chemicals are bioactive but don't accumulate, like Cesium. But again, none of those chemicals can get released from LFTRs like Fukushima because LFTRs CAN'T melt down!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#26826 Apr 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Have you invested in the carbon bubble?
My dividend growth is good, it's not a bubble. Consider, we have Pat on one side and the bull market on the other; hmmm, who's right? People with money in the game or dilettantes?
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26827 Apr 23, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Your saying this suggests to me that you are not technically trained. The difference between fail proof and fail safe is not "symantics" it is the difference between what is technically increadible and technically achieveable.
<quoted text> Why should it? Radiation exists, gets created, and goes away. Adding small amounts to the existing field just takes us to where our species evolved. Small amounts are good for us. And yes, I do think there is a reason to believe that the generl level of world radioactivity will not go up, even if there are caverna and other geologic fetures where the level may go up significantly.
<quoted text> Radiation does not compound, but various chemicals do. Some of the chemicals may have radioactive isotopes, like Iodine. Iodine actually bio-accumulates... to a level. That is why it is so effective to take Iodine tablets if there has been an event like Fukushima (which, by the way, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers CAN'T have). The Iodine in the tablet fills the reservoir so to speak so the leaked radio-Iodine just washes thue the body. Other chemicals are bioactive but don't accumulate, like Cesium. But again, none of those chemicals can get released from LFTRs like Fukushima because LFTRs CAN'T melt down!

Kiteman states; “technically increadible and technically achieveable.”

BF] Does not answerer the question of a Fail Proof or Fail Safe system that I presented to you. There are no such thing in our humane existence. Achieving the incredible would be more accurate description.

KM; States; “Adding small amounts to the existing field just takes us to where our species evolved. Small amounts are good for us”

BF] We have already past the point of small amounts in the radioactivity that has spilled out. It will take thousands of years to return back to levels of naturally occurring radioactivity dispersions. Adding small amounts will increase that time frame and the biological destruction that we are presently suffering from.

KM States “ I do think there is a reason to believe that the generl level of world”
BF] No argument there. Both of us in agreement there.

KM States “Accumulation of radioactivity is compounding to the top of the food chain. Radiation does not compound, but various chemicals do.”

BF] Top of the food chain accumulates greater amounts of radioactivity by consumption of the vegetation and the animals that eat those vegetations as well. Thus compounding the destructive effects of the accumulating increasing radioactivity.

KM States “Some of the chemicals may have radioactive isotopes, like Iodine. Iodine actually bio-accumulates…”

BF] Iodine can be used to help flush some radioactivity. Problem is it does not remain and constant replenishment would be required. Hmm What would the effects be of abusive iodine chemicals to our bodies? Thyroid? Hmmm. And once again it does not flush out Strontium 90 from the blood or bones as well as radon and a few other radioactive compounds. That’s why its not a sure protection and is limited as to its use. Don’t so easily dismiss Cesium because its bioactive. That one compound alone in small amounts can be fatal. Regardless of your iodine pill.

KM States “But again, none of those chemicals can get released from LFTRs like Fukushima because LFTRs CAN'T melt down!”

BF] Oh great I was hoping not to divulge that secret to the terrorist.! What hell have you wrought upon us now..?
All of these complex shadowy devious ploys for fission, why? We have Fusion Energy raining down on us and blowing by us. Out there for easy pickings. Nor would we not be trading one Toxic Fueling System for another. We would be replacing Toxic systems with Sunshine which stimulates the Green to bloom. Now don’t that feel good and clean rather than that oily, coaly radioactive stuff we have been living in. You have problem with that????

Since: Mar 13

Washington, DC

#26828 Apr 23, 2013
BF:
You are mistaken in so many ways that you appear to present a hopeless case.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26829 Apr 23, 2013
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurr...
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#26830 Apr 24, 2013
Another Climate Mitigation Experiment...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01...
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#26831 Apr 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurr...
Sounds like Man's "pollution" started just in time to keep the little Ice age from becoming the next Ice Age.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Dr. Charles Antzelevitch of the Cardiac Researc... (Apr '11) 17 min valleywatcher 3
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 32 min James 178,072
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr thetruth 17,897
Cheap mobile subscriptions the bait as Euro ope... 1 hr rikiki 1
Bill Gross Fast Facts 2 hr rikiki 1
News Stem Cell Researchers Make Healthy Cells from S... 4 hr almightykindjay 1
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 5 hr Morph Morph 12 ok 228
More from around the web