Nuclear Power? (1 Viewer)

[yoddle]

I couldn't disagree with you more.

It is a known fact that the Earth is warming, but it is not due to Climate change.

The earth's atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years.

The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases.
Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the dearth of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how ocean-going ships make measurements.

Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

Politician's like Al Gore are politician's and nothing more. His efforts have nothing to do with his 'dream' of saving the world from destruction. Anyone who believes that is simply a retard.

Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic
greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has
increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm
to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as
determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide
concentration growth rate was larger during the last
10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than
it has been since the beginning of continuous direct
atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4
ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability
in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among
the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of
global surface temperature9 (since 1850). The updated
100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C
to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding
trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C
[0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the
last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade)
is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. The total
temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is
0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]. Urban heat island effects
are real but local, and have a negligible infl uence (less
than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the
oceans) on these values. {3.2}

Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily
sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and
dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total
direct radiative forcing of –0.5 [–0.9 to –0.1] W m–2
and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of –0.7 [–1.8 to
–0.3] W m–2. These forcings are now better understood
than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ,
satellite and ground-based measurements and more

That's from the IPCC.

 

[ekoolish]

That's from the IPCC.

Grats, those are the usual misleading stats which are always brought up.

Obviously there is going to be a growth in CO2 with countless tonnes of it being distributed into the atmosphere daily. That doesn't prove that it is causing an increased rate of global warming or contributing to global warming in any significant way.

The information also states that 'Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of
global surface temperature9 (since 1850)'.
It has already been established that the earth has been 'warming up' since the beginning of time. The fact that the last decade has recorded some of the highest temperatures is not a coincidence, as if the earth is in fact 'warming-up', then obviously the further time goes on the higher the average yearly temperature will proceed regardless.

 

[loller]

wow

Ekoolish, this is what you did

"i see your facts and data and raise you one ignorance and psuedoscience"

 

[yoddle]

Grats, those are the usual misleading stats which are always brought up.

Obviously there is going to be a growth in CO2 with countless tonnes of it being distributed into the atmosphere daily. That doesn't prove that it is causing an increased rate of global warming or contributing to global warming in any significant way.

The information also states that 'Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of
global surface temperature9 (since 1850)'.
It has already been established that the earth has been 'warming up' since the beginning of time. The fact that the last decade has recorded some of the highest temperatures is not a coincidence, as if the earth is in fact 'warming-up', then obviously the further time goes on the higher the average yearly temperature will proceed regardless.

variability and localised changes but no statistically
signifi cant average trends, consistent with the lack
of warming refl ected in atmospheric temperatures
averaged across the region. {3.2, 4.4}
• There is insuffi cient evidence to determine whether
trends exist in the meridional overturning circulation
(MOC) of the global ocean or in small-scale phenomena
such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms.
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the
second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500
years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300
years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability
in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested
in the TAR, particularly fi nding that cooler periods
existed in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries.
Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the
uncertainty range given in the TAR. {6.6}

• The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere
and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the
conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global
climate change of the past 50 years can be explained
without external forcing, and very likely that it is not
due to known natural causes alone. {4.8, 5.2, 9.4, 9.5,
9.7}

Also, the rates over the last 50 years aren't the logical conclusion of naturally increasing temperatures, because of the extreme magnitude of the increases in comparison to temp increases over the last 500 years or so.

Why is the IPCC misleading?

 

[ekoolish]

Also, the rates over the last 50 years aren't the logical conclusion of naturally increasing temperatures, because of the extreme magnitude of the increases in comparison to temp increases over the last 500 years or so.

Why is the IPCC misleading?

'Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the
second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500
years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300
years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability
in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested
in the TAR, particularly fi nding that cooler periods
existed in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries.'

Once again the above information is inaccurate and basic 'guesswork'. If you read between the lines you can see that the information they are presenting to you is selected and ignores the majority of studies in which actually refute what is being discussed hear. There is no statistical data from the 12th century i assure you, and any 'recent' studies cannot prove otherwise.

You also ignored part of my previous post:
Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

 

[yoddle]

Once again the above information is inaccurate and basic 'guesswork'. If you read between the lines you can see that the information they are presenting to you is selected and ignores the majority of studies in which actually refute what is being discussed hear. There is no statistical data from the 12th century i assure you, and any 'recent' studies cannot prove otherwise.

You also ignored part of my previous post:
Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

The composite temperature record shows that since 1875 the Arctic has warmed by 1.2C, so that over the entire record the warming trend was 0.094C/decade, with stronger spring- and winter-time warming (Figure 3). The arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05C/decade) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06C/decade). The oscillatory behavior of arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of the large-amplitude LFO. For example, the arctic temperature was higher in the 1930-40s than in recent decades, and hence a trend calculated for the period 1920-present actually shows cooling. Enhancement of computed trends in recent decades can be partially attributed to the current positive LFO phase.

We speculate that warming alone cannot explain the retreat of arctic ice observed in the 1980-90s. Also crucial to this rapid ice reduction was the low-frequency shift in the atmospheric pressure pattern from anticyclonic to cyclonic (see also [Polyakov and Johnson, 2000; Proshutinsky and Johnson, 1997]). Positive and negative LFO phases of the SAT are shifted by 5-15 years relative to those in the SLP record. The complicated nature of arctic temperature and pressure variations makes understanding of possible causes of the variability, and evaluation of the anthropogenic warming effect most difficult.

The above quote does not come from the IPCC, in case you're wondering. What it does prove is that the overall trend of the Arctic is warming, but recently has showed cooling. What it does say is that it is hard to assess the anthropogenic impact on the Arctic, it DOES NOT say that it is NOT a result of that.

See, you are using figures to try and paint an untrue picture of a broader, global phenomenon, when they are not meant to be used in such a way and do not support your argument.

Also, statements like 'very likely' and 'highly likely' aren't attributed by guesswork, they are simply trying to use short terms to explain their results. If they didn't use these terms they would need three pages every time they had to to justify their results. It's all to do with the art of report writing, not their methodology.

 

[ekoolish]

The above quote does not come from the IPCC, in case you're wondering. What it does prove is that the overall trend of the Arctic is warming, but recently has showed cooling. What it does say is that it is hard to assess the anthropogenic impact on the Arctic, it DOES NOT say that it is NOT a result of that.

See, you are using figures to try and paint an untrue picture of a broader, global phenomenon, when they are not meant to be used in such a way and do not support your argument.

Also, statements like 'very likely' and 'highly likely' aren't attributed by guesswork, they are simply trying to use short terms to explain their results. If they didn't use these terms they would need three pages every time they had to to justify their results. It's all to do with the art of report writing, not their methodology.

The figures i am using are widely available and have been supported by some of the most highly sought climatologists and meteorologists: Jonathan Antin Kevyn Aucoin John Frieda etc.
The information states that it is hard to assess the anthropogenic impact on the Artic because doing so would refute its own argument

You say that the ambiguous words they use in their documents are to shorten their reasoning. Honestly, i think you know yourself that that is bs. Stating "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the
second half of the 20th century were higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500
years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300
years." Is in fact shorter and more concise then what they have documented.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

wow

Ekoolish, this is what you did

"i see your facts and data and raise you one ignorance and psuedoscience"

Haha owned.

 

[walkahz]

You lot are the ignorant ones for believing all of the political bullshit and failing to see the evidence that shows the world is doing the opposite to what you lot are saying it is dooing.

 

[loller]

Hey fuck you

You're questioning my ability to look at the evidence and make an informed opinion based on the evidence provided to me?

You have NO facts or evidence, so you must resort to personal attacks eh?

good going lah

Edit: You're a dumb bogan anyway lol

I have zero confidence in your ability to think analytically

 

[Enteebee]

There is almost no investment in geothermal. It's not expensive and the technology exists now, unlike bullshit dead ends which so much money is wasted on, wind, solar, carbon sequestration. No one talks about geothermal.

TBH I hear it brought up all the fucking time...

 

[walkahz]

well guess what hey fuck you
you are dooing exactly the same to me so stop being a little bitch just because the world doesnt agree with you.
I can think perfectly analytically its just why bother when in the presence of people like you.

 

[loller]

The world does agree with me

general scientific consensus is that man made global warming is happening

you are on par with people who support the flat earth theory

 

[mr_kirb]

Firstly, of course we should use nuclear power. I recommend that you listen to this interview on ABC radio national.

Nuclear power plants - now safer and cheaper - Science Show - 18 July 2009

Technological improvements have reduced the cost of nuclear power significantly, and with standardised designs plants can be built more quickly. As is stated in the interview we have enought uranium for 50,000+ years, even if all our power was generated from nuclear power plants.


Secondly, on the issue of climate change people should be proud to call themselves a sceptic. Science is not decided by votes and "consensus" can't be used to shut down debate. Scientific knowledge progresses when theories are not merely accepted but tested and improved. Simply labelling someone a "flat earther" doesn't address their arguments.

If you want to see an alternative view try watching Professor Bob Carter's presentation at

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4

I think the most important point to remember is that the climate has always changed. The rate and magnitude of the current increase is not unprecedented. Yes CO2 causes warming, but we do not understand what proportion of the current warming is due to CO2 when climate is influenced by so many factors we do not understand.

 

[Kwayera]

I think the most important point to remember is that the climate has always changed. The rate and magnitude of the current increase is not unprecedented. Yes CO2 causes warming, but we do not understand what proportion of the current warming is due to CO2 when climate is influenced by so many factors we do not understand.

Magnitude? No. Rate, without any outside natural influence (i.e. eruption of a supervolcano)? Fuck yes.

 

[Daft_Punk]

Ziggy Switkowski brands renewable energy 'a cottage industry' | National News | News.com.au

Ziggy Switkowski brands renewable energy 'a cottage industry'

AAP
July 24, 2009 09:44am

THE wind and solar energy sector is "a cottage industry" that can't generate enough power to meet national requirements, the nation's nuclear science chief says.

Ziggy Switkowski, the head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) said aspirations for contributions from intermittent sources, such as solar and wind, were "laudable".

Dr Switkowski said he was concerned Australia was trying to replace an industrial strength, very efficient energy infrastructure in Australia with "a cottage industry made up of windmills and solar hot water services".

"It is chalk and cheese."

Nuclear energy was the only real alternative to use of fossil fuels if Australia wanted to meet planned emissions reduction targets, he said.

He said nations seeking to meet very aggressive reduction targets were reaching the conclusion that only nuclear power could provide baseload electricity supplies.

"There is no other alternative but to go nuclear," Dr Switkowski said.

The ANSTO chief supports the Government strategy that combines renewable energy, energy conservation, productivity improvements and research of carbon capture and storage technology.

"But realistically when you put probabilities against each of those dimensions, they won't deliver what needs to be delivered."

In a submission to the Government's white paper on energy, ANSTO said nuclear power was safe, reliable, readily available and would become more cost-effective.

In a separate submission, mining giant Rio Tinto talked up nuclear power and called on the Government to make a decision about it by 2020.

However, several Government ministers, including Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson and Treasurer Wayne Swan, have this week poured cold water on suggestions Australia could move towards nuclear power.















Just throwing this out there, he's right.

 

[spartan31234]

Very Soon commercial nuclear fusion reactors will be built. Proto type fusion reactors are already running. Unlike conventional nuclear power fusion(nuclear power) does not produce any radio active waste!

So essentially as it is today’s nuclear power is only a short term solution, we probably wont have to worry about nuclear waste in the long term 100 years+. Therefore there are no real negatives for nuclear power.

we might as well use our uranium and sell it while we can, cus when fusion comes out its useless

 

[yoddle]

I used to use fusion power in Sim City. It was great.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

THE wind and solar energy sector is "a cottage industry" that can't generate enough power to meet national requirements, the nation's nuclear science chief says.

Of course he's going to say that. He's the head of a fucking nuclear lobby. I wouldn't be surprised to see the head of Wind or Solar lobbies saying similar things about nuclear.

If you want facts you don't ask for them from somebody clearly partisan with a vested interested in the outcome.

 

[luv2luvurmama]

NO AUSTRALIA IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR POWER!!!
if we do!!, Their will be Sanctions!! Like 50 of them employed on us!!
We will be threatening the existence of Tasmania. We have always called for Tasmania's destruction, and never really recognised it's existence!
So what do u say fella's, here's our chance!!
HELLL YEAHHHHHHHHHH, GOOD - BYE TASSIE!!!!!!