FULL THREAD. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE OR IT WILL CRASH.

CC.Rob_3

probably not the sun

In 1991, it was thought to be sunspot cycles. However, the paper had some flaws in the analysis, which were elucidated in 2004. The original authors went back to the drawing board, and produced another paper, but it had some mathematical problems. Then they tried again, this time relating solar radiation to cloud cover. Unfortunately, they used the wrong kind of satellite data for cloud cover so the proposed correlation was incorrect.

It's all in the primary peer-reviewed literature, and difficult to access unless you have a good library or can request through interlibrary loan or document delivery. If you'd really like to wade through it, I could probably provide copies privately without violating copyright.

Damon, P., and Laut, P., 2004. Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data. Eos, 85(39).

Friis-Christensen, E., and Lassen, K., 1991. Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science, 254, 698-700.

Lassen, K., and Friis-Christensen, E., 2000. Reply to “Solar cycle lengths and climate: a reference revisited” by P. Laut and J. Gundermann. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(27), 493-495.

Laut, P., 2003. Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 65, 801-812.

Svensmark, H., and Friis-Christensen, E., 1997. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: A missing link in solar-climate relationships. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59, 1225-1232.

Perry_3

Short - and long term effect of solar cycles

While the jury is out on the effect of short term (several decades) solar cycle data effect on the environment - there is some very interesting long term stuff out there.

At least one set of researchers came up with a solar cycle output model that correlates well with the changes in sealevel in the last 2000 years, and other historical data.

Note that changes in sealevel are a good indication of overall worldwide temperature change because it reflects how much glacial ice exist.

www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/12433

However, they are actually predicting - based on expected solar cycles - that things will be relatively steady.

But do enjoy the read - and you can click on the charts and get ones that are larger.

Perry

Gordy

Longest thread...Record?

Been sifting through the postings on this thread.

Bottom line people we have been, and are going to be here but a Nano second in the billion year time line of the planet earth.


With out a doubt the human species has contributed in excess to the pollution, and desicration of our planet.

But so has the relative activity of mother nature. When you stop, and think we the human race are products of nature, its just we are more intelligent in creations of convinience for ourselves. Which intern create the filth we litter the planet with. Think about it everything we create sooner or later makes its mark polluting the planet in one way or another.


Don't worry nature will fix it before we do. One more giant asteroid please should do the trick. Then nature can have a fresh start.

Some may think this sounds narrow minded but it is what it is.


Gordy

Tony_23

NOAA website

Google NOAA and get to their homepage. You can put in parameters including temp and precipitation for states and the country and regional for years 1895-2007, monthly or yearly.

Do the whole USA for the entire time period and you'll see multiple "hockey sticks".

The mean temp has risen .11 deg F/decade over 111 years.

Singh_3

Well now Gordy

Since you brought it up. I believe, deep down, we know we can't really do anything about GW, whether influenced by man or natural occurance.

I just self edited a long paragraph about religion and GW. I hope I don't offend anyone. If I do, I'll delete.
But some think the end is near any way, so why do anything. Others may say the results of GW like famine, disease, natural disasters are also indication of the end, so why do anything. And others may say, we were given paradise, and it is our spiritual obligation to love, cherish and respect what was given. And still others can quote from the good book, that man shall have dominion over the earth and all its creatures, so we are actually doing god's will using(abusing) what was given.
And then there are those with Animism and Gaia beliefs.... and so on. So even if we all manage to agreeon something regarding GW, real or not. Nothing ever will resolved. My daughter's children will continue this debate.
But this thread makes for good intellectual exercise.

This has to be a record. 350++

John R. Hall

Timeout

Seems like some folks are determined to get the last word, thus the lengthy thread. Why not throw down a green beer and get back to the family.

Can you imagine how much productive time has been lost here? I hope these are non-billable hours. :-)

RadPro

IF YOU PEOPLE ONLY KNEW ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME AND MONEY THE US GOVERNMENT HAS PUT INTO SEEDING THE CLOUDS, YOU WOULD KNOW WHY WE HAVE AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE....

G.Kaske_2

Singh

Sorry if I came off with a touch of sarcasim. You are right this thread does make for good intellect.

I don't find your post offensive at all. One thing to add to it. The American Indians advice to the people that beached in the "new world" was to give back to the land what you take......I don't think this is what they had in mind.


I believe we are blinded by the impact of our own inventions. Thinking more about the convienence They provide not giving much thought at first long term impacts that may result from their creation.


Gordy

Leo G_99

Perry,

according to a little pamphlet from our local hydro company, up to 15% of household energy consumption can be attributed to tv's, computers, etc. Devices that are either left on (computers) or devices that need no "warm-up" time when "turned" on (tv).

Also, when the true LED light revolution arrives, lighting energy consumption will drop unbeleivably.

Leo G

Leo G_99

Don't forget

the greatest calender makers, the Mayan's, had their calender end in 2012. No reason was given. Most "scholars" believe that it indicates the end of an era, and the beginning of a new era. Maybe the magnetic poles switch?

Leo G

Bill Pidgeon_2

Perry, Again I'll Take Issue...

But first, thank you for all your research in your 3/14/07 "Part 2 Response - Waste Disposal Funding & Issues". I learned much.

So, sorry to pick on you again Perry, but I don't think your 3/17 post saying that "We need to really start building more nuclear power plants" acknowledges the problem of waste disposal for which you provided much information. I'll also bring up some other questions.

I'll agree with you that the cost, in the absence of politics, is reasonable. However, as you acknowledged, politics is making a mess of it, and I don't share your optimism for a solution.

You acknowledged that Yucca Mountain will not fill the storage need when military waste is considered. Also, I don't think there is any other site being developed, and Yucca Mountain is still a political football.

What if Nevada takes it to the Supreme Court as a States' rights issue? Should each State store it's own long term wastes? If a State doesn't have favorable geology to store nuclear waste, should they allow plants to be built? Then, within a State, is a town going to accept the waste from a City somewhere else in the State? It is a Not-In-My-Back-Yard issue and may be for a long time to come. Even if Congress and the Supreme Court rams it down the throat of Nevada, who will accept the next site?

So, again, your outlook for nuclear plants sounds considerably more optimistic than I usually hear for nuclear energy prospects. I respect your fact gathering and learn from it, but we are all subject to errors of omission, when we advocate.

So, my objective is tease out whether you've considered some of the concerns with commercial nuclear plants(CNP). However, I just hear bits and pieces I often don't know the credibility of the sources, so I have many questions and no facts to convey. I'm eager to hear your answers.

Can you tell us how many more years of waste your plant is capable of storing? What happens when your plant runs out of facilities for storing the waste?

Also, do you have any knowledge you can share for the typical state of waste storage capacity at the other CNPs? Which one will run out of space first, and when is it predicted to run out of space?

Which CNP is expected to have the longest duration before expending its storage capacity, and when is it predicted to run out of facilities?

Also, what are the predictions based on, in terms of percent of kilowatt capacity and duty cycle. If the predictions are based on a kilowatt production of 50% of capacity, the duration will be much longer than assumming 90% capacity.

Similarly, are temporary shut-down durations assumed in the waste storage predictions? What are typical shut-down durations versus the predicted shut-down durations?

How robust is the supply for CNP fuel? Is there enough uranium or other CNP fuel for the long term. Will price stability support a switch from coal and petroleum fueled plants to CNPs? How about as demand skyrockets because the leaders see the light and open the flood gates for CNPs.

Which countries have most of the world's natural resources for mining CNP fuel? Which countries have refining capbility? Wasn't there a hugh enviromental issue with the miltary refining plants, or was that only for weapons production?

How does CNP fuel availability compare with coal and petroleum over the coming years? And, an anwer, without a statement of the usage assumptions, provide no useful information on whether a move to CNP is a good long term strategy.

How dangerous is it to be a uranium miner? I thought I heard someplace that the death rate of uranium miners is very high due to radioactivity. Sorry, I dislike using anecdotal data, but admittedly, that's all it is, and I'm too lazy to research it. But, since you are advocating CNPs, I hope you have considered the issue.

If you know the answers to these questions, my hat is off to you, you've arrived at your conclusion with less errors of omission than I assume. Please share your data, and if you decide to do more research, I'd be really curious about how your answers affect your comfort with advocating more CNPs.

If you don't know the answers and don't have the time to do the research, I'm still interested in your opinion of how these issues may play out.

Thanks for all the info you've provided thus far.

Bill Pidgeon

Mad Dog!!!!!!!!

So True....and The Yellow journalists

will always whip the masses, the uninformed, the Sheeple in the frenzies. Mad Dog

Dave_4

Global Warming is happening and man is the cause..........

Hi Everyone!!!!!!!

I'm Back!!!!!!!!!

The debate is over!! It ended years ageo!!! Not one of the major scientists (third party peer reviewed by respected scientists) in the world disagree. They are 100% in agreement. The earth is warming up and man is the cause.

The United Nations issued a stiff warning. New papers came in and the situation looks worse!!!! The Kyoto Protocol is no longer strong enough. They are designing stiffer measures as we speak.

1st off this is not a popularity contest. The general consensus here on the wall is that I found a new religion. That I am over zeliuos in sayings. Many of you think I am flat out wrong.

Many think something is seriously wrong with me!!!

No matter what, you can't excuse the predictions of these major scientists. There is no conspiracy theory amoung all the scientists from all over the globe. All the scientists from many different backgrounds and disciplines.

All the scientist publish papers. The lagitamate papers are third party peer reviewed and entered into a data base. From 1993-2003 there are exactly 928 papers on global warming. 928 papers say the earth is warming and man is the cause. 928-0.

You have to beleive that there is a slight possibility that 1 or 2 of those 928 papers might be written by someone other then a crackpot.

You guys are in such denial that you won't even let yourself believe that much.

928-0.

The United Nations is a group of global leaders. They are not a conspiracy group designed to hurt America by faking global warming.

The truth is.... So far I have been giving you a sugar coated version. The situation is worse then I have been trying to lead you to beleive.

Everyone here on the wall is like an alcoholic. They refuse to look the truth in the eye's. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem. I want every one of you to repeat after me.

The Earth is warming up and humans are the cause!!!!!!!

This is very important. Why? Because if humans caused it. Then humans can reduce it or stop it from building up further. Most importantly if something isn't done disater could strike. You are going to be called on to vote on green issues. You need to face the truth so you can make the best decisions for our kids.

Do not ignore the U.N. warnings.

Say it!!!!!!!!!

The Earth is warming up and humans are the cause!!!!!!!

The Earth is warming up and humans are the cause!!!!!!!

The Earth is warming up and humans are the cause!!!!!!!

Say it!!!!!!!!

The Earth is warming up and humans are the cause!!!!!!!

The Earth is warming up and humans are the cause!!!!!!!

The Earth is warming up and humans are the cause!!!!!!!

JR

[Deleted User]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

Just had to throw my carbon credits worth in there :-)

John, if you'd expend half as much energy working on the alleged problem as you have spent bantering with everyone on this thread, you could have corrected the situation by now...

Time for a new thread. This one takes WAY too long loading, even on a cable.

Maybe you should consider staring your own web site John. I'm sure Al Gore would support your efforts with a grant of some sort.

ME

Dave_4

What we need to do..........

Mad Dog,

Spread the news so as to make others beleivers.

As heating contractors it is our part to learn alternative fuel sources namely, Geothermal and Solar. Eventually something else may come along in the future, hydrogen, fuel cells and such. Develop more efficient heating systems. Promote Efficient boiler controls. Turn the water temps down on hydronic boilers. Install mod/cons.

Also we will be called to vote on green issues with our government and sign petitions.

I myself am an inventor. I have a few more responsibilities. I am spending my time researching and learning energy efficiency and developing methods and products in that area.

Everyone has to do there part.

Scientists will do theres.

Don't worry this is very fixable. The sooner we start the easier it is to fix.

Remember 30 years ago a computer filled an entire room and cost millions of dollars. Now my cell phone is faster and stronger.

This is a plan that will happen in slow changes over many decades.

Just keep looking at your cell phone and move ahead little by little.

I promise we will get there.

JR

Dave_4

What we need to do..........

Mad Dog,

Spread the news so as to make others beleivers.

As heating contractors it is our part to learn alternative fuel sources namely, Geothermal and Solar. Eventually something else may come along in the future, hydrogen, fuel cells and such. Develop more efficient heating systems. Promote Efficient boiler controls. Turn the water temps down on hydronic boilers. Install mod/cons.

Also we will be called to vote on green issues with our government and sign petitions.

I myself am an inventor. I have a few more responsibilities. I am spending my time researching and learning energy efficiency and developing methods and products in that area.

Everyone has to do there part.

Scientists will do theres.

Don't worry this is very fixable. The sooner we start the easier it is to fix.

Remember 30 years ago a computer filled an entire room and cost millions of dollars. Now my cell phone is faster and stronger.

This is a plan that will happen in slow changes over many decades.

Just keep looking at your cell phone and move ahead little by little.

I promise we will get there.

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Dave_4

What we need to do..............

Spread the news so as to make others beleivers.

As heating contractors it is our part to learn alternative fuel sources namely, Geothermal and Solar. Eventually something else may come along in the future, hydrogen, fuel cells and such. Develop more efficient heating systems. Promote Efficient boiler controls. Turn the water temps down on hydronic boilers. Install mod/cons.

Also we will be called to vote on green issues with our government and sign petitions.

I myself am an inventor. I have a few more responsibilities. I am spending my time researching and learning energy efficiency and developing methods and products in that area.

Everyone has to do there part.

Scientists will do theres.

Don't worry this is very fixable. The sooner we start the easier it is to fix.

Remember 30 years ago a computer filled an entire room and cost millions of dollars. Now my cell phone is faster and stronger.

This is a plan that will happen in slow changes over many decades.

Just keep looking at your cell phone and move ahead little by little.

I promise we will get there.

JR



To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

G.Kaske_2

What man thinks

Hey John,
More than 928 scholars thought the earth was the center of the universe.

More than 928 scholars thought the world was flat at one time.

Think what we will come to know, that we thought was fact in the future. Only Time will tell.

Gordy



The list goes on and on as to what the majority of scientists thought they knew, and what was later found out to actually be.

Phil_6

Global Mind Control...

or 'How to get the Americans and Europeans to give us all their money and let us kill them'

Rather than go through all your posts point by point and wasting what little time we have left before the End comes, lets go right here John:

"The United Nations is a group of global leaders. They are not a conspiracy group designed to hurt America by faking global warming."

The United Nations is NOT a group of global leaders, is it now? It is a group of people sent to represent the interests of their individual countries. Or more accurately, sent to represent the interests of the political leaders of those countries.

There are no global leaders in the UN, John. There are no elected officials. There are only POLITICAL appointees. Every single one. Whether from a democracy or a dictatorship. Whether from the US or from Iran. EVERY SINGLE voting representative in the UN is there for one thing and one thing only. To look out for the interests of whoever appointed them.

Lets start with the US. Our ambassador to the UN is soon to be a Mr Zalmay Khalilzad, currently ambassador to Iraq, formerly ambassador to Afghanistan. Seems to have spent his whole life doing all kinds of US government work revolving around the middle east and south Asia.

Now I'm going to go out on a limb here, and state unequivocally that Mr Khalilzad will not be sent to NY with any documents in his briefcase concerning global climate change. Do you know why? Because our current political leaders have decided not to pretend that there aren't hundreds of millions of people spread throughout all those other member nations that want to destroy us.

There are hundreds of millions of people who think every day about how great it will be when they will one day be able to see every American dead (oh, and don't forget the Jews, they have to go, too.). Remember 9/11, John? It wasn't that long ago. Global temperatures have hardly risen at all since then.

Every one of those people lives in a country represented in the UN. They have spent decades working on this through politics, armed conflict, propaganda, economic means, manipulation of the energy markets, and whats that other one again? Oh yeah TERRORISM.

The place they all get together to do their dirty work isn't some rat hole bunker under the desert. It's here in NY. Right on the East River. All the easier for them to keep an eye on the enemy.

To sum things up, the UN is not our friend.

Ken_40

Leo, I'm sure the exact day in 2012 was...

The day immediately after St. Patrick's Day.

Drinking has its rewards, and costs ya know lad.

Many of us would love for today to be the very last day(;-o)

MikeB34

JP

as a testament to the usefulness of tragedy..because of the lack of hurricanes in 2007 the H-depot had reduced earnings. as it did not sell the expected lumber to repair, rebuild or protect, so it did not meet it's earnings projection

Tom S._3

Link for CCRob

You might be interested in this particular page on junkscience.com regarding solar activity:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html

Tom S._3

Links for Ron Jr.

The primary portal I use is www.junkscience.com If something claims to be scientific that's actually a load of crap, you'll find it here. It has a great science primer as well. Real science and statistics are fascinating things. Also defines epidemiology which is also applied incorrectly in so many cases. You'll find multiple links for solar radiative research and it's theorized implications for planet warming. Read the solar/warming papers first then head over to NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
The battle flag for the warming crowd (rather than Kool-Aid drinkers, in deference to a previous post and the fact that I'm a little more serious in this post) is the “hockey stick” graph. It has been thoroughly discredited from both a scientific and statistical perspective. The website for that is:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
More to follow...

Tom S._3

JR, I know this much is true:

"Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil." -Joseph Epstein

A quote we can both raise a glass to?

Tom S._3

More fun and kooky quotations

Here are some good quotes. The first one just slays me.

[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
- Stephen Schneider (quoted in Our Fragile Earth by Jonathan Schell)

A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back up the greenhouse effect.
- Richard Benedick, an employee from the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation (from his report Who Needs Evidence?)

And now for the ice age, brought to you by current members of the Church of Climate Change:

The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.
- Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, June 1975

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramaticlly and that these changes may portrend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumalate so massively that meterologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
- Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Certain signs, some of them visible to the layman as well as the scientist, indicate that we have been watching an ice age approach for some time without realizing what we are seeing... Scientists predict that it will cause great snows which the world has not seen since the last ice age thousands of years ago.
- Betty Friedan, "The coming Ice Age", Harper's Magazine, Sept, 1958

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population."
- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", 1971

All of these are pulled from this page:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/quotes.html

Tom S._3

For everyone who is sick and tired of this thread:

Why are you reading this post? hahahaha

William Faust

Tom

Miguel de Cervantes had the answer:

"Fear has many eyes and can see underground"

Actually, I would remove all of my prior posts if there was a way to do so. I wish that this thread would stop. Too many msgs. in my inbox. That includes too much religion from "la-la-la-la-la-la!" (hands over ears) John.

Time for this thread to die a merciful thread.

John Ruhnke

It is tough to be like Galilio........

Bill,

Imagine being Galilio and trying to tell everyone that the earth is round. No one except the scientists believed him. The major population, polititions and church kept saying he was wrong. The more Galilio presented the facts, the madder everyone became.

Everyone here on the wall wants to have me locked up in some insane assylim for what I am saying don't you?

That is all I am doing here. All of the top scientists that studied climate, Every single one of them came together and said that we have a huge problem. CO2 is rising causing global warming and we have to fix it.

No one beleives me here on the wall. No one wants to even consider what the scientists said. The only rational conclusion that you can draw is that all the major scientist are crackpots or involved in a real conspiracy.

Everyone in this country thinks this is a popularity contest. It isn't. All I am saying is that we need to give the scientists seroius consideration. I told you wallies the facts and the truth. You listen to unqualified so called experts, reporters, oil company scientists and unscrupulous movie directors. Yes I will agree the majority of the opinion doesn't agree with me.

That is the same problem I am having here on the wall.

Galilio was a scientist. The religous people and polititions refused to look at the facts. They listen to stories and hearsay by people not qualified to understand. The majority of the people disagreedwith him.

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Perry_3

Nucllear Fuel Supply & More Waste information

Bill:

Not a problem at all. I am glad you are asking the questions.

You have asked a very good series of questions, and I will try to answer all of them. I may not be able to provide references for all of the answers - but I will do my best in the time I have this morning.

First, while you did not ask this - I'd like to give you a worldwide perspective on things:

As of 2005 there were 429 nuclear power plant reacotors in service worldwide (now I think there is 435). The US only has 103 or 104 of those.

Currently, there are about 30 nuclear power plants under construction worldwide and more being ordered by a number of countris every year (China just signed contracts for 8 more in the last month or two - with construction expected to start on those 8 within 2 years - notice how fast they can license a site).

I just wanted to point that out to indicate that the rest of the world seems to have answered the questions you are asking.

Here is a very educational brochure on the overall operations of the World's nuclear power plants:

www.wano.org.uk/PerformanceIndicators/PI_Trifold/PI_2005_TriFold.pdf

And I invite you to also browse around the public pages of the WANO site:

www.wano.org.uk/index.asp

I do admit that there is a lot more information directly accessable by nuclear facilities, regulators, and accredited organizations. These groups are also able to input data into the databases or ask for help in an area (for every problem that might come up - someone else has probably had the problem before and can tell you what worked and what did not. Plant personnel may also be able to find out who their counterpart is at other plants around the world. I myself have provided information to a plant in eastern Europe regarding heat exchanger degradation and replacments. That engnieer most recently asking about Main Steam Valves and I hooked them up with our Main Steam System Engineer for an answer). In addition, in my 6 years in the nuclear industry I have seen a number of WANO reports on critical events or issues released to the public via one means or another.

Onto your questions:

Deep repository waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, or similar):

You are correct that Yucca Mountain is a political football in the US. It is likely that the same would be true for any other similar repository. However, much of that will end once Yucca Mountain - or another site - is licensed and becomes operational. The second site - when needed will go much more smoothly. This is a standard series of battles that has been fought over many things. The first one is always difficult; then people generally accept it and move on.

What if Nevada takes this to the Supreme Court. Actaully, I believe that the "states rights" claim has already been addressed in court. Somewhere between 1 and 2 dozen major points have already been ruled on in Federal courts; only one was ruled valid - the 10,000 year interval for radiation leakage. The vast majority of points were essentially dismissed as the state, or other organization, had no case. Considering that the US Congress specifically passed a law designating Yucca Mountain as the first national repository (asumming it can be licensed by the NRC); Nevada has no claim to states rights. While some people may talk about the US Supreme Court as having the final say - they forget the legalities. It is quite constitutional for the US Government to designate that something will exist or occur in a single state. It happens all the time, and the question has been asked before on other issues (my general knowledge of federal rights vs states rights).

From a legal issue: There are only two things standing in the way of Yucca Mountain.

1) What is the appropriate long term "worst case" radiation leakage over what timeframe. The long term radiation standard may well end up being decided in the US Congress and several proposed standards have been considered for introduction as a standard.

2) Will the NRC license the facility. The NRC works to their own largly independent set of rules regarding what is acceptable and not (and is the strictist regulatory body in the world). Is the science and paperwork that the DOE did going to pass muster? Will the NRC require that a bunch of it be redone?

Note that one thing that many people in the US agree on is that the DOE had the wrong initial mindset on what needed to be done and how to do it for the studies regarding Yucca Mountain - and in retrospect I and others feel that they should not have been running this project. There are even people who state that should a second site ever be developed that the DOE should not be involved at all in the initial studies and licensing.

Note also, The NRC has in one case in the past told a company that they would not license them as the operator of a constructed nuclear power plant becasue the NRC did not trust the managment of the company to do things right (due to past history). The company had to form an independent subsidarary - with clearly defined independence in many areas - and then the subsiderary was granted the operating license for that plant. That parent company no longer operates any nuclear units... and they had a bunch of them. It seems after the requirment for the independet subsiderary for the newest plant, and then after the problems at the Zion nuclear plant where the NRC decertified the operators that Commonwealth Energy found that it was in their best interest to shuffle all of their plants to another independent company. I suspect that the NRC drove that divestiture.

I can forsee a situation where in the end the NRC decides that Yucca Mountain is indeed capable of being operated safely - but that the DOE is not capable of operating it, and mandating that a separate company (or organization) be set up to operate it. Now I have no idea if that will actually happen - but it could and there is precidence.

As far as where the next facility - if there needs to be a next facility... (remember the previous comments on the potential size of the geologic storage at Yucca Mountain - hundreds of thousands of tons). The process will be quite similar. Yes, I expect that the NIMBY's will be active - but that it would not stop the project.

As far as the military waste: My understanding is that a good chunk of it is from the bomb program. Much of it is actually from the initial processes developed in WWII. Current processes generate a very small fraction of such waste. So a good part of it is a one time disposal problem, with much smaller amounts in the future.

The other portion is principally the US Navy reactor fuel (and some US Army & Airforce research reactor fuel). Like power plant reactors this is potentially reprocessable with only a need for 5-10% of waste disposal of the current volumn.

While I do not know the total volumn or the ratio of bomb program vs reactor fuel - I have heard comments that a second repository with the same initial size as Yucca (i.e.; total repository space of 140,000 tons) would be enough to handle all the military waste and all the current power plant waste including many more years of power plant production. That at least bounds how much military waste their is. It is a finite amount - and not that much more in the worst case as the existing power plant waste fuel.

Given that one of the key environmental studies for Yucca Mountain was done at 120,000 tons of waste - it leads me to believe that if the fuel was reprocessed that Yucca Mountain would be adequate storage capacity within that study limit. Given that others feel that Yucca Mountain could concievable hold several hunderd thousand tons more. With fuel recycling that would handle waste for probably another 50 or 100 years with fuel recycling even if we built 600 nuclear plants in the US.

Of course, there are at least a half dozen other sites within the US that preliminary anayisys indicated as good deep repository sites (on a similar level of Yucca Mountain). Overall, I'm not really worried about out ability to technically and safely bury and store this waste. We just have to get over the initial political hump of the first respository - even if that takes another 10 or 20 years.

------------------------------------

How much waste fuel is my plant - and other plants capable of storing?

The initial concept was that all waste fuel would be shipped to the federal government for reprocessing or burial within 10 years of removal from the reactor. I believe that it is considered safe enough at about the 5 year point from removal from the reactor (and their have been small quantities that were shipped very quickly in very heavy shielded containers after removal from a reactor to study fuel failures and other items).

As a result power plants were not built with enough storage to handle the initial 40 year life of the plant (not to mention the license extension to 60 years for many plants).

Power plant storage pools were built larger than 10 years as it was recognized that it would take some years for deep repository disposal and reprocessing to get up to speed (President Jimmy Carter shut down the US reprocessing plant shortly after it started up - on the basis that reprocessing fuel was a proliferation issue. No onther contries shut down their reprocessing plants).


Note that spent fuel storage is based on the number of storage locations for a fuel assembly. Typically about 1/3 of the fuel assemblies are changed out each refueling outage.

So hypothetically - a 600 MW nuclear unit may need to store 50 spent fuel assemblies each refueling outage. Most Plants were designed with a 1 year refueling cycle (perhaps 30 months of fuel in a fuel assembly - three 10 month periods, with a 2 month refueling outage: Note most plants have now been redesigned to better than this which I will discuss later).

If you were going to design for 20 years of storage for that example, you would have 2000 storage locations + room for a full core offload (150 fuel assemblies) and new fuel storage (50 fuel assemblies): Grand total 2200 locations.

That is just an example: Each plant made their own decissions on how much space to design for; and the size of the reactor and how many fuel assemblies varies widely between plant designs.


How much can each plant store in their spent fuel pools? That is highly variable depending on the specifics of each plant design. There is no standard number, nor have I seen any data that listed it.


Along with initial pool size design the following factors affect the question:


A) Could the pool be "reracked" to store more fuel assemblies. Almost all older plants have done this to gain more storage time due to the shutdown of reprocessing and the delay in deep repository storage, but I understand that some of the newer plants can't because they already built at the maximum currentl allowable storage density.

My plant reracked the pools in the very late 70's and early 80's after the reprocessing plant was shut down (we had actually shipped a bunch of spent fuel to it - that was then returned).

Could the refueling cycle be extended. Almost all plants that were on a 1 year refueling cycle have now shitched to a 18 month cycle, and improved refueling outage length. Thus fuel assemblies are designed for three sets of 17 month operating cycles. Some BWR's have been able to change to 2 year refueling cycles.

So how full was your pool with 1 year cycle assemblies when you switched to 18 month cycle assemblies?

C) How much other radioactive gunk is stored in the spent fuel pool. Damaged control rods, damaged fuel assemblies, and other reactor internal parts may need to be removed from service and replaced. All of these items are stored in the Spent Fuel Pool and a number of fuel locations may have this other stuff in it.

These items can be disposed of by buring in a licensed landfill (they are a lot less hazardous than spent fuel); however, it can be costly. Some plants have only had a few things needing changing, other have had a lot of things that needed changing, some plants spend the money up front for disposal and get this stuff out of their Spent Fuel Pools fairly quickly, other plants have not spent the money to dispose of it and allow it to take up space in the spent fuel pool.

Because of these factors each plant is unique in how much fuel storage capability they currently have.

However, many plants did reach a limit on fuel storage in the Spent Fuel pools.

My plant seemed to have reached that limit about a decade ago, at about 25 years of operating life. So the spent fuel must be transfered into "dry fuel storage sites"

Most of the US Nuclear plants now have licensed dry fuel storage facilities; and the rest are building them.

Here is a link to a graph with an approximation of how the timetable works out on when plants need to build dry fuel storage.

www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/nuc-fuel-pool.html

It is the cost of building and operating these "temporary" dry fuel storage sites that the US Goverment is being held liable for. Plants that are paying $4 Million + per year for each power reactor license must also pay in the range of $3/4 Million per year for a Dry Fuel Storage License, which does not include the cost of building the site, providing security for the site, and operating the dry fuel storage operations.

Since the US Government was by law susposed to take this waste from the power plants (and could dry store it, reprocess it, deep depository dispose of it, etc); and since the Utilities have already paid the US Government the necessary money to accept and dispose of this waste the US Courts have ruled that that the US Government - independent of the Waste Fund is responsible for all the cost associated with these "temporary" storage sites the the companies must build.

As discussed in the post above: The US Government could have built a single central dry storage site for a lot lot less than every plant building their own (there would only be one $3/4 Million per year license).

Concerning dry fuel storage: The waste fuel assemblies are placed in a heavy metal cask, and allowed to radiate the heat away to the general atmosphere. Old fuel is not that "hot" anymore and sufficient heat transfers via convention of ordianry air to keep the fuel rods cool.

The newer cask storage systems uses pre-approve transportation cask so the storage cask can be loaded on a truck or a train and transported to its final (or intermediate) destination. The earlier fuel storage cask will have to be unloaded and the fuel transfered to transporation cask.

-------------------------------------

Plant shutdown (offline) statistics:

Here is a nice graph explaining how time efficient the US Nuclear reactor fleet has become on outage duration.

www.nei.org/documents/U.S._Nuclear_Refueling_Outage_Days_Average.pdf

Current average about 39 days, which is almost twice as good as a decade ago (and if you go back far enough - 3 month refueling outages were common).

I believe that if you, or someone, were to dig up a comparison between the reliability of nuclear units and coal fired units that the nuclear units would win hands down. News orgainizations report every nuclear plant shutdown - and every fire at a nuclear plant (even if in a closet or trashcan), and all kinds of problems at nuclear plants. Fossil fired plants are much worse. Trust me on that I used to work in that industry. Plant downpowers and trips are routine, fires may be common, etc. Fossil plants do not have to report to the NRC so no one knows - or cares - what they are or are not doing.

-------------------------

Supply of nuclear plant fuel:

For practical purposes... Infinite. I'm not kidding.

There are 4 major nuclear fuel cycles in operation or proposed.

Uranium. The power industry developed based on uranium because the weapon programs build a uranium industrial and reactor capability base. If we had been starting from scratch we almost certainly would have developed on thorium (estimates are that there is 3 times the thorium easily available than uranium).

However, lets talk about uranium first.

I am quite aware that many anti nuclear groups are always tossing out that the uranium supply is limited. 3 years, 50 years, 75, or whatever the numbers...

Its not very realistic at all.

Uranium, and many other elements, is ubiquitous in the enviroment. There is uranium in your yard.

There is also a lot of uranium in seawater; and their is uranium in coal.

However, for "uranium reserves" capacity they go off of the ore bodies that are considered high enough concentration to mine that have been found and mapped.

I think the current number is on the order of 85 years of use for the 400+ nuclear plants in the world assuming that no fuel reprocessing is done (like what the US does), no breader reactors use, and no more diversions to weapons programs.

What is wrong with that number is that no one has ever seriously looked for uranium ore in the world. That is really only the known supplies that we stumbled on at first glance. This is analogous to people predicting how much oil reserves the world had based on 1930 mapped oil fields. It doesn't even scratch the surface of what geologist think is out there.

However, I am under the impression that about a dozzen countries have good and known uranium ore concentrations worth mining (and have mined it in the past). Austrailia has the current largest known supply of uranium ore (and one of the few operating mines in the world).

So, based on not even looking for it we have an 85 year supply under some interesting assumptions. Of course, much of the world does reprocess fuel and some countris run breeder reactors. Breeder reactors only need a couple % of uranium compared to what other more conventional reactors need.

Now the reason most of the mines shut down and people have not been looking for uranium has to do with the fact that a very large stockpile of both US and Soviet nuclear weapons program uranium has been fed into reactors for about the last decade. The price of uranium bottomed out in the face of the bomb material. Most mines shut down, and there was no reason to even look. Now, most of the weapons program uranium has been used up and uranium prices have gone up substantially. Currently prices have peaked for at about $100 per Lb for supplies not under long term contracts (most power plants have long term contracts in place for their fuel). Long term stable pricing is expected to reestablish itself once some of those mines are reopened (which is in process). Prospecting for new supplies is also restarting - how much will they find?.

One of the interesting areas that is under discussion as a uranium source... old coal fired power plant bottom ash pits. Coal ash typically makes up a few percent by weight of the coal. Ash is either light or heavy. The light stuff is largly aluminum based and leaves the boiler as fly ash. The heavy ash falls to the bottom. Uranium is heavy and stays in the bottom ash. So the coal combustion process concentrates the uranium concetration by about a factor or 100 from the coal into the bottom ash. There are power plant bottom ash pits that have been filled for decades... These are considered minable concentrations. However, from a political point of view they may never be mined.

Then there is the seawater question. I believe it was Japan that did a lot of research on this, and found that it was not economical to extract uranium from seawater at this time; but they are working on it - and still taking about it for the future.

Here is a link to a summary of a 1983 discussion on the issue: They talk about how $1000 per Lb uranium would still be cost effective in a breader reactor.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

As far as current power cost of uranium. Fuel cost of a nuclear power plant is almost exactly 1/4 of is cost of operation. 2006 nuclear plant power cost in the US (with disposal, plant demoliton, disaster fund,etc included) was 1.66 cents per Kwhr, which leads to a fuel cost of 0.44 cents per KWhr.

I note that the cost of the uranium is only part of that. I'll bet that fabrication of the fuel is at least half the cost of the assembly - and it would not surprise me if it was more than that (I have no exact data at this time - but the fabrication of anything nuclear is way beyond the price of the base metals). Thus, if the uranium is exactly half of the final fuel assembly cost than a doubling of the price of uranium would only result in a 50% increase of the fuel cost.

Here is how it all compares - with volatility with the other fuels.

http://www.nei.org/documents/Monthly Fuel Cost to U.S. Electric Utilities.pdf

I hope that answers the uranium availabilty question.

Of course, reprocessing of the fuel reclaims the 90%+ amount of useable uranium that is still in the spent fuel. The nuclear reaction and decay process produces many elements - some of which "poison" the reaction such that you can only actually burn up a small percentage of the usable uranium at a time. Reprocessing allows these poison elements to be separated out, and the uranium to be stuck back into a reactor for another cycle...


The other three fuel cycles currently in use or under development are:

Mixed OXide (MOX): A combination of urnaium and plutonium in conventional reactors. This was developed becasue fuel reprocessing separates out plutonium - and MOX allows the reuse of the plutonium. It is now being used overseas and being tested in the US for burning up weapons grade plutonium from both the US and Russia bomb stockpiles.

Plutonium based in a Breader Reactor. Toss in a little uranium - the unenriched stuff - and make more plutonioum than the reactor burns. The fuel has to be removed and reprocessed to remove the "poison" elements that are generated in the reacton/decay process. Literally an almost infinate supply of reactor fuel for the next several billions of years as you will always be able to find a little uranium to add to the mix.

Thorium: Like uranium no one has seriously looked for thorium - although it is at least 3 times as common as uranium, and will be cheaper than uranium. Of what has been stumbled on: India has the largest known deposits (the US New England area is rich in thorium as well). One percieved political advantage is that I believe that apparently thorium cannot make much (if any) plutonium; and thorium is not a bomb material. India and Germany are working to develop thorium cycle reactors right now (test reactors are running) - and I expect the first thorium power reactors to appear in 10 to 15 years. In 25 to 30 years I expect a substaintial portion of new reactor construction worldwide to be thorium based.

----------

Nuclear fuel processing?

Mining of the base materials is relatively easy. Mining of uranium and extracting it from the ore as uranium oxide (yellowcake) is by standard industrial mining ore recovery processes. Just figure that this can be done by anyone in any country of the world.

How dangerous to be a miner. Depends on which country you are in. China kills over 4000 people a year in their coal mines. The US, which mines more coal, kills only several hundred a year.

Remember "Black Lung" desease that affected almost all coal miners of the past. US coal mines now almost never have a case of Black Lung now.

Like many industries: Many people were made sick years ago; but we now know how to do it without making them sick.

Being a uranium, or thorium, miner is now no more dangerous than any other mining activity. The required safety protection is simple to use and does not restrict production if the country requires its use (it does cost some money). US Uranium mining is expected to restart soon. Austrailian uranium miners are not having the problems of the past. I don't know that I'd want to be a miner in China as I expect that they will have all the problems of the past. Afterall, who cares if you kill them or make them sick.... There are hunderds if not thousands more lined up looking for work.

Natuarl uranium is only about 0.7% U235 the stuff needed in most power reactors (and bombs). Canada actually builds and operates heavy water power reactors that can burn unenriched uranium - so that they do not need an enrichment process. However, the manufacure of "heavy water" is not easy or cheap either. It all pretty much washes out on overall cost of production.

By fuel manuafacturing capability I assume you are interested in fuel enrichment capability.

The big 4 players are: France, Russia, US, England. There are sevearl other countries with smaller capabilities (Brazil is an example). I also believe China to have a good capability but they are not in the export market (yet).

France, Russia, and England export nuclear power plant fuel arround the world. They also offer fuel reprocessing services for plants arround the world. I note that the US was going to be part of this internatinal market which starts with the sale of the power reactors themselves. However, Jimmy Carter stopped the US export of fuel, and refused to consider reprocessing of the fuel for US designed and constructed reactors (this was tied to the US reprocessing of such fuel).

Now there is talk of the US forming an international alliance to guarantee fuel and reprocessing to any country in the world. The US would again sell fuel and reprocess under that proposal.

The ability to ramp up production is not a real issue as the US and other countries are replacing their older WWII - Korean war enrichment technology plants with new much more efficient plants.

One of the "critisims" that is commonly tossed out in the US is that it takes and entire power plant's energy to make the fuel for a nuclear power plant. They point to an old enrichment facility that used the power from a sizable coal fired power plant as their basis.

What they don't tell you is that that single US enrichment plant made all the enriched fuel for 100+ nuclear power reactors in the US and enriched uranium basestock for the weapons program.

Now 1 power plant for 100+ plants fuel is not to bad...

The new plants will be over twice as energy efficient as that for fuel enrichment. Is it OK if I need the power output of a power plant to enrich the fuel for several hundred power plants (and the cost of that power use is included in the cost of the fuel)?

Once the uranium is enriched to the right level (3-6% depending on reactor fuel cycle design), virtually any industrial society can fabricate it into reactor fuel assemblies.

------------

Environmetal issues with military production. Huge in the past. A real mess. That is why there is so much military waste that needs deep diposal.

The current processes are much cleaner with far fewer problems (and they are much more open about such problems than in the past - althoug the DOE can still be a closed mouth bunch).

There is a single "high enriched uranium" enrichment plant in the US that makes research reactor and US navy reactor fuel (Naval reactors do not have to refuel for many years because they start with higher levels of enriched fuel). It is running to modern radiological controls and practices (and not what was OK in the 1950's).

Russia has a far worse mess - and questions have been raised as to their adequacy of safety in power plant fuel production and reprocessing. But, they are a world competitor on the world market for reactor fuel and reprocessing.

----------------------

I hope that answers you questions. Please forgive whatever spelling I have mucked up. It would be nice if this site had a spell checker.

Perry

Brad White

Think Credibility, John

John,

You simply have to get your facts straight and use critical thinking skills and not compare yourself to Galileo. You are by nature an emotional, passionate being. I understand that and respect that, but it does nothing to further your position. You are killing your own messenger.

For one thing, Galileo was not a proponent of the notion that the earth was round. That had been settled 1500 years earlier in the realm of Pliny the Elder, harking back even further to Ptolemy and from there forward to cultures the world over. The Polynesians knew it was round. Even Christopher Columbus knew the earth was round. Washington Irving fabricated the "Christopher Columbus set out to prove the earth was round" story in the 1800's.

Galileo was persectuted for insistently promoting Copernicus' theorem that the earth revolved around the sun as opposed to the church's teachings that the sun, indeed everything, revolved around the earth. They sent him to his room, no TV.

Now, back to the warming of the earth. Read my first posting above (way above). Tell me how CO2 in fractional amounts and which increase after a warming cycle can somehow cause that warming which by then is a past event. Time travel is not an option. Never mind that 97% of CO2 is of natural origin. Tell me how water vapor, by far a more abundant, effective and almost entierly naturally formed compound can be ignored as a factor yet focus is given to the 3% of CO2 that mankind products yet which comprises in total 0.0038% of the atmosphere, is such a bad thing.

Belief in a story is an act of faith that requires you to ignore physical facts. When the physics of the matter tell me that mankind has at best an insignificant effect and that so many other things have a far higher propensity but are ignored, tells me that the agenda of the proponents of the faith has no basis in science.

I would never advocate that anyone be sent to an asylum but to their room without Internet access has a certain appeal.

Tony Conner_2

I Don't Think...

... you should be locked up John. I think you represent a lot of people on your side of the discusion. This is an excellent thread that will make many people think about the issue, and maybe do a little more research - perhaps even on the opposite side of the arguement.

I for one agree that the warming trend is real. I have VERY serious doubts that any measureable amount of this situation is man-made. I really believe that this is just another "Y2K" event, and that the west will spend zillions of dollars correcting a problem that doesn't exist. We'll basically be betting the industrial side of our economies on this. Ask many of the folks in Michigan what happens when the industrial base packs up and leaves town. (Industry didn't leave for "global warming" reasons, but gone is gone.) It's devastating. And it's not like those jobs will not exist anywhere - just not here. Those highly paid skilled trades jobs will be in China, India, the middle east, etc.

I refuse to bet my job, my sons jobs, and my grandson's future job on the predictions of a flawed computer model.

Perry_3

Opps...


It was Eratosthenes whom we have the first recorded accurate measurment of the earths diameter - sevearl hunder years before Ptolemy.

The belief that the earth was round predeates even this; and their may have been previous attempts to calculate the diameter of the earth. Much of the written and verbal history of several thousand years ago is lost.


From the link below:

"Have you ever heard of the Alexandrian astronomer Eratosthenes? Do you know that he measured the Earth diameter more than 15 centuries before Copernicus and Galileo were even born? Eratosthenes was born in Cyrene in 276 BC, and, upon the death of Callimachus, was offered the post of "Chief Librarian of the Mouseion", a most highly respected position. His measurement of the Earth diameter was the most exciting of his achievements, although not the only one. He believed the Earth is round, and knew that shadows cast by the sun in Alexandria and Aswan (Syene) were unequal. He took measurements inside a deep well in Syene and along an obelisk in Alexandria a year apart, on the same day of the year. Knowing the distance between both cities, and using simple calculations, he estimated the Earth diameter at 7,850 miles. Today, we know that Eratosthenes' estimate was only about 0.5% off.

The great Alexandrian geographer and astronomer Claudius Ptolemy was born in AD 100. The work he developed was a product of the knowledge compiled in the Mouseion during the Ptolemaic period. He wrote many books including Geography, Almagest, Handy Tables, and Planisphaerium. He proposed the "Ptolemaic" Theory which states that Universe revolves around the Earth. The theory was adopted by scientists until the sixteenth century."


http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Alexandria/History/legacy.html


Perry

brucewo1b

OOPS

Sorry

brucewo1b

Tony

I am with you and others in your thought however I am willing to bet that warming in the NE might be do to the closing of said industeries in the mid west as we no longer have the dust particlews in the air to keep the sun at bay.

brucewo1b

Tony

I am with you and others in your thought however I am willing to bet that warming in the NE

might be do to the closing of said industeries in the mid west as we no longer have the dust

particlews in the air to keep the sun at bay.

Brad White

I guess you Ptolemy!

(Sorry

I bow to you, Perry

I was speaking in general terms of at least 1,500 years (point being well before G-Man and C-Man). Yes some mis-steps but dang, 0.5% off? A mathemetician today without knowing the actual diameter would be hard-pressed to duplicate that today.

Leo G_99

YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT!

We should be giving thanx to humankind for actively releasing CO2 to help stave off that ice age that was coming.

My god, how can you people be so blind? Right now, were it not for our ability to help warm up this earth, we would be seeing glaciers covering most of the northern hemisphere!

I predict that in 7 years you will see a new, non-producing CO2 fuel that will be "discovered"!

And you thought that there was no New World Order.......

Leo G

(tongue planted firmly in cheek)

Paul_11

don't focus on John R, but on the issues he raises.

Brad,
I hope you read all of this. Sorry, it got so long.
I feel the free exchange of opinion that goes on here is critical for our survival, so I take it very seriously.
However, I apologize in advance if I come off at all arrogant here, for I do submit this with all respect.

With your comments on Galileo you raise some interesting issues.

You are right that he was mainly known for promoting Copernicus' theorem that the earth revolved around the sun as opposed to the church's teachings. However, you don't get into the fact that the catholic church, threatened to burn him at the stake like they did to Bruno for refusing to recant the same beliefs. Thus Galileo was forced to choose between being burnt at the stake or life imprisonment.

The Catholic Church, (all the main religions, wouldn't want to single any out) all governments, and the media play the same role today as the catholic church did then. No they don't kill as many people now as they did then. But they do spread just as much ignorance. I'm sorry but it is true.

You keep raising this straw dog of water vapor and how everyone wants to ignore it. Legitimate scientists don't ignore it, they do talk about it and study it, but they also understand that it is an indicator of a warming environment. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Thus water vapor magnifies the warming. Neither humans or anyone one else creates it.

IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG AND ENTREMELY MISLEADING TO CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT WATER VAPOR HAS TO BE DEALT WITH, WHEN WE CAN'T DEAL WITH IT DIRECTLY.
It is not within our control.

Have you ever heard the saying, "the straw that broke the camels back? I think this is the way we need to look at human contribution to global warming. It represents the tipping factor that little by little is pushing things in a bad direction. Small changes, when added up over a long time cause big changes. They really do.

Humans are taking carbon, mainly in the form of coal and oil, which has been out of circulation for millions of years and releasing it into the atmosphere. This is the main contributor to increase CO2 levels and something within our control. So we should try to control it.

I have heard the issue of termites raised, but termites are eating wood that would get into atmosphere eventually anyway and in short period of time, historically speaking, of course. Yes, I would be in favor of a huge eradication program against termites. It would help, but it doesn't deal with the main problem, which is releasing carbon into the air that has been out of circulation for millions of years.

It has been said that the scientists disagree on global warming. It has been said they disagree on evolution too. Both these statements are absolutely not true.
The agreement among scientists around both the facts of human evolution and global warming is actually overwhelming. There is not 100% agreement among all scientists, but the agreement is overwhelming.

I would ask those of you who think and have espoused that the scientists don't agree, to please produce even one article from a "peer reviewed" theortical journal agreeing with them.

Brad, while I don't agree with much of what you say about global warming, I do agree with what you say in the para below.

"Belief in a story is an act of faith that requires you to ignore physical facts. When the physics of the matter tell me that mankind has at best an insignificant effect and that so many other things have a far higher propensity but are ignored, tells me that the agenda of the proponents of the faith has no basis in science."

However if you really do believe this para, then you must be an athiest, for there are certainly no "physical facts" that suggest any God, and thus religion has no "basis in science"

So are you consistent in how you apply this approach to the world?


Respectfully,

Paul B. Shay
pshay@arealgoodplumber.com
LMP 1307
LMFS 654B
OUR MISSION: TO PROVIDE WORLD CLASS PLUMBING, HEATING, AND SPRINKLER SERVICE TO EACH AND EVERY CLIENT WE SERVE, FAR EXCEEDING THEIR HIGHEST EXPECTATIONS!

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mark Hunt

Good post


and thanks.

However....you said, "There is not 100% agreement among all scientists, but the agreement is overwhelming."

Agreement(even overwhelming agreement) does not equal proof, nor does it necessarily equal reality.

How many scientists agree about the Law of Gravity? Does their agreement make gravity any more or less real?

How is it that the earth warmed and cooled for all those years BEFORE man-kind appeared on the scene and those were just "natural" events? Now anything, and I mean anything, that happens on this planet is attributed to "man made" global warming? Or the new hot-button, "Climate change"??

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Perry_3

His math was very good.

I actually did a paper on this calculation when I was in college; or at least what is known about the calcuation as the original papers have been lost.

The math was very good (they really understood circles, angles, and how to calculate).

The biggest error would have been in the measurment of the distance between the two cities, a secondary smaller error in the ability to accurately measure the lenght of the shadow to the N'th degree.

He took the shadow readings a year apart as it was a many day camel ride between the two cities.

Many other people were a lot farther off over the next thousand years or so.

Oh, back when Ptolemy was pitching the earth as the center of the solar system and the world... There was an alternate theroy already out there... That the sun was the center of the solar system and the earh revolved arround it (Aristarchus, circa 310 - 230 BC; he also attempted to calculate the diameter of the sun and the moon - not very successfully).

Ptolemy was more popular and had more influence in many things. His theory won out until debunked by the paper "The Revolution of the Shperes" by Nicolaus Copernicus. Of course the Catholic Church did not fully accept the Copernicion system and the fact that the earth rotated until Leon Focault's pendulum in 1851. Up to that time they could argue that no one had any proff that the earth rotated and that the sky did not. However, the Church immediately accepted the proof from the pendulum without quibble.

Also, while true that Galileo was punished severly by the Catholic church. Detailed review of the situation reveals that it was not so much as his support of the Copernicion system as it was his approach and political blundering had offended senior members of the church - who would no longer tolerate his - by then percieved blabering and interference - and he had to stop, or else...

A more policially astute person - or someone who had used a differnt method of presenting the Copernican arguments would likely have not been punished at all - and may have convinced the church to adopt the Copernican system.

I don't know about you, but I've made the same mistakes myself with certain people. Once I've blown it and convinced them that I'm not worth listening too... then I am a distraction that must be avoided (or tossed out).

Perry