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

jackchips_2

Global warming

will end when the oil is gone and the debate will turn to the next issue.

Excellent thread.

Jack

Dave_4

Would like to see

This post reach 400

Paul_11

It's all natural, we are part of nature

Mark,
Thanks for the kind words and your question.

The main point of that part of the post was to establish a fact.
That the overwhelming majority of the scientists do indeed agree with the big three points of global warming. Let me see if I can state it clearly.
1)That Global warming is happening
2)That increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the cause
3)That humans are the main cause of the increase in CO2 levels that are beyond historical parameters.

If one wants to disagree with the majority of scientists that is OK, but one should admit that is what one is doing.

I do disagree with the majority of scientists on only one issue that I am aware of and I do it knowingly and with some self study.

Having said that, I must say that I do agree with you on the point you make below, if I understand your meaning.

"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?"

I believe you imply that the world including the phenomena that we call gravity or global warming exists independent of our understanding of it. I firmly belive that is true. The world (or universe) existed for billions of years before we evolved.

The more we correctly understand the world allows us to better function within it. If we didn't understand many principles of steam heat, how could we make steam heating systems efficient and quiet. We could not. So correctly understanding the world is very important and mainly why I participate is these discussions.

You say, "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"?? "

First off I have to say that I have many differences with how some use the term "natural". I don't use the term much, as I don't find it useful. We are part of nature so why isn't what we do "natural" too. And you are right some people throw that term around as if we should bow down to it. I don't find that a useful way to discuss things.

As you say, the earth did warm up and cool for millions of years before we came around, but we must remember that for most of those years humans would not have survived here on earth. And that is the point for me. Now that we have evolved, I want to try and help make sure the earth remains a place where human life can survive. I don't care if roaches or mice can live here, I would like to die feeling that humans have a chance to live on earth longer than dinasaurs and we are millions of years away from that. Let's not forget that diansaurs lived on earth for 150 million years. We have been around for less than 5 million years in some hominid form. Homo sapians have only been around for 200,000 years. We only evolved after the dinasaurs were wiped out, and many feel only because they were wiped out. All naturally too. I really don't know about CO2 levels at that time, but if humans were around then we would have died along with the dinasaurs.

I also agree that the terms "global warming" and "climate change" are too casually tossed around to describe why we have bad hurricanes or weird weather or whatever.
I would encourage you to not react to that so much to that.

If the scientists are right about the BIG 3 points, then we as humans must figure out how we can try and stop what seems to be happening. We can only control what we do. And what is it that we are doing that dinasaurs, mice, termites, or any other form of life can't do? None of them can dig up the ground and remove the quantities of coal and oil that have been out of circulation for millions of years and burn it so it goes into the atmosphere. I would not call it "unnatural", actually I would say it is very natural for us right now to be doing this. But we need to do something very unnatural and that is to stop doing this.

Yes "mother nature" or "Father time" could pull a fast one and unleash the "big one", either in the form of a collison of earth with some asteroid or a mega volcano and end human life. Sure that could happen, but just because that could happen, why would that encourage us to not work to stop us humans from bringing it on ourselves.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this.


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"

ralman

Someone is using my name.

I haven't posted anything under this thread.

Perry_3

Paul; I'm not so sure on your three points.

For example: Based on the reading I do I do not think you can claim your point 2 as something the "overwhelming majority of scientist" agree on.

Your point 2 is:

2)That increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the cause.

Now I will agree that the overwhelming majority do feel that mankind has affected global warming to some extent (and then there is a range of extent - see some of my previous post on the issue). However, they also cite many other factors that are going on as well as CO2.

A number of them that are not sure that CO2 is the cause also admit that controlling and reducing mankinds CO2 emmisions would not hurt anything (even if it did not necessarly help things either).

There are of course some that do in fact focus soley on CO2 as the cause.

Do have a great day,

Perry

Maine Doug_60

I have to disagree with

this conclusion. I worked for a multi-billion $ corporation before and after Y2K. We spent two years testing, fixing, validating and auditing the main business application and many sub-applications. We don't need to do the details in this thread but Y2K was a non-event because many IT professionals gave up weekends and vacations to make it a non-event.

>>>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.<<<

Maine Doug_60

I find it fascinating

that we talk about the exploits and achievements of the early scientific discoverers. With their very primitive tools they made complex measurements and came to some far out conclusions and got embroiled in great controversy.

Today we have the most complex of tools and computers and communications etc., and also come to some far out conclusions and are embroiled in controversy. Will we also have to officially pardon the new science guys and gals?

The mind boggles!

Bill Pidgeon_2

Thanks Perry

I read through you reply, but haven't digested it all yet - you supplied a lot of information, and it's much appreciated. I will get back to you with more specific replies.

I did find a debate on reprocessing waste, which makes it sound like the reprocessing waste will take tax dollars and, as you stated, carries proliferation concerns.

Heres the link: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00010&segmentID=1

The Bush administration wants to reverse a 30-year policy against reprocessing nuclear waste. The costly process was banned because it produces plutonium, which could be used to make weapons. But the government says new technology could make this "recycling" safe. Living on Earth’s Jeff Young reports.

For 30 years, U.S. government policy has banned the reprocessing of nuclear waste. Presidents since Gerald Ford have concluded that reprocessing was too costly and too risky – it creates weapons-grade plutonium that could fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.

Now the Bush administration wants to reverse that policy with something called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It's a multi-billion dollar research effort aimed at recycling spent fuel not just from reactors in the U.S., but in the future from developing countries as well.

Living on Earth's Jeff Young reports from Washington.

YOUNG: Recycling your trash is a good idea, right? So Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell asks, why not recycle our nuclear waste?

SELL: All leading thinkers that have looked at nuclear power, that have looked at how we can accomplish our goals for clean development, recognize that that will eventually lead us to recycling of spent fuel.



High purity uranium oxide product recovered from spent nuclear fuel (Photo: Department of Energy)

YOUNG: Sell says technology called UREX Plus developed in DOE labs, could allow for that to safely happen. Waste from traditional light water reactors would go through a chemical process separating some elements. It would not yield pure plutonium, as technology now used in Europe and Asia does. Instead, plutonium would be bound up with other chemicals in a material that could later be fuel for an advanced reactor.

SELL: It allows you to extract much greater energy out of the spent fuel, and it also results in a waste form at the end of the process that is much more stable and much easier to dispose of.

YOUNG: The proposal also aims for greater international control of the movement of nuclear materials. If a developing country wanted nuclear power, it could lease fuel from the US, France or Britain, then return the waste for reprocessing.

SELL: If a country has the ability to enrich uranium, or to reprocess plutonium, it effectively has the bomb.

YOUNG: So that's Sell's sales pitch: slow the spread of nuclear weapons materials, get more energy from fuel, and reduce waste. His first audience on Capitol Hill was receptive. New Mexico Republican Senator, Pete Domenici , is a fan of nuclear power and reprocessing.

DOMENICI: In the 70s the US decided to abandon its leadership on nuclear recycling and let the rest of the world pass us by. With the creation of this new global nuclear energy program we're going to get back into the ballgame.

YOUNG: South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called the program "visionary." But the reprocessing idea is getting a frosty reception elsewhere.

LYMAN: Well of course it sounds good, the slogan that we should be recycling our nuclear waste instead of throwing it away is appealing on the surface. But the problem is once you start looking at the details, the program completely falls apart.

YOUNG: That's Ed Lyman of the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. Lyman says materials produced by the technology DOE is pushing could still be used to make weapons. And he's skeptical of claims that reprocessing would solve the waste problem.

LYMAN: Unfortunately reprocessing doesn't actually reduce radioactive waste. All it does is shuffle it around. The fact is all these materials have to be disposed of somewhere.

YOUNG: Some scientists who support the administration's general ideas are still uneasy with the proposal. Ernie Moniz teaches physics at MIT and served the Clinton administration as a science advisor and undersecretary of energy. Moniz says reprocessing technology is not ready.

MONIZ: It may lead us down the wrong technology pathway. So again, rushing into large-scale reprocessing would seem to be a bit premature until one has technologies for the whole integrated system in hand.

YOUNG: And then there's the price tag. The administration wants $250 million for the Nuclear Energy Partnership next year. But that's just a down payment on a program that Energy Secretary Sam Bodman says could cost tens of billions of dollars.

BODMAN: This is going to be a very expensive undertaking if we decide to go forward with it. My own estimate, personal estimate, is that it's gonna be between $20 and $40 billion to accomplish all this.

YOUNG: England, France, Japan, and Russia all reprocess spent nuclear fuel with mixed results. There's less waste, but the countries still have some 240 tons of plutonium to store and guard. But that does not deter the DOE's Sell, who says new technology would make a US-led program different.

SELL: A program based on the old reprocessing technology cannot and should not survive. But we believe that there is a better way.

YOUNG: As it considers the President's budget Congress must decide if it agrees that this "better way" is worth billions and the reversal of long-standing policy. For Living on Earth, I'm Jeff Young in Washington.

Mark Hunt

Thanks again Paul!


This is debate. No screeching or yelling. Just an exchange of views. We may disagree on some things, but it is just that... a disagreement. It is not personal.

You got my points exactly right, that is, earth climate like gravity do what they do regardless of what humans do. As you state, there are hundreds of millions of years that back this up. Yes, life as we know it today could not have existed in the early stages of this planet's life. But that does not change the history. Does this planet exist for the sake of life as we know it? Or regardless of life as we know it? Can we alter the planet's orbit around the sun? Can we cause it to change direction? Or is that something over-which we have no power? Can we alter the speed at which the moon revolves around the earth?

Granted, the scenarios I just listed would be impossible. We just do not have the power to alter those things. Just like we can not alter the energy output of the sun. Can we change the way the earth reflects/captures that energy? No scientist knows for sure. Heck! They all just got new testing equipment that allows them to see things that they never saw before! Is it not possible that the scientific community is still in the process of figuring out what the data they can now collect means?

I must tell you Paul that I see an agenda here that has nothing to do with the "natural" environment as much as it has to do with "wealth distribution". A long study of Kyoto should make this obvious to anyone that reads it.

If CO2 emissions are the cause of the current rise in AGT, why would anyone be allowed to buy "carbon offsets"?? This does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, it just greases some unknown entity's hand. I believe that entity will be a division of the UN. So now we have a "world tax" on industrialized nations. The same nations that send billions of dollars in aid to the less developed nations. Humanitarian aid. Vaccines, food, medical supplies, etc.......not to mention the diseases that have been eradicated ALL DUE TO MODERNIZATION. What chance do the people of Zimbabwe have if Kyoto becomes "world law"? What chance does all of Africa have to pull itself from poverty if they are not allowed to modernize? How could they ever afford to pay the "world tax on emmissions"? They couldn't. There are people out there that are quite happy to see these country's stay just the way they are. Dependant.

Long and short of it Paul, I do not believe for one second that the TOP people pushing GW give a rats bottom for "the planet". Quite the contrary. I believe that the TOP people in the GW indusustry are looking for power. A "man made natural disaster" gives them the perfect platform from which to grab that power. Terrify the masses.

One question........What will happen if tomorrow morning the climate starts to cool? No, we won't see it for a while, but what will the folks that today espouse GW say if it all turns around and the temps start dropping? What will that blamed on?

Thanks again for bringing civilized debate. I will buy you a drink or two if we ever meet!!

Mark H



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

Brad White

Of Atheism and Water Vapor

Paul- Thanks for reading thus far. No, I am not an atheist nor do I subscribe to any organized religion. (No, that does not mean I am a Unitarian either

Rather, I do believe in a greater being than man, the proverbian Higher Power, in a word of universality, God. Without specifics, let's just say that I see no contradiction between the laws of physics and the work of God however one defines the greater being.

To me the laws of physics are the work of God better understood.

So, yes, I am quite consistent in my view of the world. I make no pretentions of knowing everything (call that hubris for certain) and learn every day, especially here. But I also have to allow what I do know, my experience, form my view of what is presented to me.

As to water vapor, it is hardly a "straw dog" as you put it. Rather, water vapor is the big dog in my estimation. Water is a finite substance more or less. The combinations of O2 molecules and hydrogen atoms have a symbiotic relationship. They enjoin and separate at similar rates to the effect that water as a whole is really fairly constant in quantity. True, warmer air can hold more water vapor, but this also begets shielding of the earth from IR and other spectra. I do not see this as a problem, rather one of self-balancing.

Water vapor as a percentage of the earth's atmosphere varies a good deal in normal cycles.

The earth is warming as it has in years past. It will cool again, with or without us. Other planets have similar warming issues and no discernable industry either. The trouble with blaming mother nature is, you cannot collect a tax from her. Make an issue out of nothing and you have a political football played in a stadium remote from science. Imagine the notion of created value with the advent of carbon credits. Something that had no value becomes a commodity overnight and a tool for social engineering.

And mankinds' teensy-weensy contribution of marginal so-called greenhouse gasses, by shear weight of what we produce versus nature, does not allow me the luxury of hubris to say "we, mankind, cause it". How could one conclude that given what is known about Mother Nature's throw-weight?

Ockham's Razor.

William Faust

Gore is testifying before Congress this Wed.

I did not intend to lie when I had said that I had made my last post on this thread, but this post might be of interest to people on both sides of the aisle.

Al Gore will be testifying before John Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee Wed. morning and Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee Wed. afternoon. Dingell is a global warming skeptic. Several of the proposed questions for Gore that have been leaked include the following:

1. Mr. Gore, you have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now. We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

2. Mr. Gore, how can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets -- Mars, Jupiter and Pluto, with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions -- also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the Sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

3. Mr. Gore, Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

4. Mr. Gore, do you think the Earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change? If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?

I'm guessing that this will be covered by C-SPAN. Our worthless mainstream media will probably have some sound bites from it Wed. night.

THIS is my last post on this thread.

Perry_3

Reprocessing

Bill:

Why is it that only the US seems to think that reprocessing the spent fuel was a bad idea. Why is it that only the US thought that it was a poliferation concern? Why did every other country in the world think that they could either safeguard or use the plutonium - but the US decided that it could not be? What about the pure weapons program plutonium of the half dozen to a dozen countries that have it?

How many other countries with their tons of unused plutonium have had problems securing it from terriorest?

In the end - my conclusion was that this was soley a US political issue to scare people in the US.

It is possible to stick the plutonium back into reactors and use it, ya know... But that is politically unacceptable (until recently) in the US as well. Now with the bomb plutonium needing disposal all the sudden it is acceptable to use MOX fuel in the US.

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

Here is the skinny on the "new" susposedly safer reprocessing technique.

The current process separates out uranium and plutonium as separate elements. Plutonium by its nature is bomb grade.

In many cases both the uranium and the plutonium is shippped back to the country where the spent fuel originated from if it is not immediatly turned into new reactor fuel. Japan, for example has many tons of plutonium shipped from France and England from its reprocessed fuel.

There are people who think it would be better if the process did not separate out the uranium and plutoonium - and instead provide a MOX fuel mix as the output product. So they have designed a process to do that.

OK, so you cannot build a bomb with the resulting uranium plutonium MOX mix because the plutonium concentration is too low.

However, the fact is that it is only a simple chemical process to separate the two metals - something that anyone with a college level chemistry background could easily do.

I do not see how much safer this is since uranium and plutonium are both "alpha" emmitters where the radiation can be stopped with a peice of paper (i.e. very safe to handle - but you don't want to breath any dust into your lungs), such that anyone in a 3rd world country lab could safely separate out the bomb grade plutonium from the MOX mix with common lab equipment and very little safety precaustions.

If we can safely mix uranium and plutonium to make MOX fuel, and you can easily and safely separate MOX mix into their individual constituants... What is that advantage of the combination reprocessing technology.

But, I agree that it sounds politically more safe...

----------

I agree that a reprocessing plant would cost billions. Probably about 5-7 Billion to build (and take 5-7 years to build). Then it may cost a lot to operate. Keep in mind that it has an offsetting cost related to how much deep repository disposal is needed (like 90% if the cost is tied to the volumn being disposed).

I also believe, that if you were to look again at how the US Waste Fuel Fund is growing - and the expected timeline and cost of opening and using Yucca mountain, that there will be most of the money (if not all of the money) needed right there. The fund is currently spitting off about a billion in interest - and growing by 3/4 billion a year above the interest due to Utility payments. In another decade the fund will be spitting off about 2 billion in interest payments. If 1 billion a year is used to open Yucca Mountain, that leaves another billion a year for reprocessing.

By then some new nuclear units will also come online which should increase the payments to the waste fund.

Also, keep in mind that the extracted uranium and plutonium (and a few other isotopes) can be sold. Perhaps not for a great deal of money, but enough to tip the ballance on the equation.

Keep in mind that Russia, France, and England sells reprocessing of fuel as an economical option to once through fuel use - and most of the world is buying it. If it was not overall economical - no one would be doing it.

Power production, nuclear power plants, and the nuclear fuel industry is a multibillion dollar industry per year. A couple of billion dollar per year solutions are not out of line. Don't let people scare you with big numbers. Break them down.

Edited to add: Hey, I was post nubmer 400. Cool, my 2 seconds of fame.


Perry

John Ruhnke

Fo the Nonbeleivers........

Rick,

Even if most people seem to disagee with me at least I have gotten them to listen to me or this thread never would have climbed past 400.

I have given them something to think about.

My purpose has been to make people awear to the problem. To listen to qualified sources and not political nd marketing hype coming from unqualified sources. This is so as to help them make an educated decision when making decisions involving our enviroment.

Also remember there is only one planet. whether global warming is right or wrong, ignoring the scientists could cost us our safe climatic conditions we have enjoyed now for milions of years. It is worth it to follow there advice even if they are wrong. Remember they are united in there opinion and recommend that we severly reduce emmisions to fix it.

JR

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