More Climate BS...

#3,954
#3,954
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#3,955
#3,955
marcusluvsvols said:
US nuclear recycling plant could extract 100 times more energy from uranium fuel US nuclear recycling plant could extract 100 times more energy from uranium fuel

^^^ this is promising. Yet another reason we should be building nuclear plants all over the country right now.
Click to expand...
This has always been available. There was a plan to reduce the waste problem by re-using spent fuel (It still has a huge energy content). It's called MOX. Reusing old spent fuel, commonly referred to "burning it again". It has a lot of advantages. Not only do you extract even more energy, you also breakdown the most hazardous and long half life isotopes into far less dangerous short half life isotopes. Re-using spent fuel could make things like Yucca Mountain unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland, UT_Dutchman and 1 other person
#3,959
#3,959
Volnanza said:
This has always been available. There was a plan to reduce the waste problem by re-using spent fuel (It still has a huge energy content). It's called MOX. Reusing old spent fuel, commonly referred to "burning it again". It has a lot of advantages. Not only do you extract even more energy, you also breakdown the most hazardous and long half life isotopes into far less dangerous short half life isotopes. Re-using spent fuel could make things like Yucca Mountain unnecessary.
Click to expand...
You know we never used Yucca Mtn for that purpose. It was designed for it in the 80's, but has not had any spent rods stored there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#3,960
#3,960
UT_Dutchman said:
You know we never used Yucca Mtn for that purpose. It was designed for it in the 80's, but has not had any spent rods stored there.
Click to expand...
Yucca may be the most expensive hole in the ground ever. 15 billion plus and never was approved for use. Sacrificed for political votes. Department of Energy strikes again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and marcusluvsvols
#3,966
#3,966
UT_Dutchman said:
You know we never used Yucca Mtn for that purpose. It was designed for it in the 80's, but has not had any spent rods stored there.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Harry Reid used it a a big money maker while building it. Then had a hissy fit when it came time to open. All those spent rods are still scattered all across the country...each one a potential hazard. Maybe Harry wanted Yucca Mountain to be Reid family vault and survival bunker.
 
#3,967
#3,967
WaywardVol said:
You’re gaslighting.
Mercury doesn’t change, but do you think there was always some uniform gauge that existed? Temp thermometers can be affected by a number of factors, including how directly they are exposed to sunlight.
Click to expand...
Gaslighting is saying the temperature measurements aren't comparable without anything to support the assertion.
 
#3,971
#3,971
UT_Dutchman said:
This is probably the real problem we may face sooner than the atmospheric percentage of CO2 rising to 0.045%
Click to expand...

Wow 90F degrees difference in cooling between the hemispheres is crazy. It makes sense though that the half covered almost completely by ocean water would cool much faster than the side with huge continents on the exterior to act as insulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#3,972
#3,972
marcusluvsvols said:
I sincerely apologize Bart if my memory failed me on your job, dont want to lie about anyone. I thought you had posted previously (a few years back by now) that you had a job in the climate science field. I am sorry bud.

Would also like to add something that I did not mention in my post as well: for anyone whose vocation and ability to support themselves and their family depends on C.C. related work... I feel no contempt for them. I can sympathize with their plight. A man has to do what he has to do in order to take care of the ones that he loves, and I don't want to see anyone's family fall on hard times. I mean no offense to you, nor to OH if in fact his career is in this field. I hope that both of you, and your families thrive.
Click to expand...
Well, thanks for the kind words. In the end we’re all vol fans, neighbors, and fellow humans trying our best to do right. Good luck to you and all yours.

No I’m not in anything directly climate-related. We’re a smedium geotechnical engineering firm. We work on anything from small residential projects to mid-rise/high-rise with crazy deep excavations. Mostly private sector stuff but some public works – bridges, tunnels, roads, utilities, water/wastewater facilities, etc. Landslides/slope stabilization, sinkholes and other settlement, geophysics/seismic analysis and design, and groundwater stuff (but not even environmental – we let others deal with that)… We do best when construction is booming.

I honestly don’t even personally know anybody working in alternative energies, outside of nuclear. But I do have a strong personal connection to the issue in that I’m Dutch (dual citizen) and much of my family and other countrymen are at or below sea level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#3,973
#3,973
Matt2496 said:
Just as a counterpoint, there are likely far more temperature measurement stations today than in 1860 which means that there are more temperature samples with more variations within the dataset that could influence this calculation.

Not trying to start an argument one way or the other, but was just something I thought about.
Click to expand...
First of all, I only posted the graphs in (lazy) response to Rik, who put forth the absurd claim that temperatures have been cooling the past decade, and said prove me wrong. My mistake for engaging 🤪 I don’t care to dive deep into temperature records discussion either, but I'll say my piece, since it’s been a common topic here recently.

A lot of these talking points, e.g. urban heat island effect, were common in the 2000s. There’s been plenty of research on how to account for these effects. One example was a Koch-funded study in the late 2000s led by physicist and at-the-time climate contrarian Richard Muller, which ultimately came to the conclusion that other groups’ analyses of temperature records were correct. In fact you can see their current temperature record on the quoted graph (BEST). And the temperature record is entirely consistent with oil industry’s internal projections. The data is publicly available; other climate contrarians are welcome to take a stab at their own statistical analyses.

I think Rik is hung-up on ancient climate denial talking points. There was a Super El Nino in 1998 that shows as a big spike in the temperature record, which was followed by several years of neutral and La Nina conditions where the temperature didn’t surpass that spike. For years many people (and many VN posters) claimed there’s been no global warming since 1998, global warming stopped in 1998, it’s been cooling since 1998. Of course, that turned out to be extreme cherrypicking. Laughably, some “skeptics” didn’t learn their lesson, and after the Super El Nino of 2015, the meme changed to “no global warming since 2015”. I haven’t seen anyone try to argue “no global warming since 2024” yet; probably smart to wait until after the budding Super El Nino and revive the meme with a new starting point of 2027.

So yeah my guess is Rick still thinks it’s the 2000s and that global warming stopped in 1998. I don’t know how else you can fantasize “the earth has been in a cooling period for a decade.”
 
#3,974
#3,974
Vol423 said:
UN admits to climate mythology

www.gulf-insider.com

UN Climate Panel Quietly Admits Its Doomsday Climate Scenarios Were 'Implausible' - Gulf Insider

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios," Science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr.wrote
www.gulf-insider.com www.gulf-insider.com
Click to expand...
This is extremely misleading. It was discussed just a few pages ago:
BartW said:
You’ve misunderstood the RCP8.5 news. It’s not a prediction of warming. It’s an emissions scenario. Models use a range of emissions scenarios to project temperature etc. The retirement of RCP8.5 does not imply anything about model accuracy or climate sensitivity to CO2. It’s just saying, the worst case emissions scenario at the time (2011) is no longer a realistic emissions scenario. Because there has been progress in reducing emissions since then. Here’s a detailed explanation.
Click to expand...
You know, the best-case emissions scenarios were also dropped, but you don’t see any screeching about that. It really only makes sense that the cone of possible emissions scenarios today lies entirely within the cone of possible emissions scenarios of 15 years ago. That’s just what happens as time moves forward. What would actually be newsworthy was if emissions were outside the cone of projections. But it's right in the middle. Nothingburger.

You could make the argument that the 8.5 scenario should have been dropped from AR6 already (and that discussion indeed existed). Looking back now it is very clear that the decreasing rate of emissions starting in the early 2010s has been sustained. And there was honest discussion that that worst-case emissions scenario becomes unrealistic in the late 21st century as we deplete fossil fuel reserves (but that also assumes no new advancements in extraction, moving on to methane hydrates, etc…). Interesting topics perhaps but buried under a mountain of propaganda here.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top