Earth was warmer from 1000 to 1200 AD when the Vikings settled Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland. Indeed, there were vineyards in Scotland and Newfoundland. So how do we know that the current warming is abnormal?
Remainder of comment deleted by blog owner as off topic and potentially libelous. Please refrain from name calling.
It is good to hear that the constant letters I have been sending to my reps especially the senators, is having some effect. This level of change should be debated.
While I do not believe that increasing the CO2 levels from .03% to .035% of the atmosphere can have a dramatic, emergency, crisis, we are dying tomorrow effect on the climate of the earth, I am happy to have us shifting from Coal to Nuclear, especially small scale Gen 4 in a distributed network.
A shift to small scale nuclear has a real potential to reduce poverty around the world. As well as establish the USA as a technology leader in power. I really want to see the USA leading in this effort.
Coal, cannot reduce world wide poverty since you need large scale production to give you economies of scale and that level of investment - railroads to feed the coal, perhaps shipping and barges to move it, as well as the power plant, and electric distribution is a huge investment.
These considerations are why South Africa is working on the smaller scale distributed pebble bed reactors.
In many nations, especially those in Asia composed of small Islands, small scale nuclear has real potential to supply vast amounts of emission free power at a reasonable cost. These nations use diesel generation which is very very expensive. As well as poluting. Natural gas generation is also expensive for island nations, (Japan, Tiawan, Philippines, Indonesia, Papa New Guinea, Fiji, Guam, Northern Marianas, Micronesia, Solomon Islands etc).
I like the friendly Atom.
David
"Earth was warmer from 1000 to 1200 AD when the Vikings settled Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland."
The medieval warm period was local and has been highly exaggerated by people of your persuasion.
The areas of Greenland that were inhabited by the viking settlers are still green.
"Indeed, there were vineyards in Scotland and Newfoundland."
It is idle speculation based on etymology that grapes were ever grown in Newfoundland. Vin- in vinland could also have meant meadow or pasture.
Rod,
Not sure if you saw the Huston Chronicle article by Richard Kinder (of Kinder Morgan) July 8. He advocates both natural gas and nuclear as the best path forward.
yes, the the 1000AD scenario didn't exist in North America, as it happens and was a regionalized event.
Secondly, grapes are STILL grown in Newfoundland as they are in all temperate climates. Newfoundland and New Brunswick are NOT Siberia.
Sanders has been a major 'host' for Greenpeace like anti-nuclear organizations for years. I doubt his mind will be changed, unfortunatly, it would be a great 'left-flank' to win him away from his anti-nuclear (and therefore 'reactionary') position of energy-starvation.
Good post Rod, as always.
All the hype about global warming hinges on whether it is manmade, or not. NOT!
Please everyone, write to and call every Senator and tell them how to vote.
We cannot let them do further damage to our nation. If we give those who side with us enough support they will stand more firmly, and if we provide enough opposition to those who would support the bill, some will change their minds.
Best regards,
Gail S
http://backyardfence.wordpress.com
Upon viewing the eruption of a volcanoe in the Russian Western Pacific that resembled a nuclear plume I was reminded what a folly it is to think we exercise very much control over what nature is going to do. The ISS picture shows tons of Sulfur Dioxide and CO2 going to 50,000 feet. Put under the Senate chambers, the blast would still not convince all member to vote for climate legislation and in fact would serve only to wake some from their slumber......maybe?
Dennis - there is little to no doubt that burning coal, oil and natural gas produces a large quantity of waste products that is discharged into our common atmosphere. (Our world-wide energy demands are currently satisfied by consuming approximately 6 billion tons of coal, 4 billion tons of oil and 120 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.)
While CO2 is a natural substance and part of the life cycle for living creatures and plants, anyone who has ever studied differential equations can realize that there is no balance in the rate of production and the rate of consumption. What that means is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing and will continue to increase until the rate of addition slows or the rate of consumption increases (more plants and algae).
I am not smart enough to know if that increasing concentration is going to lead to increased or decreased temperatures, but I am pretty certain that it will have an effect that might make habitable places less habitable.
Since we have an emission free alternative that is actually a good deal better than fossil fuel combustion, it seems prudent to work to reduce fossil fuel combustion and to increase uranium and thorium fission.
Rod asked: "How does [Senator Barry Sanders] plan to move electricity from solar thermal power plants located in the desert southwest to Vermont?"
By Magic ... of course.
"I am not smart enough to know if that increasing concentration is going to lead to increased or decreased temperatures, but I am pretty certain that it will have an effect that might make habitable places less habitable."
Wide spread change in climate is neither intrinsically good nor bad; it has had effect form earliest times since the wind began there wonderings and the seas first rolled. What it is at its heart is change. Change has a high price. If you locate a city in and area that is affected by a change in sea level, that city must be moved upland to a drier place and that is expensive. If farming is required to relocate from a drying region now plague by dust to a newly temperate locality now graced by rain that is expensive.
When civilization depends on constant climate, climate change is disruptive to that civilization, and here lies the dilemma; climate change is detrimental to the smooth operation of the growth and maintenance of civilization.
This species of men are at the stage in their common maturity where they no longer tolerate the age old pain and sufferings impose on them from the cruel trials of climate variation. The man killing horrors of the ice ages are a thing of the past; mankind will no longer tolerate their rude treatment. The people of this world will no longer shiver in the dark and damp caves of their past warmed only by meager heat from their sputtering campfires. Yes, mankind has had their full measure of the pain and suffering meted out by a cruel and uncaring universe. The reversal and mitigation of the age old harshness of nature is at hand as the relentless ascent of man marches forward.
Remember acid rain? Do you ever hear anything about the terror of it anymore? Probably not because all necessary steps were taken to reduce this life threating substance and I thought it was probably the best thing to do. Paper mills all had to install precipatators to scrub the harmful emissions from the smoke. Most of the stuff emitting from smoke stacks of papermills now is steam, harmless water vapor and I thought that was good. I saw dump trucks under the precipators filling up with this harmful stuff that was "eliminated" from the smoke and our environment. Turns out they sell it to fertilizer plants where it is mixed into fertilizer and spread all across the same fields and crops the acid rain fell on in the first place, but nobody cares about that now cause they got what they wanted. What happens in your scenario when the spent nuclear fuel gets spread all over, say, a large city, or even a small city's water supply by some certain group of individuals meant to do us harm?
The ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently higher on average than they've been during the last 2.1 million years-- and are continuing to increase as we put even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
But this is not the end of the world, just the beginning of a New World: a world where cities like Bangkok and New Orleans, States like Florida and Louisiana and nations like Cambodia and Bangladesh are underwater. But its really not a big deal-- unless you live in those places.
Of course, increasing the acidity of the oceans is not good for the marine food chain. So I guess future generations won't be eating much sea food anymore.
The question really isn't if sea levels are going to rise. They already are. The question is how high will our fossil fuel economy push this rise in sea levels. If we end up completely melting the polar ice caps then this will certainly be a strange new world not seen on Earth in more than 50 million years.
We're really playing with fire by continuing to pump massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. And future generations are the ones who are going to suffer from this.
Dennis - Hmm - do you mean all of those billions of gallons of coal ash sludge that inundated areas of Tennessee last December were just figments of our imagination?
http://tinyurl.com/8vfavy
Maybe you should have some conversations with farmers and tree biologists from the Northeast to find out if acid rain has really disappeared or just disappeared from public consciousness.
With regard to the possibility of spreading used nuclear fuel all over, I find that exceedingly unlikely. Each plant in the US only removes about 200 tons of used fuel each year, which all fits into three containers that would fill up just 2 parking spaces in a small lot. That material is carefully inventoried and guarded. It also looks almost exactly the same as it did before it spent 4.5-6 years in the core. I just would not get too close without adequate shielding.
If we improved our use of nuclear fuel we could double, triple and quadruple output without producing any additional volume of used fuel, and that would still give us room for another 2 doublings of fuel use before we hit the technical asymptote.
One more thing - ignore global changes; haven't you ever experienced the local effects of air pollution from burning coal, oil and gas? Are you immune to the stinging eyes, does your camera ignore the yellow haze when trying to take landscape photos, and are you able to jog for miles without hacking on temperature inversion days?
Face it - human activities that require fossil fuel combustion POLLUTE. We should learn from animals and work hard to pollute less and stop fouling our own nest.
HI Marcel F. Williams,
I would be very interested to find out about the level of the oceans actually rising. I live in an island nation, if the sea level was rising many of the islands would disappear. I have not noticed any change.....
Rod's point about the switch from coal to fission being important even if Global Warming is NOT human made, or even if there were no Global warming at all is right on. Coal pollutes. It is dangerous to mine. It is dirty to burn. Plus it is more expensive than fission. Especially in the long term.
It looks like the Senate Climate Bill Just Went on the Back Burner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
20...i_n_228862.html
Sort of makes you wonder what happened since yesteerday.
So I've listened to the first installment of this panel. Two items come to mind: (1) We already have "clean energy" technology - in the form of current nuclear power that is reliable, affordable, dense, controllable and recyclable. Why don't these "experts" already know about that instead of pretending that solar and wind can provide base-load power? And, as Rod has pointed out, someone needs to bring Sen. Sanders up to speed on "waste". Gosh, even the little reading I've done has filled that knowledge gap!
(2)Given that 90% of petroleum is used for transportation fuel and, given that we claim to want to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil, why do the Democrats continue to place prime areas of domestic exploration, extraction and production off-limits? Watch what I do, not what I say!
As others (Rod, David Walters, etc) have posted, if we stipulate that CO2 is a pollutant and its concentration in the atmosphere needs to be limited, then burning carbon-based fuels for electricity must be reduced and ultimately eliminated.
Wow, Axil at 7/9 3:34 PM. That is well-put! Optimistic! Inspiring! It adds to my hope for the future. Thank you.
Thank you, too, Cdr. Adams, for this forum among many other things.
Mr. Adams,
There's something we totally agree on: the local climate. How much more local can you get than a CGN? (Well, besides an SSN.)
"While I do not believe that increasing the CO2 levels from .03% to .035% of the atmosphere"
It is 0.039% already. Goes up fast, does it not?
The "good news" is that the global average temperature for the Earth has been decreasing over the past 8 to 10 years. The cooling that was shown by the satellite temperature data for May 2008 negated the entire globally average temperature increase of 0.6 degrees celsius for the past 150 years.
What we should be worrying about, based on the long-term astronomical cycles, and the current low solar activity, is global cooling--a new ice age. This, of course, would require building many more nuclear plants and fully funding a fusion research program, including the promising concepts that were killed in the 1980s (the tandem mirror, for example).
The issue of global warming was launched in 1975, at a meeting organized by Malthusian Margaret Mead, and attended by many of today's global warming gurus. Their intention was to create an issue scary enough to get people to cut back on consumption and living standards, and in that way to cut population growth. Several of the participants were followers of cut-the-world-population-to-2-billion Paul Ehrlich. (This group includes the President's Malthusian science advisor.)
You can read what they said in the proceedings of that meeting. I did, and I wrote about it.
Recently, one of my colleagues had the opportunity to ask a leading participant at the meeting, James Lovelock, whether he agreed with this, and he said yes.
Yes we need to curb pollution, but "cap and trade" is suicidal, increasing the cost of living for individuals and businesses, and hitting the poor the hardest. Especially in a time of economic collapse, it is pure folly.
You can read more on the science of climate at the website of 21st Century Science & Technology, written by people like Zbigniew Jaworowski (who has visited 17 glaciers to investigate what's in the ice, and who is an expert in the atmospheric effects of radiation), well-known oceanographer Nils-Axel Morner (who has measured sea level around the world) and many others.
Any talk of nuclear with this "cap and trade" bill is a come on to sway Senators now opposed to the bill because they think "global warming" is a fraud, or they know that the bill will kill their state's economy.
Commenting by HaloScan
