Well mankind has an impact on climate but the degree to which we impact the climate is clearly overstated.
I still have all my Y2K stuff ! Anybody want to buy a bunch of dehydrated food and a gas 110 volt generator ?
I agree with other posters in that people often confuse scientific fact with the interpretation of those facts. Quantum mechanics is a prime example of where the science and the interpretations are mixed and often confused.
I try to keep an open mind about stuff, but AGW reeks of bullshit to me. I googled WAMSR and this article was among the top results https://www.technologyreview.com/20...artup-transatomic-backtracks-on-key-promises/ It looks like Transatomic is the new Theranos. Cheeky Brainy Birds in Charge.....
Don't forget the actual impact of climate change due to C02. A positive feedback with water in the atmosphere increasing causing more temperatures to rise but some how it causes draughts and wild fires?
~ Science is always open to debate. This will all go away when nuclear energy startup becomes commonplace.
There is a difference between a bar and a lab. When you figure that out, get back to me. I think nuclear power needs to be part of the transition, but the politics are a total nightmare. We are going to have to get serious, and face it, the last thing Americans are is a serious people.
~ Let's face it - this is more a psychological issue than anything else. Some people are addicted to being miserable. Free ZOLOFT for everyone !
~ It was 114 degrees in California last week. This week it's 80 degrees - 65° overcast and damp at night .
The fact that the IPCC AR5 models both solar irradiance/radiant forcing/sunshine and, correspondingly, water vapor and cloud effects with low confidence is alone a deal breaker. The earth sheds heat mostly from half of the planet at night. I'm curious what a model would look like that takes cloud cover to an extreme limit, such that the sunny side had no clouds and the night side had complete cover. That would have to make for a toasty greenhouse effect. Then, back that off a bit, and it could easily be the case that dynamic trends between daytime and nighttime cloud cover might account for who knows what, but since it is currently accounted for at best with a low level of confidence - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a lot more work to do before I personally want to start paying carbon taxes. It's odd to have these discussions. Are there a lot of other "science" subjects managed by the UN? Does CERN report their experiments to the UN?
~ I know when world governments push wind/solar as energy source replacement we are all doomed. Stupid is what will kill us - not Mother Nature .
While there was disappointing news in the article from your link-- the WAMSR's greatest appeal, for me, was its ability to USE the nuclear waste fuel-rods (the creation of which having always been my biggest problem w/ nuclear)-- for most, any lack of enthusiasm now is due solely to the earlier, unrealistic claims. If you didn't read all the way to the end: "We Invested in Transatomic because of their reactor’s passively safe design and dramatically reduced costs and waste,” Scott Nolan, partner at Founders Fund, said in a statement. “Together, these unlock the viability of grid-scale, carbon-free energy production. These aspects of their design are stronger than ever and we’re extremely excited about the company’s execution and future potential.” To be sure, it would still be a notable accomplishment if the company could build a reactor that improved fuel energy efficiency over conventional reactors by a factor more than two. In addition, the new white paper notes the reactor could reduce waste by 53 percent compared to light-water reactors. The viability of the latter finding was recently verified by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. But the analysis found that the reactor couldn’t sustain a fission chain reaction using spent fuel long enough for it to be a feasible option, as previously hoped,... Aside from Transatomic, I didn't fully get your earlier reference: what's the, "A," stand for in AGW?
Solar can actually work, but it requires damn near science fiction global scale project to do so. Spinning reserve can store daytime power in addition to batteries. Lots of cool stuff can be done with solar. See my earlier post with the link to the Loster plan. It's mostly SciFi, but, according to Capitalism, Vision Statements are of nominal value.....
Anthropogenic, it's what the UN/Swiss makes the scientists use instead of man-made, or fossil fuel, i.e. MMGW or FFGW. Scott Nolan - what is his background? MBA, investment banking? I read the whole article - the WAMSR is fake news, fake nuclear engineering, fake science: it is toast. Ask some folks from the Fukushima exclusion zone how green nuclear power is.
~ I am a proponent of nature gas steam turbine power plants. We have one here where I live. Very clean, inexpensive power on demand. If overpopulation continues we will have nuclear power out of necessity .
I'm actually pro-carbon tax if they would only use the tax to decentralize energy and advance our technology. Unfortunately they just want to waste the money on special interests. I want to have solar shingles, clear solar windows, and implement solar into all of our structures in a transparent film. I also want to see more battery systems in houses to capture that energy and to act as a power reserve for emergencies for residents and to reduce the stress on the grid. It will also increase the security of our nation due to the fact that terrorists would be unable to take out our entire power structure by targeting a few power plants. In other words, I think that Global Warming is exaggerated to a huge degree but it does not change the fact that our nation could benefit from a carbon tax if implemented correctly.
They seem to be running more often as we move into wind and solar. The 'on-demand' is essential when you suddenly don't have wind or the sun goes down. Dams and nuclear are more for handing the base load where they don't have to suddenly change their output. We need reliable means of power production and unfortunately we don't get that with a lot of green-energy. The alternative is to have a means of power storage. This can be done if residents are required to store the energy they produce from solar instead of dumping it on the grid when it isn't needed. The government should also only subsidize solar for power consumers and never for power plants. It results in a loss of efficiency to produce the energy at the plant and then transport it several miles.
No. If you want to make a statement about climate, you need to post the science behind what you are proposing. You need to cite science that supports your claim.
