Harold Squared

Indeed and they don't, sir! Polar bears, like other bears, are opportunistic feeders, pretty much out of necessity. They interbreed freely with grizzly AKA "brown bears" and produce fertile offspring. In many Alaskan communities bears of all kinds are notorious dumpster divers, so, not picky eaters.

Demonstrated lack of effect, but yes. Do you imagine things will suddenly about face? For what reason? I suppose the Germans could switch from lignite to natural gas to supplement their incomprehensible "renewable" fetish, but that is about the limit as far as I can see. Let's ask the German consumers and their French neighbors that next one. Nuclear is cheaper plus more reliable and a clear winner. Look guys, it has been fun and all but we're really going off topic here. If slamming on the brakes on carbon dioxide emissions is not affordable, or effective in the near term, what is?

Well bless my soul, I give you figures like you always ask for and that is your response? Tell you what, you find me an unbiased observer and we'll both abide by his decision. My OPINION seems to be shared by the UK government if they have been paying attention to the German situation. "Renewable" subsidies seem to be falling out of favor, to the tune of much sqwawking from Greenpeace according to the "Guardian". And why not, given the results? The craziest thing of all to me is that Japan, site of the disaster(in which no one died from radiation release), has more reactors pending restart approvals now (24) than Germany had to begin with(17). But why not, since the Japanese economy is hemorrhaging trillions of yen annually(3.8 to 4)? (All figures derived from world nuclear.org.)

Precisely! The arguably deranged German government has committed itself to "renewables" in an effort to stem the tide which Mauna Loa measurements and iNow's sources indicate is futile. One estimate for the cost of such folly is a TRILLION EUROS. In return for their investment to date they have higher retail electric rates and increased reliance on lignite coal.

How so? Recall that on another thread recently that the German government is prepared to spend a trillion euros for their switch to "renewables" (excluding nuclear). This was biased, perhaps, but you sir are living proof that biased guys can be clever and possess a certain degree of integrity. Meanwhile iNow's data seem to support my approach, will wonders never cease?

It is of historical interest and relevant to the topic. It would be interesting to know how long it will take to see results of the complete cessation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the new climate equilibrium. Particularly since there has been ZERO effect on such levels to date despite the projected expenditure of over a trillion euros. Earlier in the thread I believe an estimate of the total equivalent of the United States moonshot program per annum for a decade was supposed to be involved. Where is all that supposed to come from? The usual sources today are taxpayers and ratepayers, as one of our colleagues pointed out on another thread, the difference between them is dependent upon government policy.

Thanks for the link. It seems to indicate "changes to weather and climate over the past three years following the eruption." It seems reasonable to infer a peak to such effects. The interesting thing to me and what returns us to the topic is that the effects of the eruption took very little time compared to the CO2 buildup to have a similar and opposite effect, however transitory. This suggests to me that I might be on the right track. If our objective is to control the climate, some means of manipulating the radiation balance would be easier to "tune" if you will, than altering atmospheric composition. We could get feedback more quickly and act accordingly. I have been working on the artificial iceberg idea, optimum thickness, etc. but there is no great urgency since there is more Arctic ice now at this time of year than has been the case since 2005. Back in 1977, by the way, no less a person than Krafft Ehricke himself advocated using Mirrors in space to prevent crop failures in the next Ice Age. Bill Clinton? Forgive the digression. When you asked "what is is", I suddenly recalled William Jefferson Clinton's testimony during his ridiculous fellatio scandal investigating the definition of " is", the word. Totally off topic. BUT, the fate of millions or billions of people for better or worse must be a moral issue.

Good to know. And we are getting off topic. I would call the eight reactors sitting idle since March of 2011 a waste. Coincidentally this is the same month and year as the Fukushima incident, though the people of the Fatherland had elected a government hostile to nuclear power and determined to phase it out in 1998. This unwise decision was reversed in 2009 but immediately reintroduced in yet another coincidence in 2011. The cost of replacement of nuclear's share of electrical with "renewables" is estimated at 1 trillion euros, "...without any assurance of a reliable outcome, and with increasing reliance on coal, especially lignite."- World Nuclear Association Policies do vary from country to country. France has elected not to squander a trillion euros in order to pay higher consumer rates. Germany, well...better ask them what they are doing, I can't help you there.

Or eat you. "To Serve Man", by Damon Knight, mwahahahahahah... No kidding. I think it was after M. Jules Verne wrote on the subject.

Truly. It was "proved" that flight to the Moon was impossible because the most powerful explosives of the day were insufficient propulsion. This is as true today as it was then, yet men have repeatedly trod the Moon and almost certainly will again. If Og the Neanderthal saw this happen watching a little box that made pictures move around he might not grasp the significance of what was happening. An explanation of what ws going on in that little box alone might take years for him to understand.

More outlandish and expensive plans have been repeatedly foisted upon a gullible public. You should get that cough looked at, might be tuberculosis.

Thank you for the clarification. Even the most skeptical layman understands the concept of gravity, experiencing it all day, every day. Explaining it completely is another question.

Turtles all the way down. Logic tells me that the field of cosmology is so far out of most people's everyday experience that it is bound to sound outlandish to some. Science trivia: "Big BANG" is a pejorative term coined by Fred Hoyle, physicist and defender of the steady state universe position. If every galaxy is receding from every other, why is ours forecast to collide with Andromeda?

So there are 17 nuclear power sites in that happy land on the chopping block and eight of them idle, just in case tsunamis threaten the Fatherland. What are they gonna do with those, build condos or something? Could a whole country go crazy and get but hooked on an idiotic policy leading to destruction? Again? A real problem with a real solution in neighboring France. I should not be surprised if rates are lower there for kWhs.

An important consideration to be sure. The United States already imports %100 of its medical isotopes from Canada. Perhaps they will be kind enough to sell us some nuclear electricity when the occasion warrants. But not nuclear, as its emissions of all kinds are demonized, despite their smaller volume. So my question is answered both explicitly and by it remaining in the same section of the board. What a relief! So it how could it be "the wrong question"? Never mind, we can treat "German electric policy" as the titular topic since that is where the discussion is going. Thank you all for your responses.

Germany is notorious for embracing "renewable energy" in a big way. If the USA were to follow suit, would our rates double or treble too? Also, nuclear power is actively being phased out, could this be a factor?

Differences in salinity play a role as well, I have been told.

Dude, I have BEEN THERE. The North Slope, Deadhorse AK. Where the polar bears roam. And you know what? They eat walruses on the beach all the time. Walruses eat shellfish all the time. Shellfish eat plankton continuously. That ain't no religion, it is called the food chain. Which is why more photosynthesis is a good thing.

Eat stuff on land? I personally do it all the time, I imagine bears do as well.

Less ice at the surface means more light penetration. More light penetration means more biomass. More biomass means more polar bears, who are supposedly having a hard go of it. ?

Economics but we have no section devoted to "the dismal science". Looks like prices are up over yonder.

Where should such a topic belong?

Thanks for the link. Steel is a notoriously tough material which is largely responsible for its usefulness.

I see. Well, would it be fair to say that the country has suffered as a result?

So you think dimreepr has correctly understood your point of view? I confess I am not a big globe trotter but living around Houston means the world comes to you, in a sense.