Getting advice from the polar bear

[overtone]

instead rather than what you, in your narrow-minded, reflexive attitude against those who disagree with you, who can think for themselves, thought I said

Judging by your posts, you don't have much of a clue about my thinking.

 

 

The consensus is that temp's are increasing, but there's significant disagreement about by how much.

Not really. Everything you posted is in the same basic range, and all of them expect - meaning the lowest within range of the expected value - an increase more rapid than any we have record of. So from the point of view of urgency and planning for likely effects on us and ours, they are essentially identical estimates. And they all indicate that your invocation of polar bear survival through the past few glaciations is a sign that you haven't yet come to grips with the current situation. This is not going to be like any interstade of this glacial age, for the polar bears or anything else.

 

Let's pick from your posting there the common mid-low range, "conservative", number: 4C.

 

 

 

 

Compare to overall temp increase, roughly 1850 til 2010, 0.74C.

Or 1880 until 2013, .8C. That was much faster than any interstade warming. The expected incoming jump, low range of likely, is five times that in something like twice the time.

 

 

 

 

Now as to solutions.

What followed that was a list of possible avenues of partial mitigation of the rate of CO2 boost. All well known to most everyone here, most of them standard items in the liberal agenda for decades now, and valuable in their way (after you edited the oil shale out - wise move), but absent some serious method for establishing them not what one would call realistic "solutions" to the incoming problems, or directly relevant to my posting (if that's what you were replying to).

 

 

Do you have a problem with nuclear power?

It's too expensive, spreads dangerous weaponry, abets authoritarian government, depletes limited resources, enriches an already almost ungovernable ruling class, and carries extraordinary risks of accident. Off the top of my head - there are other problems with it.

 

(By the way, I'd be embarrassed for you if you didn't bring the spent fuel rod storage problem, I've although that one we don't have to solve immediately.)

The people at Fukushima were given about 12 hours to solve their fuel rod storage problem, one day. And at the time they had better use for the resources it took - they would rather have been doing other things. The people at Diablo Canyon will have about that much time, if a tsunami quake blows the ocean up their discharge chute. The people downstream from Prairie Island will not have that problem in the wake of a midcontinent 8.2 that touches off the fault under Red Wing - it will be solved for them, to their cost, by the river. So I guess that depends on what you mean by "immediately".

 

 

 

 

How about increasing automobile mpg (NOT with ethanol), carbon scrubbers, other emissions controls? Oh, the "gummint ' already mandates those.

No, it doesn't. A couple of soft, easily gamed mpg mandates is all we have managed to get through the "conservative" shitpile in the US Congress.

 

 

 

How about personal responsibility:

How about new technologies.

Wonderful concepts. Included in them would be, of course, the political involvement expected of adult persons - in this case a solid and vocal support of the liberal politicians and liberal political agendas that are our only hope of establishing them as financial possibilities and societal norms.

Edited January 22, 2015 by overtone

[Strange]

Do you have a problem with nuclear power?

 

Absolutely not. It is the only high capacity alternative we currently have, and is also the safest form of energy generation.

[overtone]

 

 

It is the only high capacity alternative we currently have, and is also the safest form of energy generation

Thermal solar is higher capacity per dollar, and far safer. It's also faster to build.

[Strange]

Thermal solar is higher capacity per dollar, and far safer. It's also faster to build.

 

But has its own problems. We are obviously going to need a wide range of solutions, some of which will be more or less appropriate in different places.

 

Do you have any data on relative safety? I couldn't find much for solar apart from data from WHO showing "solar (rooftop)" to be between 5 and 10 times more dangerous than nuclear. And this from a paper I can't access:

 

Based upon risk perceptions and current technologies, the health and safety risks of solar energy systems may be substantially larger than those associated with some fossil- and nuclear-energy resource options.

[Tim the plumber]

If we were cooling by a known mechanism at the rate we are warming by anthro CO2 boost, the IPCC would be issuing dire predictions, the science folks would be recommending we take mitigating measures for the likely and incoming effects, and the task of slowing that mechanism down would be an urgent one;

 

and you would probably be telling us that the satellites measuring it are in space where it's cold so the data is biased, and the planet has been colder before so it's no big deal, and all these alarmists are just running around saying the sky is falling.

 

There might even be threads here about how we can take lessons from the grizzly bear - it survived the last few coolings, and so we can handle this one because awesome new science and stuff.

1 I do not argue about the ability of space based instruments to measure the temperature of the Earth's surfcae.

 

2 I would expect modern science to be able to deal with a fairly high amount of cooling. The rich world would be OK, the poor would be in deep trouble.

 

No, they aren't. You just think they are because you think 3mm of sea rise in a year is a small thing, just like you think one degree Celsius of warming in fifty years is a small thing, just like you think a fiftieth of a percent of the atmosphere being new CO2 is a small thing. They look small to you, so they must be minor.

 

I do think that a 1 foot sea level rise over a century is a very tiny thing. Last century it rose by 180mm. That's more than half a foot. How many cities did we lose to that? The next century will be almost twice as bad. Except that we have far better machinery to tackle this slight issue.

 

I live in England in the UK. Today our health service is overloaded with patients. It's winter and every winter we have a glut of new patients. This winter is especially difficult due to many factors even though it's been a mild one. The NHS (national health service) needs more money. Lots of it. People are dying due to the lack of money in the NHS and supporting services. We are spending billions of pounds building wind turbines that don't usefully produce electrical power. I consider billions of pounds per year wasted in subsidies to rich people wrong when there are people dying as a result of lack of funding for their medical needs.

 

You seem (from this an earlier comments) to be under the impression that a 1º rise just means that it would be a bit warmer (on a day when it would have been 20º it will be 21º instead). But it isn't as simple as that. In the last few years, the UK has had the hottest, coldest, wettest and driest months on record. All of these records will continue to be broken in coming years if "global warming" continues.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/early-winter-stats

 

Wettest winter for England and Wales since 1766

What happened in 1766?

 

Obviously as we have better measuring of weather we will break records all the time. That is in the nature of statistics. Have we had a period of massive damage due to such events? No, we have not.

 

You have claimed that cold weather is a greater danger than hot. In fact, both extremes are dangerous, but even if you were right, climate change will lead to more extremes of cold weather (in some places) and hence more deaths.

 

Which places do you think that global warming will cause to become colder?

 

That might be true for northern Europe (it would nice to see some evidence to support it) but isn't necessarily true for the tropics.

 

Which tropical civilisations vanished during hot periods?

 

The evidence I give for cold times being bad for civilisations is the fall of the Roman Empire when the climate and caused crop failures and the German tribes famously crossed the Rhine on foot when it was frozen over. The Roman boat squadrons which normally patroled the border were a bit knackered by that one.

 

The Mayas thrived in the Yucatan Peninsula from about 300 to 700 A.D. They were renowned for developing a written language, an astrological calendar, a series of pyramids and architectural marvels and an effective agricultural production system, according to History.com. But the once mighty civilization reportedly fell into violence and anarchy relatively quickly, eventually vanishing and leaving much open to scholarly debate.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2014/12/29/drought-may-have-led-to-decline-of-ancient-mayan-empire

 

800 AD was a cold time.

 

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/

 

Obviously the detail of the past has been smoothed by the time distance whilst we see the present in ever greater detail.

 

So the freezing of the Rhine does not show up so much on these graphs.

Mothythewso,

 

I do have a problem with nuclear power. It's the only thing I can see which is a credible threat to humanity as a whole.

 

That these fail safe power plants keep blowing themselves up and making reasonable large bit of the world too toxic to allow humans to live in like 3 Mile Island etc is not my biggest concearn.

 

One day a war will wander it's course over a nation which has these nuclear plants. It could easily happen in some of the former Soviet nations but it could be one of the richer places. The USA was the richest and possibly most stable nations in the early 19th century. It did not stop it having a civil war. Nobody saw the Paris riots of 1968 coming and they had some chance of becoming a genmeral uprising.

 

The 2 gulf wars involved the very extensive use of depleted urainium as balast for shells and bombs. Spreading the stuff over sand seas where it will be blown about and powdered to ever finer dust making sure that it gets into the biosphere very efficently. Still one way to deal with the disposal problem.

 

Throwing lots of money at developing new technologies is a fantastic idea. We, just in the UK, spend billions of pounds on silly wind turbines which whilst they look great don't make electricity very well. Transfering that to R+D would be a very good idea. Speeding up the day we find a better way of making power than burning coal by 1 year would save vast amounts of money and lives. Coal mining has to be one of the worste jobs ever. I expect that doing that would have a solar power system which was cheaper than coal within the decade. Bingo! AGW is a worry of the past. As it is it's likely to take a couple of decades for that to happen.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Tim the plumber

[Harold Squared]

Thermal solar is higher capacity per dollar, and far safer. It's also faster to build.

 

It had better be faster to build, since such facilities in the USA at least, are always exploding and burning, look it up and weep, my friends. SEGS I and II and Solar One all were affected. If I recall correctly Solar One has ceased operations altogether as a power generation facility, while many nuclear power stations built in the 1970s are still chugging along. Edited January 24, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Strange]

Which places do you think that global warming will cause to become colder?

 

Which tropical civilisations vanished during hot periods?

 

Still a fan of the straw man fallacy, I see.

[Harold Squared]

All I see is a pair of questions.

 

So is it the official position of the AGW crew that some recent period was the absolutely most salubrious climate and any deviation from that must be apocalyptically disastrous?

 

 

The 2 gulf wars involved the very extensive use of depleted urainium as balast for shells and bombs. Spreading the stuff over sand seas where it will be blown about and powdered to ever finer dust making sure that it gets into the biosphere very efficently. Still one way to deal with the disposal problem.

 

Actually it is called "depleted" uranium because the more radioactive U235 isotope has been extracted, making the U238 left behind LESS radioactive than naturally occurring uranium, some of which is present in virtually all rocks. Uranyl ions are present in all the seas too, so my advice is stay off the beach. This may present complications for future antiquarians seeking to date items using uranium isotope ratios but little other significant damage.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Harold Squared

[John Cuthber]

 

We, just in the UK, spend billions of pounds on silly wind turbines which whilst they look great don't make electricity very well. .

Are you aware that about 8% of the UK's electricity is generated by wind power?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Harold Squared]

Are you aware that about 8% of the UK's electricity is generated by wind power?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

By law and at higher cost? Certainly. Thanks for the update, though...

[Tim the plumber]

Which places do you think that global warming will cause to become colder?

 

Still a fan of the straw man fallacy, I see.

Origonally posed by Strange;

You have claimed that cold weather is a greater danger than hot. In fact, both extremes are dangerous, but even if you were right, climate change will lead to more extremes of cold weather (in some places) and hence more deaths.

Which bits of the world do you expect to experience colder weather as a result of global warming?

 

You can see why people get angry around here when a sensable question gets that sort of response.

 

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

All I see is a pair of questions.

 

So is it the official position of the AGW crew that some recent period was the absolutely most salubrious climate and any deviation from that must be apocalyptically disastrous?

 

Yep, that appears to be the position.

 

The 2 gulf wars involved the very extensive use of depleted urainium as balast for shells and bombs. Spreading the stuff over sand seas where it will be blown about and powdered to ever finer dust making sure that it gets into the biosphere very efficently. Still one way to deal with the disposal problem.

 

Actually it is called "depleted" uranium because the more radioactive U235 isotope has been extracted, making the U238 left behind LESS radioactive than naturally occurring uranium, some of which is present in virtually all rocks. Uranyl ions are present in all the seas too, so my advice is stay off the beach. This may present complications for future antiquarians seeking to date items using uranium isotope ratios but little other significant damage.

 

So this U235 is fine to have hanging around the house then? No need for the expensive storage we have today?

 

Or is it that the process of it's decay creates loads of other more highly radio active stuff that give you cancer?

 

Also urainium is highly toxic in nature all by it's self. No need for the stuff to be in the food chain.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Tim the plumber

[John Cuthber]

Which bits of the world do you expect to experience colder weather as a result of global warming?

 

You can see why people get angry around here when a sensable question gets that sort of response.

 

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

 

Yep, that appears to be the position.

 

 

So this U235 is fine to have hanging around the house then? No need for the expensive storage we have today?

 

Or is it that the process of it's decay creates loads of other more highly radio active stuff that give you cancer?

 

Also urainium is highly toxic in nature all by it's self. No need for the stuff to be in the food chain.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on the depleted uranium that is in some "expensive storage "

 

or, perhaps you can't.

[Strange]

Which bits of the world do you expect to experience colder weather as a result of global warming?

 

Very possibly all parts. As well as experiencing warmer weather. And wetter weather. And drier weather.

 

So is it the official position of the AGW crew that some recent period was the absolutely most salubrious climate and any deviation from that must be apocalyptically disastrous?

 

Yep, that appears to be the position.

 

That sounds like a ludicrous claim. Perhaps one of you would like to provide a source for it.

All I see is a pair of questions.

 

But they are questions based on Tim's own-made up version of climate change that he always argues against.

Or is it that the process of it's decay creates loads of other more highly radio active stuff that give you cancer?

 

Yes. Uranium is pretty much everywhere is the environment and causes little or no direct harm by itself. It releases radon gas as a decay product and this can be very dangerous if allowed to build up.

 

Getting off topic, but this is quite interesting ...

 

Also urainium is highly toxic in nature all by it's self. No need for the stuff to be in the food chain.

 

It has always been in the food chain simply because it is present in nearly all soils and many plants concentrate it (for unknown reasons). So people typically consume about 1 or 2 micrograms per day.

 

You are more likely to be exposed to high levels of uranium if you live near a coal-fired power plant or a phosphate fertilizer factory.

 

It is also used to colour glass.

[Wild Cobra]

Tim, U-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium. It's half-life is billions of years. It is effectively harmless in everyday life. It's half-life is about three times longer than the radioactive potassium we consume every day.

 

It has also been used for ballast on airlines, sailships, etc.

[mothythewso]

Had to take yesterday off for chemo, now back to the fray.

Overtone, I'll start this off by being mildly conciliatory (Don't panic, it won't last). I can sympathize with your having to listen to the same old republican bulllshit; I loathe Limbaugh, am more likely to watch CNN than either Fox or MSNBC. I also have no use for the same tired old liberal pap. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal, my liberal friends think I'm a conservative. I consider that as a good thing. I find that some conservatives mostly define their conservatism but who they hate; they're not conservative, just run-of-the-mill bigots. Some liberals, conversely, can't bring themselves to condemn anyone or anything, no matter how richly deserved. Except conservatives. But enough of being nice!

Overtone, I'm just as tired of your total negativism as you are with my optimism. On 21 Jan, 08:24 PM you said "...you don't have much of a clue about my thinking." Not true, I question your ability to think at all, at least originally. And you're totally lacking a sense of humor.

You know, I almost finished a wonderfully sarcastic, totally insulting reply yesterday, and went out for some beer. My auto save dumped most of my post. And frankly I'm bored by trying to out-wordsmith you.

But I'm seriously bored beyond tears with your total, complete, unremitting pessimism. The only solution you ever propose is a complete take-over of the world's political order by liberals. Well. you're going to be waiting long beyond 2100 for that to happen. Your odds are slightly better in the US, but not by much, in my opinion. And why do so loathe conservatives. Conservatism is not monolithic, not even necessarily monotheistic.

The latest IPCC report has a large section dealing with mitigation and ADAPTATION (think "polar bear") strategies for dealing with climate change. Some that I mentioned above, some quite new to me. So has the IPCC suddenly turned conservative? O, the Horror! The IPCC's actually considering workable solutions. I'm almost giddy!

I see you're not a fan of nuclear power. Don't think anybody died at Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was just a demonstration of shoddy Russian engineering. Building Fukushima on the coast of a country in the Pacific Rim probably wasn't all that smart; neither is El Diablo Canyon. Again, though, France has been very successful in safely adopting nuclear. I have been inside Chalk Point several times, never felt any anxiety.

By the way, have you ever seen a nuke up close and personal. I have; one was strapped to the belly of the jet I used to fly. I have infinitely more respect for the destructive power of nuclear than you can ever have. And no, we didn't actually fly around with them, it was just in case the horn went off.

I used to work for Dept of the Environment in my home state, in the air quality division. Me and a whole bunch of self-described liberals. Trying to mitigate CO2, NOx, SO2, etc. Never saw a one of them break down and say "Why bother. It's hopeless".

I will make one more personal jab. You mentioned that I was "willfully ignorant"; as a matter of fact, that was one your more polite terms. On my personal info, I list my education, my major, my previous valid work experience. Not bragging, I was an admittedly indifferent student. But I felt that if anyone cared about my opinions, I should at least establish my basic competence. Out of morbid curiosity, I perused your personal info. Nuff said?

Had to take yesterday off for chemo, now back to the fray.

Overtone, I'll start this off by being mildly conciliatory (Don't panic, it won't last). I can sympathize with your having to listen to the same old republican bulllshit; I loathe Limbaugh, am more likely to watch CNN than either Fox or MSNBC. I also have no use for the same tired old liberal pap. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal, my liberal friends think I'm a conservative. I consider that as a good thing. I find that some conservatives mostly define their conservatism but who they hate; they're not conservative, just run-of-the-mill bigots. Some liberals, conversely, can't bring themselves to condemn anyone or anything, no matter how richly deserved. Except conservatives. But enough of being nice!

Overtone, I'm just as tired of your total negativism as you are with my optimism. On 21 Jan, 08:24 PM you said "...you don't have much of a clue about my thinking." Not true, I question your ability to think at all, at least originally. And you're totally lacking a sense of humor.

You know, I almost finished a wonderfully sarcastic, totally insulting reply yesterday, and went out for some beer. My auto save dumped most of my post. And frankly I'm bored by trying to out-wordsmith you.

But I'm seriously bored beyond tears with your total, complete, unremitting pessimism. The only solution you ever propose is a complete take-over of the world's political order by liberals. Well. you're going to be waiting long beyond 2100 for that to happen. Your odds are slightly better in the US, but not by much, in my opinion. And why do so loathe conservatives. Conservatism is not monolithic, not even necessarily monotheistic.

The latest IPCC report has a large section dealing with mitigation and ADAPTATION (think "polar bear") strategies for dealing with climate change. Some that I mentioned above, some quite new to me. So has the IPCC suddenly turned conservative? O, the Horror! The IPCC's actually considering workable solutions. I'm almost giddy!

I see you're not a fan of nuclear power. Don't think anybody died at Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was just a demonstration of shoddy Russian engineering. Building Fukushima on the coast of a country in the Pacific Rim probably wasn't all that smart; neither is El Diablo Canyon. Again, though, France has been very successful in safely adopting nuclear. I have been inside Chalk Point several times, never felt any anxiety.

By the way, have you ever seen a nuke up close and personal. I have; one was strapped to the belly of the jet I used to fly. I have infinitely more respect for the destructive power of nuclear than you can ever have. And no, we didn't actually fly around with them, it was just in case the horn went off.

I used to work for Dept of the Environment in my home state, in the air quality division. Me and a whole bunch of self-described liberals. Trying to mitigate CO2, NOx, SO2, etc. Never saw a one of them break down and say "Why bother. It's hopeless".

I will make one more personal jab. You mentioned that I was "willfully ignorant"; as a matter of fact, that was one your more polite terms. On my personal info, I list my education, my major, my previous valid work experience. Not bragging, I was an admittedly indifferent student. But I felt that if anyone cared about my opinions, I should at least establish my basic competence. Out of morbid curiosity, I perused your personal info. Nuff said?

[swansont]

 

It had better be faster to build, since such facilities in the USA at least, are always exploding and burning, look it up and weep, my friends. SEGS I and II and Solar One all were affected. If I recall correctly Solar One has ceased operations altogether as a power generation facility, while many nuclear power stations built in the 1970s are still chugging along.

By law and at higher cost? Certainly. Thanks for the update, though...

!

Moderator Note

If you are going to make claims, you need to back them up, i.e. post a citation. Otherwise this is just trolling, and will not be tolerated.

 

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

[iNow]

These claims about cost also tend to conveniently and consistently ignore the significant impact and heavily skewed allocation of subsidies and tax breaks:

 

 

[Wild Cobra]

These claims about cost also tend to conveniently and consistently ignore the significant impact and heavily skewed allocation of subsidies and tax breaks:

 

 

 

Haven't we been over this before? Is it too much to ask not to misuse the word "subsidy?"

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy:

 

sub·si·dynoun \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\

: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function

 

Full Definition of SUBSIDY

: a grant or gift of money: as

a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b : money granted by one state to another

c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

 

I would be curious as to what blog or innacurate article that graphic was obtained from, and the source data.

 

Links please. I found the source site, but not the article.

 

http://ecopolitology.org/about/

 

Is it possible the founder of the site, and site itself, is biased in these matters?

 

http://cleantechnica.com/author/timhurst/

[iNow]

Not that any of this will matter given that you're mind is made up and you are impervious to facts in disagreement with your preconceptions...

 

These come from the IEA, OECD, CBO, and also various investment firms, so you're inherent suggestion that this is somehow fictional or data made up without basis by some overzealous climate alarmist in an attempt to lie to the masses are rather misplaced and frankly disingenuous. More below, along with source data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf

 

The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.

<...>

Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. [T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.

http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/vs-trend/fossil-fuel-and-renewable-energy-subsidies-rise

 

According to a 2012 study from the Worldwatch Institute (WWI), global energy subsidies total between $775 billion and more than $1 trillion in 2012, while renewables clocked in at around $66 billion in 2010.

 

Now, since you asked specifically about the image in my post above, the source is the Environmental Law Institute: http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf

 

Given that you'd also prefer to quibble over semantic issues and what is or is not a subsidy in your opinion ("Nuh uh! That's not what a subsidy means, so nanner nanner boo boo!"), this source also shares the following to keep us all on the same page:

The studys definition of subsidies focuses on actions by the U.S. government that provide an identifiable financial benefit associated with the use or production of a fossil or renewable fuel. <...> The study employs a definition of subsidies that is narrower than the universe of energy related policies. Part III lists categories of government actions or policies that do not fall under the studys definition, even though they may have a financial impact on specific energy sources. The Appendix discusses the sources used to quantify the subsidy amounts.

Since the definition is applied equally to both fuel sources (Oil & Gas as well as Renewables), any criticism in this regard is irrelevant to the core conclusions.

 

Now, you can choose to nitpick various nonsense here and there (as I'm sure you will), but none of that will negate the central thrust of my point. Claims that renewables like wind cost too much, are more expense and cannot compete with oil and gas, that fail to acknowledge the different magnitudes and manner by which subsidies and tax breaks are offered are immediately rendered moot, inherently flawed, and remedial to the point of not being worthy of consideration by any rational participants in the discussion.

Edited January 26, 2015 by iNow

[Tim the plumber]

Tim, U-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium. It's half-life is billions of years. It is effectively harmless in everyday life. It's half-life is about three times longer than the radioactive potassium we consume every day.

 

It has also been used for ballast on airlines, sailships, etc.

OK, I stand corrected.

 

Still nervous about spreading it all over the place, but that might be my general dislike for an industry which keeps telling me it's safe and then having accidents which result in bits of the planet being uninhabitable for thousands of years.

[Strange]

Still nervous about spreading it all over the place, but that might be my general dislike for an industry which keeps telling me it's safe and then having accidents which result in bits of the planet being uninhabitable for thousands of years.

 

The main culprits for spreading depleted uranium around are the military. And I don't think they are famous for saying their products are "safe".

 

And of course, it isn't the nuclear industry that causes most exposure to radioactive materials: that would be coal and gas. Another good reason for getting away from fossil fuels (to try and drag this back on topic).

Edited January 26, 2015 by Strange

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I stand corrected.

 

Still nervous about spreading it all over the place, but that might be my general dislike for an industry which keeps telling me it's safe and then having accidents which result in bits of the planet being uninhabitable for thousands of years.

 

Now I could be in error, but I don't think I am. As long as depleted uranium remains in it's solid metalic form, or as a coloring in glass, etc. It is no threat. Once you atomize it or liquify it, then it becomes a toxicity problem.

 

There are elements in our daily lives more radioactive than depleted uranium.

 

How much radioactivity does your smoke alarm, produce?

 

Wrist watch?

 

Medical equipment?

 

Potassium? 0.012% of potasium is of the radiactiove isotope. How much potasium do you consume daily?

[mothythewso]

The main military uses for depleted uranium are tank armor and tank armor piercing projectiles. Its density is what makes so useful as tank armor. As an offensive weapon, an A-10 bullet, its density allows the DU to penetrate the tank, then it disintegrates into a highly flammable "mist" which destroys the tank's interior and any people unlucky enough to be crewing the tank.

True, the main "culprits" are the military, but their "products" are safe for the operators; they're designed to break things and kill bad guys.

As mentioned above, DU is not considered a radio-active hazard. But it can cause toxicity problems similar to lead when it's inhaled as a dust, or fragments become embedded in body tissue.

[overtone]

Everything in quotes from poster mothythewso, #40 above.

The length is inordinate, but the issues are actually thread relevant - there is a basic and serious problem with the OP, and this bears on it.

Assertion labeled ‘A’, for reference: “ On 21 Jan, 08:24 PM you said "...you don't have much of a clue about my thinking." Not true, - - “

Amend that: you have no clue.

Here’s you illustrating just how far your presumptions and posted responses are from me or the actual content of my posts:

“I can sympathize with your having to listen to the same old republican bulllshit; I loathe Limbaugh, am more likely to watch CNN than either Fox or MSNBC. “

If you had a clue about my thinking, you would have “ sympathized” with my having to listen to regurgitations of the same old rightwing corporate bullshit and bothsiderism as purveyed by the likes of CNN.

Especially, the conflation of political "sides" with the matter of handling - as a community and population - what Frank Lutz recommended all Republicans refer to as "climate change" rather than "global warming"

because, as the Republican, corporate rightwing authoritarian, propagandist Lutz pointed out, if you called it "climate change" you could muddy the public discussion with bs about how the climate is always changing, it's natural, we shouldn't raise taxes on rich people and their corporations to prevent natural things, etc.

“Overtone, I'm just as tired of your total negativism as you are with my optimism.” - - - “But I'm seriously bored beyond tears with your total, complete, unremitting pessimism. - - “ - “ The only solution you ever propose is a complete take-over of the world's political order by liberals. “

You being wrong about stuff like stats and graphs and polar bears is not “optimism”. My thinking you are wrong about basic and important matters, such as statistics and graphs and polar bears ands the current situation, is not “pessimism”. And everything you have posted here with the word “liberal” in it has been regurgitated Fox News talking points, Republican bullshit - as you would know if you had a clue about my thinking.

“I also have no use for the same tired old liberal pap.” That’s one of the regurgitations.

“ My conservative friends think I'm a liberal, my liberal friends think I'm a conservative. I consider that as a good thing.” That’s another.

“And why do so loathe conservatives. Conservatism is not monolithic, not even necessarily monotheistic.” The hits keep on coming. See ‘A’

““I have infinitely more respect for the destructive power of nuclear than you can ever have. “ Making confident and inherently silly claims about other people - especially identified “liberals” - without a shred of evidence or relevant information, is a trait of the US Teaparty faction. see ‘A’.

“And frankly I'm bored by - - - But I'm seriously bored beyond tears with - - I'm just as tired of - - “ That construction has become a freaking wingnut meme, often in the middle of long, turbid, paragraphs of error-filled muddle. Try comprehending first - then you can be bored for good reason,

and save yourself from embarrassments like this:

“ - - a complete take-over of the world's political order by liberals. Well. you're going to be waiting long beyond 2100 for that to happen. Your odds are slightly better in the US, but not by much, in my opinion” See ‘A’. That’s straight from Limbaugh, Beck, Fox, the Murdoch media empire, btw - cartoon Tea Party bs.

So was your posted joannova graph, the one with the lies and errors and deceptions crayoned on it in red.

“ The latest IPCC report has a large section dealing with mitigation and ADAPTATION (think "polar bear") strategies for dealing with climate change. Some that I mentioned above, some quite new to me. So has the IPCC suddenly turned conservative? “ If they are thinking “polar bear” as an example of successful adaptation to what’s coming, they have turned Teaparty. But I think that’s you, not them, with the conceptual error.

“I see you're not a fan of nuclear power.” My biggest objection is the concentrated high expense and risk - it closes off better alternatives, and in the US centralizes power in commercial hands. Then they screw up, charge me for the rehab if it's even possible, and lie to me about what happened. Plus, on the evidence of the track record, they will sell nuclear weapons technology to anyone with the ready - the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, whoever is running Libya, the Pakistani secret police, frigging anybody.

“ Don't think anybody died at Three Mile Island. “ You don't? Why don’t you? By luck, maybe. Nobody we heard about on CNN, true. Have you checked out the more careful analyses? http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/04/03/startling-revelations-about-three-mile-island-nuclear-disaster

“Chernobyl was just a demonstration of shoddy Russian engineering.” So? Shoddy engineering (and operations, maintenance, security procedures, and so forth) is no longer a problem in this world?

“Building Fukushima on the coast of a country in the Pacific Rim probably wasn't all that smart; neither is El Diablo Canyon. “ Neither will be the next few hundred mistakenly sited and designed and built nukes. It’s a difficult thing to be smart about.

“ Again, though, France has been very successful in safely adopting nuclear. “ So far, so good - unless the rumors about the weapons connections and waste disposal worldwide turn out to have some basis in fact. They may even figure out how to handle the waste at reasonable cost - currently a research program in France, as it is everywhere else where the engineers have not simply dumped it somewhere.

“I will make one more personal jab. You mentioned that I was "willfully ignorant"; as a matter of fact, that was one your more polite terms. “ I didn’t. You are unable to make personal jabs - see “A”.

btw: Putting quote marks around non-quotes, material deceptively removed from context, etc, is unethical.

“ On my personal info, I list my education, my major, my previous valid work experience. Not bragging, I was an admittedly indifferent student. But I felt that if anyone cared about my opinions, I should at least establish my basic competence.” See “A“, yet again. Note that you are responding to my posting, in apparently complete obliviousness to what was in it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by overtone

[mothythewso]

Overtone:

I'll admit I get long-winded. Sorry. And my use of quotation marks is meant to emphasize my meaning, not to be deceptive. Tho I thought I was pretty clear.

Wasn't me who posted the "joannova graph". Your apology accepted in advance.

When I say I have infinitely more respect for the power of nuclear than you ever could, I was speaking mainly about nuclear weapons. I've seen a map of Europe overlaid with a precise depiction of every nuke that was planned to be dropped during a war, how powerful each was, when and how it was to be delivered. Trust me, you don't WANT to know.

I withdraw my statement that you're incapable of thought, but I still maintain you're devoid of a sense of humor. My polar bear analogy was meant to stimulate discussion, not to be taken seriously. After all, polar bears don't have opposable thumbs.

I started this thread with serious intent, and proposed a serious question; i.e., which would be more difficult to survive, an Ice Age, or global warming, and what adaptive strategies we could adopt. I really didn't want the discussion to degenerate to such a hopelessly political pissing contest.

This is not an admission that I'm wrong, that I admit defeat in the face of your superior reasoning. I'm just bored.

Edited January 27, 2015 by mothythewso