- This topic is empty.
November 21, 2019 at 14:44 #48763Rhys JaggarGuest
I am going to have to say again to you, Mr Murray, that you need to educate yourself more on climate science and free yourself from ennervating propaganda about anything from ‘climate catastrophe’ to ‘Exctinction Rebellion’.
I agree that there needs to be more time for discussions on climate, but it needs to be educating the scientifically illiterate about the games that grant seekers will play to stay on the gravy train. Just as you became disillusioned by diplomats and civil servants, I became disillusioned by scientists, doctors etc. I know from the coalface how science operates and it is far from honorable.
There is an unbelievable ability to tell lies and say that those telling the truth are evil climate deniers. It is entirely akin to the US murdering across the globe and then calling Evo Morales et al enemies of democracy.
The poor of Africa will suffer the most through lack of access to affordable electricity. So all woke climate disciples must tell the world how they will supply Africans with energy, not how they will create billionaire demagogue Africans with Swiss bank accounts through climate shenanigans. You will not tell Venezuelans to return to being dirt poor by banning them from monetising their oil supplies without making similar sacrifices first…..
Let us be absolutely clear on two points of climate science:
1. Carbon Dioxide does NOT control temperature. The evidence is absolutely clear that atmospheric carbon dioxide follows temperature increases with a lag of 700 years as oceanic-atmospheric carbon dioxide equilibria adjust themselves. Temperatures go up: carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. Temperatures go down: it is reabsorbed. There is no serious causation whatever between carbon dioxide increases since 1810 and global temperature. Joe d’Aleo has proven clearly that statistical correlations between temperature and carbon dioxide since 1800 are far weaker than correlation with the oceanic indices PDO and AMO and with solar output. If you cannot accept that data, you are the denier….
2. There is a clear correlation between solar activity and global temperature: when solar cycles are weak, we experience cooling and/or little Ice Ages. When solar cycles are strong, periods of warming occur. The past 200 years have seen solar activity rise to a maximum in the late 1950s and now we are entering a period of lower solar activity (cycle 24, nearly finished, is the weakest for 100 years and cycle 25 is predicted to be similar). All serious climate scientists expect there to be cooling of some degree up to 2030 and possibly beyond.
The solar-temperature links are complicated by oceans acting as major heat stores, with oceanic cycles of 50-70 years having clear effects on climate in both the Pacific and Atlantic arenas. In the Pacific this is associated with greater-or lesser propensity for el Nino episodes to occur. I suggest you research Theodor Landscheidt and his decadal el nino index which he drew up to cover several centuries….reading about Landscheidt and his climate work may be an epiphany for you….
I am absolutely contemptuous of Extinction Rebellion and consider their hunger strike to be entirely equivalent to IRA activities in the Maze. They are totalitarian ignorami utterly unworthy of any seat in serious political fora. They make Momentum seem like angels.
Climate hysteria/bedwetting is a planned disruptor aimed at destroying representative democracy through creating a political climate of total disinformation, inquisitions equivalent to those suffered by Galileo and totally destroying any residual serious reputations of academia as centres of cultural learning.
ER have made it clear that hysteria is their aim and scientific facts are to be ignored. Their attitudes are entirely akin to Mike Pompeo vis a vis Julian Assange. The aims are absolute, the means whatever necessary.
Like you, I was an admirer of Charlie Kennedy. Like you, I abhor Jo Swinson.
Unlike you, I am neither taken in by climate disinformation nor will I campaign with climate lies to enforce global socialism on the world. That latter goal may not be your personal aim, but by aligning with those whose aim it undoubtedly is, you cannot be surprised if people like me take firm but hopefully respectful issue with your views on this subject.
November 21, 2019 at 15:13 #48766RepublicofscotlandGuest
NASA and all their technical equipment and satellite might disagree with you there. However I’m sure you know better.
“The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.”
“Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.”
“Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.”
“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”
November 21, 2019 at 15:50 #48770LaguerreGuest
It all depends on their algorithms. Did they get them right or not? The problem is that the actual evidence is very slight, and difficult to distinguish from the background noise. Jaggar maybe is too certain, but he is right about the way the science business works. Careers come before so-called truth.
November 22, 2019 at 14:34 #48843ClarkGuest
Algorithms are irrelevant to whether the problem is real or happening. Here is the eighteen year Arctic ice loss, and here is the rising CO2 level; these are simply observation and measurement, respectively.
Algorithms are needed to predict the future effects, obviously. But in that case worry that they may be too optimistic, as most recent projections have been, eg. the Arctic has warmed twice as fast as predicted.
November 22, 2019 at 15:38 #48849ClarkGuest
Rhys Jaggar, November 21, 14:44:
– “I am absolutely contemptuous of Extinction Rebellion […] They are totalitarian ignorami utterly unworthy of any seat in serious political fora. They make Momentum seem like angels.”
We are calling for Citizen’s Assemblies chosen by sortition ie. random selection from among the entire population, a truly representative sample, rather than the usual crop of politicians who each personally chose to seek power and are mostly very wealthy.
– “Climate hysteria/bedwetting is a planned disruptor”
Really? The ongoing disappearance of the Arctic icecap is a “planned disruptor”? You think HAARP is responsible maybe?
On a summer day the ice cubes keep your drink cool; what do you think will happen when the Arctic sea ice has all gone? Hint: the same amount of energy that will melt a given mass of ice will raise the temperature of the resulting water through 80 centigrade, see here.
– “ER have made it clear that hysteria is their aim and scientific facts are to be ignored”
Yes, we want to raise alarm, as is appropriate in an emergency. No, we want the more pessimistic scientific predictions to get the recognition they deserve; you wouldn’t send your kids on an aircraft that had a 10% chance of crashing.
You think these 1500 scientists including 282 professors want “scientific facts to be ignored”?
And we go by XR, thanks.
– “…to enforce global socialism on the world”
We don’t call for any enforcement. We call for Citizens Assemblies to make the decisions; are you afraid of your equals?
November 21, 2019 at 15:40 #48771AlysonGuest
Until particulate pollution is cleaned from the air, contrails will continue to weave a blanket across the sky, which reduces sunlight getting to the Earth, which reduces evaporation, and traps moisture, increasing pollution at ground level, and melting polar ice. Clean energy, clean seas, clean air, and healthy ecosystems on land and in our oceans are an achievable aim, if we clean up after ourselves, recycle plastics cleanly back into carbon, and respect the environment. Australia is burning. The Amazon is burning. Adding to the burden of particulates around the globe. Respect local people and their care for the land, clean water, and safe food, and perhaps put into legislation the duty to cost cleaning up into all industry, and ensure public safety. Good government can deliver standards that will give future generations the chance to thrive. But unless responsibility is hard wired into international law the young are right to fear for their future along with the future of all life on Earth. Extinctions are well underway across the globe
November 21, 2019 at 15:50 #48776LaguerreGuest
You are right that it is really pollution that is the issue, not climate change. Pollution is ever present these days, and will kill us long before a 1 or 2 °C temperature rise.
November 22, 2019 at 14:38 #48844ClarkGuest
But we are not looking at “a 1 or 2 °C temperature rise”. The current rate of emissions increase puts us on course for a 4°C rise by 2100, not levelling off until 2300 at 6 to 8°C.
To put that into the planetary context, the last ice age was only 4°C colder, but it put Boston under a mile of ice:
Feeling lucky, punk?
November 22, 2019 at 14:41 #48845ClarkGuest
1°C temperature rise is less than what we already have, which is 1.1°C. 2°C is what we might have got if everyone had stuck to the Paris Accord and emissions had fallen, but in fact emissions are rising faster than ever.
November 22, 2019 at 16:09 #48850James CharlesGuest
‘Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released Monday.
A world that heats up by 2C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—long regarded as the temperature ceiling for a climate-safe planet—could see mass displacement due to rising seas, a drop in per capita income, regional shortages of food and fresh water, and the loss of animal and plant species at an accelerated speed.
Poor and emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will get hit hardest, according to the studies in the British Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions A.
“We are detecting large changes in climate impacts for a 2C world, and so should take steps to avoid this,” said lead editor Dann Mitchell, an assistant professor at the University of Bristol.
The 197-nation Paris climate treaty, inked in 2015, vows to halt warming at “well under” 2C compared to mid-19th century levels, and “pursue efforts” to cap the rise at 1.5C.’
Will there be change?
“Today’s global consumption of fossil fuels now stands at roughly five times what it was in the 1950s, and one-and-half times that of the 1980s when the science of global warming had already been confirmed and accepted by governments with the implication that there was an urgent need to act. Tomes of scientific studies have been logged in the last several decades documenting the deteriorating biospheric health, yet nothing substantive has been done to curtail it. More CO2 has been emitted since the inception of the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 than in all of human history. CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, manmade greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”
November 21, 2019 at 17:19 #48778HatueyGuest
“Respect local people and their care for the land”
The local people are cutting the horns off rhino’s in order to sell them to believers in Chinese voodoo-medicine. They don’t even kill them to do it, although the rhino’s do eventually die as a result (usually lying next to bleeding family members who have suffered the same fate).
This isn’t an evil of capitalism, before anyone attempts to argue that it is. It’s an evil of human stupidity and poverty, both of which could be addressed and remedied quite easily within a productive capitalist framework, if only we’d stop meddling and worrying about the price of coffee beans and mangetouts.
November 23, 2019 at 08:15 #48864SAGuest
Just to point out that capitalism, control of vital resources, market forces, globalisation all play a part in this attempt at benevolent orientalist attempt at saving the rhino. A non sequitur I say.
November 21, 2019 at 15:45 #48780IanGuest
Good grief. Still pumping out a litany of deranged nonsense when the evidence is overwhelming. It takes a particular degree of obtuseness and head-in-the-sand denial to keep that outmoded stance. You wouldn’t know a scientific fact if it buried you neck deep in rising water.
November 21, 2019 at 15:52 #48782LaguerreGuest
You mean the algorithms are overwhelming. Like RoS, you are just reading the press releases, not the science.
November 21, 2019 at 16:06 #48788CasualObserverGuest
Agree with Mr Jagger !
Planetary climate is complex beyond the wildest imaginings, and anybody who sells certainty with regard to it, of either side of the argument, is undoubtedly a bunco artist 🙂
November 21, 2019 at 17:44 #48790IanGuest
Nobody said it wasn’t complex. So is quantum physics. But decades of research and an abundance of evidence, which is increasing exponentially every day, is pointing in one direction. It is a scientific accomplishment to have achieved such insight into climate change. Making into a pseudo religious mystical complexity is just another avoidance and denial strategy. With that attitude I expect you believe the sun revolves around the earth, such is the complexity of astronomy.
November 21, 2019 at 18:51 #48792CasualObserverGuest
Your trust in the men of science is maybe a little misplaced, especially when one considers that there may be more ‘Scientists’ alive today, than the total of all those who have gone before back to the days of Archimedes and before ? And we can be sure that each will be expecting remuneration that exceeds the minimum wage. I would refer you to the farewell address of President Eisenhower for a prediction of what ‘Science’ seems in large part to have become today.
Also, I have little doubt that when the Sun revolving around the Earth was the official dogma, those who were the proto scientists of their day, fully supported the notion. Obviously in those days, science tended to follow religion, whereas now the roles have been reversed.
Bottom line, Scientists are in no way infallible when it comes to predicting the outcomes of ongoing experiments, and like it or not, climate science falls into just that category. So, and as ever, watching both sides of the argument is probably the best course. 🙂
November 22, 2019 at 14:49 #48847ClarkGuest
The best test of a scientific theory is whether it makes accurate predictions.
In 1988, James Hansen testified to congress that global warming due to emissions had begun. It has been case closed for a couple of decades now; just ask the airline pilots, who cross the Arctic week in week out, and have watched the ice retreat as their careers progressed.
November 21, 2019 at 16:55 #48794HatueyGuest
Good post, Rhys. Science has always been corrupted by the availability and sources of funding. In the early enlightenment the money went into labour-saving stuff like steam engines and machines. That’s where the money was. Most money and research today goes into stupid stuff like weapons development and cosmetic stuff.
Let nobody here try and pretend that by their very nature scientists are intrinsically noble or crusaders or anything like that. You’d have at least as much of a chance of finding noble crusaders cleaning toilets for a living as you would in the scientific community.
Medical science in particular has a history of involvement in genocide, experiments on humans (not to mention animals), body snatching, and other stuff that ought to keep you awake at night. Most of the big developments derived from wartime experiences.
I don’t have the knowledge/brains to make a call on climate change, whether or not it’s real, man-made or not. I see it as a middle class thing, much like the preponderance of healthy eating shows on radio and TV. All they care about is prolonging their miserable lives and money.
When the middle classes start acting responsibly towards the poor and the third world, when they stop turning a blind eye to and voting for murdering bastards like Blair, etc., I’ll consider caring about climate change. In short, if they start acting like responsible human beings, I might give it a try myself. Until then I reserve the right to regard the whole subject as an affront.
November 21, 2019 at 17:39 #48796IanGuest
It must be great to be so smug, and play the holier-than-thou card. Job done, sit back and do nothing.
November 21, 2019 at 18:58 #48798HatueyGuest
Okay, those of us who oppose the smugness of others and their holier-than-thou assumptions are to be considered the smug ones. Got it.
Scientists (that is, ordinary human beings who claim to have omniscience in one narrow field or another) get things wrong all the time, btw. Ask any thalidomide or resident of Pripyat.
In my lifetime the scientific community have done a full 180 degree turn on climate change. They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs.
I’ve asked in here more than once what happened to the hole in the ozone layer that would inevitably grow and grow and let all the heat out. Nobody will tell me.
What do I know…
November 22, 2019 at 14:51 #48848ClarkGuest
– “I’ve asked in here more than once what happened to the hole in the ozone layer”
The Montreal Protocol.
November 22, 2019 at 16:18 #48852James CharlesGuest
“The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.”
November 22, 2019 at 16:16 #48851James CharlesGuest
“CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.”
November 22, 2019 at 16:19 #48853James CharlesGuest
“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.
If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.
So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
January 2, 2020 at 09:01 #49415DaveGuest
Its an elementary scam. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of atmosphere = 400 parts per 1,000,000 and the man made carbon dioxide is about 4% of the 0.04% or 16 parts per 1,000,000 and easily eclipsed by natural variations in carbon dioxide.
Other carbon dioxide is trapped in greenery/plant life, but most is trapped in the oceans that cover about 70% of the planet. As explained by Rhys Jagger when temperatures rise due to the Sun the oceans release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and when temperature cools is falls back into the oceans, with the rest taken in and then released by plant life.
And now scientists are forecasting a colder period due to another downturn in the Sun, ironically making man made climate change even if true. However what this and any other forecast requires is man made changes/infrastructure to cope with changes in climate (rather than futile/religious attempts to halt change) which is how mankind has progressed throughout the ages.
The crazy emission reduction targets make no sense and are anti-life, except they are not intended to be met, the ‘excess’ emissions are intended to be taxed under “carbon trading” legislation and is designed to direct funding to the rich 1% at the expense of the poor everywhere.
January 22, 2020 at 12:12 #49854michael nortonGuest
Those Dastardly Chinese are reviving old coal excavations as their economy slows down.
The Communist Regime is reliant on keeping the peasantry in full time employment, so they do not have time to ponder.
China is now responsible for half of all the World’s Carbon emissions.
The U.K. has almost given up coal mining.
February 1, 2020 at 16:07 #50006michael nortonGuest
In a surprise move, the woman appointed to run the crucial UN climate summit in Glasgow in November has been sacked.
Claire Perry O’Neill, a former climate minister, had been assigned the post of “president” of the event, known as COP 26.
The British government has confirmed that the job will now be handled by the business department, Beis.
In a tweet, Mrs O’Neill said she was “very sad” to lose the role, and went on to criticise the government.
It couldn’t “cope” with an independent unit managing preparations for the conference, she said.
And in a sharp dig at No 10’s green credentials, she also added: “A shame we haven’t had one climate cabinet meeting since we formed.”
Possibly as we have now Brexited, the Boris Johnson administration is going to row back, just as David Cameron said after winning the 2005 election
“Cut the Green Crap”
February 5, 2020 at 12:01 #50105michael nortonGuest
now David Cameron, sometimes friend of Boris Johnson
has turned down the job.
I suspect that David ( Cut The Green Crap) Cameron, like Boris does not really think Carbon dioxide is much of a problem
and doesn’t want to be tarnished with leading yet another fiasco climate event.
February 7, 2020 at 17:52 #50126michael nortonGuest
Very interesting Climate information, especially if you are a Scottish historian.
Recent work has linked historical crises, both regional and local, with palaeoclimatic estimates of global and hemispheric climate change. Such studies tend to underemphasize the spatiotemporal and socioeconomical disparity of human suffering and adaptive capacity as well as the complexities of past climate change. We focus herein on the effects in Scotland of a severely cold climate episode in the 1690s, associated with major tropical volcanic events including a large unidentified tropical eruption in 1695. A tree-ring based summer temperature reconstruction from the northern Cairngorms region identifies the 1690s as the coldest decade in Scotland for the last 750 years. Archival sources meanwhile reveal the 1690s as likely the worst era of crop failure, food shortage, and mortality ever documented in Scottish history. The connection appears simple – volcanic cooling triggered famine – but the drivers towards famine are far more complex. Although the unusual coldness of the 1690s was near-hemispheric in scale, it had a differential impact across north-western Europe. Within Scotland, both lowlands and highlands experienced dire conditions.
February 29, 2020 at 15:57 #50484michael nortonGuest
As the World gets ready for the worse pandemic since the Spanish Flu of 1918, when possibly 100 million died, China, the production center of the World, is virtually shut down, the air quality is much improved, which coincidentally may help people survive, this viral pneumonia epidemic.
If the World goes into Lock-Down-Mode for say, a year, XR and other Greens should be delighted.
Less pollution all round.
February 29, 2020 at 19:11 #50486michael nortonGuest
In 1918 there were about two an a quarter billion people in the World, today there are over seven billion, one and a third billion, just in China.
April 2, 2020 at 09:39 #51315michael nortonGuest
Very little interest in Global Warming these days.
A key climate summit in Glasgow will be delayed until next year due to disruption caused by the coronavirus.
I’ve personally not heard Global Warming mentioned for the last month.
May 16, 2020 at 07:36 #53602DaveGuest
Climate Change and the PLAN-demic share authors and modus-operandi. I.e. The end of the world is nigh, we’re all going to die, UNLESS you surrender your liberties to a controlling corporate police state.
May 17, 2020 at 12:49 #53692michael nortonGuest
Dave, now you need to let us know, who you think are these authors?
I can say I see some convergence.
One is Elon Musk.
He is a maker of Electric cars.
He is wanting driverless cars, without ignition key or door key.
Once “allowed” on the streets it is very easy to see that you could be stopped from driving by authority.
I have just realized that authority and author have the same root, thereby helping to confirm your fears.
May 17, 2020 at 15:08 #53703ClarkGuest
‘Authority’ – compare ‘authorisation’ and ‘written permission’. I expect it’s from former times when only a privileged minority could read, and even less could write.
Beware argument based mainly on motive. Everyone has motives, making it too broad. It’s more useful for eliminating a suspect because they don’t have any motive. I certainly have a motive to want a vaccine for covid-19; it’s a horrible and dangerous illness.
It’s not that “we’re all going to die”; the infection fatality rate is looking like 1% to 1.5%, concentrated towards the oldest in the population. It’s that it’d be entirely inhumane to let hundreds of thousands suffocate for a week until most of them die.
May 17, 2020 at 19:12 #53723SAGuest
Climate change activism may have been suspended by the Covid-19 epidemic but also the epidemic has produced some arguments that were not given due prominence before and there are now practical demonstrations of how a sudden radical reduction in the use of hydrocarbons has actually already produced some tangible improvements. It is only how this will be capitalised on that will determine whether covid-19 will eventually give a boost for climate change activism and serious consideration by governments.
May 17, 2020 at 19:20 #53724DaveGuest
The problem isn’t necessarily the worthiness in searching for a genuine vaccine, but its a bit like and forlorn as seeking the Holy Grail and therefore the wrong focus. And very much the wrong focus if those seeking the vaccine are drug pushers who put profit before people, as they are likely to offer you something that makes you ill not better, as healthy people are bad for business.
Whereas a focus on more tangible things such as sanitation, clean water, healthy eating and exercise in the sunshine to boost the immune system and treatments to sooth and cure an illness once you get it, is more realistic and effective approach as an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
May 17, 2020 at 19:36 #53727DaveGuest
Climate Jehovah’s are seeking to use the coronavirus hoax to advance their climate hoax, but the lockdown also acts as a wake up call against their climate agenda as the carbon reductions due to the lockdown are not yet sufficient to meet zero emission targets.
In other words the Lab/Con zero emission targets if seriously attempted would require a bigger economic collapse than we have so far, a full blown ‘end of days’ depression. No wonder Clark supports the lockdown.
May 17, 2020 at 20:01 #53728michael nortonGuest
Dave, that is interesting.
So the Climate Change people do not think that Carbon dioxide has been brought down enough during this once in a hundred year pandemic?
If they want even less, there will be no hope for billions of the world’s poorer inhabitants, no jobs no future.
May 17, 2020 at 21:05 #53732DaveGuest
There is a spiritual impulse to build a brave new world (and there are the money men ever ready to exploit that impulse), and the big universal religions are clear evidence of the popularity of this impulse, but thankfully this impulse is restrained by commandments like thou shall not kill.
The problem arises when there is no restraining moral code, as in Bolshevik communism, who believe the end justifies the means. Ironically this is why a selfish creed like nationalism (not imperialism) is more peaceful in practice than a “teach the world to sing” creed, because a nationalists ambition is far more limited than a creed which wants to save the world.
In short Climate Jehovah’s have a universalist creed to save the world, but without a moral restraint are prepared to destroy the world (humanity), with a continued lockdown, to save it.
May 17, 2020 at 23:54 #53742ClarkGuest
Michael, In short, reductions in CO2 due to covid-19 barely show up. Here is the graph for the last two years, here is the Keeling curve home page, and here is a relevant blog post; What does it take for the coronavirus (or other major economic events) to affect global carbon dioxide readings?
May 18, 2020 at 12:13 #53767michael nortonGuest
They are still building Hinkley Point C, which is ever loaded with fuel, will be one of the largest nuclear plants in the world.
Let us hope the Chinese do not bomb it or fuck around with the controls.
Let us hope that there is not another Bristol Tsunami that could engulf it.
If so only Scotland and Northern Ireland will be left as inhabitable United Kingdom.
May 19, 2020 at 06:44 #53843DaveGuest
There are a range of interests behind the climate hoax or scam, including the nuclear lobby. They ‘justify’ the cost of Hinckley Point by saying its needed to save the planet, as only nuclear power is a viable alternative to ‘fossil’ fuels.
(I say ‘fossil’ as there is research showing oil isn’t formed from fossil deposits, but from something else, and that depleted oil fields refill after time from deposits deeper down in the earth).
There are different forms of nuclear power, but Hinckley Point is a very expensive form and isn’t really carbon free once you examine the change of construction and operation. So why?
The purpose of a civil nuclear power programme is to provide the skills and technology to renew the extremely expensive (and obsolete) Trident nuclear submarines/missiles programme and hide the cost in fuel bills.
Now unlike “man made climate change”, nuclear proliferation is a genuine man-made threat to the planet, but the Climate Jehovah’s, useful idiots and agents of the state help promote a real threat to humanity in the name of opposing a phoney threat!
May 19, 2020 at 10:07 #53846michael nortonGuest
I agree Dave, the concrete pour at Hinkley point c was said to have been the largest ever pour in England.
The production of concrete is a big factor in releasing Carbon dioxide.
I have also, for a long time thought that after introduction of ever more efficient wind turbines and photovoltaic
conversion, there is little “need” for nuclear.
Especially since Graphene was developed in England.
People are working on Graphene windows, where by some of the light is let into the building and some is turned into electricity, very, very, very soon it will be economically feasible to have most building produce enough electricity for their own needs, some will be able to produce more electricity than they need.
Further more, if a Severn Barrier of caisson ponds or under water turbines were constructed instead of Hinkley point c, a massive amount of forever electricity could be more safely produced, which could be exported around the world, and we would not need the bloody French to build it for us.
So you are correct, its only function is to produce scientists and engineers to train in the nuclear industry so we can keep our seat at the top table of nuclear deterrent.
May 19, 2020 at 10:34 #53847ClarkGuest
A hoax can’t melt the polar icecaps.
– “useful idiots and agents of the state…”
Classic bleating; bravo!
May 19, 2020 at 12:18 #53851michael nortonGuest
twenty or so years ago I read a book by Gold
Deep Hot Biosphere.
Only 1/3 century ago were Archaea discovered.
Now, it is thought a large proportion of the biosphere is populated by Archaea, particular the deep ocean and the sediments beneath and the rock beneath that.
That is where Methane largely comes from.
May 19, 2020 at 12:21 #53853DaveGuest
But the Sun can. Simples!
May 19, 2020 at 16:17 #53870ClarkGuest
Weird, init? For millions of years the Sun didn’t melt the icecaps. Then in the 1970s the scientific community “invented a hoax” that CO2 emissions would cause global warming, and predicted that the icecaps would start melting. Then, as if to prove them right, the Sun, without getting any hotter, suddenly started melting the icecaps! Simples!
Dave indeed has a brain and can think for himself. Unfortunately, like many others, he uses it to promote deceptive superficial plausibility for political objectives.
Funny how politics so often relies upon deception. That’s why I prefer science.
May 19, 2020 at 19:13 #53886DaveGuest
As you know its about politics not science. Thatcher was right-wing and Zionist and promoted man made global warming because she wanted to use it as a way of promoting nuclear power as an alternative to socialist coal and Arab oil. And its still promoted as cover for Trident.
The problem is for some religious minded people an official ploy becomes the new old time religion and careerist politicians follow rather than dare commit heresy but pointing out its all nonsense.
May 19, 2020 at 16:18 #53871ClarkGuest
What have you got against “the French”, Michael?
May 19, 2020 at 16:56 #53877ClarkGuest
Dave, if you think the scientific and technical communities are primarily engaged in fabricating all these hoaxes, like global warming, covid-19, species extinctions, and helping to cover up Twin Tower demolition, where do you think the huge pace of technological advance comes from?
May 19, 2020 at 17:00 #53879ClarkGuest
And where do they do this? Science is in the scientific literature, the journals, and most of it is available to the public. Where are they coordinating to make the journal discussions look convincing, and where is the real work being done?
May 19, 2020 at 18:10 #53881michael nortonGuest
35,000,000 years ago there were no polar ice caps.
At this time there were no people, so it could not have been people releasing Carbon dioxide/Methane into the Atmosphere to make it so warm.
May 19, 2020 at 19:20 #53887DaveGuest
Yes you have to laugh really, as the world and everything has been going for billions of years, beyond the imagination really, and yet people (due to human vanity) say “we’ve had some extreme weather lately, must be due to human activity”.
Except there has always been extreme weather, even Noah said, “it never used to flood like this when I was a boy”!
May 19, 2020 at 21:07 #53891ClarkGuest
– “35,000,000 years ago there were no polar ice caps. At this time there were no people…”
Want to be careful, or there will be no people again.
How high was sea level then?
May 20, 2020 at 10:02 #53913michael nortonGuest
What I was getting at, is there are new technologies to develop and we, in the U.K. could export, these new technologies.
Nuclear Power is very old, dangerous hat.
Nobody has ever found out what to do with the dangerous long lasting spoil.
May 20, 2020 at 12:31 #53920michael nortonGuest
too difficult to answer, this was the time when India was striking Asia to uplift the Himalaya.
Some of the Himalaya was beneath the ocean before it became the World’s largest mountain range.
May 20, 2020 at 23:40 #53948ClarkGuest
The reason we get long term nuclear waste is that we put uranium 238 in the reactors. It’s not a fuel, it’s an impurity. Uranium 235 is the fuel. The uranium used in civilian power reactors is only a few percent fuel, and over 95% U238, nearly all of which ends up as nuclear waste. This is called ‘burn-up’. Civilian power reactors achieve very low burn-up, less than a few percent, and the rest is long term waste.
The reason for this is political; the uranium 235 is never purified because countries don’t trust each other not to make bombs.
There are reactors that can cook down the “waste” or “spent fuel”, at least a bit and maybe lots, but development has been minimal. That was sort of the plan originally. Some of the U238 turns into plutonium, which is another fuel. It can be reprocessed out of the spent fuel, but then you need a different type of reactor to use it. But these reactors are even more expensive and complicated so none were built so a stockpile of plutonium built up which had to be guarded all the time; the UK built up about 60 tonnes I think before they thought they’d better stop making it.
May 21, 2020 at 10:52 #53978michael nortonGuest
Than you Clark, you have described our Dystopian future, something that really scares the shit out of me, all unwanted by a massive majority of the worlds populace.
Yet, almost nobody is against Hydroelectric power, Photovoltaic conversion, wind turbines or geothermal.
These renewables are accepeted by most people, yet governments against the wishes of their own people still impose the horror of nuclear on us.
This proves we are not much more than slaves.
May 22, 2020 at 09:05 #54023michael nortonGuest
The People “We don’t want it,
not the nuclear subs, not the nuclear weapons, not the nuclear power stations, not the piles of nuclear waste.
Government, “It does not matter what you the people want, you are getting all of it.”
May 22, 2020 at 12:15 #54060ClarkGuest
I can’t work out why governments go for nuclear power. It looks like an expensive liability; eg. it has to be underwritten by the state because insurers won’t do so. I think Dave’s answer might be part of it, to have workers in an industry that is related to nuclear weapons, but far more countries that have nuclear power don’t have nuclear weapons, so this can’t be the whole answer. Partly I think that big, expensive, high-security projects appeal to people who seek power and become politicians; it makes them feel important.
Probably the biggest factor is vested interests and nation-state supported marketing. These were what was behind the UK Magnox and AGR programmes, and it’s what Westinghouse and General Electric get up to. They sell licenses to have their reactor designs built in other countries, but uranium enrichment, fuel element manufacture and reprocessing remain within the cartel guaranteeing future income. Just like cheap printers that are locked into using the manufacturer’s overpriced cartridges, but on a massive scale.
One thing that has occurred to me is that having nuclear reactors in a country makes the territory much more difficult to take over militarily. If Iraq or Libya had had power reactors, especially the typical water-cooled PWRs or BWRs, the West couldn’t have just bombed the country to smithereens and smashed all the infrastructure. Typical power reactors need electricity to run their cooling. If their power fails they get too hot and are very likely to explode, dispersing fall-out to the four winds and whatever water body they need for cooling, usually the ocean.
That’s what happened at Fukushima Daiichi; the reactors shut down automatically when the earthquake was detected, but without cooling remnants of the reaction can still cause a meltdown for over a week. The tsunami destroyed the connection to the national electrical grid and drowned the backup diesel generators, eventually leading to three meltdowns and two reactor vessel explosions. There’s more radioactive material in one civilian power reactor than would be released in a full scale global nuclear war, so any government that caused a nuclear disaster by striking a country with power reactors would become a pariah, internationally and with its own people. To invade a country with power reactors a government has to be sure that it can take them intact, a much trickier proposition than just smashing the place. I find it chilling to think that governments might be booby-trapping their own territory by building power reactors.
You can guess what I’m going to say next, can’t you? There are reactor designs that don’t need power and which shut down safely – such features are called “walk-away safe” and “passive safety” – but they’ve barely been developed. Here’s one prototype, but it was shut down in 1970 and never developed further. This is also the concept that might be good at burning the existing nuclear waste and getting the unused energy out of it.
May 22, 2020 at 13:07 #54062ClarkGuest
And there’s yet another aspect affecting this, and it’s the radioisotope industry. Radioisotopes are radioactive and thus unstable which means that they decay away over time. That’s why they’re not found in nature; the Earth is too old, so they can only be obtained by making them in nuclear reactors. Mostly they’re not made in power reactors. Mostly they’re made in “research reactors”, university reactors and isotope production reactors.
Inside MIT’s Nuclear Reactor – eighteen minutes. I love the bit at 12:47 where the interviewer asks the young student reactor operator if she knows what every single control does!
Radioisotopes have all sorts of uses. Caesium is needed for X-ray machines. Radioisotopes are used in silicon chip manufacture, and inspecting metals for fatigue and welds for imperfections. Americium is the smoke detector in smoke alarms. Some are used as tracers, and there are loads with medical uses. Some are used in long term power sources for satellites and spacecraft. Not many countries produce them and it’s a lucrative business.
This is probably why there was so much fuss about Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty NNPT, which gives the country the right to enrich uranium. Normally one of the nuclear cartel corporations does it, so they were probably one source of pressure. The NNPT confers the right to make “Low Enriched Uranium” LEU, which is anything up to 20% U235 (ie. 80% U238), but most enrichment for power reactors is only up to 5%. Weapons grade is 90% and over.
Iran were enriching to 20% to run their research and isotope production reactor. It was all open to scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA of the United Nations; it was all above-board and proper. Iran even voluntarily undertook an “additional protocol” so that they were more thoroughly inspected by the IAEA than all the other countries with nuclear activities. Their nuclear sites were monitored with closed circuit television by the IAEA. The IAEA said that no nuclear materials were being “diverted” ie. going missing, and the US intelligence agencies said that Iran was definitely not building or developing nuclear weapons, but there was this massive anti-Iran propaganda campaign.
So I reckon most of the incentive for all the fuss was to keep Iran out of the isotope production business.
May 22, 2020 at 16:05 #54072michael nortonGuest
Dozens of firefighters have been deployed to tackle a blaze at a disused nuclear facility in Dodewaard in the Netherlands. Police have asked the public to stay away and lock all doors and windows to avoid exposure to the fumes.
The fire broke out shortly before noon local time on Thursday in Dodewaard, which is roughly 100 km from Amsterdam. Eyewitness video from the scene shows fire crews battling the blaze on the roof.
The plant has been out of service since 1997 but is not expected to be dismantled until 2045, when radiation at the site drops to safe levels. All fuel rods were removed from the site in 2003, so there is no immediate danger of radioactive fallout.
The main operational areas of the plant were bricked up and contained within a so-called ‘safe zone’, to prevent areas that previously housed radioactive material from being exposed to the outside world.
The power company conglomerate behind the facility is embroiled in a legal battle with the government over who should cover the estimated €80 million cost of decommissioning.
It aint over till the peasants cough up the dough.
May 24, 2020 at 10:28 #54131michael nortonGuest
The nuclear plant in Dodewaard was the first nuclear power plant established in the Netherlands. It was built by the Dutch government, mainly as a means to obtain know-how about the construction and exploitation of a nuclear power plant. The plant was therefore relatively small with a net output of only 58 MW. Construction was started in 1965 and the facility opened on March 26, 1969, in the presence of Queen Juliana.
Since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, the political tide turned against nuclear energy, which was already a heavily debated issue in Dutch politics. With no prospect of the construction of new nuclear power plants in the Netherlands, Dodewaard’s function as a research centre became superfluous. The ownership decided to halt the relatively small and expensive electricity production in 1997.
Now shuttered, the complex remains tightly guarded.