Climate change: The Critical Decade

Not then it wasn't.

Not sure how this is related to the issue of Reactor safety. Seems to be just one more example of the abysmal Government of the Soviet Union.

No it wasn't.
They lost grid power.
The reactors automatically shut down on battery power.
They started up the back up generators.
ONE generator took 30 minutes to get going.
They were not close to a Chernobyl scale explosion as the reactors had all shut down.

Some, but not very much.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reactor safety everywhere is directly related to the quality of the relevant governments. Another of the vulnerabilities of nukes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.
The safety of nukes in the US is NOT affected by the nature of the government of the former Soviet Union.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because you claimed they were more economical if you added storage.

But they don't.

Thus one can conclude that it is not more economical to add storage.

 

But they do.

 

Well of course it should be.
And we have a great repository in Yucca Mtn.
Which hopefully we will finish our plans to use.
What we won't do is put our waste in a big lake.

Then you are aware that it couldn't ever have undergone a Chernobyl type explosion.

Yeah, there seems to be congruence on what I reported.
That one generator took 30 minutes to get started but the reactors were never in any danger.

Or are you saying that you think the Russian Reactors have no battery back-up?

I don't believe that for a second.

Arthur

 

Some do.
Not all do.

 

Basically a bunch of figures based on dubious empirical data. Possibly cherry picked and probably manipulated.

You billvon, are basing an argument for AGW with data which has a severe associated error. The older the record, the more spurious the figures.

As a person who holds a very rare doctorate in scientific statistical analysis in Australia, the likes of the IPCC, NOAA, UN and other pro AGW government funded organisations should delverge the whole truth with regards to their data collection and analysis, and the methods they use to scaremonger the public into nothing but a tax for the poor.

Al Gore has a LOT to answer for!

 

You could potentially make that claim for a single data set, perhaps a few. But when hundreds agree, from several different branches of science (paleontology, geology, botany etc.) it's a lot harder to claim that it's "dubious."

And yet they still maintain a strong correlation. And the more recent data (i.e. the most accurate data we have) shows an increase in temperature correlated to increasing CO2.

There are three unarguable aspects of AGW:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and when its concentration is increased in the atmosphere, more heat is retained.

2) We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50% over the past 150 years.

3) The planet has warmed considerably in the past 150 years.

From there you can start postulating second order effects like positive or negative climactic feedback, or postulate a mechanism whereby 1) CO2 heating is suppressed and 2) another natural mechanism is really the cause of the heating. But the burden of proof is on the people who postulate such complex phenomena; Occam's Razor and all that.

 

Not really.
This is the change in Global Temp Anomaly in 5 year averages, the increase in PPM of CO2 over that period and then the degree change per PPM.
As you can see, for 3 of the periods, including the most recent the correlation is negative and the positive correlations vary greatly.

Code:

Year	Temp	PPM	deg/ppm
1960	0.033	3.0	0.0112
1965	0.020	3.6	0.0055
1970	-0.001	5.4	-0.0002
1975	-0.017	5.6	-0.0031
1980	0.085	7.7	0.0110
1985	0.073	7.0	0.0105
1990	0.115	8.5	0.0136
1995	0.023	6.7	0.0034
2000	0.138	8.8	0.0157
2005	0.131	10.5	0.0125
2010	-0.013	9.9	-0.0013

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Arthur

 

So much for "independent" and "unbiased" then.

The facts also indicate that the Earth was warmer, globally, some time ago, also that the causes aren't as certain as you (and others) seem to want them to be.

Funny how the "ACC" missed that fact, also.

Science doesn't "move on" else it isn't scienctific.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've followed this Agenda for two decades now and was personally part of the first Interparlimentary Conference on Changes in the Global Environment held in Washington, DC, in 1992 under Bush41.

Same old catechism and hymns proposed then, really.

 

Oh right, like:

Not incoincidently, the very same "conclusions" from well over 20 years ago...

So much for "moving on."

...

If it had anything else to say they'd have no reason to exist, nor the IPCC itself.

 

There's a big difference between "moving on", which is continual, and coming into agreement with your discredited presuppositions of the past, which is unlikely to ever happen.

 

Aw, is Trippy trolling?

res ipsa loquitur

Next:

Since I haven't the faintest idea who you are or what you were trying to articulate, it would be best to just pat you on the head, straighten your ball cap, and wish you better luck next time.

G'luck

 

I think its a load of HS.