Oh, wow, this discussion is a geekgasm waiting to happen. Your reply alone makes me that much more interested in reading the rest of the posts here. And you make some very, very valid points, particularly wrt where the H comes from in the first place, seeing as this is, after, *space*, which has very, very little matter outside of actual planetary objects, stars, nebulae, and the black holes. While I find all of this fascinating, I'm just as interested in biological sciences - such as the fact that the human genome is so fantastically huge, and yet we actually really only use a very, very tiny amount of it to generate all of our organs, structures, and perform all of the functions that we need to in order to live every day, much less have actual thought processes. So, what is the rest of it used for? If it is junk, why do we have it in the first place? Could life have actually started proliferating when the world's first symbiotic relationship was created, that of the so-called alien cellular organelles, the mitochondria, with an organism that was heretofore left to die out because it had no real way to reliably sustain and reproduce itself? As to what space objects are and how they function - agreed, 100%, we're not sure what the majority of it is out there, and this kind of goes back to what was in the OP - there are many, many factors involved in the warming of the earth, some of which we may not even realize are contributing factors, and thus we're not taking them into account for the time being. The same is true of our current exploration of space - all these probes and such that we, as earthlings, are sending into space cannot be capturing all the necessary information that we need because there is information out there that we don't even know we need, much less know that it exists and can be measured / quantified. I'll have to do more reading here to catch up, but there is one thing to consider that rarely ever gets mentioned, which might in fact support the absolute zero core of a star theory: As we all learn in physical science classes, compression of matter from a gaseous state to a liquid / solid state almost always releases a tremendous amount of energy. So, why is it that we're told that Black Holes are cold? not all of the matter that they take in and trap are in gaseous form, granted, and the amount of pressure upon all matter taken in is unlike anything that we can compare it to, so what is happening to all of that energy that is being released as all this matter is being compressed? What is the center of all stars are, in fact, miniaturized black holes to begin with?
Sorry. I wrote another book to answer your questions. (What the scorpion said to the frog.) Sorry it took so long too. I had to look up a lot of things up and (as retired) I no longer have ready access to the reference materials. I agree. I would like to see more frequent RAD surveys and a wider variety as well. I can only give some guesses (speculation) as to why 90-Sr and 239-Pu aren't reported often. (That I see these things as happening does not imply I agree with what is happening.) As I said before, things radioactive are often more complex than they appear at first glance. If that were not the case this post would be short. Misconception- Plutonium-239: Contrary to media spin/ignorance and popular belief Plutonium-239 is not "the worst of all RAM". That is a load of BS started by Ralph Nader in the 1970's and it persists even though he's been debunked repeatedly by scientists. Plutonium-239 is an Alpha emitter. From an external source Alpha can't even pass through your layer of dead skin. If ingested the health risk from 239-Pu is low because of it's very low bio-absorbtion (<1%) and long radiological half-life. Unless you inhale it, the risk from 239-Pu is almost nil. Read "Accidental Ingestion Studied" https://atomicinsights.com/how-deadly-plutonium/ Read "Toxicity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity Unless you are in the vicinity of Fukushima the chance of inhaling Fukushima 239-Pu is almost nil. (Thus I'm not going to cover inhaling it in detail.) Elements that are heavier than lead aren't inclined to stay airborne long or to travel far. There was no high altitude release from Fukushima so airborne Pu distant from Fukushima is realistically a non-issue. If ingested almost all that is absorbed goes to the liver or bones in fish/animals/humans. Essentially none goes to the meat. A fish/animal would have to eat a huge amount of 239-Pu to absorb/retain enough for it to even be a measurable in the meat. This is why 239-Pu survey samples are most always taken from sediment and soil and not fish or animals. (By ingestion the heavy metal toxicity would probably get you before you ingested enough for the radiation to matter. But, there are lots of other heavy metals in a Rx core (not all are even radioactive), so its toxicity doesn't make 239-Pu 'special' or unique in any way that would make it "the worst of all".) Misconception - Radiological half-life danger post absorbtion: (Most people have this backwards.) An isotope's radiological half-life (by itself) has little to do with how dangerous it is after it's absorbed. What matters more is: how much, means of exposure (external, inhaled, ingested), it's Wf (bio-damage factor), it's bio-absorbtion ratio and it's bio-half-life. - In fact AFTER it's absorbed a very long radiological half-life would be preferable. Per atom, a radiological half life is a 50% chance of a decay in that time. You aren't exposed to any radiation unless a decay happens. If you eat 100 Plutonium-239 atoms then 1 or less will stay in your body. (<1% bio-absorbtion via ingestion). There is a 50% chance that atom will decay sometime in the next 24,110 years. (Again, you aren't exposed to radiation unless it decays.) The chance of that atom decaying while you are still alive is almost nil. - A long radiological half-life also means you need more of it to achieve the same number of counts/second (cps = Bq). (24,110 yr half-life) [239-Pu] If a 100 million absorbed atoms decay over 24,110 years the cps will be 0.0001315 Bq. (30 yr half-life) [137-Cs] If a 100 million absorbed atoms decay over 30 years.the cps will be 0.1057 Bq. To match the 0.1057 Bq exposure from 100 million 137-Cs atoms with 239-Pu you would have to absorb 803.8 million 239-Pu atoms. - ABSORB 800+ times as much. With <1% absorbtion you would have to ingest 80,000+ times as much. 80,000x more 239-Pu than 137-Cs is virtually impossible with a Rx accident as the source. Compared to the amount of Cs, the amount of 239-Pu is small in a Rx core. As for Pu airborne, I found a 2013 study by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection that said for it's final conclusion: (The study focused on airborne release. - Fallout.) Elsewhere they gave 10-50 PBq as the amount of airborne Cs released. Note: That Pu was given in GBq whereas Cs was in PBq. (1 PBq is 1,000,000 times 1 GBq.) --- Now for the survey frequency part of your question. [Guess 1] - Not all surveys get reported to or by the News Media. Surveys done where the results are not 'interesting enough' aren't going to get published where the public can easily find them. Some survey results don't reveal anything sensational. (To someone that knows what to be alarmed about.) Such survey reports are less likely to get reported to News Media. News Media that do see them are less likely to report/publish them. Example: MEXT (Japan's Ministry of Education) did 90-Sr (soil) surveys of 55 sample points near Fukushima in 2005. (All 55 inside the former Fukushima evacuation zone.) The 2005 average was 3.0 Bq/kg. (Residual from bombs and bomb testing.) Using the half-life equation the average Bq/kg would have been: 7.9 in 1965, 7.0 in 1970, 5.6 in 1979. They sampled the same locations in 2011 after the accident and the average was 5.6 Bq/kg. - Less than the pre-accident levels were for decades in the past. (Nothing sensational.) So this survey either didn't get to or didn't inspire News-Spin outlets. Related. That survey also showed that the Strontium content of the fallout was low. Another example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26346857 The meaning of "r-Cs positive" is that 134/137-Cs was also found proving the 90-Sr in that sample was actually from Fukushima and not bombs/bomb testing. - Why were 90-Sr and 239-Pu so low in fallout?. At Fukushima (unlike bomb tests and the Chernobyl RAD fire) there was nothing to drive solid fission products to high altitudes. What solids did escape by air did so by being trapped in steam which isn't particularly good at transporting low volatility solids for long distances. 239-Pu should always be less than 90-Sr in Rx accident fallout. There is less 239-Pu in a Rx core and it's much heavier so less mobile by air. - The biggest fallout 'cloud' concerns at Fukushima were Iodine-131 followed by 134/137-Cs. Iodine-131 because it is a gas. Cs because it's highly volatile with water so water vapor can carry it further. Both because of quantity. The 90-Sr and 239-Pu (solids with lower water volatility) content was so small in comparison to Cs as to -almost- be non-issues. [Guess 2] - Level of testing difficulty and fewer capable labs. RAD surveys for trace levels of specific isotopes are not like what is depicted in movies/TV where they wave a probe around and it reads out immediately on a meter. That type of meter is made to cover a wide range of particle energy levels so they can not distinguish one isotope from another. They tell you if alpha, beta or gamma is present (and how much), but not what isotope or isotopes it's from. To isolate one source isotope requires more advanced lab equipment and procedures specific to the isotope in question. The complexity varies. - Testing for 134/137-Cs is relatively easy. - Testing for 90-Sr is more difficult and requires more equipment so fewer labs have the capability. - Testing specifically for 239-Pu is even more difficult and the accuracy is not that great anyway. (+/-20%) Testing for trace levels (of anything) usually requires counting for extended time periods to ensure accuracy. In some cases you have to wait for it to decay then measure what it decays to and do the math back. - Test for 137-Cs in fish. - Beta and Gamma emitter. They measure the Gamma because it's easy. 200-300 grams are frozen and then minced then placed in gamma counting vials. Samples are kept frozen until counting. Gamma emissions are counted using a high purity germanium detector coupled to a multichannel spectroscope. Samples are counted for 7200 - 16000 seconds depending on radiocesium activity. (In other words all they do is stick a sample into a counting device tuned for 137-Cs until they have enough counts to do the math.) - Test for 90-Sr in fish. - 90-Sr (and Yttrium-90 in it's decay chain) are both Beta emitters but their Betas are at different energies. Fish, minus internal organs, are dried at 105 C for 48 hours and then ashed for 48 hours at 500 C. 20 grams of ash are dissolved in 6 milliliters of nitric acid and then digested at high temperature and pressure in a laboratory microwave. To isolate Sr from this digest solution divalent cations are concentrated in a precipitate using carbohydrate and oxalic acid precipitation steps. The precipitate is redissolved in 200 milliliters of 0.5 M hydrochloric acid and then loaded onto a cation ion exchange resin column (Dowex). Strontium is purified by subsequently washing the column with ammonium acetate/ethanol and ammonium acetate solutions. 90Sr is detected by measuring the beta decay of its progeny isotope yttrium-90 two weeks after the first preconcentration steps are taken. 90Sr activity is decay corrected to the time of sampling. (90-Sr has to stripped out of the sample by a multi-part process (takes at least 4 days), decay the sample for 2 weeks to get Yttrium-90, and then count the Yttrium-90.) Also for 90-Sr to be ID'ed as coming from Fukushima (rather than preexisting) either 89-Sr or 134-Cs must also be present. - Testing for 239-Pu. - It is an Alpha emitter. Testing for low levels (trace) alpha directly is problematic and the level of confidence is low. A piece of paper or a layer of dust can shield alpha. Even humidity variations can affect readings. 239-Pu is accompanied by other isotopes with similar energy particles so isolating something as a signature of the 239-Pu component is required. Additionally to know it came from Fukushima (rather than preexisting) the ratio of 239-Pu to other isotopes must be determined. There are various workarounds and more than one method. All of them involve indirect measurements (measuring signatures) and calculating back to what the 239-Pu should be. - In 1977-1978 the EPA did a study where they sent calibrated 1 Bq 239-Pu samples to 28 different labs. One lab was off by over 400%. The other 27 were within +/-20%. Testing for 239-Pu is simply not all that accurate. [Guess 3] - I suspect the low bio-absorbtion rates cause some officials to consider 90-Sr and 239-Pu a lower priority than Cs. I know most people don't get this so I'm going to do a comprehensive fish-to-human comparison between 137-Cs, 90-Sr and 239-Pu. 137-Cs - High bio-absorbtion. When Cs is ingested by vertebrates (includes fish, animals and humans) 10% is rejected by the digestive system and excreted. The 90% Cs remaining is pretty much distributed uniformly throughout the body. (I actually found a chefs fish butchering yeild guide. It varies a lot but 50% usable meat out of a fish seems a good average.) (Using the 50%.) You lose 50% by gutting, beheading and deboning (leaving the meat). If a fish eats 100 Bq (137-Cs) then 90 Bq stays in the whole fish but you lose 1/2 in processing - so 45 Bq remain. If you eat all of it you pass 10% of the 45 Bq so 41.5 Bq remains in you. If 90 Bq in a whole fish results in 41.5 Bq in you then only 46% of the 137-Cs in a fish is absorbed in you. 90-Sr - Medium bio-absorbtion. When Sr is ingested by vertebrates 70-80% is rejected by the digestive system and excreted. About 1% goes to soft tissue and blood (meat/organs). The rest (19-29%) collects in bone or bone marrow. We will ignore the organs and say the full 1% goes into the meat. If a fish eats 100 Bq (90-Sr) then 20-30 Bq remain in the whole fish, but only 1 Bq is in the meat. When you eat that 1 Bq in the meat you pass 70-80% leaving only 0.2 to 0.3 Bq remaining in you. If 30 Bq in a whole fish results in a 0.3 Bq in you then only 1% of the 90-Sr in a fish is absorbed in you. 239-Pu - Very Low bio-absorbtion. (As ingested.) Pu does not mimic anything a living organism needs so the body tries to dump it. Additionally it's large and doesn't readily pass through cell walls. Almost all of it (>99%) passes right through vertebrates. (Which is why ingestion is not a significant hazard.) The <1% retained gets stuck in the liver (which is trying to dump it), and bone or marrow.. If you aren't eating fish organs and bones then you aren't likely to get any Pu from a fish. (The danger from 239-Pu is breathing it. - So don't snort your fish.) It's not, there is effectively zero in meat, but for argument sake we will say that 1% is distributed evenly.. If a fish eats 100 Bq (239-Pu) it results in 1 Bg in the whole fish. - You lose 1/2 in processing. - 0.5 Bq in the meat. You eat the 0.5 Bq and lose >99% - <0.0005 Bq remains in you. If 1 Bq in a fish results in a <0.0005 Bq in you then <0.05% of the 239-Pu in a fish is absorbed in you. (ONLY when we falsely assume that 239-Pu tends to collect in the meat.) Summarizing: Only 46% of the 137-Cs Bq in a fish is absorbed in you. Only 1% of the 90-Sr Bq in a fish is absorbed in you. Only 0.05% of the 239-Pu Bq in a fish is absorbed in you. Now here is the catch. (No pun intended.) 239-Pu is an alpha emitter. If absorbed Alpha does 20x the bio-damage of beta or gamma. (Wf = 20) 0.05% x 20 = 1% (Equivalent bio-damage to the case with 90-Sr which has a Wf of 1.) So while the 90-Sr and 239-Pu absorbtion doses from whole fish are different the resulting bio-damage is the same. (ONLY when we falsely assume that 239-Pu tends to collect in the meat. It doesn't.) Part of the point of this is to show that...... the harm from "x" Bq of one thing in the environment does not equal the harm from "x" Bq of another thing in the environment. The News Media and general public do not seem to understand that. --------- 46 times as many Bq of 90-Sr or 239-Pu would have to be eaten by fish to achieve the same level of bio-hazard to humans as 137-Cs. Not likely you can get 46x because... There is less 90-Sr and less 239-Pu than 137-Cs in the fuel. 90-Sr and 239-Pu are less volatile than Cs in water so will collect in sediments and be out of the food chain faster than Cs. (Especially 239-Pu which is heavy and doesn't mimic anything a bio-organism needs.) 90-Sr will be slower than 239-Pu to drop-out but should be faster than 137-Cs due to it's lower solubility. --------- Back in 2011 when I first looked at the Fukushima plant design several things stood out as blatant stupidity. These are some: - The EDG's and/or their control/distribution panels were in the basements where they could be flooded and end up in standing water. The associated emergency electrical in the basement was not water tight. (That mistake is part of what prevented cooling the cores after mother nature was done. Fixing that one thing would have prevented the meltdowns. To my understanding a plan to correct that was proposed years before the accident but the corporate suits rejected it.) - The site has so much ground water flow it's essentially in an underground river AND the containment and some equipment areas are built below that river's water line. (This is part of why core materials (fuel and fission products) are still leaking into the sea 6 years later.) - The containment are sitting on a huge solid block of concrete about (IIRC) 30 ft deep. (Anyone with sufficient red-neck welding experience will tell you that when you excessively heat a small area of a block of concrete the whole block shatters or cracks from uneven expansion. That tells me that when the cores melted several feet into the concrete floors cracks formed all through that 30 ft of concrete. Those cracks are now paths for ground water in and out of what should be containment areas. Thus ground water has direct contact with the melted fuel assemblies. That's the other part of why core materials are still escaping into the sea.) - Essentially there is an underground river flowing into the ocean and the melted cores are in eddy currents of that river. So, to answer the part of your question: "How much was released?" - It is not done being released yet. - That should be obvious as the seabed RAD levels right next to the facility are still going up The worst case scenario is ALL of the remaining core contents end up in the ground, ground water and the sea over time. Personally I expect at least 1/2 will end up there. That's because the RAD levels are so high near the fuel that I don't expect much actual fuel clean-up will happen in the next decade. Can't leak more than was there...... Core Inventories 72hr after SCRAM. (2 estimates by different organizations.) These are calculated estimates based on initial loading and the power history (burn-out) of the fuel. There are 45+ radioactive isotopes in the E+14 and up Bq range. Only giving numbers for the 5 I've talked about. Core Inventory, Unit 2, in Bq, 72hr after SCRAM. I-131 ...... 1.87E+18 .. 2.15E+18 Cs-134 ... 2.76E+17 .. 2.48E+17 Cs-137 ... 2.55E+17 .. 2.29E+17 Sr-90 ...... 1.91E+17 .. 1.73E+17 Pu-239 ... 8.90E+14 .. 9.57E+14 Core Inventory, Unit 3, in Bq, 72hr after SCRAM. I-131 ...... 1.86E+18 .. 2.39E+18 Cs-134 ... 2.51E+17 .. 2.34E+17 Cs-137 ... 2.41E+17 .. 2.21E+17 Sr-90 ...... 1.81E+17 .. 1.67E+17 Pu-239 ... 1.05E+15 .. 1.10E+15 The info for Unit 1 was not given. Based on it's max power and power density it is probably (wild guess) about 60-80% of Unit 2. --------- The saving grace (if there is one) of Fukushima is that nothing was or will be driven to high altitude. Even if the all three cores end up eroding away completely into the sea I would not expect ocean RAD levels distant from the plants to rise to dangerous levels. All things considered, unless you live in Japan or eat lots of seafood that frequents Japanese waters, the risk from Fukushima is something less than the risk of naturally occurring Radon collecting in buildings. In the US the accumulation naturally occurring Radon indoors is the second leading cause of lung cancer. The problem became worse when we started making houses air-tight to reduce energy bills. Radon enters buildings via the ground and tries to rise in air. Unless it has a way out it builds up. (Per an EPA articles) (US #'s) "Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked." "Radon inhalation accounts for up to 14 percent of lung cancers worldwide, and is the world’s second-leading risk of lung cancer." "Nearly one out of every 15 homes in the U.S. is thought to have high radon levels. ....." Yup, non-smokers get lung cancer all the time and Radon is a global problem. Radon has also been linked to hematologic (blood) cancers. It is not likely that outside of Japan more cancer will be caused by Fukushima than by naturally occurring Radon. I heard about the Radon problem in the 80's or 90's and I take precautions. It's not new. Affects (or could) most people globally. And, no one seems to know about or even care. It's more dangerous than Fukushima to most people outside Japan. - So why are you worrying about Fukushima? (Because it's popular... and it gets more press?) - You probably have bigger radiological concerns/threats right down the street. We've been handling RAM and generating RAD waste for about 75 years. Some stupid things were done. (And still are.). Even proper waste containers/facilities are getting old. Some REALLY stupid things, like RAD waste in cardboard boxes dumped in unlined open trenches. Several nuclear bombs have gone missing and are rusting somewhere. (Aviation accidents, mostly in the 1940's-1950's.) Radioactive ground water is not a problem exclusive to Fukushima. We got some here. It's not exclusive to bomb and power plants industries. There are also medical accidents, waste and bad practices. Improperly handled medical waste has killed quite a few people globally, yet few people are aware. Didn't look any up but there's also space travel and space junk falling to earth. (Do not skip the first one. - Shocker - They let a 6 year old play in Cs.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiânia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/17/u...ho-symptom-of-atomic-ills.html?pagewanted=all http://www.king5.com/news/local/inv...-hanford-prompts-emergency-response/140990679 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/hanford-nuclear-reservation_n_2744974.html http://snakeriveralliance.org/idaho-national-laboratory/ http://oakridgetoday.com/tag/radiation-exposure/ http://www.huntingtonnews.net/69491 http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/from-potatoes-to-plutonium/Content?oid=921403 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/u...e-pits-south-carolina-against-washington.html http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article111827502.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Clinic_of_Zaragoza_radiotherapy_accident That's just a few. Lots more out there. IMHO - in my country. CO2 is distracting people from working on alternate energy tech. Fukushima is distracting people from working on RAD waste issues right here. (A large part of "working on" is putting pressure on the government.) --------- A jab at the AGW crowd. Decontaminating the seabed near Fukushima would be quite a bit easier than cleaning the CO2 out of the whole earth's atmosphere. For one, we already have the tech. For two, it's a much smaller area. Is anyone doing it? - No. - No funding. After all the research money is down the drain I expect the same to happen with CO2 clean-up.- No funding. Why don't we put that research money towards fixing real problems? .
Looks interesting but certainly decades away from practical applications of any size. They apparently don't even know how/why it works at this point. My worry is that we won't fully realize the bad side of it for decades after we start using it. That was the case with both nuclear and fossil fuels.
@PCBONEZ: True. They do not fully understand it. But it's definitely worth studying because, if it can be refined, it's a solution to energy problems around the world. I can attest to that. We have a number of "hot spots" here.
I saw something on an alternate energy project that I wanted to share. But, it's been a while since I saw it and I can't find it. I've looked for it several times. I admit I haven't run any numbers but at first glance it looks like a good idea. (For cars and off-grid, not the grid.) When I get around to it I expect the efficiency will suck but that it is offset by the simplicity and practicality. I also expect that despite the inefficiency it will still be cheaper than using fossil fuels in cars.. --------- Basically it used a small solar setup to power hydrolysis to make H2 which was used to DIRECTLY fuel a car. I have seen a number of similar projects, but not quite like this one. - The solar was also used to pump/pressurize the H2 into the storage tanks. (It may have used Compressed Electrolysis. Need to see it again.) - The car was fueled by H2 only. (It was not HHO, just H2.) - The car had a standard gasoline engine that was re-tuned to run on straight H2 + air.. - There was no H2 fuel cell. - There were no propulsion batteries.. - O2 was simply vented off post hydrolysis. (More complex arrangements might use O2 to improve power output or efficiency but this project didn't.) Advantages over other H2 and hybrid approaches I've seen and over straight solar. - No fuel cell. (less cost, no exotic materials or machining, less maintenance.) - No propulsion batteries. (less cost, less weight, no battery disposal issues, no battery explosions.) - Works in a regular gasoline engine with slight mods. (Less auto industry change needed. Existing cars can be modded vs scrapped.) - No O2 in tanks in cars required. (safety) - No reliance on current H2 industry where 95% of the H2 is made from fossil fuels. - The fuel can be made right at the fueling station. - No transportation costs. (Domestic or international.) (No transportation also means no tankers to spill oil in the sea. No truck/train loads of oil or coal to wreck and spill.) --------- --------- (Request) If you run across the article or video then please point me to it. I want to contact the guy. I have some questions for him. (What I remember - or think I do.) It was done by some academic, a collage/university teacher/professor. (Don't recall exactly.) There was a video and an article. Some US city. Not a huge one. The H2 generation part of the project was at the school.(I think. The building was large.) The test car was a 1990's-ish beater. Not pretty. Maybe a Taurus? That general size and shape anyway. His daughter used it for a daily driver. (Not stressed. Only mentioned in passing.) Four solar panels arranged 2x2. Two (blue IIRC) horizontal H2 tanks shown in one of the shots. H2 tanks were the size of smallish home propane tanks. .
Not going to write a thesis about this one, but... those who voted............... "No, I think there is another reason for it" Clearly not intelligent. Global warming is both caused by MAN and natural events... the issue is that MAN sped up the natural process by excessive usage of fossil fuels and the advent of industry and technology. If people weren't so stupid thinking they own everything which they do not own and kept their little yappers shut and lived a sustainable life and left the damn fig leaf where they were... global warming wouldn't have occurred in the next 10x thousands of years.
Ignorance is bliss.... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/ I always suspected that ol' henery ford sold some of them martians them big SUV's
Yet you fail to quote exactly what I stated and you just linked exactly what I explained. Global warming isn't only a natural phenomenon, it's about our use of fossil fuels, BUT... our use of fossil fuels have certainly caused the CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere to skyrocket... therefore trapping more heat and harmful radiation within our stratosphere. Oh, wait.. Ford's are the only mechanical devices using fossil fuels? Wow, I hadn't known that. Clearly the topic is far over your comprehension level.
A view from the sunburnt south: ‘Peak Lunacy’: Australia’s Unfolding Energy Fiasco Cripples SA – Victoria to Follow https://stopthesethings.com/2016/11...energy-fiasco-cripples-sa-victoria-to-follow/ STT: We’re not here to debate the wind industry – we’re here to destroy it. ...T
Thanks Joe C. Your post caused me to do more research. Turns out that EVERY planet in our solar system is experiencing drastic climate changes never seen before the 1970's. Can't wait to see the CO2 Evangelist explanation for that!
@ highpoint, You should use caution. You might hurt your ears when you pull your head out. ---------- I don't think it's Joe C with the comprehension issues. Since the mid 1970's there have been drastic climate changes on EVERY planet in our solar system. These are clearly due to the sun being more active than it has been in the last 10000 years or so. Please tell us how man-made CO2 is causing these. Mercury - In 2008 "magnetic tornadoes" were detected that could possibly replenish the atmosphere. Those have never been seen before on.Mercury. Venus - 1978-1999, 2500% increase in green glow on Venus's night side. Indicates much more oxygen and hydroxyl is now in the atmosphere. An atmospheric NO (nitric oxide) ring has showed up. (Never seen before on any planet.) Mars - 1975-1997, Rapid appearance of clouds and ozone. (There were no clouds observed on Mars before this.) - Polar ice caps are melting on Mars. Jupiter - 1997-2000, Jupiter's white ovals disappearing then melded into one. Expected 18 degree temp rise in 10 years. - 2008, storms 100 km tall are piercing Jupter's cloud deck. Never happened before. Indicates a new climate turmoil on the planet. Saturn - 1981-1993, Plasma Torus 1000% more dense. - 2004, Massive X-Ray emissions detected. Never happened before. Uranus - 1999, Huge Storms - Drastic climate changes Previously no no storms at all. Neptune - Historically few clouds then from 1996-2002 a 40% increase. Pluto - 1989-2000, 300% increase in Atmospheric pressure. The CO2 Evangelists want to believe that earth is unaffected by the sun phenomena and that the infinitesimally small effects of man-made CO2 are somehow the main driver of Earth's climate changes. That is like blaming a flat tire on thumb tack stuck in the tread while ignoring the 9" railroad spike sticking out of the sidewall. The following video is not grand but it does list them all in one place. I suggest google for more complete info. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHTM3aeK69I Given that the sun is obviously putting much more energy into the solar system than it has at any previous time in written history..... .... Please tell us how earth is unaffected by the sun's changes (as every other planet is) and how Earth's GW is instead 'driven' by man-made CO2. Oh COME ON! Everyone knows Martains prefer "Made in USA" and due to the high shipping costs they want a brand that will last from a company that doesn't have a habit of going bankrupt. Click to enlarge.
@PCBONEZ: That video is a gem. Here's how they do it. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/07/cambridge_analytica_dystopianism/ They use digital data that they collect and examine it with a mathematical model (described in the above mentioned article) that gives an accurate statistical response of what the people want. Instead of using this model to help the people, it's used to manipulate them and get their votes by telling the what they want to hear. And this equates to big money. It's always about the money. Follow the trail and you'll see it.
I can see how that idea applies to the CO2 Evangelist camp, but not to Interplanetary Climate Change. Most of the changes in the planets where noticed individually between 2 and 4 decades ago and it's described as "NASA's Secret" exactly because it's getting LESS 'press' than it should be. Also note that almost no one (including NASA) is connecting the dots planet to planet to show that Earth is effected too. As to a money trail for Interplanetary Climate Change the only I can think of (that they might be pushing) would be to put less money into chasing the CO2 Red Herring and put more into things that might actually help humanity. I don't have a problem with that.
I refer you to the videos/articles in tonto11's last 2 or 3 posts that show how overzealous governments pushing "green" on their power industries too aggressively are causing their own power companies to go bust - and the resulting adverse effects on those economies. Clean "green" power is expensive so if you want it you'll have to pay for it. As originally intended Carbon tax is simply a way to 'force' green. (And/or to push Nuclear which has less CO2.) So long as corruption can be kept out of it (doubtful) and the money goes where it should, it's one way to get off fossil and go green. Seems everyone wants green power but no one wants higher power bills. - That doesn't work.
@PCBONEZ: I'm not referring to the 'interplanetary climate change scientists. That's interesting and legitimate research that doesn't have a governmental agenda. At least not one which is immediately exploitable. Earthly Climate change is what politicians use to manipulate the masses and to raise taxes. That's why to me, it's hogwash. Yes we should keep our world clean, try to preserve life and cut back on CO2. But not by shooting ourselves in the foot. Which to me, seems to be happening as far as green energy goes. It needs work.
By it's placement I wasn't sure what it was referring to. - I see we are in agreement. --------------- It's always been about politics and money and pushing a political agenda. (Not actual science.) It was actually Margaret Thatcher that set the whole CO2 thing off in aid of promoting nuclear power. (Sorry Al Gore, you just aren't that bright....) See Here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hERKrs72VI Pay attention to what Lord Lawson of Blaby says. (Served in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet from 1981 to 1989. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson) She then went to the Royal Society (Britain's national science academy) and essentially said, "There is money on the table. Prove CO2 is bad." And later she convinced the UN to form the IPCC to prove CO2 is bad to the rest of the world. CO2 causing GW has never been about good science. It's a political agenda. The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization, it is a political organization. (The old geezer that isn't credited in the clip is Nigel Calder, former Editor of New Scientist.) .