How “many” is many? And how does the number of detractors compare to the number of scientists who accept man-made climate change?
We wouldn’t have to limit ourselves to uranium, though - thorium is more abundant, produces less waste, nigh-impossible to weaponize, requires less processing, and cannot go into “meltdown”. For reactors currently burning uranium, their waste could be burned in in breeder reactors for even more power, allowing them to be phased out in favor of thorium technology.I’m not totally opposed to nuclear, but there are some very serious issues with it – besides it exhorbitant cost. What amounts to genocide from uranium mining:
See “America’s Secret Fukushima: Poisoning the Bread Basket of the World, the Navajo and Great Sioux Nations” re Uranium Mines on US tribal lands - leaking radiation
“It is estimated that 60 to 80% of Uranium in the US is located on tribal land, mostly of the Navajo and Sioux Nations.”
truth-out.org/news/item/16752-americas-secret-fukushima-poisoning-the-bread-basket-of-the-world
youtube.com/watch?v=3-aEheBZ-JI
mixcloud.com/ClearingtheFOG/the-toxic-effects-of-uranium-mining-on-tribal-lands-with-don-yellowman-and-charmaine-white-face/
Uranium mining is also greatly harming peasants in Niger as well.
If they could really clean up their act and compensate those harmed (which would probably cost many $billions), then I might consider it.
Life and health trump people’s need to blow dry their hair
I was specifically speaking to his climate/energy policies (and the crony capitalism that came with it), not climate change in general.
I really appreciate your helpful and well thought out comments and the references. This is how information should be presented.
If people had started mitigating climate change when JPII called on them to do so back in 1990, not only would such gov actions be unnecessary, but households would have saved $1000s without lowering living standards, and we may have avoided the 2008 economic recession (or it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad).
.)Your insults add nothing to the discussion. The President supports things that put him in a category other than “problems.”
Or, move to Tennessee where one can have coal ash slurry laden with arsenic and radionuclide dumped in their backyards and have the children always sick from it. See: ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/10/a-bittersweet-journey-in-eastern-tennessee/
Don’t know anything about it, but it sounds good. Also, I understand France does okay with nuclear (so far).
One of the major drawbacks to nuclear energy is the high-level radioactive wastes that it produces. This waste can stay radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years and currently there is no good way of permanently dealing with it. Although at some nuclear plants wastes can be recycled, as far as I know that is not a widespread practice and in the end would still result in some waste being produced. Until we find a good way to deal with the waste, I don’t think nuclear energy should be pursued. Also, nuclear energy relies on mined ores, and therefore is nonrenewable.
Hey, it’s just the price for “our American way of life”.
Insults, what insults?
Why did some scientists in the 1970s say what they did regarding a coming ice age? Did they look at the climate data and come to a conclusion that as there was cooling that could mean there could be a coming ice age?At the time there had been a slight cooling from the 1940s thru late 1970s (or at least no warming as would be expected by the enhanced greenhouse effect). See the chart:
http://learningfromdogs.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/global-temps.jpg
There is the natural process of glacial-intergacial cycles – but such a cooling would have taken many many 1000s of years and nothing to worry about.
The main issue for scientists was the aerosol effect from SO2 and particulate matter (regular pollution that make the atmosphere hazy, that is emitted along with GHGs) – that was known to have a cooling effect, but they didn’t know how much. A very few scientists were saying it could trigger a cooling. The earth systems are fairly sensitive to warming and cooling “forcings”; initial cooling if enough could cause more snow and ice to form, reflecting more heat away from earth, causing still more snow and ice to form – not a “snowball earth” as happened in the distant past, but more significant cooling.
To complicate matters, there was fear of a “nuclear winter” back then; if nuclear war happened, it could kick up enough dust to cause enough cooling to wipe out agriculture.
However, most climate scientists felt this leveling off in the warming back then was just temporary due to this aerosol cooling effect, and other natural fluctuations, and that the GHGs were more potent and that warming (not cooling) would be happening in the long run.
See an article in Science from 1981 (r/t Time & Newsweek) – the predictions are pretty good re what actually has happened, considering the science and computer power back then were not nearly as advanced as today: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
Also see: realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=They_predicted_global_cooling_in_the_1970s
For one thing, aerosol molecules have a short lifespan in the atmosphere – a few weeks – while GHGs have a much longer residency, about 10 years for methane (CH4) and over 100 years for CO2, and now they know a portion of CO2 molecules emitted today can stay in the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years.
I guess at the time in the 70s cooling was scarier than warming, so the media went wild after the cooling story and didn’t pay much attention to the warming story.
We should, however, understand that science progresses as time marches on, and should not dwell on science of 40 years ago when we have better science today.
Also the argument that global warming has stopped, or its cooling now is also bogus, with some of the same factors as mentioned complicating the picture – including the need to look at many decades (not just one or two); the natural fluctuation in solar irradiance (it’s been in a minima for some 15 years, but there has been no cooling back to pre-1960s level to match); increased aerosol pollution from China and other developing nations as they become developed; uptake of the warming in the ocean and ice-melting processes. See:
skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/
Here’s a graphic that helps:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
There is no reason so expect a cooling at this point; some scientists are even saying that earth may never again go into an ice age, esp since the sun is also gradually heating up, and gives off a lot more heat than millions of years ago. They even think the regional mini-cooling, as portrayed in Day After Tomorrow with the halting or slowing of the deep ocean (thermohaline) circulation, would not have much cooling effect in the north Atlantic region, due to warming overpowering that effect. However, new research does indicate we could get more negative arctic oscillations with global warming – bringing cold snaps north to south more often – killing my winter veggie garden and tropical plants– instead of the more typical west-to-east pattern, leaving the arctic much warmer in places. This happening while the global average temps continue to warm.
Also, now there is mountains of evidence that warming will be having a net negative effect on life on earth, including on human life, so it really is a life issue, and any truly pro-life person concerned about the children and progeny will be taking it seriously and striving to do their part. The gov can only do so much, the bulk of the mitigation solutions will have to come from ordinary people.
I think there were 2 scientists who really considered it a strong possibility, and a few others that thought it might happen. But most climate scientist were very wary of that theory, since the greenhouse effect is based on the laws of physics, and there was evidence it was being enhanced (CO2 increasing).
I updated my previous post. There are more than 2 scientists in the articles I posted that said there could be an ice age and those scientists were in some articles I found, who knows how many other scientists might have supported the idea that could be an ice age that I did not post or find.
I don’t think any of that is going to happen. Other nations are going to be in the forefront of such developments because they don’t ban them out of envionmentalist politics, whereas this country does. I recently read where South Korea is well ahead of us in nuclear tech, including both breeder reactors and thorium reactors. And South Korea isn’t the only one pulling ahead, it’s just the most developed among those who are surpassing this country in nuclear technology.
Sorry, I’m a little touchy this week.