The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder

[The_Reginator]

From Wesley J. Smith’s First Things entry:

Weather ebbs and flows. Climate changes. GWH”s loss of credibility–now there was an extreme change in the (political) climate–was entirely self inflicted by eye-popping hyperbole, extreme over reaching, and a failed strategy of fear mongering to seize control of the international economy and redistribute wealth.

Meanwhile, a World Bank study of the issue shows very little relative global financial costs associated with warming-caused “extreme weather events” by the year 2100

Mr. Smith links to a piece by ANNE JOLIS on The Wall Street Journal / Opinion Journal entitled

The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder

The following caught my eye (midway down the page):

Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain’s GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames “the bad weather.”

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain’s future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

 

[DaveBj]

The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder

Correct. We all are the ones who are getting weirder.

British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain’s future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

Now that is just plain funny!

DaveBj

 

[centurionguard]

From Wesley J. Smith’s First Things entry:

Mr. Smith links to a piece by ANNE JOLIS on The Wall Street Journal / Opinion Journal entitled
The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.

The following caught my eye (midway down the page):

Rather than embrace the status-quo of popular science today who sensationalize global warming for some unseen ulterior motive as if to legitimize their cause seeking governmental funding for whatever; I’d rather embrace studies that show evidence of global warming trends all throughout the one million years in human history and in the earth’s four billion year history.

 

[The_Reginator]

Rather than embrace the status-quo of popular science today who sensationalize global warming for some unseen ulterior motive as if to legitimize their cause seeking governmental funding for whatever; I’d rather embrace studies that show evidence of global warming trends all throughout the one million years in human history and in the earth’s four billion year history.

As I’ve said before, -]I never repeat myself/-] I wish we would fight all pollution without getting sidetracked by this ‘pseudo-science’ (not my term – many others have used it) that insists that the necessary & natural element carbon dioxide must be virtually eliminated and receive vast amounts of money and legislation.

 

[centurionguard]

:thumbs up:
As I’ve said before, -]I never repeat myself/-] I wish we would fight all pollution without getting sidetracked by this ‘pseudo-science’ (not my term – many others have used it) that insists that the necessary & natural element carbon dioxide must be virtually eliminated and receive vast amounts of money and legislation.

You know its odd when a number of years ago I bought former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore’s convincing video on Global Warming. Its easy to get distracted when one only looks at mans Industrial Age in these last 150 years.

Sure it hasn’t helped the modern pollution age where mankind could give a damn about our environment all for the almighty dollar with the forefront of fossil fuels running the rouse.

But really; if big global governments and Multi=National companies were that interested in finding another fuel source to save the planet they would have found it long time ago.

Fact is they won’t look for another fuel source as long as money is rolling on Wall Street and global stock markets.

 

[Ender]

But really; if big global governments and Multi=National companies were that interested in finding another fuel source to save the planet they would have found it long time ago.

Fact is they won’t look for another fuel source as long as money is rolling on Wall Street and global stock markets.

Really? Who is it that opposes the use of nuclear energy; big companies or the environmentalists? You want a non-carbon based source of energy? There it is. It isn’t Wall Street that’s keeping us from using it.

Ender

 

[manualman]

Actually there really are big industry sponsored manipulations going on that perpetuate the reliance on oil. They are just so in your face broad daylight that nobody notices!

Oil beats the snot out of any other energy source because NOTHING can compete with a resource that you just pump out of the ground and use, even when there is abusive profit in the price of that oil.

But what if SECURING the uninterrupted flow of that oil requires a trillion dollar war every 10 years or so? Who’s paying for THAT? If this were a TRUE free market economy, the cost of protecting the oil infrastructure system would be built into the price of the oil and Americans would be SCREAMING for electric cars and intelligent public transportation. But instead, we pay that cost with debt from general revenue so that the next 6 generations of guys who walk to work every day will end up paying for the protection of this decades’ oil flow.

It’s weired to me that republicans who CLAIM to be free market champions are so consistently willing to subsidize oil companies with our massive defense budget. If it costs that much to defend ‘cheap’ oil, then we should set the oil tax to where it needs to be to pay for the oil wars. Nobody will do it, of course, because the massive crowds will lynch anybody who suggests it, but the reality is that the REAL cost of oil reliance have become HIGHER than other potential energy sources.

As long as oil prices are subsidized by funding oil infrastructure defense from elsewhere, the market will be helpless to foster other energy sources. (Same reason semi-trucks nearly bankrupted the railroads even though trains are 20 times as fuel efficient: trucks pay only a tiny fraction of the cost of highways in fuel taxes. Railroads pay 100% of the cost of track maintenance.)

Oh, and weather ISN’T getting weirder. Human development is just more pervasive than ever and our communications systems to report extreme events are more efficient than ever. Nobody ever knew when a hurricane wiped out an unpopulated jungle or a remote native village. Today, its on CNN live within 24 hours no matter where it occurs.

 

[centurionguard]

Really? Who is it that opposes the use of nuclear energy; big companies or the environmentalists? You want a non-carbon based source of energy? There it is. It isn’t Wall Street that’s keeping us from using it.

Ender

Really? First of all it was (“you”) who brought up the subject about Nuclear Energy.

From a global scene increasingly the search for nuclear energy resources are mined, proliferated and sold under the banner of huge multi-national companies for government and private sector use.

Yes; I will agree environmentalist can get cynical at times defending differentiating aspects of their cause.

However; what some would easily trade-off as cynicism does hold some very interesting concerns about how Depleted Uranium Nuclear Waste are disposed of in numerous countries.

Given the complete breakdown in morality on a mass global scene, how trusting should any of us be having unequivocal trust in how nuclear waste is disposed and stored in our own counties? I think people do have a right to be concerned. Next time you drink a glass of well water in a city near a nuclear waste facility you might want to give it a second thought.

**During fission, very harmful radiation rays are released. The most harmful of which are gamma rays. When the human body is exposed to radiation, it can cause tumors and can do extreme damage to the reproductive organs. For this reason, problems associated with radioactivity can be passed on to the victim’s children as well. That is why radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is so dangerous.

After about 18 months in a reactor, fission begins to slow down, and the uranium rods must be replaced. It takes about 2 months to remove the old rods and place in the new ones. The used-up uranium rods are stuck in containers which are placed in swimming-pool sized tanks of water. In these tanks, the old rods lose some of their radioactivity and begin to cool down. However, many nuclear power plants are now running into the problem of their water tanks getting full of the rods, and are in need of a permanent storage place.

Many scientists have argued about a long term storage for our nuclear waste. Many think the waste should be placed in concrete containers and buried far beneath the Earth’s surface. Others say that some of the waste should be loaded into rockets and shot at the sun. Some countries have already decided on their plans. Canada is currently looking at a plan to bury their radioactive waste underneath the Canadian Shield. The United States has a plan to bury their waste underground in Nevada where some nuclear experiments and tests have already been conducted. So far, continuing debates have prevented much of anything from being done about nuclear waste. Unfortunatelly, after buried underground, the nuclear waste can take millions of years to decay.**

 

[manualman]

…Next time you drink a glass of well water in a city near a nuclear waste facility you might want to give it a second thought.

Come on, do SOME homework! First, I’ll agree that nukes are not a magic bullet for energy independence. Mining radioactive ores is a problem and there are political stability problems in THOSE nations as well. But with advances in breeder reactor technology, we can musch reduce our foreign source dependence there.

But there is a really quite simply solution to nuclear waste. Yucca. The feds have been trying for decades to finish this beast which will centralize all our nuclear waste where there IS no groundwater and are no CITIES (nor the reasonable ability to build them in the future due to local climate and water shortages). Right now knee jerk activists have been derailing its activiation with the result that nuclear plants store much of their waste ON-SITE distributed across the USA instead of at this centralized location. That’s just cutting off your nose to spite your face!

 

[Ender]

Really? First of all it was (“you”) who brought up the subject about Nuclear Energy.

Yes, in response to the charge that “big companies” weren’t looking for alternate energy sources, a charge that is simply ridiculous. Companies are always looking for something new and better. If there was an energy source that could compete economically with coal, oil, and gas, companies would be all over it; that’s how capitalism works

Given the complete breakdown in morality on a mass global scene, how trusting should any of us be having unequivocal trust in how nuclear waste is disposed and stored in our own counties? I think people do have a right to be concerned. Next time you drink a glass of well water in a city near a nuclear waste facility you might want to give it a second thought.

When the perfectly safe alternative appears I will line up to use it. In the mean time I’ll make do with what we have. As for drinking water in a city with a nuclear plant, I can do that as I live less than 20 miles from one. (A real benefit as it keeps my electric bills relatively low.) For all the scare comments about the dangers of radiation it should be kept in mind that the additional radiation one receives when standing at the fence surrounding a nuclear plant is the same level one receives from sleeping next to someone else in a double bed. Not too high on my list of concerns.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

Come on, do SOME homework! First, I’ll agree that nukes are not a magic bullet for energy independence. Mining radioactive ores is a problem and there are political stability problems in THOSE nations as well. But with advances in breeder reactor technology, we can music reduce our foreign source dependence there.

But there is a really quite simply solution to nuclear waste. Yucca. The feds have been trying for decades to finish this beast which will centralize all our nuclear waste where there IS no groundwater and are no CITIES (nor the reasonable ability to build them in the future due to local climate and water shortages). Right now knee jerk activists have been derailing its activation with the result that nuclear plants store much of their waste ON-SITE distributed across the USA instead of at this centralized location. That’s just cutting off your nose to spite your face!

I assume when your speaking about the Yucca Mountain Range your speaking about the geological area in Nevada as the prime choice for Nuclear Waste. However; the Yucca mountain range extends all the way into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and near the biggest calavera in the world namely Yellowstone National Park.

My only question is that some U.S. scientist argue about the geological instability of the Yucca Mountain range. What are your thoughts here.

 

[manualman]

Yes, I am referring to the Nevada site. Yes, there is a risk that if the Yellowstone supervolcano blows, the waste storage facility containment will be breached even that far away and nuclear waste materials released. But if that happens, nearly everyone in North America will be dead anyways, so it appears a silly worry to my eyes when the alternative is to have many dozens of nuclear power plants all over the USA continue to store their waste in cobbled together temporary storage schemes that are FAR less secure and actually ARE located in population centers!

ALL engineering decisions are about balancing risk versus reward. Free markets help with that, but only when they really are FREE markets. I suspect gasoline really costs us somewhere in the ballpark of $4.50 a gallon (including military costs), but again, no politician will say that out loud.

 

[steve711]

Just a couple of thoughts from an old engineer.

1. I remember in the 1970’s when we were told that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000 and we were going into an ice age. Yes, I am that old. Now with satellite imaging we are finding oil in places we would have never suspected in the USA. There is a massive oil reserve under the Dakota’s that we are now pumping oil out of and one much larger out west near the Rocky mountains. These reserves by the way, have caused the scientific community to rethink the term fossil fuels as being incorrect statement. Some in the scientific community believe that oil could be a byproduct of the chemical reactions deep within the earth. I say we are just beginning to understand the planets resources and its weather, and anything else is pure speculation.
2. We in the USA have almost given up on nuclear energy plants while the rest of the Western world has continued to pursue it, and guess who has most of the worlds uranium, the USA has something like 85% of the worlds supply. Uranium is a natural occurring element and is mined from the ground and refined or enriched to be used in power plants or weapons. If we were really so worried about CO2 emissions, we would build nuclear energy plants like every one else in the civilized world (Britain, France, Spain, Japan) to name a few to produce our electricity. Why is it that we cannot learn to dispose of it correctly, I say we have to many politicians involved.

Go with God’s Grace!