Gorebal Warming & Future Energy
- Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech
Today I got wind of some new developments in the Gorebal Warming debate. It seems that the “science” of the IPCC is once again in question. The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, it’s Physics and Society Forums, have proclaimed that the many of it’s members disbelieve in human caused global warming and question the validity of the “science” as used in the IPCC reports.
Jeffery Marque, editor, has a posting that opens a new scientific debate, he explains, “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
One major energy resource, being much touted again, is that of the fissioning nucleus. Nuclear power faces three major drawbacks in the public eye: the possibilities of devastating accidents; the possibility of ”proliferation” – the diversion of energy resources and technology into weaponry; the problem of protecting present and future generations from “nuclear ashes”- the long-lived radioactive byproducts of power generation by nuclear fission.
For the most part, our society has “stuck its head in the sand” regarding these issues, but we have spent a great deal of money exploring one possible means of dealing with the third problem – burying nuclear wastes deep underground (out of site, ergo out of mind). As the News item in this issue summarizes, the Federal government, after the expenditure of billions of dollars, seems to be ready to start sending long-lived wastes to be buried in Nevada. Many people there object – “not in my backyard”! As physicists interested in the impact of physics on society (and the converse), we are obligated to participate intensely in the public debate on this problem of waste disposal as well as the other two.
The final resolutions will have to be political but hopefully they will be well informed by knowledge of the physical possibilities as well as constraints. For example, I am unaware of any public discussion about the practical possibilities of decreasing the amount of long-lived nuclear ashes via the use of fast neutron fission reactors for power generation. I hope to see much more discussion of these issues in the future…”
Christopher Monckton, in his abstract starts out with “Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.”
Monckton, former science advisor to Britain’s Thatcher administration, has said that natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.”
I am also glad to hear they want to discuss Fast Neutron reactors. Spent fuel can be re-enriched and the byproducts go into re-processed fuel and the rest can be encapsulated in glass for safe, super long term storage.
Science and truth invite question. Let’s make sound decisions based on sound peer reviewed science. Let’s not go running off making snap judgments, causing more poverty and distress. We don’t need it and can’t afford it.
Loading ...
July 17th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
There’s plenty of “peer reviewed science” verifying human-caused global warming. There’s far, far less of it contradicting that science.
Additionally, what exactly is meant, regarding the APS, that “many of its members” dispute that humans are causing global warming. Exactly how many of the 50,000 members fall into that vaguely-worded category?
And what is a “considerable presence” of people in the scientific community who disagree with the IPCC’s conclusion.
Please quantify all that mumbo-jumbo.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Anon,
Is your reading comprehension so bad that you can’t differentiate the author of those words from the poster? I didn’t say it, Jeffery Marque the editor of the newsletter for the Physics and Society Forums of APS did. Follow the link and ask him. You might actually read and learn something along the way.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Dang ! That red ball of fire looks HOT !!
July 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Mr Overmyer,
Are you saying that it’s credible to post, as fact, something that you haven’t even verified and examined in-depth? Please. Your post just lost any shred of credibility in MIGHT have had.
So is this how you do it…post this stuff and then ask readers to verify it for you?
July 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
And how much money, security and energy will be necessary to FOREVER maintain the waste ["encapsulated in glass for safe, super long term storage"]?
Unfortunately we already have existing nuclear facilities in this country that need constant security and attention. And those facilities are the last ones that will ever be built if this country has any intelligence or any urge for the pursuit of happiness.
Most of us know we are responsible for the decline of our planet’s health. Most of us know it will be a life of less convienences in the short term with a big pay off down the road. Then there are those who are narcissists who want their spoils now and could give a r@t’s @ss about the future because “they’re not in it”.
Hunker down boys. There is a long road ahead for you.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Last time I’ll bother with one of your global warming denier posts. Not worth the time to debunk. You sure cherry picked the phrases you liked and took them out of context. In a organization of 46,000 members you are going to
find all types, including someone willing to post totally fraudulent data to make an argument. Too much of Monckton’s stuff is just pulled from thin air. As the APS says on the post
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
July 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
There’s no science, peer reviewed or not, that says we can stop or reverse global warming. It would be prudent to implement theideas to slow global warming that are cheap and skip the expensive ones.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
To call it Gorebal warming is such a childish way to act that nothing that you write can be taken seriously. Global warming is real and we need to solve the problem. If you need attention please pick a topic that is not of such huge importance. We have wasted many years since atmospheric pollution/destruction was brought to the attention of the general public in the early 1980’s. Enough of this foolish denial of a very real emergency.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
If you are so stuck in your beliefs that Al Gore is right and the world is coming to an end because of carbon emissions, you’re going to love the latest news today. That post will be out this evening. Stay tuned.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Lord Keynes
Stop believing everything you see on TV or in the movies especially when it comes to scientific information.
“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
Monty Pythons Flying Circus
July 18th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
you may not believe in global warming but hell, isnt it enough to make people change how they live!?!
we ship trash to other countries now, we waste so much and USE so much….you have a family. think about the next generation. just stop and think about what you do…
personally i hope in your own life we can live RESPONSIBLY. just do the right thing, because it matters to other living things.
yes i sound like a hippie so sue me.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
PS:
the same thoughts are what the US Automotive corps were thinking a few years ago, “why change and be more efficient” now look at them. they are changing and become (hopefully) more responsible.
don’t thing Global Warming, think RESPONSIBLE CONSUMERISM and living, it matters.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
PS again.
i live responsibly and hold Gore to the same measure as anyone else because the environment and people should not be a political agenda. i just think of the family and generations after me that might want to enjoy my life beyond me.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I have no problem with that at all, new linens. I have said before I admire Ed Bagley Jr., his actions are consistent with his ranting, he’s honest about what he says and does. I have problems with those who are are liars for personal and political gain that get me going. Over $50 billion wasted to fix something that can’ be fixed.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:02 am
i get you Carl
we cannot affect the sun. people and i hope (!) the people supporting the planet take their f-ing egos and BS out of it.
there are a lot of people (and i am sure we will see more locally) that say yes to the future, but we have to be careful that it is not the future of them…green is not money.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Oh my but the whiners are out in force on this topic. For everyone complaining about dirty air, dirty water, and landfills, ask yourselves one thing: Are you a conspicuous consumer. That is, do you have a car; computer; tv; a daily newspaper; magazine subscriptions; pre-packaged foods. Do you work in one city, but live in another.
I hear people fret over global warming, climate change, whatever you wish to call it, but when questioned over their personal choices and behaviors, they all say the same pathetic things.
But, I have to do those things, I don’t have any choice, I need to make a living, etc.
Carl, you have it right about Ed Begley Jr., he walks the walk. Too many people today merely talk a good game, but won’t dare to take a step in furtherance of their talk. Al Gore certainly falls into the category of the later.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:17 am
That truth about global warming is that it’s only one potential problem caused by our current forms and levels of energy consumption. General environmental (i.e. waste) and economical concerns, especially since they are much more tangible and evident, must be weighed as well.
Some of you may remember that I wrote a post on this a while back. If anyone cares to peruse it again, it can be found here.
SMS
July 19th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Starting from the very simple premise that it is never a good idea to foul your own nest it is evident that we need to control our pollution of the land, sea, and atmosphere. I am not aware that anyone, including Al Gore, claims that the world is going to end but it is surely being changed by our activities.
You will always be able to find some individual that will claim that evidence is false or overblown on almost any topic, from the shape of the earth to the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere and everything in between. This does not mean that their position has any validity whatsoever.
You betray your ignorance of the problem when you claim that carbon emissions are involved. Carbon is not being emitted, carbon compounds are being emitted in amounts that are unprecedented and they result in the changing of the atmosphere in dangerous ways. We hardly hear of ozone depletion and acid rain anymore because of the focus on the greenhouse effect but they are still occurring as well.
Most of my information on this topic comes from my university degrees, my 37 years as a physics and chemistry instructor, and my vast interest in scientific topics. Not a lot of it comes from movies or TV.
I think that if you approach the body of evidence with an open mind, you will be persuaded from what appears to be mostly an anti Al Gore bias. You will cease attempting to deny that a problem exists and accept the challenge that we all face of making sure that we do not continue the destruction of our nest.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:11 am
JRGris,
I don’t argue with your premise of spoiling our own nest. We should be better stewards of our planet.
While you may not have had an opportunity to read previous posts, where I have talked about the new technologies that we all hope will make the planet better, as well as our own lives. I support sound new technologies, like LED lighting and solar power among many others. I accept that we should be doing what we can to encourage the growth of those, which we are not doing very well at now. I don’t think CFL’s are good because of the millions of bits of mercury that will end up in land fills and eventually in our ground and water. Like the water based inks and MTBE and the ethanol “fixes” that are just plain short sighted and downright dumb.
I have HUGE issues with the lies and panic being portrayed in the media, and the political world. The huge changes that are being foisted on the industrial nations by the chicken little’s at our expense. While Al Gore, and yes I have huge issues with him, jets around the planet spewing large amounts of jet fuel exhaust into the upper altitudes of our environment. Acting like some environmental pope. While he disparages anyone who questions his motives or data.
I think we can fix some of the mess we have made with technologies and by education. I think you lead by example not by lies. This whole global warming panic they have foisted on the public will bite them in the butt, about like the pending debt bomb that both political parties have caused in our economy. When the chickens come home to roost and the truth is known, they will all be discredited. I only hope that freedom will not be sacrificed at the alter of the environment/public safety/nanny statism.
When we give up our freedoms we encourage those who claim that power, to do as they will and are much more prone to abuse of said powers. That, like it or not, is the truth.
I hope that you will continue this discussion whether you agree or disagree with me on issues at least you seem to be willing to talk about it with a degree of intelligence and respect. I encourage that discussion with everyone.
Knowledge is power, let’s help make everyone more powerful in their own lives as well as our society. Learning is a life long path, that requires an open mind to new thoughts and ideas for that learning to take place.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
LD- 50
You need to re-read Carl’s backhanded comment about Ed Begley, Jr. Overmeyer wrote (#13)
“I have no problem with that at all, new linens. I have said before I admire Ed Bagley Jr., his actions are consistent with his ranting, ..
Look up rant in the dictionary… bombastic. extravagant speech. to talk noisy.
Carl was “disingenious” in tipping his beanie to Begley and you fell for it.
An earlier post was spot on .. CO cherry picks to fit his agenda.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Every generation has a new round of suckers who want to believe.
Back in the 60-70’s oil was to run out in the 90’s and Florida and all low lying coastal regions were to be lost to raising ocean levels. In the late eighties those projections were push another 20 years out, (current time, now)
Now, we are told that in the next twenty years, oil will run out and Florida and all low lying coastal regions will to be lost to raising ocean levels.
Yep, every generation has a new round of suckers who want to believe.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Spot on Rob!
July 20th, 2008 at 5:30 am
anon -
“Carl was “disingenious” in tipping his beanie to Begley and you fell for it.”
With all due respect, you are wrong. I have spoken with Carl on many occasion regarding this topic. He was not mocking Mr. Begley. You’re stuck on the dictionary definition of one word and you completely ignore the broader statement. What a shame.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:19 am
My agenda is getting to the truth. If that steps on a few toes in the process, so be it. Giving control of our national interest and whatever control we have on our economy, to the UN with a really bad treaty (Kyoto) that ignores most of the worlds population and the worlds worst polluters, while it forces reductions in the economy and lives of virtually everyone in the “first world”, while engaging in shell games like carbon trading, I do view that horrifically bad news for freedom.
Anon, if you want to twist things, so be it. LD-50 has it right. Parse away, but you’re getting it wrong, and I did say EBjr was honest, inconsistent with your parsed opinion.
If it rained (your example) for seven years, I would think it was a good indication that the drought was over, perhaps not conclusive, but only time tells on that. You are still ignoring NASA data that shows temp. increases on other planets consistent with ours for the same period of time. Nor are you understanding the un-standardized nature of temp. recording historically prior to satellite data.
JRG,
If you go back and view my previous posts/comments on this issue here at OJB, you will find I have addressed the ozone issue and others relating and why I have issues Al Gore and the IPCC. If you can’t find them, I’ll try to reference them for you, just let me know. (it may take me a while too ;-)) This has been a long running issue here and I think you may not have seen them before. If you leave your true email address on your comments, I’ll email you the links. (many spoof their email address for posts)
Whatever happened to debating theories? It is an ongoing experiment and the debate needs to continue as we learn. When the observations no longer fit the theories then it’s time to modify or throw out the theory and build new ones. That is scientific methodology.