"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

666888

666888

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
last year we were covered in two feet of snow around this time.
Click to expand...
Its a big la Nina this year, not sure what effect that has on you blokes, but here no summer at all, 9 months of shit weather lots of rain
now "summer" is here in march, 3 weeks of mid/high 20s maybe more, fucking lovely
Never got 1' 40c day and hardly any 30c days all summer, I live in one of the worlds worst bushfire spots, hot is normal.
The fruit trees and natives all seem to be flowering on time
It might be a northern hemisphere thing? or a local thing, its certainly not a world wide phenomenon

Bloody weather keeps on changing, every year
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
666888 said:
Its a big la Nina this year, not sure what effect that has on you blokes, but here no summer at all, 9 months of shit weather lots of rain
now "summer" is here in march, 3 weeks of mid/high 20s maybe more, fucking lovely
Never got 1' 40c day and hardly any 30c days all summer, I live in one of the worlds worst bushfire spots, hot is normal.
The fruit trees and natives all seem to be flowering on time
It might be a northern hemisphere thing? or a local thing, its certainly not a world wide phenomenon

Bloody weather keeps on changing, every year
Click to expand...
too funny this

as if la nina events are not part of climate models. Oh and it is a weak la nina. not that it matters except it shows you for the fool you are.
 
666888

666888

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
too funny this

as if la nina events are not part of climate models. Oh and it is a weak la nina. not that it matters except it shows you for the fool you are.
Click to expand...
Hang on a sec Fuppydog, we are talking real events, the ones outside where it matters, not some fictitious model, about what might happen
you city dwellers wouldn't know an El nino from an La Nina

you are a knob as well as a fool Fogdog
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
666888 said:
Hang on a sec Fuppydog, we are talking real events, the ones outside where it matters, not some fictitious model, about what might happen
you city dwellers wouldn't know an El nino from an La Nina

you are a knob as well as a fool Fogdog
Click to expand...
you speak of the obvious. La Nina is well known and understood, meaning climate science completely accounts for ocean temperature effects on climate. I mean, duh.

Really, it's kind of mean for me to drub a retarded person but if you keep shoving your face into my fist, I can't help your bruises.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The reactor you talk about is still in the development stages and has been stuck there for decades. It is not commercially available and may never be. You are the nuclear pipe dreamer. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But you live in a glass house and continue to cast stones. Not very smart of you.

China is looking at building a next gen reactor but the design still uses uranium and still will produce waste. What you dream about and castigate others for not "believing" is so far out in the future that it is irrelevant to the AGW you are shouting about. Solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel are developed and commercially available today.

Some countries might need nuclear power to fully kick the fossil fuel habit. The US does not.

In any case, in the far future when Gen IV reactors might be available, manufacturing and distributing nuclear fuel will create low level nuclear waste. This is why I'm calling you a proponent of nuclear waste. But also, high pressure, high temperature vessels holding molten nuclear material is only called safe because we haven't built one and had an accident yet.
Click to expand...
thhe only reason they havent been built yet is because there hasnt been the investment into them.

back in the begining of nuclear power there was the cold war and the need for plutonium for nuclear bombs. the boiling water reators that we're stuck with now were the easiest way to produce that material..
now those reactors not only have the problem of leaving long lasting waste but they also are prone to melting down if the cooling pumps fail.
now for decades whenever there was a new reactor built it was suggested to build the newer safer designs but because we were stuck with the cold war era plants and it was cheaper to just copy the old designs and add patches to it we stayed stuck with them.
to call them "experimental" or "developmental" doesnt really give justice to the situation...


i think you'll find any solution to agw will take a long time... covering an area equivilent to arizona with concentrating solar panels isnt gong to happen over night... or covering an area the size of california with wind turbines..

there is no perfect solution at all but nuclear is a very small very condensed solution with minimal waste and impact.

and for all those idiots who keep referencing fukishima

  • one of the worlds oldest reactors
  • hit by an earthquake that moved the whole island of japan 8 feet
  • hit by a tsunami
  • the reactor building and reactor survived that
  • fooded water pumps/generators in basement caused the over heating
  • the tsunami killed 10's of thousands of people yet fukishima killed none
  • people still live next to the sea


there is no
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Fukushima has made the news recently by admitting that there is a leak measuring over 530 Sieverts on the site, enough to fry even hardened robots in less than 2 hours
Click to expand...
not a leak they just managed to get a probe further into the reactor than they had before hense the higher reading....
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
666888 said:
Hang on a sec Fuppydog, we are talking real events, the ones outside where it matters, not some fictitious model, about what might happen
you city dwellers wouldn't know an El nino from an La Nina

you are a knob as well as a fool Fogdog
Click to expand...
As if experiencing wind is just as good as meteorology knowledge. You are too rich, boy. I say too rich!

 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
thhe only reason they havent been built yet is because there hasnt been the investment into them.

back in the begining of nuclear power there was the cold war and the need for plutonium for nuclear bombs. the boiling water reators that we're stuck with now were the easiest way to produce that material..
now those reactors not only have the problem of leaving long lasting waste but they also are prone to melting down if the cooling pumps fail.
now for decades whenever there was a new reactor built it was suggested to build the newer safer designs but because we were stuck with the cold war era plants and it was cheaper to just copy the old designs and add patches to it we stayed stuck with them.
to call them "experimental" or "developmental" doesnt really give justice to the situation...


i think you'll find any solution to agw will take a long time... covering an area equivilent to arizona with concentrating solar panels isnt gong to happen over night... or covering an area the size of california with wind turbines..

there is no perfect solution at all but nuclear is a very small very condensed solution with minimal waste and impact.

and for all those idiots who keep referencing fukishima

  • one of the worlds oldest reactors
  • hit by an earthquake that moved the whole island of japan 8 feet
  • hit by a tsunami
  • the reactor building and reactor survived that
  • fooded water pumps/generators in basement caused the over heating
  • the tsunami killed 10's of thousands of people yet fukishima killed none
  • people still live next to the sea


there is no
Click to expand...
You left one factor out about Fukishima. No matter how safe nuclear energy can be, the chance of a human fuck-up is sizeable. The reactor was built below the tidal wave line and their generators and pumps were placed below that even. No bueno.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
You left one factor out about Fukishima. No matter how safe nuclear energy can be, the chance of a human fuck-up is sizeable. The reactor was built below the tidal wave line and their generators and pumps were placed below that even. No bueno.
Click to expand...
Humans are inherently fallible and we don't have the ability to foresee all possible contingencies. Given the dire consequences of containment failures, it just doesn't make sense to tolerate such risks in the same biosphere as humans and all other living things.

Add to this the fact that alternative energy sources exist and are rapidly becoming cost competitive and there's just no justification for the level of risk inherent to nuclear power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top