Wrong, the Earth's seasons are caused by the obliquity of the ecliptic (the tilt of the axis). The variation in the orbit is like you standing six feet (1.83m) from a fire and moving closer by 3/4 inch (2cm). Four tenths of phi alpha in fact.Originally Posted by FailSafe
Sorry I simplified it- the Earth does not move in a circular obit- it's elliptical, and I realize that it's actually the angle at which the sun hits the Earth (the sun spends more time overhead during the summer, i.e.) that causes seasonal change- it's really not very germane to the point, though.
^ Ah, the TD scientists at work. I think the UN needs some more climatologists. Remind me, what happened to the last guys? Try this: Kill off about five billion humans and see what happens. Oh, those dam cows and their farts...
Last edited by Jet Gorgon; 06-03-2010 at 01:51 PM.
Whether or not you believe in man-made global warming (a preponderance of the evidence has convinced me) one should support the transition to "clean" renewable energy simply for economic and health reason. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar et al are economically viable for the long term (nuclear not so much--produces concentrated toxic waste) and do not produce near the amount of toxic chemicals that combustables do.
The "dirty" energy robber barons of our age delaying this switch will just prolong human misery and it just may lead to our extinction.
Yes, that's all it takes. Even monkey-girl summed it up in one line.Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Originally Posted by kingwilly
How does the fact that climate change occurs naturally, preclude man made climate change? Its like saying murder is not possible as people die of natural causes all the time. The concept is meaningless.
It aint scientific evidence, it's modeling, a very big difference.
Pay no attention to that giant nuclear reactor that rises in the East every morning. That has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING. The debate is settled.
The only way that variations in the sun's cycles can be made to account for the current changes in climate, if at all, is through....modelling. Its funny that these modellers also fail to neglect to mention that the only way that this idea is even remotely plausible is by multiplying the variation in the sun's radiation output by several factors, they also never mention that they have not managed to come up with a any explantion for doing this multiplication.
If Mercury did have an atmosphere than a person could compare the two planets. I don't see how distance from the sun can be included in the argument to make a point.
The Earth's moon is equidistant with the Earth from the sun, it has no atmosphere and it is cold. How do these facts prove climate change?
They don't- that wasn't the point I was trying to make (which was that the sun is not the only factor when it comes to temperature change- atmosphere has a lot to do with it, and excessive dispersal of greenhouse gases by mankind may be changing the composition of our atmosphere).
Sounds to me like someone is watching to many old Perry Mason TV showsOriginally Posted by dotcom
Less people and freer migration/immigration is the best solution for all the world's environmental, social, and economic problems. Why is it such a taboo topic?
What i find hilarious is the folks that believe we are the main culprit for GW, believe paying taxes will cure it.
Ant, having people that don't think along the same lines as you with this matter must be very frustrating for you!
Regardless of how it's caused, higher taxes and more government will not make it go away.
Not true. I've read that just blanketing Southern Nevada with solar arrays would be enough to power the US at current consumption (not even factoring in wind power). As for providing electricity for the whole planet it would only take about 500,000 km2 (roughly the land area of Spain).Originally Posted by dotcom
How Much Surface Area Would It Take to Power the World Completely With Solar or Wind? | Sustainability | Fast Company
Make thatOriginally Posted by FailSafe
excessive dispersal of greenhouse gases by mankind IS changing the composition of our atmosphere.
If anything this is proven beyond any doubt, not only beyond reasonable doubt.
Care to explain how you want to achieve that?Originally Posted by Friedclams
I do agree it would help much with the solution to our problems.
Basically sterilize an area the size of Southern Nevada. No animals no weeds just gravel and a surrounding fence and the transmission lines leading from it.
'Whole Earth's' Stewart Brand Backs Nuclear Power
February 20, 2010 President Obama announced federal support this week to build the first new nuclear power plants in nearly three decades and many environmentalists announced their opposition. But not the man who published the Whole Earth Catalog, and helped invent Earth Day. Host Scott Simon talks with Stewart Brand about the Obama administration's efforts to promote nuclear energy as a clean source of power.
Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.
SCOTT SIMON, host: For a entire generation, nuclear power has been a kind of third rail of alternative energy sources. Although nuclear power doesnt pollute the sky or produce carbon emissions, a generation that grew up with the specter of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island believed that the chances of a nuclear accident were so great and potentially so grave, most environmentalists also consider themselves anti-nuclear power activists.
This week, the Obama administration said that it would support the construction of two nuclear reactors in the state of Georgia the first in the U.S. since the 1970s. That plan, of course, has brought about concerns about the safety and the associated costs. Stewart Brand is one of the inventors of the environmental movement in the United States. Of course, he's founder and editor of "The Whole Earth Catalog. He joins us now from KQED in San Francisco. Mr. Brand, thanks so much for being with us.
Mr. STEWART BRAND (Founder and Editor, The Whole Earth Catalogue): Thanks for inviting me.
SIMON: So how do you feel about these perhaps new construction of nuclear power plants?
Mr. BRAND: I think it's great news. I think whats happened is basically President Obama has ended one argument probably started another. The one he has ended is whether or not the U.S. will expand its nuclear power capacity; the one that's beginning is how it will expand. He has absolutely changed the flavor of the debate. And thats terrific.
SIMON: Hmm. We should make plain, youve surprised a lot of people by supporting nuclear power.
Mr. BRAND: I surprised myself. I used to be, you know, pretty much a kneejerk environmentalist on this particular subject. And then because of climate change I reinvestigated the matter and discovered that Id been misled in many of the details on how nuclear works. And I finally got to the point where Im so pro-nuclear now that I would I would be in favor of it even if climate change and greenhouse gases were not an issue.
SIMON: You also are one of the few people I've ever interviewed who said I was wrong.
(Soundbite of laughter)
SIMON: So tell us exactly what you learned.
Mr. BRAND: Well, what I learned, you know, Ive been researching this stuff for a book I did called Whole Earth Discipline. And the research led me into looking at what are the real threats of radiation - way less than we thought; what really happened at Chernobyl - way less than we thought; what are the efficiencies of nuclear - way better than I thought; what is the tradeoff against solar and wind, and one of things environmentalists are just learning now is that because solar and wind are so dilute, they make an enormous footprint on the land in order to collect them and then another large footprint with the long transmission lines. And one of the things I learned...
SIMON: You are talking about, for example, in something like wind energy, miles and miles that have to be turned over to turbines.
Mr. BRAND: Hundred of square miles get turned over to turbines or even more deleteriously to solar farms. And then the other major thing I learned about is that there are now small nuclear reactors being designed that could be distributed in a micro-power format that looks very attractive to an environmentalist.
SIMON: And what about the concern about nuclear waste?
Mr. BRAND: Well, nuclear waste is sort of a first two generations of reactors issue. U.S. has decided to use once through rather than to reprocess the way French and Japanese do. And so weve got a fair amount of nuclear waste thats sitting around in dry cask storage being perfectly okay while we think about it. And either we will use it as fuel in the so-called fourth generation reactors that are being designed now or we could reprocess it the way the French do, or we could stick in the ground, not in Nevada, but it looks like New Mexico, the so-called waste isolation pilot plant, its been putting nuclear waste in a salt formation for 10 years now, looks like a good place to put this stuff if we wanted just file it and forget it.
SIMON: And what do you say to people who dont want to live next door to a nuclear reactor or down range of one or adjacent to?
Mr. BRAND: The polling is pretty clear on this. The people who turn out to be the most positive about nuclear are people who live near a present nuclear plant; they have tented to have visited the plants, see how clean and safe it is, the local jobs; they'd love to see a couple more reactors added to the side which are usually already licensed. So its one of those things of, you know, you hear the not in my backyard argument, but if you actually ask people who have nuclear in their backyard, they're pretty enthusiastic about it.
SIMON: And what about the concern that maybe the chances of an accident are small but the consequence are so grave, we shouldnt even risk that small chance?
Mr. BRAND: Ive been hearing lately about what really happened at Three Mile Island, which was about as bad as you can get. That was a classic core meltdown. It came 12 days after the movie China Syndrome and so everybody figured, well, this is The China Syndrome underway. And apparently what actually happened is indeed the core melted and got about half an inch into the seven inch containment vessel, cooled off, hardened, and that was the end of the incident. Nobody was hurt and it was instructive. So incidents like that have not occurred since. The safety record of the nuclear industry again, that turned up in my research - is impeccable.
SIMON: Quite about vulnerability to terrorism?
Mr. BRAND: Boy, I think it would take a pretty dumb terrorist.
(Soundbite of laughter)
Mr. BRAND: There's so many other vulnerabilities. I've been evolved in some of the researcher that intelligence community the last few years. And one of the things that happened after 9/11 is every nerd I know, including me, started figuring out various ways that we could bring down America, and there are so many - one could be grateful that they have not been explored by actual terrorists. Nuclear is way down the list; its really hard to do something terroristic with the way nuclear power is done.
SIMON: Stewart Brands new book - Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. He joined us from KQED in San Francisco. Nice to be with you, sir.
Mr. BRAND: Thank you, sir.
Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.
'Whole Earth's' Stewart Brand Backs Nuclear Power : NPR
Stay out of it Jet. You know the square root of fuck all about this, and sarcasm is no longer amusing.
Waste of time, Chas- this is a knucklehead who sends red to people who post comments he considers "cute" and "snarky", but his only form of retaliation (he's limited by the bounds of party lines) is to do exactly what he claims to despise (independent thought is stifled when you judge the messenger instead of the message)- we call that 'hypocrisy' where I'm from.
Almost 100% correct. Jet is a canadian red neck female pensioner, with a hide as thick as a dockers sandwich.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)