Starship Asterisk*

BMAONE23 wrote:If there were more openness then the debate might truly be settled but the techniques employed by Climate Scientists to avoid sharing data goes against the very methods they are supposed to stand for as scientists

Please understand that there is absolutely no debate inside the scientific community. The "debate" as it stands is a social/political fabrication, like those found around evolution or the age of the Earth.

Most raw climate data is publicly available. All of the conclusions that have been reached are based on science and models that are published and can be examined by anybody. Some raw data is either embargoed for a period, or only released to other researchers who request it. As it happens, this is exactly how all the other sciences operate, including astronomy. Right now, there are papers being published about things like star formation that are based on data that is not publicly available. Does that mean these ideas are somehow subject to public debate? Probably not, but you can bet that argument would be made if there was some political objective associated with star formation!

BMAONE23 wrote:

neufer wrote:

mikef wrote:
So, here is my message to politically conservative people who doubt that humans are responsible for climate change.

The politically conservative people who really need convincing:

• 1) don't believe in science & don't trust scientists and
  2) don't care if polar bears starve or if folks in Bangladesh drown.

As to #2 polar bears are thriving and have grown to a population estimated to be 25,000
as of the last survey from an estimated population of 20,000 at the prior survey.

The politically conservative people who really need convincing:

• 3) put much greater weight on anecdotal evidence than on actual scientific studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Population_and_distribution wrote:
<< It is difficult to estimate a global population of polar bears as much of the range has been poorly studied, however biologists use a working estimate of about 20,000–25,000 polar bears worldwide.

There are 19 generally recognized discrete subpopulations. The subpopulations display seasonal fidelity to particular areas, but DNA studies show that they are not reproductively isolated. The thirteen North American subpopulations range from the Beaufort Sea south to Hudson Bay and east to Baffin Bay in western Greenland and account for about 70% of the global population. The Eurasian population is broken up into the eastern Greenland, Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, and Chukchi Sea subpopulations, though there is considerable uncertainty about the structure of these populations due to limited mark and recapture data.

Modern methods of tracking polar bear populations have been implemented only since the mid-1980s, and are expensive to perform consistently over a large area. The most accurate counts require flying a helicopter in the Arctic climate to find polar bears, shooting a tranquilizer dart at the bear to sedate it, and then tagging the bear. In Nunavut, some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. Scientists have responded by noting that hungry bears may be congregating around human settlements, leading to the illusion that populations are higher than they actually are. The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN takes the position that "estimates of subpopulation size or sustainable harvest levels should not be made solely on the basis of traditional ecological knowledge without supporting scientific studies."

Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations:

• 1) eight are declining,
  2) three are stable,
  3) one is increasing, and
  4) seven have insufficient data>>

Jasev wrote:Any amature astronomer can clearly see this photo shows sun from the lower left

It's a really, REALLY good optical illusion. I started out thinking as you do, but read my posts above, and if you've got the bandwidth download the big "strip" image. It becomes pretty obvious which direction the light is coming from when you view the non-frost-covered parts, and it magically seems to "flip around" when you get to the pits.

Thank you, APOD folks, for making me distrust my eyes.

-Noel

neufer wrote:(snip)
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations:

• 1) eight are declining,
  2) three are stable,
  3) one is increasing, and
  4) seven have insufficient data>>

[/quote]

Neufer,
I have to ask, What would you suggest we do as a society to eliminate our Evil Carbon Producing Energy Sources that wouldn't either
1) Bankrupt our governments
2) To avoid 1 above Overburden the populace via heavily increased Taxation
3) Eliminate 80% of the population
4) Convert the world to communism to eliminate the monitary system

Another option???

How about a massive public works effort to manufacture and install 15 kW or so of solar panels on the roof of virtually every home in the country? With enough quantity / demand there would certainly be breakthroughs in pricing. This wouldn't bankrupt anyone any more than bailing out investment banks does.

-Noel

BMAONE23 wrote:
Neufer,
I have to ask, What would you suggest we do as a society to eliminate our Evil Carbon Producing Energy Sources that wouldn't either
1) Bankrupt our governments
2) To avoid 1 above Overburden the populace via heavily increased Taxation
3) Eliminate 80% of the population
4) Convert the world to communism to eliminate the monitary system

Another option???

Take global warming seriously and try all options including nuclear.

Stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is ok and there is nothing you need to do.

I have to agree with you about the Nuclear Power and clean energy. The only real problem with Nuclear power is how the spent fuel rods are stored and cooled. Currently they are placed in spent fuel ponds that are kept cool by continually pumping water through them that is pumped by power produced on site. As long as the power plant continues to operate, the rod cooling system has power to function. If something happens to the plant and power stops, the fuel rods will heat up like what happened in Japan.
Nuclear power is very cost effective though with an average of 11.4 cents/KWH ($114/MWH) and a maximum cost of $121/MWH with a capacity factor of 90%
Geothermal is also very cost effective with an average of 10.17 cents/KWH ($101.7/MWH) and a maximum cost of $115.7/MWH and a capacity factor of 92%
Wind power is also fairly cost effective with an average of 9.7 cents/KWH ($97/mwh) and a maximum cost of $115/MWH but has a capacity factor of 34%
Solar Photovoltaic has an average cost of 21 cents/KWH ($210.7/MWH) and a maximum cost of $323.9/MWH but has a capacity factor of 25%
Solar Thermal has an average cost of 31 cents/KWH ($311.8/MWH) and a maximum cost of $641.6/MWH but has a capacity factor of 18%
The least expensive is Natural Gas with Advanced Combined Cycle with an average cost of 6.3 cents/KWH and a capacity factor of 87%

The "Clean Technologies" of Solar and Wind are too costly without Subsidies and not available on cloudy/stormy days or nights

The "Clean Technologies" of Solar and Wind are too costly without Subsidies and not available on cloudy/stormy days or nights

Gee, it's too bad there haven't been any breakthroughs in battery technology over the past few decades. Oh, wait...

-Noel

BMAONE23 wrote:I have to agree with you about the Nuclear Power and clean energy. The only real problem with Nuclear power is how the spent fuel rods are stored and cooled. Currently they are placed in spent fuel ponds that are kept cool by continually pumping water through them that is pumped by power produced on site. As long as the power plant continues to operate, the rod cooling system has power to function. If something happens to the plant and power stops, the fuel rods will heat up like what happened in Japan.
Nuclear power is very cost effective though with an average of 11.4 cents/KWH ($114/MWH) and a maximum cost of $121/MWH with a capacity factor of 90%
Geothermal is also very cost effective with an average of 10.17 cents/KWH ($101.7/MWH) and a maximum cost of $115.7/MWH and a capacity factor of 92%
Wind power is also fairly cost effective with an average of 9.7 cents/KWH ($97/mwh) and a maximum cost of $115/MWH but has a capacity factor of 34%
Solar Photovoltaic has an average cost of 21 cents/KWH ($210.7/MWH) and a maximum cost of $323.9/MWH but has a capacity factor of 25%
Solar Thermal has an average cost of 31 cents/KWH ($311.8/MWH) and a maximum cost of $641.6/MWH but has a capacity factor of 18%
The least expensive is Natural Gas with Advanced Combined Cycle with an average cost of 6.3 cents/KWH and a capacity factor of 87%

The "Clean Technologies" of Solar and Wind are too costly without Subsidies and not available on cloudy/stormy days or nights

What I don't understand about the spent fuel rods is why they are stored at all instead of being used to generate more power if the rods are still "hot".

Gary

GaryR wrote:What I don't understand about the spent fuel rods is why they are stored at all instead of being used to generate more power if the rods are still "hot".

Basically, they're not hot enough. Which is why they're called "spent".

But they'll become valuable fuel again, as soon as we get the next generation of reactors going.

Rob