Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

This is akin to an ant p__ing on a forest fire expecting to put it out!




U.S. naval barges loaded with fresh water sped toward the crippled nuclear plant to help workers who scrambled Saturday amid radioactivity fears.

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. is now rushing to inject the reactors with fresh water instead amid concerns about the corrosive nature of the salt in seawater, Hidehiko Nishiyama of Japan's Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency said at a briefing Saturday.

Workers have begun pumping radioactive water from one of the units, Masateru Araki, a TEPCO spokesman, said Saturday.

Plant officials and government regulators say they don't know the source of the radioactive water. It could have come from a leaking reactor core, connecting pipes or a spent fuel pool. Or it may be the result of overfilling the pools with emergency cooling water.Radioactivity in seawater just outside one unit tested some 1,250 times higher than normal, probably from both airborne radiation released from the reactors and contaminated water leaked into the sea, Nishiyama said Saturday. Tainted groundwater is the most likely consequence of the incident.

One Fukushima government official said some commercial trucks were refusing to enter the area because of radiation fears, resulting in a shortage of goods.

A nuclear crisis that not long ago was described as serious but stable has now raised concerns of a greater meltdown, with the danger underscored Friday with two plant employees hospitalized after wading into water 10,000 times more radioactive than normal.

The Tokyo Electric Power Co. told Kyodo News that it has begun injecting freshwater into the Unit 1 and 3 reactors at the plant, despite radioactive water leaking from Unit 1, 2 and 3.

The National Institute of Radiological Sciences says that the two employees have likely suffered "internal exposure" in which radioactive substances have entered their bodies, according to Kyodo News.

Link

This should also tell us the plant has lost its ability to make demineralized water near zero conductivity also!

There is a type of scientific arrogance in the idea of extreme events being caused by global warming. I do not mean that those who propose it are arrogant. I mean the idea is arrogant. It suggests some sort of perfection of climate existed, say 50 years ago, before the warming began. This seems like arrogance.
Take a step back and see what it suggests.
It suggests that if the climate had cooled, we had had global cooling, then that cooling would have led to extreme events, or if we had warming, that that warming would have led to extreme events.
Think of this in the calculus sense of a continuous function. The idea that the weather, the climate , was of perfection prior to the warming suggests that the climate was at one of those points of zero slope and that it was always there except for human intervention with the burning of fossil fuels.
Do you not see the arrogance of the idea?
Would not the lack of extreme events also be an extreme event?

Really The Climate Can be Changed Today:

http://lluvias.unlugar.com/weather.html

Michael banned me for what reason?

Quoting cyclonebuster:
Michael banned me for what reason?

MichaelSTL bans everyone from his blog that he puts on his Ignore List. Welcome to the club!

Quoting sirmaelstrom:


MichaelSTL bans everyone from his blog that he puts on his Ignore List. Welcome to the club!

I agree with him on almost every point! I don't get it? Is it because he disagrees with my Gulfstream Kinetic energy theory?

Quoting cyclonebuster:


I agree with him on almost evry point! I don't get it? Is it because he disagrees with my Gulfstream Kinetic energy theory?

Well obviously I don't know what he thinks for sure, but based on the comments I've seen I think he is of the opinion that you make too many posts concerning the tunnels. Just guessing, of course...

Quoting sirmaelstrom:


Well obviously I don't know what he thinks for sure, but based on the comments I've seen I think he is of the opinion that you make too many posts concerning the tunnels. Just guessing, of course...

That's because they can change back everything we are changing now for the worse. That is a very large list!

We need to protest in the USA like the Germans. Gulf Stream Kinetic Energy anyone?


Some 200,000 in Germany protest nuclear power

BERLIN — Tens of thousands of people on Saturday turned out in Germany's largest cities to protest the use of nuclear power in the wake of Japan's Fukushima reactor disaster, police and organizers said.

In Berlin alone more than 100,000 took to the capital's streets to urge Germany's leaders to immediately abolish nuclear power, police spokesman Jens Berger said.

Organizers said some 250,000 people marched at the "Fukushima Warns: Pull the Plug on all Nuclear Power Plants" rallies in the country's four largest cities, making them the biggest anti-nuclear protest in the country's history.

"We can no longer afford bearing the risk of a nuclear catastrophe," Germany's environmental lobby group BUND said.

Link

How long is the list going to be? Gulf Stream Kinetic Energy puts an end to this list that is hurtful to the environment!


Scope of this article In listing civilian nuclear accidents, the following criteria have been followed:

1.There must be well-attested and substantial health damage, property damage or contamination.
2.The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant.
3.To qualify as "civilian", the nuclear operation/material must be principally for non-military purposes.
4.The event should involve fissile material or a reactor.
[edit] 1950sDecember 12, 1952 — INES Level 5[citation needed] - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Reactor core damaged
A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor. The operators purged the reactor's heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30 seconds. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the reactor core. The fission products from approximately 30 kg of uranium were released through the reactor stack. Irradiated light-water coolant leaked from the damaged coolant circuit into the reactor building; some 4,000 cubic meters were pumped via pipeline to a disposal area to avoid contamination of the Ottawa River. Subsequent monitoring of surrounding water sources revealed no contamination. No immediate fatalities or injuries resulted from the incident; a 1982 followup study of exposed workers showed no long-term health effects. Future U.S. President Jimmy Carter, then a Lieutenant in the US Navy, was among the cleanup crew.[1]
October 10, 1957 - INES Level 5 - Windscale, Cumbria, Great Britain - Core fire
The graphite core of a British nuclear [weapons programme] reactor at Windscale, Cumberland (now Sellafield, Cumbria) caught fire, releasing substantial amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area. The event, known as the Windscale fire, was the worst nuclear accident in Great Britain.
May 24, 1958 — INES Level needed - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Fuel damaged
Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor. The fire was extinguished, but not before radioactive combustion products contaminated the interior of the reactor building and, to a lesser degree, an area surrounding the laboratory site. Over 600 people were employed in the clean-up.[2][3]
October 25, 1958 - INES Level needed - Vinča, Yugoslavia - Criticality excursion, irradiation of personnel
During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected at the Vinca Nuclear Institute's zero-power natural uranium heavy water moderated research reactor.[4] Saturation of radiation detection chambers gave the researchers false readings and the level of moderator in the reactor tank was raised triggering a criticality excursion which a researcher detected from the smell of ozone.[5] Six scientists received radiation doses of 2—4 Sv (200—400 rems) [6] (p. 96). An experimental bone marrow transplant treatment was performed on all of them in France and five survived, despite the ultimate rejection of the marrow in all cases. A single woman among them later had a child without apparent complications. This was one of the first nuclear incidents investigated by then newly-formed IAEA.[7]
July 26, 1959 — INES Level needed - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States - Partial meltdown
A partial core meltdown may have taken place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases. [8]
[edit] 1960sJuly 24, 1964 - INES Level needed - Charlestown, Rhode Island, United States - Criticality Accident
An error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality. Robert Peabody, believing he was using a diluted uranium solution, accidentally put concentrated solution into an agitation tank containing sodium carbonate. Peabody was exposed to 10,000rad (100Gy) of radiation and died two days later. Ninety minutes after the criticality, a plant manager and another administrator returned to the building and were exposed to 100rad (1Gy), but suffered no ill effects.[9][10]
October 5, 1966 — INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment vessel.[11]
Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown) – INES Level needed – location unknown – loss of coolant accident
The Soviet icebreaker Lenin, the USSR’s first nuclear-powered surface ship, suffered a major accident (possibly a meltdown — exactly what happened remains a matter of controversy in the West) in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke through the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable damage. It was rumored that around 30 of the crew were killed. The ship was abandoned for a year to allow radiation levels to drop before the three reactors were removed, to be dumped into the Tsivolko Fjord on the Kara Sea, along with 60% of the fuel elements packed in a separate container. The reactors were replaced with two new ones, and the ship re-entered service in 1970, serving until 1989.
May 1967 — INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial meltdown
Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire at the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Contamination was confined to the reactor core. The core was repaired and restarted in 1969, operating until the plant's shutdown in 2004.[12][13]
January 21, 1969 — INES Level needed - Lucens, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland - Explosion
A total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of an experimental nuclear reactor in a large cave at Lucens. The underground location of this reactor acted like a containment building and prevented any outside contamination. The cavern was heavily contaminated and was sealed. No injuries or fatalities resulted.[14][15]
[edit] 1970sDecember 7, 1975 – INES Level 3 - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Partly damaged
Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps' electrical supply circuits to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown, a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor construction in the Soviet-built reactor.[16]
February 22, 1977 – INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia - Fuel damaged
Operators neglected to remove moisture-absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1. The accident resulted in damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area. The affected reactor was decommissioned following this accident.[17]
March 28, 1979 – INES Level 5[citation needed] - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg. While the reactor was extensively damaged, on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities. Follow-up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality.[18][19][20]
See also: Three Mile Island accident
[edit] 1980sMarch 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orléans, France - Nuclear materials leak
A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 1010 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor was repaired and continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992.[21]
March, 1981 — INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Overexposure of workers
More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant, violating the company's limit of 100 millirems (1 mSv) per day.[22]
September 23, 1983 — INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality
An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3×1017 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad (0.01 Gy).[23] pg103[24]
April 26, 1986 — INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown
An inadequate reactor safety system[25] led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities (mostly cleanup personnel) resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.
See also: Chernobyl disaster
May 4, 1986 – INES Level needed - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged
A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor.[26]
October 19, 1989 – INES Level 3 - Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant, Spain -fire in one of its two turbogenerators
After the fire in the turbogenerators the Spanish comission determined a large list of issues in the plant that was closed by the owners due to economical unviability.
[edit] 1990sApril 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion
A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years).[27][28][29]
June, 1999 — INES Level 2[30] - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction
Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007.[31]
September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality
Inadequately trained part-time workers prepared a uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit.[32][33][34][35]
See also: Tokaimura nuclear accident
[edit] 2000sApril 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged
Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131.[36]
April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak
20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant.[37][38]
November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.[39]
March 6, 2006 — INES Level 2[40] - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.[41][42][43][44]
[edit] 2010sSee also: Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents
March 11-20, 2011 - INES Level 5[45] , previously 4[46] or higher (6[47][48][49] as of March 15 according to Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of France's nuclear safety authority. It is not an official rating[50])
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - Overheating, explosions, fire, radioactivity emergency
Main article: Fukushima I nuclear accidents
After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the emergency power supply of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant failed. This was followed by deliberate releases of radioactive gas from reactors 1 and 2 to relieve pressure. On March 12, triggered by falling water levels, a hydrogen explosion occurred at reactor 1, resulting in the collapse of the concrete outer structure.[51][52][53][54][55] Although the reactor containment itself was confirmed to be intact,[56][57][58] the hourly radiation from the plant reached 1,015 microsievert (0.1015 rem) - an amount equivalent to that allowable for ordinary people in one year."[59][60] Residents of the Fukushima area were advised to stay inside, close doors and windows, turn off air conditioning, and to cover their mouths with masks, towels or handkerchiefs as well as not to drink tap water.[61] By the evening of March 12, the exclusion zone had been extended to 20 kilometres (12 mi) around the plant[62] and 70,000 to 80,000 people had been evacuated from homes in northern Japan.[63] A second, nearly identical hydrogen explosion occured in the reactor building for Unit 3 on March 14, with similar effects.[64] A third explosion in the “pressure suppression room” of Unit 2[65] initially was said not to have breached the reactor’s inner steel containment vessel,[66] but later reports indicated that the explosion damaged the steel containment structure of Unit 2 and much larger releases of radiation were expected than previously.[65]
Disposed rods of reactor Unit 4 were stored outside the reactor in a separate pool which ran dry, yielding fire and risk of serious contamination.[67]
Staff was brought down from 800 to 50.[67] Events are still developing.
March 11-13, 2011 - INES Level 3[68], Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - Overheating, possible radioactivity emergency
After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the cooling systems for three reactors (numbers 1, 2 and 4) of the Fukushima-Daini nuclear power plant were compromised due to damage from the tsunami.[69] Nuclear Engineering International reported that all four units were successfully automatically shut down, but emergency diesel generators at the site were out of order.[70] People were evacuated around 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from the plant. An evacuation order was issued, because of possible radioactive contamination.[71][72] Events are still developing.


Link

Radiation spikes at stricken Japan nuke plant
Workers evacuated at Fukushima Unit 2 as radiation in water measured at 10 million times higher than normal

TOKYO — The radioactivity in water in one unit of a hobbled nuclear power plant in northeastern Japan has tested 10 million times higher than normal, the plant's operator said Sunday.

Leaked water in Unit 2 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant measured 10 million times higher than usual radioactivity levels when the reactor is operating normally, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) spokesman Takashi Kurita told reporters in Tokyo.

At that level, the radiation is roughly equivalent to receiving 89 CT scans, experts told NBC News.

The air in Unit 2, meanwhile, measured 1,000 millisieverts per hour — four times the limit of 250 millisieverts deemed safe by the government, Kurita told reporters.

Video: Nuke expert on risks of a breached reactor
A TEPCO official said workers left the No. 2 reactor's turbine housing unit to prevent exposure to radiation. They had been struggling to pump radioactive water out of the nuclear power station, battered by a huge earthquake and a tsunami just over two weeks ago, after it was found in buildings housing three of the six reactors.

The discovery of puddles with radiation levels 10,000 times the norm sparked a temporary evacuation of the plant on Thursday. Two workers who stepped into the water were hospitalized with possible burns.

Video: In Japan, radiation level in sea water raises fears (on this page)
It was not immediately clear if the numbers were comparable with Sunday's reading at reactor No. 2.

The development set back feverish efforts to start up a crucial cooling system knocked out in a massive March 11 earthquake and tsunami, but has helped experts get closer to determining the source of the dangerous leak.

'Very serious'
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, speaking Sunday on TV talk shows, said the radioactive water is "almost certainly" seeping from a reactor core.

However, Sunday's events were yet another indication that the crisis at the plant was far from over, a point the world's chief

Link

Quoting MichaelSTL:
PPS: Why am I even posting this? Because you aren't as hateful as 99% of the others who post here (deniers). Yeah, and if I ignore you, I see no comments at all, aside from the rare comment from the reasonable-minded, who are unfortunately rare since the deniers try to (successfully) censor everybody who disagrees with them; just ask JFLORIDA and SSIG:

Banned
This blog has been banned by WunderBlogAdmin.

Really?

We don't attack you like you attack people and SSIG attacks people personally.

JFLORIDA always cried about people attacking him when asked for proof he never showed it to us then called the deniers names and attacked them.

You are a typical liberal control freak.

You want more power more taxes more everything.

Just sit back and realize what Mart said the other day.

Quoting martinitony:
There is a type of scientific arrogance in the idea of extreme events being caused by global warming. I do not mean that those who propose it are arrogant. I mean the idea is arrogant. It suggests some sort of perfection of climate existed, say 50 years ago, before the warming began. This seems like arrogance.
Take a step back and see what it suggests.
It suggests that if the climate had cooled, we had had global cooling, then that cooling would have led to extreme events, or if we had warming, that that warming would have led to extreme events.
Think of this in the calculus sense of a continuous function. The idea that the weather, the climate , was of perfection prior to the warming suggests that the climate was at one of those points of zero slope and that it was always there except for human intervention with the burning of fossil fuels.
Do you not see the arrogance of the idea?
Would not the lack of extreme events also be an extreme event?

It makes complete sense.

There is no certain temperature the Earth must maintain to be at average there never was once where it was 72 degrees everyday.

The Earth goes through cycles.

But I'm sorry you can never be wrong.

Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.


How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.


Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change

We still don't know if the Earth is being warmed by humans.

Yet the IPCC says it is in their mission statement or w/e you call it before you even start reading.

So they are already convinced humans are starting the warming but the science is still out.

Sounds to me like a little bias.

Just sayin...

Quoting weatherboy1992:
We do know that the Earth's atmosphere is being warmed by humans. Hundreds of studies and research publications show this is true. There are still people who believe the Earth is flat and that the sun goes around the Earth. Deniers are the same class of people.

Hmmm.

No links to anything.

What you just said is opinion unless you prove otherwise, Mike.

Humans are innocent until proven guilty.

If you'd like to go back to this.



Then by all means go and do it.

I won't stop you.

Quoting Patrap:




Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.


How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.


Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change

This is one of the most preposterous graphs of all. How can man really be able to model nature to such perfection? Again, I hate to say it, but this really smacks of arrogance.
Try this with a farmer and he'd laugh in your face. We wouldn't need a futures market but with one in place the scientists and computer modelers would be making all the money. To even post this graph without going through that thinking spells out how really silly and ridiculous you guys really are.

Quoting MichaelSTL:


It is because you make WAY to many posts about your tunnels and how they can stop (impossibly) things like earthquakes (and also leading others to make claims that AGW "believers" blame global warming for earthquakes and everything else). Frankly, I am astonished that Ricky hasn't just banned you yet (I believe you are permabanned from Dr. Masters' blog for the past few years, am I right?); he even told you to stop talking about them! I mean, if you were really SERIOUS, you'd be asking scientists about them, not posting on some denialist-infected blog! Nevermind the other alarmist things you post.

PS: Yes, I do ban people that I ignore, in addition to blocking their emails*, so they effectively cease to exist (if only people would stop quoting them, or ignore would also work on quoted comments)!

*Oh, yes; I sometimes forget to block their emails too, jwh250 or something sent me a nasty email for forgetting this (I sent him an even nastier email back, the sort that gets you banned if you post it in a blog, although I never heard of anybody getting banned from email yet, I of course blocked him after sending it)

PPS: Why am I even posting this? Because you aren't as hateful as 99% of the others who post here (deniers). Yeah, and if I ignore you, I see no comments at all, aside from the rare comment from the reasonable-minded, who are unfortunately rare since the deniers try to (successfully) censor everybody who disagrees with them; just ask JFLORIDA and SSIG:

Banned
This blog has been banned by WunderBlogAdmin.

Ricky hasn't banned me yet because he knows without a doubt that my idea works unlike others here on this climate change blog. Hopefully, ya'll will get it like Ricky does.

Quoting weatherboy1992:
We do know that the Earth's atmosphere is being warmed by humans. Hundreds of studies and research publications show this is true. There are still people who believe the Earth is flat and that the sun goes around the Earth. Deniers are the same class of people.

You mean the Earth isn't flat? The sun doesn't revolve around the Earth? I didn't know that, Mike.

Quoting weatherboy1992:
Name's not Mike. And it is my opinion, but a valid and educated one. Unlike the opinions of deniers, who are uneducated and worthless.

Perhaps you were thinking of MichaelSTl. He has excellent knowledge of global warming, seems to be an honest blogger and posts good information. If you were more like him you'd be better off.

Hmm attacking just like Mike and his *buddy*

You know if you come back as a different person use different lingo and not the exact same talking points as before.

And your knowledge of what happened before you were a member is way better than most people that are on here.

Hmmm seems odd as you probably can't see what is really going on then.

Quoting weatherboy1992:
What knowledge of what happened before?

Yup.

Don't feel like playing the stupid game with you today.

You know exactly what I'm talking about so don't play dumb.

Bringing up things that happened in October or before that and you've been a member since what January right after your last name got banned.

Bye Mike

I think I'm getting off now. TWSS!!!!

Quoting MichaelSTL:
Also, some of the fears over nuclear accidents are overblown. I mean, how many have died from all nuclear accidents in history? Less than from coal pollution? Every year (don't forget that coal ash can contain uranium and therefore releases more radiation than nuclear power)? Ok, if the only nuclear reactor in Missouri blew up, I would want to get out of here (being downwind, and depending on how bad it was), but it isn't anything that I worry about.

Of course, building them in potentially unsafe areas is another matter, as are cover-ups to hide flaws or problems (as with the Fukushima reactor design).

Here:
Huffingtonpost: Power Plant Air Pollution Kills 13,000 People Per Year,...

Around 2000-2005 coal power plants started installing scrubbers. Around 2001 a study was released that estimated 24,000 deaths per year. The scrubbers reduced that number to 13,000 in the latest report. So I'd estimate at least, minimally, 200,000 people died between 1995-2005 in the US alone.

Check this out:
Link

Look how many coal mining deaths there're in china! But a more sensible analysis would look at uranium mining as well. In any case, I know that the minimal global deaths attributed to Chernobyl are in the thousands. The maximums are on the order of 100,000. This is the 20 years since it happened. So already just in 10 years coal power in the US alone has trumped this by a great amount.

But we use a lot more coal than nuclear. If I had to place my bets I'd put them on coal being worse. I'd rather have a nuclear plant next to me than a coal plant. Thorium-fuel is an interesting possibility for nuclear power. We have researched it in the past and it offers much greater safety, no proliferation risks, and a much reduced waste problem. China and India are putting their money in it. We should do the same. It addresses all of the complaints people have about nuclear power even though the latest models are surprisingly safe and reliable. Additionally, we could recycle current waste.

But even without that, I mostly trust nuclear power. I think the incident in japan is an example of overzealous business people building in a dangerous area. So far the earthquake has exacted a much greater toll, but we should wait before judging the situation. It could get dramatically worse, or it could be minimal and exploited by the environmentalists to push back nuclear power elsewhere. I think that would be a mistake because we have no replacement and the likely result would be more coal power or just plain ignorance. In japans case they'll likely switch to natural gas which is a good choice. Bottom line, my worry is people will assume all nuclear power is bad because of this single incident.

An interesting link:
PopSci: Can Next-Generation Reactors Power a Safe Nuclear Future?

Quoting paratomic:
Here:
Huffingtonpost: Power Plant Air Pollution Kills 13,000 People Per Year,...

Around 2000-2005 coal power plants started installing scrubbers. Around 2001 a study was released that estimated 24,000 deaths per year. The scrubbers reduced that number to 13,000 in the latest report. So I'd estimate at least, minimally, 200,000 people died between 1995-2005 in the US alone.

Check this out:
Link

Look how many coal mining deaths there're in china! But a more sensible analysis would look at uranium mining as well. In any case, I know that the minimal global deaths attributed to Chernobyl are in the thousands. The maximums are on the order of 100,000 . This is the 20 years since it happened. So already just in 10 years coal power in the US alone has trumped this by a great amount.

Gulfstream Kinetic Energy prevents these deaths! Ya'll get it yet?

I thought these headlines were funny! OUCH!


Highly radioactive water found in tunnel outside nuclear plant

Tokyo (CNN) -- Water found in a tunnel at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has alarmingly high radiation readings, officials said Monday, adding that it is unclear how or why the tainted water got out of the building.

The water at the plant is emitting more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour of radioactivity -- a level the plant's owner had said is at least 100,000 times normal levels for coolants inside a nuclear reactor.

It was in a tunnel that contains electrical cables and is connected to the No. 2 reactor's turbine building, an official with the Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. The measurements were taken Monday afternoon.

Earlier, officials had announced that 1,000 millisieverts per hour of radiation was emanating from water pooling inside the No. 2 unit turbine building's basement.

The officials said they don't know how or why the contaminated water got out of the building and into the tunnel, or if it might have spilled out and seeped into the Pacific Ocean.

The measurement is more than 330 times the dose an average person in a developed country receives per year, and four times the top dose Japan's health ministry has set for emergency workers struggling to control the further emission of radioactive material from the damaged plant.

Link

Ya'll with me yet?

Gulf Stream Kinetic Energy prevents this.


Radioactive rainwater recorded eastern US

BOSTON — Trace amounts of radioactive iodine linked to Japan's crippled nuclear power station have turned up in rainwater samples as far away as Massachusetts during the past week, state officials said Sunday.

The low level of radioiodine-131 detected in precipitation at a sample location in Massachusetts is comparable to findings in California, Washington state and Pennsylvania and poses no threat to drinking supplies, public health officials said.

Utilities in North and South Carolina also report trace amounts of radiation from the damaged nuclear reactor in Japan.

Progress Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. in North Carolina and South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. all operate nuclear plants and say they've detected trace amounts of radiation.

Link

Ya'll with me yet?

More radioactive water leaks from Japan site
'This is far beyond what one nation can handle — it needs to be bumped up to the U.N. Security Council,' expert says

TOKYO — Workers discovered new pools of radioactive water leaking from Japan's crippled nuclear complex, officials said Monday, as emergency crews struggled to pump out hundreds of tons of contaminated water and bring the plant back under control. Officials believe the contaminated water has sent radioactivity levels soaring at the coastal complex and caused more radiation to seep into soil and seawater.

The Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant, 140 miles northeast of Tokyo, was crippled March 11 when a tsunami spawned by a powerful earthquake slammed into Japan's northeastern coast. The huge wave engulfed much of the complex, and destroyed the crucial power systems needed to cool the complex's nuclear fuel rods.

Since then, three of the complex's six units are believed to have partially melted down, and emergency crews have struggled with everything from malfunctioning pumps to dangerous spikes in radiation that have forced temporary evacuations.

Experts warn that Japan faces a long fight to contain the world's most dangerous atomic crisis in 25 years.

"This is far beyond what one nation can handle — it needs to be bumped up to the U.N. Security Council," said Najmedin Meshkati, of the University of Southern California. "In my humble opinion, this is more important than the Libya no-fly zone."

Murray Jennex, a nuclear power plant expert and associate professor at San Diego State University, said "there's not really a plan B" other than to dry out the plant, get power restored and start cooling it down.


"What we're now in is a long slog period with lots of small, unsexy steps that have to be taken to pull the whole thing together," he told Reuters.

'Delicate work'
Confusion at the plant has intensified fears that the nuclear crisis will last weeks, months or years amid alarms over radiation making its way into produce, raw milk and even tap water as far away as Tokyo.

Link

Ya'll with me yet?

I'll have to admit, I don't get the fascination with Steve Goddard's identity either. As far as I know, he is simply a blogger and occasioner poster and commenter on WUWT. Dr.Rood brought him up in the last blog in response to a story about the NOAA study concerning the Russian 2010 heat wave. In that case, he is simply in the role of a reporter, and provided a link at the end of his post to a story about the same thing, which in turn linked back to NOAA.

Is the contention that because he is not proven to be a climatologist that he cannot blog about climate? Seriously, wouldn't this criterion eliminate Joe Romm (from ClimateProgress) as well?

For that matter, how many people know who Tamino is? He provides no clue as to his identity on his site, yet his site is mined for data and graphs extensively by many on here and Dr.Master's blog. (Admittedly, the CRU emails did provide some interesting clues as to his identity though). Should someone post a "Does he exist?" response to any information that comes from Tamino's site as well?

Cyclonebuster, there's no need to make post after post about it and your tunnels. There's more than enough hysteria about nuclear already. This event in japan is a disaster, no doubt.

Even a professor of theoretical physics, a person who should know a thing or two about nuclear fission, has this to say: "BURY IT!" Michio Kaku On Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

I'm not downplaying what's happening over there. My view is that they built in a dangerous area, knowingly. The put people at risk. The reactors over there are 40 years old. Worse, MOX fuel was used in reactor 3 (and i think another). That never should have been tolerated. This is a nuclear disaster as much as it's a government disaster. This event reflects on older nuclear reactors and on predatory business. That's the lesson we can take away from it. The rest is wishful thinking.

Newer reactors would be in better condition. Furthermore, the more reseach that's invested in thorium-based nuclear power the closer we can get to exactly what we want: worry-free nuclear power. Not perfectly worry-free, but DARN close to it! Smaller reactors are also safer. But we don't have a 100% SAFE form of energy production. There will always be risks.

And cyclone, you turn every post into a post about tunnels. This is why people ignore you. And you come here and you post too much. Don't be surprised when people ignore you.

And btw Japan should be importing natural gas. I think it's clear that nuclear is not a good choice for a region that's earthquake prone and tsunami prone. They probably chose to generate nuclear power to save money (and sacrifice safety), and now we see the results of that choice and also the combination of predatory business practices (like the MOX fuel being used in reactor 3).

This was written in 2004:
Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette

The 52 reactors in Japan -- which generate a little over 30 percent of its electricity -- are located in an area the size of California, many within 150 km of each other and almost all built along the coast where seawater is available to cool them.

However, many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently. The periodicity of major earthquakes in Japan is less than 10 years. There is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan -- the third-ranked country in the world for nuclear reactors.

"I think the situation right now is very scary," says Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and professor at Kobe University. "It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode."

Quoting paratomic:
Cyclonebuster, there's no need to make post after post about it and your tunnels. There's more than enough hysteria about nuclear already. This event in japan is a disaster, no doubt.

Even a professor of theoretical physics, a person who should know a thing or two about nuclear fission, has this to say: "BURY IT!" Michio Kaku On Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

I'm not downplaying what's happening over there. My view is that they built in a dangerous area, knowingly. The put people at risk. The reactors over there are 40 years old. Worse, MOX fuel was used in reactor 3 (and i think another). That never should have been tolerated. This is a nuclear disaster as much as it's a government disaster. This event reflects on older nuclear reactors and on predatory business. That's the lesson we can take away from it. The rest is wishful thinking.

Newer reactors would be in better condition. Furthermore, the more reseach that's invested in thorium-based nuclear power the closer we can get to exactly what we want: worry-free nuclear power. Not perfectly worry-free, but DARN close to it! Smaller reactors are also safer. But we don't have a 100% SAFE form of energy production. There will always be risks.

And cyclone, you turn every post into a post about tunnels. This is why people ignore you. And you come here and you post too much. Don't be surprised when people ignore you.

And btw Japan should be importing natural gas. I think it's clear that nuclear is not a good choice for a region that's earthquake prone and tsunami prone. They probably chose to generate nuclear power to save money (and sacrifice safety), and now we see the results of that choice and also the combination of predatory business practices (like the MOX fuel being used in reactor 3).

This was written in 2004:
Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette

The 52 reactors in Japan -- which generate a little over 30 percent of its electricity -- are located in an area the size of California, many within 150 km of each other and almost all built along the coast where seawater is available to cool them.

However, many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently. The periodicity of major earthquakes in Japan is less than 10 years. There is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan -- the third-ranked country in the world for nuclear reactors.

"I think the situation right now is very scary," says Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and professor at Kobe University. "It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode."

I am just stating what they can do for us and what they can do to get us out of this mess of us changing our climate for the worse. There is almost an unlimited amount of things they can change for us. That is why I post so much about them. I want to tutor folks on every aspect of what they can change. Again the list is unlimited and I am here to educate you folks!

Ya'll with me yet?

buster, is your idea peer-reviewed? You've offered no proof of it working yet. Just theories. Have you actually made plausible experiments showing your idea in action? That's how most things in science get started and then accepted or rejected in the scientific community.