Global Warming - 55 MYA

This story is telling what I try to say: indieed the world has known dramatic climate changes of all kind and with different origins.

One thing is always the same: it is devastating for the evolution, with winners and loozers (where are the dino's? it is assumed that some small types became birds)

What the reason of the actual climate change is, we don't know or understand completely. This is also not that important, we should organise to reduce the human impact on it.

I have some ideas on reducing this impact induvidually, but I lack the money to turn them into real projects. Isn't there some organisation that can fund this kind of studies/experiments? I'm willing to share the findings.

Just one comment...spellchecker

Is your Dutch perfect? Gwen's English spelling is better than some whose first language is English. It's a BB, live with the spellings mistakes (but please folks...it's etc or &c for Et Cetera not ect - a personal bugbear)

Thank you, if everyone would be perfect in spelling, ...

We are engineers, not translators. I do speak 4 languages, but I can write only one: mathematics.

Why don't we discuss a bit on music, to calm down the nerves over the weekend.

While not totaally relevant this exchange reminds me of a story when I was in university.

A young guy finishes his education and calls home:

"I always wanted to be an engineer. Now I are one!!!"

Spelling schmelling...typos galore for all that matter..it's the substance of what is communicated that is important and not the little nuances like spelling etc.

I thought that Electro-Convulsive Therapy was pretty much a thing of the past - so why worry?

Your story angle reminds me of a man sawing off a tree limb that he is standing on. The joke is on you my friend -if you are an Algore fan maybe you should consider eating more cows and less fruit. You would have less gas and would also be killing the gassers. Meat and fats would also improve your mental agility. It would be a win win situation for all of us.

If we were to burn all the coal, oil and gas that exists on the earth today, the equivalent amount of carbon as what was released 55 million years ago, a 9 degree rise in temperature might be expected, but the fact is, we are not releasing that much carbon all at once, but at a slow rate over several centuries, thus giving the earth a chance to react with more plant growth to counter act the effect, and thus only the normal cyclical temperatures changes are what we are seeing now. The current warming trend isn't as great as that which occured only a thousand years ago and that warming period certainly wasn't the result of burining coal, oil and gas.

Instead of wasting fruit seeds throwing them as thrash, one idea is using them to plant some fruit trees anywhere, USA has 300 million citizens, if just one half of them plant some 10 trees every Sunday morning, then 1.5 billionth of trees would be planted each week. So instead of wasting time watching TV or in Internet or playing games, go to any park or public forest and plant a tree. The solution to global warming is at hand, planting billions of trees all over the world. We are doing this every week end.

Jaime Soto Figueroa

http://www.matharts.cl/

Santiago de Chile

Global Warming is a political hoax and designed for political power, not to save a planet that can regulate it's temperature just fine, thank you. There is no "consensus" about Global Warming, only Politically Correct strong arming, with heavy ideological and religious overtones that forces people to keep quiet or lose their job.

Go to www.co2science.com and read all they have. Become a member and get access to lots and lots of data of peer-reviewed articles that are hard to find on the www from both pro and con sides of the issues. This is the best place to learn about CO2 on the www. The data is so overwhelming and the conclusions clear that the gloom and doomers are so wrong, in fact 180 degrees wrong. As I have stated many times, CO2 is a good thing… Have the guts to learn about CO2, and not just parrot what Al the Gore has to say.

Consensus? Hardly…Just the opposite.

https://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Even left-moderate wing publications get it.

https://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860

Lots of links here…

https://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm

https://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm

Read the reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939571234/ref=nosim/townhallcom

More facts that could threaten the global warming cash flow machine

https://questionable-science.com/Global_Warming/

Other opinions

https://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/11/11/the-global-warming-hoax-3/

More sanity

https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2

Global warming is clearly a political power grab, supported by government types, in need of a reason to exist, and researchers looking for funding who have no shame….

This is only a spec of what is out there. Take a look at both sides of the issue. When you study it long enough as I have (2+years), you come to well balanced and reasonable conclusions.

Seaplaneguy

....informed, one should know that modern primates are not our ancestors. Also, how long must credence be given to conjecturers who insist on refering to themselves as "we"...the favorite word of liars and others who can't honestly back up their own words. Just some food for thought.

Mr. Pink,

You have no idea what was happened 55 million years ago. You are spinning and inventing just another hoax you want the world to believe to con people into your Global Warming con game.

Primate ancestors? Yours, not mine. Do you do commercials for Geico? Got it...

Carbon is to blame for everything. Hmmm. Was that carbon in diamonds, in rocks, CO, CO2, potatos, or was it run away carbon. We better ban carbon now. Evil carbon, what can we do.

Using bad proxies again like Mann did? Hmmm. Sounds like Mann is at it again...

Do you still believe it is "fossil" fuel. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

No way? I can see hundreds of ways. Perhaps you come to your conclusions because of your lack of ability to think of other ways. Maybe you should work in a factor line and do what you are told to do, and leave thinking to those who can. Did you get a degree in "useful idiot" studies?

Give the Global Warming hoax a rest. We don't buy you con game.

Although there is still a faint chance that you are correct (and that global warming is an erroneous prediction), I'd err on the side of caution even if the arguments were more finely balanced. However, when effects are predicted in advance of their occurrence, even the most cynical can afford to spend a little time looking into the basis of the theory, rather accepting the largely unsupported output of those with vested interests as being the equal of the theoreticians who correctly predicted the current state of the global climate*. What is more impressive to me is the follow-on work provided by people who could actually have made a reputation more quickly by finding proper counter evidence.

*FYI, I first heard the arguments in the early 1960's when no significant practical effect had been observed. At that stage, I reserved judgement, as it was outside my main area of expertise. More recently, the correlations have made me look at the theory in more depth - and although the detail is difficult, it does seem to hang together more coherently than I would have hoped.

In addition, I find your twisting of Roger Pink's words to try to make him look stupid both objectionable and unimpressive. Assuming that you care about the future lives of any progeny you may spawn, I suggest you sell those oil shares so that you can take a dispassionate look at the detail of the evidence (you can always buy them back if&when you find the case against the effects of greenhouse gas to be proved).

Guest,

My bone with Mr. Pink is the lies he stated about reading co2science and the lies he supports from Mann the hockey stick guy. Simple. Mr. Pink claimed he read co2science.com. He could not have read it that fast, no way no how. He continues to make comments that are well addressed by peer-reviewed papers at co2science.com that show he has NOT read the links or considered what I am saying. Such is very obnoxious and disrespectful. I can clearly tell he never read my links. I read his out of respect to him. It is called give and take.

He also refuses to acknowledge that there are other solutions that have merit, not only in the GW debate, but evolution. He reminds me of the wacko priests of the 325 AD (and all through the Dark Ages) who invented the Nicene creed by philosophical construction. They, like Mr. Pink, were unwilling to think out of the box and they wanted to use government to get their way to force their religion down people's throats. Today, they are run by priests by the name of Al the Gore, and unauthorized Imans, all of whom have no authority at all, frankly. What is a person who continually lies? Stupid? No worse, dishonest. The GW people are NOT stupid, just the opposite.

You also have not even taken the time to consider what I am saying either. Why don't you engage in a discussion instead of proclaiming you know it all and that I have somehow not considered the facts? Huh?

Have you ever considered the data that shows that CO2 is good for the planet? If the earth is warming we NEED MORE CO2, not less. If we stop putting out CO2, even at the small rates we are putting out, we are not doing ourselves any good if the planet is heating by natural means, such as the earth core, sun, or other unknown mechanisms. Wasting massive efforts on removing CO2 is just that, a massive waste. My point is the GW hoax is 180 degrees wrong. Call it societal dumb luck.

If we did invent a fusion machine back in 1900, we may not have had the CO2 we now have, if human emissions are actually the cause of the rise, and that would cut humans and animals food supply by at least proven 50%.

Either way we win with CO2 and we loose without more of it. If I were a gambling man, I would place my bet on more CO2, and hedge against less CO2. If we were back at 280 ppm, we would be in a world of hurt right now, big time. Thems the facts, jack.

I don't and have NEVER owned oil shares. I did own Enron (gas) for one day and made $1000 on an up tick before it crashed.

I have looked at the evidence. Lots of it. The Mann data is a lie, clearly. Even non-scientist Congressman can see that. Wrestling with Mr. Pink is a no win (unimpressive) game for me, kind of like a me (I am 6'6" 250 lbs) fighting a 135 lb girl. So is fighting terrorists (for the USA military), but someone has to have the courage to do it, or we are all going to be taxed to oblivion by the UN giving more power to the likes of Kofi Annan, a person who should be doing time in prison, not living in a tax supported multi-million dollar mansion.

What I would find "impressive" as you say is if at least ONE person in all of the comment made would have looked at the co2science conclusions and mine and discussed them. Is that so much to expect? If you have not noticed I have gone point to point on several comments and have taken the respectful time to answer their questions. Has Mr. Pink? Not even close.

I've read the CO2science conclusions (unfortunately, I don't read fast enough to cover the references in such a short time). My summary would be that they believe that negative feedback will be sufficient that the total effect will be trivial, and that a little global warming would be a "good thing". Regarding the level of the negative feedback, my view would be that combining the experience following (for example) Krakatoa and the effects on carbon fixation suggests that its gain is in the order of two-to-three, which is roughly what is accounted for in many models. Regarding global warming, I wouldn't like to comment whether a small amount is a "good thing" for mankind globally - except that it certainly won't be good if it happens too fast for people to adapt their living habits and agriculture. One result will certainly be that the wheat belt moves northwards. Another is that the sea levels will rise (not so good for New Orleans). What I fear is that it is certain that the temperature rises by mid-century (at the median of the work I respect) would be sufficient to render much of the tropics unproductive.The problem we have is that we can make this experiment only once. If it was a matter of probabilities, and we could perform multiple experiments, I would be happy to go along with your viewpoint. However, there will only be a single outcome - whether positive or negative. On that basis, I would strongly recommend caution for now - and if we ever establish with minimal doubt that CO2science's present stance is correct, we can go back and pump the appropriate amount of CO2 into the atmosphere - no problem.

As you divert to terrorism - while the objectives (and courage) of the US/allies response may be laudable, the implementation is crass - even beyond the level of placing a Jewish state in the midst of a Muslim conclave. If you want to stop terrorism, you must either win hearts and minds, or disable the entire populace of the groups you wish to pacify. One lesson of the European-war-II bombings, since reinforced on many occasions, was that shock-and-awe only breed resentment and increased violent resistance.

Reading the article mainly prompts a question in my mind. If sufficient carbon emissions to facilitate "global warming" occurred naturally in ancient times, then what evidence(other than coincidence) is there to support the claim that today's levels are caused by human activity? Along those same lines, even if we would completely eliminate all human emissions, how can we be sure that the levels will not continue to rise? Methinks there is more to this situation than is currently understood by even the most knowledgable and accurate in the scientific community.

Great quality question. If one volcano can put out more CO2 than all humans since the start of the industrial revolution, how do we know that there are not lots of volcanoes going off in the deep ocean?

Look at this link of an underwater volcano. http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060524_underwater_volcano.html

You wrote "If one volcano can put out more CO2 than all humans since the start of the industrial revolution"

This is simply not true. All of the volcanoes in the world emit less than 1% of the CO₂ that man does in the buring of fossil fuels. Here are some links that say as much;

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
http://www.scenta.co.uk/nature/features.cfm?cit_id=699397&FAArea1=customWidgets.content_view_1
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Water Buffalo,

That's a great question. Mainly the problem was, until this decade scientists weren't sure. In the 90s it was clear there was a global warming occurring, and that it originated around the same time that fossil fuels first started being burned, but that is merely circumstantial evidence.

What happened this decade, the smoking gun if you will, was that the warming further accelerated to a rate that far exceeds any natural climatic shift of the past. It's not the temperature, nor the rate of temperature change, its the rate of the rate of temperature change that is alarming. That rate of a rate (think acceleration) is too high. The climate has natural fluctuations, but they fall statistically within a standard deviation, this is well past that deviation. It would be like walking into a town and finding 100 7ft 5in tall people out of a 1000, all born in that town. Do 7ft 5in tall people exist? Absolutely. Is it possible that town is normal and it was a freak occurrence? No. The odds of 100 7ft 5in people born in the same town is astronomical.

In the 90s, the climate change was still within a reasonable range but this decade has made natural causes of this climate shift go from improbable to extremely, extremely unlikely. Unfortunately, because of the nature of statistics, its impossible to say 100% certainty. Just as you can't say with 100% certainty that a dice rolled 10,000 times wont come up 6 every time. Its this small doubt, intrinsic in the nature of statistics, that is seized upon to create the illusion of a debate.

Looking into the past is an excellent way to understand climate change, but when we go further than 10 million years, we risk many variables intruding. For instance, the locations of the continents play a crucial role in the climate of the Earth. When they are located at the equator, the Earth tends to be warmer, whereas when located at the poles, Earth will usually be cooler. Ocean currents can play a huge role, as well as oscillating systems such as El Nina.

Methinks there is more to this situation than is currently understood by even the most knowledgeable and accurate in the scientific community.

I agree, there always is. Especially when it comes to what will happen to the weather with changing climate. Personally I'm not much of a doom and gloom person, I think we'll be alright. I bet there will be benefits and problems, just like always. One thing I will say is that the Kyoto protocol is useless and nothing short of stopping emissions completely, an unlikely event unless we develop an alternative energy source (I promote Fusion, but more because I want to see what dirt cheap energy would mean for innovation and overall standard of living, and I'm sick of the middle east) will make a difference.

Roger,

I was a mere youngster back in the early '70s when nuclear power was first becoming more widespread. I do however remember that there was all this controversy over how potentially hazardous it was and how it wasn't worth the risk. Pretty soon new plants ceased to be built, mainly due to the huge cost of all the redundant safety precautions and all the regulatory oversight from the government bureaucrats. From what I gather, the folks who were developing the plants were taking reasonable safety measures, but that wasn't enough for the alarmists, and the industry was regulated into near ineffectiveness. Now, 30 years later, with "global warming" scratching at our door, it's suddenly a viable option. Had we pursued nuclear power more reasonably for the last thirty years, I think maybe we wouldn't be in this fix. The real question though, is this: Is nuclear power safer now, or was it ever as dangerous as it's critics made it out to be, and similarly, is the threat of global warming and it's causes all that they are characterized as today? I ask, not because I am concerned about the ultimate outcome, that is well beyond my ability to control, but because I wanted to raise the point that to someone who doesn't really have the depth of knowledge about the subject that others do, the whole issue becomes a bit confusing when I read and listen to the "experts" debate. Both sides seem to make a good case. I try to educate myself on the subject, but I don't really know who to believe. As noted above, I am not worried, I am in good hands and I try to be as responsible as possible in taking care of what has been entrusted to me, but sometimes it's difficult to know what the responsible course actually is. It's gotten to the point that watching scientists debate is kind of like watching politicians. You never really know just where their coming from.

Too right. My view is that, if in doubt, take the course of action where the most adverse consequences being credibly predicted are the least bad. In the present case, the mid-range predictions from the global warming fraternity (on the basis that we take no action) are worse than the worst-case consequences of taking the nuclear. Personally, I find the science behind the global warming arguments to be more persuasive than the carry-on-regardless groups, so I suppose the above could be self-justifying - but I don't actually believe that to be the case.

BTW, unlike you, I have never felt we were 'in good hands'. Politicians and other power brokers are little different the world over - all that varies is the constraints under which they operate. So, if you think that Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe etc. are in good hands, you should trust our politicians. Otherwise, I propose the view that political activity for the general good and other freedoms are hard won, and will only continue so long as enough people are willing to take the effort to push for them

Fyz

Fyz,

My view is that, if in doubt, take the course of action where the most adverse consequences being credibly predicted are the least bad.

I think you are missing my point. My dilema is the "credibly predicted" part. It's difficult to tell who is credible when the ones doing the predicting have all studied the subject at hand and they keep coming up with different conclusions. How is one (like me) who has little to no knowledge of the issues and factors involved supposed to even decide which side is the most credible. In reading one of the links provided by seaplaneguy, I think that guy Crichton made a lot of sense. One thing he said (I don't know if he said it or if he was quoting it) was that science is not consensus, and consensus is not science. His point was that if something is provable by the evidence then there is no argument. If the evidence is not conclusive then you cannot stand on it, let alone make policy or take action on it. I guess what I'm looking for is someone who can present that 'conclusive' evidence that is unambiguous enough so as to be irrefutable and hence, actionable. Short of that, it's just opinions flying around based on the individual prejudices of the researchers.

Regarding my being in good hands, I didn't mean our political leaders. See my signature line below.(If you care to explore that topic further, message me, but that's as far as I'll take that in this particular thread.)

Hello water buffalo

I don't think I am missing your point - but I think we have a language problem. 'Credible' is not the same as 'proven'. Until we have a model we regard as 'proven', it is quite possible to have credible models that contradict each other. This means that you can consider several of the predictions as credible (though personally I would discount any that say there will be zero global warming as a result of greenhouse emissions).

In determining future actions, we then need to come to either a 'best' or a 'least-bad' decision. What I am trying to say is that we should then consider all the different credible predictions, and act to minimise risk. In the present context, the worst-case is so severe (extinction of all 'higher' life forms) that there seem to be only two choices - we either discount it absolutely, or we take the action that is needed to avoid it, however painful. This, to me, is a moral imperative.

As I cannot totally discount this possibility, this leaves two difficult decisions: how far should we take energy conservation, and can we justify fission energy. The former is complex to achieve, and will take time. The latter is also not quick; and I would be inclined to constrain the locations to minimise the risks; it may even be worth sacrificing efficiency in the use of the fuel, because we only wish this to be a (relatively) short-term palliative. But, if we accept that the global warming scenario might be (not is) correct, that would seem to be the only reasonable action.

Regarding Crichton: he is right that the behaviour of scientists is little (if any) better than that of any other group. The most unlikely theories have been accepted short term, and heretics persecuted. The implication that this is a degeneration is, unfortunately, wrong. It has always been like this. On the other hand, science does have a mechanism for progressing - and Crichton's ideas on model-bashers will hopefully become part of the progress. In the meantime, we have to make the most of what we have got.

Even outside the field of science, powerless heretics often triumph eventually. Jesus, anyone? (N.B. regarding being in good hands - I don;t know the details of yours, but many theologies take the view that the 'good hands' on this earth is solely the result of god working through his people - which would leave it down to us...)

Sold? I doubt it. But hopefully there is something there worth biting on.

Fyz

Water Buffalo,

Actually, what I'm talking about is different from the power your talking about. You're talking about nuclear fission power whereas I'm suggesting nuclear fusion power.

Nuclear fission is a much more dangerous process with all kinds of radioactive waste issues. Nuclear fission involves the splitting of heavy atoms into two smaller atoms, except the splitting isn't perfect and some of the mass of the original atom (Uranium) is converted to energy. I don't for a minute recommend this approach, we are better off with fossil fuels. Incidentally, this is the type of power Iran is developing, supposedly to reduce energy costs but actually as a means to develop a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear fission is an inherently messy, dangerous energy solution.

Nuclear Fusion takes two atoms and smashes them together, creating a single heavier atom with a little less mass than the original two atoms. Once again, the mission mass is released as energy. This is how the sun works. The fuel is usually some isotope of Hydrogen and the result is Helium, neither of which are radioactive.

The most important difference between Fission and Fusion is the meltdown factor. Worst case scenario for a fission plant is a total meltdown with the release of radioactive gas into the atmosphere (Chernobyl). This can't happen with Fusion because as soon as the artificial environment created to allow fusion to happen goes away, the Fusion reaction dies out. There is no meltdown.

I hope that clears things up a bit. Here are two links from wikipedia for additional information.

Nuclear Fission

Nuclear Fusion

Roger,

Chernobyl did not melt down. Lucky for us the design of the reactor was so bad that the cooling pipes broke and the combination of steam and carbon created a nice explosion. Ripping the core in pieces - this stopped the fission reaction - the burning carbon organised the distribution of the radioactive content of the core.

There is something that I don't get completely: OK Fission reactors generate a lot of side products with moderate to long life, thus dangerous to us and our future generations. But a lot of the waste they generate is just material that has been in the reactor building and need to be trown away after its useful life. All these products need to be treated as radioactive waste. (also the reactor building)

Is there really no radioactivity released from the fusion reaction?: the energy leaves the process as radiation, the energy level is that high that a big part of this radiation is in the gamma range. The sun is also a highly radioactive source.

This radiation will surely generate side waste that needs to be disposed.

I don't want to be near a fusion reactor that fails. The pressure and temperature is that high inside of it that the result of an accident is horrifying. (H-bomb is a fusion weapon) there are also mayor differences between an A bomb and a fission reactor, making it impossible for a fission reactor to explode. The difference between a fusion reactor and an H-bomb is less: the fusion reactor tries to start the reaction without the help of an A-bomb, and tries to keep it going by extracting the helium and feeding new H_2^. The reaction is the same and the speed is also the same. (you need to go over a certain energy level and than it starts and it keeps on feeding itself, at least that is the idea)

From an European viewpoint we are not that afraid of Iran and we tend to look a bit different to the dispute. Iran has a nice reserve on natural Uranium. It is a good idea of them to use it them self to feed their own energy needs. Their idea to do the whole supply chain of their complete nuclear needs is also not so stupid. And this is what the West is afraid of: a non western minded country that can run completely on its own, that even can supply their neighbours with cheap energy. of cource there are evidences that they work on a bomb. But some years ago the same evidences were used to invade Irak. It would certainly be better to gain control over the program, perhaps by offering them a research institute, help and knowledge so that we can see what is happening inside of their facilities. Offering them that we do a part of the supply chain would avoid that they figure out by them self how to do it, enabling to do other things with it.

Ok, I'll try to address what you said.

You Wrote: "Chernobyl did not melt down"

Yes it did. Here are some links that describe what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident
http://www.time.com/time/daily/chernobyl/chernobyl.index.html
http://www.nucleartourist.com/events/meltdown.htm

You Wrote: "There is something that I don't get completely: OK Fission reactors generate a lot of side products with moderate to long life, thus dangerous to us and our future generations. But a lot of the waste they generate is just material that has been in the reactor building and need to be trown away after its useful life. All these products need to be treated as radioactive waste. (also the reactor building)"

Fission Waste:

Some isotopes decay in hours or even minutes, but others decay very slowly. Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (that means that half the radioactivity of a given quantity of strontium-90, for example, will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. All are wast products of Fission reactions. These products are hazardous to humans and other life forms because of their high radiation levels that are capable of producing fatal doses during short periods of direct exposure. For example, ten years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour, whereas a fatal whole-body dose for humans is about 500 rem (if received all at one time).

Fusion Waste:

Fusion waste products are not radioactive, however during the process of fusion, neutrons are emitted and the material that contains the reaction becomes radioactive over time, but its a low level radioactivity with a short half-life. Here is some info.

You Wrote: "I don't want to be near a fusion reactor that fails. The pressure and temperature is that high inside of it that the result of an accident is horrifying. (H-bomb is a fusion weapon)"

Ok. First of all, it is very difficult to keep a fusion reaction going, so the second you lose containment, the reaction fails because the gas (which is not radioactive) diffuses. The H-Bomb is dangerous because Fusion yeilds much more energy than Fission. The radioactivity from the H-Bomb almost all comes from the fission reaction used to create the heat and pressure necessary for the fusion reaction. If you have time, please read this link, it explains how it works.

You Wrote: "From an European viewpoint we are not that afraid of Iran and we tend to look a bit different to the dispute. Iran has a nice reserve on natural Uranium. It is a good idea of them to use it them self to feed their own energy needs. Their idea to do the whole supply chain of their complete nuclear needs is also not so stupid."

I hope you're right. To be clear, I don't have any problem with Persians, I just don't like the leader of their country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200612/INT20061215b.html

Roger,

The last sentence: I completely agree and I think a lot of the Persians with you.

I got the difference between the waste of the two reactions.

On chernobil: you are right, the core started to melt, but that was a result of the accident, the accident itself had nothing to see with a meltdown, the bad design was the prime failiure mode.

I think that we are drifting away from the main thread.

Gwen

Roger,

I understand the difference between fission and fusion. What was not clear to me was why all of a sudden, it seems, does electrical generation from nuclear fission reactors become a viable alternative energy form when it's been taboo for the last 30 years? What has changed?

It's been my experience that people usually only choose something "bad" when their only alternative is something worse.

Water Buffalo,

Fail safes and technology has been improved over the last 30 years. From sensors, to computers.

That said, I don't think nuclear fission reactors are a practical solution and I myself don't advocate them. Therefore it's hard for me to justify a position that is not my own. Many people support Ethanol as an alternative fuel which to me is absurd when you look at the details involved. Some people think Fusion is a pie in the sky idea and see Fission as the only realistic solution to stifle CO₂ emissions. They view the risk of dramatic warming as more than the risks associated with nuclear fission power, especially with new technology to make fission safer. I don't agree with that assessment. I believe it demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the risks involved. It doesn't take into account human nature. What I mean to say is, if a Fusion power plant breaks down, it just breaks down. If a Fission plant melts down, many people die and land becomes unlivable. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and these Nuclear Fission plants would be built with top of the line safeguards and would be monitored heavily, in other words, with the best of intentions. Then as time goes by and no disasters occur, the government would cut funding and outsource management, the facilities would grow old and decrepit. Some company in charge of waste disposal would weigh the costs of screwing the public and lawsuits involved and the cost of containing the waste correctly and would make the wrong choice. I don't trust a source of energy that requires vigilance and integrity to keep it from killing a bunch of us. I'd much rather depend on a source that doesn't wipe out half a city when it goes bad, it just results in a loss of money in the rebuilding. Some might see that as cynical, and at times I'm sure I sound cynical, but I'm really not, I'm just practical. To ignore the human side of the equation in this regard is folly.

I'd much rather continue with fossil fuels while aggressively pursuing an aggressive research program to develop Solar and Fusion power. Hopefully that gets closer to an answer to your question. Its as honest an answer as I can provide.

Roger,

Well, "cynical" was actually the first word that popped into my head when reading your reply, but your point about human nature is well taken. Next question. How far are we from actually having a functioning fusion reactor, and might it not be feasible to build the necessary fission reactors to fill in the gap while we work on the fusion technology? We could always dismantle or shut down the fission plants when the technology catches up.

Water Buffalo,

You asked: "How far are we from actually having a functioning fusion reactor, and might it not be feasible to build the necessary fission reactors to fill in the gap while we work on the fusion technology?"

Good Questions, here's my take;

Science is a bit like everything else in the sense that, how long it takes something to get done is directly dependent on ;

1) Is it possible?
2) The number of resources provided
3) The number of people working on it

So to try and answer your question, I will address the three points above.

1) Is Fusion possible? Yes, its been achieved in the H-Bomb and even Fusion Reactors. Its just that in the reactors, it currently takes more energy than it creates. The the technical problem is containing the fusion reaction in a small environment. When left to its own devices, fusion reactions like to spread out, cool off, and stop, a very big plus in terms of safety, but a pain in the neck when your trying to get it to work. In the Sun, which is powered by fusion reactions, strong gravity forces the hydrogen to stay close to each other so the fusion reactions can continue. In the H-Bomb, a fission reaction explodes which compresses hydrogen fuel and forces the fusion reaction to occur. In a Fusion reactor, magnetic fields are used to contain the hydrogen to distances close enough that fusion can occur. There is an excellent short explanation offered on this webpage:
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/magnetic_confinement/magnetic_confinement.html

Points 2 and 3) from above: Science is only as good as the funding it receives and the number and quality of scientists working on the project. The nuclear fission came from the Manhattan project, where the top minds in the world (on our side) came together to solve the fission problem. In the 60s, the top minds of the world were called together to work on developing rocket and space travel, the culmination of which was the moon landings. Today, very little is spent on Fusion research in this country and so not many scientists are working on it. Instead we plan manned missions to Mars, throw billions of dollars at Ethanol (which can't possibly scale) and have a third of the scientists in the world working on Carbon Nanotubes, which you'll just have to trust me here, shouldn't get a tenth of the money and attention it gets. China however is aggressively pursuing Fusion power. Here is an article about it;http://www.terradaily.com/news/energy-tech-05zzzc.html

So if I was forced to guess, if we devoted the top minds and money in a Apollo or Manhattan type project to it, history tells us it would probably take about 15 to 20 years to develop a practical plant, followed by about 25 more years of tweaking and perfecting resulting in rising efficiencies. Without that kind of program, it may take 30 to 40 years to get a practical plant. China will probably be the ones to do it, if things stay the way they are now. I wonder if they will help us if they succeed? I'm not so sure they will, and if they do, it will cost us.

Should we use Fission in the mean time? In my opinion, absolutely, positively not. There is so much cost, pollution, and risk involved, its simply not worth it. They would take 5 to 10 years to build anyway. Also fission has the nasty habit of going out of control when left alone, which leads to meltdowns. Fossil fuels can hold us over till Fusion arrives, especially if we work on Solar with the same vigor. Solar power could probably cut our fossil fuel usage by a third before Fusion plants go online, 30 to 50 years from now.

Thats my thoughts on the subject. I hope I've addressed the questions you asked.

It's curious that you don't mention JET, which has for been the worlds largest fusion facility for some time. It's also interesting that, despite many false trails and hiccups, the achievements there appear to be remarkable close to the timelines defined over 20 years ago.

Look, lets not confuse the issue here. JET has been wonderful for Fusion research and the knowledge we have gained from it allows ITER to be built. But those two projects are hardly highly funded concentrated approaches to Fusion.

Consider the total cost of ITER, 10 Billion Euros, divided up by all the European countries, USA, Russia and China. The US will pay less than 1/20th of that cost. Less than 500 million dollars. That is not much funding and this is supposed to be the grand effort for Fusion. Its a symbolic and empty gesture on the part of the US. Thats why China decided to go ahead and build its own Fusion reactor on its own soil as well. Here is a link that explains ITER for those who wish to understand what we're talking about;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Also, to anyone so clueless as to believe 10 Billion Euros (12 Billion Dollars) is a lot of money for Fusion research, split up between 20+ countries, consider the following.

Exxon made 10 Billion Dollars in profit in three months.
Federal Corn Subsidies totaled 32 Billion Dollars between 1995 and 2003
The US paid 406 Billion dollars in INTEREST on the national debt in 2006

I agree with your comment about the US government contribution/attitude. Nevertheless, given the total budget and the educative value of the past 20 years, this project is as likely to demonstrate what is needed to achieve viability as any.

Hopefully, US/International companies may not be quite as short-sighted if/once the possible payback becomes clear..

You Wrote; "I agree with your comment about the US government contribution/attitude"

To be clear, I don't think any of the European countries are that much better. Like I said, only China seems to have an aggresive approach to fusion. Also, viability doesn't need to be established, its been established. No scientist claims Fusion power is impossible, as far as I know. The only question now seems to be how long it will be till the technology evolves to a point where fusion plants produce a net positive output.

I think you understand that viability for a company means an acceptable probability that its investment will be recouped with the required profits. That means that they must be confident that the R&D would provide IP that would lead to a market advantage. The problem is judging when it makes sense to enter the fray.

You wrote: "I think you understand that viability for a company means an acceptable probability that its investment will be recouped with the required profits. That means that they must be confident that the R&D would provide IP that would lead to a market advantage. The problem is judging when it makes sense to enter the fray."

Your basically asking what the return on investment will be, right? Nothing like using 50 words when 10 will do the job.

So what possible return on investment could a power source that could potentially produce unlimited power and is powered by water. Hang on, let me think on this one a second. Lets say the prototype 25 years from now is expensive, but energy positive. Lets say in order to meet the US power needs, the inefficient first generation Fusion reactors cost 10 billion dollars each and we need 500 of them. Thats a cost of 5 trillion dollars. Now lets say that reduces our foreign oil dependence to 1/10 of our current need, which the Gulf of Mexico reserves could cover.

Assuming the above is true, do we care about the middle east anymore, and if so, why? If we don't, that means that expensive wars such as the soon to be 500 billion and counting spent on the Iraq war is no longer necessary. It also means that the 200 billion dollars we spend every year on foreign oil would be gone. That would reduce our trade deficit and free up money to pay down the national debt, which we currently pay 400 billion dollars in interest on every year. Lets say we can cut that by 50 billion, that means we'd save 250 billion dollars as a country per year, or 1 trillion every 4 years.

How about economic implications? What would happen to the US economy if all factories and businesses located on US soil paid 1/5 of the Energy costs they pay now? Would that perhaps prove a boon to our economy, spurring large economic growth and generating extra wealth for all Americans? Isn't that the whole theory behind cutting taxes? How many hundreds of billions extra would that be worth a year? How much additional tax revenue would that provide.

Also, lets assume, as with all technology, that the Fusion plants become more productive over time. The costs associated with then decline, meaning energy costs and foreign oil dependence declines as well.

From a national security standpoint, what percentage of GDP comes from crude oil in terrorist sponsoring states? How much does oil and natural gas account for in the GDP of Russia, Venezuela. Wouldn't replacing oil with Fusion deal a terrible blow to our enemies economies while strengthening our own? What price can we put on that?

So if your suggestion is that Fusion research isn't getting money because there is no clear return on investment whereas Ethanol and Carbon Nanotubes get tons of money because people see a potential return, I disagree.

Mr. Pink,

If you can get 100-250 mpg in a car and generate electricity in houses and factories where the waste heat (2/3 electricity, 1/3 waste heat with a 66% efficient engine), you can cut the fuel flow by over 70%.

Such an engine would do most of what you claim in your post at a small fraction of the up front cost, giving the savings up front to invest in fusion WITHOUT putting a gun to the taxpayer's head for your pet project. You may be wrong and something else comes along.

At any rate we should move to fusion AFTER you get the IC engine corrected, NOT before. It may take 100 years to get to where you want and we don't have that kind of time, nor is a risk adverse government going to risk it all on fusion.

By the way, such an engine could be built for 600 b-1.2 trlllion at 5-10k per house at 120 million houses for the 3500 billion Kw-hrs needed in the USA per year.

Could you provide links please so I know what engine your talking about.

No need to be rude - especially as your supposed abbreviation neglects the issues of competition and risk that are so crucial here.

I was also pointing the fact that such corporate decisions are coloured by the results that are continuously generated in the public domain - that there is no purpose in corporations spending money on developing IP when very similar IP is liable to be available without such a spend.

The difference between us is, I think, that you appear to take the view that a viable (specific) route for fusion is already proven, whereas I think that the situation is that the proof is merely that a viable route exists. The former view would imply that we have reached the stage where the sensible options are between a much more massive state project (which I personally support in any event) and the state withdrawing completely to reduce competitive risk for corporates to develop their own IP.

BTW, I think that seaplaneguy (#41) is probably referring to small-scale "Combined Heat and Power" schemes - which I believe to be useful contributors in temperate and colder regions, but in no way sufficient to keep us out of trouble until adequate carbon-free energy sources are in place (this assumes the present political timescales).

Roger,

Thanks for your response. It looks as if, once again, we are at the mercy of our "freely elected" professional politicians. I wonder if it's even possible at this point to reverse the trend. When our country was founded our representatives were actually from among the general productive population, and being a congressman was an added responsibility that was taken on by those with a keen sense of civic duty. For this they are to be commended. In recent years some opportunists have seen the income potential and began making a career out of politics. The "Public Interest" has become "What will keep me in office?". They write laws that increase their control over all aspects of public policy and economic activities. It's the centralized federal government that our Founders rebelled against. Maybe we need to go back and revisit the cause of the civil war. The winners get to write history, but the truth can still be seen. Maybe now with 150 years of history to back it up, people can be convinced that power needs to be spread out so no single individual is tempted to try to grab it all for himself. There is a quote I heard once: "absolute power corrupts absolutely". I don't know who said it, but I think they missed the mark. They left out the part about the fact that man is already corrupt. He only needs the means to indulge himself and that fact becomes clearly evident.

Well Roger, keep up the good fight. We all can only do what we can do. I will continue to wield my influence (such as it is) to promote rational and reasonable living among those who I meet, and do so myself. What else can a man do?

By the way all.............

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Peace and blessing from my Lord Jesus Christ be on all.

I agree with your assessment of politics today, though I would say, and I'm sure you'd agree, that not everyone in politics is corrupt. Also, as I think you would also agree, I don't think corruption is unique to the US. At least I live in a nation where I can make such criticisms, for how much longer I couldn't say.

The government isn't all to blame, scientists are people and they fall for fads just like everyone else. Carbon Nanotubes is a scientist fad, I can't blame the government for that. Hopefully Fusion will become a fad again soon so progress will be made. For all my surface cynicism, I'm an optimist at heart.

I appreciate the discussion, as you said, we can only do what we do and see what happens. I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Can you give any more recent information on the Chinese work - not having heard anything about it recently, I'd (naively or cynically??) assumed that this was at least partially a bargaining strategy to improve their position on ITER?

Rather than give you too many links, I placed the results of a Google Scholar search here

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=china+fusion+tokamak&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2006&as_yhi=2006&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=

Additional keywords that might help are EAST and ITER.

Thanks. But can you select a few from these that show the huge level of independent Chinese work more clearly. My problem is that the first ten I selected (and that were publicly available) appeared to be interim work that was being undertaken to help in the planning of ITER.

Fyz

Sure,

http://www.jspf.or.jp/jspf_annual05/PDF/01aA04.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200108/03/eng20010803_76446.html

Just let me know and I'll give you more. The first link above kind of provides a bit of an overview.

I think that reply #16 addressed the symptoms of CO2, rather than how we 'knew' that fossil fuels were the origin. Of course, in absolutist terms we know nothing - but here is a summary of some strong indicators:

The relationship between the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt. The problem here is that the level of CO2 re-absorption is unknown. However, the correlation over recent years between the rate of change of concentration and the rate of consumption of fossil fuels is, for me, very compelling.

Fossil fuels contain proportions of Carbon13 that are different (lower) than those in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, this is also true of all life-forms. What we do know is that the proportion of Carbon13 in the atmosphere has reduced by an amount that is consistent with the origin being either reduction in biological retention or the burning of fossil fuels.

That's about it - good correlation, and the absence of a coherent alternative explanation. Not enough to be 100% certain, but enough to be taken seriously. And, given the potential consequences of doing nothing, enough to make a compelling case for taking what action we can.

BTW I agree with contribution #13 that, if the case for global-warming being problematical is correct, in the end mankind will need to become carbon-neutral. However, I take issue with the apparent viewpoint that partial steps in the meantime are pointless; I'm probably an incorrigible optimist, but I think that the interim measure of slowing the rise could be enough to allow measures (perhaps even including nuclear fusion) to be developed that would really solve the problem. (And I believe that these should be taken even if we believe that there is only a 10% probability that the problem is real - as guest says, we can always restart burning fossil fuels if/when we are certain the risk is acceptable).

Fyz

PS Although volcanoes can emit substantial amount of CO2, any observation have shown related quantities of other gases. You also expect significant seismic activity whenever outputs are changing substantially. As these other gases have not been observed in large quantities, and there have not been substantial unidentifiable seismic events, it seems unlikely that volcanoes could be responsible for the changes in atmospheric CO2 levels (that are being attributed to the burning of fossil fuels).