Let's nuke climate change!

@metal-brain said
https://wakeup-world.com/2015/11/16/a-million-cancer-deaths-from-fukushima-expected-in-japan-new-report-reveals/

If you want to promote nuclear propose a plan to make NPPs safer. I'm sure there are ways to reduce the risk. Gravity fed water would be a good idea, right?

That Fukushima 'report' was in 2015 and was clearly wrong. Its belief/opinion based on nothing. The total radiation added to the global environment (which is what this article talks about) is miniscule compared to environmental radiation.

That same article also says coal ash is nuclear and dangerous, which you disagree with. You have selectively chosen the parts of articles (Fukushima radiation) that reinforce your point, while ignoring the other stuff (fossil fuel pollution/radiation) you think is overblown fear mongering. In reality, it's all fear mongering.

You want to put hypothetical deaths into this equation? Then we should add hypothetical deaths due to climate change and air pollution and fly ash too.

@wildgrass said
That Fukushima report was in 2015 and was clearly wrong. Its belief/opinion based on nothing. The total radiation added to the global environment (which is what this article talks about) is miniscule compared to environmental radiation.

That same article also says coal ash is nuclear and dangerous, which you disagree with. You have selectively chosen the parts of articl ...[text shortened]... ion? Then we should add hypothetical deaths due to climate change and air pollution and fly ash too.

"You want to put hypothetical deaths into this equation? Then we should add hypothetical deaths due to climate change and air pollution and fly ash too."

You have already done just that....lol.

I am open to nuclear power if it can be made safer. Meltdowns are the big fear. Gravity fed water would make them safer, right?

Here is my proposal. Build a pipeline from the ocean to death valley (below sea level). Part of the pipeline can be above the land to heat it with solar before it enters the NPP. The steam from the NPP can be distilled to desalinate the sea water allowing agriculture in the desert.

Do you like my idea?

@metal-brain said
"You want to put hypothetical deaths into this equation? Then we should add hypothetical deaths due to climate change and air pollution and fly ash too."

You have already done just that....lol.

I am open to nuclear power if it can be made safer. Meltdowns are the big fear. Gravity fed water would make them safer, right?

Here is my proposal. Build a pipeline from ...[text shortened]... be distilled to desalinate the sea water allowing agriculture in the desert.

Do you like my idea?

The fatality statistics I posted are epidemiological estimates based on real data (i.e. not hypothetical). You posted an article that consisted of a reporter's opinion. If any of those numbers were defensible they could be included, but they are not.

Fear of meltdown is irrational.

Coal produces >100x more deaths per KwH than nuclear.

@metal-brain said
"You want to put hypothetical deaths into this equation? Then we should add hypothetical deaths due to climate change and air pollution and fly ash too."

You have already done just that....lol.

I am open to nuclear power if it can be made safer. Meltdowns are the big fear. Gravity fed water would make them safer, right?

Here is my proposal. Build a pipeline from ...[text shortened]... be distilled to desalinate the sea water allowing agriculture in the desert.

Do you like my idea?

You do not want to be using sea water to cool a nuclear plant (I assume that is what you mean by NPP). Sea water is corrosive and your reactor won't last long. I don't see any principled problem with the rest of the scheme, except it might be simpler just to generate semi-conductor solar power there.

@deepthought said
You do not want to be using sea water to cool a nuclear plant (I assume that is what you mean by NPP). Sea water is corrosive and your reactor won't last long. I don't see any principled problem with the rest of the scheme, except it might be simpler just to generate semi-conductor solar power there.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512082949.htm

@metal-brain said
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512082949.htm

Cool concept. Presumably, you could use the 'excess' heat to generate more power too.

@wildgrass said
Cool concept. Presumably, you could use the 'excess' heat to generate more power too.

Right, generate power while distilling the sea water. Heating the water with solar before entering the NPP would reduce the nuclear fuel amount to some degree. Not sure how much.

I still think global warming theory is wrong for the most part though. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner explains this well.

YouTube

@metal-brain said
Right, generate power while distilling the sea water. Heating the water with solar before entering the NPP would reduce the nuclear fuel amount to some degree. Not sure how much.

I still think global warming theory is wrong for the most part though. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner explains this well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1PS9-oOfRw

Is there a distillable quote that makes his point? If CO2 doesn't warm atmospheres by absorbing IR energy then the chemists and physicists have a lot of explaining to do.

Fourier figured this out in 1827. He was wrong?

@wildgrass said
Is there a distillable quote that makes his point? If CO2 doesn't warm atmospheres by absorbing IR energy then the chemists and physicists have a lot of explaining to do.

Fourier figured this out in 1827. He was wrong?

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

@metal-brain said
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

The author of that link claims to made calculations that show the absurd conclusion that CO2 works " like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface". He says one hell a lot of made-up crap, consisting of complete made-up gibberish pretending to be scientific by designed to sound vaguely sciencey such as "...mean free path length of the quantum/waves through those gases", which is just completely made up crap rather than real physics.
And, if his calculations really DID show this, and I have looked at them and they appear not to because is maths formulations appear strange and warped and laughable and don't make a whole lot of sense (and if you deny this, I challenge you to clearly explain in your own words only the exact maths reasoning that went into each and every one of those equations! ), then it would be big news and headline news all over the world. But it isn't headline news all over the world and that tells us that other physicists that look at his calculations must see they are flawed and probably extremely badly flawed at that, being just made up crap rather than completely correctly expressed and correctly applied physics equations. Thus our only rational conclusion is that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, exactly like basic physics says it should.
He vaguely says something about his conclusion of CO2 having a cooling effect is something to do with atmospheric water vapor and CO2 having overlapping IR spectrum bands, which makes no sense as an explanation because;

1, Overlapping IR spectrum bands won't cause cooling. Why should it? Why would that overlap mean more CO2 means LESS total IR absorbed and thus less warming? It wouldn't.

2, Much of the IR absorbed from CO2 isn't absorbed by water vapor and much of the IR absorbed from water vapor isn't absorbed by CO2, so that overlap is only PARTIAL. So, regardless of IR absortion overlap, why would there be no warming effect from that IR part absorbed by CO2 which is NOT absorbed by water vapor?

In short, the author makes obviously false claims that make no sense and is obviously just a nut like you and no doubt he would be dismissed as much by the scientific community.
And, with all else being equal, more CO2 means more climate warming, exactly like basic physics says it should and just as confirmed by the empirical evidence.

@humy said
The author of that link claims to made calculations that show the absurd conclusion that CO2 works " like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface". He says one hell a lot of made-up crap, consisting of complete made-up gibberish pretending to be scientific by designed to sound vaguely sciencey such as "...mean free path length of the quantum/waves through those ...[text shortened]... warming, exactly like basic physics says it should and just as confirmed by the empirical evidence.

In other words science isn't really science unless you agree with it. Water vapor and CO2 is what this study is based on, not CO2 alone and it points out a variable with the amount of water vapor if you had really read it.

You can claim something is wrong all you like, it will not prove anything but your personal bias. You need to demonstrate a falsehood, not merely allege it. That is how science is supposed to work, or did you lose sight of that?

@metal-brain said
In other words science isn't really science unless you agree with it.

Nope. That's your attitude, not mine. Gibberish made to sound vaguely sciencey to dishonestly pass as science, like you have got in your link, isn't science. The fact you have resorted to using such a link with such dishonesty and lies says it all.

Water vapor and CO2 is what this study is based on, not CO2 alone

What study? There was no such study done there. Its not a 'study' but just made up crap masquerading as a scientific study to convince stupid people like you of the lie that science says there is no CO2 induced warming and even pushes the absurdity that CO2 cools the climate! The only thing that was "based on" is lies propaganda and made up crap.

I see you refuse my challenge to clearly explain in your own words only the exact maths reasoning that went into each and every one of those equations on that link. I know why you refuse, you don't understand the maths reasoning because there is none there, just made up crap.

@humy said
Nope. That's your attitude, not mine. Gibberish made to sound vaguely sciencey to dishonestly pass as science, like you have got in your link, isn't science. The fact you have resorted to using such a link with such dishonesty and lies says it all.

Water vapor and CO2 is what this study is based on, not CO2 alone

What study? There was no such study done there. ...[text shortened]... you refuse, you don't understand the maths reasoning because there is none there, just made up crap.

Yet another lunatic fringe posing as science.
I found this link where this dude looked closely at 'bioBS site'

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-google-scholar-and.html

Metal sure can pick em. ANY post is viable if it agrees with his take on science.

@humy said
Nope. That's your attitude, not mine. Gibberish made to sound vaguely sciencey to dishonestly pass as science, like you have got in your link, isn't science. The fact you have resorted to using such a link with such dishonesty and lies says it all.

Water vapor and CO2 is what this study is based on, not CO2 alone

What study? There was no such study done there. ...[text shortened]... you refuse, you don't understand the maths reasoning because there is none there, just made up crap.

You are claiming it is flawed so you prove it. Meaningless assertions are not proof of dishonesty.