Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

For my part, I am sick of paying for some Arab to add another 50 rooms to his palace. Anything that lessens our dependancy on oil is a good thing, not because of the environment but because of the politics. Except for cars that produce "only water" ...whoever thinks replaceing cars that produce carbon, the least demonstrable of all the green house gases with cars that produce water, the most blatantly obvious of all the green house gases, is a good idea is green beyond intelligence.

I am speechless at how cynical and corrupt you have to be to portray Global Warming like this....forget the science, go straight for the emotional throat. Use terror...

The World Wildlife Fund...now there's a bureaucratic joke for you...how much of your contribution goes to the organisations salaries and"expenses".
Wildfires, floods, storms...this is called the weather. We have been enjoying some of the calmest weather known for the last 10,000 yrs, probably because of the climatic plateau when the last glacial retreat stopped melting. It seems it has started to melt again, and our weather will become more variable. Running around in circles, waving your arms over your head and screaming "CARBON" wont change it. Neither will cutting back on carbon. We will get warmer, and the remnants of the last Glacial Advance will melt and our weather will have more energy because the planet will be warmer.

Aim radioactive waste at our sun? I don't think so. A means must be found to break it down into component parts for safe disposal.

The sun is constantly absorbing stuff from the universe due to its gravity. Much of that stuff is radioactive. Why not let the sun absorb some of our radioactive stuff if we are unable to break down enough of it into component parts for safe disposal on our earth?

Why not ?

Considering that the US alone has 45000 TONS of high-level radioactive waste (typically thinbgs like nuclear power reactor fuel rods), not to mention a all other high level sources and lower-level radioactive waste, not to mention the comparable waste that Russia, China, France particularly, the UK,and the rest of the EU, and all the other countries that have a few reactors, have produced,
considering that it is hugely more expensive and requires much more poweer and fuel and probably larger rockets to get something up to escape velocity to free it from the earth's gravity well--MUCH more than it takes to get something into low-earth orbit where most satellites and the astronauts usually go.
considering the small payloads we can currently send long distances away--typically a ton or two for the Mars Rovers and such, and consideering how expensive and rare those missions are,
considering the number of rockets that blow up before they reach space, which is not something you want to have happen if you're transporting tons of high-level nuclear waste thru the atmosphere we are breathing,
then disposal of nuclear waste in the sun is, for the foreseeable future, conomically and practically, nothing more than a daydream.
It's gonna have to be dealt with here on earh.

than what ? Storage in massive structures for at least 10,000 years ?

Seeing you mentioned it, how many rockets is that ? How many are new designs and are not yet known for reliability ?

The Mars launches are of sophisticated equipment which has to function after many months in space, whereas nuclear waste simply has to sit there. Rocket launches have such a high failure rate because Britain, the EU, Japan, China, North Korea, Russia and the USA have all developed their own separate rocket program and have each learnt through their own mistakes to develop their own reliable rockets. Even in the worst case scenario and the reliability of launches can not be improved, it is a relatively simple matter to eject the head of the rocket containing the waste and then detonate the rocket. Making the head crash survivable and easy to recover is again relatively simple but is the part that would draw the most attention from emotional arguments. Hitting the sun is the rocket equivalent of child’s play.

The Saturn V attained 47 tonne to Lunar vacinity, though it could carry about 100 tonne or more for just leaving earth and pointed at the sun, especially as the sun's gravity would help. Because of the high developmental costs Saturn V averaged $2.4-3.5 billion per launch in 2007 dollars. This could be brought down to well under 1 billion per launch or $22,000 per kilogram for leaving high earth orbit. For low earth orbit, NASA charges US$25,000 per kg on the Space Shuttle if you can get the space allocated. The Boeing subsidiary ‘Sea Launch’ charges US$1,000 per kg on old (technology) Russian rockets. Future plans for leaving earth hope to get the cost down to $100-$1,000 per kilogram depending on low earth or leaving high earth orbits.

About 97% of the spent fuel can be recycled leaving only 3% as high-level waste. This means a l,000 MWe nuclear reactor will produce about 700 kg per year.
Major commercial reprocessing plants are operating in France and UK, with capacity of over 5000 tonnes of spent fuel per year, - equivalent to at least one third of the world's annual output. A total of over 55,000 tonnes of spent fuel has been reprocessed at these over 35 years. This means the worlds fuel waste problem could be reduced to 450 tonnes per year. As Saturn V could take a minimum of 100 tonnes per launch, this means 9 launches per 2 years to eradicate new nuclear waste.

The USA alone has collected US$ 18 billion from consumers on a solution. Has it found one ? This would have translated to 4 years with no new nuclear waste in the world. How much will other countries pay to be rid of their high level nuclear waste ?

Let' see.. A rocket either blows up or it doesn't....

According to Ionus that would be 50/50.

Hey, parados, are you making any "headway?" LOL

And that is about the limit of your ability to contribute. I will explain yet again...see if you can understand this time...the first stage of any data analysis is to list all possibilities. These possibilities have an equal chance of occuring. Then you analyse the data. Otherwise, there is no point in analysing anything. You can simply guess, like with Global Warming. Of course you dont understand this and never will, but I will not give up on you parados, because I think that is your problem. Too many people have dismissed you as a belligerant fool and it has damaged your personality even further. Your preconcieved ideas like Global Warming are selected by you not for your ability to understand but by what you think will make you respected and feel powerful. Seriously, what are the chances of that happening ?

It's getting harder and harder to ignore climate change. Now our favorite ocean creatures are confirming what we already know. As the water gets warmer, the fish are moving away, faaar away, to find cooler habitats.

Researchers at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have published a new study that reveals that half of 36 fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean have shifted their ranges to the north over the last forty years, reports Science Daily. Some of the stocks, many of which are commerically fished, have all but vanished from U.S. waters.

Their research, which appears in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series, illustrates how changing coastal and ocean temperatures are altering the behavior of fish species that range from North Carolina to the Canadian border. The species in question include Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail, winter flounder, spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring and more obscure species like blackbelly rosefish.

The researchers took account of historic ocean temperature records, long-term oscillation processes, fishing pressures over time and natural fluctuations in ocean temperatures to arrive at their conclusions.

"The fact that we see responses in many species consistent with what you would expect with warming, but in different types of species that have experienced different historical fishing pressure, suggests that we are already witnessing the response of fish to a warming scenario," said Janet Nye, a postdoctoral researcher at NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center laboratory and the study's lead author, according to Science Daily.

And how will this impact the dinner table? The study's authors said that as fishermen have to travel farther to find the species that are moving offshore, it will eventually stop being economically feasible to catch them. At that point consumers will have to do without.

I admit that your responses here are on the highest scientific level.
Nothing for someone as uneducated as I am.

Since I'm here to learn, you may excuse this question: to what "rocket programs" that Britain (sic!) developed are you referring here? The Congreve Rocket? (Well, it has been actually the mother/father of many more modern weapons.) Skylark? (Hm, many countries were experimenting - not all had the best captured German scientists like the USA.)

So.. there is an equal chance that your head will blow up today?

Chance is not determined by simple counting to 2.

Don't you think it is 1 out of 2 since there are only 2 possibilities?

What do you think the chances are that I will take you off ignore after this post?

Britain did extensive research into rocketry at the end of WWII, simultaneously with developing Nuclear Weapons. Many years later it implemented the Polaris missile which is an American design into its nuclear defence program, prior to joining the EU and participating in Ariadne among others, but no longer as a seperate nation's scientific endeavours, to which Germany also contributed. Just to maintain and launch someone else's rocket takes significant knowledge.

I hope they are zero. But the possibilities are you will or you wont. Then by narrowing down the variables...if they are determinable...we may be able to calculate the statistical chance of one of the possibilities actually occurring. Find any book on statistics. Throw it away. You wont understand it. But I wont give up on you parados. It is the way people have treated you that has made you like this.

I suppose you are referring to "Operation Backfire".

But these were tests with captured V-2 rockets ...

Britain did an entirely seperate missile program in the middle of Australia, I think it was called the Blue Streak from memory. I dont know the missile you called Skylark unless it is the Australian weather rocket. Having said that, it just occured to me I think there was a British Skylark as a part of the British program as they named their rockets after birds.

Yes, Blue Streak was developed from 1958 onwards (I've met some of the personal involved in that program).

Some infos about the Skylark rockets

Thanks Walt. An interesting ref. even if it did force me to dust off my cobweds. Always a pleasure to discuss with reason instead of emotion. By the way, why arent you out celebrating ? I remember watching in shock and awe the wall come down. I just found it uplifting that without a war a great wrong had been righted.

Finding that something is occurring is quite seperate to why. Does it surprise you that Global Warming researches find Global Warming ? Big Foot researches find Big Foot. We have to be skeptical because a crowd behaves foolishily and Global Warming is the latest fad.

I would like to know to what extent if any overfishing played in finding fish populations in places further away.

I've been in "the East" over the weekend. But thanks for your sympathy.