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

Are you starting to see the light, blatham?

I love the picture of mudcracks on your link. I remember those from National Geographics magazines back in the 50's, usually of places in Africa, except then it was for a different reason, called a "drought." If you have ever collected fossils, you can find fossil mudcracks a few million years old in fact.

CLIMATE CHANGE OVER A GLACIAL-INTERGLACIAL CYCLE DURING THE MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE: A LONG TERM RECORD FROM THE VALLES CALDERA, NEW MEXICO

FAWCETT, Peter J.1, GOFF, Fraser1, HEIKOOP, Jeff2, ALLEN, Craig D.3, DONOHOO-HURLEY, Linda1, GEISSMAN, John W.1, JOHNSON, Catrina1, WOLDEGABRIEL, Giday2, and FESSENDEN-RAHN, Julianna2, (1) Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, [email protected], (2) Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, NM 87545, (3) Fort Collins Science Center, Jemez Mountains Field Station, USGS, Los Alamos, NM 87544
The Valles Caldera in the Jemez Mountains of northern New Mexico contains a thick sequence of lacustrine sediments and volcaniclastic sediments that date from the inception of the caldera (c.a. 1.25 Myr). Lakes formed in the caldera immediately after its formation and existed for some period of time before the caldera wall was breached. A major lake formed during the middle Pleistocene in the Valle Grande when a post-caldera eruption (c.a. 520 kyr) filled the drainage to San Diego Canyon. The deposits of this ancient lake were cored in May 2004 (GLAD 5 drilling project) and a total depth of 81 m of lacustrine mud and silts and gravels was recovered. Based on geomorphic relationships and typical sedimentation rates in caldera lakes, the record obtained from the Valles Caldera should span ~80,000 years. As such, it offers a unique opportunity to gain insight into the climatic response to a middle Pleistocene glacial cycle in southwestern North America.

Initial analyses show considerable down-core variability in sedimentary facies, magnetic susceptibility, and gamma-ray density. Pumice sands and gravels at the base of the core grade up into variably laminated and bioturbated diatom-rich silty muds. Turbidites in the lower section interrupt laminated mud sequences and in some sections, thick diatomites occur and are indicative of surface eutrophication in the lake. The mm-scale laminations found in most of the lacustrine mud present possibly represent varves. Higher in the core, thin sand lenses indicate episodes of enhanced runoff into the lake, and occasional dropstones are observed. In the middle sequence, a brecciated, diatom poor facies correlates with high magnetic susceptibility. The rapid vertical facies changes found within this core and intervals with well-developed mudcracks indicate multiple water level changes over the lake history that spans a glacial-interglacial cycle during the middle Pleistocene.

maporsche wrote:

I'm all for nuclear technology. Build as many of those plants as we can afford.

Thank the tree huggers for killing the expansion of nuclear in the U.S. more than 20 years ago.

Sigh. If he is so inclined, I'll let our resident nuclear expert, GeorgeOb1, AGAIN explain the excellent safety record of nuclear plants as compared to almost all other means of producing energy in large quantities.

Foxfyre wrote:

Sigh. If he is so inclined, I'll let our resident nuclear expert, GeorgeOb1, AGAIN explain the excellent safety record of nuclear plants as compared to almost all other means of producing energy in large quantities.

I agree that they are much better now than 20 years ago which is what okie was referring too.

No explination needed. But I can understand the worry that people may have felt 20 years ago right around the time of 3 mile and Chernobyl.

My son is a mechanical/petroleum engineer at a large refinery. His work is soooo dangerous, I would be thrilled if he found a steady, safe job at any nuclear facility. I would worry a lot less.

okie wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I'm all for nuclear technology. Build as many of those plants as we can afford.

Thank the tree huggers for killing the expansion of nuclear in the U.S. more than 20 years ago.

Oh you mean about the same time that 3 mile island had a leak in 1979. Or Chernobyl in 1986?

I probably would have been against building any more plants then as well as accidents and incident reports were much higher than they've been in the last 10-15 years.

Several years ago Sweden and Germany rather loudly announced their intent to shut down their respective nuclear establishments. To date very little progress has been made in either country toward actually achieving these goals. I wonder where they stand now.

Christian Democrats signal Swedish shift to nuclear power

Published: 2nd April

The Christian Democratic party in Sweden has recently announced that it is changing its position on nuclear power. According to a report published by the party, the goal is no longer to "phase out Swedish nuclear energy as renewable sources replace it".

Instead, the Christian Democrats explain that they "do not wish to rule out that new nuclear reactors will be built in Sweden after 2010".

Currently, the nuclear reactors located at Ringhals , Forsmark and Oskarshamn produce around 50 percent of the electricity in Sweden, a substantial figure when viewed in an international perspective.

The ten reactors that are in service began operating between 1972 and 1985 and have been continuously upgraded to increase their yield.

However, the reactors were not built to last and some 15-20 years into the future the need will arise to replace them.

Although Sweden is one of the countries in the world that relies most on nuclear power, there has been wide political resentment against this energy source during the past few decades.

The big shift in the Swedish debate came with the accident in Harrisburg in 1979 and the nuclear-referendum in 1980. Swedish citizens were then given the option to vote for three different strategies for nuclear power, all aiming to ultimately abolish this source of energy.

The result of this vote might very well have been as hotly debated as the referendum itself, but the Parliament ultimately set the year 2010 as the final date when the last reactor would be taken out of action.

After substantial political pressure from Denmark, the two reactors in Barsebäck were closed down on the November 30th 1999 and the May 31st 2005.

But during the last few years, technological improvements in nuclear technology allied with the debate surrounding climate change have stimulated renewed interest in nuclear power. The previous aim to abolish nuclear energy may very well never occur.

Recently even the Centre Party has begun changing its stance on nuclear power. This is astonishing given that a centre-right government was dissolved in 1978 when the Centre Party, being strongly anti nuclear power, could not come to terms with its Liberal and Moderate coalition partners.

That both the Christian Democrats and the Centre party have shifted towards preserving and perhaps even expanding Swedish nuclear power represents an important shift in energy policies. This shift may mean that decision makers gain a more nuanced and less ideological view of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is on the rise internationally. Many reactors are being built in countries such as China and India and the third generation of nuclear reactors are on the rise in Japan, South Korea and European nations such as Finland and France.

At the same time, a massive expansion of nuclear power is expected in the USA beginning with the signing of new government permits in 2010.

In years to come, we might very well see this trend spreading to Sweden, something that was unthinkable only a few years ago.

Apparently (even despite your rebuke) my understanding of the situation in Germany is correct. The declared intent to abandon nuclear power remains in place, but nothing has been done - or likely will be done - to implement it.

Meanwhile, as you say Germany has become a leader in wind and solar power implementation -- progressing all the way from the infinitesimal to the trivial.

Walter - I sometimes go days at a time without thinking much about Sweden.

The headlines and hype surrounding the renunciation of nuclear power by Sweden were far bigger than the silence that accompanyed their prolongued inaction on the matter and subsequently their recent reversal of their position.

Challenge to Emissions Rule Is Set to Start

The fight over cars and carbon dioxide moves today from the Supreme Court to a federal courtroom in Burlington, Vt., in a case that automakers say could reshape vehicles sold on the East and West Coasts.

The industry is suing to block a 2004 California regulation on global warming from taking effect. The rule would require a 30 percent cut in emissions of greenhouse gases from cars and trucks sold in Vermont and New York, which follow California's air quality rules, to be fully phased in by the 2016 model year.

In court filings, automakers have argued that regulating the emissions will increase pollution, cause more traffic deaths and lead domestic automakers to stop selling most of their passenger models in states that adopt such regulations.

The companies have disputed that global warming is a problem, even though they have acknowledged it in different forums as a serious problem. And they tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to close much of this case to the public.