Shock Claim; No Ice At The North Pole This Summer

[rpicardi1]

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.:eek:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

Of course, this is all our fault because of our standard of living is causing all of this global warming which is melting the sea ice there.

Yet!

A little research found the following;

PARIS (AFP) - Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.

The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080625/sc_afp/sciencegeologyoceansvolcano_080625201350

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=77732
http://www.physorg.com/news133619956.html
http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=77976

There are hundreds of other articles on this subject of volcanic activity under the Arctic Ocean.

"The scale and magnitude of the explosive activity that we're seeing here dwarfs anything we've seen on other mid-ocean ridges," says Sohn, who studies ridges around the world. The volume of gas and lava that appears to have blasted out of the Gakkel volcanoes is "much, much higher" than that seen at other ridges.
Sohn says it would have been "spectacular to witness" the eruptions, but he says it is a good thing there is four kilometres of seawater on top of the Gakkel Ridge as the eruptions would have been "highly problematic" had they occurred on dry land.
The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=81bb2fd3-63f1-476f-b0be-f48c0dc90304

CO2 from volcanic activity under the Arctic contributing to Global Warming? Nah!

Why hasn't this been reported by the main Stream Media?:confused: Simple, we are being fed a daily diet of polar bears being stranded on ice floes, melting ice, open water, and it is all our fault. Not a peep about the massive amount of heat that is released by underwater volcanic eruptions in the Arctic Ocean.

What we don't know won't make us question the real cause of the melting sea ice. We will continue to hear the Global Warming propaganda until we are forced to submit to the destruction of our way of life.

[Conrail Tweety]

Let me get this straight....hot lava is emerging at the bottom of the sea and the heat is transferred to the water.

That's not global warming, it's global cooling.

[Paul1953]

"Why hasn't this been reported by the main Stream Media?"


Because truth does not sell newspapers or attract advertising.

You are told only what the PTB wants you to know.
You could ask , oh, say, Rupert Murdoch, but he's too busy administering his 600 porn sites to be bothered by anything so trivial as "truth".

[rdamurphy]

Odd, Googling "Rupert Murdoch 600 porn sites" brought back no information whatsoever. Have we been saving the coverings off of our TV Dinners again? And making headwear out of them?

Robert

[Paul1953]

Google doesnt have tabs on everything.

and you can stop anytime now with the patronising, its boring.

[USRailFan]

That's not global warming, it's global cooling.

So THAT is why the first three weeks of May, and the second half of June, were colder her in Scandinavia than they've been for more than 50 years.

[rpicardi1]

Odd, Googling "Rupert Murdoch 600 porn sites" brought back no information whatsoever.

Remove the number 600 from the search box and you will get, 1 - 10 of 280,000 for Rupert Murdoch porn sites (about) - 0.42 s

This was with a Yahoo search.

What does the porn site distraction have to do with the media failing to report about this?

BTW, the melting ice forecast and current rapid melting made it on the C Bxxx Sxxx news today. Nothing mentioned about a cause.

[rdamurphy]

"The picture on the left is a screen shot taken from The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/). This is a tabloid printed in the UK that also happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (http://www.newscorp.com/index2.html).
The Sun has a daily ‘soft pornography’ feature called ‘Page 3"

Ummm, OK. Well, anyway, it doesn't matter because penguins can swim! They'll probably enjoy the lack of ice. It will also make it harder for the polar bears to catch them. I'm somewhat concerned about Santa Claus, though, it would be horrible if the North Pole sank! I wonder if elves have life jackets?

Oh, yeah, global warming, hey, I'm not off topic here, after all, we are talking about fantasy, aren't we?

Robert

[BurritoFarmer]

I work at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and know Mark Serreze, the scientist mentioned in these articles. Not trying to sound self-important, though, so please don't read it the wrong way. It's just how I find this thread relevant to me. Anyways...

The article doesn't say much about the contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere by these underwater volcanoes. What it does say is that "the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". It doesn't say that they were a significant factor. Not enough is known about them to really give any real numbers. They were recorded in 1999. If there were recorded just a few years ago, it would be hard to tell if they've had a major impact on our climate in say, the last century or two.

Do I believe that we are causing a rise in global temperatures because of our GHG emitting lifestyle? It very likely. Recorded CO2 levels show a definite rise around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with annual average global temperatures rising correspondingly. Sea ice is melting, glaciers retreating; hurricanes could be getting more powerful in the coming years. It's a positive feedback loop; it will only sustain itself and get more prominent. Something is definitely happening, and there's a very good chance that record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have something to do with it. And who else could have put it there?

[rdamurphy]

OK, I'll bite: Who put it there the last time we had the Medevial Warming Period and who put it there when we had the Little Ice Age?

For instance, the so-called "destruction" of the ozone layer has proven to be a hoax (http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/advinozon.html) as did the Y2K "crisis."

And why no answers to these 10 simple questions (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24090)?

Sorry, but just because somebody invented "computer models" I'm not going to put on a tin-foil hat and run around screaming the sky is falling. Especially when we find out the "computer models" have been faked (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027) also.

And perhaps you can help explain this (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf).

The fact of the matter is that a lot of greenies are going to get what they want and make a lot of money, a fact that can't be discounted.

Robert

[Paul1953]

Well lets see...

Satelite data showing a hole in the ozone over Antartica appeared to be real to everbody with an elbow and an eye. If it doesnt exist now, thats one thing, but it was no hoax.

Those "ten simple questions" require more than simple answers. If you expect to recieve knowledge in ten -second soundbites, you will be dissappointed.

Why would you say Nasa's study was "faked", as if it was truthfuly meant to be that way? They missed imputing data that skewed the results, and have since rectified the situation.

So what if somebody makes money off of this? Arent you the ones for unfettered capitalism, at any cost? An opportunity knocks, and there are those ready to take advantage. Don't worry about your neighbourhood tree-hugger, he/she aint in it for the cash. The ones that are, are the ones that got us into this mess today.

[Vince]

[QUOTE=rdamurphy;1405749 ....snipped idiotic rantings......................
Ummm, OK. Well, anyway, it doesn't matter because penguins can swim! They'll probably enjoy the lack of ice. It will also make it harder for the polar bears to catch them. I'm somewhat concerned about Santa Claus, though, it would be horrible if the North Pole sank! I wonder if elves have life jackets?

Oh, yeah, global warming, hey, I'm not off topic here, after all, we are talking about fantasy, aren't we?

Robert[/QUOTE]

You truly are a gem Robert.
Still parroting, >>"...........Ummm, OK. Well, anyway, it doesn't matter because penguins can swim! They'll probably enjoy the lack of ice. It will also make it harder for the polar bears to catch them.... <<<<

Listen close cement head:

1.Robert, please attempt to grasp the fact that There are NO PENGUINS AT OR EVEN NEAR THE NORTH POLE.
Do you understand what the simple two letter word NO means?
As in NO PENGUINS HERE ??

2. IF you STILL believe there are then YOU ARE TRULY AN IDIOT.

Do you understand? You screwed this up in another thread and again made yourself look like a jerk and now you repeat the EXACT SAME UN-TRUTH.

This is VERY telling Robert. Dont take this wrong but I have a couple of questions for 'ya; :p
Q1. Do you ENJOY making yourself look like a complete idiot and fool in front of the entire world? TWICE this week no less!!! :eek:
Q2. And IF you do could I respectfully ask why? :rolleyes:

Please understand, I'm NOT saying you ARE a complete idiotic fool, only ASKING WHY you insist making yourself look like one. :)

I respectfully suggest you substitute the word SEALS, or if you are capable of substituting a TWO word description, ARTIC SEALS, for the word PENGUINS when referring to the North Pole, Santa Clause, Kris Kringle or Polar Bears.

And BTW, the SOUTH POLE does indeed have many species of penguin.....but sorry to say....NO POLAR BEARS! ;)

And Robert, to use your own words: >>>".....we are talking about fantasy, aren't we?.........."<< :p

[rdamurphy]

I know that, moron. Sheesh you're dense...

Robert

[Vince]

I know that, moron. Sheesh you're dense...

Robert

Uhh, so then why did you post, and here I quote from YOUR POST;

Robert says: >>>"Ummm, OK. Well, anyway, it doesn't matter because penguins can swim! They'll probably enjoy the lack of ice. It will also make it harder for the polar bears to catch them.
[end of quote from Robert Murphy]

So Robert, if you truly KNOW THAT why do you keep posting 'penguins' at north pole? :confused:

That would seem, on the surface, that you ENJOY making yourself look like a fool. Why would that be? :rolleyes:

I know you're not stupid but are you just a fat little troll?
Please understand that I'm just asking.
It just seems that way.
You continually post un-truths ( penguins at the NORTH pole last week in the Heller thread).
Then even after being corrected, you post the same EXACT un-truths again (penguins at the NORTH pole) today.

Then you defend your post by a personal attack, and here I again quote YOUR words: "I know that, moron. Sheesh you're dense..." [end of Robert Murphy's quote]

[mjs2101]

The fact of the matter is that a lot of greenies are going to get what they want and make a lot of money, a fact that can't be discounted.


Well, you are definitely correct about that. Control and money are the main driving forces for the "global warming" ideology. However, simply because some choose to jump off the deep end and blow this out of proportion, does that mean we should totally ignore the possibility that humans are having an affect upon the environment?

That is not saying that humans are solely responsible for what is happening, just like CO2 is solely responsible either. That is simply to say that the possibility exists that humans are contributing to what is happening along with other factors. There simply is not enough understanding of the Earth, or the Universe for that matter, at this time to say confidently that humans can do no wrong.

Mykel

[chucksc]

Well, you are definitely correct about that. Control and money are the main driving forces for the "global warming" ideology. However, simply because some choose to jump off the deep end and blow this out of proportion, does that mean we should totally ignore the possibility that humans are having an affect upon the environment?

That is not saying that humans are solely responsible for what is happening, just like CO2 is solely responsible either. That is simply to say that the possibility exists that humans are contributing to what is happening along with other factors. There simply is not enough understanding of the Earth, or the Universe for that matter, at this time to say confidently that humans can do no wrong.

Mykel
I think of it as a religion myself - Kinda like modern Druids...

Al Gore is the head Druid...

Can you see Billary worshiping at a phallic totem? <insert evil grin here>

[bobbie]

Well, my opinion to the Global Warming thing..

It has always bin there, we only helped it go faster!

I can see the Global Warming... about 15 years ago was the last time we had good Ice on rivers and lakes for a couple of weeks in the winter. Also Snow was there enough. Even the Sea could get frozen for some parts! Now in the winter 2007/2008 temperatures don't come below freezing point now. Snow is falling in Spring (end march/begin Aprill) and April looks like Summer.

the Last 5 - 10 years winters got boring.. Nothing to do anymore.. only a bit cold.

I'm aware of the problem, its there but What can I do?

I have a Car, A litle 1 but I uses only 1 galon for 50 miles! Its good for me, since Gasoline prices are so high and good for the Envoierment too. Electricity bills etc. are also getting Higher, so I don't use more than I need..

But again, I can't live without the current technology. Low bills mean less use of Gass, Electricity and other stuff. Its good for you and Good for everybody. You can easy save out 1/4 IF you do it right.

[Shonner]

Dinos got along just fine with high levels of CO2. So did the plants they ate. Plants thrive on the stuff.

But liberals want everyone to reduce CO2 which would kill plants which can't live on just Nitrogen and Oxygen. So if the plants die, we die. But schools are run by liberals and are brainwashing a generation of people to hate both CO2 and the people that exhale it.

[Shonner]

Well, my opinion to the Global Warming thing..

It has always bin there, we only helped it go faster!

What amazes me are people that think they are so awesome that they have altered the Earth's air temp. But then they have no idea how to put back the Earth's old temp setting. If these people only knew what the Earth really was they were standing on, they would be too afraid to ever leave their house.

The Earth is oribiting a white hot ball of fusion called the Sun. The Earth's core has in it a small piece of the Sun. Earth has a lot of water on it that absorbs CO2. Yet people think they can control what the Earth's temp is on a given day.

It's all about money. Turn people into liberals and then scare them with global warming so they'll buy into it.

By the way, not one person has ever died from global warming. Millions have died though from the banning of DDT's.

[rdamurphy]

Gosh, Shonner, I think I like you!

Good points!

Everybody acts as if the ENTIRE arctic ice pack is melting, umm, no, just a small portion near the pole. Where the penguins like to hang out. OK, so some of them might have to travel a little further south to give birth to their chicks, but so what?

One moron on a "climate change" website asked how much the ice melting over the Arctic Ocean would cause the sea to rise on the US coasts.

Robert

[Shonner]

the so-called "destruction" of the ozone layer has proven to be a hoax (http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/advinozon.html) as did the Y2K "crisis."

Liberals love to scare people.

Whatever happened with their lies about humankind dying off from:

MAD
Pollution
Running out of food
Acid rain
AIDS
Nuclear energy

So now they are going after our carbon footprints. Liberals get millions of people killed whenever they get political on anyone who won't vote for them.

Remember, the only reason. THE ONLY REASON for a liberal is to vote Democrat. That is their sole purpose in life. So the government now pounds that into everyone starting at birth, through TV and school, through college, through the Internet, through welfare checks and prozac distribution.

Notice I didn't mention talk-radio. It's the one thing that liberals don't have complete control of yet in the world.

[Shonner]

Satelite data showing a hole in the ozone over Antartica appeared to be real to everbody with an elbow and an eye. If it doesnt exist now, thats one thing, but it was no hoax.

Nothing died though. Not even the Penguins that ignored all the warning signs stating not to swim there.

[Shonner]

One moron on a "climate change" website asked how much the ice melting over the Arctic Ocean would cause the sea to rise on the US coasts.

Oh my god. Do you know how many times I've had to pour soda out of a cup because of melting ice cubes causing the drink to overflow?

If they taught geology and oceanography in schools, there would be so many less liberals. Showing facts to a liberal is the same as pouring holy water on them, by the way. They hate both with every fibre of their being.

[rdamurphy]

ROFL! That's a great analogy, just look at Vince's reaction to a simple post about penguins, it's just driving him insane. I never knew anyone could hate penguins so much. Well, except Canadiens, when they club them to death on the ice in British Columbia every year, poor baby penguins.

Robert

[jtr1962]

Oh my god. Do you know how many times I've had to pour soda out of a cup because of melting ice cubes causing the drink to overflow?

Melting polar ice caps is a different mechanism. The glaciers are actually well above sea level as they're made of accumulations of snow which piled up over thousands of years. A better analogy might to fill a shallow saucer nearly to the rim, then put in an ice cube. The water will definitely overflow as the ice cube melts.

OK, so let's assume for a moment man has absolutely nothing to do with melting polar ice caps. Exactly how will getting off fossil fuels make things any worse (or for that matter better)? Like I've said upteen times, it doesn't matter one way or another. Reducing air pollution is already a good enough reason to kick the fossil fuel habit. There are about a hundred others. This alternative energy stuff is big business. If the US were to take a lead in it we could export instead of import for a change. The liberals may have the reasons all wrong (as usual) but in this case the suggested course of action makes good economic sense once you get past all the global warming/the sky is falling hysteria. Besides all that, we'll be hedging our bets if for once the liberals actually turn out to be right about something for a change.

Come on, let's do it for all those poor baby penguins.... :D

[rpicardi1]

Interesting to note, in spite of great strides made by industry in cleaning up emissions in the US, we continue to be the ones to blame while China remains exempt and pollutes its environment with no concern at all over the Global Warming paranoia of the Left.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/asia/china.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7478923.stm

[Hawk]

A better analogy might to fill a shallow saucer nearly to the rim, then put in an ice cube. The water will definitely overflow as the ice cube melts.
Actually water is more dense than ice, hence ice has more volume than water.
That's why water pipes burst when the water in them freezes.
When water freezes it expands, becomes less dense.

So, when you drop an ice cube in a dish of water the volume in the dish will increase immediately, but as the ice melts the volume will decrease.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/122Adensityice.html (http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/122Adensityice.html)

[rpicardi1]

Actually water is more dense than ice, hence ice has more volume than water.
That's why water pipes burst when the water in them freezes.
When water freezes it expands, becomes less dense.

Liberals never paid attention in science class. They think that when the ice melts in the Arctic Ocean or that chunk that is floating in the Antarctic Ocean melts that sea levels will rise, like in the Keven Costner flop "Water World". http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/

Currently, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now near 10.5 million square km compared to 7.5 million last year at this time.

The newest panic is how penguins are dying off from starvation in the Antarctic. What liberals don't tell you is that they have to travel much further then normal from their winter breeding grounds over the expanded sea ice in order to find open water for fishing.

Instead, we are being fed this propaganda by the Clinton Bull Sxxx news.

Penguins may be the tuxedo-clad version of a canary in the coal mine, with generally ailing populations from a combination of global warming, ocean oil pollution, depleted fisheries, and tourism and development, according to a new scientific review paper.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/tech/main4222124.shtml

[Gixxer86g]

>Well, except Canadiens, when they club them to death on the ice in British Columbia every year, poor baby penguins.

Do they use lead filled snowshoes to club those baby fur penguins?

[rpicardi1]

Well, except Canadiens, when they club them to death on the ice in British Columbia every year, poor baby penguins.

I assume that you are referring to the annual Native American hunt of fur seals in Canada. http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&p=canadian+fur+seal+hunt&rs=0&fr2=rs-top

A link or two about the seal hunt, the rest of the links are from the various outraged animal rights groups. Canada's cruel seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on the planet. Over one million baby seals have been killed for their fur. Help us save the seals. (Click at your own risk of virus infection to your computer.)

[rdamurphy]

It must be getting bad! Penguin sightings (http://www.lpzoo.org/animals/PENGUIN-HOUSE/index.php) in Chicago!

Robert

[Shonner]

Candiens harvested the Penguins in the Arctic for their stem cells (which liberals desperately crave) until they were extinct up there. So now they are going after the baby seals for their juicy bio-fuel. Apparently some liberal has invented a hang-glider that burns up the stuff.

[bobbie]

Im not afraid of Global Warming, also not about the melting of the North Pole.

The Country where I live in (Netherlands) lays below Sea level.. But we got the wolds most advanced stuff, against water.. We grew up with it and are stuck with it. Melting of the North Pole is bad for the Polar bears, but not for our sea. Only the ice and snow thats on the land makes the sea rising a bit every year.

But like Shonner said, you can't controll earth and yes, the world can't live without Co2.
I totaly Agree with Shonner about his comment, its all too big blown up! What happens will happen, no matter what. Humans are too mcuh busy with Nature.. "Nature always finds a way, only Mankind makes it impossable". I see this too much at our local Nature Reservates.


Greetz
Bob

[Shonner]

People will adapt to water rising if it does rise. New beach front property. But after 2029, it may not matter much. See http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/13may_2004mn4.htm

[mjs2101]

The Earth is oribiting a white hot ball of fusion called the Sun. The Earth's core has in it a small piece of the Sun.


First off, I believe the sun is actually yellow to orange in color as it is too cool to be white. Also, there is no sun in the core! What drives the release of heat in the core of the Earth is totally different from what drives the heat of a star.

Mykel

[Shonner]

First off, I believe the sun is actually yellow to orange in color as it is too cool to be white. Also, there is no sun in the core! What drives the release of heat in the core of the Earth is totally different from what drives the heat of a star.

You want to get technical then. Fine. So explain where liberals come from.

[rdamurphy]

Missing chromosones.

Robert

[Hawk]

You want to get technical then. Fine. So explain where liberals come from.
Monkeys. ;)
Seems most of them haven't progressed far beyond that, other than appearance. :D

[USRailFan]

You want to get technical then. Fine. So explain where liberals come from.

You know, the bee and the flower, etc...

[rdamurphy]

Nowhere soon, as since the Roe Effect has kicked in!

Robert

[Gixxer86g]

>So explain where liberals come from.

They come from under rocks and rotting logs.And if you pour salt on them they curl up and die.

[mjs2101]

You want to get technical then. Fine. So explain where liberals come from.


Technical? Here in the yard? Surely you jest! :) As for where liberals come from..... I haven't a clue. Isn't that one of the mysteries of the Universe?

Mykel

[muskokaandtahoe]

> Something is definitely happening, and there's a very good chance that record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have something to do with it.

It's also a very good chance that it's not a good idea to mess w/ the various percentages of gases in the atmosphere, which seems to be the case.

The problems I have w/ the global warming is largely political: for the most part all too many of its devotees come off as religous nutters who want everybody in hair shirts, begging foregiveness from gaia. Spare me. Whatever this is, it is a problem of science and economics, not politics, religion, and sociology.

Listen to the economists: there is a classic opportunity here. Look at the charts on sources of fuel over time: it's dynamic -- wood, then coal, then petroleum. There is no law that says now that we're using a lot of petroleum it'll always be that way. I think we're going to transition to a much larger use of electricity and a much lower use of carbon fuels. Solar will eventually become very important. The transition will be 30-50 years.

Any of you guys remember coal being delivered to the home you grew up in? How many still use coal for home heating? Who wants that back?

Stuff changes, life goes on. It ain't all bad either (unless your life depends on crabbing about everything).

[Shonner]

I think we're going to transition to a much larger use of electricity and a much lower use of carbon fuels. Solar will eventually become very important.

What good is solar? How about nuclear energy? France uses it for 80% of their power.

[bobbie]

Yes, Nuclear is also good and kinda green. only bad thing is the Nuclear waste, but its easy to store it in a bunker like they do now. most people forget that nuclear power is also quiet "green" (like we say over here).

[Vince]

What good is solar? How about nuclear energy? France uses it for 80% of their power.

France re-processes their spent nuclear fuel. Technoligical giant that we are, we have no such program.

So what are you going to do with the highly radioactive waste that will be dangerious for over 100,000 years? :eek:

We cant even build a car that lasts 100 years for cripes sake! :rolleyes:

I'd be all for nuclear if we had a plan to re-process the radwaste. We do not.

We can't just dump this stuff somewhere and hope our grandchildren can deal with it. That's just not right!

Oh, and there IS a power revolution coming. It's close but no cigar .... yet.
See: http://www.blacklightpower.com/ for you scientific types.

[muskokaandtahoe]

> How about nuclear energy?

I don't have any problem w/it other than they're really expensive to build (at least for right now), and not enough of them can be built over the next 10-20 years to make that much of a difference as there will also be many such plants retired over the same years. But yeah, IMO, they have to part of the change.

And to some degree nukes are better for the power grid than solar is, by virtue of their predicitability in producing power, something that's iffy w/ heavy reliance upon solar (think moving clouds). But I think solar will move into the market anyway (long term) because it'll be a very inexpensive way for consumers to get most of the juice they need during most of the the days.

Right now wind has a much larger presence in the market than solar but IMO there are problems w/ lottsa wind plants: they take up a huge amount of land, they're ugly, they're not so great for birds either. But right now they are making a contribution to the energy market.

[NorthShore_364]

Call me insane, but I guess I'm the only one who thinks wind power plants are cool looking. Having said that, there are no windmills even close to where I live so I will acknowledge that my opinion of them would probably be different if I had a bunch of them in my backyard. ;)

On another note, I think that over time we will find other means of energy besides oil not necessarily because of pollution but rather because of the appeal of unlimited, renewable energy as opposed to oil and coal. My only fear is that the global warming nutcases will force this technology down our throats before it is developed enough for us to depend on it.

[rdamurphy]

Nuclear fuel in France, after reprocessing, has a half-life of about 30 years. Insignificant, really. But, of course, people like Vince only believe what they want to believe, so the NIMBY's and the knee-jerkers end up making us more dependent on oil, while "progressively" preventing us from not only deveoping oil and gas, but wind power as well.

Which is why Democrats are bad for the economy. And pretty much everything else, but for some odd reason, the great uneducated masses with their hands out keep voting for them...

Robert

[jtr1962]

And pretty much everything else, but for some odd reason, the great uneducated masses with their hands out keep voting for them...

Haven't you figured it out yet? I even highlighted the key word in your post. The Democrats give lip service to improving schools but let teacher's unions run the show. End result is a generally poor education for the masses, which just so happens to be just what the Dems need to stay in power. If you really want the Dems out of power, then do whatever you can to see that education levels are improved.

Oh, and the Dems are good for one thing-themselves. Just look how filthy rich many of them get at the public trough. Sure, the Republicans do it, too, but the Dems are the ones preaching the evils of capitalism. It's a little hypocritical I think allow yourself to benefit from a system you think is evil.

[Shonner]

So what are you going to do with the highly radioactive waste that will be dangerious for over 100,000 years? :eek:

We cant even build a car that lasts 100 years for cripes sake! :rolleyes:

I'd be all for nuclear if we had a plan to re-process the radwaste. We do not.

We can't just dump this stuff somewhere and hope our grandchildren can deal with it. That's just not right!

What is your problem? France has been using nuclear energy for over thirty years. No deaths. No dangerous waste. No deaths or dangerous waste in the US also. All the nuclear waste that would be produced just from you in your entire lifetime would fit in a can of Pepsi.

[jtr1962]

IMHO the problem of nuclear waste is blown all out of proportion. We can reprocess it and reuse it. Point of fact there is technically no such thing as nuclear waste. The fuel which is no longer usable in a fission reactor still generates huge amounts of heat. In fact, it has to be kept in pools of water to keep from melting. We can use this low-level heat to generate more electricity via thermoelectric generators perhaps. This will keep the spent fuel doing something productive for perhaps another 50 to 100 years. Eventually the spent fuel will be useless for any kind of power generation. By then however it's only mildly radioactive, and relatively easy to dispose of.

[Shonner]

How about nuclear energy?

I don't have any problem w/it other than they're really expensive to build (at least for right now), and not enough of them can be built over the next 10-20 years to make that much of a difference as there will also be many such plants retired over the same years.

35-45 reactors have been waiting to be built in the US already. The only expense right now is how much money the environmentalists want to be bribed for to allow the reactors to start building.


And to some degree nukes are better for the power grid than solar is

To some degree? Name one city that's solar powered.


Right now wind has a much larger presence in the market than solar but IMO there are problems w/ lottsa wind plants: they take up a huge amount of land, they're ugly, they're not so great for birds either. But right now they are making a contribution to the energy market.

Make up your mind. Do you want power, or do you want to raise birds? If you want wind power, then what city could be powered by it?

[Shonner]

But for some odd reason, the great uneducated masses with their hands out keep voting for them...

Also known as educated morons.

[Vince]

Nuclear fuel in France, after reprocessing, has a half-life of about 30 years. Insignificant, really. But, of course, people like Vince only believe what they want to believe, so the NIMBY's and the knee-jerkers end up making us more dependent on oil, while "progressively" preventing us from not only deveoping oil and gas, but wind power as well.

Which is why Democrats are bad for the economy. And pretty much everything else, but for some odd reason, the great uneducated masses with their hands out keep voting for them...

Robert

Sigh, Robert, If you'd read my post with a bit more care I said:

France re-processes their spent nuclear fuel. Technoligical giant that we are, we have no such program.

So it gives that since we DONT re-process we have no option but to store it. And that's where the problems start.... for our grandchildren.

Get the connection Robert?

So what are you going to do with the highly radioactive waste that will be dangerious for over 100,000 years?
Your backyard perhaps?
Nice solid good American Granite mountains there partner. Hold a lotta' waste they would.

But seriously we MUST develop an alternate energy program... must! If it be nuclear, then we must deal with the radwaste loke the French do.... reprocess it and 30 year storage is doable.

Do you have any references for that 30 year figure Robert. I'd like to read up a bit on the subject.
thanx.

[Shonner]

The US will do things the way France is doing it. Why would we do otherwise? Who's telling you the wrong thing, Vince?

[rdamurphy]

Do you have any references for that 30 year figure Robert. I'd like to read up a bit on the subject.
thanx.

Happy to oblige: http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2008m7d2-Nuclear-Fuel-is-Renewable?comments=true#comments

Sorry if I mis-read your comments.

:) Have a nice day!

Robert

[Hawk]

Sadly we're in this situation today because of nothing being done 20 to 30 years ago.

There is no immediate fix. Period. The only hope we have is to look to a feasible means that will help 10 to 30 years from now.

Face it folks. Life's gong to be tough for a while.
And then there's the politicians.....

[rdamurphy]

Sorry, Hawk, I have to disagree with you. We're in this situation today because Democrats prevented anything from being done the past 20 or 30 years. Private Enterprise was fully prepared to go full speed ahead on oil and gas exploration, building nuclear power plants, and many other energy programs. Democrat obstructionists, including environmentalist whackos have prevented that from happening, from denying oil refineries and nuclear power stations permits to stopping the construction of a plant that would recycle tires into steel and rubber.

Robert

[Hawk]

Uhm? :confused: Isn't that kinda' what I said Robert? ;)
I just didn't go into any 'blame' details. :D

My remark about the politicians simply meant that it's up to them as to whether we pull out of this or not.
The Dems don't want us to until there's a Dem in the White House. That way they can do one of two things.

1) Take the credit for the fix.

2) Keep things the way they are, and make every effort to make it worse, so they can hope that the populace go screaming to them for help. In that way they can get their Socialism going and gain the true power they seek.

[muskokaandtahoe]

> Make up your mind.

Done. Get out of my face and go stuff it.