Open Thread 56

Time for more open thread.

In an interesting coincidence, Brian Dunning is here in Sydney to talk at TAM Australia, so I thought it would be interesting to go to the TAM fringe open mic night (tonight!) and talk about, oh, DDT.

Comments

  1. #1 Vince Whirlwind
    December 2, 2010

    If I understand Chris O’Neill correctly, people who mine Uranium ore and people who process Uranium ore are not “fuel fabrication workers”, therefore it’s OK to expose them to breathable radiation hazards.

    I gather he suggests that nuclear is cheaper than renewables.
    Perhaps, so we can make an honest comparison, he can give us a balance sheet showing the full costs of both industraies including non-subsidised insurance; projected costs for the entire fuel cycle including permanent safe disposal of waste; and decommissioning costs?

    On the other hand, perhaps Chris O’Neill can’t give us any such thing, since the nuclear industry is very careful for its balance sheet to be incomplete, and dishonest.

  2. #2 jerryg
    December 2, 2010

    Monsanto needs to destroy [GMO sugarbeets](http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B00Y520101201)

  3. #3 Jimmy Nightingale
    December 3, 2010

    Good article in the SMH from Ian Lowe:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/climate-change-clock-winds-down-20101203-18j1p.html

    Don’t know about 2 degrees warming triggering runaway effects, but generally good stuff. Typical ignorance though in the comments section.

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2010

    Hmmm… [Things haven't cooled down](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3083916.htm).

    Surprise, surprise.

  5. #5 Shinsko
    December 3, 2010

    I might be late on this – [Google Earth Engine](http://earthengine.googlelabs.com/#intro) – but it looks great.

    >Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Google, debuted its shiny new tool at the COP 16 climate conference in Cancun today. It’s a database that will help scientists and conservationists track and analyze changes in Earth’s environment, and hopefully slow deforestation.

    >The satellite imagery tool, called Google Earth Engine, takes advantage of Google’s large-scale “cloud” computing infrastructure to build a powerful database out of the thousands of satellite photographs from the past 25 years, many of which have never been analyzed. It will be available online for use by scientists, independent researchers and nations

    >Google plans on “donating 10 million CPU-hours a year over the next two years on the Google Earth Engine platform,” to aid the effort to combat global warming by slowing deforestation.

  6. #6 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010

    Vince Whirlwind:

    If I understand Chris O’Neill correctly, people who mine Uranium ore and people who process Uranium ore are not “fuel fabrication workers”, therefore it’s OK to expose them to breathable radiation hazards.

    Where did I say that? You’re just attempting a goal-post shift.

    I gather he suggests that nuclear is cheaper than renewables.

    Where did I say that? You have a penchant for putting words in people’s mouth.

  7. #7 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010
    Other people get to subsidize the solar cells on installation or by subsidizing the power they produce.

    Ah continued misreading there from Chris.

    Continued hypocrisy from wow.

    Using less doesn’t require PV.

    Exactly. Paying for PV is an expensive and silly way of providing motivation for using less.

  8. #8 sunspot
    December 3, 2010

    burnie @ 123, there was only one true statement in that whole article !

    ‘But the prospect of a new global warming treaty still seems a long way off.’ ( if ever )

    ……’Cancún climate change summit: Japan refuses to extend Kyoto protocol’

    Would you like a few links to new record breaking cold weather events ?

    and…um…. ewe better check your sea level stick, ewe might need to move it down the beach a bit.

    the methane in here is a bigger problem than CO2

  9. #9 Wow
    December 3, 2010

    Chris, if you are really that dumb, please find the nearest kindergarden and check yourself in.

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    December 3, 2010

    Sunblot,

    You are back to your feeble attempt to correlate short-term weather events with climate. I was waiting for you to show up with this crap. If two play the same game, we see that three times as many warm weather records have been broken since 2000 than cold weather records. You lose.

    And what about record warmth in the east Canadian Arctic right now? Or in in the Mediterranean and southern Black Sea Region? Or temperatures that are way above normal in eastern Asia? What irks me is that when I responded to your posts about cold spells in Europe last year with data showing record warmth over Canada, you went ballistic, accusing me of lies, saying that the warmth was due to an El Nino event, and then, most incredulously of all, claiming that I was mistaking weather for climate!!!! All I was doing was copying you but in reverse, to show how innane it is to try and downplay the longer term warming trend with some localized short-term weather stats.

    And then you come back here again, popping up with pure and utter bilge about cold weather in Europe as some kind of evidence downplaying warming. Man, you are one hypocritical dude.

  11. #11 Wow
    December 3, 2010

    #104: Where did I say that? You’re just attempting a goal-post shift.

    No, you say it here:

    > > > why are there so many statements about nuclear energy that are just plain wrong?

    > > Got any?

    > In http://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf she talks about nuclear fuel fabrication workers being exposed to radon gas.

    Where apparently you seem to think that fuel fabrication workers being exposed to a dangerous environment is “just plain wrong”.

    Which you then go on to “explain” why it’s wrong, but only continue to convince yourself because your explanation is garbage.

    More F-ing Stupidity:
    > I put it to you that either your comprehension skills are woeful

    I put it to you you are blinkered.

    Chris states categorically he won’t push nuclear if it’s more expensive than renewables, yet wind is 1/2 the cost and still he’s pushing it.

    He ignores any possible problem if it pushes a nuclear agenda but complains if those problems pertain to any form of renewable.

    Get your cranial-rectal inversion problem sorted out.

  12. #12 sunpot's are rare at the mo
    December 3, 2010

    There’s no need to get upset jeff, the alarmist predictions are failing, you should be happy.

    This is a common theme in a few countries now, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/yym

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    December 3, 2010

    *the alarmist predictions are failing*

    I guess that is why 2010 is set to be the warmest on record by quite some margin.

    Go away, Sunspot, and take your alter ego with you.

  14. #14 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010

    Yet, somehow, you’re still supporting nuclear.

    Where am I doing that?

    OK, maybe it’s not nuclear you’re supporting but coal.

    Where am I doing that?

    What have these people making wrong statements about nuclear energy got to fear when they should have nothing to fear because it is putatively more expensive?

    Because people like you insist that it’s nuclear or coal.

    Where do I do that?

  15. #15 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 3, 2010

    From sunspot’s ‘proof’:

    > But Estrada says that the report has significantly underestimated the overall costs of climate change for the Mexican economy.

    (emphasis mine)

    Conclusion: sunspot is still a denialist idiot.

  16. #16 sunspot
    December 3, 2010

    the warmest year eh !

    start here,

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

    and stop telling tales, you were blaming AGW for the northward retreat of Canada’s critters when in fact the problem was the El Nino.

    I’m going to hit the fart sack now, and listen to the rain on the roof that BOM said was a thing of the past.

  17. #17 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010
    why are there so many statements about nuclear energy that are just plain wrong?

    Got any?

    In http://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf she talks about nuclear fuel fabrication workers being exposed to radon gas.

    Where apparently you seem to think that fuel fabrication workers being exposed to a dangerous environment is “just plain wrong”.

    Your brain was obviously in neutral or reverse where I wrote these words:

    she talks about nuclear fuel fabrication workers being exposed to radon gas. This is just garbage in any significant sense because the radon gas is released when the Uranium ore is mined and ground up. Any further generation of radon gas by the Uranium in human timescales is completely insignificant.

    “Any further generation of radon gas by the Uranium in human timescales is completely insignificant” means the Uranium metal or oxide fabricated into fuel rods does NOT release any significant amount of Radon. What Caldicott says about Radon here is virtually completely wrong. Why can’t you understand that?

    if you are really that dumb

    If you think I’m dumb for pointing out Caldicott’s mistake then you’re a complete moron.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    December 3, 2010

    Sunblot,

    So how do you explain the significantly higher number of record high than low temepratures set over the past decade? And the fact that 2010 is, even using satellite data on Spencer’s blog, #1? A: you can’t.

    You still do not get my point about the past Canadian winter. That is, and let it sink in: IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DERIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON SHORT-TERM EVENTS. In other words, Canada’s winter may have been an outlier that had nothing to do with AGW, but the same is true of the many innane links you post up here selectively showing that certain places are experiencing short periods of cold weather. We need at least 20-30 years to draw meaningful correlations for largely deterministic systems, and these trends do show significant warming.

    The reason I used the Canadian example was to illustrate your hypocrisy with respect to the weather vs. climate debate. To be honest, I get sick of you popping up here with new anonymous links, often to anti-environmental groups, web sites or other right wing media sources, with articles showing that its cold and snowy somewhere at the moment and that this is somehow ‘proof’ that climate warming is not happening. If you want to be taken seriously here (although I think its far too late in the game now for that to happen) then I would give up this futile exercise.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2010

    [Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2972863).

    burnie @ 123 [sic], there was only one true statement in that whole article !

    Except that your claim is rendered false by the simple fact that [the most recent decade is warmer that the previous one, which was warmer than the one before that, which was in its turn warmer than the decade before it](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1971/to:1980/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1981/to:1990/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1991/to:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2010/trend).

    So, [the ABC piece](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3083916.htm) demonstrably contains more than one true statement, and your post contains at least one false one. Shall we continue to examine both and keep a running score, or will you simply admit that you were speaking crap and that you are trying to “hide the incline”?

  20. #20 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010

    I’m going to hit the fart sack now, and listen to the rain on the roof that BOM said was a thing of the past.

    And where, pray tel, did BOM say that weather (la nina in this instance) was a thing of the past or are you just an idiot?

  21. #21 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010

    Here are costs from the US on generation costs
    Advanced Nuclear 67
    Wind power 60

    Those figures reflect the differing tax treatment/subsidy of the two different types of generation. Different treatments and different people come up with different relative costs. And these costs are in systems where renewables only make up a small fraction of generation. Systems that had to get all their energy from renewables would spend far more on storage. No wonder people with an ideological motivation have to invent misinformation about nuclear energy when they know that renewables aren’t necessarily cheaper than nuclear.

  22. #22 Wow
    December 3, 2010

    > Those figures reflect the differing tax treatment/subsidy of the two different types of generation.

    Which is 14% for nuclear 0% for wind.

    > And these costs are in systems where renewables only make up a small fraction of generation.

    Therefore not able to gain cost cuts from the economy of scale.

    It’s also technology that hasn’t had 60 years of government help like nuclear.

    And, yes, diffierent studies show different figures.

    All show wind cheaper than nuclear.

    So, since you

    > have absolutely no interest in nuclear electricity IF it is more expensive than renewables.

    you’ll stop being interested now?

  23. #23 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010
    why are there so many statements about nuclear energy that are just plain wrong?

    Got any?

    Here’s one from the citation made above:

    Such waste from a nuclear power plant would also give Australia the potential to immediately make nuclear weapons in a very short space of time.

    Here’s another person who thinks that nuclear power plant waste=nuclear weapons. If Australia had a nuclear power plant and wanted nuclear weapons then the last thing it would do is make those weapons from nuclear power plant waste. If it wanted nuclear weapons it would run its reactor specifically to produce weapons-grade plutonium (which it can already do with its existing reactor, albeit slowly). It’s theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier just to set up a reactor to make better grade plutonium which is indeed what fission bomb-making countries normally do. This is the fear with Iran and, of course, is what North Korea has already done. Making weapons-grade plutonium is not particularly technically difficult.

    Also:

    Such an outcome would .. lessen our argument against nations such as North Korea having nuclear weapons.

    As if that would make one iota of difference to North Korea.

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2010

    Therefore not able to gain cost cuts from the economy of scale.

    I’m just waiting for that 1 GW wind turbine. BTW, you won’t get much more economy of scale generating 100% of supply than generating 20% of supply. Somewhat overwhelmed by storage cost.

    It’s also technology that hasn’t had 60 years of government help like nuclear.

    I’m sure we can wait another 60 years.

    And, yes, diffierent studies show different figures.
    All show wind cheaper than nuclear.

    Sure, if you say so.

  25. #25 MFS
    December 4, 2010

    Wow:
    >>”Those figures reflect the differing tax treatment/subsidy of the two different types of generation.”

    >”Which is 14% for nuclear 0% for wind.”

    Where? Not in my country, or the one where this blog is hosted, where there is no commercial nuclear power, and all renewable energy investment is subsidised through tax breaks and direct government co-investment, as it ought if the governemt is serious about renewables.

    The Australian Government currently spends 3% of its total energy subsidies on renewables (or AU$326, according to the not-so-reliable [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia)). Renewables constitute 5% of power generation in Australia. That is not a bad subsidy in comparison to nuclear (no commercial production in Australia, and thus no subsidy), but there is still the ridiculous situation where they subsidise fossil fuel energy production even more.

    Your statement is thus untrue. Whether it’s so by motive of propaganda or narrow-mindedness (whatever your country is which subsidises 14% of nuclear and 0% of wind, it is not the whole world), I will not speculate.

  26. #26 Betula
    December 4, 2010

    I saw this and couldn’t help but think of it as the perfect gift for all my old friends at Deltoid. Merry Christmas!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDsGdLU2KOU

  27. #27 MFS
    December 4, 2010

    [That](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2975554) was meant to be AU$326 million, not AU$326.

  28. #28 sunspot
    December 5, 2010

    WHAT CLIMATOLOGISTS NEED TO DO

    The GCMs need to be revamped. They need to have the primary thermodynamic loop restored. This is the chain of dynamic events from solar radiation, through the shading and reflection of clouds responding to temperature changes, absorption primarily in the ocean, and the transport and exchanges of heat and gases by which the oceans create and regulate the earth’s climate and atmosphere. The models need to reflect the mechanisms which make the earth’s climate not vulnerable, but stable.

    The CO2 concentration is a response to the proxy temperature in the Vostok ice core data, not a cause. This does not contradict that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it does contradict the conjecture that the presence of a greenhouse gas has any destabilizing effect on global climate. Other forces overwhelm the conjecture of a runaway greenhouse effect. The concentration of CO2 is dynamic, controlled by the solubility pump. Global temperature is controlled first by the primary thermodynamic loop.

    The Vostok data support an entirely new model. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Fires, volcanoes, and now man deposit CO2 into the atmosphere, but those effects are transient. What exists in steady state is CO2 perpetually pumped into the atmosphere by the oceans. Atmospheric CO2 is a dynamic stream, from the warm ocean and back into the cool ocean.

    Public policy represented by the Kyoto Accords and the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should be scrapped as wasteful, unjustified, and futile.

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#IV_D

  29. #29 jakerman
    December 5, 2010

    Spotty, I stopped fact checking your links after about the 10th time you posted complete bogus junk. I’m not going to fact your latest copy paste spam either. I suggest you start your education [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/).

  30. #30 chek
    December 5, 2010

    [Spots said: rocketscientistsjournal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2977849)

    … which is presumably the sister publication to brainsurgeonsquarterly, the mags for, like, rilly smart peeples fer shure.

  31. #31 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 5, 2010

    More CRU cyber-attack opinionation: I theorize that the attacker had intended for McIntyre to use the pilfered CRU data to continue hammering on the Briffa/Yamal tree ring issue, but McIntyre didn’t take the hint and events took a different turn.

    http://ijish.livejournal.com/27631.html

  32. #32 Brent
    December 5, 2010

    Hi fellers!

    What’s new? Have any of the Believers recanted yet? Do they all STILL believe in Global Warming? It’s sodding cold in England. Still. Miss you loads!

  33. #33 sunspot
    December 6, 2010

    ‘rilly smart peeples fer shure’

    However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    Monday, 20 March 2000

  34. #34 sunspot
    December 6, 2010

    ‘rilly smart peeples fer shure’

    The Met Office, using data generated by a £33million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years.

    Thursday October 28,2010

    hmmmm…… is it the CO2 theory, the busted models or both ?

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    December 6, 2010

    Sunblot at #132:

    For heaven’s sake, man, will you stop confusing weather with climate?! All of us here are sick and tired of your lame-brained posts! I could cite dozens of examples where the opposite is happening. The fact is that the planet’s surface has warmed appreciably over the past 30 years, and that 2010 will rank #1 when the records come in. There are all kinds of biotic indicators supporting the temperature data as well.

    Your posts are an abomination. GO AWAY!

  36. #37 lord_sidcup
    December 6, 2010

    Remember David Rose of [Rosegate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/rosegate_1/) fame? After a break of a few months he has now jumped back on the climate denial bandwagon with a nonsense article that cites GWPF stooge [David Whitehouse]( http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/hey-david-whitehouse-why-is-the-sky-green/).

    [What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html)

  37. #38 jakerman
    December 6, 2010

    Do some analysis spotty and you’ll find you a falling for a con:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-high-temperatures-versus-record-lows.html

    I know that you prefer searching for the work of cherry pickers, but sorry when you come out of the the denialist echo chambers, we’ll confront you with facts. What you do with the facts is up to you. Upto now you appear to be fooling yourself.

  38. #39 zoot
    December 6, 2010

    Comment by sunspot blocked. [unkill][show comment]

    Blessed relief.

  39. #40 Jeff Harvey
    December 6, 2010

    Zoot,

    Blocking Sunblot’s garbage appears to be the only solution. All he seems able to do now is to paste links to a few cold weather events and then claim that this is proof that warming isn’t happening. Its shoddy statistics all around. Its like me plotting the relationship between two variables on a graph using 1,000 data points, finding a highly significant correlation, and then someone selectively picking 10 outlying points on the graph and arguing that these points prove the correlation does not exist, even when regression shows that the correlation is significant, *with these points included*.

    Sunspot’s behavior suggests he is a high school dropout, because he does not have a clue about scale and about stochastic versus deterministic events. As many have argued, for every cold weather record he cites others can cite 5 warm weather records over the same time period. Put together over a longer time frame, and these show a clear pattern.

  40. #41 sunspot
    December 6, 2010

    burnie @ 118,

    try RSS MSU lower trop. global mean
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z10

    and sea temps not rising either. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/51x

    who’s in denial ?

    the CO2 hypothesis just aint cutting it at the mo !

  41. #42 Wow
    December 6, 2010

    > Sunspot’s behavior suggests he is a high school dropout

    I don’t think he got to high school.

  42. #43 Wow
    December 6, 2010

    > > “Which is 14% for nuclear 0% for wind.”

    > Where? Not in my country,

    In the country that made those figures available. The US. Try reading.

    Nuclear is more expensive than renewables, yet, despite insisting that they would drop the idea, Chris doesn’t seem to have done so.

  43. #44 Wow
    December 6, 2010

    > I’m sure we can wait another 60 years.

    We don’t have to, Chris.

    Wind is already cheaper than nuclear RIGHT NOW.

    Solar Thermal is too.

    PV isn’t, but works out about the same, give or take.

    And this is before 60 years of government help making it more effective and before increased demand puts up the prices of nuclear fuel.

    So, will you drop nuclear like you said?

    Or will you continue to batter on about how “sometimes” a report says it’s cheaper?

  44. #45 Wow
    December 6, 2010

    > Here’s one from the citation made above:

    > > Such waste from a nuclear power plant would also give Australia the potential to immediately make nuclear weapons in a very short space of time.

    And in what way is that wrong?

    This is EXACTLY the reason why NK and Iran were told not to make nuclear power stations.

    And they can.

    The simplest nuclear warhead is two sub-critical masses thrown together.

    Heck, Birmingham University had an accident which people died from using two lumps of Uranium, a Geiger counter (not otherwise used) a tripod and someone who didn’t think it through and brought one lump DOWN on the other sitting on the tripod.

    It’s very easy to make a bang and throw lots of alpha particles at people.

    > Here’s another person who thinks that nuclear power plant waste=nuclear weapons.

    No, it’s someone who thinks that nuclear materials are used in nuclear weapons.

    (Just as the US state department thinks.)

    So no, you still don’t have any obviously wrong canards thrown at nuclear power. All you have are ones you THINK are obviously wrong, but then you think this purely so that you can push your pet project.

  45. #46 jakerman
    December 6, 2010

    Spotty I plotted your chart, except this time I included every year rather than cutting out on in every 10 years. Guess what, you were [wrong again](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1970/plot/rss/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend)!

    No surprises.

  46. #48 jakerman
    December 6, 2010

    Spotty how do you [boil a frog](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1950/to:1980/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/trend)?

    Well some frogs are easier to boil than others. If we save you, you can thank us later. We’re doing our best, but dead weight like you makes it harder.

  47. #49 Bernard J.
    December 6, 2010

    [Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2980378).

    [Jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2980491) has already wiped the floor with you, but it’s actually even worse than that…

    The whole point of the discussion is that progressing decades have been ever warmer, and is now transpires that even your gappy intervals in your cherry-picked dataset show exactly this – that the last ten years have been warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s… It seems that you do not understand how discern, from lines of best fit, what the means for the intervals are.

    What do you think that this might mean?

  48. #50 Chris O'Neill
    December 6, 2010

    Mentally deranged sunsick:

    try RSS MSU lower trop. global mean http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z10

    Your cherry pick left out 2010.

  49. #51 Chris O'Neill
    December 6, 2010

    Wind is already cheaper than nuclear RIGHT NOW.
    Solar Thermal is too.

    You’re a liar.

  50. #52 jakerman
    December 7, 2010

    This slipped me by, so I might be late on the story; but, after denying the comming peak oil, the IEA now talks about it as [been there done that](http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/economy-set-starve/48474).

    >*Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70 mb/d reached in 2006, while production of natural gas liquids (NGL) and unconventional oil grows quickly.* [WEO 2010 - Executive Summary]

  51. #53 Chris O'Neill
    December 7, 2010
    Here’s one from the citation made above:

    Such waste from a nuclear power plant would also give Australia the potential to immediately make nuclear weapons in a very short space of time.

    And in what way is that wrong?

    You obviously need your eyes tested. I already wrote what is wrong with this:

    “It’s theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier just to set up a reactor to make better grade plutonium which is indeed what fission bomb-making countries normally do. This is the fear with Iran and, of course, is what North Korea has already done. Making weapons-grade plutonium is not particularly technically difficult.”

    This is EXACTLY the reason why NK and Iran were told not to make nuclear power stations.

    As I had already explained, the EXACT reason they were told not to make nuclear reactors of any form was so they could not use those reactors to make weapons-grade plutonium.

    The simplest nuclear warhead is two sub-critical masses thrown together.

    Heck, Birmingham University had an accident which people died from using two lumps of Uranium, a Geiger counter (not otherwise used) a tripod and someone who didn’t think it through and brought one lump DOWN on the other sitting on the tripod.

    Try that with two lumps of reactor-grade Plutonium and see what happens. Try it with two lumps of weapons-grade Plutonium even.

    It’s very easy to make a bang and throw lots of alpha particles at people.

    Any idiot could make a fission bomb with weapons-grade Uranium. Making a fission bomb with weapons-grade Plutonium is much more technically difficult and the lower the grade, the more difficult it becomes. As I pointed out before, it is far less technically difficult to just make weapons-grade Plutonium from natural Uranium than to try to make a fission bomb from reactor-grade Plutonium.

    So no, you still don’t have any obviously wrong canards thrown at nuclear power.

    And you continue to ignore the fact that what Caldicott says about Radon gas coming from nuclear fuel rod fabrication is wrong. You’re just dishonest.

  52. #54 sunspot
    December 7, 2010

    yeah…..hahaha, that was burnies plot, all I did was changed the data source, it was still burnies cherry pick.

    get up off the floor burnie

  53. #55 jakerman
    December 7, 2010

    spotty, [your error](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2980491) was egregious in that it changed the result. Your claim was proved false when the missing data was included. BJ’s claim was stronger than the data he used, when the missing data is included BJs point becomes even stronger.

    Who knows if BJ set you up, but regardless you were shown up.

  54. #57 jakerman
    December 7, 2010

    >*potty, your error was egregious in that it changed the result*

    Correction, worse still for Potty, even with the missing data the Rss MSU data didn’t not contradict BJ’s claim, that each decade from 70′s was the warmest on record.

  55. #58 sunspot
    December 7, 2010

    yes, i suppose so akerz, that was due to what ?

    The same thing that produced the MWP !

    remember this ?

    ‘Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year’s ‘Climategate’ leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been ‘no statistically significant warming’ since 1995.

    One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC’s lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

    He wrote: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.’

    After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the ‘travesty’ was not the ‘pause’ but science’s failure to explain it.’

  56. #59 jakerman
    December 7, 2010

    Potty, you are in denial. We’re already warmer than the MWP (caused by extended period of lower volcanic activity and orbital orientation to the Sun). We also have already identified the cause of most of the current warming.

    You’re also in denial with you need to return to in appropriate times scales to argue lack of warming. We don’t expect statical significance over a short period when thn warming trend is small compared to cycles and noise variability. We have statistical significance over longer periods, precisely because the CO2 forcing is cumulative and over a 20 to 30 year period the CO2 forcing dominates over the cycles and noise.

  57. #60 sunspot
    December 7, 2010
  58. #61 sunspot
    December 7, 2010

    and akerz I suppose that you have seen this IPCC graph.

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z2e

  59. #62 sunspot
    December 7, 2010

    This one is for you pinocchio

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z2g

  60. #63 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2010

    Sunblot,

    Trust WTFUWT to promote an article in a journal with an impact factor of < 1.5. But then again, the climate change denial sites routinely do this, as evidenced by their constant plugging of crap that appears in sources like E & E.

    What this shows is that the denialati will scrape the bottom of every barrel to find anything to support their nonsense.

    As JAkerman has annihalated your usual gibberish, why do not go away for good?

  61. #64 Wow
    December 7, 2010

    > It’s theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier …

    This doesn’t mean that the statement you said was obvious crock.

    The rest of your diatribe still proves my case that when you said categorically:

    > I have absolutely no interest in nuclear electricity IF it is more expensive than renewables.

    You were talking bollocks since you still have a great bit stiffy over the nuclear industry.

    Since you are incapable of honesty or even accuracy on this case, GTFO.

  62. #65 Wow
    December 7, 2010

    > You’re a liar.

    > Posted by: Chris O’Neill

    Projecting again, Chris.

    Which would you prefer, Wikipedia or the USA Department Of Energy?

    Oh, if it fluffs your wanger with pro-nuclear info, Wikipedia

    By the way did you read this bit:

    Wind power 060 60
    Advanced Nuclear 067 67

    Nuclear (to suit site; typical)[13] 040 75–105
    Solar thermal 085 85

    So liar, liar pants on fire back to you, you troll

  63. #66 sunspot
    December 7, 2010

    pinocchio,

    your not much of a scientist are you.

    one-eyed and twist the data to make the facts, career thing is it ?

    nongovernmental studies that don’t confirm your views are all bullshit are they ?

  64. #67 jakerman
    December 7, 2010

    >*akerz, you seen this ?*

    Nope, and given your record, its odds on that I’m not missing anything of value.

    >*and akerz I suppose that you have seen this IPCC graph*

    Potty, Yes I’ve seen those curves, and the 1990 curve is a schematic not an plot. How well our understanding has improved over the last 20 years.

  65. #68 jakerman
    December 7, 2010

    >*your not much of a scientist are you.*

    Potty coming from you, and given your record, I’d be more comfortable with your insults than your support. Carry on.

  66. #69 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2010

    *your not much of a scientist are you*

    Sunblot, how would you know about my scientific qualifications? You probably would not understand a word in any of my published work, if your distortions of climate science are anything to go by. You continually mix-up climate and weather patterns when it suits your narrative, and then go on the attack when it doesn’t. You endlessly cite crap from anti-environmental web sites, and ignore a far vaster (and more comprehensive) body of scientific literature.

    Your vacuous pontifications do not deserve a response, to be honest; you should feel flattered that anyone here does respond to you. But the number is dwindling, take note.

  67. #70 John
    December 7, 2010

    Hi Sunspot. How’s your free energy machine coming along?

  68. #71 Chris O'Neill
    December 7, 2010
    It’s theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier …

    This doesn’t mean that the statement you said was obvious crock.

    Yeah, so?

    The rest of your diatribe still proves my case that when you said categorically:

    I have absolutely no interest in nuclear electricity IF it is more expensive than renewables.

    I even wrote IF in big letters and he still doesn’t get it.

    You’re a liar.

    Posted by: Chris O’Neill
    Projecting again, Chris.
    Which would you prefer, Wikipedia or the USA Department Of Energy?

    You mean the USA Department Of Energy or the USA Department Of Energy.

    Stupid moron.

  69. #72 Wow
    December 7, 2010

    > Yeah, so?

    So your assertion that people are spouting obvious crock about nuclear remains unsupported.

  70. #73 Wow
    December 7, 2010

    > You mean the USA Department Of Energy or the USA Department Of Energy.

    They’re the same, troll.

    But you gave a link to wikipedia.

    I gave a link to the USA department of energy.

  71. #74 Wow
    December 7, 2010

    > I even wrote IF in big letters and he still doesn’t get it.

    And 67 is more than 60.

    Therefore nuclear IS more expensive than renewables.

  72. #75 Chris O'Neill
    December 7, 2010

    But you gave a link to wikipedia.

    And wikipedia cites the USA department of energy.

    Moron.

  73. #76 cynicus
    December 7, 2010

    Lord_Sidcup #135 Yes that Rose piece is really something. He seems back to his same old “fabrication and lies” self. Some problems I see with his…uhm…writings:

    1) International Food Policy Research Institute expect 6.5 degrees by 2100? Oh really?

    2) MetOffice’s data shows: no warming over the last 15 years. Oh Really?

    3) In 2009 MetOffice expected the 2010 El Nino to be bigger then the 1998 one? Oh really?

    4) The obligatory Phil Jones says no stat.sig. warming since 1995. Really, what’s up with 1995? Why not 1994? I do wonder, would 1995 to dec 2010 not be stat sig?

    5) Micheal Mann says MWP is warmer then current temps. Really? I can’t find a reference for that.. But I do find Jones hypothesising about that subject. If Rose is actually trying to ref Jones, then that would be gross misrepresenting what Jones said.

    There’s probably more…
    Might be a nice one for Tim to add to his Rosegate library?

  74. #77 Chris O'Neill
    December 7, 2010
    It’s theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier …

    This doesn’t mean that the statement you said was obvious crock.

    Yeah, so?

    So your assertion that people are spouting obvious crock about nuclear remains unsupported.

    Can you make up your mind whether you are talking about my statement or someone else’s statement?

    By the way, have you managed to put your brain into gear and work out what happens if you bring one lump of weapons-grade Plutonium down onto another?

  75. #78 Wow
    December 8, 2010

    Enjoy pushing your pet project, Chris.

    We know your assertion that you aren’t wedded to the idea of nuclear is a crock.

  76. #79 Wow
    December 8, 2010

    Check out this section over at [desmog](http://www.desmogblog.com/dirty-energy-playing-full-contact-so-cleantech-ready-do-same):

    > Virtually all of these attacks push three, interlocking memes about cleantech: 1) It’s “not ready;” 2) It’s “too expensive;” and 3) It’s “unreliable.”

    Sounds like you, Chris.

    Why are you pounding the memes of the fossil fuel brigade?

    Are you a fifth columnist?

  77. #80 lord_sidcup
    December 8, 2010

    @cynicus

    I was struck by this from Rose:

    Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour – a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

    He doesn’t state his source, but I’m guessing that maybe he is misrepresenting Solomon et al [Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract)

    As RealClimate point out, Solomon et al:

    is a paper about internal variability of the climate system in the last decade, not on additional factors that drive climate.

    In fact, the Solomon paper might provide an explanation for the slowing of global warming this decade:

    Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

    I’m speculating a lot on what what Rose might be basing his “cyclical changes in water vapour” claim on. Anyone got any ideas?

  78. #81 Chris O'Neill
    December 8, 2010

    The simplest nuclear warhead is two sub-critical masses thrown together.

    Heck, Birmingham University had an accident which people died from using two lumps of Uranium, a Geiger counter (not otherwise used) a tripod and someone who didn’t think it through and brought one lump DOWN on the other sitting on the tripod.

    Nuclear warhead what utter crap. Criticality accidents don’t produce nuclear warhead explosions. They do, of course, produce dangerous amounts of radiation for people in the immediate vicinity. But there are far more effective and cheaper ways of killing people than setting up fizzling criticality accidents. A criticality accident ain’t no Hiroshima.

  79. #82 lord_sidcup
    December 8, 2010

    Excellent. Monbiot is doing David Rose:

    [David Rose's climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science)

  80. #83 Chris O'Neill
    December 8, 2010

    Enjoy pushing your pet project, Chris.

    What a hypocrite.

  81. #84 Chris O'Neill
    December 8, 2010

    We know your assertion that you aren’t wedded to the idea of nuclear is a crock.

    Yes, your majesty.

    By the way, did you ever work out where wikipedia articles cite their sources? Didn’t think an anti-nuclear zealot would.

  82. #85 Wow
    December 8, 2010

    > I was struck by this from Rose:

    > > Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour – a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

    I was struck that the research doesn’t show the *cyclical changes* are the cause of the 20thC warming.

    I was also struck by the fact that the research doesn’t show that as meaning the IPCC position is wrong.

    1C per doubling of CO2 plus 2C warming from water feedback is the IPCC position.

    It is also the position that, for a doubling of CO2 means that most of the warming experienced by the Earth is from H2O.

    About 2/3rds of it.

    But, unfortunately, for Rose’s statement, the cycle of H2O doesn’t explain the warming of the 20th century.

    Another case of seeing what you want to see.

  83. #86 jakerman
    December 8, 2010

    EB has linked to a [series of stories](http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-12-09/wikileaks-energy-and-climate-dec-9) re WikiLeaks (energy and climate).

  84. #87 jakerman
    December 8, 2010

    US Embassy in Ottawa [tells Obama](http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/01/09OTTAWA64.html) that:

    >*there is also keen sensitivity over the higher environmental footprint of oil from western Canada’s oil sands and concern about the implications for Canada of your energetic calls to develop renewable energies and reduce our reliance on imported oil.*

    The US Embassy are telling Obama that those worth mentioning in Canada are concerned at US calls to develop renewable energies!

  85. #88 warren
    December 9, 2010

    There is a petition going around Cancun with 1000 scientists from all over the world that challenges the IPCC’s claims about global warming/climate change.Many of these scientists are either formerly or currently part of the IPCC.
    Makes you wonder about the claims of ‘consensus’.

  86. #89 Tim Lambert
    December 9, 2010

    warren:

    >There is a petition going around Cancun with 1000 scientists from all over the world that challenges the IPCC’s claims about global warming/climate change

    No there isn’t. You don’t know what “petition” means.

  87. #90 warren
    December 9, 2010

    Eternal thanks for to thee O Mighty One that give benefit for the English as she is spoke.
    There is a REPORT going around Cancun…
    Now would you care to address the substance of it?

  88. #91 jakerman
    December 9, 2010

    >Now would you care to address the substance of it?

    What substance?

  89. #92 Wow
    December 9, 2010

    > Makes you wonder about the claims of ‘consensus’.
    It makes me wonder why you keep making such a fuss over how there’s a conspiracy (as proven by the consensus), how science isn’t consensus (if it doesn’t exist, where’s the problem) and how scientists have been wrong before (which these 1000 could be).

  90. #93 warren
    December 9, 2010

    The “substance” is that there is no consensus and there never has been.Do you understand?

  91. #94 MartinM
    December 9, 2010

    The “substance” is that there is no consensus and there never has been.Do you understand?

    I couldn’t help but notice that the ‘selected highlights’ at the beginning of the report quoted exactly one climatologist who, according to Google Scholar, has published exactly one paper. In Energy and Environment.

  92. #95 Dave R
    December 9, 2010

    Troll @ 191:
    >The “substance” is that there is no consensus

    Also, you don’t know what [consensus](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) means.

  93. #96 jakerman
    December 9, 2010

    Warren, if you want to challenge the scientific consensus, you need to do in the scientific medium, not the PR medium. The beat up you call a report is not peer reviewed and does not appear in the scientific literature. At a glace seem void of substantial argument and passes off a bunch of denialist like Vincent Grey as competent in the field.

  94. #97 warren
    December 9, 2010

    So Martin,firstly,shall we reject the views/work of anyone who is not a ‘climatologist’?If so,then we can start with these guys.Hanson,Schneider,Oppenheimer,Mann,Karoly,Flannery etc,etc.
    Secondly,there are stacks of climatologists in the report.Look up the Manhattan Declaration for yourself.
    Thirdly,’published papers’ for these scientists can be easily googled.

  95. #98 jakerman
    December 9, 2010

    Hansen, Schneider, Mann Karoly etc have their work scrutinized and accepted by peers competent to assess the work. Warren, your favored report fails this test.

  96. #99 warren
    December 9, 2010

    Sorry Jakerman,but that makes no sense at all.The “consensus” is an idea that has been completely about PR,and has had nothing to do with science.And the report is not intended to be a “scientific” paper.It is a collection facts about the topic of climate change.As such the idea of ‘peer-review’ is just a rediculous distraction.If you want talk about peer-review,then how about we discuss the 30% of non peer-revieweed references in the last IPCC report.

  97. #100 warren
    December 9, 2010

    Jakerman,get real for goodness sake.The issue was about whether there were ‘climatologists’ among the scientists,and it is obvious that there are many.As for peer-reviewed published papers,they also satify that requirement as well.Have Christy,Spencer,and Lindzen had their work “peer-reviewed” and published?