tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post6478814243746998319..comments2023-10-23T22:20:33.854+01:00Comments on Anders Rasmussen Blog: Irrational fear 2: Nuclear powerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-65087760186426380782010-06-24T03:12:40.228+01:002010-06-24T03:12:40.228+01:00I love nuclear weapons! I know it sounds crazy but...I love nuclear weapons! I know it sounds crazy but I would like to make some day! not because they kill people, but because I like science!vupper eyelidhttp://www.uppereyelid.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-42210686729555513852010-06-24T02:38:30.864+01:002010-06-24T02:38:30.864+01:00all believe that we gain much destroying others, b...all believe that we gain much destroying others, but the truth is that no, the manufacture of nuclear weapons nuclears for me is a waste of time, should not exist!vertigo symptomshttp://vertigo-symptoms.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-48587650794876657872010-06-23T06:24:38.242+01:002010-06-23T06:24:38.242+01:00if they want to hear a very rude comment would be ...if they want to hear a very rude comment would be this:<br />how is it possible that humans invest much time and money to destroy himself? is amazing .. could use the money on better things!diecast carshttp://www.vintagediecastcars.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-55590138796194853522010-05-27T00:31:01.418+01:002010-05-27T00:31:01.418+01:00All the nuclear plants represent an irrational fea...All the nuclear plants represent an irrational fear because of in really danger.viagra onlinehttp://www.xlpharmacy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-71975509668739424722008-12-11T21:52:00.000+01:002008-12-11T21:52:00.000+01:00moliver said:"Instead of storing nuclear residues ...moliver said:<BR/><BR/>"Instead of storing nuclear residues after initial use they should first be recycled as is done in France."<BR/><BR/>Are you kidding? The irrational "wacko-greenes" want to create an ongoing problem,not a rational solution.Such is their backwards extremist logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-16111693569962939792008-01-16T00:00:00.000+01:002008-01-16T00:00:00.000+01:00Anders:This paper in EOS is the one that trashes t...Anders:<BR/><BR/>This paper in EOS is the one that trashes the original danish sun-cycle length one...<BR/><BR/>http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf<BR/><BR/>There is a problem with forcing mechanisms (in the upper atmosphere?) with solar climate forcing, although it is of course possible for things like the Maunder Minimum. THe difficulty is that the variation in the amount of energy being delivered is tiny (0.07 % from the top to the bottom of the sunspot cycle); so unless there is a (basically obscure) amplifying mechanism in the atmosphere(with clouds? there is an entertaining argument about cosmic rays seeding cloud formation...), it is hard to see the effect is anywhere big enough.<BR/><BR/>In my patch of the woods (partly Earth Sciences) there is endless fussing about global warming of course. I am a SLIGHT skeptic too (I congenitally disapprove of bandwagon effects...), but I must admit to have become less so over the years. I think it is pretty clear now (but only in the last *few* years really) that anthropogenic effects are forcing climate change, esp. for the last 30 years. The clouds stuff is a useful gambit to go for if you go to the right kind of dinner parties :-D<BR/><BR/>I think the big trouble is that politicians keep asking climatologists the straight question about global warming, and the climatologists in general want to give rather hedged-about responses (so much of it is modelling based, with all that that entails). But the politicians are not really interested in such opinions - after all, they need to know how to act now; and it may be that screwing up the atmosphere is not a great idea for all sorts of other reasons (carbonate budget/ph in the oceans being one very serious thing to consider). The trouble is that we do not have a complete grip on the global carbon budget, and how the atmospheres, forests, swamps, soils etc all respond to changes in ph, temp and C02 levels is all up for grabs...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Beda<BR/><BR/>PS I think we need more reactors :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-41743155289909051322008-01-14T00:07:00.000+01:002008-01-14T00:07:00.000+01:00Thank you for the tip, I will get on it right away...Thank you for the tip, I will get on it right away. Have fun with the lectures! <BR/><BR/>Another great resource I recomend is The Teaching Company (www.teach12.com). Unfortunately their lectures are not for free (unless if you know how to get that sort of stuff online).rasmussenandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094631016209971125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-33410244123694785202008-01-13T21:55:00.000+01:002008-01-13T21:55:00.000+01:00I've already started watching them. Let's see how ...I've already started watching them. Let's see how far I get :)<BR/><BR/>If you don't have a litte trash can icon beneath the comments you can add it by going to "Settings"->"Comments"->"Enable comment moderation?"->"Yes"<BR/><BR/>Then you should be able to clean up this mess :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-78217934687306466632008-01-13T21:02:00.000+01:002008-01-13T21:02:00.000+01:00I am glad to have shown you the light! Yokes aside...I am glad to have shown you the light! Yokes aside, Muller lectures have taught me very much and I counsel you to watch them all, they are all great!<BR/><BR/>Sorry about the spam. I actually haven't figured how you can delete single comments... Do you know?rasmussenandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094631016209971125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-87593218759040930002008-01-13T20:34:00.000+01:002008-01-13T20:34:00.000+01:00That lecture was really intresting. I got intreste...That lecture was really intresting. I got intrested in all 30 of them.<BR/><BR/>Also, maybe you should clean up all the spam here :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-45624829398159250162007-10-28T15:34:00.000+01:002007-10-28T15:34:00.000+01:00Wonderful blog.Wonderful blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-2664874315773094542007-10-27T21:00:00.000+01:002007-10-27T21:00:00.000+01:00Please write anything else!Please write anything else!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-30818223321267919722007-10-26T20:30:00.000+01:002007-10-26T20:30:00.000+01:00Good job!Good job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-62502802781869152862007-10-26T20:13:00.000+01:002007-10-26T20:13:00.000+01:00Hello all!Hello all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-56335725043515549802007-10-26T19:59:00.000+01:002007-10-26T19:59:00.000+01:00HWBMgx Magnific!HWBMgx Magnific!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-81841021549460382732007-10-26T18:59:00.000+01:002007-10-26T18:59:00.000+01:00dR5Snk Thanks to author.dR5Snk Thanks to author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-89032081355531447592007-10-26T08:27:00.000+01:002007-10-26T08:27:00.000+01:00pDnf9O Your blog is great. Articles is interesting...pDnf9O Your blog is great. Articles is interesting!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-43542160167757690582007-10-09T02:41:00.000+01:002007-10-09T02:41:00.000+01:00Our world is in crisis - great post - thanks for y...Our world is in crisis - great post - thanks for your insight - together we can save our planet so future generations can enjoy it too!Thanks!P. Lanet IIIConcerned Earth DwellerIs Global Warming A Scam...? Want to learn more?<A HREF="http://www.iKnowAboutit.com/global_warming" REL="nofollow">www.iKnowAboutit.com/Global_Warming</A>globalwarmingfactorfictionku9my1https://www.blogger.com/profile/04349620810889675891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-47278538500824664842007-08-29T19:27:00.000+01:002007-08-29T19:27:00.000+01:00Anders:I have now found some time to check out the...Anders:<BR/>I have now found some time to check out the links you provide. The first one did not impress me at all. The crowd Lubos Motls belongs to is very loud-mouthed but their arguments are very weak. It is all too obvious they are grasping at every possible straw just to avoid the conclusion that we are experiencing a man-made warming of the planet. <BR/><BR/>They continue spouting discredited theories such as links with sun-spots etc (beeing a complete lay-man I have still read two studies published just this year that refute any connection between current warming and solar activity). They hade no published studies to support their case.<BR/><BR/>About the 800-year lag in historic times, see these:<BR/>http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659<BR/><BR/>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13<BR/><BR/>Your second link seemed much more convincing, to begin with. It refers to a published study by real researchers in field. <BR/><BR/>I have read the paper in question. It shows that warming at the poles is mostly the result of black cole particles on the snow and the resulting local warming as reflection is decreased. The effect is very large at the poles, however it does not account for very much in terms of warming the whole planet. <BR/><BR/>The study does of course not disprove that global warming is man-made, it only says that part of the warming is not caused by greenhouse gases. The particles that darken the ice come from pollution, but they also come from forest fires. However, there are more forest fires as temperature increases, so the forest-fire effect is in itself ultimately likely to be caused by greenhouse-gas emissions. <BR/><BR/>And, after searching a little it is clear that the phenomenon has been known for quite some time, and is definitely known to other researchers in field, such as those on realclimate.<BR/><BR/>Still, this study is good news, since it is much easier to avoid creating cole particles than CO2, it means doing something about global warming will be easier.Ulf Petterssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521652079118598703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-86794970119381060182007-08-08T04:49:00.000+01:002007-08-08T04:49:00.000+01:00My guess would be that politics and power games ar...My guess would be that politics and power games are what really fuel the propaganda campaign against nuclear fuels, whether there are legitimate safety concerns or not. Any technology can be made safe.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, only a few world powers have developed nuclear technology and relatively unfettered access to fossil fuel sources, those in control would prefer it to stay that way. Fear is an easy way to control the dissemination of nuclear technology.Baymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436172198266062229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-53895824349415218422007-08-03T12:35:00.000+01:002007-08-03T12:35:00.000+01:00Muller writes:Here is the absurd-sounding conclusi...Muller writes:<BR/><BR/>Here is the absurd-sounding conclusion: if the Yucca Mountain facility was at full capacity and all the waste leaked out of its glass containment immediately and managed to reach ground water, the danger would still be 20 times less than that currently posed by natural uranium leaching into the Colorado River.<BR/><BR/>From:<BR/>http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/26-Witch-of-Yucca-Mountain.htmrasmussenandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094631016209971125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-59237466876049287852007-08-02T16:41:00.000+01:002007-08-02T16:41:00.000+01:00Anders, could you please cite the source for your ...Anders, could you please cite the source for your line about radioactivity in Los Angeles drinking water?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-19968993867494950342007-08-02T10:01:00.000+01:002007-08-02T10:01:00.000+01:00Thank you Ulf for your comment, your compliment, a...Thank you Ulf for your comment, your compliment, and feedback on my little sidetrack. I will take a look at the references with interest. <BR/><BR/>The graph which I presented has not been the only source of my doubt. Apparently when you look at temperature changes 100.000 of year back and correlate it with CO2 levels, there is indeed a correlation, however, the changes in CO2 lag behind with 800years, which seems not to suggest a causal link. Following a quick search I found the following blog describing this.<BR/><BR/>http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html<BR/><BR/>I have also recently seen an article on how dirt in the snow may be as important as CO2 emissions: <BR/>http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/06/06/tech-sciencedirtysnowclimatechange-20070606.html<BR/><BR/>I am as of now undecided in this question, and I would definetly be interested in your response to the above arguements.rasmussenandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094631016209971125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-12174542116599775292007-08-02T09:54:00.000+01:002007-08-02T09:54:00.000+01:00Interesting post.(OT but probably interesting to y...Interesting post.<BR/><BR/>(OT but probably interesting to you http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/125 )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562680309009676006.post-61828959579888105932007-08-02T03:10:00.000+01:002007-08-02T03:10:00.000+01:00Anders:I consider your blog one of the most intell...Anders:<BR/>I consider your blog one of the most intelligent and intellectually honest that I read. But I am pretty sure you are quite wrong in your disbelief of man-made global warming. <BR/><BR/>A largish meta-study has been performed by Oreskes. She analysed a random sample of 928 papers in refereed scientific journals keyworded "climate change".<BR/><BR/>How many of those disagreed with the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change?<BR/><BR/>Not one. Not a single published article!<BR/><BR/>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686<BR/><BR/>http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/peiser_admits_he_was_97_wrong.php<BR/><BR/><BR/>And, about the graph you link to:<BR/><BR/>1. The graph is claimed to come from "Friends of Science". This group is known to be an astroturf operation funded by Canadian oil-companies:<BR/><BR/>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science<BR/><BR/>2. The graph is manipulated. The temperature changes shown are different to those global measurements used in climate research, like the Hadley Center data (i have personally graphed the Hadley HadCRUT3v data - global temperature change does NOT look like that!)<BR/><BR/>Here are accurate graphs:<BR/><BR/>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png<BR/><BR/>3. The cooling period after 1940 is known to have been caused by sulphate aerosols. This is fully accounted for in climate models. In no way does this contradict the important role of CO2.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The best info on global climate, written by actual, leading scientists in the field, is found here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.realclimate.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com