arctic ice increases 60%

I suspect it won't be long(in geologic time) before Michigan acquires some new moraine fields.

http://www.nps.gov/slbe/naturescience/index.htm

http://www.wxyz.com/popup?componentId=184754969&tabId=199985679&tabTemplateName=IMAGE_IMAGES

 

You don't understand the dynamics of open water very well do you?

And you clearly didn't read the papers because they address this

 

trolling trolling trolling,
Keep those posters trolling RAWHID!!!

 

BTW while it is true the USA is freezing, the rest of the world is in a heat wave http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/...-but-the-rest-of-the-world-is-in-a-heat-wave/

 

Tell that to the captain of the Chinese icebreaker off Antarctica, where, by the way, it is summer.

The Washington Post is a liberal rag into which I would not even wrap a mullet.

 

Stick to talking about something you may have some knowledge in, which is very evidently not Antarctic pack ice and its characteristics.....

PDW

 

D'oh!

 

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change? | REUTERS

 

I came to that conclusion 20 years ago, when this whole caper was just getting going. I haven't seen anything to get me to change my mind.

If you want a 21C technological society and given the existing population base, renewables like PV, wind and hydro simply aren't going to cut it. This is something the green people refuse to acknowledge but it's true regardless.

Funny thing - Germany is shutting their nuke plants. And building new coal mines. Dirty, brown coal mines.....

Triumph of ideology over engineering. It'd be funny if my Government wasn't equally stupid.

PDW

 

http://toryaardvark.com/2011/12/page/2/
http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/another_bonfire_on_stick.jpg


I wonder which harmful particles are introduced by an event such as this into the air we breathe?

http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/burning_wind_turbine.jpg?w=604&h=402

 

Sparks... its definitely unadvisable to breath sparks

 

I can't argue with that.

 

See thing is that would be cool to watch happen - with little worry of permanent harm. OTOH I watched the lightning bolt hit the Con Ed tower that took out NYC back in 1978. And the first substation to blow was the one 1/2 mile from our house... So far that was ok - a bit expected.

But then when the power didn't come back on I went out into the backyard to listen to the car radio for what was happening. And not only were about 1/2 the stations off the air (since all of NY was down) - but off in the direction of the Indian Point Nuclear Power station there was this eerie glow in the air. And frankly it scared the **** out of me.

And the lack of evacuation information was the ONLY comforting news.

It turned out that the glow was caused actually from across the Hudson from the Buchanan Power plant - which was at the time coal fired. And apparently in the system crash, one of the breakers hadn't tripped fast enough. And one of the power feeder cables from one of the steam turbine gens had melted off of its bus bar.

And since you can't just "turn off" steam turbines - as the turbine slowly spun down the cable would arc through the air - causing a nice ionization glow. And when it would touch down, it would instantly vaporize part of the end of the cable and the plasma would then launch the cable into another wild arc of ionization.

this went on apparently for a good 30-45 mins while the turbine spun down.


So no - nukes are not the answer. But France's new modified tokomak might very well be.

 

Coal and natural gas are the logical choices for generation of power in peaceful uses. Nuke is great for warships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion

 

No they are the easy choices if you don't properly cost account their full costs