This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Fukushima Reactor No.2 May Have Suffered Total Meltdown
To the extent the memory of Fukushima had faded over the last several years, the “fallout” (no pun intended) from the nuclear-like blast that tore through an industrial complex at the Chinese port of Tianjin last month served to remind the world of how far-reaching and unpredictable the consequences can be when disaster strikes at a site that houses potentially toxic materials.
For those unfamiliar, the explosion at Tianjin set the stage for an apocalyptic scenario whereby water soluble sodium cyanide could interact with incoming thunderstorms creating cyanide rain and while that doomsday-ish scenario didn’t play out in as dramatic a fashion as some feared, there was an eerie white foam covering the streets following the first rains that fell in the wake of the explosion.
In case Tianjin didn’t satisfy your thirst for potential cataclysms, just a few days after the explosion, Japan warned that Sakurajima (one of the country’s most active volcanos) was set to erupt. That was notable in and of itself, but what made the story especially amusing (if worrisome) was that just days earlier, Tokyo had greenlighted the reopening of the Sendai nuclear power plant which is located just 50 kilometers from Sakurajima. The reopening at Sendai marked the first nuclear reactor to be restarted in Japan since the Chernobyl redux at Fukushima in 2011.
As The Guardian noted at the time, some experts claim "the restarted reactor at Sendai [is] still at risk from natural disasters," despite the fact that it was the first nuclear plant to pass new regulations put in place by the country’s Nuclear Regulation Authority on the heels of the disaster in 2011.
Well, don’t look now but experts now say the No. 2 reactor at Fukushima may have suffered a complete meltdown. Here’s RT with more:
Fukushima’s reactor No.2 could have suffered a complete meltdown according to Japanese researchers. They have been monitoring the Daiichi nuclear power plant since April, but say they have found few signs of nuclear fuel at the reactor’s core.
The scientists from Nagoya University had been using a device that uses elementary particles, which are called muons. These are used to give a better picture of the inside of the reactor as the levels of radioactivity at the core mean it is impossible for any human to go anywhere near it.
However, the results have not been promising. The study shows very few signs of any nuclear fuel in reactor No. 2.
This is in sharp contrast to reactor No.5, where the fuel is clearly visible at the core, the Japanese broadcaster NHK reports.
TEPCO has used 16 robots to explore the crippled plant to date, from military models to radiation-resistant multi-
segmented snake-like devices that can fit through a small pipe.
However, even the toughest models are having trouble weathering the deadly radiation levels: as one robot sent into reactor No.1 broke down three hours into its planned 10-hour foray.
Despite TEPCO’s best efforts, the company has been accused of a number of mishaps and a lack of proper contingency measures to deal with the cleanup operation, after the power plant suffered a meltdown, following an earthquake and subsequent tsunami in 2011.
Recent flooding caused by Tropical Typhoon Etau swept 82 bags, believed to contain contaminated materials that had been collected from the crippled site, out to sea.
“On September 9th and 11th, due to typhoon no.18 (Etau), heavy rain caused Fukushima Daiichi K drainage rainwater to overflow to the sea,” TEPCO said in a statement, adding that the samples taken “show safe, low levels” of radiation.
“From the sampling result of the 9th, TEPCO concluded that slightly tainted rainwater had overflowed to the sea; however, the new sampling measurement results show no impact to the ocean,” it continued.
Yes, “no impact to the ocean,” other than this:
Much like how Chinese authorities swear that the Tianjin disaster has had no effect on sea life off China's shores - unless you count the massive fish die-offs...
»
- 94470 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
That fish looks pretty bogus to me.
Lantern fish
Wolffish or Wolf Eel is what it is. And probably the world's record one at that if they kept such records.
"In October, Hirasaka intends to publish a recipe book on niche deep sea fish. He enjoys providing a platform for the unknown, obscure, and ugly species of this world. "
Yum.
Just so it doesn't enter the race for the Republican nomination.
Optical illusion. Look at the size of the guy's hands. He's holding the eel close to the camera.
Berring Wolf fish
Wolf Eel and they do get that big.
Wolf fish
very
> That fish looks pretty bogus to me.
But high-level radioactive waste on the West Coast is not [...is in the air, for you and me, discovered by Madam Curie]
Pacific is totally screwed, one shouldn't buy Pacific fish no more.
PS
Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered Dresden-type carpet bombing (same type of propaganda/fear tactics as the Moon Hoax, just to scare the Soviets), this time around Japanese will be a true radiation therapy guinea pig for the first time ever.
Deserves a link ... no?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EBTn_3DBYo
RADIOACTIVITY - KRAFTWERK - HD Live
We're next. The contamination will spread throughout the biotope of planet earth. (incl. southern hemisphere)
Qui Bono
Zorba, fish, man, that's a effing fukushima house cat!
This is why nuclear is NOT the answer to our biggest problem, global warming.
Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen on nuclear power vs alternative energy technologies
http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/jsc-energy-choices-fu...
Sun and wind to surpass nuclear soon:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-29/energy-crunch-nuclear-future
Three in every four nuclear power builds worldwide are running late. A review of the 66 nuclear reactors 'under construction' worldwide shows that 49 are running behind schedule, including all five in the US and most in China. The long and unpredictable build times of nuclear plants, and the extra costs that ensue, are a compelling reason not to depend on the technology for either power or to mitigate climate change
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2562146/three_in_every_fo...
"I am opposed to nuclear power not based on what I know about physics, but based
on what I know about human nature"
Dr Paradycz, physics professor, Vermont State College
vermont state college? did you just make that up?
It sounded really official, though.
But the same scientists who insist that global warming will kill us all say that nuclear power is safer than deadly fossil fuels.
Top climate change scientists' letter to policy influencersQuantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scient...
Actually, four scientists wrote the letter. Four. There are thousands of scientists who "insist that global warming is killing us."
And there are thousands of scientists who insist that it isn't.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Note that the nuclear danger deniers include James Hansen, probably the most prominent AGW voice.
I'm not going to argue bullshit points with you. Disagree with the hypothesis if you like but do so honestly. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Give me a big pot of money and I'll soon get consensus that the earth is cooling. Remember: If everyone thinks alike then no-one is thinking.
@letthemeatbullshit
it doesnt matter if the entire world was in 100% agreement (which they very much arent), all that matters is what is true, and what is falsifiably proven to be true, aka the scientific method.
Global Warming is comeplete and total bullshit. All that they have ever had were computer models. When the models failed, they started trying to manipulate the data. Carbon is not pollution, and we could spontaneously burn all the coal and oil in the entire world, and it still wouldnt lead to cataclysm.
It's a lie, and you've been brainwashed to believe on appeals to authority. In case you havent noticed, appeals to authority dont do so well around here. I'm sorry that its inconvenient that you were tricked into beliving lies as truth. But, you and all the other brain-dead lemming-sheepl, and the trillions-of-dollars hoovering green-energy "politicians" & "academics" who have created a post-modern religious cult out of pseudo-science... can all suck a giant bag of dicks.
How can I argue with such a well reasoned post?
Just try your usual blathering. Not that you need any encouragement from me.
@letthemeatBS
there isnt something for you to argue with, but i can put it in point form for you so you can be clear of the facts of which you cannot escape:
-concensus is irrelevant, its a logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority", only what is actually true matters
-not 1 single empirical evidence to prove that humans can affect global temperatures through fossil fuel use exists
-only thing they have ever had were computer models, all of which have failed
-then they were caught trying to manipulate ALL of the temperature data sets, including both how and where its measured, as well as what is actually measured
-trillions of dollars are being spent due to the junk-science of so called "climate change" harming the poorest peoples of the world the most
-you are a brainwashed sheep in a junk-science religious cult
Thank you +1000
I would add that "the progressive stupid, it burns".
Grimaldus
The greatest scientific/political hoax of all time. History will document this fraud, and assign blame to the culprits.
Yeah, History ain't gonna be kind to the denialati, assuming anyone is still studying history in 150 years...
BTW, lose the handle, only a poseur would post under such a psuedonym...
Still waitin for that El Nino to save GIGO, are ya flake?
Yes flakmeister since in your previous life you ran a 88mm flak crew? Notice the dais upon which flak puts a physicist, more authority worshiping. We are keeping lists Flak there will be trials...
FlakFRAU is a WOMAN...
SHE is a FEMALE who pretends to be a man on this site.
Of cpurse SHE is a total CUNT, a DISHONEST BITCH FROM HELL.
But she has "Gender Issues".
She wants to do a BruceCaitlyn Jenner transformation...in reverse.
(Thanks to Col. Klink for helping to expose this cunt...for the fraud that she is.)
There have been some other good hoaxes too for example the Flavian Caesar's invention of those superb mind control systems we call Christanity and Talmudic Judaism. See Joe Atwill's ' Caesar's Messiah ' in books and YouTube....
Don't forget trying to stifle the voices (via journals, positions, grants) that debunked their climate fascism.
oops
Especially as you would never argue against Scientific Method, right LTER?
Do you mind. I am still trying to get funding for my thesis regarding planetary epicycles.
LTER is one of my favorite posters on here. Very disappointed in this one, though.
LTER- Aren't you the same guy that doesn't give a shit about the health of one person- actually hoping for illness yet here you are worried about global warming stupidity? Shallow thinker you are. Best stay out of the deep end!
Its not true. The climate is changing and always HAS changed. 7,000 years ago, there was a drought in the pacific northwest that lasted 240 years long. (Two fucking hunnnit forty years, imagine what Las Vegas will look like after a 50 year drought.) Followed by periods of equally biblical droughts. There was a frickin ice age and before that the planet was hotter than it is now. The issue is not all that mumbo jumbo, lets cut to the chase:
The powers that be want the masses to beleive every BIT of climate change is due to preventable, human made causes AND it can all be fixed up right nice if we only get all so scared that we allow the powers that be to saddle us all with a 20% carbon tax on every damn thing we buy. That's the issue, son.
Despite the radiation coating northern Japan, HK'ers are tripping over each other to buy condos there and rent them out to Japanese; the SCMP said condos in HK were too expensive so they have turned overseas to Tokyo and Melbourne.
I guess they think Melbourne and Tokyo are not overpriced?
Several interviewed alsos aid they want to retrue in Tokyo, "because it's not as crowded as HK."
Could have fooled me.
Pardon me but isn't that the same government that said Saddam had WMDs, that the economy is recovering, unemployment is around five percent and inflation is near zero?
If you want to play "my thousands of scientists are better than your thousands of scientists" then I'm glad you selected the team with no track record of veracity at all.
The lie can't be sustained forever. Rats have been fleeing the sinking AGW ship including the creator of the Gaia theory himself:
'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate changeThe admission comes as a devastating blow to proponents of climate change who regard Lovelock as a powerful figurehead.
Five years ago, he had claimed: 'Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.'
But in an interview with msnbc.com he admitted: 'I made a mistake.'
He said: 'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told 'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html#ixzz3n5RWrnCBMost of the scientists listed in the NASA site are not government scientists. And the large majority of scientists have been saying for years that this is a long-term problem that won't do serious damage in our lifetimes but will eventually. Your reasoning reminds me of the Drudge articles where Matt points out that a global warming march was cancelled due to snow.
Please provide a long and detailed list of those AGW scientists who receive no government funding by working directly for a government agency, for a university or for another subsidized institution.
List your "thousands" of scientists that agree with you, and maybe I'll go to the trouble for you. I'll tell you what, list 500.
No trouble at all as I've already done that. You'll notice the string of characters in my post above which begins with "http://" That's called a link. If you use your mousy thing to click on it you can visit an entirely new page. That page links you to the names of 31,000 scientists who affirm that AGW is bunk.
Dude, it's 2015. If you haven't figured out how to click a link yet how can you hope to understand global climate?
And since I've now provided you with access to the information you requested not once but twice I'm sure that you're hurrying right along in providing me with that long list of AGW scientists who receive no government funding.
Jesus, the petition of 31,000 scientists, of which less than 1% have experience in the field of climate science. Versus peer reviewed studies of climate change, which overwhelmingly support the thesis.
Let's be fair since you want to compare apples to oranges. Tell me how many of those signatories -- and you can limit it to those with experience in climate and atmospheric science if you like -- don't work for major corporations that have an interest in oil, coal, gas, etc. Can you?
One of the things about 9/11 that convinced me was the many architects who questioned it. I realize you are not interested in real debate, but think about the difference.
please refer to further up the comment thread where i took you out back and beat you like a rented mule...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-28/fukushima-reactor-no2-may-have-...
and further reading at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Not that a brain-washed lemming/sheeple deserves responses beyond rhetoric, but here's something to help you start the healing process to escape your junk-science religious cult.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-alt...
There are plenty of resources and groups of people who can help you in escaping religious cults. Try googling, religious cult + emergency hotline
Healing and closure is possible, you just have to let go of your pride and the brainwashing purge will follow
LTER, you need to get off the "peer reviewed" train. We've seen how badly that ploy can be used by vested interested who can simply "buy" peers.
I'll take real peer review over the "Lets make shit up approach" advocated by the Merchants of Doubt...
real peer review, dont make us laugh!!! that's like saying we have a real free market here, and a real price discovery mechanism.
Why do you get to ask question after question while my question to you regarding your long and detailed list of AGW scientist who are not on the government dole goes unanswered for the third time?
I get it. You want to rely on a petition instead of peer reviewed studies because it fits your ideology. If you require as proof some guy on the internet (me) spending countless hours figuring out the percentage of scientists in every major scientific organization in the world that supports the thesis of man-made global warming, you should be questioning why that is.
"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend."
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif
PEEEEEEEEEEER REVIEWED.
APPEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL TO AUTHORITY
lol
Ed Begley Jr. melts down in desparate appeal to authority fallacy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-rFmnhIdes&t=0m48s
btw, for those that dont know. Not only are the alarmists manipulating the data, and only have computer models not science, they are out right blocking contrary views from being published, and wrecking careers of any who dare point out the emporer has no clothes
The stupid is strong with you, my son.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/almost-all-us-temperature-...
The End.
Especially the satellite data....
You know the, that data that the denialiti cling to...
would you prefer Briffa's Yamal data? of course you would, because its garbage.
I get it. You want to rely on a petition instead of peer reviewed studies because it fits your ideology.
Said the guy who can't brimng himself to admit that those peer reviewd studies are all conducted by people who are on the government dole.
The plot thickens. 99% of scientists contrive an environmental crisis but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.
99% of scientists
Where's your documentation?
Do some research, you lazy fuck, and not in the right wing echo chamber this time.
I knew you couldn't back up your claim.
He doesnt have to...
It is is common knowledge...
Then it should be easy to cite the evidence. But then reality deniers like you depend on not observing evidence.
Remember when you called Dr. James Lovelock a "white wizard" of the modern age? Even he says that alarmists like you are in denial about the fact that the Earth isn't frying.
'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told 'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that." -- Dr. James Lovelock, Flakmeister's "White Wizard"
Billy, quit playing the idiot...
The man who thinks that science is based on "common knowledge" with no evidential backing whatsoever thinks I'm an idiot. He's quite sure of his belief because he has no proof.
24,210 peer-reviewed articles by 69,406 authors - only 4 authors reject human caused global warming - 1 author in 17,352 or 0.006%
with a humorous vid, John Oliver - Last Week Tonight
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/31/human-climate-link-still-97-nope-99-...
Thanks for disapproving the "99% of scientists agree" claim. There are millions of scientists in the world and even reality deniers like the AGW crowd should be able to figure out that 69,000 does not constitute 99% of all scientists.
Too bad you didn't come back with a real reply like pointing out that the Powell article had not been published yet. Or even that the John Oliver vid was still using the 97%.
Idiot.
Too bad you rely on ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned arguments.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
SummaryThere is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Oh, now you want to have "reasoned" arguments when a reasonable person would understand that we were discussing climate scientists, not all scientists. GFY.
A reasonable person would look at the evidence. Here is the statement to which I responded. Note that the author refers to "99% of scientists." If he misspoke that is his fault and not mine for requesting evidence of his obviously flawed assertion. Your distaste for an accurate reporting of the facts is obvious.
Mon, 09/28/2015 - 22:28 | 6605127 PinchVote up!
3 Vote down!-6
The plot thickens. 99% of scientists contrive an environmental crisis but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense that "scientists" with no financial interest at all would skew the results of their "research" to their favor.
Damned taxpayer funded government grant whores, I mean, dirty rotten oil meanies ;-)
What makes more sense?
http://planetsave.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Which-makes-more-sense-...
Which makes more sense?
1. The crops I can grow due to temperature constraints have not changed in my lifetime because the climate has not appreciably changed.
2. The crops I can grow due to temperature constraints have not changed in my lifetime because the climate has become much warmer than it was previously.
The trick here is to use your own senses rather than to worry about who is trying to propagandize you.
Well, you got me. Community activists are one of the most honorable and honest groups in the world. They obviously care more for my wellbeing vs those nasty evil oil companies.
How thoughtful this is displayed in an easy to understand and non biased format so one can chose the correct choice without much thought.
Miffed
Funny, the Climate Scientists are all "Pro Global Warming" (almost as if their pay checks depended on it), and they get good feedback from the "fuzzy" sciences like pyschology and "Political Science". The "Hard Science" folks (Math, Physics, Engineering) are in the "Interesting theory, but actual facts don't seem to be supporting it" camp. Give us some verifiable/testable/repeatable predicted outcomes from your theory, and we will treat you with a little more respect if they prove true. So far, roughly zero of the Global Warming predictions have proven true... (Warming of the troposphere in the equitorial regions perhaps? Mechanics of the theory require that it start there first and most pronounced, so far the climate guys are still scrambling to find statistical hints that perhaps maybe it might have started somewhere, but so far they have produced NOTHING that will stand up to scrutiny...).
"NASA site are not government scientists" lol
The NASA link lists the various scientific organizations that concur with global warming. NASA obviously agrees (and I'm sure you're smarter than them), but I do not rely on NASA for my statement (as ridiculous as it is that I am arguing with some guy on the internet that NASA is unreliable in issues scientific). Do you guys even care about the logic of your statements?
NASA is a large taxpayer-funded organization looking for a viable mission
as ridiculous as it is that I am arguing with some guy on the internet that NASA is unreliable in issues scientific)
James Hansen who claims that nuclear power is "orders of magnitude" safer than fossil fuels has worked for NASA. He used his post to become a leading voice among the AGW crowd. So we must assume that you agree with him because by your own stated criteria not to do so would be "ridiculous."
You're right, NASA is a bunch of clowns who don't know science because one guy who worked for NASA at one point said he was wrong about something.
HAnsen was/is a director, not "some guy". Nasa scientists are also part of the group caught manipulating temperature data trying to keep the lie afloat as their computer models have all failed.
Also, how "good" someone is at science, and how "prestigious" they are or arent, has no bearing whether something they espouse is true or not. All that matters, is if its actually true, and for that to be known, it has to be demonstratible and falsifiable.
please refer to further up the comment thread where i took you out back and beat you like a rented mule...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-28/fukushima-reactor-no2-may-have-...
and further reading at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
That's BS and you know it.
Here are screen captures from government websites showing the manipulation.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-alt...
And pray tell, did you even see all the raw data plotted and not just a cherry picked station?
BTW, why hasn't Tony Heller aka S Goddard, published these remarkable findings anywhere? He has not not submitted this crap to those journals bought by the denialati...
The screen captures are from government websites. The government agencies chose the data which was presented and which you claimed was cherry picked. Looks like you're stepping on your allies toes in your attempts to deny reality. It was bound to happen.
because one guy who worked for NASA at one point said he was wrong about something.
You seem to be very confused. I never said that Hansen said he was wrong about something. I said that his credentials include a long tenure at NASA (which you claim is proof of reliability) and that he claims that nuclear power is "orders of magnitude" safer than fossil fuels.
Are you really that absent minded or are you pretending to misunderstand a question which you can't answer honestly while remaining true to your chosen religion?
Did you guys see the news today about the Mars probe? Pretty cool stuff, but probably fake and wrong because it was government funded.
There is no such thing as government funded. It's a play on words that you can't seem to grasp yet.
@LetThemEatMyBrainwashing
Nasa has been caught manipulating the temperature records, its nothing to do with conspiracy theories. The world isnt warming, even when and if it ever does, it will be because of natural causes, not man made.
The Earth has been both much hotter and much colder than now.
The Earth's atmosphere has had both less and more carbon dioxide in it than it does now.
Wake up from the lies
You've said:
"The world isnt warming, even when and if it ever does..."
and
"The Earth has been both much hotter and much colder than now."
So Earth has been hotter and colder, but it can't be getting warmer anywhere on the planet at the moment? How is that possible?
The AGW claim is not that a certain locality might be hotter or colder at a specific time but that the entire surface of the Earth is growing warmer as time progresses and that that increase is a result of an insignificant increase in CO2. You see, "global" means "affecting the entire surface of the earth" while "warming" means "to increase in temperature."
Temperatures in the area where I have lived for over fifty years have shown no appreciable increase. In fact, the last two years have been colder than normal. That alone proves that any possible warming is not "global" by definition.
I thought that it was mostly ocean warming -- which would explain why my (west coast) climate is getting progressively more tropical. There are those who proclaim sufficient volcanic activity could throw us into a new ice age (interesting concept -- akin to nuclear winter).
BTW, I don't hear too many people saying the mega-drought is phony -- perhaps the change is fast enough to be easily observed.
Ocean vs land, atmosphere, and cryosphere combined.
Heat content (jpeg)
Ocean data has been collected in an organized fashion since 1870. See World Meteorological Organization.
"There is no pause" WMO Secretary General Dr. Michel Jarraud - 2014
Not quite what I was getting at. I was getting at the two opposing points being made: The Earth has been hotter and colder than now, but he also suggests that it's not a possibility it could get warmer, which goes against the first point. That's all.
If only you would, astroturfer.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Did you guys see the news today about the Mars probe? Pretty cool stuff, but probably fake and wrong because it was government funded.
It is wrong to take money from hard working individuals and use it for pork barrel projects. The poverty rate keeps on rising but you saw something on the TV that was "cool," so it's all good in your opinion.
And of course you've avoided answering the question for perhaps the sixth time. Where is your list of AGW scientists who receive no government funds?
All of the deniers are funded by big oil, big coal and the Koch brothers. There's ample proof of that. And many idiots, like you, have swallowed their BS arguments hook, line and sinker
My ability to read a thermometer is not a matter of being duped. Strange that you would thinks so.
Speaking of thermometers (ya know, actual temperature readings) perhaps the "climate hysterics" can explain why practically ALL surface data is estimated...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/27/approximately-92-or-99-of-ushcn-su...
...cuz, "climate science"...or sumpin...lol.
On a side note, I've known gamblers in my life who think they have a perfect scientific model too. They all ended up dead ass broke, without exception ;-)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satelli...
The End.
You guys keep getting your conjunctions fucked up. Al Gore is a globalist power hungry douchebag AND humans are completely shitting in their own nest. Why is this so hard for you fuckers to understand?
>There are thousands of scientists who "insist that global warming is killing us."
Then they should take their cue from the fanatics in the Islamic religion and martyr themselves for the cause.
Pay close attention to the dates...because "history"
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. -Washington Post 11/2/1922
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that "another world ice-epoch is due." He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be "wiped out." –Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923
The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age -Time Magazine 9/10/1923
America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise – New York Times 3/27/1933
A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," -New York Times – May 30, 1947
Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. -New York Times August 29, 1954
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. -New York Times – January 30, 1961
Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. -Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. – Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)
It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. -Presidential adviser Daniel Moynihan, 1969 (later Sen. [D] from New York 1976-2000)
What? You didn't think I had more? Let's move into the 1970's...
"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…." -Life Magazine, January 1970
"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
"If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -Kenneth E.F. Watt in "Earth Day," 1970.
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." -Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
"By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." -George Wald, Harvard Biologist 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," -Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes -Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." -Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971
Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. -Los Angles Times – May 16, 1972
1980's and 1990's
[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying "Water by request only." -James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988
U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP – entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect -Associated Press June 30, 1989
New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now -St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989
Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. -Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989
"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots… "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". -Michael Oppenheimer, "Dead Heat" 1990
Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert – Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990
By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. -5000 Days to Save the Planet – Edward Goldsmith 1991
"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. -BBC November 7, 1997
It's like the Groundhog Day of repeating predictions of doom...
"But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown." -Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund, New York Times – January 2000
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. -Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is" -Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia – Mar 20, 2000
Environmental refugees to top 50 million in 5 years –"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change and other phenomena," -UNU-EHS Director Janos Bogardi – United Nations University news release – 10/11/2005
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. -BBC Dec. 12, 2007
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. -National Geographic News June 20, 2008
"We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap… -Rep.(D) Henry Waxman, chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee, April 2009
Of course there is no land under the ice within 400+ miles of the north pole, and indeed the water there is about 13,000 feet deep. Mr. Waxman would seem frightfully ignorant for a man in his position. This was recorded during an interview with Tavis Smiley on his NPR TV show. Smiley is known to be very willing to assist Democrat causes, so it could be assumed that this quote could have been retracted before airing had Waxman made a timely request, or if Smiley himself had a clue how ignorant these statements were.
Standard Disclaimer: 100 years of deathly grim predictions and people still eat it up.
never quittin, so wont you listen
Humans, puny humans and their grandiose levels of bullshit. I'm surprised anything gets built in this fucked up over regulated and selectivly enforced country
Yet the "Concerned Portland Citizen" is totally silent.
Guess they'll have to rise on their own merits. Bummer.
Bullish, yes?
Bullfish
Bullwish
No, really. What kind of fish is that?
I think it's a "Wolfe Fish" or some species of rat-tail. Too lazy to look it up :-)
“This is a wolffish, was caught by Hirasaka Hiroshi off the coast of Japan, near the Fukushima nuclear plant. While these fish are known to grow up to 1.2 meters, about 3.9 feet, these particularly creature was 2 meters long, or 6.7 feet. Hiroshi is obviously straining to hold up his catch!”
He can have MY share.
Fishera?
Bollocks (not you, your quote). Camera perspective. The size of the hands is a dead giveaway.
Standard wolf fish, celebrity jap chef of some type caught it. Molten salt reactors are much , much safer, Karl Denninger gets that right..
Did you ever wonder why the landscape isn't dotted with molten salt reactors then?
Ill provide the readership with a historical clue... you are free to dig further. Heck, you may even discover where one or two of those molten salt reactors are buried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2G_reactor
Standard Disclaimer: ET1/SS, Nuclear reactor operator, Shutdown reactor operator. Does my actual hands-on experience outweigh yours?
Let me add the second clue with a couple of visuals... Those original molten salt reactors were sodium...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTcgo46nxNE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvVUtpdK7xw
Standard Disclaimer: Because alkaline metals and water don't mix.
And as we all know, something has to drive the turbines (usually steam or water) which in turn drive the electrical generators...
Did we all skip basic science in high school? Did we all not bother to research how electricity is generated...
It's a Photoshop Fish, Nessy's cousin.
Scooby don't eat no stinkin Fish Alpo!
Someone must have hacked Yellen's personal photo archive, obtained a photograph of her private parts, and photoshopped said private parts into the hands of that rather unhappy fisherman. Obviously the photo artist had to shrink down the stolen photograph in order to make it fit into the fisherman's hands.
LTER,How many Economists think we are Forked and wil say so? So scientists are some how more trust worthy, sorry, I do not think so.
That's not a fish. It's a crab.
is that jackie chan holding it up?
which one?
Long potassium iodide
Godzirra
Perhaps new samples showed no contamination because the radioactive materials were SWEPT OUT TO SEA!
How about following the current and taking a few samples wherever it goes?
Denninger says the radioactive burst and subsequent 4 year dose was equal to 4 Chest CT-Scans, and much ado about nothing. Many TFers across the Left Coast have kept geiger counters on the entire time and have seen little to no increase whatsoever.
"Denninger says the radioactive burst and subsequent 4 year dose was equal to 4 Chest CT-Scans, and much ado about nothing."
Betchya Karl never moves anywhere near Fukashima or any Nuclear power plant. Karl think Nuclear power is "the" solution to all our energy problems.
Someone like him once said tetraethyl lead was harmless too. As far as the "no increase whatsoever" in radiation levels, that is not true. The entire US has seen elevated levels to the extent the EPA has turned off monitors and decided to increase the safe level of background radiation using the farcical excuse that science has advanced to allow a more accurate and higher standard. Looking at the numeruous and obviously incoherent and poorly thought out submissions by the EPA to the Congressional Register, one can only conclude the EPA thinks science is a game. Playing games with people's lives.
Yes, the progressive EPA stupid, it burns.
Grimaldus
Shit, that's just a guppy. Guy is holding it away from his body and the perspective makes it look big.
Now, when I see a three-eyed Simpsons fish, then I'll be impressed
Is that Jackie Chan? (sarc for the uninitiated)
lacist
Pope Francis, please pick up the red courtesy phone, Pope Francis, the red courtesy phone please. (Click)
Pope Francis [picking up the white courtesy phone]: "Pronto?"
Paging voice: "no, the red one."
So whats your impression of this guy...this Pope?...just as a matter of curiosity.
Personally I'm not Catholic so I have no problem calling out this Peronist for what he is. I mean on the one hand he has written capitalism is "the dung of satan" then he turns and tries to guilt-trip capitalists into statism and in an accompanying stroke, besseches "world governments" to confiscate their "filthy lucre".
I'm not sure why he would want to defile his saintly robes with satans dung this way.
I mean, besides being a Peronist ;-)
I was raised Catholic, but I grew out of it. My view of all popes is that they literally live in a golden palace and tell everyone else it's okay to be poor. I also think he's an idiot and a hypocrite, which mostly defines the Catholic church. I have no opinion on whether he is a well meaning idiot. Some priests and others are well meaning. Others are just fucking evil. He may be either, but he's an idiot in any event.
That said, I'm enjoying wathcing him run around say things that fly in the face of the practices of most of his followers who call themselves Catholics.
Thanks for your candid response Rand, there still may be hope yet ;-)
I think I may bookmark this thread and review it when I have doubt of the miraculous.
Miffed;-)
It really doesn't take an entire village, just one guy with a scalpel will sometimes suffice ;-)