Science & Technology News

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... Side note how many nuclear power plants were there in Washington ( not counting the 12 that the military runs...

Why don’t you tell us, instead of posting opaque & irrelevant, perhaps rhetorical, questions?

There IS one nuclear power generating plant in Washington, Columbia Generating Station [WNP-2], in Richland.
There WERE [at least] five, under the WPSS. I know of no others, but don’t claim exhaustive knowledge.

“... Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were cancelled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable ...”
“Our Choice” ~ by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.[2009]

X-energy of Rockville, Maryland, will work with Energy Northwest, of Richland, and Grant County Public Utility District, to build an 80-megawatt reactor, on land already leased by Energy Northwest, at the Hanford nuclear reservation, in eastern Washington. The TRi Energy Partnership said it could be operating its first advanced reactor within seven years, and the project could be scaled up to a four-reactor, 320-megawatt power plant. The planned high temperature, gas-cooled reactor will be built to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown, and will require a smaller safety perimeter, compared to tradition plants, the partnership said. It will use a low enriched uranium fuel, encased in ceramic, to make it impossible to melt.

“This next-generation nuclear power plant is pitched for Washington state. Can it ‘change the world’?” [Nov. 8, 2021]
➥ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...nge-the-world/

[GordMay]

Amid another record warm year for the planet, one of the most dramatic and alarming changes occurred in our oceans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). [1]

They are the warmest they've been, in recorded history.

“... The annual global ocean heat content (OHC) for 2021 for the upper 2000 meters was record high in 2021, exceeding the previous record set in 2020. The seven highest OHC have all occurred in the last seven years (2015–2021). During 2021, the heating was distributed throughout the world's oceans, with record-high heat across the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea.
The ocean heating is irrefutable and a key measure of the Earth's energy imbalance: the excess greenhouse gases in the air trap more heat inside the climate system and drives global warming. More than 90% of the heat accumulates in the ocean because of its large heat capacity, and the other heating is manifested in warming the atmosphere, warming and drying land, and melting land and sea ice. There are no reasonable alternatives aside from the human emissions of heat-trapping gases ...”

Heat, that is stored in our oceans, cause the water to expand, which, according to NASA [1], is already responsible for one-third to one-half of sea level rise, threatening coastal communities.
Our oceans store about 90 per cent of our planet's heat. But that energy won't stay trapped forever. And when it is released over time, it means our atmosphere will warm even more.

A study [2], published in the journal ‘Advances in Atmospheric Sciences’, in January, found the heat content in the upper 2,000 metres of our oceans has been steadily increasing, since 1958, with a noticeable increase since the 1980s. As a result, our oceans have increased in acidity [ocean acidification], and have also seen more ocean stratification, where the water is prevented from mixing, due to its different properties, including its density. This can result in less oxygen for marine life, at greater depths.

Acidity is measured on a pH scale, that runs from 0 to 14. Anything lower than 7 is considered acidic. Currently, the average ocean pH is roughly 8.1, 30 per cent more acidic than it was 200 years ago. As a result, species such as coral, oysters, and crabs that depend on the ocean carbonate ions, and calcium, to build their skeletons, are struggling.

Our oceans are in a "new normal," concluded a study [3], published in the journal PLOS Climate, this month, that found 2014 was the first year the world's oceans exceeded the 50-per-cent threshold of extreme heat.

[1]“Ocean Heat Content” ~ NASA
➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-heat/

[2] “Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions” ~ by Lijing Cheng et al
Abstract ➥ https://link.springer.com/article/10...376-022-1461-3
Full text ➥ https://link.springer.com/content/pd...022-1461-3.pdf

[3] “The recent normalization of historical marine heat extremes” ~ by Kisei R. Tanaka & Kyle S. Van Houtan
➥ https://journals.plos.org/climate/ar...l.pclm.0000007


Of course, this is probably just all part of the global conspiracy, to mislead us into cleaning up our act.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The data is out now for January temps are now at +.03 °C.
Roy Spencer, PhD
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13
Trend is coming down
Look at the temperature drop of the tropics December was +.03 now with wolf volcano in the gelapagos and Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apai*in Tonga the tropics are -.24°C for January and it was -.08 a year ago for January.

Why do misquote his website so often? The linear trend is .13C/decade (.18C/decade over land). So rise in the last 40 years according to Dr Spencer is .72C over land which is in line with projections.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Why do misquote his website so often? The linear trend is .13C/decade (.18C/decade over land). So rise in the last 40 years according to Dr Spencer is .72C over land which is in line with projections.

Sorry Mr boss I forgot '" PER DECADE'" such an egregious omition that nobody on here figured out all on their own. However you did miss the point . the per decade trend is now down to .13°C. When just 3 months of cooling ago it was at .14°C per decade. Which means the planet is cooling. Just like a cast iron pan it takes time . Wait for it .

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sorry Mr boss I forgot '" PER DECADE'" such an egregious omition that nobody on here figured out all on their own. However you did miss the point . the per decade trend is now down to .13°C. When just 3 months of cooling ago it was at .14°C per decade. Which means the planet is cooling. Just like a cast iron pan it takes time . Wait for it .

No. According to Spencer, it's not cooling, it's just warming a little slower in that time period. About 7% slower.

[pt49]

It's just a cycle... warmer, cooler, cold, warmer, hot, cooler, cold... etc.
Been happening for billions of years, gonna happen for billions of years.

The time to start worrying is when temperatures stop changing and the cycle stops.... because that's when the planet will die!

As for coastlines and low lying islands flooding... DON'T build on coastlines and low lying islands.

Countries, city's, towns and stupid people who build on low lying islands and and coastlines are stupid for a reason... they don't study history.

No different to people who build on or close to volcano's, in the path of potential snow avalanches, on tectonic plate fault lines etc.

Idiot humans have done stupid things for a million years, and will continue to do so forever.

Get over it, complaining about rising sea levels is like complaining about getting run over by a car when you sit on a road.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

No. According to Spencer, it's not cooling, it's just warming a little slower in that time period. About 7% slower.

Ok then tell me how is that warming happening at a lower rate than it was a scant couple years ago? It means the planet is cooling . Wait till the rise is canceled out in a few years then it will officially be cooling again . It's cyclical not Iinier . Perhaps you should look at more than the ministry of truth for the actual thermometer data before its altered by the government.. ( I mean adjusted as they call it.)
To me it doesn't matter what you call it if it's not the actual absolute recorded at the weather station it is altered .

[GordMay]

‘Everything about the Gulf of St. Lawrence was warmer in 2021'

Warming ocean temperatures — especially in deep water — set more records in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 2021, according to climate data [1] released last month, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
"Everything about the Gulf of St. Lawrence was warmer in 2021," said federal research scientist Peter Galbraith, based at the Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli, Que. Galbraith said warming in the deeper water in the gulf has outpaced projections based on climate change.

DFO researchers recorded temperatures of 4.1 C at 150 metres, 6 C at 200 metres, 6.7 C at 250 metres and 6.9 C at 300 metres. Those were the highest readings since data collection began in 1915.

CBC News reporting about ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ence-1.6319664

[1] “Physical Oceanographic Conditions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence during 2021" ~ by P.S. Galbraith et al, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
➥ https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...0_15_32-am.pdf

[GordMay]

In scientists we trust. Or should we?

“The 'Einstein effect' suggests that people are more likely to accept gobbledegook from scientists, than from spiritual gurus.”
People tend to confer more credibility to incomprehensible claims, when attributed to a scientist, than the very same claims, when attributed to a spiritual guru — but that credibility is a double-edged sword, writes cognitive neuroscientist Suzanne Hoogeveen.
"... In a recent study [1], we experimentally investigated source credibility effects at play in the context of science and spirituality. We found evidence for what we call the 'Einstein effect': people tend to confer more credibility to incomprehensible claims when attributed to a scientist than the very same claims when attributed to a spiritual guru..."

More about ➥ https://socialsciences.nature.com/po...t-or-should-we

[1]“The Einstein effect provides global evidence for scientific source credibility effects and the influence of religiosity” ~ by Suzanne Hoogeveen et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...NqAZs6fBiYs%3D

[weavis]

Moderator comment:

Should some members continue to use cursing and aggressive behavior, we will have to assume that the member does not want to follow the rules that were agreed to upon joining.

We will oblige by rescinding the membership.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Why don’t you tell us, instead of posting opaque & irrelevant, perhaps rhetorical, questions?

There IS one nuclear power generating plant in Washington, Columbia Generating Station [WNP-2], in Richland.
There WERE [at least] five, under the WPSS. I know of no others, but don’t claim exhaustive knowledge.

“... Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were cancelled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable ...”
“Our Choice” ~ by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.[2009]

X-energy of Rockville, Maryland, will work with Energy Northwest, of Richland, and Grant County Public Utility District, to build an 80-megawatt reactor, on land already leased by Energy Northwest, at the Hanford nuclear reservation, in eastern Washington. The TRi Energy Partnership said it could be operating its first advanced reactor within seven years, and the project could be scaled up to a four-reactor, 320-megawatt power plant. The planned high temperature, gas-cooled reactor will be built to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown, and will require a smaller safety perimeter, compared to tradition plants, the partnership said. It will use a low enriched uranium fuel, encased in ceramic, to make it impossible to melt.

“This next-generation nuclear power plant is pitched for Washington state. Can it ‘change the world’?” [Nov. 8, 2021]
➥ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...nge-the-world/

How about the mini smr they have had running at the University of Washington for about 40 years. That was recently decommissioned.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

How about the mini smr they have had running at the University of Washington for about 40 years. That was recently decommissioned.

You tell us: "What about it?"
Do you mean UW's 10kW teaching reactor, circa 1961 - 1988 [27 years], demo’d in 2006?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You tell us: "What about it?"
Do you mean UW's 10kW teaching reactor, circa 1961 - 1988 [27 years], demo’d in 2006?

Yep that's the official story .

Reality is a bit different .

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yep that's the official story .



Reality is a bit different .

Hmm is this click bait?

Ok I’ll bite what’s the reality?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Hmm is this click bait?

Ok I’ll bite what’s the reality?

It was still functional into the late 1990's and producing electricity the whole time . And yes it was for teaching people how to run a plant.

The vast majority of plant operators in America learned how in Idaho falls though .