It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fiction Of Climate Science

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mushibrain

How do coal and nuclear deal with this issue? Do they just shovel less coal and insert the graphite rods into the reactor?

All power plants have built-in controls that automatically adjust the amount of steam released into the generator turbines. In a coal plant, less coal is fed into the steam generators; in a nuclear plant, the steam is shunted through a heat exchanger to drain off excess energy. Both use heat created to power steam generation that then drives turbines that spin the generators.

Still, these adjustments are rough, and that is why line voltage can vary so much. If electrical usage decreases overall, the voltage will increase; this increase will be sensed by the power station and less steam will be delivered to the turbines.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





All power plants have built-in controls that automatically adjust the amount of steam released into the generator turbines.

Good evening, my good friend.
Yes, they do have built-in controls, but of course, they can fail, and in fact, DID fail in the Three Mile Island incident. I just wanted to add that for completeness.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

And a very good evening to you, Prof!

In actuality, Three Mile Island was a sensor failure, not a system failure. The release of secondary steam was an action taken by the control technicians in response to faulty information.

Since then, all reactors have duplicate sensors (usually triplicate) on all reactor functions so faulty information can be readily identified.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

BTW, the Steam generators at TMI are in the process of being replaced, as we speak.


Three Mile Island Unit 1's steam generator replacement project is part of Exelon Nuclear's overall commitment to investing in the future of Three Mile Island for 20 more years of safe, clean and reliable operations. The steam generators are an essential system to ensure the future reliability of TMI Unit 1. It is common across the industry to replace steam generators. Three Mile Island Unit 1 has two steam generators and the original steam generators' tubes are approaching the end of service life. To ensure the future reliability of TMI Unit 1, Exelon Nuclear is replacing both steam generators. What is a Steam Generator? Steam generators are heat exchangers used in Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) like Three Mile Island. Steam generators act like giant double boilers. Pressurized hot water from the reactor enters the steam generator, passing through thousands of small tubes, similar to hot water passing through a car radiator. The heat from inside of the tubes is transferred to a second supply of water outside the tubes, which flashes into steam. The steam is then sent through large pipes to spin the turbines and generator, to produce electricity. The two supplies of water inside and outside of the steam generator tubes never mix. The Replacement Steam Generators Exelon Nuclear entered into a contract with AREVA NP Inc., to design and build TMI's replacement steam generators. The cost of replacing TMI Unit 1's steam generators is a $300 million investment into the plant. The replacement steam generators will have numerous material and design enhancements compared to the original steam generators, such as Alloy 690 tubing for reliability and longevity, use of forgings to minimize pressure vessel welds, and improved access for inspections. The new steam generators are scheduled to arrive at Three Mile Island in fall 2009. Click here to visit AREVA's web page about the shipment of the steam generators to Three Mile Island. The steam generators will be installed during TMI Unit 1's refueling outage in the fall of 2009. For more information about the steam generator replacement project, click here to access the steam generator fact sheet. Also, you can read through the Three Mile Island community newsletter that was mailed to nearby residents in August 2009.

www.threemileislandinfo.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Climategate: Revolt of the Physicists



Climate science seemed settled in the 1990s. The only theory around was that the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases was causing the increase in world temperatures. But then physicists got involved. My guess is that the average physicist has an IQ of somewhere between 150 and 200. The progress that they have been making is incredible.

If you have a scientific background and you still believe in man-made global warming, get out a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, or a glass of brandy, whatever helps you think best, and watch the following lecture from the Cern, one of Europe's most highly respected centers for scientific research:

the video is on the linked page



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mushibrain
 


Thank you for that video. It is VERY englightening. Starred!
For those that don't wish to view the entire 68 minutes, let me post the synopsis which comes with the video post:



This lecture by Jasper Kirkby reviews the recent research that physicists have been conducting into climate change. Physicists have discovered that changes in the rate of cosmic ray inflow cause climate change and that solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays. They haven't completely worked out the mechanism yet, but they think it has to do with cosmic rays causing cloud formation and clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.

When Kirkby gets to the screen showing Galactic Modulation of Climate over the last 500 million years and the cosmic ray variation that explains it, take a close look at the line that plots CO2 over the same period. Note that that line doesn't correspond at all to the temperature periodicity evident in the temperature data. Also listen when Kirkby points out that CO2 concentrations used to be 10 times higher than they are today.

And don't miss the most chilling (literally) prediction of all based on a careful study of sunspot intensity. This prediction was originally submitted and rejected for publication in 2005 (Sunspots May Vanish by 2015), but has been coming true ever since. The earth appears to be headed toward a period of dramatic cooling, at present, due to reduced solar activity.

Meanwhile, clueless world leaders will be meeting at a UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen December 7-18 in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions in order to slow global warming.

seekingalpha.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I disagree wholeheartedly but refuse to be drawn into this argument which in my pitiful little mind is already settled.

Cheers.
Debate and debate until the cows come home, (got a feeling they ain't coming back but) by all means debate and debate until like China we can't hold the Olympics unless all the visitors and athletes wear particle masks...
How long do you give it before that... is us?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
I disagree wholeheartedly but refuse to be drawn into this argument which in my pitiful little mind is already settled.

Cheers.
Debate and debate until the cows come home, (got a feeling they ain't coming back but) by all means debate and debate until like China we can't hold the Olympics unless all the visitors and athletes wear particle masks...
How long do you give it before that... is us?

Ah, but you see I agree with you on some of the aspects. I too don't want to breathe gasoline and get a nice cancerous tumor in kidneys. Let's ban cars for this reason and not for CO2 emission - at least reasons behind the ban will be more scientific based.

You see CO2 does not equal pollution. I guess you can call anything pollution in the same way you can call anything rubbish. What's rubbish for some could be asset for others.

The legal definition of pollution goes something like this:
The discharge of a toxic or contaminating substance that is likely to have an adverse effect on the natural environment or life.

Definition of toxic goes something like this:
A Toxic substance is one that is capable of causing injury or damage to a living organism.

You see, CO2 does not fall into toxic category and thus doesn't fall into pollution category. You, of course can argue that, pollution is whatever is harmful to living organisms, then oxygen should be in the same category. One can only speculate why all the shouting and taxes is not about toxic contamination of air, food and water but about the very building blocks of life.

Anyway, this thread is about lies in science.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus


This lecture by Jasper Kirkby reviews the recent research that physicists have been conducting into climate change. Physicists have discovered that changes in the rate of cosmic ray inflow cause climate change and that solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays. They haven't completely worked out the mechanism yet, but they think it has to do with cosmic rays causing cloud formation and clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.


Quite possibly true. But that says little about the causes of current climate change. Indeed, the data says otherwise:

Clouds vs. Cosmic rays



Laut 2003


GISS data vs. cloudiness




ISCCP data

Cosmic rays vs. Temps



The Laut paper is worth a read, shows the repeated data boo-boos that appear to follow Svensmark around.

Have fun!

[edit on 15-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 





by all means debate and debate until like China we can't hold the Olympics unless all the visitors and athletes wear particle masks... How long do you give it before that... is us?

I don't see anyone on EITHER side of the AGW being pro-pollution. Please do not confuse the two issues. CO2 is not a pollutant, but a necessary element for the survival of life on earth. Furthermore, the people that I know who have doubts about AGW, all agree that we should try to decrease fossil fuels, while increasing the use of green technologies.
Claiming that people that do not support AGW are for pollution, or are not concerned about it, is disingenuous.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
It should be noted that an increase in CO2 will actually BENEFIT life on Earth. There was a little reported report that said that the warming we are supposed to be experiencing in the future would actually be GOOD as it would result in fewer deaths per year due to hypothermia, and that older people would benefit too.

You will note that the emphasis is always on only the BAD side of CC, and none of the positives, such as cold regions becoming warm enough to grow crops, better yields through increased CO2 aidfing plants to thrive, the area of land that becomes more hospitable to life increases as the colder regions (especially in Russia) are warmer, etc..

What it requires is for people in Africa and India to stop moaning and start moving north. Overall the planet will benefit, and there will be more room and more crops to feed the world. The UK does not need to grow those damn GM crops - nature will let them grow elsewhere perfectly fine.

I keep asking what is it are they distracting us from whilst they continue with this farce?

[edit on 15-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 

I agree with most of your post. The down side, of course, is that if sea levels rise, due to GW, if it exists, much of the East Coast of the US would be under water.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'm trying to find the actual data, but apparently NASA released a paper earlier this year (the last couple of months or so) that said that even if sea level rose 300 ft, only 5% or so of the total land mass would be under water, and 96% of that land would be coastal, with the sea extending inland no more than 2 miles.

...and that assumed a 300 ft rise - not a 4 ft rise.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Trust me it's getting hotter....

Uzbeckistan –
Gateway to hell Giant burning pit, geological formation/oddity www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 

Nah, I think Al Gore just exhaled, and the hot air lit that fire.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Not sure this video was linked on in other posts but here it is:




new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join