harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:
On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
Jo wrote:
...
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?
What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.
It all sounds scarily like Drivel.
He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and...
His English is bad but he has a valid point.
My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t...
Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean
temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current
imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was
equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
days per year.
JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.
--
jo
"Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership
or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.
I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.
wel it is of course mucgh morte ceondomc thahn reneables and much safer
Nothing is renewable however, not even renewable energy so called.
And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining
Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.
nor is mining the stuff that goes in solar planets and wind turbines
harry, but you need a lot less uranium than either of those.
--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.