Not THE answer but a possible answer among many

nuclear plant by Rodrigo_Soldon

Is Thorium an Answer to Global Warming?
[Via Mike the Mad Biologist]

It’s always seemed to me that nuclear power would have to be part of the solution of the global warming problem: even if the planet’s population were to remain constant, and even if planet-wide energy use were to remain steady, we would still have to dramatically cut CO2 per capita emissions. The problem with nuclear power–or more accurately, uranium-based nuclear power–is the waste product. Not only is radioactive waste produced, but the byproducts of the reaction can be used to build nuclear weapons. So I was very intrigued by this Wired article about thorium-based nuclear power:

[More]

Atomic reactors may be a very important part of our energy picture but we have to start doing that intelligently. Thorium fuel supplies will last much longer than current fuels and leave less waste.

Newer designs are also important. I’m partial to Pebble Bed reactors.They do not need to huge amount of water needed for cooling and are run at high temperatures, so they could actually drive a turbine directly rather than converting the energy into steam to drive the turbine. In fact, the heat exchange takes place in an inert gas such as helium. They can be much more efficient than pants using water.

Unfortunately, it will be other countries that drive this innovation. We are perfectly happy to try and use our dirty coal reserves long before we examine nuclear. Blasting a mountaintop requires little of the innovation needed to commercialize nuclear.

Corn’s effect on our climate

sprinklers by benketaro

(UPDATED*) Science News: Cooler in corn country lately? Maybe it’s the corn farmers’ doing.
[ViaKnight Science Journalism Tracker ]

Science News’s Sid Perkins came up with an unusual item at the meeting of the American Meteorological Society last week – a climate change story that’s has little to do with greenhouse gases. But it’s still our fault, or maybe to our credit. Researchers presented two studies that see a link between crop irrigation in the American midwest and cooler, wetter summers in recent years. Good, interesting story that nobody else seems to have had.

The researchers say a rising crop of thirsty corn, soya, and other plants in the region – which naturally transpire right into the air most of the water they get via sprinkler, dripper, and furrow – could be shifting the weather. Perkins also gets from the scientists a rather eye-popping number: during the last century irrigation wells pulled more than 300 cubic kilometers of aquifer into the air. (Actually, the story reports it as more than 333 cubic km. One wonders what kind of unit conversion produced such a precise number.)

[More]

I always have to be careful when reading something like this without any links back to the original research. The media, particularly when it comes to climate change, seems to be warping a lot of the news recently, with outright misquotes in the stories (or possibly just putting quotation marks around the reporter’s assertion).

But this sounds very intriguing and worthy of further digging. One thing is that humid air, which heats more slowly, also releases its heat more slowly. So, has there been a corresponding increase in the nightly lows seen in these areas. If it is the water in the air, then there should also be slower nighttime cooling.

Also, water is even a greater greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The water cycle has been pretty much at equilibrium for a long, long time. But we are taking water from under the ground and injecting it back into the air, mush like we are taking long buried carbon and injecting it back into the air.

We are doing enough of this with carbon dioxide to already see disturbances in the climate. Are we doing something similar with water – disrupting the equilibrium enough to alter the climate? I think I will do some digging.

I agree

thumbs up by striatic

Richard Somerville: A Response to Climate Change Denialism
[Via ClimateScienceWatch]

Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued a statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists. “Science…does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet,“ he says. “The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.” See Details for full text and related links.

[More]

Pretty much everything he writes is correct. And I expect it will; have absolutely no effect on denialists. Creationist have been provided the same sorts of points and have not seen reason.

I expect climate change denialists to be similar. I guess that is happens when people talk about things they fail to understand.

ARkStorms to think about

Preparing For Frankenstorms: “The most powerful low pressure system in 140 years of record keeping” slams the Southwest.

[Via Climate Progress]

This is a guest repost from Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson. I may need to add a new category — uber-extreme weather. The anti-science crowd has been strangely silent about this uber-storm, though they love to tout cold snaps as evidence of nonexistent global cooling (see “Disinformers to media: Please make case for something that isn’t true using data we don’t believe“). For more on the records set by this story, see Capital Climate’s “Strong Pacific Coast Storm Breaks Rainfall, Low Pressure Records.”

California Winter Storm 2010The “strongest winter storm in at least 140 years,” swept through the Southwestern United States last week, “bringing deadly flooding, tornadoes, hail, hurricane force winds, and blizzard conditions.” Rain dumped on Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix, as mountains received up to four feet of snow. Wind gusts exceeding 90 miles per hour, tornadoes, and water spouts spun off the monster storm. Over 159,000 people lost power in the storm’s wake. Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters wrote on Friday that the storm was “truly epic”:

We expect to get powerful winter storms affecting the Southwest U.S. during strong El Niño events, but yesterday’s storm was truly epic in its size and intensity. The storm set all-time low pressure records over roughly 10 – 15% of the U.S.–over southern Oregon, and most of California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.

California has been pounded by a series of winter storms and rains,” said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during a news conference in Los Angeles. “The storms brought wind gusts of up to 80 miles [an hour] across the mountains and the canyons, major highways and roads were closed, flights have been grounded, thousands of homes and businesses lost power, more than 2,100 homes were evacuated. Sadly and unfortunately, some people lost their lives.”

[More]

One of the most powerful storms recorded since the tremendous storms seen 140 years ago (Check out the CIMSS Satellite Blog for some great pictures from space]. These are the lowest pressures ever seen in most of this area. This is more than just once in a lifetime. This was quite an extreme weather event.

The worry is that California could be hit by a similar sort of storm series seen in 1869.

Beginning on Christmas Eve, 1861, and continuing into early 1862, an extreme series of storms lasting 45 days struck California. The storms caused severe flooding, turning the Sacramento Valley into an inland sea, forcing the State Capital to be moved from Sacramento to San Francisco for a time, and requiring Governor Leland Stanford to take a rowboat to his inauguration. William Brewer, author of “Up and down California,” wrote on January 19, 1862, “The great central valley of the state is under water—the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys—a region 250 to 300 miles long and an average of at least twenty miles wide, or probably three to three and a half millions of acres!” In southern California lakes were formed in the Mojave Desert and the Los Angeles Basin. The Santa Ana River tripled its highest-ever estimated discharge, cutting arroyos into the southern California landscape and obliterating the ironically named Agua Mansa (Smooth Water), then the largest community between New Mexico and Los Angeles. The storms wiped out nearly a third of the taxable land in California, leaving the State bankrupt.

The 1861-62 series of storms were probably the largest and longest California storms on record. However, geological evidence suggests that earlier, prehistoric floods were likely even bigger. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that such extreme storms could not happen again. However, despite the historical and prehistorical evidence for extreme winter storms on the West Coast, the potential for these extreme events has not attracted public concern, as have hurricanes. The storms of 1861-62 happened long before living memory, and the hazards associated with such extreme winter storms have not tested modern infrastructure nor the preparedness of the emergency management community.

The area has had lots of planning dealing with earthquakes but not for another series of storms like this. They refer to this as an Atmospheric River storm with a value of 1000, where copious amounts of water from the tropics is translocated to California. We are talking about 8 feet of rain in the Central Valley.

The term atmospheric river is really quite visual. Here is a nice picture from one in 2004

atmospheric river (from NOAA).

You can see the nice finger that reaches out to the West Coast. When the moisture hits the mountains, huge amounts of rain fall. The unstable air produces what looks very much like a hurricane, although the actual physical causes are different.

But the latest AR storm California is dealing with follows another one from October, where 21 inches of rain fell in 24 hours as Big Sur was whipped by hurricane force winds.

This not just a California phenomenon. The picture below demonstrates an atmospheric river hitting the Pacific NW. If we had 8 feet of rain in 40 days, I think most of us would be washed to the sea. Just an inch or two produces large amounts of flooding. Our valleys are not as huge as California’s is.

201001261359.jpg

Of course, we heard all about the cold on the East Coast but what about all the water and storms on the West Coast?

[Listening to: Spanish Fly from the album "Van Halen II" by Van Halen]

And hilarity ensued

Blu-ray Maker Re-Boxes $500 Player, Charges $3,500 | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

[Via Gadget Lab]

Blu-ray Maker Re-Boxes $500 Player, Charges $3,500

* By Charlie Sorrel Email Author
* January 22, 2010 |
* 7:14 am |
201001261059.jpg

blu-vs-blu

Above you see two Blu-ray players. On the bottom is the Oppo BDP-83, a $500 machine. On top is the Lexicon BD-30, which will set you back $3,500. Can you spot the difference, apart from the price?

It’s a trick question. There is no difference, at least not on the inside. In a daring matryoshka-like move, it appears that Lexicon simply bought a batch of Oppos and put them in new cases. Lest you think we are being picky here, or that Lexicon somehow took the guts of the Oppo and redesigned the surrounding circuitry, let us clarify. If you open up the $3,500 Lexicon, you will find an entire Oppo Blu-ray player inside, intact, with its original chassis.

[More]

This is really funny. A $500 machine is simply repacked, without any changes, in a new exterior. Only now it is worth $3500! There are no difference in the specs and testing shows no differences in video or audio.

And they did not even move the compnent pats around. They took the chassis of the cheaper model and essentially bolted inside a new case cutting holes in the new case to fit the cheaper chassis. No other apparent changes in the hardware.

Nice work if you can get it. Apparently the $3500 player is sold to a different market than the $500. Yeah. People who have more money than they know what to do with and who do not mind getting shafted by a designer label. Barnam was right (Although it appears that only suckers think he really said the phrase attributed to him.)

What is even more amusing is that a high end site reviewed the $3500 machine and described just how wonderful it was. The comments make for some interesting reading as they ask the authors for specific things that are different between the two units, that have nothing but cosmetic differences

Somehow, jacking up the price seven-fold on an item solely to sell it to suckers seems to quintessentially American.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 183 other followers