danivon wrote:Fukushima is a potentially pivotal event for fission-based power. Platitudes on risk are not the same as thinking about it.

The Germans already had an exit plan from nuclear energy, however that was extended under the new conservative government, which now takes back that extension. 7 plants go off the grid for 3 month to reevaluate security and i'm pretty certain any measure that would put them back on the grid after that time would amount to political suicide.
Don't know what the reactions in France or GB are, but i expect that the old eastern block reactors will come under scrutiny and in the end pressure to shut down.
I really don't see how nuclear will bounce back from this.

hahaha, The warmists don't blame hot weather on global warming?
First, I'm not going to did through and find posts where it was done on Redscape, YES it was and we all know it was.

But to say it doesn't happen?
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=251
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... bal-6.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01489.html

so we can blame heat waves on Global warming, but cold waves can not be mentioned?
that would be blasphemy!

The risk was always there, the safe and reliable mantra was based on odds, Odds are that it is safe. Well, Japan just rolled snake eyes, the odds this would happen somewhere, some time just got very real. This is why I stated I was still on the wall over nuclear energy. I'm not so sure the risk is worth the reward nor am I sold on it being all that efficient.

tom

hahaha, The warmists don't blame hot weather on global warming?

Tom, I believe the point Danivon made was that you looked at your current weather event and offered it up as compelling evidence. Whereas the articles you linked to, did you retain anything from them?, all point to frequency of events and trends.... For instance in the third article...

While it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to climate change, several recent studies suggest that human-generated emissions of heat-trapping gases have produced both higher overall temperatures and greater weather variability, which raise the odds of longer, more intense heat waves.

You sure about that statement?
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cl ... 1ay75.html

And what of the frequency and of colder winters? We have had several years of record cold, but we can't mention global warming now can we? YOU can, just not me.

From your new linked story

AS AUSTRALIANS from both ends of the country were yesterday cleaning up after storms and floods, a British study has concluded for the first time that an extreme storm in that country is likely to have doubled in intensity due to human induced climate change

They refer to one study that "for the first time"....
I've yet to see that this is a trend by respected researchers as you claim.
You might also look to the line I quoted for the answer to

what of

.....?

have produced both higher overall temperatures and greater weather variability

Greater energy stored in the atmosphere creates greater variability within the atmosphere. Which will probably lead to more intense weather events. Wind being caused by the uneven heating and cooling of the earths surface....
By intense they mean hotter hot, cooler cold, windier and indeed , more violent.... wind events...
Not More of them. Just more extreme than we've been accustomed to experience.
But we've been through this a number of times havn't we.?

Nice, edit your post and take out the statement!

You said the warmists never linked a single weather event to global warming. Now you remove that as if you never said it and instead mention "for the first time"
uh-huh, editing your posts to try and cover your ass is a new low, and I'm supposed to reply to that?

and yes we have been through this before, your claims that "probably" this and that, I'm still waiting for these more violent events. Sure, you can point to one or two violent events, but are they "more" violent than before?
...still waiting. and when we have one you will be sure to jump all over it I'm sure. But how many more intense events have we had since this global warming fiasco has been all the rage? It's the same as before isn't it?

Now you remove that as if you never said it and instead mention "for the first time"

I'm quoting from the article you linked to doofus. Take your time and actually read...

And you may be waiting... But most observors have already noted increases. In 2008 the Australian Parliament reported:
The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, particularly over eastern parts of North and South America, in northern Europe, and northern and central Asia. The Rhine floods of 1996 and 1997, the Chinese floods of 1998, the East European floods of 1998 and 2002, the Mozambique and European floods of 2000, and the monsoon-based flooding of 2004 in Bangladesh (which left 60 per cent of the country under water), are examples of more powerful extreme events. There is also empirical evidence of more intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/clim ... xtreme.htm

Now, whether or not they directly attribute the recent heavy rains and flooding in Queensland already - or whether they are waiting till they have historical perspective ...I haven't seen. But I'd suspect the latter.

no, read carefully
You had posted (and later edited out) the global warming proponents NEVER link individual weather events to global warming. I did a really quick search and lookee there, they DO link individual events, first time or not, they most certainly do.

Your edit taking out your assertion is childish, live with what you stated and don't try to cover your mistakes like a coward.

You also point to individual events, just as I said you would and could do. But can I point to events 100+ years ago just as bad? Most certainly!
The alarmists are telling us things are going to get more intense, after Katrina we were told it was because of global warming and things would get worse, more and more violent hurricanes. How did that pan out? Some fairly normal years over and over. Sure, we could get another Katrina and WILL eventually, but the claim it is happening, just wishful thinking and not supported with real facts. Your link says it appears to be the case and lists several things going on, the same sort of things that have been going on for thousands of years. No facts, simply some anecdotal "evidence" that I can just as easily list showing similar events throughout history, no proof, just a "it appears so"

GMTom wrote:hahaha, The warmists don't blame hot weather on global warming?
First, I'm not going to did through and find posts where it was done on Redscape, YES it was and we all know it was.

Without going through the bother of checking, all you have is assertion. I do not believe that it has happened anywhere near as much as the opposite.

But to say it doesn't happen?

No, I said it didn't happen here, and asked you to find a single post. As it was your 'parody' was a drive-by. Odd how you have the time to scan other sites but not the one you are a moderator for.

tom

You also point to individual events, just as I said you would and could do.

First, again I'm quoting someone...in this case the Australian APrliament.
Second, they aren't pointing to individual events.
They are pointing at the "frequency" of extreme events.
Do you understand the word frequency?

He doesn't get the difference between comparing two ten-year averages and a linear trend over 7 years, so I'm not confident that he does, tbh.

Do YOU get the idea "dufus" your charming word of endearment?
Lets cover it for you
Your quote:

By intense they mean hotter hot, cooler cold, windier and indeed , more violent.... wind events...
Not More of them. Just more extreme than we've been accustomed to experience.
But we've been through this a number of times havn't we.?

But now you claim:

Second, they aren't pointing to individual events.
They are pointing at the "frequency" of extreme events.

Do YOU understand an increase in frequency is more?

and further
Have you pointed out how they are indeed more frequent OR more violent?
No, you pointed to a few examples, same as always. The problem is, the frequency has not increased as promised, the violence of them has not increased as promised. It's the same as it has been, yes we get an occasional event and we get an occasional extreme event. Just as always, pointing to an example of something that has always happened is hardly "proof" It's really no different than me pointing to a cold day and calling that proof the world is cooling,. Your "facts" are lacking.

might be interesting as we have touched on nuclear power here recently

http://www.thoriumsingapore.com/content ... &Itemid=37

Sure looks awesome enough, is this already in use anywhere or just theoretical to date?