<Policies to Develop a Low Emissions Transport Sector in Australia The Oil Drum Last Week's EIA Conference>
<DrumBeat: April 17, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: April 19, 2008>

194 comments on DrumBeat: April 18, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Leanan on April 18, 2008 - 9:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Is that this stuff?

Next-generation nuclear fuel may be too hot to handle: report

PARIS (AFP) - New high-efficiency nuclear fuel meant to burn longer and stronger may prove unstable in an emergency and hard to dispose of, according experts cited in a report published Wednesday.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DaveMart on April 18, 2008 - 10:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nope. The link you quote refers to fuel to use in present boiling water reactors and pressurised reactors.

The fuel in the link antidoomer quotes is for advanced gas cooled reactors, and the source appears inaccurate as in the body of the text it talks about multiplying the burn from 3% to 9%, an increase of 300%, not the 900% quoted in the headline.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
folsomman on April 18, 2008 - 12:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually, going from 3 to 9 would be an increase of 200%.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dtbks on April 18, 2008 - 1:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thank god, someone can do basic arithmetic. *whew*

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DaveMart on April 18, 2008 - 2:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yeah, I should have written 'an increase to 300% from the original base figure' but figured that anyone of normal intelligence would be able to follow, so did not bother re-writing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gwydion on April 18, 2008 - 3:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I've always wondered why it is that going from 3% to 9% wouldn't be an increase of 6% (9-3=6). It seems that when you quote the 300% figure, you're talking about the percent that a percent is changing, but that ought to be a per-decimil rather than per-cent, but people never agree with me on that.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Berserk on April 18, 2008 - 3:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's where percentage points come in.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on April 18, 2008 - 4:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

hell yes, it 6%, but 200% of 3%(thats %%, or %^2)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on April 18, 2008 - 2:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

surely 3*3 = 9 = 300%

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MacDuff on April 18, 2008 - 3:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think I understand your lack of understanding of AGW a bit better now....

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on April 18, 2008 - 5:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Of course, AGW stopped around the turn of the millenium. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion?articleid=3975938

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
martinw on April 18, 2008 - 5:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

When your appeal to authority is an article by a British ex-government minister from the Thatcher era, you must be getting desperate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on April 18, 2008 - 7:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No, but it annoys the green nazi's, which is the important thing. Will global warming resume again or not? If not there will be some red faces around.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
karlof1 on April 18, 2008 - 8:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You're approaching the league of jbunt, that of nincompoop. This last March was the warmest on record over world land surfaces and "second warmest overall worldwide."

Ta.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on April 19, 2008 - 7:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Check this out, genius:

Sea Ice Index

For something more you denialists' cherry picker style:

Last month was the warmest March on record over land surfaces of the world and the second warmest overall worldwide.

And here's the clincher. Pay special attention top Fig. 5. Everything and anything else you know about sea ice pales in comparison. It is *the* thing you need to understand.

Multi-year ice almost gone.

Parting shots: What do you *not* understand about trends?

What do you *not* understand about La Nina?

Who pays you to spout this crap when even G. Dumbya Bush admits AGW is real and lives in one of the Greenest homes you could hope to find, eh?

Now, crawl back to Exxon and tell them to kiss my arse.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on April 19, 2008 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The loss of sea ice last summer was funny, since 2007 was only the 8th warmest year on record. There were 7 warmer years but without the the massive loss of Summer ice cover. Some odd factor was at work. despite increasing emissions the annual temperature trend seems to have stabalised. Whether it will stay so remains to be seen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
martinw on April 19, 2008 - 7:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What's funny is using inaccurate data to draw inaccurate conclusions. 2007 was the 8th warmest year on record - in the US. Worldwide it was the equal second warmest year on record. And more importantly, when analyzed by region, warming was particularly strong in the Artic:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.
[...]
The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MacDuff on April 18, 2008 - 9:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

right, which is why March was the warmest worldwide on record...

between not being able to do the math, trusting sources who are not experts in the field and believing in mythical creatures called Green Nazis - I'm very not surprised that you don't understand AGW

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on April 19, 2008 - 7:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

2nd, actually. #1 over land.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DaveMart on April 18, 2008 - 3:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, I expressed it in terms of 300% to try to retain the original articles format, where they obviously got confused about the rise up to 9% burn-up and said 900%.
I wrote rather sloppily though and should have said that the new burn up figure of 9% was 300% of the original figure, not an increase of 300% as I said.
It seems to have upset the pedants. although since I gave the 3% and 9% figures the meaning should have been perfectly clear.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on April 18, 2008 - 5:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

9 fold would be 300% of the original, but an increase of 300% would be 100% + 300%, 400%, so 4*3=12

Its just games with the word 'increase'

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

194 comments on DrumBeat: April 18, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version