Slashdot Mirror

Hmm, I was aware of the LLNL port, but didn't know about KQ.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_linux_coming&num=1

While digging deeper, it seems KQ has been bought out and their work stopped:
http://punetech.com/solid-state-storage-company-stec-acquires-punes-kq-infotech/
http://www.osnews.com/comments/24853?view=threaded&sort=&threshold=0

Okay, so the closest thing I can find is this:
http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/wp-content/events/lug2011/4-13-2011/1130-1200_Brian_Benhlendorf_LUG11_ZFS_on_Linux_for_Lustre.pdf

It actually sounds to me more that Sun worked on porting Lustre to integrate ZFS as a backend, not that Sun worked on porting ZFS to Linux?

You can see such a dip in the first graphic associated with this paper:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html

The cluster you use doesn't have to be in the University the research group is housed in. Many clusters are available to researchers worldwide; you just upload your data/code to a processing queue and it gets run. You can remote-login to monitor the status, restart jobs, etc. You have quite a bit of control.

In fact, if the research in question is "high quality" and not proprietary then you can get access to various clusters for FREE. It's hard to beat free in terms of bang/buck. For instance, the US Department of Energy runs various computer clusters within "user facilities" (other funding agencies in US, Europe and elsewhere have similar programs). What this means is that you submit a proposal/request where you describe the research you're doing and what kind of resource you need (in this case, routine access to a computer cluster). If the proposal is highly rated (externally peer reviewed) then you're allocated access for free. In addition to getting access to the cluster itself, you get "access" to the experts who run the cluster--their expertise in optimizing and parallelizing code is extremely valuable.

I understand that having immediate access to computing power is useful. But if you're on a shoestring budget then something's gotta give, and using pre-existing clusters is a very efficient way to spend money. In the case of user clusters, if you can get free access then you can use a mixture of a smallish in-lab cluster and occasional access to the large-scale cluster. This is so easy to do (and did I mention free?), there's almost no reason not to try. (Yes, the DoE accepts proposals internationally, so there's no problem there.)

Disclosure: I work for the DoE, so I guess I'm biased. Here are some links that might help:
http://www.bnl.gov/cfn/facilities/Theory_and_Computation.asp
http://computing.ornl.gov/
http://www.alcf.anl.gov/

we've got a pretty good handle on how to measure average CO2 levels in the air (it doesn't vary that much within the atmosphere, like cloud cover or humidity), but temperature? Turtles all the way down.

You sure wish you were right, so tough luck: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf - and don't forget: temperature begins at absolute zero, not some artificial "practical" limit.

What will having your genome sequenced actually do for you, today, right now? Why should I pay $1k or even $50k for something like this?

Virtually nothing. There have been several companies that have tried to cash in on the 'personal genomics' craze (23andMe comes to mind) that actually didn't do a whole sequence, just SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms) that purported to help you determine your risk of various diseases. Except that they found precious few diseases that had clear links to SNPs. Whole genome sequencing will be even harder to figure out.

So other than bragging rights, it does you little good. For research purposes, getting fast, accurate (and see the AC's post above concerning the Sanger Method and accuracy) and cheap sequences will be very useful. For personal use, not so much.

Not only that, but in the US coal plants release more radioactive isotopes (mostly thorium and uranium) then are CONTAINED in all the nuclear plants.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

That data is old but as the US nuclear power industry has been stagnant for about 30 years due to fear-mongering, and the coal industry isn't a great innovator, it is still pretty accurate. Does anyone think a nuclear plant would get away with releasing over 5 tons of uranium a year into the air? The average coal plant does.

Here in Australia the government is still suppressing a report that investigated lung disease vs proximity to coal power plants.

P.S. I enjoy telling my "No nukes!" hippie mother that she and her friends are responsible for tens of thousands of cancer deaths.

"The decay heat, which is 7% of 1000 MW"

IIRC, the reactors were 1000MW *electrical* output. Because of thermal efficiencies of steam generators of around 35%, I believe that means the thermal output of each reactor would have been about 1000/.35 ~= 2800 MW thermal energy.

So, instead of 7% of 1000MW = 70MW, I think you're looking at 7% of 2800 = 196MW.

That's a LOT of heat to get rid of, even if it is a small percentage of the 2800MW full output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant shows the plant #2 at 784MW for electrical power out.

Assuming 30% thermal efficiency (35% seems high for a 1973 reactor, but I am guessing honestly), then the full thermal load would be ~2600 MW. 7% of that would be 183MW. So, you aren't too far off.

Not sure what the water volume of the reactor would be, but if you ever have a hard time falling asleep the NRC has the standards for a BWR/4 reactor (plant #2) at this site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1433/r3/v1/sr1433r3v1.pdf Note that page 1.1-5 talks about the RTP (Rated Thermal Power) of the heat transfer of the core to the coolant being 2436MW. Admittedly this is a US document but GE (the reactor designer) has usually made a point to support customer upgrades to US-NRC standards.

then you could figure the boil off rate assuming the 7% was unchanging (which it isn't, right off hand I don't recall the reported decay rate of that level). Truth is, 12 days later this won't even be close to 7% thermal load. 12 days later put the amount of Iodine through about 1.5 half lives so there would be much less Iodine left. Obviously other decay product would be on their own schedule. So, one might argue that the measurements show a restart, but if there was one, it is highly likely that it was a small localized one.

The physical laws do not lie or change, but I and others have been known to make errors in measurements and observations.

aside from this speculation of what went on based on the measurements they claim to have made.....

I find all this discusion about oceanic releases interesting since there are 5 USSR nuclear subs (3 of which had 2 reactors each), 2 US subs (with one 5SW reactor each) and one of the original 3 cores of the Lenin nuclear ice breaker all sunk in the ocean. Many of these 11 sunken reactors are in the Atlantic some up north nearer Russia, partially spent fuel and all.

Due to the US Department Of Defense plutonium breeding activities at the Hanford Nuclear Facilities many millions of curies were released into the Columbia River by primary coolant water used in the reactors there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/River+Releases%2C+Columbia+River

then there is the release made by coal plants which according to this article is quite significant. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html It makes an interesting point that the coal plants in the world release more uranium in their wastes than "...dozens of nuclear reactor fuel loadings...".

I respect the need for environmental controls, but I get annoyed by much of the 'sky is falling' 'the world is ending' mentality that seems to underlie much of popular news on this issue in general. Much of the science can be measured and thought about rationally. I appreciate the intention of this thread to actually put numbers to their discussion.

Radiation released by coal, of course, is harmless and does not elevate cancer risks, right? Has only a short half life, does it? Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

There IS NO radiological problem of coal ash.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory disagrees.

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:
        U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
        Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
        Thorium: 357,491 tons

        Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
        Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
        Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

In other words... by 2040, coal will have released several million times more radioactive material into the environment than all the worlds nuclear reactors, disasters, and bomb tests combined.

Jesus, how often does this prop up again? There IS NO radiological problem of coal ash. It generally gets used as additive for concrete and in road construction, at least around here. If a batch is deemed contaminated - usually by heavy metals from certain coal sources - it is used as filler and construction material in mines below the water table. I'll give you the point on CO2, though - that is indeed an unaccounted for externality.

There is a radiological problem with coal ash. Coal typically contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. They are at the part per million level. Which may not sound like much, but since a typical coal fired power plant goes trough millions of tons of coal a year, that turns into many tons of uranium and thorium, and most of it goes up the smoke stack. It adds up to way more than all nuclear power plants combined (including Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI).

See here: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year.

We have a few reactors here in the U.S. that are obviously being ran "on the cheap"

Of course they're being run "on the cheap" nobody has let them build a new plant since the 80's.

It's hard to find any profit in something that takes 30 years to get permission to build... then another 10-15 years arguing with NIMBY-ers and other eco-crazies before you can even break ground.
Even after you start building there's a chance some up-and-coming senator or governor will decide to do something "for the kids" and "get tough" on nuclear safety, effectively killing the project.

You'd have to be crazy to try to build and/or operate a nuclear plant in the U.S.

Of course, the burning of Coal has released thousands of times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than all the nuclear reactors and accidents combined -- and yet, somehow nuclear plants are the big "boogie man" topic.

Nuclear is the only chance we have to provide the power we're going to need for the next 50+ years (or whenever fusion comes along).

and you end up with a disaster that affects the entire world

I don't think you can defend this statement, unless you are talking about induced fear and panic. The people who do follow-up studies on Chernobyl and Hiroshima find no increased cancer-related deaths. Depending upon the disaster type, you may or may not have long-term localized effects on the environment, but non-local effects do not seem to exist.

I'm not sure I'd want even relatively low-level radioactive materials being spread about a city in such vast numbers and being accessible to so many people.

Then close up the coal plants because they put out a lot more radiation than anything else.

Naturally they are err-ing on the safe side. The restrictions placed on exposure are no where near the fatality rate. Light radiation sickness begins at about 50â"100 rad (0.5â"1 gray (Gy), 0.5â"1 Sv, 50â"100 rem, 50,000â"100,000 mrem). High fatality rates occur at ~400 rems.* The EPA sets a 25 to 75 rad restriction on workers involved in emergencies (such as these). They do not want to go past light radiation sickness. The plants did spike to a rather high amount on the initial day (~700 mrem). However, that has come down extremely quickly. This morning it was measured at 75mrems just outside the front gate. Used fuel storage typically emits 2mrems per hour. While the lack of water is a concern, it is not nearly as bad as the claims make. The average dose on workers has been high enough to push them into the EPA restrictions, the public dose has been significantly smaller. While it is cause for concern, it really isn't that bad. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/factsheet/faq---japanese-nuclear-energy-situation/ * http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf

CO2: no.
Coal: yes.

The burning of Coal has released more radioactivity into the atmosphere than all the world's nuclear plants combined. And several million times more than Chernobyl.

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:

U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

source

You may think the risk is manageable, but a chernobyl event in the ranch land would destroy cattle ranches (and some of the best beef in the world) for 30yrs. That risk is too high.

Congrats on missing the entire "Gen1" part of the GP's argument.

Modern reactor designs CANNOT have a Chernobyl-type event.

But hey, it's not like coal-fired plants generate more radiation and spread it over a larger area than all the nuclear disasters combined.

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:

U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

- source

Those same concerns apply to fossil fuels.

Where does all the Uranium come from? It could come from the Coal power plants if they bothered to filter the stuff instead of just discharging it into the atmosphere.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

The problem with coal is that even Western countries, like Australia where I live, are quite happy to put both mines and power plants near population centres because people don't realise how fucking bad the stuff is (the Australian government is currently trying to suppress a report showing the correlation by distance of asthma to coal plants).

However the hippies in the 70's and 80's scared people so bad with anti-nuclear propaganda that the Uranium mines are located in the middle of the desert. And people keep wanting to shut down Australia's only research and medical isotope producing reactor (and the morons say we should just import isotopes, because obviously flying in short lived medical isotopes is both cheaper and safer then producing it where it is going to be used).

Not sure how this research is wasting food.

Here's the actual press release, and far better written than the article.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20110203-00

Here's the more detailed press release. They're using proteins extracted from spinach and they plan to eventually produce them synthetically. The spinach doesn't directly produce the hydrogen.

A thorium reactor does not require the expensive hard-to-make enriched uranium fuel rods that conventional pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors do.

No, it requires special alloys for piping the molten salt (fluorides are still corrosive), may require replacing the graphite moderator every 4 years (keep in mind not to allow moisture to come in contact with the salt, HF is nasty for your pipes no matter what material you'd be using), raises challenges in regards with by-product processing. citation if one needs it.

These guys (which played with MSR since '50-es) are saying, while the reactor accident risks are decreased, the processing accident risks are increased (see page 13-15).

Where's USAID in Chechnya?

Providing support for the IRC to help farmers, small businesses, and vocational training?

Where's USAID for Palestine (oops, sorry, the "Israeli Palestinian Occupied Territories")?

Funding improvements in infrastructure, schools, agriculture, hospitals, and water distribution in both Gaza and the West Bank?

where are the FUCKING WMDs THE US WENT TO WAR OVER IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE?

They weren't there. Even Bush admitted it -- several times. Or perhaps you missed out on that point?

I pointed out earlier in this thread that this has been studied by NREL.

http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf [ornl.gov]

They found a decrease in fuel economy of 3.68+/-0.44% at 95% confidence for E10, which is consistent with the ~3.5% decrease in energy density for the fuel.

Adjusting for fuels is relevant. If you get a less than 5% mileage drop using E10, this is to be expected, because there is less energy in the fuel. It's not because your car is using it poorly.

If they are mixing crappier gas with the ethanol because the mix allows them to meet the minimum octane rating, then this could easily explain a lower than expected mileage. If you are using 91 octane E10, your car might not even run on the gas the ethanol is mixed with. OTOH, if if the "100% gas" really is additive free, they might be mixing in isooctane, which would explain a higher than expected mileage. This is different than high-octane fuels, which don't actually contain extra octane.

Ethanol, as an additive, is something that most cars will benefit from, relative to the gas it is mixed with. It increases the octane rating and reduces direct emissions of pollutants. Currently, it replaces additives like MTBE (which in turn are what eventually replaced lead). I'm not sure if ethanol is better environmentally than MTBE, but I'm fairly sure it's better than lead additives. Isooctane might give you better mileage, but it also might increase carbon monoxide emissions relative to other additives.

I agree that there are downsides to using ethanol as an additive; the data just doesn't show that it reduces fuel economy itself.

I also agree that ethanol, as an alternative fuel given America's supply and technology is dumb. And there is certainly some political pressure to use more of it as an additive as a way to promote more use as an alternative fuel, and to subsidize the corn industry.

You mean someone who can get comparable mixes and run controlled tests... Like NREL?

http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

They found a decrease in fuel economy of 3.68+/-0.44% at 95% confidence for E10, which is consistent with the ~3.5% decrease in energy density for the fuel.

I would argue that their tests on 16 vehicles are much more reliable than comparing unknown amounts (only counted the number of miles to get near empty) of unknown fuels (one of which might have about 10% ethanol), in unknown driving conditions using one vehicle, even if it is just one study without peer review.

Now, there is certainly evidence that the manufacture of ethanol consumes as much or more fossil fuel than the energy content of the ethanol. But that's the cost (along with the resulting additional emissions) we should be comparing to the tailpipe emissions reductions from Ethanol blends.

Who is building all the new power generating plants we'll need when millions of drivers have electric cars? Now is the time to start. You can't build those plants overnight.

No one is, because no one needs to. Four big EV denier myths:

More electricity needed - debunked. Here's the link to the original Oak Ridge Nation Laboratory Report (currently down).

More global warming - not true. DOE estimates average of 1.3 lbs CO2 per kWh. Coal (the worst CO2 emitter) emits 2.1 lbs CO2 per kWh. Electric cars get between 4 and 10 miles per kWh. Worst case, that means 0.5 pounds of CO2 per mile. 1 gallon = 19.4 lbs of CO2. So, that's around 38 mpg CO2 emissions equivalent in the absolute worst case scenario. In the average case, we are looking at around 59.7 MPG. Diesel emits more CO2 than gasoline, by a factor of about 1.15. So, worst case is 43.7 MPG diesel, and average is 68.7 MPG diesel. These numbers are EPA testing of Tesla roadster and Rav4EV.

Rare lithium - peak lithium is a Li.

Toxic batteries - lithium-ion is largely non-toxic. Tesla was working on recycling before the cars even hit the streets. Lead acid (which is toxic) is 97% recycled.

So you're saying EPA lowballs these things?
Let's compare apples-to-apples.
The new car is a little less powerful and requires a little less (but not as much less as the drop in HP would suggest) fuel to operate. So, no, there's no improvement to date.
And the yet-to-be delivered car contains a lot of hype and promises severely lacking in credibility. Again, nothing new.

13 years after Nissan built my 200SX, we see Mazda produce a vehicle with about the same exterior dimensions (lxwxd is ~3% less) and a 13% smaller engine. (200SX is 4364x1692x1377mm, 115HP, vs Mazda2 at 3949x1694x1475mm , 100HP).

They get--using NEW EPA numbers and the NEW EPA 55/45 city/hwy spread...wait for it...about 7% better mileage. (200SX@29.5 vs Mazda2@31.7)

This is what 13 years of incremental improvement have achieved? 13% smaller engine for 7% improvement?
And Mazda wants me to believe that a shiny new EBCIDIC engine is going to deliver, in one shot, a 120% improvement? (from 31.7MPG USEPA to 70 MPG Japanese).
By taking the 70MPG(J) as 70MPG(USEPA) I'm erring on the conservative side. "Most vehicles will achieve higher fuel economy on the U.S. test cycle than on the European or Japanese cycles.". If Mazda is to be believed, USEPA will give them a rating above 70MPG.

So, I'll say it again--an idiot would believe their promise of 70MPG. If they get an EPA 50 MPG that would be wonderful.

To your point, if these people deliver 70 Japanese MPG, I should see at LEAST 85 they way I drive. While this would be consistent with the grandiose claims from Mazda (and their ilk), past experience suggests that I should wait and see.
And the same experience tells me what I'm likely to see is no significant improvement in efficiency or performance.

Diesel contains significantly more energy per gallon than gasoline

Nah, the fuels have roughly the same energy; the difference is that diesel engines typically operate at much higher compression ratios and so are more efficient.

Some numbers:

• Gasoline has a heating value of 32 MJ/L, neglecting condensation of exhaust (which I'll assume doesn't happen).
• Diesel has a heating value of 36.4 MJ/liter.

Source.

Both types of reactor produce less radioactive waste then coal, the current main source of electricity production. You also know exactly where the radioactivity is instead of just letting the wind blow it around.

But yeah, Thorium FTW.

I invite you to investigate Table 2-12 of the Dept of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book (chapter 2, page 14). An average intercity train - 23.7 passengers/car - achieves efficiency of 2398 BTU/passenger-mile. A "personal truck" - that's an SUV - gets 6699 BTU/vehicle-mile. Now, with only two occupants, that's about 3350 BTU/passenger-mile. Not so efficient around town. But with four people in it, it consumes 1674.75 BTU/passenger-mile. Achieving equivalent BTU/passenger-mile would require 40.7 passengers per train car. Now, where's your bullshit?

One gallon of gasoline has 115000 BTU of usable energy. One KWH has 3413 BTU of usable energy. Thus one gallon of gasoline has 33.69KWH of energy. Therefore the 56KWH battery pack has 1.6 gallons of gasoline and can push the vehicle at 60MPH for 248 miles. That means the two engine EV car gets 155 MPG. Oh damn you're right, who'd ever want to drive something that gets 155 MPG at highway speeds! What a worthless hunk of junk! I'd rather go drive in my gas powered car that gets 150mph on the highway ... oh wait, they don't make one of those.

Now tell me which car are you driving that gets you 248 miles on 3 gallons of gasoline. Because I want to buy one. That would mean my car could go more than 1500miles on a tank of gas. I know, I get about 300. Why I could go anywhere in the US one one tank of gas (18 US Gal), from where I live, for $48 in my car at $3/g ($72 @ $4), or on a trip to New Orleans and back (I spent $350 in gas on my last trip there).

This car's battery pack is equal to about 12 gallons of gas in my car. Sure there are cars out now that are about double what I get, making it about 6-8 gallons best case scenario for gas. Your 3 gallon estimate is just bunk.

Lastly, a full tank of gasoline is about 150-200 kilos. So you have some valid points. Batteries are definitely heaver and they don't weigh any less when discharged, not like an empty gas tank. However gasoline has greater volume than batteries, and gas engines also take up more volume. Also, the electric motors are about 500 kilos less in weight than gas engine. So they added weight in batteries and reduced weight in engine. This car as a gas powered with a full tank would be heavier than the electric version, and about the same empty. So this race car has room for two passengers, and not much else. A lot like a corvette. Sure they used a high tech frame and lightweight body, but they could have made a custom bodyshell that had room for cargo, like the corvette. The batteries are about 3x heavier than gas and of about equal volume.

My source on those energy numbers came from those dummies over at Oak Ridge so they probably haven't got a clue about energy.

A site that I have used to great effect is this: http://www.phy.ornl.gov/csep/CSEP/BMAP.html

However, most research and medical breakthroughs come from publicly funded money, research, and institutions. They only find their way into the corporate portfolio latter.

[citation needed]

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

Completed in 2003, the Human Genome Project (HGP) was a 13-year project coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health.

  Project goals were to

        * identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
        * determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
        * store this information in databases, ...

Is mankind causing this warming? There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.

What signs? The IPCC's signs? Those aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Climategate has proven conclusively that those people are working in an echo chamber. All they have are computer models loaded with junk data.

The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?"

As AC already pointed out, that presumes going 'carbon free' would change anything. It wouldn't make any difference at all. To suggest that it would based on 'the signs' is just evangelical preaching. According to the cult of climate change's own estimates, Man is adding 4-8 additional gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Yet, they can't even account for what happens to 3 gigatons of CO2 annually.

Furthermore, if we burned every single ounce of known fossil fuels on the planet tomorrow, that would approximately double the atmospheric CO2 to about 720ppm. During the Carboniferous period, this planet witnessed an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels on the order of 4200ppm. That is very strong evidence that CO2 is a bit player in the climate game.

Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.

And yet, they can provide no evidence that warming would be a bad thing. They are pretty empty handed when you ask for evidence of any sort. Here's a nice little factoid for the Cult of Climate Change: 70000 years ago, mankind nearly went extinct... DURING AN ICE AGE. Honestly, what do you think is going to be more hospitable to man? Icy barren tundra or lush tropical forests?

Seriously? CO2? They want to scare us into doing something good for the environment, and THAT is their boogeyman? They could've gone for the mercury in coal fired plant emissions that is poisoning our seafood in the pacific. They could have gone with the fact that coal emissions are radioactive as all fuck.

No, they go with the clear odorless gas that makes plants happy. What a bunch of complete fucking morons... and they couldn't even get that right. What happens to the planet when we RUN OUT of CO2? What happens when all the little phytoplankton have entombed our precious CO2 as limestone at the bottom of the ocean. We're DOOMED without it, and CO2 is at the lowest levels seen in hundreds of millions of years. We should be HAPPY it is rising.

I'm guessing you don't really want to see the data, and are just being disagreeable, but on the off chance you do, I'll point you to these posts of mine. I'm working on a PhD related to climate change and climate modeling. I've got a pretty good inside look at the process. It's a couple orders of magnitude more complicated than I had assumed going into it. Doom and Gloom? Only if you don't have insurance. If you have that, no worries. If you don't, you're in a fair bit of trouble in the next 50-100 years. Feel free to peruse, and ask me questions - I'll do what I can to answer.
 
  On Climate Models
  Who's screwed
  Why Data is hard to work with
  BATS oceanographic data
  NCAR Reanalysis data
  The LEDO data
 
There you have it - a brief explanation of climate science as I understand it, and links to some data.

Blacks do not have a higher tendency for sickle-cell anemia, a certain group of people in Africa do. Blacks in the US do not have that trait.

ORLY? The US Government says:

In the Unites States, it affects around 72,000 people, most of whose ancestors come from Africa. The disease occurs in about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every 1000 to 1400 Hispanic-American births. About 2 million Americans, or 1 in 12 African Americans, carry the sickle cell trait.

...making your closing amusingly ironic:

How much does it suck to be so wrong? Your cognitive dissonance must be at a record high.

> The genes aren't patentable.

Tell that to Monsanto. If the genes from their GE plants turn up in a farmer's soy crop, he's in for hell even if they just drifted over as pollen from neighboring fields.

In the United States, patents protect not just the device or technique, but also the product of it. Thus, those who patent techniques for isolating genes also have patent-protection for the genes, themselves. Patents do not ordinarily cover "products of nature," but when something exists in a lab in "purified" form, it's exempted from this limitation. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding a patented product produced by genetic manipulation so that you can introduce a completely unrelated topic.

Genes are not patentable. Products created through genetic manipulation are. Processes by which damaged genes can be identified are. Genes themselves are not.

> The genes aren't patentable.

Tell that to Monsanto. If the genes from their GE plants turn up in a farmer's soy crop, he's in for hell even if they just drifted over as pollen from neighboring fields.

In the United States, patents protect not just the device or technique, but also the product of it. Thus, those who patent techniques for isolating genes also have patent-protection for the genes, themselves. Patents do not ordinarily cover "products of nature," but when something exists in a lab in "purified" form, it's exempted from this limitation. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

Here's what Monsanto does with their patents:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-04.htm

Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company. Other countries have similar laws.

In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.

The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.

Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself.

"Monsanto should held legally responsible for the contamination," he said.

Another North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."

That increase is due to human combustion of hydrocarbons.

There's your problem. The last claim is NOT provably true.

Yes, it is.

"If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!"

Not from a satellites, but there are some maps. For example: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html

Note the complete lack of forests over most of NA about 15,000 years ago.

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

Not much forest under the ocean bits.

1. The data is from the NOAA, not the NASA.

2. The data is for the US land area, not the whole world.

3. Here is the paper listing and referencing the adjustments. Be the first to prove in detail how and why they are wrong to make and you'd be instantly famous.

A picture can lie a lot better than a thousand words. I see that picture popping up in the climate denialist literature all over the place, without most places referencing the paper it is taken from.

The paper actually contains information that explains what you're seeing on the picture. The adjustments made are detailed, compared and explained. The references for the expanded reasoning can be followed.

Besides, the graph is about the US temperature measurements. US != global. It could show warming and global warming could not be happening or it could show a decrease in temperature and global warming could be highly severe. Your argument is simply bad.

A picture can lie a lot better than a thousand words. I see that picture popping up in the climate denialist literature all over the place, without most places referencing the paper it is taken from.

The paper actually contains information that explains what you're seeing on the picture. The adjustments made are detailed, compared and explained. The references for the expanded reasoning can be followed.

Besides, the graph is about the US temperature measurements. US != global. It could show warming and global warming could not be happening or it could show a decrease in temperature and global warming could be highly severe. Your argument is simply bad.

Wow, you're an asshat.
 
The data is freely available for your perusal. Not that you're educated well enough to understand it. here you go. That should start you off - once you've analyzed that and published a couple dozen papers on it, I'll shoot you the super-secret links to more data.
 
God, who the hell got mod points today? There are a shitton of retarded posts marked up as insightful in this article. While there are a small percentage of shithead scientists, by and large this isn't some grand conspiracy. The data is largely accessible, and the methodology is pretty clear.
 
If I can do anything for the cause of science, it's to repeat this: Scientists get famous by ripping the shit out of other scientists' work. The famous scientists you've heard of got famous by demolishing the work of others. As scientists, we know that. And we're always looking for some schmuck to use as a stepping stone. I know if I do bad science, I'll be a stepping stone. I know if I find bad science, I can use IT as a stepping stone. That keeps most scientists pretty damn honest.

"Can you cite some research which isn't based on CRU's Hockey Stick graph which has been debunked" Can you cite some research about atoms that isn't based on the 'plum pudding' model of atoms, which has been debunked? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model The point is that the climate models evolve over time. The word "based on" that you use is ambiguous - we must assume you mean 'refined/evolved from'. Example of an improved climate model: http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20091009-00

It's striking how few supercomputers are sold to commercial companies. Even the military doesn't use them much any more.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, home to the world's fastest supercomputer, does a lot of work for national security. At the labs housing the top ten supercomputers, at least five do weapons and defense research. And that's just what the public knows about. I would be shocked if there weren't similar supercomputers working on intelligence and classified projects.

Even if the computers aren't stamped with "U.S. Army", the military does indeed use many of them. The wonderful side effect of their push to simulate things like aging nuclear weapons is that it helps develop the technology for peacetime purposes like renewable energy and pharmaceuticals.

With Genetic Therapies at our door step, does America really need to artificially maintain a Pharmaceutical Industry? Wouldn't our time be better spent having University Researchers take publicly known data and start applying it to a Genetic Therapy Solutions? Rather that having Federal Funds channeled to be used as a crutch for the mercantile facade of pharmaceutical distribution, why not channel that money to University Researchers for Genetic Therapies? The FDA is more than capable of administering Logistics of these types of solutions. Personally, I think the Pharmaceutical Industries finest minds should maybe find more fulfillment elsewhere in life than advertising to minors, Vaginal Pleasure Cremes on TV.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

I read two main comparisons in that article:

• Nuclear material released by coal combustion vs nuclear material released by fission plants of similar size. That doesn't count radioactive waste from the fission plants, so it's biased in favor of nuclear over coal.
• Nuclear material released by all coal combustion plants in the US vs nuclear material consumed by all fission plants in the US. Because there are so many more coal plants than nuclear reactors, that is also biased in favor of nuclear over coal.

From that, I have to conclude that comparing plants with similar output, a nuclear reactor produces more radioactive waste than a coal plant releases. Of course, the nuclear waste is controlled, not pumped into the atmosphere, and if recycled through a breeder reactor can still produce much, much more power, so I still think nuclear is far better for the environment overall, but this particular comparison doesn't hold the weight I hoped it did.

Thanks for the link.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

But it's not pointlessly. The point is that you already own that vehicle.

The problem is you folks don't think. How much fuel do you think it takes to create tonnes of plastic, steel, glass, and various semiconductors?

The energy required in manufacturing a vehicle is about 73GJ[1], and a litre of gasoline contains about 32MJ of energy[2].

Assuming 14.5 combined mpg(16.222l/100km), assuming a regular car will get about 35mpg combined(6.71l/100km), this means You'd need to displace 23,985km to justify the energy expense of creating a second car.

So this sounds great, right? You pay back the energy cost in just one year, then after that you're good.

Wait, do you hear that? (OBJECTION!)

Ah, these are rig workers. They need their trucks to get to far-off work sites. Most of them work 3 weeks on 1 week off or schemes like that because of just how far-off their work sites are.

Well, suddenly they've got a much smaller window of opportunity to displace truck miles with car miles. You're looking at 4 years before the car breaks even, energy-wise. Economically, it will never break even. Even over the entire (10 year) effective life of the vehicle, you're only going to displace another 2300l or so of gasoline. Therefore, it barely makes sense from an environmental perspective (And in the grander scheme of things, the extra space for all these extra vehicles will contribute to urban sprawl, causing more pollution than any single truck), and simply doesn't make sense from an economic one(You never make back the cost of the vehicle)

Go to hell. You know nothing about radioactivity and storage of waste, and you obviously don't care to learn, Mr. Greenpeace. Coal produces about as much radioactive waste (due to thorium present in the coal itself), and it just gets spewed into the atmosphere so we can all breathe it. What the hell kind of accidents are you envisioning? We've already worked out ways to prevent them. You're more likely to see a dam burst or a turbine tear itself apart than any kind of nuclear accident today. "Miniscule" amounts of radioactivity? You mean like the amount that you receive from natural background radiation, both external (cosmic rays, thorium in the dirt, etc) and internal (carbon 14 and potassium 40)? Trust me, you're much better off worrying about things like driving or drinking than about radiation dose. They have immensely higher mortality rates and happen all the time. Even a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl killed fewer people than die in about 2 years in cars in the US alone. Chernobyl can't happen again, because we know how to design reactors now. The next worst nuclear accidents killed only operators and caused an estimated 1 additional cancer per event. More people die due to conflicts over oil than will ever die due to nuclear accidents. About the waste: As I said, coal produces comparable radioactive waste, but the waste from reactors is 100% containable. It can even be reprocessed on site and reused as fuel again. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html --- Take a look at the table at the very bottom, which estimates deaths per unit energy produced by various methods. Nuclear comes out very favorably. We need nuclear power, and uninformed buffoons like you should be shot.