Slashdot Mirror

https://www.statravel.co.nz/th...

https://www.weatheronline.co.u...

The centre of an anticyclone has a characteristic pattern of air circulation, with subsiding air and horizontal divergence of the air near the surface. The name anticyclone comes from the circulatory flow of air within the system; anticyclonic circulation has a local circulation that is opposed to the Earth's rotation. Winds, generally light, circulate around the high pressure centre in a clockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere and anticlockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

The subsiding air compresses as it descends, causing adiabatic warming. The eventually warmer and drier air suppresses cloud formation and thus anticyclones are usually associated with fine weather in the summer and dry, cold, and sometimes foggy weather in the winter. Calm settled weather is usually synonymous with anticyclones in temperate latitudes. Anticyclones are typically relatively slow moving features.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...

You are impressively persistent on your quest to demonstrate your ignorance.

I'll help educate you! In North America, the weather is freezing for several months of the year

Your condescension is matched only by your ignorance:
http://www.usclimatedata.com/c...

Oh, and btw:
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...

Oh look. Europe also has a varied climate, heavily influenced by latitude.

I have seen values for Germany up to 13 t CO2 per capita. While this sucks big time, one third is produced by traffic, another third is from heating

So what? France doesn't have road traffic and heating?

Have I implied that? Nope.

However, Germany is significant colder than France which requires more heating. France is more centralized which may result in less daily traffic. Usually in France they do not drive not so obsessive big cars as some Germans do (especially in the South).

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...

One key source are the lignite coal plants, which could be switched off today.

FYI https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
It would be nice to have a similar source for France. However, I could not find one.

France has been generating 80-90% of it's electricity from low carbon sources since the 1990's and you expect kudos for thinking about maybe closing down some fucking lignite burning power plants at some undefined time between now and 2020.

I personally, would prefer to shut them down right now. They are only still a thing because the social democrats do not want to harm RWE which is a huge source of income in North Rhine-Westphalia. There is no disagreement on that topic. I do not like them. They suck. But nuclear is not the answer to the problem. It is just another problem.

Oh, fucking great, you're proud that they're going to close 13% of the lignite burning plants.

No I am not happy with that and you would have already noticed that when you would really try to understand anything I am saying, but you rather rattle about how mean I am because I do not support you nuclear is better idea.

Are we going to have more high particulate pollution days this summer when the wind happens to be blowing from Germany?

If the coal plants are still on? Very unlikely as it would require wind blowing from the north east to the south west. But you might want to observe the values
http://aqicn.org/city/paris/
http://aqicn.org/city/berlin/

Anyway, in summer Germany most likely requires less power from coal plants as we additionally will have more energy from solar power. Energy consumption is higher in winter.

How many people are being killed every year by the air pollution from your biomass and coal plants? 10's of Chernobyl's a year? 100's? 1000's?

Do you have any reliable figures? And still, I do not want coal plants. Coal sucks. I also do not want to have to cleanup the aftermath of a nuclear plant blowing up and storing the waste for thousands of years.

I have seen values for Germany up to 13 t CO2 per capita. While this sucks big time, one third is produced by traffic, another third is from heating

So what? France doesn't have road traffic and heating?

Have I implied that? Nope.

However, Germany is significant colder than France which requires more heating. France is more centralized which may result in less daily traffic. Usually in France they do not drive not so obsessive big cars as some Germans do (especially in the South).

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk...

One key source are the lignite coal plants, which could be switched off today.

FYI https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
It would be nice to have a similar source for France. However, I could not find one.

France has been generating 80-90% of it's electricity from low carbon sources since the 1990's and you expect kudos for thinking about maybe closing down some fucking lignite burning power plants at some undefined time between now and 2020.

I personally, would prefer to shut them down right now. They are only still a thing because the social democrats do not want to harm RWE which is a huge source of income in North Rhine-Westphalia. There is no disagreement on that topic. I do not like them. They suck. But nuclear is not the answer to the problem. It is just another problem.

Oh, fucking great, you're proud that they're going to close 13% of the lignite burning plants.

No I am not happy with that and you would have already noticed that when you would really try to understand anything I am saying, but you rather rattle about how mean I am because I do not support you nuclear is better idea.

Are we going to have more high particulate pollution days this summer when the wind happens to be blowing from Germany?

If the coal plants are still on? Very unlikely as it would require wind blowing from the north east to the south west. But you might want to observe the values
http://aqicn.org/city/paris/
http://aqicn.org/city/berlin/

Anyway, in summer Germany most likely requires less power from coal plants as we additionally will have more energy from solar power. Energy consumption is higher in winter.

How many people are being killed every year by the air pollution from your biomass and coal plants? 10's of Chernobyl's a year? 100's? 1000's?

Do you have any reliable figures? And still, I do not want coal plants. Coal sucks. I also do not want to have to cleanup the aftermath of a nuclear plant blowing up and storing the waste for thousands of years.

According to that map, the UK was 1-2 degrees warmer than normal, and much of northern Europe was 2-4 degrees warmer than normal. Yet, news reports state the UK's summer was one of the coldest in decades, 5-6 degrees C colder than normal, the end of 2014 was also exceptionally cold, and while Feb 2014 was slightly above average, during the 2004 to 2014 period, it was only 0.4 degrees higher than the 1860's average for the period from 2005 to 2014, which at 5.2 degrees is also the exact same as the February average for 2014 only.
How does a slight, less than one degree warming over 150 years for one month counteract the 5-6 degree colder summer and "bitterly cold" end of the year?

I stand by my assertion that something is seriously wrong with how we measure average global temperatures.

Worse Than Chernobyl: When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater

by Tom Burnett

Fukushima is going to dwarf Chenobyl.The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week but won’t admit it.

The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it.

If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like lava. But Fukushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply cool down. It will explode – not a nuclear explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel rods at the facility.

Pouring concrete on a critical reactor makes no sense – it will simply explode and release more radioactive particulate matter. The concrete will melt and the problem will get worse. Chernobyl was different – a critical reactor exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactor cores are still melting down. The ONLY way to stop that is to detonate a ~10 kiloton fission device inside each reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores. That’s probably a bad solution.

A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on now. But it will be messy.

Fukushima was waiting to happen because of the placement of the emergency generators. If they had not all failed at once by being inundated by a tsunami, Fukushima would not have happened as it did – although it WOULD still have been a nuclear disaster.Every containment in the world is built to withstand a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake; the Japanese chose to ignore the fact thata similar earthquake had hit that same general area in 1896.

Anyway, here is the information that the US doesn’t seem to want released. And here is a chart that might help with perspective.

Making matters worse is the MOX in reactor 3. MOX is the street name for ‘mixed oxide fuel‘ which uses ~9% plutonium along with a uranium compound to fuel reactors. This is why it can be used.

The problem is that you don’t want to play with this stuff. A nuclear reactor means bring fissile material to a point at which it is hot enough to boil water (in a light-water reactor) and not enough to melt and go supercritical (China syndrome or aChernobyl incident). You simply cannot let it get away from you because if it does, you can’t stop it.

The Japanese are still talking about days or weeks to clean this up. That’s not true. They cannot clean it up. And no one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.

© 2011 Hawaii News Daily

Dr. Tom Burnett is a frequent contributor to the Hawaii News Daily.

I wouldn't say that in front of our not-so-new wind-making overlords. I, for one, welcome them.