Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
8.9 Magnitude Earthquake Hits Japan + Tsunami and Alerts
#81
Anonymous Moose Wrote:http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm

Looks like we have our Meltdown.

And, as expected, it's not a big deal at all... unlike those oil refineries that have been on fire since the tsunami, and continue to pollute the atmosphere.
Reply
#82
Devil's Sunrise Wrote:The Japanese abassador in USA reject that information - according to news 50 minutes ago at least.

They might be trying to cover that up. It would be a major blow to the Japanese if they where to admit a nuclear disaster. Besides, I think we all know that polititians lie all the time.
More investigating would be necessary.

And exactly what pollutants are being emmitted by the refineries? I have a hard time believing that nuclear radiation cant be worse than what a fire can emmit.
Reply
#83
Carbon dioxide in the right amounts is great, but not when it comes spewing out of an enormous oil fire that's pouring toxic fumes that are directly harmful. This radiation is a small amount compared to the enormous amounts of smoke. Also the evacuation of the area around the nuclear plant will make it significantly less harmful than the smoke which goes straight into the atmosphere to speed up global warming.
Reply
#84
Anonymous Moose Wrote:And exactly what pollutants are being emmitted by the refineries? I have a hard time believing that nuclear radiation cant be worse than what a fire can emmit.

Supposedly they have a good system to keep the radiation caged.
Reply
#85
I was told that around 8,000 search and rescue workers have been sent to Japan to look for survivors. Is this true? Sure hope so, for Japan's gonna need all the help it can get. Sad
Reply
#86
Holypie Wrote:speed up global warming.

After climategate, I'd say this excuse is no longer valid.

Aside from that, CO2 would only be significantly toxic in large amounts, like from a huge burp from the bottom of a lake. As for the other chemicals, it would depend on what type of oil is burning.

@rob: I dont believe supposedly works. On top of that we all know that no safety feature is 100% effective or reliable. We saw that when the emegency cooling systems failed.... And so far at least 3 people have been hospitalized for radiation poisoning. However we dont know how many people may have died from radiation poisoning and there is no way to determine exactly how many will be slow killed from the lasting effects of radiation.
Anyway, I think we will be hearing some conflicting accounts for a while.
Reply
#87
Earthquakes can be a sign of volcanic activity right? And if I'm correct Mt Fuji is an active volcano, and hasn't erupted in over 300 years? Does anybody else see this going worse than it is already?.

Havent read the entire thread so not sure if anybody's brought up this point yet.
Reply
#88
Nalek Wrote:Earthquakes can be a sign of volcanic activity right? And if I'm correct Mt Fuji is an active volcano, and hasn't erupted in over 300 years? Does anybody else see this going worse than it is already?.

Havent read the entire thread so not sure if anybody's brought up this point yet.

I believe the thing is, earthquakes can trigger a volcano's eruption. But yes, they can be interrelated depending on the proximity of the earthquake to the volcano and vice versa. Volcanos can also create an earthquake, iirc.
Reply
#89
Volcanoes can generate some earthquake activity, however, this earthquake seems to be unrelated to Mt Fuji (unless Mt Fuji changed neighborhood w/o anyone knowing...). If Mt Fuji started acting up, I'm pretty sure that at least the Japanese government would know about it. Geology out there is serious business.

And I don't know. I think making an argument against nuclear energy in this situation is kind of silly. It took an 8.9 magnitude earthquake to make those plants fail, the damage so far haven't been anywhere near catastrophic and it seems the safety features (in case the other emergency features fail) have worked as intended since the radioactive material has been contained so far. Imo, this things seem pretty damn safe, specially if you opt to notbuild one right next to the most seismically active faults around the world. It takes less to make oil refineries and natural gas ducts actually explode and send pomegranate to the atmosphere etcetc.

The biggest danger in this things are the human factor. Negligence is the enemy.
Reply
#90
Anonymous Moose Wrote:After climategate, I'd say this excuse is no longer valid.

I'm not even going to bother trying to argue with you about this, after seeing you on other threads. This issue will just be 10 times worse. Anyway global warming is still happening, even if it's not as much as it's claimed. The scientific community agrees on it, it's just that the public doesn't.
Reply
#91
Before and After images

For those that are interested. Seeing these images are just shocking..
Reply
#92
Holypie Wrote:I'm not even going to bother trying to argue with you about this, after seeing you on other threads. This issue will just be 10 times worse. Anyway global warming is still happening, even if it's not as much as it's claimed. The scientific community agrees on it, it's just that the public doesn't.

What warming? Even the UEA scientists admit that there is no warming.
Quote:“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that
we can't. The CERES data published in the
August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows
there should be even more warming: but the
data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.” – Kevin Trenberth

“Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points
off the filtered curve before I give the talk
again as that’s trending down as a result
of the end effects and the recent cold-ish
years.”
- Mick Kelly

They also have illegally manipulated their data
Quote:“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of
adding in the real temps to each series for
the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)
and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the
decline.” - Phil Jones

And what scientific consensus?
Quote:Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations


His Excellency Ban Ki Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, NY

United States of America

8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;

5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;

10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.


It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
Signed:
 Spoiler

As you can see, many scientists believe there is no Man-made Global Warming.

although, you probably dont hear much about them because the IPCC and these UEA "scientists" dont like criticism.

Quote:“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse
skeptics camp, then, if we can find
documentary evidence of this, we could go
through official AGU channels to get him
ousted.” – Tom Wigley

Quote:“The other paper by MM is just garbage - as
you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the
mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I
can't see either of these papers being in the
next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth?) and I
will keep them out somehow - even if we
have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is!” – Phil Jones

I once believed that science was about people putting up their information, findings and thoughts out in the open for criticism, and if you where lucky enough for your idea to not be disproven, then your idea might become an accepted fact. Unfortunately, the climate gate "scientists" dont like standard scientific processes.

On top of that, these guys conspired to withhold information from the public.
Quote:“And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data
for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act
now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries
within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the
first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I
will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he
heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code.
He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil
Jones


I'll finish with the words of Phil Jones to show you the type of people that we are talking about here.
Quote:As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political; it is being selfish.”



Edit: I should also mention this little fact. Phil Jones kept his word. He burned the data after Climate Gate.
Quote:SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en...936328.ece
Reply
#93
It's transparently obvious that you don't understand the contents of the emails you're quoting... "climategate" is a non-issue, there is no shocking reveal. UEA is not the only place that studies the atmosphere, and a list of scientists who think global warming is a non-issue is meaningless.
Reply
#94
Stereo Wrote:It's transparently obvious that you don't understand the contents of the emails you're quoting... "climategate" is a non-issue, there is no shocking reveal. UEA is not the only place that studies the atmosphere, and a list of scientists who think global warming is a non-issue is meaningless.

Are you saying that breaking the law (destroying the source data for the IPCC) scientific fraud and scientific opinions that dont agree with global warming is a non-issue?

Science is suppose to be an open field for peer review. Saying that opinions of other scientists is unimportant is to deny standard scientific processes.

And I do understand what these men are saying. They are discussing the fraud they are commiting. They clearly are talking about forging data. They are clearly discussing how they want to silence opposition. They even discuss how they are hiding important data from the scientific community (this is important because now that the source data is destroyed, the IPCC's and EUA's claims cannot be replicated).
How is this a non-issue?
Reply
#95
And this is why I didn't want to argue about global warming. Can we please get back on topic?
Reply
#96
Holypie Wrote:And this is why I didn't want to argue about global warming. Can we please get back on topic?

Interestingly enough, people are trying to claim Global Warming was at least a factor in this disaster. So thanks to some global warming proponents, discussing Global Warming is on topic.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/...armism.php
Quote:know headlines like that might just make most folks roll their eyes at this point — I mean, what doesn’t climate change cause these days, am I right? And I realize that people are skeptical of news-cycle tie-ins, like this very story appears to be. But just because it’s sort of depressing to keep tabs on all of the myriad impacts of ol’ climate change occurring the world over, doesn’t mean we should be glossing over facts like this: Geologists believe that global warming may already be causing more earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. After all, screwing with the world’s ornery climate system to the extent which we have is bound to have far-reaching effects — effects like huge amounts of melting ice causing the earth’s crust to “bounce” up, potentially triggering earthquakes.

Which makes sense. And if you ask me, now is a perfectly apt time to be analyzing such possible causal relationships, like the one between climate change and earthquakes (which set off tsunamis). You are, after all, perhaps turning to a green site like TreeHugger to examine the environmental implications of various world events. But some insist this reeks of opportunism (especially those amongst the anti-climate crowd) — and therefore should be immediately written off as sensationalism.

Although, global warming cannot be the cause, assuming the UEA scientists are correct about the earth cooling.
Reply
#97
Khoi Wrote:Before and After images

For those that are interested. Seeing these images are just shocking..

Wow, that's so intense. I had no idea it was that bad, even after watching video. That's insane.
Reply
#98
From Facebook :

Sayaka Kudo Justin>米国も行きたい!!!!!!! We'll have 震度7 one again soon ppl saying but I dunno which area gonna be hit this one yet so we still have to be careful ;_;




A 7 Shindo = Another 8.9 type earthquake. :|
Reply
#99
The thought that there could be over 10,000 deaths is starting to creep closer to reality....:\

I have a feeling it might become reality. If so....that's just a huge loss of human life right there.
Reply
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Are you saying that breaking the law (destroying the source data for the IPCC) scientific fraud and scientific opinions that dont agree with global warming is a non-issue?
Unlike you, I'm not going to assume that the only reason they destroyed it was to hide the fact it's showing a cooling trend. Maybe they found out their collection process was flawed, and they'd rather not let people misconstrue their numbers. There are lots of reasons to invalidate a data set, and why keep garbage?

Quote:Science is suppose to be an open field for peer review. Saying that opinions of other scientists is unimportant is to deny standard scientific processes.
Opinions are not part of the standard scientific processes, except to the extent that scientists have to judge how significant a result is. Again you're only pulling partial quotes out of context so it is meaningless.

Quote:And I do understand what these men are saying. They are discussing the fraud they are commiting. They clearly are talking about forging data. They are clearly discussing how they want to silence opposition. They even discuss how they are hiding important data from the scientific community (this is important because now that the source data is destroyed, the IPCC's and EUA's claims cannot be replicated).
How is this a non-issue?

Partial quotes. Unless they publish fraudulent papers based on forged data (and you can demonstrate this is what happened), the emails are worth as much as any source of gossip - nothing.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)