Comments on: Remember the Ozone Hole? https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/ Sun, 19 Apr 2026 13:37:05 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: johannes https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42975 johannes Sat, 02 Feb 2019 20:18:23 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42975 Talk about SKEPTICS. :-) Talk about SKEPTICS. :-)

]]> By: johannes https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42973 johannes Sat, 02 Feb 2019 20:12:22 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42973 Excerpt from: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/its-frickin-cold-out-the-link-between-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/ar-BBT1291?ocid=iehp “Polar vortexes have always been around but their breakdowns in the northern hemisphere — which send cold south — are getting more frequent. Scientists don’t yet share a consensus as to why; some point to climate change as the cause. What we do know is that polar vortex breakdowns are contributing to shorter and more intense winters.” The cause (in my opinion) is very simple; “extra energy” is causing the atmospheric molecules to escape into space; the consequence is that loosing atmospheric pressure causes the environmental changes. In “very extreme case”; the Earth might lose most of its atmosphere then the weather could mimic that of the moon, where there is very cold and very hot areas depending on the sun shine. I fully understand the conjecture that the “extra” energy is a result from the “retention” of sun’s energy due to the “greenhouse gasses” and I am not disputing that view, I am only pointing out that there is also “EXTRA” energy being converted from the potential energy of mass into kinetic energy that “heats” the surroundings, and my point is that “IF” that energy is very great, then it adds to the problem. Since I do not know the exact amount of “extra” energy that the nuclear experiments have created and how much of it has accumulated or how much of it has radiated into space, I am left to speculation about the consequences caused by laws of nature. Excerpt from: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/its-frickin-cold-out-the-link-between-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/ar-BBT1291?ocid=iehp

“Polar vortexes have always been around but their breakdowns in the northern hemisphere — which send cold south — are getting more frequent. Scientists don’t yet share a consensus as to why; some point to climate change as the cause. What we do know is that polar vortex breakdowns are contributing to shorter and more intense winters.”

The cause (in my opinion) is very simple; “extra energy” is causing the atmospheric molecules to escape into space; the consequence is that loosing atmospheric pressure causes the environmental changes.
In “very extreme case”; the Earth might lose most of its atmosphere then the weather could mimic that of the moon, where there is very cold and very hot areas depending on the sun shine.
I fully understand the conjecture that the “extra” energy is a result from the “retention” of sun’s energy due to the “greenhouse gasses” and I am not disputing that view, I am only pointing out that there is also “EXTRA” energy being converted from the potential energy of mass into kinetic energy that “heats” the surroundings, and my point is that “IF” that energy is very great, then it adds to the problem.
Since I do not know the exact amount of “extra” energy that the nuclear experiments have created and how much of it has accumulated or how much of it has radiated into space, I am left to speculation about the consequences caused by laws of nature.

]]> By: ER https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42971 ER Sat, 02 Feb 2019 00:34:18 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42971 One nuclear weapon test in the atmosphere releases more radiation into the atmosphere than all the nuclear reactors that have ever existed put together. And many more nuclear tests have occurred than there have ever been nuclear plants in existence, since the first one was constructed in Chicago in the 1940s. Our rising atmospheric temperatures are perfectly explained by greenhouse gases, that is, the earth is getting hotter because the heat from the SUN is trapped here by CO2 in the air. The heat generated by burning fossil fuels is insignificant compared to the solar heat that is trapped here by the greenhouse effect. And the heat generated by nuclear radiation from reactors is insignificant to that generated by the steam plants themselves in the process of creating electricity. Although I doubt that man-made radiation has any role in climate change; if it does, then certainly the radiation releases from weapons testing far exceeds that from nuclear power plants--by many orders of magnitude. In the upper right corner of the home page of this website: https://neven1.typepad.com/ is a little graphic that documents the amount of heat that is accumulating in the atmosphere from the solar greenhouse effect, displayed in units of Hiroshima bombs. The counter is continuously running, and should demonstrate that this greenhouse heat accumulation completely dwarfs the contribution from bombs, which in turn completely dwarfs the contribution from reactors. Human <em>fission</em> technology simply CANNOT create enough heat energy to make a difference to our climate. It is truly insignificant. However, human <em>combustion</em> technology CAN affect the ability of the atmosphere to trap solar heat. And although this additional solar heating is only a tiny part of the earth's energy budget, the weather/climate system is extremely sensitive and can react to it. A rise of only a degree or two can easily alter the climate in measurable ways. That's why its called the <em>Greenhouse Effect</em>. Its a lot more effective to keep your orchids warm in winter by putting them in a greenhouse than it is to light a candle for heat. Banning nukes is not going to stop global warming. In fact, it will probably make it worse--although for totally different reasons. One nuclear weapon test in the atmosphere releases more radiation into the atmosphere than all the nuclear reactors that have ever existed put together. And many more nuclear tests have occurred than there have ever been nuclear plants in existence, since the first one was constructed in Chicago in the 1940s.

Our rising atmospheric temperatures are perfectly explained by greenhouse gases, that is, the earth is getting hotter because the heat from the SUN is trapped here by CO2 in the air. The heat generated by burning fossil fuels is insignificant compared to the solar heat that is trapped here by the greenhouse effect.
And the heat generated by nuclear radiation from reactors is insignificant to that generated by the steam plants themselves in the process of creating electricity.

Although I doubt that man-made radiation has any role in climate change; if it does, then certainly the radiation releases from weapons testing far exceeds that from nuclear power plants–by many orders of magnitude.

In the upper right corner of the home page of this website:

https://neven1.typepad.com/

is a little graphic that documents the amount of heat that is accumulating in the atmosphere from the solar greenhouse effect, displayed in units of Hiroshima bombs. The counter is continuously running, and should demonstrate that this greenhouse heat accumulation completely dwarfs the contribution from bombs, which in turn completely dwarfs the contribution from reactors.

Human fission technology simply CANNOT create enough heat energy to make a difference to our climate.
It is truly insignificant. However, human combustion technology CAN affect the ability of the atmosphere to trap solar heat. And although this additional solar heating is only a tiny part of the earth’s energy budget, the weather/climate system is extremely sensitive and can react to it. A rise of only a degree or two can easily alter the climate in measurable ways. That’s why its called the Greenhouse Effect. Its a lot more effective to keep your orchids warm in winter by putting them in a greenhouse than it is to light a candle for heat.

Banning nukes is not going to stop global warming. In fact, it will probably make it worse–although for totally different reasons.

]]> By: RL https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42970 RL Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:52:57 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42970 For nearly 2 decades you have been preaching this nonsense about nuclear energy. For nearly 2 decades we have explained why its not remotely possible for nuclear power to do what you claim... we have run the numbers for you, done the calculations step by step... and for 2 decades you have ignored the facts and continued to use this board as a place to advertise your insanity. WHY? If you had just taken a few summer classes, you might have saved yourself, and us, from decades of your nonsense... If you are too lazy to educate yourself, then why won't you listen to those that have? Why do you keep posting this garbage here? For nearly 2 decades you have been preaching this nonsense about nuclear energy. For nearly 2 decades we have explained why its not remotely possible for nuclear power to do what you claim… we have run the numbers for you, done the calculations step by step… and for 2 decades you have ignored the facts and continued to use this board as a place to advertise your insanity.

WHY?

If you had just taken a few summer classes, you might have saved yourself, and us, from decades of your nonsense…
If you are too lazy to educate yourself, then why won’t you listen to those that have?

Why do you keep posting this garbage here?

]]> By: johannes https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42969 johannes Fri, 01 Feb 2019 21:35:15 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42969 Way back in about 1958 an American Indian person discussed with me about changes in the weather that was noticed way back then. The discussion was about the so called “January thaw”; he informed me that his grandfather never experienced that kind of a change in the environment in all his life. I asked him “what would cause such a change in the weather system and he said that the only thing that had changed in the years that followed his grandfather’s observations was that atomic bombs and atomic power had been used in such a way that it contaminated the atmosphere. It sounded logical to infer that if the change happened after the use of nuclear power, then there may be something to the claim, but at the time I had not studied nuclear power enough to understand how it could affect the atmosphere, so, I dismissed the “logic” as speculation because, I did not understand why the effect could take place. The years that followed allowed me to study nuclear physics to some extent, and I did discuss my thoughts with some physics professors at the University of Toronto. The result was that I did need to change my views several times, it is a long story, but eventually I did manage to understand Einstein’s formula of E=mc^2 and how it relates to nuclear fission. According to my understanding the nuclear fission happens due to the interaction between the momentum and the charges within the nucleus of the “radioactive” atom. The differences between the nuclear structures and the interaction between the momentum of the nuclear components and their charges, causes different atomic structures to have a differing decay rates. The decay rate can vary between very short duration of a fraction of a second to thousands of years. Every time a nucleus of an atom “decays” in the said manner, some of the potential energy of the nucleus is converted (or released) as kinetic energy. After understanding that nuclear fission and nuclear chain reaction represents kinetic energy, it occurred to me that “if” the atmospheric molecules obtain more than normal amount of kinetic energy on a global scale, then the air molecules will move faster than usual and this faster movement of the molecules is considered as temperature change or Global warming. The difference between fission and chain reaction is that “chain reaction” is a method that is designed by people and it releases much more energy per unit of time than the natural fission. Now the American Indian’s comments made more sense, although I still do not know how much ”extra” energy has been introduced into the environment, it is clear that nuclear energy is kinetic in nature and “if” enough energy is introduced into the environment then the environment will change. Considering that it has been about 61 years since the “January thaw” discussion and if the “nuclear effect” was noticeable then; I wonder how bad it is now since so much more “extra” energy has been introduced into the environment, or how bad it will be some 61 years from now. Whether the global change is caused by greenhouse gasses, nuclear energy, or some other source of “extra” kinetic energy, the result could develop into very serious events; for instance, if we extrapolate from the “heating” of the global environment and consider that the “hotter” the atmosphere becomes then the faster the air molecules will move and the “less dense” the atmosphere will become, I would expect such changes to create larger and more devastating storms. If the atmospheric heating becomes “extreme” then other serious problems could develop, for instance; if the atoms and molecules in the very high atmosphere, that is in the area of the stratosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere, move very fast, these molecules and atoms can escape into space, if that happens in large quantity then the Earth’s atmosphere will become less dense, this type of a density change would create several “unusual” changes in the Earth’s environment. Such changes would not be in the atmosphere alone, they would extend into the ocean waters as well; if you understand the physics involved in the “Cartesian diver” then you can understand the effects to the living creatures in the waters. Also such pressure changes could cause instability in the Earth’s crust, meaning more volcanoes and earthquakes. In order to mitigate the global changes I would urge the scientists who study nuclear and atmospheric effects to figure out how much “extra” energy is being pumped into the environment and how it can be reduced. Personally, I would like to see the “hydrogen economy” to become a viable alternative to the present coal and nuclear economy. I believe that a very efficient hydrogen engine can be constructed and hydrogen can be stored safely as a metal hydride. Way back in about 1958 an American Indian person discussed with me about changes in the weather that was noticed way back then. The discussion was about the so called “January thaw”; he informed me that his grandfather never experienced that kind of a change in the environment in all his life. I asked him “what would cause such a change in the weather system and he said that the only thing that had changed in the years that followed his grandfather’s observations was that atomic bombs and atomic power had been used in such a way that it contaminated the atmosphere.
It sounded logical to infer that if the change happened after the use of nuclear power, then there may be something to the claim, but at the time I had not studied nuclear power enough to understand how it could affect the atmosphere, so, I dismissed the “logic” as speculation because, I did not understand why the effect could take place.
The years that followed allowed me to study nuclear physics to some extent, and I did discuss my thoughts with some physics professors at the University of Toronto. The result was that I did need to change my views several times, it is a long story, but eventually I did manage to understand Einstein’s formula of E=mc^2 and how it relates to nuclear fission.
According to my understanding the nuclear fission happens due to the interaction between the momentum and the charges within the nucleus of the “radioactive” atom. The differences between the nuclear structures and the interaction between the momentum of the nuclear components and their charges, causes different atomic structures to have a differing decay rates. The decay rate can vary between very short duration of a fraction of a second to thousands of years.
Every time a nucleus of an atom “decays” in the said manner, some of the potential energy of the nucleus is converted (or released) as kinetic energy.
After understanding that nuclear fission and nuclear chain reaction represents kinetic energy, it occurred to me that “if” the atmospheric molecules obtain more than normal amount of kinetic energy on a global scale, then the air molecules will move faster than usual and this faster movement of the molecules is considered as temperature change or Global warming.
The difference between fission and chain reaction is that “chain reaction” is a method that is designed by people and it releases much more energy per unit of time than the natural fission.
Now the American Indian’s comments made more sense, although I still do not know how much ”extra” energy has been introduced into the environment, it is clear that nuclear energy is kinetic in nature and “if” enough energy is introduced into the environment then the environment will change.
Considering that it has been about 61 years since the “January thaw” discussion and if the “nuclear effect” was noticeable then; I wonder how bad it is now since so much more “extra” energy has been introduced into the environment, or how bad it will be some 61 years from now.
Whether the global change is caused by greenhouse gasses, nuclear energy, or some other source of “extra” kinetic energy, the result could develop into very serious events; for instance, if we extrapolate from the “heating” of the global environment and consider that the “hotter” the atmosphere becomes then the faster the air molecules will move and the “less dense” the atmosphere will become, I would expect such changes to create larger and more devastating storms.
If the atmospheric heating becomes “extreme” then other serious problems could develop, for instance; if the atoms and molecules in the very high atmosphere, that is in the area of the stratosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere, move very fast, these molecules and atoms can escape into space, if that happens in large quantity then the Earth’s atmosphere will become less dense, this type of a density change would create several “unusual” changes in the Earth’s environment. Such changes would not be in the atmosphere alone, they would extend into the ocean waters as well; if you understand the physics involved in the “Cartesian diver” then you can understand the effects to the living creatures in the waters.
Also such pressure changes could cause instability in the Earth’s crust, meaning more volcanoes and earthquakes.
In order to mitigate the global changes I would urge the scientists who study nuclear and atmospheric effects to figure out how much “extra” energy is being pumped into the environment and how it can be reduced.
Personally, I would like to see the “hydrogen economy” to become a viable alternative to the present coal and nuclear economy.
I believe that a very efficient hydrogen engine can be constructed and hydrogen can be stored safely as a metal hydride.

]]> By: podrock https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42902 podrock Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:27:11 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42902 RoundUp. Seriously. RoundUp.

Seriously.

]]> By: ER https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42899 ER Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:37:05 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42899 In fact, any time there is any question about the safety of any industrial product or policy these skeptics show up with the same arguments, the same lawyers, the same propaganda campaigns, the same politicians, the same lobbyists and the same think tanks. All these people care about is an uninterrupted and maximized flow of profit. They are no better than drug gangs, arms dealers, bootleggers, pimps or slave holders. In fact, any time there is any question about the safety of any industrial product or policy these skeptics show up with the same arguments, the same lawyers, the same propaganda campaigns, the same politicians, the same lobbyists and the same think tanks.

All these people care about is an uninterrupted and maximized flow of profit. They are no better than drug gangs, arms dealers, bootleggers, pimps or slave holders.

]]> By: RL https://habitablezone.com/2019/01/19/remember-the-ozone-hole/#comment-42898 RL Sun, 20 Jan 2019 08:18:28 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=75591#comment-42898 The book 'Merchants of Doubt' is a good expose of the denialist industry... The book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is a good expose of the denialist industry…

]]>