Red-Hot planet: All-time Heat Records set All over the World in past Week

[Crick]

They are located on the world's vulnerable coastlines and between now and 2100. Given the way things are going, sea level rise will continue for a great long while after 2100 and far more people will have to relocate, but that is a conversation for another day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So if they start walking today, they probably won't drown.

 

[Crick]

No, but they will get hungry and will likely desire shelter. Do you think that many people may be relocated and all the infrastructure they require built at no cost or hardship?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, but they will get hungry and will likely desire shelter. Do you think that many people may be relocated and all the infrastructure they require built at no cost or hardship?

No, but they will get hungry

No grocery stores are walking distance from their homes?

Do you think that many people may be relocated and all the infrastructure they require built at no cost or hardship?

What's today, stupid question day? Did SSDD hack your account?

 

[Crick]

No. I believe sea level rise will prove the most costly and the most visible threat of global warming. An increasing rate of rise increases the odds of a sudden, catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. That would raise the level of the Earth's oceans by 3.3 meters or more, essentially overnight. You can continue to make jokes, but I think that is something to actually worry about. I think the time to consider fighting AGW not worth the expense is long over.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. I believe sea level rise will prove the most costly and the most visible threat of global warming. An increasing rate of rise increases the odds of a sudden, catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. That would raise the level of the Earth's oceans by 3.3 meters or more, essentially overnight. You can continue to make jokes, but I think that is something to actually worry about. I think the time to consider fighting AGW not worth the expense is long over.

I think you can safely say now that Todd, indeed, is a troll. Points for effort on your part, though.

 

[Crick]

Don't give up the ability to respect people with whom you may not agree on all things. Todd is not a troll and I respect him for his efforts here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. I believe sea level rise will prove the most costly and the most visible threat of global warming. An increasing rate of rise increases the odds of a sudden, catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. That would raise the level of the Earth's oceans by 3.3 meters or more, essentially overnight. You can continue to make jokes, but I think that is something to actually worry about. I think the time to consider fighting AGW not worth the expense is long over.

I'm all in favor of building another 100 nuke reactors.

You should talk to your fellow Greens they're (not you) mostly more against nukes than against new coal plants.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. I believe sea level rise will prove the most costly and the most visible threat of global warming. An increasing rate of rise increases the odds of a sudden, catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. That would raise the level of the Earth's oceans by 3.3 meters or more, essentially overnight. You can continue to make jokes, but I think that is something to actually worry about. I think the time to consider fighting AGW not worth the expense is long over.

I think you can safely say now that Todd, indeed, is a troll. Points for effort on your part, though.

I understand physics, unlike SSDD and Billy_boy, but I'm against wasting trillions on windmills.

If you want to reduce CO2 with something useful, like nuclear power, you'll have my support.

 

[Crick]

I don't think money spent on windmills is a waste. Even nuke plants still have fuel costs. Windmills... not so much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't think money spent on windmills is a waste. Even nuke plants still have fuel costs. Windmills... not so much.

I don't think money spent on windmills is a waste.

And there's an area of disagreement.

Even nuke plants still have fuel costs.

Of course they do.
I wonder what thorium will end up costing if we get thorium reactors to be commercially useful?

 

[Crick]

I've never looked into the cost of nuclear fuel. Let's ask Dr Google. Found this:

Economics of Nuclear Power
(Updated December 2018)

• Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
• Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
• Providing incentives for long-term, high-capital investment in deregulated markets driven by short-term price signals presents a challenge in securing a diversified and reliable electricity supply system.
• In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.
• Nuclear power plant construction is typical of large infrastructure projects around the world, whose costs and delivery challenges tend to be under-estimated.
• 
  
• 
  
• Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Crick]

Are you suggesting that heat records were not set? Here. Does this convince you the entire world was boiling hot?

 

[SSDD]

Are you suggesting that heat records were not set? Here. Does this convince you the entire world was boiling hot?

That's the sort of thing that could convince you...after all, by your own admission, you are easily fooled.

 

[Crick]

The comment was not made to you and the context clearly shows that I am not convinced by single images. That was my point. I hope I wasn't too subtle for you.

 

[justoffal]

Someone recently made an Anecdotal "Gothcha" thread of some gauge they thought was misplaced/too close to an airport. AS IF pointing to this "refuted" all climate measurement worldwide.
Again, these Climate Deniers remind me of 9/11 Conspiracists:
Everyone/All the Worlds Scientists are in on this Plot. Tens of thousands.
The deniers/conspiracists look to One ambiguous, but minor issue they can weave the Kwazy Kwilt/Konspiwacy around.
But overall, the picture is quite clear. There is GW and AGW.

Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week
By Jason Samenow - July 5
Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week

(This article, originally published Tuesday, was updated Wednesday to add all-time heat records at Mount Washington, N.H., and Tbilisi, Georgia set since Monday. ​

On Thursday, the story was updated to include information on heat-related deaths in Canada and extraordinary heat in Siberia. ​

On Friday, it was updated to add the likely all-time heat record in Africa and Southern California.)​

​

From the normally mild summer climes of Ireland, Scotland and Canada to the scorching Middle East to Southern California, numerous locations in the Northern Hemisphere have witnessed their hottest weather Ever recorded over the past week.​

​

Large areas of heat pressure or heat domes scattered around the hemisphere led to the sweltering temperatures. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the heat is to blame for at least 54 deaths in southern Quebec, mostly in and near Montreal, which endured record high temperatures.​

​

In Northern Siberia, along the coast of the Arctic Ocean – where weather observations are scarce – model analyses showed temperatures soaring 40 degrees above normal on July 5, to over 90 degrees.​

“It is absolutely incredible and really one of the most intense heat events I’ve ever seen for so far north,” wrote meteorologist Nick Humphrey, who offers more detail on this extraordinary high-latitude hot spell on his blog...​

​

[......]​

​

Simulation of maximum temperatures on July 3 from American (GFS) weather model at two meters above the ground. (University of Maine Climate Reanalyzer)​

​

[.....]​

​

Thank God we're finally getting back to our original climate. The new farm land is just what we needed.

 

[Old Rocks]

I understand physics, unlike SSDD and Billy_boy, but I'm against wasting trillions on windmills.

If you want to reduce CO2 with something useful, like nuclear power, you'll have my support.

Get back to us when they are safe enough for a private insurance company to insure.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've never looked into the cost of nuclear fuel. Let's ask Dr Google. Found this:

Economics of Nuclear Power
(Updated December 2018)

• Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
• Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
• Providing incentives for long-term, high-capital investment in deregulated markets driven by short-term price signals presents a challenge in securing a diversified and reliable electricity supply system.
• In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.
• Nuclear power plant construction is typical of large infrastructure projects around the world, whose costs and delivery challenges tend to be under-estimated.
• 
  
• 
  
• Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association

The cost of electricity generated by nuclear plants is about 5 times that generated by wind or solar.

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Get back to us when they are safe enough for a private insurance company to insure.

Nuclear Insurance: Price-Anderson Act​

The Price-Anderson Act became law on Sept. 2, 1957, to cover liability claims of members of the public for personal injury and property damage caused by a commercial nuclear power plant accident. The legislation helped encourage private investment in commercial nuclear power by placing a cap, or ceiling, on the total amount of liability each nuclear power plant licensee faced in the event of an accident. Over time, the “limit of liability” for a nuclear accident has increased the insurance pool to more than $13 billion.

Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for $450 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site (not per reactor). This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $450 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $131.056 million per reactor. With 98 reactors currently in the insurance pool, i this secondary tier of funds contains about $12.9 billion. Payouts in excess of 15 percent of these funds require a prioritization plan approved by a federal district court. If the court determines that public liability may exceed the maximum amount of financial protection available from the primary and secondary tiers, each licensee would be assessed a pro rata share of this excess not to exceed 5 percent of the maximum deferred premium ($131.056 million); approximately $6.553 million per reactor. If the second tier is depleted, Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required.

Backgrounder on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief

www.nrc.gov