Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[Dan J 277]

This is what happens to U-238 in a breeder reactor.

Uranium-238 (U-238), is the most common isotope of uranium found in nature. When hit by a neutron, it becomes uranium-239 (U-239), an unstable element which decays into neptunium-239 (Np-239), which then itself decays, with a half-life of 2.355 days, into plutonium-239 (Pu-239).

It becomes Plutonium-239.

Which is then used in a nuclear reaction, which also releases neutrons to continue the conversion of U-238 and is converted to lower order elements.

But unless you continue to supply U-238, it will eventually no longer have material to covert.

What your suggesting is that feeder reactors need to be fueled once. In a sense thats true if you consider Pu-239 that fuel. Hover, you loose Pu-239 in a nuclear reaction, but you can continue to create more as long as you have U-238.

Feeder Reactors have a unlimited supply of fuel material, as long as they continually supplied with the source to create that fuel.

[GaryC 7]

This is what happens to U-238 in a breeder reactor.

Uranium-238 (U-238), is the most common isotope of uranium found in nature. When hit by a neutron, it becomes uranium-239 (U-239), an unstable element which decays into neptunium-239 (Np-239), which then itself decays, with a half-life of 2.355 days, into plutonium-239 (Pu-239).

It becomes Plutonium-239.

Which is then used in a nuclear reaction, which also releases neutrons to continue the conversion of U-238 and is converted to lower order elements.

But unless you continue to supply U-238, it will eventually no longer have material to covert.

What your suggesting is that feeder reactors need to be fueled once. In a sense thats true if you consider Pu-239 that fuel. Hover, you loose Pu-239 in a nuclear reaction, but you can continue to create more as long as you have U-238.

Feeder Reactors have a unlimited supply of fuel material, as long as they continually supplied with the source to create that fuel.

So we are in agreement then, breeder reactors can supply us with the power we need for the foreseeable future. Thats all I care about. If you want to argue the fine points of the laws of thermodynamics on advanced nuclear science then thats cool, all I want is a sustainable energy source. Breeder reactors will do it.

[Dan J 277]

To address your contention that we will run out of Uranium sometime soon here is a excerpt from The Journal of Physics.

3 Present nuclear technology, potential and limits

At present 6% (0.6 Gtoe) of the 10Gtoe world’s primary energy consumption comes from

nuclear fission reactors. If NE represents 25% of the total primary energy in 2050, the nuclear power

generating capacity has to be multiplied by a factor 8 in the next 50 years.

Present reactors are mainly based on the use of 235 Uranium which is the only fissile nucleus present

in nature (0.7% of natural uranium). The annual uranium ore consumption is around 180 tons per

Gwe-year. The world reserves which are estimated to 16 million tons represent around 300 years of

nuclear energy generation at the present rate. Obviously they cannot ensure sustainable energy

generation if NE is to contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs.

But they go even further because they recognize that using Uranium the way we do now creates waste and requires a sustained processing capability. They address this problem with Breeder Reactors. This is the conclusion of their article.

Conclusion

After examining the world energy context dominated by the fossil fuel limitation coupled to very

severe constraints on GGE to avoid potentially catastrophic climate changes, we estimated the world

energy demand by 2050 to be at least 20 Gtoe compared to the 10 Gtoe in 2000. Since increasing the

use of fossil energy becomes quite hazardous for human life, we are arithmetically condemned to find

annually 10 more Gtoe by 2050 from either new renewable energies or nuclear energy generation.

Obviously, new renewable energies have a limited potential which is not well quantified. So

considering that NE should produce at least 5 Gtoe in 2050 appears to be a conservative estimate if we

really want it to contribute significantly to the world energy demand in 2050. Behind this choice is the

ethical assessment that recognizes the right of the populations of developed and developing countries

to have access to a comfortable life. And this is conditioned by a free or equal and not too expensive

access to energy. Nuclear energy generation is certainly able to provide such an amount of energy in a

sustainable way with the use of breeder reactors. We saw also that 2 kinds of breeder reactors have to

be considered for which some challenges are common and some are different.

The road to reach such an ambitious goal is difficult, but it is our conviction that nuclear waste

management options have to be cleared up by a rapid choice concerning breeder reactors, since they

are able to close the fuel cycle of present technology reactors and allow sustainable energy generation.

Delaying this choice for economic or political reasons is quite hazardous since NE could appear

unable to reduce their waste production and unable to guarantee any sustainability. The consequence

would probably be that NE generation at a significant level at the right time would be made very

difficult. As a result, an energy shortage would be likely, GGE reduction could appear too difficult,

and then we would have all the ingredients for a very dangerous situation with possible generalized

conflicts.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/41...onf6_41_003.pdf

These are the experts talking here. They say that nuclear power is sustainable and could meet our energy needs. The breeder reactors have the added advantage of producing more fuel and not toxic waste like other reactors. It is the long term solution to our problems.

Breeder reactors still produce waste. Your hanging on to a myth of perpetual energy that doesn't exist. Breeder Reactors require fuel and produce waste. The only real difference is, if you can actually get it done cost effectively, is that its more efficient. Its able to get more energy out of uranium. Its not a car that never has to be refueled. You will still need to provide the reactor with U-238 or it will eventually use up all the fissile material it has.

The "waste" from a breeder reactor is more fuel. It is a closed cycle. Don't take my word for it, read about it yourself. Without giving you a physics lesson I guess you will not understand. Look it up. It's a sustainable energy source. Unless of course you are claiming greater knowledge than the physicists that wrote this article.

First law of thermodynamics, Energy is not created or destroyed, but converted from one from to another.

In this case, energy stored in Uranium, is converted to plutonium, by gaining a neutron from a nuclear reaction of the Plutonium already in the reactor. When the plutonium is part of a nuclear reaction, it coverts to a lower order element (holding less energy), and releases energy. It then also creates more plutonium. but releasing a neutron to convert another Uranium atom.

Let me make this simple. Take 10 plutonium atoms, and 40 uranium atoms. Assuming all material reactions, 10 Plutonium atoms will have a nuclear reaction, which will convert all of it to U 235 + 4 free neutrons. Some of these neutrons will produce heat. The rest will covert some of the 40 uranium atoms to plutonium. At the ratio of 1.2 those 10 Plutonium atoms will create covert 12 uranium atoms into into plutonium. So now we have 10 U-235, 12 P-239 and 38 U-238 Atoms. This reaction will continue again until all the U-238 atoms are converted and then all the p-239 is burned up. What you will have left with is alot of energy released, and waste material which will likely be a combination of several metals, some unreacted source material, and the rest decay materials after the plutonium reaction.

If you stop the rector after all the U-238 is used up, but before all the P-239 is burned up. After reprocessing (which the US doesn't do, for issues with security), you will have about the same amount of P-239 that you started with. But you wont have any U-238 except for the extra bit that wasn't reacted. So you can take the the left over fuel (P-239), but you will need to add U-238 to start the reactor again.

So no, this is not entirely a closed system. You have to continue to add U-238, and you will be able to regain very little of that back in reprocessing. However U-238 is much more common than U-235, which is used in other reactors.

I see your now agreeing with me. You started out saying that we didn't have enough fuel to meet our needs and now your explaining nuclear physics to me.

But the problem with nuclear energy is that the supply of uranium is finite. If we increase our consumption of uranium, we will be out of it pretty quickly.

The bottom line is this, with breeder reactors our uranium fuel supply will last for a 1000 years.(see the DOD report that I posted) I think in that time we will come up with a longer term solution.

We don't have enough U-235 fuel. Which is used by standard reactors. But we have much more U-238 which is used by breeder reactors. Something like 99% of Uranium is U-238.

But we are still limited by costs and security concerns (Keeping Plutonium out of those who want to make weapons, since some of the byproduct going to recycling is weapons grade). At earliest, we are not likely to see much for production facilities until 2030, and more likely it will never come into use as long as cheaper energy sources exist.

[Dan J 277]

This is what happens to U-238 in a breeder reactor.

Uranium-238 (U-238), is the most common isotope of uranium found in nature. When hit by a neutron, it becomes uranium-239 (U-239), an unstable element which decays into neptunium-239 (Np-239), which then itself decays, with a half-life of 2.355 days, into plutonium-239 (Pu-239).

It becomes Plutonium-239.

Which is then used in a nuclear reaction, which also releases neutrons to continue the conversion of U-238 and is converted to lower order elements.

But unless you continue to supply U-238, it will eventually no longer have material to covert.

What your suggesting is that feeder reactors need to be fueled once. In a sense thats true if you consider Pu-239 that fuel. Hover, you loose Pu-239 in a nuclear reaction, but you can continue to create more as long as you have U-238.

Feeder Reactors have a unlimited supply of fuel material, as long as they continually supplied with the source to create that fuel.

So we are in agreement then, breeder reactors can supply us with the power we need for the foreseeable future. Thats all I care about. If you want to argue the fine points of the laws of thermodynamics on advanced nuclear science then thats cool, all I want is a sustainable energy source. Breeder reactors will do it.

Feeder reactors are probably about 30-50 years off before we can really consider it an energy source. Fusion might be even longer since it will take half that to built the first test reactor. So in the mean time, lets work with what we have, and what is proven. There is nothing wrong with solar and wind power. We have it now, instead of 50 years from now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+...article8641.htm

This is interesting - I could be wrong - but my understanding of scholarly research tells me that you don't have an abstract without a corresponding paper. How is it then that the 928 abstracts in Oreskes original study now translates to 528 papers in the study by Schulte?

Moreover, was the flaw identified by Oreskes in her study related to the key word search, specifically looked into by Schulte? And how closely does Schulte's methodology resemble that of Barry Peisner?

These are not unreasonable questions, but can you authoritatively answer them? I'd say not (afraid I can't either). For one thing, neither of us are researchers or have the data to hand...

Some more info from Wikipedia

Oreskes wrote an essay on science and society BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change[1] in the journal Science in December 2004.

In the essay she reported analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’”.[2] [3]. The essay stated the analysis was test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change. After the analysis, she concluded that 75% of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. A flaw in the essay was, as Oreskes later conceded, that the keywords searched weren’t “climate change”, but “global climate change”. The search was also restricted to certain sections of the database that were not listed in the essay.

Her conclusions were directly challenged by Benny Peiser, who enumerated the figure of backing the consensus view at closer to only 30% [2]. However, Peiser’s letters to Science[4] on the subject were rejected by the editors. Peiser claimed that he had repeated Oreskes' search and had found 35 articles that supported the position that global warming was not caused by human action. It was subsequently revealed that his search criteria were not the same as Oreskes's, due to the flaws mentioned above -- not using the same search terms and not excluding any parts of the database, which resulted in his finding more abstracts than Oreskes had. Also, as Peiser's search included articles which had not been peer reviewed, op-ed articles in journals such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists were in his list of 35 abstracts. Regardless, many critical readers of Peiser's list have claimed that most of the papers he cites do not in fact contest the IPCC's position on Anthopogenic Climate Change. Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms. [3]

Oreskes has responded to criticisms such as this, including those from Richard Lindzen, with a later editorial in The Washington Post[4].

Edited September 5, 2007 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here is a statement in relation to Benny Peiser's criticism of the original study.

From: Peiser, Benny

Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2006 7:04 PM

To: sarah curnow

Cc: Sarah Curnow

Subject: RE: Media Watch enquiry

Dear Sarah Curnow

Thank you for your interest.

Here are the answers to your questions.

> You did not re-assess the same 928 articles Professor Oreskes assessed?

In my original critique of Prof Oreskes' study, I used the *same ISI database and the same key words* as Oreskes but used *all documents* listed therein. Prof Oreskes did not specify the method she applied in her study, and only later confirmed that she had limited her search to "articles", while I included "all document types" in my initial assessment. This difference appears to explain the discrepancy between the "928" abstracts Oreskes claims to have analysed and the 1117 documents I found and considered.

> I understand the impact of her use of the "global climate change" search terms. Your first letter to Science makes it clear, you conducted your own search and found 1247 articles, of which

only 1117 had abstracts, so you studied these 1117 articles.

In her Science essay, Oreskes claimed to have used the key words "climate change" - the ISI databank includes almost 12,000 documents with these key words.

> Prof Oreskes selected a sample of almost 10% of the peer-reviewed articles on global warming.

I'm afraid that is not the case. The vast majority of abstracts in her sample do not deal with anthropogenic global warming at all.

> That approx 10% was a total of 928 articles.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993 - 2003) using the keywords "global climate change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts. I have listed *all* abstracts in question on my website at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

> do you know whether the 928 articles she studied were included in the 1117 articles you studied?

Yes

> This indicates that you selected your own sample group.

As I explained above, I included *all* documents (i.e. 1247) whereas Oreskes only used "articles" (however, there are only 905 abstracts in the ISI databank)

> It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?

Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

> If so, her findings and your (different) findings can be compatible.

Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

> Why do you believe your research is significant?

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.

Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...blings-of.html)

Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf