Print

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Which is why we need to convert to nuclear power: No pollution. (Not that I know of, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Nuclear fusion however looks exceptionally promising, if they can get that working we really should be set .

I think you mean fusion... but that's like, entirely uncontrollable, and fairly unlikely that we'll have a stable form of it in the near future.

[TomPel]

TomPel

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

I fully agree with Tabby. I mean, it hasn't snowed here in Finland either and the temperature is higher than in decades!
It's just that people either don't want to realize it or they don't believe one can change anything.
If every people thinks like that, nothing gets done.
Some people don't care, because they believe that nothing will happen while they live and they let future generations suffer.
What we need is radical changes!
Like, a leader who doesn't give a !@#$% what other companies say. That's what we need.
If we want to save this planet, I suggest something gets done and fast!
Also, like Andrew said, Icefields are melting and so the sealevel is rising.
There has been these huge storms, which have destroyed towns.
Dear god, I hate it when no one does anything!

.TakaM was here

• 

[Infinitus]

Infinitus

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Which is why we need to convert to nuclear power: No pollution. (Not that I know of, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Nuclear fusion however looks exceptionally promising, if they can get that working we really should be set .

I think you mean fusion... but that's like, entirely uncontrollable, and fairly unlikely that we'll have a stable form of it in the near future.

Yes >.>, of course I mean fusion, that is what I wrote isn't it?. Also its not entirely uncontrollable, numerous fusion reactors have been created - they all work and keep the heat at a manageable level (or at least contain it with powerfull magnetic fields.) The only problem at the moment is there is no net energy gain, and as such can't be used as an energy source.

Heres a link to infomation about the new fusion reactor being built in france, I'll see if I can find some info on the ones that have already been built.
Itor - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627237.stm

Edit: JET - http://www.jet.efda.org/

[Tabby]

Tabby

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

I fully agree with Tabby. I mean, it hasn't snowed here in Finland either and the temperature is higher than in decades!
It's just that people either don't want to realize it or they don't believe one can change anything.
If every people thinks like that, nothing gets done.
Some people don't care, because they believe that nothing will happen while they live and they let future generations suffer.
What we need is radical changes!
Like, a leader who doesn't give a poo what other companies say. That's what we need.
If we want to save this planet, I suggest something gets done and fast!
Also, like Andrew said, Icefields are melting and so the sealevel is rising.
There has been these huge storms, which have destroyed towns.
Dear god, I hate it when no one does anything!

There too?? I thought it was happening only here >_<  I heard that it's been snowing in one of those hot countries where it never snows... can't remember where it was, I'll try to find out.
I agree with you too. Any kind of change is necessary and it can only happen if people do something.

Which is why we need to convert to nuclear power: No pollution. (Not that I know of, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Nuclear fusion however looks exceptionally promising, if they can get that working we really should be set .

I think you mean fusion... but that's like, entirely uncontrollable, and fairly unlikely that we'll have a stable form of it in the near future.

Yes >.>, of course I mean fusion, that is what I wrote isn't it?. Also its not entirely uncontrollable, numerous fusion reactors have been created - they all work and keep the heat at a manageable level (or at least contain it with powerfull magnetic fields.) The only problem at the moment is there is no net energy gain, and as such can't be used as an energy source.

Heres a link to infomation about the new fusion reactor being built in france, I'll see if I can find some info on the ones that have already been built.
Itor - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627237.stm

Edit: JET - http://www.jet.efda.org/

Oh!!! That's the thing my science teacher was talking about for like 4 years ago!!! I remember he said it was being built in France and that it would be very expensive!! I had no idea it was finished! Very interesting, I'm going to take a look at that link at once


Edit: ... but we want H₂O fusion! <___<

[Infinitus]

Infinitus

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Oh!!! That's the thing my science teacher was talking about for like 4 years ago!!! I remember he said it was being built in France and that it would be very expensive!! I had no idea it was finished! Very interesting, I'm going to take a look at that link at once
 

It isn't Itor (the france one) is not complete, it hasen't even started construction yet. JET (Jet Energy Torus) on the other hand has been around for quite some time .

Edit: ... but we want H2O fusion! <___<

Nuclear fusion is more efficient and leaves no by-products , unlike fision which produces tons of radioactive waste.

[Tabby]

Tabby

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Oh!!! That's the thing my science teacher was talking about for like 4 years ago!!! I remember he said it was being built in France and that it would be very expensive!! I had no idea it was finished! Very interesting, I'm going to take a look at that link at once
 

It isn't Itor (the france one) is not complete, it hasen't even started construction yet. JET (Jet Energy Torus) on the other hand has been around for quite some time .

Oh, next time I'll keep in mind to read things better Well it seems like they have planned this for a long time, I guess they need time? I mean... 4.57 billion euros >_<

Edit: ... but we want H2O fusion! <___<

Nuclear fusion is more efficient and leaves no by-products , unlike fision which produces tons of radioactive waste.

Ah.. It was so long time ago I read about fusion, though that's not really an excuse <_<

[Venus]

Venus

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Edit: ... but we want H2O fusion! <___<

Nuclear fusion is more efficient and leaves no by-products , unlike fision which produces tons of radioactive waste.

Well, actually it leaves you with a whole lot of Helium. Whether this is going to be considered waste or not is uncertain. It's a much less dangerous waste than that from fission though (in that it's not radioactive), but who knows what would happen with too much Helium? I hope we can live with everyone talking like Donald Duck j/k <.<

What is H20 fusion, tabby? A molecule can't even be "fusioned", can it? >.> Have they even managed to use water as a power source?

My signature is empty.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Venus, I think Tabby means the use of heavy water as a nuclear fuel source...

[Tabby]

Tabby

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Well they have been attempting to use water for ages but nobody has succeeded... yet It takes too much poowaaah to do so.
It's called cold fusion? You use hydrogen if i'm not wrong. And since water contains hydrogen <_<... But maybe it's heavy water i'm talking about, like Pyru said. I'm not sure >_< But if cold fusion (or whatever it's called) could be possible then all our energy problems would be solved.. Cause then we could use simple water as fuel

[Dascu]

Dascu

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

You guys talking about nuclear fusion? Using deuterium and !@#$%?
Well, yeah, that'd be an excellent source of energy. Let's hope that experimental plant in France pays off.

[Source]

Source

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

I fully agree with Tabby. I mean, it hasn't snowed here in Finland either and the temperature is higher than in decades!

I s'pose I should point out that 2006 has been an El Nino year, which means the temperatures were higher than normal. It's a completely natural. That might've been the cause or your lack of snow.

The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone thought to themselves "You know, I really want to set those people over there on fire." - George Carlin

(!@#$%)

Hear the haunting words (They'll find you alone)
lost children with no heart are crying (Turning their hearts into stone)
and you're the lost mother they're calling
Go now, run and hide (seek more than vengeance)
I hear them crying at night (your pain is their satisfaction)
outside when the planets are falling (for the rest of time)
They want to feel and know you hear them (Go now, run and hide)

• 

[TomPel]

TomPel

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

I fully agree with Tabby. I mean, it hasn't snowed here in Finland either and the temperature is higher than in decades!

I s'pose I should point out that 2006 has been an El Nino year, which means the temperatures were higher than normal. It's a completely natural. That might've been the cause or your lack of snow.

Even so, I wouldn't call that normal. It's been raining the past few days and it's January!

.TakaM was here

• 

[tippz]

tippz

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

No, see, a natural phenomenon that causes warmer temperatures would be considered normal. This warming being normal means that warmer weather and different forms of precipitation would also be normal.

I would also like to say that I don't give the whole theory of global warming a whole lot of credit. Yes, greenhouse gases trap heat. Yes, trapped heat makes the temperature rise. But it the temperature really changing? Not really. Is it all humanity's fault? No, probably not. More importantly, is it a big problem? No way, no how.

Most of you go around and look at the predicted temperature graphs, the so called 'hockey stick graphs' and say OMG temperature is going to go way up. Well, as it turns out, the graphs that were created in the 70's were based on faulty equations. Nearly any numbers put into them would give similar curves. The graphs today use the same equations.

So the predicted data is wrong, but surely the historical records will show us that the temperature is on way too steep a rise! Nope, actually it won't. Historical records show that the medieval period was actually about 3 degrees hotter than even the worst global warming scenario. Guess what a lot of historians and climatologists call that period. The temperature ideal. Further back than that, you can look at the glaciers. "but, those have been frozen for eons!" actually, it is just in the last 1000 years or so that they started to add mass after long periods of melting and remaining the same.

Ok, so we don't have the future, or distant history, but the present! Temperatures have gone up considerably in the last 100 years, even the last 30. Nope, they really haven't. By most estimates, the temperature hasn't changed by more than an average of 1 or 2 degrees over the last 100 years, that is measuring with ground equipment that is subject to human error. If we look at temperature data collected by satellites, which has been recorded for about the last 30 years, the average temperature has not changed by more than .01 degrees.

Fine, it hasn't happened yet, and we don't know when it will happen, but the greenhouse gases are there so we know it is going to happen eventually. Ok, so maybe it will, but if every part of the Kyoto Protocol is met by every nation in the world the expected change in temperature over the next 100 years is less than one degree. What's more, in order to put a large portion of the Kyoto Protocol into effect billions if not trillions of dollars would have to be spent.



Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that there isn't potential for disaster. I am just saying that the current near hysteria about the whole thing is not necessary. The current attitude is do everything to save the environment now, economy be damned. I think it would be better if we could come up with economically and environmentally friendly solutions to this potential, future, problem, not current danger...

[TomPel]

TomPel

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

If it's usually -10C here, and it's now almost +10C, I would call that temperature rising.

.TakaM was here

• 

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Anyone read my essay at all? Seriously.

If the money's spent to try to avert global warming, it's just expenditure switching - the global economy will continue to be relatively productive. Some industries may be hit harder than others, but a lot of markets will grow, so the net difference in economic output is likely to be low, regardless of whether or not climate change comes to fruition.

However, if the predictions are anywhere near the mark, then the impact on the global economy is going to be huge.

So, basically, the idea is "if the theory's wrong, then no harm done, if the theory's right, then lowering CO₂ emissions could save the world".

[tippz]

tippz

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Anyone read my essay at all? Seriously.

If the money's spent to try to avert global warming, it's just expenditure switching - the global economy will continue to be relatively productive. Some industries may be hit harder than others, but a lot of markets will grow, so the net difference in economic output is likely to be low, regardless of whether or not climate change comes to fruition.

However, if the predictions are anywhere near the mark, then the impact on the global economy is going to be huge.

So, basically, the idea is "if the theory's wrong, then no harm done, if the theory's right, then lowering CO₂ emissions could save the world".

Yes, some industries will be hit more than others. What about economies based around those industries? They will be destroyed.

Another thing, if predictions are anywhere near the mark then in 400 years we might see some sort of noticeable change. Most predictions have less than one degree changes every century.

Your idea makes sense though, if we don't go gung-ho switch change everything now. Subtle changes without large negative economical impacts (whether they are balanced elsewhere or not) are the way to deal with it. Because those negative impacts do cause harm.

Destroying the economy now or the environment in the future both screw everything up for your kids...

[Zerolink]

Zerolink

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

The greenhouse effect is a freaking hoax. They say that the temperature has risen substantially in the past like 100 years or whatever, but it's crap. The most it's gone up is like...a third of a degree or something like that, I don't have my evidence with me at the moment...but it's somewhere around that. And while that COULD be considered SOMETHING, there's not really any reason for it to be. I mean there's discrepencies in temperature all the time, I live in Missouri...I know all about that. It's a chaotic thing, you can't average it out over years and say "Hey look, there's been a slight increase, everyone get scared!" Because it changes too much from year to year. I mean we are releasing gases into the atmosphere and stuff...but if it DOES cause any kind of problem...at a third of a degree every 100 years, it's not something we'll have to worry about anytime soon. Especially not before we find the means to counteract it. There's so much fuel efficient stuff now, not to mention all the work on nuclear fusion (because fission is one of the main nasty things right now), it's doubtful that any damage we've BEEN doing will continue to be harmful for much longer anyway. Myth: busted.

[tippz]

tippz

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

The greenhouse effect is a freaking hoax. They say that the temperature has risen substantially in the past like 100 years or whatever, but it's crap. The most it's gone up is like...a third of a degree or something like that, I don't have my evidence with me at the moment...but it's somewhere around that. And while that COULD be considered SOMETHING, there's not really any reason for it to be. I mean there's discrepencies in temperature all the time, I live in Missouri...I know all about that. It's a chaotic thing, you can't average it out over years and say "Hey look, there's been a slight increase, everyone get scared!" Because it changes too much from year to year. I mean we are releasing gases into the atmosphere and stuff...but if it DOES cause any kind of problem...at a third of a degree every 100 years, it's not something we'll have to worry about anytime soon. Especially not before we find the means to counteract it. There's so much fuel efficient stuff now, not to mention all the work on nuclear fusion (because fission is one of the main nasty things right now), it's doubtful that any damage we've BEEN doing will continue to be harmful for much longer anyway. Myth: busted.

While I agree that a large part of the global warming thing is crap and that it is blown out of proportion there is no way that you can say the theory is a hoax. It is proven that greenhouse gases trap heat. It is also proven that the co2 levels are rising, likely as a result of human action. The problem with the whole anti global warming movement is that it takes this problem, that has been minor thus far (and let's be honest, the average estimate has it being pretty minor for the next couple hundred years) and makes it seem like a huge problem that has immediate consequences for anything less than a totally devoted response.

[TomPel]

TomPel

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Dude, don't talk if you don't have anything to back up your theory!
I mean, maybe there hasn't been any changes there in Missouri, but I have seen huge changes here in Finland.
And, I would rather make changes, just in case, rather than taking the chance of believing you and that it's a hoax.
Why would someone make up such a thing? It wouldn't help anyone, in fact, it would make things worse.
Try disproving the fissions of ice fields.

.TakaM was here

• 

[Venus]

Venus

Re: The greenhouse effect :P

Even though it is a small change now, the changes might increase exponential which would mean an accelerated increase. And even a fraction of a degree per year can be a lot after some decades, if it only increases proportional (sp?).

You know who make it such a big thing? Companies who try to make money on people who want to do a good thing. Seriously, have you seen all the ads advertising a so-called environment-friendly product? They make is seem like it's the end of the world if you don't buy the product. If you want to be environment-friendly the thumb rule is that consuming less is better than consuming environment-friendly products. Because even those products harm nature even though they might harm less than other products. So only buying environment-friendly products is not a reason to consume more.

My signature is empty.