Global Warming - Yes/No - Causes?
05-10-2010, 09:40 AM
#61
I think it would matter. Honestly (I am a optimist no matter how hard I try to beat that down) it seems to me that people are begining to really question the specifics of things a lot more in recent years as a general trend. More to the point, they are not nearly as willing to accept someone screaming about waste storage and 3 mile island as a expert with an informed opinion. Most people I talk to are shaking their heads and asking why we dont have more nuclear power.
IIRC Chernobyl failed due to a coolant pump issue that basically meant no fresh water through the system and also a absolutely stupid beurocratic reluctance to shut down the reactor due to the need to keep the ting going and the hassle of of getting it warmed up again. Bad mix. And totaly 100% avoidable.
IIRC Chernobyl failed due to a coolant pump issue that basically meant no fresh water through the system and also a absolutely stupid beurocratic reluctance to shut down the reactor due to the need to keep the ting going and the hassle of of getting it warmed up again. Bad mix. And totaly 100% avoidable.
Essentially, the reactor tried to correct the real-time problem they were inducing on it and they shut it down and prevented the reactor from doing what it was designed to do.
Reply
0
0
There goal was to replace those with new ones, but the core went critical too quickly to do so. Wouldn't have mattered anyway.
05-10-2010, 02:45 PM
#67
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Yep. Like I said they were trying to get a few extra percent of output out of it, even though they knew by design it wouldn't take it. Like trying to push 30psi on a 200,000 mile stock block. I had an astronomy teacher who was from the area and had family that worked on the investigation. She had a lot of neat insight on the disaster. She also turned the astronomy class into "why communism doesn't work and sucks" class. I didn't mind, I had already taken the astronomy class before.
Reply
0
0
05-10-2010, 03:01 PM
#68
Yep. Like I said they were trying to get a few extra percent of output out of it, even though they knew by design it wouldn't take it. Like trying to push 30psi on a 200,000 mile stock block. I had an astronomy teacher who was from the area and had family that worked on the investigation. She had a lot of neat insight on the disaster. She also turned the astronomy class into "why communism doesn't work and sucks" class. I didn't mind, I had already taken the astronomy class before.
Reply
0
0
05-10-2010, 03:53 PM
#70
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,650
Total Cats: 3,010
The big problem I have with all of the "greenhouse gas" hysteria is the same problem I have with most types of hysteria, they dismiss logic. In the late 1960s and early 1970s they were so worried about "global cooling" that the "scientists" actually suggested scattering coal dust across both polar ice caps to warm the planet and prevent a coming ice age. Thirty years later the same douches are screaming and running around with their hair ablaze over the very opposite occurring. I would be very happy for them to sit down and have a heaping bowl of shut the **** up. Can you imagine the trouble we would have now if they were allowed to act on their brilliant ideas back then?
To the discussion of carbon dioxide being a "greenhouse gas," I don't prefer to discuss it with that manufactured label attached. I prefer to refer to carbon dioxide as "plant food" as it is essential to photosynthetic plant life. As more carbon dioxide is produced, plants become more lush, grow larger, grow stronger, bear more fruit, and cover more barren ground with cool green vegetation. Which is cooler, grass or rock? Grass or sand?
The fossil record details that the times with some of the greatest coverage of vegetation on the surface of the earth occurred during times of some of the greatest amount of airborne carbon dioxide (footnote required, but I saw it on TV at some point). The fact that there are more plants in the presence of increased carbon dioxide would mean that there would also be an abundance of oxygen created by those plants when they respirate which would benefit the vitality of animal life. So, if more carbon dioxide is created, both the plants and animals flourish, and if less exists, plants and animals decline. Wait, how is carbon dioxide bad again?
To the discussion of carbon dioxide being a "greenhouse gas," I don't prefer to discuss it with that manufactured label attached. I prefer to refer to carbon dioxide as "plant food" as it is essential to photosynthetic plant life. As more carbon dioxide is produced, plants become more lush, grow larger, grow stronger, bear more fruit, and cover more barren ground with cool green vegetation. Which is cooler, grass or rock? Grass or sand?
The fossil record details that the times with some of the greatest coverage of vegetation on the surface of the earth occurred during times of some of the greatest amount of airborne carbon dioxide (footnote required, but I saw it on TV at some point). The fact that there are more plants in the presence of increased carbon dioxide would mean that there would also be an abundance of oxygen created by those plants when they respirate which would benefit the vitality of animal life. So, if more carbon dioxide is created, both the plants and animals flourish, and if less exists, plants and animals decline. Wait, how is carbon dioxide bad again?
Reply
0
0
05-26-2010, 11:25 AM
#74
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Since this thread is mostly one-sided and I've pretty much stopped responding to political threads...
Sparetire: here is a guide you might like to read if only for the other view.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
it addresses the vast majority of arguments against climate change.
Sparetire: here is a guide you might like to read if only for the other view.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
it addresses the vast majority of arguments against climate change.
Reply
0
0
05-27-2010, 01:19 PM
#75
Y8S, this brings another question that can be asked. Now, when we're talking of climate change, do you think most of us are on a global scale or more of a territorial scale? I mean, sure, it's getting hotter in a lot of places, but where I'm living, temperatures have been getting gradually colder (and is becoming physically noticeable) over the last 6 years. I'm playing on the Global field only as a voice against significant climate change because (and I'll plead ignorance in a specific sense) it just seems unnatural for things not to be balanced one way or another.
Reply
0
0
05-27-2010, 01:23 PM
#76
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Y8S, this brings another question that can be asked. Now, when we're talking of climate change, do you think most of us are on a global scale or more of a territorial scale? I mean, sure, it's getting hotter in a lot of places, but where I'm living, temperatures have been getting gradually colder (and is becoming physically noticeable) over the last 6 years. I'm playing on the Global field only as a voice against significant climate change because (and I'll plead ignorance in a specific sense) it just seems unnatural for things not to be balanced one way or another.
Reply
0
0
05-27-2010, 01:41 PM
#77
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
Since this thread is mostly one-sided and I've pretty much stopped responding to political threads...
Sparetire: here is a guide you might like to read if only for the other view.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
it addresses the vast majority of arguments against climate change.
Sparetire: here is a guide you might like to read if only for the other view.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
it addresses the vast majority of arguments against climate change.
Thank you for that, I will read up.
Reply
0
0
05-31-2010, 09:10 AM
#78
You're missing the point. I'm saying, sure, our global climate is changing, but it's the local temperatures we are noticing. Have you ever noticed that the media only reports on the places that are having record heat waves? What about all the places that having record low temperatures? As for the small (small as in compared to ALL of the information out there, leading or misleading) amount of research I've done into this over the years, the climate really isn't changing (as in how you would interpret it), more so shifting. I'm not really sure if I clarified at all, but can you at least grasp the point I'm trying to make?
Reply
0
0
06-23-2011, 04:18 PM
#79
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it’s a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.
...
But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the “rules” of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made “legal” and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)
...
[Global warming] has been has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged ”unequivocal.”
But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!
And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it’s entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.
...
To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public’s respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.
...
But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the “rules” of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made “legal” and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)
...
[Global warming] has been has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged ”unequivocal.”
But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!
And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it’s entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.
...
To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public’s respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.
for cereal.
Reply
0
0
06-24-2011, 08:17 AM
#80
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 428
Total Cats: 1
But what of the tritium leaks?
In our state, a scary company called Entergy buys nuke plants that are past design life, then they file for extensions, and file to run the plants @ 125% of design max output. They always get permission to do both.
Then the plant starts leaking tritium into the ground water, and they lie about the construction of cooling pipes, saying none are underground. The plant leaks tritium for months before they come clean and report that rusty pipes are buried and have failed.
I have read more about the thorium plant design, and that is very interesting! I'd love to see us put some serious research into that.
Reply
0
0
