The absurdity of global warming

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

Okay, okay. I forgot this was a liberal forum. You guys can live in your own disillusions as long as you like. Continue to discuss among yourselves on this thread, but I'm out for now. We'll see in roughly 30 years who's right, when the 3 degree rise in temperature causes the ice caps to melt and everyone in the world who ever owned an SUV or breathed CO2 dies of heat stroke.

You guys should all watch the Global Warming episode of South Park, and the one about Man-Bear-Pig.

This has nothing to do with one's political views, but rather paying attention to scientific theory and evidence.

Originally Posted by Captain Ivan

Nuclear bombs are made from a fission reaction activated in uranium. Nuclear power takes energy from a controlled form (I think).

So they are both done using fission, just one is more controlled?

(what is fission, by the way?)

Originally Posted by Wolfen

So they are both done using fission, just one is more controlled?

(what is fission, by the way?)

Fission is the process of releasing energy through the splitting of atoms.

Nuclear Reactors generate power by maintaining at a controlled rate the fission of Uranium or Plutonium. The reaction is controlled in a number of ways, including the use of neutron poisons (neutrons initiate the process of fission when they collide with the atom, and neutrons are given off in the reaction - neutron poisons remove these particles from the environment and stop the process from spiraling out of control) and the designation of enrichment levels for the the reactant (one Uranium isotope is fissable, others are not. By controlling the ratio of the former to the latter in the sample, the reaction rate can be controlled). The heat energy resulting from fusion is used to boil water, and the steam powers a generator.

Nuclear fission weapons use "weapons grade" material (which basically means highly enriched reactant; about 90% Uranium 235 IIRC) and no neutron poisons. Nuclear Fusion weapons reverse the process; smashing atoms (specifically heavy hydrogen isotopes) together rather than breaking them down. Fusion cannot be controlled in the same manner as fission; its something of an all-or-nothing deal - harnessing Nuclear Fusion for power will be an amazing accomplishment.

Originally Posted by Wolfen

(not to go offtopic)Nuclear? As in nuclear bombs? That doesn't sound too environmentally friendly...

Nuclear bombs work differently from nuclear power plants.

The only environmental harm from a nuclear power plant is the waste (which it produces far less of than, for example, producing solar panels does) and, depending on the reactor type, warming nearby lakes a few degrees, which can have an adverse effect on local wildlife.

Nuclear is still the most efficient green energy source by far.


Edit: And yeah, political leanings have nothing to do with this. I am a liberal. However, that doesn't matter. Facts matter. Experts matter. Political leaning does not.

However, another of the difficulties of a nuclear power plant is that it requires a prodigious amount of water to run. In a drought-ridden country like Australia, it's a big ask.

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

Okay, okay. I forgot this was a liberal forum. You guys can live in your own disillusions as long as you like. Continue to discuss among yourselves on this thread, but I'm out for now. We'll see in roughly 30 years who's right, when the 3 degree rise in temperature causes the ice caps to melt and everyone in the world who ever owned an SUV or breathed CO2 dies of heat stroke.

Global warming isn't a political issue - not believing in it doesn't make you a conservative, it makes you an idiot.

OH WAIT.

Originally Posted by Aerem the Wise

Okay, okay. I forgot this was a liberal forum. You guys can live in your own disillusions as long as you like. Continue to discuss among yourselves on this thread, but I'm out for now. We'll see in roughly 30 years who's right, when the 3 degree rise in temperature causes the ice caps to melt and everyone in the world who ever owned an SUV or breathed CO2 dies of heat stroke.

I'm sorry that some people disagree with you. But rather than wait 30 years, why don't you just back up your claims?

Originally Posted by John

Nuclear is still the most efficient green energy source by far.

But sadly, it's the opposite of futureproof.

Originally Posted by fratey

But sadly, it's the opposite of futureproof.

Why do you say that?

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

Why do you say that?

There isn't unlimited uranium in this world.

You sir, are an idiot. 1.2 degrees celcius may not seem like much but its the global average temperature. what you fail to realize is that its getting up to 10 degrees celcius warmer a the poles. Not only that but weather systems and nature is getting screwed up. The warmer temperatures cause different pressure points and winds messing up the weather. You may remember how cold it was earlier this year? Also, an example of it messing up nature is that catarpillars come earlier than they're supposed to because its warm out, so then they die out, so certain trees over grow and it messes up the ecosystem. Don't mess with mother nature.

Originally Posted by Cody

The changes are minor to you, but major to many others. If the sea level rises the tiny amount of, say, 1 meter, the entire country of the Maldives will go underwater and 300,000+ people will become homeless. :3 It's no issue to you guys sitting comfortably in America, but there are a lot of people living just above sea level that really are affected.

Not only that, but because it gets warm, the mosquito population will skyrocket, causing malaria cases to go through the roof! And it IS man made. There is overwhelming evidence to support this. We need to do something about it.

And besides, why NOT just change our ways a little bit? I mena, is it much of laziness and close mindedness that you cant make a few changes in your lifestyle?

Originally Posted by fratey

There isn't unlimited uranium in this world.

True, but with reprocessing, it would last us thousands of years, and is so far the most realistic and environmentally-friendly option. Hopefully when that time is up, technology will have advanced enough to give us better solar panels.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

True, but with reprocessing, it would last us thousands of years

With the amount of nuclear power plants now, we'd be talking about several tens of years... and we keep building more.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

, and is so far the most realistic and environmentally-friendly option.

Chernobyl

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

Hopefully when that time is up, technology will have advanced enough to give us better solar panels.

mm, wind power is another contender who has had some great breakthroughs recently!

Originally Posted by fratey

Chernobyl

Chernobyl was the result of a number of factors, many of which having nothing to do with the fact that it was simply a nuclear reactor. If you look it up you can find all the contributing factors resulting in one huge mess.

Originally Posted by Icky

Aren't you 15 and as such unable to drive?

You get your leaner's permit at 15, in which you may drive if an adult is with you in the car. I'll be 16 in September, so then I would be able to drive. But I choose not too, because it'll harm our enviorment.

Originally Posted by fratey

How does this have any relevance? Global cooling is rarely debated.

In the 1970s there was a "global cooling" scare, and since 998, global temperatures have dropped.

Crop production and animal life, among other things, would be more drastically affected with a cooling.

Just something to mention.

Originally Posted by Wolfen

So they are both done using fission, just one is more controlled?

(what is fission, by the way?)

It is when a particle (alpha, I believe) strikes an uranium nucleus so hard that it splits into two atoms of lesser elements and emits radioactivity. These fragments collide into other uranium nuclei which maintain the process.

Originally Posted by Icky

There are cars out there with better km/l that aren't hybrids, I don't know how it is Canada but compared to European cars, American cars have always been bad in quality and very fuel inefficient. So the difference may be bigger for you.

You mean that by driving cars that emit "large" quantities of CO2 I am killing people? Isn't that a bit over the top?

global warming kills people. Contributing to global warming when you could instead help to prevent it kills people.

Fun fact: Fluorescents have special fittings and cannot be dimmed like bulbs, they are also more expensive to buy.

fun fact: CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) produce more light and use less energy. For a given output of light, CFLs use up to one-fifth of the energy. CFLs produce less waste heat. CFLs produce more natural light. CFLs last up to fifteen times longer. While it is true that CFLs generally can cost from three to ten times more than incandescent bulbs, they pay for themselves because they use less power and last a hell of a lot longer. In the time that one CFL lives out its life, you could have spent five times more on electricity and gone through fifteen incandescent bulbs (so next time you go to the store, find out what's cheaper: one CFL or fifteen incandescents. And that's not even taking the savings in power into account).

also, they fit into any regular fitting.

to be honest, I can think of no logical reason to purchase an incandescent bulb over a fluorescent one. They save you a lot of money, they produce nicer looking light, they are brighter for less energy, and they contribute less to global warming. The only thing incandescent bulbs have are dimmer switches, which I can live without if it means saving money, saving the environment, and saving lives.

What? That's limiting people's freedom.

so does making drunk driving illegal, or murder, or rape.

Originally Posted by Wolfen

(not to go offtopic)Nuclear? As in nuclear bombs? That doesn't sound too environmentally friendly...

although the waste that nuclear power produces is certainly not very environmentally friendly (it's highy radioactive and remains so for hundreds of years) it can be completely contained, unlike the waste that other forms of energy production creates. Burning coal, for instance, releases energy in the form of nearly impossible to contain gases, which are simply released into the atmosphere. The only gas that nuclear power releases is steam. The radioactive wastes are all solid and liquid, if I recall correctly.

Originally Posted by Wolfen

(what is fission, by the way?)

fission is breaking bigger atoms down into smaller atoms. Splitting atoms releases a lot of energy. In a fission bomb, that energy is simply released into one big explosion. In a fission generator that energy is used to heat water, turning it into steam and running a turbine to produce electricity.