America is back in the nuke biz...

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I believe it is happening. I do not believe it is entirely our fault, and is most likely the cause of stardust. I also believe that we can do a thing or two to minimize it by our own output, so I am not against the fact that the spec on this reactor has 0 tolerance for greenhouse gas emmisions. It is as green as you can be without removing energy creation or energy use from the face of the planet.

-S

I believed global cooling was happening in the late '70s early '80s. The next ice age. What happened to that? I believed it b/c I was young and impressionable.
That is what the global warming snake oil salesman are counting on now. Naivte.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I believed global cooling was happening in the late '70s early '80s. The next ice age. What happened to that? I believed it b/c I was young and impressionable.
That is what the global warming snake oil salesman are counting on now. Naivte.

There wasn't nearly the same scientific weight behind the Ice Age theory than there is today, supporting the idea that human activity over the last 200 years is adversely affecting our climate in dangerous ways.

[Seth8530]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Liquid metal reators from the alfa-class???:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :rotfl:

Dear lord no! lol i love nuclear i belive its the futute.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

There wasn't nearly the same scientific weight behind the Ice Age theory than there is today, supporting the idea that human activity over the last 200 years is adversely affecting our climate in dangerous ways.

When all is said and done, I think you will find human activity accounts for less than 20%. That means 80% is caused by forces outside of our control. This does not mean that we shouldn't try to limit our 20%, but it does mean that we are ultimately at the mercy of mother nature.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Very true, and well said Subman. I think the ideas in implementing a variety of energy sources is a good idea. It looks like solar will be coming down in costs very soon, and it will be easier and cheaper to put your house on it. There is a concerted effort out here in California to do that, and I like the idea. I like nuclear power myself, but I'm still uncertain about the storing methods for waste. In a nation as large as the USA, with many more nuclear plants, we would need to determine newer and better methods of long-term storage, or reprocessing of nuclear materials.

As far as the Ice Age stuff, there was indeed a push and a concerted effort. The only difference I see today is that information flows faster and easier and with more widespread access with the onset of the Internet and such. Unfortunately, that has also resulted in alot of misinformation, scare tactics, political posturing in scientific organizations, and heated fanatacism. Gone are the days when we ask questions, and look at data with a raised eyebrow without some fanatics going into near hysterical frenzies.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

...I like nuclear power myself, but I'm still uncertain about the storing methods for waste. In a nation as large as the USA, with many more nuclear plants, we would need to determine newer and better methods of long-term storage, or reprocessing of nuclear materials...

So are you saying we have a storage problem? I think it is no problem at all personally. A little leakage is good for the environment. It makes the wildlife much more entertaining:



-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

When all is said and done, I think you will find human activity accounts for less than 20%. That means 80% is caused by forces outside of our control. This does not mean that we shouldn't try to limit our 20%, but it does mean that we are ultimately at the mercy of mother nature.

The 70% caused by natural sources isn't the problem. The Earth can deal with that 70% and the 10% from animals etc as well but the 20% from humans isn't balanced, it keeps going up and up (our release of CO2) and the Earth has trouble coping with this imbalance.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The 70% caused by natural sources isn't the problem. The Earth can deal with that 70% and the 10% from animals etc as well but the 20% from humans isn't balanced, it keeps going up and up (our release of CO2) and the Earth has trouble coping with this imbalance.

Hardly. It's not that fragile, as proven time and time again.

-S

[fatty]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hardly. It's not that fragile, as proven time and time again.

-S

I'm not so certain about that...

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hardly. It's not that fragile, as proven time and time again.

It certainly seems to be. Never before (that we know of) has the Earth warmed so mch so fast.
If we haven't been able to find a natural cause for all this warming, and an alternative explanation, a workable theory, backed up by empirical evidence exists, then what are we to conclude?

Check out this graph of temperature variations. Does the 2004 level look natural?
Going back 12,000 years, it doesn't look natural.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Variations.png

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It certainly seems to be. Never before (that we know of) has the Earth warmed so mch so fast.
If we haven't been able to find a natural cause for all this warming, and an alternative explanation, a workable theory, backed up by empirical evidence exists, then what are we to conclude?

Check out this graph of temperature variations. Does the 2004 level look natural?
Going back 12,000 years, it doesn't look natural.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Variations.png

Don't use Wikipedia. It could be written by someone with about your knowledge on the subject.

If you study all the data from Medieval times, it was worse back then than it is today:

http://biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

Also, 1935 was hotter than any year on record, so all this BS that is is hotter now than was at any time in the past is pure BS.

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Don't use Wikipedia. It could be written by someone with about your knowledge on the subject.

Sorry, should have posted the commons link. Here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...Variations.png
That should fill you in on who is making the images and where the data comes from.
Nice you-don't-know-nothing snap, though. We've discussed this issue enough to know that neither of us are climate scientists moonlighting on forums.

If you study all the data from Medieval times, it was worse back then than it is today:
http://biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

Who are "The Biology Cabinet"? I can find one scientist behind this, Nasif Nahle. Google isn't being very helpful either.
The NOAA don't seem to agree. HERE

Originally Posted by NOAA

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

I know that Nahle has used some NOAA data, but I'd prefer to take it from source. Also, the biocab graph isn't labelled very clearly, there's a lot of stuff going on in it that ain't labelled.

Also, 1935 was hotter than any year on record, so all this BS that is is hotter now th7an was at any time in the past is pure BS.

I said it's never warmed so much so fast. Not that it's hotter now than it's ever been.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Sorry, should have posted the commons link. Here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...Variations.png
That should fill you in on who is making the images and where the data comes from.
Nice you-don't-know-nothing snap, though. We've discussed this issue enough to know that neither of us are climate scientists moonlighting on forums.

Don't take that as a negative. I'm in the same boat. We are not experts. Also, I don't buy the whole model as provided as I will describe below.

Who are "The Biology Cabinet"? I can find one scientist behind this, Nasif Nahle. Google isn't being very helpful either.
The NOAA don't seem to agree. HERE

I know that Nahle has used some NOAA data, but I'd prefer to take it from source. Also, the biocab graph isn't labelled very clearly, there's a lot of stuff going on in it that ain't labelled.
I said it's never warmed so much so fast. Not that it's hotter now than it's ever been.

On the NOAA front - they have only run simulations, and while they may be a good at being close to a few degrees, this is the also the very problem with a simulation. You must also look at record data from the period which their simulation does not incorporate. Read the source material for the link I provided. It shows you that NOAA is not the exclusive source since they can only guess at what was what at any certain point in time unless it was extremely hot or an Ice Age. What is also included is record data from the period.

Regardless of what is or isn't the case with the data, what I really think is happening here is a case of people all a sudden realizing they have a ton of data for the 20th century - the first time EVER! They see a temp fluctuation and then freak out and speculate on what could be the cause, when this is probably quite normal. This is what is happening - they are freaking out because they think we are the only force at work here. People need to take a chill pill and follow things for much longer than the short term data they actually have. It could very well be that in 5 years, things cool off and then they'll freak out about that and say we did too much. 80%+ of all climate change will have no direct result of human activity, intentional or not, so I speculate that mother nature will correct the small percentage we are contributing at some point.

In the meantime, it is not a bad thing to try to limit our contributing factor in this matter either. What I am more concerned about is my own health from the emissions polluting our atmosphere than have an inch rise in sea level or worse weather. It is the very pollution that concerns me much more.

-S

PS. How did this thread get so far off topic? Maybe if this discussion is going to continue, you start a new thread on it. This thread is supposed to be about nukes.