(February 2, 2017 at 11:17 am)Faith No More Wrote:(February 1, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Those reactors use obsolete technology. The next generation of nuclear power would be immeasurably safer because the fuel rods are designed in such a way that melt-downs are physically impossible. Even before that Thorium was generally safer, but not developed for practical applications because of higher start-up costs than uranium based reactor.
Besides, what is wrong with taking one kind of loose radioactive material out of the ground, sealing it up in virtually impregnable containers, and putting it back in the ground after a few years.
Oh, you think Fukishima simply had a meltdown? Do tell me how you plan to make nuclear reactors invulnerable to natural disaster.
Yes, let's bury all of this irradiated water in "virtually" impregnable containers where we live and get drinking water. What could go wrong? Not only will that also somehow be invulnerable to natural disasters, I'm sure it will be super cost-effective.
(February 1, 2017 at 11:24 am)Faith No More Wrote: That's because only recently has battery technology improved to make long-distance electric travel possible. In addition the life of lead-cell based batteries is relatively short so there was the added cost of replacing batteries.
And you're missing the point. A major reason that battery technology has been slow to evolve to the point of usefulness is because big businesses like the oil companies have done everything thing in their power to stifle research and development. Those very companies whose own research showed that burning fossil fuels was heating up the environment but went on a massive spin campaign to dupe people into allowing them to pollute the planet for profit, just like they did when it was discovered that their lead-based gasoline was poisoning us.
(February 2, 2017 at 10:44 am)Drich Wrote: Glob...
What does digging into ice tell you? more carbon it was warmer???
Retard I am not disputing that their isn't more carbon or that it is warmer. I'm disputing the reason why.
Solar output and the earth's proxcimity to the sun is my/The standing explaination the world had for hundreds of years.
You blindingly trusting anything popular with a 'science' label on it is akin to blind faith in God. WFT are YOU doing?!?!
The reason I'm right/superior here is I know how heat transfer works. There is only So Many BTU's of potential heat energy in a Solar ray. One of the links I posted in my opening post explains "heat transfer" from radiant to measurable air temp, another article I posted explains once the heat is released and converted from radiant to convective heat Co2's role is that of facilitating said transfer more efficiently, but has a poor "green house effect." Meaning if you fill a vessel witha high concentration of co2 and a like one with just a normal mix of 'air' the co2 vessel will get warmer quicker, but will also platue @ or just marginally higher than the vessel with plain air in it.
The Following article puts all of these factors together and takes it one step further, in saying that water vapor is almost 50x better at producing a 'green house effect' than co2 ever could be.
To summarize: I've demonstrated that while CO2 has about 2x the HTEV of water at the molecular level, it is actually less effective a GHG when appropriately measured by weight equivelancy. Because the atmosphere contains on average 40 x as much water in than CO2, water has essentially 50 x the influence on climate as CO2. Water and CO2 combined only account for 1/36th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat. At just 1/1800th of the reason the Atmosphere retains heat, CO2 can simply not be statistically relevant to climate change other than the fact that in cycle, a warmer earth and ocean during interglacials such as the present Holocene, should lead to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere even without humans. Warmer ocean surfaces evaporate more CO2 into the air than smaller, colder oceans do during ice ages. From these simple facts of physics and math one can readily see that AGW alarmists are perpetrating a hoax
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-trap-heat
So, are you through disputing that we have thousands of years of data? Are you admitting that you called people "f-ing morons" for something about which you were in fact the actual moron? Come on, Drich, let's hear an admission. Prove that you have more introspection than a common slug.
Yes, I'm sure you understand heat transfer. I'm sure you understand it as well as you understand evolution, the economy, Thomas Jefferson's religious views and everything else you've completely failed to grasp. An overwhelming majority of people that spend their lives studying this kind of thing say that burning fossil fuels is heating the environment, but I'm the moron for not believing the dickhead fundamentalist on the internet that has stupidly misinterpreted everything he has ever read.
Face it. You trying to use science is like a quadriplegic trying to complete a triatholon. You're just not equipped to do it.
We have "thousands of years" of a single perspective, 1000's of years of 1 single data point, and that is the measure of carbon on ice core samples which means nothing in of itself. all it means is the world got warmer and then it got cooler then warmer and then again cooler, but we have nothing that tells us why. just a correlation with carbon deposited in the ice. (which is not co2)
Again smart guy, I'm not disputing we been getting warmer since our last ice age. That all your ice samles can point to. They can not account for solar out put. Nothing we have access to could until the 1950's! and it is with this 67 year window you and your scientist want to make grandiose claims to millions of years of weather changes.
Which contradict the previous 500 years of scientific observation and study.
Again the part you don't seem to get is 'my side of the argument' is not some faith based well wishing. What I am talking about is based on the predominate scientific model Pre Al's Gore's documentary. There is over 500 years of science and math that back up the other climate change theory.
Again no one saying climate change is not happening or irradically so. I'm just saying it has nothing to do with green house gasses.
Again the study I left conclusively shows that co2 the biggest of the green house gasses is 500 times less effective that an equal amount of water vapor.
There is a green house effect on this planet but it is not primarly cause by co2 emissions it is cause by WATER, And Solar output!
So what now? What happens when Global temp change is no longer in your perception of control?
