Global warming pauses... for sixteen years

althor

Well-Known Member
Althor was talking abouut the price of energy. That price has always been artificialy low, it is time it was raised to it's actual cost. "even if?" So this is just one more coincidence right?

Government "squeezing" more money from the people is only the way you see it because you don't see a problem at all, just lots and lots of coincidences.

If you will look carefuly at some of the threads around here you will see that I explained my plan quite thoroughly. Raise the price of gasoline and diesel by two dollars a gallon.

Do you have any idea the effects from raising gasoline 2 bucks a gallon? That would be catastrophic.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Lol, are you honestly comparing radioactive waste with CO2 and having radioactive waste come out on top? You know a half life means it reduces by half every few hundred years, right? One becomes 1/2, 1/2 becomes 1/4, 1/4 becomes 1/8...it takes a very very very long time to return to baseline levels. Also carbon dioxide isn't taken into the body and used wrongly, for example, radioactive caesium is used as calcium by the body.

Your credibility is forever fucked now, sorry bro.
"In contrast, the amount of natural uranium required to provide the
same amount of energy as 16 kg of fossil fuels, in a standard fission reactor,
is 2 grams; and the resulting waste weighs one quarter of a gram. (This 2 g
of uranium is not as small as one millionth of 16 kg per day, by the way,
because today’s reactors burn up less than 1% of the uranium.) To deliver
2 grams of uranium per day, the miners at the uranium mine would have
to deal with perhaps 200 g of ore per day."
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml

"Uranium can be used 60 times more efficiently in fast breeder reactors,
which burn up all the uranium – both the [SUP]238[/SUP]U and the [SUP]235[/SUP]U (in contrast to
the once-through reactors, which burn mainly [SUP]235[/SUP]U). As long as we don’t
chuck away the spent fuel that is spat out by once-through reactors, this
source of depleted uranium could be used too, so uranium that is put in
once-through reactors need not be wasted."
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_163.shtml

"Tailored waste forms that would only have to
remain intact for 500 years, after which
material would no longer be hazardous
Lacking plutonium, waste would not be useful
for making weapons"
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

co2 being pumped into the air in huge quantities and if AGW is real is doing alot of harm to the planet/ environment (wait till gw really hits for extinctions)

nuclear isnt pumped into atmosphere (events like fukishima are rare and was an old design reactor)

across the board nuclear is safer and more environmentally friendly than all other options
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
"In contrast, the amount of natural uranium required to provide the
same amount of energy as 16 kg of fossil fuels, in a standard fission reactor,
is 2 grams; and the resulting waste weighs one quarter of a gram. (This 2 g
of uranium is not as small as one millionth of 16 kg per day, by the way,
because today’s reactors burn up less than 1% of the uranium.) To deliver
2 grams of uranium per day, the miners at the uranium mine would have
to deal with perhaps 200 g of ore per day."
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml

"Uranium can be used 60 times more efficiently in fast breeder reactors,
which burn up all the uranium – both the [SUP]238[/SUP]U and the [SUP]235[/SUP]U (in contrast to
the once-through reactors, which burn mainly [SUP]235[/SUP]U). As long as we don’t
chuck away the spent fuel that is spat out by once-through reactors, this
source of depleted uranium could be used too, so uranium that is put in
once-through reactors need not be wasted."
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_163.shtml

"Tailored waste forms that would only have to
remain intact for 500 years, after which
material would no longer be hazardous
Lacking plutonium, waste would not be useful
for making weapons"
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

co2 being pumped into the air in huge quantities and if AGW is real is doing alot of harm to the planet/ environment (wait till gw really hits for extinctions)

nuclear isnt pumped into atmosphere (events like fukishima are rare and was an old design reactor)

across the board nuclear is safer and more environmentally friendly than all other options
You're completely insane, it's conversion to energy ratio is unimportant and predictable using Einsteins good aul reliable E=mc^2.

You fucking liberals never fail to astound me.

The only "clean" nuclear is fusion, currently it's almost at a 1 to 1 power input/output ratio, but getting above that (once it's reached) will also be a mammoth task.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
You're completely insane, it's conversion to energy ratio is unimportant and predictable using Einsteins good aul reliable E=mc^2.

You fucking liberals never fail to astound me.

The only "clean" nuclear is fusion, currently it's almost at a 1 to 1 power input/output ratio, but getting above that (once it's reached) will also be a mammoth task.
fusion isnt about inusable form atm sry

if the waste is contained entirely can it be called dirty?

your gonna have to work on your trolling a bit i think
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
fusion isnt about inusable form atm sry

if the waste is contained entirely can it be called dirty?

your gonna have to work on your trolling a bit i think
No you're gonna have to figure out what logical reasoning is, nuclear power is not clean by any stretch of the wildest imagination, if I was trolling you'd be mad by now, I'm just dealing in facts here.

Good day to you sir.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
No you're gonna have to figure out what logical reasoning is, nuclear power is not clean by any stretch of the wildest imagination, if I was trolling you'd be mad by now, I'm just dealing in facts here.

Good day to you sir.
go on then explain the effects on the environment of your standard nuclear power station
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
Gee this show a flatten of the rise. Wonder why the red line doesn't curve? Politics.
do you know the difference between mean , medium and avg . . . . lmfao . ..

or how statistics are even plotted in scattered ranges and values like this . . . .this is basic stuff , weather is a warming trend due to human's or natural cycle changes is not relevant

warming cycle is evident, CO2 emissions from humans dont help, e.i acidification of our seas(not a normal accurance in a warming trend throughout history), so any other argument is pointless . . you people
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Let me ask you global warming nuts a question....

How long does it have to plateau or dip for you to STFU???

In the 70's the global warming psycho's found that they could not substantiate their data so they flipped over to global cooling psycho's...

Now we are back to a global warming scare...

Cant make up your fucking minds...
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Let me ask you global warming nuts a question....

How long does it have to plateau or dip for you to STFU???

In the 70's the global warming psycho's found that they could not substantiate their data so they flipped over to global cooling psycho's...

Now we are back to a global warming scare...

Cant make up your fucking minds...
Phil Jones one of the climate change alarmists originally said a pause of 15 years would cause "worry" about the whole global warming hypothesis. Now that we have passed that threshold he has moved the goal posts. Surprise!

My guess is that the AGW crowd won't change their stance till they have icicles hanging off their balls.

"Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did."

"Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’"
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16-year-pause-in-global-warming
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
whats funny is you two cant read a scatter plot . . . . .or even know what trends mean besides hanna montana or lady gaga . . . . . . . keep up the pseudo science

we will stick to observation, test, conclusion
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I asked 4 questions...you answered none..all these questions are views from your choice of would be POTUS..
You asked 4 questions that have NOTHING to do with the views of RP. He didn't like the civil rights act because it gave government too much power over private business, had nothing to do with skin color, but of course a reverse racist like yourself sees racism in EVERYTHING!! Its the only way you can try to justify your failures.

To londonfog , everything is just a plan, perpetrated by the man, to keep a brother down.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
We're not releasing raw natural gas into the atmosphere. Natural gas is the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels, yet you're against it? That doesn't make any sense. Would you prefer we use a more polluting fuel?
We are realeasing it, and we will release more of it as it gets into the infrastructure of the country. I am not "against" it, I am simply for complete knnowlege of what we are getting into.

In fact I covet a natural gas automobile. I have two friends with them, one has a home refuling station, he would love it except that he is a snob and hates to be seen in the car rather than his BMW. Run out of gas? get towed. Get low on gas? better not turn the engine off. Stop at an older fueling station? you get 3/4 full and not full. Want a trunk? forget it. If you don't plan your trip around fueling, you will run out.

but I believe he told me he was paying an equivelent of $1.24 a gallon.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
while natgas is the cleanest burning you still have the problem of co2. nuclear is by far and away the greenest of all of them
And yet Nuclear can contribute to global warming simply by..... warming the atmosphere. (I doubt it is much)
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Why do you want poor people to starve, freeze and die?

"For a sense of where this may lead, look at Germany, whose crash program to replace nuclear power with wind and solar is boosting electricity rates. Der Spiegel reports that 200,000 long-term unemployed lost power in 2011 because they couldn’t pay their electric bills."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-liberals-green-energy-contradictions/2012/10/15/8c251ba2-16e6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html

Here is the situation. If we stick to our current course, we will have shortages of fuel and people in the northeast will... freeze and die. If we tax the stuff, we can use some of the taxes to subsidize the poor's use of that fuel.

My father frequently said "if you keep going the way you are headed, eventualy you will arrive". If we keep energy prices artificialy low for long enough, we will encounter the consequences.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Do you have any idea the effects from raising gasoline 2 bucks a gallon? That would be catastrophic.

Exactly Althor, it would be catestrophic. Do you think it will never reach that price on its own? Do you think that a shortfall of a million brls a day wouldn't spike the price up by that amount? Do you think that any one of half a dozen different scenarios wouln't put the price even higher, if even temporarily?

Best we do it now and normalize it - do it in increments of 20 cents over the course of 5 years. Or do you actually think that we can insulate ourselves from the global oil market by drilling somewhere?

Your brethren, those who believe that on the one hand, there is unlimited oil in the U.S. and it is only the government that is keeping us from getting at it, and on the other, if we begin to run into a problem of availability, science will rush in at the nick of time and save us, are short sighted and ignorant of the realities of the situation.

Not all that uncommon though.
 
Top