>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.


You are such a troll! OMG! The links I previously provided reference many more peer reviewed studies than your single study, even though you deleted them from your quote of me, (wonder why...) Here they are again, scroll to the bottom of the second link,
AND TAKE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE MORE RECENT THAN THE PAPER YOU CITE !!!
"Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

BUT most importantly, you employ circular logic in your main argument, my Chem prof. explained:

You argue water vapour is the cause of current warming, so according to your theory,
-there is more water in the atmosphere making it hotter
-why is there more water in the atmosphere?
-because it is hotter.
-why is it hotter?
-uh... because there is more water in the atmosphere? wait a second...

That's called circular reasoning, and your whole argument hinges on it, scientists have considered these potential forcing agents and CO2 is the primary one, it IS humankind's fault, we CAN abate emissions, and people like you are the reason climate change will reach dangerous levels!

I sympathize for you if your guilt complex is too powerful for you to admit that the warming climate's root cause is anthropogenic. I beg you, please stop misleading others, I don't care if you're employed by exxon or a coal power plant, it MY GOD DAMN ATMOSPHERE TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

I hope wikipedia isn't too liberal a source for your liking, wouldn't be surprised if it is though.

>> ^Peroxide:

@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html


Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.

I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.

If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.

There's a common fallacy here: that "doing something - even if it's not effective - is better than doing nothing". That's not the case.

Lots of the measures people have and are suggesting for combating greenhouse gasses have significant costs and deliver nothing other than relieving the pressure to "do something".

We could completely gut the economy with taxes on transportation, heating, and other uses of energy - and still only slightly delay climate change. And, no, that isn't better than doing nothing. And saying you're committed to something and then not getting results is not better, in any way, than being honest and saying there's nothing significant you can do right now.

It's like we've lost control and we're driving towards a cliff, and some politicians are saying "ok... let's put our hands out the window and wave so we slow down". And then most of them don't even do that. The only real solution is to fix the steering wheel so we can turn.

How do we turn? We commit the same economic resources that would be used to cut energy, run ads, and fund recycling programs and instead find a new energy source that can meet the needs of humanity going forward. This is almost certainly fusion or novel means of fission. But it's easier to sell recycling, LED lights, and 20% more efficient cars than it is to sell scary new nuclear power.

So we're screwed. Thanks idiots!

An almost complete lack of good info, what a waste of time - the LFT reactor does have some promise though, shown in the vid laura posted.

I actually was a little disappointed when i read up on the Governments proposal to develop new nuclear power - they are going to be using Westinghouse reactors based around old tech, i wonder if they even considered developing LFT reactors at all.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?


Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.

Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

Again, striking out only what I disagree with. Our views are quite similar, and I don't think you would be terribly upset if we *didn't* tax drugs

>> ^nibiyabi:
Without getting into specifics . . .
1. end all present and future aggressive wars
2. legalize all drugs
3. tax all drugs
4. phase out fossil fuels by lifting the ban on new nuclear power plants
5. support development of electric cars to move us to a nuclear (power generation) / electric (power use) system
It's a nice start, but I'm probably 100 years ahead of my time (besides number one, which will continue forever).

Without getting into specifics . . .

1. end all present and future aggressive wars
2. legalize all drugs
3. tax all drugs
4. phase out fossil fuels by lifting the ban on new nuclear power plants
5. support development of electric cars to move us to a nuclear (power generation) / electric (power use) system

It's a nice start, but I'm probably 100 years ahead of my time (besides number one, which will continue forever).

In reply to this comment by DavidRaine:
Wind turbines kill birds, and now we see their operation is unsafe and causes wanton destruction to nearby wildlife. We ought to outlaw these dangerous turbines and move to clean, safe, nuclear energy!

I'm not sure if wind turbines can be accurately categorized as causing "wanton destruction", though I will second your notion for nuclear energy (still I'm pretty sure your comment was made in jest). Those fucking baby boomers and their fear mongering back in the '80s has put a damper on new nuclear power plant development in this country. Yet another reason to hate the hippies! Stop fucking in the bushes, cut your hair and get a job, hippies!

It's a shame we don't embrace nuclear power, because it's really a clean and sustainable energy source. A lot better than fossil fuels, in my opinion. I want every car to be equipped with the Flux Capacitor and your very own Mr. Fusion to power it with banana peels and refuse.

WTF, I didn't say anything about planes or coal. You still don't get it do you? When a plane crashes, it doesn't leave the land uninhabitable, and those killed/injured are only the ones on the plane and the ground where it crashed. People don't get sick and die later from plane crash sickness.

The risks are not worth it to build new nuclear power plants when safer, cleaner alternatives are available.

Personally I think wind farms are beautiful. Green hills, dotted with massive wind turbines is just an awesome site. Which would you rather have?

wind farms?
http://www.ararat.vic.gov.au/Page/images/windfarm13.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/06/22/wind_farm,0.jpg

or nuke plants?
http://www.alstec.com/Portals/0/NUCLEAR/CX%20Ext%20Bush.jpg
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/4em/ch02/figs/nuclear-power-plant.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Nuclear.power.plant.Dukovany.jpg/800px-Nuclear.power.plant.Dukovany.jpg

If you decide you don't like wind turbines, they can be moved. If you decide you don't like that new nuke plant, tough you're stuck with it for at least 100 years. Nuclear energy may be relatively safe, but it is not clean. The nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere, and even when a nuclear plant is decommissioned, it can be up to 60 years before the land can be safe to use. That's even if the plant is torn down, the owner can decide to turn it into a spent fuel storage facility and make more money out of it.

All it takes is one nuclear disaster (Chernobyl), and the environmental impact lasts for generations. If there's ever an accident at a wind farm, at least you don't have to evacuate entire cities and contaminate hundreds of square kilometers of land for decades. Yes I know all the experts say that the chance of a Chernobyl happening with US designed reactors is low, but with each new nuclear plant built, that chance goes up.