BF2S Forums global warming

iamangry wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

good luck living in a radiation shit hole

you really do not understand do you this is a simple picture of how it works
http://static.howstuffworks.com/flash/n … eactor.swf
note how the radioactive water is in a closed cycle, the radioactive water never leaves the plant.

and for your information

as quoted from howstuffworks.com

A coal-fired power plant actually releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere than a properly functioning nuclear power plant.

look things up please.

oh and the uranium is radioactive anyway we are just letting of some of its energy.

radioactive is cleanest  effective type of powerr.

screw this im gonna go watch war of the worlds, it makes more sense then what half of you are saying.

I am so glad we have someone who has a firm grasp of the safe and clean nature of nuclear power.  I notice a number of people mentioning things like volcanos and what not and their contributions to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  These are good points all, however they don't address one very important thing.  There is highly tangible evidence to suggest that there is global warming as a result of the oncoming of industry, it has been referenced by several people in this thread.  Natural global warming cycles occur slowly, over great periods of time.  Since we cannot be sure that our emissions of various gasses has no effect on this process.  This uncertainty leaves us with a choice, and four possibilities. 

1:We have affected the process and we dont stop, in which case all sorts of problems occur with the environment
2:We have affected the process and we stop, in which case we avoid an environmental disaster
3:We have not affected the process and we stop, in which case at least the air is cleaner and our energy infrastructure is more sustainable
4:We have not affected the process and we dont stop, in which case nothing changes

Until there is more information on the subject, until there is more data, we cannot be sure about whether we've affected the process or not.  This means if we choose not to stop we are effectively choosing to gamble with our environment.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-06-26 10:57:51)

herrr_smity wrote:

Yes but you will have to change the fuel rodes ever once in a wile and they are highly radioactive

Darth_Fleder in http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=7803  wrote:

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.

This is not a guide for wusses whose aim is merely to wipe out humanity. I (Sam Hughes) can in no way guarantee the complete extinction of the human race via any of these methods, real or imaginary. Humanity is wily and resourceful, and many of the methods outlined below will take many years to even become available, let alone implement, by which time mankind may well have spread to other planets; indeed, other star systems. If total human genocide is your ultimate goal, you are reading the wrong document. There are far more efficient ways of doing this, many which are available and feasible RIGHT NOW. Nor is this a guide for those wanting to annihilate everything from single-celled life upwards, render Earth uninhabitable or simply conquer it. These are trivial goals in comparison.

This is a guide for those who do not want the Earth to be there anymore.

To find out more.......follow the link.

http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-06-26 12:41:42)

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

http://qntm.org/destroy wrote:

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron.

go on then explain how the

ken-jennings wrote:

western civilisations

are going to have any effect at all upon the earth........let alone completely changing the climate

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-06-26 12:56:07)

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Well, gauging by the past temperature history chart of the planet and the trends that it shows, I have no doubt that the planet is in a warming trend. However, I think that the science is still out as to the root causes. Again, I point out that Mars and Jupiter are also in warming trends.

http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/8663 … ig37ys.gif

http://www.gcrio.org wrote:

Figure 3 Air temperature near Antarctica for the last 150,000 years. Temperatures given are inferred from hydrogen/deuterium ratios measured in an ice core from the Antarctic Vostok station, with reference to the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol 329, pp 403-408, 1987 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winte … -fig3.html

I point out again rather dramatic shifts in short (relatively) periods of time. Take a look at the first dramatic 13C rise in antarctic temperature approximately 130,000 years ago and again about 13,000-18,000 years ago. CO2 Emissions from fossil fuels? Smog from the stone age?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-26 13:29:53)

Vilham wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Yes but you will have to change the fuel rodes ever once in a wile and they are highly radioactive

Yes and they can be burrowed into the silt that is about 40m deep at the bottom of the sea, you simple encase the rods in a concrete block shaped like a bullet and then drop it into the sea, its PE will then allow it to gain enough speed to burrow about 20m into this silt where it will never see the light of day till the 10000 years for their atoms to decay fully.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Another point to ponder... Where is the greatest abundance of animal and plant species found on land today? They are found in the equatorial, tropical climates, i.e the warmest places on Earth. Another conveniently forgotten fact in the hysteria of 'global warming'. There was once subtropical growth in Greenland and Patagonia. Also, the hottest periods in Earths history are notorious for their abundance of life. For more recent examples see the Paleocene and Oligocene epochs. Also see the Cambrian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Another point to ponder... Where is the greatest abundance of animal and plant species found on land today? They are found in the equatorial, tropical climates, i.e the warmest places on Earth. Another conveniently forgotten fact in the hysteria of 'global warming'. There was once subtropical growth in Greenland and Patagonia. Also, the hottest periods in Earths history are notorious for their abundance of life. For more recent examples see the Paleocene and Oligocene epochs. Also see the Cambrian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods.

And what does this have to do with global warming?  If you look in the ocean, there is more life there than anywhere else on the planet.  An interesting footnote, but of no relevance to the global warming argument.