International Report Cites Global Warming Cause, Effects

[drock59]

PS. Funny link.

[Twitterbait]

No prob Drock, let me try to clarify,

 

1.. If abortion is not legal (except in extreme cases of rape, incest, etc...) then there are no fetuses to throw away. i would be able to support it more if they would use the stem cells from the umbilical cord seeing as how there are tons of those every day with each child birth and they would have an ample supply.

 

2.. My decision to support the war is due to the 2 options we had. one thing people fail to say when discussing WMD is that he did have them, he just didn't have the ones they were looking for. They found tons of chemical warheads when they got in there, they just didnt find and biological warheads that they initially thought they had.

 

so the 2 options, Saddam Hussein or us?

on the one side you have saddam, he kept control through tyranny and murder of his people. he was almost a microchasim of Stalin who seemed to be loved by the populace but behind the scenes was killing millions. the people had no freedom, no rights, trade embargos that limited supplies, hunger, and fear of being killed for speaking out.

 

on the other side you have the american occupation. Beleive it or not... YES IT WILL BE TEMPORARY with our guys you have freedom, rights, a blooming economy, more respect on the world stage, resumed international trade with no embargos, expanding technology, jobs, and the ability to make something more of yourself. Yes there are problems but have you taken a moment to actually look at the problems based on the reports, not the media?

 

The terror cells and extremests have done a good job pinning the violence on us but in the end it is civil war between the sunni and shia with us caught trying to keep order. This is the dicisive time for the population of that country to decide for themselves if they can last together. under saddam everyone was somewhat equal in their fear of being killed so they had no time to fight over differences... but now you have terrorists trying to cause problems by creating the rift between the factions. it is not our boys being over there that is the problem. we could walk out tomorrow but then you would have full on civil war and deaths of millions that would make the rwanda tragedy look like nothing.

 

so yes, we are kinda stuck there while they learn to live together. Yes we will lose more solders. but in the end they will come together and we will leave. I choose to beleive that when it is all said and done that country will have a much better future when we are done. it is just going to be a hard road to get there.

[Twitterbait]

 

3rd confusion:

It sounds like you are saying you are choosing to side with those who want to stop oppresion rather than stop global warming. Is that accurate? Either way good for you. However, I get confused why that is the reason you support the war in Iraq and Bush.

 

The reason we went into Iraq was not because Sadaam was mean and oppressive. If was supposed WMDs and supposed links to terrorists....right? There are a lot of other ways to help people in need and to get rid or change oppressive forms of government besides dropping a bomb.

 

 

Beleive it or not i do agree that we should always be diplomatic. N Korea is a good example assuming Kim Jung Il actually starts to feed his people finally...

 

but unlike many pacifist i beleive that there comes a time where talking is not worth it anymore and action is required. Regardless of the reported reason, the plight of the people in iraq warranted action over talk this time.

 

Yes i support the war over climate change. homelessness, hunger, pain, and suffering too... you talk about how the money from the war could have been used on so many things... what about the money spent on global warming? I won't even go into my opinion on the accuracy of these studies

 

I was feeling a little defensive but i am doing better. I know we can have a civil discussion. I am sorry if i tread on someones beleifs, it is not my intention.

[bluecheese]

here are some info about Howard Frumkin coming to PSU November 8 to talk about what we can do to prepare ourselves against climate change.

[Twitterbait]

stop farting

[bluecheese]

So you like eh! You know I do it for you (laugh)

[180Brandy]

Has anyone been watching the show on CNN called Planet in Peril?

[Twitterbait]

Nah, I have had enough of their spin. :p

[reefgeek84]

Has anyone been watching the show on CNN called Planet in Peril?

I watched it the other night...well not watched, I had it on the TV and listened to it, as I did some stuff around the house...It was very interesting and surprisingly unbiased for CNN...I really thought it was going to be very liberal, but I am an open minded person and am always down to hear the other side (and with some liberal mind sets :-) , not to many though)... so I figured I would watch it...they talked about some interesting stuff in all sorts of areas, not just global warming/climate change...they talked about animal loss, deforestation, over population, etc.

 

So I think it is a great thing for people to just watch...

[180Brandy]

I think so to Reefgeek!

[bluecheese]

Just saw a short part of it on the Chinese Mine and pollution of the river with higher incidence of cancer down the stream. Scary! Thought it was quite interesting. Seems pretty objective too. Surprising for a CNN program.

[reefgeek84]

So I have been seeing alot of things on TV about hybrids, electric cars, and just saw a new one for honda's hydrogen car...So I am thinking out loud here and have done no research into this what-so-ever, but thought I would see what others have to say...Everyone talks about all these resources that could be used instead of gas, but those would either ran out or would cause other forms of global warming...

 

If everyone switched to:

 

E-85: There would not be enough corn to sustain everyone driving, also it would burn more fuel overall, since the corn needs to be driven to places and can not be pumped through a pipe line, like oil can.

 

Electric/hybrid cars- I see commercials where they say to turn your electric thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter and if everyone did this, we would save a whole bunch of carbon emissions because of less electricity...so if everyone had electric cars, would we not be producing more of a just a different kind of carbon emission?

 

Hydrogen cars: (I think this is the most promising out there) however, if they are producing moisture and if everyone drove them, would there be any worry that we would change the climate to rain alot more which could cause some major issues with always having an overcast rainy day...

 

I also saw a commercial for CSX trains, who claim they can carry a ton of frieght 420miles on a gallon of fuel...I have no idea what kind of fuel, but this might be something to look into for our cars, but maybe it has to do with the type of motor it uses and it can not fit in average cars...

 

Again, I have not studied any of this, just thinking out loud here, cause I think this is a great thread and has been very good about staying on track and not turning into a flame fest...

[Twitterbait]

you point out a very important problem with hydrogen cars. the most powerful and damaging greenhouse gas is... wait for it... water!!! i still like the idea of hydrogen cars best if they could find a good way to get the gas to us.

 

you would be amazed (or not) at the technology out there to make cars more effecient. the problem is that the oil companies are still doing their best to buy the technology and then bury it as deep as they can. in the end they want to ride the gravy train as long as they can.

 

just think about it, when we no longer need oil the only thing the middle east will be good for is gonna be sand.

[drock59]

Electric/hybrid cars- I see commercials where they say to turn your electric thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter and if everyone did this, we would save a whole bunch of carbon emissions because of less electricity...so if everyone had electric cars, would we not be producing more of a just a different kind of carbon emission?

 

reefgeek, it is my understanding that using electric cars is far less polluting. We are already producing pollution at powerplants. If everyone had an electric car, we would only be using one source. Therefore, we would not be polluting by using electricity for our homes,etc, as well as gasoline for our cars. Does that make sense?

 

You are correct, that there would be an influx of pollution/emissions from electricity producing facilities but I think emissions would be much less than continued use of gas. I hope someone with more knowledge can jump in.

 

but those would either ran out or would cause other forms of global warming...

 

True, but this is why I cannot understand why there has not been huge investments in solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and other "natural" or renewable energy sources. I dont think the sun is going away anytime soon and I think there will continue to be wind in many areas for a long time.

 

If we as a country really wanted to make alternative energy happen, we would. Investing in renewable energy would create a ton of jobs and lead other countries to follow suit. However, most of these technologies will create some sort of pollution, directly or indirectly. The bottom line is that they will produce far far less than what we are currently using.....coal.

 

Honestly, doesnt that seem wrong that we are still burning coal in 21st century?

 

Twitter, you brought up another huge point. Think about our foreign policy if we were not dependent on oil. Would we have such a huge presence in the middle east? I dont think so.

 

All of these things put together gives me a headache because it seems so logical what we need to do. However, the older i get the more I realize that the world is not logical no matter how much I would like it to be.

[reefgeek84]

reefgeek, it is my understanding that using electric cars is far less polluting. We are already producing pollution at powerplants. If everyone had an electric car, we would only be using one source. Therefore, we would not be polluting by using electricity for our homes,etc, as well as gasoline for our cars. Does that make sense?

 

You are correct, that there would be an influx of pollution/emissions from electricity producing facilities but I think emissions would be much less than continued use of gas. I hope someone with more knowledge can jump in.

 

 

 

True, but this is why I cannot understand why there has not been huge investments in solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and other "natural" or renewable energy sources. I dont think the sun is going away anytime soon and I think there will continue to be wind in many areas for a long time.

 

If we as a country really wanted to make alternative energy happen, we would. Investing in renewable energy would create a ton of jobs and lead other countries to follow suit. However, most of these technologies will create some sort of pollution, directly or indirectly. The bottom line is that they will produce far far less than what we are currently using.....coal.

 

Honestly, doesnt that seem wrong that we are still burning coal in 21st century?

 

Twitter, you brought up another huge point. Think about our foreign policy if we were not dependent on oil. Would we have such a huge presence in the middle east? I dont think so.

 

All of these things put together gives me a headache because it seems so logical what we need to do. However, the older i get the more I realize that the world is not logical no matter how much I would like it to be.

 

I think the most promising form of energy is geothermal... Solar really has it limitations, my grand parents have used solar to heat their pools they have had over the years, and it has worked out well, because they only used the pool in the summer time, when there was sufficient sun, but other then that they would need to heat the water with electricity...Wind takes up lots and lots of precious land to have the giant windmills, so that could have a very negative effect on the wild life that is in those areas...

[SeanF]

Ethanol also has higher emissions of non greenhouse gasses than gasoline and would actual cause more smog than conventional gasoline. The trains are able to be so fuel efficient because they use big motors to pull huge loads. They don't have to change their speed much in their travels and once the loads are moving take very little power to keep their momentum going.

 

Solar Power is held back by the efficiency of the solar cells themselves. They are only about 14% efficient need to be about 50% efficient to be viable as a power source. There is some good research going on in this field right now that may have some big breakthroughs soon.

 

The big thing is that we are just getting to a point where companies and researchers are starting to realize that the first big breakthrough in low impact energy could mean big bucks. It is the almighty dollar that drives innovation and change. If the costs of the energy that we are currently using wasn't so high there wouldn't be this research going on.

[drock59]

Sean that is exactly what I was going to say. Solar HAS been really inefficient in the past but will become more and more efficient and less costly.

 

Also, there has been a lot of studies done on the damage to wildlife due to wind power and the biggest concern that I read was birds. Apparently, they have fixed that problem. Seems to me that I would want to stick a couple turbines out in my corn field and sell the extras back to the power company.

 

Couple of cool links on solar:

 

http://www.google.com/corporate/solarpanels/home?gsessionid=NZZ6-gaUEBo

 

http://www.physorg.com/news99904887.html

 

http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=14932

 

Definitely some interesting research and development happening.

[SeanF]

The biggest thing is going to be producing something that is cheap enough to have 3rd world and developing countries see it as a worth while venture. Otherwise there really will never be an impact on global pollution.

[Twitterbait]

Personally, i prefer nuclear. while it does have waste, they have found ways to reconstitute the waste again and again for use with less disposed waste. granted you gotta bury the stuff deep it is still one of the most effecient means of electricity and a correctly run reactor will have less ambient radiation than the surrounding area (federal law). The only time there have ever been reactor issues/problems have been when the safety systems have been shut off for testing.

 

I say build a nice massive reactor complex in the middle of the nevada desert.

 

solar is still pretty lame and wind has problems chopping up birds. geothermal only works where you have a source and those areas are inherently unstable. you don't want to go building a large power plant next to an active volcano... who would give you insurance??

[RoseCityAquarium]

Twitter, Unfortunately, there are significant problems with nuclear power plants:

 

Mining and purifying uranium has not, historically, been a very clean process.

 

Improperly functioning nuclear power plants can create big problems. The Chernobyl disaster is a good recent example. Chernobyl was poorly designed and improperly operated, but it dramatically shows the worst-case scenario. Chernobyl scattered tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere.

 

Spent fuel from nuclear power plants is toxic for centuries, and, as yet, there is no safe, permanent storage facility for it.

 

Transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses some risk, although to date, the safety record in the United States has been good.

These problems have largely derailed the creation of new nuclear power plants in the United States. Society seems to have decided that the risks outweigh the rewards.

 

Nuclear power is a terrible idea until someone can find a safe disposal methood for the nuclear waste.

 

These reactors produce electricity, but they also give off carbon-14, tritium, and plutonium -239. Carbon-14 has a radioactive half-life of 5730 years, and tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years. These reactors do not give off carbon-dioxide gases, but they certainly cannot be designated as “clean” or “green.”

The spent fuel from nuclear reactors is extremely radioactive and dangerous to all living things. It contains

some 200 deadly radioactive elements as byproducts of the fission process, such as uranium, cesium, strontium, and iodine. They are radioactive for thousands and thousands of years, for longer than recorded human history. The half-life of Plutonium-239 is 24,390 years, and for Plutonium-242 the half-life is 387,000 years.

 

Currently, much of these wastes are stored on site near reactors, in pools of water for cooling, and some older wastes in dry storage. Over the last 60 years some 225 million tonnes have been accumulated in the world, some 34,000 tonnes in Canada alone.

[reefgeek84]

Twitter, Unfortunately, there are significant problems with nuclear power plants:

 

Mining and purifying uranium has not, historically, been a very clean process.

 

Improperly functioning nuclear power plants can create big problems. The Chernobyl disaster is a good recent example. Chernobyl was poorly designed and improperly operated, but it dramatically shows the worst-case scenario. Chernobyl scattered tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere.

 

Spent fuel from nuclear power plants is toxic for centuries, and, as yet, there is no safe, permanent storage facility for it.

 

Transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses some risk, although to date, the safety record in the United States has been good.

These problems have largely derailed the creation of new nuclear power plants in the United States. Society seems to have decided that the risks outweigh the rewards.

 

Nuclear power is a terrible idea until someone can find a safe disposal methood for the nuclear waste.

 

These reactors produce electricity, but they also give off carbon-14, tritium, and plutonium -239. Carbon-14 has a radioactive half-life of 5730 years, and tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years. These reactors do not give off carbon-dioxide gases, but they certainly cannot be designated as “clean” or “green.”

The spent fuel from nuclear reactors is extremely radioactive and dangerous to all living things. It contains

some 200 deadly radioactive elements as byproducts of the fission process, such as uranium, cesium, strontium, and iodine. They are radioactive for thousands and thousands of years, for longer than recorded human history. The half-life of Plutonium-239 is 24,390 years, and for Plutonium-242 the half-life is 387,000 years.

 

Currently, much of these wastes are stored on site near reactors, in pools of water for cooling, and some older wastes in dry storage. Over the last 60 years some 225 million tonnes have been accumulated in the world, some 34,000 tonnes in Canada alone.

 

I am not saying I disagree with you, but I have heard completely the opposite of everything you are saying...Penn and Teller actually did one of thier "bullsh!t" shows on nuclear power and touched on all the issues you mentioned...

 

Yes, Chernobyl is a worst case scenario...look at the Exxon Valdez and recently the oil spill in the San Fransisco Bay...I am willing to bet that if oil was not already a predominant way to fuel things, people would show the Exxon as a horrible reason to go with oil... Not saying that Chernobyl is not worse then a huge oil spill...but everything has it issues, some more then others, but I guess that is all relative as well...

[drock59]

Three words....Penn and Teller.

[reefgeek84]

Three words....Penn and Teller.

 

As I agree with you...They are kind of like Michael Moore... Out there for attention and extreme in some of their views, but there is truth to what they do, the difference is that their show is on HBO and Michael Moore is more greedy and wanted it i the theater. I would not call them a truly viable source, but I can assure that there is truth to they produced...I have also heard the same information from viable sources, not just a show on HBO.

[Twitterbait]

Ok a couple of things,

 

1. I was in Russia for 2 years back in 97-99 so i know what really happened in Chernoble as well as a site in Chelyabinsk that was much worse. And in ALL cases it was because some idiot turned off the safety systems during testing. they wanted to see if the reactors would cool themselves down if the safety systems failed and as we can see, it didn't work.

Russian and east european reactors use liquid graphite to cool the reactor core. the problem with this is that liquid graphite tends to heat up when it runs uncontrolled through the system. American reactors use ammonia to cool them which has a tendancy to cool down when run uncontrolled. this alone makes american reacotrs much safer.

 

#2. who told you they have no storage for nuclear waste? they have been storing waste in deep underground facilities for decades. they combine the waste with glass prior to long term storage. there have been tons of material that has been reconstituted into uranium for reactors again and again (yes, you can recycle nuclear material) I know a guy that works in nuclear waste reclimation and i know it is being done.

 

when it comes down to it, yes it is not clean. but for the power you get it is the cleanest most effecient energy out there.

[H20cooled]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Link to REPORT