Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 06.06.2007, 14:29
Colonelboris's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 1,137
Groaned at 17 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 1,273 Times in 671 Posts
Colonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Not quite - you need different isotopes of hydrogen and they ain't cheap! Or that common. The relative abundances of H2 and H3 are pretty small, which is why we have to pay through the nose for them at work.
The fusion process in the reactor is a very different one to that in the bomb and it's really not that likely that you'd ever get much of an explosion out of it even if it did go wrong, which is also very, very unlikely. Worst that could happen is the field goes off, and then you just get a very small superheated cloud of gas.
__________________
New book out now: European Bird Names: A Translation Guide.
www.tonykeenebirds,co,uk - photos, paintings and drawings of Swiss, Australian, NZ and British birds
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 06.06.2007, 14:37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Not quite - you need different isotopes of hydrogen and they ain't cheap! Or that common. The relative abundances of H2 and H3 are pretty small, which is why we have to pay through the nose for them at work.
The fusion process in the reactor is a very different one to that in the bomb and it's really not that likely that you'd ever get much of an explosion out of it even if it did go wrong, which is also very, very unlikely. Worst that could happen is the field goes off, and then you just get a very small superheated cloud of gas.
Yeah I knew you needed isotopes, was trying to keep it simple so the non-scientists could follow.

It a straight equation, cost to obtain vs cost to produce energy. It's a massive difference in the positive so it's still worth while.

What you using deuterium + tritium for? Or is it all hush hush?
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 06.06.2007, 14:38
Lob's Avatar
Lob Lob is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: -
Posts: 7,809
Groaned at 42 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 1,973 Times in 1,060 Posts
Lob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond reputeLob has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Has it been suggested in this thread that 5 billion people exhailing instead of 3 billion is having a significant effect too?
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 06.06.2007, 14:48
Colonelboris's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 1,137
Groaned at 17 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 1,273 Times in 671 Posts
Colonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I made that point on another forum and was accused of advocating social engineering to the point of genocide... The predicted population growth of china by 2025 will completely destroy any progress made under a fully-implemented Kyoto treaty just from people breathing...

And in regard to isotopes, we use deuterated compounds for powder neutron studies. Damn' expensive!
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 06.06.2007, 14:52
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I made that point on another forum and was accused of advocating social engineering to the point of genocide... The predicted population growth of china by 2025 will completely destroy any progress made under a fully-implemented Kyoto treaty just from people breathing...

And in regard to isotopes, we use deuterated compounds for powder neutron studies. Damn' expensive!
So you're looking at atomic structures/lattices then.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 06.06.2007, 18:17
Colonelboris's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 1,137
Groaned at 17 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 1,273 Times in 671 Posts
Colonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Indeedly - here's our group page: http://dcbwww.unibe.ch/groups/decurtins/

I think population control will be a more effective measure for cuting CO2 than trying to bust yer nuts making everyone make a 10% drop in emissions, which nowadays would be almost impossible to get everyone to do. By that I don't mean exterminating pre-existing populations, but trying to convince everyone that big families might not be the way to go unless you fancy taking up an aquatic lifestyle in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 06.06.2007, 18:32
Tim's Avatar
Tim Tim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts UK
Posts: 417
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 136 Times in 80 Posts
Tim is considered knowledgeableTim is considered knowledgeableTim is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Indeedly - here's our group page: http://dcbwww.unibe.ch/groups/decurtins/

I think population control will be a more effective measure for cuting CO2 than trying to bust yer nuts making everyone make a 10% drop in emissions, which nowadays would be almost impossible to get everyone to do. By that I don't mean exterminating pre-existing populations, but trying to convince everyone that big families might not be the way to go unless you fancy taking up an aquatic lifestyle in the future.
The trouble is that Man has become too effective against the natural population controls once offered by disease and things like the Spanish Flu. And our whole way of life....not to mention our pensions!.... is threatened by not having a big enough young generation.

Really if you think of some changes and advances that have come to the fore in the last decades, we could live without them.

Make sundays the "days of rest" they used to be and introduce a special "sunday travel" tax (as sort of previously mooted).

Do away with air conditioning altogether. Why not? All it offers is a comfort that wasn't available to older generations. they did without it....why can't we? Especially if we know that by sacrificing that level of comfort we could help save the world (which I personally don't subscribe to but I'm playing the game here. )

To achieve what many think ought to be achieved is never going to happen by exhorting individual action alone. The action would have to be drastic and government led...akin to the type of measures that have been imposed on the public in the previous two world wars. After all, if we are to believe what we are led to believe, the "enemy" we currently fact is far far more dangerous than the Germanys of the last century.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 06.06.2007, 20:14
Jamesk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Has it been suggested in this thread that 5 billion people exhailing instead of 3 billion is having a significant effect too?
It's not just the breathing, it's also the farting. Cars at least only produce CO2 from one end, not CO2 from one end and Methane from the other!

Quote:
View Post
I think population control will be a more effective measure for cuting CO2 than trying to bust yer nuts making everyone make a 10% drop in emissions, which nowadays would be almost impossible to get everyone to do.
So we need to reduce the population to prevent the earth from heating up, and we need to do it fast.

Why only stop with man? What about nature? What about cows, bears, sea life - clearly, they too need to be culled because nature produces far more CO2 then man does, 97% as compared with 3%.

Quote:
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 07.06.2007, 05:04
Tim's Avatar
Tim Tim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts UK
Posts: 417
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 136 Times in 80 Posts
Tim is considered knowledgeableTim is considered knowledgeableTim is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post

Why only stop with man? What about nature? What about cows, bears, sea life - clearly, they too need to be culled because nature produces far more CO2 then man does, 97% as compared with 3%.
Just guessing here,,,,but maybe it's because while Nature's output of CO2 has remained unchanged for basically centuries, Man's impact, though representing a small percentage of the overall figure, has increased enough to tip the balance?
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07.06.2007, 06:57
Polorise's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: about there
Posts: 2,738
Groaned at 25 Times in 25 Posts
Thanked 2,325 Times in 1,259 Posts
Polorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It's not just the breathing, it's also the farting. Cars at least only produce CO2 from one end, .
Carbon monoxide James, carbon monoxide ....
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 07.06.2007, 07:55
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 875
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 352 Times in 230 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Nice.

Once you have started nuclear fusion, how do you stop it and prevent the earth becoming a sun?
Was that a serious question?
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 07.06.2007, 08:01
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 875
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 352 Times in 230 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Fusion story on BBC, this is what I was on about. Makes any other possible source of energy pretty much a waste of time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6720449.stm
Using focused lasers to ignite little drops of tritium is not new. It's also not new for nuclear fusion to be 25 - 30 years away from being "commercially viable".

It would be interesting to see at a complete energy audit of this process,
starting with the extraction of deuterium and tritium from sea wter, and ending with their fusion in the reactor.

Last edited by BeastOfBodmin; 07.06.2007 at 08:02. Reason: s/rhier/their/
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 07.06.2007, 13:17
Colonelboris's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 1,137
Groaned at 17 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 1,273 Times in 671 Posts
Colonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

It might make an impact to start it up, but once running, it does kick out a lot of energy, so powers a lot of the processes involved that would use fossil fuel to start with.

You could probably remove a lot of CO2 by capping a few volcanoes with carbon-capture plants. Those volcanoes make us look like we're piddling into an ocean.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 07.06.2007, 13:23
gbn's Avatar
gbn gbn is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Zuri Oberland
Posts: 2,747
Groaned at 104 Times in 71 Posts
Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,124 Posts
gbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond reputegbn has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Using focused lasers to ignite little drops of tritium is not new. It's also not new for nuclear fusion to be 25 - 30 years away from being "commercially viable".

It would be interesting to see at a complete energy audit of this process,
starting with the extraction of deuterium and tritium from sea wter, and ending with their fusion in the reactor.
Extracting deuterium and tritium is chemical, compared to fusion which is orders of magnitude higher.

I read somewhere that hot fusion research (lasers etc) is far more widely funded than "cold fusion" because it's a back door way of gov'ment nuke weapons testing given that nukes can't be tested anymore
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 07.06.2007, 13:28
Tim's Avatar
Tim Tim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts UK
Posts: 417
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 136 Times in 80 Posts
Tim is considered knowledgeableTim is considered knowledgeableTim is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It might make an impact to start it up, but once running, it does kick out a lot of energy, so powers a lot of the processes involved that would use fossil fuel to start with.

You could probably remove a lot of CO2 by capping a few volcanoes with carbon-capture plants. Those volcanoes make us look like we're piddling into an ocean.
Those volcanos will end up saving us. I'm expecting a real big one to let loose with all guns blazing later this year and cool us all down by blocking out the sun

Mind you, I think I remember hearing once that an Icelandic volcano once caused devastation in the UK as its poisonous gases decended upon an unsuspecting population
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 07.06.2007, 14:03
Colonelboris's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 1,137
Groaned at 17 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 1,273 Times in 671 Posts
Colonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond reputeColonelboris has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Yep, about 200 people carked it in Britain from the gas cloud. There was a really OTT BBC docu-drama on it. unless you get a nice, quiet eruption, like in Iceland or Hawaii, then usually, you get a lot of tsunamis, death, destruction, etc, with volcanoes, especially if it's going to block out sunlight to an extent to cool the planet. Krakatoa only managed a few degrees and only for a few years at that. Nice sunsets, though.
The cold fusion's not funded as it's the scientific version of leprosy after the snafu about it in the late 80s when it turned out not to have worked properly after all. Just whisper the phrase at a funding meeting and they call the bouncers in.
__________________
New book out now: European Bird Names: A Translation Guide.
www.tonykeenebirds,co,uk - photos, paintings and drawings of Swiss, Australian, NZ and British birds
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 07.06.2007, 17:29
Jamesk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Just guessing here,,,,but maybe it's because while Nature's output of CO2 has remained unchanged for basically centuries, Man's impact, though representing a small percentage of the overall figure, has increased enough to tip the balance?
When CO2 levels increase, plant life just utilizes more of it and there is an increase in plant growth. The overall level of CO2 balance remains the same.

Man's contribution to global CO2 levels is in case negligible. There is little that man can do to tip the CO2 balance in nature.

Even if CO2 levels were to double to 0.08%, it would require an increase from around 200 billion tons to say 400.


For man to do this, his contribution would need to increase by an astronomical amount, which is highly unlikely (6 billion currently to 206 billion, ie over 3000%).

However, even if this could happen, plant life would just gobble up the excess CO2 - it is food for them - and the CO2 balance would revert to approx 0.04%.
__________________
James
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 09.06.2007, 01:21
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 875
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 352 Times in 230 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It might make an impact to start it up, but once running, it does kick out a lot of energy, so powers a lot of the processes involved that would use fossil fuel to start with.

You could probably remove a lot of CO2 by capping a few volcanoes with carbon-capture plants. Those volcanoes make us look like we're piddling into an ocean.
No they don't. From this year's IPCC report, in the FAQ section:

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differ-ences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.

Also, I looked at a spreadsheet of the actual data used for the various climate models used and there is no section set aside for volcano emissions.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 09.06.2007, 01:46
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 875
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 352 Times in 230 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
When CO2 levels increase, plant life just utilizes more of it and there is an increase in plant growth. The overall level of CO2 balance remains the same.
Please provide some references to support that claim. The situation is more complex, I believe. Plants, when stressed by heat, may actually become net sources of CO2. And also, perhaps, methane.

Quote:
View Post
Man's contribution to global CO2 levels is in case negligible. There is little that man can do to tip the CO2 balance in nature.
You have really managed to learn absolutely nothing since you started trolling on this forum. Google for this spreadsheet. Note where it comes from. Load it, spend some time looking at the data.

IS92_Scenarios_A-F_ver1.1_final.xls

Please provide references to data that support your idea.

Quote:
View Post
Even if CO2 levels were to double to 0.08%, it would require an increase from around 200 billion tons to say 400.

For man to do this, his contribution would need to increase by an astronomical amount, which is highly unlikely (6 billion currently to 206 billion, ie over 3000%).
You are babbling again Jamesk. You may treat your body as a temple, but your mind is rather untidy, it seems. Can you please explain where those numbers come from?

Quote:
View Post
However, even if this could happen, plant life would just gobble up the excess CO2 - it is food for them - and the CO2 balance would revert to approx 0.04%.
Show me the references that support that statement please. CO2 levels have been higher than they presently are in the past. Why did plant life not prevent this at the time?
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank BeastOfBodmin for this useful post:
  #200  
Old 09.06.2007, 15:33
Jamesk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Please provide some references to support that claim. The situation is more complex, I believe. Plants, when stressed by heat, may actually become net sources of CO2. And also, perhaps, methane.
When you look at the effects of one substance, you need to assume that all other effects are constant. More heat may stress the pants, as might nuclear fallout, but it does not discount the well known fact that increasing CO2 increases the rate of plant growth - which is easily demonstrated in a green house.

I'm travelling at the moment, but when I have time I'll take a look at the spreadsheet.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0