Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Supercharazad]

Personally, I think that once Nuclear Fusion is perfected, we just need to find a goos source of Hydrogen and we have a great source of power for until the planet can come together and start using that MASSIVE nuclear fusion device in the sky. It would also decrease the prices for Helium (the only mine for it collapsed years ago).

[Taricus]

Helium is already cheaper than it should be. This'll just put it back into a decent supply.

[Virex]

First of all, the projected sea level rise is little under 2 mm per year, or 2 cm per decade.
The problem with rising oceans is not how much the average rises, we could care less about that. There are several other problems though. For example, higher sea levels means brine and salt water will seep further inland, which decreases the value of coastal farms. It's also expected to increase coastal erosion (primarily of a concern to sand coast regions who may find their harbors fill up with sand or their beaches disappear) and the peak heights water will reach during storms (which could be inconvenient for some people)

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

One problem with Sea level rise is that Sea level is not uniform around the globe.  The oceans are not a single glass of water with a flat surface.  I will look for the scientific article about this later and link it, but i believe it basicly said that the oceans are like 6+ feet different in elevations.  Also, that the difference is not a cycle of tide in and tide out, but a product of mass/rotation/tectonics/other stuff (sorry, dont remember the real actual science other), which basicly means, Sea Level at say "Point A" would flood "Point B" and Sea Level at "Point B" would leave "Point A" high and dry.  The article stated that rise in sea levels would only exacerbate this, not correct it.  The article was written by a proponent of global warming BTW.  Anyone else read that and provide more clues?

Leafsnail:
1.  In other words, we have no scientifically valid evidence of warming, but he thinks there is anyway.  nice double speak.
2.  Your right, thats the correct article, my bad.  Not sure where I got my dates and such.  Probably blind bias.  It happens. 

[Leafsnail]

1.  In other words, we have no scientifically valid evidence of warming, but he thinks there is anyway.  nice double speak.

No.  Look up "Statistically significant".

Basically, there needs to be a 95% chance for the upwards trend to be correct in order for it to be statistically significant.  The chance of it being correct is almost but not quite 95%, so therefore it is not statistically significant if you look at only the last 15 years.

On the other hand, if you take a longer period, it becomes statistically significant.  In addition, the fact that it's not quite statistically signicant does not mean it's scientifically invalid or that it isn't very, very likely to be correct.  Just not as likely to be correct as is required for "statistical significance".

[Akura]

Personally, I think that once Nuclear Fusion is perfected, we just need to find a goos source of Hydrogen and we have a great source of power for until the planet can come together and start using that MASSIVE nuclear fusion device in the sky. It would also decrease the prices for Helium (the only mine for it collapsed years ago).

90% of the universe is hydrogen, so there's hardly a supply issue there. I'm pretty sure we could process ocean water to get the hydrogen we need until we can collect it from Jupiter or somewhere.

I'm reading the article on He-3 fusion. It looks good, but most likely won't happen in our lifetime.


And could you take the global warming discussion to another thread, please? This is supposed to be a thread about exploring alternative energy sources.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

1.  In other words, we have no scientifically valid evidence of warming, but he thinks there is anyway.  nice double speak.

No.  Look up "Statistically significant".

Basically, there needs to be a 95% chance for the upwards trend to be correct in order for it to be statistically significant.  The chance of it being correct is almost but not quite 95%, so therefore it is not statistically significant if you look at only the last 15 years.

On the other hand, if you take a longer period, it becomes statistically significant.  In addition, the fact that it's not quite statistically signicant does not mean it's scientifically invalid or that it isn't very, very likely to be correct.  Just not as likely to be correct as is required for "statistical significance".

Hmmm, thinking about your point.  I concede and rescind the questions.  It almost seems to me now that the questions themselves were loaded.  I will think and research some more before I return to this line of questioning, if I do.

Thanks.  Facts and knowledge are cool!

Sorry Akura.  My own derail is over.

[Criptfeind]

90% of the universe is hydrogen, so there's hardly a supply issue there. I'm pretty sure we could process ocean water to get the hydrogen we need until we can collect it from Jupiter or somewhere.

Wait?  I thought it took more energy to process water then what you could get out of the water?

[Phmcw]

Beside, a linear corelation would be weird : the climate is most likely a non-linear phenomenon .
One must expect granularity hysteresis and phase transition when he is studying climate change.

90% of the universe is hydrogen, so there's hardly a supply issue there. I'm pretty sure we could process ocean water to get the hydrogen we need until we can collect it from Jupiter or somewhere.

Wait?  I thought it took more energy to process water then what you could get out of the water?

Only if you burn it (then of coure you just break water then bring hydrogen and oxygen together again. But with fission you'd get an tremendous  amount of energy back. Sadly we're not likely to be able to gather energy from normal hydrogen anytime soon if ever. )

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

If you allready had a fusion reaction going, I would think the energy required to get the hydrogen from the water would be nil comparatively.

Or are you saying the sum total of energy in the 2 hydrogen atoms and the single oxygen atom do NOT outweigh the energy requirement to seperate them?  Sorta like celery and the calories provided versus calories requried to digest problem.

"Beside, a linear corelation would be weird : the climate is most likely a non-linear phenomenon .
One must expect granularity hysteresis and phase transition when he is studying climate change."

You.  Win.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah. To be fair I have no idea how fusion works.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Its very freaking cool.

[Il Palazzo]

Its very freaking cool.

It's so cool that it's cold!

[Nikov]

If discussion going forward will discount athropogenic global warming as a reason for adopting one source or the other, I am more than happy to leave the subject.

[Soadreqm]

Yeah. To be fair I have no idea how fusion works.

You combine atoms into larger atoms, for example, two hydrogen atoms into a helium atom. Due to weird quantum shit, the resulting fusion products have marginally less mass than the stuff that goes in. The difference is converted into preposterous amounts of energy. Fission is the opposite, breaking larger atoms into smaller atoms. All matter in the universe that isn't hydrogen comes from the fusion reactions inside a star that died billions of years ago. All matter heavier than iron comes from supernova explosions.