As for fusion, I don't think we'll be seeing it as a workable for quite some time, as we need an abundant source of Deuterium, which we don't have.
We should be seeing workable fusion within 50 years, but we've been saying that since we found out it was possible, so I can understand skepticism. However, I do have to say we do have deuterium, it's just that we're not refining it, lots of heavy water processors have closed down due to a lack of new fission plants, but the technology to refine water into deuterium is already in place.
climate change and global warming are two separate ideas
No not really. The average temperature of the Earth is set to rise. It's just that because it's an average, it doesn't apply to all parts of the world. Some get hotter, some get colder. All parts of the world will experience change. Hence the term climate change.
say: 50% of an orange crayon is chalk!! how much chalk is in a crayon box?
50% of all strawman arguments have no relevance to the subject matter!! How many strawmans can be found in an average thread on AG?
We should be seeing workable fusion within 50 years, but we've been saying that since we found out it was possible, so I can understand skepticism. However, I do have to say we do have deuterium, it's just that we're not refining it, lots of heavy water processors have closed down due to a lack of new fission plants, but the technology to refine water into deuterium is already in place.
I still don't think fusion will be around in my lifetime. It takes more energy to generate a magnetic field than a fusion generator could actually produce. Unless new methods of acquiring fusion energy come about, I don't see anything being implemented on a large scale.
I am talking about greenhouse gases, of which 72% are C02
Ah well. If you're talking specifically about a small group of gases taht make up a small amount of our atmosphere then....
It doesn't take much effort to realise that mass deforestation coupled with poisoned seas and massive emissions will have a significant effect on our ecosystem.
Totally agree.
I support them because they are good for the environment, not because I want to stop man-made global warming. There is a difference. Is this because you do not believe that man has caused it, or do you just not care?
This is because I do not think man is causing the warming of the Earth.
Also, please, please, please call it Global Climate Change. There's a reason the scientific community advocated that change.
Well the global climate is changing. It is warming. I am arguing against man-made global warming. That name change implies something completely different which I will not argue against.
Ah well. If you're talking specifically about a small group of gases taht make up a small amount of our atmosphere then....
You are implying greenhouse gasses need to make up a large portion of the Earth's atmosphere to be able to trap heat? If so you are incorrect.
Well the global climate is changing. It is warming. I am arguing against man-made global warming. That name change implies something completely different which I will not argue against.
Yes changes in climate have occured throughout the Earth's history, but how often have they been influenced by the massive emissions of greenhouse gasses since the Industrial Age? There is certainly a factor today that was not present in the past. To completely discount this would seem rather silly.
''Changes in climate occur as a result of both internal variability within the climate system and external factors (both natural and anthropogenic). The influence of external factors on climate can be broadly compared using the concept of radiative forcing8. A positive radiative forcing, such as that produced by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, tends to warm the surface. A negative radiative forcing, which can arise from an increase in some types of aerosols (microscopic airborne particles) tends to cool the surface. Natural factors, such as changes in solar output or explosive volcanic activity, can also cause radiative forcing. Characterisation of these climate forcing agents and their changes over time (see Figure 2) is required to understand past climate changes in the context of natural variations and to project what climate changes could lie ahead. Figure 3 shows current estimates of the radiative forcing due to increased concentrations of atmospheric constituents and other mechanisms.''
It doesn't take much effort to realise that mass deforestation coupled with poisoned seas and massive emissions will have a significant effect on our ecosystem.
WOAAAAAH, didn't notice the massive emisions part =P
I agree with the others
aerosols
We've solved the problem!!
but how often have they been influenced by the massive emissions of greenhouse gasses since the Industrial Age? There is certainly a factor today that was not present in the past. To completely discount this would seem rather silly.
Please, please read the link I provided, or at least the paragraph I pulled out of it. It is the most relevant to your doubts, and it'll save me from repeating myself.
As an aside, care to share any evidence indicating emissions do not have an impact on the environment, or indeed that they are not massive?
In the last 50 years we've had to change text books to say CO2 makes up .03% of the atmosphere rather then .02%. It may be a small change in terms of total atmospheric composition, but relative to it's previous levels it's massive.
[/quote]Please, please read the link I provided, or at least the paragraph I pulled out of it. It is the most relevant to your doubts, and it'll save me from repeating myself.
I will fully admit I didn't read the link the first time =P But I have now, and it didn't change my mind.
[quote]As an aside, care to share any evidence indicating emissions do not have an impact on the environment, or indeed that they are not massive?
I see evidence that the environment is changing. I see evidence that emissions are rising. I see no evidence that rising emissions cause climate change.
Just because one event follows another doesn't link them with any causality. It's the same argument against the gateway drug theory...
