Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (10/13/14 - 10/19/14).
Forum News: The nomination phase of the Community Awards 2014 is live! Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
This thread is solely just for the broad discussion of it as a whole
Maybe some things if anybody is interested might wish to discuss could be...
1. Is Global Warming even real? (What do you think?)
2. Is it economically feasible for countries today to invest in developing cleaner sources of energy that are less likely to emit gases that influence the worldwide temperature?
3. Which repercussion (there are countless) of Global Warming do you find the most significant to you?
4. What would you try to propose as an idea to mitigate global warming?
5. What do you think is the most important thing to that you wouldn't be able to do because of an extended period of global warming?
6. Where does your society place global warming on your things to do list? Or perhaps where do you place it?
7. Some people believe Global Warming doesn't exist. Given their arguments, there may be some lingering ambiguity as to whether Global Warming actually is a reality. Has that changed how you talk about global warming with others?
Honestly I'm just wishing for a nice honest discussion about global warming because it's one of my main interests.
<<Picture Of Melting Ice Cap>>
I would also like to bring to attention this article if anybody is interested. The main message which is pretty baffling if first looked at is that warming the Earth has actually lead to greater sea ice in Antarctica XD
Well, the scientific consensus is that global warming is real, I am not knowledgeable enough to actually make a point against that. So yeah, global warming is real and it is extremely likely we have had an impact on it.
Whether it is economically feasible depends on whether alternate energy sources can ever compete with the available ones. So far as I know that is not even close to the case. I have a somewhat unpopular opinion here, I am of the idea that the best and greenest current available energy source is nuclear energy. True, we have had a couple of tragic disasters over the years however those disasters have always been linked to gross negligence. Now, nuclear energy is not by any means perfect however my point is that it is the best alternative to what we currently have. So far the viable energy sources we have are basically oil and hydroelectric plants. Oil is pretty good as an energy source, from what I know it is reasonably efficient and it is widely available. However waste from it is impossible to manage, the gasses generated invariably end up in the atmosphere. And it is produced massively. From what I gather there aren't that many places where you can build hydroelectric plants left so it is not really a long term solution.
So then we go to nuclear energy. It is very efficient and more importantly it generates little to no waster in comparison to what we are already doing. There is radioactive waste but if we compare the volume of it to the volume of gases generated in the alternatives the volume is just so much smaller. More importantly, nuclear waste can be managed by us. It can last a long time but since it does not just arbitrarily go into the atmosphere we get to actually deal with it directly. From what I have read, correct me if I am wrong, the entire amount of nuclear waste ever produced can be bit into a space the size of a football field 20 meters high. That is insanely reasonable considering we do have the technology and means to make sure the impact of that is minimal.
Solar energy seems pretty neat although I have my objections to it. First would be that it is not efficient enough yet. Then we have to consider 2 things. First is the amount of room you would need even when it is efficient. Then you would have to consider the amount of waste that making each panel requires. I don't really have an exact number here however from what I have read solar panels generate a decent bit of chemical waste. While it may be less hazardous than nuclear waste, I am kind under the impression that the volume of waste might be significantly higher. So which is better? We have that solar energy requires large spaces and generates a decent bit of chemical waste (as far as I know, I might be outdated on this and I would love to learn more) and nuclear energy, which requires little space to generate large amounts of energy and generates very small amounts of very dangerous waste. Neither scenario is perfect (even considering a cost effective solar alternative) however if we consider the pros and cons at least IMO nuclear energy seems like the more reasonable alternative.
kkck, while many may find nuclear energy unpopular a source of energy,I am definitely with you on the fact that nuclear energy is the realistic option
I do find it rather interesting how our choice to use oil as a source of energy because of it's predictability (clear and to some degree controllable consequences), slowly depreciates our resources, and how the manner which our globe is warming are similar. Both processes are slow and often give us the illusion that there is little we could or even should bother doing. But such a level of negligence is also very dangerous.
The damage that nuclear energy has inflicted upon us humans while indeed serious and of huge magnitude, is in my opinion still well reflected in our use of oil and coal. While the damage inflicted in this case is not on humans directly (but indirectly), it is arguably similarly catastrophic. For instance, the many instances of oil spills and the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution had a very huge impact, just not on us, but on the environment. Hence, the effect downpour in my opinion comes much later and in increments in comparison to when we use (and misuse ) nuclear energy.
The thing with solar energy is that there's always a chance to develop and improve. Most of the things we have now were at first in some way cumbersome, like a computer that took up the entire room and had less than 1 GB of memory, and now we have laptops with over 128 GB that can be as small as 14 inches. Solar energy can be a great way to harness the power, but the main issue lies in when there's no sun for a long time. We'd need to have some kind of backup if that happens.
Global warming is real though, and the argument makes sense. Like, I don't remember heat waves in summer before, but over the past few years, it has happened every year in July like clockwork. Planting more trees and reducing carbon footprint are important because the trees take in more carbon dioxide, which can reduce the warming because less heat is trapped. WE also pump out tons of carbon waste.
Nuclear energy is fearsome though. You can say it's due to negligence, but what if despite careful observation, something unwanted happens? Radiation ain't nothing to eff with.
There is definitely room for improvement (although from what I have read recently it seems like they have made leaps and such things in the area) however ultimately the whole thing comes down to how it compares to the alternatives. Every now and then I get the impression that people jump and the green energy thingy and there isn't a thorough enough analysis of whether what they are doing is actually better than what we have. Solar energy is supposed to be close in terms of efficiency and even cost to what we have but what about the actual waste generated by the panel? One article I read made the point that it takes one year for a solar panel to be even with the amount of energy it took to make it which was a huge improvement over past panels. Now, I am not saying that is a good or bad number but we do need context to make sense of it, what are we comparing that with. Then we get to the fact that solar panels are (as far as I know) not made from green materials and making them generates a decent bit of chemical waste. Its kinda like someone charging you hidden fees. Sure, costwise solar energy can potentially be made as efficient or more than the current available sources but what about the hidden fees? How long does it take to break even with the amount of energy it took to make the panel? How much space do panels take relative to other available energy sources? How much waste is generated compared to other energy sources? How much energy is required to manage that waste? Are the materials from which solar panels are made renewable? I am not saying we shouldn't do the whole green energy thing, we should and perhaps more than that we don't actually have a choice, however I just can't shake the impression that no one is actually going deep enough into this other considerations. Imagine us changing to solar panels but then it turns out that between the time it takes to break even with the energy required to make a panel, the waste it generates, the space the panel and the waste takes and the cost and energy required to dispose of the waste makes it so that burning gas would have been the less polluting alternative anyways.
I don't think a simple heat wave is enough to actually support global warming. They can be related but global warming is in itself a tad deeper than that. Global warming usually talks about a global increase in average temperatures. As in the average temperature in a year or whatnot (I am not 100% on what exactly they measure here though) being going up every year. A single heat wave is not enough to actually make a case for global warming, I am reasonably sure we have always had heat waves.
Something could potentially happen however the consideration here is what exactly we are comparing that too (everything in life comes down to day, how one alternative compares to the other) and the likelihood of it happening. So if you have an accident in a nuclear power plant you have to consider the potential damage of that accident against the damage other energy sources would have caused. So what is worst? What happened at fukishima (an absolute, basically asinine worst case scenario caused by negligence, at least as far I have read) or 40 years of greenhouse gas production for all that energy?
I didn't mean to say it's a simple heat wave, but the temperature throughout the year has risen, at least in my area. Winter didn't get cold until late December or January, and even then the temperature varied between low 20s to high 40s, give or take. Then we had snow in March or April, which is weird because it's supposed to be spring, no snow. Last two or three years in NYC on New Year's Eve barely felt cold like it should have, even. I think the whole temperature increase will cause tons of death, but not necessarily extinction as humans can make around the heat. It'll probably take decades though, and if the rising ocean level doesn't get us first.
We've had heat waves, sure, but every year where it got past 100 degrees? I don't remember an annual heat wave that stayed well past 100 for few days in my childhood. D:
Dunno, but I don't mind them building nuclear plant in the midwest, as those states are so irrelevant.