Election Day 2012

[FlipMode]

[quote="DGFone"] I can post a huge rant, but will refrain from doing so.[/quote]

31 pages later....

And what does global warming have to do with the election? I could be missing something but this seems to have gone way off topic, you're barely even debating politics any more...

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]You know how much effect CO2 has on trapping heat? Close to none. The real effect comes primarily from these two: Water vapor and methane. Both of these have also increased with the industrial revolution. After all, natural gas is methane.[/quote]

That is what is disputed, not the greenhouse effect itself.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

[quote]As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.[/quote]

[quote]Methane is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less than CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years), compared to some other greenhouse gases (such as CO2, N2O, CFCs).[/quote]

[quote]The natural production and absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas and wood and since the industrial revolution began in the mid 1700s, each of these activities has increased in scale and distribution. Carbon dioxide was the first greenhouse gas demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th century. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280ppm. Today, they are around 370ppm, an increase of well over 30 percent.[/quote]

[quote="FlipMode"][quote="DGFone"] I can post a huge rant, but will refrain from doing so.[/quote]

31 pages later....

And what does global warming have to do with the election? I could be missing something but this seems to have gone way off topic, you're barely even debating politics any more...[/quote]

This is relevant because global warming is an issue that Obama is trying to fix, but Romney doesn't care about.

[DGFone]

[quote="FlipMode"]

And what does global warming have to do with the election? I could be missing something but this seems to have gone way off topic, you're barely even debating politics any more...[/quote]

Yeah, looks like it.

It was most me ranting about when I complain about pseudoscience and EVERYONE start telling me that I am wrong, because what do you know, they believe that pseudoscience...

But mostly is started with Regulus posting that image of Obama versus Romney in terms of energy plans. You want to provide incentives for oil companies to research into alternative energy, instead of taxing them and using that to pay for research. Oil companies spend a lot more, and they KNOW how to research effectively.

Not to mention, don't get me started on how bad just about all other forms of alternative energy are. The cleanest alternative fuel? Nuclear.

That Toyota Prius you bought to save gas mileage? Fine.
That Toyota Prius you bought to save the world? Don't look at how much energy went into those batteries, not to mention the acids inside them...

So yes, Obama might be trying to save the world, and Romney not.
But as far as actually going to saving the world, in his ignorance, Romney might be better...

---

Also, about global warming: a common cited number is the temperature increase of 6% from the onset of the industrial revolution. EVERYBODY PANIC!

The real change in temperature? 0.6%. What's the difference? The pseudoscience scale used a zero of 0C. Real science uses a zero of 0 Kelvin, or -273 C.

So another hotly disputed thing in climate science is not so much how much the temperature increase is effecting the world, because it really is a very small change, as much as how much the gas disbalance is causing things to go haywire. This is exactly why I am telling you that we hardly know what is going on.

And Regulus: Methane might be less than CO2. But H20? There's a reason why your hating bill is very big... you're heating water... with Methane...

[FlipMode]

[quote="Regulus"]

This is relevant because global warming is an issue that Obama is trying to fix, but Romney doesn't care about.[/quote]

Oh. Well I would vote Obama then. All things considered, Obama has accomplished quite a lot so far and "If it aint broke, don't fix it". I think as Az mentioned, more time in presidency will let him focus on other issues that have taken a back-burner to things like War on Terrorism.

Not that I have researched it a whole lot, being in the UK. But I do know of what Obama has achieved and am quite happy with that so, yeah XD

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]Not to mention, don't get me started on how bad just about all other forms of alternative energy are. The cleanest alternative fuel? Nuclear. [/quote]

Never heard of Yucca mountain?

There's a lot better ways to harvest energy than that. If we can harvest 10% of the energy we get from the sun, we'll be good to go.

We have hydroelectric dams and such, but we could generate a lot of energy if we build more in places like New York city. Think about that every time you flush the toilet.

Also, the amount of energy in water is huge. Think about the damage from the recent hurricane to piers near the shore, from storm surge. Every day, there is a constant flow of water, to and away from the coast, provided by the moon and sun. We just need to use it.

Wind energy can also be effective, especially near the coast where there's almost always a nice ocean breeze.

Though this idea might seem a bit crazy, and I have no idea how it would work, but what if we could tap into Earth's magnetic field for power?

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]
This is relevant because global warming is an issue that Obama is trying to fix, but Romney doesn't care about.[/quote]

To emphasis it again: He might be trying to do that, but he certainly doesn't know how to. And how I see things getting done, I think Obama is guided by the right motives, and heading down the wrong path.

And now to debunk the more likely solutions:

There is a reason why only Iceland is using geothermal energy as a primary source: It's nearly impossible to do so in places other than where the Earth's crust is very thin. So even if you get all your energy from Yucca Mountain, how are you going to distribute it TO THE ENTIRE WORLD?

Dams: Ever stopped to think what a dam does to a river ecosystem? Avoid dams if at all possible.

Wind energy: I do support wind energy. Unfortunately, it's very unstable, even in Oceans and coasts. All ships used to run on wind, and then an alternative propulsion system was invented. I wonder why they all moved away... So you can use wind energy, just don't rely on it.

Magnetic Field: Don't. Just don't. It's far out in space, and we are not even close to tapping its energy.

You missed these promising fields:

Tidal energy: Near perfect for coastal towns and cities. Problem is how to deal will all the corrosive salts...

Fusion: the not so evil cousin of the nuclear bomb, the only problem we have is that currently, we need to input more energy than we get out.

---

Nevertheless, I think that it's the evil oil companies that will find our solution, because they have the funds to research and the will to succeed. I am rather saddened that they are not spending more on R&D, but when they do, they get results.

So yeah, I am against taxing them for R&D for the simple reason that they do it much better.

[TheRoguePrince]

Hey ladies! If you're done talking science, the first polls are closing. It is Election Night, don't cha know?

[Regulus]

Before we switch back to politics, there is something I was going to say:

[quote="DGFone"]There is a reason why only Iceland is using geothermal energy as a primary source: It's nearly impossible to do so in places other than where the Earth's crust is very thin. So even if you get all your energy from Yucca Mountain, how are you going to distribute it TO THE ENTIRE WORLD?[/quote]

Well, you just answered my question. You have no idea what Yucca mountain is.

[quote="DGFone"]The real change in temperature? 0.6%. What's the difference? The pseudoscience scale used a zero of 0C. Real science uses a zero of 0 Kelvin, or -273 C.[/quote]

That 0.6% increase in kelvin is enough to make a difference between keeping your hands and feet. 273K is cold enough to get frostbite. Multiply it by 1.06, and you get 289K. That's 16 degrees Celsius, or the temperature outside on a nice, refreshing summer night.

The change in actual temperature is small. But we are actually extremely sensitive to changes in heat. That's why, even though Earth's temperatures only vary by a small margin, we can't live in Antarctica, nor can we live in death valley (without technological assistance, and not for prolonged periods of time).

BTW: oil companies only pretend to spend money on research for alternatives so that we'll get off their back. And that's exactly why I'm not buying into their 'we're trying' crap. Give me a billion dollars, and I'll show you some real progress. That is, provided I don't get assassinated by the oil companies for it.

[TheLionPrince]

[quote="Regulus"]BTW: oil companies only pretend to spend money on research for alternatives so that we'll get off their back. And that's exactly why I'm not buying into their 'we're trying' crap. Give me a billion dollars, and I'll show you some real progress.[/quote]
Seems like a big generalization, given that there are over a dozen big oil companies. But whatever, let's talk politics...

So it seems Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are going to be the states to watch. Especially Ohio.

[Dark Huntress]

OMH! I is ftfo O.O *bursts a blood vessel*