I don't personally subscribe to the Al Gore theories behind climate change, and am inclined to accept many of the facts in the article - but I wish they'd cite their sources.
_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil. Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.
11th "Misconception" under physics. According to that, if all the ice melted, the sea level would rise less than 1 meter. Apparently, it is cited as well, although I didn't follow the citation. I found this thanks to the Mineshaft, btw.
_________________ Ever get that feeling of deja vu?
I don't personally subscribe to the Al Gore theories behind climate change, and am inclined to accept many of the facts in the article - but I wish they'd cite their sources.
Did you take any HS science classes? All of the stuff they mentioned could be found in those books, at least when I took science classes. And I went to a public school. There are also articles about it everywhere if you'd google (that have citations).
I don't personally subscribe to the Al Gore theories behind climate change, and am inclined to accept many of the facts in the article - but I wish they'd cite their sources.
Did you take any HS science classes? All of the stuff they mentioned could be found in those books, at least when I took science classes. And I went to a public school. There are also articles about it everywhere if you'd google (that have citations).
le sigh. I wanted the sources so that when this comes up when I discuss issues with a friend who practically sucks Al Gore's environmental, I don't look like a retard who says "look in any public high school science book".
_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil. Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.
I am an environmental engineering major and I am not going to voice my personal feelings and beliefs on global climate change but I would like to comment. The process of modeling an environmental system as huge as the earth is super complex and every person or orginization who trys is going to come to different specific conclusions than others. This is due to assumptions and varied sources. So there is not probably anyone source that is completely correct.
If you would like to make your own conclusions about the matter I would suggest talking to Dr. Morrison in the civil building he can send you to some good sources.
Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM Posts: 1652 Location: down the hill
Source: Fidelity
amd2800barton wrote:
berto wrote:
amd2800barton wrote:
I don't personally subscribe to the Al Gore theories behind climate change, and am inclined to accept many of the facts in the article - but I wish they'd cite their sources.
Did you take any HS science classes? All of the stuff they mentioned could be found in those books, at least when I took science classes. And I went to a public school. There are also articles about it everywhere if you'd google (that have citations).
le sigh. I wanted the sources so that when this comes up when I discuss issues with a friend who practically sucks Al Gore's environmental, I don't look like a retard who says "look in any public high school science book".
Not to mention those textbooks were written by people who suck Al Gore's dick.
_________________ heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!
le sigh. I wanted the sources so that when this comes up when I discuss issues with a friend who practically sucks Al Gore's environmental, I don't look like a retard who says "look in any public high school science book".
Not to mention those textbooks were written by people who suck Al Gore's dick.
Seeing how they point out that Al Gore is full of shit (albeit not by name but providing contradicting statistics), I don't see how? I never believed in us escalating global warming as much as they say because I've always known that it happens naturally and I've seen the statistics of previous eras when compared to ours.
Well, if we reduce CO2 emissions under the guise of reducing global warming, we've probably managed to accomplish something... like: -Alternative energy that doesn't rely on hydrocarbons (aka oil) -Reduced other, much more noxious emissions (like CO, VOC's, etc)
That's all that come to me off the top of my head. If it's "Global Warming" that tricks the world into working together to be a bit more friendly to the environment (and I don't mean tree hugging here - I mean keeping the air safe to breathe) and into breaking our dependence on foreign oil... then so be it.
Machiavelli ftw.
_________________ I have now been banned three times. Join the club
Joined: Fri 09-05-2003 10:24AM Posts: 3589 Location: Oklahoma! Where the wind comes sweeping down the p l a i n s !
Source: Fidelity
benm wrote:
Well, if we reduce CO2 emissions under the guise of reducing global warming, we've probably managed to accomplish something... like: -Alternative energy that doesn't rely on hydrocarbons (aka oil) -Reduced other, much more noxious emissions (like CO, VOC's, etc)
That's all that come to me off the top of my head. If it's "Global Warming" that tricks the world into working together to be a bit more friendly to the environment (and I don't mean tree hugging here - I mean keeping the air safe to breathe) and into breaking our dependence on foreign oil... then so be it.
Machiavelli ftw.
qft. I don't believe Al Gore's bullshit, but it has started a movement that I can moderately stand behind: namely the sudden desire to break off of dependence on foreign nations, especially oil, and produce more efficient ways of providing our nation's energy.
Also, I don't give a rat's ass if "clean coal technology" is actually clean or not. It is a step in the right direction (away from oil), and that works for me. I do know that exhaust scrubbing is being researched like crazy, and new methods of removing toxins from the exhaust of burning coal are making leaps and bounds. I am not positive, but I think that that is why we have a coal power plant here on campus.
_________________ Ever get that feeling of deja vu?
It's been a long long time since I toured the coal plant so I'm probably wrong, but their primary product is steam for buildings. I can't recall exactly but I think the turbine isn't really anything special since it uses low quality secondary steam and doesn't make much power. Most of the power is bought from RMU. They also have some big honkin emergency generators, which come in handy.
_________________ Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.
It's been a long long time since I toured the coal plant so I'm probably wrong, but their primary product is steam for buildings. I can't recall exactly but I think the turbine isn't really anything special since it uses low quality secondary steam and doesn't make much power. Most of the power is bought from RMU. They also have some big honkin emergency generators, which come in handy.
The tours they take visitors and potential students on says that the coal plant is 500kW, and produces about 20% of the campus power requirements. They didn't say if that included the dorms or not - so i suspect its just the immediate "central" campus area.
_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil. Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum