Make Ares Run on Renewable Energy

[spiderman1000 737]

On 5/21/2020 at 2:14 AM, printing_now said:

Oh wait... I got a new idea.

Make Ares run on Nuclear Power - gotta drink up on your Nuclear Energies!

Do you know the prices for uranium, the most common material used for nuclear energy? it would cost atleast 999999999999999999999999 tankcoins.

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

On 5/24/2020 at 2:05 AM, spiderman1000 said:

Do you know the prices for uranium, the most common material used for nuclear energy? it would cost at least 999999999999999999999999 tankcoins.

Why do you think exponents were invented? Not for scientists, its that Tanki devs can't live without it. 1000¹⁰⁰⁰ is a lot bigger than the number above.

[spiderman1000 737]

12 hours ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

1000¹⁰⁰⁰ is a lot bigger than the number above.

I know it is soo big cause its basically 1000*1000 1000 times

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

1 hour ago, spiderman1000 said:

I know it is soo big cause its basically 1000*1000 1000 times

No, its way more. If you multiply 1000 with 1000 1000 times and then you add them together, you don't get nearly as high as multiplying the number that comes out of the exponent.

[spiderman1000 737]

2 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

No, its way more. If you multiply 1000 with 1000 1000 times and then you add them together, you don't get nearly as high as multiplying the number that comes out of the exponent.

I know i know.

[fishFAST 24]

https://worldcyclesinstitute.com/same-wheel-different-hamsters-a-typical-172-year-cycle/

We're going to go through a little ice age just like I said.

Study history if you want to predict the future.

 

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

12 hours ago, fishFAST said:

 

What's "d Oxygen - 18" as shown in the graph?

[GeorgeWBush 26]

I SUPPORT THE USING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO MY CAMPAIGN TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE EN FORUM AND WE WILL PUSH FOR ENVIRONMENTALISM TOGETHER!

 

      BUSH 2020!      

[Virtue 207]

I wonder if Ares will float over mines... If not, how will the explosion affect the tank?  Like normal hulls get popped up in the air, but what will Ares do?

Edited June 10, 2020 by Virtue

[spiderman1000 737]

whooo we crushed @fishFAST hip hip hurray! whose next? till the pride lands earths end, lion guard environmentalists defend.

[r_trooll15 827]

On 5/24/2020 at 2:05 AM, spiderman1000 said:

Do you know the prices for uranium, the most common material used for nuclear energy? it would cost atleast 999999999999999999999999 tankcoins.

But we are already buying depleted uranium for railgun, this way, we dont buy depleted uranium, we just get it

[spiderman1000 737]

1 minute ago, r_trooll15 said:

But we are already buying depleted uranium for railgun, this way, we dont buy depleted uranium, we just get it

sry im outta reactions. else it wouldve gotten a haha.

[r_trooll15 827]

1 hour ago, spiderman1000 said:

whooo we crushed @fishFAST hip hip hurray! whose next? till the pride lands earths end, lion guard environmentalists defend.

nope, look at his most recent post:

 

On 6/4/2020 at 10:00 AM, fishFAST said:

https://worldcyclesinstitute.com/same-wheel-different-hamsters-a-typical-172-year-cycle/

We're going to go through a little ice age just like I said.

Study history if you want to predict the future.

 

Im in the process of debunking the article piece by piece

[r_trooll15 827]

On 6/4/2020 at 10:00 AM, fishFAST said:

https://worldcyclesinstitute.com/same-wheel-different-hamsters-a-typical-172-year-cycle/

We're going to go through a little ice age just like I said.

Study history if you want to predict the future.

 

ok... where do i start... That article is wrong.

While its true that nature has a cycle of warm and cool phases, the significant human impact can lead to unintended results.

Since you are hiding behind that article and using that as your arguement, let's debunk this article.

First off, lets look at the graph, their first reason and evidence:

Spoiler

[/img]

Ok, so lets examine this graph. We see that the graph is plotting the year vs the concentration of oxygen18, our only tool in measuring temperature. This is taken at one location, GISP2. Note the scale on the side. It goes from -.353 to -.343. This is incredibly small. Second, there is an error. The ice core gave information only till 1850.

Now, the description from the article:

Spoiler

What the above chart shows is the temperature cycles (blue line) over the past 4,000 years. Each time there’s a temperature peak (red arrows), a major civilization also peaks and then goes into contraction. This has happened over and over again throughout recorded history.

This isn't accurate. The chart is of the levels of oxygen18, the only but not very accurate way of measuring temperature in precipitation.

There is another problem; The map is eurocentric. Also, we dont get good indications of timespans. However, this chart looks like its made to confuse, mislead, and decieve people with its shading, unorganized data, circles and vague notations. Furthermore, if the chart is accurate for the modern times, the modern warm age shows the steepest slope so far, which happens to coincide with the spread of the industrial revolution.

The article then goes on to make some unrelated and ignorant claims

Spoiler

International wars always take place as the climate warms and there is abundance, while civil wars happen on the downswing, in difficult financial times.

The circle on the above diagram highlights a period between 1148 and 1320 AD, which I’ll use as an example of how a typical 172 year cycle unfolds.

This is simply not the case, as the american civil war happened on an uptick, and the Mongol invasion of Europe happened on a general decline. This can be clearly called an international war and thus disproves the first point of the author, which impacts credibility. This also completely ignores Asia and largely ignores Africa and America pre-colonization. 

Also, the author then suggests that he would focus on a specific period of 172 years, which the next graph does not. Also, the circle is not 172 years, but we'll let him off the hook for now.

Next, lets look at this graph:

Spoiler

So, lets immediately notice the lack of units on the vertical axis. Lets also note that its a logarithmic scale. In addition, lets note the inconsistency in the diagram. Let's note that this seems to be marked by the guy writing the article, not the institute, who's job is to basically be a large data archive. Lets analyze this graph. There is a peak at ~1320, then a drop, then another peak soon after, completely unnoticed. The apparent peak at about 1492 isn't really significant. Furthermore, what connection can this have with climate change? From this point on, the author goes on to explain and make a decent arguement about cycles in finance, not focusing on the important part, proving a connection between this financial cycle and climate. 

Spoiler

This chart above shows the cyclical nature of inflation. It rises during the cycle, but collapses into deflation at the end.

After each deflationary period prices stabilize again. Gradually inflation increases until, near the end of the cycle, it takes on a life of its own. Prices always rise but wages don’t. Eventually the population is squeezed into poverty We continually run into the same situation we have today, leading to an inflationary bubble and eventually, a financial crash, resulting in deflation.

The fundamental problem with this is that there is a fundamentally different economy now than back during 1300s to 1700s. The economy now is consisting of large corporations and conglomerates. Back then, it was very different. The peasants, merchants, and nobles made up the economy back then.

Spoiler

In my research, it’s become obvious that these 172 year cycles align with the movement of the planets of our solar system, more specifically, the conjunction (alignment) of Uranus and Neptune every 171.4 years. Fourteen years after each Uranus-Neptune alignment, there has been a financial collapse, from the 1148 cycle high right up to 2007. I’m currently researching earlier cycle tops, but the data starts to become sparser the further back you go.

This is simply wrong. There is no evidence that supports this. Also, correlation does not mean causation. If they were correlated, this doesn't mean the the planetary alignments cause this. Furthermore, its not even correlated. Its a sheer coincidence, and not a good one either. Case in point, the Great Depression. Occuring due to the collapse of the stock market on October 1929 and lasting pretty much until WW2 sparked a resurgence in the economy, this is the most devastating depression in American history. There was also a similar situation in Europe, especially in Germany, which found itself economically wreaked by WW1 and in massive debt, those circumstances causing the Germans to get desperate enough to allow Hitler to rise to power. There is also the depressed markets in Communist China and the USSR during the Cultural Revolution and the Cold War, in the form of famines. These are very major events that happened in the middle of the cycle, therefore, the cycle does not really hold true. In fact, this cycle will not be applicable to modern day life, due to globalization. But this is besides the point.

The article then goes on to analyze financial events, missing some very important ones that dont follow the cycle.

Let me summarize my analysis of the article with this. There is little causation between finance and climate. In fact, the little ice age is the only real case where climate was the main cause of financial and political turmoil. Furthermore, this is all done in the time period before the industrial revolution, before humans started release significant amounts of CO2 from sources found underground. Before the industrial revolution, humanity's main source of fuel was wood. Burning wood is a carbon neutral process, since that wood came from a tree which is made of carbon that was initially in the atmosphere. Wood is a biofuel. Coal is not. Coal and other fossil fuels is carbon trapped underground, not able to contribute to climate change until it is burnt. The time period mainly discussed in the article was up to 1850, no evidence other than circumstantial evidence from a time period between 1850 - present was brought up. The economy for much of the time period discussed in the article was largely dependent on agriculture, but modern economics is largely dependent on industry and finance, with agriculture being affected by climate, and industry and finance not affected by climate. Thus, the articles claims simply cannot apply to the present day.

Now to prove that climate change is real, lets first define climate:

the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.[Oxford Dictionary]

Now, a long period is several years to a decade. Climate is essentially an average of the weather, and it is over years because then the average is of about a thousand days of weather. This is to provide a more accurate measurement so that an outlier does not really affect the data, giving an accurate idea of the general weather in an area. A coldest day on record doesnt really have much effect on the climate, compared to a really hot summer. Its a different scale. Now the effects of climate change can mislead people who dont understand the difference between climate and weather. Climate change causes the weather to be more extreme, due to the oceans being warmer, more water evaporating, and thus more and bigger storms form. Climate change is also a global phenomenon, not a local one. You cannot draw conclusions on global climate with just the local weather, you must consider weather all across the world. So a cold snap in America could mean nothing on the global scale because you aren't considering that heat wave in Australia.

Climate change is terrifying because we might be wrong about it, as we have been before. However, when we're wrong about mother Nature, its not in us overestimating mother Nature, its in us underestimating her. For example, the US was conducting some high altitude nuclear tests and set one off at 400 km above the Earth, seeing what effect it could have on the Van Allen belts. They were initially disappointed by the results, not realizing that this would cause the Van Allen belts to expand and lead to the failure of 6 satellites. A much more common example is when residents dont evacuate before a hurricane, leading to a big loss of life. It is also evident even this year, when airport security proved ineffective at stopping the coronavirus at the border, or the second wave that hit Arizona after the governor prematurely ended the lockdown.

Furthermore, the evidence of climate change is undeniable.

19 of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, with 1998 being the exception. Glaciers and ice caps are melting. We have more hurricanes, with 2020 recently beating the record for the earliest day for three named tropical storms to form. We do not want to wait till its too late.

Besides, the world cannot stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow. Its a gradual process, one that will require some countries to completely redo their economy. If we don't start changing now, the outcome will effectively be suicide. We might be wiped out in the next 200 years by some giant asteroid or Yellowstone, but we shouldn't rely on that. If we get wiped out by climate change, it would be entirely our fault, because nature is a delicate system and we are continuously throwing wrenches into it. At some point, its gonna snap, and when that happens, we're dead. We're gonna need to plan out an effective solution to this problem if we want to continue living on a green paradise and not a flooded, barren place.

 

 

For Maf and other forum mods. I dont think this guy is trolling, i think he genuinely believes that climate change is a hoax.

[Toby 2,938]

Kindly keep it clean.

[spiderman1000 737]

1 minute ago, ControlledChaos said:

Kindly keep it clean.

uhh what? i thought we were keeping it clean. If it was me, pls do tell so that i can improve. if it wasnt me, still do tell so that he can improve.

[r_trooll15 827]

Back on topic, solar panels are impractical. Best bet is an RTG or maybe a beamed power reciever, like in ksp. RTGs dont need water as they can be used on sattelites and ares looks like it has a jet intake on the front so it might be possible. Overdrive could be heatwave, frying and burning everyone and everything nearby

[F41TH 483]

hmm