[replyJust about every climatologist out there disagrees with you on that. CO2 levels are rising (you can prove this with a simple chemical test) and temperatures are rising dramatically with them.
Yes they are, but there have been much higher levels in the past. Its all a big rollercoaster. Everything goes up and down and up and down. Historically speaking, we are in a normal upswing anyway (yes we are adding to it) but the oceans are going to warm and the ice caps are going to almost be gone with or without us. Does it really really matter if we make it happen 100 years earlier in a million year scale?
Remster 30
QuoteI'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this theory. I've always felt that this sort of thing is an old wive's tale to scare the world into tighter cooperation with environmental laws.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLLUTION!!!!!!
in geological terms, what we do will have no long term effect on the future of earth.
The sun will expand, and slowly all complex living creature will die. Complex life forms on earth have been around for a relatively short time of earth's existance, and will not be there for much longer either.
My point, which either was not very clear, or which scares people since they think humanity and complex life on earth is soooo important, is that we really dont matter much, geogically speaking.
Remster
QuoteLook where our technology has taken us in the last 100 years. Now just try to fathom where we will be in the next 200. We will survive through anything.
See, I don't believe we would survive ANYTHING. I believe that there are still things that could go drastically wrong--an huge asteroid hurling toward us and the oilmen can't drill down to 800
My guess is your assumption that we will be tied to this planet in the future is incorrect. Sure the Earth may get whiped out... But, if there are self sustaining moon, mars or whatever planet bases out there, the Human race will survive.
As for the oil... we will be done with that in less than a 100 years. Everything will run on hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion (whenever they figure that out). Did you know it takes less energy to power a home than a vehicle? The fuel cells they put in cars will also be powering your homes. YAY no more powerlines to fly into!!!!
Remster 30
And in case that last post gets misunderstood too... I'm not saying fuck the environment, it doesnt matter. But those who say that our actions dont mather much because in the long term, it wont matter, well, maybe, but I'd concentrate on the short term (you know, the next few million years...)
Remster
As for the oil... we will be done with that in less than a 100 years. Everything will run on hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion (whenever they figure that out). Did you know it takes less energy to power a home than a vehicle? The fuel cells they put in cars will also be powering your homes. YAY no more powerlines to fly into!!!!
See, this is my point, as well. People spend so much time saying "save the planet, use fewer resources" that they aren't paying enough attention to research for more important things, such as cold fusion. And removal of power lines--never thought of that one before. But that would be pretty cool.
You know, if we could all develop more of our brains, we could send telepathic messages to each other and cut down on paper use, therefore saving the trees and our air supply!
*****************************************
Blondes do have more fun!
billvon 3,119
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>But until that major breakthrough happens, yes, pollution can be reduced but not removed.
I'll agree there. We pollute by our very nature; we turn food into solid waste, turn oxygen into carbon dioxide. But we can do so with very little additional pollution. Today, with modern technology, you could drive, live, work and play and create very, very little pollution directly, and the indirect sources are decreasing as well (i.e. the trucks that deliver the food to your supermarket are getting cleaner as well.) For every pollutant other than CO2, California, at least, is gradually improving. If we can add CO2 to that list of gradual reduction I'd be happy.
>Of course it's a temporary fix; until humans can channel their energy
> and move things with their mind, we are going to use resources.
Ah, but if you use _renewable_ resources exclusively (whether it's mental power or solar power) then you're covered. You won't run out, ever.
>I would say maybe half of them, actually. The other half, as others
> have mentioned in this discussion, feel that we're on the verge of
> another ice age.
I haven't seen any serious climatologists offering evidence that we're seeing the beginnings of an ice age. ~90% of them agree that the climate is changing; around 75% of them agree it's related to CO2 in the atmosphere.
I _have_ seen several climatologists suggest we may see another ice age soon in geologic timeframes (i.e. within the next 50,000 years.) Of course, in those timescales, some astronomers predict we have a better than 50/50 chance of getting pummelled by an asteroid as well; it's hard to make accurate predictions about anything that far out.
>Evolution or creation? The world-round or flat? It's always been like
>that with "learned men"-everyone agrees to disagree.
I understand what you're saying, but those are two bad examples. Learned men generally don't disagree on evolution or whether the world is flat or not.
>And you yourself have mentioned so many ways that we are trying to
> keep the earth clean and in balance with all of our technology, so as
> we continue to grow and learn, why couldn't we continue to keep
> things in some sort of balance?
We can do that! It will take some effort on our part, but I believe the effort is worth it. It will make the planet a better place to live and reduce the chances of us causing our own extinction. I just hope we keep that in mind when we consider things like the Kyoto Protocol, CAFE limits, CO2 trading strategies etc.
I'll agree there. We pollute by our very nature; we turn food into solid waste, turn oxygen into carbon dioxide. But we can do so with very little additional pollution. Today, with modern technology, you could drive, live, work and play and create very, very little pollution directly, and the indirect sources are decreasing as well (i.e. the trucks that deliver the food to your supermarket are getting cleaner as well.) For every pollutant other than CO2, California, at least, is gradually improving. If we can add CO2 to that list of gradual reduction I'd be happy.
>Of course it's a temporary fix; until humans can channel their energy
> and move things with their mind, we are going to use resources.
Ah, but if you use _renewable_ resources exclusively (whether it's mental power or solar power) then you're covered. You won't run out, ever.
>I would say maybe half of them, actually. The other half, as others
> have mentioned in this discussion, feel that we're on the verge of
> another ice age.
I haven't seen any serious climatologists offering evidence that we're seeing the beginnings of an ice age. ~90% of them agree that the climate is changing; around 75% of them agree it's related to CO2 in the atmosphere.
I _have_ seen several climatologists suggest we may see another ice age soon in geologic timeframes (i.e. within the next 50,000 years.) Of course, in those timescales, some astronomers predict we have a better than 50/50 chance of getting pummelled by an asteroid as well; it's hard to make accurate predictions about anything that far out.
>Evolution or creation? The world-round or flat? It's always been like
>that with "learned men"-everyone agrees to disagree.
I understand what you're saying, but those are two bad examples. Learned men generally don't disagree on evolution or whether the world is flat or not.
>And you yourself have mentioned so many ways that we are trying to
> keep the earth clean and in balance with all of our technology, so as
> we continue to grow and learn, why couldn't we continue to keep
> things in some sort of balance?
We can do that! It will take some effort on our part, but I believe the effort is worth it. It will make the planet a better place to live and reduce the chances of us causing our own extinction. I just hope we keep that in mind when we consider things like the Kyoto Protocol, CAFE limits, CO2 trading strategies etc.
billvon 3,119
>As for the oil... we will be done with that in less than a 100 years.
> Everything will run on hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion (whenever
> they figure that out).
You know that hydrogen comes from oil and natural gas, right? And if we get to the point that we can synthesize hydrogen, it will be as easy to synthesize methane or ethane, both very good fuels.
I cringe whenever I hear about hydrogen fuel cells, because they're just not any kind of a solution to the oil dependence problem. Going to fuel cells would, in the short term, increase our reliance on oil (which is one reason oil companies and the white house support them.)
> Everything will run on hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion (whenever
> they figure that out).
You know that hydrogen comes from oil and natural gas, right? And if we get to the point that we can synthesize hydrogen, it will be as easy to synthesize methane or ethane, both very good fuels.
I cringe whenever I hear about hydrogen fuel cells, because they're just not any kind of a solution to the oil dependence problem. Going to fuel cells would, in the short term, increase our reliance on oil (which is one reason oil companies and the white house support them.)
Isn't another good producer of Hydrogen Water?????
Would it not be easier to separate the Oxygen from H2O???
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Would it not be easier to separate the Oxygen from H2O???
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
billvon 3,119
>Would it not be easier to separate the Oxygen from H2O???
It takes far more energy to separate hydrogen from water than you get back when you use it in a fuel cell. That's why it's not a good source of energy. It's like a fuel-making device that lets you make a gallon of gasoline for every two gallons of gasoline you put in the the device. Not that useful.
It takes far more energy to separate hydrogen from water than you get back when you use it in a fuel cell. That's why it's not a good source of energy. It's like a fuel-making device that lets you make a gallon of gasoline for every two gallons of gasoline you put in the the device. Not that useful.
Well, I am no expert on hydrogen fuel cells.
My question is then, how do they work? Given your analogy, you are saying that if you put H20 in it would get some (little) energy out, and then give off H20 as a byproduct.
Does a hydrogen fueled engine burn the hydrogen?
If so, the energy needed to separate the bond is greater than the burning energy?
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
My question is then, how do they work? Given your analogy, you are saying that if you put H20 in it would get some (little) energy out, and then give off H20 as a byproduct.
Does a hydrogen fueled engine burn the hydrogen?
If so, the energy needed to separate the bond is greater than the burning energy?
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Steel 0
I am a meteorologist, and let me say that this "GLOBAL WARMING" this is just a NEWS Story!!!!!
In 1972 we were worried about global cooling... what happened? It is called global trending Most cycles of the earth (hot vs cold spells & Wet vs Dry spells) Come in 20 to 50 year cycles. Meteorologist have not had the time or technology to study this for very long.
Recently it was discovered we are currently in the "TAIL END OF AN ICE AGE"
No shit it is going to get warmer... we aren't going into another ice age right now, we are coming out of one. The impact that man has on the atmosphere is quite minimal in comparison to what diatom in the ocean do, or what even one volcanic erruption can do... this is all media, and greenpeace hype!!!
Chris
Atmosheric Physisist/Meteorologist for MIT
Fat People are Harder to Kidnap !!!
--------------------------------------------------------
I like this response. I always knew it was true but since this is not my field and I did not research it enough, I could not come out and say it like you have. But now that we have heard from an authority confirming that this is all left wing hype we can worry about real problems.
Problems that have me fed up. I am talking about ants. These freakin critters are taking over to the point that they are about to drive me crazy. When I was in Florida recently at Skydive Miami where you need to wait for the shuttle bus to come pick you up, I did not know where to stand. I was even afraid to set my brakes because I didn't want to put my canopy on the grass and risk a bunch of red/fire ants getting all over it. So I found myself just walking around constantly looking down to make sure I had not stumbled on to an ant pile. Yes this is a serious problem and we have them in Texas too, in my back yard, my Front yard, and side yard. Some scientist needs to come up with a plan/formula to kill these things once and for all.
In 1972 we were worried about global cooling... what happened? It is called global trending Most cycles of the earth (hot vs cold spells & Wet vs Dry spells) Come in 20 to 50 year cycles. Meteorologist have not had the time or technology to study this for very long.
Recently it was discovered we are currently in the "TAIL END OF AN ICE AGE"
No shit it is going to get warmer... we aren't going into another ice age right now, we are coming out of one. The impact that man has on the atmosphere is quite minimal in comparison to what diatom in the ocean do, or what even one volcanic erruption can do... this is all media, and greenpeace hype!!!
Chris
Atmosheric Physisist/Meteorologist for MIT
Fat People are Harder to Kidnap !!!
--------------------------------------------------------
I like this response. I always knew it was true but since this is not my field and I did not research it enough, I could not come out and say it like you have. But now that we have heard from an authority confirming that this is all left wing hype we can worry about real problems.
Problems that have me fed up. I am talking about ants. These freakin critters are taking over to the point that they are about to drive me crazy. When I was in Florida recently at Skydive Miami where you need to wait for the shuttle bus to come pick you up, I did not know where to stand. I was even afraid to set my brakes because I didn't want to put my canopy on the grass and risk a bunch of red/fire ants getting all over it. So I found myself just walking around constantly looking down to make sure I had not stumbled on to an ant pile. Yes this is a serious problem and we have them in Texas too, in my back yard, my Front yard, and side yard. Some scientist needs to come up with a plan/formula to kill these things once and for all.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
billvon 3,119
>My question is then, how do they work?
They are essentially part of a system that gives you a good battery. In a pure electric car, electricity charges the batteries, and then the motor uses that power to drive the car. In a fuel cell car, electricity is used to split water and make hydrogen, the hydrogen is put in the car, and the car's fuel cell then recombines hydrogen and oxygen to make water. You get power out of the cell, and that power drives the motor. It's a good battery, but no more a source of energy than a battery is. You have to "charge" both of them.
>Does a hydrogen fueled engine burn the hydrogen?
A few do, but natural gas is almost as clean in the long run and easier to store if you're just going to burn it.
>If so, the energy needed to separate the bond is greater than the burning energy?
Definitely. There's no free lunch when it comes to energy.
They are essentially part of a system that gives you a good battery. In a pure electric car, electricity charges the batteries, and then the motor uses that power to drive the car. In a fuel cell car, electricity is used to split water and make hydrogen, the hydrogen is put in the car, and the car's fuel cell then recombines hydrogen and oxygen to make water. You get power out of the cell, and that power drives the motor. It's a good battery, but no more a source of energy than a battery is. You have to "charge" both of them.
>Does a hydrogen fueled engine burn the hydrogen?
A few do, but natural gas is almost as clean in the long run and easier to store if you're just going to burn it.
>If so, the energy needed to separate the bond is greater than the burning energy?
Definitely. There's no free lunch when it comes to energy.
billvon 3,119
>I am a meteorologist, and let me say that this "GLOBAL WARMING" >this is just a NEWS Story!!!!!
. . . .
>Chris
>Atmosheric Physisist/Meteorologist for MIT
There's an MIT physicist who can't spell physicist? I think I would look into his background a bit before you believe what he says, even if you desperately want to believe him.
I mean, if you met someone at a bar who said they were a sky jumping instructor, would you heed his advice?
. . . .
>Chris
>Atmosheric Physisist/Meteorologist for MIT
There's an MIT physicist who can't spell physicist? I think I would look into his background a bit before you believe what he says, even if you desperately want to believe him.
I mean, if you met someone at a bar who said they were a sky jumping instructor, would you heed his advice?
Remster 30
And what is the atmoshere?
Remster
Bill, it is true... I am. It is also true that I refuse to use spell check and tend to type too quickly :-( If you would like to check my credentials, by all means.
I work for M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory, and if you have any questions, you can mail me at chrisg@ll.mit.edu I will gladly answer them for you.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
I work for M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory, and if you have any questions, you can mail me at chrisg@ll.mit.edu I will gladly answer them for you.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this theory. I've always felt that this sort of thing is an old wive's tale to scare the world into tighter cooperation with environmental laws.
*****************************************
Blondes do have more fun!