diverborg 0 #1 February 4, 2007 I overheard a global warming argument recently that had me thinking. I don't know how true this is, so this is why I'm asking someone that might know. The part that I've already heard is that water vapor has a higher greenhouse effect than CO2. Many environmentalists are pushing for a shift from fossil fuel burning vehicles to hydrogen. Well the byproduct of a Hydrogen burning vehicle is water vapor. Would this be kinda countering the effect were hoping for. I'm assuming there are other factors and this argument really only applies to the use of hydrogen as fuel. This seems to make sense to the common guy if the greenie's plan is to actually push for hydrogen as a main source of fuel. Anyway, this is an honest question that had me a little puzzled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #2 February 4, 2007 Hydrogen cars a joke, there simply isn't nearly enough platinum produced each year to retrofit any significant percentage of the world's autombiles, not to mention the dreary net energy picture. There will never be enough of them to have an impact on global water vapor. I think the only scalable transportation fuel alternative is biodiesel made from massive algae ponds in the desert.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #3 February 4, 2007 Kinda what I was thinking. Thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 February 4, 2007 the air can only hold so much water vapor before it precipitates (rains). unlike CO2. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #5 February 4, 2007 I'm not going to argue that fossil fuel is becoming scarce, but I don't understand why people with big engine SUV's/trucks are to blame for global warming (VW Touareg, Nissan Titan, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra, Ford F-250, etc....) MIT physics professor Frank Wilczek went public in 2004 for calling shenanigans on vehicular caused global warming. He stated in his article that the last Mount Saint Helen eruption caused 1400 times more carcinogens then the world's automotive pollution figures. With that he concluded that vehicular pollution is the least of our concerns. He states, we as a human race seem to forget that our planet is the most ever changing geological planet known to man. It's a fact that people no longer acknowledge. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #6 February 4, 2007 QuoteI don't understand why people with big engine SUV's/trucks are to blame for global warming... MIT physics professor Frank Wilczek ... stated in his article that the last Mount Saint Helen eruption caused 1400 times more carcinogens than... What does global warming have to do with carcinogens? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #7 February 4, 2007 Well Carbon Monoxide is a carcinogen to us and is the subject of vehicle pollution towards global warming. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #8 February 4, 2007 QuoteWell Carbon Monoxide is a carcinogen to us and is the subject of vehicle pollution towards global warming. Your logic simply floors me. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #9 February 4, 2007 Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #10 February 4, 2007 In this case, "floors" does not equal "impresses". .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #11 February 4, 2007 Fossil fuels act both as a energy source and as a substrate to take that energy to your car in the form of gasoline. The allure of hydrogen isn't that it's an energy source but that it's a means of carrying energy from the energy source to your car. Like a battery, but since it's a different technology than conventional chemical batteries there's interest because it could turn out to be more efficient than conventional chemical batteries. The question of the net effect depends on where the energy comes from. CO2 comes out of hydrocarbon stores in the earth when you burn fossil fuels, so there's a net shift into the atmosphere of CO2. Incidentally, many / most combustion processes also create H20, but like SpeedRacer says the water precipitates on Earth, C02 doesn't. Hydrogen doesn't exist as a natural resource in any way that's feasible for us to collect it--you find it naturally in space and in stars and they're too far away or too hot for us to just go and fetch hydrogen for fuel. Instead, we'd make hydrogen out of water with energy from another source, and use hydrogen to carry the energy from the primary energy source to your car. Thus the net effect would of using hydrogen as a fuel would depend on the source of the energy to make the hydrogen to begin with. There are lots of energy sources that don't make CO2, like nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, etc, as well as some that do make CO2 like coal, oil, and natural gas, that would be used in combination to make hydrogen out of water. So the net effect on the atmosphere levels of H20 would be negligible, and probably a lot less than burning fossil fuel in your car directly. So you can see, water vapor accumulation is not a particular concern.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #12 February 4, 2007 Quote He states, we as a human race seem to forget that our planet is the most ever changing geological planet known to man. It's a fact that people no longer acknowledge. Well put, and very true.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #13 February 4, 2007 Quote So you can see, water vapor accumulation is not a particular concern. What's the trend in average water vapor in the earth's atmosphere? Anybody know?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #14 February 4, 2007 QuoteQuote He states, we as a human race seem to forget that our planet is the most ever changing geological planet known to man. It's a fact that people no longer acknowledge. Well put, and very true. You're impressed that a physics professor is making a geological statement about oncology to refute a climate sciences position? I'm really scared when people think this poorly. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #15 February 4, 2007 QuoteHe states, we as a human race seem to forget that our planet is the most ever changing geological planet known to man. It's a fact that people no longer acknowledge. And how many other life bearing planets do we know of to compare with? Yeah, a really compelling argument. Not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #16 February 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteHe states, we as a human race seem to forget that our planet is the most ever changing geological planet known to man. It's a fact that people no longer acknowledge. And how many other life bearing planets do we know of to compare with? Yeah, a really compelling argument. Not. If you are insinuating that because earth is the only planet with human life and that all geological changes are caused by "life" itself, I would reflect upon the Ice age, and extinction of the dinosaurs as we humans were not ruling the planet during those times yet there were still dramatic geological changes that took place. My opinion is that I don't believe that mass temperature changes, volcanic eruptions, or Tsunamis are caused by living creatures. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #17 February 4, 2007 QuoteI overheard a global warming argument recently that had me thinking. I don't know how true this is, so this is why I'm asking someone that might know. The part that I've already heard is that water vapor has a higher greenhouse effect than CO2. Many environmentalists are pushing for a shift from fossil fuel burning vehicles to hydrogen. Well the byproduct of a Hydrogen burning vehicle is water vapor. Would this be kinda countering the effect were hoping for. I'm assuming there are other factors and this argument really only applies to the use of hydrogen as fuel. This seems to make sense to the common guy if the greenie's plan is to actually push for hydrogen as a main source of fuel. Anyway, this is an honest question that had me a little puzzled. Did you ever go to the beach and look out and the sloshy stuff on the other side of the sand? That's water, and there's rather more of it out there than we could possibly ever add. The water vapor in the atmosphere is controlled by evaporation from the ocean, which depends on temperature, not on how much hydrogen we may burn.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #18 February 4, 2007 QuoteMy opinion is that I don't believe that mass temperature changes, volcanic eruptions, or Tsunamis are caused by living creatures. Fortunately most of the people who become a climate scientists learn to make stronger analyses than you're showing here. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #19 February 4, 2007 QuoteFortunately most of the people who become a climate scientists learn to make stronger analyses than you're showing here. Difference of opinions Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #20 February 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteFortunately most of the people who become a climate scientists learn to make stronger analyses than you're showing here. Difference of opinions You get to have your own opinions but you don't get to have your own logic. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #21 February 4, 2007 How does global warming affect manx cats?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #22 February 4, 2007 WOW.... Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #23 February 5, 2007 In hindsight I realize that it was a pretty dumb question. One of those wierd things you don't think about much when you first hear it, and kinda raises a "huh?" Kinda should have thought about it a little more before I embarassed myself on here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #24 February 5, 2007 Quote What's the trend in average water vapor in the earth's atmosphere? Anybody know? Check your local forecast Funny you should ask--it's not evenly distributed, and one of the predictions of global warming is that the difference between the global average and local conditions will be increasing, an increasing disparity between the haves vs the have-nots in terms of moisture content. "Stronger" weather overall. Droughts, hurricanes, etc predicted to increase and change depending on geography, if you believe the scientists. But what do they know.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #25 February 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteFortunately most of the people who become a climate scientists learn to make stronger analyses than you're showing here. Difference of opinions No, just scientific analysis. You are NOT entitled to your own facts. I take it you HAVE read the report of the intergovernmental conference. www.ipcc.ch/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
