Political Discussions
Solving Global Warming to make another God-damn disaster
Posted by tuanhnguyen • 6/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: energy, global warming, green
I've heard the rumor of hydrogen autos, which run by Hydrogen and release vaporized water. There are three problems:
1. It sucks oxygen to release water
2. Vaporized water will replace CO2 which will make the weather so wet that it would change the climate
3. We need another power plant such as nuclear to produce Hydrogen
There is no free lunch.
Here is my two article wrote about this matter:
From Global Warming to Global Getting Wet:
www.nguyenhtuan.com/2009/05/from-global-warming-to-global-getting.html
Energy problem for consumers:
www.nguyenhtuan.com/2009/05/new-energy-problem-choosing-sources.html
User Comments
-
You're serious? -
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! -
to markstoneman: no kidding dude!!! CO2 heats up the earth. What does vaporized water do? Change the climate and wind pattern. That's even more dangerous as well. Oxygen also be sucked in!!! It's crazy!!!
To Satijournal: Yeah!!! I can feel it!!! -
Water vapor is the most plentiful Greenhouse Gas -
Assuming (as you mention nuclear power) you are talking about the production of Hydrgogen Gas by electrolysis you have overlooked an important point.
If you make hydrogen gas by electrolysis of water, then a hydrogen cell powered car converts the hydrogen gas to water, the end result is not more global water.-
Remember, you need energy to electrolyze water. So, to supply for mass consumers, we need mass production of Hydrogen, which demands huge amount of energy to split Hydrogen from water.
We can't use electron from splitting a hydrogen molecules to split another hydrogen molecule from a water one. Because all the useful energy will be used to generate hydrogen. What is left for the car?
What you think about nuclear power plants? Radioactive!
That's the problem. -
The dangers of nuclear power are overstated. The sun is a giant nuclear reactor is that unnatural?
Nuclear plant generates electricity. Electricity is used to produce Hydrogen Gas by electrolysis of water. Car runs on Hydrogen.
-
-
Here's an idea. Walk more, drive less.
-
What are you nuts Anok. Next thing your going to be telling polybore is that the two limbs attached to polybore's arse are for walking with when clearly they were designed for operating the clutch, brake and accelerator pedals of one's car.
That is why US citizens have evolved to only have one of these "ass" attached limbs which polybore believes to be called "legs" or in the US "leg".
The question is what came first all US citizens having only one leg or the automatic gear box? -
walking increases respiration which results in emissions of CO2, water vapor, and sometimes methane...
okay so its a lot less than driving, i know
-
President John F. Kennedy thought that US citizens should be able to walk 50miles in 20 hours.
-
When high on cocaine?!
-
If continuously. Who gonna do that. It's just Math and Science. Not practical life.
-
Ey, you are a middle class man, not a farmer. You don't walk. Walking in America will not let you survive.
-
I believe the one legged phenominon was caused by a one two combo of the automatic transmission and the reclining easy chair.
Agit8r, one can avoid emitting methane when walking if one avoids beans before travel.
tuan - I see, so even walking isn't a solution. Why bother posting anything at all? -
who's middle class?
-
Since walking is impossible, we need to create a system of efficient, controllable, and renewable energy system. My point is that, Hydrogen electrolysis is not really renewable, which way can cause another disaster.
-
We are middle class. We don't walk like farmers do. We live in suburban. Therefore, we drive. We use electricity, wastefully.
-
I scrub toilets for a living and live in a trailer park. Methinks you generalize o_0
-
Walking is impossible? Are you without legs or a wheel chair?
I walk and/or bike whenever possible. I have no idea what the whole "we're not farmers, we don't walk" bullshit is coming from
People in the city don't drive, period. They walk, or take the subway/metro when neccessary. They sure as hell aint farmers, and oh, yeah, they're not obese, either. -
If i was middle class enough to afford a place in town, i would walk a lot of places (to get there) too
@Anok.
driving may be a symbol of middle class status in Nam -
Agit8r: well sure, you are special case, man. Sadly, you still demand more electricity, which generated by energy source, than other people in any part of the world. Think about this, an American produces 5 times CO2 (energy) than a Chinese does. I think even you, man.
-
Anok: yeah, you can walk. What if you are a white collar workers, most of Americans are, will you walk or take a train or drive a car. I don't think you don't wanna waste time to wait for any bus.
You know, time is money as well. -
Fewer families/people in CHina own and operate a car.
They walk, or ride bicycles.
Imagine that.
Edit - the people living in city areas are some of the wealthiest workers out there (there are also some of the poorest people in urban cities as well).
They all WALK. Save for the uber wealthy, who probably have a special car. -
yes, older manufactured homes are very energy inefficient. Driving is a near necessity here, because our public transportation infrastructure was dismantled during the second half of the last century at the bequest of our automakers. Also, if one wants to be gainfully employed, "reliable transportation" is a requisite for most jobs
so why is chinese air so dirty during the olympics?? -
Anok: sorry, man. Have you been to China? Full of cars in city. First!
Second, usually, middle class people usually live in sub-urban where environment is quiet and less crowded like the city, and they can have a bigger house for a full family with a cheaper price. Therefore, walking is like a dream. If we walk, we we have a so immense highway system. It tells something.
I don't know about your case, but looking at the fact, without driving, most of Americans will starve. -
Chinese air??? okay.
Most of the CO2 produced from China concentrates at the major city, while the rural one is very clean. Because of the industrialization at urban.
While in America, each person produce a higher amount of CO2 than a Chinese does. It spread of the country. Therefore, we don't see the concentration of dark cloud in the US, but the whole nation together produce it.
Here is the stat:
the US produces 22% of world CO2.
China produces 18% of world CO2.
China has population as 3 times as the US.
You do the math!
-
-
- In a devastating pair of financial reports that might be called "The Emperor Has No Pressure Vessel," the New York Times has blazed new light on the catastrophic economics of atomic power
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=1&scp...
greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/canada-mulls-sale-of-reactor-maker/
The two Business Section specials cover the fiasco of new French construction at Okiluoto, Finland, and the virtual collapse of Atomic Energy of Canada. In a sane world they could comprise an epitaph for the "Peaceful Atom". But they come simultaneous with Republican demands for up to $700 billion or more in new reactor construction. neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/
Read the full article here -> www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=2908-
since the private sector isn't very interested in developing them, there shouldn't be much money to subvert the democratic process in their favor... hopefully
-
There is no alternative to building more nuclear power plants if you want to reduce fossil fuel dependency.
-
What about solar panels? It's free lunch from God. I can't think of any impact drawn from this source of energy.
Nuclear power will exhaust the scarce uranium and plutonium sources. IT's not a long-term plan. -
it would be an obvious benefit for the people, powergrid, and national security if we simply got a tax rebate for purchasing solar panels... but that might actually empower the little people, so it won't happen
-
My friend's uncle installs a solar panel in his garden for $70,000. He use it for life. The company even pays him if he has reserve power from these panels.
-
where?
-
his home garden. We live in Orange County in California.
-
The problem with solar power is the whole weather, night and day thing. So obviously you need to store energy in batteries. Batteries wear out and have to be replaced but are difficult to dispose of as they are highly toxic.
Wind, solar, tidal, hydro and conservation etc all will play a part. The problem is they do not provide the always on power that nuclear does.
The thing to remember about power consumption is that demand spikes during the day and none of the renewable (except to an extent hydro) can be relied upon to react to a spike.
The French model is the best one ie 80% nuclear. -
Can you explain why it is toxic?
-
If i understand correctly, lithium ion batteries are fairly harmless
-
Depending on the type of battery they contain metals that are toxic to the environment if not disposed of properly. Like cadmium, lead, zinc, mercury etc. And there is the acid.
Agit8r Lithium ion and NiMH are rlatively harmless but do require proper disposal.
Of course you can recycle batteries but this has a carbon cost. -
Poly - if home solar panel systems were made affordable you would have far less of a problem with the spike issue. Because each house would be powering itself.
In case of lousy weather or unusually high consumption, you could hook everyone up to a wind farmed power grid as back up. -
Then it will cause the change in wind pattern. Any change in climate pattern is dangerous. Global Warming doesn't only heat up the earth, but it also change the flow of hot and cold sea stream. It makes extremely drought and also extreme hurricane.
In case of solar panel. If we all demand for it, companies will make more of it. With mass production just like the boom of automobile in 1920s, panels will be cheaper and therefore affordable.
Another question: anyone has any idea what each solar panel is made of? -
Yes Anok but that kind of illustrates the point polybore is trying to make.
If it is not windy then no power.
Also polybore is not sure that domestic solar panels are the most efficient use of solar power in a cost analysis for either the house holder or the subsidy provider. The time to recoup the installation cost is too long.
If you live in a place that is good for solar power it would be more efficient to to it properly with a solar power plant like this one. www.aps.com/solana -
Poly, what we have over here are the massive turbines that don't need a whole lot of wind to produce a whole lot of power. They are massively tall - and always in motion.
I also know that where I live the state will subsidize half the costs if you go green by purchasing solar panels. They're not that expensive if you have a little bit of know how. (Still thousands of dollars, but that's like a year's cost of electricity for me, anyway) -
We have quite a lot of those turbines near where polybore lives.
www.centricaenergy.com/index.asp?pageid=21&area=glens
Scotland will be powered by 40% renewable energy by 2020.
-
-
Anok: yeah, you can walk. What if you are a white collar workers, most of Americans are, will you walk or take a train or drive a car. I don't think you don't wanna waste time to wait for any bus.
You know, time is money as well.-
our "service sector" tends to be more white-jacket than white-collar
-
black suit
-
I meant that they are menial jobs mostly. Cashiers, waiters, custodians, etc
-
-
Listen, there are a lot of options to help reduce emissions from cars (and ALL of the toxic fumes they emit, not just those that affect the ozone), increase health, encourage small businesses and overall make for better communities.
So far I have been reading a lot of "that's impossible" in this thread. It's not impossible.
First and foremost, encourage small businesses to open shop in communities where resources are far away. Grocery stores, sundries, restaurants, etc and so forth. Not only does it present economic solutions by encouraging small businesses, but the families can then WALK to the store instead of drive to the big box stores three towns over. Even if it's slightly more expensive, they are simply trading the cost of a tank of gas, and if done correctly, maybe even forgoing the cost of a second car altogether.
Carpool. What we have here for several industries is a livery system that picks people up for work, and drops them off. It's a large minivan that holds about 10 people each (there are several of them). So for each van, you have 9 less cars on the road. that reduces emissions.
Public transportation. Offer buses, trolleys, or subways/metros for commutes. Even if you have to drive a much shorter distance to a commuter parking lot to catch one, you're still saving gas and reducing emissions.
Hybrid, alternative energy, and hydrogen on demand cars. If you reduce the driving time using the above mentioned methods, you can still drive these and further reduce emissions as well as all of the other toxins that cars spit out, while reducing dependancy on foreign oil.
Plant some trees to counter act the extra CO2. Seriously. CLear cutting forests is a major contribution to the effects of global climate change. tress are here for a reason, and it' snot to make paper or build log cabins.
Honestly, the changes aren't imposisble.
And YES people need to walk more. Regardless of the fact that they aren't farmers.-
true. If we spend half as much of of our grand kids money on reestablishing community-oriented cities as the "greatest generation" spent destroying them, we would definitely reduce emitions from motor vehicles.
-
Nice plan Anok! However, I have some to agree and some I don't. Let's do each:
local business: what is the benefit of mass production and big corps Anok? It's the basic of economic and business class. They with talents of marketing people know how to make goods efficient therefore drive the prices down. Such as the assembly line of Ford. I don't know where you live. But walking a mile is hard, I did it. Beside that, if you need to go to a grocery store, how can you handle a lot of goods on your shoulder walking a mile. I lived that life, and it's almost depressed.
Carpool: some did, co-workers can help each other. No doubt!
Public transportation: Absolutely! But the US is lack behind in that field. Japan is amazing in this. You know, even in Seattle, there is no transit train. That's silly.
Hybrid car: using electric for car is good. But how do we generate this electricity is a question. We don't burn oil to generate batteries for car. So, it still comes to the energy question.
www.nguyenhtuan.com/2009/05/new-energy-problem-choosing-sources.html
Trees: we do. But think, population is growing to the point of 9 billions in 2050. They modernize as well. Therefore, we will demand more trees than we can build it. I know it is necessary, but it's kinda hard.
Still, to me, we need a power plant that use solar panels to absorb energy without release any toxic chemistry to the environment. For the hydrogen autos case, too much vaporized water may cause tornadoes and continuous rain as well. -
-
Tuan, I'm an anti-capitalist, so the whole "big businesses are good for us" bit doesn't fly with me.
I support local - local farms, local businesses. Big box stores and their outsourced child labor can bite the big one. They aint helpin' anyone one. And walking a mile is NOT hard. Christ, how lazy have we become? You carry your groceries in a basket with wheels, or use the ergonomic green bags. you buy what you need for a few days at a time, rather than stock piling like greedy little hermits.
You don't need trees to build. large buildings are made of steel and concrete - small buildings can be made of earth friendly and recycled materials (earth, tires - oh just google "earthship"). (Up to three stories). You need paper? use hemp.
Plant more trees.
Carpool more. People will be required to organize this. they will be required to share. They will get over it.
In the US we have meadows large enough for wind farms or solar farms that can power the entire country. We shoudl use them, and encourage personal alternative energy sources as well.
Encourage a reduction in consumtpion. Encourage respinsible living. Encourage urban areas to host community gardens and rooftop gardens. Encourage co-ops.
it's not that hard. We just have to stop being so damn greedy. -
Hmmm.... kinda see your point. Yeah, I'm anti-capitalist, too. Big corps make cheap stuff, but they all so pay us like sh*t as well. Yeah, we are so much greedy though. But, it's human nature.
The problem is that, you can't urge people to be less greedy. I know it's immoral to say that. But, the fact is that, people do stuff for motivation.
The highest motif of an action is an economic one, but not moral one. We can do good stuff for a friend, but not the earth; because a friend can recognize us, but the world doesn't. Greed as well. We can't urge. We have to make policies to persuade to use Green in an economic way, not moral way. Man, capitalists and politicians are all about money.
This is the system, changes is needed. Revolution? I think. Just like Communism. -
No urging - education. eductaion will eventually seep into our pea-brains. It ay take a few generations. It already is taking hold of the next few generations coming up.
There is hope yet! -
Well, it's hard to educate the mass against greed. Just like when you rumor a story from this person to another person, you would get a different result. Unless you need a party to take control, govern well, and makes decision about economy. It sounds like Communist and dictatorship.
-
I wouldn't propose to try and educate people to be against greed, per se. But rather be more aware of humanitarian issues, be more pro active about matters of equality, and quality of life, as well as instilling some very basic moral values that not only helps others, but in turn helps you out too.
In that way you don't educate against greed, but rather educate for progress that will eventually snuff out greed naturally. -
Yeah, we need also propaganda from the government to direct people to think about humanitarian. In college, most students major in business. Yeah, school need to suggest them a little about sociology, history, or politics major.
-
-
hmmm... it goes back to 1880. Bourgeois rose with power and money during the Industrialization. Few of them are rich but controlled almost 70% income of the society. The other groups are workers, who were proletariat, they couldn't make the living because monopolies didn't pay them well.
So, the mass are uneducated and poor. They have no talents to organize group, Carl Marx did it. Since, most of the population were workers, and this is the party of workers. Therefore its name is Communist, the party of community.-
There was an older idealogy that called for illegalizing monopolies except for state sanctioned charters, the subdivision of capital, shunned excess and intemperence through education, but also allowed for individual self governance--TRUE freedom. The Jeffersonian ideology sounds more egalitarian and less hierarchal to me o_0
-
yeah, freedom goes with its cost. Have you heard Social-Darwinism. People are born with wealth and power will tend to win. Talents will rarely succeed. See Obama, he came from poverty. But not many poor smart people will become Obama. True freedom will not make any man equal. And as the gap between rich and poor rises, it will create corruption and crime. Think about this. Why America is so corrupt today, and cause so much Depression and War? Why our crime rate is higher than anywhere in the world?
-
because America strayed from it's the original ideas of its founding intelectuals like Jefferson, Madison and Paine. It is probably too late to secure the full rights accorded by Paine's "Right's of Man" or "Dissertations on the First Principles of Government" but we may still have progress if citizens are dilligent and a little leadership in reforming our corporate order.
Marx stated:
"Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one"
and indeed our own collectivized order has met with much the same difficulties with our own corporate bureaucrats as has occurred under the monopoly on production by those governments that bore the name "Communist" -
Instead of reforming corporate orders for better competition, they use money to lobby politician for favor regulations. You know, corruption is always cheaper than investing into R&D.
-
I fail to understand, if monopolies are oppressive, is a state monopoly not inevitably the most oppressive of all. If production and state are not tethered together, the state may regulate the production. But who will regulate the state?
-
Well, the government will regulate the state.
The local district will be voted by the people. These will vote for the federal, just as Electoral College that we are doing
But, government will regulate the economy to reduce the gap between rich and poor. -
The state controls the military... right? Or would there be local militias... I'm confused as to how regulation takes place without the authority of force. Or at very least, AGAINST the authority of force?
-
The state does need military to oppress who oppose him. In a dictator regime, if we don't count corruption as every nation has, the people have to corporate with the government. Yet, under this regime, the economy might doesn't go as far as capitalism, but it makes everyone equal because no one own private property. It is true freedom. Because, how can you are free when you are slave to your bosses and elites groups. How can you be free when you are exploited by the financial groups through your taxes.
Thus, during the Chinese dynasty long ago, science still developed very well under the dictatorship of the king. The system of authority is not wrong, the problems are in the people. Are the leaders smart enough or less corrupt enough. Just like, we don't want another George Bush.
-
-
"Carpool more. People will be required to organize this. they will be required to share. They will get over it"
whats that all about?-
Just my personal irritation about the general aversion to carpooling. And the seemingly never ending complaint that they neeeeed their own caaaarrrrssss to get to woooorkkkkk and can't bebothered to organize a carpool with other coworkers or neighbors or whatever.
I is irritated tonight. Punky was baaad today. -
I go to work at 3AM and have no coworkers who live nearby... perhaps I could hitchhike
-
Perhaps you need a car then. Buses don't operate that time as well.
-
I guess it depends on what you consider "nearby". Even meeting up somewhere and carpooling from that point saves money and lowers emissions. (fewer cars, on the road for less time).
*shrug*.
Otherwise, I might suggest you buy a motorcycle -
OMG, I've just think about it. A motorcycle! That's cool...
-
how about a mule--the original Hybrid Vehical
-
Sorry, I don't know how it operates? Can you explain?
-
um... it's an animal... half donkey, half horse... hybridized as they say
-
Haha, you don't wanna "drive" a mule on a highway, do you?
-
Now I have a picture of a gnome on a mule at 3 am stuck in my head.
Thanks -
LMAO..... haha
-
Agit8r make funny
-
-
Haha, keep your temper down, man.... the night is still fun!!!
-
Regarding fuel-cell vehicles, carrying around a tank of hydrogen fuel may be a bit dangerous, as would be fueling the tanks. That technology may be suitable for buses, though, and power plants.
-
"carrying around a tank of hydrogen fuel may be a bit dangerous".
Can you explain why? Fusion reaction??? -
Hydrogen is very explosive. It's possible to make it safe enough, but I doubt the technology is going to ever be practical. After all, the only thing the fuel-cells would do is charge a battery, so why not just recharge the battery directly?
-
-
Hmmmm.... it takes high energy and very great force the make hydrogen explode. I know you are talking about fusion reaction, bonding to molecules of Hydrogen will release a tremendous explosion. But, it's impossible in a car. Don't worry!
-
-
the latest Hummer there, Sati?
-
Somebody was getting a hummer and caused the disaster? Hmmmmm... Interesting theory. Perhaps spontaneous combustion.
-
If I'm not wrong, it only explodes when it is caught by fire. Same with oil, so the chance a electric car is caught by fire is very rare, because there is not combustion in this kind of auto.
-
-
I drive cars that get good gas mileage not so much for the earth, but because money is hard to come by for me lately. I'd care more about this earth if I could afford to. Just some truth.-
Yeah, right. That's the problem. Green Revolution can only work if we plan it as an economic issue but not a moral, science, or political issue.
Making mass production of green products and raise taxes on products made by fossil fuel will persuade people enough. -
We have to design the smart grid of electricity as well.
www.nguyenhtuan.com/2009/05/cisco-smart-grid-when-it-meets-et.html
-
-
global warming is a government marketing campaign so they can establish CO2 emmisions tasks... Human produces silly % of the whole CO2. and cars are even smaller part of this silly %.
Check out how the average temperature growth on Mars matches the Earth's warming. Do we cause global warming on Mars also? It's just the natural sun activity change.
Majority of scientists laugh at global warming to be caused by CO2, but they are not in the media... They dont have any need to be there, they don't care...
Stop the global warming and CO2 nonsense!-
Ok, so why we today have mass extinction of animals. Coral Reef in Indonesia is considered tremendous and now, they all die. Tornadoes and hurricanes occur continuously and thus unusually. We do release very much CO2. Industry, power plant. Car is small, but think about 2 billion people run cars everyday, how much does that sum up to. Thus, a small increase in global temperature will change the whole ecology system of the earth. Major scientists laugh, can you name who. I meet a lot of professors, and they all have fear in global warming.
Remember, north pole and south pole is melting as well. -
their melting because of global warming caused by sun... not CO2... checkout some numbers: the CO2 human creates is less than 10% of overall world CO2 production! we can't do nothing about global warming, even if we stop CO2 emmision...
animals dying? evolution, before human there were some animals that died - dinosaurs are our fault too? so if the giant rock killed them, same way the sun causes come climat change that makes some regions to dissapear... but the other prosper!
as josh carlin said: if earth would have a problem with us, it would just shaked us off... so stop saving the planet - it doesn't need our help or even us... -
can you send me the source saying humans create less than 10% of the overall world CO2? If it's true, I will rethink again. But, how come the temperature and CO2 amount soar fearfully during the last 50 years, while for 4 thousand years ago, it stayed the same?
-
I can't find the data source now, google is trashed with "goverment" and "industry" co2 reports...
but first example wikipedia:
There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate ions as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date."[26] Gas solubility decreases as the temperature of water increases and therefore the rate of uptake from the atmosphere decreases as ocean temperatures rise.
Most of the CO2 taken up by the ocean forms carbonic acid in equilibrium with bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Some is consumed in photosynthesis by organisms in the water, and a small proportion of that sinks and leaves the carbon cycle. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has led to decreasing alkalinity of seawater and there is some concern that this may adversely affect organisms living in the water. In particular, with decreasing alkalinity, the availability of carbonates for forming shells decreases.[27]
therefore 10% is my exaggerating. as 5% is in the air... do You think we put the CO2 to the oceans? and maybe it's a part of some natural cycle? underwater erruptions etc... our actions are "tiny" comparing to the bigger picture... and there is no proof that we are the cause of CO2 increase in the atmosphere (as well there is no proof that we are not)... and referring only to CO2 levels is simplifying...
You know my opinion on this And I agree with You, we need to be careful with establishing some new energy sources, as they can be more harmful in the longer run... but I wouldn't call them disaster based on global warming hypoteticaly caused by CO2...
I cant find this Mars temperatures chart overlayed with Earth... but that chart shows analogy... -
Yeah, I watched the inconvenient truth by Al Gore and read the book Hot, Flat, and Crowded of Thomas L. Friedman. They say that, during the last 50 years, CO2 and temperature have been rising fiercely. If nature acts only, there would be no such traumatic change like that. Unless there must be the existence of many modernized cities on the world.
And, CO2 kills coral reef in Indonesia as well because of the sea sucks in CO2.
Man, seriously, we are in deep trouble!!! :(( -
fifteen years ago, Climate scientist said that we were only then seeing the effects of the pollution 25 years before. And that if we didn't turn it around in a decade, it would be too late. If they were correct then, it already is
-
-
-
You do realize that we breath out CO2 constantly all day? Now multiply that by the worlds population and also notice how that the world wasn't effected by this for billions of years.-
I don't really understand your points. Make yourself clear.
Anyway, global warming does effect the ecology system that destroys trees, sea animals, and also makes natural disaster. It melts down the north and south pole. Now, we don't see it by eyes, but when it hit us in front of us, then it will be too late. -
look... what human generates - by factories, cars, all the pollution is a small % of CO2 generated... Now let's cut it further (exclude cars, factories) and leave only breathing...
one breath generates about 1g of CO2... This is the same amount as someone calculated that google 1 search generates... Btw - 1 kWh of electricity cost about 600 g of CO2. An average light bulb of 60 W therefore gives rise to the production of 10 g CO2 / s during use (not counting its production or disposal).
chilll... what we do it's like a mosquito fart in the wind...
global warming does the same good as bad - but media only scream about bad things...
there were in history ice ages, so there are global warming... none of these is caused by us... -
So how much would it be of you times by billions (of people) by 24 (hours) by 365 (days) by 50 (years of worldwide industry). Now, you understand what I mean.
-
Ice age, it was because of the hot stream of sea melt with the cold stream under it. Then, the stream stopped. Hot stream on the surface of the sea did not heat up the air, therefore cold winds flew into Europe. Remember, Ice age only happened in Europe.
Wikipedia:
"The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which could affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.
Some of these factors influence each other."
Ice age had many caused, while global warming is only about CO2. Ice age took time to form, Global Warming forms quick within 50 years. -
1. how many google searches are there daily? how many bulbs there are? google generates the same amount of CO2 as all human... this is so minor, that we shouldn't even talk about this...
2.
cmon... there were multiple ice ages, as well as there were multiple warmings (we still didn't met the level of warmings before)...
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/No_Evidence.pdf
anything else? charts don't lie...
not only global warming is not about CO2... ANY connection of CO2 to global warming is b....sht (some exclusive charts in the document show this directly), that media and governments want us to believe so they can establish some new taxes... and put some steam to so called "ecology" which is a bussiness now...
and dont write about 50 years... it's funny... -
check this: www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png
can't make this simplier... we are still not even close to the temperatures there were from 5-3 milion years ago...
were we producing CO2 then?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
