• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net

Global Warming linked to CO2?

Meksilon

Well-Known Member
NLC
The reality of Global Warming has produced alarmists; and over the years their increased popularity - coupled with the money that is to be made pushing this agenda - has resulted in a media-biased brainwashing of the western society.

"The Greenhouse Effect" is one of the most miss-understood terms ever coined. Most people don't understand how a greenhouse works - let alone the "greenhouse effect" which is very different and not remotely-related to the way that a greenhouse works.

Children are taught the a greenhouse works by converting visible light to infrared (which would then be internally reflected), and then that causes the gases inside to heat. In reality it's much more simple: the air that heats up inside the greenhouse can't escape to share that heat with air molecules outside of the greenhouse.

The greenhouse effect is a response by air molecules to solar radiation (all wavelengths). Each type of air molecule behaves more or less responsive to certain wavelengths of solar radiation than others; and greenhouse gasses (for instance) are simple "more responsive to some wavelengths of radiation). It has nothing to do with trapping heat, or with reflecting radiation. Although the science behind this is well established and accepted, it's far from being completely understood.

So in this sense, I would compare something like asphalt to dirt to illustrate the "greenhouse effect". Asphalt will heat up more than dirt will because it's more responsive to the solar radiation that's heating it up - and it'll become hotter than dirt.

So a sceptical look (or a critical look) at the argument that global warming is being caused by an increase in CO2 levels looks very unlikely just on the surface. But as an established (and somewhat well-accepted theory) we'll have to test it against other competing theories to see which one is more likely.

Firstly, let's look at recent history:



"There are ominous signs that the world is cooling"!

During the 30+ year period covering the mid 40's to the mid 70's the earth experienced global cooling, and there were many alarmists saying "we have caused this, and we have to take action now to tackle this". Since then it has never, ever been established what caused this period of global cooling - but it could not have been increasing CO2 levels as CO2 levels have been increasing since the 1800's and are still increasing today.

So let's say that the more accepted theory today behind the recent period of global cooling is that "we were not contributing to global cooling, and it was caused by natural factors outside of human control". Therefore this theory could also be used to explain the current period of global warming. But which is more likely?

Well, historically it has been established that an increase in temperature over time resulted in an increase in CO2 levels. The current theory tries to reverse this process - claiming that increasing CO2 levels are resulting in increasing temperatures.

So, if we ask which theory is simpler, the answer is simple. Because the CO2 theory cannot pass the simplicity test - it does not use already established contributing factors to climate change, it instead seeks to redefine them. So it's suffice to say that the theory "which uses already established and accepted scientific wisdom" to explain the current trend in climate change is the simpler theory.

A sceptic can only conclude that the evidence isn't there to support the CO2 = Global Warming theory. It's at best a plausible theory, and at worst an alarmist's forced answer to a question he's not qualified to answer.
 

themoose

Sup, Recoil here.
NLC
:gtfomeksi

Seriously, even George W believes in human-created global warming now.

And Wikipedia is awesome for research, as long as every claim's cited.
 

Dynash

It gets better.
NLC
We've added to it but we haven't caused it. Global warming is a natural cause that happens every so often. It's just turned into another way to make millions, through taxes and charities.
 

Darknight

Premium
Premium Member
NLC
We've added to it but we haven't caused it. Global warming is a natural cause that happens every so often. It's just turned into another way to make millions, through taxes and charities.
I have no idea, all I know is the world has been going for a very long time and I doubt a planet designed for us would reject its only purpose.
We have only created stuff from the world
Global warming if from carbon can be fixed anyway, we just have to find a way to remove it quicker than we produce it,
WHY, THE ----! cant anyone study a tree and work out how they turn carbon in to air!
I would assume its much more simpler science than say, creating something that can create a blackhole
Or creating ---- to leave the planet..
Or re-creating earth like systems to test how carbon is working with the earth..:confused4

Maybe its confusing, but doubt its impossible..
Back in the 1800s
Going to the moon would of seemed impossible.
Creating something to fly would of seemed impossible.
In fact, everything we use today would of seemed impossible.
 
Last edited:

DavidsAwesome

Wait, What?
NLC
we just have to find a way to remove it quicker than we produce it
The trees will get rid of it. If we could get a hydrogen car or something, the problem could go away in less time than people would think.

...Even if people don't believe in global warming though...Is there really anything wrong with the steps being taken? We want affordable fuel made in America from American resources (Or wherever the ---- you're from) and we want to make power from wind, and use less dangerous chemicals in our paint, and using biodegradable ----.

I understand that if the change is being made based on a lie, that's ----ed up... but at the same time... I don't care either way.
 

iBrightDev

Jay Street
NLC
NLC
wow, this got surprisingly heated, going to stay out of this one. ill just wait for my next anti-obama thread instead ;)
 

Dynash

It gets better.
NLC
You say you want affordable fuel, fuel is affordable. For the price it is currently, it's shocking. The amount of effort and time that goes into making it, I would have thought I'd be about $200 a gallon. The reason too that fuel prices go up is because of this whole global warming thing, the governments increase tax on fuel and road tax, and green tax (which doesn't help no one, or the enviroment.) just so they can say they're tackling the problem, when they're not.

There also is Hydrogen cars, they're just not massed produced to the scale of petrol cars, and the ones that will be massed produced wont appear for (they say) another 20 years max.

Japan already has a H2O car, that they do plan on mass producing - and they already sell them, but they're not cheap - because there isn't a market for it. The problems all come down to money, money wont solve this global warming crisis, even if it was caused by human error.

You can convert your car to Hydrogen, which I've said on nearly all the fuel threads, and to most other people I talk to on a regular basis.

Hydrogen Taps for $325 - was $500. http://hydrogentap.com/hydrogentapllc_001.htm
Made by a guy called John Arrons, who has dedicated his time to create them, all the money he gets he gets from donations, and from other people buying his taps - which then goes back into generating more with hardly zero profit - do add to extra research. He's the only guy who I've seen who does it for a real good cause, not for money.

This is the BMW car I was talking about in another thread: http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/bmw-hydrogen-7 & http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl2PH2B-tM & http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N675mHss_uQ

Even you American's have a H2 car on your doorstep, http://www.videovat.com/videos/2445/top-gear-car-of-the-future.aspx

/rant :p
 

Meksilon

Well-Known Member
NLC
You are a idiot blinded by the world around you and have (like many others) became a lazy, foolish, brainwashed retard that can no longer research to even have a answer to a question...
You would rather read from one source and come to a conclusion based only off that source, making all your points and anything you say from here on in invalid and not worth reading.

Yep, just another idiot in today's world, please don't breed..
To put simply: if everyone took their facts from Wikipedia, then they'd all believe the same thing. And thank goodness I don't take my facts from there.
The trees will get rid of it. If we could get a hydrogen car or something, the problem could go away in less time than people would think.
Where are your facts coming from? Hydrogen acts more like a "battery" than a "fuel"; so the only "problem" it solves is the cost of fuel. Trees get rid of some CO2, yes, but most of it is absorbed by the ocean. And about a year ago it was discovered that the ocean has been soaking up less CO2, not more. The factors driving that are probably to do with the changing environment in the ocean that makes its sustainability of organisms utilizing atmospheric CO2 fluctuate. In addition to soaking up CO2, the ocean also soaks up the vast majority of atmospheric heat.

As for Wikipedia, tandoc, we're talking about the SCIENCE behind the claims made by what I like to call "alarmists". I doubt the Wikipedia page explains the science at all; and without considering first at least the scientific basics behind this theory any opinion is uninformed.

-edit- oh and one last thing about Hydrogen - it produces water vapour; which is the main greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Therefore you're just substituting one greenhouse gas for another.
 
Last edited:

foo2thabar

Well-Known Member
NLC
-edit- oh and one last thing about Hydrogen - it produces water vapour; which is the main greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Therefore you're just substituting one greenhouse gas for another.
I've not brushed up on Hydrogen production methods, but wouldn't you be able to re-collect the water vapor, condense it into liquid, and then retrieve hydrogen from it through electrolysis?

And my above post was targeted at all the arguing.
 

Meksilon

Well-Known Member
NLC
I've not brushed up on Hydrogen production methods, but wouldn't you be able to re-collect the water vapor, condense it into liquid, and then retrieve hydrogen from it through electrolysis?
Yes, but it's expensive and uses a lot of power to produce the hydrogen. Most hydrogen is produced from methane - which is a fossile fuel - which results in CO2 emissions similar to LPG (also a hydrocarbon and fossile fuel).
 

Jan

Forum Cleaner
NLC
Just a warning. If you won't or can't discuss this in a civil manner, please don't post. Any more insults and warnings will ensue.
 

Decker

Officially Old!
NLC
Just a warning. If you won't or can't discuss this in a civil manner, please don't post. Any more insults and warnings will ensue.
How about inflamitory posts? Like the recent round from Mek to incite violent retribution :knockedou
 

Dynash

It gets better.
NLC
Yes, but it's expensive and uses a lot of power to produce the hydrogen. Most hydrogen is produced from methane - which is a fossile fuel - which results in CO2 emissions similar to LPG (also a hydrocarbon and fossile fuel).
Did you check the links I posted?
I'm not saying replacing fuel with hydrogen is the answer, because it's not.
 

Meksilon

Well-Known Member
NLC
Or possibly collected and used for irrigation?
If you run your car on LPG, it still produces carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, although at a far lower amount than diesel which produces less CO2 than petrol which is more efficient than coal (although coal gasification would make coal more efficient than oil - but sadly this doesn't seem to be an option the government is considering). Switch to hydrogen - which is produced from methane - and you're producing an amount of CO2/CO probably about the same as running LPG. So when I hear car manufactures claim that an hydrogen-fuelled car releases only water vapour into the atmosphere I think what a very misleading claim; especially since it's essentially a fossil fuel to begin with.

But those matters behind us, the idea of re-using the water vapour is interesting, but I think you'd find it would come at the cost of increased heat of the vehicle - for a very small amount of water you'd empty every two-to-three times you fill up (estimate).
 

Dynash

It gets better.
NLC
They're created to reduce the harm to the ozone, not to entirely stop it. Methane isn't that bad, if we used it in a sensible way, like we already do with land fills - were we use the methane gas relased from the decomposing waste - tunneling it through pipes, to then be piped into homes and used as a replacement for the drilling of natural gas. If we did the same with a car, we pipe it through the car, to be lit again, through two difference channels - one for hydrogen and one for methane gas. That cuts down the emmisions even more.

If we're going to go into the whole metane is a problem issue, we'd have to stop smoking, and kill off cattle since they release it alot compared to humans.

These are all natural gases which we can reuse and limit, but the world wont because of the industrial demand. Which is why we're not soley the problem of global warming, we're all using natural compounds which no matter how much we reuse it, it's still going to have a small amount Carbon dioxide or monoxide, we just need to stop being sloppy about how we use them.
 

foo2thabar

Well-Known Member
NLC
But those matters behind us, the idea of re-using the water vapour is interesting, but I think you'd find it would come at the cost of increased heat of the vehicle - for a very small amount of water you'd empty every two-to-three times you fill up (estimate).
Do you know of any sources that could suggest the amount of water produced (condensed vapor) for every X amount of hydrogen used in combustion?

I'm curious.
 

Meksilon

Well-Known Member
NLC
Do you know of any sources that could suggest the amount of water produced (condensed vapor) for every X amount of hydrogen used in combustion?

I'm curious.
Water = Hydrogen oxide = H2O, and (heavy) Deuterium oxide = D2O. So, two hydrogen atoms make one water molecule. I don't know the density of hydrogen in its fuel tank, but if you did you could work out exactly how much water it would produce.
 
Top