No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Nuclear...nuclear....nuclear.

It's the only available viable option.

I have absolutely no problem with nuclear power systems. I think many who
are concerned about global warming dislike the nuclear solution. Well, folks, you can't have your cake and it it too.

TBH.

what is this about? if not just trying to justify ongoing pollution of our OWN living space.
It bothers me how little people think sometimes. Even if our pollution doesn't cause global warming doesn't change much of anything. It still causes heaps of other problems like increased disease, decreased living space on this planet, semipermanent pollution which for some reason we think is okay to let our kids and grandkids deal with (nuclear waste), destruction of ecosystems, disruption of the foodchain we ourselves depend on. The list goes on. Doesn't anyone care about the state of the world we leave behind? How can a world full of so called grown ups be less responsible then my 10 year old sister. sad.

edit: nuclear power is not a solution.. it's just buying time. ever thought about all the hazardous nuclear waste and where we are going to stash it for hundreds if not thousands of years for it to become neutral.
nuclear power is just shifting the problem to our descendants not solving a problem.

When will humankind stop trying to solve our problems with idiotic idea's with consequences in the long run that we can't predict.
When will we actually stop looking at that imagined system of ours and start doing what's right? Why are we even thinking about "solving" our pollution and dwindling fossil fuels problems with nuclear waste producing powerplants when we have:
A - hydrogen producing algea and bacteria which can readily be used to produce massive amounts of hydrogen.
B - have the technology to safely contain and use hydrogen.
C - start burning hydrogen (2H2 + O2 = 2H2O equals no pollution at all)

ow right.. money... (fed up with humankind sometimes tbh time to grow up as a species find new values to do 'it' for)

[edit on 18/5/2007 by David2012]

David2012, and exactly how do you plan on feeding the billions of people on this planet which depend on oil to be fed, to be cured and even in order to be alive?...

Noone in this thread is saying "Let's pollute away", what most of us don't agree with is the extremist goals that people like yourself seem to want.

We can't stop using oil tomorrow, or a year from now, or probably even 10 years from now because not only does the world economy depends on it, but the lives of almost everyone on this planet depends on "technology" and moang that technology "oil"...

Rice fields are the mayor producers of methane gas, which is a far worse greenhouse gas than water vapor and carbon dioxide, but billions of people are being fed everyday because of these rice fields... Are you planning on allowing the billions of people, who depend on rice as the main food source, to be starved to death?....

What about the people's whose life depend on plastic, a by-product of oil, such as pacemakers and other medical instruments/equipment which are made from plastic and need to be made from that material?

Are we going to stop making pacemakers and such medical materials and allow the people who have medical problems to die?...

What about the food which you eat everyday? You think it gets into the supermarkets by magic? Or it appears on your tablet when your mom/dad wave some magical wand?

You asked how can your 10 year old sister be more concious about the damage done to the environment than "grown ups", my guess is that you are very young too.

What does your sister know about the things that I mentioned above?

How do you and your 10 year old sister plan on supplying the world's population with food and the medical care they need to live?

BTW, there is nothing wrong with being young, I was a child and young adult once, but often times young people are not aware of all the ramifications of life, or how dependant the life of billions of people in this planet are on "technology".

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Muaddib]

BTW David, do you know what hydrogen technology would release?

It would release tons of another greenhouse gas which traps more than twice the heat than CO2 does and it is more abundant on Earth.

Water Vapor, H2Ov, is a far greater heat trapping gas than CO2. So the only thing we would be doing is changing one GHG for a worse GHG when using hydrogen as a power source.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Muaddib

I've stopped reading your posts long ago...largely because of the shear volume of hogwash you post.

Take this for example:

Originally posted by Muaddib
Water Vapor, H2Ov, is a far greater heat trapping gas than CO2. So the only thing we would be doing is changing one GHG for a worse GHG when using hydrogen as a power source.

Nice try.

While water vapor does trap heat more efficiently than CO2, why do you omit the length of time CO2 stays in the atmosphere versus water vapor?

I still can’t decide if it is your objective to perpetuate ignorance or if you are just a victim of it….

Either way, most of the time your positions are mostly wrong.

Quoted by David2012

ow right.. money... (fed up with humankind sometimes tbh time to grow up as a species find new values to do 'it' for)

I would suggest you start with a course in economics. If you have had one then you may need a review. We are talking about mankind here and 99.9% of us think in terms of some type of money. It's a historical thing!

Originally posted by loam
Muaddib

I've stopped reading your posts long ago...largely because of the shear volume of hogwash you post.

And i care because?....

Only you would think that response of yours means anything or debunks anything....

Originally posted by loam
Take this for example:

Nice try.

While water vapor does trap heat more efficiently than CO2, why do you omit the length of time CO2 stays in the atmosphere versus water vapor?

Why do you omit the fact that even a doubling of CO2 would only increase temperatures 0.014C?...

Why do you omit the fact that even though water vapor's lifetime in the atmosphere is about a week, that it is the most important greenhouse gas?

Why do you omit the fact that water vapor constantly replenishes in the atmosphere?....

Why do you omit the fact that during the night all greenhouse gases greatly lose trapped heat, unless there is a large amount of "clouds" which would trap the heat more, so it doesn't really matter that CO2 remains in the atmosphere longer than water vapor, because all GHGs lose heat at night, and regain heat during the day........

Originally posted by loam
I still can’t decide if it is your objective to perpetuate ignorance or if you are just a victim of it….

Either way, most of the time your positions are mostly wrong.

Your claim does not prove a thing Mr. Yawn... the research with links i always give are what back my statements...

Why is it that some members believe that just by "claming someone else is ignorant" proves anything?.... It only shows that member's state of mind is that of ignorance in itself.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Muaddib]

From other thread:

Originally posted by Muaddib
And i have responded with dozens of other research which shows you are misrepresenting, exagerating, and even lying just because you want to agree with Mann and associates and want to blame mankind...

CO2 does not cause the warming people like yourself are trying to make the world believe it does.

You like to believe Mann and associates, even though they have lied in the past and have even tried to hide evidence of past Climate Change events, I rather believe the other data and research which says the contrary to every one of your claims.

So, we're back to attacking the integrity of Mann again, as if that adds anything to your position. Other proxy reconstructions show the same general trends as the original MHB 1998, Mann's work has also been widely accepted under review by major US scientific organisations.

I'd like you to show anywhere I have misrepresented research, or have lied. You can try to turn the attention to my integrity but I have no worries on this score, you do have honesty issues, Mauddib. Again, I have pointed out that Pielke's study is focusing on one single environment, but again (in the previous post), you are wielding the 0.014'C figure as if it means something on a global scale.

That is intellectual dishonesty. I have pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting a piece of research, and now you are just lying. You know you are wrong, yet you still spread this disinformation. Everytime you misrepresent this work, you are being dishonest.

The regional effects of CO2 and landscape change using
a coupled plant and meteorological model
J O S E P H L . E A S T M A N , * , ³ M I C H A E L B . C OUGHENOUR² and
R O G E R A . P I E L K E , S R . ³
*Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, ²Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, ³Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
CO 80523, USA

Abstract
A meteorological model, the Regional Atmospheric Modelling System (RAMS), and a plant model, the General Energy and Mass Transfer Model (GEMTM), are coupled in this study. The integrated modelling system was used to investigate regional weather conditions in the central grasslands of the USA for three experimental scenarios:

From the discussion:

Finally, the model results suggest that the 2 3 CO2 biological effect can dominate the overall effects on temperature. This must be interpreted in the context it was presented. This is a regional-scale sensitivity study. These results cannot be linearly scaled up to global scales.

blue.atmos.colostate.edu...

The Emperor still has no clothes.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
David2012, and exactly how do you plan on feeding the billions of people on this planet which depend on oil to be fed, to be cured and even in order to be alive?...

Did I mention humankind needs a mentality change for nothing?.
This dependence you're describing is because we created it. It's part of our old and current trail of reasoning.
Extremist goals. Trying to find a neutral pollution free source of energy is an extremist goal? You dare label me an extremist without knowing squat about me? I sincerely hope that's not how you do research.

That I'm sick with humankind.. Well that's a separate point and hasn't even as much to do with our pollution then our state of mind.

Nature pollutes too, the difference is there is equilibrium, a balance. We aren't part of that balance anymore.
Yes water vapour can be a greenhouse gas but not when used within the natural balance and added to that CO2 lingers a lot longer in the atmosphere, as soon as water vapour rises high enough and cools it will rain down.

Creating hydrogen -> 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
Burning hydrogen -> 2H2 + O2 -> 2H20

(In English 2 parts water become 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, burning it again makes 2 parts water out of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.. the total sum of h2o on this planet remains the same)
(Freshman year in high school type topic here)

The 10 year old sister remark isn't because she knows science or is conscious about our exact impact (and I don’t appreciate you attacking me personally or my sister (age remarks and such.. very low under the belt). it's because she and everyone should be able to comprehend that replacing a polluting industry with another polluting industry is not a solution in the long run. That's as basic as logic can get :s no science required lol

Exactly how do people depend on oil to be fed? Because they work in the oil industry? My idea (which for some reason is being blown up to god knows what.. I'm just trying to find clean energy.. sorry) would replace fossil fuel industry but it would need a large amount of workers just like the oil industry now.
And what are we supposed to do when oil runs out.. (Limited supply you know, takes millions of years to form) we need a replacement industry, preferably clean. We better start now instead of waiting till oil runs out.

I'm not going to start about your rice fields and so on, because I didn't even touch that topic so I don't get what you're trying to do dragging that into this. My post was solely on production of energy.

I'm very well aware of the ramifications. I'm not a youngster which I find a cheap pot shot at me anyway. Says more about you in all honesty.
My post was merely concerning technology. I didn't pretend to know how to best change society and switch technologies at all.

You're post is pretty damn hostile against someone who is just trying to come up with idea's to change for the better and full of conclusions about e.g. myself for which you have no reason or evidence. And NOWHERE did I state changes like I'm thinking can or should be done overnight.

PS. Hydrogen energy can be an enclosed system with 0 output into the environment because of the nature of hydrogen creation and the burning of it. You can trap the exhaust (water) and use that same water again for the production of hydrogen.. it can and possibly should be a closed system.

loam

Thanks

plumranch
I would suggest you start with a course in economics. If you have had one then you may need a review. We are talking about mankind here and 99.9% of us think in terms of some type of money. It's a historical thing!

I know and respect that but it's, outdated. Maybe we're outdated if we can't even imagine how to do it differently lol.
I'm just saying we've been doing this system for better and worse for a long time. Maybe the time isn't right yet and we haven't mentally evolved enough yet. But someday this will have to change. It's a dead end in our civilization's evolution. Just my opinion of course.

In essence all I'm saying. Global warming caused by us or by other factor's it's all beside the point. It's just not smart to pollute your own 'house'.
If global warming isn't influenced by us at all.. (Hypothetically of course)
Then our pollution still has these issues:

myself
It still causes heaps of other problems like increased disease, decreased living space on this planet, semipermanent pollution which for some reason we think is okay to let our kids and grandkids deal with (nuclear waste), destruction of ecosystems, disruption of the foodchain we ourselves depend on.

[edit on 19/5/2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by melatonin

So, we're back to attacking the integrity of Mann again, as if that adds anything to your position. Other proxy reconstructions show the same general trends as the original MHB 1998, Mann's work has also been widely accepted under review by major US scientific organisations.

And you go back to trying to vindicate Mann and associates, as if that adds any more credence to their "new lies"...

Again as i have posted several times in the past research from several other sources disprove the lies and exagerations that Mann, associates and you keep claiming. You, Mann and associates have tried to claim the LIA, the RWP, and the MWP were not global events, when there are dozens of research which disprove your claims.

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...

A team of scientist from Austria and Germany located three stalagmites in the Spannagel Cave located around 2,500 m above sea level at the end of the Tux Valley in Tyrol (Austria) close to the Hintertux glacier. The temperature of the cave stays near freezing and the relative humidity in the cave is always at or near 100%. The stalagmites grew at a rate between 17 and 75 millionths of a meter per year and are nearly 10,000 years old.
...............
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!

www.worldclimatereport.com...

Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan
.......................
The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.

www.springerlink.com...

The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

ff.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
I'd like you to show anywhere I have misrepresented research, or have lied.

Read the above excerpts and links I gave....again....

Not to mention, for the 75th time, that you have even tried to claim that any current warming being associated with the Holocene period "according to you" is a lie...yet...

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise.

www.agu.org...

Oh but you keep trying to twist things around and keep trying to vindicate Mann and associates time and again... Which shows who has an "honesty issue" is you and noone else than you.

Originally posted by melatonin
That is intellectual dishonesty. I have pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting a piece of research, and now you are just lying. You know you are wrong, yet you still spread this disinformation. Everytime you misrepresent this work, you are being dishonest.

Abstract
A meteorological model, the Regional Atmospheric Modelling System (RAMS), and a plant model, the General Energy and Mass Transfer Model (GEMTM), are coupled in this study. The integrated modelling system was used to investigate regional weather conditions in the central grasslands of the USA for three experimental scenarios:

If there was any truth that "CO2 would greatly increase temperatures", it would have shown so even if the experiment was only supposed to imitate the conditions of a region.... After all, CO2 is the "big bad evil" anthropogenic GHG you, Mann and associates are trying to blame for GLobal Warming/Climate Change.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by David2012
Extremist goals. Trying to find a neutral pollution free source of energy is an extremist goal? You dare label me an extremist without knowing squat about me? I sincerely hope that's not how you do research.

No, claiming that "oil cosupmtion must end now" is the extremist goal. Some people are asking for an overnight change, and it will never happen...changes have been happening and will continue to happen "slowly".

Originally posted by David2012
That I'm sick with humankind.. Well that's a separate point and hasn't even as much to do with our pollution then our state of mind.

If you are sick of humanity then you are sick of people like your sister. She is also part of humanity. Granted there is a lot of evil in the world, but there is also a lot of good, and a lot of good people.

Originally posted by David2012
Nature pollutes too, the difference is there is equilibrium, a balance. We aren't part of that balance anymore.

Balance?... Why do people talk about balance all the time?... there is no such thing as "balance'...there is "change".

If you actually bother to look at the geological record you find that it is riddled with changes which have caused destruction and the extinction of several species in the past.

There is no "balance of nature". Nothing remains constant, everything changes, and more often those changes are violent and destructive.

Originally posted by David2012
Yes water vapour can be a greenhouse gas but not when used within the natural balance and added to that CO2 lingers a lot longer in the atmosphere, as soon as water vapour rises high enough and cools it will rain down.

Not so, water vapor has a lifetime of a week, and it is constantly replenished. The warmer it gets the higher the concentrations of water vapor and other GHGs.

Also, as I have already mentioned, all GHG lose heat during the night, and then start heating up during the mornings again. Hence whether water vapor remains in the atmosphere for only a week, it is constantly replenished, and just like every other GHGs, it releases heat at night, unless there are large clouds at night, and start retaining heat once again during the mornings.

Try spending a week in the desert, and spending the nights outside and you'll see what i mean.

Originally posted by David2012
Creating hydrogen -> 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
Burning hydrogen -> 2H2 + O2 -> 2H20

(In English 2 parts water become 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, burning it again makes 2 parts water out of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.. the total sum of h2o on this planet remains the same)
(Freshman year in high school type topic here)

And tell me David, where are you getting the "magical energy" that is needed to process water into Hydrogen, and then to burn Hydrogen?...

If you learnt anything from High School, at least you should know that you need energy for such processes, we also have problems with transporting and storing hydrogen in cars.

Originally posted by David2012
The 10 year old sister remark isn't because she knows science or is conscious about our exact impact (and I don’t appreciate you attacking me personally or my sister (age remarks and such.. very low under the belt). it's because she and everyone should be able to comprehend that replacing a polluting industry with another polluting industry is not a solution in the long run. That's as basic as logic can get :s no science required lol

And read again what I said in my post... It was no personal attack, but you have to be very naive to make the claim you made.

If you don't want a response to your comments, then think before you say things out of the blue and make statements which have no logic in them.

Originally posted by David2012
Exactly how do people depend on oil to be fed? Because they work in the oil industry? My idea (which for some reason is being blown up to god knows what.. I'm just trying to find clean energy.. sorry) would replace fossil fuel industry but it would need a large amount of workers just like the oil industry now.

How do you think the food that gets to your table gets processed? Do you think there is a "magical process which uses energy that appears out of nowhere"?

Here is a link to a food process plant, with pictures and perhaps you might begin to understand how the food that you eat everyday gets to the supermarket, and then to your table.

www.foodtechstructures.com...

Anyways, here is a short overview which might help you understand what i am talking about.

First there are hundreds of thousands of farmers who plant wheat, corn, etc, or have sheep, cow, turkeys, pig farms, all of which need energy in one form or another to keep working their farms.

How do farmers harvest food such as wheat, corn, etc? They use tractors, which use the "evil fuel."

Then the food is transported, using "evil fuel trucks", which take the food to food process plants, where some hundreds of thousands of people work to process the food.

During the food process, more energy is used to "process the food", using electricity, half of which is powered by coal, which is the worse fossil fuel there is, as it produces more CO2 when it is burned than any other fossil fuel. Most of the other half of the energy used by countries is produced by nuclear power plants. Very few countries have alternative power plants, and they only have a small percentage of "alternative power plants".

Anyways, after that food is processed, it needs to go to the supermarkets, and can you guess how it gets to the supermarkets?.... Using more of the "evil fuel trucks" to transport once again the food...

Then, the food is placed in the supermarket by hundreds of thousands of workers, much of that food needs to be fresh, which means using electricity, half of which is powered by coal plants, and the other half by nuclear power plants.

Then your mom or dad goes to the supermarket, more often than not in a car, which uses fuel. They buy the food with money which they earned from a job that in one way or another needs and uses "electricity" and oil products, such as plastics, etc.

Anyways, then your mom and dad have to put some of the food they bought in a fridge, which again uses electricity, which again half of it is produced by coal and most of the other half is produced by nuclear power plants.

Then your mom, or dad, makes the food, once again using electricity... and then it gets to your table...

I wonder where all that fuel, coal and plastic gets to be found and produced to the thousands of items and the different sources of fuel needed for everyday life?....

Anyways, perhaps that would make you understand how "regular people need oil" and other fuel sources such as coal for their existance.

Originally posted by David2012
And what are we supposed to do when oil runs out.. (Limited supply you know, takes millions of years to form) we need a replacement industry, preferably clean. We better start now instead of waiting till oil runs out.

If that happens any time soon we all will be in great problems, since ther eis no viable alternative source and billions of people will literally starve to death.

Originally posted by David2012
I'm not going to start about your rice fields and so on, because I didn't even touch that topic so I don't get what you're trying to do dragging that into this. My post was solely on production of energy.

Methane is a GHG, and the major producers of methane are rice fields which feed billions of people in this planet. When you talk about GHG being a problem, methane is one of those GHG, hence it is part of the discussion.

Originally posted by David2012
I'm very well aware of the ramifications.

You are not aware David as you asked "how people need oil to be fed", which only shows you don't understand how you and bilions of people are being fed in this planet.

Originally posted by David2012
You're post is pretty damn hostile against someone who is just trying to come up with idea's to change for the better and full of conclusions about e.g. myself for which you have no reason or evidence. And NOWHERE did I state changes like I'm thinking can or should be done overnight.

I just spoke truths, and if you felt offended, then you need to re-evaluate your arguments, because i said it several times i wasn't attakcing you, but making naive comments without much fact does not help your argument.

Conclusions can be made from the statements you have made David.

Originally posted by David2012
PS. Hydrogen energy can be an enclosed system with 0 output into the environment because of the nature of hydrogen creation and the burning of it. You can trap the exhaust (water) and use that same water again for the production of hydrogen.. it can and possibly should be a closed system.

And again David, how much energy do you think you need for those processes you were talking about?

The current technology of fuel cell cars release great amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere.

Again, i am not saying to stop trying to find alternative fuel sources, but it is not that easy.

One of the projects I did with many other colleages during college to "earn" our engineering degrees was to try to come up with new technologies for alternative power sources, or how to better current technologies.

We had many great ideas, but most of them were not feasible with our current level of technology.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

New "feasible" alternative sources will come about with time. But such research takes a long time, and in order to implement those alternative sources into everyday life takes also a long time. It is not going to be an overnight process.

But anyways, the discussion at hand is "Global Warming is not man-made", and that is a fact.

argument about the elephant in the room and the colour of the elephant.
the combustion engine is fine, gas is bad, we need to change that no matter what.
so really to argue that global warming is due to this or that is unlogical on every level.
I pray you guys spend more time looking up Water Cars and planning for the heat....cause both are coming.

Climate Change/Global Warming is going to persist whether or not every country goes green.

BTW jounglelord, do you have any feasible alternative fuel source hidden under your belt that can be implemented right now?

This is a "forum" and forums are there for "debate and arguments".

let's not kid our selfs, global warming is man made or better put it's our fault.
I went out of the city up in the mountains and I felt a change where air was fresh, I spent about a week out of the city, when I came back being used to the fresh air I felt that the air was diry and full of smog..polution.

Statements like"relax it's just a cycle " is just a bunch of crap.
We as humans produce so much polution , we can feel it while we inhale what we produce.
People in the country side live longer because there is lesss polution, in big cities in the winter it is also warmer due to polution this has been proven,if the ice caps are melting it's because we screwed up, it's so conviniant to blame nature when it has been doing it's job for a long while now.

Pollution does not cause Global Warming/Climate Change. Keep kidding yourself and others and making statements without one iota of proof that it is mankind that has caused Climate Change when even the current warming began 260 years before CO2 levels even began to increase.

If you feel so guilty, then leave the cities and move into any forest, hunting with your hands and rocks and living in a cave if you want.

BTW, my guess is you do like pepsi right pepsi78?...


[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Pollution does not cause Global Warming/Climate Change. Keep kidding yourself and others and making statements without one iota of proof that it is mankind that has caused Climate Change when even the current warming began 260 years before CO2 levels even began to increase.

Make an experiment, go to your frige and burn a bunch of toxic things in it
see how that ice reacts.
It's gass emisions, gass can freze ice but it can also melt it, also burning gas/petolium in the atmosfere can have an impact on the ozone layer, even if it does not punch a hole in it for good it can result in a thiner ozone layer as a result UV rays from the sun and microwaves can penetrate esier, put an ice cube in a microwave oven and see what happens.
Polution is also at fault for direct warming, you will find out that where there are alot of cars around it's a bit hoter, the smog coming out of them ads up to a hoter climate.

If you feel so guilty, then leave the cities and move into any forest, hunting with your hands and rocks and living in a cave if you want.

I do feel like I'm responsible, there are other ways besides going in to the jungle, giving up oil and inventing new alternative ways that don't depend on oil.


[edit on 20-5-2007 by pepsi78]

What in the world?...

People really need to "study" at least a little bit before they make absurb comments and arguments that make no sense at all...

The Earth is not a "small fridge" pepsi78...

BTW, if you have any new feasible fuel sources and can demonstrate that it works i am all ears. i can even put you in contact with some companies that experiment with alternative power sources...

So go ahead and make a presentation right here.

The Earth is not a "small fridge" pepsi78...

Well there is not just one person poluting.

BTW, if you have any new feasible fuel sources and can demonstrate that it works i am all ears. i can even put you in contact with some companies that experiment with alternative power sources...

So go ahead and make a presentation right here.

This is not the place to talk about it, I made a post on the science part of the forum.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pepsi78

Well there is not just one person poluting.

And pollution does not cause Climate Change...it can affect the environment, but it does not change the global climate...

Originally posted by pepsi78
This is not the place to talk about it, I made a post on the science part of the forum.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

First of all, cars are not the mayor producers of CO2, it is coal plants and other factories which produce most of the CO2.

Second of all I would really like to see how fast, and how much a car can be moved by such a water vapor engine...

BTW similar engines have existed for a long time...they used them on trains, but they needed lots and lots of energy, which they got by burning wood, or coal in large quantities.

I can tell you that engine in that graph is not going to produce enough energy to move any car.

Go ahead and build it, if you think it is that easy and if you think it will work...


[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]