FallingPianos

have at it.

__________________

jfuh

Independent thinker points that the longest CO2 record is on Mauna Loa. That is instrumental.
However we can also get CO2 concentrations from Ice cores. So though correct, not entirely so.
Also Independent does not point to the fact that the current CO2 concentration spike is 100% anthropogenic in origin which is also accountable for the excess CO2 in the atmosphere and is what is off setting the balance of our planet's delicate climate system.

On Tot's side, sorry, however in terms of energy density there is no way to bypass the use of liquid based fuels.
Hydrogen is not practical not because of the generation of water as the by-product as even so water is still in equilibrium within the environment through the generation of hydrogen to begin with. Hydrogen is not attractive because it's a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off as well as the physical barrier needed to overcome with specific regards to again, energy density of the fuel source. It's great mass to energy ratio certainly, but in everyday driving for the masses volume to energy ratio is what is important which is why we still use gasoline, it's very energetic.

Tot does bring up the very good point that we need more nuke plants, it's just inevitable and impractical to continue on current trends of fossile fuel usage.

It's a shame however that tot does not provide a basis for why Ethanol is no better for the environment and he feels that electric cars are the way to go.

It's inevitable that cars are going to be electric, however the fuel source will most likely be from the fuel cell conversion from liquid fuels such as ethanol and or butanol which provide energy densities 100 fold greater then that of hydrogen, as well as the added stability, ease of transportation and storage and much faster charge rate then any battery available, and the final reason is the transition would be immediately avaiable today, not 10, 20, 30 years in the future.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Cataclysmic 7.9 earthquake in China, how to donate to the relief fund.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Good points you should have joined the debate contest but I have only one question what do you do for energy consumption? I refuse to buy gas at exxon/mobile (Saudi) and Citgo (Venezuela). Oh, and when I do purchase gas it's for my 250cc motorcycle which I get 2 weeks to the gallon and that doesn't include public transportation.

oh and render onto Caesar is a great quote but teach a man to fish is better.

jfuh

I did, I was a monitor.
As for energy consumption I've shown, you burn ethanol or butanol. Changing the timing and cooling system of any current engine is most of the modifications required; which :fyi have a much higher octane rating then gasoline. Then gradually you make that shift to fuel cells the use ethanol or butanol. Neither Exxon nor Citgo supply ethanol. Though Captain's company does.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Regardless ethanol production requires an energy source to produce it and ethanol itself isn't that environmentally friendly either and neither is hydrogen, because hydrogen too takes an energy source to create it and the exhaust (h20 vapor) causes global warming more than CFC's, nuclear is the only way to go if you want to eliminate air polution. Again what do you do to reduce energy consumption?

jfuh

Ethanol's production energy source is the sun. Plain and simple, from biomass fermentation.
Your statment that H2O is a greater cause of global warming then CFC's is irrelevent because CFC's are hardly combustion related - the premise of energy useage.
The insulation factor of carbonated sources is at minimum 50 times that of H2O. H2O's warming capacity is temperature regulated and as per noted prior is in equilibrium with the environment, which anthropogenic carbon sources are not.
H2O also has global cooling effects which no carbonated source will ever do.
Fossil fuel carbonated gases are purling insulating and not in equilibrium with the environment, a key point. Since Ethanol would be in equilibrium with the environment contributing to zero net increase (spike) in atmpospheric CO2.

As for the question of decreasing consumption, I would for now simply say conservation. However that is not something that I should discuss here as you are in the midst of debate with independent on this matter right now. So I will leave it at that for now.

Trajan Octavian Titus

no you're wrong H20 would be the exhaust from the hydrogen powered cars, your idea that solar power can produce ethanol is science fiction at this point and even if it wasn't ethanol still creates polution it's bio-diesel but it still burns like regular diesel.

Oh really?




No I'm asking what you personally do to reduce energy consumption, only the individual can do anything about it and apparently you do nothing except talk.

jfuh

That's not my argument. I'm not debating of the exhaust from the combustion of hydrogen. I'm stating that CFC's Chlorofluro carbons are not combustion related. You can not compare the two.
As for my concept of solar energy producing Ethanol, let me elaborate. Plants are indeed solar powered, the original energy source. You get ethanol from the fermentation of carbohydrates from plants. Thus the energy source is solar. Not solar energy creating ethanol.. Ethanol is not bio-diesel at all. Ethanol is CH3CH2OH, 2 carbons one oxygen and saturated with hydrogens. Biodiesel is diesel just made from biological oils - peanut oil. The two are completely different.

First, that doesn't refute my argument at all.
Secondly, regional vs global. Europe with a significantly lower consumption of fossil fuels then the US, China or India would of course get it's rising temperatures locally from water. Europe is much warmer then similar latitude regions because of none other then the gulf stream, or mid atlantic current. Thus obviously the warmth is from water.

First you never made that argument.
2nd it's not only the individual that can do anything (which ironically I thought you used to argue we can't do anything about the climate to change anything).
3rd I've evidently changed your position on conservation and environmental protection, as well as many others. You used to say that humans had no ability whatsoever to affect the climate. Seems like your singing a different melody now.
I've also started an exchange program in the community I live in to swap old incadecents out for flourescents, the compost of lawn waste and kitchen waste, water conservation through low-flow toilets and shower heads. Sponsered by Home Depot
4th and finally I've worked on fermentation of the stalk portion of corn. Much richer in carbohydrates and an additional source of wasted biomass.

Any other questions of what I've done personally for environmental protection and global warming?

jfuh

For the second question, Tot seems to have failed quite miserably. Not a single source to back his claim up nor any explaination furthering his opinion. This is the true debate not opinion debate.
Independents response is Paints a very accurate representation of just how humans are indeed affecting the environment as well as how we react to it.
For what we can not see? speculative. For what we can see? well something needs to be done.

jfuh

The 3rd and final question, kudos to independent. Hope for the best prepare for the worst. We go to war into Iraq on questionable intelligence, yet still with the mountain of evidence on global warming still refuse to do anything about it.
Tot in his response brings up the failures of Kyoto, but omits the positive aspects of Kyoto nor any links or sources to back up his claims yet again.
You have an international treaty on green house gases, the US instead of sticking in and fixing those portions of the treaty decide to pull out all together. This is not because of any economic factor but because of the lucritive market of the oil industry and the strong oil industry lobbyers. Hell they have one in the white house.