Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Two out of three aint bad. But CO2 is the same GHouse gas 24 hours a day as far as back radiation is concerned. Unless you simply meant theres more heat loss at night without solar driven convection.I love trick questions.. CO2 and its IR output at 14-16um does not penetrate the 0.1um of the surface of the ocean. it has no thermal value. Water vapor from the suns direct rays will carry off more heat than thermal IR can slow down. At night the heat loss is not retarded by CO2.No number.
Odd
Let's try again
How much will the oceans cool for each 10PPM reduction in CO2?
The answer is less than 0.05W/M^2 per cubic foot. (pretty close to zero)
But you don't keep a fuel cell going by pumping hydrogen into it unless you have found the cheapest and most abundant base to counteract ( for rechargibilty right?) but if you can combust hydrogen that is a combustible veerrryy abundant resource than why bother having a fuel cell/ battery? They are nice but why not use a kinetic battery to recharge as apposed to a hydrogen based battery to recharge when hydrogen is proven to more efficient as a combustibleAnimal the government got us to space, paved the highways and created the early internet.
The government created rockets that made satellites possible
The government built dams
The government has regulated our economy that made the middle class possible.
Now go back to Africa you fucking savage.
The government decided the mission. But Lockheed, McDonald Douglas, GE, and 100 different private companies got us to the moon. Govt doesnt design shit. They just set some goals and tossed out the money. Theres a lot of ways to make that more efficient and meaningful without the politics.
I'm sorry but yes there was a car run off of hydrogen gas, and im pretty sure it was combustion... Not positive , but it doesn't make sense to throw gas at a fuel cell to recharge it. So if have to say a combustible engine. And yes it was a real thing according to GM in 2007, but shortly after "something happend" and that car was no longer possible, despite it being driven on the road by many media personnel getting try to sell it as a environemtly friendly car .Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
Eh? Aerobic being?
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
The hydrogen car is the real boondogoo....
2 different things.. There are fuel cells for buses and small buildings that use nat gas rather than hydrogen as the fuel. Then there are fuel cell cars. ALL the Korean car manufacturers are skipping battery EVs and betting heavy on fuel cells. Europe BUILT the core of the Hydrogen hiway, that California just toyed with. I hear equal sales to EVs by 2030.. Which is great, because using solar and wind OFF THE GRID to make hydrogen is the best use of those technologies.
Two out of three aint bad. But CO2 is the same GHouse gas 24 hours a day as far as back radiation is concerned. Unless you simply meant theres more heat loss at night without solar driven convection.I love trick questions.. CO2 and its IR output at 14-16um does not penetrate the 0.1um of the surface of the ocean. it has no thermal value. Water vapor from the suns direct rays will carry off more heat than thermal IR can slow down. At night the heat loss is not retarded by CO2.No number.
Odd
Let's try again
How much will the oceans cool for each 10PPM reduction in CO2?
The answer is less than 0.05W/M^2 per cubic foot. (pretty close to zero)
But you don't keep a fuel cell going by pumping hydrogen into it unless you have found the cheapest and most abundant base to counteract ( for rechargibilty right?) but if you can combust hydrogen that is a combustible veerrryy abundant resource than why bother having a fuel cell/ battery? They are nice but why not use a kinetic battery to recharge as apposed to a hydrogen based battery to recharge when hydrogen is proven to more efficient as a combustibleAnimal the government got us to space, paved the highways and created the early internet.
The government created rockets that made satellites possible
The government built dams
The government has regulated our economy that made the middle class possible.
Now go back to Africa you fucking savage.
The government decided the mission. But Lockheed, McDonald Douglas, GE, and 100 different private companies got us to the moon. Govt doesnt design shit. They just set some goals and tossed out the money. Theres a lot of ways to make that more efficient and meaningful without the politics.
I'm sorry but yes there was a car run off of hydrogen gas, and im pretty sure it was combustion... Not positive , but it doesn't make sense to throw gas at a fuel cell to recharge it. So if have to say a combustible engine. And yes it was a real thing according to GM in 2007, but shortly after "something happend" and that car was no longer possible, despite it being driven on the road by many media personnel getting try to sell it as a environemtly friendly car .Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
The hydrogen car is the real boondogoo....
2 different things.. There are fuel cells for buses and small buildings that use nat gas rather than hydrogen as the fuel. Then there are fuel cell cars. ALL the Korean car manufacturers are skipping battery EVs and betting heavy on fuel cells. Europe BUILT the core of the Hydrogen hiway, that California just toyed with. I hear equal sales to EVs by 2030.. Which is great, because using solar and wind OFF THE GRID to make hydrogen is the best use of those technologies.
Because it is a climatic cycle. And they've made us spend how much on something that can't be stopped by man?
Two out of three aint bad. But CO2 is the same GHouse gas 24 hours a day as far as back radiation is concerned. Unless you simply meant theres more heat loss at night without solar driven convection, .I love trick questions.. CO2 and its IR output at 14-16um does not penetrate the 0.1um of the surface of the ocean. it has no thermal value. Water vapor from the suns direct rays will carry off more heat than thermal IR can slow down. At night the heat loss is not retarded by CO2.No number.
Odd
Let's try again
How much will the oceans cool for each 10PPM reduction in CO2?
The answer is less than 0.05W/M^2 per cubic foot. (pretty close to zero)
Water vapor and convection at night can not be stopped by CO2. Thermal loss and lack of penetration into oceans means that loss is all that is going to happen at night. 3/3
False it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfallIf it wasn't for the government regulating the economy in the early 20th century there would of never been the massive middle class. Why? The rich would of took all the wealth and the peon worker would of been treated as workers do in Vietnam.
And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warmingFalse it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfallIf it wasn't for the government regulating the economy in the early 20th century there would of never been the massive middle class. Why? The rich would of took all the wealth and the peon worker would of been treated as workers do in Vietnam.
And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warmingFalse it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfallIf it wasn't for the government regulating the economy in the early 20th century there would of never been the massive middle class. Why? The rich would of took all the wealth and the peon worker would of been treated as workers do in Vietnam.
But according to this thread article it's not going to help to have less kids .And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warmingFalse it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfallIf it wasn't for the government regulating the economy in the early 20th century there would of never been the massive middle class. Why? The rich would of took all the wealth and the peon worker would of been treated as workers do in Vietnam.
Or we could just make sure less people are being born.
Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists
Thursday 16 July 2015 18.23 BST
Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists
http://www.theguardi...y-us-scientists
Well, matter what we do this isn't going to be stopped.
But according to this thread article it's not going to help to have less kids .And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warmingFalse it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfallIf it wasn't for the government regulating the economy in the early 20th century there would of never been the massive middle class. Why? The rich would of took all the wealth and the peon worker would of been treated as workers do in Vietnam.
Or we could just make sure less people are being born.
If you believe this stuff and man made global warming is a problem currently than yes... If we froze our current CO2 emissions at the level they are then yes, warming of the oceans will only go up. Duh. Duuuh(extreme Retard sound) this article thread is completly useless. My question is, who has the balls to say who needs to be offtd first? The scientists and leaders you follow say the earth is too populated currently, and a .5 population growth isn't enough to cover that... So who do we kill off first?
Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists
Thursday 16 July 2015 18.23 BST
Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists
http://www.theguardi...y-us-scientists
Well, matter what we do this isn't going to be stopped.
it would certainly be more believeable if they could show warming other than that created by a computer program.
But carbon emissions are bad at the level we currently have them at. So an article talking about freezing our current CO2 levels and how that would still be bad for the environment is redundant, is it not? Thus the really hard duh "why bring it up?" But we climate change supporters can all agree that the earth is too heavily populated correct?But according to this thread article it's not going to help to have less kids .And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warmingFalse it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfallIf it wasn't for the government regulating the economy in the early 20th century there would of never been the massive middle class. Why? The rich would of took all the wealth and the peon worker would of been treated as workers do in Vietnam.
Or we could just make sure less people are being born.
If you believe this stuff and man made global warming is a problem currently than yes... If we froze our current CO2 emissions at the level they are then yes, warming of the oceans will only go up. Duh. Duuuh(extreme Retard sound) this article thread is completly useless. My question is, who has the balls to say who needs to be offtd first? The scientists and leaders you follow say the earth is too populated currently, and a .5 population growth isn't enough to cover that... So who do we kill off first?
All I got from this was that you did some kind of "extreme Retard sound", other than that you ignored everything I said and banged on about what you wanted to say without any regard for anything.
Ok I'll answer, we don't have 70 years to let the population dwindle down, nor would having babies at .5 per family ( every other couple be enough) so who so we off first?But according to this thread article it's not going to help to have less kids .And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warmingFalse it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfallIf it wasn't for the government regulating the economy in the early 20th century there would of never been the massive middle class. Why? The rich would of took all the wealth and the peon worker would of been treated as workers do in Vietnam.
Or we could just make sure less people are being born.
If you believe this stuff and man made global warming is a problem currently than yes... If we froze our current CO2 emissions at the level they are then yes, warming of the oceans will only go up. Duh. Duuuh(extreme Retard sound) this article thread is completly useless. My question is, who has the balls to say who needs to be offtd first? The scientists and leaders you follow say the earth is too populated currently, and a .5 population growth isn't enough to cover that... So who do we kill off first?
All I got from this was that you did some kind of "extreme Retard sound", other than that you ignored everything I said and banged on about what you wanted to say without any regard for anything.
But carbon emissions are bad at the level we currently have them at. So an article talking about freezing our current CO2 levels and how that would still be bad for the environment is redundant, is it not? Thus the really hard duh "why bring it up?" But we climate change supporters can all agree that the earth is too heavily populated correct?
Ok I'll answer, we don't have 70 years to let the population dwindle down, nor would having babies at .5 per family ( every other couple be enough) so who so we off first?But according to this thread article it's not going to help to have less kids .And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warmingFalse it was the government giving power to crony capitalism which gave power and unheard of money to those like the Rockefellers and vanderbilts. Of which the rockefellers controlled about one six of the worlds economy. So much that they had to give away or else be the obvious to be blamed for any economic downfall
Or we could just make sure less people are being born.
If you believe this stuff and man made global warming is a problem currently than yes... If we froze our current CO2 emissions at the level they are then yes, warming of the oceans will only go up. Duh. Duuuh(extreme Retard sound) this article thread is completly useless. My question is, who has the balls to say who needs to be offtd first? The scientists and leaders you follow say the earth is too populated currently, and a .5 population growth isn't enough to cover that... So who do we kill off first?
All I got from this was that you did some kind of "extreme Retard sound", other than that you ignored everything I said and banged on about what you wanted to say without any regard for anything.
But carbon emissions are bad at the level we currently have them at. So an article talking about freezing our current CO2 levels and how that would still be bad for the environment is redundant, is it not? Thus the really hard duh "why bring it up?" But we climate change supporters can all agree that the earth is too heavily populated correct?
It's an article from a respected newspaper.
The problem is that many people seem to ignore what is called "English grammar".
What the article CLEARLY says is "Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists"
Now, I can understand what this say. It doesn't say sea levels will be frozen. It says "If sea levels were frozen", that's conditional. It means if this happens then that will happen. If not then it might not.
Basically, if man made global warming were to remain at this point, we'd have problems. It doesn't say things will remain, in fact most intelligent people would surmise that things will get worse, and the sea levels will also probably rise more than what would happen if they were at the same levels as now.
So the "duh" really is on you. You've managed to take an article written in perfectly good English, and you'd managed to read it so badly that you can't understand what it says.
And no humanitarian aid should be provided to those who suffer from war, famine, and disease right? Keeping them alive just adds to the problem? But still it's sadly not going to be enough for humanity to survive, so who do we ACTIVLEY kill off?Ok I'll answer, we don't have 70 years to let the population dwindle down, nor would having babies at .5 per family ( every other couple be enough) so who so we off first?But according to this thread article it's not going to help to have less kids .And we come back to the question of how many humans need to be eliminated to stop anthropomorphic global warming
Or we could just make sure less people are being born.
If you believe this stuff and man made global warming is a problem currently than yes... If we froze our current CO2 emissions at the level they are then yes, warming of the oceans will only go up. Duh. Duuuh(extreme Retard sound) this article thread is completly useless. My question is, who has the balls to say who needs to be offtd first? The scientists and leaders you follow say the earth is too populated currently, and a .5 population growth isn't enough to cover that... So who do we kill off first?
All I got from this was that you did some kind of "extreme Retard sound", other than that you ignored everything I said and banged on about what you wanted to say without any regard for anything.
Well, there'll be other stuff, war, famine, disease etc.
