Global warming... sick of hearing about it, but how about a non BS version?

[OzziePete]

Ozzie, I hear you

but that is not the answer, nor are looking for new fuels

the answer is to be able to use the resources of the earth in a sustainable way.

when we run out of trees, what do we use metals? and then when we run out of them, chemicals? oh no they went away when we used all the oil

problem is, as I have said a few times, we could continue with the resources we have today, we could use all our sources of energy we have today

all we need to do is recycle everything, clean up our messes and depopulate, if we only had 1 child per couple for the next 200 years, we would be at a population we could sustain, all of our problems today are not our usage of resources, it is the abuses we do to our lands because of our population and its demand to use resources up so fast.

China has tried the 'one child policy' within their own boundaries, and everyone else is deriding them for doing that. Forced abortions - even late term termination if necessary - corruption of the process where well off middle class Chinese couples can have a couple of kids and pay 'fines' for their indiscretions etc. That policy has also brought up a generation of kids that are spoilt, behave in quite some weird ways because they only have their peers and no siblings, and will be causing cultural problems throughout China for the next 50 years.

In Australia, water is the main issue. We have a lack of it most of the time, except for now when half the eastern side of the country is experiencing flooding in the country side inland! Yet, we waste a fair bit of rainwater in the cities, and our drainage systems do not collect the water, it merely channels it out into the ocean...Try suggesting re-configuring our cities' drainage systems so the water could be somehow collected and recycled for irrigation or the like (not drinking water) and the first thing that pops up is how MUCH? No politician is game to suggest raising water rates to pay for such a project that's for sure.

Recycling well, there's been some efforts in some of our cities, Adelaide for example, has been doing a pretty good recycling program for years now, and Australia was one of the first developed countries to start recycling paper & steel way back when.

What I would like to see though, is countries that are developing into some of the world's mega powers for manufacturing and industry, like China and India, adopt best practice for the environment whenever they build a new factory or undertake a new project. They won't do it now, instead they are more prone to making the same mistakes as the western world found out the hard way with air pollution, natural resources abuses and land degradation. If they did adopt best practices, the venture could be more sustainable, becoime a longer viable economic project and also serve as a genuine test of some of the debatable theories about environmental impact.

 

[Superlizard]

And there it is.  The personal attack.

Goodbye thread.

For the record, I personally attacked Al Gore earlier.  :icon_biggrin:

 

[Jusatele]

Answer this and I will concede

take a gallon of water, weigh it so we have a base

use energy to turn it into oxygen and water, and get the same weight total of weight we had in the water, no waste, or record the waste in weight.

record how many BTUs of energy were used to do the separation and then the storage, and transportation and dispensing of the product.

start the fuel cell, record the energy in BTUs  used to get the reaction started and to continue and then have the vehicle move, record all the BTUs produced by the reaction, capture all by product, Show me a total of energy used to get the reaction, and energy created by the reaction, Weigh the total of water created by the reaction, and tell me what else was created by the reaction such as what gasses and such.

come back and present these findings and explain how efficient the Fuel cell is, and how it is not using up the water.

explain why we are using energy to get it to work instead of using that energy to propel the car

explain how we have benefited

and about burning does not destroy things, it consumes them, I will prove it, take all your guitars and put them in the fireplace tonight and burn them for heat, now tomorrow take them out of the fireplace and play them.  What do you mean they are all consumed in the fire, I thought you said that did not happen.

 

[elfro89]

ok  lets ask a few questions
solar energy, is not the energy supplied by the sun consuming itself? not just rearranging its molecules?

That is a nuclear process. Mass is being converted into energy.

burning a 5 pound log, when we are finished we saw the energy and felt the heat, what is left is ash and polluted air, are they not just rearranged atoms? but was not the Wood consumed? and if it had not been then where would the energy come from?

The energy comes from the chemical reactions putting matter into different forms with different energy levels. you can say that the wood is consumed, but all of the the atoms that made up the wood still exist. And many of them may be rearranged back into wood again at some point by the anti-entropic force we call life.

5 pounds of gasoline, we burn it, have air pollution and carbon in the engine  we went 12 miles so we know how the energy was used, and saw the tank is empty, so we know it was consumed, but it still was consumed, with out the consumption of a fuel source we cannot extract the energy.

You are actually putting 5 pounds of crap in the atmosphere. Really. If it just went away, we wouldn't worry about pollution. We would probably have other things to worry about.

why do we need to extract the energy from water if it water is it's by product, would we not just use the water and still have water just with rearranged molecules after we used it?

You need to use energy to extract the hydrogen from water. Burning the hydrogen just releases the energy. Fossil fuels were also created by processes that added energy to the system (life). Possibly the word burning is confusing you. It is just the common term for a rapid exothermic chemical reaction.

now, if we are destroying water, and useing the hydrogen we get from it and it is all okay once finished, are we getting the 5 pounds of hydrogen from the 2 teaspoons of water we end up with, or does 2 teaspoons of water contain 5 pounds of hydrogen.

More than 5 pounds of water is created (since oxygen is added), mostly in the form of water vapor.

truth of the mater is, we need a source of energy to consume to create energy, and if we use the hydrogen from our water supplies, we end up with no water.

I can see by your example that it is easy to be sceptical of everything when you know nothing.

Seriously, take a class or read a book.

burning a 5 pound log, when we are finished we saw the energy and felt the heat, what is left is ash and polluted air, are they not just rearranged atoms? but was not the Wood consumed? and if it had not been then where would the energy come from?

The energy comes from the chemical reactions putting matter into different forms with different energy levels. you can say that the wood is consumed, but all of the the atoms that made up the wood still exist. And many of them may be rearranged back into wood again at some point by the anti-entropic force we call life. [/quote]

A chemical reaction can be endothermic or exothermic. meaning heat is absorbed or released during the course of a reaction. The for the process of burning to start there must have been initial heat created to begin with.

The burning of lighter fluid is a chemical reaction caused by the electrical spark or spark of flint onto the lighter fluid. This then ignites to release heat and light. the change of Lighter fluid > into the various Oxygen compounds releases the heat. This heat is now significant enough to start another chemical reaction towards the tinder or other small fire-lighting material, which then starts the chemical reaction into more Oxygen compounds which in turn releases more heat, depending on the combustibility of the material. this goes on as more and more fuel is added to the reaction.  don't think rearrange is a very accurate description of the process.

at the nuclear level it can get more complicated but essentially the Oxygen(1) molecules which exist with double covalent bonds, which are strong and hard to break, this spark created enough energy to split the oxygen molecules in the air into single atoms. This releases energy in the form of heat. Any substance within range that is combustible will break apart by the energy and react to the presence of oxygen, this process also releases heat which creates your chain reaction in which more oxygen molecules and fuel are split to create new molecules and this reaction will continue until extinguished by human intervention, or when circumstances cause it to stop, such as the lack of further fuel. I should probably go into more detail but im lazy and most of this I cant be bothered relearning. but its something along those lines.



1. The atomic structure of oxygen is 8 protons which have a positive force and and 2 electron clouds which contain (in single atom form) 2,6. In the outermost electron cloud there is 6 electrons but enough space for 8. Electrons contain a negative force. This leaves an imbalance of forces meaning they are attracted to other atoms capable of filing this space. (such as 2 hydrogen atoms that each have only 1 electron which when added to oxygen forms water. hence the combustion of hydrogen makes water) The oxygen atoms also contains 8 nuetrons that are not relevant to the discussion and are held in the nucleus by the strong force.  

 

[Jusatele]

I have asked you for proof time and again. Which you have not provided, instead you attack me and my post. I know that is because you cannot answer my questions and instead want to give other answers.

put your guitars in a fire, and prove they will not be consumed


So I ask for proof you science is not flawed, that what you say is truth, that your guitars will not be consumed. I ask that your science bout the Hydrogen fuel cells are not flawed either, that we will get 1 gallon of water back for each gallon put in, that we will not have to spend more energy to convert what is not returned in water to us, and that this entire process is more efficient than just using the energy we used to get the Fuels cell set up and working. But you have no answered that,
I know why, because you cannot, it is another mistake by science, such a nuke fuel, way of the future, It destroys the environment. that is why we have to put the waste miles underground, why we have to protect the reaction chambers with tons of shielding and why Chernopyl still has a population in it.
What is the final cost of using our water for fuel?

I have nothing to prove, you are not willing to burn your guitars, or prove the test on fuel cells is valid
I have the history of what science has given us to stand on. Pollution and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

[Jusatele]

More than 5 pounds of water is created (since oxygen is added), mostly in the form of water vapor.

wait, now we are introducing water to retrieve water? how does that work? I mean if we need to introduce more water than that needs to be included in total water used
I think you are telling us that for ever gallon of water used we get a diminishing return, correct?
Once again, why should I accept that using up our water is good?

 

[richship]

I have asked you for proof time and again. Which you have not provided, instead you attack me and my post. I know that is because you cannot answer my questions and instead want to give other answers.

I wasn't trying to prove anything to you. That would be impossible anyway. I was only trying to explain things based on my knowledge of basic chemistry (limited as it is).

put your guitars in a fire, and prove they will not be consumed

I don't know what you mean by that. The mass of the guitar still exists in various forms. Trees wil use these materials plus the energy from the sun to grow more wood. The only reason the ecology works is that we have a constant supply of energy from the sun to build things back up from their component parts. I was only proposing using that free energy to produce the cleanest fuel possible. If you want to rant some more about scientists stealing all our water, go right ahead without me.

 

[Jusatele]

not screaming about stuff is why Three mile Island and Chernobyl happened
Did you know that in the 60s the Cuyahoga river caught fire in Ohio because of Pollution, because no one screamed about what was happening
In Somalia they have huge problem about the wet lands have huge polluted areas from leaking oil wells, and no one is screaming there as they prefer the income from the wells
Yes I will point out bad science, but most will wait till the crisis stage to do it, like when the diminishing return of using hydrogen means we have used up a major percentage of our water.
My first 2 years in Collage I was studying Micro Biology, till I figured out that everything I learned in High school was no longer current theory, and that in just a few years after I graduated, the stuff I was studying would be disproved by new THEORY.
Science, great as it is, is not fact, it is THEORY. And disproved on a daily basis.
Such as Global warming. we do not need to change our energy sources, we need a population that does not use so much energy, Have one that uses it at a level we can live with. We need wide open spaces for forest to grass lands that absorb C02. We need to clean up our mistakes and turn our back on technology that is destructive, like nukes. We each need to do what we need to do, not what we want.

as far as me not understanding, I am not the person who made the claim that energy does not consume things it just rearranges molecules. If that is true, burn those guitars. The reason you will not is you know that they will be consumed, and you will not have a guitar anymore. If that is not true, Prove it.

If it is not true that they will be ok in the morning, then you have to face the fact that they are not there any more

Such as that fuel cell, If we could get 1 gallon in and 1 gallon out of every gallon we separate, then the tech is good, but as long as we are diminishing our reserves of water, then we are destroying the future of life on the planet.

Both of those are facts. you cannot deny that. I know this because you will not burn those guitars, and I know the second because you can never get a 1 to 1 ratio when energy is involved, there is always loss.

Science is Theory, not fact. Fact is we have to clean up after any form of energy we have ever used, and using up our water reserves is a cost I think no one will be able to look back at and say," YES THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA"

will you throw those guitars in a fire? Is using up our water supplies a good Idea? those are the questions you keep avoiding to answer because you know you are wrong.

 

[OzziePete]

.
Such as Global warming. we do not need to change our energy sources, we need a population that does not use so much energy, Have one that uses it at a level we can live with. We need wide open spaces for forest to grass lands that absorb C02. We need to clean up our mistakes and turn our back on technology that is destructive, like nukes. We each need to do what we need to do, not what we want.

Quite frankly, humans have been rapacious in their energy needs for almost as long as we have had the intelligence to harness fire...The need to domesticate animals and farm lands grew out of the need for more and more food & with settlement came the need for permanent dwellings and of course, defence barriers against invaders to protect what land you have. All this takes energy and natural resources from where it is. What we take from the land & environment has never been effectively replenished, never. That is why we have changed the way some species have evolved from feral animals to domesticated and how some geography has changed forever, to suit human's needs. Even the most self supporting indigenous tribes, like the Australian continental tribes, used fire as both a weapon to herd wild animals to them and as a domestic utensil. And their impact led to the extinction of several larger animals that were easy prey for the Aboriginals & their constant use of watering holes. Most western people cannot fathom living like an indigenous Australian Aboriginal, yet their lifestyle as wandering nomadic hunter gatherers was best suited to the Australian content, and every other lifestyle has had a damaging effect...so to suggest that we become sustainable would mean to head in that direction and not the usual modern society of urban environments, is that what you are implying?

 

[jackthehack]

Good Lord; this thread is all out of hand...

All leave aside all the rather dubious "scientific" claims from one side or the other, if you know how to use the "Google" everyone can get a better grasp of chemistry, but that, too, is besides the point...

Being a rocket scientist, my take on the available data is that it's probably already too late to do anything about it, and there are enough old rich white men with vested fiduciary interests to ensure that even if it wasn't too late now, nothing's going to happen for at least a decade or two, by which time it'll definitely be too late to do anything.

Let's just close this thread. You younger folks can return to it in 40 years and decide if I was right or not...

 

[Jusatele]

LOL Jack, we should
I will tell you, that if I got 2 answers I would move on, It is not the science, it is the result of using the science.

No one here will admit that we would not be in the predicament we are in because we have used science, and the history of that has been that it causes problems to use it.

fossil fuels cause pollution and global warming

nukes, the mistakes shut down land for centuries

so what do we do?

My solution makes as much sense as anyone else's. But our problem as humans is no one will do Crapola till it is to late.

No one is going cure the problems and the cures they do come up with are more scary than the thing they want to cure.

Can we stop it if it is our fault, no we cannot because we cannot get everyone to try. Will we keep trying new technology? yes we will but it, like all old tech will just lead to new problems.

So Like I said, why try to cure the problem, what we do is lower the population till there is no problem.

If we do not, nature will, either we will die of a global pandemic, massive pollution causing global disaster, or just some idiot in Iran starting a nuclear war. What ever does it we will have lost control through our own greed.

Personally, I do not worry about it, I consider it natural evolution of the most intelligent species ever not having the same intelligence to say no to his wants.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

This looks interesting.  Bacteria turining carbon dioxise into liquid fuel.  Reminds me of middle ages alcemists trying to turn lead into gold.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm

 

[Jusatele]

super, the problem with letting science cure this is science is what got us into it, every form of fuel they have developed, has had a bad effect, and that is proven over time, so now we want them to supply us with a quick fix when their track record is Opps, we discovered it is bad after 50 years?
Like I said, off 3/4s of the population and there would be no problem.

 

[Mor Paul]

Hey, perfection hasn't been achieved yet. The idea now is to do the best we can with the materials and knowledge we have, and then go even further with new knowledge. If science is failing for not achieving with absolutely no consequence, then every success in the world is now a failure  :icon_thumright:

 

[Jusatele]

tell that to guys dieing of mesothelioma

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

super, the problem with letting science cure this is science is what got us into it, every form of fuel they have developed, has had a bad effect, and that is proven over time, so now we want them to supply us with a quick fix when their track record is Opps, we discovered it is bad after 50 years?
Like I said, off 3/4s of the population and there would be no problem.

You keep coming back to the population thing.  I submit, there is not, and will not be a population problem for sometime.  What's the manageable number?  The Coast to Caost AM types that beileve the Illuminati is controlling wars and disease to get the numbers down, thinks it's 300,000.  The starving and over populating in other parts of the world has little to do with lack of resources.  It's the management and exploitation of those resources that's the issue, which you have already pointed out.  We've been pretty industrious when we have to be, crossing bridges when we come to them.  If fossil fuels are finite and what's causing global warming, the fix is pretty obvious to me.  We'll use them all up then there's no way we could polute, lol.

I forget the numbers, but the birth rate while still greater than a 1:1 ratio is going down, and has consistently for a few decades.

 

[Jusatele]

But Super, I am correct, all my data confirms that

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Then mine has to be incorrect. :sad1:

 

[Jusatele]

No, yours is probably right too, just review you're data and see that

the truth of the matter is who ever is correct, the end is that nothing will change for probably a century

Can we tell developing nations they cannot develop?
Can we tell people they cannot have what we have?
Can we tell people that they have to buy expensive technology and not use the cheap Technology we still use?
Do we have the resources to pass out for free the expensive technology to ourselves so we can insist the developing countries only use the new tech?

you see the problem is ourselves, not them, and they have the same right to be where we are, and they are fast becoming that, China is building a Interstate system that will rival ours, and plans to have the cars on it. How do we stop the biggest population in the world from developing?

As the world develops, and it will faster and faster, the strain multiplies and it is already out of control. We can not stop it, or even tell them they cannot, they have the same right we have to do such as they are and to use cheap fossil fuels. Hey most of the electricity of the USA is coal fired, and look at the sulfur and acid rain pollution that causes. It is not a matter of if, but when we pass the line of no return.

discussion should have happened in the 40s and action in the 50s, as of now we cannot stop it.

So I will continue with my stupid idea, it is as valid as the rest. In order to change anything, we would have to stop producing and replace all technology today, and that means all over the world, not just here in the USA. Think that is going to happen?

 

[Wana_make_a_guitar]

Of course the earths gonna heat up, I mean we live pretty close to a star, it not like that'll live forever.  :toothy12: