The Environment

[PureSnipe]

Most of that was sarcasm on my part, since it's not only the farts, but the gases from agriculture in general. As much as 10% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture. (Citation)

 

If you think that I have a standpoint of "humans have nothing to do with emissions", then you're reading with a 110% biased opinion to my posts.

 

The existence of human beings on this planet is the cause of emissions.

 

These emissions affect the environment. But how? Do we have the correct volume, and quality, of data needed to determine to what severity our effect is?

 

This is the one question I'd like you to answer.

 

Feel free to comment on any of the rest of this post, but this is the one thing I want you to actually answer. That answer will help you to understand where my opinions are coming from.

----------------------------------------------------

 

 

We want to cut greenhouse gasses, but really now. Tell me. What do we eliminate, or do to enforce these new rules/laws made? If you want to say we need to cut things back, at least have the decency to say how to go about it.

Wind power? Solar? What. Look up the downfalls to each of those. In fact, I'll give you the cliffnotes for these two.

 

Wind - The energy and resources needed to produce the generators practically, if not wholly, negate the environmental gains.

Solar - Technology isn't advanced enough to harness power efficiently. Either you lose power everywhere at night, or you make more batteries. More batteries? More emissions from production.

 

Yes. There's problems. What do we do about it?

And don't give me something that cannot be done practically or something about banning combustion engines, as you'd have to increase electricity production to run electric cars, and then you go into the entire cycle of more emissions.

 

Our best bet? Hydrogen.

[evilkoal]

Most of that was sarcasm on my part, since it's not only the farts, but the gases from agriculture in general. As much as 10% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture. (Citation)

 

If you think that I have a standpoint of "humans have nothing to do with emissions", then you're reading with a 110% biased opinion to my posts.

 

The existence of human beings on this planet is the cause of emissions.

 

These emissions affect the environment. But how? Do we have the correct volume, and quality, of data needed to determine to what severity our effect is?

 

Our best bet? Hydrogen.

 

now, hydrogen is our worst option. remember what happens when you compress hydrogen then blow stuff up next to it? i suggest you look into brown's gas and HHO. two names for the same thing.

 

 

---back to original subject---

 

i am sorry if it seemed like that was all directed at you, it was mostly people in general. but the greenhouse gases thing in itself is a load of crap. the reason our planet is heating up is because countries around the world test nuclear devices which punch gigantic holes in our atmosphere (really, it breaks down the ozone to O and O2 molecules, which then bind to the hydrogen in the atmosphere, making it rain. radioactive rain at that.)

 

i guarantee you that if the world's governments hadnt tested nuclear devices halfway up into our atmosphere, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.

 

---this pic isnt of an atmospheric detonation, but i hope it kinda gets the point across.---

[Marxist ßastard]

Wow. You just may actually believe all this.

 

I'm definitely tending toward crying now.

[evilkoal]

Wow. You just may actually believe all this.

 

I'm definitely tending toward crying now.

 

what do you think nuclear bombs do when they detonate? they dont make fluffy bunnies appear and create ozone, that is for sure.

[Marxist ßastard]

hasnt anyone ever considered that it might be all the freaking nukes that our governments have detonated miles up in the sky?

1. Many more underground nuclear tests have been performed than atmospheric nuclear tests. Russia, the UK, and the US (which account for the vast majority of nuclear testing) haven't performed any official atmospheric tests at all since their signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963. The only other major testers of nuclear weapons are China and France; India and Pakistan have only performed a few tests, all underground.
   
2. The vast majority of atmospheric nuclear testing is done at low altitude, meant to emulate wartime usage. (Detonation of bombs just above a target has been standard practice for a long time, since it maximises damage.) High-altitude testing doesn't emulate wartime usage, is more visible, doesn't give as much usable data, and produces an electromagnetic pulse that interferes with equipment. Secret high-altitude nuclear testing is highly improbable for these same reasons.
   
3. The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was the Tsar Bomba in 1961; yields have been lower since then. Various test ban treaties, which the US and Russia have both signed, have placed maximum limits on the yield of nuclear weapons being tested. A lot of testing has been with very low-yield nuclear weapons, some as small as the Davy Crockett nuclear rifle (which was actually the subject of the last atmospheric test performed by the US).
   

 

but naww, nukes dont punch holes in the atmosphere!

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. Underground testing doesn't produce any significant physical changes in the atmosphere (this is trivial). To affect the ozone layer in any significant way, a nuclear weapon would have to capture some portion of the layer in its fireball. This would require a high-altitude atmospheric nuclear test with a very high yield, purposefully detonated near the ozone layer. To my knowledge, this has never happened—not even once.
   
5. Whenever an educated person talks about ozone depletion, they are mainly referring to the gradual reduction of high-altitude ozone levels worldwide. If you think that ozone depletion manifests itself as lots of discrete holes in the ozone layer, in which there is no ozone at all, you're completely wrong.
   
6. The "holes in the ozone layer" that get hyped up so much by the mainstream media are seasonal phenomena which occur at the poles, and encompass an area around the size of a small continent. And unless Antarctica and Canada have been secretly testing high-altitude nuclear weapons with yields in the billions of megatons, at a rate of one per year, it'd probably be best to go along with the prevailing theory that this is a natural result of seasonal temperature and radiation changes combined with atmospheric currents.
   
7. Ozone depletion and global warming are related only slightly. The ozone layer only absorbs solar radiation, turning it into heat through chemical reactions. Furthermore, only radiation within a certain range of wavelengths (corresponding to the UV B part of the spectrum) is affected by the ozone layer. The ozone layer does not significantly cool the surface, and ozone depletion is not a significant factor in global warming. However, global warming on account of greenhouse gases would likely accelerate ozone depletion due to decreased temperature in the stratosphere. And finally, ozone itself is considered to be a minor greenhouse gas.
   

 

it breaks down the ozone to O and O2 molecules, which then bind to the hydrogen in the atmosphere, making it rain...

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. 
   
7. 
   
8. A nuclear detonation within reasonable distance of the ozone layer would create some ultraviolet radiation and thus slightly accelerate the normal process of forming atomic oxygen from molecular oxygen. The atomic oxygen may then either form or destroy ozone.
   
9. A nuclear blast meeting all the conditions for having its fireball significantly interfere with the ozone layer (which, again, has never happened) would still not even produce a self-sustaining reaction (like chlorinated compounds do) because the partial pressure of ozone in the stratosphere is too low for sustained combustion.
   
10. Hydrogen does create water in the stratosphere, but mainly through reaction with hydroxy radicals. This water may then catalyze the destruction of ozone by chlorinated compounds. Oh, and do you know where stratospheric hydrogen comes from? Oxidation of methane.
    

 

This pic isn't of you specifically, but I hope it gets the point across:

 

http://i340.photobucket.com/albums/o348/jasonne-01/super-retard.jpg

[PureSnipe]

now, hydrogen is our worst option. remember what happens when you compress hydrogen then blow stuff up next to it? i suggest you look into brown's gas and HHO. two names for the same thing.

 

Honestly... Do I have to actually go into all of this?

What happens when light a match next to gasoline?

 

What happens when you send a small electrical current through water that has the correct metal alloys in it?

You break the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

I can give you the phone number, name and picture of a friend of ours that made a hydrogen fuel cell, fitted it to his van, and now that van which formerly got 13 mpg is getting about 18.

Do the math. 50% gain.

Hybrid that gets 60 MPG would get 90.

 

There are ways to store hydrogen where it is SAFER than gasoline.(Citation)

I didn't post that for the fact I figured that you had already done some research into alternative energy sources, since you're so eager to propose them.

I guess I should just assume from now on that you haven't done anything in terms of research on anything other than nuclear conspiracy theories.

 

And again, you don't answer the question. Is that because you don't want to answer, or don't have an answer?

[wasder]

Have you ever thought that what is happening to the world may be a great cycle that occurs maybe once in a million years or so. Something that may be impossible for our scientists to predict because we don't live that long or hasn't been recorded in our short human history. I mean many theorys are just that theory's or educated guesses in relation to the data they have at hand.

Ice cores mate. Ice at the poles cane be ancient deep down, and the amounts of different chemicals and such can determine the conditions that it fell in. From these scientists know that the earth does go through cycles (we are still coming out of 'The victorian ice age', which came after the 'Medieval warm period'), however the current rate of heating is faster than it should be.

[evilkoal]

now, hydrogen is our worst option. remember what happens when you compress hydrogen then blow stuff up next to it? i suggest you look into brown's gas and HHO. two names for the same thing.

 

Honestly... Do I have to actually go into all of this?

What happens when light a match next to gasoline?

 

What happens when you send a small electrical current through water that has the correct metal alloys in it?

You break the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

I can give you the phone number, name and picture of a friend of ours that made a hydrogen fuel cell, fitted it to his van, and now that van which formerly got 13 mpg is getting about 18.

Do the math. 50% gain.

Hybrid that gets 60 MPG would get 90.

 

There are ways to store hydrogen where it is SAFER than gasoline.(Citation)

I didn't post that for the fact I figured that you had already done some research into alternative energy sources, since you're so eager to propose them.

I guess I should just assume from now on that you haven't done anything in terms of research on anything other than nuclear conspiracy theories.

 

And again, you don't answer the question. Is that because you don't want to answer, or don't have an answer?

 

 

okay, why would you want a hybrid car, when you can use just HHO? YOU DO NOT NEED GASOLINE.

 

i am still not comfortable with either gasoline or hydrogen, with HHO, the worst you need to worry about is getting all your hair burnt off if it explodes.

 

 

 

and as i stated in my last post, there is no need to stop emissions. that is all crap. if cow farts were the cause of the world heating up, then everyone better stop farting because you are going to cook the world.

 

 

 

 

"A nuclear detonation within reasonable distance of the ozone layer would create some ultraviolet radiation and thus slightly accelerate the normal process of forming atomic oxygen from molecular oxygen. The atomic oxygen may then either form or destroy ozone"

did you not read what you typed?

and you know that the ozone that is formed falls apart because the it is unstable right?

[Marxist ßastard]

A nuclear detonation within reasonable distance of the ozone layer would create some ultraviolet radiation and thus slightly accelerate the normal process of forming atomic oxygen from molecular oxygen. The atomic oxygen may then either form or destroy ozone

did you not read what you typed?

and you know that the ozone that is formed falls apart because the it is unstable right?

You took 75 hours to respond, and the best you can do is a couple of questions which demonstrate that you don't even know what dynamic equilibrium is?

 

You know what? Screw it. I've given you ten independent points, any one of which would completely invalidate your claims. You haven't raised a single effective argument against them. And to top it all off, this hysteric anti-nuke conspiracy theory of yours was presented completely out of the blue, with no evidence at all to support it, and nobody arguing it except you.

 

The burden of proof is solely on you.

 

I demand that for each successful high-altitude nuclear test, you give an order-of-magnitude estimate for the kmols of ozone generated or destroyed due to UV-B emissions from the blast. This shouldn't take you very long, seeing as how there were only 17. Oh, and since I'm in a good mood today, I'm going to let you treat each explosion as a point source.

 

If you can't do this, then I suggest that you do us all a tremendous favor and shut your goddamn trap. If you want to vent out all your teenage angst by making up conspiracy theories, the place to do it would be a Greenpeace meeting.

[evilkoal]

A nuclear detonation within reasonable distance of the ozone layer would create some ultraviolet radiation and thus slightly accelerate the normal process of forming atomic oxygen from molecular oxygen. The atomic oxygen may then either form or destroy ozone

did you not read what you typed?

and you know that the ozone that is formed falls apart because the it is unstable right?

You took 75 hours to respond, and the best you can do is a couple of questions which demonstrate that you don't even know what dynamic equilibrium is?

 

You know what? Screw it. I've given you ten independent points, any one of which would completely invalidate your claims. You haven't raised a single effective argument against them. And to top it all off, this hysteric anti-nuke conspiracy theory of yours was presented completely out of the blue, with no evidence at all to support it, and nobody arguing it except you.

 

The burden of proof is solely on you.

 

I demand that for each successful high-altitude nuclear test, you give an order-of-magnitude estimate for the kmols of ozone generated or destroyed due to UV-B emissions from the blast. This shouldn't take you very long, seeing as how there were only 17. Oh, and since I'm in a good mood today, I'm going to let you treat each explosion as a point source.

 

If you can't do this, then I suggest that you do us all a tremendous favor and shut your goddamn trap. If you want to vent out all your teenage angst by making up conspiracy theories, the place to do it would be a Greenpeace meeting.

 

sorry that i have responsibilities so it takes me a little bit to respond.

 

give me a some and i'll find it all for you.