Products > Dodgy Technology

Another Free Energy craft project

<< < (9/10) > >>

XYZVector:
Hey forget the CO2 what about all the waste heat these IC engines dump out there radiators? Nobody talks about this, or brakes turning kinetic motion into heat. That has to be good for a few hundredths of a degree. Co2 is a green house gas but what about methane? All those cows mcdonalds is rasing to slaughter they must fart a-lot of tons of methane into the air. No I think climate change is the sum of our entire footprint on the environment. To single out just one gas is ignorant and it is not very scientific. Yes it is getting warmer but it is also getting colder. The weather is getting more chaotic, and this is caused by greater temperature deltas.

Enjoy the Weather!!!

Oh 1 + for the free energy CD I have always been wondering what to do with my old CD collection

 :-DD :-DD

james_s:
I have wondered about the heat output from burning fuels although I've never seen any data. I suspect it's relatively small compared to the amount of energy from the sun so it may not have much effect. Burning a candle is not going to warm you up nearly as much as putting on a coat or getting under a blanket.

Methane does get brought up, it's a popular argument from the hard core vegan crowd. The thing that bothers me most about that is all that fuel (methane) just floating uselessly up into the air.

riyadh144:
I have been wanting to read on climate change for a long time, and try to analyze the arguments for both sides from reputable scientists.

This thread will take me through the rabbit hole now and I will be putting a few weeks into readings, and then I will come to a conclusion.

But anyway for a sustainable future we need renewable energy, and for limiting the pollution so the whole world wouldn't have the Beijing quality of air we need renewable energy.

paulca:
On the "Global Warming" 

Is the world getting warmer?  Yes.  100% The datasets have been peer reviewed extensively, including a large study by MIT into how different datasets where normalised etc.

Is it CO2 that is causing it?  Well, it fits, but the twist is when you warm water it releases CO2, when you cool it, it absorbs CO2, so is the earth warming due to CO2 rise, or is the CO2 rising because the earth is warming?  Then again I don't think it matters as the two effects for a positive feed loop.

Is it main made CO2?  This is where it gets a little more "bleeding edge".  They have analysed the isotopic ratios of CO2 and found that a percentage of it is likely to be man made.  They have given estimates as to what portion of warming may caused by that.

The issue with climate science is while there are hard facts such as CO2 traps heat, an awful lot of the sceince is written with words like, "Suggests", "Likely", "Indicates", "Could be", "might be", "may be".

The other issue when you get to the IPCC et al, is the horrid toxic mix of science and politics.  Two things that never go well together, one is the pursuit of truth through experiment, the other is the pursuit of power through bullshit.

Cerebus:

--- Quote from: paulca on February 26, 2018, 04:32:09 pm ---The issue with climate science is while there are hard facts such as CO2 traps heat, an awful lot of the sceince is written with words like, "Suggests", "Likely", "Indicates", "Could be", "might be", "may be".

--- End quote ---

A problem is that with any sufficiently complex system is that scientists tend to, quite rightly, use cautious, qualified phrases when making pronouncements about them. To the politicians, to whom certitude about cause and effect comes too easily and often with little regard for complexities, the truth, and other confounding issues, this sounds like more than just residual uncertainty. If a scientist is 90% certain, they will use cautious words, if a politician is 55% certain and there are votes or donations in it, they will talk in "black and white" terms. It's a clash of cultures.

The politicians want a sure bet; the economic consequences of taking strong action on climate change if it's not necessary are very significant, the cost of failing to act if it is necessary is disastrous. Politicians can see the value of the "precautionary principle" if it's about something that they don't like or see political risks in doing, say legalising drugs, they fail to see the value of it when it's about something they are supportive of or see political risks in doing, say banning something that makes money.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page