Printable View
Can't be worse than the current corn ethanol stupidity that's being pushed in the US....Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Ethanol gets worse mileage, meaning you use more of it, costs more than oil, is extremely inefficient to produce, and is driving up food prices. What's not to like? :dizzy2:
But hey, at least it's a windfall for the farm lobby... :no:
Using maize seems to be a bad idea. That the technology isn't great at the moment doesn't worry me as long as developments are made to improve things; however I have far more faith in the way Brazil is approaching matters than how the USA is doing it.
~:smoking:
the point being; if the earth has been repeatedly fluctuating in temperature, C02 and sea-level, by an at least an order of magnitude greater than that predicted over the next hundred years, who are we to think we can change that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I am a Geology graduate who works in environmental engineering, I KNOW global warming is happening.
but i don't think it is being greatly influenced by human action, and i certainly don't think that human action can greatly influence global warming.
you want to make sure you (i.e. the human race) survives? well start investing in decent housing and flood defence in marginal population centres such as bangladesh.
Sweden has lots of coastal population, and terrible sea weather, but i didn't hear about 20,000 of them being washed away in a storm related mudslide recently, did you?
I'd hardly rate Bangladesh as a priority to be saved, but I agree that working with likely change is more sensible than trying to fight it for ever. Living in land 1 metre under water isn't a problem as long as people have prepared for this.
I know that there have been large fluctuations in water levels and CO2. As far as I remember the most extreme changes were due to massive natural events.
If humans have not increased CO" in the last 100 or so years, what else has? What outside agency has suddenly increased the production of gasses?
~:smoking:
The problem is the data is inconsistent, the CO2 in the air is still a midget compared to the nitrogen floating around, and you can't predict future weather patterns.
Well, you better hope the [CO2] is lower than [N2] because we would all be dead if there was that much CO2 in the atmosphere. Ever heard of CO2 poisoning?
You can die from to much of anything!
Again, you can't predict weather patterns, CO2 is a smudge against the amount of nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen in the air, inconsistent data.
Hydrogen in the air? You are aware that it is too light for the earth to trap hydrogen in the atmosphere?
And considering that the USA measures Xenon on the air to assess the nuclear weapons of the USSR I think that we can measure the CO2 accurately.
~:smoking:
there is more and more geological evidence to suggest that climate change is frequently catastropic, i.e. quick rather than gradual, so changes in CO2 over the last hundred years are not necessarily caused by us, nor too are the necessarily fueling global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
positive feedback loops are good example of this, such as rising temps leading to massive release of methane from wetlands and peatlands, which in turn may add to the greenhouse effect.
it is also still not certain that C02 results in temp change, it is postulated in the Great Climate Change Swindle that temp change results in C)2 change.