Finally, the Al Gore "scientists" (a.k.a. former employees of BALCO) need to stop contradicting themselves and figure it out before saying stupid ****.  If Al Gore said this picture is real, I wonder how many millions of people would believe him?

No, it is the non-science believer retards who believe that. Like the 1 in 4 Americans who think the Sun revolves around the Earth.  Sooner we cull the heard of the dipshits the better this country, planet and species will be. 

Posted by raucous on 2/25/2014 8:59:00 PM (view original):
I am just not arrogant enough to think all people's cars tosses out more greenhouse gasses than all volcanoes. 

We need to put corks in all volcanoes!!!!

where does arrogance come in?

let's put it this way.  we're close to 2 billion cars on planet earth.  

say 1 billion for easy math's sake. 

say those cars drive, on average, 5,000 miles a year.

say average of 25 mpg.  

that's 200 gallons of gas a year, per car.

about 9,000 grams of CO2 emissions per gallon.

That's 1.8 million grams per car per year.

1.8M x 1B = 1.8 quadrillion grams total.  

That's about 2B short tons, or 1.8B metric tons.

When the second largest volcanic eruption of the 21st century happened, it spit out Millions of tons of gases.  Even if all 17 smaller ones since then were the same size, we're still talking magnitudes smaller in sum, over three decades, than what cars are putting out every year

So.  is it arrogance?  really?  or is it that you're too lazy to wrestle with the fact that basic consideration for other people and their well being, including those who will come after you on this earth, might require some thought on your part about how to change how you do things?

  The earth and PLANTS need carbon to exist.  Carbon has no impact on warming. Carbon levels have risen but remain in the 300 ppm level.  The earth doesn't care if there are 400 ppm of carbon.  It doesn't care if it reaches 1000 ppm. Or 5000 ppm.  It would only become a problem if it reached 8000 ppm and that's impossible.  

  We're entering a 30 year cooling period.  We need MORE carbon than ever.  The higher the carbon level, the less water plants need and the faster they grow.  The yield increases.  You should be more concerned about deforestation than the carbon levels. More carbon will aide us through this cooling cycle. 

  Carbon is 0.03 of the earths atmosphere. It's like a coat of black paint. Initially it approaches it's full strength as a retainer of heat at quite low levels.  Those under the 400 ppm we are experiencing now.  If you continue to add layers of black paint to the surface, or in this case CO2, the retention values are fractional and decrease rapidly.  There is a saturation point.  CO2 has little effect on retaining heat at this point at its current level. More carbon at this point has little effect and only decreases as a factor in heat retention. You couldn't find a way to produce enough of it if you tried.

  Hydrogen is a different matter. In relation to other elements the volume is quite small.  It's contained in water.  The planet produces it. But once it turns into gas and gets into the air, it rapidly leaves the atmosphere and escapes into space. There's a lot of it in space.  But we have enough of it here and can recycle it. I talked about it a few years ago right here in the PIT.  I proposed the hydrogen engine at that point.  The only thing keeping us from it is the crony capitalism of the former and current administrations. Hydrogen produces electricity and fuel. It's a two part function.  First it produces electricity to start the process and in the second phase it produces fuel and turns it into water.  It's a win win folks. 

  Hydrogen is produced deep within the earth and enters the ocean.  It is produced by fracking and fossil fuels.  It is produced through chemical reaction. It is produced through the production of fertilizer and ammonia.  It can be extracted from air at the rate of 1/2 liter to 1,000,000. Get it before it leaves. It can be extracted from water and turned back into water at a big net gain of energy.  IF YOU REALLY WANNA GO GREEN then this is the way to go.  

  Obama and the democrats don't want it. The repugs don't want it.  Corporate doesn't want it.  The powers that be don't want it.  We had cars on the road a few years back until the project was killed in favor of solar and wind.  

  I don't wonder why.  I simply refuse to accept it.  

Posted by nanu on 2/26/2014 1:04:00 AM (view original):
let's put it this way.  we're close to 2 billion cars on planet earth.  

say 1 billion for easy math's sake. 

say those cars drive, on average, 5,000 miles a year.

say average of 25 mpg.  

that's 200 gallons of gas a year, per car.

about 9,000 grams of CO2 emissions per gallon.

That's 1.8 million grams per car per year.

1.8M x 1B = 1.8 quadrillion grams total.  

That's about 2B short tons, or 1.8B metric tons.

When the second largest volcanic eruption of the 21st century happened, it spit out Millions of tons of gases.  Even if all 17 smaller ones since then were the same size, we're still talking magnitudes smaller in sum, over three decades, than what cars are putting out every year

So.  is it arrogance?  really?  or is it that you're too lazy to wrestle with the fact that basic consideration for other people and their well being, including those who will come after you on this earth, might require some thought on your part about how to change how you do things?

And this is with grossly understated numbers.  If we were using more real numbers like well over 2 billion cars and well over 10,000 miles driven per car the difference is that much greater.  How is it that people think that 7 billion humans dont have a serious consequences on our eco-system?  Seriously?

Look "science" is always contradicting itself because every scientist has some sort of bias.  I er on the side of common sense, 7 billion greedy ******** on this planet, each an every one of us trying to live better lives then the generation before, and the VAST majority of us couldnt care less about what we do to the eco-system.  We are a scourge on this Earth.  And flat earthers like Dumby would prefer to have their heads barried in the sand.  

Posted by DougOut on 2/26/2014 11:17:00 AM (view original):
  The earth and PLANTS need carbon to exist.  Carbon has no impact on warming. Carbon levels have risen but remain in the 300 ppm level.  The earth doesn't care if there are 400 ppm of carbon.  It doesn't care if it reaches 1000 ppm. Or 5000 ppm.  It would only become a problem if it reached 8000 ppm and that's impossible.  

  We're entering a 30 year cooling period.  We need MORE carbon than ever.  The higher the carbon level, the less water plants need and the faster they grow.  The yield increases.  You should be more concerned about deforestation than the carbon levels. More carbon will aide us through this cooling cycle. 

  Carbon is 0.03 of the earths atmosphere. It's like a coat of black paint. Initially it approaches it's full strength as a retainer of heat at quite low levels.  Those under the 400 ppm we are experiencing now.  If you continue to add layers of black paint to the surface, or in this case CO2, the retention values are fractional and decrease rapidly.  There is a saturation point.  CO2 has little effect on retaining heat at this point at its current level. More carbon at this point has little effect and only decreases as a factor in heat retention. You couldn't find a way to produce enough of it if you tried.

  Hydrogen is a different matter. In relation to other elements the volume is quite small.  It's contained in water.  The planet produces it. But once it turns into gas and gets into the air, it rapidly leaves the atmosphere and escapes into space. There's a lot of it in space.  But we have enough of it here and can recycle it. I talked about it a few years ago right here in the PIT.  I proposed the hydrogen engine at that point.  The only thing keeping us from it is the crony capitalism of the former and current administrations. Hydrogen produces electricity and fuel. It's a two part function.  First it produces electricity to start the process and in the second phase it produces fuel and turns it into water.  It's a win win folks. 

  Hydrogen is produced deep within the earth and enters the ocean.  It is produced by fracking and fossil fuels.  It is produced through chemical reaction. It is produced through the production of fertilizer and ammonia.  It can be extracted from air at the rate of 1/2 liter to 1,000,000. Get it before it leaves. It can be extracted from water and turned back into water at a big net gain of energy.  IF YOU REALLY WANNA GO GREEN then this is the way to go.  

  Obama and the democrats don't want it. The repugs don't want it.  Corporate doesn't want it.  The powers that be don't want it.  We had cars on the road a few years back until the project was killed in favor of solar and wind.  

  I don't wonder why.  I simply refuse to accept it.  

Can you elaborate on the 300-800 ppm analysis you bring up above?  Very curious.

No I can't.

That's because it's the 300 to 8000 ppm analogy.

Tell greeny how to spell buried.

i'll tell him as soon as you explain yourself a little bit.  

for instance.  if you're in a room with a fire in the fireplace, and you start coughing, when do you start to believe that smoke exists?

Get a smoke detecter. 

  Hydrogen is produced deep within the earth and enters the ocean.  It is produced by fracking and fossil fuels.  It is produced through chemical reaction. It is produced through the production of fertilizer and ammonia.  It can be extracted from air at the rate of 1/2 liter to 1,000,000. Get it before it leaves. It can be extracted from water and turned back into water at a big net gain of energy.  IF YOU REALLY WANNA GO GREEN then this is the way to go. 

Virtually all of the science in your post was wrong, but this part is just hilarious.  You can extract hydrogen from water and turn it back into water at a big net GAIN in energy?  The highest level of science background you need to recognize that this is IMPOSSIBLE is a year of high school chemistry and/or physics.  Heck, my freshman high school physical science class taught me that this couldn't be right.  But not everybody's high school science classes were that good.

There are no free lunches.  You can't break a molecule, put it back together, and gain energy.  Because no processes are perfect, you can't do it without losing energy.  In fact, the efficiency of the best processes we have for converting water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning the hydrogen is just above 30%.  But go on with your bad self, you know science.

Electrolysis a method of separating elements by pushing an electric current through a compound. It is used in various industrial applications such as removing copper from its ore. It is also used to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water. Electrolysis isn't the most efficient way to obtain hydrogen, but it is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to "homebrew" hydrogen. 

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. With the "green-energy" craze and talk of powering our future oil-free economy on hydrogen, it has gotten much attention in the last few years. Learning about this potential fuel of the future is important and interesting. Besides, hydrogen is a powerful fuel, and blowing stuff up in the name of science is fun . 

Fossil fuels are the dominant source of industrial hydrogen.^[3] Hydrogen can be generated from natural gas with approximately 80% efficiency,^{[citation needed]} or from otherhydrocarbons to a varying degree of efficiency. Specifically, bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of methane or natural gas.^[4] At high temperatures (700–1100 °C), steam (H₂O) reacts with methane (CH₄) in an endothermic reaction to yield syngas.^[5]

CH₄ + H₂O ? CO + 3 H₂

In a second stage, additional hydrogen is generated through the lower-temperature, exothermic, water gas shift reaction, performed at about 130 °C:

CO + H₂O ? CO₂ + H₂

Essentially, the oxygen (O) atom is stripped from the additional water (steam) to oxidize CO to CO₂. This oxidation also provides energy to maintain the reaction. Additional heat required to drive the process is generally supplied by burning some portion of the methane.

Steam reforming generates carbon dioxide (CO₂). Since the production is concentrated in one facility, it is possible to separate the CO₂ and dispose of it without atmospheric release, for example by injecting it in an oil or gas reservoir (see carbon capture), although this is not currently done in most cases. A carbon dioxide injection project has been started by a Norwegian company StatoilHydro in the North Sea, at the Sleipner field.

Integrated steam reforming / co-generation - It is possible to combine steam reforming and co-generation of steam and power into a single plant. This can deliver benefits for an oil refinery because it is more efficient than separate hydrogen, steam and power plants. Air Products recently built an integrated steam reforming / co-generationplant in Port Arthur, Texas.^[6]