USA+China makes biggest jump ever in polluting global warming gases

[frost]

Man made Global Warming is the boogeyman needed by the international bankers in order to bring about their worldwide cashless carbon trading system once they've got people riled-up enough about the current mess.

It is quite simply about control.

Free energy has been available for years and no - I'm not talking about "perpetual motion machines"

Here is just ONE of many ways of accessing clean energy for free (after the initial investment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HoQ4rGdBc

This is all about control and a desire to reduce the population of the world so that the banksters can consolidate their assets.

At least in my country this "free energy" thing was promoted with a mail spam. I don't know if it really works, but I won't be surprised if it was promoted the same way in other countries. So what do you expect? I'll be all for the stopping it in such case. It's really not right. Also after quick search I've seen some sites describing why this won't work. (I'm not posting the links because this will put my post in moderation queue, probably the post with link will appear later)

[philcostin]

Another way is to create an oscillator LC tank circuit and resonate it with a square wave input, then use a diode to block off an capture the collapsing EMF into a capacitor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgb6tZWlP0

[frost]

Another way is to create an oscillator LC tank circuit and resonate it with a square wave input, then use a diode to block off an capture the collapsing EMF into a capacitor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgb6tZWlP0

And why I'm almost sure that this idea won't work, even without looking at it?

[drag]

It's not known. We know how it behaves isolated. And nothing more. We don't know how it behaves in such a complex system as an earth's ecosphere.

How CO2 converts IR to heat is very well known. The electro-chemical nature of CO2 molecule is not going to be something that changes because of the scale or because it's mixed into a solution of 80% nitrogen.

Do you think I don't know everything you are going to explain? Are you a prophet that gives us some unknown knowledge?

I think a lot of people don't know. I think that among the people that do know the basics of how CO2 heats the atmosphere don't understand that while going from 100 to 200 ppm can make a huge change, going from 200 ppm to 400 is not nearly as significant. Going from 330 to 360 or even to 400 ppm is going to barely register.

The global warming is not a problem at all. You are explaining the solution of the problems that we don't hit.

I never said that it was a problem at all. I didn't explain any solutions to any problems.

I said that man contribution to global warming through CO2 is a fact. A undeniable fact. My point, which you apparently missed completely (Mr. smarty pants), is that the amount of change we can possibly have through CO2 is very insignificant. Even if we decided as a species to try to control the climate through CO2 we could not do it.

If the 'scientific community' had as much credibility as it claims to have on this subject the real debate is not 'Global warming' vs 'No Global warming'. The debate is whether or not the effect of human activity can be measured at all and what is the true cause of change.

but the fossil fuel is a limited resources if we burn it down we do not have it in the future.

we really should save fossil fuels.

I don't think that it is something worth worrying about.

At the current rate of increase of consumption we have about 200 years of increasing use before we hit the fabled 'Peak Oil'. After that oil is not going away. It would just get gradually more and more expensive as the cost to get the oil increases. The oil problem is not that we are going to run out. The problem is that we are going to run out of cheap and easy places to obtain it.

As time goes by and obtaining oil becomes more and more expensive then technology will progress and through competitive forces it we will reach the point were alternative energy solutions become viable.

The long term solution is obvious: It's Solar Energy. We get about 320 BTU per hour per square foot. The problem of harnessing that heat is just a technical one. A problem that can be solved. I think that within 50 years or so solar power should reach a useful level of efficiency.

In comparison one gallon of gasoline is 114,000 BTU.

It's not just the efficiency of the panel, of course. Transmission costs matter. Converting from low-voltage from a panel to high-voltage is expensive. Unless you like having the idea of having a copper cable as thick as your arm going to your laptop we need to have 120 volts. Also batteries cost. Lead-acid batteries are some of the most efficient with only 20-10% of the energy lost to charge them. Unfortunately they wear out quickly if you use them constantly. High capacity batteries we need for transportation currently require exotic materials like Lithium.. If you think we are running out of gasoline you have no idea how rare Lithium is. There is a reason why they call these things 'rare earth elements'. The environmental costs can be high also.

These things require all sorts of toxic chemical to be used, recycling efforts are expensive, and so on and so forth. So event with ultra-high efficient solar panels of 30% or more you are still going to lose 50% of it by the time you can actually have it do something useful.

No fun.

Nuclear is the only viable alternative right now with current technology. But it's crippled by politics.

Same problem with oil. Out of a gallon of gasoline in the USA you paying about 50% taxes. In Europe gasoline costs exactly the same as it does in the USA, but you have just massive levels of taxation. Any sort of 'oil crisis' we have now or ever had in the past it was caused entirely by governments, not because we are running out of oil.

[philcostin]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ss-phil-jones/

[philcostin]

And why I'm almost sure that this idea won't work, even without looking at it?

Oh, alright then.

[frost]

How CO2 converts IR to heat is very well known. The electro-chemical nature of CO2 molecule is not going to be something that changes because of the scale or because it's mixed into a solution of 80% nitrogen.

If it was so simple, our weather forecasts would be 100% right. Don't forget that we are talking about really very complex system.

I think a lot of people don't know. I think that among the people that do know the basics of how CO2 heats the atmosphere don't understand that while going from 100 to 200 ppm can make a huge change, going from 200 ppm to 400 is not nearly as significant. Going from 330 to 360 or even to 400 ppm is going to barely register.

Can you prove this?

I never said that it was a problem at all. I didn't explain any solutions to any problems.

OK, it seems here I just failed to say what I wanted, english is not my native.

I said that man contribution to global warming through CO2 is a fact. A undeniable fact. My point, which you apparently missed completely (Mr. smarty pants), is that the amount of change we can possibly have through CO2 is very insignificant. Even if we decided as a species to try to control the climate through CO2 we could not do it.

We don't know if it's insignificant, because we don't know anything about it at all. It's far from being a fact, and even a FACT.

If the 'scientific community' had as much credibility as it claims to have on this subject the real debate is not 'Global warming' vs 'No Global warming'. The debate is whether or not the effect of human activity can be measured at all and what is the true cause of change.

For me this debate is about nothing while we can't predict the weather for the next day with the 100% correctness.

[Qaridarium]

That's exactly what I'm saying - just buy our fossil fuel and leave the problems for us.
You don't have to bother about it
When it will be finished, we'll find something else to sell you

lol but after that you don't have stuff to sell.

and no coal and nuclear power isn't a clean solution.

[Qaridarium]

Man made Global Warming is the boogeyman needed by the international bankers in order to bring about their worldwide cashless carbon trading system once they've got people riled-up enough about the current mess.

It is quite simply about control.

Free energy has been available for years and no - I'm not talking about "perpetual motion machines"

Here is just ONE of many ways of accessing clean energy for free (after the initial investment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HoQ4rGdBc

This is all about control and a desire to reduce the population of the world so that the banksters can consolidate their assets.

your example of free energy is not free its so called a heat pump its the same if you use a water pump to pump water into the eath to get the earth heat out.
the power output can be up to factor 4.
but its still not free energy.

your example do the same but i think they don't hit the factor 2,8 but you need more than 2,8 to compensate the energy lost in making electric energy.

[Qaridarium]

I don't think that it is something worth worrying about.
At the current rate of increase of consumption we have about 200 years of increasing use before we hit the fabled 'Peak Oil'. After that oil is not going away. It would just get gradually more and more expensive as the cost to get the oil increases. The oil problem is not that we are going to run out. The problem is that we are going to run out of cheap and easy places to obtain it.
As time goes by and obtaining oil becomes more and more expensive then technology will progress and through competitive forces it we will reach the point were alternative energy solutions become viable.

you are wrong the peak oil is in 2015 some people point out that the peak oil is already there. the fossil energy market will breakdown in 2035.

in fact all renewable energies already hit the priceto become economic

The long term solution is obvious: It's Solar Energy. We get about 320 BTU per hour per square foot. The problem of harnessing that heat is just a technical one. A problem that can be solved. I think that within 50 years or so solar power should reach a useful level of efficiency.
In comparison one gallon of gasoline is 114,000 BTU.
It's not just the efficiency of the panel, of course. Transmission costs matter. Converting from low-voltage from a panel to high-voltage is expensive. Unless you like having the idea of having a copper cable as thick as your arm going to your laptop we need to have 120 volts. Also batteries cost. Lead-acid batteries are some of the most efficient with only 20-10% of the energy lost to charge them. Unfortunately they wear out quickly if you use them constantly. High capacity batteries we need for transportation currently require exotic materials like Lithium.. If you think we are running out of gasoline you have no idea how rare Lithium is. There is a reason why they call these things 'rare earth elements'. The environmental costs can be high also.
These things require all sorts of toxic chemical to be used, recycling efforts are expensive, and so on and so forth. So event with ultra-high efficient solar panels of 30% or more you are still going to lose 50% of it by the time you can actually have it do something useful.
No fun.

Same problem with oil. Out of a gallon of gasoline in the USA you paying about 50% taxes. In Europe gasoline costs exactly the same as it does in the USA, but you have just massive levels of taxation. Any sort of 'oil crisis' we have now or ever had in the past it was caused entirely by governments, not because we are running out of oil.

you are right about "solar" as a solution you are wrong in your claim about rare materials.

and you are wrong about the batteries.

because you can store the complete energy in Water with heat.
we just need updraft solar power plants they work day and night and you can easy upgrade it to an storage power plant because you can use wind power to heat the water in the water-Storage boxes up.
this means 1 single updraft power plant can do 3 different jobs make energy save the energy for the night and it can consume wind energy if the market don't need it so we can use the energy later.

in Fact no Chemical Batteries are needed! updraft tower is complete low-tech! just a tower and black water boxes.

Nuclear is the only viable alternative right now with current technology. But it's crippled by politics.

no nuclear power is more expensive than coal,gas,wind,solar power.

and its dangerous and unhealthy.