News   Jul 30, 2024
 357     2 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 536     0 

Star: GM adds new spark to electric car's future

And CO2 is essential to life!

Yes, specifically plant life. Thanks for pointing out high school science basics for those of us that missed out. Unfortunately we are not plants and there are increasingly less plants on the planet as we reduce the size of the rain forest, as desertification occurs, and we pave paradise and put up a parking lot. So the question becomes how are we going to get that CO2 converted back into oxygen so we can breathe and so the planet doesn't heat up.

With respect to scientific bodies, the assumption you are advertising with the above link is that science is the source of authority, and that authority increases with the number of scientists who agree with whatever that consensus is.

Definitely. The world was created in seven days, evolution is a sham, and we and all animals are decendants of those who piled onto an ark for 40 days. Can science ever satisfy those who don't wish to believe what it finds? There will probably always be people like those that opened the "Science of Intelligent Design Museum". Then again there are those who can actually believe that man has the ability to alter the environment and currently is altering the environment. As glaciers melt, desert spreads, forests disappear some of us will tend to believe that it isn't always going to be a natural phenomenon that is causing it.
 
By "fragile system" can one assume you mean the ecosystem? If you do, then one can quickly look at global history and see that it is quite robust and enduring.

Yes, even if something as bad as a nuclear war wipes out the entire world, nature will always start anew. We need not worry.
 
I think the concern is that the ecosystem that allows humans to survive comfortably is fragile. I'll agree with you that it would take liquifying the earth's crust to completely eradicate life on earth.

Then again, you'd think we'd care whether the ecosystem that supports human life would collapse or not in the medium term.
 
More to the point, if you are arguing that we shouldn't worry about the extinction or decimation of humanity as a result of catastrophic climate change and subsequent ecosystem collapse (along the lines that dinosaurs shouldn't have tried to deflect the asteroid 350 million years ago had they had the means), then we should save the ecosystem a lot of grief now and just release those nifty genetically engineered small pox strains the US government has stockpiles of. You know, the fun stuff that makes you bleed from every orifice and slough your intestines. Why take many million species with us if we're blissfully speeding towards our own annihilation?
 
So the question becomes how are we going to get that CO2 converted back into oxygen so we can breathe and so the planet doesn't heat up.

Carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water. It is also used by cyanobacteria for photosynthesis. The most numerous photosynthetic organism on earth are Prochlorococcus. NASA released a study in 2003 showing that the earth was growing more green rather than less green.

I don't know where you got the idea that we are running out of oxygen. There is no evidence for this. However, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been dropping for the past 100 million years. Global temperatures have also been dropping for the last thirty million years. We live in an interglacial period, and the research indicates that it isn't the warmest. The previous one, some 125,000, was warmer. Other interglacial periods, such as the one some 500,000 years were warm enough to allow for very large forests in Greenland.

It is also worth pointing out that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide always follow atmospheric and ocean warming. The move from the climate of the Little Ice Age to the contemporary climate has probably contributed to some of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. As for the infrared absorbing characteristics of carbon dioxide, they are logarithmic; climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. In other words, the first 20 parts per million of carbon dioxide will have a greater temperature effect than the next 400 parts per million. The rate of annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last thirty years has averaged to about 1.7 parts per million.

Definitely. The world was created in seven days, evolution is a sham, and we and all animals are decendants of those who piled onto an ark for 40 days. Can science ever satisfy those who don't wish to believe what it finds?

Maybe you should address the issue as to why so many people have a total belief concerning projections of the climate in the future? If you look at the scientific literature you will quickly discover that the debate over climate change is not over - contrary to those who suggest it is. The above examples are different issues, are they not?

More to the point, if you are arguing that we shouldn't worry about the extinction or decimation of humanity as a result of catastrophic climate change and subsequent ecosystem collapse (along the lines that dinosaurs shouldn't have tried to deflect the asteroid 350 million years ago had they had the means), then we should save the ecosystem a lot of grief now and just release those nifty genetically engineered small pox strains the US government has stockpiles of. You know, the fun stuff that makes you bleed from every orifice and slough your intestines. Why take many million species with us if we're blissfully speeding towards our own annihilation?

You speak of catastrophic climate change as if it has already happened. Do you have any evidence that this has happened? Beyond suspect computer models, can anyone say with any accuracy what will happen in the future? Climate variability is natural and is not at all based on the singular effect of carbon dioxide - particularly when the most significant atmospheric infrared absorber is water vapour. As for worries about the destruction of the ecosystem as related to temperature, about twenty thousand years ago was the coldest period of the last glacial period, yet the ecosystem was not wiped out. Also, human beings existed during this period in time - and would appear to have managed to have survived it.

(along the lines that dinosaurs shouldn't have tried to deflect the asteroid 350 million years ago had they had the means), then we should save the ecosystem a lot of grief now and just release those nifty genetically engineered small pox strains the US government has stockpiles of. You know, the fun stuff that makes you bleed from every orifice and slough your intestines. Why take many million species with us if we're blissfully speeding towards our own annihilation?

What does any of this have to do with carbon dioxide or climate? How do you actually know we are "blissfully speeding towards our own annihilation"? Do you actually have any evidence, or is this just your belief?
 
Carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water

it sure does. it also make the ocean acidic. i wonder if this has any relation to coral bleaching?

the more CO2, the more acidic the ocean becomes.
 
Good lord... just unreal.

You are genuinely pathological wrt this shit.

Adjust meds.
 
it sure does. it also make the ocean acidic. i wonder if this has any relation to coral bleaching?

the more CO2, the more acidic the ocean becomes.

The oceans contain many thousands of times more dissolved carbon dioxide than found in the atmosphere. That certainly hasn't killed coral. Corals were thriving 150 millions years ago, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were ten times what they are now.
 
The oceans contain many thousands of times more dissolved carbon dioxide than found in the atmosphere. That certainly hasn't killed coral. Corals were thriving 150 millions years ago, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were ten times what they are now.

those corals were probably suited to those conditions.

it doesn't make a difference that the ocean contains more CO2 than the atmosphere. what matters is that the level of CO2 in the oceans is increasing causing the PH to lower.
 
And there is no proof that this is happening in any way so as to threaten any thing. Don't confuse conjecture with reality.
 
Possible impacts. If it gets worse.

Did you notice that the timeframe was from between 1750 and 1994? I think it would be safe to say that human output of carbon dioxide in 1750 (hell, 1850 for that matter) was negligible - to say the least.

I guess for some the future is just filled with scary stuff.


But an electric car just might spice one's day (until the potential fears of that become ever more evident).
 
Possible impacts. If it gets worse.

Did you notice that the timeframe was from between 1750 and 1994? I think it would be safe to say that human output of carbon dioxide in 1750 (hell, 1850 for that matter) was negligible - to say the least.

I guess for some the future is just filled with scary stuff.


But an electric car just might spice one's day (until the potential fears of that become ever more evident).


it's not just human output by combustion. there was agriculture and deforestation which also led to more CO2.


the future is not filled with scary stuff, well, at least for those in our geographic location.

what's wrong with a little preventative maintenance?
 
Prometheus, human population was below a billion people until the late nineteenth century. There were no cars and no electrical generation based on fossil fuel. Agriculture was nowhere near the scale it is today and forestry activities were often quite localized due to a lack of machinery and road building. Most industrialization happened in the twentieth century.

what's wrong with a little preventative maintenance?

Nothing, so long as one knows what they are preventing.
 

Back
Top