RenaissanceMan,
CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions are not nonsense, you just have to look at the exhaust output of the common combustion engine to realise this. I gather you probably know that we exhale CO[sub]2[/sub] but we and other animals (As well as bio-degrading waste) produces CH[sub]4[/sub]. These molecules do play an important part of our ecosystems balance, in fact NASA had some time back a rather interesting animation involving "Methane Earth", this satellite captured gas composition animation observed the ebb and flow of gas composition the world over. It provided observation of how one month would have a high CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration and another would have higher CH[sub]4[/sub] as various environmental changes (High temperatures, lowering pressure fronts etc) would aid in gas conversions.
While indeed their are in fact two disingenuous factors to "global warming" (One being the scientists that work for petroleum companies or car manufacturers not wanting their products taxed higher, and the other being over obsessive "Greenies" with stories of the coming apocalypse.) this doesn't undermine the fact that us humans have played a factor in our environments change. (You just have to look at the amount of radio emissions we produce worldwide to understand that all that energy excerpted into generating wavelengths obviously converts into potential energy that might well effect molecular composition.)
What I will say about the climate on earth however is this, If the planet's CO[sub]2[/sub] skyrockets, then it's probably for the best. You see for us humans ever to consider colonising other planets, we are going to have to have ways of converting heavy CO[sub]2[/sub] atmospheres into something liveable. CO[sub]2[/sub] increases here on earth generally forces our hand in getting on track with a potential future that we'd otherwise never aspire to do because of cost, time or distance.
Note:
My actual interest in Climate change originated from working with Gas Flaring that's utilised in many different areas: Landfill sites, Tank storage systems (These usually have various other chemicals that most people would realise are poison if just vented), Oil barges, Waste treatment plants etc.
The systems we sold were "variable" in the sense that constant measurements of gas composition led to a greater efficiency in gas combustion compared to the "open-ended pipe" variants of flare which can't alter with gas composition and rarely burn at the optimum flowrate. (Burning at a rate too slow or too fast increases the likelihood of uncombusted or highly toxic gases to emerge)
So we had a constant output of what gases were leading into the system and what gases existed in the exhaust, which was actually more data collection than standard flares that only have the EPA check on their efficiency through emissions tests once or twice a year.
CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions are not nonsense, you just have to look at the exhaust output of the common combustion engine to realise this. I gather you probably know that we exhale CO[sub]2[/sub] but we and other animals (As well as bio-degrading waste) produces CH[sub]4[/sub]. These molecules do play an important part of our ecosystems balance, in fact NASA had some time back a rather interesting animation involving "Methane Earth", this satellite captured gas composition animation observed the ebb and flow of gas composition the world over. It provided observation of how one month would have a high CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration and another would have higher CH[sub]4[/sub] as various environmental changes (High temperatures, lowering pressure fronts etc) would aid in gas conversions.
While indeed their are in fact two disingenuous factors to "global warming" (One being the scientists that work for petroleum companies or car manufacturers not wanting their products taxed higher, and the other being over obsessive "Greenies" with stories of the coming apocalypse.) this doesn't undermine the fact that us humans have played a factor in our environments change. (You just have to look at the amount of radio emissions we produce worldwide to understand that all that energy excerpted into generating wavelengths obviously converts into potential energy that might well effect molecular composition.)
What I will say about the climate on earth however is this, If the planet's CO[sub]2[/sub] skyrockets, then it's probably for the best. You see for us humans ever to consider colonising other planets, we are going to have to have ways of converting heavy CO[sub]2[/sub] atmospheres into something liveable. CO[sub]2[/sub] increases here on earth generally forces our hand in getting on track with a potential future that we'd otherwise never aspire to do because of cost, time or distance.
Note:
My actual interest in Climate change originated from working with Gas Flaring that's utilised in many different areas: Landfill sites, Tank storage systems (These usually have various other chemicals that most people would realise are poison if just vented), Oil barges, Waste treatment plants etc.
The systems we sold were "variable" in the sense that constant measurements of gas composition led to a greater efficiency in gas combustion compared to the "open-ended pipe" variants of flare which can't alter with gas composition and rarely burn at the optimum flowrate. (Burning at a rate too slow or too fast increases the likelihood of uncombusted or highly toxic gases to emerge)
So we had a constant output of what gases were leading into the system and what gases existed in the exhaust, which was actually more data collection than standard flares that only have the EPA check on their efficiency through emissions tests once or twice a year.
Last edited:
