Global warming

R

riku_124

High School Smoker
Registered Senior Member
well, we all know that global warming is being caused, and it is slowly but almost indefnatly destroying the wrold as we know it

i was talking on the phone with my friend one day and we were talking about it, and clear as day i got the image of a water mill ( that water thing on the end of a stream that turns)

and i was thinking why couldnt we use that as a form of transportation on land?

for example if we had a new type of bike, only it has tubes filled with water, a fan on the back, and whecks, but insider the weals is a smaller version of a water mill, you turn on the fan, it makes water move, and it would turn the wheel.

Do you think that such a thought would be possble? just use a bike as an example, it would move slowly but it would be enviormentally friendly.

Give me your thoughts on this idea please.

Also give me any thoughts you have on "out of the box" ideas to slow down global warming.
 
You gave the answer to your own problem. Most people are in such a hurry these days that they can't stand going slow and need something fast. Anyway, I think that if the fan were to move the water inside the tyre to run the cycle, it would be very hard, and consume a lot of power and electricity.
 
Global warming is PC myth, man now matter how important he thinks he is, has no effect on this process, we cannot change the output of the sun, or change the warming and cooling cycles of the earth, the world has been much warmer, and much cooler than our present tempratures, and this is a cycle millions of years older than the existance of man, these cycles have been documented by sicientest in the antartic with the ice core drilling, CO2s and other greenhouse gas's have been much higher and lower before man ever appeared, and who's to say global warming is bad, without global warming we would still be in a ice age! If you want to find out how much better we are doing on polution do some reasearch and go back to the 50s and check out the reduction of air born polution from the figures then and the amount of air born polution to day, I think you will find out thing have improved tremendiously, and one thieory states that because of the clean up of our air more sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth wich mean more heating, wich then causes global warming?
 
There is a dramatic warming that's taken place since the industrial revolution that's on a scale and with a speed that's unprecedented in human existence - this warming can't be explained by natural factors alone, but are explained by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

To illustrate:
figspm-4.gif


This is widely agreed upon by "PC mythmakers" like NASA, Shell Oil, the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences, British Petroleum and pretty much every climatologist on the planet.
 
Go to your google and search ( artic ice core samples anaylis) and you will find plenty of dissagrement over global warming, only a liberal beleaves everyone think the same way they do, because they don't do the reasearch!
 
Go to your google and search ( artic ice core samples anaylis) and you will find plenty of dissagrement over global warming
Click to expand...
- Not peer-reviewed articles from scientific publications. Try for yourself: www.scholar.google.com/

Find me ten articles that disagree that there has been a significant anthropogenic change in climate the last 150 years. Shouldn't be too difficult if you're right and you've "done the research"
 
pretty sure that altering the composition of the atmosphere would affect it in a negative way.

we couldve hoped that China and other developing nations would have implimented alternative energies - http://www.futureenergies.com/- but appearantly they dont really give a $%##.
 
riku_124 said:
well, we all know that global warming is being caused, and it is slowly but almost indefnatly destroying the wrold as we know it

i was talking on the phone with my friend one day and we were talking about it, and clear as day i got the image of a water mill ( that water thing on the end of a stream that turns)

and i was thinking why couldnt we use that as a form of transportation on land?

for example if we had a new type of bike, only it has tubes filled with water, a fan on the back, and whecks, but insider the weals is a smaller version of a water mill, you turn on the fan, it makes water move, and it would turn the wheel.

Do you think that such a thought would be possble? just use a bike as an example, it would move slowly but it would be enviormentally friendly.

Give me your thoughts on this idea please.

Also give me any thoughts you have on "out of the box" ideas to slow down global warming.
Click to expand...
Where does the energy come from to turn the water wheel in the first place?

It sounds exactly like a torque converter like the one in my brother's '69 Plymouth Barracuda, only the liquid is a synthetic, and the power comes from a 315 v8.
 
Here is another view:

CO2 has always been present in the atmosphere and the 'greenhouse effect' has always been important in controlling planetary temperatures. This was shown in spectacular fashion by a recent examination of ice cores drilled from the Arctic ice shelf going back over 400,000 years. Arctic ice is composed of compacted layers of snow. The layers are like tree rings and they can be analysed to show how cold it was. Moreover, because the ice contains dissolved CO2, scientists can tell how much of this gas was in the atmosphere at the time.

Three key points have emerged from this fascinating data. First is that global temperatures have fluctuated during the period by some 10 degrees. Warm spells 400, 320, 240 and 130 thousand years ago have alternated with spells of glacial cold - 'ice-ages.' We are living in a warm period at the moment and have been so for the past 10,000 years. Nevertheless significant climate fluctuations have still occurred. The Middle Ages were warm, but 500 years later the Thames at London was freezing regularly each winter.

http://www.europaworld.org/issue9/istheworldconfrigttofoconcarbdiox171100.htm
 
I don't know said:
There is a dramatic warming that's taken place since the industrial revolution that's on a scale and with a speed that's unprecedented in human existence -
Click to expand...
Your graph looks pretty impressive until one notices the scale. The DRAMATIC warming noted by the steep climb in your graph is ONE degree. Big deal.

By the way, what about global warming noted on Mars? Is this also anthropogenic? Or might some natural change in the sun's output be the cause of the simultaneous DRAMATIC WARMING noted on both planets?

The climate changes. Average temperature goes up sometimes, other times it goes down. This cycle has occured since way before the dawn of man and his industrial age.

I think the general level of scientific understanding among global warming true believers is demonstrated nicely by the perpetual motion machine proposed by the thread starter.
 
Let's have a look at the actual "global temperature"

This graph shows the original Hansen Global Warming prediction from the hearing in 1988, Scenerio A depicts the results of a full speed ahead with greenhouse emission, Scenario B with some migitation implemented eventually and scenario C when immediate far fetching actions were taken for drastic reductions.

The black line is his the measured global warming temp graph according to GHCN graph and the boldface dark blue line is that famous satelite lower troposhere temperature MSU-2LT that's now corrected for some errors in tropical areas. (source)

predict.GIF


Perhhaps it's understandable why after 1998 the term "global warming" was gradually replaced by "climate change".

But the reason of that climate change is farther from clear than ever. Ten scientific articles is not really a measure, not even a hundred computer model simulations. After all, it took only one Galileo to show that the world was not the centre of the universe.

But how about this one about the come back of the sun:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2006GL0259211_pub.pdf

Usoskin, I. G., S. K. Solanki, and M. Korte (2006), Solar activity reconstructed over the last 7000 years: The influence of geomagnetic field changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08103, doi:10.1029/2006GL025921.

Abstract

The long-term solar activity, as manifested by sunspot number, has been recently reconstructed on multi-millennium time scales by S. K. Solanki et al. (2004) from the measured concentration of 14C in tree rings. The exact level of the reconstructed solar activity depends, however, on independently evaluated data of the geomagnetic dipole strength variations. Recently, a new series of the palaeomagnetic dipole moment reconstruction for the last 7000 years has been presented by M. Korte and C. G. Constable(2005a) on the basis of a thorough analysis of global samples. The new palaeomagnetic series yields a systematically lower dipole moment in the past, compared to the earliergeomagnetic reconstructions.

We have revised the earlier sunspot activity reconstruction since 5000 BC, using the new geomagnetic data series, and found that it is roughly consistent with the previous results during most of the period, although the revised sunspot number values are in general higher. Nonetheless, it is confirmed with the new palaeomagnetic series that the Sun spends only 2–3% of the time in a state of high activity, similar to the modern episode. This strengthens the conclusion that the modern high activity level is very unusual during the last 7000 years
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit busy with a term paper right now, so I'll just link you to a nice blog I know that should explain the issue of the sun to you quite clearly: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html With lots of links to authorative sources. Here's a nice graph from one of them:

climate_l.gif


The point is that no one denies nature affects climate, that would be stupid - but as you can see from the graphs I posted, changes in nature (the gray thing in graph (a) are insufficient to explain the observed warming (the red line). If you add the anthropogenic forcings, on the other hand, you see it fits.
figspm-4.gif


I'm also assuming that your "ten scientific articles is not really a measure" comment means that you couldn't find any :p Didn't I say I've had this debate before?
 
riku_124 said:
for example if we had a new type of bike, only it has tubes filled with water, a fan on the back, and whecks, but insider the weals is a smaller version of a water mill, you turn on the fan, it makes water move, and it would turn the wheel.

Do you think that such a thought would be possible? just use a bike as an example, it would move slowly but it would be environmentally friendly.
.
Click to expand...

You have to power the fan.... ;)

But on a serious note, an inventor just created a machine about as big as a child's backpack that can use voltage from a battery to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water (electrolysis) and route each in gaseous form around to use the hydrogen as fuel and oxygen as oxidizer.

This was originally created for usage in welding with the gas replacing acetylene/oxygen tanks.
He then converted a 1995 Ford Taurus to run on hydrogen, and installed his water conversion device, and is getting 100 miles on just 4 ounces of water.

Thats 3200 miles per gallon.......with plain water as the only fuel.
The only thing amazing is this guy has lived long enough to tell the tale.
We always knew the power in a glass of water was rocket fuel, just there for the taking.

The space shuttle reverses the principle to receive all of it's electrical power for in flight systems operation and to produce pure drink water.
It's uses hydrogen fuel cells combining cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen liquids, which when combined create electricity and pure H20.
 
Last edited:
You can't run a machine to crack hydrogen from water using only the power of the hydrogen it frees, much less get any additional energy from it, sorry.

The fuel cells on the space shuttle do indeed run on H they bring with them, but it takes alot of energy to make the H in the first place. In this case it's like a very expensive battery.
 
TheVisitor said:
... is getting 100 miles on just 4 ounces of water.
Thats 3200 miles per gallon.......with plain water as the only fuel.
The only thing amazing is this guy has lived long enough to tell the tale.....
Click to expand...
And what a tail it is! - The energy released by complete oxidation (in fuel cell or any other way) of hydrogen to form 4 oz of H2O is surely less than in/from 8 ounces of gasoline.

Story is silly. I bet he will sell you one of his devices, just as I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Visitor, the fuel cell and hydrogen power are ways of storing energy to use later, they are not primary sources of energy.
 
Just because one has a patent for the assembly of different parts does not make the device useful or provide any real benefits. The claim is not for fuel efficiency but the way the parts are put together that makes it unique and hence the patent. If one thinks that one can produce cheaply the Hydrogen and Oxygen from a car battery that is charged by running an inefficient internal combustion engine...then I could sell you a land in Florida...:D
 
The visitor- where does the energy come from to do the electrolysis in the first place? The laws of tehrmodynamics say that it is impossible for the inventor to get more energy out of the system than he puts in, therefore what is being proposed it occaisionally useful, but not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top