Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ball on February 09, 2007, 02:09:25 PM
-
To whoever develops a machine to help solve global warming..
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1250769,00.html
-
Originally posted by Ball
To whoever develops a machine to help solve global warming..
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1250769,00.html
I would only do it for 26 billion...
-
I think it's the right approach. Someone needs to figure out how to get the crap out of the atmosphere. Trying to get everyone on this rock to stop generating the pollution will never work.
The US should drop its $25M reward for Bin Laden (since we would have already gotten him if it was a legitimate motivator) and add it to the Solve Global Warming prize.
-
Why bother? Global warming is just environmental hype designed to rid US citizens of any rights they have left.
Ask lazs, he'll tell ya.
-
Originally posted by soda72
I would only do it for 26 billion...
Think of all the chicks you would get when you wear your "I saved the world" t-shirt.
... and then lose them again when they realise Al Gore is your new best friend.
-
How about $26 million for a way to turn cornstalks into ethanol at a total cost of $35 a barrel?
-
i'm going to plant some trees and claim the 26 million.
-
Some dude has already invented a machine that takes CO2 out of the air. It actually looks like a tree too. He said we would need hundreds of thousands of them though to work.
-
Dear Sir Richard Branson:
I have an excellent scientific soloution:
"68ROX's Bovine and Swine Flatuance Filters"
Synopsis:
By placing inexpensive charcoal-carbon based filters onto the backsides of all cows and pigs, using a harness made of nylon and bungee cord straps. Duct tape can be used to prevent any leakage of gases, just like in home ventilation systems.
By filtering out the gasses that damage the atmosphere, those gasses can be reduced by 90%!
Please PM me for details on where to send the check!
Thanks Rich!
68ROX
-
And after making said machine, all you have to do is wait a few decades to see if it actually made any difference before you can collect your check. Oh heck, let’s make it a nice round hundred years.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
I think it's the right approach. Someone needs to figure out how to get the crap out of the atmosphere. .
Easy.
Plant more trees.
Re-forrest instead of De-forrest
There, Problem solved
when can I expect my check?
:p
-
Bah. someone already beat me to it :cry
-
(http://www.mytoolstore.com/dewalt/d55151.jpg)
(http://www.vinalhavenfuel.com/images/vhftank.jpg)
vent the tanks into greenhouses.
-
the problem with planting trees is that they only really absorb CO2 while they're growing, and they also respire, they don't just draw in CO2, they produce lots of it too.
and when those trees die or are burned, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, especially if you burn it. also, the trees and vegetation can't do anything about the organic (methane) and sulpur based gases. in short, planting more trees is useless, although they should be replanted anyway, seeing as all the deforestation is causing extinction etc...
what's needed is for some brightspark to create a large scale machine that can convert the gases into something less harmful. hell, even burning all the methane in the atmosphere, which would produce massive amounts of CO2 would cool the earth down.
CO2 is dissolved into the oceans as well, infact CO2 levels are at their lowest since the earth was formed, it's the organic and sulphur based molecules that are absorbing all the energy...
find a way to get rid of em and you'll be the richest and most famous scientist and public hero in history, which is always a neat little nickname :D
-
Originally posted by Ball
Think of all the chicks you would get when you wear your "I saved the world" t-shirt.
... and then lose them again when they realise Al Gore is your new best friend.
r the gore daughters still hot? chicks that are hot OWN!!!1:aok :aok :aok
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
the problem with planting trees is that they only really absorb CO2 while they're growing, and they also respire, they don't just draw in CO2, they produce lots of it too.
trees absorb the carbon and release the oxygen,
-
Originally posted by john9001
trees absorb the carbon and release the oxygen,
they release O2 during the day while they photosynthesize, but they are organic beings, they respirate to create energy. the photosynthesize while the sun is out, which absorbs CO2 and produces O2, and this produces their food, but to gain energy from their food, they must burn it, just like we burn our food.
we breathe because we need oxygen to turn our food into energy, and plants do the same, they draw in oxygen and release CO2 while they burn their food and turn it into energy. so they produce a reasonable amount of oxygen during the day, which they then re-use to get energy out of the food they created during the day. they respire like this at the same rate all through the day, and only photosynthesize during sunlight hours, although during that time, photosynthesis has more of an effect than respiration.
the net effect is that plants are self sustaining, they don't really get rid of CO2 at all, because they themselves are producing it.
when plants evolved there were no humans, they had no need to over produce, life was in balance, then we came along...
humans cannot leave in harmony with the environment. our success as a race is also our downfall. i personally think that money should not be going into global warming research, as a lot of money is needed for very little effect. the money should be going to space colonisation. humans can't live here on earth indefinitely, our population has passed a critical point, we're wearing the planet out...
anyway, dumb science lesson there for ya, but it's all true, plants don't create masses of oxygen, or absorb CO2, they do that just to burn it all again...
when a plant grows it absorbs far more CO2 and produces more oxygen than it will when it is an adult. when that adult tree dies, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere via decomposition in the form of CO2 and methane/other natural gases.
the whole world is in a perfect balance, and we've tipped it right over.
what's needed is an ingenious way to reconvert these gases into their original forms somehow. and for all those who think global warming is a load of rubbish, you're just being ignorant. just because where you live hasn't warmed up doesn't mean that the world isn't.
-
"anyway, dumb science lesson there for ya, but it's all true, plants don't create masses of oxygen, or absorb CO2, they do that just to burn it all again...
when a plant grows it absorbs far more CO2 and produces more oxygen than it will when it is an adult. when that adult tree dies, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere via decomposition in the form of CO2 and methane/other natural gases."
The balance is called "soil".
Fossil fuels would also never be around if charbon wasn't being trapped at some time or another.
Lots of charbon and methane is also getting captured in wetland.
Bottom line is that the total impact of plants ties down charbon.
-
algae blooms in the ocean would do the trick... they'd absorb CO2, release some oxygen, and then take the carbon to the bottom of the ocean when it dies. There are simple non-toxic chemicals you can spread to get almost immediate blooms, and even better, the blooms stop when you quit seeding them in case it turns out to be a bad idea.
I'll take my $25 mil 50% US currency and 50% gold, thank you very much.
-
Originally posted by eagl
algae blooms in the ocean would do the trick... they'd absorb CO2, release some oxygen, and then take the carbon to the bottom of the ocean when it dies. There are simple non-toxic chemicals you can spread to get almost immediate blooms, and even better, the blooms stop when you quit seeding them in case it turns out to be a bad idea.
I'll take my $25 mil 50% US currency and 50% gold, thank you very much.
The fish would eat it, silly.
-
it's ok if the fish eat the carbon isn't it? If you buy Talapia and many other fish it's treated w/ carbon monoxide to preserve the color of the fish. This way we cut out the middle man, and you'll have the pinkest fish even if it's weeks old and smells like crap.....
-
Nothing wrong with the fish eating it. They'd crap the carbon back out and it would still end up safely in the muck at the bottom of the ocean.
Actually, that's also part of the natural carbon cycle that we've messed with. We've over-fished most oceans so the amount of dead fish falling to the bottom of the ocean taking a big amount of carbon with them has dramatically decreased.
That's one of the biggest problems with the BS global warming movement nowadays... they're focusing on CO2 production without bothering to look at the other natural systems that have been disrupted, which can be trivially altered (algae blooms), or which are totally out of our control (solar output). Not only are they ignoring natural cycles, they're actively squashing any research that dares to look in those areas by claiming that any research in that direction is an evil plot by the oil companies.
Some simple experimentation in cheap and reversable areas, and a LOT more data gathering is in order, but that's totally non-politically correct. We need another couple decades of high-fidelity data gathering in conjuction with some experimentation (those algae blooms or something like that) to see what impact we're really having on the climate. But even suggesting a truly scientific approach to the issue is a good way to get discredited and accused of trying to destroy the world.
-
yup i'd certainly agree with that, the media hype has everyone talking about CO2 emmisions, when really it's the natural cycle that's been pushed off balance.
i wonder whether photosynthesis is somehow genetically linked? perhaps you could genetically engineer a species of algae to photosynthesize at a higher rate...
it'll probably be a bilogist that solves climate change. the problem is, most of these greenhouse gases are in their most stable forms, it'll take a lot of energy to switch them back, and even then, they'll just turn back into greenhouse gases when they react with anything...
-
We all get bitten by Vampire's so we dont need heat/ac anymore ...
:noid
-
filter for the sun...
But.. I have nothing against a huge prize for alternative energy sources and any decrease in pollutants.
I would be a lot more specific and make the prize a lot more juicy.
Offer a billion dollars to the first person to make a 4' x 8' solar panel that is 80% efficient and costs in the neighborhood of $500 to produce... Two panels would power an average house with all its electrical needs. charging electric cars would also be helped and not depend on burning fossil fuels.
start with that instead of starting with the premis that we can do anything worth mentioning about global warming..
free, clean electricity would be the hinge for a better cleaner life for every person on the planet.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
filter for the sun...
But.. I have nothing against a huge prize for alternative energy sources and any decrease in pollutants.
I would be a lot more specific and make the prize a lot more juicy.
Offer a billion dollars to the first person to make a 4' x 8' solar panel that is 80% efficient and costs in the neighborhood of $500 to produce... Two panels would power an average house with all its electrical needs. charging electric cars would also be helped and not depend on burning fossil fuels.
start with that instead of starting with the premis that we can do anything worth mentioning about global warming..
free, clean electricity would be the hinge for a better cleaner life for every person on the planet.
lazs
yup, you're right there lazs, all the money wasted on getting people to use less energy is retarded. the money should be going to research into alternative energy. they've almost got a nuclear fusion reactor going, it produces 10 times the aount of energy that it uses, but it only works for a few seconds...
money should be going to that, clean and very powerful energy, not wasted on trying to get people to use less fossil fuels etc.
i think it's silly to try and force people to use less energy when there is no alternative. use the billions of dollars that people waste on that and use it to come up with a better way that people will want to use over fossil fuels anyway.
-
Originally posted by Ball
To whoever develops a machine to help solve global warming..
Didn't alpenheimer already do this?
-
If one thinks about the increasing charbon of all sorts in the atmosphere, there already are thechnical solutions on the way.
Since most of the C we release to the atmosphere is basically due to various sorts of inefficiency (some say 90%) there is a big thing there to work with.
One little gadget is a new kind of carburettor. While being flexible enough to replace most injection systems (for petrol and up to kerosene AFAIK), it offers a reduction in CO (80%), HC+NOx 35%, and lowers fuel consumption 20%.
It's entering the market soon, - was already off the drawing board and being run years ago.
Although a little step, it's significant, and there are many bright ideas working in many places.
-
the conservation side is a loser... it just is a feel good do nothing solution... in the end, it just makes everyone misserable for nothing as more people end up using the energy that was conserved.
Now.. that is not to say that building energy efficient machines is bad.. they can be very good but... only if they do it without hardship to the user... if a refrigerator for instance uses less energy in a year and works just as well and is quieter... why not? If a bulb uses less energy... and costs about the same but lasts longer? why not?
It has to be a wash or a gain in something before conservation works... if everyone vowed to walk to work one day a week or carpool... that is foolish... eventualy their method of getting around will eat up the gains and everyone participating will be inconvienenced for nothing.
The guy who invented the little flourecent bulb that replaces the normal ones should have got a prize.. The government didn't "invent" those things. When the government gets involved with rebates and such it gets all screwed up and the flim flam men wade in. no one is easier to cheat than the government.. they almost insist you do so.. anyone recall all the old solar water heater panels the government subsidized in the 70's and 80's? none of that junk left.
lazs
-
10 hour day, 4 day work week, still get 40 hours and one less commute/week and a three day weekend, everybody wins.
i actually worked that dream job for a wile.
-
OK, this is about global warming right? Then I can use the same rules globalwarmingists use right?
Great, here it is: I have a "theory" for how to scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere.
Sir Branson, please send my check ASAP as I would like to buy a new Saitek X-52 Pro real soon. You can forward it through HiTech Creations. Thanks. Oh, and may "Gaia" bless you.
-
Hey guys, just got a PM from Sir "Richard" (man, I thought it was Sir "Branson"...how embarassing is that?). He thanked me for my theory but said this whole "reward" thing was all a big misunderstanding. Seems he and is wife (Lady Richard? Lady Sir Richard?, damn these aristocracy things have me confused) anyway, he and and the Mrs had some folks over to their house in Glasgow and one of them brought along a friend named Al (evidently he's a real Dork!). Seems Al was being just the biggest pain in the butt and kept trying to "convert" everyone he could corner so Sir Richard made up this whole "reward for saving the world" thing just to get Al to STFU (yeah, he really did say STFU! Sir Richard really is pretty cool). Well, anyway one thing led to another and there you have it. BTW, according to him 13m pounds isn't really enough for a new X-52 Pro anyway, (he said Pounds were sort of like Yen but Yen is better because it's harder to confuse with weight). Anyway, I guess the joke's on me...ROFLMAO! I told him that's ok and if he ever needed a theory on how to keep Avacados from bruising that I had one I've been working on.
-
LOL, Lazs:
"Now.. that is not to say that building energy efficient machines is bad.. they can be very good but... only if they do it without hardship to the user... if a refrigerator for instance uses less energy in a year and works just as well and is quieter... why not? If a bulb uses less energy... and costs about the same but lasts longer? why not?"
This is a funny little paragraph. So, if you consider a fridge that was cheaper to run it would also have to be quieter? How about a fridge that is equal in any other aspect except better in the energy department? Is it then as good?
BTW, the carburettor I mentioned, once installed is basically simpler, cheaper and less likely to go wrong than an old fashioned one. While the engine will run on less fuel, while giving more power and polluting less, it comes with a cost. Yes, too little CO, so you can not commit suicide in yer garage any more :D
-
It's going to cost you more than 26 mill to save the planet. They need to up the pay out.
-
angus.. I don't understand you. My point is that if you make a refrigerator that uses less juice but is so loud you can't hear the TV... no one will buy it... or if it costs 10 times more. How hard is that to understand? Most of the energy efficient devices we have today work better and save money over the old.. that is fine.
Making people car pool or walk won't work. They will just use the car to run other errands cause of the money they saved walking.
I don't think a carb of any type is the way to go in this age of computer controlled electronic fuel injection either.
lazs
-
I think mad scientist chairboy and his global warming saving mech could win this competition.
-
Branson is so unbelieveably annoying. I don't think there is a newsworthy event in the world he wouldn't try and get a bit of publicity out of. Concorde being forced out of service and now global warming. What a nob.
If genital herpes suddenly became a global news event, he'd be sure to offer money to find a cure. And probably some 'Virgin' branding too.
-
Only 26 Mill? Ive already got one made (heats and cools the house for cheap) but I don't think thats much to outway not having almost free gas and electric bills. :aok
-
Algae blooms might actually be the solution to CO2. Theres been some research into causing gigantic algae blooms in the middle of the ocean, thereby capturing millions of tons of CO2, and letting the algae sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Originally posted by eagl
Nothing wrong with the fish eating it. They'd crap the carbon back out and it would still end up safely in the muck at the bottom of the ocean.
Actually, that's also part of the natural carbon cycle that we've messed with. We've over-fished most oceans so the amount of dead fish falling to the bottom of the ocean taking a big amount of carbon with them has dramatically decreased.
That's one of the biggest problems with the BS global warming movement nowadays... they're focusing on CO2 production without bothering to look at the other natural systems that have been disrupted, which can be trivially altered (algae blooms), or which are totally out of our control (solar output). Not only are they ignoring natural cycles, they're actively squashing any research that dares to look in those areas by claiming that any research in that direction is an evil plot by the oil companies.
Some simple experimentation in cheap and reversable areas, and a LOT more data gathering is in order, but that's totally non-politically correct. We need another couple decades of high-fidelity data gathering in conjuction with some experimentation (those algae blooms or something like that) to see what impact we're really having on the climate. But even suggesting a truly scientific approach to the issue is a good way to get discredited and accused of trying to destroy the world.
-
good, i dont like fish anyway...and i dont like things that eat fish...of course the mayflower pilgrims said bald eagle tastes like mutton, but if i want mutton it is for sail at teh store
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Branson is so unbelieveably annoying. I don't think there is a newsworthy event in the world he wouldn't try and get a bit of publicity out of. Concorde being forced out of service and now global warming. What a nob.
If genital herpes suddenly became a global news event, he'd be sure to offer money to find a cure. And probably some 'Virgin' branding too.
I disagree, i think he is brilliant,
He just seems to want to do what every normal man in Britain would want to do, and he can because he has a ridiculous amount of money.
The man is a legend!
-
"Making people car pool or walk won't work."
It does if tried, up to an extent.
Up here the fuel price is enormous. Result for our household is extensive use of legs and bikes for all closer errands. And car pooling? Yes.
-
angus... you walk.. demand for gas goes down... I am able to buy more for my hot rods.
lazs