Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mojava on July 31, 2008, 12:20:45 PM
-
I guess we need to redefine where we think hydrocarbons come from, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
There's all the fuel we need, how do we get it?
-
a big straw?
-
There was actualy a study of using a straw scheme to terraform venus, and it would effectively suck out some of the excessive (for our purposes) atmosphere into space (or across some other lower pressure gradient), provided you can build the straw..
Resource exploitation on Titan isn't happening anytime soon, for now.. Even mining the moon or mars or nearby floaters is beyond profit because of the cost of dealing with earth's gravity well. A real shame... All it'd take is an initial payment in launches and equipment.
-
"I have a milkshake and you have a milkshake. I have a straw that goes allllllllllllllllllllllllllll ll the way over to your milkshake. I drink your milkshake!"
-
I guess we need to redefine where we think hydrocarbons come from, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
There's all the fuel we need, how do we get it?
If you think gas is expensive now let them try this. It will get even more expensive.
I found one site that estimated the average cost of space launch was about $22,000 per kilogram. That would be the cost of getting what ever space craft off the ground here.
It took the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft almost 7 years to get there
$3.26 billion was the total cost of the mission and that spacecraft only weighed in at 2500 kilograms. I am sure any vehicle would need to be vastly bigger than thay thing was to get enough fuel back here to be worth the 14 year round trip.
There is also the much bigger cost and it is not in dollars. The cost to our planet in the amount carbon that would be released into the atmosphere. The carbon being released now was at one time in the atmosphere or on the surface and it is causing problems now, imagine adding millions of tons more carbon that was not even here in the first place.
Of course as I usually do I am probably blowing this out of proportion, after putting all the time into some of the research I came to realize that there is the possiblity that you were joking. However I had done the work so I figured I'd post anyway in case anybody did think that this was a good idea.
-
"I have a milkshake and you have a milkshake. I have a straw that goes allllllllllllllllllllllllllll ll the way over to your milkshake. I drink your milkshake!"
Your milkshake is in your gravity well under pressure sufficient to allow the milkshake to progress up your straw. The pressure my milkeshake is under will only allow flow up to 12". The distance you have to draw from is over 36". You can suck all you want but all you'll do is suck while I drink MY milkshake. Do you really enjoy sucking for nothing like that? :huh
-
I guess we need to redefine where we think hydrocarbons come from, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
There's all the fuel we need, how do we get it?
put it to burt rutan at scaled composites....and possibly paul allen at vulcan engineering.
while nasa is formulating a plan, these guys will have tested methods already. :aok :D
-
There was actualy a study of using a straw scheme to terraform venus, and it would effectively suck out some of the excessive (for our purposes) atmosphere into space (or across some other lower pressure gradient), provided you can build the straw..
Resource exploitation on Titan isn't happening anytime soon, for now.. Even mining the moon or mars or nearby floaters is beyond profit because of the cost of dealing with earth's gravity well. A real shame... All it'd take is an initial payment in launches and equipment.
The really interseting thing about this subject is that with the abundant water on Jupiter's moon Europa and hydrocarbon "lakes" on Saturn's Titan, there is all the fuel we need for exploration of the outer planets. Personally, I'd like to find that asteroid made of gold or diamond.
-
I found one site that estimated the average cost of space launch was about $22,000 per kilogram. That would be the cost of getting what ever space craft off the ground here.
Back when I was working on the radiators for the International Space Station, that number was ~$5000 per pound. Looks like the cost has doubled in the last 10 years.
The really interseting thing about this subject is that with the abundant water on Jupiter's moon Europa and hydrocarbon "lakes" on Saturn's Titan, there is all the fuel we need for exploration of the outer planets. Personally, I'd like to find that asteroid made of gold or diamond.
Yes, but there are also aliens on Europa who said they'd kick our bellybutton if we went there. :D
-
The really interseting thing about this subject is that with the abundant water on Jupiter's moon Europa and hydrocarbon "lakes" on Saturn's Titan, there is all the fuel we need for exploration of the outer planets. Personally, I'd like to find that asteroid made of gold or diamond.
There's bigger lumps of diamond out there, the size of stars :)
-
There's bigger lumps of diamond out there, the size of stars :)
Besides, without the DeBeer's to limit availability, diamond's would have hardly any value at all.
-
Besides, without the DeBeer's to limit availability, diamond's would have hardly any value at all.
this simple fact has been the cause of many arguments in my house, since I refuse to buy diamonds due to that. I refuse to support the OPEC equivelent of the diamond world. What a way to increase profits with hold supplies with the intent of increasing the price.
-
this simple fact has been the cause of many arguments in my house, since I refuse to buy diamonds due to that. I refuse to support the OPEC equivelent of the diamond world. What a way to increase profits with hold supplies with the intent of increasing the price.
You must have some kind of death wish.:uhoh Lawyers are a Hell of a lot more expensive, and most people hate them more than OPEC.:D But you're right. The truth is that industrial diamonds are physically superior to the natural flavor and cheaper to boot.
-
Your milkshake is in your gravity well under pressure sufficient to allow the milkshake to progress up your straw. The pressure my milkeshake is under will only allow flow up to 12". The distance you have to draw from is over 36". You can suck all you want but all you'll do is suck while I drink MY milkshake. Do you really enjoy sucking for nothing like that? :huh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URjeS5-NaXY&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URjeS5-NaXY&feature=related)
-
You must have some kind of death wish.:uhoh Lawyers are a Hell of a lot more expensive, and most people hate them more than OPEC.:D But you're right. The truth is that industrial diamonds are physically superior to the natural flavor and cheaper to boot.
most of time we have an agreement, She doesn't ask and I don't buy. only time it is an issue is anniversary and Christmas.
oh well she knows when I feels something is wrong then I won't support it. she usually walks away ,mad then
-
Dave,
Buy her a fake diamond ring and ask her what she would be doing differently with a "real" diamond in the ring. I'm not real big on jewelry. You can't drive it, eat it, cook on it and after a while I get pretty bored just looking at it. Fortunately the wife feels pretty much the same way.
-
Dave,
Buy her a fake diamond ring and ask her what she would be doing differently with a "real" diamond in the ring. I'm not real big on jewelry. You can't drive it, eat it, cook on it and after a while I get pretty bored just looking at it. Fortunately the wife feels pretty much the same way.
I have attempted this before. Unfortunately my wife is one of those that says it is important because I want it, but at lest she is understanding of the fact that I feel it important to not support anything that I feel is wrong.
She at least knows that since I am that way about the diamonds then I will be that way when I support or agree with her.
-
Heres the reason you buy diamonds. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ur2er-STls&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ur2er-STls&feature=related)
-
There's all the fuel we need, how do we get it?
Science fiction
sorry, but not in our lifetime,
cu in 400-500 years...
edit: typo
-
I'm sure it wouldn't be profitable to mine another planet to use the minerals here on Earth. Unless it was something ultra rare or valuable.
I do think we will eventually have mining operations on other planets/moons for the sole purpose of supplying that planet or other remote locations.
-
Not necessarily.. Supposing the moon gets mass drivers to shoot lumps of resource down at earth, then the cost is in shooting those lumps (e.g. solar), and in gathering those resources and getting them to the moon (e.g. off a gas giant). The real expense is really in the initial cost of going out there and setting up the production line.
Sailors of the 1400s+ faced all sorts of perils, early flight too (still does).. Somehow people expect space (the worst known environment) to be something that can be developed without a single risk... Cue Shackleton's "men wanted" newspaper ad.
-
Well there is a rare material on the moon we can use on Earth, it's called Helium 3, we would need it if we wanted to create power using fusion.
-
I read the other day that the "space elevator" concept is out of the theoretical stage and just waiting on somone to build it. it would cut the cost of breaking the gravity well by 80% some estitmate.
-
Heres the reason you buy diamonds. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ur2er-STls&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ur2er-STls&feature=related)
She pretty much does any time I ask without the diamonds. All I have to do is make sure she gets as much satisfaction as I do.
:D
-
Gunslinger can you remember where you read that?
Trax1 I thought so too, and that this would really help spur space dev., but apparently there's a number of other alternatives to fuel fusion reactors.. proton & Boron-11 for one, which gives negligible radiation compared to at least some He3 fusion reactions.
-
I read the other day that the "space elevator" concept is out of the theoretical stage and just waiting on somone to build it. it would cut the cost of breaking the gravity well by 80% some estitmate.
Yea my Aunt is pretty high up with one of the big NASA contractors. I was joking around about that and she said the concept is legit, on the other hand she says the new rocket that is supposed to replace the shuttle will never fly.
-
...
There is also the much bigger cost and it is not in dollars. The cost to our planet in the amount carbon that would be released into the atmosphere. The carbon being released now was at one time in the atmosphere or on the surface and it is causing problems now, imagine adding millions of tons more carbon that was not even here in the first place.
...
Not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean that launching space vehicles produces carbon? I understand that hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water after the big explosion.
-
Not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean that launching space vehicles produces carbon? I understand that hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water after the big explosion.
yes hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water.
Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. The problem is from the carbon present which is typically in large amounts. This is where the large amounts of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that are released from our cars and other fossil fuel uses.
here is definition of hydrocarbon
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6D9_JJIy.UASSFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11smb526a/EXP=1217678973/**http%3a//www.answers.com/topic/hydrocarbon (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6D9_JJIy.UASSFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11smb526a/EXP=1217678973/**http%3a//www.answers.com/topic/hydrocarbon)
-
Not necessarily.. Supposing the moon gets mass drivers to shoot lumps of resource down at earth, then the cost is in shooting those lumps (e.g. solar), and in gathering those resources and getting them to the moon (e.g. off a gas giant). The real expense is really in the initial cost of going out there and setting up the production line.
Sailors of the 1400s+ faced all sorts of perils, early flight too (still does).. Somehow people expect space (the worst known environment) to be something that can be developed without a single risk... Cue Shackleton's "men wanted" newspaper ad.
Moot, how do you plan on slowing those masses down? :uhoh
-
Science fiction
sorry, but not in our lifetime,
cu in 400-500 years...
edit: typo
I dont see the problem. Build a spaceship for mineing, fly it out there, bada-bing bada-boom you have your minerals. Heck we should have been on Mars by now had we made the effort. In 500 years we'll be exploring other star systems.
Building the space tether is do'able now, providing we can prevent crazy's from flying into the thing. Once the tether is built then everything else will fall into place.
-
Deep ocean water and a throw away shaped container? Probably safer than aiming precisely for aerobraking into a softer water landing...
Where are you guys seeing reports of tethers being feasible already? Everything I've seen says produced CNT is still too far from the required strength/purity.
-
Heck we should have been on Mars by now had we made the effort.
Absolutely, In the words of Red Forman:
"Ah at this rate I'm gonna have a heart-attack before I even get my jetpack."
Guess that govenment cheese is way higher on the priority list. :rolleyes:
Deep ocean water and a throw away shaped container? Probably safer than aiming precisely for aerobraking into a softer water landing...
Where are you guys seeing reports of tethers being feasible already? Everything I've seen says produced CNT is still too far from the required strength/purity.
I'm thinking you just want several tsunami's and new inland seas named after you. :D
-
It wouldn't be possible to give it an aero(or hydro-)dynamic head to avoid too many waves? How about if we go the slowpoke (relatively) way and put em in containers with really big flat heatshileds at the bottom, and give em some parachutes?
-
Deep ocean water and a throw away shaped container? Probably safer than aiming precisely for aerobraking into a softer water landing...
Where are you guys seeing reports of tethers being feasible already? Everything I've seen says produced CNT is still too far from the required strength/purity.
Nano technology baby. Nano,nano,nano,nano,nano.....
Every expert says building the thing would be fairly easy. The only real problem is who would pay. We already build the types of materials that would be needed.
I remember there was some middle east consortium considering the project.
-
It wouldn't be possible to give it an aero(or hydro-)dynamic head to avoid too many waves? How about if we go the slowpoke (relatively) way and put em in containers with really big flat heatshileds at the bottom, and give em some parachutes?
Aero/Hydro shape just means you hit the water faster, and it's the bow shock wave that's gonna "energize" all that water. Heat shields (carbon-carbon, or maybe carbon phenolic) and chutes cost big money, and they'd probably require you to send smaller "masses". There's also the issue of environmental impact (can't believe I just said that), and the effect of high altitude ionization on global communications. Don't wanna mess with people's "Wheel of Fortune". :D
-
I understand the impact shockwave problem, thanks.
The heatshields - Even completely ablative, throw away, isn't feasible? I guess that adds to the com disruptions... Damn, I can't think of any other approach.. Except small enough loads to fit in the largest and most reusable lifting body cargo. I guess there's no reason to send it in any hurry, as long as the thruput is large enough.. Do you have a link where I can read about how reentry disrupts communications up there?
The only other dead-simple solution I can think of is that pit-stop arrangement, but adapted to something as big as these lumps it's all starting to look like 1970s sf/fantasy. Except if the lumps are small and frequent enough..
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1167/1
-
yes hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water.
Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. The problem is from the carbon present which is typically in large amounts. This is where the large amounts of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that are released from our cars and other fossil fuel uses.
...
I was trying to get you to clear up what you were saying not ask a question literally. Also we already have cars that put off only water vapor (ULEVs). The problem is that (except in California) we dont deny any vehicle to remain on the roads and the older vehicles are the worst polluters (not sure even California succeeds). But that doesnt really matter. All the gases these vehicles have ever put off or ever will put off cant effect our atmosphere. Hydrocarbons are too heavy as gases to ever get high enough in the atmosphere to do any damage. The reports that say othewise are bad science and hand-picked because of political agendas. Los Angeles problem with smog has never influenced the air in the Sierras and never will.
-
I was trying to get you to clear up what you were saying not ask a question literally. Also we already have cars that put off only water vapor (ULEVs). The problem is that (except in California) we dont deny any vehicle to remain on the roads and the older vehicles are the worst polluters (not sure even California succeeds). But that doesnt really matter. All the gases these vehicles have ever put off or ever will put off cant effect our atmosphere. Hydrocarbons are too heavy as gases to ever get high enough in the atmosphere to do any damage. The reports that say othewise are bad science and hand-picked because of political agendas. Los Angeles problem with smog has never influenced the air in the Sierras and never will.
I think I did clear that up for you.
I would also like to note that ULEVs do not have water only as exhaust. ULEV stands for ultra low emission vehicle which emits 50% less emssions. found info here
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu_H0OZNIfowAqfxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11la1t4pt/EXP=1217694580/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULEV (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu_H0OZNIfowAqfxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11la1t4pt/EXP=1217694580/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULEV)
To add to that carbon dioxide is heavy than air and will tend to lay close to ground and may not travel to upper atmosphere, however carbon monoxide is also a green house gas emitted when burning hydrocarbons. This gas has a relative density to air of 1 which means equal to air and will mix easily and yes in time will begin to effect not only air quality but possibly the greenhouse gas problem.
Now I will lean a little in your direction here. Even some of the most known scientist are not 100% sure if we are causing the ever increasing average temperature of the Earth or if it is part of a cycle. What I am pretty sure is happening though is that we are even in the smallest part making it worse by adding more carbon to the atmosphere. These gases are known as greenhouse gases and that is fact that is agreed upon by most all scientist and all most of them also agree that the carbon content in our atmosphere has been high enough in Earth's past that temps. did indeed get higher than they are now.
Now back to what I was saying before I think it a bad idea even if it does become economically feasible to bring hydrocarbons from other planets to this one until we figure out how to manage the carbon we have already been putting into the atmosphere.
-
The way things are going, I doubt carbon producing energy sources will still be as common by the time we can retreive significant amounts of fuels for them from space.
-
All the gases these vehicles have ever put off or ever will put off cant effect our atmosphere. Hydrocarbons are too heavy as gases to ever get high enough in the atmosphere to do any damage. The reports that say othewise are bad science and hand-picked because of political agendas. Los Angeles problem with smog has never influenced the air in the Sierras and never will.
Here are 2 websites that I have found that claim that the carbon emissions are effecting our atmosphere in more ways than just global warming.
http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/O2/O2_2_Atmosphere.htm#pg_globchange (http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/O2/O2_2_Atmosphere.htm#pg_globchange)
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu42JR5NIHngAQC1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11tq2go31/EXP=1217698057/**http%3a//www.trufax.org/general/oxygen.html (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu42JR5NIHngAQC1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11tq2go31/EXP=1217698057/**http%3a//www.trufax.org/general/oxygen.html)
the second one has several links in it as well that go into more detail.
-
I understand the impact shockwave problem, thanks.
The heatshields - Even completely ablative, throw away, isn't feasible? I guess that adds to the com disruptions... Damn, I can't think of any other approach.. Except small enough loads to fit in the largest and most reusable lifting body cargo. I guess there's no reason to send it in any hurry, as long as the thruput is large enough.. Do you have a link where I can read about how reentry disrupts communications up there?
The only other dead-simple solution I can think of is that pit-stop arrangement, but adapted to something as big as these lumps it's all starting to look like 1970s sf/fantasy. Except if the lumps are small and frequent enough..
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1167/1
Moot, I think the cost of heat shielding, even phenolic-based carbon/carbon would be prohibitive. Probably more than the value of your "payload". Looks like it may be getting cheaper though. (on the other side of the world <Sigh>).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5260/is_200009/ai_n20363018
It looks like the comm problems may not be so bad after all, since the plasma sheath around re-entering objects seems to dissipate pretty quickly. It still could be a problem if it blocked line of sight between satellite and ground station, but still it would only be transient.
Still, all bets are off if you intend to showers us constantly with your damn iron and uranium rocks. :)
Here's a cool link with some great info: http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/$C_hypersonic.htm
-
Great link, lots of reading, thanks!
There's gotta be some way to funnel such a volume of resources back to earth.. I'm gonna have to read a lot more.
-
Here are 2 websites that I have found that claim that the carbon emissions are effecting our atmosphere in more ways than just global warming.
...
Yeah thats all based on bad science too. The planet depends on carbon dioxide or it freezes and the amount of carbon dioxide humans create in all processes combined is less than .64% of that naturally created by our own planet. Next we will be slaughtering cattle because of the CO2 and methane they belch... One good volcanic eruption will give off more pollution than all vehicles ever created over the time span of five-thousand years and after that the planet will still be here.
I tell you if we had the power to heat the planet that way Al Gore will destroy Earth by giving speeches about it (its all hot air).
-
I tell you if we had the power to heat the planet that way Al Gore will destroy Earth by giving speeches about it (its all hot air).
Problem is, while we were busy defending Science from Religion, Politics stepped in and blind-sided us. :uhoh
You guys remember when Penn & Teller collected hundreds of signatures at something called WorldFest to ban dihydrogen monoxide? (H20 :rofl). Sad fact is the clueless are many, they're easily coerced, and they vote.
-
There is also the much bigger cost and it is not in dollars. The cost to our planet in the amount carbon that would be released into the atmosphere. The carbon being released now was at one time in the atmosphere or on the surface and it is causing problems now, imagine adding millions of tons more carbon that was not even here in the first place.
to stray off subject momentarily... what possible evidence is there that CO2 is "bad" for the planet? The greenhouse effect (and so called global warming) is a THEORY and not a FACT. A major ice age (the alternative to the warming we've had for the last 100,000 years or so) would do far more harm than the worst predicted effects of "global warming". Additionally if Human activities HAVE caused a slight rise in the average mean temperature on Earth, then please explain the almost identical rise (on a year by year basis) in the mean temperature on Mars and other bodies in our solar system! The real "inconvenient truth" is that our sun is an irregular variable star. Unlike the thin evidence presented by the lunatic fringe of the radical environmental movement this is an undisputed FACT and has far more to do with variations in the Earths climate than anthing humankind could do to "change" it. Do yourself a favor and research real science and not the politically motovated alternative to actual facts and observations. Maybe then you could also be a heretic, excommunicated from the church of manmade climate change, like me!
-
to stray off subject momentarily... what possible evidence is there that CO2 is "bad" for the planet? The greenhouse effect (and so called global warming) is a THEORY and not a FACT. A major ice age (the alternative to the warming we've had for the last 100,000 years or so) would do far more harm than the worst predicted effects of "global warming". Additionally if Human activities HAVE caused a slight rise in the average mean temperature on Earth, then please explain the almost identical rise (on a year by year basis) in the mean temperature on Mars and other bodies in our solar system! The real "inconvenient truth" is that our sun is an irregular variable star. Unlike the thin evidence presented by the lunatic fringe of the radical environmental movement this is an undisputed FACT and has far more to do with variations in the Earths climate than anthing humankind could do to "change" it. Do yourself a favor and research real science and not the politically motovated alternative to actual facts and observations. Maybe then you could also be a heretic, excommunicated from the church of manmade climate change, like me!
my idea is this carbon gases do assist in heating the temp of the Earth or any other planetary object that hs them. This is truth and if you read the other post that I wrote you would see that there has been no scientific evidence that says we are not increasing this as a matter of fact we are increasing the amount released into the atmosphere. Now the real question here is how much of a difference are we making. maybe it is not the majority of it (most likely not) but I think any amount that can be avoided should be. Yes the Earth and Sun have fluctuations and yes the Earth has been hotter and not really sure here but the Earth probably at some time had more CO in the atmosphere than it does now. My simple point here is we have options now maybe not perfect ones but what is perfect.
Believe it or not I do believe that we are in the middle of a heating cycle and I have seen and read some scientific evidence that says the same. Even most if not all of those say though that the most likely cause of such heatings especially in the past has been CO release and those releases have almost been exclusively from natural causes. These are volcanoes, fires burning from lightning strikes and the volcanoes as well (even before man) but what most of these are saying is that man does add to the problem not create it. This has actually been my theory all along. You say that all the increases have been from the Sun but the funny thing is when they have done rock studies and taken ice samples they find increased amounts of carbon in these samples.
Do me a favor and show me some of that non-politically motivated science that you are talking about. It is easy to say I have nothing to do with the problem as a matter of fact it is easier to provide excuses for the purposes of denial than it is to say I might be increasing the problem even if only a little. Every has a theory as to where the excess heat is coming from and we all feel pretty strongly about them. The one thing most of us agree on is it is heating up. Even in my short 35 years on Earth and living in the same area I have noticed it warming fairly dramatically. I remember when much younger the average snow storm produced at least a foot of snow, now we only get one or two and they rarely reach 6 inches.
Most likely all the facctors that we all seem to want to defend are at play. I just think if we are even a small portion of the problem then we should be doing what we can to minimize it. I usually try to look at all sides before making my decision on what I think is right not just one and I try to not take into account what works for me when I do make my decision as well.
As far as explaining the rise in temps on Mars. Why don't you show me evidence of it is rising at the same rate as Earth. I tried to search for it but was unable to find anything that lead me to that conclusion. Let alone any of the other bodies of the solar system.
Again I will say that it is most likely not any one thing that causes the Earth to heat and I am not saying that the CO side of the problem is all or even mostly from us but some of the gas that is causing some of the problem comes from human release and I feel that we should look to make this release as little as possible. We can't stop the natural order of things but we can limit the negative additions that mankind has a tendency to do.
By your response it seems that you either think I am stupid or I am talking down to anybody that has a different opinion than I do. I am not either of those. I am simply giving my take on the situation, then someone asked a question in regards to my post and now as usual someone wants to blow it out of proportion. Now once again I am reminded why I stay out of O'club
edit: Look I am not trying to sway anyone over to my opinions. I offer links to some of the places where I read some of the information that swayed me only for the purposes of showing that I did not just say well I want it to be this way so that is what I think is right. If you disagree then fine but why not show me where you got some of your opinions.
-
I guess we need to redefine where we think hydrocarbons come from, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/31/cassini.titan.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
There's all the fuel we need, how do we get it?
According with the abiotic oil origin theory the Earth was formed on same kind frozen methane meteor , or was struck by one and got deep in liquid mantle. Russians are pumping oil from 20-40000 ft deep wells drilled in solid crystalline rock that was impossible by organic material to penetrate. I read about some abandoned wells in Louisiana are refilling naturally from unknown sources.