Fuel from food crops is a BAD idea. Why wait 40 years for the possibility that climate change might cause crops to fail and starve people, when we can do that intentionally today?
OMG...I don't believe it!!! Someone actually understands...lars008 details what human's have to do to survive!!! We have to figure out how to get off this rock!!!
Here, in quebec (Canada) we have nice and beautiful hydroelecricity. Of course, it takes off few fishes, but once the damage is done, no more damage will come.
if global warming is a man made issue than the logical response is to kill man. So kill yourself in the name of mother earth. Just think how much more press you would get if you killed yourself. You would be all over CNN and the other major media and your videos would get millions more views and then copy cats would develop and ultimately co2 gasses would go down because you killed yourself.
Do you care about mother earth? Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?
You know its interesting. Personally I'm just a selfish dude who doesn't want to have to change but wanna live my way and I hate the idea of global climate change. It sounds ludicrous. But I can't help but feel this dude may have a point... other planet are also having climate changes but they all lack the one thing that makes this planet sweet ... all the hot ladies! an of course other living things... so I wanna ask
Bio-fuels like bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, etc are no alternative. They exacerbate the global competition for farmland (and thus food). We will have to lower our standard of living (say goodbye to suburbia and to SUVs).
It's my understanding that climate change/global warming isn't primarily caused by man. Sure, we can certainly do better for our planet by utilizing more sustainable methods to harness energy, etc. Truth is that ALL PLANETS in the entire solar system are experiencing the same type of cyclical temperature increase just as Earth is & this happens in cycles; it always has. Also, u guys might want to research this & the fossil fuel myth if u feel inclined to know more on these topics, just as I am.
@xSavant Good for you xSavant, though I have watched most of this guys videos and he refuses to see that 'other planets warming' and 'its the sun' as valid arguments.He and his nodding followers will ignore you.
Have you checked out the wonders of the Hemp plant as a viable bio-fuel, and its also good for plastics, paper and medicine. It grows much faster than trees and has a more massive yeild.
The reason it is not used - Logging industries. Corporatism. Something else this guy is blind to.
Just watch some of my videos & definitely watch some of Maxwell Igan's videos at TheCrowHouse DOT C0M. Look into this more. I was skeptical at 1st, too. But then, I just took a 2nd look & discovered a whole world of information. I'm glad I found it. I'm a nice smart lady here just trying to make it in this crazy world.
I know how to make a self renewing magnetic power source that will run my house...how do get myself removed from the local electrcity grid? Not as easy a question to be answered, I've called. I have been met with more political red tape, business red tape, etc. So I have a solution, however the powers that are, will make it very hard for me to stop using their power source as the equity stream I generate will slowly stop their power source....in both ways.
if you are using ethanol to drive your car than you are still using gasoline and oil. i know your asking, how is that if i am just burning ethanol WELL think of all the energy going to the growth of those crops. the seeders, harvesters, irrigation systems and Manny more so in fact you are using more oil than you thought.
@309401164 not only that think about how many people are starving to death worldwide and how many crops are being used for fuel purposes as opposed to feeding people.
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
Fuck U Jewishist Jew Shit, filling us with Jewish Controlled Propaganda, Mankind is not Responsible nor is Able to Control Global Warming you insignificant meaningless Parasite, Global Warming is indeed a natural cycle, Instead: Let's spread the word that israeli jews are Parasites thriving on US taxpayer handouts
What is called the obvious solution here, actually bypassed the obvious and goes on to a more acceptable but nearly as unworkable a solution, just to keep the topic alive. The obvious solution is to reduce the world population to about one quarter or less its present size. ie. kill off all of the middle class, leaving only the elete and dirt poor, thus problem solved. This is also probably what will happen if anything is done or not, so there is in fact to problem at all for those in control.
Come again? Is your uncle name Adolf? There is a solution. In Europe we are taking small steps forward: ie: ordinary lightbols will be off the market in 2010, Many european governments support people whe place sunpanels on their roof, etc ... Worldwide nations should take these precautions, but the governments have to help people who want to do so, because these are investments an ordinary man cannot pay alone.
ok, you don't believe our environmental problems are based in over-population, and the obvious solution is not to reduce that population. Perhaps you're right, we can add another bilion people or so in the next few years, and we can solve the problems by switching to poison-gas filled light bulbs etc and all will be well. I on the other hand believe that if we don't figure out how to curb over-population, nature eventually will, because I think, for nature, it is the obvious solution.
yep, you are actually correct but would you want to me within the one quarter who doesn't have a choice to live or die? thats what i thought... so... in order to keep living how we like to live.. i suggest expanding because i wouldn't want to kill people just because we are over populated. but if you want to kill people create diseases,educate them,etc so that the population would decrease.. or maybe we can have a 0 population increase... kind of hard to do but its another option to the moon.
I have a blog which deals with a lot of the same stuff as How it All Ends - credibility, risk management, and how climate change is portrayed in the media. I'd love for you all to check it out.
Link on my profile page, or Google "climatesight". Thanks!
face it we're doomed. people out there are just too ignorant to listen to all of this stuff. And it doesn't matter anymore, we've hit the tipping point. check it out on google and kiss our butts goodbye.
BLAH BLAH BLAH, thats all nice and stuff. But for us regular people that just need a solution. I have one of those for EVERYONE. A SOLUTION TO BOTH SIDES!!!!
HEMP HEMP HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMP. IT WILL SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jajajaja do you know my language??? jajajaja haber idiotita....hijo de 70 mil perras....ese es el primer indicio de q tienes un chingo de miedo....pero bueno.....y si crees q me voy a impresionar por tus pendejaditas nerdas...ps no fijate.....solo das pena...has de ser de esos guerillos gordos q se atragantan con las hamburguesas de mcdonalds y con el pollo kentuchy....y q ni tiene una vida social....tu unico amigo es la computadora aceptalo!!!!
this is an illectually enlightening video dumbass. why dont you try listening to the video insted of coming here to insult me loser. go back to kissing ass
ademas vives en la miseria...tu papa ha de ser un de esos vagabundos q apenas y les alcanza para los chicles......y tu jefa....ps ya sabemos a q se dedica!!!!! jajajajaja es una pobre prosti q se abre el culo para q le echen monedas!!!! si el culo!!!!! gracias...de nalgas...cabalgas,en tu lomo,pico y como,verga de mono,si no te entra te la acomodo!!!!! jajajaja vamos respondeme esa puto....y en español...haber si en realidad sabes hablarlo puto...pero nada de traductores de google eh choto!!!
a q van a un tabledance una persona cualquiera y tu hermano???
ps la persona cualquiera va a divertirse y ver viejas encueradas..
y tu hermano????
ps a buscar a tu mama,a tu abuela,a tus hermanas,atus tias,a tus primas,a tus sobrinas...a todas las conchas de tus mujeres q conoscas en tu mugrienta vida!!!! jajaja
jejeje haber....no q sabias español.....aaaaaa pero claro!!!!!!!! mejor finjo demencia senil para no seguir ofendiendo en una disputa q tienes practicamente perdida!!!!!! jajajaja pobrecito.....esta bien...te perdono solo porq no soy un aprovechon con los desvalidos!!!
..............................come on dude your still not done? isnt it enough im not stooping to ur level? what else do you want? your the winner ok. YOU WIN thats wat u want rite? ok
unless you find a way to save the world while, at the same time, making billions for the men in power, rest assured that nothing will get done. the few people who can bring about a change have all of this info. it is not a problem of conflicting science. it is one of ethics. the leaders of politics and business will not lift a finger unless it means filling their own pockets in the short run. if saving the world requires any sacrifice on their part, then we're probably doomed.
wow man i dont know who you are and i dont do computer stuff very often. i know you got a million comments and probably will never read mine. that all being said, your inspirational and i thank you for putting some actual educational and real info online. thanks man. are you a teacher? for some reason i really look up to and admire (my) teachers and you seam like another good human being who cares about people and about life. well, never gonna talk to ya ever again. you have influenced me. thanx
It's not true that nuclear power plants are no carbon solutions! I could get you the sites but they're in German. I'll see if you can find you something in English.
you said at one point in these videos that you're a science teacher. and i know why. you've taught me a lot. and i've even laughed at a couple of the corny jokes... well done sir. thank you.
Look 2 effects in the atmosphere described is CLEARY the spring mass damper from Mechanical Engineering. (Come on. The Aerosol does Cause and Effect with the Carbon.)
So that might be solution: Y(t)=e^Kt * sinJ(wt)
where K, J, and w are constants.
So where are you on the curve. Any fix can be a disaster. Show me the mathematical model.
Proof: From the video the aerosol can affects the ozone. The carbon affects the lower part of the atmosphere. As per an earlier video.
Fixing things to fast could produce the ice age too. As mentioned by the previous video.
But so could stopping emissions too lower values too quickly. As per the feedback vs gain video. Also a know open loop problem. Which is to correct too quickly.
Until the model is accurate, even slowing down could create an ice age. 2 effects is 2nd ordersys
Arghh.. "wind, solar, biodeisel".. bad ideas. Solar or wind as the major source will be as bad as fossil fuels. Covering major areas with solar is not good. Drawing megawatts out of the wind *also* causes Weather Destabilization. Biodiesel needs more farming and as has been shown, wrecks the environment pretty good all by itself. The above are like Vitimin A. Needed, but to be taken in the correct dosages or *bad* things will happen. Cases where folks don't "think it through".
No m8, I don't think you get the point. Solar and wind power is just 100% safe for the environment, the only point is: these sources of power are just not enough to sustain our quality of life and large scale economies like we got now. Not to mention these energies not always work (Ex: No sun at night. Wind is intermittent.)
Actually, it takes a great deal of energy to make solar panels and wind turbines. The metals, exotic elements (rare earths, etc) don't mine and refine themselves. The cost in terms of the whole product life cyctem from ores and raw materials to working units can consume more energy than the typical useful lifespan. Not to mention the arable land consumed on solar units *not* roof mounted and the damage to the eco system wind turbines do (kills birds and bats by the thousands).
Hahaha.. that's the irony, mate. While the "greenies" are all "Save the environment!" and "Protect the endangered species!" and are loudly proclaimimg we need these technologies, how much more damage to the environment *making* the soalar and wind equipment and *operating* said equipment does! Irony, indeed :P
Ph, forgot to mention the really bad and socially damaging effects of "biodiesel" are having.. check the record for the industries involved and check the situation in countries where "biodiesel" is produced. Net carbon emissions are, oddly enough,... higher. WTF ?!?
The problem is, alternative energy is not a real alternative. If we changed all of the cars to burn ethanol instead of gasoline it would require all of the agricultural land we have in the US to produce the ethanol. Fine if all you want to do is drive cars. Not so great if you want to also eat.
The only actual viable alternative is nuclear. Sure there is waste from nuclear plants. But that waste is not as dangerous as you think.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your silly wording is convincing many child-like (and stupid) people, while many against the alarmists agenda speak intelligently, not trying to appeal to people, but to speak the truth without making people feel stupid. They use real evidence, while you give some pictures and theories not backed up by real science.
HAHAHA. CO2 is NOT causing "global warming". It's increase in the atmosphere lags BEHIND temperature increase by about 200-800 years. That tells me temperature change affects atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. Look at "our" solar system, other planets are warming up at the same rate as "ours", so why should I believe?
If C02 lags 800 years behind temperature, then how come most of the hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years, while at the same time C02 is at the highest point ever?
Out of the ten hottest years on record (starting about 150-200 years ago, right after the Little Ice Age), SIX are before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century. Out of the five hottest years, THREE are before 1940. Even if recent years were the warmest, that can easily attributed to the development of more asphalt and buildings, as they heat the area where the climate stations (or thermometers) are, causing a skewed temperature.
Indirect? Sure, I believe that. Very indirect. It CONTRIBUTES, but it isn't the cause. If it was, parts of the atmosphere would be warming either just as fast or faster than the ground, but that isn't the case.
We have many possibilities for our future. The way to continue living is to be capable of living through the possibilities. If you can survive now eating less than you have, driving less than you have, watching tv less than you have; then if large scale destruction happens for whatever reason, (and there are many possibilities for this) you'll be more ready than you were to deal with it. = (more likely to continue) Using less= more to share with the poor= less enemies= less bad possibilities...
It took just 8 month to prove that some of your "technical solutions" are making only new problems. ("Biofuel" ->Hunger). Electric cars (toxic batteries), nuclear Fusion (more warming, Tritium) will follow. Sequestration will not work. Bet?
First part of any solution is to reduce energy consumption. If you Americans are not willing to learn riding a bicycle (for transport as well as for production of electricity), you can forget it.
Yes Tritium is dangerous and will require more security to use due to the fact that it is used in the Hydrogen bomb (terrorists anyone?). But there are research facilities that are using other fuels for Fusion, which yes are still radioactive but cannot be put to "ending mankind" use. However all your other points I do agree with :)
Please don't assume that because I'm American, I waste energy, I ride a bike whenever I can, my car gets 40 mpg I don't turn the heat or AC on, my family of 3 makes only a few lbs. of trash a week, most all of our light bulbs are CF, and we compost food. Sadly I live in Michigan, where there is almost no public transit. And I agree with you, nuclear and Biofuels are terrible.(Electric is FAIRLY good.) But I think the best new fuel is in France, they have made a car that runs on AIR.(Not wind.)
it seems like it would be easy to create some form of an alternate energy source with all the human species technological advances. But everyone is to used to tradition and unwilling to profit and harshly motivate new technologies, because of the amount of consumption, time and money it will take.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stop emitting CO2! Great. Start by taking your life. Oh... Seal your body in an air-tight container so it doesn't decompose into the atmosphere as well.
How ever on the topic of Bio-fuels in order for the enough crops to be produced to create any significant impact the planet would need to sacrifice a great majority of its "bread basket" to grow the required supply. which in return means a lower supply off required food crops. less supply = higher prices which is already evident. it also is currently being used to as a crutch by the Governments to make it appear that this is some sort of solution for fossil fuels. and causes less /continued...
This only applies if you're talking about, say, corn ethanol. There are other sources of biofuel -- some of the more promising sources to my knowledge include microorganisms that grow within cows, and algae farms (the farms not only produce biofuel, but can continue onward as a source of carbon sequestration).
There are problems with ethanol and other food-based fuel, and we'll feel the crunch soon, but that shouldn't stigmatize *all* biofuels.
We do need to be more conservative with our resources, but we also need to remove the excess greenhouse that's already there. We also need to implement planetary engineering, maybe not in the near future, but eventually. Look it up. This is the opinion of Nobel prize-winning scientists. Do a Wikipedia search for "planetary engineering". Even if all greenhouse emissions stopped instantly, the climate would continue to change well into the next century.
Yeah. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it beats the crap out of fossil fuel. I think that should be the first step against climate destabilization, ditching fossil fuel
The solution to our energy problems? FUSION POWER! Fuel for the fusion reaction can be cheaply extracted from water, fusion power has a much higher energy output than nuclear fission, and the best thing about fusion is that it's completely clean. No emmisions, no radiation.
Irishfreedom, fusion is a perfect solution except for one little thing: It doesn't work yet.
The best fusion generators we've been able to build take more power to operate than they generate. This is not a winning proposition for power plants.
A breaktrhough *would* solve this and usher in a new energy age almost overnight, but I'm not willing to gamble on that happening.
Well the truth is that they are building a prototype fusion powerplant in france, but it won't be making any energy for about 20 years, and after that it will take about the same amount of time before it could go commercial.
But the good thing is that it is happening, all the tests so far have had positive results and scientists and investors are fully confident in the future of fusion power.
But yes, an alternative source will have to be adressed until then.
it really sucks that that car thing with water wont work its to expensive to be efficient. it would cost wayyyy more than gas because it take smore energy to produce the purified chemicals of pure hidrogen and oxegen and mix them than having a regular stable one. that you dont have to split up. splitting them up costs too much. it is an awsome idea. you should talk about air cars. they have them in france. they are amaazing
The only reason it doesn't work as cheaply as fossil fuels is because fossil fuel infrastructure is already in place. Also, fossil fuels have government subsidies. If those advantages are removed (we adapt), you actually end up *saving* money using alternative energies, because they're more efficient.
For instance, you included the cost of electrolysis (splitting) against the hydrogen cells, but didn't include the refinery costs against a gas-powered car. Why? They're basically the same thing.
Not to mention the Dangers of storing Hydrogen in a vehicle (Think Hindenburg) but in reality Gasoline in more unstable...we are just more used to running around with cocktail bomb under our cars. Water is more Stable and Ive seen electrolosys chambers small enough to fit into a trunk so a viable solution for Hydrogen powered cars would be to just carry water and convert it to Hydrogen on demand that way the only volitile Hydrogen in the car at any time is the ones in the fuel lines.
This still has the problem of power. Electrolysis (splitting the water) takes more energy than hydrogen fuel cells can provide -- there's that whole second law of thermodynamics to deal with -- so if you're carrying around the water and the means to split it, you'd be better off dumping the water and using the splitting energy to power your car.
Re: Hindenberg. It had *free* hydrogen gas, not *sealed* hydrogen in a fuel cell. This can be made safely. How often does your car battery poison you?
Yes and no.Making pure Hydrogen would take more power then a car battery/Alternator could make in a relatively short time, butI am talking about using the current enificient combustion engine and it would be a waste to use pure hydrogen as 70% of it would be wasted much like 70% of gas is wasted with each stroke.Partial Electrolosys for 15% Hydrogen suspended in 85% water vapor can sustain a standard combustion engine is feesable.Might use stanless steel hoses and spark plugs to avoid rusting)
IMPLEMENT POLLUTER-PAYER PRICING. Who's going to finance changing "business as usual"? Will people afraid of change (i.e. who like their lifestyle) will act before it's too late? What incentive do $hort-term interests have? Sadly, until clean air gets a price (user/polluter-payer), nobody will take this $eriou$ly. The GCC debate has been going on for so long, yet so few applied concrete solutions. I'd focus on what's preventing change. Integrating total costs into retail costs would be a start.
**IMPLEMENT POLLUTER-PAYER PRICING** Then it will be politics as usual as there are many governments that charges a "sin tax' in one way or another. My problem with depeding on Governments and the politicians to Solve any kind of problem is they can only tax (Power to Tax= power to destroy,ask any small business that went under),regulate, or prohibit. But unless there are $8000 "Air" Cars on the Market,consumers have to buy $20,000 Gas cars. "Big Oil" is only "Big Oil" cause of Demand for Oil.
Um, "polluter-payer pricing" is basically the same thing as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (which is *NOT* a tax, I might add), and could only be enforced by a government. You're making an argument *for* regulation by saying this.
Hey, now who isn't paying attention now? The first part is a quote from another poster with be rebuttling that it would mean doing exactly what the government agencies that created ICCP wants...lol
The major reason for government-backed action is because I do not think the corporations will auto-regulate themselves: it goes against rule #1 - Profit. But when the government says the same 'suggestion', everybody listens.
Interestingly, although it'd be easy to look at that and say "there's your global warming", it would also be incorrect and dishonest (in the same way Michael Crichton was wrong and dishonest when he did pretty much the same thing in State of Fear).
See, that's just one region's weather at one point in time, which doesn't tell us anything about climate, let alone global climate, let alone global climate change.
I don't know what Michael Crichton did, and I don't really care.
Regarding what I said above, we do need science, for, what I mentioned is part of the result of the high pressure area on the Azores changing its location for the first time in many years (I'm counting my father's, but I could go far earlier). And I'm aware that there's been snow in LA this year.
Too one-off? Exactly. Things that had never happened before. Am I to ignore this because it's (arguably) too specific? Can't agree
If you were a farmer you might read the Almanac you would know about La Niña and El Niño and which extreme we are experiencing now especially with the addition of Solar Maximus, the Earth's Magnetic fields acting wonky causing a axis shift of 1/2 a degree and "the great conjuction" that is comming up in a few years That Strange gavatational pull comming from the direcion of the Sun's south Pole is odd as well...might be "Planet X" comming our way.
Yeah, that's pretty much me directly channeling Ze Frank doing "Dirty Space News" on his "The Show." I'm glad someone besides me caught the joke. You've just doubled my appreciative audience.
Look up Milankovitch Cycles (how eccentricity, obliquity, and precession affect solar exposure).
The "hotter" sections of the Milankovitch Cycles have always coincided with increased CO2 atmospheres. CO2 levels on earth do not control our orbit. It's the other way around.
Actually, CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of increased temp. By your logic, since fire causes heat, heat can't cause fire, so all those Boy Scouts with magnifying lenses are doing it wrong.
The CO2 lag was predicted a decade before it was confirmed in a paper co-authored by Hansen, and the amount of temperature increase is far beyond what the solar forcing from the cycle alone could have done (but not what the sun+CO2 could have done). The increase actually supports the GHG theories.
Alright. Exactly HOW do you think Co2 expanded out of the Ocean from heat mix with the "Air" to effect how much heat the bulk of the Troposphere traps via convection? Likewise, considering inert Co2 released by Humans is 5x heavier then Air, How do you think CO2 mixes with the composite "Air" in the to change the heat trapping properties of the Troposphere?
I am not a Climatologist, but am interested in "shake and Bake" colonization ("tera-forming" planets to meet human's needs) so have studied it somewhat and actually have run those simulations Climatologists are so fond of..though I an not an offical "expert" in the subject..so....
CO2 and temperature are coupled through feedback. Change in one leads to a change in the other. Previous glacial/interglacials driven by MC's evolve over 100's and 1000's of years.
Off the bat, the major problem with Biodesels is that cars compete with people for food in the case of Wheat,Corn,and Sugarbeet Biodesels and in turn all related products get more expensive. Why do you think Milk and Beef is more expensive after Congress allowed the Energy Companies to R&D Biofuels?
I would like to ask you what your opinion is on Global Warming Vs. Global Dimming. A decrease in the amount of sunlight reaching Earth followed by an increase in volcanic out gas which suggests that Global Warming would help the planet offset an increase in newly discovered cooling.
I didn't say I buy into that but just wanted your opinion on this which goes against everything else I've researched that says Earth will turn into a Venus like atmosphere in the coming days and Runaway Greenhouse.
Ethanol is worthless. It takes more energy to make it than it releases when burned Hydrogen may be the future, but the technology isn't there yet. Biodiesel is better, but a plug in hybrid biodiesel where you can have 0 carbon days most of the time and some emmissions when you need longer trips is probably the best. By having an engine rhat provides 2/3 of the electric power needed to power the car triples the range of the car making it usable for most consumers. most days would be 0 carbon.
As it stands now, yes. But the corn that we are usingto make ethanol is specialized hybrid types that require pesticides and fertilizers as well as big equipment. If we used sugar-cane or beets, it would be less costly. Who cares if the beets have a worm or 2; we're not going to eat them anyway.
Global warming is going off the radar quick. Peak oil is going to replace it. Our carbon emmisions are going to go down drastically whether we like it not, very very soon. It's probably already started. How many people will drive if gas is $10 a gallon? A 2 car familly will be spending $1000 a month in gas. No more Sunday drives and lots of carpooling.
The carbon itself was part of your body before you exhaled it. It became part of your body because of what you ate, which was itself made of carbon.
That means that the carbon was part of the natural carbon cycle, already active and cycling in relative balance.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel carbon has been sequestered underground for ~300 million years, outside the natural cycle, before being dumped into the atmosphere when we burn it.
See why breathing isn't a problem, but coal (say) is?
See the video How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (yes, another of this guy's videos). Then check his sources.
It's a far better explanation than I can fit in 500 characters. Still, it's not "how much" so much as "how fast".
Oil isn't always that old, but it does take a long time to be produced. It's been produced for about 300 million years. If the peak oil predictions are correct, then by now we've dumped about 150 millon years worth of it into the air... over just 200 years.
Problem is that Coal and Oil is the most common form of Solid Carbon, with Shale and a sandy version of it possible. And it's a type of rock form deep earth like diamond and gems not "fossil fuels" which is why spent oil wells here & there are currently seeping the "Earths black blood" though not fast enough to re-open the well. Problem isn't Global Warming via Co2 dumping, it's Acid rain from the other shit, and putting so much Co2 into a Lake that it suddenly explodes out in a cloud of death.
TheRealArchAngel uses a tactic known as the "Gish Gallop" - basically to spread more lies in 5 minutes than would be feasible to dispel in one hour.
When faced with a scientific question, trust the more than well established scientific concensus. TheRealArchAngel is just trying to waste your time - don't fall for it.
What Lies? Co2 is 5x Heavier then Air & can't float up into the Atmosphere or magically change the GHG component in Air or alter the "heat trapping properties" of Air. The Plankton growth/death darken the Sea which makes the Sea hotter/cooler which not only causes "wind" along with precipitation,Weather,& Sea currents when interacting with the Polar Ice not "CO2" and The Air is heated via convection from the mass under it, not like Microwave oven where Co2 "vibrates" as Heat bounces up and down
If CO2 "can't float up" then wouldn't that mean it would pool around our feet? Does plankton not sink when it dies? Ever thought that microwaves are also naturally occurring and not just in ovens? Not sure your comments capture the whole story...
You're using bits and pieces of science in an incomplete and inaccurate way.
Pretty much. Which is why before we run out of oil, if we keep up business as usual, prices for oil-based fuels will SKYROCKET even while we still pump it, because it'll be too valuable as a building material to use as a fuel supply. It's also used to produce synthetic materials such as nylon as well as plastic.
Interestingly, by switching from hydrocarbon-based fuels, we not only cut carbon emissions, but also a very large demand for oil (as fuel), which kills two birds with one stone.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"First, find alternative energies."
LOL...so naive. We've been trying to find alternative sources of energy for 30+ years...this reminds me of the old Steve Martin joke...how do you avoid paying taxes on a million dollars? First, get a million dollars....
There ARE alternative energies available right now, but none I know are viable and affordable. We are a long, long way from being able to simply STOP driving cars, using coal, etc.
The reason they aren't affordable is because our infrastructure is set up for fossil fuels, making fossil fuels extremely cheap to produce. It's not because the alternatives are inherently more expensive, just that fossil fuels get a head start.
As for "viable"? Several alternatives are being explored (for instance, decentralized solar generation in Germany) and the results consistently appear positive (in that people would use them and their standard of living doesn't change substantially).
To use your "monkey thrashing" analogy, you are saying that if we are steering right and the car lurches to the right from a blown tire, we should simply steer back to a neutral position. A smarter response is to MANAGE our response based upon our CURRENT situation. Your technical response selection list is far too limited, too. There are other options of adjusting the geospheric energy balance...and also to manage our response to natural climate change.
Gondring, 1.What exactly do you mean by "managing our response based upon our current situation" and "adjusting the geospheric energy balance"? If you are referring to other technological solutions that mitigate climate change, please specify what they are or direct us to a site where we can learn about them. Most people watching this video probably would appreciate your input.
Your analogy of the car doesn't really fit. In a sense we are trying to avoid the tire being blown in the first place. Once the tire is blown... we're either totally screwed or... what we get out of the car and fix it? Which according to you analogy would imply an complete "stop" and "repair" of our society and energy situation? Whether your other points are correct, I'm not sure, but its certainly a bad analogy.
Finally, other alternatives, like ethanol which is driving up the price of food, or wind that is at best 20% efficient. Check these out. You biggist assumption is that we can turn to alternatives AND keep our standard of living. Also that we have the time to convert to alternatives to the scale we need.
So instead of claiming AGCC is not true you are claiming we cant completely fix the problem so we wont do anything?
The ocean at the moment is abosrbing CO2, it may be that later when the oceans warm a few deg it will will emit it again, but in the short term if we only lower our emissions it will grealty slow the rate at which atmospheric CO2 rises. When you do the math, on say nuclear you choose the extreme of totally rreeplacing coalwiht just nuclear. BTW peak uranium is coming too.
Yes, peak U is coming, earliest estimates I've read is that current consumption is at about 20-30 years out for peak. All bets are off if a lot more plants are built, which will be. Drop in CO2 emissions are coming, just not voluntary.
Alternatives in general. Problem is scale. Example, and do the calc, how many nuke plants will it take to create enough energy to power all cars electically? Do it. Then tell me the number. I've done it. Unscalable.
Greg I'm highly disappointed. HYDROGEN!!!??? I would have expected you to reject that outright as it take MORE energy to make, store and transport hydrogen than you get out it (best case is 30% return). Hydrogen can NEVER (yep NEVER) replace FF as a transport fuel. It's a non-starter.
Although this attitude has probably been argued at every point in human history, its does make sense in the face of a major catastrophe. If we don't do something NOW with what we already have, we may be to F*(#ed to implement or discover better technology later.
You also said somewhere else there was 'no evidence' when there is, just there is no evidence you accept or think worth reading about. A solar cell economy is possible. The solar cells make enough power to make new ones. Also who said we had to get to zero carbon real soon. We need to lower our CO2, instead of raise it. Also as you are aware sometime after peak oil, and peak the other non renewables we will go to very low or zero carbon.
Solar cells can't make plastic, can't mine silcon, those require FF. We can't build these alternatives fast enough. Calculate how many sqr miles of panels are required, how long it would take to build them, and it will open your eyes. As for peak oil, read The Oil Drum last couple days. Economic crash next year? Looks like it just might.
Fuel from food crops is a BAD idea. Why wait 40 years for the possibility that climate change might cause crops to fail and starve people, when we can do that intentionally today?
SSedmak 5 months ago
I'm a huge fan of Leon Panetta. A very important man in US politics. A very smart man and a man that can go the distance.
committeesq 6 months ago
So how are we doing now? Are we coming along nicely? Are we in time and can sit back now? Is panic the state of mind to be in now?
committeesq 6 months ago
OMG...I don't believe it!!! Someone actually understands...lars008 details what human's have to do to survive!!! We have to figure out how to get off this rock!!!
Oh, and building wind turbines won't help....
ajmo7298 6 months ago
eat well excersize,,, die anyway,,,
spend tons of money on idiotic social issues,,, die anyway,,,
Sun remains a main sequence star, continually growing warmer and brighter by ~10% every 1 billion years.
no matter what you do,,, the sun will GET you in the end,,,
unless you LEAVE,,, that is where mankind needs to spend its money,,,
on LEAVING,,,
lars008 7 months ago
Here, in quebec (Canada) we have nice and beautiful hydroelecricity. Of course, it takes off few fishes, but once the damage is done, no more damage will come.
NNoradIV 1 year ago
if global warming is a man made issue than the logical response is to kill man. So kill yourself in the name of mother earth. Just think how much more press you would get if you killed yourself. You would be all over CNN and the other major media and your videos would get millions more views and then copy cats would develop and ultimately co2 gasses would go down because you killed yourself.
Do you care about mother earth? Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?
sparky303 1 year ago
You know its interesting. Personally I'm just a selfish dude who doesn't want to have to change but wanna live my way and I hate the idea of global climate change. It sounds ludicrous. But I can't help but feel this dude may have a point... other planet are also having climate changes but they all lack the one thing that makes this planet sweet ... all the hot ladies! an of course other living things... so I wanna ask
Soulcrusher105 1 year ago
Bio-fuels like bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, etc are no alternative. They exacerbate the global competition for farmland (and thus food). We will have to lower our standard of living (say goodbye to suburbia and to SUVs).
skralbow 1 year ago
It's my understanding that climate change/global warming isn't primarily caused by man. Sure, we can certainly do better for our planet by utilizing more sustainable methods to harness energy, etc. Truth is that ALL PLANETS in the entire solar system are experiencing the same type of cyclical temperature increase just as Earth is & this happens in cycles; it always has. Also, u guys might want to research this & the fossil fuel myth if u feel inclined to know more on these topics, just as I am.
xSavant 1 year ago
@xSavant Good for you xSavant, though I have watched most of this guys videos and he refuses to see that 'other planets warming' and 'its the sun' as valid arguments.He and his nodding followers will ignore you.
Have you checked out the wonders of the Hemp plant as a viable bio-fuel, and its also good for plastics, paper and medicine. It grows much faster than trees and has a more massive yeild.
The reason it is not used - Logging industries. Corporatism. Something else this guy is blind to.
bribeanbabybopdelux 1 year ago
@xSavant Can you give any facts to support your claim? I'm sure you can't. (Anecdotes like "what goes up must come down" don't count...)
skralbow 1 year ago
@skralbow
Just watch some of my videos & definitely watch some of Maxwell Igan's videos at TheCrowHouse DOT C0M. Look into this more. I was skeptical at 1st, too. But then, I just took a 2nd look & discovered a whole world of information. I'm glad I found it. I'm a nice smart lady here just trying to make it in this crazy world.
xSavant 1 year ago
ZIETGEIST ORIANTATION AODSCRARECROW
CHECK THEM OUT &LETS START TO change for the better. great video mate
peace love!!
Fixitorfuckit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if your disgusted with this teachers misuse of taxpayer funds call his boss @ Central High School
(503) 606-2217 his name is greg craven
beatlemaniac1000 1 year ago
I know how to make a self renewing magnetic power source that will run my house...how do get myself removed from the local electrcity grid? Not as easy a question to be answered, I've called. I have been met with more political red tape, business red tape, etc. So I have a solution, however the powers that are, will make it very hard for me to stop using their power source as the equity stream I generate will slowly stop their power source....in both ways.
eieif 2 years ago
if you are using ethanol to drive your car than you are still using gasoline and oil. i know your asking, how is that if i am just burning ethanol WELL think of all the energy going to the growth of those crops. the seeders, harvesters, irrigation systems and Manny more so in fact you are using more oil than you thought.
309401164 2 years ago 6
You obviously haven't heard of wind farms.
Aluenvey 1 year ago
@309401164 Darn! No such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
bassackward360 1 year ago
@309401164 not only that think about how many people are starving to death worldwide and how many crops are being used for fuel purposes as opposed to feeding people.
sparky303 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
pharmgateway howitallends
PharmGateway 2 years ago
the reason to find remewables is because we will run out eventually
geothermal is much better idea than nuclear or wind.
lets not use food to make fuel and drive up food prices and starve people in poor countries
Check out this graph:
live search this:
Is Global Warming on the Wane?
How Solar Goes Polar
found on farmers almanac page.
mean temp. increase over last centry:
about 1 deg F
peterbourgon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck U Jewishist Jew Shit, filling us with Jewish Controlled Propaganda, Mankind is not Responsible nor is Able to Control Global Warming you insignificant meaningless Parasite, Global Warming is indeed a natural cycle, Instead: Let's spread the word that israeli jews are Parasites thriving on US taxpayer handouts
moaninglory 2 years ago
What is called the obvious solution here, actually bypassed the obvious and goes on to a more acceptable but nearly as unworkable a solution, just to keep the topic alive. The obvious solution is to reduce the world population to about one quarter or less its present size. ie. kill off all of the middle class, leaving only the elete and dirt poor, thus problem solved. This is also probably what will happen if anything is done or not, so there is in fact to problem at all for those in control.
waysworth 2 years ago
Come again? Is your uncle name Adolf? There is a solution. In Europe we are taking small steps forward: ie: ordinary lightbols will be off the market in 2010, Many european governments support people whe place sunpanels on their roof, etc ... Worldwide nations should take these precautions, but the governments have to help people who want to do so, because these are investments an ordinary man cannot pay alone.
MaToHim 2 years ago 4
ok, you don't believe our environmental problems are based in over-population, and the obvious solution is not to reduce that population. Perhaps you're right, we can add another bilion people or so in the next few years, and we can solve the problems by switching to poison-gas filled light bulbs etc and all will be well. I on the other hand believe that if we don't figure out how to curb over-population, nature eventually will, because I think, for nature, it is the obvious solution.
waysworth 2 years ago
yep, you are actually correct but would you want to me within the one quarter who doesn't have a choice to live or die? thats what i thought... so... in order to keep living how we like to live.. i suggest expanding because i wouldn't want to kill people just because we are over populated. but if you want to kill people create diseases,educate them,etc so that the population would decrease.. or maybe we can have a 0 population increase... kind of hard to do but its another option to the moon.
sniped101 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey there everyone,
I have a blog which deals with a lot of the same stuff as How it All Ends - credibility, risk management, and how climate change is portrayed in the media. I'd love for you all to check it out.
Link on my profile page, or Google "climatesight". Thanks!
rileannas 2 years ago
You could start a TV show
moriahid 2 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
☻/
/▌
/ \1. copy and paste
2. send this to 2 other videos.
3. hold your breath for 10 seconds
4. press refresh twice
3. LOOK AT YOUR BACKGROUND
Hood4lyfe85 2 years ago
your so full of crap. lol
golfprobro4eagles 2 years ago
Yeah dude. Screw facts! What have they ever done for us anyway.
ViperXXXXXXX 2 years ago 2
lolz in pants!
Nowekian 2 years ago
face it we're doomed. people out there are just too ignorant to listen to all of this stuff. And it doesn't matter anymore, we've hit the tipping point. check it out on google and kiss our butts goodbye.
Eagles895 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is just as stupid as your hat.
scudlington 2 years ago
BLAH BLAH BLAH, thats all nice and stuff. But for us regular people that just need a solution. I have one of those for EVERYONE. A SOLUTION TO BOTH SIDES!!!!
HEMP HEMP HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMP. IT WILL SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dlgirt 2 years ago
You have really influenced me
1speedyguy 2 years ago
why did you blocked me?? dumbass???? are you scared??? jajajaja
prelarvh012 2 years ago
your that much of a loser huh? well i blocked you case i didnt want anymore of your bullshit.. im not scared of a loser.
oh and
ishi gi na isi shi. nne gi na ara ukwu gi.
hehehe you dont know my language bitch but i know spanish loser. hahaha wow you suck
1speedyguy 2 years ago
jajajaja do you know my language??? jajajaja haber idiotita....hijo de 70 mil perras....ese es el primer indicio de q tienes un chingo de miedo....pero bueno.....y si crees q me voy a impresionar por tus pendejaditas nerdas...ps no fijate.....solo das pena...has de ser de esos guerillos gordos q se atragantan con las hamburguesas de mcdonalds y con el pollo kentuchy....y q ni tiene una vida social....tu unico amigo es la computadora aceptalo!!!!
prelarvh012 2 years ago
wowowo i dont know spanish that well lol well anyway this is over keep argueing with your self and kissing mirandas ass
Im not going to insult you anymore your a wast of time
1speedyguy 2 years ago
this is an illectually enlightening video dumbass. why dont you try listening to the video insted of coming here to insult me loser. go back to kissing ass
1speedyguy 2 years ago
your mama is a dumbass for giving birth to you. your ilagitament probably!
1speedyguy 2 years ago
ademas vives en la miseria...tu papa ha de ser un de esos vagabundos q apenas y les alcanza para los chicles......y tu jefa....ps ya sabemos a q se dedica!!!!! jajajajaja es una pobre prosti q se abre el culo para q le echen monedas!!!! si el culo!!!!! gracias...de nalgas...cabalgas,en tu lomo,pico y como,verga de mono,si no te entra te la acomodo!!!!! jajajaja vamos respondeme esa puto....y en español...haber si en realidad sabes hablarlo puto...pero nada de traductores de google eh choto!!!
prelarvh012 2 years ago
blah blah blah.....its over stop waisting your life,
1speedyguy 2 years ago
don't cry little girl.......i'm a good person.....i forgive you!!! jajajajajaja
prelarvh012 2 years ago
a y por ahi te va un chiste!!!
a q van a un tabledance una persona cualquiera y tu hermano???
ps la persona cualquiera va a divertirse y ver viejas encueradas..
y tu hermano????
ps a buscar a tu mama,a tu abuela,a tus hermanas,atus tias,a tus primas,a tus sobrinas...a todas las conchas de tus mujeres q conoscas en tu mugrienta vida!!!! jajaja
prelarvh012 2 years ago
still talking? you are a gurl arent you? ive told you im not going to insult you anymore im just telling you the truth about miranda dude.
ava!
1speedyguy 2 years ago
jejeje haber....no q sabias español.....aaaaaa pero claro!!!!!!!! mejor finjo demencia senil para no seguir ofendiendo en una disputa q tienes practicamente perdida!!!!!! jajajaja pobrecito.....esta bien...te perdono solo porq no soy un aprovechon con los desvalidos!!!
prelarvh012 2 years ago
don't cry dude!!!! jajajajaja
prelarvh012 2 years ago
..............................come on dude your still not done? isnt it enough im not stooping to ur level? what else do you want? your the winner ok. YOU WIN thats wat u want rite? ok
1speedyguy 2 years ago
it's not pride.....i just want to make you know that you are wrong.....it's not for me....it's for you!!! JAJA
prelarvh012 2 years ago
Ok now your actually trying to talk like A sensible person instead of throwing every insult you can at me. ok so what is it im wrong about?
1speedyguy 2 years ago
don't you understand the sarcasm???
prelarvh012 2 years ago
well at least your trying to be mature
: )
1speedyguy 2 years ago
unless you find a way to save the world while, at the same time, making billions for the men in power, rest assured that nothing will get done. the few people who can bring about a change have all of this info. it is not a problem of conflicting science. it is one of ethics. the leaders of politics and business will not lift a finger unless it means filling their own pockets in the short run. if saving the world requires any sacrifice on their part, then we're probably doomed.
charbuk 3 years ago
A comet is over due to hit the earth. Better build everything one mile deep in the earth. Doing nothing will destroy us. Someday.
Starstreamtracker 3 years ago
Great vid, keep it up.
peterukk 3 years ago
i put my money on a meteor or a war happening b4 global warming.
gloalath 3 years ago
How are you not on the lecture circuit?
evanrickett 3 years ago 5
No one's offered, I suppose.
wonderingmind42 3 years ago
wow man i dont know who you are and i dont do computer stuff very often. i know you got a million comments and probably will never read mine. that all being said, your inspirational and i thank you for putting some actual educational and real info online. thanks man. are you a teacher? for some reason i really look up to and admire (my) teachers and you seam like another good human being who cares about people and about life. well, never gonna talk to ya ever again. you have influenced me. thanx
bamfthm 3 years ago
we should get a reallllly big carbon net and scoop a bunch out of the atmosphere then bury it.
Caw9000 3 years ago
It's not true that nuclear power plants are no carbon solutions! I could get you the sites but they're in German. I'll see if you can find you something in English.
roecla 3 years ago
you said at one point in these videos that you're a science teacher. and i know why. you've taught me a lot. and i've even laughed at a couple of the corny jokes... well done sir. thank you.
josda1000 3 years ago
Only 500 chars. Maybe I better say it right.
y"(t) +Ay'(t) + By(t) = C
Look 2 effects in the atmosphere described is CLEARY the spring mass damper from Mechanical Engineering. (Come on. The Aerosol does Cause and Effect with the Carbon.)
So that might be solution: Y(t)=e^Kt * sinJ(wt)
where K, J, and w are constants.
So where are you on the curve. Any fix can be a disaster. Show me the mathematical model.
Show me that it is accurate.
ted77756 3 years ago
Proof: From the video the aerosol can affects the ozone. The carbon affects the lower part of the atmosphere. As per an earlier video.
Fixing things to fast could produce the ice age too. As mentioned by the previous video.
But so could stopping emissions too lower values too quickly. As per the feedback vs gain video. Also a know open loop problem. Which is to correct too quickly.
Until the model is accurate, even slowing down could create an ice age. 2 effects is 2nd ordersys
ted77756 3 years ago
Finally, you said it!!! Remember the steering the boat analogy.
Actually fixing things could produce and ice age. The boat could over-correct!!!
So the mathematical model should be tested and accurate.
Then you showed harmonics. Where are we on the curve. + or - . Then!!! Adaptive correct!!!
ted77756 3 years ago
Arghh.. "wind, solar, biodeisel".. bad ideas. Solar or wind as the major source will be as bad as fossil fuels. Covering major areas with solar is not good. Drawing megawatts out of the wind *also* causes Weather Destabilization. Biodiesel needs more farming and as has been shown, wrecks the environment pretty good all by itself. The above are like Vitimin A. Needed, but to be taken in the correct dosages or *bad* things will happen. Cases where folks don't "think it through".
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
No m8, I don't think you get the point. Solar and wind power is just 100% safe for the environment, the only point is: these sources of power are just not enough to sustain our quality of life and large scale economies like we got now. Not to mention these energies not always work (Ex: No sun at night. Wind is intermittent.)
T0B0KKE 3 years ago
Actually, it takes a great deal of energy to make solar panels and wind turbines. The metals, exotic elements (rare earths, etc) don't mine and refine themselves. The cost in terms of the whole product life cyctem from ores and raw materials to working units can consume more energy than the typical useful lifespan. Not to mention the arable land consumed on solar units *not* roof mounted and the damage to the eco system wind turbines do (kills birds and bats by the thousands).
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Tbh, screw with the birds and bats, for the greater good!
T0B0KKE 3 years ago
Hahaha.. that's the irony, mate. While the "greenies" are all "Save the environment!" and "Protect the endangered species!" and are loudly proclaimimg we need these technologies, how much more damage to the environment *making* the soalar and wind equipment and *operating* said equipment does! Irony, indeed :P
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Ph, forgot to mention the really bad and socially damaging effects of "biodiesel" are having.. check the record for the industries involved and check the situation in countries where "biodiesel" is produced. Net carbon emissions are, oddly enough,... higher. WTF ?!?
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
The problem is, alternative energy is not a real alternative. If we changed all of the cars to burn ethanol instead of gasoline it would require all of the agricultural land we have in the US to produce the ethanol. Fine if all you want to do is drive cars. Not so great if you want to also eat.
The only actual viable alternative is nuclear. Sure there is waste from nuclear plants. But that waste is not as dangerous as you think.
elzoog 3 years ago 2
Water vapor is a very very very powerful greenhouse gas.
manwihthat 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your silly wording is convincing many child-like (and stupid) people, while many against the alarmists agenda speak intelligently, not trying to appeal to people, but to speak the truth without making people feel stupid. They use real evidence, while you give some pictures and theories not backed up by real science.
flyDEVIL 3 years ago
HAHAHA. CO2 is NOT causing "global warming". It's increase in the atmosphere lags BEHIND temperature increase by about 200-800 years. That tells me temperature change affects atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. Look at "our" solar system, other planets are warming up at the same rate as "ours", so why should I believe?
flyDEVIL 3 years ago
If C02 lags 800 years behind temperature, then how come most of the hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years, while at the same time C02 is at the highest point ever?
Marth48 3 years ago
Out of the ten hottest years on record (starting about 150-200 years ago, right after the Little Ice Age), SIX are before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century. Out of the five hottest years, THREE are before 1940. Even if recent years were the warmest, that can easily attributed to the development of more asphalt and buildings, as they heat the area where the climate stations (or thermometers) are, causing a skewed temperature.
flyDEVIL 3 years ago
I believe that point is discussed in the last "Mechanics of GCC" video, or one of the "Scare Tactics" videos.
pauldwaite 3 years ago
CO2 is an indirect cause of GCC through presence in the atmosphere.
GCC is actually taught in the geography course in Ireland, it's accepted as fact over here and we're working to do something about it.
glckenspield 3 years ago 2
Indirect? Sure, I believe that. Very indirect. It CONTRIBUTES, but it isn't the cause. If it was, parts of the atmosphere would be warming either just as fast or faster than the ground, but that isn't the case.
flyDEVIL 3 years ago
We have many possibilities for our future. The way to continue living is to be capable of living through the possibilities. If you can survive now eating less than you have, driving less than you have, watching tv less than you have; then if large scale destruction happens for whatever reason, (and there are many possibilities for this) you'll be more ready than you were to deal with it. = (more likely to continue) Using less= more to share with the poor= less enemies= less bad possibilities...
jimopenup 3 years ago
1/2
Hello, wonderingmind
It took just 8 month to prove that some of your "technical solutions" are making only new problems. ("Biofuel" ->Hunger). Electric cars (toxic batteries), nuclear Fusion (more warming, Tritium) will follow. Sequestration will not work. Bet?
First part of any solution is to reduce energy consumption. If you Americans are not willing to learn riding a bicycle (for transport as well as for production of electricity), you can forget it.
(to continue)
Rauskucker 3 years ago
2/2
2nd step is using wind-power and solar power.
If you want to see a living standard that is appropriate for humans: have a visit to Africa.
3rd step: mankind has to find a way to reduce it's number in a peaceful and just way.
Maybe, that 1.000.000.000 people can live here for a long time (and begin to travel the galaxy one day), if they behave.
8.000.000.000 can't, whatever "solutions" they try.
OK, let's see what "political solutions" you have to offer. I will come to that later.
Rauskucker 3 years ago
Yes Tritium is dangerous and will require more security to use due to the fact that it is used in the Hydrogen bomb (terrorists anyone?). But there are research facilities that are using other fuels for Fusion, which yes are still radioactive but cannot be put to "ending mankind" use. However all your other points I do agree with :)
thecore12345 3 years ago
Please don't assume that because I'm American, I waste energy, I ride a bike whenever I can, my car gets 40 mpg I don't turn the heat or AC on, my family of 3 makes only a few lbs. of trash a week, most all of our light bulbs are CF, and we compost food. Sadly I live in Michigan, where there is almost no public transit. And I agree with you, nuclear and Biofuels are terrible.(Electric is FAIRLY good.) But I think the best new fuel is in France, they have made a car that runs on AIR.(Not wind.)
Marth48 3 years ago
Fusion power = solution to all this
Ready in 2050? sooner with more funding.
(Less funding is required than would be required to use ineffective alternative sources)
Realpra 3 years ago
it seems like it would be easy to create some form of an alternate energy source with all the human species technological advances. But everyone is to used to tradition and unwilling to profit and harshly motivate new technologies, because of the amount of consumption, time and money it will take.
agentsmiley182 3 years ago
lov your vids keep up the good work.
callToPlay 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stop emitting CO2! Great. Start by taking your life. Oh... Seal your body in an air-tight container so it doesn't decompose into the atmosphere as well.
ronpaul2016 3 years ago
How ever on the topic of Bio-fuels in order for the enough crops to be produced to create any significant impact the planet would need to sacrifice a great majority of its "bread basket" to grow the required supply. which in return means a lower supply off required food crops. less supply = higher prices which is already evident. it also is currently being used to as a crutch by the Governments to make it appear that this is some sort of solution for fossil fuels. and causes less /continued...
MariustheLemur 3 years ago
money to be injected into implementing the better renewable choices you've listed. or at the very lest the stop gab measure of nuclear power.
MariustheLemur 3 years ago 2
MariustheLemur:
This only applies if you're talking about, say, corn ethanol. There are other sources of biofuel -- some of the more promising sources to my knowledge include microorganisms that grow within cows, and algae farms (the farms not only produce biofuel, but can continue onward as a source of carbon sequestration).
There are problems with ethanol and other food-based fuel, and we'll feel the crunch soon, but that shouldn't stigmatize *all* biofuels.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago 2
We do need to be more conservative with our resources, but we also need to remove the excess greenhouse that's already there. We also need to implement planetary engineering, maybe not in the near future, but eventually. Look it up. This is the opinion of Nobel prize-winning scientists. Do a Wikipedia search for "planetary engineering". Even if all greenhouse emissions stopped instantly, the climate would continue to change well into the next century.
Emperorlawson 3 years ago
France gets 78% of its energy from nuclear power plants. I think we get 60% from coal.
tadaa11 3 years ago
Yeah. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it beats the crap out of fossil fuel. I think that should be the first step against climate destabilization, ditching fossil fuel
Emperorlawson 3 years ago
The solution to our energy problems? FUSION POWER! Fuel for the fusion reaction can be cheaply extracted from water, fusion power has a much higher energy output than nuclear fission, and the best thing about fusion is that it's completely clean. No emmisions, no radiation.
Irishfreedom 3 years ago
Irishfreedom, fusion is a perfect solution except for one little thing: It doesn't work yet.
The best fusion generators we've been able to build take more power to operate than they generate. This is not a winning proposition for power plants.
A breaktrhough *would* solve this and usher in a new energy age almost overnight, but I'm not willing to gamble on that happening.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
Well the truth is that they are building a prototype fusion powerplant in france, but it won't be making any energy for about 20 years, and after that it will take about the same amount of time before it could go commercial.
But the good thing is that it is happening, all the tests so far have had positive results and scientists and investors are fully confident in the future of fusion power.
But yes, an alternative source will have to be adressed until then.
Irishfreedom 3 years ago
it really sucks that that car thing with water wont work its to expensive to be efficient. it would cost wayyyy more than gas because it take smore energy to produce the purified chemicals of pure hidrogen and oxegen and mix them than having a regular stable one. that you dont have to split up. splitting them up costs too much. it is an awsome idea. you should talk about air cars. they have them in france. they are amaazing
cluelesscheese1 4 years ago
The only reason it doesn't work as cheaply as fossil fuels is because fossil fuel infrastructure is already in place. Also, fossil fuels have government subsidies. If those advantages are removed (we adapt), you actually end up *saving* money using alternative energies, because they're more efficient.
For instance, you included the cost of electrolysis (splitting) against the hydrogen cells, but didn't include the refinery costs against a gas-powered car. Why? They're basically the same thing.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Priceless.
Thpiritualypragmatic 4 years ago
Not to mention the Dangers of storing Hydrogen in a vehicle (Think Hindenburg) but in reality Gasoline in more unstable...we are just more used to running around with cocktail bomb under our cars. Water is more Stable and Ive seen electrolosys chambers small enough to fit into a trunk so a viable solution for Hydrogen powered cars would be to just carry water and convert it to Hydrogen on demand that way the only volitile Hydrogen in the car at any time is the ones in the fuel lines.
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
This still has the problem of power. Electrolysis (splitting the water) takes more energy than hydrogen fuel cells can provide -- there's that whole second law of thermodynamics to deal with -- so if you're carrying around the water and the means to split it, you'd be better off dumping the water and using the splitting energy to power your car.
Re: Hindenberg. It had *free* hydrogen gas, not *sealed* hydrogen in a fuel cell. This can be made safely. How often does your car battery poison you?
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Yes and no.Making pure Hydrogen would take more power then a car battery/Alternator could make in a relatively short time, butI am talking about using the current enificient combustion engine and it would be a waste to use pure hydrogen as 70% of it would be wasted much like 70% of gas is wasted with each stroke.Partial Electrolosys for 15% Hydrogen suspended in 85% water vapor can sustain a standard combustion engine is feesable.Might use stanless steel hoses and spark plugs to avoid rusting)
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
dude. hold a semenar with the fuckin president
cluelesscheese1 4 years ago
IMPLEMENT POLLUTER-PAYER PRICING. Who's going to finance changing "business as usual"? Will people afraid of change (i.e. who like their lifestyle) will act before it's too late? What incentive do $hort-term interests have? Sadly, until clean air gets a price (user/polluter-payer), nobody will take this $eriou$ly. The GCC debate has been going on for so long, yet so few applied concrete solutions. I'd focus on what's preventing change. Integrating total costs into retail costs would be a start.
WhatIsNotSeen 4 years ago
**IMPLEMENT POLLUTER-PAYER PRICING** Then it will be politics as usual as there are many governments that charges a "sin tax' in one way or another. My problem with depeding on Governments and the politicians to Solve any kind of problem is they can only tax (Power to Tax= power to destroy,ask any small business that went under),regulate, or prohibit. But unless there are $8000 "Air" Cars on the Market,consumers have to buy $20,000 Gas cars. "Big Oil" is only "Big Oil" cause of Demand for Oil.
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
Um, "polluter-payer pricing" is basically the same thing as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (which is *NOT* a tax, I might add), and could only be enforced by a government. You're making an argument *for* regulation by saying this.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
Hey, now who isn't paying attention now? The first part is a quote from another poster with be rebuttling that it would mean doing exactly what the government agencies that created ICCP wants...lol
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
The major reason for government-backed action is because I do not think the corporations will auto-regulate themselves: it goes against rule #1 - Profit. But when the government says the same 'suggestion', everybody listens.
WhatIsNotSeen 3 years ago 3
We're clearly idiotic puppets of the oil-based economy.
Climate change is R-E-A-L, and I don't need to be a scientist to see that trees are blooming in February... and where's the snow?
deliriox 4 years ago
Interestingly, although it'd be easy to look at that and say "there's your global warming", it would also be incorrect and dishonest (in the same way Michael Crichton was wrong and dishonest when he did pretty much the same thing in State of Fear).
See, that's just one region's weather at one point in time, which doesn't tell us anything about climate, let alone global climate, let alone global climate change.
I say this as a very warm warmer, by the way.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I don't know what Michael Crichton did, and I don't really care.
Regarding what I said above, we do need science, for, what I mentioned is part of the result of the high pressure area on the Azores changing its location for the first time in many years (I'm counting my father's, but I could go far earlier). And I'm aware that there's been snow in LA this year.
Too one-off? Exactly. Things that had never happened before. Am I to ignore this because it's (arguably) too specific? Can't agree
deliriox 4 years ago
If you were a farmer you might read the Almanac you would know about La Niña and El Niño and which extreme we are experiencing now especially with the addition of Solar Maximus, the Earth's Magnetic fields acting wonky causing a axis shift of 1/2 a degree and "the great conjuction" that is comming up in a few years That Strange gavatational pull comming from the direcion of the Sun's south Pole is odd as well...might be "Planet X" comming our way.
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
great video. Im doing a project on how global warming is fake. Great Videos
18masterkyle 4 years ago
6:14 (tee-hee)
iiopen 4 years ago
Yeah, that's pretty much me directly channeling Ze Frank doing "Dirty Space News" on his "The Show." I'm glad someone besides me caught the joke. You've just doubled my appreciative audience.
wonderingmind42 4 years ago
Look up Milankovitch Cycles (how eccentricity, obliquity, and precession affect solar exposure).
The "hotter" sections of the Milankovitch Cycles have always coincided with increased CO2 atmospheres. CO2 levels on earth do not control our orbit. It's the other way around.
iandarken 4 years ago
Actually, CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of increased temp. By your logic, since fire causes heat, heat can't cause fire, so all those Boy Scouts with magnifying lenses are doing it wrong.
The CO2 lag was predicted a decade before it was confirmed in a paper co-authored by Hansen, and the amount of temperature increase is far beyond what the solar forcing from the cycle alone could have done (but not what the sun+CO2 could have done). The increase actually supports the GHG theories.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Alright. Exactly HOW do you think Co2 expanded out of the Ocean from heat mix with the "Air" to effect how much heat the bulk of the Troposphere traps via convection? Likewise, considering inert Co2 released by Humans is 5x heavier then Air, How do you think CO2 mixes with the composite "Air" in the to change the heat trapping properties of the Troposphere?
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
I am not a Climatologist, but am interested in "shake and Bake" colonization ("tera-forming" planets to meet human's needs) so have studied it somewhat and actually have run those simulations Climatologists are so fond of..though I an not an offical "expert" in the subject..so....
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
Orbit? CO2 controlling our *orbit*?
CO2 and temperature are coupled through feedback. Change in one leads to a change in the other. Previous glacial/interglacials driven by MC's evolve over 100's and 1000's of years.
waspbloke 4 years ago
Off the bat, the major problem with Biodesels is that cars compete with people for food in the case of Wheat,Corn,and Sugarbeet Biodesels and in turn all related products get more expensive. Why do you think Milk and Beef is more expensive after Congress allowed the Energy Companies to R&D Biofuels?
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
Uranium...pft-pft-you are the best lol
shewantsrevenger22 4 years ago
I would like to ask you what your opinion is on Global Warming Vs. Global Dimming. A decrease in the amount of sunlight reaching Earth followed by an increase in volcanic out gas which suggests that Global Warming would help the planet offset an increase in newly discovered cooling.
I didn't say I buy into that but just wanted your opinion on this which goes against everything else I've researched that says Earth will turn into a Venus like atmosphere in the coming days and Runaway Greenhouse.
proverbialpinkteddy 4 years ago
Ethanol is worthless. It takes more energy to make it than it releases when burned Hydrogen may be the future, but the technology isn't there yet. Biodiesel is better, but a plug in hybrid biodiesel where you can have 0 carbon days most of the time and some emmissions when you need longer trips is probably the best. By having an engine rhat provides 2/3 of the electric power needed to power the car triples the range of the car making it usable for most consumers. most days would be 0 carbon.
christo930 4 years ago 4
As it stands now, yes. But the corn that we are usingto make ethanol is specialized hybrid types that require pesticides and fertilizers as well as big equipment. If we used sugar-cane or beets, it would be less costly. Who cares if the beets have a worm or 2; we're not going to eat them anyway.
dawkinsfan41 4 years ago
Global warming is going off the radar quick. Peak oil is going to replace it. Our carbon emmisions are going to go down drastically whether we like it not, very very soon. It's probably already started. How many people will drive if gas is $10 a gallon? A 2 car familly will be spending $1000 a month in gas. No more Sunday drives and lots of carpooling.
christo930 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I emit C02 when I breath out. I will do my bit by ONLY breathing in.
griffgriff78 4 years ago
It's been three weeks now. How's that working out for you?
iiopen 4 years ago 3
LOL
waspbloke 4 years ago
I didn't want to look like a beach ball so I gave up. Sorry folks. The science was bad.
griffgriff78 4 years ago
Says the guy who didn't understand the carbon cycle. Just where was the CO2 you were breathing out a few weeks before you exhaled?
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Maybe the CO2 was keeping the plants alive? Or maybe it was makin the bubble in my lemonade?
griffgriff78 4 years ago
The carbon itself was part of your body before you exhaled it. It became part of your body because of what you ate, which was itself made of carbon.
That means that the carbon was part of the natural carbon cycle, already active and cycling in relative balance.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel carbon has been sequestered underground for ~300 million years, outside the natural cycle, before being dumped into the atmosphere when we burn it.
See why breathing isn't a problem, but coal (say) is?
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I see the difference. Thank you.
Is coal always that old? Not wanting to excuse waste but how much 'dumped' carbon can the natural carbon cycle absorb?
griffgriff78 4 years ago
See the video How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (yes, another of this guy's videos). Then check his sources.
It's a far better explanation than I can fit in 500 characters. Still, it's not "how much" so much as "how fast".
Oil isn't always that old, but it does take a long time to be produced. It's been produced for about 300 million years. If the peak oil predictions are correct, then by now we've dumped about 150 millon years worth of it into the air... over just 200 years.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Problem is that Coal and Oil is the most common form of Solid Carbon, with Shale and a sandy version of it possible. And it's a type of rock form deep earth like diamond and gems not "fossil fuels" which is why spent oil wells here & there are currently seeping the "Earths black blood" though not fast enough to re-open the well. Problem isn't Global Warming via Co2 dumping, it's Acid rain from the other shit, and putting so much Co2 into a Lake that it suddenly explodes out in a cloud of death.
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
TheRealArchAngel uses a tactic known as the "Gish Gallop" - basically to spread more lies in 5 minutes than would be feasible to dispel in one hour.
When faced with a scientific question, trust the more than well established scientific concensus. TheRealArchAngel is just trying to waste your time - don't fall for it.
petruciobr 4 years ago
What Lies? Co2 is 5x Heavier then Air & can't float up into the Atmosphere or magically change the GHG component in Air or alter the "heat trapping properties" of Air. The Plankton growth/death darken the Sea which makes the Sea hotter/cooler which not only causes "wind" along with precipitation,Weather,& Sea currents when interacting with the Polar Ice not "CO2" and The Air is heated via convection from the mass under it, not like Microwave oven where Co2 "vibrates" as Heat bounces up and down
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
If CO2 "can't float up" then wouldn't that mean it would pool around our feet? Does plankton not sink when it dies? Ever thought that microwaves are also naturally occurring and not just in ovens? Not sure your comments capture the whole story...
You're using bits and pieces of science in an incomplete and inaccurate way.
gloopadoopy 3 years ago
One other method of carbon sequestration is putting charcoal into the soil. It stays for hundreds or thousands of years, and improves the soil.
padredepablo 4 years ago
I was just thinking, that when we run out of oil, where do we get plastic? I mean its pretty important for.. practicly everything.
youngThrashbarg 4 years ago
Pretty much. Which is why before we run out of oil, if we keep up business as usual, prices for oil-based fuels will SKYROCKET even while we still pump it, because it'll be too valuable as a building material to use as a fuel supply. It's also used to produce synthetic materials such as nylon as well as plastic.
Interestingly, by switching from hydrocarbon-based fuels, we not only cut carbon emissions, but also a very large demand for oil (as fuel), which kills two birds with one stone.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago 2
plastics are a problem in itself
dwarfurl(dot)com/76a45
hggh22 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"First, find alternative energies."
LOL...so naive. We've been trying to find alternative sources of energy for 30+ years...this reminds me of the old Steve Martin joke...how do you avoid paying taxes on a million dollars? First, get a million dollars....
There ARE alternative energies available right now, but none I know are viable and affordable. We are a long, long way from being able to simply STOP driving cars, using coal, etc.
daveatx 4 years ago
The reason they aren't affordable is because our infrastructure is set up for fossil fuels, making fossil fuels extremely cheap to produce. It's not because the alternatives are inherently more expensive, just that fossil fuels get a head start.
As for "viable"? Several alternatives are being explored (for instance, decentralized solar generation in Germany) and the results consistently appear positive (in that people would use them and their standard of living doesn't change substantially).
TempestStormwind 4 years ago 3
I'm so telling your wife!!!
DefiantBoris 4 years ago
To use your "monkey thrashing" analogy, you are saying that if we are steering right and the car lurches to the right from a blown tire, we should simply steer back to a neutral position. A smarter response is to MANAGE our response based upon our CURRENT situation. Your technical response selection list is far too limited, too. There are other options of adjusting the geospheric energy balance...and also to manage our response to natural climate change.
Gondring 4 years ago
Gondring, 1.What exactly do you mean by "managing our response based upon our current situation" and "adjusting the geospheric energy balance"? If you are referring to other technological solutions that mitigate climate change, please specify what they are or direct us to a site where we can learn about them. Most people watching this video probably would appreciate your input.
aurelia314159 4 years ago
Your analogy of the car doesn't really fit. In a sense we are trying to avoid the tire being blown in the first place. Once the tire is blown... we're either totally screwed or... what we get out of the car and fix it? Which according to you analogy would imply an complete "stop" and "repair" of our society and energy situation? Whether your other points are correct, I'm not sure, but its certainly a bad analogy.
spiderveloce 4 years ago
I'm curious if you have thought about these 'quick fixes' in terms of population and economic growth?
benatrest 4 years ago
You're awesome dude, Keep going with this!
Geo2382 4 years ago
hey there dude.
keep fighting the good fight. I really respect what you've done.
robahand 4 years ago
A 5lbs bag of coal has the same amount of carbon as a gallon of gas emits.
Wow!
That's an eye opener...
PatHawkscom 4 years ago
Meh, any of these are better than having my beach house flooded.
JephirDromulus 4 years ago
Finally, other alternatives, like ethanol which is driving up the price of food, or wind that is at best 20% efficient. Check these out. You biggist assumption is that we can turn to alternatives AND keep our standard of living. Also that we have the time to convert to alternatives to the scale we need.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
So instead of claiming AGCC is not true you are claiming we cant completely fix the problem so we wont do anything?
The ocean at the moment is abosrbing CO2, it may be that later when the oceans warm a few deg it will will emit it again, but in the short term if we only lower our emissions it will grealty slow the rate at which atmospheric CO2 rises. When you do the math, on say nuclear you choose the extreme of totally rreeplacing coalwiht just nuclear. BTW peak uranium is coming too.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
Yes, peak U is coming, earliest estimates I've read is that current consumption is at about 20-30 years out for peak. All bets are off if a lot more plants are built, which will be. Drop in CO2 emissions are coming, just not voluntary.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Yep peak everything some we have so much of we will run out of everything else first.
Eg lots of silicon and even lots of iron.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
Alternatives in general. Problem is scale. Example, and do the calc, how many nuke plants will it take to create enough energy to power all cars electically? Do it. Then tell me the number. I've done it. Unscalable.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Greg I'm highly disappointed. HYDROGEN!!!??? I would have expected you to reject that outright as it take MORE energy to make, store and transport hydrogen than you get out it (best case is 30% return). Hydrogen can NEVER (yep NEVER) replace FF as a transport fuel. It's a non-starter.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I agree hydrogen has serious issues. IIRC it leaks through solid metal. IIRC it makes metal brittle on the way through. yadda.
In the past Solar Cells needed much more power to make each one. Back then they were (or could be called by a doubting thomas) a non starter too.
Unless we greatly increase efficiency and thus reduce demand, no other one technology will be a silver bullet. This time we will have to work smarter.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
You can't get around the laws of physics, no matter how smart you think humans are. We're rapidly approaching our limits, if not already there.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Although this attitude has probably been argued at every point in human history, its does make sense in the face of a major catastrophe. If we don't do something NOW with what we already have, we may be to F*(#ed to implement or discover better technology later.
spiderveloce 4 years ago
There is no such thing as zero carbon alternatives. The structures have to be built and transported, repaired and eventually replaced.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
You also said somewhere else there was 'no evidence' when there is, just there is no evidence you accept or think worth reading about. A solar cell economy is possible. The solar cells make enough power to make new ones. Also who said we had to get to zero carbon real soon. We need to lower our CO2, instead of raise it. Also as you are aware sometime after peak oil, and peak the other non renewables we will go to very low or zero carbon.
wanderingmind21 4 years ago
Solar cells can't make plastic, can't mine silcon, those require FF. We can't build these alternatives fast enough. Calculate how many sqr miles of panels are required, how long it would take to build them, and it will open your eyes. As for peak oil, read The Oil Drum last couple days. Economic crash next year? Looks like it just might.
jrwakefield 4 years ago