Right!!
Global Warming caused by burning fossil fuels:-
( Simplified Formula )
Fossil fuels ( Carbon ) + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide ( A greenhouse gas )
Currently blamed for global warming.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't, perhaps the sun is just going through one of its cycles as it does over time, in which case there's bugger all any of us can do about it.
That's what governments don't like, the fact we're all sat here feeling powerless and helpless, sort of incites anarchy, governments don't like the thought of that.
They want us all to feel we can stop this by decreasing our carbon footprint, ie. use less fossil fuel. They don't say oh, by the way all the fossil fuel's going to run out in a few years so we need you all to cut back. That'll stop global warming caused by increased Carbon Dioxide in its tracks no more fuel to burn. They don't want to tell you that because, it may cause anarchy, governments don't like that. Nor do I actually, it all then comes down to who has the biggest gun and unless I can invent armour piercing 22 air-rifle pellets, I don't.
So, they fool us all into thinking we can do something about it, don't overfill the kettle, turn the heating down a few degrees, use energy saving light bulbs. Don't be fooled, the best reason for doing all that is it cuts down the electric bill and makes fossil fuels last a few weeks longer.
In any case that's all almost irrelevant compared to what they're not telling you.
Go back to the formula.
Carbon ( C ) + Oxygen ( O2 ) = Carbon Dioxide ( CO2 )
There's something in there that's a hell of a lot more important, the stuff we all breath and need to stay alive. Oxygen, which as fast as the billions of tonnes of CO2 that is produced, is being used up at the same rate.
The atmospheric oxygen content is always quoted as a constant at 21%, crap its not constant, its now measured at only 19% and in some inner city areas it has been measured as low as 12%.
Guess what, the effects of suffocation start at 15%, headaches, breathlessness for no reason that sort of thing. Basically were all going to suffocate to death, slowly.
Also were allowing the rainforest to be cut down at a frightening rate, that currently is one of the largest places where the planet changes its carbon dioxide back in to oxygen and we're cutting it down to plant stuff to make margarine or eco diesel, how stupid is that.
Yes the brazilians are entitled to a better standard of living, simple solution all the other countries pay them to manage and replant the rainforest.They get paid to maintain the lungs of the earth. Probably won't happen though as it means worldwide agreement,no chance.!
Nil Desperandum, there's a solution.
We build chemical plants on the shore that using sunlight, split sea water into Hydrogren and Oxygen thereby recreating the oxygen. (This is possible by the way, I checked with a chemical engineer.) But, this creates hydrogen a highly explosive gas, can't just let this component of rocket fuel go free, otherwise it wants to burn and use up the precious oxygen again. What about using it to scrub unwanted gases from forms of combustion like say Suphur dioxide,(SO2)Mmmm, Hydrogen, sulphur and oxygen thats sulphuric acid, maybe not a good idea.
What about getting rid of Nitrous oxide, (NO), Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide and Oxygen that's nitric acid oh well, here's the best idea for using the hydrogen, fill large black balloons with it, release them into the air where they will reach the stratosphere, when there are billions of them up there it will block out a significant amount of sunlight, thus eliminating the effects of global warming.
Peice of cake.
Bye.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The problem with the brazilian rainforest is that it doesn't actually produce any net oxygen supply to the world at all. Whereas there is a vast ammount of CO2 converted into oxygen, as the rainforest is mature (i.e. not still growing) there is an equal convertion of oxygen back to CO2 as a)the plants use up their store of energy to continue to survive, b)in the animals that counsume the vegitation and c) in the decomposition of dead plant material.
In order for plants to actually produce a nett reduction in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere they need to be growing, so we have to be actively planting new forests to change the levels of oxygen. As a tree grows it stores more and more carbon from CO2 in it's cell structure and releases the associated oxygen, but once it reaches maturity (i.e. forest density prohibits expansion) then the equilibrium of convertion back to CO2 is established.
This is a commonly forgotten process, so there is actually an arguement for a managed continuation of cutting down the rainforest as long as the stored carbon in the trees removed is not released into the atmosphere. The space created in the rainforest will then be filled with new growth as the forest again has room to expand and more CO2 is converted, carbon stored and oxygen released. So take trees out of the forest at the same rate that new growth expands (stuff the cut down trees into worked out mines where they can rot and compress and eventually turn back into a fossil fuel without releasing their carbon for later generations) then we would start to have a net production of oxygen.
And another thing....
It turns out that if you increase both temperature and atmospheric CO2 denisty together then plants actually become far more efficient at photosynthesis and so become less likely to suffer extinction. Studies show that plant species have expanded their habitat towards the poles as temperature and CO2 levels have risen as those areas become more viable to them but there is not significant change to the equatorial boundry of their habitat. And if the plant systems thrive better in the higer CO2/temp conditions it follows that animal life that relies of those plants for food will also thrive. So far from being a factor in extinction, a global climate change to higher CO2 and temperature will actually improve Life on Earth's chances of survival.
Point taken, but we still need to redress the oxygen balance, cos at present we don't thrive too well on higher CO2 levels.
Absolutely - we're not so good at getting oxygen out of CO2 as plants are! I'm completely agreeing with you that we need to be much more carefull about the ecosystem on the planet if we want to continue breathing.
However, half filling the kettle and turning those TVs to standby, however minutely, is still going to help slow down that oxygen reduction, so whatever the reason governments want us to do our little bit, I still think we should.
Don't get me wrong I agree with doing our bit, its me that roams the house switching lights off, only boiling enough for one mug (me), turning the heating down and all that, have done for years. But 1. It saves us money. 2. It makes the old fossil fuels last longer. 3. The oxygen will last bit longer.
But it ain't gonna solve global warming which is what were led to believe.
A bit like removing the evil Sadam Hussain which I totally agreed with with, but not because he had weapons of mass destruction which could be made ready in hours, like we were told, just because he needed removing. I don't like the "Spin".
To me that's someone saying they've acquired a new TV. When they mean they stole it.!!
Post a Comment