Presented without comment.
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
I made mistake in earlier replies on biodiesel. Where there was the partial confusion. Because I simply associated Biofuel as Biodiesel when comparing density with diesel. Biodiesel is thicker than diesel. Other Biofuels are different.
Crops require, deforestation, resources to grow and produce, they are completely fallible, but then are converted into fuel to burn. It defeats the very point of a push to use biofuels, lessening emissions.
How is your proposal more efficient at reducing less carbons and creating less pollution? Destroy the planet. Then we can get free gas like on Venus. I swear that's what happens if you burnt all our fossil fuels. First we got dig them all up.
Biofuels are literally another con. A badge for do-gooders who think they solved jackshit. Instead of paying another guy more. Despite of hypocritically recycling some waste, but in that cycle, they emit far more than their fossil fuel counterparts. The debate moves into toxicity, pollution. Reducing it, is foremost. I am not convinced by them. Like in the past Amazon example. Peak their demand now grow even more crops to use.
No they literally need engine conversions unless they're the standard of engine. There is biobutanol = butane gas, it needs no conversion to run in butane engines. These are different engines?
We need more carbon, not less. To return normal Earth climate and restore our green planet after last ice age we need 1000-2000ppm CO2 in atmosphere. Now we have only 300ppm.
No, because we haven't got the forest cover. If we had the forest cover it would mitigate absorbing the increased carbon instead of causing increasing warming.
Where there are smaller vegetation blooms due to the increased carbon. But they're not mitigating the carbon increase. The carbon increase at this point is increasingly planetary instead of man made. Natural release like the permafrost melting, natural disaster, oceans warming, the Amazon. We have simply exasperated it due to our habitats. Where we are warming rapidly.
We haven't got the forest cover because of our habitats, agriculture, urbanisation, and resource extraction and production. Forests take a long time to grow before they reduce carbons. Without mitigation our forests are simply increasing the carbon cycle. The fires, even the Amazon is causing increasing carbon now.
We have no increased carbon to mitigate. We have too low carbon in atmosphere.
Normal periods of mild stable warm greenhouse climate without significant temperature gradient over the whole Earth lasted tens billions of years. During that periods CO2 concentration was 1000-2000ppm to keep greenhouse. Only in short, few million years ice ages CO2 concentration fall to current levels. During that ice ages, greenhouse effect disappeared, temperature oscillations become larger, water from tropics freezed out on poles creating deserts. That is not normal for the Earth. To restore greenhouse effect we need to rise carbon in atmosphere, not lower it.
Global warming is not a problem, it is a solution. Ecologists don't tell you that greenhouse not only rise average temperature, but also significantly lower temperature gradients, between day and night, winter and summer and along the latitudes. There will be no any predicted by hoaxers burning deserts. You could see what greenhouse climate near equator looks like on a tropical forests, where greenhouse present locally. It's only 10°C gradient here. On the same latitudes where are no greenhouse we have deserts with 60°C gradient now. 1000-2000ppm CO2 concentration will establish greenhouse everywhere, not only in tropics, and Earth become pleasant place to live everywhere.
No. Sorry. Nobody outside of conjecture can lay much fact on what happened 1-10 billion years ago. They can't even tell me what happened 10k years ago.
But ok, perhaps the geology has identified more carbon in the ground table, and the poles were different, having vegetation.
It is not an argument for quick let's just melt the poles why don't we. Because according to the conjecture we had a different climate then, so let's change ours, now.
But I have agreed, increased carbon can increase vegetation. Trees thrive on it, giving us oxygen in return. Not quite today, when the planet is producing far more carbon than we do, and it is causing an increase in temperature. It is becoming increasingly problematic because we have populated everywhere and are feeling the effects far more.