forums.rs

Forums

Climate Change: Not Just CO2

Quick find code: 23-24-60-62485114

of 53
The contents of this message have been hidden.

15-Oct-2011 11:29:59

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I'm currently working on a paper about green chemistry as part of the course environmental policies. I would never have done it if Helios didn't start this thread about it.
I'm looking at how governments can improve regulation with regards to green chemistry. Governments often like strict norms for emissions, but rarely support green chemistry initiatives. Truly a missed opportunity.

26-Oct-2011 18:10:37 - Last edited on 26-Oct-2011 18:11:13 by Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
One of the best innovations made in green chemistry is the use of supercritical CO2 (how ironic ;) ) as a solvent. Conventional solvents carry lots of hazards with them. They may be volatile, easily flammable, persistent in the environment, carcinogenic or a combination of these. Supercritical CO2 has none of these problems. It's cheap and safe to use, easy to recover and non-toxic. The main obstacle to use supercritical CO2 is that it requires an expensive installation to be built, which most firms can't afford. It takes around 10 years to earn back the investment made. Due to low demand, production costs of these installations remains high, which keeps the demand low.

27-Oct-2011 02:07:50

dunforgiven

dunforgiven

Posts: 102,158 Ruby Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
sorry, but your first post had too many things that were assumptions.

co2 isnt the main cause of climate change, the sun is. yes, they claim it isnt but they use smoke screens there. instead of talking activity, they use solar illumance, and sunspot cycle lengths to disprove it. niether of these have any effect on the earth, and NO ONE has ever claimed other wise.

a large number of robots were set loose in the ocean in an attempt to find why the earth had stopped warming, because EVERYONE agrees, the ocean should respond first no matter what the cause. what they found shocked them. the oceans WERE COOLING. in order to get rid of the cooling, they had to manipulate the data. first they took xtb readings (deviced dropped into the ocean on spools of wire that could read until about 1500 feet), from earlier years, and dropped it, then got rid of the argo data for the coolest areas. this left a nice increase in energy in the ocean.

the question is, if the xtb were not giving the correct data then, why are they expected to give the correct data now. they used bottled water temps (bottles of water dropped into the ocean to pick up the water then measured it. to determine how much to drop it from a few years ago, but then they ignored the same bottle water temps for the last few years.

the sunspots have a 30 year cycle, that matches with the earths warming period of the last 30 years, and the cooling period of the 40's and 70's. now we are in the next cooling cycle, and to maintain the illusion that the co2 is causing the warming, they have to continueally adjust older temps downward, and get rid of the data they dont like.

satellite measurements have shown the atmosphereic sensativity is 1.5 to 1.8. in order for co2 to be causing the warming, the sensitivity has to be a minimum of 2 and that would leave it as having a very minor part of it. for it to be the main cause of warming it has to be 3 or higher. these satellites were created to prove that co2 was the (cont) frankly my dear, I couldn't give a dam. never had a river to build one on.
veteran of 4 runescapes

27-Oct-2011 23:33:11

Quick find code: 23-24-60-62485114 Back to Top