Also, CO2 is not poisonous, that is CO (carbon monoxide). The only way to die from CO2 is if there was no air left in the lungs, it just suffocates you, whereas CO actually actively poisons you.
Also, CO2 is not poisonous, that is CO (carbon monoxide). The only way to die from CO2 is if there was no air left in the lungs, it just suffocates you, whereas CO actually actively poisons you.
OMG!! O2 is not flammable. It allows for cleaner combustion but O2 in itself is not flammable. It is needed for almost all types of organic combustion though. Carbon in itself is also a very bad fuel but when part of a larger molecule (like most organic fuels) is necessary.
Oxygen is NOT FLAMMABLE!!! Oxygen is a reactant in a combustion reaction- which means it just gets attatched to whatever is "burning" and the whole process put out a lot of heat. Therefore, oxygen is not a fuel, but it is needed for any fuel to burn.
All i can imagine happening with this is carbon being taken out of CO2, O2 being put back in the atmosphere, and the carbon being put into some kind of carbohydrate or alcohol or some other carbon based fuel and burned again- theoretically producing the exact same amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere. This in itself has absolutely no footprint, but when you take into the account the energy needed to do this, its alot bigger.
Fuel cells, solar, electric, wind, and wave power. You dont need anything else.
It doesn't really describe how it works, but they certainly aren't getting any energy OUT of the CO2 since it is one of the lowest energy compounds there is.
Arnie, carbon is in all organic fuels, by definition.
I don't think Co2 is bad for the environment at all. We breathe it out, trees breathe it in, when trees die they let it out. Really anyone who buys the 'man-made global warming' scam has to do some research.
that is some elementary logic right there. sure trees "breath" in CO2 but there's just too much CO2 out there that they can't breathe it all in. And global warming is the cause of even more excess of CO2 than there were before. Maybe you're the one who needs to do some research. And I can't believe there's still people who doesn't believe in "man-made" global warming. I guess you should convince Europe of the opposite and to stop them from their environmental protection effort.
Any substance in excess is bad for the environment. For the same reason why you can overdose on vitamin C, an increase in levels of C02 (a natural part of our oxygen cycle) beyond that which nature allows for can be a serious problem.
You guys are going on about O2 being flammable... CO2 not being poisonous in response to my comment...
I never mentioned those factors. I simply stated if you use something as a fuel, doesn't matter if its CO2 or cheese, you'll get an output which they failed to mention; therefore, I shan't be cheering these guys until they tell me what the output products are!
yes trees breathe in CO2, but like someone said we have too much CO2 to begin with and then factor in the continual deforestation of the world. We are putting out more and more C02 and cutting down more and more trees with out replacing them. Its a problem.
No, YOU need to do some basic research. I have to ask, are you in grade school? I can't even believe how many arm-chair climatologists there are on sites like these. Based on your imbecilic comment, it appears you don't have even the most elementary understanding of science, less something as complex as the climate. I'll spare you some time here. Anthropogenic global warming is supported BY EVERY NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN EVERY DEVELOPED COUNTRY. 99% of all climatologists on the EARTH also agree. When you come across individuals saying otherwise, you best look at their background and possible motives. Nearly every time I see someone claiming anthropogenic climate change is a "myth" or a "conspiracy", I find they work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry. The only other hoopla comes from a few outlying scientists with questionable motives. Use wikipedia, it's your fiend. Although you cannot have complete trust in the accuracy of the information presented, it's a great place to find links to cited research and official documents.
"Nearly every time I see someone claiming anthropogenic climate change is a "myth" or a "conspiracy", I find they work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry."
The very fact that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is credible opposition to your viewpoint screams the word 'ideology' to me. Science is never cut and dry or set in stone. Until you can prove without any reasonable doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real (or even non-man made global warming -- what specific methodology do you use to measure "average global temperature", anyway?) you will have skeptics, and at no point in science's history has skepticism been considered a "bad thing".
My point is, is please stop calling us skeptics heretics. There's more than just a tiny few of us that do not "work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry". And besides, can't we turn that around and say that nearly all climate scientists that claim that "global warming is real and we are to blame" have a vested interest in it? They get more money the more they say it, after all.
@JLTate: There is NO scientifically credible opposition to the concept of AGW. There are some crackpot theories that always turn out to have no basis when examined closely, but there is no explanation on the "sceptic" side of the argument for why excessive CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the effect that basic physics says it should.
As far as the funding jibe is concerned, are you saying that no scientists can be trusted? That's a very strong assertion to make, but it is the natural extension of your argument, as all scientists have funding from some source or other.
The difference here is that there are literally VAST numbers of scientists involved, and it is extremely unlikely that they are all corrupt as you claim. In fact I have met some of them and I can assure you that they are all very conscientious types who are simply very concerned at the results of the work they do. In fact they are very much MORE concerned than is generally understood by members of the general public.
On the sceptic side there are a very small number of "scientists", and there is much evidence that many of them are funded by commercial bodies which do not want people to accept AGW as fact because it is not in their financial interests.
Science is, as you say, never entirely cut and dried. This fact is exploited by those who have ideological or financial reasons for not wanting AGW to be true as an excuse for the continual introduction of alternative theories for GW. But just because they keep trotting these ideas out doesn't make them true, or AGW any less true.
Follow the science, not some anti-AGW faith (for that is all it is). If you follow the science deeply enough you will know that AGW is true. There is no credible alternative explanation for what is happening to the world. Really.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Uhm... how is this going to work? They've not been specific.
Take CO2 out of the air and use it as a fuel - well every checmical reaction creates end substances.
Sure you'll take CO2 out, but what are gonna put back into the atmosphere, one wonders?
Good point- I vote carbon, cuz oxygen is flammable and could be used as fuel, and carbon would have "a low environmental impact"
Also, CO2 is not poisonous, that is CO (carbon monoxide). The only way to die from CO2 is if there was no air left in the lungs, it just suffocates you, whereas CO actually actively poisons you.
Also, CO2 is not poisonous, that is CO (carbon monoxide). The only way to die from CO2 is if there was no air left in the lungs, it just suffocates you, whereas CO actually actively poisons you.
Surely taking too much CO2 out of the atmosphere would have equally undesirable effects as putting too much in.
OMG!! O2 is not flammable. It allows for cleaner combustion but O2 in itself is not flammable. It is needed for almost all types of organic combustion though. Carbon in itself is also a very bad fuel but when part of a larger molecule (like most organic fuels) is necessary.
Oxygen is NOT FLAMMABLE!!! Oxygen is a reactant in a combustion reaction- which means it just gets attatched to whatever is "burning" and the whole process put out a lot of heat. Therefore, oxygen is not a fuel, but it is needed for any fuel to burn.
All i can imagine happening with this is carbon being taken out of CO2, O2 being put back in the atmosphere, and the carbon being put into some kind of carbohydrate or alcohol or some other carbon based fuel and burned again- theoretically producing the exact same amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere. This in itself has absolutely no footprint, but when you take into the account the energy needed to do this, its alot bigger.
Fuel cells, solar, electric, wind, and wave power. You dont need anything else.
It doesn't really describe how it works, but they certainly aren't getting any energy OUT of the CO2 since it is one of the lowest energy compounds there is.
Arnie, carbon is in all organic fuels, by definition.
I don't think Co2 is bad for the environment at all. We breathe it out, trees breathe it in, when trees die they let it out. Really anyone who buys the 'man-made global warming' scam has to do some research.
@jroc
that is some elementary logic right there. sure trees "breath" in CO2 but there's just too much CO2 out there that they can't breathe it all in. And global warming is the cause of even more excess of CO2 than there were before. Maybe you're the one who needs to do some research. And I can't believe there's still people who doesn't believe in "man-made" global warming. I guess you should convince Europe of the opposite and to stop them from their environmental protection effort.
@jroc
Any substance in excess is bad for the environment. For the same reason why you can overdose on vitamin C, an increase in levels of C02 (a natural part of our oxygen cycle) beyond that which nature allows for can be a serious problem.
You guys are going on about O2 being flammable... CO2 not being poisonous in response to my comment...
I never mentioned those factors. I simply stated if you use something as a fuel, doesn't matter if its CO2 or cheese, you'll get an output which they failed to mention; therefore, I shan't be cheering these guys until they tell me what the output products are!
:P
@jroc
yes trees breathe in CO2, but like someone said we have too much CO2 to begin with and then factor in the continual deforestation of the world. We are putting out more and more C02 and cutting down more and more trees with out replacing them. Its a problem.
@jroc
No, YOU need to do some basic research. I have to ask, are you in grade school? I can't even believe how many arm-chair climatologists there are on sites like these. Based on your imbecilic comment, it appears you don't have even the most elementary understanding of science, less something as complex as the climate. I'll spare you some time here. Anthropogenic global warming is supported BY EVERY NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN EVERY DEVELOPED COUNTRY. 99% of all climatologists on the EARTH also agree. When you come across individuals saying otherwise, you best look at their background and possible motives. Nearly every time I see someone claiming anthropogenic climate change is a "myth" or a "conspiracy", I find they work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry. The only other hoopla comes from a few outlying scientists with questionable motives.
Use wikipedia, it's your fiend. Although you cannot have complete trust in the accuracy of the information presented, it's a great place to find links to cited research and official documents.
@Sam Winter
"Nearly every time I see someone claiming anthropogenic climate change is a "myth" or a "conspiracy", I find they work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry."
The very fact that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is credible opposition to your viewpoint screams the word 'ideology' to me. Science is never cut and dry or set in stone. Until you can prove without any reasonable doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real (or even non-man made global warming -- what specific methodology do you use to measure "average global temperature", anyway?) you will have skeptics, and at no point in science's history has skepticism been considered a "bad thing".
My point is, is please stop calling us skeptics heretics. There's more than just a tiny few of us that do not "work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry". And besides, can't we turn that around and say that nearly all climate scientists that claim that "global warming is real and we are to blame" have a vested interest in it? They get more money the more they say it, after all.
Attack the science, not the scientists.
@JLTate: There is NO scientifically credible opposition to the concept of AGW. There are some crackpot theories that always turn out to have no basis when examined closely, but there is no explanation on the "sceptic" side of the argument for why excessive CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the effect that basic physics says it should.
As far as the funding jibe is concerned, are you saying that no scientists can be trusted? That's a very strong assertion to make, but it is the natural extension of your argument, as all scientists have funding from some source or other.
The difference here is that there are literally VAST numbers of scientists involved, and it is extremely unlikely that they are all corrupt as you claim. In fact I have met some of them and I can assure you that they are all very conscientious types who are simply very concerned at the results of the work they do. In fact they are very much MORE concerned than is generally understood by members of the general public.
On the sceptic side there are a very small number of "scientists", and there is much evidence that many of them are funded by commercial bodies which do not want people to accept AGW as fact because it is not in their financial interests.
Science is, as you say, never entirely cut and dried. This fact is exploited by those who have ideological or financial reasons for not wanting AGW to be true as an excuse for the continual introduction of alternative theories for GW. But just because they keep trotting these ideas out doesn't make them true, or AGW any less true.
Follow the science, not some anti-AGW faith (for that is all it is). If you follow the science deeply enough you will know that AGW is true. There is no credible alternative explanation for what is happening to the world. Really.