Slashdot Mirror

Now note the spectrum of CO2: http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html So tiny. So little absorption. So little concentration.

And that narrow peak of absorption is exactly where it matters: at the exact frequency of 280K black body radiation peak. In other words, it traps the specific kind of energy radiated by Earth's surface and turns it back into heat. In fact, a lot more than the same amount of water vapor does.

I, personally, wouldn't hire someone who couldn't string more than one cogent paragraph together (ie your first paragraph is good, but your second one falls apart at the 8th sentence). Nor would I hire someone who tells someone to go refute their own argument.

The IR spectrum of water: http://www.btinternet.com/~martin.chaplin/vibrat.html Note that water in the atmosphere exists at an equilibrium between gas and liquid. Note also the very broad peak of liquid water. Note even further that 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is covered with water.

Now note the spectrum of CO2: http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html So tiny. So little absorption. So little concentration.

The point is that CO2 does not have a net effect on the heat retained by the atmosphere. It is mere noise compared to water, which, as noted before, fluctuates wildly, and in fact CAN be controlled with water traps which don't require trillions of dollars in global investment, and will in fact have an IMMEDIATE effect, rather than one that MIGHT be felt within five centuries IF we manage to survive the epic flooding of the world caused by CO2 forced global warming if it exists.

"if it says nothing about something the feds don't have the power, it limits the feds"

This is a popular myth. There is nothing to this effect in the constitution or in the ratifications.

"The framers of the U.S. Constitution advocated that the power of government would be limited.?" "As so eloquently explained by Alexander Hamilton and John Madison, the "practical security" of imposing limited power in each department may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson James Madison, the principal writer of the Constitution, wrote this:
"The second object, the due partition of power, between the General & local Governments, was perhaps of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States: some for such a power without a negative: some for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative: the majority finally for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the Negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary 1. to prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. to prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States."

Perhaps you need to go back to school to learn what the USA's Founding Fathers thought about government.

Falcon

Please tell us what wer'e supposed to believe then. The story keeps changing.

Di-Hydrogen Monoxide isn't the proper name for water. That would imply a H2 ion bonded to a O ion. IIRC, this is not correcct.

Even if it were possible to create artificial gold that you could competetively price against 'mined' gold, there will always be an intrinsic value to gold nuggets and specimens.

I have often thought that if I came up with a way to cheaply extract gold from seawater, or find large deposits and extract them very cheaply, I'd never have to bother using in after I filed for a patent, as Newmont and the other Big Gold Companies would send me a check every month to keep quiet. And I'll still keep mining gold.

-cp-

Please see our website: http://www.widener.edu

Regards,

Admissions Officer, Department of Page Widening

I don't know if this is an urban legend or not, but I had heard that petroleum is actually more valuable as a lubricant than as a fuel, because we can't yet create synthetic lubricants which are as good as the real thing. The danger is that all of our machines may literally grind to a halt when we run out of oil, even if the machines themselves are solar/nuclear/etc powered.

True and false. There ARE in fact things we can put together out of carbon which are superior to any petroleum-based lubricant. Unfortunately, no one has done so commercially. This is mostly because it's expensive. You can see pictures of buckyballs here. CMU has a buckyball project. So does SUNY. You could make your own fullerenes. There are a number of fullerene-related patents.

That last page produces the real gem: this patent is for a "Magnetic recording medium comprising a solid lubrication layer of fullerene carbon having an alkyl or allyl chain". The abstract reads:

A magnetic disk has a magnetic medium or a protection film, and a solid lubrication film formed on the medium or the protection film and consisting of a fullerene C60, C 70 or C84 and an alkyl or allyl-chained fullerene. The lubrication film provides the disk with high mechanical durability and high linear recording density.

There are further supporting references. The Buckyball: An Excruciatingly Researched Report (which gives its references at the bottom) contains this quote:

A fully fluorinated buckyball would create the slickest molecular lubricant known to man, C60F60. The uses for a molecular lubricant are boundless, limited only by our imagination.

Of course, I don't know that anyone's actually assembled such a molecule. I located an article called Just Rolling Along which discusses tungsten disulfide, which is similar to buckyballs. It is, however, expensive to produce, and difficult to make in quantity; This is what we're waiting for. Incidentally, I did find one article that gave hope for this, under the heading "Cheap Buckyballs". Amusingly enough (to me) the anchor tag is named "cheapballs". I guess when you're hopped up on this much sugar all kinds of things are funny. If anyone has access to the text of "Journal of Organic Chemistry, March 8" perhaps they could help out here.

So in summary, there ARE better lubricants than those cracked from crude. They are not, however, currently on the market, as they are expensive and time-consuming to produce. However, science marches on, and we'll solve this problem, too.