Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas...
The concensus is that we will go to a Hydrogen based economy..., but every time we apply Hydrogen, we lose some percentage of this gas. And Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas, it immediatly deteriorates the Ozon layer. So even though we mean it well we are destroying our environment. -> active intervention is dangerous and unpredictable
If we look at our history, London (read: and the rest of Europe) during the Industrial revolution had enormous problems with smog in the 1800's, and the effect (taking in account our current knowledge) should have had enormous impact on the greenhouse effect. Are the greenhouse effects we see now a result of the smog at that time... well if so we were/are not able to change the effect... or did the earth adapt itself to the new situation, or were we lucky... (all options are open)
Mature forrests (like the current rainforrests) do not deliver oxygen but Carbon-Dioxides.... Large mature forrests do not deliver Oxygen.... check this please... these forest producing Oxygen is a big mythe... In the end they start to rot and produce even more CO2... Man interferring and cutting down these tree's and replacing them by young trees in fact creates Oxygen..... and decreases the greenhouse effect!!!!!
Greenhouse effect has been registered in the past without humans even being present, so who do we think we are, that we are able to change global wheather.
The effect of the Sun on the weather has never been really sufficiently been studied.... Not enough to make the final conclusion: we or the Sun are the most influential factor on the greenhouse effect!!!
The planet Mars seems to have dried up cause of a green house effect... no man present at the time (I presume).
-> active intervention is dangerous and unpredictable
My point:
Let's just make a sur place and first think and then act!!!!
It is ok (and necessary) to think on the impact of our doing, but do not overdo it.... It might be that the earth (as a system) adapts to our presence (we simply don't know, but the Industrial revolution sure proves so - the latter is as much science as hockey stick theory).
Every active infringement on our beloved earth (being positive or negative to our thinking, has an unpredictable effect on our environment).
------------
FYI: I work as Senior Consultant for a large International Consultancy Agency and I (as many other people) do not like the chemical contamination of our living space.
Yep your damn right, it would be better to look for the correlation of solar storms and sun-spot maxima and the current wheater before tinkering with the world! The weather pattern of the last 12000 years has been the most stable in the history of the earth. This could be caused by the rise of mankind and industrialization. We also should not forget that large and very large tree's seem to produce more CO2 than Oxygen. Especially when they start to rot. So old forrests like in South-America are producing large portions of CO2... these should be renewed by younger tree's. Cutting down tree's and reforestation is not so bad as it seems... Needless to say that we do not want a polluted atmosphere, but some real science would come in handy instead of shouting about. It is my opinion that scientist need money to do research (read to have a job) and it is much easier to get money for popular subjects like global warming than for good research....
If I am correct (no I am not a physicist) then if the temperature of the Bose Einstein Condensate drops below a certain threshold the hole thing explodes...
If there are not only local gravistars but if the universe is one big one (as mentioned in the text).
Could this be the base of a repeating Universe??
Question: does the theoretical gravistar have a regular repeating internal structure (especially near the end). If it is superregular the Universe would repeat itself in much the same fashion....
Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas... The concensus is that we will go to a Hydrogen based economy..., but every time we apply Hydrogen, we lose some percentage of this gas. And Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas, it immediatly deteriorates the Ozon layer. So even though we mean it well we are destroying our environment. -> active intervention is dangerous and unpredictable If we look at our history, London (read: and the rest of Europe) during the Industrial revolution had enormous problems with smog in the 1800's, and the effect (taking in account our current knowledge) should have had enormous impact on the greenhouse effect. Are the greenhouse effects we see now a result of the smog at that time... well if so we were/are not able to change the effect... or did the earth adapt itself to the new situation, or were we lucky... (all options are open) Mature forrests (like the current rainforrests) do not deliver oxygen but Carbon-Dioxides.... Large mature forrests do not deliver Oxygen.... check this please... these forest producing Oxygen is a big mythe... In the end they start to rot and produce even more CO2... Man interferring and cutting down these tree's and replacing them by young trees in fact creates Oxygen..... and decreases the greenhouse effect!!!!! Greenhouse effect has been registered in the past without humans even being present, so who do we think we are, that we are able to change global wheather. The effect of the Sun on the weather has never been really sufficiently been studied.... Not enough to make the final conclusion: we or the Sun are the most influential factor on the greenhouse effect!!! The planet Mars seems to have dried up cause of a green house effect... no man present at the time (I presume). -> active intervention is dangerous and unpredictable My point: Let's just make a sur place and first think and then act!!!! It is ok (and necessary) to think on the impact of our doing, but do not overdo it.... It might be that the earth (as a system) adapts to our presence (we simply don't know, but the Industrial revolution sure proves so - the latter is as much science as hockey stick theory). Every active infringement on our beloved earth (being positive or negative to our thinking, has an unpredictable effect on our environment). ------------ FYI: I work as Senior Consultant for a large International Consultancy Agency and I (as many other people) do not like the chemical contamination of our living space.
Yep your damn right,
it would be better to look for the correlation of solar storms and sun-spot maxima and the current wheater before tinkering with the world! The weather pattern of the last 12000 years has been the most stable in the history of the earth. This could be caused by the rise of mankind and industrialization. We also should not forget that large and very large tree's seem to produce more CO2 than Oxygen. Especially when they start to rot. So old forrests like in South-America are producing large portions of CO2... these should be renewed by younger tree's. Cutting down tree's and reforestation is not so bad as it seems...
Needless to say that we do not want a polluted atmosphere, but some real science would come in handy instead of shouting about. It is my opinion that scientist need money to do research (read to have a job) and it is much easier to get money for popular subjects like global warming than for good research....
If I am correct (no I am not a physicist) then if the temperature of the Bose Einstein Condensate drops below a certain threshold the hole thing explodes... If there are not only local gravistars but if the universe is one big one (as mentioned in the text). Could this be the base of a repeating Universe?? Question: does the theoretical gravistar have a regular repeating internal structure (especially near the end). If it is superregular the Universe would repeat itself in much the same fashion....