I don't believe in god, and I don't believe in AGW. This is based on the data available to me. Yes, I think I'm more intelligent than the extremists on either side. I can't disprove god, and I can't disprove AGW. I'm agnostic on both religions.
Not at all, being more efficient with resources is good business. Being more efficient means less waste. Less is waste is less cost.
You said what does CO2 have to do with lakes and rivers. I showed you it has a lot to do with it. CO2 is poisonous for us to breath, it's poisonous for water but it has no affect on climate? And never did I say to stop using coal and oil. Honestly, oil is one of the most magical substances on earth. We can't live without petroleum based products. Oil is so important to biomedical and material science. It's actually a waste a burn it up. That is not the best use for that resource. I'm actually very in favor of this for the energy needs in this country - http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeappene/v_3a67_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a395-406.htm Abstract: Utilization of nuclear energy is an effective way of solving the global warming resulting from CO2 emissions. Thermal energy accounts for more than two thirds of total energy utilization at present and therefore it is significant to extend the utilization of nuclear heat for the effective reduction of CO2 emissions in the world. This paper describes a coal gasification system using HTGR nuclear heat in an ammonia production plant in terms of industrial utilization of the nuclear heat. The system uses the nuclear heat directly in addition to generating electricity. A steam reforming method using a two-stage coal gasifier is employed: it improves the heat utilization efficiency of the secondary helium gas from the HTGR. Finally, the paper clarifies that the nuclear gasification system can reduce CO2 emissions by about five hundred thousand tons per year from that of a conventional system using fossil fuel.
Yes Sir! It's damn near criminal that we are not producing enough Nuclear energy to run everything. Leave the oil for lube , Poly-carbons and fertilizer. I guess we can blame Nuclear Jane, for shutting down that progress. Funny she tauted herself as a progressive too.
I would like to see all current US nuke plants shut down. Those are very old facilities based on very outdated technology. Many of them are located near large population areas. I would like to see them replaced with a new generation of pellet based nuke plants that are located a government protected areas in Utah, New Mexico or Arizona. They should be privately owned but secured by military personal instead of minimum wage paid security guards. Combining nuke plants with coal gasification is also a sound economical plan. Currently we are exporting raw coal to China when we could be exporting a refined product at a higher profit. Also use the nuke plants as a hub for a new national power grid. Our current grid is very old, outdated and inefficient.
Like I said, the planet will go on existing. Life will find a way. The earth is a life factory. But will life that "rapidly evolves" be edible for humans? Some life forms will be able to change their PH but we are not one of them.
What is the pH of the oceans? What is the pH of fresh water? How do you think the acidity affects life even though there's such a huge disparity?
What I really want to know is since the sea is rising so fast that it will chase man out of his favorite haunts, and this is due to Ice melting. Does this not mitigate the PH change from acid (carbon)? Which is going to do us in first, the acidic ocean or the ocean too high? Or are these independent studies that disregard the other?
Oceans pH 8.2, freshwater pH 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans. (But as we know, ocean pH goes up and down over geologic time just like CO2 in the air and temperature)
