I remember. I didn't say I counted on them, I said what I would like from them. Those two are rather different things when speaking about governments.

And I already advocated your new job J, don't worry

Hydrogen-powered cars are almost ready. The only thing about them to be solved is how to store the hydrogen, wich can be done by absorbing it in a metal hybrid, but that process is too slow currently, so I think it will be some years at most before a good catalyst (is that the word) is found.

Once we get them hydro-cars emission will go down drasticly.

It depends on the source of your hydrogen. Because normally speaking, you still get your hydrogen from your oil if you look at the whole picture. So you would have the feeling of riding in a healthy car, but you're still using (although i guess it's less) oil. So the alternatives often go back to the same source.
That's why there are studies about using cellular organisms to create methanol as a H2-source i believe, and prolly others too, but that could take a while.

You can get it from solar power. Organical solar cells are in the making, and there's plenty of sun.
But for now, if all the hydrogen is made in central places, you can easily collect the CO2 and store it in, for example, old gas fields, or use it in greenhouses to speed up the growth of the plants in there.

Still, you'd be making CO2 again, and efficiency with solar power is still very low, so i guess here applies the same.
I do wonder how those greenhouses work though. Their using the CO2 to make plants grow faster or what? Isn't everything that happens in nature part of a cycle? You get rid of your created CO2 by "feeding" it to the plants, but doesn't it somewhere goes back to CO2 i'd think?

Looked a bit more into it, since i didn't know what these greenhouses-CO2 story was all about. Now i understand why they need and use it, but in the very end of the cycle, i'm still convinced you make extra CO2. The sugar won't always be sugar, the plant dies, ... . Otherwise this could be considered as just "a bottomless pit" where you can use all our excess CO2, so if the whole world would start a massive greenhouse-project the CO2 problem is solved. I think this is again a "look at the whole picture" story.

Yes, but if you store your CO2 in empty gas fields, you're still rid of it. The efficiency of solar cells is still low, but that doesn't matter, there's still enough sunshine.
About the biological solar cells, maybe we can even let them grow themselves, although that's still far off.
Off course the amount of CO2 stays the same, but I believe plants grow more efficiently with more CO2, I'm, no biologist so I don't know for sure about that one.

Some people just created a reactor that uses ethanol to make hydrogen and burn it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

Wooo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

Interesting article about climate changes. You might want to read it 11b

sounds interesting. But how hard is ethanol to come across?

ethanol is alcohol. Very readily available, derived from fossil fuels. Or through fermentation of various things. Easy to make, is my understanding.

J -- what the fuck are you reading? To quote:

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020."

Uh-huh. Sounds to me like a tabloid.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE I TELL YA !!!

Dunno if it`s a tabloid, could be. But it was just an article to compare with 11b`s article that started this thread (global warming isn`t real). And i was also curious if all these sources they mention (Andrew Marshell, Peter Schwartz, ..)would ring a bell with you guys. That would give it some credibility.

And ethanol is really easy to make yes, although it could be that the required purity for the engine is extremely high. Nothing impossible though.

The observer isn't a tabloid....

Who mentioned the observer?

to quote myself, quoting The Observer;

""A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.""

All this, "a secret report" "obtained by..." just points to more BS, IMO.

Besides, they allege that most of Europe will be submerged within 20 years. That's quite a bit of ocean rise in 20 years. So far, how much has the ocean risen? As far as I can tell, noone believes the ocean has risen any measurable amount. But, then again, maybe I'm too sane for me own good.

I left this conversation alone because I didn't want to get ticked off again... Anyway, there has been evidence of ocean levels rising. NPR had a report recently. Here is a link from NASA showing one of their missions is studying the rising levels. It's about 5 months old.
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/missions/earth/jason_1.html

Most people have no grasp of geologic time. Even something as dynamic as the human race has it's impacts put through slow motion. For instance, the damage to the ozone layer that we see now was done in the 40's and 50's. The damage we have been doing will take about 50 years to come into effect. As you can imagine, the use of ozone depleting chemicals has increased exponentially since then. Most estimates expect the ozone holes near the poles to increase 300-400% by then. If we are impacting global warming, we won't be able to see it measurably now. It will be our children and grandchildren that have evidence of how badly we have screwed them.

That said, it is equally moronic to claim that global warming is not an issue, as it is to say that it is a sign of the second coming. It is stupid to say "it's nothing to worry about". I was forced to listen to Rush for nearly 2 hours a day for a school year. Unless he has changed since then, Rush is nothing more than a shock jock for the conservatives. He has made up his mind before even understand the issue, and then gropes around for whatever he can find to back himself up. He dismisses evidence to the contrary, without even considering it. There are democrats that are just as bad. My point is, I would trust Rush's opinion about as much as I would trust Howard Stern.