English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-31 18:58:51 · 5 answers · asked by parthi b 1 in Environment

5 answers

Yes. Absolutely. Use nuclear and solar power to make steam and hydrogen, and switch to a steam turbine generator and hydrogen-powered world economy. And throw in some wind-and-tide-generated electricity. No co2.
The reason this WON'T be done is GREED.

Millions of tons of crap DAILY into the atmosphere is nothing to sneeze at. Pun intended.

We are screwing ourselves over for a buck.
Shooting ourselves in the herd.
Stepping on our own ducks.
Cutting off our nose to spite our finch.
Kicking ourselves in the aardvark.

For the almighty dollar we're ruining it for everybody and everything, and people who can't accept it are three fries short of a Happy Meal.
Have a nice day.

2007-02-02 08:11:01 · answer #1 · answered by Dorothy and Toto 5 · 0 0

According to the Vostok ice core data, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg , there have been four major global warming events in the past 400,000 years. If you examine the referenced plot you will see that the temperature *always* rises first and then the CO2 concentration rises. The temperature *always* falls first and then the CO2 concentration falls. The temperature and CO2 concentration are both obtained from chemical data at the same point in the Vostok ice cores, so they both come from the *exact* same time, so their temporal correlation is as close to exact as possible. This means that atmospheric CO2 concentration is controlled by temperature and *not* vice versa. Stated another way, changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration have *never* affected global temperatures in 400,000 years of historical scientific data

Further, the temperature record of the last 100 years, http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg , indicates rather pointedly that there is an approximate 0.2C degree standard deviation in the measurements. Couple that with the Oak Ridge studies of the temperature dependence of CO2 solubility in sea water, http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/oceans/handbook.html , and the result is a root-mean-square error in atmospheric CO2 emission from the oceans of 30 billion metric tons -- this error is greater than the total CO2 emission from mans use of fossil fuels in one year.

Therefore, since the oceans can emit more CO2 in response to a 0.2C degree fluctuation in temperature than man can produce in a year, it is categorically impossible for us to control CO2 emission.

2007-02-01 07:53:51 · answer #2 · answered by Dr.T 4 · 0 0

yes it is possible to control the emisson of co2.it takes lot of time and lot of potentiality to control the co2.it is only possible when the governament takes the active and serious part in it.the government should take strict action's on the people who are responsible for the emission of the co2.the people also take care about the nature.the government should create a sence in the minds of people that what happend if the co2 gas is evvolved continuously in a big amount.the industries also take care of it.

2007-02-01 03:11:26 · answer #3 · answered by kranthi 1 · 0 0

yes,there is one easy and natural way to control the level of co2 in air by growing plant in large amount as we can't control the emission of co2.first we should take precautions to control %of co2 in environment before thinking abt emission

2007-02-03 12:04:56 · answer #4 · answered by kunnu 3 · 0 0

Sure. Three ways.

Conserve energy.

http://www.earth911.org/master.asp?s=lib&a=Energy/energy.asp

Use energy sources other than burning fossil fuels.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/

http://www.differentsourcesofelectricity.com/

Use technology to capture ("sequester") CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2003/story06-25-03b.html

2007-02-01 10:45:36 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers