Talk about it all. Fossil fuel pollution is a good place to start. What do you guys think? Which will end first: the world, or our supply of fossil fuels? I already know the answer to this, but I'm confident that would take a lot of fun out of this thread.

Barring the discovery of a fossil fuel deposit on an extraterrestrial planet, most likely the fuel supply. I'm sure that there are more variables to this problem than those that meet the eye.

The world will most likely end before we run out of every possible kind of fuel... I reckon they're exaggerating the facts to us to get us all panicky, and to get us to spend money on causes supposedly in support of conservation of fuels, like they're doing with "Global Warming".

The main cause of global warming is some sort of astrological pattern that makes the sun's rays hit us more directly, or something. We're just helping it along by fossil fuel emissions. But unintentional human activity alone couldn't cause something like global warming. We're just helping it along.

As for oil, we're never actually going to run out. Believe it or not, nature's on our side this time. We use the highest quality, purest oil that happens to be closest to the surface first, and as we get deeper into the ground, as our more pure oil resources are depleted, the oil gets crappier, less pure, and thus more difficult to refine. The more difficult oil is to refine, the more expensive it will become. Eventually oil will become so expensive that people are going to simply boycott it, which would be the best thing to ever happen to this planet (aside from the fact that the nations in the Middle East and maybe some others will once again become third-world), or people will plan their finances around oil, everyone will become terribly poor because of oil dependence, and the economy will be seriously crippled. If people have any sense at all, they'll go with the first choice. It's unrealistic to expect the entire human race to taper off of fossil fuels, even as a long-term goal.

Fuel supply

I say the fossil fuel supply. When the time comes that we use up our purer oils on earth we will start going to the poorer quality sources, that cost more money to make gasoline. Which will most likely cause us to start using renewable fuels at a higher rate. Basically the same idea that Neverender. said.

Although, there is always a chance that the world will end first due to the stray asteroid making it through earth's atmosphere and crashing into earth, destroying modern life as it is. Or that some country will wage nuclear war on a country. Shoot a missile and get 20 in return, and then the countries that shot those 20 will get even more in return until everywhere in the world will be full of radiation. Basically a nuclear suicide.

I don't personally believe in global warming because we don't know enough about the earth to be able to tell whether or not it is the emissions from burning fossil fuels or just another part of the earths life cycle of warming up and cooling down. So I don't think we are creating our own demise by using fossil fuels.

I don't personally believe in global warming because we don't know enough about the earth to be able to tell whether or not it is the emissions from burning fossil fuels or just another part of the earths life cycle of warming up and cooling down. So I don't think we are creating our own demise by using fossil fuels.
... we?

Humans.

My point in asking why he said "we" is because there are people in the world who are hiding all sorts of things about the world from us and would rather just watch us wallow blindly trying to get by, and make money off of false campaigns toward non-existent causes. I personally believe this is happening with "global warming" and probably a lot of other things as well that I probably don't notice... Manipulating us through fear and guilt so we'll change our life styles and spend money on things that are of no use to us. Obviously I don't think ALL campaigners and charity funds are like that, but who's to say the ones I described don't exist?

I wonder if anyone on this forum believes that the world's global warming is a natural cycle and it will end up fixing itself up.

Everything that happens, will happen, or ever has happened to the human race is/was/will be for the better.

the holocaust was for the better?

If you ask me, just being the human race is a vital mistake from which we shall never recover.

I wonder if anyone on this forum believes that the world's global warming is a natural cycle and it will end up fixing itself up.

The earth's ecosystem should eventually recover, seeing as how life has recovered from various cataclysms, such as the one which brought about the end of the dinosaurs. It will take a very long time, though.

I wonder if anyone on this forum believes that the world's global warming is a natural cycle and it will end up fixing itself up.
Think of it as a fever. When there are a lot of things wrong with our body, our immune system raises our body temperature for a number of reasons, but ultimately, it's to heal us in the end. It isn't all human activity. We're just kind of helping it along. It's more like, earth's inflammatory response. And the thing about global warming is not necessarily the world getting hotter, but more the climates shifting dangerously.
the holocaust was for the better?
In the end, yes. It sounds horrible, but the human race learned a hell of a lot from it. At least I hope we did. Don't get me wrong. I have tons of Jewish and Slavic heritage, so I probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for those races, and I am not anti-semitic or pro-nazi in any way. The thing is that usually, the human race turns a blind eye to problems and doesn't ever learn anything until after a lot of people have died, or a lot of destruction has happened. I know that sounds even more horrible, but I think it's true.

Just a rant- I hate how people have made global warming into this huge political issue and even a religious one too. Like if you're conservative you HAVE to believe it's not true, and vice-versa. Honestly I don't care if global warming is true or not. I still think humans have a responsibility to protect the environment around us, because if we let it go down the shitter then we're in big trouble, and everybody already knows that.

Yes, that is partially true, but it is impossible to not view the 'environmental crisis' as a political issue. Not everyone has the resources, the money, the advertising abilities, or really anything else you need to do something that's happening to the entire world. Politicians are the only people you can turn to in order to do something about anything these days. If you're a celebrity, people just say, okay that's cool you were good in that one movie but it's time to shut up now. If you're a politician and you're speaking up, SOMEONE is going to listen to you.

I hate to say this, but I'm afraid you're also partially wrong, and I'm not just saying that to be argumentative. Many people don't believe global warming even exists, and many people don't believe the environment is their responsibility at all. They believe that this world is human's world, or God's world, and if this is the way things turned out then dammit that's how they were supposed to turn out. Or maybe they just feel too guilty to care, or they are too concerned with getting their centisyllabic latte and getting into the damn office before their desk collapses under all the work they have to do.

It's not over until it's too late. And even after the world is gone and destroyed, people will still be pointing fingers and saying yeah I told you so but what good does it do now? If you want to do something, you have to get people's attention. People think, "Oh, it's the scientists and the politicians that have to worry about it but it's not my problem." The truth is, it's everyone's problem, and everyone has to solve it. It's just that only a few people realize this.

I wonder if anyone on this forum believes that the world's global warming is a natural cycle and it will end up fixing itself up.Theres also some people who bellieve that buying a hybrid car, changing all their lightbulbs, and joining greenpeace will change the world.

Every little bit helps. Not really.

Yeah, helps put money into the pockets of those in social advertising...

So what, you think its better to feed the pockets of the oil companies and the gas guzzling car corporations?

So what, you think its better to feed the pockets of the oil companies and the gas guzzling car corporations?whats the problem with helping out a company we're all going to need from this date on? no matter what.

We aren't going to need oil companies when oil gets too expensive for anyone to pay for.

OPEC pisses me off. They need to stop making other people's wallets suffer so they can optimize revenue. Wait a minute...most corporations do that. Oh well. Nothing I say is going to change anything.

We aren't going to need oil companies when oil gets too expensive for anyone to pay for.Then how will we get around? Hovercars powered by grass?

Then how will we get around? Hovercars powered by grass?
You know it.

Then how will we get around? Hovercars powered by grass?
TO THE LAB!!!!

Then how will we get around? Hovercars powered by grass?
I don't really know, but people are eventually just going to stop paying for oil. But fuel cells with artificial chlorophyll and mitochondria is not a bad idea. We could make cars that ran on carbohydrates/glucose/calories. Well, I couldn't, but someone could, I'm sure.

I actually saw an episode of Modern Marvels about the future's technology and eventually every street and paved road in the world will be replaced with grass... for hover cars to ride over. I don't remember if it's solar energy or magnetic though.

I don't really know, but people are eventually just going to stop paying for oil. But fuel cells with artificial chlorophyll and mitochondria is not a bad idea. We could make cars that ran on carbohydrates/glucose/calories. Well, I couldn't, but someone could, I'm sure.as in bioengineering? I don't think mitochondrea are exactly the speediest engines. Not to mention there about 100 nanometers across. You'de need billions to even make a difference.

Not to say that it would be impossible, but whats the point? Its going to have around the same efficiency as a piston engine.

antimatter-matter annihilations are where its at. 100% efficiency.

To say nothing of how you plan to contain the resulting energy explosion.

A car could theoretically run on the same kind of calories that plants produce through photosynthesis and humans get through absolving food. One Calorie (with a capitol C; 1,000 calories) is enough to instantly evaporate one gram of water. That's a lot of chemical energy, especially considering, say, a double bacon cheeseburger converts to about 600.
=====
To say nothing of how you plan to contain the resulting energy explosion.
.

No, a calorie isnt how much energy it takes to evaporate water, its how much it takes to raise the water temperature 1 degree celcius. You'd need a lot more calories than a double cheeseburger to run a Honda.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about Large Calories, and a double cheeseburger doesnt have 1 large calorie in it. Its only about .6 Large Calories. And still, a Large Calorie will only raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree celcius.

YET ANOTHER EDIT: Now, Mega Calories measure the amount of energy it takes to raise one ton of water one degree celcius. (metric ton, of course) Now, one mega calorie would be equal to about 1,666 double cheeseburgers. I'm no expert at this, but I think It'd cost less to just use gas rather than double cheeseburgers.

So if you wanted to boil a kilogram of water (which isnt really enough to power a car) from room temperature (about 20 degrees celcius) you'd need 80 large calories. Thats about 133 cheeseburgers, which is also 133 dollars. WAAYYY more than gas and WAAYYY less energy than you'd need.

Okay then. Back to the biological drawing board. The car that's going to be mine is going to run on bio-diesel so it doesn't really matter to me. Although I guess it affects me indirectly. My parents would have more money if gas were lower. Oh well.

A car could theoretically run on the same kind of calories that plants produce through photosynthesis and humans get through absolving food. One Calorie (with a capitol C; 1,000 calories) is enough to instantly evaporate one gram of water. That's a lot of chemical energy, especially considering, say, a double bacon cheeseburger converts to about 600.You mean Kilocalorie, anyways

1 calorie = 4.18400 joules / 1 sec
= 4.184 watts
= 4.18400 watts = 0.00561083642 horsepower
600 kilocalories *1000 = 600,000 calories
= 3000 HP

Keep in mind that this is net HP, meaning this is how much horsepower the cheeseburger can produce total over a trip.

To keep this economical, lets go ahead and say that the cheeseburger car wants to go 200 miles, the average distance my jeep can travel on a single full tank. Lets also say that the cheeseburger car is going 50mph. so thats 4 hours.

4 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds = Time = 14400 seconds
3000/ 14400 = .2HP average

That basically means you're car ran out of gas a LONG way back. lets see how long the cheeseburger car can stay at a driveable pace.

200hp = 3000 / X = 15 seconds
and the cool part is , this is at 100% efficiency, which means 100% of the energy in the cheeseburger is being transferred all the way to the ground as 100%. To put it in perspective a Gasoline engine is around 28% effecient.

so on one cheeseburger, our car can drive for 15 seconds. Gonna need a few more cheeseburgers...

Can't...resist...

http://www.acidlabs.org/wp-content/i-can-has-cheezburger.jpg

Okay, delete this post if you have to, but I haven't posted an lolcat picture (let alone ICHAC) in a while.

Anyhow, it was a very novel idea, and I was just using it as an example that we might somehow be able to utilize resources and harvest energy in machines like most organisms harvest in their cells.

Bikes are like 98% efficient i believe.

http://whyimnotanartist.com/nedm.jpg

And pollution free.

And pollution free.That is, if you don't could all the many pounds of CO2 you emit while riding one. But thats only directly.