[quote=name:fm47]Can iron not rust, causing terrible water pollution?[/quote] Do you realise how oxidization of iron works? It requires water [salt works as an enzyme, speeding the process immensely] and oxygen. Without those, iron will never, ever rust. Not to mention the plankton pretty much devour the filings before they hit the bottom of the seabed.

Quote from fm47

Can iron not rust, causing terrible water pollution?

Do you realise how oxidization of iron works?
It requires water [salt works as an enzyme, speeding the process immensely] and oxygen.
Without those, iron will never, ever rust.

Not to mention the plankton pretty much devour the filings before they hit the bottom of the seabed.

[quote=name:Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:KrayZee]You're the one saying 'Duh', yet you clearly said N[sub]2[/sub] is bad. And NO[sub]2[/sub] can't be reduced as much as CO[sub]2[/sub], you'll have to get rid of PM[sub]2.5[/sub] first.[/quote] I knew it was NO[sub]2[/sub], it just came out weird idk. Forgot the O somewhere in the mix of things. Mah bhad. Where did PM[sup]2.5[/sup] come from? Does that have anything to do with anything? [/quote] Yes and it's called a Ultrafine Particle Matter. PM[sub]10[/sub] is the regular size.

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from KrayZee

You're the one saying 'Duh', yet you clearly said N₂ is bad. And NO₂ can't be reduced as much as CO₂, you'll have to get rid of PM_2.5 first.

I knew it was NO₂, it just came out weird idk. Forgot the O somewhere in the mix of things. Mah bhad.
Where did PM^2.5 come from? Does that have anything to do with anything?

Yes and it's called a Ultrafine Particle Matter. PM₁₀ is the regular size.

[quote=Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:WoAHorde]Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas; water vapour and CO[sub]2[/sub] however, are. More Carbon Dioxide and other minute greenhouse gases raise the temperature, causing more water vapour to exsist in the atmosphere. After a point, you're on a positive feedback loop and you're well on your way to becoming Venus.[/quote] We already decided it is actually nitrous oxide, not nitrogen...[/quote] It's nitrogen dioxide (NO[sub]2[/sub]). Nitrous oxide (N[sub]2[/sub]O) is laughing gas. -.- [quote=name:Jello-Jigglers]lol and a citation isn't needed, just Google it you'll find what you're looking for :)[/quote] Keep up that shit and you're garunteed to fail at this argument at some point. Now get back onto the topic on getting rid of CO2 or else I'll stab all of you. :flamer:

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from WoAHorde[MM]

Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas; water vapour and CO₂ however, are. More Carbon Dioxide and other minute greenhouse gases raise the temperature, causing more water vapour to exsist in the atmosphere. After a point, you're on a positive feedback loop and you're well on your way to becoming Venus.

We already decided it is actually nitrous oxide, not nitrogen...

It's nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). Nitrous oxide (N₂O) is laughing gas. -.-

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

lol and a citation isn't needed, just Google it you'll find what you're looking for

Keep up that shit and you're garunteed to fail at this argument at some point.


Now get back onto the topic on getting rid of CO2 or else I'll stab all of you.

[quote=name:FlyingHat][quote=Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:WoAHorde]Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas; water vapour and CO[sub]2[/sub] however, are. More Carbon Dioxide and other minute greenhouse gases raise the temperature, causing more water vapour to exsist in the atmosphere. After a point, you're on a positive feedback loop and you're well on your way to becoming Venus.[/quote] We already decided it is actually nitrous oxide, not nitrogen...[/quote] It's nitrogen dioxide (NO[sub]2[/sub]). Nitrous oxide (N[sub]2[/sub]O) is laughing gas. -.-[/quote] It actually is N[sub]2[/sub]O... Read that .doc i posted. [quote=name:Jello-Jigglers]lol and a citation isn't needed, just Google it you'll find what you're looking for :)[/quote] Keep up that shit and you're garunteed to fail at this argument at some point.[/quote] Validity? [quote]Now get back onto the topic on getting rid of CO2 or else I'll stab all of you. :flamer:[/quote] The subject matter of has slightly shifted but it's still on topic... You can virtually stab me all you want :bleh:

Quote from FlyingHat

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from WoAHorde[MM]

Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas; water vapour and CO₂ however, are. More Carbon Dioxide and other minute greenhouse gases raise the temperature, causing more water vapour to exsist in the atmosphere. After a point, you're on a positive feedback loop and you're well on your way to becoming Venus.

We already decided it is actually nitrous oxide, not nitrogen...

It's nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). Nitrous oxide (N₂O) is laughing gas. -.-

It actually is N₂O... Read that .doc i posted.

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

lol and a citation isn't needed, just Google it you'll find what you're looking for

Keep up that shit and you're garunteed to fail at this argument at some point.[/quote]
Validity?

Quote

Now get back onto the topic on getting rid of CO2 or else I'll stab all of you.

The subject matter of has slightly shifted but it's still on topic... You can virtually stab me all you want

[quote=name:Jello-Jigglers] It actually is N[sub]2[/sub]O... Read that .doc i posted. [/quote] :lol: Now seriously, don't get off topic here. And removing NO[sub]2[/sub] is a lot harder than removing CO[sub]2[/sub]. And N[sub]2[/sub]O really is laughing gas, so... :lol:

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

It actually is N₂O... Read that .doc i posted.

Now seriously, don't get off topic here. And removing NO₂ is a lot harder than removing CO₂.

And N₂O really is laughing gas, so...

[quote]Scientists do a shitload of research before they dump a ton of iron into the sea.[/quote] I'm sorry to say, but scientists only study things in their field or that they think are interesting. They won't be able to say what will happen in some other field of study. And I doubt a scientist from every research field is given the same assignment.

Quote

Scientists do a shitload of research before they dump a ton of iron into the sea.

I'm sorry to say, but scientists only study things in their field or that they think are interesting. They won't be able to say what will happen in some other field of study. And I doubt a scientist from every research field is given the same assignment.

Create a machine that will change the number of protons of large amounts of atoms XD

Create a machine that will change the number of protons of large amounts of atoms XD

You know how people adapt to there surroundings? What if we as humans have slowly began to use CO[sub]2[/sub] as a source of breathing? Yeah it would take a really long time but it could happen. Animals adapted and so could we. Instead of trying to get rid of this noxious gas, why not cope with it? If thats not thinking outside of the box, then I don't know what is... Either that or someone could develop some type of energy that we haven't discovered yet that can create more energy for it self when it expends energy. I think this is called "self propulsion" or something like that. The word I'm looking for means that its a type of engine that can use energy (turn a shaft) and then while its doing this, it creates energy for itself off of the shaft. I remember the laws of conservation: You can't create or destroy energy, its merely transfered. If this holds true the energy would be transfered to the shaft which should in return create energy for the engine in a never ending process. Think of this. Have you ever gone somewheres where there someone is talking through a microphone and you here that extremely loud high pitch coming from the speakers? Well this is known as feedback (notice: no Dark Archon :lol:) The microphone creates a sound that gets amplified by the speakers. The sound then travels back into the microphone and gets sent back to the speakers, but this time its even louder. Do this really really fast and you have a high pitch sound. That is why when you here it, it moves up in pitch as time increases.

You know how people adapt to there surroundings? What if we as humans have slowly began to use CO₂ as a source of breathing? Yeah it would take a really long time but it could happen. Animals adapted and so could we. Instead of trying to get rid of this noxious gas, why not cope with it? If thats not thinking outside of the box, then I don't know what is... Either that or someone could develop some type of energy that we haven't discovered yet that can create more energy for it self when it expends energy. I think this is called "self propulsion" or something like that. The word I'm looking for means that its a type of engine that can use energy (turn a shaft) and then while its doing this, it creates energy for itself off of the shaft. I remember the laws of conservation: You can't create or destroy energy, its merely transfered. If this holds true the energy would be transfered to the shaft which should in return create energy for the engine in a never ending process. Think of this. Have you ever gone somewheres where there someone is talking through a microphone and you here that extremely loud high pitch coming from the speakers? Well this is known as feedback (notice: no Dark Archon ) The microphone creates a sound that gets amplified by the speakers. The sound then travels back into the microphone and gets sent back to the speakers, but this time its even louder. Do this really really fast and you have a high pitch sound. That is why when you here it, it moves up in pitch as time increases.

[quote=name:candle12345][quote=name:fm47]Can iron not rust, causing terrible water pollution?[/quote] Do you realise how oxidization of iron works? It requires water [salt works as an enzyme, speeding the process immensely] and oxygen. Without those, iron will never, ever rust. Not to mention the plankton pretty much devour the filings before they hit the bottom of the seabed.[/quote][quote=name:FaRTy1billion]They don't dump raw iron into the ocean... it's an iron compound that the plankton consume and overjoy upon.[/quote] :mad: [quote]Iron is believed to be the critical missing nutrient in the ocean that limits the growth of plankton. Experimental iron fertilization of areas of the ocean using iron(II) sulfate has proven successful in increasing plankton growth.[/quote]

Quote from candle12345

Quote from fm47

Can iron not rust, causing terrible water pollution?

Do you realise how oxidization of iron works?
It requires water [salt works as an enzyme, speeding the process immensely] and oxygen.
Without those, iron will never, ever rust.

Not to mention the plankton pretty much devour the filings before they hit the bottom of the seabed.

Quote from O)FaRTy1billion[MM]

They don't dump raw iron into the ocean... it's an iron compound that the plankton consume and overjoy upon.

Quote

Iron is believed to be the critical missing nutrient in the ocean that limits the growth of plankton. Experimental iron fertilization of areas of the ocean using iron(II) sulfate has proven successful in increasing plankton growth.

Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.

Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.

[quote=name:KrayZee]Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.[/quote] An inconvenient truth says there would be more earthquakes and mudslides due to earthquakes... I thought people who believed in GW believed in that movie?

Quote from KrayZee

Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.

An inconvenient truth says there would be more earthquakes and mudslides due to earthquakes... I thought people who believed in GW believed in that movie?

[quote=name:Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:KrayZee]Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.[/quote] An inconvenient truth says there would be more earthquakes and mudslides due to earthquakes... I thought people who believed in GW believed in that movie?[/quote] Are you jumping to conclusions? And what movie? The tectonic plates are not earthquakes and mudslides, they CAUSE earthquakes. Earthquakes don't cause earthquakes, if it does, then it would last for a lifetime. Now to get away from off topic, the point of this topic is to find ways to get rid of only CO[sub]2[/sub], NOT N[sub]2[/sub]O or NO[sub]2[/sub] as you clearly stated before.

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from KrayZee

Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.

An inconvenient truth says there would be more earthquakes and mudslides due to earthquakes... I thought people who believed in GW believed in that movie?

Are you jumping to conclusions? And what movie? The tectonic plates are not earthquakes and mudslides, they CAUSE earthquakes. Earthquakes don't cause earthquakes, if it does, then it would last for a lifetime. Now to get away from off topic, the point of this topic is to find ways to get rid of only CO₂, NOT N₂O or NO₂ as you clearly stated before.

[quote=name:KrayZee][quote=name:Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:KrayZee]Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.[/quote] An inconvenient truth says there would be more earthquakes and mudslides due to earthquakes... I thought people who believed in GW believed in that movie?[/quote] Are you jumping to conclusions? And what movie? The tectonic plates are not earthquakes and mudslides, they CAUSE earthquakes. Earthquakes don't cause earthquakes, if it does, then it would last for a lifetime. Now to get away from off topic, the point of this topic is to find ways to get rid of only CO[sub]2[/sub], NOT N[sub]2[/sub]O or NO[sub]2[/sub] as you clearly stated before.[/quote] What i said was completely valid. The Inconvenient Truth is a movie made by Al Gore about global warming and about it's connections to CO[sub]2[/sub] and how we need to remove it or the human race will die(supposedly). Why would we want to get rid of CO[sub]2[/sub] if it's not the really problem???

Quote from KrayZee

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from KrayZee

Brontobyte, it's not only that idea would take thousands of years. But Global Warming will affect by melting Antarctica, North Pole, Mountains then by flooding the shores across the world caused by Tsunamis and warming up Hurricanes. Even through a recent study of Global Warming is stopping the tectonic plates to reduce Earthquakes, doesn't mean it will do us any good through the other disasters.

An inconvenient truth says there would be more earthquakes and mudslides due to earthquakes... I thought people who believed in GW believed in that movie?

Are you jumping to conclusions? And what movie? The tectonic plates are not earthquakes and mudslides, they CAUSE earthquakes. Earthquakes don't cause earthquakes, if it does, then it would last for a lifetime. Now to get away from off topic, the point of this topic is to find ways to get rid of only CO₂, NOT N₂O or NO₂ as you clearly stated before.

What i said was completely valid. The Inconvenient Truth is a movie made by Al Gore about global warming and about it's connections to CO₂ and how we need to remove it or the human race will die(supposedly). Why would we want to get rid of CO₂ if it's not the really problem???

[quote=name:Brontobyte]I think this is called "self propulsion" or something like that. The word I'm looking for means that its a type of engine that can use energy (turn a shaft) and then while its doing this, it creates energy for itself off of the shaft. I remember the laws of conservation: You can't create or destroy energy, its merely transfered. If this holds true the energy would be transfered to the shaft which should in return create energy for the engine in a never ending process..[/quote] False. This engine wouldn't even be able to keep itself running, unless overcoming friction wasn't a problem. Sure, it could convert kinetic energy to electrical, but it would still need that much energy to continue moving. Due to friction, it would take even more energy than that to keep going. "Free energy" machines have been thought of, but they've never worked, and they won't work until we can achieve perpetual motion on Earth.

Quote from Brontobyte

I think this is called "self propulsion" or something like that. The word I'm looking for means that its a type of engine that can use energy (turn a shaft) and then while its doing this, it creates energy for itself off of the shaft. I remember the laws of conservation: You can't create or destroy energy, its merely transfered. If this holds true the energy would be transfered to the shaft which should in return create energy for the engine in a never ending process..

False. This engine wouldn't even be able to keep itself running, unless overcoming friction wasn't a problem. Sure, it could convert kinetic energy to electrical, but it would still need that much energy to continue moving. Due to friction, it would take even more energy than that to keep going. "Free energy" machines have been thought of, but they've never worked, and they won't work until we can achieve perpetual motion on Earth.

And Bronto, the term you're looking for is 'Perpetual Motion'.

And Bronto, the term you're looking for is 'Perpetual Motion'.

And according to the laws of physics is impossible. If someone builds one, we're in deep shit, becaues it means nearly everything we know about physics is wrong. Me and a friend once contemplated what would happen if you had a perpetual motion machine. 1, a PMM cannot power anything, it just continues to move 2, The laws of physics forbid it, so we won't be able to keep our current theoretical physics running, because it's all wrong. So therefore, a PMM would give NOTHING to humanity, it would in fact be the exact OPPOSITE of a breakthrough, it would fuck science over, do nothing for society at all, and sell a shitload in the novelty companies.

And according to the laws of physics is impossible.
If someone builds one, we're in deep shit, becaues it means nearly everything we know about physics is wrong.

Me and a friend once contemplated what would happen if you had a perpetual motion machine.
1, a PMM cannot power anything, it just continues to move
2, The laws of physics forbid it, so we won't be able to keep our current theoretical physics running, because it's all wrong.

So therefore, a PMM would give NOTHING to humanity, it would in fact be the exact OPPOSITE of a breakthrough, it would fuck science over, do nothing for society at all, and sell a shitload in the novelty companies.

Just because it would 'break physics' doesn't mean it would be a bad thing. Wouldn't it be better to better understand the laws of physics instead of living with wrong ones? Sheesh.

Just because it would 'break physics' doesn't mean it would be a bad thing. Wouldn't it be better to better understand the laws of physics instead of living with wrong ones? Sheesh.

Yes, but it doesn't exist, if it were to exist, it would cause a lot of problems, more harm than good in fact. However, if it were possible, I'm sure we would have proved it by now, so our laws of physics are safe :D

Yes, but it doesn't exist, if it were to exist, it would cause a lot of problems, more harm than good in fact. However, if it were possible, I'm sure we would have proved it by now, so our laws of physics are safe

[quote=name:candle12345]Yes, but it doesn't exist, if it were to exist, it would cause a lot of problems, more harm than good in fact.[/quote] I don't see how a object in perpetual motion can cause any problems. [quote=name:candle12345]However, if it were possible, I'm sure we would have proved it by now[/quote] [quote] DapperDan2006: LIAR!!! NOT POSSIBLE! Really! FlyingHat: Anything is possible. DapperDan2006: How can you be so sure o.O. FlyingHat: Just look at how Willy Wonka succeded in his quest for chocolate love. DapperDan2006: hmm... Hat, your logic is undeniable, remind me to never argue with you again :P.[/quote] [quote=name:candle12345] so our laws of physics are safe :D[/quote] They were never in danger. Time to summarize, you're making a lot of, "It doesn't exist, but if it did...." statements that doesn't have to do with getting rid of CO2 candle. Now get back on topic because my logic is undeniable.

Quote from candle12345

Yes, but it doesn't exist, if it were to exist, it would cause a lot of problems, more harm than good in fact.

I don't see how a object in perpetual motion can cause any problems.

Quote from candle12345

However, if it were possible, I'm sure we would have proved it by now

Quote

DapperDan2006: LIAR!!! NOT POSSIBLE! Really!
FlyingHat: Anything is possible.
DapperDan2006: How can you be so sure o.O.
FlyingHat: Just look at how Willy Wonka succeded in his quest for chocolate love.
DapperDan2006: hmm... Hat, your logic is undeniable, remind me to never argue with you again .

Quote from candle12345

so our laws of physics are safe

They were never in danger.


Time to summarize, you're making a lot of, "It doesn't exist, but if it did...." statements that doesn't have to do with getting rid of CO2 candle.

Now get back on topic because my logic is undeniable.

By the way: http://www.staredit.net/topic/2020/ On topic, I still vote for iron. :P

By the way: The first and second laws of thermodynamics FAIL

On topic, I still vote for iron.