Alright, "CARBON" nanotubes. CARBON. They say that CO2 is the root cause of global warming. Well, since the air we breathe is made of O2, wouldn't CO2 be heavier, as is, with newtons laws in physics make it be at the bottom, and not the ozone?

That's just one of my beefs.

How can global warming be caused by man's CO2 when volcanoes have always pumped the bulk of that stuff since before science even defines man's existence?

All I'm trying to say is, the space elevator, this article, and so many other scientific projects rely on carbon-based solutions, only because we are CARBON-BASED LIFE.

So if people stop thinking we're causing global warming and just ignore it, maybe their minds' will open up to use that carbon product to make something useful.

Think about this: Instead of mufflers to muffle the noise, why not have a device which would capture ALL carbon emissions from vehicles, which could then shut up liberals, yet also be used to build these new carbon-based techs?

It seems like a no-brainer to me.

CHRIS DOWNS, what are you high on anyway?

What've you been smoking? You've got to remove your mouth from that Chevy '57 tailpipe, dude! Blowjobbing a low-tech engine spewing out hydro-carbons isn't getting you any smarter!

So do yourself a favor: wipe you mouth off of all that black soot, take a chill pill to relieve yourself of all that global warming, and call me in the morning...

CHRIS DOWNS: "It seems like a no-brainer to me."

Never were truer words spoken. You obviously did not use your brain at all when typing this post. Your questions illustrate a fundamental and profound lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues of global climate change and basic scientific principles (in spite of your limited reference to Newtonian physics).

We live in a free country and you are certainly welcome to whatever opionion you may hold, but I would encourage you to crack a textbook some time and read up on the science behind global climate change (or hell, just basic chemistry, biology, and physics... and nanosciences once you've absorbed the other topics).

I am not judging you as a person, but your opinions seem to be extremely ill-informed.

Good day.

I smell a troll. I can't imagine that Mr. Downs is really that uneducated. If I thought his post was real I'd advise him to immediately enroll in the nearest open-enrollment community college or continuing education program (Adam Sandler movies aside, I don't think they're allowing over-age children back into elementary school). If nothing else, I would point him to an online encyclopedia (I assume Wikipedia would be accused of a liberal bias) to research the actual composition of the atmosphere.

Mr Downs has obviously been drinking the right-wing koolaid. He needs to take a science class instead of listening to the disinformation spewed by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

Oh, I forgot, science is "too sciency" for Repugnicans. The fact that he implies that the use of carbon nanotubes to store hydrogen will contribute to CO2 emissions just shows how ignorant he is about science.

Do you guys actually believe everything that you read and here. That's like believing that TV never lies. If you look at many scientific textbooks you will see that they do not agree on everything. Just because textbooks say it is right doesn't make it right until there is substantial and unarguable proof. Theoretical or probable evidence is not fact, read more into the global warming issues and you will actually see that a lot of assumptions are made about things, a ton estimated numbers without substantial proof or things that are only tested once. In science a test is only considered proven if it can be repeated and you can get the same results.

OK, all the people telling Chris to go back to school or crack a book you are the idiots. please explain for your self why he is wrong. if you cant then just shut up and don't even talk cause then that makes you the true definition of an idiot.

zemric is right. mean people point out flaws. nice people help with flaws.

i may no longer be a college student, but i think i still got a hold of science. YES. newton's law says that heavy objects fall due to earth's gravity. BUT, CO2 is a gas. it's as lite as air. which means that it's not as compelled by gravity as the heavier solids and liquids. AND maybe CO2 is heavier then O2 (not sure), but it's still lite enough to drift into the atmosphere.

and yes, volcanoes have been spewing CO2 for eons before humanity. BUT, *now* human technologies are making *Extra* CO2. the atmosphere can handle the volcano's CO2 amount. it's been handling it for several millennia. but our CO2 drifting up *with* the volcano amount is more than the ozone layer's tolerance.

The guys attacking Chris Downs tell him to read and grab a text book and go to school to learn. But when was the last time you did that? If you had been keeping up with current texts, documentaries, and other news you would know that he is not crazy. Right now I can just remember "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Now It may be true that CO2 is up there and causes global warming, but the claims by lots of scientist are that from all the CO2 in the world humans are responsible for a very little percentage. Like if you would get a clear glass of water, add a table spoon of food coloring, then humans add just one drop more. I'm not saying it is 100% proved that humans causing global warming is a lie, but it is scientists on both ends telling what their own findings say. Also, other studies show that other gases like methane affect global warming 4 times more than CO2, where does it come from, some studies show (believe it or not) cows! Are we going to go arround killin all cows? no. So I sugest before you call someone names and insult him, make sure you have made your homework and aren't just looking at one side of the story. Now what bout the moon landing hoax...? haha.

Why can't we try a simple solution to global warming: plant more trees. Trees are cut down by the thousands every day. If developers had to replant large numbers of trees after completing their developments it might help offset global warming since they use CO2. It would definitely retard erosion and reduce flooding.

CHEMISTRY:
Buffer Solution: a Solution set up by many biological and ecological processes to regulate the amount of a specific compound in the system. Most notably found in the chemistry of blood. Buffer systems react exponentially to addition or subtraction of the target compound. You can add a fair amount of the target compound and not much happens, then if you add a little more, a small change occurs, then if you add a little more, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!

ORGANIC CHEMISTRY:
The Carbon Base: Since Carbon has the highest valence of the period 2 non-metals, this makes it THE most flexible element when it comes to bonding to create compounds. The ability to store energy in multiple bonds per carbon atom, and then release it later makes it a good energy transfer medium for biological systems, and is the reason it is so effective as a fuel for internal combustion engines. The vast number of compounds it can create makes it a flexible building block for making amino acids, proteins, etc. This combined with the fact that it is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, makes it a logical choice for the basis of life itself.

NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY:
Isotopes: While an element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, the number of neutrons can vary with out radically effecting the chemical properties of the element. These are known as isotopes of the element. Usually one isotope is predominant. Carbon's main isotope is called carbon-12, the next most common is carbon-13, and then carbon-14. Interestingly, the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 released in volcanic eruptions is slightly lower then the ratio of carbon released by burning fossil fuels. By looking at ice cores from the Antarctic, we can not only see how the carbon levels in the atmosphere have increased, but we can see how much of that increase is man-made by looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the ice, and comparing that to the levels currently in the atmosphere.

FLUID DYNAMICS:
Gasses and liquids under gravity will settle out based on respective densities (not molecular mass). Ideal Gas Law: pV=nRT. p is density, V is volume, n is moles, R is a constant specific to the gas, T is temperature. If the values for R for several gasses are similar, then they can form a mixture and act as one gas with a composite R value. O2 has an R value of 260 J/kgK, CO2 is 189, N2 is 297, H2 is 4124, He is 2077. Which ones can mix?

DEFORESTATION:
With the slash and burn practices being used to turn massive amounts of tropical rainforest into farmland in use, planting a few trees here and there is a little like slapping a band-aid on a severed limb.

GOOD SENSE:
If it may one day be possible to power our cars off of THE most abundant element the universe, that after use forms a compound KNOWN to be harmless to our environment; rather then a compound that is in very limited supply, that after use forms a compound that many people believe is harmful to our environment, then shouldn’t we peruse that option? If not for the goal of preventing damage to our environment, then at least for the goal of not completely depleting a natural resource?

Mr. White: I’m gonna rip you a new one for your previous post on Hydrogen fuel cells

P.S. Mr. White, don't think I didn't notice that in your last post you used an article on a *BUS* to imply that a Hydrogen Fuel Cell *CAR* would cost an extra $200,000. Ya, I'm gonna rip you a new one for sure!

OOPS, forgot one subject.

BIOLOGY:
Predator/Prey balance: How many cows do you think would be out there producing Methane if we didn't grow them in vast herds, protected from natural predators by barb wire fences and shotguns, all so that we can have our Big Mac's?

Very good points, DANCESONSNOW, very well explained, and no insults. This is the right way to have a discussion in a science page. Back on Eco-friendly vehicles, some people convert their own Fossil Fuel cars into Electric ones with very good results. I hope we can do that more and more in the future because the big companies will always try to save the economy before saving the planet.

Dancesonsnow

Good points but you are making a blanket statement regarding deforestation. Here in the United States we actually have more trees than any other times in our history. I have seen rates of 2 to 3 times depending on which time period compared.

Also you have left out the data on the increased solar energy. There is some level of Global Warming, but history shows us that it is natural and cyclical (seven cycles in recent recorded history). After all, the "Oldest quiver and leather pants" just discovered in the Alps as the glacier receded were there BEFORE the glacier.

For laughs pull out the Scientific Journal article from the 1970's that touts we are entering the "Next Ice Age".

I still say your barking up the wrong tube, since pneumatic motors are still the best past/future tech we will see in our life time. It just needs the freedom from the major energy companies that have us under their strangle hold to be produced. There are 3 companies working in it now that I know of.

Also look into the safety bumpers tech that has been suppressed:
http://dmr-gutters.com/history.htm#1969

Hello:)

Actually, Mr.Downs is not that far off. Carbon dioxide can be turned into methane using water and heat. Methane can be turned into carbon nanotubes. Methane is actually the leading hydrocarbon used in making what little of a carbon nanotube market we have. The good news is that its easier to make than reagular carbon fiber. So the basics of pulling carbon out of the air is correct. They also do have catalyst filters for mufflers. They have used them in mining operations for years. The question is, do you want to pay for the extra cost and the loss of efficiency in a combustion cycle. The other thing I would like to respond to is global warming. It is true that most global warming is half and half in the science field. However, majority of scientists will tell you that for a fact the co2 levels were much higher millions of years ago. Specifically around the time of the dinasours. This is pretty much where we get our oil today from. I see no point in the global warming agenda. I do think that carbon will always be here. The difference is that eventually we will be smart enough not to burn a carcingen into the air. Rather we shall be using it as a textile. Did you know you can stick any meat or vegetable in the grinder, throw it in a pipe, heat it up to 500f at 700 PSI and out will come oil? Anyways, have fun:)

Stumblingoversnow, debunking you is much like shooting fish in a barrel
The reason the CO2 does not settle can be understood if you study the concepts of viscosity and Reynolds number. An example w/o explanation would be dust in the air. As long as the air is in motion the dust will not settle.
As for Global warming I read a text dated in the early 1800’s that stated “We should be able to prove the Earth is slowly warming since we are coming out of an ice age.” As for man’s contributions, you should learn the words primary, secondary, and tertiary. Man’s addition could barely even be called tertiary.
And now for an epiphany. The real cause of Global warming is the blind pursuit of a Green economy. The more we build solar collectors the more heat we trap here on Earth. We have but one hope. We must paint all solar panels white.