It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
QUEENSFERRY (Reuters) - The world's richest corporations and finest minds spend billions trying to solve the problem of carbon emissions, but three fishing buddies in North Wales believe they have cracked it.
They have developed a box which they say can be fixed underneath a car in place of the exhaust to trap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming -- including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide -- and emit mostly water vapor.
Originally posted by BomSquad
I don't believe that man is the sole cause of global warming, and I doubt that he is the main cause as well. That being said, I also believe in being as efficient as possible in our use of global resources.
Why cause pollution if it is unneccessary? I believe in being as "green" as economically feasible. This is not to be confused with being as "green" as possible. These are 2 completly different things.
I recently had to redo my roof on my house. I seriously considered using solar shingles as opposed to standard asphalt shingles. This not only would have been "green" but would obviously have the additional effect of reducing my monthly electric bill. I have a great, south facing roof surface that has no shade at all, that would have been perfect for solar. The problem was that the grants that were available to off set the cost of this project weren't available to residents of the town, because my town owns it's own electric company. This made the project no longer economically feasible, and I ended up using standard shingles.
Dubbed "Greenbox," the technology developed by organic chemist Derek Palmer and engineers Ian Houston and John Jones could, they say, be used for cars, buses, lorries and eventually buildings and heavy industry, including power plants.
Originally posted by uberarcanist
Originally posted by BomSquad
I don't believe that man is the sole cause of global warming, and I doubt that he is the main cause as well. That being said, I also believe in being as efficient as possible in our use of global resources.
Why cause pollution if it is unneccessary? I believe in being as "green" as economically feasible. This is not to be confused with being as "green" as possible. These are 2 completly different things.
I recently had to redo my roof on my house. I seriously considered using solar shingles as opposed to standard asphalt shingles. This not only would have been "green" but would obviously have the additional effect of reducing my monthly electric bill. I have a great, south facing roof surface that has no shade at all, that would have been perfect for solar. The problem was that the grants that were available to off set the cost of this project weren't available to residents of the town, because my town owns it's own electric company. This made the project no longer economically feasible, and I ended up using standard shingles.
I would like to add that while I do not believe that emissions of carbon dioxide by man are a serious problem, it is beyond any serious dispute that cars, factories, and power plants produce smog, which causes all sorts of problems. Getting beyond carbon combustion for this reason is certainly a commendable goal, but the Welsh scientists' discovery here will not contribute in this regard, as far as I am aware, unless the ethanol processing does not emit carbon compounds.
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
Originally posted by BomSquad
That's a pretty interesting product. I wish they gave more details on how the product actually works. Like what substance the "refining rod" was made out of, and how it breaks down molecules into their individual elements and converts them to a plasma state at such low temperatures.
I sent away for a quote to see what the pricing is like for their kit. We'll see what happens.
Originally posted by uberarcanist
Personally, I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming on account of the warming on other planets in the solar system, so I just don't care that much about this news.
Originally posted by apc
Your typical driver hardly ever checks the oil at fill-up. I strongly doubt you could get people to swap one of these out either. I only see this becoming common if it could be replaced at oil change.
Originally posted by apc
(no matter what one's opinion on greenhouse gases is)