Question for proponents of the incredibly flexible theory

of man-made climate change.
We know that CO2 or plain old carbon dioxide is the big bogeyman for the global warming religionists by virtue of the fact that it’s a greenhouse gas.
We also know that scientists and engineers are working hard on alternative energy sources and that among them are hydrogen power. There are already prototypes that run on hydrogen and generate a clean exhaust of WATER VAPOR.
My question is this: how long will we continue to allow engineers to work on technology that produces a greenhouse gas that is much more potent than CO2? I mean water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And what will a fleet of hydrogen powered cars do in places like Miami where there’s incredible amounts of water vapor in the air already?
Just something to ponder.

10 thoughts on “Question for proponents of the incredibly flexible theory”

  1. The only way water vapor would increase global warming would be under these circumstances such as what you had happen on Venus.
    Still, if we had any type of fuel that got us off of petrol, the mid east, and chavez, would be a blessing and an improvement to the environment too. Less crap in the air…. just try standing in the line at MIA and breath in the fumes …. pretty disgusting.

  2. I’ll be very honest, if using a hydrogen powered car means I don’t have to by gasoline and that somehow drives down crude demand and affects the middle east and other oil based economies – I will be a happy camper.
    As for water vapor, I don’t know much about greenhouse gases, but on gut I dare say Miami won’t be as sunny anymore?

  3. If you think the people in that part of the world are nasty now wait until their source of wealth becomes nothing more than black mud.
    Seriously, I don’t know how viable hydrogen cars but my point is that eventually the environmentalists will find fault with them too. And they’ll find fault with any alternative energy because what they really want to halt industrialization and economic growth. They are Luddites that want us to go back to the horse and buggy days like Cuba did in the 1990s.

  4. well if memory serves me correct, aren’t animals the biggest source of CO2?
    Actually fuel cell technology already exists. It’s what powers the shuttle while in space. The issue is making it cost effective.

  5. The issue is making it cost effective.
    And safe.
    Isn’t hydrogen what was in the Hindenberg?

  6. hydrogen is as flammable as gasoline. but the technology is not pumping hydrogen into a tank.
    it involves fuel cell technology which creates energy by essentially combining 2 parts H with 1 part O. the byproduct … water H2O.

  7. When ever I get to Miami, and that is not often, immense amounts of condensed water vapor fall each afternoon. This is because air only holds so much water vapor then it drops as rain…. (;>)
    El aguacero que me esta cayendo
    y el aguardiente que tome muy poco

    or was it:
    Y este frio que me esta matando
    ninita linda que me vuelve loco
    Old Colombian folk song

  8. I don’t think something producing water vapor is going to be a problem. It’s just water.

    The real question is what effect on the environment was there in creating the fuel cell? Where do you get most of the hydrogen — isn’t it from separating H and O2 from water molecules? Electrolysis, right? And how much of a “carbon footprint” does that process have, (hich requires burning coal or oil since we can’t use nuke)?
    Same question for hybrid cars — sure they burn less gas, but you have to burn a fair amount of coal to generate the electricity required to charge the battery.

    “Green” is often as dirty or dirtier than old school. Which brings us back to Henry’s point, which is that a clean environment is a secondary concern to environmentalists, something to hang their collective hat on while they come up with new ways to weaken the American economy and therefore America.

  9. if we finally say screw you to opec, the arabs and chavez through any technology that would only make us stronger. but i’m sure there’s some putz who’ll be against that too.

Comments are closed.