[citation][nom]maestintaolius[/nom]Yeah, if everything everywhere went wrong simultaneously. In which case, we were probably struck by an asteroid that increased the planet's temp to 1000C, or if the H2 leak was massive enough odds are it'd hit an ignition source anyway. Again, this whole "ZOMG WE'RE LOSING WATER!!! RUN!!!!!" concern is completely idiotic, the water isn't going anywhere. The planet is literally COVERED in life that disassociates water using sunlight and there's still an awful lot of water around that so it isn't being lost to some invisible boogey-man.[/citation]
Firstly - everything wouldn't have to go wrong simultaneously for this to occur. Just a small portion. For example, an earthquake like the one which hit japan.
Secondly - if you read my comments you'll hopefully see I've not said anything remotely resembling a claim we're going to run out of water.
Thirdly - 'disassociating' water and converting water to hydrogen and oxygen are not the same thing. Hydrogen, being lighter, is more prone to escaping. What other examples do you have of things which 'cover' the earth which convert water to hydrogen?
[citation][nom]maestintaolius[/nom]You are correct, obviously if we start losing water to some magic wizard there will be changes to the planet as the planet's water coverage decreases. However, that wasn't my point, the point was the merely illustrate there's a TON of water when compared to pretty much any other resource we use on a daily basis. We have far more pressing supply concerns over rare earths metal, 'normal' metals, oil, top soil erosion, phosphorous, et al.[/citation]
If I'm right, why are you arguing? You can't contradict me by arguing against things I never said. I never said that we have more oil than water, for example. I simply said that YOUR calculation working out how long it would take for water to run out entirely was the wrong calculation to make to prove your point. And it is. That being said, water and oxygen are pretty much the only things we need to live. There is far more oxygen in the world than water. In fact. the Earth is made up of a relatively low percentage of water. Everything else, such as oil, is very much replaceable.
[citation][nom]maestintaolius[/nom
Loss of oil does indeed affect your life directly and not just because someone without oil will shoot you to steal your half-empty gas can. We don't just burn oil to make our cars go fast. We use it to drive the vehicles that move your food, we use it to drive the vehicles that plant, tend to and harvest your food. We use it to make fertilizers (granted a weak argument because we can use any methane source to drive it). We use it to make chemical feedstocks and solvents for other processes, such as pharmaceuticals, that lives definitely do depend on. I'm sure we could figure out how to get by if suddenly all the world's oil instantly vanished to mischievous elves, but the loss of oil will obviously make other energy sources, such as NG, cost more. If food cost goes up, starvation for a significant chunk of the planet becomes a very real and very sudden concern (heck, the minor increase in food cost due to biofuel production has caused some serious havoc amongst the poorest people in the world). It's certainly more pressing than some crazy fear that this device is somehow going to transport all of our water to an alternate dimension where cats chase dogs, up becomes left and blue becomes seven after a few million years of usage.I'll tell ya what, I'll make you a deal. If these devices cause us to lose water to the point where it damages the planet, I will reincarnate myself 10 million years in the future and build a device that recaptures all the lost water from where ever it went and returns it to the planet using 3 paper clips, a rubber band, a stick of that really hard gum that comes with baseball cards and 2 rhesus monkeys. The odds of me accomplishing the above is certainly higher than the odds this device will in anyway what-so-ever have a significant, if even detectable, effect on the world's water supply.This concern that these leaves would even have the potential to destroy the world's water supply is just so incredibly far off it's not even wrong.[/citation]
This whole paragraph is ironically exactly the doomsday style crap you criticise other people for saying (hopefully you realise I’m not included in that). Lets take ur points step by step:
1 – Vehicles to drive, vehicles to plant & harvest food – There are electric versions available even now, and there will MOST definitely be when the oil runs out, at which point all the current machinery wont work anyway so would have had to be replaced.
2 – Fertilisers – so many different options for alternatives.
3 – Solvents – there are organic solvents
4 – Feedstock – biomaterials can be substituted
5 – ‘if we suddenly lost all the world’s oil’ – we wont suddenly lose it, just like nobody claimed we would suddenly lose water. We have time and knowledge to prepare, and are doing.
6 – ‘loss of oil will obviously make other energy sources, such as NG, cost more’ – actually, it probably wont. Due to the fact that there is a huge push towards renewable energy right now, and alternatives to oil – we’ll probably be LESS NG dependant, not more.
7 – ‘heck, the minor increase in food cost due to biofuel production has caused some serious havoc amongst the poorest people in the world’ – that’s because the process isn’t mainstream and worldwide yet. It will be by the time the oil runs out. I ask you what problems lack of water has caused for the poorest people in the world, even now?
8 – ‘I will build a device that recaptures all the lost water’ – No, you won’t. It’s not even theoretically possible.
9 – ‘The odds of me accomplishing the above is certainly higher than the odds this device will in anyway what-so-ever have a significant, if even detectable, effect on the world's water supply’ – because what you claim is impossible, the odds are in fact NOT higher than this device affecting worlds water supply, so your statement is wrong. Mainly due to the fact that it will never become mainstream (and not because of the science we are debating). But again, read all of my comments, I’ve not once said this device is likely to cause a detectable effect on the worlds water.
10 – ‘This concern that these leaves would even have the potential to destroy the world's water supply is just so incredibly far off it's not even wrong’ – It’s VERY basic and simple logic my friend. What is being stated is that IF there is a device which uses water with the POTENTIAL to malfunction when converting the hydrogen and oxygen back to water, and given that hydrogen in the atmosphere is lost to space, that logically and NECESSARILY means that the water level will reduce. The rate at which it does and the significance of such a loss are not any points which are being made. But it’s a logical fact.
The bottom line is that all your mumblings on about oil, are in fact, completely irrelevant and completely off-topic. That being said, they're also wrong because for every 'problem' you've put forward, there is ALREADY an existing solution. There is NOT an alternative to using hydrogen for water.
[/citation]
/www.scientificamerican.com/ [...] tmospheresJust to be clear - by doing this I'm not agreeing with all of TA152H comments, but it's fairly common knowledge in the scientific community that Hydrogen is lost from the Earths atmosphere.[/citation]
Facebook
Twitter