Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hull City' started by balkan tiger, Nov 1, 2021.
Methane breaks down into CO2.
It doesn't take much digging to see that it's politics rather than science driving the issues, and fueling the media.
I think you mean ozone.
Hydrogen and carbon capture and storage/use, and let's not go into the biomass by one of the other main COP sponsors.
How do you get O3 out of CH4?
And it was a plant based croissant too
I'm not sure why you think you would.
EDIT. I now see why you asked, I misread your post, and assumed the ozone required was already involved.
If those processes are powered by renewable energy then we're golden.
Then you have a lot to learn.
Edit: Seen your edit.
Not that much, if you re-read my edited reply.
How about you post something meaningful instead of questions?
That rather depends, and leads to even more issues that are yet to be resolved, such as recycling and end of use.
Before you post it, I've read the theories, but also seen the realities.
Again - this board has excelled itself, it’s been a real education.
Better than Google. Fact!!
I edited mine.
I haven't got any questions and I'm not sure what you class as 'meaningful'.
If that were to be the case, why has it taken 25 years to get to this point?
Only if you burn it in plenty of oxygen.
Then it's a good job there's no oxygen in our atmosphere.
I'm sure it doesn't, they've probably paid good money to make the info so accessible.
So if the current media bites are correct, that's global warming solved if there's no CO2 along with the hydroxyl radicals then.
Here’s my view.
The biggest outcome for me of COP 26 may be that posters on a football forum are debating climate change. If that awareness and debate is replicated around the world, then it is an unimaginable success.
I look forward to the news report that features two Taliban saying to the reporter that DMD made a great point but that graph was just great.