Got a question that you want solved ?
Fill out the form below and well do our best to solve it !
If your car has been sitting around for awhile, in your backyard or something of that nature it is a good time to consider getting rid of it. We At FooSolvesUnified believe this to be true because having a car lying around can contribute to the amount of pollution in the environment, additionally you are wasting a perfectly good car that could be used for parts, which would prevent more parts from being created.
One option you may try is calling a company that pays you cash for cars like this one. We found this site online but there are plenty other companies similar to this one. The added benefit of using a site like above is they will pay you for the car, plus tow it away. So, we suggest you definitely try out the above method if you’d prefer to receive cash, and also help the environment. This option is sort of a win-win for everyone.
We went ahead and did some research about the process of actually removing/ recycling an older vehicle. We essentially found that you have three options. First, you can bring your car to a metal yard somewhere that scraps metal and they would be able to give you something for it, and use it for parts. Although, the downside to this option is you’ll have to arrange for the tow yourself which can get a bit complicated.
Lastly, one option you can try is actually calling a local junk yard. Often times junk yards will be able to come to your location to remove the car. They usually won’t pay you anything for it but they will be able to reuse the parts so you can feel good helping the environment.
Hopefully, that answered your question about recycling cars. If you’d like any clarification remember you can always get in touch with us by email. We look forward to answering more of your questions! Tune in again, we hope to answer more of your questions!
A lot of people may think global warming is a hoax because of disagreement among scientists over whether temperature data and the scientific models used to predict climate change are accurate.
The current climate models used to predict global warming are extremely complicated because they try to predict global warming “feedback loops” — ways in which global warming caused by humans might create even more global warming down the line.
Here’s an example of a feedback loop: Humans release carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, warming the temperature of the earth by one degree. Even though the temperature change is small, it causes more water from oceans and lakes to evaporate into Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor in the atmosphere is also a greenhouse gas, so the extra water vapor in the atmosphere raises the temperature a little more.
How much should that temperature rise be? What if you add in another feedback variable, like the Earth absorbing more sunlight because there is less snow and ice to reflect the sunlight back into space?
There are many other feedback loop variables that make the global warming models more complicated. The more variables climate scientists have to predict, the more complicated making an accurate prediction comes, and that is why even some scientists are skeptical of global warming claims.
A recent scholarly article in Science Bulletin, titled “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” criticized current models for their complexity. Instead of trying to predict for feedback variables, as other models had done, their alternative, “simple” model, compared the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth and the amount of energy that the Earth re-radiated into space.
The result of their findings, they said, suggested that current climate predictions are greatly exaggerated.
Because controversy like this is often reported on by media outlets, many people begin to doubt global warming as a result. If scientists can’t agree on manmade global warming, why should people believe in it? However, it’s important to keep in mind that the majority of scientists believe global warming is a real, observable phenomenon. Even the article in Science Bulletin acknowledged some warming, albeit at a lower rate.
The Science Bulletin article can be viewed here: Science Bulletin article
There’s also a Daily Mail article which has a lot of information and is somewhat easier to read: Daily Mail articl.
What is the sky? One definition states it as “the space above the earth that you see when you look up into the air.” This simplistic definition assumes the viewer is on the Earth. The sky as one sees it on Earth looks different than one looking down at the Earth from a spacecraft or the moon at the very same area. The difference between these vantage points has to do with how light interacts with atmosphere.
Atmosphere can be defined as “a mass of gases that surround a planet or star.” According to ScienceMadeSimple.com The two gasses which make up the majority of Earth’s atmosphere are Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (21%). The rest of the atmosphere can be comprised of other gases as well as water, dust particles, pollutants and more. When light from stars (such as the sun) hit the atmosphere the rays gets absorbed or deflected. Light from stars contains multiple visible colors arranged by frequency. One may recall the “ROY G BIV” for Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet. This spectrum may be noticed when light hits water droplets forming a rainbow in this color order.
Blue is of a specific higher frequency and shorter wavelength which makes it more ideal for absorption into Earth’s atmosphere than other colors which are less likely to be absorbed. This absorption causes the illusion of a blue sky. It also causes the illusion of a yellow sun when outside the Earth’s atmosphere the sun appears to be white.
However, this absorption in the atmosphere changes as the sun sets. Light has to travel further distances into the atmosphere creating a scatter effect with the blue wavelength and increased absorption with longer wavelengths such as orange and red. Eventually the sky looks black save for light hitting planets and moons.
How what is seen looks depends on the perspective of the viewer. An animal such as a dog which doesn’t see colors perceives the sky differently than a bee or a human. Further, colorblind individuals perceive variances in the sky differently from individuals with the most common form of sight. Humans can see but a few of the colors of the full light spectrum. The sky is only blue to an individual because they have and are lacking in certain biology to see it as something different. The color of the sky can vary according to a variety of factors including time as well as the make-up of the atmosphere. The notion of the sky being blue is illusory.