Anonymous wrote:

Evidence points to the fact that CO2 actually precedes mean global temperature increase.

Actually, if this were indeed true it would be evidence that we should worry about increasing concentrations of CO₂. However, those ice cores that show a sufficiently sharp* rise in CO₂ and temperature also show the temperature rise preceding the rise in CO₂. Of course this makes perfect sense when one recognizes the nature of dissolved gases, like CO₂, in the oceans.

Anonymous also wrote:

I actually think that Hydrogen will be a feasible to use as fuel in the foreseeable future. It's not any more dangerous than combustibles we already use.

Have you ever actually worked with Hydrogen? I have. Have you ever actually worked with cryogenic liquids, at least liquid Nitrogen? I have.

It is true that Hydrogen at reasonably low pressures is no "more dangerous than combustibles we already use", like gasoline. The problem is that in order to get reasonable range in a vehicle powered by Hydrogen (except by fusion) requires us to go far beyond such (except in the form of hydrides).

If you spring a tiny leak in a high pressure Hydrogen tank, the leaking Hydrogen will spontaneously ignite and burn with an invisible flame that can sever a limb (or head). I don't mean a pale blue flame like natural gas. No, I mean invisible to the naked eye.

Of course this is to say nothing of the dangers of a liquid Hydrogen spill (which will nearly explosively evaporate, even before any combustion, but will practically instantly freeze anything it contacts [just think in terms of its temperature]).

Like I said, check into the nature of the various proposed storage and transport methods—including methanol, ethanol, and other hydrocarbons—and see what makes the most sense.

David

* If the rise or fall is not sufficiently sharp then one cannot determine which precedes which, due to the noisy nature of the transitions.