 |
True science never stops refining itself as it gathers more facts, and usually its money that motivates others to deny, or hide facts. That's why I consider the source before I see it as fact. Dirty air kills people, and makes them sick, and the polar glaciers are melting.
No matter what the cause and effects are, we better deal with it no matter what you call it.
So CO2 makes you sick? Take your head out of the canister. There is a big difference between CO2 and noxious chemicals and some people are unable to see that.
Glaciers have been melting for a long time, they once covered a large part of the world, do you really want a return to those times? The Earth is beginning to deal with over population and it can best do this through the water cycle. No water, no people, remarkable cause and effect
Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
so CO2 makes you sick? Take your head out of the canister. There is a big difference between CO2 and noxious chemicals and some people are unable to see that.
You obviously have lived in an unban industrial area, or had asthma.Quote:
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[7] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[8]
And it took milions of years to melt.Quote:
Glaciers have been melting for a long time, they once covered a large part of the world, do you really want a return to those times?
Wha?? There is more water when ice melts not less, and the water has to go somewhere, right??Quote:
The Earth is beginning to deal with over population and it can best do this through the water cycle. No water, no people, remarkable cause and effect
Did you actually read the article or just nit pick to suit your argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes I have lived in an industrial area and worked in heavy industry. Any of the gasses we had problems with were not carbon dioxide but sulphurous fumes and other pollutants. Yes I have had asthma and it has been caused by particulate pollution mostly pollens which can upset me from time to time. When does CO2 get into higher concentrations, only in enclosed spaces. At the moment we are talking about parts per million not parts per hundred.Quote:
You obviously have lived in an unban industrial area, or had asthma.
Exactly and what we observe is just the tail end of an ongoing processQuote:
And it took milions of years to melt.
There is more water in the ocean but places that depend on glacier melt will have less water so the high places run out first causing population drift, crop failure, etc. This is already happeningQuote:
Wha?? There is more water when ice melts not less, and the water has to go somewhere, right??
Oh please Clete, Australia is a clean place on the Earth. Go to China, or come here if you want to see CO2 levels that are high in the wide open spaces. A closed space is not the only thing that spikes CO2 concentrations, and causes harm to humans, animals, just imagine a rush hour in an 95 degree day, and the traffic stalls for 30 minutes, and you live in a city with 50, 000 cars. Try continued exposure to those levels and come back and talk to me.
Why speed up the process if you don't have too? Especially when you know you have fewer places to go?Quote:
There is more water in the ocean but places that depend on glacier melt will have less water so the high places run out first causing population drift, crop failure, etc. This is already happening
Its not just one factor Clete, it's a combination of many bad habits by the growing human population.
A piece of misinformation Tal you are talking of carbon monoxide. I have lived in a city of a million cars and smelt the problem even at midnight but you can't smell CO2. On a good day your eyes would water at the top of a tower building but it was not CO2. I left that city when the smoke rose above the top of the tower. I have been to China and could not see the sun all the time I was there, but that was not CO2 but photo chemical smoke from industries that are unregulated. I have been to Pakistan where all the cars run on LPG and you cannot breathe but it is not CO2 that is the problem. Converting from gasoline to LPG doesn't make a car environmentally cleaner as the environmentalists would have us believe. So I suggest you try exposure at the levels I'm talking about and realise that what we have can be a lot better than the alternativeQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You like to think Australia is a clean place, well maybe you are right, we have one of the highest per capita emissions of CO2 and beautiful blue skys. I have said for a long time this is a northern hemisphere problem but someone wants to make us pay for it.
Which process are we speeding up Tal? As I said before glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, which rise in CO2 emissions caused the process to start, has that been researched and identified? No, because there isQuote:
Why speed up the process if you don't have too? Especially when you know you have fewer places to go?
here, the process started with low concentrations of CO2. I suggest that what we have is normal variability between ice ages. Are we slowing down the growth of vegitation? No it would seem we might be speeding that up. CO2 is not detrimental to plant lifeQuote:
an inconvenient truth
The process we are speeding up is the depletion of oil reserves and yet even that is subject to question
Exactly Tal and the worst habit is a newly acquired one, of rushing to judgement with insufficient data. Once science was sceptical and it took years for a theory to be adopted. Today some obscure researcher publishes a paper and overnight we have a panic. Do you know why this is so, too many acedemics having to justify their existence. Maybe CO2 will help us restore balanceQuote:
Its not just one factor Clete, it's a combination of many bad habits by the growing human population.
www.en.wikipedia/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Extensive article. Most of the time Wikipedia is pretty good.
Upon reading the article the thing that should concern most people is found under the sub-heading of : CO2 in Ocean.
The oceans have already taken up 1/3 of the CO2 emitted by humans.
This has resulted in a decline in the PH of the words oceans. This is detrimental to the most fragile of the oceans organisms, e.g. microorganisms.Unfortunately these types of organisms provide the basis of an important food chain.
Read it for yourself.
Tut
More like 15,000 years . But who's counting... I think we are still coming out of the last glacial maximum.Quote:
And it took milions of years to melt.
I agree with you Tom and we have insufficient data to tell us when ithe process stops or what started the process, but we do have some natural indicators like Glaciers. One thing is certain, humans did not start the process and they have no ability to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Breathe dirty air, and drink dirty water, now that's a formula for survival.
Oddly enough people do it everyday we are very adaptable these things are a modern concept from a society that has become soft and lazyQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Strawman argument to the issue. The question is ONLY if humans are contributing to global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Its already a proven scientific fact that we have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. You say its safe to do so, I say its not. Now maybe its doesn't change the temprature of the earth by a drastic enough for humans to notice a big change, but it also fact that one degree per year is a significant change. Not only is this a measureable event, but can be measured by other methods that can actually give data from years ago, before the industrial revolution.
You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation, and wildlife also, as that is a factor of the human footprint on this earth and yes we are definitely changing the environment globally. To think otherwise is to join those flat earthers of yester year.
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]
You mean it makes vegetation grow ? Trying to find the negative in that .Quote:
You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation,
The most successful commercial nurseries pump C02 into their greenhouses to enhance growth.
Where on Earth do you get this B/S Tal the Earth's temperature has not changed by one degree a year, so far we are maybe talking about one degree in a hundred years and perhaps 2 degrees this century.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Here are some facts for you.
Global warming was invented by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a political ploy to get the nuclear program approved. A program they are now abandoning
Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions worldwide immediately the effects that already exist will persist for at least a century, face it we are already past the point of no return
Vegetation is not adversly affected by CO2 and in fact grows more virorously in an elevated CO2 environment. There may be some effects because of shifting weather patterns
Long term climate observations show repeated ice ages with short interglacial periods. We are in an interglacial period right nowhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
This article points out that CO2 concentrations were 10 times what they are today without a runaway greenhouse effect.The human footprint is unsustainable but not because of CO2 but because of uncontrolled population growth. The idea that an increasing population should be sustained at the level of a highly industralised society is ridiculous. The norm is not what you and I enjoy but something closer to subsistence levelQuote:
In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.
You worship at The AGW alter if you want to but don't expect the rest of us to join you
Got to love them Malthusians . They have already imposed a draconian solution to what they claim is unsustainable human population growth. The truth is that the world population will peak early in the 21st century and a rapid depopulation will be the concern.
Russia is leading the charge losing 700,000 people a year due to non-replacement and fertility rates have declined below replacement rates in many countries. Even in the US where,millions of children have been snuffed ,the birth rate barely keeps up with the replacement rate. Meanwhile around the world the population ages. In Pittsburgh, deaths now outnumber births and hospitals are closing obstetrics wards or converting them to acute care for the elderly. Pittsburgh's public school enrollment was 70,000 in the 1980s. It is 30,000 today - and falling.
By mid-century there will be 248 million fewer children than there are now.
Well done Malthusians ! Your policies of infanticide is paying off. It will be a demographic nightmare the will justly hit our generation hard as there will be no replacement workers to service our needs in our old age.
Well Tom I don't know how long you expect to live but my generation will not face the problem you outline.
Yes population is declining in some nations and we should ask what part our wars have played in setting us up for a decline, but irrespective, there is still growth enough to push us to nine billion and if that is an aging population then we get our finger out and postpone retirement, something that has only existed for a century in developed societies anyway.
The culture of youth has shot itself in the foot and it will need all those it cast aside.
The population crisis at the end of the 21st century will be the decline of human population .
Quite probabally, if we don't get involved in some more stupid wars first and shed a few billions in the process, but water stress will bring population under control. Of course we could solve the problem by increasing the serving age in the military. If wars were fought by old codgers there would be less of themQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There is an abundance of water , even the AGW people think that the oceans will rise. Potable water is a matter of technology. You could take a glass of water, safe to drink ,right out of the discharge of the sewer treatment plant by my home. It leaves the plant purer and safer to drink than the water in the wells and reservoirs .This issues of water availability will be the ability to transport it to where it is needed . In that sense it is just another challenge we have with other resources and commodities.
Tom for you technology solves everything without understanding that you cannot throw money at it and expect a solution. Water is vital in the production of food but irrigation methods are causing problems which will take large areas out of production. Industry consumes vast quantities of water without improving its quality. You drink sewerage if you want too but the areas where population growth is highest won't have this " luxury "
Why not ? Where there is liberty deserts are productive lands . Where there is tyranny ;fertile lands become deserts .
Quaint platitudes, you don't solve problems with platitudes. You cannot get more of a resource by wishing it so. The sort of rhetoric you are using was fine in the 1700's with a population of less than two billion but must bow to reality today
Technology can solve many problems Clete you just have to develop the science, and manage it. And implement it.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The tyranny you speak of is a political consequence of the science.Nonetheless, science will do what it has always done.
If there are enough dissenters in the scientific ranks then the first port of call will be to modify the hypothesis. Nothing new in this.
I think we are already seeing this happening. We are beginning to see 'climate change' starting to develop as the preferred method of explanation.
Sometimes politics get in the way of the methodology.
Tut
Tal we have the ability to, as you say, solve many problems through science, but thus far we have not been able to create anything.
Water will become a scarse resource this century if the prophets of doom are right and when that happens food will become a scarse resource. Living on a dry continent I am perhaps more aware of this than those who have adequate water resources, we will see some industries disappear when there is greater control of water, this process has already begun
I prefer to think we will solve a lot of basic problems, and evolve to better things myself.
Yes Tal the glass is half full but where did the other half go? Do you know?
Speaking of evolving to better things, in leading the charge to solar energy Germany has decided such subsidies are a "money pit" that threatens their economy.
So $130 billion later and what did the Germans get for it? The 2nd highest electricity rates in the developed world, three times what Americans pay.Quote:
Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.
According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”
Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles), about 2.6 percent of the Sahara Desert.
Unfortunately, Germany—like most of the world—is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.
In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic.
And what did it do for our planet?
23 whole hours. That much, huh?Quote:
Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany’s CO2 emissions by roughly 8 million metric tons—or about 1 percent – for the next 20 years. To put it another way: By the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.
I really have to ask, was it worth it? And where were those really smart people who should have known a lack of sunshine just might be a hindrance to using solar power?
Yes speech we had a similar experience here, agovernment subsidising solar installation and a high feed in tariff suddenly both state and federal governments decided that the whole tokenistic scheme was over subscribed and pulled the rug from under the feet of a burgoning industry
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Steve,
I guess the problem is that we don't have the ability to jump from one technological breakthrough to another by way of relevation. We have to go through various cumbersome stages every time. For example, when it came to television sets we went though the electronic valve stage to the transistor stage and finally to the micro chip.
It would be next to impossible to have gone from the valve stage to the microchip stage without the between. These less than desirable technologies are necessary to arrive at a better outcome in the future.
Tut
In science and technology there are many failed attempts before you find one that works, but for sure, if they abandon the attempts, they will find NO solutions.
That's fine Tal but let's be a little focused. In the past science has advanced with a scattergun approach, shoot at everything and hope to hit something
You better read up, the Germans took the too much, to fast, crash and burn approach when measured pragmatism was required. Then they wouldn't be locked into such an expensive course of action.
Not specifically tuned into what you are talking about, I have already answered the post about overspent solar programs, the germans are not alone in failure to estimate demand correctly but then these are the days of "scientific modelling" as a substitute for facts and common sense. There is such a thing as placing limits on a program
Yes I do but some don't that is why they do it. Latest thought, not original is zeapu ~ zero emissions at point of use and the practical application a revolution in road transport and what to do with those redundant filling stations.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The Deakin T2 Car
Why does everyone throw back the "well it takes time" argument every time we mention a failed experiment? Yes, it takes trial and effort and failures and successes.
Solar technology is not new, development began in the 1860s. That's right, the 1860s - not the 1960s. We know it works, we know how to make it work, can we make it feasible before throwing our lot behind it like the Germans did? That would be pragmatic, unlike failing to consider the fact that you don't have that much sunshine before jumping in with both feet and $130 billion.
I know some of you either believe or just willfully propagate the lie that conservatives are against progress, against change. Not so, I'm all for cleaner energy - but not at the expense the left is willing to go to see it happen. Obama said fuel prices must "necessarily skyrocket" and it's happening. Gas prices are the highest they have been at this time of the year ever and it's entirely unnecessary. I happen to object to the fact that the Obama regime is willing to bankrupt us and the country to further his agenda.
Where's the pragmatism in that, Tal?
The pragmatism we have here is that solar energy is a supplement to the energy we get from fossil fuel and natural gas, and wind and being a Texan like myself you KNOW this, and also know that the old coal facilities are being replaced by newer ones. That's the difference between us and germany who bet the farm on solar and are now having to back of and pursue other avenues. That's only because the are dependent on others for their energy needs.
Pretty much like the right wing Americans who are so afraid they react to anything they don't understand with irrational thoughts and actions. Get your own facts. Let me use our state as an example since this is OIL country, but we are also the second most wind invested state in the union, and at the top of the natural gas development chain as well as solar power that produces electricity. A balanced pragmatic approach, that's being duplicated in many states.
The Germans screwed themselves by thinking that a big investment of solar power would make them independent of other countries for electricity and were forewarned that it would never work they way the were going, but they did it anyway.
Just for the record though, I favor more research into energy from
Chemicals
.Chemical reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How Is Energy Used in Chemical Reactions? | eHow.com
Let's face it solar enegy might be old technology but that doesn't make it good technology. Solar energy is not efficient and has yet to see the cost curve fall far enough to make it viable. It is also a zero sum gain at best when emissions associated with the production chain are taken into account. It is a niche solution which works well for small remote applications
OK Tal, that sounds rather pragmatic. Why then should we allow this regime to ruin us financially on a pipe dream?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:06 PM. |