Warming Not Cooling <8-O

[turk]

And to that I say: let the best man or woman invent the next fuel paradigm. It's not windmills. They've been around a long time already, at least hundreds if not thousands of years, and here's what happens to them today:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... .518940213. Not to mention they hardly work anyway. It's going away, the wind energy thing. This country does have its head up its ass on energy policy, mostly because of the green bullshit. Watch how it hurts the economy now that the Mideast might go up in flames.

[turk]

Oh by the way, this also applies again: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The CO2 theory. Ya see there's too many "what ifs" about it, like : what if all the efforts by the government and all the money spent to "reduce", our fraction of the atmospheric CO2, don't reduce it. That's a big one. I dunno if you are aware of the math on it. If all human beings just went away tomorrow, all that deadly CO2 not being discharged by us would only amount to 19/1000 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. Now think about that. Ya' telling me that 4 CO2 molecules in every 10,000 molecules of air is heating up the planet. Yeah okay, and you might have the next energy paradigm there if so, cause that CO2 sure does get hot man! There's a lot of other what ifs in the whole bullshit fiasco with CO2.

[ruckman101]

Think of what a minimal impact it could have had if efforts to develop safe clean alternative energies had been encouraged these past 40 some years rather than poo-pooed, demonized and discouraged by those who feared to lose profits. "We'll lose jobs! Bad for the economy!" We hear the same mantra today. What about the jobs added? What about the lower health costs to our society because of a less toxic environment? What about the wars that wouldn't have needed to be fought? An investment is just that. A little additional cost now, big savings later; vs a little cost savings now, huge costs later.

A single facebook photo is a far cry from an indictment of the current technological efforts to harvest wind energy, much less as evidence to base a conclusion of "...they hardly work anyway." Rather, they have been working much longer than oil has and are still used beyond the task of generating electricity.


neal

[grandfatherjim]

And to that I say: let the best man or woman invent the next fuel paradigm. It's not windmills. They've been around a long time already, at least hundreds if not thousands of years, and here's what happens to them today:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... .518940213. Not to mention they hardly work anyway. It's going away, the wind energy thing. This country does have its head up its ass on energy policy, mostly because of the green bullshit. Watch how it hurts the economy now that the Mideast might go up in flames.

OK, well once someone finally realizes how windmills hardly work, and how turk is probably the guy who knows what to do, what are you going to suggest?

[turk]

I suggest keeping all options open and not demonizing a trace gas in the atmosphere that actually helps life, not hurts it. Is that okay?

[Spezialist]

Oh by the way, this also applies again: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The CO2 theory. Ya see there's too many "what ifs" about it, like : what if all the efforts by the government and all the money spent to "reduce", our fraction of the atmospheric CO2, don't reduce it. That's a big one. I dunno if you are aware of the math on it. If all human beings just went away tomorrow, all that deadly CO2 not being discharged by us would only amount to 19/1000 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. Now think about that. Ya' telling me that 4 CO2 molecules in every 10,000 molecules of air is heating up the planet. Yeah okay, and you might have the next energy paradigm there if so, cause that CO2 sure does get hot man! There's a lot of other what ifs in the whole bullshit fiasco with CO2.

Greenhouse gases are the Mylar space blankets that keep earth warm.
It's as simple as that, and it's a Fact, not a theory.
If someone refuses to acknowledge that they understand simple facts, it's either intellectual dishonesty or excessive optimism. ;)

[Gypsie]

Let me just make sure I understand the theory here,

purported amount of C02 molecules created by man's activity: 19/1000 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. (.00019%?)
How long did it take for man to create this amount? 50 years? 10,000 years?

"Ya telling me that 4 CO2 molecules in every 10,000 molecules of air is heating up the planet"
Is this the currently accepted ratio of atmospheric CO2 levels? This would be .0004%, I think. Approximately twice the above mentioned ratio.
(up from aproximately .0003% in 1960, if I am not mistaken.)

Seems like a pretty big jump in such a small blip of the geologic time scale. Of course, all the factors haven't been considered yet.

How fast is CO2 reclaimed by the planet and /or it's inhabitants and flora systems?

Does it concentrate or is it evenly spread throughout the atmosphere?

Are there other man made impacts that reduce this CO2 processing (ie reduced flora, forests)?

Are ther natural counter measures that will assist with the processing (algae blooms etc?)

How do all these things interconnect in the "great web of life"?

(This is where I get selfish for my peeps) Will any of these impacts reduce my species' ability to thrive?

I wonder if the math would apply to other things.

like drinking water:
High end limits of a few contaminants (based on WHO guidelines):

benzo(a)pyrene:
Source:They are not produced or used commercially but are very commonly found since they are formed as a result of incomplete combustion of organic materials. Hazards: Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer
.0002mg/L or .0000000002%

Cadmium:
Source: Corrosion of galvanized pipes; erosion of natural deposits; discharge from metal refineries; runoff from waste batteries and paints. Hazard: Kidney damage
.005mg/L or .000000005%

Mercury (inorganic):
Source: Erosion of natural deposits; discharge from refineries and factories; runoff from landfills and croplands
Hazards:Kidney damage
.002mg/L or .000000002%

Using this example, I opine that it takes a very small percentage of the contaminants to create a hazardous condition to the human body system.

What I don't know is how long it takes my natural filtration systems to remove it from my body after ingestion. I may not notice any ill effects at all. I may have minor effects but not complete disability (headache, muscle aches, lethargy etc.).
Perhaps I could keep drinking the water for a long time and live with the minor effects, or have a slow decrease in viable recovery, live without a kidney, or perhaps I could suffer catastrophic, irreversable systemic failure.

If I could reduce contaminants, should I?

What if it meant that I had to work harder to have a drink?

What if my neighbors were putting those contaminants in the well? Should I stop them?

The part that really gets me in this whole debate is that just by being human and participating in human activity I am putting a share of contaminate in the well. I know this. I could stop, maybe, but my quality of life would be dramatically changed (and from where I sit today, I don't think it would be for the better).
Should I then just throw up my hands and say "whatever, nothing I can do about it. Can't really see a problem"? Or should I do my part in reducing my level of contaminate?

Should I help others see where they can contribute in reducing or tell them there isn't a problem, that it's all a naturally occuring condition, or say "you can't prove we are contributing enough contaminate to cause a problem"?

This may be an apples to oranges argument but tainted fruit is tainted fruit. After you're done with the good parts, all that's left is taint.

[grandfatherjim]

I suggest keeping all options open and not demonizing a trace gas in the atmosphere that actually helps life, not hurts it. Is that okay?

I was hoping you'd come up with something more tangible. I know you don't really mean keeping all options open, since you don't think windmills are an option. Are there other options you would rule out?
Are there any you would rule in?

[grandfatherjim]

not demonizing a trace gas in the atmosphere that actually helps life, not hurts it. Is that okay?

If it helps life, it stands to reason that we're in better shape now that there is slightly more of it. Are you suggesting we add some and get even healthier? How much?

[turk]

.00019% is ALL the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. .004% is the total concentration including natural sources. So, what I suggest is, why make CO2 the placebo of some experiment to which we don't know the outcome. Why not skip the CO2 and go right to the root cause - humans. Eliminate ALL of them, and you have eliminated .00019% of the "problem". That is ALL the problem, no? So, the government can't do that obviously. They plan on reducing it a fraction of that. Let's say half. That will be .00019 x .50 = .000095 % of atmosphere. If CO2 is that powerful a greenhouse gas, ya'd think someone would have harnessed it's immense heat capacity for other purposes. Does it make sense? The fact is it's physically impossible. CO2 thermal radiative capacity is a logarithmic function with diminishing returns.
What I'm saying is none of the real problem really has much to do with CO2. Sure eventually, if we extrapolate, there could be a harmful amount in the atmosphere, but it's nowhere close to that now.

[turk]

I suggest keeping all options open and not demonizing a trace gas in the atmosphere that actually helps life, not hurts it. Is that okay?

I was hoping you'd come up with something more tangible. I know you don't really mean keeping all options open, since you don't think windmills are an option. Are there other options you would rule out?
Are there any you would rule in?

All options means all options. Like we discussed before, the government subsidized all energy sources to some degree. They subsidize wind quite a lot per MW hour. Compared to Coal it's like 30 times more. I happen to know it's a poor power source, as it has not improved much in a thousand years. Let someone figure it out by all means. But don't eliminate better sources in favor of it. Makes no sense does it?

[Gypsie]

.004% is the total concentration including natural sources. .

I have a problem with this number. 4/1000=.004, 4/10,000=.0004. (or 400 ppm)
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Why not skip the CO2 and go right to the root cause - humans. Eliminate ALL of them, and you have eliminated .00019% of the "problem". That is ALL the problem, no? Let's say half. That will be .00019 x .50 = .000095 % of atmosphere.

Still important to have the numbers issue above resolved to know if this has bearing,
though
I don't believe that proposing an all or nothing solution is going to help matters in any way. In fact, put that way, I think it might turn people off to seeking a solution at all. "Since you think humans are contributing to the problem you should kill yourself since your a human..." A'course that could have been the intention of making that argument. Talk about pushing folk away from the table.

Now I don't believe it is all of the problem but I am concerned about a "tipping point". I do not know what that is, how close we are, or even if we can stop it. I do think that our ever growing demand for energy, as created by an ever growing population, and our ever incrasing efficiency at extracting resources has an impact.
It is the unfortunate elephant in the room. Our smarts has pushed back our own natural checks and balances. The demand for "more more more" consumption has tipped the balance of how much energy it takes to support our 'way of life'. And I can't see us letting go of it, as evidenced by such passion of those who are so resistant to changing the status quo.

If CO2 is that powerful a greenhouse gas, ya'd think someone would have harnessed it's immense heat capacity for other purposes. Does it make sense? The fact is it's physically impossible. CO2 thermal radiative capacity is a logarithmic function with diminishing returns.

I like this line of thought. Perhaps there is some benefit to be found. I wonder if there are interests studying this as we speak. I would think those that are harmed by the CO2 discussion would be interested in being able to tell folk of the benefits of increased CO2. I bet someone is on this path.

It's kind of like harnessing wave energy. I have heard of attempts to capture this energy and turn it into electricity. I don't know if we will ever be able to create enough wave energy to have a positive flow of energy from what it takes to make the waves, but we may be able to harness what is already there. A path work walking down as well. Of course, there is a concern about how this may impact that part of the biosphere (fisheries and such). Worth taking into account.

What I'm saying is none of the real problem really has much to do with CO2. Sure eventually, if we extrapolate, there could be a harmful amount in the atmosphere, but it's nowhere close to that now.

It is worth extrapolating, it is also worth discussing the other elephants (population growth, per capita consumption, biospheric impact etc.)

No easy answers these. I do think that while the discussions continue, reduction of impact on both the micro and macro levels are important to the health of the 'web'.

[turk]

.004% = .0004

The point I'm making is the efforts proposed will be very likely futile (definitely statistically insignificant, or not in the above 95% range of certainty) in mitigating a perceived problem. And I believe the perceived problem is overstated in the first place, so why spend the time, money, and energy mitigating a hypothetical outcome. Planning for adaptation to that possibility is way more sensible. That's how we survive on planet earth. Not adapting it to us.

Tipping points are bullshit. The earth has been around way longer than us and survived way worse. In this hypothesis the evidence actually shows the opposite. The earth has negative feedbacks to inputs, always seeking equilibrium, but never achieving stasis. Read the very cold weather of late. That's how I read it. It has nothing to do with CO2 either.

Humans have only been around a few million years, and only as our present condition a few thousand, and in our present civilization some few hundreds. So, we are not that dumb, and the earth is not that fragile. Relax, but inquire and discuss.

[Gypsie]

.004%=.0004 didn't look right to me.
it is actually
.004%=.00004

but thats a red herring.

the numbers quoted were
4 parts of 10,000 or .04% of atmosphere is CO2 (or 400 parts per million)*
19/1000 of 1% = .019% man made CO2 in the atmosphere (or 190 parts per million)*
(This was put forth as the amount that would be saved if we went away tomorrow, so am I to presume that this is a daily value?)

so the comparison I was struggling with was parts per compared to %.

extrapolated leaves me thinking that man contributes approximately 1/2 or 50% or .5 of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

Definitely a point well made about the portion of CO2 created by man that is introduced to the atmosphere, though I am still unclear about the time scale of this contribution.

do we have an understanding about man made intereference with the processing of CO2?

The recorded increase in CO2 from the 60's to now has gone from approximately .03% to .04% if NOAA is to be believed.

It may not have anything at all to do with man's CO2 emissions and may be an inevitable swing, but it is sure a noted increase (up 33% in 50 years).

Part emissions, part interference, part natural cycle?

I still think we can continue to make efforts to reduce impact and dealing with the other elephants crowding the room will be a big part of our success.

Regarding tipping points. I have heard of a meteor theory wherein an event contributed to a major shift in climate and caused extreme impact on the biosphere. May have been a meteor, may have been a volcano, but the impact of the temperature change and other changes, was felt by all living things. The earth definitely survived but life on it changed significantly. Though this theory is still being batted around, there was certainly a tipping point where life could not continue to be.

I guess if the only concern is whether the earth will survive man's influence, we probably don't need to give it a second thought.

Though if we are concerned about how the atmosphere, specifically the biosphere, is doing it may be worth putting a great deal of thought to it.


*4 parts of 100= 4% or .04
4 parts of 1000= .4% or .004
4 parts of 10,000 = .04% or .0004
4 parts of 100,000 = .004% or .00004

19 parts of 100 = 19% or .19
19 parts of 1,000 = 1.9% or .019
19 parts of 10,000= .19% or .0019
19 parts of 100,000 = .019% or .00019
19 parts of 1,000,000 = .0019% or .000019

[turk]

The scientific authority has it at 391 ppm right now. So, lets say 390 out of 1,000,000. That is .00039, let's round it to .0004, which is .04% The IPCC says in its assessment, humans' CO2 is just around 5% of all that atmospheric CO2. So, 5%, or .05, of .04%, or .0004 equals .00002. Which is 2/100,000 of 1 percent. Okay?