Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More CO2 also implies less O2. Deforestation also leads to less O2. But as far as green house gases are concerned, CO2 is not the only worry. Water vapor and Methane are too. The effects of pollution and deforestation is cumulative.
No ... less CO2 implies less O2. The relationship is direct, not inverse. And the relationship has been established over hundreds of thousands of years by the data unlocked in the ice core records, which show that warming precedes a rise in atmospheric CO2. And it really is common sense that anyone should easily grasp. Do you plant your garden in the spring or do you do it in the fall? And, why is that? Because plants seem to grow better when it is hot rather than cold? Imagine that!
Furthermore, if you are concerned with water vapor, you are wasting your mental energy ... the planet is 70% water, so water vapor isn't going to disappear .... hopefully.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
So let me get this straight ... you are insinuating that since trees are being cut down and no longer using up their portion of the CO2 ... we should reduce CO2 levels to compensate? Is that it? Brilliant! Taking that approach ... we could rid our selves of air pollution by removing air ... water pollution by getting rid of fresh water altogether .... we can even end bank robbery by closing all the banks.
Oh for cripes sake! READ! I said no such thing!
Get a clue! Trees DO NOT use up CO2, they convert it to O2.
I'm insinuating nothing, I'm saying flat out you supplied an unattributed chart from who knows where/when and it has little meaning without knowing the time period it represents and knowing the same numbers before and after that time period. And that's assuming it's not from some yahoo let's cut 'em all down logging site
No ... less CO2 implies less O2. The relationship is direct, not inverse.
In a closed system, if you burn carbon, you get more CO2. Do you also get more O2?
Quote:
Do you plant your garden in the spring or do you do it in the fall? And, why is that? Because plants seem to grow better when it is hot rather than cold? Imagine that!
And why does that happen?
Quote:
Furthermore, if you are concerned with water vapor, you are wasting your mental energy ... the planet is 70% water, so water vapor isn't going to disappear .... hopefully.
Water, ice and water vapor. You don't think the balance matters?
This is the single best example of the Republican perception and understanding of mathematics that I have ever seen. How succinct.
Both sides use probability models such as these. The GOP uses them for Nukes and financial markets, the Dems use them for Social Security projections, budgets and climate models.
They are all a fantasy, I only wish Dems and Republicans were.
OK then...how much? How much $$$ would it take to solar power my home?
If you hire a company to do the install the intial investment between $15,000.00-$18,000.00 for 4kW of PVC panels installed on a pole. A 30% tax credit from the federal government. Subtract further any additional cash payments offered by your state, local utility, or SECRs offered. Assuming maximum sunlight at an efficiency of only 17% by the average PVC panels, that would likely power 35% of the average needs of a home approx. 2000 sq. feet, with average usage. Approximate payback period 9-15 yrs. depending upon how many incentives were offered beyond the federal tax credit.
Even in states with comparatively pawltry incentives you can get approx. 55% back on your investment via tax credits and paybacks in the first year.
In some areas you can actually "rent" the PVC panels.
If you hire a company to do the install the intial investment between $15,000.00-$18,000.00 for 4Kw of PVC panels installed on a pole. A 30% tax credit from the federal government. Subtract further any additional cash payments offered by your state, local utility, or SECRs offered. Assuming maximum sunlight at an efficiency of only 17% by the average PVC panels, that would likely power 35% of the average needs of a home approx. 2000 sq. feet, with average usage. Approximate payback period 9-15 yrs.
And how many Americans are willing to shell out that much coin up-front? Now if it were $5K and would power 50%...
And how many Americans are willing to shell out that much coin up-front? Now if it were $5K and would power 50%...
Thus the "rental" market. There is also "green" financing available for those who cannot afford the up front outlay (a.k.a. average consumer).
The technology is either not there yet, or not available on the commercial market, for PVC panels exceeding a 19-20% efficiency rate. Improvements in this area would rapidly decrease the payback time on investment as well as generate more power with collection fewer panels. I suspect when I finally decide to invest in PVC panels so that I can be largely independent of the power companies, that is the time just before they will make the break through and my investment will be like that of a 10 yr. old computer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
