Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach 400 ppm: Not Seen in Three Million Years (Limbaugh, education system)
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.
I'm going to address you as the other poster has been argued into a corner and can't address what I've brought forth. They'd rather blat about it than be about it.
Capturing C02, transforming it into a polymer, even synthetic fuel for a possible "carbon neutral" fuel source for internal combustion engines.
Imagine the money made bringing a polymer to market, advertising cleaning the air of C02.
Opposed to money lost due to .gov taxes, fees, fines, and regulations.
I'm into science. The poster I argued with merely wants to endorse .gov intervention. I presented we have a way to capture and put it to use.
Can't really say we don't have the science or technology to counter it and can only solely rely on .gov to further intrude upon our lives and arbitrarily raise costs of literally everything...
Prime opportunity awaits for those who are into science... Wouldn't you agree?
There is a ton of information on this out there already, you think we are not aware of it?
We don't have the realistic technology to capture the excess CO2 in the atmosphere which is why we need to reduce emissions. In the meantime we continue to spew 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. It sounds like you just want to continue business as usual while crossing our fingers waiting for this magic carbon capture technology to just appear and save the day! Nope, it hasn't happened yet, and time is ticking.
I'm going to address you as the other poster has been argued into a corner and can't address what I've brought forth. They'd rather blat about it than be about it.
Capturing C02, transforming it into a polymer, even synthetic fuel for a possible "carbon neutral" fuel source for internal combustion engines.
Imagine the money made bringing a polymer to market, advertising cleaning the air of C02.
Opposed to money lost due to .gov taxes, fees, fines, and regulations.
I'm into science. The poster I argued with merely wants to endorse .gov intervention. I presented we have a way to capture and put it to use.
Can't really say we don't have the science or technology to counter it and can only solely rely on .gov to further intrude upon our lives and arbitrarily raise costs of literally everything...
Prime opportunity awaits for those who are into science... Wouldn't you agree?
Yes I am all for it!
This is what moving forward with better ways of doing things is all about! This is what scientific discovery and innovation is all about! Yes SCIENCE is the answer not emotional deniers and entities that are paid big money to deny the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. This is why it's important that everyone have at least a basic level of scientific understanding.
I recently went to a talk by a well know Astrophysicists and he brought up a very interesting point. He talked about the German currency and how it's imprinted with an equation for a normal distribution curve...i.e. Gaussian distribution, honoring mathematician Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss and how this has to have an impact on people who grew up using this currency. Other German currency depicts science tools.
It's no coincidence that Germans rank higher in math and science than the US.
The anti-science mentality that we are currently seeing in the US today will no doubt lead us back to the days of living in caves if it continues to grow. We are quickly falling behind other countries and to think we used to be the leader in science discovery and innovation.
IDK why people are emotionally hell bent on remaining dependent on a fuel source that's harmful to the environment, harmful to human health and harmful to the entire globe.
Talk about non progressive thinking and keeping us falling further and further behind other countries.
There is a ton of information on this out there already, you think we are not aware of it?
We don't have the realistic technology to capture the excess CO2 in the atmosphere which is why we need to reduce emissions. In the meantime we continue to spew 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. It sounds like you just want to continue business as usual while crossing our fingers waiting for this magic carbon capture technology to just appear and save the day! Nope, it hasn't happened yet, and time is ticking.
Ahh the defeatist attitude to still justify .gov and taxing...
This is what moving forward with better ways of doing things is all about! This is what scientific discovery and innovation is all about! Yes SCIENCE is the answer not emotional deniers and entities that are paid big money to deny the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. This is why it's important that everyone have at least a basic level of scientific understanding.
I recently went to a talk by a well know Astrophysicists and he brought up a very interesting point. He talked about the German currency and how it's imprinted with an equation for a normal distribution curve...i.e. Gaussian distribution, honoring mathematician Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss and how this has to have an impact on people who grew up using this currency. Other German currency depicts science tools.
It's no coincidence that Germans rank higher in math and science than the US.
The anti-science mentality that we are currently seeing in the US today will no doubt lead us back to the days of living in caves if it continues to grow. We are quickly falling behind other countries and to think we used to be the leader in science discovery and innovation.
IDK why people are emotionally hell bent on remaining dependent on a fuel source that's harmful to the environment, harmful to human health and harmful to the entire globe.
Talk about non progressive thinking and keeping us falling further and further behind other countries.
And people wonder why the current party is anti-education?...it's easy to rake over the coals a lowly educated population of people. Catch the pun?
Not emotionally, logically.
There is more energy density in a pound of gasoline or diesel than a pound of lithium for a battery. Logically hydrocarbon fuels make sense.
Ideally, you'd want pure hydrogen gas for a fuel source...
It would take massive energy to split the hydrogen bonds from water. Justifying further nuclear power plants of superior designs such as molten salt reactors.
You can't say republicans are anti intellegence...
Liberals own the education system. And have for quite some time. I'm a product of it. They pushed hard for feeling over thinking. Conservatives are not wrong at all insisting college and public education are indoctrination centers. Not at all. But this isn't a discussion about politics.
So no. It isn't an emotional attachment to fossil fuels. It's a logical one. IF and that's a big if at that, IF batteries were figured out to be both lighter, more stable, electric may succeed and replace gasoline and diesel.
Initially cost would be prohibitive... given there's but a finite amount of rare earths... your options are
Figure out how to improve battery tech with current materials that are in abundance
Mine the solar system
Recycle what's in circulation.
None of which is cheap.
Fossil fuels however, are both cheap and abundant.
Finite? Yes. Not nearly as lithium and other rare earths... hence... rare...
There is a ton of information on this out there already, you think we are not aware of it?
We don't have the realistic technology to capture the excess CO2 in the atmosphere which is why we need to reduce emissions. In the meantime we continue to spew 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. It sounds like you just want to continue business as usual while crossing our fingers waiting for this magic carbon capture technology to just appear and save the day! Nope, it hasn't happened yet, and time is ticking.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a realistic technology for reducing CO2 emissions other than nuclear fission, which has its own environmental risks.
This is what moving forward with better ways of doing things is all about! This is what scientific discovery and innovation is all about! Yes SCIENCE is the answer not emotional deniers and entities that are paid big money to deny the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. This is why it's important that everyone have at least a basic level of scientific understanding.
I recently went to a talk by a well know Astrophysicists and he brought up a very interesting point. He talked about the German currency and how it's imprinted with an equation for a normal distribution curve...i.e. Gaussian distribution, honoring mathematician Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss and how this has to have an impact on people who grew up using this currency. Other German currency depicts science tools.
It's no coincidence that Germans rank higher in math and science than the US.
The anti-science mentality that we are currently seeing in the US today will no doubt lead us back to the days of living in caves if it continues to grow. We are quickly falling behind other countries and to think we used to be the leader in science discovery and innovation.
IDK why people are emotionally hell bent on remaining dependent on a fuel source that's harmful to the environment, harmful to human health and harmful to the entire globe.
Talk about non progressive thinking and keeping us falling further and further behind other countries.
And people wonder why the current party is anti-education?...it's easy to rake over the coals a lowly educated population of people. Catch the pun?
We are simply returning to the backward nation we have always been. An educated nation is not in the interest of the ruling elites.
It was illegal to teach a slave to read, remember?
During the Cold War, the elites needed educated people to build the nuclear bombs and computers that would contain the Soviet Union. Now that communism has been defeated, there is no reason for US elites to have any interest in promoting science, especially when science threatens their profits (the AGW issue is a perfect example). The elites are still mad about all of the money they lost from the science that showed the harm of tobacco products.
We are simply returning to the backward nation we have always been. An educated nation is not in the interest of the ruling elites.
It was illegal to teach a slave to read, remember?
During the Cold War, the elites needed educated people to build the nuclear bombs and computers that would contain the Soviet Union. Now that communism has been defeated, there is no reason for US elites to have any interest in promoting science, especially when science threatens their profits (the AGW issue is a perfect example). The elites are still mad about all of the money they lost from the science that showed the harm of tobacco products.
You're absolutely correct, I agree 100%. Now factor in the extreme cost of higher education, which acts as a deterrent to the masses, and you have a dumbed down population, entirely by design, who question the validity of science while believing in people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
Not emotionally, logically.
There is more energy density in a pound of gasoline or diesel than a pound of lithium for a battery. Logically hydrocarbon fuels make sense.
Oh I was not referring to which source is more energy efficient. I was strictly speaking to the emotional attachment and tirades people display when it comes to the ugly facts of burning fossil fuels.
Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is the least expensive for its energy content and is a major factor in the cost of electricity in the United States. However, burning coal in electric power plants is a major source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and its use has other repercussions as well.
Mining coal disturbs the land and modifies the chemistry of rainwater runoff, which in turn affects stream and river water quality. It also releases substantial amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, as well as the low cost of natural gas, is leading older coal plants to close and reducing interest in new coal plants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
You can't say republicans are anti intelligence...
For the record I don't align with either party which is why I stated: And people wonder why the current party is anti-education?
I think flinging out the terms Liberal and Conservative are ridiculous and counter productive in discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Liberals own the education system. And have for quite some time. I'm a product of it. They pushed hard for feeling over thinking. Conservatives are not wrong at all insisting college and public education are indoctrination centers. Not at all. But this isn't a discussion about politics.
How is earning a higher education degree indoctrination? Republicans are notorious for pushing religion into public schools...that's what indoctrination is.
Higher education (especially in STEM) is about learning how to apply critical thinking skills to difficult concepts and analyze empirical data and draw conclusions. Mathematical concepts are taught in order to solve everyday problems including designing and building engineering projects.
Indoctrination is about being told what to think NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
Republicans have grown increasingly negative about the impact of colleges and universities on the United States. But last year, most Republicans said that colleges do well in preparing people for good jobs in today’s economy.
I did not want to step off topic but you made some assertions that needed to be addressed.
Now back to the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
So no. It isn't an emotional attachment to fossil fuels. It's a logical one.
LOL this is why you find people discussing this topic logically without emotional rants?
What's logical about burning fossil fuels that greatly harms the environment, negatively affects human health and causes great harm to then entire planet?
There is nothing logical about that especially when alternative energy sources are out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Fossil fuels however, are both cheap and abundant.
Perhaps cheap up front but very costly in the end.
When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.
While reducing emissions can't work alone, the other side of the carbon cycle is sequestration. And it only takes about a 10% improvement on the natural carbon cycle sequestration side worldwide to offset emissions.
So while it is controversial still, we actually do have the capacity to improve the long term sequestration side of the carbon cycle at the same time as we reduce emissions.
Now if we could find a way to curb human population growth...as well all should know...human population growth results in cutting down forests and land to build homes for all these humans.
Last edited by Matadora; 06-09-2019 at 02:49 PM..
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.
