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.
There is nothing funnier than a bunch of non-scientists with obvious political agendas arguing about CO2 and O2 equilibrium, and thinking that they are correct. LOL! I guess what people do not understand is that a delicate balance must be maintained between CO2 and O2 levels. FYI plants produce both O2 and CO2, and most life forms would die if the amount of O2 rises or drops above a certain amount. It doesn't take complete depletion of one or the other. Ocean buffers can only compensate so much. If 90% of scientists are worried about global warming, I would rather trust them.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,297 posts, read 54,132,753 times
Reputation: 40606
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
I'd be interested in your explanation of the practical difference between using up and converting. Your automobile converts gasoline into fire, carbon and other emissions .... are you saying that your car doesn't "use up" gasoline?
You're the one that said trees "use up" CO2.
The fact they convert it to O2 is considerably different and makes trees seem a bit more useful to aerobes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Of course, if you were at all interested in facts, it would have taken you all of about 30 seconds to verify what I posted was accurate. But you aren't interested in such things, because facts don't support your position.
Facts? You're the one who alleged less CO2 implies less O2, until you defend that factually your connection with facts is dubious at best.
This proves nothing about one country doing anything positive for the earth on a global scale...
My point was, the US makes all these concessions to be "green", and we are the only ones doing it. Can you really show proof that our do gooding has an affect in a positive manner for the whole earth? No, you or anyone else cannot.
We pollute less and the rest pollute the same or more..... One step forward, two steps back and we are the ones paying extra $$ for it.
In 1999, the City of Scottsdale covered an 8,500 square feet (790 m2) parking lot with photovoltaic panels, to both provide shaded parking, and generate 93 kW of solar power. In 2001 APS and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University constructed a 190 kW single-axis tracking photovoltaic power plant. In 2002, Love Field Airport, in Prescott, Arizona began construction of a 5 megawatt (MW) photovoltaic power plant. By July 2006, it had a peak capacity of 2.879 MW AC.
Sounds like a win win situation to me knowing how brutal that sun was when I've traveled there. That's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Let me clue you in on something daddy-O, Greenpeace, Sierra club and the rest are funded by the oil companies, and the private elitist foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation. It's called controlled opposition ... and the oil companies benefit immensely by keeping oil production and refineries in check (higher prices due to supply-demand), as does the UN and US Government and their illegal land grabs, designating large parcels of land as protected (read: keep people away). '
US GOV as in Alaskan reserves- they are strategic. Really. Not kidding.
As for the rest in regards to an industry I inhabited it's much worse than you suspect. During the 70's crisis there were ships lined up loaded on our shores waiting for nothing more than the price to go up. That wasn't just OPEC talking it was an industry capitalizing on strife. Since that time they've perfected their hand in commodities trading without having a hand in it. Millions more can be made moving a piece of paper from one side of your desk to another side, zero liability, premiums just get passed onto Joe the plumber trained to yell drill baby drill on command.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Alternative energy has been derailed, crushed, kept stagnant and underfunded because the energy industry wanted it that way to keep their little monopolies ...
This would save hundreds of billions every year ... no need for the expensive upkeep on costly power distribution lines, constant need for expansion and new power plants ... and no waste, pollution ... and no risk of worldwide calamities like we see in Japan.
But if that happened, that would provide true energy independence to the SLAVES (you and me) .. and THEY don't want to free their slaves ... they want to keep their slaves, slaves.
Just sayin'
Agree with all of this. I see no good reason why much of the south west couldn't easily achieve 80% energy independent or better as technology improves. Not so easy for northern climes.
If the quintessential American hasn't gone extinct... maybe the call to arms needs to come from the ladies. Kick your husbands out of the house and light a fire under their behinds to tinker in the garage. That's how America is going to save itself. These boys are going at it... MIT Researchers Tip Their Cards | Renewable Energy News Article
but when commercial application is in mind it's all about keeping a captive audience. Tesla wouldn't have a shot. That's why garage tinkerers are my secret heroes, but don't tell them, it will only go to their heads.
No it is not a "closed system", as in a laboratory controlled environment with fixed variables.
It is a WIDE OPEN system of dramatically fluctuating variables of expansion and contraction ... peaks and lulls in solar activity and cosmic radiation ... and cyclical patterns that have self balanced and adjusted to those ever changing variables long before Al Gore invented the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
2- You're relying on more trees to balance the O2 whereas I'm also considering deforestation and extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
Are you saying that there is no growth in vegetation on earth? Or that trees are the only producers/consumers in the CO2-O2 market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
3- Oceans don't release CO2, plant life in the ocean does.
You are quite wrong. CO2 is a soluble gas, which allows your coke and beer to have carbonation. When heated, the liquid which contains that gas releases more of it ... when that liquid is cooled, it retains more of it. Ths is the mechanism of action shown to account for the fluctuating atmospheric levels of CO2, as contained in the core ice records.
According to those records, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, following a warming period, showing up hundreds of years later, as it takes that long to effect change in ocean temperatures. As the oceans gradually warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. This is the elementary and indisputable evidence that destroys the entire argument of CO2 driving climate, rendering the debate about man made CO2 irrelevant. CO2 levels rise and fall as a RESULT of warming and cooling cycles ... they don't cause those cycles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
4- Forget "man-made" aspect of global warming. Do you think there is global warming?
It has nothing to do with what I "THINK". That's the problem here. Too many opinions being misrepresented as facts. And the question depends on what period you are referring to. The data actually shows that for the past dozen years, there has been a slight cooling ... which, by the way, is the reason why "global Warming" is now passe', and has been replaced with "Climate Change".
The problem is ... climate is not measured in decades ... that would be weather cycles. Climate is measured in Thousands of years.
There has been no "Climate Change" relative to the hogwash being foisted upon a very gullible and uneducated public. The Islands of the Caribbean have been and continue to be "Tropical". Places like Siberia have been and continue to be Sub-Arctic. The poles have and continue to be Arctic. No change.
Weather, on the other hand, is always changing, but is often misrepresented as "climate". In the 1970's the "Climate Scientists" were warning of an impending Ice Age to set in by the 1990's. By the 1990's, those same "Scientists" began claiming that we were experiencing man made "Global Warming". Between the 1970's and today ... please show me where the climate of the earth has actually changed?
You can't, because no such change has occurred. The only change we've experienced is in the volume of BS that the human head can apparently accept without exploding.
No it is not a "closed system", as in a laboratory controlled environment with fixed variables.
It is a WIDE OPEN system of dramatically fluctuating variables of expansion and contraction ... peaks and lulls in solar activity and cosmic radiation ... and cyclical patterns that have self balanced and adjusted to those ever changing variables long before Al Gore invented the internet.
Are you saying that there is no growth in vegetation on earth? Or that trees are the only producers/consumers in the CO2-O2 market?
You are quite wrong. CO2 is a soluble gas, which allows your coke and beer to have carbonation. When heated, the liquid which contains that gas releases more of it ... when that liquid is cooled, it retains more of it. Ths is the mechanism of action shown to account for the fluctuating atmospheric levels of CO2, as contained in the core ice records.
According to those records, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, following a warming period, showing up hundreds of years later, as it takes that long to effect change in ocean temperatures. As the oceans gradually warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. This is the elementary and indisputable evidence that destroys the entire argument of CO2 driving climate, rendering the debate about man made CO2 irrelevant. CO2 levels rise and fall as a RESULT of warming and cooling cycles ... they don't cause those cycles.
It has nothing to do with what I "THINK". That's the problem here. Too many opinions being misrepresented as facts. And the question depends on what period you are referring to. The data actually shows that for the past dozen years, there has been a slight cooling ... which, by the way, is the reason why "global Warming" is now passe', and has been replaced with "Climate Change".
The problem is ... climate is not measured in decades ... that would be weather cycles. Climate is measured in Thousands of years.
There has been no "Climate Change" relative to the hogwash being foisted upon a very gullible and uneducated public. The Islands of the Caribbean have been and continue to be "Tropical". Places like Siberia have been and continue to be Sub-Arctic. The poles have and continue to be Arctic. No change.
Weather, on the other hand, is always changing, but is often misrepresented as "climate". In the 1970's the "Climate Scientists" were warning of an impending Ice Age to set in by the 1990's. By the 1990's, those same "Scientists" began claiming that we were experiencing man made "Global Warming". Between the 1970's and today ... please show me where the climate of the earth has actually changed?
You can't, because no such change has occurred. The only change we've experienced is in the volume of BS that the human head can apparently accept without exploding.
1- Earth is a closed system. It has a boundary within which all elements exist in one form or another.
2- I'm not aware of growth in vegetation to make up for the loss via damage to the vegetation (human or otherwise). Do you have a link dealing with evidence along the lines? If extra CO2 implies extra vegetation, as in 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of industrial revolution, then is there evidence of relative growth in vegetation? Trust me, CO2 to O2 imbalance has existed in the past, and will happen naturally as well (we're only adding to it). To say that growth in CO2 is automatically neutralized by growth in O2 would be uninformed.
3- CO2 is not the only one affecting the imbalance. There are others. But, what evidence do we have of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increasing by 30% in two centuries or less before the industrial revolution?
4- It is important, to debate with you, I know what YOU THINK to have a baseline. Do you think global warming is happening or not, without worrying about human influence? Or, if you prefer to use "climate change" instead, feel free.
Cute charts and all Tex, but they are a gross distortion of reality. Atmosphere is a nebulous term. The atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner with increasing altitude, with no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. Me thinks your source, what is it?, Heritage???, used an EXTREME definition of atmosphere to establish there charts. you know, keep pushing that boundary out there until the number look great.
Your charts are like you counting all the space of the Super Dome into the analysis of the ingredients in a 8 oz glass of water. 99.9% of the atmosphere's gases are in the glass, with the remainder spread over the rest of the area of the dome. Your charts are intellectually dishonest.
Your opinion is educationally ignorant ... my charts are pure fact, which can be verified from any source of your choosing ... NASA .. NOAA ... your choice. And there is nothing "nebulous" in the chemical makeup of earth's atmosphere other than your apparent confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
We live closer to the ground and cannot survive, without external life support, above about 20,000 feet. Air is the name given to this part of atmosphere used that WE live in and breath. Air is the part of the atmosphere that contains most of the good gases and the bad gases. Using ALL of the area of the most liberal definition of Earth's atmosphere distorts what is going on in the AIR. But, since when has a right wing think tank not resorted to distorting reality to trick simple minded fools.
Your climate change gurus and pseudoscientific snake oil salesmen are measuring and blaming CO2 levels in the troposphere ... where the alleged "greenhouse effect" is allegedly occurring ..... consequently this above rant about "air" is nothing more than hot air ... and since it is so close to the ground, it's unlikely to be a threat to climate, however, in mass acceptance .. threatens freedom and the very existence of humanity if they become so stupid as to demand their own extermination for the sake of reducing CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
As for you not understanding how people can be deceived, you might want to dig deeper before you push out BS from right wing think tanks and the Koch Brothers...
Oh, I understand completely. They make up the 80 IQ crowd that watch TV ... drool ... and then get on City-Data and pose as experts about something they know absolutely nothing about.
The data I present are NOT opinions and lies which make up the entirety of the crap offered by Global Warming scammers at the United Nations IPCC who are really just crooked bureaucrats who want to impose a worldwide Carbon Tax dictatorship.
Their information has been totally discredited by the exposed Thousands of emails admitting their manipulation of the data ... as well as the scientists who left the IPCC because of their fraudulent behavior and conclusions which the honest scientists objected to. In many instances, those same scientists were fraudulently included in the IPCC's lists of scientists that supported their conclusions, when nothing could be further from the truth. Those scientists had to sue the IPCC to remove their names.
This is not an issue of left versus right .. this is an issue of criminals deceiving an dumbed down public who cannot tell up from down, or in this case, Hot from Cold.
Agree with all of this. I see no good reason why much of the south west couldn't easily achieve 80% energy independent or better as technology improves.
Yes, but it may be several years away. I've done the math and even with huge government subsidies, the payback on the investment is 15 or more years.
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.
