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.
Do you agree or disagree that man has the ability to alter the climate?
Agree-
Man has altered regional climates by deforestation. Now that has actually happened.
Man has poisoned parts of the environment via heavy metals and emissions of sulpher dioxide.
Man has polluted lakes and water ways with chemicals and waste that will take thousands of years to clear up.
There is no way in hell that man has altered climate through CO2. The miniscule impact of man made CO2 on total atmospheric CO2 as well as the fact that the major movers of climate (earth's orbit, volcanic activity, solar activity, ocean currents, methane, and water) are out of man's control verifies this.
Now please spin us some yarns about C14. I published about six papers on cerebral metabolism using C14 labeled deoxygenated glucose. However, I would love to hear the views of a respected "expert", such as yourself, in carbon isotopes and how ancient CO2 is different than modern CO2. Even my nurses laughed thier asses off at such an inane suggestion. At least they have had a modicum of scientific education.
Above noted- a child's conception of science, as told by journalists. Simply amazing. There are some who simply lack the basic tools to be able to understand basic science. This is why undergrad courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology are essential "building blocks" with which one can undertake graduate level studies and actually engage in real science.
Your poor, incoherent grammar reveals one with limited education, or perhaps a seconday education through a poor community college. It is difficult to understand you when you speak in gibberish and incomplete sentences. I would suggest reading Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" for a better primer on writing in English. Don't feel terrible- young people today have had minimal to poor education in english composition and it is endemic in your generation.
I would strongly suggest that perhaps you take some evening college chemistry, physics, and mathematics courses. After that, see if you can accumulate enough credits with whatever nonscience degree you had in the past. Apply to a graduate school in an area of science. Obtain a PhD and publish a dozen or so papers. After that, come back and chat. Perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.
It is like talking to patients who are "internet doctors". Despite no training at all, they just KNOW medicine, as they have done "research" on google. We dismiss such patients from our practice, as they are intolerable fools. Likewise, medical students and residents with a pedestrian level of knowledge in particular disciplines are verbally flogged until they understand that anecdotes do not equate to actual science. I am afraid you will never get there, so it is fortunate that you do not have to rely upon your livlihood through an area of science.
So that's the long way of saying you can't muster a response to any of the points?
Man has altered regional climates by deforestation. Now that has actually happened.
Man has poisoned parts of the environment via heavy metals and emissions of sulpher dioxide.
Man has polluted lakes and water ways with chemicals and waste that will take thousands of years to clear up.
Yup.
Quote:
There is no way in hell that man has altered climate through CO2.
Correct. It's through GREENHOUSE GASES which include CO2 that man is altering the climate to a degree. Can you name the GREENHOUSE that come out of your vehicle's tail pipe?
Quote:
The miniscule impact of man made CO2 on total atmospheric CO2
You claim to be some sort of doctor yet you seem oddly ignorant about the adage of the "devil is in the dose".
Why does it take a minuscule amount of cyanide to kill an adult male, but increasing GREENHOUSE gases some how is underwhelming?
Quote:
Now please spin us some yarns about C14. I published about six papers on cerebral metabolism using C14 labeled deoxygenated glucose. However, I would love to hear the views of a respected "expert", such as yourself, in carbon isotopes and how ancient CO2 is different than modern CO2. Even my nurses laughed thier asses off at such an inane suggestion. At least they have had a modicum of scientific education.
Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.
In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.
We still have 1.2 billion people without access to electricity. India has 400 million alone. The world will have 9 billion people in 35 years.
Like the source above states even if all international agreements are to be honored, we will more than likely surpass 600ppm in 50 years. Of course that is not taking into account terrestrial feedback loops such as melting permafrost (if it continues to melt) which may add to that figure.
Right and those people without electricity live in a time where plunging solar costs are accelerating large scale installation. India will still rely on coal but it's solar costs have dropped significantly. China and India are also heavily investing in nuclear power. The short term benefits will be a reduction in pollution and are healthier population.
Not to mention, technology has unlocked natural gas in such quantity that it's been gaining market share against coal. If done smartly, natural gas can be a bridge between fossil fuels to clean energy.
Right and those people without electricity live in a time where plunging solar costs are accelerating large scale installation.
To even make a dent using solar
First the global energy demand by 2050:
Quote:
. Assuming minimal population growth (to 9 billion people), slow economic growth (1.6 percent a year, practically recession level) and—this is key—unprecedented energy efficiency (improvements of 500 percent relative to current U.S. levels, worldwide), it will use 28 terawatts in 2050. (In a business-as-usual scenario, we would need 45 terawatts.) Simple physics shows that in order to keep CO2 to 450 ppm, 26.5 of those terawatts must be zero-carbon.
Second how much solar we will need just for 10TW which is much less than half the energy we will need by 2050.....
Quote:
To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we'll need in 2050, Lewis calculates..... Solar? To get 10 terawatts by 2050, Lewis calculates, we'd need to cover 1 million roofs with panels every day from now until then.
In other words, even if we take the bottom of forecast energy demand at 28TW, and get 10TW of it using green energy in 2050, that would still leave us with 18TW of energy from fossil fuels which is 5TW higher than today (which is 40% more fossil use).
Quote:
India will still rely on coal but it's solar costs have dropped significantly. China and India are also heavily investing in nuclear power. The short term benefits will be a reduction in pollution and are healthier population.
Not to mention, technology has unlocked natural gas in such quantity that it's been gaining market share against coal. If done smartly, natural gas can be a bridge between fossil fuels to clean energy.
Nuclear and natural gas are a no brainer for me. Too bad many countries have caved to the environmental fascists and have stalled nuclear. Natural gas still emits plenty of co2, though cleaner than coal. Unfortunately, India has little natural gas and plenty of coal.
Let these numbers sink for a minute. Current path even with all the pledges and promises, we are going to see 600ppm by 2050. Last time co2 was at 400ppm (current levels) was about 3 million years ago, one study suggest 9 million years ago. Last time co2 was 600 ppm was over 20 million years ago.
In other words, even if we take the bottom of forecast energy demand at 28TW, and get 10TW of it using green energy in 2050, that would still leave us with 18TW of energy from fossil fuels which is 5TW higher than today (which is 40% more fossil use).
Nuclear and natural gas are a no brainer for me. Too bad many countries have caved to the environmental fascists and have stalled nuclear. Natural gas still emits plenty of co2, though cleaner than coal. Unfortunately, India has little natural gas and plenty of coal.
Let these numbers sink for a minute. Current path even with all the pledges and promises, we are going to see 600ppm by 2050. Last time co2 was at 400ppm (current levels) was about 3 million years ago, one study suggest 9 million years ago. Last time co2 was 600 ppm was over 20 million years ago.
Solar has the associated problem of heavy metal toxicity with not only the panels, but the batteries used for storage.
I, for one, would prefer not to have our water and land contaminated with additional heavy metals. Coal, while abundant, has a componant of heavy metal toxicity as well. Natural gas does not suffer from this problem, but has issues with radon, hydrogen fluoride, and sulpher dioxide.
Even wind turbine manufacturing has caused rare earth metal poisoning in the water and land. While wind is "clean" for the user, it still have environmental consequences for the manufacturer.
There is no such thing as an energy "free lunch". All of the sources of energy have problems.
Solar has the associated problem of heavy metal toxicity with not only the panels, but the batteries used for storage.
I, for one, would prefer not to have our water and land contaminated with additional heavy metals. Coal, while abundant, has a componant of heavy metal toxicity as well. Natural gas does not suffer from this problem, but has issues with radon, hydrogen fluoride, and sulpher dioxide.
Even wind turbine manufacturing has caused rare earth metal poisoning in the water and land. While wind is "clean" for the user, it still have environmental consequences for the manufacturer.
There is no such thing as an energy "free lunch". All of the sources of energy have problems.
Very true. There is also the problem with having enough rare earth minerals needed to make enough solar panels and wind turbines
Quote:
To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,”
Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold. High-performance batteries need lithium, which is only easily extracted from briny pools in the Andes. In 2011, the average price of 'rare earth' metals shot up by as much as 750 percent. Platinum, needed as a catalyst in fuel cells that turn hydrogen into energy, comes almost exclusively from South Africa.
Yes, there is warming but over last 20 years, it's been at the lower end of the error bars.
And regional climate models are complete garbage.
The man-made global warming science community have written entire papers trying to explain why their computer models failed to predict that there has been almost no new warming over the past 19 or so years.
If their climate models were so "amazingly accurate" as sanspeur argues, then why oh why would they even bother writing such papers? They wouldn't, because their "amazingly accurate" models in the past, would have already predicted the pause, and there would not be any questions needing to be asked.
The man-made global warming science community have written entire papers trying to explain why their computer models failed to predict that there has been almost no new warming over the past 19 or so years.
If their climate models were so "amazingly accurate" as sanspeur argues, then why oh why would they even bother writing such papers? They wouldn't, because their "amazingly accurate" models in the past, would have already predicted the pause, and there would not be any questions needing to be asked.
I think he means "amazingly accurate" in raising taxes, not in predicting "climate changes".
Just another reason why solar power is not something our government should be investing tax dollars into.
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.
