ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

TheBeastie said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer
Dr. Benjamin Santer now seems to agree with some of the other climate scientists (who are secretly hated) that the climate warming models are in no way consistent with what the real world average temperatures that show the average temperature hasn't changed for the last 20 years from the best temperature recording technologies.

I think this scientist changing his mind is a big change that could grow into a rolling snowball over the next couple of years into fueling less hysteria about climate change.
To me I can only wonder why he has changed his mind/stance, maybe hes made all the money he needs and maybe hes even feeling a bit of guilt about the hurt hes put on general folks.

John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data out of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, has testified before Congress on the failure of models to predict recent global warming.

Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than satellites and weather balloons have observed.

Now, he and Santer seem to be on the same page — the global warming “hiatus” is real and the models didn’t see it coming.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is complete BS. John Christy and his partner Roy Spencer (a creationist) are hacks who have been repeatedly shown errors in their satellite data interpretations. Yet the corporate funded radical right continues to cite their research in their fake news outlets like Brietbart, and some of the ones that you just linked to. Year after year for the past two decades, global temperatures are above or near their all-time record highs. The four most respected agencies (NOAA, NASA, JMA, and UKMET) who make such calculations--independently from each other, mind you--are all unanimous in showing the trend of record-breaking global temperatures. How anyone can believe a hack like Christy that this can be interpreted as a hiatus is beyond me, but I guess people are pretty gullible when the truth is counter to their own self interest or political beliefs.

https://thinkprogress.org/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-and-roy-spencer-say-53e68fc93551
 
TheBeastie said:
I think this scientist changing his mind is a big change that could grow into a rolling snowball over the next couple of years into fueling less hysteria about climate change.
To me I can only wonder why he has changed his mind/stance, maybe hes made all the money he needs and maybe hes even feeling a bit of guilt about the hurt hes put on general folks.
Click to expand...

Or he just got himself a nice portfolio of fossil fuel stocks, and he's getting very worried that he might not make as much money as he wants to.

In any case, from the article you posted:
===========
“None of our findings call into question the reality of long-term warming of Earth’s troposphere and surface, or cast doubt on prevailing estimates of the amount of warming we can expect from future increases in GHG concentrations,” the authors said.
============
 
nutspecial said:
Fanatical much? :wink:
Click to expand...

No. Just knowledgeable on the subject and annoyed by easily disproved BS that gullible people like you seem to fall for all to often. How are those chemtrails treating you? I'd have thought you'd have died from all the poison by now. They can't kill me, though because I'm immune to water vapor.
 
I was thinking about one of the most provoking/fear mongering arguments green groups constant put out is that the great barrier reef et cetera is going to die from carbon dioxide ocean acidification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
But the fact that there are over 1million submarine volcanoes constantly spewing co2 into the water undermines that argument that sea life is affected by any co2 increase.
Quote from Wikipedia "The total number of submarine volcanoes is estimated to be over 1 million"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano

Real climate scientists say co2 will increase the size and health of coral reefs https://youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI?t=5m13s

If the green groups are to believed its like the ocean is constantly taking a shotgun to the mouth every second of the day, but yet have been fine all this time in history?
While some submarine volcanoes are deep underwater, some are just below the surface like this one. But it's amazing to think there are over 1million of these under the water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPChCAZNqM
[youtube]eFPChCAZNqM[/youtube]

This one is considered to be the most recent once submarine volcano to actually become an island. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP_TDjcsiPA
https://youtu.be/dpz4fXH7nuo?t=4m43s
https://youtu.be/vblLZzw1baE?t=8m23s
https://youtu.be/vblLZzw1baE?t=10m44s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uen5pMoMS5w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d79LoSLD8HU
Scientists here say they were very surprised by the amount of life living around the Kavachi submarine volcano https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3t18rrjOA
These are fascinating to look at, could look at them all day https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=submarine+volcano

Looking at articles like these below, co2 emissions from volcanoes and submarine volcanoes I understand its not as much as combustion vehicles, coal for steel and electricity stations but probably was the core of co2 fertilization for plants until humans picked up the slack over the last 150 years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#4c36d53e5cbf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

According to this near 10-year-old article from Scientific American its about 200million tons of co2 annually from volcano emissions. quote "200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually"
A more recent article on USGS says up to quote "440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide" yearly
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas.html
And now according to the latest reports on scientists sources on Forbes its about 650 million.
Quote "Add all of these up, and you get an estimate of around 645 million tons of CO2 per year."
What I find weird about this is the fact that the mere on land volcanoes that go only into the 100s still factored into emitting the majority of the 645million tons of co2 each year vs the 1 million+ submarine volcanoes, where the 1 million plus submarine volcanoes contribute significantly less? Seems to me the seawater/life is incredibly good at dealing with this.

Also scientists recently concluded there is 100 trillion tons of co2 in the earths mantle that could leak into the sea via the submarine volcanoes over time.
Quote from Forbes article Recent research about carbon reserves discovered underneath the United States has led to a new estimate of the amount of carbon in the Earth's upper mantle: approximately 100 trillion tons. By contrast, there are only about 3.2 trillion tons of CO2 (containing about 870 billion tons of actual carbon) in the atmosphere today.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/04/30/a-massive-lake-of-molten-carbon-the-size-of-mexico-was-just-discovered-under-the-us/2/#612f325b5e69

Sea Surface pH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png
The ocean acidification charts on Wikipedia show only the first few millimeters or so having different PH levels which make sense as the carbon dioxide rich air meets the sea water but it totally disappears after that.
And I am sure if we look at the PH levels close to the exit points of the 1 million+ submarine volcanoes we will see the exact same thing and if the data on land volcanoes is to be believed on how much co2 they emit then the 1 million+ submarine volcanoes are injecting an incredible amount of co2 into the ocean without any problems.

The fact that increases in co2 accelerates the growth of seaweed/plant vegetation should be celebrated just like how it does for terrestrial forests, bringing more life everywhere. It's again carbon dioxide 101 but under water https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HcEpliMYk
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/11/30/co2-is-sustenance-for-seaweed/

So if the data on population is to be believed of around 7.5billion and 8billion on its way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population and each human puts out 0.365tons of co2 annually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Human_physiology quote "The body produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1.0 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person"
Then its 7,500,000,000 x 0.365 = 2,737,500,000 or 2.7billion tons of co2 per year just from human breathing.
That is 13 times more co2 than volcanoes if you take the Scientific American data.
So logically if we stop all steel production, all coal power plants and combustion motors are we likely to continue to have increasing co2 levels or just elevated levels anyway? Just from breathing?

It is estimated we reached 1 billion people in 1804 and 2 billion in 1927.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones_by_the_billions

This is the co2 ppm chart from the Forbes article, its a good overall article that one.
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/06/maxresdefault-1200x675.jpg

As for Australia, our yearly emissions from coal power-stations is about 151million tons of co2 a year now that Hazelwood has shut down just recently in April 2017. Quote "coal generators emitted 151 million tonnes of greenhouse gas"
https://theconversation.com/is-clean-coal-power-the-answer-to-australias-emissions-targets-71785

So South Australia now has the crazy situation of the most expensive electricity in the world and is enduring large shutdowns in business that can't afford their electricity bills in an effort to cut down coal electricity generation and rely on renewables.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australia-will-have-highest-power-prices-in-the-world-after-july-1-increases/news-story/876f9f6cefce23c62395085c6fe0fd9f
If we take 645million tons of co2 just from Volcanoes and co2 total from 151million tons co2 via coal electricity generation from Australia it's just (151/645)x100 = 24% of the emissions from yearly volcano activity, less then quarter.

If we take the everyone's exhaling of 2.7 billion tons of co2 annual emissions and compare it to Australias coal electricity emissions then its (151,000,000 / 2,737,500,000)x100 = 5%
Or another way to put it is the mere respiratory activity of everyone in the world is putting out 18 times more carbon dioxide than all of Australias coal electricity generation power-plants, each year.

So people in South Australia are paying the highest electricity prices in the world and folks with less income are turning off their refrigerators before they go to bed and it only makes a difference of 5% against everyone merely breathing in the world. And this is putting aside the amount of co2 the rest of the world generates via industrial activity (24billion tons annual). To me, this is the testament of the power of bad information constantly pounding general folks in Australia via Facebook fake news and the local ABC news.
Video on folks turning off their refrigerators before they go to bed here -> https://youtu.be/a-OSNLqQ0qU

It's no coincidence that farmers around the world are having record food crop harvests, its because of the co2 fertilization process, and its the exact opposite of what climate change alarmists said would happen, they promised global famine and starvation and instead we got global record harvests.
Quote "Australia's winter grain harvest is now officially the largest for every single mainland state."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-02-14/nrn-record-winter-crop/8268564
USA Quote "farmers in the U.S., the world’s top grower, begin harvesting what’s expected to be the largest crop on record."
https://www.agweb.com/article/corn-futures-drop-as-us-farmers-start-harvesting-record-crop/
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/agribusiness/cropping/biggest-global-wheat-crop-tipped-by-united-states-department-of-agriculture/news-story/3b909e0a98e8e80da71996fab3247de6

While I really like the idea of seeing more trees/vegetation in Australia as articles from NASA et cetera say via co2 fertilization, I am wondering if this continuation of co2 fertilization will continue and we will see more life on this planet if the earth continues to hold 7billion people or more in the future.
https://theconversation.com/found-lost-forests-covering-an-area-two-thirds-the-size-of-australia-77550
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/
Or like how this NASA video shows it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi8SFOJffFA which is really just a more impressive version of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

Of course I believe the co2 ppm charts et cetera, who wouldn't? I just see it as good healthy stuff for planet earth, nothing else. If you hate what's happening to Earth then really you should be wanting to exterminate billions of people as well? Because that's the only way you're going to lower co2 levels, because it's the only way you can stop people breathing.
 
FYI jim, 'chemtrails' are most widely 'known' as publically unapproved, 'geoengineering'.

Looking at Nasa/JPL data on the subject, yes there could be some toxic effects right off the bat and down the line- adverse side effects. BUT the base argument against such a thing ("chemtrails") is the 'unapproved and covert' aspect, coupled with the common-sense realization that frocking around on that scale and in that way has a greater chance of hurting than helping us- especially from what we 'know' with available 'science'.
And there is always odds of biologically experimental (or simply detrimental) stuff, whether by purpose or accident, regardless of 'chemtrails'.


But yes sorry I didn't want to offend. However, you do appear quite fanatical.
 
While I really like the idea of seeing more trees etc in Australia as articles from NASA etc say, I am wondering if this continuation of co2 fertilization will continue and we will see more life on this planet if the earth continues to hold 7billion people or more in the future.
Click to expand...

Yep, be good stewards, and be realistically optimsitic with science/data. Our world is good now, but we probably only know a fraction of it's potential. Good post, Cheers.
 
See, anthropogenic global warming is clearly a scam cos volcanoes and chemtrails.

You just can't have a sensible discussion on here once certain characters get involved.
 
TheBeastie said:
I was thinking about one of the most fear mongering arguments green groups constant put out is that the great barrier reef etc is going to die from carbon dioxide ocean acidification.

But the fact that there are over 1million submariene volcanoes constantly spewing co2 into the water undermines that argument that sea life is affected by any co2 increase.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is showing. Human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are currently running at 30 billion tons per year. That is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. In other words, 30 billion is a LOT more than 200 million. Ongoing ocean increases in ocean acidity can be directly linked to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. If you bothered to do research on actual science sites instead of your fake news and denier sites, you might have known that. Maybe also study up on physics and the laws of thermodynamics.
 
I don't really pay attention to the environmentalist doomsday cult anymore. They might have valid points, but i meet so many of them that will not make the personal sacrifices necessary to reduce their own footprints, that i really have no hope for them. If you can't live by your own ideology, then your ideology sucks.

Way too many of these people are waiting for government to force them to change than are willing to change too.. good luck with that..

There is also a refusal to admit that the consumption end of the equation is mostly responsible for the pollution that goes on. Blaming corporations and governments for pollution is like blaming the drug dealer for your addiction.. who keeps the drug dealer in business?

All the answers to our environmental problems lay at your feet. Some of them can be found here on this forum. More action, less talk..
 
jimw1960 said:
TheBeastie said:
I was thinking about one of the most fear mongering arguments green groups constant put out is that the great barrier reef etc is going to die from carbon dioxide ocean acidification.

But the fact that there are over 1million submariene volcanoes constantly spewing co2 into the water undermines that argument that sea life is affected by any co2 increase.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is showing. Human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are currently running at 30 billion tons per year. That is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. In other words, 30 billion is a LOT more than 200 million. Ongoing ocean increases in ocean acidity can be directly linked to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. If you bothered to do research on actual science sites instead of your fake news and denier sites, you might have known that. Maybe also study up on physics and the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

I have a few questions regarding your post, if you want to answer them:

How do we know that the "natural" co2 production is stable? Both in production and use? It seems foolish to claim that nature produce x amount of co2, not bound by year.
There are records of much higher co2 gas earlier in earths history, how did it manage to sink in to other forms, since the amount we have now is so much lower? What stops nature from using those mechanisms now?
How do we know that the ice cores containing co2 is correct? What I mean is, with what credibility and certainty can you say that the ice core can give a good reading with a 50 or 100 year resolution? What if the co2 is "leaking" through the layers?
Can you give me an example of a few innovations that can justify the extremely costly experiment the western governments are doing regarding the "green revolution"? I see windmills, solar panels, and a few other projects, many of those have failed, but they will stay as an example in history of some of the most wasteful projects ever made. Money stolen by the government from the people, wastefully given to "scientist" and politicians. Since time is money, I see this as a great injustice(I wonder whaot your stance is)

Think how much this money could have done in the right hands, or just in the actual owners hands. "Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from
FY2008 through FY2013" fas.org This is just the US, much more money have been draind out of peoples pockets, with nothing to show for it. I don't understand how people don't riot because of this injustice
 
There is no pointless. Even if all your (loaded) questions are answered in great detail, it won't convince you. You will simply move the goalposts and demand ever more evidence in an endless charade of time-consuming questions. All the while never offering any quality evidence to support your own arguments against AGW.

Neptronix, I used to level the same criticism at environmentalists. I now accept that, while not perfect, you don't have to deliberately sufer a medieval standard of living in order to promote change. We can continue to consume energy (hopefully in a more conscientious manner) while petitioning government to mandate that energy be supplied more sustainably.
 
Punx0r said:
There is no pointless. Even if all your (loaded) questions are answered in great detail, it won't convince you. You will simply move the goalposts and demand ever more evidence in an endless charade of time-consuming questions. All the while never offering any quality evidence to support your own arguments against AGW.

Neptronix, I used to level the same criticism at environmentalists. I now accept that, while not perfect, you don't have to deliberately sufer a medieval standard of living in order to promote change. We can continue to consume energy (hopefully in a more conscientious manner) while petitioning government to mandate that energy be supplied more sustainably.
Click to expand...

You don't know me, nor my intentions. You lack understanding on how written discussion work. It is often less important to answer questions to prove the questioner wrong/right, but to show other readers your answer or reason. By your logic, you decide who is worthy of an answer or not. I have my reasons why I don't buy the argument and that should not exclude me from the discussion(but everybody is free not to answer me if they so want).

Do you have enough knowledge to fully answer my questions without intensive googling? I don't think so(But I think you are as stubborn in your view as me, even though you lack the evidence to do so)
 
Ratking said:
jimw1960 said:
TheBeastie said:
I was thinking about one of the most fear mongering arguments green groups constant put out is that the great barrier reef etc is going to die from carbon dioxide ocean acidification.

But the fact that there are over 1million submariene volcanoes constantly spewing co2 into the water undermines that argument that sea life is affected by any co2 increase.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is showing. Human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are currently running at 30 billion tons per year. That is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. In other words, 30 billion is a LOT more than 200 million. Ongoing ocean increases in ocean acidity can be directly linked to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. If you bothered to do research on actual science sites instead of your fake news and denier sites, you might have known that. Maybe also study up on physics and the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

I have a few questions regarding your post, if you want to answer them:

How do we know that the "natural" co2 production is stable? Both in production and use? It seems foolish to claim that nature produce x amount of co2, not bound by year.
There are records of much higher co2 gas earlier in earths history, how did it manage to sink in to other forms, since the amount we have now is so much lower? What stops nature from using those mechanisms now?
How do we know that the ice cores containing co2 is correct? What I mean is, with what credibility and certainty can you say that the ice core can give a good reading with a 50 or 100 year resolution? What if the co2 is "leaking" through the layers?
Can you give me an example of a few innovations that can justify the extremely costly experiment the western governments are doing regarding the "green revolution"? I see windmills, solar panels, and a few other projects, many of those have failed, but they will stay as an example in history of some of the most wasteful projects ever made. Money stolen by the government from the people, wastefully given to "scientist" and politicians. Since time is money, I see this as a great injustice(I wonder whaot your stance is)

Think how much this money could have done in the right hands, or just in the actual owners hands. "Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from
FY2008 through FY2013" fas.org This is just the US, much more money have been draind out of peoples pockets, with nothing to show for it. I don't understand how people don't riot because of this injustice
Click to expand...

Good questions. I'll try to answer as best I can. Natural CO2 production is not necessarily "stable" but rather cyclical. For the past few million years it has been in a relatively stable range between a minimum of 160 ppm and a maximum of 300 ppm (we are currently at 405 ppm, well outside of that natural range). The difference between that minumum and maximum CO2 level has been the primary driver of climate between glacial and interglacial conditions. During glacial times, most of North America and northern Europe were covered in ice 2 miles thick. The difference in global average temperature between interglacial cycle and interglacial cycle is about 8 degrees Celsius. We are currently at the high temperature end of this cycle but temperatures are still rising. The source of CO2 in the natural cycle would be degassing from the ocean as temperatures increase, which causes more warming, and more degassing--a positive feedback cycle. Rock weathering as glaciers retreat is also a natural source of co2; volcanoes also add co2 to the mix but not as much as you might think. Working against that positive feedback cycle is natural uptake of co2 by forest cover, which increases as the glaciers retreat. Eventually, the uptake of co2 by trees and changes in the earth's rotational axis are enough to stop the warming cycle and the slow descent into the next glacial cycle should begin. That is not happening now as there is no uptake of co2 by forests because we are actively deforesting the planet and at the same time adding back fossil co2 to the atmosphere.

You are correct that co2 levels have been higher in the past. It has been about 4 million years since they were higher than they are now. Where did all that co2 from back then go? Well, most of it became trees and other organic material that died and got buried over millions and millions of years and eventually became oil, coal, and natural gas deposits that we use for fuel today. So, by burning fossil fuels, we are basically taking all of that co2 that was slowly removed from the atmosphere over hundreds of millions of years and putting it back in the atmosphere all within a span of a couple hundred years--a blink of the eye in geologic time. By the end of this century, if we do nothing to reduce fossil fuel use, the co2 levels will be well above 500 ppm. I just read an article earlier that you would have to go back a half billion years in history to find co2 levels that high on the planet. The Earth was a much much warmer place back then.

I personally worked on the GISP2 ice core project in Greenland back in my grad school days, so I am very familiar with the reliability of the measurements of co2 in gas bubbles trapped in ice. It is considered the gold standard as it is the actual atmosphere that was trapped during the time the snow pack was sealed off. You can actually count annual layers in the ice going back several hundred years. Deeper than that, the years start squishing together, so the resolution becomes more like decadal. The reliability is confirmed by comparison with other data sets such as tree rings and seabed sediments, as well as the consistency among ice cores from all over the world.

77 billion over 5 years sounds like a lot of money, I agree. But how much to you think we have spent on senseless wars and in maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal? Hundreds of times that much. I live in Texas where we currently get 20% of our electricity from wind power and another 10% or so from nuclear. These sources are competitive with fossil fuels in cost. What is to stop us from increasing that percentage to 60 or 80%. And why can't that transition be a good thing for jobs and the economy. Sure, it costs money, but that money goes to paying wages of workers right here in this country, not to some OPEC cartel in the middle east.
 
Ratking said:
How do we know that the "natural" co2 production is stable? Both in production and use?
Click to expand...
It's not. However, there are bounds to how much carbon can be "mobilized" by any event, whether climatic, astronomic (meteor impact), due to vulcanism etc. Some is available (i.e. carbon in animals and plants, carbon in the atmosphere) and some is not (i.e. coal that's a mile underground, carbon in limestone.) Normally carbon in the biosphere is used by organisms which cycle it around and around. Dead organisms pile up and get buried as carbonaceous (coal, oil, limestone, marble etc) deposits. This removes carbon from the ecosphere. Slow processes (breakdown of carbon bearing rock mainly) re-release it into the ecosphere. These two processes keep the system more or less in balance.

The problems we have been seeing lately have been due to our tendency to dig up older carbon deposits and re-release them into the atmosphere. That's why we see CO2 levels rising so rapidly; the existing processes to recapture carbon are no longer sufficient to deal with the increase of carbon dioxide.

There are records of much higher co2 gas earlier in earths history, how did it manage to sink in to other forms, since the amount we have now is so much lower?
Click to expand...
See above.
What stops nature from using those mechanisms now?
Click to expand...
Those mechanisms are still working - and in many cases (since they are driven by CO2 partial pressures) working ever faster. They are simply insufficient to compensate for our release of ~40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. If we could reduce that, those mechanisms would be able to keep up.
How do we know that the ice cores containing co2 is correct? What I mean is, with what credibility and certainty can you say that the ice core can give a good reading with a 50 or 100 year resolution? What if the co2 is "leaking" through the layers?
Click to expand...
They are backed up by measurements like radioisotope levels, tree ring records, sedimentation records etc. Any one record alone is suspect - but when half a dozen agree with a high degree of certainty, the reliability of all those measurements improve.
Can you give me an example of a few innovations that can justify the extremely costly experiment the western governments are doing regarding the "green revolution"?
Click to expand...
Solar for 4 cents per kilowatt-hour in the US; 2.4c/kwhr elsewhere. (Abu Dhabi)
Wind for 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.
(All the above are _unsubsidized_ costs BTW, per Lazard 2016 LCOE report.)
Smart grids able to handle unreliable power.
Cars that get, on average, 24mpg in the US, up from 15mpg in 1980. (Also results in cheaper gas, which is a nice side effect.)
Air in Los Angeles that is between 50% and 95% cleaner (depending on pollutant) than it was in 1980.
Rivers, lakes and oceans that are cleaner. When I went to school in Boston, if you fell in the Charles River it meant a trip to the infirmary. Now it's almost clean enough to swim in.
I see windmills, solar panels, and a few other projects, many of those have failed, but they will stay as an example in history of some of the most wasteful projects ever made. Money stolen by the government from the people, wastefully given to "scientist" and politicians. Since time is money, I see this as a great injustice(I wonder whaot your stance is)
Click to expand...
I have a solar power system that generates all my electric power, and also charges my two electric vehicles. So I don't see them as useless or wasteful.
Think how much this money could have done in the right hands, or just in the actual owners hands.
Click to expand...
We could have had more . . . wars? Bought more hamburgers?

Money for scientific research is some of the most important money we spend. It has led to affordable solar and wind, to breakthroughs in power transmission and energy efficiency, to new medical treatments, new batteries, new ways to communicate and send data, new discoveries on other planets and throughout the universe. It will someday lead to the holy grails people are seeking today - a cure for cancer, another home for humanity, a way to clean up pollution, to reduce poverty and to help spread food, education and medical care to all peoples.
This is just the US, much more money have been draind out of peoples pockets, with nothing to show for it. I don't understand how people don't riot because of this injustice
Click to expand...
Probably because the people of the US want it and benefit from it. 65% of Americans want to prioritize developing alternative energy over developing more fossil fuel sources.
 
5488.65wvir.jpg
 
jimw1960 said:
Good questions. I'll try to answer as best I can. Natural CO2 production is not necessarily "stable" but rather cyclical.
Click to expand...

AWESOME post SIR! Thank you.
L
 
jimw1960 said:
.... Human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are currently running at 30 billion tons per year. That is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. ....
Click to expand...
:roll: you have said that before...
... so i will repeat myself also..
Facts..
Natural CO2 sources..
Plant and animal respiration....220 billion tonnes each year
Soil decomposition....220 billion tones each year
Ocean release.... 330 billion tonnes each year .

...so human CO2 emissions are about 4% of the total ball game.
 
Hillhater said:
jimw1960 said:
.... Human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are currently running at 30 billion tons per year. That is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. ....
Click to expand...
:roll: you have said that before...
... so i will repeat myself also..
Facts..
Natural CO2 sources..
Plant and animal respiration....220 billion tonnes each year
Soil decomposition....220 billion tones each year
Ocean release.... 330 billion tonnes each year .

...so human CO2 emissions are about 4% of the total ball game.
Click to expand...

You have stated these (incomplete) sources before. The oceans both release and absorb CO2 depending on the changes in temperature and season. You have to balance what is release against what is absorbed. The oceans are presently absorbing more CO2 than they release as evidenced by their increasing acidity associated with carbonic acid. Same with soils. Same with plant and animal respiration. Plants take up more CO2 than they respire, otherwise they wouldn't grow. Same with people, I breath out CO2, but I also eat up a bunch of carbon based plants and animals in the process. So, unless you give ALL the sinks in addition to sources, you are being misleading. Fossil fuel burning emits a NET 30 billion tons of CO2 per year. All other NET sources combined are less than 1/100th of that. Please review the source material I linked when we had this same discussion a few months ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top