Expensive fantasies

[clarkatticus]

I could get into the debate about exponential effects and ppm data, but, like I said, the science is inconclusive. What I'm really saying is that we need to find other ways to produce energy for the security of our nation. The continued ranting about the initial costs, the overestimated output of some options, why someone supports this and opposes that are pointless. The first Nation that becomes energy self sufficient will write it's own ticket for the next century. Common' guys, think big!

 

[Dr.Who]

Your first figure is about right.

As for your second, it's a quarter or so. It would be higher, but the oceans have absorbed a lot of it.



link

You posted numbers for total ppm of co2 not for manmade co2. I would like to see you post numbers for man made co2.

Edit: OOPs sorry saw that too late.

 

[Dr.Who]

I could get into the debate about exponential effects and ppm data, but, like I said, the science is inconclusive. What I'm really saying is that we need to find other ways to produce energy for the security of our nation. The continued ranting about the initial costs, the overestimated output of some options, why someone supports this and opposes that are pointless. The first Nation that becomes energy self sufficient will write it's own ticket for the next century. Common' guys, think big!

We already have great ways to produce energy. We simply use everything we already have instead of loaning money to brazil so they can develop theirs. Our present reserves of natural gas and oil are so huge that we could use them for a long time, enjoy low energy prices while simultaneously allowing the market to generate viable alternatives.

What will those alternatives be? They may be very efficient wind turbines or solar panels produced very cheaply. They will not be a huge investment into inneficient turbines and panels that we will not be able to abandon or replace because we already comitted billinos of dollars in an infant technology.

But they might also be such efficient lightbulbs, refrigerators, cars, etc that the energy used to operate them makes the price and availability of gas inconsequential. The market leaves this door open while billions spent on wind and solar slams that door shut.

It might also just be much better ability to get oil out of the ground. Or we might combine that with more efficient appliances. Or we might even come up with a brand new set of ideas.

Lets not get stuck using windmils and solar panels because we invested billions and billions into them and we can't afford to change our course.

(by all means lets continue to develop and improve on wind and solar and others but lets not coerce the citizense of the country into possibly foolish investments.)

 

[Gipper]

We already have great ways to produce energy. We simply use everything we already have instead of loaning money to brazil so they can develop theirs. Our present reserves of natural gas and oil are so huge that we could use them for a long time, enjoy low energy prices while simultaneously allowing the market to generate viable alternatives.

Yes we have huge reserves, but there is a group of people who have and are actively working to prevent the USA from being energy self sufficient. Why would they do this?

And, we all know who that group is. At least, those of us with capable minds know who they are.

 

[Dr.Who]

Your first figure is about right.

As for your second, it's a quarter or so. It would be higher, but the oceans have absorbed a lot of it.

Since mass consumption of fossil fuels began with the industrial revolution around 1800, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown from an estimated 280 parts per million to around 380 parts per million.

Today's current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is only around half of what scientists have predicted atmospheric levels should be, based on estimates that humans have contributed 244 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere.

"The other half of the emitted carbon dioxide was the so-called missing sink, which was thought to be taken up by either the oceans or the land plants," Sabine said. (Plants absorb carbon dioxide and use it to produce energy.)

link

Ok, let me address that again now that I have read it properly.


Your source says oncentrations have gone ujp from 280 to 380 but does not say how much of that is natural and how much is man made.

Then it says that man has contributed 244 metric tons but does not put that number into any usable perspective. How much of the total is that?

Using the 2000 Dept of energy numbers nature has raised the amount above baseline by 68,520 while man has contributed 11,880. Which means that [11,880/68,520 + 11,880 = .15] man has contributed 15% to the total of co2.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

.03% x .15 = .0003 x .15 = .000045 = .0045% of the total atmosphere is the contribution that man's co2 represents.That is the question we originally asked and that is the answer.

But wait! That is not the whole story.

Water vapor is a far more potent greenhouse gas than c02 and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. co2 accounts for only 3.618% of the effect.

So man's contribution of a small amount of the total of the atmosphere (.0045% )only accounts for our share of less than 3% of the effect.

Lets set that aside for a moment. We started by asking how much of the total atmosphere we are responsible for with co2.

Lets now ask how much of the warming is due to us? Start with a different question, use a different procedure, arrive at a better and more appropriate answer. (we don't need to include gasses that have no greenhouse effect and would actually make our contributoin look smaller. If we keep those gasses in the equation (like above) it looks like our contribution would be only 3% x .0045%. Our contribution is actually larger)

The site linked below says that the warming caused by us is actually .28%.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes we have huge reserves, but there is a group of people who have and are actively working to prevent the USA from being energy self sufficient. Why would they do this?

And, we all know who that group is. At least, those of us with capable minds know who they are.

Some of them do it because they think that getting that energy is unsafe. Though they are perfectly willing to have the Brazilians get that energy and ship it to us. I guess the planet is big enough that oil spills off the coast of Brazil don't bother them.

It certainly appears that a few people actually want to hurt the US.

 

[clarkatticus]

I am not againsed nat gas, I just want to do something. All forms, wind, solar, drilling for more oil/gas, geothermal, and nuke have to be used. It's not the cost, it's the necessity. Quibbling over the cost will sink us in the short term, bury us in the long. Steel yourself, this ain't gonna be free or cheap.

 

[PLC1]

Ok, let me address that again now that I have read it properly.


Your source says oncentrations have gone ujp from 280 to 380 but does not say how much of that is natural and how much is man made.

Then it says that man has contributed 244 metric tons but does not put that number into any usable perspective. How much of the total is that?

Using the 2000 Dept of energy numbers nature has raised the amount above baseline by 68,520 while man has contributed 11,880. Which means that [11,880/68,520 + 11,880 = .15] man has contributed 15% to the total of co2.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

.03% x .15 = .0003 x .15 = .000045 = .0045% of the total atmosphere is the contribution that man's co2 represents.That is the question we originally asked and that is the answer.

But wait! That is not the whole story.

Water vapor is a far more potent greenhouse gas than c02 and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. co2 accounts for only 3.618% of the effect.

So man's contribution of a small amount of the total of the atmosphere (.0045% )only accounts for our share of less than 3% of the effect.

Lets set that aside for a moment. We started by asking how much of the total atmosphere we are responsible for with co2.

Lets now ask how much of the warming is due to us? Start with a different question, use a different procedure, arrive at a better and more appropriate answer. (we don't need to include gasses that have no greenhouse effect and would actually make our contributoin look smaller. If we keep those gasses in the equation (like above) it looks like our contribution would be only 3% x .0045%. Our contribution is actually larger)

The site linked below says that the warming caused by us is actually .28%.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The interesting thing about water vapor is that is is both a cause and an effect of warming. The warmer the planet, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold on average. The more water vapor there is, the warmer the planet. It's a magnifying effect.

Still, the total amount of warming amounts to less than one degree or so C, out of an average of about 15 degrees. Now, it's tempting to say that one degree out of 15 is 1/15th, or a warming of nearly 7%, but that is not accurate. The Celsius scale starts at the freezing point of water, not at absolute zero, which is a around -271. So, the average temperature of the Earth is about 286 degrees absolute, and that 1 degree difference amounts to 1/286 degrees, or a change of just over three tenths of a percent.

The change is small, but the effect can be large in certain areas.

How much is man caused? The jury is still out on that one. Consensus is that some of it is. Your figure of 15% increase in carbon dioxide being anthropogenic could be correct. If so, then humans are only responsible for a very small increase in average global temperatures so far.

When we start seeing feedback loops, like the water vapor circle I just described, or the thawing of the tundra and resulting release of methane, then it's time to sit up and take notice. Even small changes in average temperature worldwide can set off changes that result in larger increases. Moreover, ocean currents and the jetstream can be affected, which in turn affects local weather long term.

It's worth more research, don't you think?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yeah, that's how they're suckering you in. The data says otherwise. Sorry, Pocket, there's too much evidence of past times that were warmer, including funny stuff like whaling maps up in the Arctic back in the 1400's and such... yeah, it was melted off back then quite a bit. Leftovers from the Medieval Warm Period, when it was warmer than now. It's solar, sorry.

And, you keep forgetting... not of that cr@p even matters due to Peak Oil, Peak Coal and what will turn out to be Peak Gas. All of the disaster-scenarios-from-H*ll were predicated on the idea that fossil and carbon fuels could be exponentially increased ad infinitum. They can't and they won't and we're already beginning to see 'er nosing over if you simply hook up to the right data sources.

For the record, I'd LOVE to make nuclear fusion work (the only true Holy Grail of energy). I don't hate hydrocarbon fuel but at least I understand it.

hmm does not show that on this graph...seems it was much cooler then.

But maybe you can present your finding to the white house, UN, and evry other major group that has studied this and come up with the same thing...

 

[Dr.Who]

The interesting thing about water vapor is that is is both a cause and an effect of warming. The warmer the planet, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold on average. The more water vapor there is, the warmer the planet. It's a magnifying effect.

Still, the total amount of warming amounts to less than one degree or so C, out of an average of about 15 degrees. Now, it's tempting to say that one degree out of 15 is 1/15th, or a warming of nearly 7%, but that is not accurate. The Celsius scale starts at the freezing point of water, not at absolute zero, which is a around -271. So, the average temperature of the Earth is about 286 degrees absolute, and that 1 degree difference amounts to 1/286 degrees, or a change of just over three tenths of a percent.

The change is small, but the effect can be large in certain areas.

How much is man caused? The jury is still out on that one. Consensus is that some of it is. Your figure of 15% increase in carbon dioxide being anthropogenic could be correct. If so, then humans are only responsible for a very small increase in average global temperatures so far.

When we start seeing feedback loops, like the water vapor circle I just described, or the thawing of the tundra and resulting release of methane, then it's time to sit up and take notice. Even small changes in average temperature worldwide can set off changes that result in larger increases. Moreover, ocean currents and the jetstream can be affected, which in turn affects local weather long term.

It's worth more research, don't you think?

It is possible what you said there is right and it is worth more research!

But what you say does depend on the feedback loops all being positive for that to be true.

Depending on positive feedback loops is not the same as saying that we have put lots of carbon in the air (though we have put in a small amount) and that it must have an effect. Without those positive feedback loops there is no reason at all that it MUST have an effect.

 

[PLC1]

It is possible what you said there is right and it is worth more research!

But what you say does depend on the feedback loops all being positive for that to be true.

Depending on positive feedback loops is not the same as saying that we have put lots of carbon in the air (though we have put in a small amount) and that it must have an effect. Without those positive feedback loops there is no reason at all that it MUST have an effect.

Correct. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small, and the percentage that can be attributed to humans is even smaller.

But, you have those feedback loops to consider, plus the fact that the warming has been very small as well. The thing is, even a small change worldwide can make some large differences locally.

Meanwhile, you have voices on one side saying that climate change is a crisis and we must do something (even if it's wrong, which it most likely will be), and on the other side trying to deny scientific theory on the basis of flimsy or non existent evidence. What needs to be done is to accept what is known, and then research what is not known, and quit making a political football out of it.

Not that such a thing is likely to happen, of course.

 

[Pidgey]

hmm does not show that on this graph...seems it was much cooler then.

But maybe you can present your finding to the white house, UN, and evry other major group that has studied this and come up with the same thing...

Had to use the quote function to figure out what your linked image was...

Oh, yeah... the ol' INfamous "hockey stick" created by splicing proxies together from data that the warmists REFUSED to submit for FOIA requests. Now we're back to the ol' YAD061 data...

Seriously, Pocket... have you ever even tried to look into the facts behind all of that, or do you just blindly adhere to it, close your eyes, cover your ears and yell "la-la-LA-LA-LA" over and over and over...

YAD061. Google it.

And then use Occam's Razor against all of it--you'll find that Peak Oil explains all of the observed behavior as the simplest solution to the entire controversy and, indeed, all of the current stuff going on.

Incidentally, all the recent data shows that America's CO2 output is falling due to a lessening of energy consumption.

 

[PLC1]

Incidentally, all the recent data shows that America's CO2 output is falling due to a lessening of energy consumption.

Which, in turn, is due to the recession.

 

[Pidgey]

Which, in turn, is due to the recession.

Which, in turn, is due to Peak Oil.

 

[PLC1]

Which, in turn, is due to Peak Oil.

Partly due to the increased cost of oil. And around and around it goes.