Sometimes I feel like I've landed on an alien planet...

Feel free to discuss any topic of general interest, so long as nothing you post here is likely to be interpreted as insulting, and/or inflammatory, nor clearly designed to provoke any individual or group. Please be considerate of others feelings, and they will be considerate of yours.

Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh

User avatar
Joefnh
Rockhopper Penguin
Rockhopper Penguin
Posts: 2478
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:25 pm
Location: Southern New Hampshire

Post by Joefnh »

Polly I have not found what seems to be a well designed study as to what is the cumalitive effect of mankinds contribution to this current short term warming trend. What has been clear though is that these temperature cycles have persisted the last roughly 3000 years as is evidence in plant fossil growth records and the measured isotope decay rates.

As mentioned above, the data that NASA Just released looked back several thousand years across thousands of points across the globe and has determined that the earth has actually on average been cooling down. I know that's hard to think of with the summer we are having, it's so easy to see an area running hotter than normal and try to mentally extrapolate a long term trend from that observation. This variation is one that is due to a significant El Niño pattern in the pacific ocean and these patters (El Niño and La Nina) are due to the subsurface oceanic currents and the geothermal activity on the ocean floor, not mankind.

Let's take just a moment to talk about the CO2 piece of the puzzle.

First let's look at the basics, according to JPL and NASA, currently man made C02 accounts for only about 7% of the total C02 generated. Most when they here this say 'no way' it must be higher...it's not. Every living organism animal or plant on the entire planet emits C02 when living and far more as it decomposes after death. Every leaf, blade of grass or any bug or animal when it dies emits C02, every living thing when it exhales emits CO2. For the first time in history we are cultivating huge quantities livestock and vast areas of cultivated land and have to feed our populations altered the balance to suit our days to day needs.

Next lets look at the C02 puzzle a bit

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.035% by volume and just about 5000 years ago that level has been determined to be about 0.028%. Overall this is an increase in these concentrations and certainly a combination of factors play a part including the burning of various fossil and plant based materials. All in all though it's not that big of an increase and larger swings have been witnessed over the past 50,000 years due to volcanic activity and the cyclical nature of the past 3 ice ages.

Overall the numbers we are seeing now are higher than 3000 years ago and the question is how much CO2 can the earths natural systems sequester, eithier through plant based photosynthesis, the oceanic absorption or as simple precipitate.

Of all of the C02 generated naturally or man made, about two thirds of it is absorbed by the oceans, but as we live in a living 'system', a change in one area, man made or not will have consequences in another area. Currently the oceanic long term absorption of CO2 can best be expressed in the following equation:

CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O ⇌ Ca2+ + 2 HCO3−

Which is due to the ionic exchange within all of the oceans with the rocks and sands which are rich in calcium. This will provide for the mechanism to absorb and sequester CO2 but over time will result in an increase in the acidity of the ocean.

Polly volcanos should never be treated as just particles that will settle soon, that's the least of the problem with them, they emit absolutely huge quantities of not only CO2, but also mind boggling quantities of the stronger greenhouse gas sulphur dioxide, which persist far longer than CO2 and retains far more heat as a suspended gas in the atmospheric column.

In a recent United states Geological Survey (USGS) study an estimate was made that just volcanos alone emit 200 million tons of CO2 annually, not to mention the 310 million tons of sulphur dioxide that is emmited annually by geothermal sources.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/arc ... 02_15.html
Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
At the end of the day Polly we live in the middle of mostly self correcting complex system that is influenced but many factors, including human factors, the question needs to be can we do better? What has been happening unfortunately is that much of the science has been mitigated by politics and by using fear we are trying to manipulate opinions. The discussion here has to be about just the science and the place we have on this planet....for at the end of the next century the politics will be forgotten, but our grandchildren will need to live with our decisions, for better or worse.

Personally I do not believe we are in the dire place many of the politicians try to place us, but we do need to pay attention to our actions and for many many reasons address our energy needs with a more balanced scientific approach.
Joe
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35072
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

Joe wrote:I have not found what seems to be a well designed study as to what is the cumalitive effect of mankinds contribution to this current short term warming trend.
My guess is that such information is unavailable for a reason -- those in the catbird seat have no desire to end the current climate research gravy train by upsetting the apple cart. They are well aware of how insignificant our contributions are in global climate cycles, and they can ill afford to provide the information that would allow someone to easily recognize the absurdity of the current agenda. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, and climatologists live mostly on government-financed research projects, so they don't dare oppose the popular political view, since that would result in an immediate curtailment of research funds.

To address some of the other issues raised:
Lesley wrote:For the life of me I can't understand why the same isn't done here.
There have been numerous tax credits offered for many years, but getting them to actually pay out is usually wishful thinking, due to the high up-front costs that take forever to recover. Every homeowner and commercial housing owner has had the opportunity to use substantial tax credits as an incentive for utilizing solar power. It just hasn't worked. The technology is economically infeasible, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

The latest boondoggle was the huge push to fill West Texas with thousands and thousands of windmill-powered generators. I haven't driven through there lately, but I'm told that most of them are just standing there doing nothing, because no one can afford the power grid needed to collect and distribute the power to where it's needed. And even if they were to build the power grid, it still wouldn't work, because the overall cost prevents the technology from being competitive. They knew that right up front, but they were convinced that they could somehow make it work. :shrug: :monkey: :headscratch:

Remember when T. Boone Pickens was promoting that project all over the country? The last I heard, he personally lost something like 113 million bucks on that little venture. There's no telling what the total amount of the loss for the government and everyone else involved will turn out to be. :roll:

Look at all the ethanol plants that have been built in this country in the past decade or so, for the specific purpose of creating a market for sustainable fuels. For years, they operated on government subsidies -- that's money out of our pockets. And guess whose pockets wound up with most of that free (subsidy) money? The oil companies, of course. The sad part is, this whole fiasco has had a huge impact on the price of food for every one of us (more money out of our pockets), but it's had a negligible impact on the cost and availability of fuel. With the current price of corn, and phasing out government subsidies, there is no way they can justify running those ethanol plants, and the handwriting has been on the wall for several years now (since day one, actually), and the red ink just continues to add up, every year.

The bottom line is, if a technology can compete economically, no one has to subsidize it or even promote it -- entrepreneurs will seize it and make it a success. If it's not economically feasible, though, no matter how much money the government or anyone else throws at it, it's still impossible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Yes, human activity on this planet is significant -- to humans. We like to think that anything we do as an individual is significant. But more than that, we like to think that what we do as a society, all the way up to the global level, is significant. But regardless of what we like to think, unfortunately that doesn't significantly change anything in the operation of the universe. I really can't see how human activity at current levels is a significant parameter in long-term global climate cycles. Now if we were to invoke the power of nuclear fusion on a grand scale, over and over again (as in blow away a significant portion of the planet), we might eventually begin to have a significant effect on the energy calculations involved, but short of that, it's all pretty much irrelevant, IMO. :shrug:

Of course, I'm not one of those overpaid experts, (who can't accurately predict next month's weather, but that doesn't keep them from trying to convince us that they can predict what will happen a hundred or a thousand years from now), so what do I know? :lol:

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Polly
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 am
Location: Maryland

Post by Polly »

Timely thread! Thanks, Joe for pulling together all of that info.

Lesley, I did know that Israel is lightyears ahead of us in the development/implementation of renewable energy. For example, they are in the process of completing a national infrastructure for electric cars. There will be a station every 50 miles throughout the country where you can drive your electric car in, and in 2 minutes your battery is replaced by a charged one, and you are on your way. Within a 25 mile radius from my house, I know of only one retail outlet that has a "plug-in" in front of the store for customers with electric cars.

Tex, it seems that other countries are finding it economically feasible to move in this direction and to renovate/build infrastructure. I heard last week that fully 50% of Germany's energy use is from renewable sources now. And I have seen increasing options in my area for the homeowner who wants to move toward renewables. Several companies now offer to set your home up for solar power, and they will pay totally for all of the equipment and installation. You then pay them only for your power usage, at a locked-in rate much lower than the usual power companies. For a number of years now, I have "offset" the electricity I get from my local power company with "wind credits", and until this year, it was always a little more expensive than the usual rate. This year, for the first time, the wind option was significantly cheaper than the usual (mainly coal-fired) rate. Change is occuring, albeit much more slowly in our country.

Of course, there are folks who don't believe that fossil fuels are impacting global warming. However, I think we can all agree that it makes perfect sense to move away from them for other reasons......the fact that it makes us dependent upon the oil-producing countries, extremely deep water drilling, the increasingly dangerous methods that must be used to extract dwindling amounts of oil (oil sand extraction/fracking). The jury is still out on fracking, IMHO. In addition to contamination of aquifers, I read that scentists have noted an increase in earthquakes in areas that are doing fracking. Anyway, it is only a matter of time before the fossil fuels are gone (of course, there is plenty of nat'l gas in the U.S., as T.Boone touts, but no political will to use it), so those countries that have been moving toward renewables will have the edge.

It's always fun discussing these issues!

Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
User avatar
Joefnh
Rockhopper Penguin
Rockhopper Penguin
Posts: 2478
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:25 pm
Location: Southern New Hampshire

Post by Joefnh »

Polly stated:
I think we can all agree that it makes perfect sense to move away from them for other reasons......
Your absolutely correct Polly the whole issue with fossil fuels has many significant issues including:

Health issues
First and second order toxic pollutants
Geopolitical instability
Costs
Non-renewable (it will run out)

There are many areas of exciting research and one of the areas I have been closely watching the research on ,is the use of water as a fuel....yep water.

Water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (H2O), when the water is broken down at a molecular level it releases 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom(s); then if the hydrogen is burned, it recombines perfectly back to H2O, with the only byproduct of the combustion process being pure water. who would have thought that water could be the perfect fuel :shock:

The limiting issue has been that it takes a fair amount of energy to separate the atoms in the first place, the exciting work that is ongoing and showing significant progress, is using various type of molecular resonance to separate the atoms with a minimal input of energy. Can you imagine filling up your car with water?? This is an older scientific issue that is being revisited with some very promising results.

Overall the fossil fuels have 'fueled' the advances that we have enjoyed in society for the last 100 years but it is time to use these advances and advantages to leverage the next generation of technologies.


[/quote]
Joe
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35072
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

Polly,

Electric cars appear to offer the best near-term alternative fuel choice for urban commuters who choose to use their own ride, rather than public transportation. To me, one of the biggest disappointments was not Chevy's decision to temporarily suspend production on their electric car, but the fact that discouraging sales volume made that decision necessary. I'm guessing the poor demand was/is due to the bad economy (I sure can't afford a new car these days) and the price, but if it was/is due to consumer distrust of the technology, that doesn't bode well for the future of electric cars in this country. I wonder if they ever resumed production -- I haven't heard anything about it since the initial announcement. Obviously, no one can justify spending money to install recharging stations unless there's convincing evidence that the sales base will eventually get to a level sufficient to justify the expense. These days, it's not so much the cost of the construction/installation that matters, as the value of the space that it occupies. In most major cities, commercial space is too valuable to commit to a non-essential use, especially one with a negative cash flow.

Interesting that you should mention a connection between fracking and earthquakes. There's little question in my mind that it's a huge user and polluter of groundwater. In desolate locations (such as most parts of West Texas, and many locations in the West), that's not much of an issue, because either there's virtually no groundwater, or there's no one there to use it. In populated areas, though, such as the Barnett shale play, mostly west and south of the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex, it's a major issue. It may have been just a coincidence, but I can recall hearing of at least two separate instances in the news this spring, where an area just southeast of Dallas had light to moderate earthquakes. Those do happen in this area, but they're normally pretty rare. At the time, it never even dawned on me that they might have been connected with all the fracking activity west of there, but now that you mention it, it does seem a bit suspicious. :headscratch:

Love,
Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Post Reply

Return to “Main Message Board”