The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1177713 - Posted: 13 Dec 2011, 10:05:39 UTC - in response to Message 1176844.  
Last modified: 13 Dec 2011, 10:06:42 UTC

So true.

I cut the energy loss at 0 degree's fahrenheit (20 mph wind) in half due to extreme measures in conservation and insulation when I lived in chilly central Illinois. The first year there I had a Superbowl gathering and it was 20 below with a stiff wind of 20 mph. I couldn't keep the house warm. It slowly began cooling off, we wore our coats indoors. I did some calculations later on and figured that I was losing 120,000 btu's per hour under these conditions. My furnace was rated at 100,000 btu output.

I have also made many of these improvements in my current home of 23 years. With the doubling of electricity costs and a steep rise in Natural gas my worst bills in winter and summer still exceed $500 per month. These are at least 30% lower than they would have been.

Since I was single 30 years ago in Illinois I could keep the place at 50 degrees when I wasn't there and at night. I also inserted foam panels in most of the windows in the winter; this made the place dark. I used an electric blanket and an electric mattress pad. I used a block heater for my car even in the garage which was also heavily insulated. Insulated the box sills in the crawl space and the crawl space walls themselves down to 2 feet below grade with 2 inches of urethane foam. Tripled the attic insulation. I couldn't do anything about the walls which had only 2 and 1/2 inches of fiberglass--a builders attempt to save a few dollars.

When I got married I had to cut out most of the extreme measures. Once I even got ice forming on the inside walls in my foyer during the occasional 20 below temperatures.
ID: 1177713 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29433
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1178316 - Posted: 15 Dec 2011, 17:16:10 UTC

So it is man and CO2 ...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/giant-plumes-methane-bubbling-surface-arctic-ocean-163804179.html
Giant plumes of methane bubbling to surface of Arctic Ocean
By Eric Pfeiffer | The Sideshow – Wed, Dec 14, 2011
Russian scientists have discovered hundreds of plumes of methane gas, some 1,000 meters in diameter, bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean. Scientists are concerned that as the Arctic Shelf recedes, the unprecedented levels of gas released could greatly accelerate global climate change.

Igor Semiletov of the Russian Academy of Sciences tells the UK's Independent that the plumes of methane, a gas 20 times as harmful as carbon dioxide, have shocked scientists who have been studying the region for decades. "Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of meters in diameter," he said. "This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing."

Semiletov said that while his research team has discovered more than 100 plumes, they estimate there to be "thousands" over the wider area, extending from the Russian mainland to the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

"In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Semiletov said. "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale — I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometer or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere — the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal."

Maybe, maybe not.

ID: 1178316 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11154
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1178337 - Posted: 15 Dec 2011, 20:11:00 UTC

I am rather surprised to note that I have not seen any comments on ocean acidification caused by co2. Everybody is hung up on the heat issue when the results on shell fish are quite apparent. The change in ph is affecting our local oyster fishery in the Puget Sound.

ID: 1178337 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1178708 - Posted: 16 Dec 2011, 23:11:51 UTC - in response to Message 1178337.  

I am rather surprised to note that I have not seen any comments on ocean acidification caused by co2. Everybody is hung up on the heat issue when the results on shell fish are quite apparent. The change in ph is affecting our local oyster fishery in the Puget Sound.

Your Oysters are safe from CO2 because it would take far more CO2 that we would pump into the air over the next 100 years to bring the ocean to neutral PH. The ocean is a base at about a PH of 8.1 and CO2 makes a very poor acid. For more detail, look at Link
ID: 1178708 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11154
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1178723 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 0:03:43 UTC - in response to Message 1178708.  

Dena, the local oyster farmers feel that the spats are not forming their shells properly and they would take great umbrage with your statement.
ID: 1178723 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1178734 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 0:33:36 UTC - in response to Message 1178723.  

Dena, the local oyster farmers feel that the spats are not forming their shells properly and they would take great umbrage with your statement.

Many things are blamed on the level of CO2 and the problems tend to be caused by other factors. Watch out when somebody says they feel that is the problem because they have no proof and most likely don't know what they are talking about. Shell formation problems could be cause by stress to to changes in the currents, temperature changes due to normal weather changes or even old fashion pollution from an undetected source. The truth is CO2 levels have only been this low at one other time in the history of the earth and normal levels are far higher than current levels. If CO2 levels drop to 150 parts per million, plants will die from lack of CO2. If shell fish are having problems due to the current level off CO2, its because they have evolved a short time ago to take advantage of the current levels of CO2. As I said, the current levels are not normal.
ID: 1178734 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11154
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1178751 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 3:06:13 UTC - in response to Message 1178734.  

Dena, that is not what B. Geerts and E. Linacre, show in this study.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
ID: 1178751 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1178753 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 3:58:51 UTC - in response to Message 1178751.  

Dena, that is not what B. Geerts and E. Linacre, show in this study.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

You are new to the form and haven't yet learned how to encode links so I went through the effort to locate what you haven't seen yet. The thread the link is located in has many of my post on warming so you may want to study it. In any case, start with this one. The top chart is when I understood that high levels of CO2 will not cause the earth to melt down and when I understood we have been sold a bill of goods on global warming.
ID: 1178753 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16675
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1178850 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 14:31:15 UTC - in response to Message 1178734.  

Dena, the local oyster farmers feel that the spats are not forming their shells properly and they would take great umbrage with your statement.

Many things are blamed on the level of CO2 and the problems tend to be caused by other factors. Watch out when somebody says they feel that is the problem because they have no proof and most likely don't know what they are talking about. ...

Dena,

Your proof is?

Or do you also deny biology and physics?

Regards,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1178850 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1178858 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 15:11:37 UTC - in response to Message 1178850.  

Dena, the local oyster farmers feel that the spats are not forming their shells properly and they would take great umbrage with your statement.

Many things are blamed on the level of CO2 and the problems tend to be caused by other factors. Watch out when somebody says they feel that is the problem because they have no proof and most likely don't know what they are talking about. ...

Dena,

Your proof is?

Or do you also deny biology and physics?

Regards,
Martin

I could say the same about you. The only proof you have presented so far comes from people involved in climate gate 1 & 2. My proof comes from a number of sources, fully reviewed by open review instead of pal review and it covers many fields involving years of study. Your proof consist of the hockey stick which was a limited tree ring study that conflicts with all other past studies.
You have a habit of dismissing every post I make as not important without providing the proof from reliable studies that show my information is incorrect. In may ways you are behaving as the scientist involved in climate gate and that is the reason why I stopped discussing climate with you. I can't argue with you because you will not look at the facts with an open mind and I can't open it for you.
Several years ago I decided I didn't know if man caused climate changes was real so I studied both sides of the subject. I discovered many causes of climate change and CO2 is a bit player. The biggest unproven player at the time was the sun and recent studies are now proving the effect the sun has. Sun activity still requires additional study as the full effect and full nature of the effect is not fully understood yet.
In any case, I am still open to changing my mind if the facts indicate I am wrong. Can you say the same?
I currently think not so I will not waste my time arguing climate with you as I am in the middle of a move and am very busy.
ID: 1178858 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1178869 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 15:53:43 UTC

Dena

My reaction to my countryman is the same as yours. I find he cannot conduct a reasoned argument and just hectors.

Choose your path, as I have, and I now sit back and watch the antics of the recently converted try to drive the rest of us in to the same believer fold.

Carry on letting him try and herd cats and not listen to alternative views, even when these are backed by independent and reasoned links.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1178869 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29433
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1178873 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 16:08:06 UTC - in response to Message 1178869.  

+1
ID: 1178873 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29433
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1178877 - Posted: 17 Dec 2011, 16:22:26 UTC

Frankly I think it is the warmers who are in denial about the usual state of CO2 levels on the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
The event coincides precisely with a catastrophic decline in carbon dioxide levels, which fell from 3500 ppm in the early Eocene to 650 ppm during this event.

This may be the reason we aren't finding lots of ET's out there. Normal CO2 levels may not be low enough to allow advanced civilizations to last very long.

I expected to see some response to this, but only quiet.
Mr. Kent said Canada could meet its commitment only through extreme measures, like pulling all motor vehicles from its roads and shutting heat off to every building in the country. He said the Liberal Party had agreed to the treaty “without any regard as to how it would be fulfilled.”


Then there is the CH4 data. Perhaps the Azolla Event is coming back in the decay of all that plant matter, and what we have in a Azolla cycle and we have happened to spring to life in the cold part of the cycle.

No one dares look at the total data set. That because they know their CO2 mantra might prove false if they did. That isn't science, that is religion.

ID: 1178877 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1179000 - Posted: 18 Dec 2011, 2:12:04 UTC

Thanks for the support. To be honest with you, I thought I might earn my first timeout with that post. I dislike attacking people but I have had that no proof line pulled on me so many times I needed to say I am not stupid and I know what he is doing.
ID: 1179000 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1179032 - Posted: 18 Dec 2011, 8:02:01 UTC
Last modified: 18 Dec 2011, 8:39:27 UTC

Betreger, you will most probably find that here on the Seti boards
there is very minimal support for man made global warming. So many
of us have taken an interest in this topic and so have carried out our
own basic research. To this end most of us are happy with the fact that
if global warming is occurring then it can't be down to the increased
levels of C02. MajorKong, in his own work, discovered that C02 levels
today are way-way below those that have been experienced on this planet
in the past at no major detriment to our then environment. If this planet
is warming up then it is being caused by something more significant than that
coming from this current small rise in CO2 levels.

If you feel that global warming is a major concern then you need to
find the reason behind what is causing it. But you must first disregard
CO2 as the cause and look for something else. CO2 is the red herring
in the global warming equation. If you factor CO2 into this equation you
will constantly get the wrong answer. For CO2 does not fit for it must
sit outside not inside the formula that you will be looking for that
equates to the cause of global warming.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1179032 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11154
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1179114 - Posted: 18 Dec 2011, 19:25:20 UTC - in response to Message 1179032.  

Nick, if you read my post it was about salt water acidifaction not temperature. according to The University of Washington School of fisheries "On the pH scale, strongly alkaline materials such as oven cleaner measure about 13. Hydrochloric acid has a pH of 1. Seawater usually measures around 8.1.

In some places, the waters of Puget Sound measured 7.7, similar to some of the lowest measurements taken along the Washington Coast. Parts of Hood Canal were as low as 7.4"
That is affecting shell fish growth. Now one can argue factors other than carbonic acid are causing that, but it is certainly a component.
ID: 1179114 · Report as offensive
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1179124 - Posted: 18 Dec 2011, 19:50:03 UTC

I see some people are still arguing the earth is flat...

I for one believe the earth is not flat. As I believe that you cannot keep spewing pollutants into the atmosphere without something going wrong (just as we found that out about rivers, lakes and land, etc). It's just common sense.

I believe those who argue that rising CO2 levels is not causing global climate change tend to be trolls.
ID: 1179124 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1179126 - Posted: 18 Dec 2011, 20:02:27 UTC - in response to Message 1179114.  

Nick, if you read my post it was about salt water acidifaction not temperature. according to The University of Washington School of fisheries "On the pH scale, strongly alkaline materials such as oven cleaner measure about 13. Hydrochloric acid has a pH of 1. Seawater usually measures around 8.1.

In some places, the waters of Puget Sound measured 7.7, similar to some of the lowest measurements taken along the Washington Coast. Parts of Hood Canal were as low as 7.4"
That is affecting shell fish growth. Now one can argue factors other than carbonic acid are causing that, but it is certainly a component.

And you don't think run off water and acid rain (sulfur) might not be a factor. The United States and many countries have cleaned up their emissions but China's emissions look like something we did in the 40's and 50's. The ocean has gone from 8.2 to 8.1 due to man, While the problem may still be man, it's not CO2.
ID: 1179126 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1179182 - Posted: 19 Dec 2011, 2:24:12 UTC - in response to Message 1179126.  

There just was a segment on "60 minutes ' on a reef off of Cuba that has been set aside as a no fishing zone. This reef is thriving since it is far from pollution and overfishing. Since it has access to the same atmosphere as any other reef I conclude that CO-2 acidification has not caused the 25% decline in the world's reefs.

We should examine the true causes and not falsely blame CO-2.
ID: 1179182 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11154
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1179183 - Posted: 19 Dec 2011, 2:45:07 UTC - in response to Message 1179182.  

Wm, water temps do affect saturation levels, but aside from that our local problem does have a ph component as demonstrated by lab tests. According to the University of Washington School of Fisheries About half of the lower ph can be attributed to co2 saturation. There seems to be a threshold which has been crossed. That has been bad for our local shellfish. Those who argue that co2 is not an issue are ignoring the results of empirical tests.
Now that does not deny that the other sources of acidifcation should be ignored.

ID: 1179183 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.