Global Warming - What Can We Do or Should We Do?

Make a new post.

What is the true relationship of matter, energy and space?

There is a couple of great minds here in CR4 that do not participate in a post about religious GW.

They will be interested in this.

Thanks!

Since water vapour is the Earth's primary greenhouse gas….. why aren’t we harvesting transpiration - or are we? Water is necessary for plants but only a small amount of water taken up by the roots is used for growth and metabolism. The remaining 97–99.5% is lost by transpiration and guttation (Wikipedia). With human ingenuity perhaps transpiration water harvesting could be a bi-product of greenhouse horticulture, especially as quite a few plant species are tolerant to irrigation with brackish water.

Want to reduce your carbon footprint?

Put a portion of your earnings in a coffee can.

Bury it somewhere and never dig it up.

Now the money can't be spent on the multitude of ways to destroy the planet.

Everyone should do it. Think about it.

Poor is the best solution so get with it.

Poor is the best solution so get with it.

LoL.. noooooo ...

I'm just makin' a point

I can tell you from first hand experience global warming is real. Our growing season in the northern mid-west has decreased due to more and more bad weather. In fact, we have lost almost half of our already short growing season in upper Michigan. It is no longer possible to grow watermelon crops here. To make matters worst, last year we had no growing season at all due to excessive rain. More than 32" in 6 weeks. That has never happened before in my lifetime. Actually, the term "global warming" is a poor name for what is really happening. It should really be called some other term like "never ending bad weather changes" or something similar.

As to what can be done to help out, we should all be planting more trees - many many more trees. Having just watched a NOVA show a few minutes ago, trees absorb a lot of CO2. The more trees planted, the more CO2 can be taken out of the atmosphere. Seek out and watch that NOVA show. It explains a lot about the CO2 problem.

Next, get rid of coal burning. Coal is an obsolete fuel. It belongs in a museum along with the buggy whip and stage coaches.

Get rid of the internal combustion engine. Buy an electric car. Gas powered cars are getting "long in the tooth". Their day is nearly over now. Another one for the museum. Hope this helps shed a little light on the issue.

Now your experience is a very local one. I am sure someone else will show up and complain about not enough rain.

But heh, we had very dry years, the dams are empty and rain is much welcome. Shall I blame this on a global change? The only common thing we share is that it has an unwanted effect on our crops. But does it share a common cause?

I disagree that your experience can prove anything global!

I also disagree that EV can make a change and for sure if you advocate the EV you will see much more coal being dug up, than there maybe would be otherwise.

I find it discouraging that so many on an engineering forum would find the idea of 'manmade global warming' or 'manmade climate change' even credible. I would expect engineers to, at the very least, be critical thinkers.

Didn't you learn in grade school that CO2 makes plants grow? Here's an equation that engineers should be able to understand: CO2 = FOOD. Some here have expressed fears about a growing population, which is a concern. Wouldn't more CO2, and therefore more food help solve that problem?

It doesn't take but a few minutes on Google or YouTube to find IPCC members discussing the POLITICAL aspects of this entire climate change idea. What a fabulous scam they've come up with! Make the general public afraid of something they can't see, touch, taste, smell, or hear and you'll have them eating from the palm of your hand! Al Gore has gotten rich off of the idea!

A couple of minor details to consider:

1. What temperature should the earth be?

2. As any engineer should know, you can't measure the temperature of the entire earth accurately by measuring a few points on the surface. The most accurate method is to get an average reading from space. We've only had this capability for a very short time.

3. Some folks here seem to put far too much faith in NASA. Keep in mind that these are the same people that would have us believe that we landed on the moon. WHAT? Yes, I said it. Go back and watch the one and only press conference that Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins gave and try to convince yourself that they're telling the truth. Then do a little more research before you criticize this last comment.

In the meantime, I remember the first Earth Day, the fear of the coming Ice Age was boldly emblazoned on the cover of TIME magazine. I've read accounts of climate fear mongers dating back almost a century. I take comfort in knowing that almighty God is running the show, not us.

So you believe in "almighty God", but not in a moon landing. I'm definitely on the other side of that fence!

If your God is so almighty, why does he/she/it permit so much human suffering? I'd like to say a LOT more, but this is an engineering forum, so I won't...

For many years I watched as closely as I could while we developed the technologies required to go to the Moon and beyond. So I suppose you believe all those images of the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, and beyond are all being created in a studio somewhere? I hope to live long enough to see some images taken by the first people to land on Mars, and thanks to a few people like Elon Musk, there is a fairly good chance that I may indeed be able to do that.

Please start a new thread about not going to the moon. I think a lot of people would like to debate it, but not hijack this thread, which is beating a dead horse for about the tenth time.

Second that! While I like to beat more crap out of that horse for all to see, it would be refreshing to ponder if these guys managed to fly to the moon but forgot their camera!

Ups I spoiled it! The film material never made it through the radiation belt . . .

I would personally like to leave out other subjects of this discussion on GW (like the one landing on the moon yes or no). The reason is that we might find agreement on one end but not on the other end and get stuck in multiple discussions without conclusion.

Critical thinking is necessary and I therefore agree with you first statements. That CO2 is plant food is a side discussion to have, because it highlights the fact that positive effects are never allowed to enter into the discussion, similar to the fact that nobody can even explain why warmer means destruction. Who thinks so should move to the arctic circle and leave the big community alone. I want it warm!

Manmade GW is a political fact, not a scientific one.

Our discussion of Global Warming is veering towards, God, whether man actually landed on moon etc.

In our country, India, we do revere many Gods, but of them Sun is the God that is seen all the time, and it is Sun that makes us live.

Most of science is Theory. As some one rightly said, it is not possible to see the temperature of earth as an average of all places, since it is next to impossible. We go by averages of a specific area, and there is no doubt that there has been changes in climate, untimely rains, cyclones, snow storms, and droughts, and generally all these are put in the account of Man, who is but a Pigmy, when viewed against the sun's bombardment of energy.

Whether God is there to protect the innocent, and punish the bad etc., Sun is relentlessly roasting us, earthlings. Some one in power, the politician, or the knowledgeable, the scientist, or the munificent, with money, should save the living, by intervention at the right time, before it is too late.

You didn't get the idea behind my post.

Whether you believe in GW or not, we've spent too much time beating each other up. The believers will not change their mind. The non-believers will not change their mind. I'm of the belief that nothing can be accomplished except more angry words and upset people.

As an engineering forum, we're here to help others solve their problems. Some if the brightest people you'll meet are here and they are exceptional critical thinkers. It won't get you very far to insult them, just because they don't agree with your point of view. See, this is the reason why I would like us to stop discussing GW, unless someone can come up with a solution or if some groundbreaking information pops up.

I hope you understand.

I have already written comments to this post but having returned here on numerous occasions to see what others have written, I find a significant number of comments recognising that, at the heart of the challenges we face, the one that is the most palpable is that of human over population.

When I have mentioned this in the past, the reaction from some has been quite strong and negative.

Others see this as being a difficult, almost impossible thing, to achieve. The fact is that many of the most developed nations in this world have already achieved a negative population growth. In other words, affluence causes societies to reduce their population growth. The key therefore is to assist developing nations become affluent and to do that they must be able to acquire inexpensive technology which will facilitate access to information, education and commercial opportunities. To learn more about one potent way of achieving this, you might like to go to http://www.nvtech.com.au/Projects/Nicaea.html

The suggestion of reducing the world's population often raises concerns about who will do the jobs necessary to keep society, as we know it, functioning. To this concern I say, as engineers, we are most probably all aware that the future holds large-scale robotisation and even in white collar occupations such as doctors and lawyers (and... shudder even engineers) artificial intelligence and databases are greatly improving productivity such that the number of people necessary to fulfil society's needs is rapidly reducing.

Autonomous vehicles, for example, will not only directly affect the number of people needed for driving occupations, they will also impact on all the peripheral occupations such as highway patrolmen and service station attendants. Autonomous vehicles are also likely to significantly reduce the number of vehicles necessary to satisfy the transportation needs of society. This will significantly impact on auto-makers and their workers.

I therefore don't think we need worry about an aging population.

So, in summary, if we want to reduce the environmental impact of humans we need to reduce the number of humans on this planet and the best way to do that is to improve the lot of those in the developing world through the skilful application of technology.

Overpopulation! I think it was earlier in this thread that I mentioned a brutal way to achieve reduced population. First, shoot for an average of 2 children per female; this would allow some to have zero and some to have more. Since not all would reach childbearing age, the population would gradually reduce. Then the brutal part: rescind the safety laws such as seat belts, safety helmets, the umpteen safety features on cars, etc, etc. This would hurry-up the population decline, because more would be killed.

Summer has started in right earnest, in our country, India.

The air around gets heated. Does it get heated more, due to the 0.1% excess CO2 , if the air is free from CO2 does it just just allow heat through like a glass pane ? Was not air getting hot resulting in heat waves earlier when CO2 was only 0.3%

If we spread Sila gel, and slaked lime on the floor, and close all doors and windows, so that both CO2 and H2O get absorbed. Then allow heat, as sunlight into the room. Will it get heated up or not ?

Are there any specific ways to test all the theories propounded by our brethern in the thread so far ?

Simple question.

Say we were in a mini ice age. ~30f degree drop.

Could we escape it by producing more co2?

Could you supply a numerical source for the comparison of O₂ and CO₂ generation/use by forests and algae and/or other marine plants?

I'd also be very interested in similar comparisons between forests and grassland...

I recommend you look at the documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpFryXQbVEA "The Earth from Space". It is fascinating. I'm not saying it is perfectly correct and it is likely also that significant simplifications have been made in the narrative both to fit it into two hours and also to make it comprehensible by everyday audiences. But it is fascinating and informative.

Hope you find your answers there.

Contention or not.. I'll take that as a no.

Nuclear bombs are one such, and we have already discovered it. It is a case of conversion of matter into energy. but not creation of energy. The source is of course, the earth, and you could say that it is almost economic creation of energy.

We are discussing Global warming, which is turning into Global Roasting, due to interference of Man. For this to happen, all we want is to reduce some energy from our globe and not create, and avoid the components we believe are the reasons for this.

We are still not certain whether it is CO2, water vapour or whatever is responsible for this phenomenon, and perhaps when we diagnise the problem curing could be easier.

So you agree that we can not distinguish the warming from climate variation and are very unsure about the cause and that therefore any action and complete reorganisation of our current energy production is an overreaction to something we still have little knowledge off?

Ratch, I appreciate your response. Each of us has a belief on why the world is warming, or some may believe it isn't. That's great and we live in a time and place where we can have our own belief without persecution. What we as individuals need to come to terms with is that there is nothing that YOU or I can do about it ... well almost nothing.

The only thing we can do is either find a machine to reduce the excess heat (or block some from getting to the surface of our planet) or to have enough followers where their lifestyle changes will have an impact. I don't see either one as being something a person here on this site can do, so why worry about it? Why put effort and energy into it?

Here's why arguing about is is futile:

- Based on your belief about GW, YOU can't control the Sun and its effect on Earth's temperature.

- Based on my belief, I can't control the worldwide burning of FF's to reduce the CO2 levels.

- Based on the water vapor believers, THEY can't control the worldwide level of water vapor.

- Based on people who believe there is no GW, there's nothing to be done.

I already said that mankind cannot control the solar cycle, which in turn controls GW. Doesn't that imply that no one can do anything about GW? I am agreeing with you.

Ratch

The majority of posts have been civil, which is great to see when we're talking about GW. Many of you got the gist of my OP, which is that YOU or I can't do a thing about the GW problem. Sure, you can reduce you carbon footprint, but your efforts won't make a dent in the worldwide production of CO2.

I had an interesting discussion with a good friend this morning, regarding this very same topic. She felt that her personal effort would make a difference, because if millions of people reduce CO2 emissions, then it will help fix the problem. I had to tell her in different ways that she only has control over HER OWN ACTIONS. When I was trying to convince her of this, she became very agitated and she stood firmly on her side that she could make a difference. When she finally got it (she is powerless to do anything about it), she seemed off balance - like her world was shaken.

I on the other hand see it as freeing your soul. I remember how I felt when I realized I could do nothing to change the worldwide GW problem - I felt relieved! The burden was lifted off my shoulder - I was able to let go of my control issue - my need to feel like I could change things. Serenity for me - to know the difference! Then to release it!

I'll reference the Serenity Prayer - to know the difference (what you can and can't change). It brings serenity and peace to those who want it.

The light bulb lit! People who don't want to face the demons from their past will find ways to remain fixated on problems they are powerless to solve. If they're always working on an unsolvable external problem, they don't have to look inside! It's a catch 22, because they really want peace in life, but to get there they have to face the problems from the past, which they're mortified to face, so they immerse themselves in external problems!

There is genius in the Serenity Prayer.

Yes there is genius in the Serenity Prayer and your point is well made. The problem as you state is not GW but those that believe in GW. It is these people that will aggravate pollution and be useful idiots (a Stalin idiom) for those whose only desire is to run the world. (see my earlier post 64). Thanx

2 applicable quotes by Mark, the latter sort of a serenity prayer.
_________________

“A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.” -- Mark Twain

"We should only take from a situation that which pertains, else we become like the proverbial cat who sits upon a hot stove plate. He will never again sit upon a hot stove plate, but then again, he will never sit on a cold one either." -- Mark Twain

I think it's okay to believe in GW, just like it's okay to believe in ET's. So long as one isn't consumed by it and their belief doesn't alter their "normal" life or cause them to lose friends or upset acquaintances. The fear mongering is uncalled for.

I've learned that when someone makes their point from an exaggeration or an extreme, they're doing so, only because their point is weak. The problem arises when they have charisma and know how to speak to control others. It's amazing how people fall for it and as you state, become "useful idiots". That's a great term!

Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for sharing.

I think we can all agree that child labor, apartheid, air pollution, polio and small pox are real problems. The solutions to some of them lie in scientists/doctors (illnesses). Apartheid is a political issue of one country (and moral), where economic sanctions or military force can provide the "incentive" to do the right thing. Child labor is economic (and moral), where enough momentum can be garnered and the retailers who sell the products are shunned - with enough pressure, they can be put out of business. There's much more to the solutions, but I'm just generalizing to make my point.

Since there's a consensus on the solution to the problems, something can be done collectively or nationally.

With GW, we're not sure if it is a man-made problem ... or for that matter if it even exists. So we're starting with two large groups who are not in agreement.

For those who believe, they need a solution(s). There are many ideas about the root cause of the problem, so there are different opinions on how to solve it. Now your believer group is split and there's bickering between them. How do you get enough people on board to support the movement if the movement is splintered? We're talking about enough people (worldwide) so that the combined effort will make a measurable difference?

People are doing different things to solve the problem and some get upset when others aren't doing what they feel is the "right" thing. So they start battles "those people need to stop having kids", or "that jerk shouldn't be driving his 1980 Alfa - he needs to get a Prius" or "my neighbor is such a moron for not recycling - he's ruining our world". Arguments like this don't solve one thing and they create enemies.

I'm not advocating that all of us ignore GW. For those who believe it is a problem and feel that they need to do something, they should, however the thing they shouldn't do is try to convince others that they need to do change their lifestyle. We have the right to live our life the way we want, so long as we don't break laws (at least not too many) and harm others in the process. We live in a society where we have a right to have our own opinions and since there is no scientific consensus about the problem being man-made and there is no solution, the ones who scream foul are just making a best guess.

All I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't be so forceful or nasty when we don't have the answer - this is for both the believers and the non-believers.

Autobroker, Please don't use the terms "Believer" and Non-Believer". Belief is a facet of religion, this is science. In science there are facts, you either accept them or you don't, but you don't believe. The facts behind AGW, 97% probability among the reaserch scientists, are to conclusive to deny. AGW is happening, and the Climate Change that AGW is influencing is causing incredible damage now. That damage will only increase in severity and frequency as the CO2 levels continue to increase. None of this is belief, it's all proven, so please refer to accepting or rejecting findings and facts, not beleif.

You said it perfectly! Thank you.

I agree with Autobroker: Well said!

I've been a scientist for over 60 years, and try very hard to remain educated. I've seen and heard very convincing arguments on both sides of this issue, but haven't joined either side. Cause, effect, and coincidence are extremely difficult to separate when there are so many unknowns/variables.

I don't think belief is a facet of religion.

You could say someone believes in the tooth fairy and it has nothing to do with religion, right?

You have people who believe we never landed on the moon - also nothing to do with religion.

This post isn't about whether it's right or wrong to believe (or accept) that GW exists. It's about what can YOU or I do as an individual. If there's nothing YOU or I can do to solve the problem, then why waste our energy arguing and creating enemies? And if someone does have a solution which HE or SHE can implement, (which at this point will need to be some sort of machine) then by all means, we can discuss it and hopefully solve the problem.

Please re-read my posts and you'll see what my intent is.

I am sorry Bernd, but this is a matter of belief. You yourself do 'belief' what the main media is saying.

You are totally uninformed. 97% of scientist say so is total hogwash, it is more like 0.3% who have agreed that is is man made, but it is put out there for you to believe that AGW is real and you swallow it and blabber what you hear. You say such things as: "none of this is belief, it's all proven".

We all have yet to see proof. Can you provide any? With your simple mind believing what Al Gore says such as 10 to 30 ft ocean rise in 100 year, all the polar caps and the Himalayas are free of ice in 10 years. He said that some 20 years ago. It has not happened, but you belief it. So where is your proof?

You can't be an engineer or be scientifically inclined or have any analytical mind. You should not even be on this forum. What school did you go to?

There are many more real scientists that do not agree with AGW. Please read through all comments and look at the links provided. Tell me what is wrong with what Prof. Giaever says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mGSVsl-ing

Can you point out any scientist on the AGW side that have similar presentations backed up by data to show it's real? There are none. Not counting of course non-scientists e.g. Al Gore, Bill Ney & Michael Mann who only make statements without any scientific basis. The IPCC should really also be included in a list of non-scientists. Also, unfortunately, we can no longer trust what is being said re AGW by NASA, NOAA, and more who fudge temperature data and other info. Old temperature data are being lowered and temperatures of late are being raised to give the appearance of an increase. Statements such as: It the hottest it has ever been on earth are outright lies. CO2 at present is at a very low level in history. More CO2 is better for plants and life in general. Warm climates have always resulted in a flourishing societies. Temperature rose over the last 150 years, but over the last 20 years it did not. Wanting or not, man cannot change the climate or influence earth's temperature. Why is is colder in winter and warmer in summer? Can you answer that?

As a matter of fact ocean acidification by human emissions of CO2 is scientifically impossible. The amount of CO2 that is necessary to shift the logaritmic pH value in seawater to acidic is 1000 times greater than what humans do produce.

So if the same people that say there is AGW happening use this as the "incredible damage" you are talking about, then you have to deduct that AGW is similar a scam as is ocean acidification claim.

Both are coming hand in hand and one of them is scientifically wrong, then so is the other.

You seem to suggest that there is a increase in "severity and frequency" but you fail to address of what! If you meant to say storms or draughts or floods you will be surprised to find a lot of research that portrays the exact opposite or no change at all.

You make a fine example of an AGW believer who has only media hyped rhetoric as an answer. Start learning and thinking, because knowledge gets you over the edge of what you are made to believe!

People that do not show that little of advance in their own knowledge are the true deniers in science, those that cry " the science is settled".

Read very careful what Dkwarner has said last. True science takes no sides, but weighs the arguments. Fake science is a tool of propaganda and takes a side.
And AGW in particular takes a side that opposes human kind and society as has been proven above by the post from Solarart

He said" Every once in a while the "foundation of civilization" needs to be reset."

This is were the true damage is! Drop AGW and we can carry on with the real problems of this world. We do not need a reset, we need vision and truth.

Until about the mid 20th century, nobody worried about Global Warming, and life seemed to prosper for several millennia.

Now all of a sudden we have a problem?

Now all of a sudden we have a problem?

Yep! Large expansion of use of electricity which means more coal burned to generate it, big expansion in the use of automobiles, and probably other things I can't think of now. Plus we likely passed a "threshold" where nature can handle the increased production of CO2. Deforestation doesn't help this since it would lower the threshold.

I think "we"only have it 1/2 wrong, "they" have the other half wrong. It is a two party system.

To the Ineffable All,

Everyone should see this documentary. https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/great-global-warming-swindle/

Ratch

I grew up in Torrance Ca. Before any freeways were built. I watched the 10 get built, then later, the 405. I moved to western Co. In 1969, I guess to get away from that. I can't imagine 14 lanes, How crazy is that. CO2 goes into the air no matter what year it is. We have cleaned up the tailpipes of the world a bit, the ozone layer is not so bad, I remember flying into LAX and not able to see it from Ontario on in. The "air" there isn't so bad any more. I think we are in the middle of an ice age period now, and these cycles are a part of planet earth. It's warmer and the oceans have more fresh water in them, but there also are massive amounts of moisture in the tropics welling up because of this cycle. Moisture means more green vegitation. The rainforest and the grasslands are expanding greatly which means more oxygen. You can't destroy water or make it, humans are mostly water, so the cycles are as much a part of us as the earth is part of its own cycle. I don't think the earth cares about humans, she will survive, except for another moon strike. Cold pushes hot and the differential is "weather". We all live in our different places and are aware (or should be) of the suroundings, personal security is key. All we can do is become more aware of things and people close to us, and prepare for the security of things close to us. Far away people don't know or care about us. One more thing....google, facebook, twitter, tv, I phone, etc. Are far away people. If we stand up straight and hold our heads high, far away people can't destroy us.

I met a client of mine in Rancho Palos Verdes a couple weeks ago. I was there between 4-5:30 or so, mid week. I left for home (about 50 miles away) and it took me about 3 hours! 405 to the 10 to the 5 to the 2 to the 210 and home!

The freeway system here is really bad and it's getting worse. No end is in sight!

Yes there is an end in sight......it's the rear end of the cars and people in front of you 24/7. Not just in Ca. Be safe out there. I'm thinking if the ocean rises enough there will be glassy 6 foot tubes off the sleeping ute........LOL

I liked your comment about "things you can change vs things you cannot change" but would like to add a strong caveat:

It is even more important to understand the consequences of the change.

Here is just one example: Acid Rain.

Years ago, coal fired power plants spewed exhaust into the air. The exhaust consisted of two primary products: Pariculate smoke (visible) and polluting gases (invisible.) The smoke was primarily basic and the gas was acidic. (In free air, these pollutants would slowly combine to form relatively benign compounds that settled into the environment with essentially no negative effects.)

Filtering the smoke is straightforward. Not so with the gas.

Activists insisted that the (visible) smoke be filtered *now!*

The result was that the skies became "instantly clean." Hooray!

Until it rained. Then, the acidic gas dissolved in the raindrops, and Acid Rain killed or damaged thousands of acres of pristine forest!

However,, Global Warming IS happening. Just one example of many: as viewed from satellites, the glaciers and ice caps are getting smaller.

That's the Effect.

NOW prove the cause, please.

Ice caps are getting smaller......rainforests and grasslands are getting bigger, everything finds a balance.

The ice cap is Antarctica is growing larger. The amount of ice comprising the ice sheet of the Arctic appears to be static for the last 6 years and may actually be growing.

See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-missing-ice-isnt-south-pole-kevin-loughrey/

and https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-ice-missing-north-pole-kevin-loughrey/

But you are right that the earth is getting greener. See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

The site you link to on your linked-in page is limited to just the past 5 years, and shows little change in sea ice thickness. On the same site the sea ice extent even shows a clear increase for this winter so far. However, when you have a noisy set of data, you have to be careful not to be misled by chance variations. This is the data from NASA for Arctic sea ice extent, not thickness, over almost 40 years, not just the past 5 years.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Yep, the average, when dealing with climate change, must be over decades. Individual years, or even one decade, is simply not enough; because of the large variations between years.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the skies are cleaner (though not "instantly clean"), AND the acid rain has disappeared, AND our cars get better mileage.

The acid rain has NOT "disappeared."

It stopped because we had to go back to all the smokestacks that had been filtered and completely re-do all the filtering to delete both particulate matter *and* acid-producing gases.

"There's never enough time and money to do it right... And *always enough to do it over.*

Whether you want to say "stopped" or "disappeared", it is not destroying the forests anymore. The way to accomplish that was to put the smokestack scrubbing technology in place. Are you saying it was not worth the effort or price?

At the time, engineers pointed out that both the smoke and the vapors needed to be controlled or there would be catastrophic effects on the environment.

They were overruled.

They were right.

I have no idea what vapors you are talking about, and what got overruled, and who was right. Can you point me to some documentation?

Thanks.

Here in Colorado , drought conditions have enhanced the Beatle kill infestation to a high degree. Nothing was done about the forests here until some far thinking foresters said "enough" and came up with a good plan to thin the Beatle kill, put loggers to work, and create sawmills to mill the wood, which is finding a big market here. Thinning the forest and dealing with underbrush puts people to work and helps fires (and they will happen) burn fast and sideways, instead of slow one up. We can only do what we can do.

Unfortunately, there is a cost to put scrubbers in the smokestacks. Corporations didn't want to spend the money - can you blame them? Back then, there were no regulations in place, so they didn't do it. And the damage from the pollution didn't exert much cost to the company, so balancing things out, it was a net win (economically) to let the smokestacks pollute.

The government had to step in to regulate the pollution. There are times when the government does good things and this is one. Another way to think of it is that the corporation was polluting the air, which caused damage to the planet and to people. Who was paying to cover the cost of repairing the damage? Not the corporations!

At the time, engineers pointed out that both the smoke and the vapors needed to be controlled or there would be catastrophic effects on the environment.

They were overruled.

They were right.

Interesting!!! It reminds me of the EV paradox. Save the planet by not burning fossil fuels, but power plants are needed to provide the fuel (electricity) or if you're really green, you can have solar panels providing the fuel. Does the factory that builds the solar panels use fossil fuels? Sorry, that's off subject - back to my rant!

So, EV cars are now saving our planet from GW, but at what cost? What is the cost of making the batteries? Or the materials to make the batteries? And what about the disposal of the batteries when they're spent? Or the damage to the environment when one of these cars gets in an accident and the battery burns uncontrollably?

Just my 2 cents...

I don't want this to become an argument, because there are no winners when discussing politics - ooops, I said the P word!

I told a few close friends about the reason why I don't feel it's important if I vote. If I don't vote, what does it do to the election results? Will my one vote matter? Some have told me "If everyone does what you do, then the election results will change." Of course if EVERYONE ... Literally, that means that nobody votes! I don't command enough persuasiveness to have many people listen to me. I can think of only one living creature who does and he can't vote, because he has no ID except for a tag that's on his collar and he can't put the ballot in the slot or work the voting machine - he's my buddy and he's a great listener!

I know that many of us feel strongly about our political belief and that's a good thing. I also know that trying to convince someone on the other side to jump to my side is a waste of energy, but more important it could mean that I lose a friend or gain an enemy. Therefore, if I do the smart thing, I won't discuss politics (or religion) with people who I know are on the other side. I add GW to the list of two taboo topics - this was the reason for my OP.

I think most of you got it. Heck, I've said it before and I believe that this site has some of the most intelligent people contributing great dialogue! If we focus our energy on solving problems vs arguing about something that we can't change, then that's what we should be doing, right?

I also know that trying to convince someone on the other side to jump to my side is a waste of energy,

Therefore, it's useless to try to convince you that fast nuclear is much better than thermal nuclear and is also much, much better than solar and wind!

Not necessarily, because I haven't made up my mind on either yet. In fact, I don't know what fast nuclear is. I know just a little about thermal nuclear and I do see it as a good way to produce energy. The problem is that the upkeep of the power plant needs to be 100% - as perfect as can feasibly be. A problem can turn into a disaster quickly.

Solar has it's place - I think we should use as much as we can, because we're using energy from a source that will be there for a long, long, long time and we don't put anything into the fuel. Solar farms in desert communities like Palmdale, CA, Lancaster, CA are great, since transmission lines are close by. And the land is cheap and there's a lot of dirt out there not being used.

Wind ... If it weren't for the tax credits, I think it makes a very weak business model. Too high cost for too little return - that's my take, but I do not profess to be an expert in this area.

Fast nuclear uses a fast spectrum of neutrons--not moderated to slower speeds as in thermal nuclear. It is around 100 times more efficient than thermal nuclear, because more elements/isotopes are fissionable in the fast spectrum. That means that a lot of the thermal nuclear "waste" becomes fuel and is used, eliminating its radioactivity.

Why hasn't this technology been put into large scale use? What are the risks? What is the cost? Is it economically feasible? And who is making the "machines"?

Received in the mail on Saturday :

A letter from southern california Edison. Upon opening I see a 9x11 sheet, it reads :

What is the California climate credit ? A message from the California public utilities commission.

This month your utility bill will include a credit identified as the " California climate credit ". Your household and millions of others throughout the state will receive this credit on your utility bills. The California climate credit is part of California's efforts to fight climate change. The credit is from a state program that requires power plants and other large industries that emit greenhouse gasses to buy carbon pollution permits. The credit on your bill is your share of the payments from the states program. The climate credit is one of many programs resulting from landmark legislation called the global warming act of 2006. Together these programs are cutting pollution, creating jobs and investing in cleaner energy and transportation. Your climate credit is designed to help you join in these efforts.

I was looking for the message at the bottom of the sheet that would say something like :

This credit may not be sold, traded or transferred. Value 1/10 of 1 cent.

Also I received a much smaller letter that said :

Southern California Edison Company's notice of application filing requesting to increase rates for green energy programs.

And in much finer print "this all goes into my (moonbeem) pocket" , and Nancy's green jacket.

He'll be gone soon. Nancy may soon be Trump's friend - I actually hope they work together to get things done, but I'm probably dreaming.

The thing I can't believe is Diane was re-elected after her party threw her to the curb for the Cavanaugh debacle - she's a dirty one!

I've been receiving this credit for quite a few years and I'm happy to say that SCE can continue it's "green" energy effort, because it saved me money on two electric bills that month!

I never looked into it, but I assumed someone was paying the bill and I didn't think it was coming from the good hearted nature of our friends at SCE. Are we paying for it with higher "normal" electric bills?

I'm too busy to look into it, but I have a feeling that the state has it's hands in my left pocket as SCE is putting money into my right hand! If you have time to check, I'm interested to see who pays for this.

Probably the two biggest contributors to climate change are wind farms and solar collector arrays.

Cities and roads probably come next.

I would be willing to bet that if a "cradle to grave" analysis was done on wind farms and solar collectors, one would find that more Global Warming CO2 was produced compared with a typical fossil fuel plant.

Standby fossil fuel plants are needed anyway to provide power during those periods when so-called renewables could not generate sufficient power, so where is the gain?

That's hard to believe. Could you assemble a qualitative analysis to help my imagination? Thanks.

For standby I would much rather see fast nuclear instead of fossil. After all, it's zero carbon.

The gain is the tax credits that go to the lucky ones who have enough money to buy tax shelters like windmills and solar farms.

Since state and federal dollars are paying for these tax credits, then the true cost is on us, the regular guys - tax payers who don't have the wherewithal to participate in the tax credit.

So in a roundabout way, the people who gain the tax shelters now have additional money to buy another yacht, a Bombardier Global 8000, or maybe build a new villa in the Alps or buy that V12 Lamborghini - you know, do things that are good for the environment!

To reiterate, windmills and solar farms provide tax credits to the people who will use the money to buy things that are soooo good for the environment.

We can disagree (sometimes vehemently) regarding the actual environmental effects associated with fossil and nuclear fuels. But I suspect we would all agree that it would be preferable to have a cost-effective, totally non-polluting energy alternative.

After 20+ years of R&D, Brilliant Light Power appears to be near to "product-izing" such a power source. The process uses a catalytic process to force the outer "shell" of Hydrogen atoms into a below-ground-state "Hydrino" condition.

The *only* by-product is photons of varying wavelengths, depending on the catalyst that is facilitating the transition.

The theory is explained in a massive document modestly called the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.

Videos of recent laboratory experiments and a link to the theory are found at their website, brilliantlightpower.com.

I have no financial relationship with them. (Wish I did!)

Whenever I hear/read about a "massive document" describing a "new energy source", I immediately hold my nose! It doesn't smell right... I did not even go to that website; I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong!

Hydrogen has only one electron, so what's this thing about an "outer shell"? You can't "produce" energy; it has to come from some source. What is that source?

The only definition I could find for "hydrino" is from that "Brilliant Light Power".

As long as you continue to "not even go to that website" it is absolutely certain that you will not be "thrilled to be proven wrong."

We have known for over a century that when an electron undergoes positive or negative acceleration, it either accepts or radiates a photon. This poses an insoluble problem to atomic models featuring the electron as a negatively charged point particle orbiting a positively charged core. Basic physics teaches us that an object in orbit is continually accelerating. So an electron in orbit would "radiate away" in microseconds.

BrLP's theory models the electron as a distributed charge ("shell") enveloping the core. This model is stable. It precisely models all atomic parameters.

When an atom is stimulated - as in ionization - we know that electrons "jump" to new orbital positions. After stimulation, the atom's electrons will "jump" back to their previous "stable" (ground state) positions. When this happens, the atom radiates a photon.

BrLP's theory teaches that, under many conditions, the "ground state" can be catalytically disrupted. A new, stable, sub-ground state can be achieved.

When that happens, a photon is radiated. This is the source.

Some years back, when you looked, they were generating hundreds of watts of heat with tens of watts of input (and a lot of complicated clap trap.) Today, they are generating megawatt level outputs with a few hundred watts input.

I said... "Basic physics teaches us that an object in orbit is continually accelerating. So an electron in orbit would "radiate away" in microseconds."

You said: NOT TRUE! Energy is a scalar quantity. A change in the direction of motion is indeed an acceleration, but as long as the speed (the magnitude of the velocity) remains constant, there is no change in energy.

Respectfully, let me suggest you do a bit of reading on this. The *fact* that a negative point charge orbiting a much more massive body of the opposite charge (proton) will very quickly spiral in and be destroyed was what had all the top physicists of the day - including Schroedinger- totally baffled. While "tinkering" with a formula/process that had nothing to do with EM, Schroedinger noticed that when some known parameters for the H atom were "plugged in" the formula output a couple of numbers that were "kinda close" to some other known parameters. He reported these to his colleagues, they met in Stockholm to discuss and voted to adopt this as a working model. Quantum Mechanics was born!

You said, " The energy of the photon produced when the electron returns to its original position can NOT be greater than the energy that stimulated it." I agree.

In the Blacklight process, the electron shell moves *from* its original position to a new location that is closer to the proton. When it does so, the energy associated with the delta between the original and the new position is radiated.

I liked your comment about "things you can change vs things you cannot change" but would like to add a strong caveat:

It is even more important to understand the consequences of the change.

Here is just one example: Acid Rain.

Years ago, coal fired power plants spewed exhaust into the air. The exhaust consisted of two primary products: Pariculate smoke (visible) and polluting gases (invisible.) The smoke was primarily basic and the gas was acidic. (In free air, these pollutants would slowly combine to form relatively benign compounds that settled into the environment with essentially no negative effects.)

Filtering the smoke is straightforward. Not so with the gas.

Activists insisted that the (visible) smoke be filtered *now!*

The result was that the skies became "instantly clean." Hooray!

Until it rained. Then, the acidic gas dissolved in the raindrops, and Acid Rain killed or damaged thousands of acres of pristine forest!

"The result was that the skies became "instantly clean."

Has anybody considered that "cleaning" the atmosphere may be responsible for additional solar radiation reaching the Earth? Sort of like cleaning a dirty window?

Complex answer. This would depend on the optical characteristics of the "pollution." Water vapor in the albedo reflects visible light, leading to cooling. But when visible light reaches the surface, some energy is absorbed and some is reflected in both the visible and IR ranges. Some albedo material is "invisible" to IR whereas other material is more opaque. If the albedo is opaque to IR then the heat will be reflected and trapped. That's part of why the surface temperature of Venus is so high.

It appears that you need to look up the meaning of "albedo". It is a pure number: the ratio of reflected vs. incoming radiation. There is no such thing as "Water vapor in the albedo" or "albedo material".

Albedo is not a pure number because in the real world, it varies with frequency. On Earth, the albedo is almost totally caused by the presence of water vapor. And the "transparency" of water vapor is *not* frequency independent. (Example: It is "transparent" to a fairly broad spectrum of RF.)

Visible light comes from the sun. Much is reflected by clouds. Some penetrates or bypasses the clouds and strikes the earth, heating it. The earth re-radiates a portion back out. If/when the IR strikes the water vapor aka clouds, it does not penetrate very well.

The Earth's atmosphere warms up due to the trapped IR.

Since Carbon Dioxide in air is at least attributed to be the cause of Global Warming, the individual contribution to avoid is to stop adding CO2 to the air. Stop breathing should be the best contribution !

Apart from this frivolous comment, the only way is to convert that gas into a solid, and reduce further emission, from the fossil fuel guzzling power plants. Like the pollution control measures, if this is done, at whatever cost, then we can at least control further increase. Then, by afforestation, the CO2 content could be brought to more tolerable level of 200 ppm or so gradually.

But this is not an individual responsibility. It is a collective responsibility to be handled by politicians, if they are scientifically savvy.

Reduction of CO2 can be done by nuclear electricity generation--fast nuclear preferred in my opinion. Besides politicians, we have to deal with the general public who has a very negative opinion of anything nuclear (because they do not know enough about it.)

I just came across this... It is an attempt by Harvard scientists to modify the albedo. Told ya!

Cooling Earth, by dimming the Sun: A team of researchers is planning to launch a white powder commonly found in antacid — into the stratosphere via balloon. The goal? To determine if these particles can effectively reflect sunlight, cooling Earth and potentially mitigating the effects of climate change. It’s early days for such solar geoengineering efforts: The initial $3 million test will release 100-gram plumes of calcium carbonate, the amount you’d find in a typical bottle of antacid.

The earth is cooling already. What are these scientist trying to do? Accelerate the new ice age?

They better study the climate changes over the millions of years that can be searched and determine what the cause was. That needs to include the CO2 levels in respect to temperature data.

What they will find is that CO2 has had no impact on earth temperature. If anything it followed temperature. At present the CO2 level is at its all time lowest. Below 280 ppm plants and life starts to be negatively effected, meaning plants and life stock can't survive.

It is funny how people are accepting statements by Al Gore (not a scientist) and the IPCC (paid scientist to produce a desired result) as fact when so many independent scientist of stature say to opposite.

An open discussion is necessary. However, Al Gore says the science is 'settled'. BTW science is never settled. The whole GW - Climate Change shenanigan is a money generating business, that is all.

Hey, wait one second buster! Al Gore, invented the internet! And you do use the internet, correct? He's an absolute genius. Who else could've invented the internet? Only Al Gore!

He's the number one scientist and technical innovator of the late 20th century. If he says that the world is overheating due to CO2, then it is. End of story!