View Single Post
Old 10-31-2017, 01:32 PM   #212 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 196
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
With all due respect . . .

Originally Posted by tcaud View Post
Recent study showed that the rainforests have atrophied to the point that many of them are not a buffer against CO2 anymore. In fact, they are increasing their CO2 output as they shrink.

The devil is in the north. The warming temperatures are releasing methane from the tundra, which will be inflating temperatures by at least 1 degree Celsius every century (the CO2 warming studies aren't even accounting for this). The population is increasing... without control measures, it will continue to grow. Look at the USA: its population continues to burgeon by 10% decade over decade. By end of the century we'll have over 600 million people here, all enjoying high living standards. And all those people will be creating CO2... know how many full grown trees it takes to supply a human with enough oxygen for a year? 400.

You say experts disagree? Numbers dude... what are the statistics of these people and what are their comparative reputations? Actually, you just admitted that you're not informed on the subject and can't debate it. So be quiet, eh?

I'm not going to demand that you believe we're flooding the world... that's pointless if you're controlled by motivated thinking... but you are gonna have to fork over tax dollars to get the west subsidized into electric vehicles or hydrogen or something. That my friends and I do require of you. And if we don't, the Chinese and Indonesians will because they will have nothing but the hills left if we continue down this self-destructive path (don't try to say that's "thousands of years" off... I've seen the maps... it's hundreds at the latest).
. . . you are supporting my position.

And I will continue to comment as I wish as I am just as qualified as you to do so ( if not more so ).

And Links? Is your evidence based on links? Are you one of those internet degreed experts?

97% is a number all the Warming Earth Radicals use. I attend numerous affairs such as Earth Day as well as the more productive EPA open meetings. I don't know where they get that number. You might want to go ask these "experts".

And I am not supporting a "do nothing approach". I believe we should move forward pragmatically. Blindly saying the problem is only caused by fossil fueled CO2 emissions may miss other critical inputs that, in part or in whole, may doom us to the same fate.

It is like assessing an automotive problem.

I once had a Mercedes that always shifted badly. The automatic transmission showed water sludge in the pan. It had been raining so the mechanic assumed some of the seals were leaking and he replaced them. A few weeks later, the same watery sludge built up in the pan and the vehicle started shifting badly again. The mechanic suggested a transmission rebuild. Hold it. I wanted to know how water was getting into the pan before I dumped a ton of money into the repairs. I did my own digging around. It turned out to be the transmission cooler line that ran through the radiator. The radiator ran at a higher pressure than the trans-cooler and the hair-line crack I found in the internal heat-exchanger saw coolant being forced into the line. A rebuilt transmission would have been damaged in short order, even if the transmission work did need to be done.

I propose we take a complete approach to the problem instead of calling out fossil fuel CO2 as the only culprit. Yes, we need to quit using the stuff since using the fossilized stuff cleanly is problematical and it is finite. But, a better understanding of how the oceans absorb CO2 and sequester it is needed. And, as Oil Pan 4 is doing and has done, we should replant our forests and protect the ones we have. And looking into alternative energy sources is a must and that includes nuclear energy. On the whole, the same people who push the Paris Agreement are frightened of nuclear energy because they lack understanding of the state of the art of nuclear power and the science behind it.
  Reply With Quote