Eat that GW believers!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

alexjrgreen wrote:Assuming a doubling every 30 years, we would reach 7,000 ppmv in less than two centuries.
Well, since our Capita aren't rising all that fast and since our CO2 production per capita isn't rising at all, I guess we should just stay out of it. The US doesn't play into your scenario at all.

Considering India and China have lots of Capita and considering that their "per capita" is likely to go up significantly, I guess that is where the real threat is for your 7000 ppm senario. Maybe you should write them a letter or something.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... =Y&tlen=45

BTW, I prefer to think of our CO2 output compared to GWP, but that is just me.

regards

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:
MSimon wrote:CO2 has been up to 7,000 ppmv in geological time. No tipping point.
MSimon wrote:There are not enough available carbon sources to raise the level above 1,000 ppmv or so.
Do you see the contradiction?
I see a lot of limestone.
viewtopic.php?p=26686#26686
MSimon wrote:And if Thomas Gold is correct:

The Deep Hot Biosphere : The Myth of Fossil Fuels

There is 500 to 1,000 years of oil and/or natural gas still available if we drill deep enough.
Ars artis est celare artem.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Assuming a doubling every 30 years, we would reach 7,000 ppmv in less than two centuries.
Well, since our Capita aren't rising all that fast and since our CO2 production per capita isn't rising at all, I guess we should just stay out of it. The US doesn't play into your scenario at all.
Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
Ars artis est celare artem.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

Skipjack wrote:One thing that bothers me with all this:
Everything that we burn today, be it a plant, or a fossile fuel of some sorts, once used to be a plant (or plants). That plant got its CO2 out of the atmosphere. So all that CO2 that we are supposedly pumping into the atmosphere now, must have been in the atmosphere at some point, right?
Where does that leave us?
Well, the Earth used to be an anaerobic environment before it had all those plants. So it leaves us being happy there are a lot of plants and carbonates around.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

jmc wrote:
MSimon wrote:
That it is safe to emit CO2 is not some trivial thing that any school child would know the answer to...
CO2 has been up to 7,000 ppmv in geological time. No tipping point.

OTOH man made CO2 has special properties (caused by quantum entanglement with humans) that makes it prone to wild temperature swings and tipping points.

This is based on Mann's Determinism Theory. Which states "I have determined CO2 is bad. Fall in line or else."

So yes It is possible that things are really bad. It is even possible that they are worse than we thought. What are the odds?

But I agree. We should be doing something about CO2 where it is profitable to do so. Planting trees. Growing crops. Seem to work out well in that respect.
No tipping point??? Your talking geological time!!!!! 100's of millions of years over the those time periods there are plenty of tipping points, climatic phase changes, mass extinctions. Some life always survives and adapts to the new environment, but for most organisms a mass extinction isn't a particularly fun time to be around in..

Anyhow over 100's millions of years the Earth's temperaturre has been dramatically different (well 10 degrees anyhow).

You just trolling? Why do you use the fact that there was a geological precedent of far higher CO2 concentrations 100's millions of years ago to argue that changing CO2 will not cause climate to change when the climate has changed over that period and many organisms have gone extinct.

This line of argument has no logic to it.
OK let me amend that. There is no evidence that changes in atmospheric CO2 caused any of the tipping points you refer to. Which is what I meant in the first place.

And they may not be tipping points. Just coincidences in cycles of non-harmonically related oscillators.

Climate changed. CO2 changed. So? It takes a little more than that to prove cause and effect. You are not discussing with rubes here. Typically you would like to see CO2 changes precede temperature changes. Sometimes they do by a little. Sometimes they seem coincident. Mostly delayed by 200 to 800 years.

If CO2 is a cause it is a weak cause. If it is an effect (release from warmer oceans) it is a rather strong effect.

But OK. A 1 deg C increase from doubling from 280 ppmv. We are at about 380. At 2 ppmv per year we will get there in 90 years. In 90 years the natural evolution of technology will have us off fossil fuels without crash programs and mass hysteria. Suppose the rate increases .1ppmv a year. CO2 will have doubled in about 43 years. We should be well on our way to other technologies by then.

But suppose we just keep burning at an ever increasing rate until it is all gone. It will take 103 years.

In 103 years we will have invented lots of new stuff.

You know who we have to reign in? China and India. Because the USA and Europe CO2 output has been relatively flat by comparison.

Hide the decline
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

alexjrgreen wrote:
seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Assuming a doubling every 30 years, we would reach 7,000 ppmv in less than two centuries.
Well, since our Capita aren't rising all that fast and since our CO2 production per capita isn't rising at all, I guess we should just stay out of it. The US doesn't play into your scenario at all.
Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
What makes you think it ought too? The Chinese and Indians getting too uppity?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

alexjrgreen wrote:
seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Assuming a doubling every 30 years, we would reach 7,000 ppmv in less than two centuries.
Well, since our Capita aren't rising all that fast and since our CO2 production per capita isn't rising at all, I guess we should just stay out of it. The US doesn't play into your scenario at all.
Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
I don't think that CO2 will stop rising anytime soon. I think that your 7000 ppm CO2 level in 100 years theory is STUPID and an indication that you aren't discussing this issue with ANY rationality.

Additionally, I point out that your continued insistance that the above STUPID scenario is realistic doesn't matter much to me because it doesn't involve anything that the United States would do. Since I am a citizen of the US, that is my concern. Again, your scenario is about China and India and Brazil and etc. - not about my country.

If you have a concern about CO2 levels reaching 7000 ppm, maybe you should write a letter or something. I am not sure who to write in China. Maybe you can start with an internet search. Good luck.

regards

KitemanSA
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

alexjrgreen wrote: Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
POLYWELL?

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:You know who we have to reign in? China and India.
That might be the hard part.
Ars artis est celare artem.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:
seedload wrote: Well, since our Capita aren't rising all that fast and since our CO2 production per capita isn't rising at all, I guess we should just stay out of it. The US doesn't play into your scenario at all.
Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
What makes you think it ought too? The Chinese and Indians getting too uppity?
The occupational exposure limit for CO2 is 5,000 ppmv averaged over a week.
Ars artis est celare artem.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

KitemanSA wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
POLYWELL?
Good answer.
Ars artis est celare artem.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Thanks! I liked it. :D

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
I don't think that CO2 will stop rising anytime soon. I think that your 7000 ppm CO2 level in 100 years theory is STUPID and an indication that you aren't discussing this issue with ANY rationality.
I'm taking human behaviour over the last 175 years and suggesting that it might continue for another 175. Scary, isn't it?
Ars artis est celare artem.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

alexjrgreen wrote:
seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Global CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since at least 1832. What makes you think that's going to stop anytime soon?
I don't think that CO2 will stop rising anytime soon. I think that your 7000 ppm CO2 level in 100 years theory is STUPID and an indication that you aren't discussing this issue with ANY rationality.
I'm taking human behaviour over the last 175 years and suggesting that it might continue for another 175. Scary, isn't it?
No, not scary at all. I owe my life to human behavior of the last 175 years. I pray that it continues for the next.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

seedload wrote:I owe my life to human behavior of the last 175 years. I pray that it continues for the next.
In which case similar actions will produce similar consequences.

If the rising populations of China and India pursue US levels of affluence by burning fossil fuels, then 7,000 ppmv levels of CO2 are a stark possibility within two centuries.
Ars artis est celare artem.

Post Reply