how to think like a photon

A lot of people have formed their opinions of the Prius from talk radio. If talk radio is the voice of truth, why do you drive a Prius?

 

Hello. I said that the voices of truth are available on talk radio (I shouldn't have left out the internet). I didn't say I didn't discriminate. I try to stay informed and listen to a variety of opinions before forming my own. For instance, I hear many, many negative comments about Rush Limbaugh from people who obviously have never bothered to listen to his program. They depend on a liberal outfit like Media Matters to tell them what to think about him and others. I also listen to NPR and watch PBS.

I drive a Prius because I drive much more than average and it is economically feasible for me. If I were a rich man, I'd likely choose something else. That's the great thing about this country - we have a lot of freedom to choose. I hope it stays that way.

 

I have listened to Limbaugh. He spouts a constant flow of filth, hatred, lies, xenophobia, and thinly-disguised racism.

Anybody who thinks there is any truth to be learned from him is living on a different planet than I am.

 

The problem I run into when discussing CO2 pollution issues is that 95% of everyone I talk to has formed their opinion from their political leanings and then they use the internet, media, etc. to find something to support that position. This has resulted in two extremist camps (we are doomed or there is no issue). Meanwhile I read Science reports routinely and none of these support either extreme yet. Things to think about:
1) Detectable changes in Ocean pH have occurred due to CO2 excess absorbtion. Does a change in ocean pH have no effect on ocean life?
2) If there is no effect due to additional CO2 now, is this proof that once we burn all our carbon and coal into CO2, that there is no effect then?

 

I say let the ocean absorb CO2. Once it gets enough, we can add sugar and caramel color and bottle the stuff. That should take care of the excess CO2, at least until we pop the bottle caps.



Tom

 

You certainly are free with your slanders. I see no response to the refutation of Gore's obvious intellectual superiority over Bush which I provided.

I haven't been there for a while, but I believe Limbaugh's website still provides transcripts of his show. Please go there and find evidence of what you allege and direct me to it. Unless you have definitions different than the dictionary's of the words you use, I don't think you will be able. I have never heard or seen anything you describe.

Do you live on this planet, you know, earth?

 

I am guilty as charged. I hurried to a site that questions the alarmist view and found this:

The BBC ran an article this week titled “Acid oceans ‘need urgent action‘†based on the premise:

The world’s marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.
​

This sounds very alarming, so being diligent researchers we should of course check the facts. The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to an infamous online encyclopedia, “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.†At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 3 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of a pH scale wasn’t introduced until 1909.​

The BBC article then asserts: ​

The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as “the other CO2 problemâ€, could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.
​

This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era - nearly 500 million years ago - when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)


http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif
Perhaps corals are not so tough as they used to be? In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving. Another drop in pH of 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast. The corals might even survive a rise in ocean temperatures of half a degree, since they flourished at times when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher than the present.

There seems to be no shortage of theories about how rising CO2 levels will destroy the planet, yet the geological record shows that life flourished for hundreds of millions of years with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures. This is a primary reason why there are so many skeptics in the geological community. At some point the theorists will have to start paying attention to empirical data.

 

Wouldn't the result be awfully salty?

 

So now we have a salt problem. Perhaps if we combine this problem with water softeners...

Tom

 

Slow down. Your lengthy cut and paste managed to avoid providing any answer to the questions posed. I've framed both questions very carefully.

I said the pH is changing, not that the ocean was becoming acid. I also was very careful not to bias the question to assume one of the prevailing views.

Finally, the questions were worded so a Yes/No answer would suffice, as well as "I don't know". Take a stab at some answers. Hopefully your own, not a cut and paste of someone else's answers.

 

I think Jaegermeister comes pretty close.

 

Now wait a second. I saw the coke commercial today making it clear that formula was a secret. You're in trouble now.

 

1) Detectable changes in Ocean pH have occurred due to CO2 excess absorbtion. Does a change in ocean pH have no effect on ocean life?

Other than to say of course things always change, there is no way to answer this question with any specificity. "Ocean life" covers a lot of ground. There may be species as yet undiscovered as well as extant that respond to changes in pH. There may be beneficial as well as deleterious effects.


2) If there is no effect due to additional CO2 now, is this proof that once we burn all our carbon and coal into CO2, that there is no effect then?

We don't know exactly what effects there are now and we certainly can't know what they will be in the indeterminate future.


You are aware, of course, that man's contribution of CO2 to the total amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is very small, somewhere in the vicinity of .3 percent (if water vapor is included).

 

Thanks for the responses. Quite reasonable. Now for one final followup question. (Sorry for the length of the question, but necessary to make sure it is not misconstrued.)

You acknowledge that there are unknown future effects of continued burning of fossil fuels. Yet what power plant types to be built or denied are happening presently. There are two extreme positions for these decisions. One extreme is that only 100% sustainable plants should be build and coal plants shut down. The other extreme is that only the cheapest possible electric rates must determine all decisions.

Presently the difference in kWh cost between major solar and coal plants is not that big, let's say anywhere from 2 cents to 12 cents. Given the overall unknowns of continued CO2 generation, should we wait till the economics completely shift, or should some shift in subsidies occur that level the field? (e.g. tax incentives for solar or subsidy elimination for coal). Please think from a total approach where finite coal, possible (but not proven) AGW effects, ocean pH effects, mining effects, etc. are the factors that have to be considered in today's decisions. Look forward to your answer.

 

The future is, by definition, unknown. Generally speaking, projections based on present knowledge are terribly imperfect. Projections based on conjecture are almost certainly wrong.

I believe that I can satisfy your curiosity by telling you that I believe in free markets. I think government intervention and mandates are necessarily artificial and therefore almost always deleterious. Now, we have some states which are mandating certain goals and standards that violate free market priciples. It will be interesting to see how they fare compared to those states that embrace the free market. (The federal government already has its tentacles in so many areas, that the free market has been hobbled and must make its way hopping on one leg and with one arm tied behind its back.)

If the federal government (or a global body such as the U.N.) intervenes, these experiments will not be allowed to give a valid picture of what works and what fails. Without going into the more political aspects of what we are discussing (a near impossibility), I'll just say that every mandate incurs a loss of freedom, so the question becomes is that loss of freedom worth the proposed gain?

If a problem really exists, a truly free market has almost invariably provided a solution. This country with its free market capitalist system provided the most prosperous, successful society in history, bar none. Every solution to a perceived problem proposed and forced on the people from a centralized government (with very few exceptions) has only created more problems or worsened the existing perceived one.

So my view is to let the free market work its magic. It takes both extremes you mention and lets the chips fall where they may. If wind, solar or whatever proves to be more viable, it will emerge through normal channels. When it becomes necessary to replace dwindling natural resouces, the free market will provide answers and they will be the ones that make money for the developers while fulfilling a need for the users - all the while allowing people to make choices rather than forcing them to relinquish freedoms. Everyone wins.

We can see the unfortunate results of governments making all the decisions on what is best for the people in the failures of the former Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany etc. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, government doesn't solve problems, government IS the problem. Actually, that may be a direct quote.

In a nutshell, when I see a centralized government proposing incredibly costly, freedom-robbing solutions to problems that may not be problems at all, I quite naturally (for me) resist. I cherish freedom and don't wish to relinquish it. And I apologize in return for the length of my response.

 

Understand your philosophy, but the question I asked was sort of sidestepped. Since coal and oil corporations are given various direct and indirect subsidies, I cannot extract from your reply if you support these present day subsidies or not.

 

No, I do not. The 9th and 10th Amendments do not give the government this authority, not that the politicians care. It may be too late to reverse the intrusion of government into our lives and business. The Constitution no longer means what it says to these theives (nor their clueless enablers).

 

I can understand that and it is consistent with your previous statements. Thanks.