• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here.

What Science do you think I do not believe in, be specific?
As to India, I would rather they find an alternative path, I think nuclear and solar are viable direction,
with nuclear filling the short term and solar and storage building a sustainable future.
I know I do not have all the answers, but I am trying to address the actual problem, which is energy.
We simply do not have enough fossil energy to allow every human alive to attain a first world lifestyle.
From a long term perspective that must be our goal, if we are to have any hope for everyone getting along.

When you say we don't have enough fossil energy to allow every human to attain a first world lifestyle, are you talking about actual energy we have right now or potential energy we could have? I'm not sure if you are using peak oil as your basis here or not, so that's partly why I'm asking, and partly to understand the claim you are actually making. There is certainly enough energy on the planet to lift everybody into a first world lifestyle. The main thing is we need third world countries to build economies so that they have the money to buy energy. Usually, poor countries lack peace and stability, and when there isn't peace and stability then there is difficulty in building infrastructure that will last. Just look at the issues the USA has had in Iraq and Afghanistan where we build infrastructure and then it gets blown up, we rebuild it, and it gets blown up again. That's also why we can't put nuclear in a lot of these third world countries, because with great nuclear energy power comes great responsibility, responsibility that third world countries can't handle. The possibility is certainly there to lift everybody into a first world lifestyle, though. Eventually, new types of energy will likely solve the problem anyways. I think it's best if we use a diversity of energy, too, and not just focus all on one energy type. For instance, one great thing about solar energy is that it produces peak energy when there is peak need (when the temperature is hot).
 
When you say we don't have enough fossil energy to allow every human to attain a first world lifestyle, are you talking about actual energy we have right now or potential energy we could have? I'm not sure if you are using peak oil as your basis here or not, so that's partly why I'm asking, and partly to understand the claim you are actually making. There is certainly enough energy on the planet to lift everybody into a first world lifestyle. The main thing is we need third world countries to build economies so that they have the money to buy energy. Usually, poor countries lack peace and stability, and when there isn't peace and stability then there is difficulty in building infrastructure that will last. Just look at the issues the USA has had in Iraq and Afghanistan where we build infrastructure and then it gets blown up, we rebuild it, and it gets blown up again. That's also why we can't put nuclear in a lot of these third world countries, because with great nuclear energy power comes great responsibility, responsibility that third world countries can't handle. The possibility is certainly there to lift everybody into a first world lifestyle, though. Eventually, new types of energy will likely solve the problem anyways. I think it's best if we use a diversity of energy, too, and not just focus all on one energy type. For instance, one great thing about solar energy is that it produces peak energy when there is peak need (when the temperature is hot).
It is not really peak oil, but fossil fuels are finite, there is still plenty out there, but we have found and extracted the easy stuff.
I agree to have a real economy the countries have to have political stability,
but my point is more about the haves and have not s. If only some groups have access to first world capabilities
it will create envy, and likely lead to conflict.
I think a better answer is to steer to world into a future where we have sufficient energy for everyone, if they want it.
That means we need a method of storing solar energy for up to seasonal periods.
Solar can produce enough energy, but storage allows the energy to be accumulated and used on demand.
I think hydrocarbon storage is the most likely, because most of the infrastructure is already in place.
It will be ironic if the evil oil companies provide a sustainable path for the future of Humanity.
 
All I can tell you is that CO2 at ground state can (demonstrable in a lab)absorb 15 um photons.
Once excited the molecule will ether spontaneously decay back to ground state in one or many steps,
or pass the energy off to another atom or molecule.
(A minor unlikely third option is a photon of the right frequency strikes the excited molecule and stimulates emission)
The energy out will equal the energy in.
In theory some of the decay energy could add energy to surrounding molecules.
Where all this goes funny, is that people do not understand how low energy the 15 um band is.
Here is a CO2 laser energy state table, CO2 is a fairly low frequency laser at 10.6 um, I have added the red line to show how low 15 um is.
View attachment 67234658
To me where the theory (greenhouse gas) breaks down, is that it fails to explain the asymmetry between day and night warming and seasonal warming.
The 15 um photons are always present, and so should be doing their energy transfer business 24/7,
but something is causing the warming to be much greater at night (minimum temperatures not going as low).
None of this represents anything that should concern Humans, we have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem.

The reason that it doesn't get as cold at night as the Moon or at hot in the daytime as the Moon is because the atmosphere is mass. It takes time to heat and cool it. CO2 is a very small part of that mass, but that is its only contribution.
 
What Science do you think I do not believe in, be specific?
As to India, I would rather they find an alternative path, I think nuclear and solar are viable direction,
with nuclear filling the short term and solar and storage building a sustainable future.
I know I do not have all the answers, but I am trying to address the actual problem, which is energy.
We simply do not have enough fossil energy to allow every human alive to attain a first world lifestyle.
From a long term perspective that must be our goal, if we are to have any hope for everyone getting along.

The problem is resources of all kinds, not just the so-called 'fossil' fuels. It is not enough food, not enough water, not enough shelter, not enough medical care, not enough internet, not enough weapons, not enough...not enough...not enough...

BTW, fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. We use carbon-based fuels like oil, natural gas, coal, etc; along with other hydroelectric, nuclear, solar panels, wind turbines, tidal extraction, geothermal, etc.

People should simply use what is available for them....and they do.

It is not your right to decide what people should use for power. It is not mine either. Let 'em use what they want.
 
It is not really peak oil, but fossil fuels are finite, there is still plenty out there, but we have found and extracted the easy stuff.
I agree to have a real economy the countries have to have political stability,
but my point is more about the haves and have not s. If only some groups have access to first world capabilities
it will create envy, and likely lead to conflict.
I think a better answer is to steer to world into a future where we have sufficient energy for everyone, if they want it.
That means we need a method of storing solar energy for up to seasonal periods.
Solar can produce enough energy, but storage allows the energy to be accumulated and used on demand.
I think hydrocarbon storage is the most likely, because most of the infrastructure is already in place.
It will be ironic if the evil oil companies provide a sustainable path for the future of Humanity.


Carbon based fuels are essentially renewable fuels.

We can and do synthesize oil and natural gas from non-biological materials. The conditions for the reaction are similar to that found naturally underground. It is known as the Fischer-Tropsche process.

The Earth itself is a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor. It continually makes more crude oil and natural gas. That's why we can pump a well dry, cap it, then find the well is full of oil again a few years later.

Oil is found everywhere on Earth. Much of it is deep. The Russians, which know how to drill a deeper hole than anyone else in the world (thanks to their ice core project in Antarctica), drilled very deep holes in Siberia and sure enough found oil.
Oil and natural gas resources are found closest to the surface at tectonic plate edges, especially where spreading action is taking place. Look at the major oil fields and their locations and you will find most of them are in just such a location. Texas and the Gulf, the Mideast, the North Sea, the offshore and California wells, North slopes of Alaska, etc.

Natural gas is even easier. Not only is found with the oil, and can also be generated by decaying action (the bacteria produce it when they break down carbohydrates) which also happens naturally in swamps.

We don't know where coal comes from. It is primarily carbon. A popular speculation is that it comes from decaying plant matter laid down long ago.
 
The problem is resources of all kinds, not just the so-called 'fossil' fuels. It is not enough food, not enough water, not enough shelter, not enough medical care, not enough internet, not enough weapons, not enough...not enough...not enough...

BTW, fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. We use carbon-based fuels like oil, natural gas, coal, etc; along with other hydroelectric, nuclear, solar panels, wind turbines, tidal extraction, geothermal, etc.

People should simply use what is available for them....and they do.

It is not your right to decide what people should use for power. It is not mine either. Let 'em use what they want.
In general terms the real problems are energy and fresh water, but with sufficient energy fresh water is not an issue,
so it all circles back to energy.
Solar has advantages, but is low density and has a poor duty cycle.
One of the reasons I favor hydrocarbon energy storage, is that it solves several problems.
The main problem it solves, is that it converts Solar energy into a high density package compatible,
with existing demands and infrastructure.
 
In general terms the real problems are energy and fresh water, but with sufficient energy fresh water is not an issue,
so it all circles back to energy.
Solar has advantages, but is low density and has a poor duty cycle.
One of the reasons I favor hydrocarbon energy storage, is that it solves several problems.
The main problem it solves, is that it converts Solar energy into a high density package compatible,
with existing demands and infrastructure.

Agreed. You just can't get the efficiency of chemical energy storage in any better package than the good ole' hydrocarbon or carbohydrate molecules for the price.
 
Agreed. You just can't get the efficiency of chemical energy storage in any better package than the good ole' hydrocarbon or carbohydrate molecules for the price.
Well Ammonia is close, but oh! the smell!
I heard that during WWII, they ran some vehicles on Ammonia because gasoline was not available.
https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/renewable-energy/ammonia-as-a-transportation-fuel/
I think our infrastructure would need a vast redesign to go that route.
 
The problem is resources of all kinds, not just the so-called 'fossil' fuels. It is not enough food, not enough water, not enough shelter, not enough medical care, not enough internet, not enough weapons, not enough...not enough...not enough...

BTW, fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. We use carbon-based fuels like oil, natural gas, coal, etc; along with other hydroelectric, nuclear, solar panels, wind turbines, tidal extraction, geothermal, etc.

People should simply use what is available for them....and they do.

It is not your right to decide what people should use for power. It is not mine either. Let 'em use what they want.

Maybe we should have the people pay for the pollution when they use it, rather than waiting decades?

In other words, maybe we should factor the environmental cost into using these fuel sources up front- like factoring in the costs of dealing with global warming from CO2 and CH4 release when the product is sold/used, rather than making grandkids pick up the bill.
 
Maybe we should have the people pay for the pollution when they use it, rather than waiting decades?

In other words, maybe we should factor the environmental cost into using these fuel sources up front- like factoring in the costs of dealing with global warming from CO2 and CH4 release when the product is sold/used, rather than making grandkids pick up the bill.

What pollution?

Neither CO2 nor CH4 have the capability to warm the Earth. Neither is a pollutant. That's like calling water a pollutant.
 
Scientists would disagree.

But you wouldn’t know that.

It doesn't matter what scientists think. Consensus is not used in science.
In particular, the climate 'scientists' you so depend on deny science. They do not use or create any theory of science.

Explain how you think CO2 (or any gas) can warm the Earth.
 
It doesn't matter what scientists think. Consensus is not used in science.
In particular, the climate 'scientists' you so depend on deny science. They do not use or create any theory of science.

Explain how you think CO2 (or any gas) can warm the Earth.

This paper, which I cited for another thread, gives a clear and detailed explanation of the warming effect of CO2:

The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide

Obviously I don't expect you to pay the slightest attention to it, but others may find it interesting.
 
It doesn't matter what scientists think. Consensus is not used in science.
In particular, the climate 'scientists' you so depend on deny science. They do not use or create any theory of science.

Explain how you think CO2 (or any gas) can warm the Earth.

The analogy is that you are ill, but say it doesn’t matter what s physician thinks- your diagnosis is not science since it’s an opinion.

Not sure why you want me to walk you through basic science in order for you to dismiss it...
 
It doesn't matter what scientists think. Consensus is not used in science.
In particular, the climate 'scientists' you so depend on deny science. They do not use or create any theory of science.

Explain how you think CO2 (or any gas) can warm the Earth.

Before one can listen to the indoctrinated climate scientists, the politics and bias needs to be exorcised from them.

Anyone know a good exorcist?

Science is only science when politics is not in play. Science is only science when scientists keep an open mind. When they already decided the outcome, it is too easy to cherry pick the several variables to model that result.
 
Before one can listen to the indoctrinated climate scientists, the politics and bias needs to be exorcised from them.

Anyone know a good exorcist?

Science is only science when politics is not in play. Science is only science when scientists keep an open mind. When they already decided the outcome, it is too easy to cherry pick the several variables to model that result.

Richard Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
It is easy enough to fool yourself without bias, starting with the desire to find a particular outcome only
smooths the path to self deception.
 
This paper, which I cited for another thread, gives a clear and detailed explanation of the warming effect of CO2:

The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide

Obviously I don't expect you to pay the slightest attention to it, but others may find it interesting.

This paper denies the Stefan Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
You cannot make heat flow backwards.
You cannot make energy out of nothing.
 
The analogy is that you are ill, but say it doesn’t matter what s physician thinks- your diagnosis is not science since it’s an opinion.

Not sure why you want me to walk you through basic science in order for you to dismiss it...

This old 'analogy' again??

A diagnosis is not science. It is an observation by a practiced eye. No theory of science is used or created.

The definition of science is a simple one: Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

It uses no supporting evidence. It does not require observation. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is just evidence.

It does not use consensus. No vote, no peer review, no government agency, no university, no credential, no society, no academy, no scientist or group of scientists form any kind of elite that decides whether a theory will be part of science or not. All that is required is that a theory be falsifiable, and that it survive at least one test against its null hypothesis.

Science is defined by philosophy, not any elite body. Philosophy not only defines what science is, but also gives the reasoning for that definition.

Now...can you explain how you figure CO2 warms the Earth?
 
Before one can listen to the indoctrinated climate scientists, the politics and bias needs to be exorcised from them.

Anyone know a good exorcist?

Science is only science when politics is not in play. Science is only science when scientists keep an open mind. When they already decided the outcome, it is too easy to cherry pick the several variables to model that result.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. It is already free of politics.

What people often claim to be science is actually data (often manufactured at that), or some religious position.
 
This old 'analogy' again??

A diagnosis is not science. It is an observation by a practiced eye. No theory of science is used or created.

The definition of science is a simple one: Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

It uses no supporting evidence. It does not require observation. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is just evidence.

It does not use consensus. No vote, no peer review, no government agency, no university, no credential, no society, no academy, no scientist or group of scientists form any kind of elite that decides whether a theory will be part of science or not. All that is required is that a theory be falsifiable, and that it survive at least one test against its null hypothesis.

Science is defined by philosophy, not any elite body. Philosophy not only defines what science is, but also gives the reasoning for that definition.

Now...can you explain how you figure CO2 warms the Earth?

You really don’t understand the absolute fundamentals of science...
 
You really don’t understand the absolute fundamentals of science...

That IS the absolute fundamentals of science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That is it. That is all.

It is not data. It is not a research program. It is not a study. It is not an observation. It is not credentials. It is not a government agency, university, society, academy, or any other political organization. It is not even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

If you disagree, please define science as you see it. Listing political organizations is not defining science.
 
That IS the absolute fundamentals of science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That is it. That is all.

It is not data. It is not a research program. It is not a study. It is not an observation. It is not credentials. It is not a government agency, university, society, academy, or any other political organization. It is not even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

If you disagree, please define science as you see it. Listing political organizations is not defining science.

You said a diagnosis isn’t science.

But a diagnosis is nothing more than a falsifiable theory.

You’re really bad at this.
 
Back
Top Bottom