Comments on: Setting global warming record straight

By: A reader above

A reader above — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:11:32 +0000

No, an ice age would not occur becauce as the temperature falls the air cannot hold as much water. Thus, less clouds and more of the suns energy can reach the earth’s surface (and increase temperature). In this manner our environment can regulate it’s temperature.

The amount of liquid water from exhaust is not enought to make a noticable increase in the amount of water on the planet. If there was an endless supply of fossil fuel the liquid water would eventually be noticed. But, there is an end to this supply. Hydrogen can also be created from water, but this is a closed cycle.

By: Wes Cannon

Wes Cannon — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:41:27 +0000

Just from what I understand in your post, excess water vapor would then accelerate climate change towards the next ice age? If it did not then, then the next logical thought would be too much liquid water in our closed system. I do not believe that the amount of water held in ice at the present time would present a problem unless it melted very, very rapidly. Thats not likely, and changing coastlines and disappearing islands can be adapted to. I’ve read studies that indicate 1000 years for melting to occur at present(continued) temperature rise. As I stated. its well known that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.
From what I’ve seen and read about scientific manipulation of everything in our world, its going to be both bad and good results. As an example, in the past, people either resisted a disease or died and the genome was stronger for it. Now we have new, drug resistant diseases that require more change. It won’t be any different where the environment is concerned, I suspect.

By: A reader above

A reader above — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:37:24 +0000

I’m not sure I understand the comment about how much water would be held in ice in a hydrogen economy. Please restate in another post.

Water vapor cannot continue to build up in the atmosphere in the same manner as CO2 because at a given temperature the air can only hold a set amount of water. The excess water condenses into liquid water and gets absorbed into the environment. If you take an extreme case and pump enough water vapor into the atmosphere to increase clouds this would have a cooling affect due to the reflection of the suns energy. The cooler atmosphere holds less water, reducing the clouds, and allowing the temperature to increase. Thus, the environment regulates its temperature. To increase the temperature you need energy levels on the order of what the sun provides and you need something like CO2 or methane to trap the energy the sun provides from leaving the atmosphere. Since water vapor does not trap energy, water vapor from hydrogen (combustion or fuel cell related) exhaust would not increase the atmosphere’s temperature.

Acidification is the process of reducing the PH. Our oceans will not become an acid from CO2 pollution. However, a small reduction in PH can have a large effect on the organisms that live in that environment. The data is still coming out on this so we need to watch it carefully.

By: Tribune Moderator

Tribune Moderator — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:06:52 +0000

Some of these replies were held up over the weekend due to how our software filters for possible spam. I’ve updated the settings to allow replies with multiple links to be automatically approved, so that should keep things moving.

By: Cook Inletkeeper

Cook Inletkeeper — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:43:40 +0000

Of course the industrial revolution has resulted in enormous gains in certain things deemed “quality of life,” including improved health care, more material goods, better and more diverse food supplies, etc. But if we’ve embarked on an unsustainable path of pollution-based prosperity, then we’re deficit spending, and it’s only a matter of time before we exceed the planet’s capacity to sustain life. And the principle we’re tapping is the very stuff that makes life on this planet possible – i.e. a stable atmosphere, healthy oceans, clean drinking water, etc. But we have enormous opportunities to learn from past mistakes and to embark on a clean energy revolution that will create jobs and continue to provide the quality of life we’ve come to expect.

By: Wes Cannon

Wes Cannon — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:02:29 +0000

Thanks again for explaining your viewpoint in a rational manner. Sometimes its very difficult to have real conversations as you can see from many posts. I’m interested if, in a hydrogen economy, just how much water would be held in ice. I think (but don’t know) that more water vapor would cause a temperature rise. There is no reason to assume the ecosystem would be better off. What are your ideas on this?
I have read some studies that indicate a more acidic ocean in the past – but not really acid on the ph scale. The oceans will have to get much worse than 8 to have any effects that do not have to measured by scientists. Where I live and I have seen this with my own eyes, there is much less air poluttion due to auto emissions, mostly because of strict government controls on converting to natural gas. At one time I could hardly breathe in a large downtown area because of thousands of buses and taxis but now the air is much better(still not like Alaska though)

By: A reader above

A reader above — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:40:23 +0000

For 1 and 2 I think your comment about the “problem between the 2 sides comes down to perception of events” is valid. That said, I’d say that you’re correct with respect to the pollution in the US, but on average across the globe pollution is getting worst.

Acidification is the process of reducing the PH, so both ways of stating the process are correct. I’m not an expert in this area, but the data as well as basic science show this to be occuring. The levels of PH reduction do not have to be very large to affect the Eco system. I’d keep a close eye on this issue as this may affect us quicker than atmosphere temperature increase (I.e. Affect our food chain).
I’ve responded to Mr James letter. See above.
I fully agree with the planting of more trees. This will help with controlling CO2.

Excess water vapor would not be a problem in a hydrogen economy. You can pump all the water vapor you want into the atmosphere and it will condense into liquid water. For the atmosphere to hold more water vapor the atmosphere’s temperature would need to increase.

By: Wes Cannon

Wes Cannon — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:00:22 +0000

#1 When industries dump enough pollutants in a river to render it unusable – thats overwhelming and no one would disagree. This has not happened to the oceans(some river mouths are polluting but not overwhelming; these are being corrected where possible).
#2 Fish are edible – very few species, if any, have been rendered unusable. Even those highly mercury contaminated fish in the Japanese bay are recovering. I do not disagree that these types of pollutants should be strictly monitored and corrected, but they have not overwhelmed us yet. Respiratory issues are localized as well and in some parts of the world have improved (some large Asian cities) but in some areas have worsened due to local conditions ( usually crop debris burning). As an aside, smokers should never, ever complain about air pollution.
#3 Acidification of the ocean (base 8.1) has not been shown to be occuring except on levels that are almost undectable. 8.1 is base not acid and any predicted lowering (that I’ve read) does not reach 8. Theories predicting what will happen to the biology are only theory and species tend to adapt to changes as slow as this.
#4 CO 2 See Mr James letter and I’ve read the same from different sources.

Easiest thing in the world to do is plant more trees. I happen to feel this should be some kind of requirement, either in school or part of voting and its the kind of “act now” action I fully agree with.
Motor vehicles have become less polluting and hopefully that process will continue in a reasonable manner. This does not change the fact that ANY energy system will have negative effects. If all the engines, industries, etc had run on hydrogen for the past 120 years, excess water vapor would be the “problem”, And water vapor would likely have a more “profound” effect than CO 2.

By: A reader above

A reader above — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:44:30 +0000

Fair enough. “profound” and “standard of living” can be relative depending on who you are and where you live. So let me make a few points to try and better explain myself.

1) I stated “starting to have a profound effect on our standard of living” with the key word being “starting”. We’re at the point where our actions are overwhelming our environment. If we do not start to change our ways our standard of living will start to go down. This is because we are part of this eco system and what happens to it happens to us.
2) I view not being able to eat certain foods (like fish from our oceans) because of human caused toxins (trash and pollution being ingested by fish) as a reduction in our standard of living. Another example of how we’re being affected is the increased cases of respiratory issues due to the pollution in the air. This affects some of us directly and all of us through increased health care cost.
3) To state that acidification of the oceans is starting to affect our standard of living is premature in the sense that it is not measurable in human terms. However, our eco systems are starting to be negatively affected by this phenomenon. Since we’re apart of this Eco system I can say our standard of living is being affected.
4) All these issues (Increases in CO2, pollution, deforestation, etc.) are tied together because we live within a system. Working on just one of these decreases the affect of the other. Ignoring one can still negatively impact the system.

I agree with your statement that profitability will work faster than the “act now”. I’m trying to state that if we do not try to predict where our actions are taking us our standard of living will be effected in a negative way before profitability takes over. So, we need a good balance of government policy and profitability to keep our standard of living moving in the positive direction.

By: A reader above

A reader above — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:22:37 +0000

Good. I’m glad to see people digging in and understanding the data. You do not need to be a Ph D to understand this stuff, but you have to do more than pass along sound bites. You’re obviously digging into the data.

I’m also encouraged by the fact that most of what I read on this page puts our views closer than I would have thought. Its worth furthing converstaions with people to make sure that we understand each other.

I’d still like your thoughts from a systems prospective. Everything we’ve talked about will effect the planet as a system and not one of its parts. As you stated, 0.5% (5000 ppm) CO2 is ok for humans and is a big difference from 0.0386% (386 ppm) that is currently in our atmosphere. But we depend on the other systems of our planet for our standard of living to remain close to current levels. If we allow CO2 levels to rise due to our own actions how will this effect our oceans and our climate? You stated that the earth florished at higher temperatures, but humans were not around at that time. Now that there are 6.8 billion of us a small temperature rise and its effect on our system (sea level rise, climate shifting rain patterns, etc) can have a profound effect on all of us. So, how will the system respond to rapidly increasing levels of CO2 rise?