Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
the cost of wind power
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TwoForFlinching" data-source="post: 3531575" data-attributes="member: 24500"><p>Fair questions. I was at best on the fence and open minded to the whole climate change. I don't have a political side, so that never played into my belief or disbelief. The convincing paper I read about climate change seemed conclusive through proven, peer reviewed solid science. It was when they managed to decipher the isotope makeup of the CO2 floating around in the atmosphere.</p><p></p><p>The idea is, the same chemical can come from many different sources, and each one will be different based on the makeup and measurement of the isotopes. Kind of like organic naturally occurring arsenic, lab created arsenic, and plant derived arsenic are all arsenic, but by measuring the atomic weight of the isotopes, they can be identified uniquely even though they're all the same.</p><p></p><p>It's hard to deny the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere over the last few decades. I don't think anyone on either side denies that. For years, since ice cores show this as a cyclical phenomenon, that's what I believed it was, the earths natural cycle. Then came a paper about the isotope makeup of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Many different variant exist in the atmosphere, and the study identified them by their isotopic weight. They found that naturally occurring CO2's were steady across the atmosphere. Algea and plankton blooms soak it up and make it H2O like trees and plants do, but on a larger scale. The one CO2 isotopes that were steadily growing in the air were those that conclusively occur in the burning of fossil fuels.</p><p></p><p>It's really more interesting than I can explain it off the top of my head. Worth taking a dive into it even if to try to prove it incorrect.</p><p></p><p>I still believe we're in a cycle of a warmer planet due to a greenhouse effect. The science shows earth has done this for millennia... but it also shows humans have sped up the process over the last two hundred years by burning fossil fuels in measuring the isotopes specific to those fuels. The science supports that. More importantly, you shouldn't let it distract you from the fact that Jeffrey Epstien didn't kill himself.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwoForFlinching, post: 3531575, member: 24500"] Fair questions. I was at best on the fence and open minded to the whole climate change. I don't have a political side, so that never played into my belief or disbelief. The convincing paper I read about climate change seemed conclusive through proven, peer reviewed solid science. It was when they managed to decipher the isotope makeup of the CO2 floating around in the atmosphere. The idea is, the same chemical can come from many different sources, and each one will be different based on the makeup and measurement of the isotopes. Kind of like organic naturally occurring arsenic, lab created arsenic, and plant derived arsenic are all arsenic, but by measuring the atomic weight of the isotopes, they can be identified uniquely even though they're all the same. It's hard to deny the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere over the last few decades. I don't think anyone on either side denies that. For years, since ice cores show this as a cyclical phenomenon, that's what I believed it was, the earths natural cycle. Then came a paper about the isotope makeup of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Many different variant exist in the atmosphere, and the study identified them by their isotopic weight. They found that naturally occurring CO2's were steady across the atmosphere. Algea and plankton blooms soak it up and make it H2O like trees and plants do, but on a larger scale. The one CO2 isotopes that were steadily growing in the air were those that conclusively occur in the burning of fossil fuels. It's really more interesting than I can explain it off the top of my head. Worth taking a dive into it even if to try to prove it incorrect. I still believe we're in a cycle of a warmer planet due to a greenhouse effect. The science shows earth has done this for millennia... but it also shows humans have sped up the process over the last two hundred years by burning fossil fuels in measuring the isotopes specific to those fuels. The science supports that. More importantly, you shouldn't let it distract you from the fact that Jeffrey Epstien didn't kill himself. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
the cost of wind power
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom