Letters to the Editor
ripple9
Published Letters: 18 Editor's Choice: 2
-
A reply from a sceintist
[Read the article: Did Al get the science right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have not seen this movie because I live in the sticks and it will not play anywhere near here due to percieved lack of interest. This movie is preaching to the chior, but I agree that it is good to arm the chior with information. That being said, there are a few misconceptions I noted while reading the other letters.
First, I would like to point out that I hold a PhD in chemistry and took atmospheric chem under one of the best atmospheric scientists at NOAA in Boulder, CO. It is that perspective that prompted me to write.
I have to address the idea of running out of oil and that saving us. We may run out of oil, but that is not our largest source of carbon dioxide. Coal is the largest contributor turning every molecule of carbon (coal) in a carbon dioxide molecule. Oil, being a hydrocarbon, turns into both carbon dioxide and water upon combustion. Nuclear and solar energy are the only alternatives that are able to power our world without the emissions troubles. Solar is quite expensive and nuclear seems to scare people. I have friends working on making hydrogen from sunlight shining on a dish of water with a semiconductor in it, but that's not working at this point. Right now, hydrogen and ethanol require large amounts of energy input to get the "alternative fuel" out. Science is working on this and people should encourage our government to give more grant money for these issues! ie Don't cut the budget for NREL, Bush
My only other comment is in reply to the letter asking about peer review. Peer review is usually rigorous and anonymous. We take science seriously and most scientists would love to discredit a competitor, given the opportunity to point out bad work. I find it very correct that popular science articles get side tracked on nonsense ideas or pipedreams like a big volcano or the procession of the earth saving our butts from the frying pan. They don't have the background needed to grasp the whole situation and rightfully have their doubts. It is easier to poo-poo the real science because the ideas can be big and the concepts dense. That doesn't mean the peers are letting papers pass because we all are in some conspiracy to alarm everyone. The science is actually pretty straight forward and most of us have moved on to debating other issues such as how to make cheaper solar cells, better batteries for hybrid cars, what role aerosols play in the energy balance and so forth.
I was pleased to read this Salon article and find that the movie's science wasn't completely flawed. You also might enjoy the article from a few days back describing how carbon credits work so you can understand how Mr Gore made the movie "carbon neutral" then decide whether the jet is warrented or not.
-
I guess I must rebutt...
[Read the article: Did Al get the science right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm afraid you're not correcting the "guy" with a PhD as your science is poor. Coal is not a hydrocarbon (hydro refers to hydrogen) but a lump of carbon with come hydrogen, nitrogen and sulfur stuck in it. CO2 does form directly from the combustion with oxgyen where that oxygen gets bound to the carbon and/or hydrogen (to make water), sulfur (to make sulfur dioxide) or nitrogen (nitrogen oxides). We could continue to oxide all carbon on earth to CO2, THEN we run out. Hydrocarbons are chains of carbon backbone with hydrogens attached. There is no "trapped CO2" involved anywhere. Combustion breaks the chemical bonds in the molecule and reattaches those elements to oxygen from the air. This is basic chemistry that I teach in chem 1. It's amazing the equations balance out to exact the same number of CO2s as there were carbons in the original compound combusted if there is trapped CO2 which is really pretty funny overall.
I do agree that nuclear power is what we need and I also know serious scientists that don't think fuel cells are BS. Thanks for your time from the gal who is an electrochemist and university instructor.
-
The greatest experiment...
[Read the article: Did Al get the science right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I saw a great talk by Nate Lewis at Cal Tech last spring. You can see and hear that talk on his website through the Cal Tech server at http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html at the bottom of the page.
Anyway, he calls global warming the greatest experiment we have ever done. This is a very!! complex situation that cannot be summed up by slogans or just assuming the planet will warm. The way he put it is that by continuing on the path we are on and not making major!! changes in our carbon output in the next 15 years we have committed to the greatest experiment ever undertaken in human history. We don't know the outcome, thus it is an experiment. It's just our collective choice whether or not we want to do that experiment or try to stick with status quo. I'm glad you guys learned a little science along the way and have some more to discuss when someone brings up the topic. Check out that talk and I'll bet you think that Al Gore is treading lightly. I haven't seen the movie, like I said, so I don't know. If only they would let progressive films into the land of Walmart...sigh...
-
Justice Corbin
[Read the article: Lesbian custody tragedy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah for the mention of our newly re-elected judge. I had his daughter in my class last semester. I found that, in addition to rational thinking, he has also raised a fine, forward thinking young woman. If only we had more like him and his daughter people might come visit our state sometime :)