Please stick to science

To the editor:

Judging from the responses to my Oct. 24, “Does the Earth revolve around the sun?,” I must ask: Why is it that when I try to discuss science, almost everybody wants to talk religion? Can we please stick to science? Thanks.

Part of my letter stated: “…does the earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the earth? There still is no solid proof that the Earth goes around the sun; but it is still taught in schools as dogmatic fact. Why?”

I would have thought someone would have brought up things like stellar parallax, the Foucault pendulum, retrograde motion of Mars, phases of Venus, etc. Actually, these are not proofs, because the heliocentric and geocentric systems are geometrically equivalent. So, the question remains; if there is no proof, why are teachers stating it as absolute fact?

Wouldn’t the honest thing be to say “We really don’t know?” Ditto for billions of years age of the earth. And how about macro-evolution? I’ve yet to see anyone who can defend it.

In regard to man-made global warming, a.k.a. the war on man-made CO2. : Open two 12-ounce cans of soda, put one in the refrigerator, the other in a pre-heated oven. Take them out after 30 minutes, the cool one will still be bubbling CO2 gas, the heated one very little. Same goes for CO2 which is locked up in the oceans, lakes and soil. The sun and the 40,000 mile long volcanic venting system at the ocean bottom heat earth’s carbon cycle ecosystem. The atmosphere, water and soil hold about 2400 times more CO2 than man’s contribution to the atmosphere. If all that CO2 were a 12-ounce can of soda, man’s contribution would be a little over two drops.

Sierra Club put together a group of some 200 lawyers and activists in 2010 and shut down some 200 coal fired power plants. The results? CO2 is still rising. They planned on shutting down more, but will accomplish nothing in the realm of climate control, because man’s two drops in the can of CO2 is irrelevant in the vast carbon cycle system where CO2 is being absorbed and expelled at varying rates across the globe, partially due to rise and fall of heat applied. Sierra Club might even be contributing to global warming by reducing the amount of reflective ash in the air which produces a shading effect. Clouds and volcanic eruptions do something similar to this, i.e. Mt. Tambora in 1816 produced the year without summer.

Look at the NOAA annual mean growth rate of CO2 chart covering 1960 through 2016 at Mauna Loa observatory. Notice that CO2 growth rate dropped to .28 and .48 ppm for years 1964 and 1992. How come?

Did people suddenly burn less coal and oil those years? No, it was Mt. Agung (1963-64) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991-92) blasting about one cubic mile of ash into the air to a height of some 22 miles. This causes a shading/cooling effect on the ocean which then expels less CO2. But the chart also shows a steady averaging climb in atmospheric CO2 up into 2016.

How can that be? Especially when global coal usage has been dropping since 2014! China burns 50 percent of global coal but even they are now burning less because of increased efficiencies and using more wind and solar power.

In the USA, power demand has flattened and is expected to decrease. So how are power companies going to grow their business? By doing what’s politically correct. As Xcel stated last year: “by really investing where our customers want us to invest.”

Like wind turbines. And how did the customers come to demand this? Through environmentalists pushing “coal causes global warming” false propaganda. Wind and solar are OK but not vital. CO2 is not pollution; green plants consume it and higher amounts of it allows them to survive on less water. Without CO2, life ends.

Phil Drietz,

Delhi

COMMENTS