Boyd b60bp Euclid At the heart of the "green" ideolgy is the belief that the U.S. consumes too much. They want to roll that back with something they call "degrowth." Google it. No question of this. I think the green fanatics won't rest as long s the US can pollute Mother Earth by the production of a single tin can or plastic cup. Steel mill coal traffic isn't safe because greenies don't like the "rape of the earth" involved in steel production either. In fact the green fanatics don't seem to like any sort of US commerce that involves blue collars and actual production of anything. Most of them turn a blind eye and a silent mouth to such activities on a much filthier level being carried on in China, India, Russia or any Asian, African, South American politically correct nation, of course. They may mumble a lame. hushed passing remark about them but they don't seem to really care about it. And ironicly, a lot of the prime movers in the green movement don't seem to care about the invirorment at all. Ever seen Al Gore's private jet? Folks seem to forget that all the new restrictions are coming from a highly political and fanatical EPA adminsistration. A change in White House occupants can turn a lot of this around as quickly as it came about. What one president dictates in an executive order can be unordered by another. And just as the decision to rule CO2 as a pollutant was a political rather than scientific decision, nothing is carved in stone. I'd be hesitant about foreseeing the future too far in advance. Ditto to the above. To answer one question,,, I live 5 miles from the King coal and gas power plant in Bayport Minnesota. Just about 2 years ago they finished spending nearly one BILLION dollars upgrading the scrubbers for that power plant. That power plant can burn coal cleaner than anyone that still might have a coal furnace in their house or shop. Either "The History Channel" or its sister station "H2" ran a 2 hour show this spring about "The Little Ice Age". During that time they think the suns output was lower by 00.50% and a major volcanic eruption was happening about every 20 years. Since it got colder than it is now they had quite difficulty growing crops and feeding people. Lots of people starved and died during that time. One year in the northeast US there was what they called "the year without a summer". That summer had a snow storm in June that left two feet of snow on the ground. If things were changing in one direction I would take warmer over colder. With warmer weather they can grow food farther north in Canada, Alaska, Russia, Europe, South America and the southern tip of Africa. There has been some trickery in the scientific community that has including deceiving scientists about what the content was in a scientific letter about the environment. A lot of lawsuits followed the publishing of the paper that I don't remember the name of. How many scientists would be out of work if their wasn't all this huge amount of money being spent researching "Global Warming" or whatever they decided to call it lately?
b60bp Euclid At the heart of the "green" ideolgy is the belief that the U.S. consumes too much. They want to roll that back with something they call "degrowth." Google it. No question of this. I think the green fanatics won't rest as long s the US can pollute Mother Earth by the production of a single tin can or plastic cup. Steel mill coal traffic isn't safe because greenies don't like the "rape of the earth" involved in steel production either. In fact the green fanatics don't seem to like any sort of US commerce that involves blue collars and actual production of anything. Most of them turn a blind eye and a silent mouth to such activities on a much filthier level being carried on in China, India, Russia or any Asian, African, South American politically correct nation, of course. They may mumble a lame. hushed passing remark about them but they don't seem to really care about it. And ironicly, a lot of the prime movers in the green movement don't seem to care about the invirorment at all. Ever seen Al Gore's private jet? Folks seem to forget that all the new restrictions are coming from a highly political and fanatical EPA adminsistration. A change in White House occupants can turn a lot of this around as quickly as it came about. What one president dictates in an executive order can be unordered by another. And just as the decision to rule CO2 as a pollutant was a political rather than scientific decision, nothing is carved in stone. I'd be hesitant about foreseeing the future too far in advance.
Euclid At the heart of the "green" ideolgy is the belief that the U.S. consumes too much. They want to roll that back with something they call "degrowth." Google it.
At the heart of the "green" ideolgy is the belief that the U.S. consumes too much. They want to roll that back with something they call "degrowth." Google it.
No question of this. I think the green fanatics won't rest as long s the US can pollute Mother Earth by the production of a single tin can or plastic cup. Steel mill coal traffic isn't safe because greenies don't like the "rape of the earth" involved in steel production either. In fact the green fanatics don't seem to like any sort of US commerce that involves blue collars and actual production of anything. Most of them turn a blind eye and a silent mouth to such activities on a much filthier level being carried on in China, India, Russia or any Asian, African, South American politically correct nation, of course. They may mumble a lame. hushed passing remark about them but they don't seem to really care about it. And ironicly, a lot of the prime movers in the green movement don't seem to care about the invirorment at all. Ever seen Al Gore's private jet?
Folks seem to forget that all the new restrictions are coming from a highly political and fanatical EPA adminsistration. A change in White House occupants can turn a lot of this around as quickly as it came about. What one president dictates in an executive order can be unordered by another. And just as the decision to rule CO2 as a pollutant was a political rather than scientific decision, nothing is carved in stone. I'd be hesitant about foreseeing the future too far in advance.
Ditto to the above. To answer one question,,, I live 5 miles from the King coal and gas power plant in Bayport Minnesota. Just about 2 years ago they finished spending nearly one BILLION dollars upgrading the scrubbers for that power plant. That power plant can burn coal cleaner than anyone that still might have a coal furnace in their house or shop. Either "The History Channel" or its sister station "H2" ran a 2 hour show this spring about "The Little Ice Age". During that time they think the suns output was lower by 00.50% and a major volcanic eruption was happening about every 20 years. Since it got colder than it is now they had quite difficulty growing crops and feeding people. Lots of people starved and died during that time. One year in the northeast US there was what they called "the year without a summer". That summer had a snow storm in June that left two feet of snow on the ground. If things were changing in one direction I would take warmer over colder. With warmer weather they can grow food farther north in Canada, Alaska, Russia, Europe, South America and the southern tip of Africa. There has been some trickery in the scientific community that has including deceiving scientists about what the content was in a scientific letter about the environment. A lot of lawsuits followed the publishing of the paper that I don't remember the name of. How many scientists would be out of work if their wasn't all this huge amount of money being spent researching "Global Warming" or whatever they decided to call it lately?
Way off base, your scientific knowledge is obviously primitive, around 97% of all scientists endorse the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) . This endorsement is based upon a combination of deductive logic AND observations. The former includes what we know about the differences in the absorption of infrared radiation by the components of the atmosphere (which erikem explains quite well above), the change in the composition of the atmosphere due to human causes, and a mathematical extrapolation from both of these to predict changes in atmospheric temperature. And the latter, observations, have proven that those predictions have been spot on. AGW deniers are the equivalent of those 500 years ago who believed the sun revolved around the earth.
The earth over millions of years has repeated the same pattern: warm, cool, warm, cool, warm, cool and so on millions of times. Its just one political side who has for decades been trying to guilt trip and brain wash us and our children in the schools with the myth that its our fault for whatever is going on. Before Global Warming they tried to scare us with the thought of a coming ice age. Socialist and tree huggers can take a flying leap for all I care. They are decieved and nuts to the point their beliefs are no different than a cult religion. Actress Amanda Peet has a brother who was part of a group who went around the country to Hummer dealerships setting Hummers on fire. They were found and Amanda Peet's brother got life in prison. Nobody is going to stop me from driving an F250, V8 Mustang, sitting in a parking lot with my truck on and the a.c. on full blast and riding around doing things on petroleum powered machines. Socialism is about taking freedom away from people. And the environmental movement tries to do the same thing,,, they are socialists!
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
DwightBranchWay off base, your scientific knowledge is obviously primitive, around 97% of all scientists endorse the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) . This endorsement is based upon a combination of deductive logic AND observations. The former includes what we know about the differences in the absorption of infrared radiation by the components of the atmosphere (which erikem explains quite well above), the change in the composition of the atmosphere due to human causes, and a mathematical extrapolation from both of these to predict changes in atmospheric temperature. And the latter, observations, have proven that those predictions have been spot on. AGW deniers are the equivalent of those 500 years ago who believed the sun revolved around the earth.
Starting in 2006 certain groups have engaged in a well-funded effort (from oil and coal interests such as the Koch Brothers) to try to discredit scientific research. To appeal to a certain segment of the population, they have gotten their minions to falsely link AGW to One World Socialism, i.e., some sinister attempt to subjugate the world. To some degree they have succeeded in duping millions into thinking this is about politics. It is not. It is simply scientific fact.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BoydThe earth over millions of years has repeated the same pattern: warm, cool, warm, cool, warm, cool and so on millions of times.
This truism is little more than a distraction, if the theory were based upon observations only this might be relevant but as I noted above scientists are basing their findings on an extrapolation from a change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Changes in climate, independent of humans, obviously has occurred, that is not disputed, but it isn't the same phenomenon we are discussing. AGW is another independent and much more rapid phenomenon. My best analogy is what you are saying is the equivalent of saying: as I know your car tire has a slow leak in it already, my shooting it with a shotgun today wasn't the cause of your flat tire.
ndbprrMiddle age thinking was anyone who thought the earth was round or the sun didn't orbit earth should be ostracised or put to death. Between climate science and political correctness we are repeating history.
Again, an inaccurate analogy, Copernicus in this case is scientists still interested in scientific truth, whereas the AGW deniers, as Schlimm notes, are still the middle age Catholic Church with a hidden agenda to defend, i.e. money made from selling fossil fuels.
Ah, the evil Koch Brothers have now entered the room.
Harry Reid must be on the forum now.
Ed
DwightBranch ... around 97% of all scientists endorse the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) .
... around 97% of all scientists endorse the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) .
dakotafred DwightBranch ... around 97% of all scientists endorse the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) . This is what the warmers so often spout in lieu of logical or scientific argumentation. I don't know who did the head count, but it's a fact that most of the true-believer scientists are not climatologists ... and it matters little what a chemist or astronomer thinks or endorses concerning climate. I'm sure this 97 percent will be about as easy to find as the Ice Agers of 40 years ago when their hysterical forecasts fall as flat over the next 15 years as they have over the past 15.
Does that mean the 3% of the scientists are stupid? (I hope their not the ones holding needles to go in my veins) Maybe that 3% are the actual climatologists and think that the other 97% are stupid ?
The 97% is based on a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles published by independent scientists in the field of climate studies, i.e., climatlogists. 97% of them are in agreement that: 1. The earth's climate is warming; and 2. The warming is partly/mostly caused by man's increasing use of fossil fuels resulting in more carbon (CO2) in the atmosphere.
I looked at the link video and find it hard to come away with a clear conclusion. So let me ask just a simple question to help me visualize the basis of the conclusion:
How many scientists are there?
Just give me the number.
The consensus is overwhelming: from NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
schlimm The consensus is overwhelming: from NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
But NASA will also confirm that the polar ice caps on are are melting at an alarming rate as well.
If you ask my ex wife this is also my fault.
Maybe the sun is a little warmer ?
You had me fooled , this winter was bloody cold on clear days!
The last I heard from the alarmists in Kyoto was that cow farts were killing the planet
Randy Stahl schlimm The consensus is overwhelming: from NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. But NASA will also confirm that the polar ice caps on are are melting at an alarming rate as well. If you ask my ex wife this is also my fault. Maybe the sun is a little warmer ? You had me fooled , this winter was bloody cold on clear days! The last I heard from the alarmists in Kyoto was that cow farts were killing the planet
Sigh, this is tedious, you people do not understand science. One more time: the theory of AGW is NOT derived from observation, it is derived from deductive logic, from an understanding of the physical properties of the components of the atmosphere, PRIOR TO ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS ACTUALLY OCCURRING. Do I really need to repeat this one more time? The theory (and for physical scientists such as , "theory" means "proven") is not based primarily upon observation, indeed it has existed since the 1970s (I first heard of it in the 1980s LONG BEFORE the effects could be measured). It is quite simple: change the composition of any entity by adding a larger proportion of any chemical (in this case CO2 gas to the atmosphere) and you change its physical characteristics. It can be tested on a small scale and then extrapolated from for the entire atmosphere. Fill a clear cylinder with the components of the atmosphere, expose it to IR, measure the temperature, change its composition by adding the quantity and percentage of total CO2 gas, expose it to IR again, the temperature will rise according to a well defined and long understood standard. Do the same thing with the atmosphere: determine the overall volume of the atmosphere, the current or previous composition of CO2 gas (we know by various means, including ice core samples taken from the Antarctic from millions of years ago, sealed containers from 10k years ago, 5k years ago etc.) the changes in the amount and percentage of the CO2 content due to human influence (primarily the burning of fossil fuels, we now have the highest percentage of CO2 in known history) and its temperature will rise the same as the cylinder in the lab, ie. at a clearly understood and defined rate. Differences between the lab and the surface of the earth (areas like cities absorb IR, whereas the Arctic and Antarctic are reflective now, but won't be if their ice caps melt, which will accelerate the process) can be accounted for in making calculations That's science. THIS IS NOT DERIVED FROM OBSERVATION. And so far the predictions made from this deductive, mathematical modelling have come to pass in recent years, at a very early stage in what will be a very ugly process. So your "gee, anything could explain the weather we are having" is irreverent.
There is really no argument; man-caused GCC is settled. People who want to stick their heads in the sand and be in denial, make inane jokes and repeat the nonsense of such notable "scientists" as Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity are not going to be convinced by actual facts.
OK , I'll play. What is the percentage of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere and how do they prove it?
The BIGGEST source of atmospheric CO2 is the planet itself (mostly oceanic). CO2 emission is natural and changes with sunlight.
Since the 70s we have been cleaning up powerplants, heavy industry is nearly gone and those that survive are under strict rules regarding pollution. I argue that human caused CO2 had been steadily dropping for the last 40 years. Sure , in other countries there are less strict rules but they will never rival the size and scope of industry in the US prior to 1960. So if the theory had actual basis it would show a reduction of human caused CO2 reflecting the reduced heavy manufacturing in the last 40 years world wide, instead they are showing steady increases ?? Gimme a damn break .
These is one gap in the theory. There is little information on the sun's radiation prior to modern observation. There is a direct correlation between the planets production of CO2 and the activity of the sun.
Randy StahlOK , I'll play. What is the percentage of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere and how do they prove it?
It is not a game, Randy, it is science. There really isn't any argument. I suggest you do some reading of some of the scholarly research.
FYI, I read both sides , pro and con. I don't listen to the Limbough or any talk radio for that matter.
Now unless I am arguing with an ACTUAL climate scientist here on the trains magazine forum my understanding and my opinion is just as valid as any.
You have an opportunity to state your discipline in science on the BIO thread . If you have credentials I won't argue with you .
I have the right to come to my own conclusions based on what I read and understand. At least I'm not a robot jumping on Al Gores wagon before I am convinced beyond doubt.
Randy Stahl OK , I'll play. What is the percentage of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere and how do they prove it? The BIGGEST source of atmospheric CO2 is the planet itself (mostly oceanic). CO2 emission is natural and changes with sunlight. Since the 70s we have been cleaning up powerplants, heavy industry is nearly gone and those that survive are under strict rules regarding pollution. I argue that human caused CO2 had been steadily dropping for the last 40 years. Sure , in other countries there are less strict rules but they will never rival the size and scope of industry in the US prior to 1960. So if the theory had actual basis it would show a reduction of human caused CO2 reflecting the reduced heavy manufacturing in the last 40 years world wide, instead they are showing steady increases ?? Gimme a damn break . These is one gap in the theory. There is little information on the sun's radiation prior to modern observation. There is a direct correlation between the planets production of CO2 and the activity of the sun.
Completely untrue, prior to last week there was no restriction whatsoever on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted by power plants, the Clean Air Act initially only mandated the removal of certain hazardous (in themselves, meaning they are poisonous to humans) air pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, chloroform, phenols and selenium compounds, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen. Over the years scientists have pushed for mercury to be regulated (initially successfully but the Bush administration removed it) and ozone (partially successfully). CO2 was not initially regulated under the CAA, this only changed in 2007 when the USSC mandated that the CAA be interpreted to cover atmospheric CO2 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) )and the EPA only last week announced how they would do so in coming years. So at present there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of CO2 gas a power plant can produce, there have been no meaningful efforts to reduce it on a plant by plant basis and that amount is still roughly equal to what it was in the 1970s. We just last year crossed the 400 ppm (parts per Million) threshold of CO2 in the atmosphere that most scientists consider to be catastrophic, we never were above that previously in human history.
DwightBranchRandy Stahl OK , I'll play. What is the percentage of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere and how do they prove it? The BIGGEST source of atmospheric CO2 is the planet itself (mostly oceanic). CO2 emission is natural and changes with sunlight. Since the 70s we have been cleaning up powerplants, heavy industry is nearly gone and those that survive are under strict rules regarding pollution. I argue that human caused CO2 had been steadily dropping for the last 40 years. Sure , in other countries there are less strict rules but they will never rival the size and scope of industry in the US prior to 1960. So if the theory had actual basis it would show a reduction of human caused CO2 reflecting the reduced heavy manufacturing in the last 40 years world wide, instead they are showing steady increases ?? Gimme a damn break . These is one gap in the theory. There is little information on the sun's radiation prior to modern observation. There is a direct correlation between the planets production of CO2 and the activity of the sun. Completely untrue, prior to last week there was no restriction whatsoever on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted by power plants, the Clean Air Act initially only mandated the removal of certain hazardous (in themselves, meaning they are poisonous to humans) air pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, chloroform, phenols and selenium compounds, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen. Over the years scientists have pushed for mercury to be regulated (initially successfully but the Bush administration removed it) and ozone (partially successfully). CO2 was not initially regulated under the CAA, this only changed in 2007 when the USSC mandated that the CAA be interpreted to cover atmospheric CO2 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) )and the EPA only last week announced how they would do so in coming years. So at present there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of CO2 gas a power plant can produce, there have been no meaningful efforts to reduce and that amount is still roughly equal to what it was in the 1970s. We just last year crossed the 400 ppm (parts per Million) of CO2 in the atmosphere that most scientists consider to be a catastrophic threshold, we never were above that in human history.
Completely untrue, prior to last week there was no restriction whatsoever on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted by power plants, the Clean Air Act initially only mandated the removal of certain hazardous (in themselves, meaning they are poisonous to humans) air pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, chloroform, phenols and selenium compounds, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen. Over the years scientists have pushed for mercury to be regulated (initially successfully but the Bush administration removed it) and ozone (partially successfully). CO2 was not initially regulated under the CAA, this only changed in 2007 when the USSC mandated that the CAA be interpreted to cover atmospheric CO2 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) )and the EPA only last week announced how they would do so in coming years. So at present there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of CO2 gas a power plant can produce, there have been no meaningful efforts to reduce and that amount is still roughly equal to what it was in the 1970s. We just last year crossed the 400 ppm (parts per Million) of CO2 in the atmosphere that most scientists consider to be a catastrophic threshold, we never were above that in human history.
Johnny
DwightBranch Randy Stahl OK , I'll play. What is the percentage of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere and how do they prove it? The BIGGEST source of atmospheric CO2 is the planet itself (mostly oceanic). CO2 emission is natural and changes with sunlight. Since the 70s we have been cleaning up powerplants, heavy industry is nearly gone and those that survive are under strict rules regarding pollution. I argue that human caused CO2 had been steadily dropping for the last 40 years. Sure , in other countries there are less strict rules but they will never rival the size and scope of industry in the US prior to 1960. So if the theory had actual basis it would show a reduction of human caused CO2 reflecting the reduced heavy manufacturing in the last 40 years world wide, instead they are showing steady increases ?? Gimme a damn break . These is one gap in the theory. There is little information on the sun's radiation prior to modern observation. There is a direct correlation between the planets production of CO2 and the activity of the sun. Completely untrue, prior to last week there was no restriction whatsoever on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted by power plants, the Clean Air Act initially only mandated the removal of certain hazardous (in themselves, meaning they are poisonous to humans) air pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, chloroform, phenols and selenium compounds, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen. Over the years scientists have pushed for mercury to be regulated (initially successfully but the Bush administration removed it) and ozone (partially successfully). CO2 was not initially regulated under the CAA, this only changed in 2007 when the USSC mandated that the CAA be interpreted to cover atmospheric CO2 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) )and the EPA only last week announced how they would do so in coming years. So at present there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of CO2 gas a power plant can produce, there have been no meaningful efforts to reduce and that amount is still roughly equal to what it was in the 1970s. We just last year crossed the 400 ppm (parts per Million) of CO2 in the atmosphere that most scientists consider to be a catastrophic threshold, we never were above that in human history.
In recorded human history perhaps. what about before that ? If we are at the catastrophic levels then we lose. Game over. Why are we still alive ? Catastrophic implies we have passed the point of no return ?
Even though power plants are not regulated for CO2 emissions, there aren't as many as there was 50 years ago.
Randy Stahl You have an opportunity to state your discipline in science on the BIO thread . If you have credentials I won't argue with you . I have the right to come to my own conclusions based on what I read and understand. At least I'm not a robot jumping on Al Gores wagon before I am convinced beyond doubt.
I am not a climatologist but I have a sufficient science background to respect the opinions of the research specialists in climatology. You can believe in a flat earth or that the sun god drives a chariot around the earth daily if you wish, but that won't change the facts. Unlike some matters, it isn't a case of belief. It is empirical science. And Al Gore has nothing to do with this, except folks like yourself want t make this political.
Randy Stahl DwightBranch Randy Stahl OK , I'll play. What is the percentage of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere and how do they prove it? The BIGGEST source of atmospheric CO2 is the planet itself (mostly oceanic). CO2 emission is natural and changes with sunlight. Since the 70s we have been cleaning up powerplants, heavy industry is nearly gone and those that survive are under strict rules regarding pollution. I argue that human caused CO2 had been steadily dropping for the last 40 years. Sure , in other countries there are less strict rules but they will never rival the size and scope of industry in the US prior to 1960. So if the theory had actual basis it would show a reduction of human caused CO2 reflecting the reduced heavy manufacturing in the last 40 years world wide, instead they are showing steady increases ?? Gimme a damn break . These is one gap in the theory. There is little information on the sun's radiation prior to modern observation. There is a direct correlation between the planets production of CO2 and the activity of the sun. Completely untrue, prior to last week there was no restriction whatsoever on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted by power plants, the Clean Air Act initially only mandated the removal of certain hazardous (in themselves, meaning they are poisonous to humans) air pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, chloroform, phenols and selenium compounds, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen. Over the years scientists have pushed for mercury to be regulated (initially successfully but the Bush administration removed it) and ozone (partially successfully). CO2 was not initially regulated under the CAA, this only changed in 2007 when the USSC mandated that the CAA be interpreted to cover atmospheric CO2 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) )and the EPA only last week announced how they would do so in coming years. So at present there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of CO2 gas a power plant can produce, there have been no meaningful efforts to reduce and that amount is still roughly equal to what it was in the 1970s. We just last year crossed the 400 ppm (parts per Million) of CO2 in the atmosphere that most scientists consider to be a catastrophic threshold, we never were above that in human history. In recorded human history perhaps. what about before that ? If we are at the catastrophic levels then we lose. Game over. Why are we still alive ? Catastrophic implies we have passed the point of no return ? Even though power plants are not regulated for CO2 emissions, there aren't as many as there was 50 years ago.
There are far more coal-fired power plants now than in the 1970s, becasue our population has risen from 240 million just 30 years ago to 300 million now, and every new person requires electricity for consumer goods, heat, ac, etc., and until just a few years ago that was mainly accomplished by coal burning plants.
To paraphrase Chekov in the old Star Trek "we'll live, but we won't be happy", some of us anyway, not billions, why go through such a cataclysm if we don't need to?
DeggestyWhat is the "scientists" basis for determining that 400 ppm is a catastrophic threshold?
Scare quotes? Are you arguing that people with PhDs in chemistry, physics, etc and who have published peer reviewed articles aren't scientists? What is your training to make such a claim?
Here is James Hansen's paper, he is the NASA scientist who argued that 350 ppm should be our target, he and other scientists have argued that 400ppm is unsustainable. Among the reasons, at that level the temperature of the atmosphere will rise to the point sufficient to initiate changes that will dramatically increase the rate of warming, including: melting of the Greenland, Arctic polar ice caps (ever pass over Greenland in the summer, it is as black as onyx, mostly covered in ice even in summer, so is the Arctic under all that ice, if exposed it will absorb a great deal solar radiation, further accelerating global warming) and of methane trapped in the ocean seabed, which is a very strong greenhouse gas, more so than CO2, held in place by the cold temperature of the sea currently, if warmed it will be released into the atmosphere, further accelerating global warming.
DwightBranch Randy Stahl DwightBranch Randy Stahl OK , I'll play. What is the percentage of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere and how do they prove it? The BIGGEST source of atmospheric CO2 is the planet itself (mostly oceanic). CO2 emission is natural and changes with sunlight. Since the 70s we have been cleaning up powerplants, heavy industry is nearly gone and those that survive are under strict rules regarding pollution. I argue that human caused CO2 had been steadily dropping for the last 40 years. Sure , in other countries there are less strict rules but they will never rival the size and scope of industry in the US prior to 1960. So if the theory had actual basis it would show a reduction of human caused CO2 reflecting the reduced heavy manufacturing in the last 40 years world wide, instead they are showing steady increases ?? Gimme a damn break . These is one gap in the theory. There is little information on the sun's radiation prior to modern observation. There is a direct correlation between the planets production of CO2 and the activity of the sun. Completely untrue, prior to last week there was no restriction whatsoever on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted by power plants, the Clean Air Act initially only mandated the removal of certain hazardous (in themselves, meaning they are poisonous to humans) air pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, chloroform, phenols and selenium compounds, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen. Over the years scientists have pushed for mercury to be regulated (initially successfully but the Bush administration removed it) and ozone (partially successfully). CO2 was not initially regulated under the CAA, this only changed in 2007 when the USSC mandated that the CAA be interpreted to cover atmospheric CO2 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) )and the EPA only last week announced how they would do so in coming years. So at present there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of CO2 gas a power plant can produce, there have been no meaningful efforts to reduce and that amount is still roughly equal to what it was in the 1970s. We just last year crossed the 400 ppm (parts per Million) of CO2 in the atmosphere that most scientists consider to be a catastrophic threshold, we never were above that in human history. In recorded human history perhaps. what about before that ? If we are at the catastrophic levels then we lose. Game over. Why are we still alive ? Catastrophic implies we have passed the point of no return ? Even though power plants are not regulated for CO2 emissions, there aren't as many as there was 50 years ago. There are far more coal-fired power plants now than in the 1970s, becasue our population has risen from 240 million just 30 years ago to 300 million now, and every new person requires electricity for consumer goods, heat, ac, etc., and until just a few years ago that was mainly accomplished by coal burning plants. To paraphrase Chekov in the old Star Trek "we'll live, but we won't be happy", some of us anyway, not billions, why go through such a cataclysm if we don't need to?
There are now a little over 600 coal fired power plants in the US. In the past every heavy industry and some light industry had their own power plant. In 1945 there we more than 11,000 large coal power plants in service in the US including private steam and electricity generating plants.
schlimm There is really no argument; man-caused GCC is settled.
There is really no argument; man-caused GCC is settled.
Randy StahlThere are now a little over 600 coal fired power plants in the US. In the past every heavy industry and some light industry had their own power plant. In 1945 there we more than 11,000 large coal power plants in service in the US including private steam and electricity generating plants.
Documentation? The total electrical output of coal fired power plants is roughly 20 times greater than it was in 1945, it rose every year until the recession of 2008. Here is the raw data. There may be fewer plants, but they are producing far more output and using far more coal, and producing far more CO2.
DwightBranch DeggestyWhat is the "scientists" basis for determining that 400 ppm is a catastrophic threshold? Scare quotes? Are you arguing that people with PhDs in chemistry, physics, etc and who have published peer reviewed articles aren't scientists? What is your training to make such a claim?
And what is your training? Are you a climatologist or even a meteorologist?
DwightBranch Randy StahlThere are now a little over 600 coal fired power plants in the US. In the past every heavy industry and some light industry had their own power plant. In 1945 there we more than 11,000 large coal power plants in service in the US including private steam and electricity generating plants. Documentation? The total electrical output of coal fired power plants is roughly 20 times greater than it was in 1945, it rose every year until the recession of 2008. Here is the raw data. There may be fewer plants, but they are producing far more output and using far more coal, and producing far more CO2.
Yes , you are quite correct. New plants do produce more electricity and use a lot of coal. However neither of us can quantify the amount of coal used for steam and power in 1945 vs 2014 I certainly can't. However, I have to believe that 11,000 points of emissions is ALOT of coal. I will not believe that we are using more coal for steam and power generation today than we were in 1945. Most of the big mills are gone along with their pollution.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.