Ah, the evil Koch Brothers have now entered the room.
Harry Reid must be on the forum now.
Ed
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
oltmannd erikemMain effect of the greenhouse gases is to raise the sky temperature from -455F to about -150F. NOW I get it. It slows the rate of heat radiating (which is proportional to the temp diff cubed?) Thanks!
erikemMain effect of the greenhouse gases is to raise the sky temperature from -455F to about -150F.
NOW I get it. It slows the rate of heat radiating (which is proportional to the temp diff cubed?)
Thanks!
The radiated power of a black body increases with the fourth power of the absolute temperature, so the heat transfer for a fixed hot side temperature will be something like the temp diff cubed. Note that clouds are usually warmer than clear sky.
The most noticeable effect of increasing green house gas concentrations will be warmer winter nights when the sky is clear and air is still. A related effect should be a reduction in the diurnal temperature range, mostly due to the nights not being as warm.
Now for the joker, the US inadvertently did a three day long climate experiment in September 2001, when the "no-fly" edict was imposed for three days. The diurnal temperature increased by about 1.5C during the three days presumably due to the lack of contrails (i.e skies were clearer at night and let more heat escape). I've seen some statements to the effect of the airliner contrails being a far worse problem for "global warming" than the CO2 from the exhaust of the airliners engines.
With col fired power plants, I've also sen statements that the threat to glaciers and long term snow is as much from the soot darkening the snow and ice as warming from CO2.
The worst case scenarios for global warming assume that warming from increased CO2 concentrations will cause an increase in water vapor (a potent green house gas), which then will multiply the CO2 induced warming by a factor of four. OTOH, increased water vapor will most likely lead to more clouds, which increases albedo and should limit cooling (this is where the science isn't settled).
- Erik
P.S. My number of posts should be the same as my birth year...
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?
I'm with Schimm, what a bunch of rubbish.
b60bpFolks 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.
Completely wrong. The EPA was FORCED to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by the US Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), in response to lawsuits by several states afraid of beachfront erosion due to rising sea levels. The ruling means that the EPA must (MUST!) regulate greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of whom occupies the White House.
b60bp Never were so many distortions, half-truths, political statements and outright lies uttered to further a right wing agenda. Welcome TP/Faux News. ------------------------------ Except for the many left wing blabberings you've posted . Go back and get some more of your information from Ed Schultz.
Never were so many distortions, half-truths, political statements and outright lies uttered to further a right wing agenda. Welcome TP/Faux News.
------------------------------
Except for the many left wing blabberings you've posted . Go back and get some more of your information from Ed Schultz.
Although you may get your "news" from FOX and talking heads like Hannity and Limbaugh, I do not pay any attention to folks like Schultz, Maddow, etc. Peer-reviewed, scientific journals are what I rely upon.
cat992c skyrocket.Check your facts next time
Russell
There is no magic solution and anyone who thinks so is probably listening to big Ed Schultz...actually Ed is pretty level headed about energy.
The recent environmental standards are not as bad as headlines indicate. The "reductions" were based on 2005 figures and with recent conversions and scrubbers, we are half way there, even tho these measures were recently announced. Go figure.
Nothing out of Washington is as it seems.
Not only get Amtrak over the road on time, but also deliver freight on or before the promised time, have rested crews, maintenance windows, and all that goes with matching capacity to demand.
When I was in the Army, including summer camp for ROTC, I had plenty of expreience of heating barracks, BOQ, and my audio-radio laboratory wtih coal. No problem if you take the necessary care. The stoves were not mch different than what would be found in a classic caboose, and required the same sort of attention. In our Fort Bragg lab, my "gang of four" (including one MIT fellow classmate and still good friend) usually wore fatigues, but I was expected always to present a sharp appearance with suntans (light kackis) and a well polished bass buckle. And our lab aways had a neat appearance too, just in case some bigwig happened to drop in. Admitadly, North Carolina is not the greatest test for heat from coal, but there were some prettty cold days and evenings..
Gas and oil have there own problems, too.
My family was glad as anything to toss out our coal-fired gravity furnace about 1953 for a forced air gas furnace. Everyone else did the same and no one was sorry to do so. Coal is filthy, period. No one who has a choice to leave it for another energy fails to do so or regrets it. I'll warrant than none of the contributors here either use coal themselves or live anywhere near a coal mine or a coal plant.
Face it: Coal is 19th century technology (when there was no alternative but water power) and we are in the 21st now. Natural gas and renewables are the way things are moving in our economy and society. As for unemployed coal miners, the numbers today are but a fraction of 60 or 70 years ago because of strip mining.
Personally, I have faith in a People that have risen to all the challenges that have presented themselves during the course of our history. We can and will find a way to continually make and use cleaner energy, and maybe cheaper, too. Coal is not cheaper when you add in public health costs. Don't you have faith in private enterprise and capitalism? Won't American genius and science be able to help us?
schlimm: I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion of the distortions and fears that fill this thread and where they come from
But look at another bright side: After the railroads (and I'm talking to you, BNSF) lose many of those coal trains maybe, just possibly, they'll find a way to get Amtrak over their roads on time.
Fracking and renewables all entail problems but we'll work them out because there will be big rewards for those that do.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
And coal miners vote. So do the merchants in the towns where they do business.
But natural gas and oil are becoming more plentyful. So the market will govern eventually.
Watch to see a repeated scene of the North Dakota oil boom, of traffic outward from NW Colorado and the neighboring state to the NW where it was quietly confirmed a year ago a GIGANTIC amount of oil by the Colorado Geologic Survey. A confirmed amount of oil 3 TIMES of what's in the rest of the world. Its all down in shale so it has to be fracked. Shhhh don't tell anybody.
Also, the King power plant in Bayport Mn was upgraded with better scrubbing for burning coal just a few years ago at the cost of nearly a billion dollars.
Remember there are US Senators and House members who can hear and earful from people paying larger electricity bills. Not just the stubborn White House. The pendulum swings one way, and then swings back the other way. I don't see coal going away hard or fast.
NOT CSXNS my friend.In 2008 while in San Fransicko he said under his plan would neccasarly skyrocket.Check your facts next time
Frac sand, for the time being, has kind of replaced coal for us. Management supplied "facts" such as three times the revenue from a unit sand train compared to a unit coal train or that the first 5 or 6 cars covers the costs for the rest of the train, etc. I expect some of this has been because of the "boom" mentality and eventually the boom will slow. I doubt it would go away, but the traffic will level out and rates may drop.
In any event, the territory I work used to be heavy in coal traffic. It slowed with the economy and due to losing some contracts. (it seemed at the time the railroad didn't mind losing some of those contracts. It was about the time many plants were announcing that they were close to closing or converting to gas. My impression was that the railroad figured they were going to lose the business anyway, why try to keep it. Except for a few cases, most of those plants are still using coal.) They didn't replace that lost traffic. Instead, they just put equipment into storage and furloughed employees.
Thanks to the winter mess, with some effects lingering still, and some retirements we never had the seasonal furloughs. Traffic has picked up some, including coal, and we are short on crews. The word is we need 30 more engineers, but they don't have enough conductors to cover those who would be set back up running. So they have been hiring again. Part of the reason they expect the need for more TE&Y is we are getting some detour traffic for the summer. By the time they get the last of the new hires trained, traffic will probably fall off and they will be cut off. Just like it's happened before.
Jeff
Regarding the replacement of coal as rail traffic, I suppose crude oil is the logical commodity to cite. But I have no idea about how the two markets actually compare in tonnage and profit. I would guess that oil tonnage is less, but oil profit is higher. But then oil is also a rapidly expanding market. Maybe someone here can provide the actual comparison of the two markets.
But in the bigger picture, railroads may be more affected by a recession caused by banning coal than by the direct loss of coal traffic. In my opinion, the economy has never been more uncertain and difficult to assess than it is today. There are some large, unprecedented economic impact factors at work. New coal regulations are one of them.
oltmannd Greenhouse gases don't reflect visible light, but visible light is absorbed by the earth's surface and the earth's surface radiates infrared because of this. Infrared IS reflected by greenhouse gases. QED
Greenhouse gases don't reflect visible light, but visible light is absorbed by the earth's surface and the earth's surface radiates infrared because of this. Infrared IS reflected by greenhouse gases. QED
Annoying pedant time...
Greenhouse gases for the most part absorb far IR (on the order of 10 micron wavelengths) as opposed to reflect. Since emissivity is equal to absorptivity for a given wavelength, the greenhouse gases will re-radiate the IR back to earth.
Main effect of the greenhouse gases is to raise the sky temperature from -455F to about -150F.
ndbprrWhat I don't think is being taken into account is that CO2 molecules are excellent at bouncing heat very uniformally but the climate people only consider the heat generated from the earth. I guess the solar heat on the backside of the atmosphere isn't reflecting a like amount of heat away from the earth and therefore it balances causing no change at all. But then I don't have millions in government grants to have to justify.
LensCapOnFreezing/Sweating in the Dark?
Makes me think of this wonderful old song. We should write an updated version for these current 'obaminable' circumstances...
(For those irritated at the premise in the song, answer the riddle from just a few short years later: 'What's the difference between a Texan and a pigeon?')
Freezing/Sweating in the Dark?*
*what else could replace coal?
denveroutlaws06natural gas will replacing coal here in CO in few years for Xcel energy power plants.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.