challenger3980I NEVER claimed that mankinds effect on the envinronment was a MYTH, but I do question whether it is a SEVERE as some of the EXTREMISTS claim it is. I doubt that it is as severe as the worst case hand wringers claim, it IS something that we should do what we can about, but I believe the problem is neither non-existant, or the worst case that some claim, but rather somewhere in between.
The problem with global warming is, it is a long-term process. We will know who is right, the "believers", "deniers", or the "in-betweens" only when it is too late to change anything.
Sorry, "we" was the wrong word it should read "our successors". Perhaps that makes it easy for "deniers" as they personally won't have to live through all of it.
Though this might not be complete correct either. Here in Germany we have design rainfalls for the design of drainage system. It is a 5 min. rain every 5 years. Currently we have it more than once a year. The same with high water levels of rivers. The levee hight is dimensioned for a high water expected every 100 years. Each year we have a new century high water somewhere.
This month we had rainfalls of 8 inch per day, more than the average rainfall for July.
Each event alone has perhaps happened before. It is the frequency that makes me think.
Is it a result of global warming? I'm not sure, but what if it is?Regards, Volker
erikemWarming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule.
The greenhouse effect of water vapor as a natural phenomena is limited as the atmosphere accumulates only a limited amount depending on temperature.
On the other hand the CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since industrialization began.
Water vapor plays a role in manmade warming too as higher temperatures allow higher amounts to be accumulated in the atmosphere strengthening global warming.
These effects are included in the climate prognose models.Regards, Volker
BaltACD Euclid The only question is whether the pace of the wind-down matches the declaration that CSX will immediately stop buying new rolling stock or locomotives for the coal business. That would require knowing when the coal business will end, and Harrison says he does not know that. To me, this indicates that he expressing an ideological preference rather than a pure business decision. So I expect that he or CSX after him will actually buy new locomotives and rolling stock as needed for the coal business as it continues for some prolonged time, though dying it may be. Pre EHH the CSX mantra was for the 'owners' of the coal to buy the cars for the commoditiy's transportation. Power purchases were designed to be sufficient to move the traffic that was offered by customers. Not buying cars to move coal is one thing. Not buying power to move the traffic that is offered by customers to be moved is a death wish.
Euclid The only question is whether the pace of the wind-down matches the declaration that CSX will immediately stop buying new rolling stock or locomotives for the coal business. That would require knowing when the coal business will end, and Harrison says he does not know that. To me, this indicates that he expressing an ideological preference rather than a pure business decision. So I expect that he or CSX after him will actually buy new locomotives and rolling stock as needed for the coal business as it continues for some prolonged time, though dying it may be.
Pre EHH the CSX mantra was for the 'owners' of the coal to buy the cars for the commoditiy's transportation. Power purchases were designed to be sufficient to move the traffic that was offered by customers.
Not buying cars to move coal is one thing. Not buying power to move the traffic that is offered by customers to be moved is a death wish.
Attempting to get this thread back on track, I see EHH's comments as pure posturing, with the intent to get customers (coal companies in this case, but it can apply to anyone) to purchase more of their own equipment so CSX doesn't have to. The hopper/rotary gon fleet already has a large percentage of privately-owned cars, both by mining or utility companies and leasing outfits like CIT, and the trend has been leaning toward more private, non-railroad ownership. Perhaps locomotives will follow, it's happened before with Detroit Edison.
But another argument against ordering new coal cars is that a glut of them already exist, due to coal's decline over the past 10 years. Many are stored, and some have been sold for other service. In western Canada Sultran (sulphur moving cooperative) has gotten really good deals on hundreds of them over the past few years, and have almost completely replaced their old steel fleet with aluminium ex-coal gons. The latest batch look brand-new, almost like they had never been used (going by build dates stencilled on them they were built at the height of the recession). More than just being cleaned, no dents, scrapes or anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they had been stored for much of their life, for want of coal to haul.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
[quote user="jcburns"]
Most scientists are smart, precise, and accurate enough to say that mankind is A contributor, not the sole contributor.
That doesn't make that contribution insignificant in any way, however.
We gotta do what we can to reduce our impact. Simple. Sensible. Good for future generations.
Labeling concerned people "gloom and doomers" comes off as an attempt to diminish the truth of their message. I personally think that's short-sighted and selfish.
The effect of humankind on climate is scientifically undeniable.
[/quote
Wow, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
I agreed that man likely does contribute to the problem, and that pollution should be reduced to any practical level possible, but I do acknowledge that there is a point of diminishing returns, where at some point it just is not practical to reduce pollution further, but that sincere efforts should be done to control pollution within practical limits, kinda of sounds like your:
Doesn't it?
There are EXTREMISTS in every topic, I didn't label EVERYONE who claims man is the cause of Global Warming as Gloom and Doomers, but there are Certainly those that fit that description.
I NEVER claimed that mankinds effect on the envinronment was a MYTH, but I do question whether it is a SEVERE as some of the EXTREMISTS claim it is. I doubt that it is as severe as the worst case hand wringers claim, it IS something that we should do what we can about, but I believe the problem is neither non-existant, or the worst case that some claim, but rather somewhere in between.
Short sighted and selfish, well you obviously didn't comprehend my post very well, that and you should probably see your Doctor about assesing your blood pressure meds.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
So much credibility given to speculation these days.
Bruce Kelly "As many know, science is based on a large empirical databases, not anecdotal remarks." Grammatical error in that statement aside (anyone else spot it?), any study of science that's been etched over a span of several thousand years by human observation and documentation, as well as by geologic record, ought to qualify as a large, empirical database. By comparison, a body of climate data that's framed around records going back only about 125 years or less is the definition of anecdotal.
"As many know, science is based on a large empirical databases, not anecdotal remarks."
Grammatical error in that statement aside (anyone else spot it?), any study of science that's been etched over a span of several thousand years by human observation and documentation, as well as by geologic record, ought to qualify as a large, empirical database. By comparison, a body of climate data that's framed around records going back only about 125 years or less is the definition of anecdotal.
Wowee, Mr. Bruce, you spotted a typo? Ain't it grand! [I had changed database to the plural, but neglected to delete the article.] I guess that just made your day! Too bad the rest of your post was not up to such a high level of erudition.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zardoz 1. Yes, green plants do indeed need carbon dioxide to transpire; however there is zero chance of CO2 being reduced far enough as to starve the flora. Plants did just fine before the arrival of fauna. And if the flora does expire, it won't matter to us, as we humans will be dead as a result long before the plants die. We need the plants much more than they need us.
1. Yes, green plants do indeed need carbon dioxide to transpire; however there is zero chance of CO2 being reduced far enough as to starve the flora. Plants did just fine before the arrival of fauna. And if the flora does expire, it won't matter to us, as we humans will be dead as a result long before the plants die. We need the plants much more than they need us.
From what I've read, plants start having trouble when CO2 drops below 160-180ppm, and growth improves with increasing CO2 levels to past 1,000ppm. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were nominally 280ppm, glacial era CO2 levels were down to 200ppm. Higher CO2 levels allow plants to use fewer stomata, which reduces transpiration, so plants are doing better in arid and semi-arid areas.
On a geologic time scale, the pre-industrial 280ppm CO2 level is only a relatively recent thing (last couple of million years or so). As for the last million years or so, the runaway climate change behavior is seen during glacial episodes with temperatures on a downward trend after a sudden entrance to the glacial period. Warming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule.
https://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fcs.trains.com%2Ftrn%2Ff%2F111%2Ft%2F259846.aspx
Part of that geologic record is CO2 data based on glacial ice cores that go back thousands of years. Present CO2 levels are unprecedented within that time period, and coincide with the industrial revolution.
Bruce Kelly Of the many resources which show it's as much to do with policy as price, there's this: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29952 Key excerpt: "Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019 and retains that position through 2032, longer than in the Reference case, which includes the Clean Power Plan. Electricity generation from renewable sources remains below coal-fired electricity generation through 2040. Fewer coal plants are retired, and as a result, natural gas and renewable capacity additions are lower compared with the Reference case." ...
Of the many resources which show it's as much to do with policy as price, there's this:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29952
Key excerpt:
"Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019 and retains that position through 2032, longer than in the Reference case, which includes the Clean Power Plan. Electricity generation from renewable sources remains below coal-fired electricity generation through 2040. Fewer coal plants are retired, and as a result, natural gas and renewable capacity additions are lower compared with the Reference case."
...
Please also note in the linked article that the first graph shows the precipitous drop in coal in the last 10 years, before their projected period. Even with no clean power plan, coal is projected to stay flat, with gas losing some to renewables.
In the next graph, they show that a clean plan will have no effect on the projected price of natural gas. The last graphs show that the main driver of fuel choices will be natural gas prices based on production/availability.
schlimm You, I and many others know that to be a fact, but you'll never get folks like Euclid to drop their theory.
1. There is a 95 percent certainty that human activities contribute to global warming.
2. Carbon dioxide is at an ‘unprecedented’ level not seen for at least 800,000 years.
3. Sea level is set to continue to rise at a faster rate than over the past 40 years.
4. Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been melting and glaciers have receded in most parts of the world.
I don’t care what others think or do regarding climate change. I drive a car that gets 44 mpg, ride public transit whenever I can, live in a 1,200 square foot house, set the temperature at 80 in the summer and 68 in the winter, and recycle everything that can be recycled.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
The Germans synthesized lubricating oils in the First World War, but I don't believe they synthesized fuels at that time. They definately synthesized, let's call it gasolene for simplicity's sake, during World War Two. How cost-effective it was I'm not sure, but it did fit in with the Hitler government's policy of autarchy, that is, trying to make Germany as self-sufficient as possible and reducing imports of strategic commodities such as oil. This is not to say they didn't import oil from countrys such as Romania or even the Soviet Union before the German invasion of 1941. As long as oil was available they took advantage of the availability.
The German synthesized fuel wasn't as good as American gasolene was but it was good enough to get the job done. As a matter of fact US Army personnel were forbidden to use captured German fuel as the lower octane of same would cause knocking, pinging, and engine damage. There was an American tank battalion commander who used captured German fuel to accomplish his mission during the "Battle Of The Bulge" but that's another story. Germans who captured American fuel felt they'd hit the jackpot.
The process for synthesizing fuels from coal has been known in this country since around 1928, but we've never done it as we've never needed to, at least up to now.
As I understand it, South Africa synthesizes both gasolene and diesel fuel using the old German formulas, but updated and "tweaked" a bit. The South Africans started synthesizing fuels back when they were a pariah state due to the policy of apartheid and were facing economic pressure from the rest of the world. They've never looked back and continue to synthesize fuels.
MidlandMikeElectric power companies have been fighting coal burning regulations for years. Nevertheless, when oilfield technological inovations produced a glut of cheap natural gas, the power companies bought all the gas they could handle. The bottom line is the bottom line.
You, I and many others know that to be a fact, but you'll never get folks like Euclid to drop their theory.
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR From my outside view not regulations kill coal but economics. With an abundance of cheap gas why burn coal for power? And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question. To your second point, I believe anti-CO2 regulations are going farther than necessary. To your first point, this is the argument of the people who are driving the anti-CO2 regulations. They cover their tracks by claiming that it is not they who are killing coal, but rather, it is pure economics. But the truth is that regulations influence the economics. President Obama promised to kill coal and he carefully explained that he would do it with regulations.
VOLKER LANDWEHR From my outside view not regulations kill coal but economics. With an abundance of cheap gas why burn coal for power? And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question.
And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question.
To your second point, I believe anti-CO2 regulations are going farther than necessary.
To your first point, this is the argument of the people who are driving the anti-CO2 regulations. They cover their tracks by claiming that it is not they who are killing coal, but rather, it is pure economics.
But the truth is that regulations influence the economics. President Obama promised to kill coal and he carefully explained that he would do it with regulations.
Electric power companies have been fighting coal burning regulations for years. Nevertheless, when oilfield technological inovations produced a glut of cheap natural gas, the power companies bought all the gas they could handle. The bottom line is the bottom line.
As I recall from military history, Germany developed and used a variety of synthesized fuels in both wars using the Bergius and Fischer-Tropsch pocesses out of necessity. Not sure if either is very cost-effective, but RME and others on here would know.
I recall an article that I read a few years ago that there was an air base in, I believe, South Dakota, correct me if I am wrong. The need for diesel fuel was met by synthesizing it from coal, the way South Africa does. The base commander said that it was an excellent grade of diesel. In the 19th century gas was likewise produced from coal for street lighting. If technology can be improved to make the process cleaner, might this be another use for coal? That is, economics permitting.
ruderunner VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid That notion is a made up caricature intended to make points in the debate by insulting climate change opposition with the overused tool of labeling them as conspiracy kooks. How would you judge the last clause in CMStPnP's latest post?Regard, Volker Assuming you mean Schlimm, too much chicken little sky is falling. The opposite of Euclid post could be stated as well, "deniers" simply call "truthers" cooky. I'm in between, but it seems that even the In between are called cooks and deniers by the truthers. It seems like the truthers have an all or nothing attitude. I'm simply asking for proof, does that make me evil?
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid That notion is a made up caricature intended to make points in the debate by insulting climate change opposition with the overused tool of labeling them as conspiracy kooks. How would you judge the last clause in CMStPnP's latest post?Regard, Volker
Euclid That notion is a made up caricature intended to make points in the debate by insulting climate change opposition with the overused tool of labeling them as conspiracy kooks.
How would you judge the last clause in CMStPnP's latest post?Regard, Volker
Assuming you mean Schlimm, too much chicken little sky is falling.
The opposite of Euclid post could be stated as well, "deniers" simply call "truthers" cooky.
I'm in between, but it seems that even the In between are called cooks and deniers by the truthers. It seems like the truthers have an all or nothing attitude. I'm simply asking for proof, does that make me evil?
Landwehr referred to this gem from CMStPnP:
"Sometimes it is in the interest of a government to make you believe a hokey theory so your dependence on that government increases and your willingness to hand over more of your money for that government to "protect you" is more. So there is a political interest in promoting the theory that mankind is responsible and we can totally fix or even partially impact it. It means a populace willing to submit to ever higher taxes and much more government intrusion into their lives."
As many know, science is based on a large empirical databases, not anecdotal remarks. Of course some people (such as in an earlier post) will say a government database is part of a plot to take your money and control you, but I won't use the clinical term for that.
Here is a longitudinal NOAA report.
I can count the days on my hands this year that I've had to turn on my air conditioning this year. Same with last year. I can also tell you that this year I had to run my furnace later into the year than any of the year's I've owned it. This year farmers around me didn't finish planting the corn till June beans were mid June. That's the latest my mother-in-law has seen since the 70s and she grew up on a farm. My Roma tomatoes might be ready in mid Aug a full month later than normally. This year so far is 15 degrees below average around here and I'm talking since records have been kept. Normally around the end of July it is 90 today it made it to 75.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
EuclidThat notion is a made up caricature intended to make points in the debate by insulting climate change opposition with the overused tool of labeling them as conspiracy kooks.
schlimm VOLKER LANDWEHR Climate research is a still developing science. As more data gets available the climate prognose models get better. I believe the specialists and I see enough evidence and facts. I am a layman and won't judge a Wikipedia an artice. But I understand climate oscillation as relatively short term phenomena. And there are enough articles that support climate change At the moment there is still time to do something. When we have really hard facts and New York or London, to name just two have wet feet, it will be much to late. But before that happens a few islands in Pacific will have disappeared. If you are wrong that is the scenario to be expected. If we are wrong what would will have happened? We have a cleaner world. I think we have the obligation to give our planet into the hands of our successors in good shape. Sometimes I have the feeling that the disgust for the government and resulting conspiracy theories blinds people for the evidence of influence of humans on global warming.Regards, Volker Very true. The notion that there is some world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists or it is a conspiracy to bring about a "New World Order" is just the rantings of the tin foil hat brigade. Our current WH occupant said AGCC was a theory made up in China to wreck the US economy. More dangerous has been the calculated and heavily-funded campaign by the Koch Bros. to discredit climatology research.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Climate research is a still developing science. As more data gets available the climate prognose models get better. I believe the specialists and I see enough evidence and facts. I am a layman and won't judge a Wikipedia an artice. But I understand climate oscillation as relatively short term phenomena. And there are enough articles that support climate change At the moment there is still time to do something. When we have really hard facts and New York or London, to name just two have wet feet, it will be much to late. But before that happens a few islands in Pacific will have disappeared. If you are wrong that is the scenario to be expected. If we are wrong what would will have happened? We have a cleaner world. I think we have the obligation to give our planet into the hands of our successors in good shape. Sometimes I have the feeling that the disgust for the government and resulting conspiracy theories blinds people for the evidence of influence of humans on global warming.Regards, Volker
Climate research is a still developing science. As more data gets available the climate prognose models get better.
I believe the specialists and I see enough evidence and facts. I am a layman and won't judge a Wikipedia an artice. But I understand climate oscillation as relatively short term phenomena.
And there are enough articles that support climate change
At the moment there is still time to do something. When we have really hard facts and New York or London, to name just two have wet feet, it will be much to late. But before that happens a few islands in Pacific will have disappeared.
If you are wrong that is the scenario to be expected. If we are wrong what would will have happened? We have a cleaner world.
I think we have the obligation to give our planet into the hands of our successors in good shape.
Sometimes I have the feeling that the disgust for the government and resulting conspiracy theories blinds people for the evidence of influence of humans on global warming.Regards, Volker
Very true. The notion that there is some world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists or it is a conspiracy to bring about a "New World Order" is just the rantings of the tin foil hat brigade. Our current WH occupant said AGCC was a theory made up in China to wreck the US economy. More dangerous has been the calculated and heavily-funded campaign by the Koch Bros. to discredit climatology research.
That notion is a made up caricature intended to make points in the debate by insulting climate change opposition with the overused tool of labeling them as conspiracy kooks. True science does not rely on those sorts of cheap shots. It doesn’t need to rely on them. Nobody is saying that a bunch of world leaders got together around a table in the dark of night and secretly hatch a plot to take over the world using the made up pretext of climate change.
CMStPnPRead up on climate oscillation, this is an unusually well written article on wikipedia so far as it is not yet slanted to say mankind is responsible for current climate change. So I am not sure how long it will last before the extremists modify it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation
I suggest you should read the entire article (citations lacking) to the end.
"Given that records of solar activity are accurate, solar activity may have contributed to part of the modern warming that peaked in the 1930s, in addition to the 60-year temperature cycles that result in roughly 0.5 °C of warming during the increasing temperature phase. However, solar cycles fail to account for warming observed since the 1980s to the present day[citation needed]. Events such as the opening of the Northwest Passage and recent record low ice minima of the modern Arctic shrinkage have not taken place for at least several centuries, as early explorers were all unable to make an Arctic crossing, even in summer. Shifts in biomes and habitat ranges are also unprecedented, occurring at rates that do not coincide with known climate oscillations[citation needed]. The extinction of many tropical amphibian species, especially in cloud forests, have been attributed to changing global temperatures, fungal disease and possible influence from unusually extreme phases of oceanic climate oscillations."
VOLKER LANDWEHRI don't know anybody saying the whole warming is man made but part of it for sure. There always has been temperature change in the earth's history. It is the speed of the current temperature rise that indicates that part of it is man made. In the our history the temperature rise was about 4° to 5° in 10.000 years between glacial and interglacial periods, without any measures against global warning the same rise might occur in the next 100 years. In the time from 1906 to 2005 there was a rise of about 0.8°, two third of it in the time from 1956 to 2005. Regards, Volker
Read up on climate oscillation, this is an unusually well written article on wikipedia so far as it is not yet slanted to say mankind is responsible for current climate change. So I am not sure how long it will last before the extremists modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation
Note the question marks after the shorter climate cycle ranges. There is simply not enough data from the past to form a solid conclusion on climate cycles and their reasons in a lot of cases. Looking at tree rings and ocean sediment provides a glimpse in a lot of cases but is it really absolute evidence or is it speculative? Even so with those ancillary means of collection......still not enough historical data to make a solid conclusion.
Sometimes it is in the interest of a government to make you believe a hokey theory so your dependence on that government increases and your willingness to hand over more of your money for that government to "protect you" is more. So there is a political interest in promoting the theory that mankind is responsible and we can totally fix or even partially impact it. It means a populace willing to submit to ever higher taxes and much more government intrusion into their lives.
challenger3980I am sure that man can/has contibuted to climate change in some ways, but I don't believe that our effect has been as great as many Gloom and Doomers want people to believe.
Then perhaps you can explain why the temperature rise has accelerated as described in my previous post? The acceleration started with the industrialisation.Regards, Volker
The Earth has fluctuated between Snowball Earth and Tropical Earth on numerous occasions in the past 4.5 Billion years - all without the help of mankind.
I feel it is supreme human arrogance to feel that human activity is the only cause of 'climate change'. While I have no fear that human activity in some way contributes to rising carbon dioxide levels - I also feel there and any number of natural happenings that are more responsible than human activity. While a lot of natural linkages are known to science, I feel there are hundreds if not thousands more that have yet to be discovered.
[/quote]
I agree with Balt, the climate of the planet has gone through many cycles, long before man exisited or had any kind of impact, so what is "Normal"?
I am sure that man can/has contibuted to climate change in some ways, but I don't believe that our effect has been as great as many Gloom and Doomers want people to believe.
To ME, it only makes sense to reduce pollution as much as practical, but keep the theory of diminishing returns in mind, there does come a point where the cost of pollution reduction is not justifiable for the result, sadly there is much disagreement on where that point is.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.