Bucyrus wrote: futuremodal wrote: It is somewhat twisted that it is the rural co-ops and utilities that are making the effort to educate the public on the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, while the railroads whose lifeblood is coal are silent on the issue. The way I see it, the railroads have a choice. The can defend their interest in the future of coal by arguing against the validity of the manmade global warming agenda. Or they can placate that agenda by jumping on the green bandwagon, and pointing out that they are ahead of the curve in fighting MMGW because they are the most energy efficient form of transportation. I predict that they will do the latter. I expect that we will soon be treated to ads by U.P. and others boasting about how green they are as they shoot themselves in the foot over their interest in coal.
futuremodal wrote: It is somewhat twisted that it is the rural co-ops and utilities that are making the effort to educate the public on the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, while the railroads whose lifeblood is coal are silent on the issue.
It is somewhat twisted that it is the rural co-ops and utilities that are making the effort to educate the public on the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, while the railroads whose lifeblood is coal are silent on the issue.
The way I see it, the railroads have a choice. The can defend their interest in the future of coal by arguing against the validity of the manmade global warming agenda. Or they can placate that agenda by jumping on the green bandwagon, and pointing out that they are ahead of the curve in fighting MMGW because they are the most energy efficient form of transportation. I predict that they will do the latter. I expect that we will soon be treated to ads by U.P. and others boasting about how green they are as they shoot themselves in the foot over their interest in coal.
This prediction goes back to the question of why the railroads do not defend their interest in coal by promoting coal as NOT causing MMGW. A couple weeks ago, I predicted that the U.P. and others, rather than confront the green juggernaught by defending coal, would appease the green juggernaught by promoting that railroads are green due to their energy efficiency. However, by promoting themselves as green, railroads endorse MMGW, and thus, undermine their interest in coal.
Well tonight I saw a U.P. ad for the first time. I am guessing it is new. The message is exactly as I suspected it would be, except the word "green" is not mentioned. But it does not have to be since the concept is clearly the theme of the ad. The color was sure green. You can't get a freight train much greener than placing it in a cornfield.
solzrules wrote: I think you are an 'advocate for the cause'
I think you are an 'advocate for the cause'
Quite right--I used to be. But no longer.
Instead, (partly because of the interesting discussions we have had in this forum regarding this subject) I researched the issue and have arrived at the conclusion reflected in that paragraph.
Modern science knows little about how the atmosphere really works (as evidenced in my previous post quoting NASA), compared to how much there is yet to learn. They know why "X" causes "Y", but they do not know what causes "X". For example, science knows how the jet stream influences the path of storm systems, as well as how storm systems in turn affect the jet stream. However, NO ONE knows why there is a jet stream in the first place. There are lots of theories, but know one knows for sure. They DO know quite a lot of how the weather works--they just do not yet know nearly enough.
So many factors interconnect to cause what we percieve as weather that it seems to me to be prideful arrogance for climate scientists to make such definitive statements (i.e. man is the cause of GW). I do not fault the scientists for being wrong, as being wrong is how science (and people) learns: from our mistakes. But I do fault them when they pretend they know, thereby possibly altering the future climate policy for the country (or the world).
Humans might very well be the cause of the recent climactic abberations, but until there is absolute proof that the climate change is not a nutural occurrence, we should tread lightly regarding extreme measures.
zardoz wrote: ...it would save a lot of hysteria and misguided efforts if the reports on climate change were somewhat more consistent before we jump off the deep end and create policies that have great potential negative impact on our economy and our culture.
...it would save a lot of hysteria and misguided efforts if the reports on climate change were somewhat more consistent before we jump off the deep end and create policies that have great potential negative impact on our economy and our culture.
With the climate change threat being promoted like an infomercial as a part of virtually every TV newscast, either there will be a public backlash of critical thinking, or the public will simply be run over with the indoctrination. There can be no middle ground result. I believe nothing could be smaller than the chance of the critical thinking backlash, so I fully expect that, "we will jump off the deep end and create policies that have great potential negative impact on our economy and our culture."
futuremodal wrote: I'm tellin' ya, this GW stuff is going to kill off the railroads.
I'm more worried about GW advocates killing off my kids because there are just 'too many mouths to feed.' Sound extreme? So does using one square of toilet paper. Or using compact flourescent bulbs (this has to be the greatest scam/sales jobs on the planet). Or buying a Prius to go to work in construction.
neil300 wrote:If i read correctly itwas stated earlier that water vapor is the main cause of global warming. Isn't that the exhaust of the Hydrogen fuel-cells that people have been touting as the future of "green power" for cars? They say all it produces is steam, right?
Actually, the correct statement is that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, thus it is also the main component of the greenhouse effect. What is being claimed without a droplet of empiricism is that man's 1/10 of 1% CO2 contribution to the potential greenhouse effect (via smokestack/tailpipe emissions of CO2) is causing a greater than natural increase in the greenhouse effect, which is causing a greater than natural increase in observed surface temperatures, which is causing an increase in water evaporation, which is causing an increase in atmospheric water vapor, which is causing an increase in the greenhouse effect, which is further warming the planet..........and next thing you know, we're the New Venus!
Of course, an increasing average temperature will also cause an increase in naturally-induced CO2 levels globally, but that's beside the point!
But yes, if the GW proponents were to be consistent, they would point out the fact that there is more surface sources of water available due to man's societal development (e.g. irrigation, reservoirs, lawns, industrial steam emissions, et al) that are being vaporized into atmospheric dihydrogen monoxide, the number one killer greenhouse gas. And the man-caused increase in water vaporization dwarfs the levels of man-made CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion.
Hmmmmm, now we should get rid of all our irrigated crops in addition to our coal fired power plants and hydrocarbon-guzzling vehicles? Well, if coal is the number one tonnage for railroads in terms of bulk profitability, isn't ag a close second or vis versa?
I'm tellin' ya, this GW stuff is going to kill off the railroads.
You raise a good point, and I too am somewhat confused about what is being objected to in terms of water vapor. In looking into the role of water vapor, I first thought that water vapor produced by man was the issue. But now I am not sure if it is. The references that I have found make the point that man makes CO2, CO2 makes global warming, global warming makes water vapor, and water vapor makes more global warming. So I think the basic objection to water vapor is the water vapor made by manmade global warming, rather than water vapor made directly by man such as steam exhaust. I have not found any reference that cites an objection to water vapor made directly by man. But the matter needs to be clarified.
zardoz wrote: I realize that something as potentially serious as climate change, especially if caused by humans, is a cause for concern, and that the earlier something is done, the better the chances are of being able to mitigate the situation. However, it would save a lot of hysteria and misguided efforts if the reports on climate change were somewhat more consistent before we jump off the deep end and create policies that have great potential negative impact on our economy and our culture.
This has to be the most honest look at global warming to date. (I am impressed, especially since I think you are an 'advocate for the cause')
I agree 100 % with this paragraph. The truth is that there is no solid evidence yet. Are things changing? Sure. Does it warrant research? Absolutely. Should we start using one square of toilet paper and keep cows from farting? No, that may be a bit of an over-reaction. Should we start planting corn in all corners of the earth in an attempt to create a cleaner fuel? This also should be studied. Corn is hard on the soil. What are the affects of over-farming? Is the reduction in pollution actually worth the potential damage to good farmland? These are all important questions that need to be addressed BEFORE we jump whole hog into the bio-fuels. This is currently not the case.
Nuclear reactors to me seem like a good way to reduce air-pollution and yet maintain a solid source of electricity. This is something that we could move forward with now. Unfortunately, many of the same people who are complaining about pollution are absolutely scared to death at the thought of nuclear reactors. I don't know that any amount of reasoning and logic will change their mind.
On the flip side of the discussion:
May 3, 2007
WIDESPREAD 'TWILIGHT ZONE' DETECTED AROUND CLOUDS
There seems to be something new under the sun -- in the sky, specifically -- that could complicate scientists' efforts to get a fix on how much the world will warm in the future. Greenhouse gases are not the only things in the air that influence the temperature of our atmosphere. Clouds and small airborne particles called aerosols also play an important and complicated role. And now a new ingredient has been discovered: an extensive and previously unseen "twilight zone" of particles that represents a gradual transition from cloud droplets to dry particles....
...Precisely accounting for everything in the atmosphere that can influence changes in global temperatures is critical to scientists' quest to accurately predict what Earth's climate will be in the future. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assessed the potential risks of human-induced climate change, notes that the overall effect of clouds and aerosols on the amount of heat held in the atmosphere is still uncertain. Finding a previously unknown ingredient in the mix further complicates an already complex picture, but it also holds out the promise of resolving some nagging problems in climate change science."The effects of this zone are not included in most computer models that estimate the impact of aerosols on climate," said lead author Ilan Koren of the Weizmann Institute "This could be one of the reasons why current measurements of this effect don't match our model estimates"....
.... Introducing this new factor could lead climate scientists to recalculate their best estimates of how Earth's atmosphere holds and reflects solar energy -- the key to accurately predicting the future of global warming. "Current estimates of the effect of aerosols on global temperatures, which is primarily cooling, may be too small because the large contribution from this transition zone has been overlooked," Remer said. "If aerosols are offsetting warming more than we thought, it's possible that warming could increase more than expected in the future if aerosols continue to decline, as has been reported recently."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007050324883.html
So maybe the best way to ward off global warming just might be to pollute more, get more of them aerosols in the air. Of course, then we might have to reinvent the "global cooling" scare tactics from back in the 70's.
I realize that something as potentially serious as climate change, especially if caused by humans, is a cause for concern, and that the earlier something is done, the better the chances are of being able to mitigate the situation. However, it would save a lot of hysteria and misguided efforts if the reports on climate change were somewhat more consistent before we jump off the deep end and create policies that have great potential negative impact on our economy and our culture.
zardoz wrote: futuremodal wrote: Here's another bit of irony.....CO2 is green, literally!It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, and to see what effects, both positive and negative, the climate change will have on the railroad indistry.
futuremodal wrote: Here's another bit of irony.....CO2 is green, literally!
Here's another bit of irony.....
CO2 is green, literally!
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, and to see what effects, both positive and negative, the climate change will have on the railroad indistry.
And even if the climate does not change significantly, it will be interesting to see what effects the carbon cap and carbon tax remedies have on the railroad industry.
And while we're on the subject of global (from whatever the source) warming, the Military Advisory Board has issued a report concerning the matter of world and national security regarding the effects of the changing climate.
So now it is no longer only just the tree-huggers along with most scientists (at least those that are not on the payroll of some not-so-eco-friendly corporation) that understand the seriousness of the issue, but the top military minds as well. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417092232.htm
Interesting that not too many years ago, someone who preached about the potential for social upheaval due to climate change was considered by most people to be, at the very least an alarmist, all the way up to being considered by some to be a major looney-tune. Whereas now, someone who still belives that "everything is ok, no reason to be worried" is considered to be rather out of touch with what is happening.
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee, has passed through his committee a bill that would require an annual production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022. This bill is on course to be the backbone of major energy legislation that will come to a vote on the Senate floor in early June.
From Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.org/index.html :
The truth is that biofuels can be a good alternative to oil and coal, and Friends of the Earth is excited about the opportunities offered by the production of some biofuels. But science matters, and science tells us that not all biofuels are created equal.
Sen. Bingaman's bill would mandate production of up to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol -- equivalent to half the corn currently grown in the entire United States. This is not a clean prospect.
Growing and processing this much corn for fuel would:
Perhaps most discouraging, recent reports suggest the burning of corn ethanol generates as much or more pollution as the burning of gasoline.
Senators need to know there are promising biofuel crops out there -- including switchgrass and even algae -- that can be converted to fuel with less intensive use of resources and result in cleaner final products. Like many things, the devil is in the details, and when it comes to biofuels the Senate must pay attention to those details.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there are some that will immediately dismiss all of these facts because the source is a bunch of "left-wing liberal eco-friendly tree-huggers".
http://action.foe.org/dia/organizationsORG/foe/content.jsp?content_KEY=2597
The evidence for that can be found on the planet Venus.
I guess I don't need to take you all back to your elementary science classes, but suffice it to say increased CO2 levels in that lower 30 feet of atmosphere promotes accelerated plant growth. Plants are "green", right?
So if we are taking steps to reduce smokestack and tailpipe CO2 emissions, we may claim we're being green, but we're actually being anti-green!
Hey, I told you there's a big BIG disconnect between the environmental movement and the actual environment!
Oh well, back to GM. I'm not suprised, given that most of the US auto industry is in it's death throes, all self inflicted. Let's take a look at this position as it relates to the desire to return GM to profitability....
There's only one possible way out for GM if they insist on maintaining this absurd course, and that is to have the taxpayers bail them out by taking over the pension funds. My bet is that this anticipation is their bet.
PS - I wonder if Soylent Green would make a good alternative fuel?
With all this flurry about doing things to be green, carbon trading, and renewables, it strikes me that there is a huge disconnect between doing these things and doing the things that would actually solve the problem that has been laid out by the very ones who are promoting the green remedies. It is as if the advocates have laid out a climate crisis that requires a major response to avert, but instead, they are promoting a response that is mostly symbolic rather than a practical solution.
Consider a green roof for instance. Is there a true cost/benefit analysis that supports the viability of a green roof? It strikes me as a costly concept that is just reaching in every direction to find justification. I keep hearing these types of measures justified by saying that they will get people to think green. So what will be accomplished when we all think green? Are we going to will the solution that will prevent the supposed crisis just by thinking green?
I am afraid that the only real solution to this crisis as it is defined, is for all of us to pay more and consume less. Maybe the point of getting us all to think green is simply to prepare us to accept sacrifice.
In the book, Unstoppable Global Warming by Fred Singer, and Dennis Avery, they lay out some facts about renewables. By 2050, annual electric demand will increase from today's demand by an additional 30 trillion watt-hours. Consider that that demand increase be provided by a combination of equal parts of wind, solar, and biomass energy. The amount of undeveloped land required for these three energy-producing methods is as follows:
1) Biocrops: 30 million sq. km.
2) Solar panels: 220,000 sq. km. Plus land for transmission lines, service roads, maintenance yards, etc.
3) Windmills: 600,000 sq. km. (some might be offshore, but there is major resistance to offshore windmills)
For perspective, this totals approximately the size of South America (22 million sq. km.) plus China (10 million sq. km.)
This is just to cover the increase in demand by 2050. It does nothing to eliminate the present coal burning plants that emit the CO2 that must be eliminated to prevent the impending climate catastrophe.
So you can see the disconnect between actually solving the problem, and merely doing symbolic gestures like changing light bulbs, keeping your tires inflated, re-using your grocery bags, caulking your windows, and thinking green.
Business Coalition for Climate Action Doubles
General Motors joins USCAP's call for aggressive pollution cuts
The unprecedented coalition calling for a cap and trade system to combat climate change, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), has more than doubled its membership.
In a move that transforms the political landscape, General Motors is the first automobile manufacturer to join the coalition of high-level corporate and environmental leaders. The group's mission is to urge the federal government to:
USCAP member companies represent industries critical to slowing climate change, including car manufacturing, utilities, chemical production and manufacturing. Twelve new companies join the original members, bringing the number of corporate partners to 22.
Unprecedented corporate action to find green solution
Never before have industry leaders lined up so solidly with environmental advocates to solve an environmental problem.
The USCAP companies join the four original nonprofit partners - Environmental Defense, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Resources Institute - along with two new groups, The Nature Conservancy and National Wildlife Federation, to call for effective climate policy.
As Congress starts to seriously look at the issue of climate change, the group's expansion is a powerful catalyst for action. "With this lineup of companies and environmental groups endorsing it, a carbon cap is clearly the consensus solution to climate change," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. "With cap and trade, we've found the center - environmental groups and businesses can embrace because it guarantees results for the climate while freeing companies to hunt for innovative, least-cost ways to lower emissions," Krupp said.
Already this year, Congress has held a number of hearings on the problem of climate change. In February, Senator John Warner (R-VA), who sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee, noted USCAP's role in helping bring the issue of climate change into the "big leagues." "When I see such an extraordinary cross-section of America's free-enterprise system, together with the environmental groups, come and form a group like this, you've got my attention," said Warner.
GM's support of USCAP climate action is strong signal
Cars and light trucks are a significant contributor to global warming pollution. GM's joining up with USCAP shows it has the potential to also be a big contributor to solutions.
"The addition of these new companies adds horsepower to the push for Congress to act quickly on a real solution to climate change," said Krupp.
Krupp stresses the importance of involving business not only to increase pressure on Congress, but ensure that any plan for fixing climate change was also a boost for the U.S. economy. "We chose a cap-and-trade approach because it guarantees the emissions cuts we need, while it unleashes cash and creativity from the private sector. This plan is a jobs winner as well as an environmental winner." http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5828
zardoz wrote: futuremodal wrote: Well, here's the ironic thing........the USA is energy independent in the electricity generation field - most of our electricty comes from coal and hydropower - so there's no economic reason to force a massive changeover from coal-fired power plants to nuclear. It's in the transportation and home heating fields where the USA is dependent on foreign sources of energy, e.g. oil and natural gas. So why are we so bound and determined to undermine our electricity generation policy via radical change (which always induces negative economic consequences), all the while continuing to depend on OPEC et al for our transportation/home heating fuels, ethanol and biodiesel mandates notwithstanding?If anything, we should first get ourselves off the foreign stuff via CTL promotion to produce synthetic diesel fuel and heating oil, at least to the point of having some hedging power. Then and only then should we start talking about replacing coal with nukes for electricity generation.Agreed. However, there is still the issue of which pollution you are willing to accept. All of the soot and other stuff (listed above), or spent fuel rods with a radioactive half-life of 10,000 years?I submit that an even better idea would be to promote (perhaps even subsidize) alternatives such as solar and wind. How about financial incentives for using more power during the off-hours instead of during peak times?
futuremodal wrote: Well, here's the ironic thing........the USA is energy independent in the electricity generation field - most of our electricty comes from coal and hydropower - so there's no economic reason to force a massive changeover from coal-fired power plants to nuclear. It's in the transportation and home heating fields where the USA is dependent on foreign sources of energy, e.g. oil and natural gas. So why are we so bound and determined to undermine our electricity generation policy via radical change (which always induces negative economic consequences), all the while continuing to depend on OPEC et al for our transportation/home heating fuels, ethanol and biodiesel mandates notwithstanding?If anything, we should first get ourselves off the foreign stuff via CTL promotion to produce synthetic diesel fuel and heating oil, at least to the point of having some hedging power. Then and only then should we start talking about replacing coal with nukes for electricity generation.
Well, here's the ironic thing........the USA is energy independent in the electricity generation field - most of our electricty comes from coal and hydropower - so there's no economic reason to force a massive changeover from coal-fired power plants to nuclear. It's in the transportation and home heating fields where the USA is dependent on foreign sources of energy, e.g. oil and natural gas.
So why are we so bound and determined to undermine our electricity generation policy via radical change (which always induces negative economic consequences), all the while continuing to depend on OPEC et al for our transportation/home heating fuels, ethanol and biodiesel mandates notwithstanding?
If anything, we should first get ourselves off the foreign stuff via CTL promotion to produce synthetic diesel fuel and heating oil, at least to the point of having some hedging power. Then and only then should we start talking about replacing coal with nukes for electricity generation.
Agreed.
However, there is still the issue of which pollution you are willing to accept. All of the soot and other stuff (listed above), or spent fuel rods with a radioactive half-life of 10,000 years?
I submit that an even better idea would be to promote (perhaps even subsidize) alternatives such as solar and wind. How about financial incentives for using more power during the off-hours instead of during peak times?
I agree with selector that aggressive promotion of those darlings of environmentalists known as "wind" and "solar" may open a whole new can of worms ecologically in addition to the predictable economic consequences. The current mix of generation facilities is very efficient, and getting more efficient each year as older less efficient power plants are shut down in favor of larger more efficient facilities. Why mess with a proven dependable thing by introducing inefficient feel-good forms of energy generation? Large scale solar farms would require mega-acres of land to even approach decent economies of scale. Wind power, with 30% availability on average, needs some form of dependable back up power to be able to participate in time critical load matching, and more often than not that back up power is a coal plant - can you say "irony"?
Unless and until some form of commercially viable energy storage is invented, wind just won't cut it.
The problem as I see it is that all those left-leaning metropoli see their own localized pollution problems (most of which are caused by too many cars driven by too many people in areas where the overpopulation is naturally unsustainable), and try and project the blame onto distant coal plants located three Fly-Over States away. Take California - some of the most polluted cities in the world, yet they spend an inordinate amount of political time and effort trying to shut down coal fired power plants far to the east of them, where prevailing winds make it impossible for those plants' emissions to ever reach California.
What's the sense in that?
zardoz wrote: ...I submit that an even better idea would be to promote (perhaps even subsidize) alternatives such as solar and wind. ...
...I submit that an even better idea would be to promote (perhaps even subsidize) alternatives such as solar and wind. ...
I wish it were that easy. But, it seems that every time we think we are descending the energy chain, it as it were, we find that we have misunderstood something, or failed to use systems thinking.
If we take significant kinetic energy out of the lower atmosphere using windmill farms, or if we construct vast arrays of solar energy converters, I wonder what nasty surprise will await us. What, necessarily, will we have to contend with when the after-effects of this seeming panacea start to bear fruit for us and our burgeoning numbers? We'll swap one nasty boogey man under the bed for one in the closet.
zardoz wrote: Uh, I wasn't trying to ignite yet another MMGW debate; I was merely trying to point out that nuclear might not be such a bad alternative to coal...railroad interests notwithstanding.
Uh, I wasn't trying to ignite yet another MMGW debate; I was merely trying to point out that nuclear might not be such a bad alternative to coal...railroad interests notwithstanding.
futuremodal wrote: zardoz wrote: In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.Okay, let's stop right there. If you really want "the primary human cause of global warming", look no further than your average large city. The Urban Heat Island effect can raise observed surface temperatures by as much as 7 degrees F. That is the only empirical, measurable human caused temperature effect. There is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any causal effect on global temperatures, as it amounts to less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire greenhouse effect potential.And for the record, cutting down old growth trees and replacing them with new trees reduces the terrestrial release of greenhouse gases. Not sure if that's what you meant, but there it is for clarification.Keep in mind, I'm not arguing the point that combusting coal releases CO2. I'm saying it is wrong to demonize CO2 in the first place. CO2 is not a pollutant, never has been, never will be, and does not "cause" global warming despite what the Supreme Court tries to legislate from the bench. Remember, it is global warming that is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, and man's CO2 contributions pale in comparison.Now, the rest of this......10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.......is technically true in terms of the numbers given, but only for the older pulverized coal fired power plants, and the subsequent claims attached to some of the elements listed are fraudulent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest arsenic levels of 50 parts per billion will cause one out of 100 to get cancer, nor is there any empirical evidence that 1/70 of a teaspoon of mercury in a 25 acre lake will make fish unsafe to eat. And if all such coal fired power plants were converted to IGCC (gasification), then the only element emitted in any significance is CO2, and as I explained CO2 is not a pollutant........Other items are taken way out of context. For example, biodiesel made from vegetable oils actually releases 11% more NOx than regular diesel refined from oil, and 20% more NOx than synthetic diesel derived from coal via the Fischer-Tropse method. So, the same people who are demonizing coal are usually the same people promoting biodiesel. Well, is NOx a concern or not? Because if it is then biodiesel should be your last option!Since I'm on the subject, I do favor aggressive development of coal to liquids technology as a replacement for "manipulatable" sources of foreign oil. Such is probably the only thing that will save the railroads from bankruptcy if coal fired power generation is subsequently banned due to these phony concerns about global warming. Remember, CTL allows the producer to shift the responsibility of the so-called "carbon footprint" from the plant to the vehicle tailpipe. Plus, as much as the left in this country wants to force utilities to shift to non-hydrocarbon power generation, they would have a much harder time politically trying to get folks to convert to non-hydrocarbon powered autos.FYI - The groundbreaking British documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle is due to be released to DVD. Since it is unlikely our taxpayer supported PBS network will have the kahuna's to show this film, you'll all have to order this film to see the real story behind this GW sham.http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/dvd.html
zardoz wrote: In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
Okay, let's stop right there. If you really want "the primary human cause of global warming", look no further than your average large city. The Urban Heat Island effect can raise observed surface temperatures by as much as 7 degrees F. That is the only empirical, measurable human caused temperature effect. There is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any causal effect on global temperatures, as it amounts to less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire greenhouse effect potential.
And for the record, cutting down old growth trees and replacing them with new trees reduces the terrestrial release of greenhouse gases. Not sure if that's what you meant, but there it is for clarification.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing the point that combusting coal releases CO2. I'm saying it is wrong to demonize CO2 in the first place. CO2 is not a pollutant, never has been, never will be, and does not "cause" global warming despite what the Supreme Court tries to legislate from the bench. Remember, it is global warming that is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, and man's CO2 contributions pale in comparison.
Now, the rest of this......
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
......is technically true in terms of the numbers given, but only for the older pulverized coal fired power plants, and the subsequent claims attached to some of the elements listed are fraudulent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest arsenic levels of 50 parts per billion will cause one out of 100 to get cancer, nor is there any empirical evidence that 1/70 of a teaspoon of mercury in a 25 acre lake will make fish unsafe to eat. And if all such coal fired power plants were converted to IGCC (gasification), then the only element emitted in any significance is CO2, and as I explained CO2 is not a pollutant........
Other items are taken way out of context. For example, biodiesel made from vegetable oils actually releases 11% more NOx than regular diesel refined from oil, and 20% more NOx than synthetic diesel derived from coal via the Fischer-Tropse method. So, the same people who are demonizing coal are usually the same people promoting biodiesel. Well, is NOx a concern or not? Because if it is then biodiesel should be your last option!
Since I'm on the subject, I do favor aggressive development of coal to liquids technology as a replacement for "manipulatable" sources of foreign oil. Such is probably the only thing that will save the railroads from bankruptcy if coal fired power generation is subsequently banned due to these phony concerns about global warming. Remember, CTL allows the producer to shift the responsibility of the so-called "carbon footprint" from the plant to the vehicle tailpipe. Plus, as much as the left in this country wants to force utilities to shift to non-hydrocarbon power generation, they would have a much harder time politically trying to get folks to convert to non-hydrocarbon powered autos.
FYI - The groundbreaking British documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle is due to be released to DVD. Since it is unlikely our taxpayer supported PBS network will have the kahuna's to show this film, you'll all have to order this film to see the real story behind this GW sham.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/dvd.html
jeaton wrote: Of course water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Here is a 1995 report by the American Geophysical Union that describes the studies and research up to that time and clearly points to just how increases in water vapor can have a major increase in global warming.http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html Here is an interesting excerpt: "Warm air can sustain a higher concentration of water vapor than cooler air without becoming saturated. Consequently, as air warms, for whatever reason, more evaporation may take place and the concentration of water vapor may increase. An increase in water vapor enhances the greenhouse effect and gives rise to further warming. This positive feedback, warming from increased greenhouse gases leading to an increase of water vapor and therefore even more warming, is a feature of climate models used for estimating the effect of increased greenhouse gases. According to the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment [Houghton et al., 1990], this feedback could amplify the temperature change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide by some 60%. The IPCC update, scheduled for release in 1996, does not change this conclusion."
Of course water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.
Here is a 1995 report by the American Geophysical Union that describes the studies and research up to that time and clearly points to just how increases in water vapor can have a major increase in global warming.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
Here is an interesting excerpt:
"Warm air can sustain a higher concentration of water vapor than cooler air without becoming saturated. Consequently, as air warms, for whatever reason, more evaporation may take place and the concentration of water vapor may increase. An increase in water vapor enhances the greenhouse effect and gives rise to further warming. This positive feedback, warming from increased greenhouse gases leading to an increase of water vapor and therefore even more warming, is a feature of climate models used for estimating the effect of increased greenhouse gases. According to the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment [Houghton et al., 1990], this feedback could amplify the temperature change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide by some 60%. The IPCC update, scheduled for release in 1996, does not change this conclusion."
Wow! So global warming increases water vapor, which increases global warming, which increases water vapor, etc. And this is all caused by man's CO2 contributions, e.g. the claim that CO2 levels have doubled due to man!
Except of course that the function that increases water vapor also increases CO2. That function is natural warming. The problem with the IPCC is that it tries to state that increase in water vapor is natural, but the increase in CO2 is not. A clear violation of scientific protocol, one that proves the IPCC is nothing but a political body.
Both water vapor and CO2 increase with global warming. This is proven by the fact that warming tends to precede increases in both water vapor and CO2 by about 600 years.
Now, if CO2 was the *cause* of the warming, wouldn't logic dictate that the CO2 increase would have preceded the warming trend?
The world, as most accept, is a pretty complicated place. Arguments that "this" is the sole cause of "that" are quite shallow.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
You know, it seems that the most vocal advocates for rationalizing this whole GW discussion is the rural electric co-ops and utilities. Take the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative for example - their newsletter continues to bring to light (pun intended!) the fact that GW/CO2 hyperbole is just that. This latest news item has some interesting quotes from Reid A. Bryson, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology from the U of Wisconsin. The guy's been around for a few decades, he knows the score regarding climate change and man's supposed impact. Here's a snippet you'll never see in the MSM, yet it's one that would turn the public opinion on the subject if it ever was allowed into MSM circulation......
"Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide." (bold face mine)
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1
(Link courtesey of Drudge Report)
Back to WECN.....
It is somewhat twisted that it is the rural co-ops and utilities that are making the effort to educate the public on the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, while the railroads whose lifeblood is coal are silent on the issue. These are the same railroads who are screwing over the co-ops with captive pricing.
Do you see the irony here? The co-ops may be the ones who save the day for the railroads via undemonizing coal, and yet the railroads seem hell-bent to try to put them out of business.
Et tu, Brute?
Uh oh...I think I just contributed to global warming...
Yup, sure did...twice.
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus wrote: futuremodal wrote: Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't even a blip on the ol' greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants. I have noticed that water vapor is beginning to eclipse CO2 as the leading cause of manmade global warming. But the real eye opener is this: It is claimed that water vapor produced by man is causing global warming, and then the global warming itself causes still more water vapor, which causes even more global warming. It's like a perpetual motion doomsday machine.
futuremodal wrote: Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't even a blip on the ol' greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants.
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't even a blip on the ol' greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants.
I have noticed that water vapor is beginning to eclipse CO2 as the leading cause of manmade global warming. But the real eye opener is this: It is claimed that water vapor produced by man is causing global warming, and then the global warming itself causes still more water vapor, which causes even more global warming. It's like a perpetual motion doomsday machine.
I just don't know where to turn. All these bad things that are happening to our planet!
Does anyone have the answer? I can't sleep at night. If only a knight in shining armor could save us!!!!!
If man isn't releasing CO2 into the atmoshpere then H2O is hurting our planet. Is there a way to ban these harzardous chemicals from the earth? Would the Kyoto treaty have saved us from the evils of H20 and Co2? If only the administration could be made aware of the H20 menace. They probably don't care. I also read that we are in serious danger from farting cows. I guess the methane hurts the atmosphere too. Oh what to do!! Can we give the cows gas-X?
Maybe if we all stop farting, using water, and exhaling CO2 we can help! Come on everyone, let's all get together and stop hurting the enviroment!!!! One other thing, if we all limited ourselves to one square of toilet paper, then we could save trees. Foresets! Wooded nature preserves. Furry wood-lawn animals. Let's all get together and pitch in to do our part. Only an idiotic greedy capitalist would disagree. You don't want to be an idiotic greedy do you? Then stop farting and spread the word.
Yup. It's late.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.