The Physics of Climate Change

2»

Replies

  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 7,728 Senior Member
    When will the world realise that the human race is really quite insignificant when it comes to changing what can and will happen. I think the whole human race is too full of its own self importance when you compare it with 'mother nature'.

    I agree with those who point to the sun as one of the biggest causes of change. When we can do something about having control of that shining orb, then maybe we will be justified in saying we rule the planet................until then, we are just passengers being driven by something we cant control.

    The sun only has to blink and those of us who survive will be living near a beach or trying to climb glaciers to get to work.
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    When will the world realise that the human race is really quite insignificant when it comes to changing what can and will happen. I think the whole human race is too full of its own self importance when you compare it with 'mother nature'.

    I disagree. While the human race may not be able to "control" everything, we certainty are big and powerful enough to cause plenty of problems.

    To put things a bit into perspective, there are only just over 5 acres of land area on the planet for every human being. Of that 5 acres only a bit over 10% or around 0.5 acres is fertile cultivated farm land plus another 1 acre of land suitable for grazing. The rest is split about evenly between forests, and deserts, tundra, mountains, and other lower value land types.

    Humans have appropriated for our own needs somewhere between 30-40% of all terrestrial net primary production on the planet and as much as 25% of aquatic net primary production. Net primary production is the total annual production of all photosynthetic biomass on the planet. Another way of looking at this is the total amount of solar energy that is naturally captured by the planet's ecosystems each year. Different studies come up with slightly different numbers, but they're all a pretty big chunk of the pie. Humanity absolutely can and is having an impact on a massive scale. Doesn't mean we can control everything, but we can and do impact a lot of things.

    http://www.biology.duke.edu/wilson/EcoSysServices/papers/VitousekEtal1986.pdf
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    It's all "greenie" hooey, just like the OWS nonsense from people who should know better. Politics and power are in play here, mixed with fear, irrationality, emotion, and stupidity. I'm not going to waste any more time on this other than to post a good article about the creation of a world government to "save the world". Heck, one huge meteor or a major event from the sun, and we're all gone.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/18/sci-am-editor-effective-world-government-will-be-needed-stave-climate
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Clint,
    Your arguement would have a lot more weight if you stopped bashing everyone who doesn't agree with you.
    I agree that most of the climate watchers side on the left, I also say that humans can have devastating effects on local environments.
    We need to take care of spaceship Earth, first locally, then globally.
    Namecalling is counterproductive.
    Jim
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

    Anyone want to debate this? I'd be interested to hear a good argument that the rise in CO2 concentrations of around 0.5%/year over the past 50+ years have nothing to do with the massive increase in fossil fuel consumption and an argument that concentrations of greenhouse gases have no impact on climate.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Well, Alpha, you should be careful what you wish for. Your darling, the EPA, is issuing new rules that effectively ban any new coal fired plants in the U.S., and may cause many now in operation to be forced to shut down. Way to go, Liberals! Best be getting some of that surplus income into some industrial strength solar cell panels, and solar cells for producing your own electricity and heating your bath water.

    http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_20261724/new-epa-rule-may-effectively-ban-most-new

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-reduce-new-power-plants-carbon-pollution

    And you have adamantly opposed nuclear plants for a long time here. And you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the EPA and NRC have been the driving force that makes the plants so expensive. You don't know squat about why it costs so much to build one, but support the regulations, many of which are unnecessary, that balloon the costs. I have personally been involved in the construction and running of three nuclear units, and know FIRST HAND why they cost so much.

    Any new plants will necessarily be natural gas plants. That's good because they are cleaner than coal. That's bad, because it will drive consumer cost to use natural gas through the roof due to huge demand vs. supply.

    Another news flash. Since we will no longer be able to use coal for power production, it will go to places like China and India, and they'll burn the stuff in way dirtier power plants than ours. Way to clean up the atmosphere, liberals!

    In this case, stupidity will be painful; a much, much larger chunk of EVERYONE'S income will have to go towards electricity costs. Odumba's prophecy of 'necessarily skyrocketing' electric costs is realized.

    I'll say I don't agree with the approach being taken by EPA on setting a limit on emissions. It's a pretty inefficient way to deal with the issue. That being said this regulation will never see the light of day it is merely a political move to try and pressure Republicans (and utilities/lobbyists) to come to the table on a more realistic long term approach. If we are going to try to do something, I'd much rather see a market based mechanism like cap and trade than a flat restriction. Markets are much better at finding solutions to problems than government mandates, but the markets only work efficiently if the externalities are priced. Like it or not right now there is a "shadow price" on carbon even if there isn't a market price. Anyone planning a new coal plant is factoring in some future price on carbon into their financial analysis based on the uncertainty about possible climate legislation or regulation. In some ways doing nothing can be more costly than doing something because of the cost to the market from uncertainty. If you talk to utility operators they'll tell you they can easily deal with a carbon tax or cap and trade, what they can't deal with is uncertainty when they're making 40-50 year infrastructure investments.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,146 Senior Member
    .......If you talk to utility operators they'll tell you they can easily deal with a carbon tax or cap and trade......
    Of course they can deal with it, by passing the carbon tax onto consumers, and Al Gore and his cronies become billionaires.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 617 Senior Member
    Meh... tis only another $1000 to $1500 per year on my electric bill surely the govt can afford that. They going to pay for my "Obamacare" soon they may as well pay that too.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Cap and trade is one of the biggest loads of horse manure ever attempted to be foisted on the country.
    Fact: Cap and trade does nothing to make emissions less; the burning of coal and natural gas produces the same amount of CO2 per kilogram mass no matter how much you tax it. You're supposed to be a college educated engineer type, and should know this. The chemical reactions going on are set by the physics of the process and do not change no matter how much you wish it to be so. ONE CARBON atom attaches to TWO OXYGEN atoms. This is the chemical formula, and you cannot change it. Burning lean enough in boilers that the burning produces high concentrations of CO (carbon monoxide) is VERY counterproductive as it makes for a smoky inefficient burning of the fuel with a much cooler burn temperature.

    Cap and trade is nothing more than an exorbitant tax thought up by some slick crooks to make a new 'commodity' to trade and sell for wildly speculative prices. A few people, like Al Gore, the TN beached whale, will get rich at the expense of everyone in the nation.

    Fact: The coal fired plants have pretty much hit a wall as to how much of the exhaust particulates they can remove. Some 'fines' still escape. And here's the rub on the exhaust 'fines'. When they were still mixed with some of the larger particulate, they aggregated due to electrostatic attraction and fell to the ground. Without the larger particulates, they can rise thousands of feet and travel long distances before they fall back with rain or other atmospheric causes. And the fines are much harder on people who breathe them than the larger particulates. They enter the lungs and muck things up, and if you have asthma, that isn't a good thing.

    There is no known technology for removing mercury from flue gases in coal plants, but the gooberment geniuses at the EPA are/have considered fining the plants for the mercury emissions. How about the ship of fools in the EPA come up with a way to efficiently remove the mercury from flue gases, and then consider fines for those that refuse to retrofit the new technology. Getting the cart before the horse has been proven to be a stupid move for centuries.

    Cap and trade is a mechanism by which the government and it's rich cronies want to attempt to cause the greater use of 'green' technologies to produce power. There is only one technology that can do that, and that is nuclear, but nuclear is not even considered by these 'useful idiots'. Solar voltaics and solar collectors only work when the sun is shining, and have a huge footprint per megawatt. The wind turbines only work well in areas that have a fairly constant wind speed. They also have a huge footprint per megawatt. The Boone Pickens plan in the middle of the country would have had one unintended consequence. It's right smack in the middle of the migratory bird routes in the U.S. If it is eventually built, they'll need a lot of dump trucks running around the clock to pick up all the birds that get whacked by the blades during the spring and fall migrations.

    CO2 sequestration is one of the hairbrained Rube Goldberg methods that has been considered. Pumping the fossil fuel fired plant gases into old abandoned mines. Who is the galloping moron that thought up this idiocy? Radon gas is a problem in some areas of the country more than others. Compared to a CO2 molecule, a Radon gas molecule is freakin' HUGE and it passes through solid rock with little problem. Co2 gas would have a much less troublesome path to the surface, and a blowout at one of the sequestering mines would be deadly to anyone living in the area. Here's an idea; make the idiots that thought up this idiocy live in very close proximity (as in a few hundred yards) of these CO2 sequestration mines. It's safe, right? No reason they wouldn't be willing to prove it by putting their lives where their mouths are.

    Cars: If you want to double the mileage of the highest mileage most efficient gas engines on the market, then you're going to have to increase their efficiency by 100% in the burning of the fuel and their conversion of those BTUs to motive force. There are only so many BTUs in a gallon of gas; attempting to squeeze blood out of a turnip has already been proven to be a futile exercise but there are still millions of idiots out there that think it's possible to make a 3,000+ lb. sedan get 100+ mpg. Good luck with that.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »

    There is no known technology for removing mercury from flue gases in coal plants, but the gooberment geniuses at the EPA are/have considered fining the plants for the mercury emissions. How about the ship of fools in the EPA come up with a way to efficiently remove the mercury from flue gases, and then consider fines for those that refuse to retrofit the new technology. Getting the cart before the horse has been proven to be a stupid move for centuries.
    .

    Not really interested in debating the merits of Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax. My only point is that IF you are going to regulate carbon, using a market mechanism that puts a price on carbon is a far better way to go than virtually flat out banning coal plants. Also money collected by such a system could offset other taxes so you merely shift the tax burden to a negative activity (pollutions) from a positive activity (income generating work). Economics boils down to incentives and you're simply better aligning the incentives towards more desirable outcomes.

    For a word on Mercury, the EPA rules are based upon "Maximum Achievable Control Technology". That means basically that everyone has to raise their standards to what's already being achieved at some of the cleanest plants in the country. Mercury can in fact be captured through the use of the right kinds of particulate filters and minor modifications to the flue gas desulferization processes. No phantom technology needed.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Not really interested in debating the merits of Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax.

    Chris, with all due respect (because you are a human being and are one of us on the forum), "WHY" do you engage in arguments you never supposedly intended to engage or that you are not interested in, yet you bring them up and only use them as talking points, jumping all over the place, flooding the main issue with clutter so as not to be really be pinned down to specifics, frustrating folks, while even a great deal of what you present in your posts are not supported with references (some cases you do)?

    I find your tactics for the most part disingenuous, and in essence you end up muddying up the water instead of really clearing much of any thing up, while constantly assuming (I guess) believing that you are right on most things you present. I guess the real question is why do I read much of anything you post, and if I didn't then I would not have this complaint, so it seems the solution to my problem with your tactics can be solved by me, but the temptation to engage you captures me time and time again. OH WELL, that must be the lure of being caught by temptation. :jester::jester:
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    This had been an excellent thread with plenty of good postings.

    First, Eli, I understand your comment about not giving a damn. However, regardless of the physics of the situation (which certainly won't be much noticed either way in the next 50 years or so), the politics of the situation are immediate and affect you with maybe higher taxes, unnecessary environmental regs, and misspent gummint money.

    So, regardless of whether the environment will actually affect you, the politics will. That means it's incumbent on all of us to pay attention to what's happening.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Now, regarding the physics of climate change, well, the climate is changing. It has changed for hundreds of millions of years.

    Note that the phrase "climate change" is fairly new with the environmental complaint crew. It was "global warming" for years. But if the Earth is maybe warming or sometimes cooling or flat, that label doesn't work. So the general term "climate change" now covers ALL effects -- it's colder, it's warmer, it's wetter, it's dryer, no matter WHAT happens, humans are to blame.

    I absolutely remember the "global cooling" era. Time magazine printed a cover showing NYC encased in a sheet of ice. Most of us, of course, thought "So what? It's New York." But it's a fact that these SAME people were hollering that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would cause global cooling and maybe a new ice age. Then it became global warming. Same people, same CO2, reverse effect.

    Challenged, the crowd then altered it to the more blanket term of global climate change. No matter what happens, cooler, warmer, drier, wetter, more storms, fewer storms, we did it. Case closed, QED.

    It's fairly evident that the earth is slightly warmer than a century ago. And temperature records from human weather documents aren't the only proof -- there is geologic evidence, such as tree ring width, sediment deposits, chemical analysis of layers of the soil, that can show the genuine slight warming.

    Question is, is this worldwide warming trend anthropomorphic (human caused)? I'm unpersuaded.

    No doubt, humans can soil their own nest locally -- massive pollution of rivers and lakes, uncaring mining runoffs, unchecked soot and smoke, all these are nasty and affect areas of our environment. I think that we are stewards and suzerain of the earth and need to be conscientious in its use.

    But globally, I think the evidence of anthropomorphic global climate change is tenuous. The so-called "hockey stick" upswing in global temps (named because of the sharp curve in the stick) is a terrible math error, probably deliberately tweaked to show the desired result.

    Why? The "Cliff Notes" explanation: That sharp curve is a hyperbolic function. To mathematically define a hyperbola, you need quite a few data points, like 6-9 minimum. The more shaky the conditions, the more data points needed. Measuring global temps is tricky and so you better have plenty of data. However, the famous (or infamous) curve is only drawn on 4-5 data points, and these were taken from previously interpreted data. In other words, a more gentle slope curve (parabola) was drawn from older data -- all the original data was "sadly" lost so there's no going back to check it! Then, from this parabolic curve, data points were interpolated to form the new hyperbolic curve. This is bogus bogus bogus mathematics, no matter whether the data deals with global temps, paint thickness on a new Jeep, or scoring on the 3rd date, ha ha. You cannot use data from one curve to define a new curve. Anyone familiar with calculus or statistics will verify this.

    My opinion: Yes, humans can soil their nests in a regional or local manner, which is reprehensible. Yes, the world temps and CO2 both seem to be climbing over the past century or so. But no, there is no definitive evidence that the cause is anthropomorphic (human caused) and that's the "leap of faith" that environmentalists have made without sufficient evidence.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    Chris, with all due respect (because you are a human being and are one of us on the forum), "WHY" do you engage in arguments you never supposedly intended to engage or that you are not interested in, yet you bring them up and only use them as talking points, jumping all over the place, flooding the main issue with clutter so as not to be really be pinned down to specifics, frustrating folks, while even a great deal of what you present in your posts are not supported with references (some cases you do)?

    I find your tactics for the most part disingenuous, and in essence you end up muddying up the water instead of really clearing much of any thing up, while constantly assuming (I guess) believing that you are right on most things you present. I guess the real question is why do I read much of anything you post, and if I didn't then I would not have this complaint, so it seems the solution to my problem with your tactics can be solved by me, but the temptation to engage you captures me time and time again. OH WELL, that must be the lure of being caught by temptation. :jester::jester:

    Mike, I have no problem discussing cap and trade in another thread, but opening that can of worms simply drifts this thread further from the central topic which was on the science of climate change, not the politics and solutions or lack there of. Much of the thread drift that occurs in my threads is the result of direct responses to other people. I admit I get caught up in it far too often, which is easy to do when I typically have at least 5-10 people posting responses directly to me in any given thread. Try debating 10 people at once on any topic, many of whom are directly trying to draw you off topic and then talk to me about muddying waters.

    As for supporting my posts with references, I admit I have intentionally gotten sloppy there. I used to support virtually everything I posted with multiple references, but frankly no one cares or bothers to read them. Also, hardly anyone else ever uses references, so I figure why waste the time.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Mike, I have no problem discussing cap and trade in another thread, but opening that can of worms simply drifts this thread further from the central topic which was on the science of climate change, not the politics and solutions or lack there of. Much of the thread drift that occurs in my threads is the result of direct responses to other people. I admit I get caught up in it far too often, which is easy to do when I typically have at least 5-10 people posting responses directly to me in any given thread. Try debating 10 people at once on any topic, many of whom are directly trying to draw you off topic and then talk to me about muddying waters.

    As for supporting my posts with references, I admit I have intentionally gotten sloppy there. I used to support virtually everything I posted with multiple references, but frankly no one cares or bothers to read them. Also, hardly anyone else ever uses references, so I figure why waste the time.

    Well, frankly I am glad I am not having to debate 10 or more people at the same time, of course that has happened to me on a few occasions on this forum and not that I did not deserve it, and it was a handful. :jester: Good response to my post, I will be reading more and of course responding.

    You are so right about folks at times not paying attention to the very premise one makes when posting, as thought the main point of the thread or post is irrelevant. :topic:

    I will admit it is fun at times to watch how we all engage each other. OH!!! The lure of temptation to respond is to hard to resist. :that:
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Mathew 6:13

    Not saying alpha is evil, just saying. :tooth:

    :spittingcoffee:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Not really interested in debating the merits of Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax. My only point is that IF you are going to regulate carbon, using a market mechanism that puts a price on carbon is a far better way to go than virtually flat out banning coal plants. Also money collected by such a system could offset other taxes so you merely shift the tax burden to a negative activity (pollutions) from a positive activity (income generating work). Economics boils down to incentives and you're simply better aligning the incentives towards more desirable outcomes.

    For a word on Mercury, the EPA rules are based upon "Maximum Achievable Control Technology". That means basically that everyone has to raise their standards to what's already being achieved at some of the cleanest plants in the country. Mercury can in fact be captured through the use of the right kinds of particulate filters and minor modifications to the flue gas desulferization processes. No phantom technology needed.

    I had the dubious pleasure of working in a coal fired plant for about six months with, at the time, the latest in particulate controls. Mercury is a particulate in flue gas. I would love to take you, and a bunch of the EPA weenies, into a section of the 'bag house' that has just been shut down and cooled to around 110-115 deg. wearing Tyvek coveralls and a dual filter respirator to change out the filter bags, and clean the electrostatic filters. After about 4 hours in the 'fun house' you have to leave because your respirator filters are almost completely stopped up, and you feel like you're trying to breathe through mud. And you're close to passing out from heat exhaustion. You walk out of the filter house and the cold 90 degree air hits you and you just about pass out from thermal shock, and it's much worse in winter. And even in the winter, I can personally guarantee that there will not be a dry thread anywhere in your clothing.

    The filters in the flue gas train could be made with 0.01 micron capture to take out just about all the particulate matter, but they'd have to be changed out hourly, or even shorter time period. And those filters would have to be disposed of as there is no cleaning of them possible. There comes a point of extremely diminishing returns on filtering flue gas, but the idiots regulating it seem to be unfamiliar with that concept. It can be extremely frustrating to attempt to explain why something is impractical to someone who has no concept of the process involved. If it were up to me, anyone in the EPA making the regulations on flue gas, or any other area, would have to work in a plant for one year doing the work that their regulations would impact. Very few 'cubicle rats' at the EPA would make the one year cut. I'd really like to be there when they are 'punching monkeys' in the boiler! :rotflmao:
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    If it were up to me, anyone in the EPA making the regulations on flue gas, or any other area, would have to work in a plant for one year doing the work that their regulations would impact. Very few 'cubicle rats' at the EPA would make the one year cut. I'd really like to be there when they are 'punching monkeys' in the boiler! :rotflmao:

    I'd go for that if we also agreed to pipe a slipstream of the flue gas directly into the homes of the executives running the utilities.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,851 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    While I would not necessarily fall into the category of "complete denier", I think that blaming the whole process of climate change (or even the majority of climate change) on human activity is foolish. One major volcanic eruption can barf out quantities of atmospheric yuck to make all the tailpipes of the world look like a couple dozen birthday candles in comparison; there's frozen methane under the ocean floors that could be released at any time; the sun's output is anything but constant; the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field varies in the amount of solar radiation it lets through. Earth has undergone a goodly number of catastrophic events that wiped out over 90% of life existing at the time - humanity had absolutely NOTHING to do with any of them.

    So I really can't say that I see regulation of fossil fuel emissions as really being a solution. Even if every car on Earth magically morphed into a Prius overnight, the fact is that this planet will eventually change to a mode of operation that will either kill us off or force us to adapt. I can possibly see regulating the amount of fuel a vehicle is allowed to consume - simply to make what we have last longer - but the notion of maintaining a human-friendly climate through tailpipe emissions is laughable.

    And even if you ARE looking to blame humans as the leading cause of climate change, is it REALLY tailpipe emissions you need to be fixated on? Deforestation has already been mentioned in this thread - lack of ability to ABSORB CO2 may be the bigger issue. You also have to consider PAVEMENT. Concrete and asphalt absorb and retain a hell of a lot more solar radiation than grass and dirt; one need only compare downtown Phoenix at night to the empty desert an hour's drive away to see the truth in this.

    Here's the thing; it's the "end-of-the-world alarmists" who are pushing for and writing the bulk of the "save the planet" legislation. As best I can make out, they are either well-intentioned, but naive, doe-eyed hippy-types (who can't wrap their brains around the notion that the Earth is only human-friendly for a limited time), or people using the voting power of the well-intentioned, but naive, doe-eyed hippy-types to accomplish some other agenda (hoisting the environmental banner against lead for the advancement of back-door gun control being a prime example). The end result is often CRUSHING, regulation affecting the real world growing out of half-baked, pie-in-the-sky research. If you're going to ask me to accept living under a yoke, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better at persuading me of the need for, and the effectiveness of said yoke.

    Well said Bigslug! I agree. One thing the doe eyed Hippy types better realize is said yoke will be around their necks too. One thing people have been taught to ignore is that there is an element that wants to set mankind back 1,000 years to the time before the Magna Carta when the noble few ruled the many masses. I remember back when I was in high school that if you even uttered the word Communist above your breath you were considered a brainless knuckle dragger. But this was by design. Now people are coming forth calling ultra libs socialist and communists, which most of them are. I don't want that yoke around my neck either. In the words of Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!"
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • cwtheocwtheo New Member Posts: 1 New Member
    "As much as possible I'd like to try and see if we can avoid this thread going down the path of the type of unproductive, polarized shouting match that the political debate around the issue has become"

    Well, so much for that...
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,651 Senior Member
    cwtheo wrote: »
    "As much as possible I'd like to try and see if we can avoid this thread going down the path of the type of unproductive, polarized shouting match that the political debate around the issue has become"

    Well, so much for that...

    Liberals always get whiny when they don't get to make all the rules.
  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Senior Member Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

    Anyone want to debate this? I'd be interested to hear a good argument that the rise in CO2 concentrations of around 0.5%/year over the past 50+ years have nothing to do with the massive increase in fossil fuel consumption and an argument that concentrations of greenhouse gases have no impact on climate.

    The problem I have with all the Global Warming alarmists is the selective data used and the hand-wringing they employ to convince the powers-that-be to impose incredibly restrictive regulations that place "compliant" technology way out of the price range that the vast majority of citizens are either able or willing to afford.

    Charts showing sixty or even a hundred sixty years' worth of "climate change" are useless in making the point that man is "destroying the atmosphere." I recently found this video essay by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, and it pretty well sums up the best response to the Al Gore nonsense that I have ever heard.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIZqHGi2EfE&feature=related
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,265 Senior Member
    Frankly, I don't give a cr&p about any of this discussion, you will never change what I believe and I gave up years ago having any discussion with
    Democrats. For crying out loud were one shot away from civil war, what effect do you think that will have on global warming when major U.S cities are
    burning!!
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    WOW!! I didn't know Fort Sumter was active again????:jester::jester::jester:
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,265 Senior Member
    Tampa, Florida in August!! If you have blue eyes, your in trouble
    WOW!! I didn't know Fort Sumter was active again????:jester::jester::jester:
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    I read an AP story today reporting about coal exports from the U.S. surging to their highest levels since 1991. As coal loses favor here and coal use for power producing plants keeps falling, our coal exports have skyrocketed. The demand is great, with exports to So. Korea, India, Japan (mostly due to its nuclear power crisis), China, Brazil, and even some European nations, and others.

    So, as our use of coal declines, by government edict, the rest of the world is increasing its demand for coal. That's a fact. One good result of this is that we have a solid commodity to export, keeping the coal industry solvent, and seriously considering expansion.

    Net result of all this fuss over coal use in the U.S., the EPA, Congress, all that greenie stuff, whatever, is near zero. And Australia is getting ready to begin huge coal exports once it has recovered from extraordinary flooding. The world market for coal is expanding!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.