Working to cope with climate change

[Trakar]

Category 6 Hurricanes? They've Happened - ABC News

There is no official Category 6 for hurricanes, but scientists say they're pondering whether there should be as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years -- and all but a handful of hurricane experts now agree this worsening bears the fingerprints of man-made global warming.

But because of man-made global warming, most hurricane scientists say now we will probably be getting Category 4 and 5 hurricanes more frequently in the coming decades.

...

"... Now you're thinking do I have ONE link or HUNDREDS. Do you feel lucky punk? Well do ya?"

How about a single reference that compellingly supports your assertion that anyone we should believe has stated that AGW would lead to annual category five hurricanes to hit the shores of LA and FL?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ok Ye Old Rocks...

I don't do forum beat-downs anymore because I started to get night sweats imagining that I was busting on a 12 yr old or a confirmed mental case.. So let's just give you just ONE, then you say --- "I was mistaken flacaltenn, NOW I remember several other times the Alarmists went overboard on hurricanes". We be still friends and everybody gets a nightcap...

Category 6 Hurricanes? They've Happened - ABC News

There is no official Category 6 for hurricanes, but scientists say they're pondering whether there should be as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years -- and all but a handful of hurricane experts now agree this worsening bears the fingerprints of man-made global warming.

But because of man-made global warming, most hurricane scientists say now we will probably be getting Category 4 and 5 hurricanes more frequently in the coming decades.

OR -- you could get all cranky and belligerient and start thinking like that Clint Eastwood scene depicts...

"... Now you're thinking do I have ONE link or HUNDREDS. Do you feel lucky punk? Well do ya?"

Dumb ass. More frequently does not mean annually. Yes, when dealing with people that have no basis for their statements, I feel very lucky. For I learned to research the science behind the statements I make a long time ago.

 

[skookerasbil]

The warmers never want the discussion to be about putting extreme weather into a historical context = fAiL.

Dozens of extremem weather events over the past 150 years worldwide................


NOAA News Online (Story 334)

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, dozens of extreme weather events over the course of 150 years. Now we get dozens over the course of two years. A bit of a differance.

 

[Katzndogz]

We go through the global warming hogwash every summer, as if it has never been summer before.

 

[bobgnote]

And we get four hot, hotter, hot as hell, and hottest decades in a row, and that doesn't do anything for wingnutskies, who are still trying to sell oil, like Stalin is still alive. Russia does export oil, nyet? Assholes. You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.

We get the hottest March on record, 2012, and warming isn't earlier, in the year? Groundhogs is, as groundhogs does. It's early Springtime, isn't it Phil!

The warming is accelerating, and this must happen, from release of trapped methane and its involvement, as glacial ice yields methane, warmed bodies of water yield methane, and lands formerly covered by permafrost yield more methane, before even one cow farts.

Gee, I am not disappointed at all, how Arctic ice may not completely disappear. Overall, polar ice is still receding, fast as can be. Do notice the Antarctic is losing ice, simultaneously, so the Arctic exchange is allowed to slow. We will see the sea-level rise.

I guess it doesn't matter at all, how carbonic acidification is starting to kill reefs, and this can move to entire ocean species, in a blink. But wingnuts don't think anybody has to eat, so if the ocean food-chain collapses, and we lose bees, and the Oglalla acquifier fails, and the US breadbasket fucks all up, wingnutskies can all go back to Russia, and beg food from the Ukraine!

Russian Meteorological Center: "There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat." | ThinkProgress

Russia’s Fires & Pakistan’s Floods: The Result of a Stagnant Jet Stream? | 80beats | Discover Magazine

Shit happens, to wingnutski!

 

[Old Rocks]

We go through the global warming hogwash every summer, as if it has never been summer before.

And every decade sees hotter summers and warmer winters. And every decade sees faster glacial recession, more ice, by the gigaton, melted off of Greenland and Antarctica. And every decades sees more of you morons denying what is becoming obvious to everyone around the world.

You started out denying any change at all. Then you, and your obese junkie on the radio, moved on the stating that it was a natural increase, and minor at that. Now you are stating while it may have been pretty warm this decade, we are starting a cooling trend. Yet you present no evidence at all for your statements.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now the goalpost is "find me a statement that hurricanes will hit Florida and Louisiana?" C'mon, the alarm bells have been clanging for 10 years now about STRONGER, LONGER hurricane seasons due to AGW. Sorry you selectively space-out on all that. TRY to find a AGW site that DOESN'T make that claim..

As for Trakar's search of Al Gore's movie.. Must have missed the frightening prediction of STRONGER, LONGER, And more frequent hurricanes right here...

Watch An Inconvenient Truth Online - An Inconvenient Truth Scene: Hurricanes, Typhoons And Cyclones - Zimbio

 

[flacaltenn]

And we get four hot, hotter, hot as hell, and hottest decades in a row, and that doesn't do anything for wingnutskies, who are still trying to sell oil, like Stalin is still alive. Russia does export oil, nyet? Assholes. You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.

We get the hottest March on record, 2012, and warming isn't earlier, in the year? Groundhogs is, as groundhogs does. It's early Springtime, isn't it Phil!

The warming is accelerating, and this must happen, from release of trapped methane and its involvement, as glacial ice yields methane, warmed bodies of water yield methane, and lands formerly covered by permafrost yield more methane, before even one cow farts.

Gee, I am not disappointed at all, how Arctic ice may not completely disappear. Overall, polar ice is still receding, fast as can be. Do notice the Antarctic is losing ice, simultaneously, so the Arctic exchange is allowed to slow. We will see the sea-level rise.

I guess it doesn't matter at all, how carbonic acidification is starting to kill reefs, and this can move to entire ocean species, in a blink. But wingnuts don't think anybody has to eat, so if the ocean food-chain collapses, and we lose bees, and the Oglalla acquifier fails, and the US breadbasket fucks all up, wingnutskies can all go back to Russia, and beg food from the Ukraine!

Russian Meteorological Center: "There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat." | ThinkProgress

Russia’s Fires & Pakistan’s Floods: The Result of a Stagnant Jet Stream? | 80beats | Discover Magazine

Shit happens, to wingnutski!

What exactly is this fantasy about saving the earth with hemp?

You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.

Can you give me ONE respectable mainstream environmental group (Sierra Club, EDF, etc) that claims that burning biomass or biomass products should be a major source of clean green energy?

If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?

 

[Old Rocks]

And we get four hot, hotter, hot as hell, and hottest decades in a row, and that doesn't do anything for wingnutskies, who are still trying to sell oil, like Stalin is still alive. Russia does export oil, nyet? Assholes. You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.

We get the hottest March on record, 2012, and warming isn't earlier, in the year? Groundhogs is, as groundhogs does. It's early Springtime, isn't it Phil!

The warming is accelerating, and this must happen, from release of trapped methane and its involvement, as glacial ice yields methane, warmed bodies of water yield methane, and lands formerly covered by permafrost yield more methane, before even one cow farts.

Gee, I am not disappointed at all, how Arctic ice may not completely disappear. Overall, polar ice is still receding, fast as can be. Do notice the Antarctic is losing ice, simultaneously, so the Arctic exchange is allowed to slow. We will see the sea-level rise.

I guess it doesn't matter at all, how carbonic acidification is starting to kill reefs, and this can move to entire ocean species, in a blink. But wingnuts don't think anybody has to eat, so if the ocean food-chain collapses, and we lose bees, and the Oglalla acquifier fails, and the US breadbasket fucks all up, wingnutskies can all go back to Russia, and beg food from the Ukraine!

Russian Meteorological Center: "There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat." | ThinkProgress

Russia’s Fires & Pakistan’s Floods: The Result of a Stagnant Jet Stream? | 80beats | Discover Magazine

Shit happens, to wingnutski!

What exactly is this fantasy about saving the earth with hemp?

You cannot get any kind of pig to quit slopping and grow hemp, to save the planet, since Marxists, Christians, Zionists, oil barons, and wingnuts are all for the drug war, to hell with hemp and Henry Ford.

Can you give me ONE respectable mainstream environmental group (Sierra Club, EDF, etc) that claims that burning biomass or biomass products should be a major source of clean green energy?

If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?[/QUOTE]

Do you understand the differance between using cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon? Obviously not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now the goalpost is "find me a statement that hurricanes will hit Florida and Louisiana?" C'mon, the alarm bells have been clanging for 10 years now about STRONGER, LONGER hurricane seasons due to AGW. Sorry you selectively all that. TRY to find a AGW site that DOESN'T make that claim..

As for Trakar's search of Al Gore's movie.. Must have missed the frightening prediction of STRONGER, LONGER, And more frequent hurricanes right here...

Watch An Inconvenient Truth Online - An Inconvenient Truth Scene: Hurricanes, Typhoons And Cyclones - Zimbio

Yes. That was the prediction. And the part concerning stronger and longer has proven to be accurate. We don't seem to be getting that many more, however. But the statement challenged is that Gore or some other person dealing with AGW claimed that Cat 5's would be hitting our coast on an annual basis. You have not shown that at all. In fact, you have only shown what we stated to be true from the beginning. That what was predicted was an increase in strength, longevity, and number.

You are trying to change the statement that you challenged on. Sorry, you flapped yap, and you are getting called on it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Naw -- you're nit-picking and dodging responsibility for BEING an alarmist.. Not to mention ass-kissing your Alarmist in Cheif.. Good Job!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

OLE ROCKS:::

Do you understand the differance between using cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon? Obviously not.

Of course I do -- Don't think you do unless you can answer my question --

If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?

Do you understand the difference between a foul-mouthed pot-head and The Sierra Club????

Please see

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/225475-total-cost-of-nuclear.html#post5364186

 

[IanC]

Gore's AIT was all exaggeration and unsubstantiated predictions of doom.

that is why fewer and fewer people believe the nonsense now. fool me once.....

I really cant understand how anyone can even remotely support such travesties as AIT or the Hockey Stick. sticking up for frauds and liars makes it very likely that you are a fraud and a liar yourself.

 

[Trakar]

...Can you give me ONE respectable mainstream environmental group (Sierra Club, EDF, etc) that claims that burning biomass or biomass products should be a major source of clean green energy?

If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?

Well, environmental groups have more problem with vast monoculture tracts (be it barley, paper-mill pine farms, or power plant feedstock) but many of them do discuss the advantages and disadvantages of biomass power, and generally prefer it to any of the fossil fuels.

Natural Resources Defense Council Biomass Fact Sheet - </TITLE> </HEAD>

Union of Concerned Scientists - USA: How Biomass Works How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

There's a government lab reference as well:
NREL: Biomass Research Home Page

The main difference is that removing all of the carbon from the combustion of coal to produce energy and securely, reliably re-sequestering that carbon in a manner appropriate to keep it out of the environmental carbon cycle makes it uneconomical to use coal for this purpose. I have no problem with private industry funding research to see if there is an economically viable method of achieveing carbon neutral coal combustion (that would be a technology we could market to the world, along with our coal). Currently the capture processes are only fractionally effective and reliable, long-term geological sequestration is unevidenced.

 

[Trakar]

...sticking up for frauds and liars makes it very likely that you are a fraud and a liar yourself.

Amazing coincidence!

I was just thinking the same thing as I read your post!

 

[flacaltenn]

...Can you give me ONE respectable mainstream environmental group (Sierra Club, EDF, etc) that claims that burning biomass or biomass products should be a major source of clean green energy?

If we can cleanly burn hemp to generate power -- why can't we cleanly burn coal?

Well, environmental groups have more problem with vast monoculture tracts (be it barley, paper-mill pine farms, or power plant feedstock) but many of them do discuss the advantages and disadvantages of biomass power, and generally prefer it to any of the fossil fuels.

Natural Resources Defense Council Biomass Fact Sheet - </TITLE> </HEAD>

Union of Concerned Scientists - USA: How Biomass Works How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

There's a government lab reference as well:
NREL: Biomass Research Home Page

The main difference is that removing all of the carbon from the combustion of coal to produce energy and securely, reliably re-sequestering that carbon in a manner appropriate to keep it out of the environmental carbon cycle makes it uneconomical to use coal for this purpose. I have no problem with private industry funding research to see if there is an economically viable method of achieveing carbon neutral coal combustion (that would be a technology we could market to the world, along with our coal). Currently the capture processes are only fractionally effective and reliable, long-term geological sequestration is unevidenced.

Yeah -- all that's roughly correct. But here's the rub. No matter what bio your massing with, you're gonna combust IT or a derivative of IT. So unless you envision the same sequestration for Biomass as you speak of for coal -- it'aint much greener.

Now tighten your seat belt for the fun part.. Many eco orgs have listed Biomass as a green alternative for years before actually discovering they don't want to live anywhere near such a plant.. So they've pressured EPA to EXEMPT Biomass from the newest CO2 emissions regulations. Cool huh. Stroke of the pen -- everythings green.. That's led to a lot of new crap on internet about how dam green Biomass generation is.. All with a tiny disclaimer that "we don't count actual combustion emissions because the EPA doesn't either"..

Upshot of that govt brain-fart is that now they got coal plants wanting to convert to burning any BioMass they can get their hands on so they don't have to look "dirty" anymore for Al Gore. And they'll get away with this charade as long as the Green groups are as technically f'ked up as they are..

http://wunc.org/programs/news/archive/tfr081511.mp3/view

The lawsuit comes shortly after Charlotte-based Duke Energy won a ruling from the North Carolina Court of Appeals saying that it could count burning whole trees in its coal-fired plants toward its state renewable energy mandates. That ruling from the North Carolina Utilities Commission was being challenged by the Environmental Defense Fund and North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association. Environmentalists are considering appealing that ruling to the state Supreme Court. State law mandates power companies get 12.5 % percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2021. Gudrun Thompson is the senior attorney for the SELC who was working on the case against Duke Energy. She says there are no environmental safeguards on the practice of cutting forests and burning them for electricity.

Those silly greenies just CAN'T make up their little minds --- can they? I'd laugh if it wasn't so seriously f'ked.

See this post linked below for a Sierra Club who once included biomass on it's list of clean green snorky energy..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/225475-total-cost-of-nuclear.html#post5364186

Or how about --

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe796

Biomass fuels produced only 0.5 percent of the electricity in 2007and caused 2.7 percent of the CO2 emissions

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/3375/stack-attack

The group opposes the plant for several reasons outlined on its Web site, www.concernedcitizensofrussell.org, including trucking routes and frequency of travel, river impacts, forest sustainability and, of course, plant emissions. The area already has high levels of air pollution because of its location and geography, according to CCR spokeswoman Jana Chicoine. "This site is ringed by mountains," she says. "You've got a 300-foot smokestack next to a 1,100-foot mountain."

Emission Impacts

Typical major emissions from biomass power plants include carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and lead, along with particulate matter, among others. All these emissions, in high concentrations, have adverse effects on the environment, but also pose health risks. Carbon monoxide can cause issues such as asthma, headaches, unconsciousness and death; particulates can cause respiratory illnesses; sulfur dioxide can induce breathing difficulty or worsen asthmatic problems in children; and nitrous oxide can affect the central nervous system, along with cardiovascular and reproductive systems, among other side effects.

A broad, statewide opposition to biomass has developed in Massachusetts, initiating a petition for a carbon dioxide emissions law that would prohibit biomass plants emitting more than 250 pounds per megawatt hour from operating. That's far lower than any biomass plant emits, along with any fossil fuel power plant, Bos says.

Biomass power should not be included as a renewable energy resource because it is not carbon neutral, Chicoine says, adding that a number of other organizations in the state have formed around opposition of biomass power plants. "Opposition to biomass power plants in Massachusetts is uniquely strong, organized, gifted, qualified, focused and accomplished, I think, in all the world," she says, adding that the idea of biomass being carbon neutral is a "fairy tale." The state has one operational biomass plant in Westminster that generates 17 MW and four more have been proposed, including Russell's. A number of coal plants are also considering switching to biomass. Additionally, Massachusetts has a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 15 percent by 2020, with smaller goals each year.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- that NRDC statement is absolutely PATHETIC. What a load of spin and BS...

What else do you expect from a room full of lawyers..

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Flat, you do not understand the differance between cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon. Cyclic carbon is carbon that is already in the system, burning do not add it or remove it from the system. Sequestered carbon, in the form of petroleum, natural gas, or coal, is not presently in the system. When you burn it, you add it to the system. Now there are methods to re-sequester that carbon, but they are very expensive, and of doubtful success.

We have added carbon to the system to the point where we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4. We have also added other GHGs, NOx, and many industrial gases that have no natural analogs, and are thousands of times as powerful of a GHG as CO2. In reality, we are well past the equivelant of a 450 ppm CO2 level. And we are starting to see the consequences right now.

 

[jack113]

Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.

America will do what it has been doing since Reagan and sit on the sidelines with global warming and allow all the other countries like China to develop green energy sources and make all the profits while America uses global warming for nothing but campaign donations. In the mean time our children suffer from air born pollution and become weaker with each new generation all because the people world rather play politically correct instead of responsible free thinkers.