16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.
- Thread starter Saigon
- Start date
Oh take a hike you sanctimonious unethical twerp. You don't know anything about anything. You are a propagandist through and through. Let me know when you've taken your remedial Finnish geography lesson too so we can test your knowledge on that!
Boss
Take a Memo:
Saigon, what I continue to see you doing, is trying to argue your point from the perspective of the obvious, which doesn't establish your point at all. It's like Chicken Little running around speaking of all the terrible dangers of a falling sky... it gets in your hair... it could hurt your head... it might even kill somebody! You need to be proving that man is contributing to climate change, and all you're doing is talking about the effects of climate change. We all understand that when the climate changes, it affects things. This fact doesn't establish that mankind is contributing to the change in climate.
Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all. The chart posted by QW, data taken from an ice core, shows that CO2 levels have always followed the same cyclical pattern, over hundreds of thousands of years. Your chart is just the sampling which only shows one spike, the most current. Other spikes, as indicated by ice core data, were greater than the current spike. This couldn't have been caused by man, we weren't here.
Wrong on both counts. It requires tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce large scale windmills and they are far more expensive to operate than fossil fuel powered power stations.
One windmill that cost 21,000 has generated a whopping 4 BUCKS in savings!
Now that's a greeeeat return on investment!
"Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.
The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.
That's according ..."
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314...living-up-manufacturers-claims?nclick_check=1
Boss
Take a Memo:
Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty? It's not a pollutant. It is one of the most abundant compounds in the universe, and absolutely VITAL for all plant life. The cleanest most efficient form of energy is nuclear. Wind power is certainly not cheaper than coal, and is far less efficient. Have you ever seen a wind-powered locomotive? Wind is also unpredictable, you don't know when it will blow, for how long, or to what degree. What do you suppose happens to windmills in a hurricane? Or do you assume we will no longer have hurricanes if we convert to wind power?
Saigon
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #86
Boss-
No, it doesn't. What I posted proved to you that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising at an unprecedented rate - a point you had asked for information on.
This is where it is really worth trying to block out the politics and just try and focus on logic.
We know that humankind has increased our output of CO2 a thousandfold during the past century.
And as we just saw, we know that levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere have risen a thousandfols in the past century.
You can see where I am going with this, can't you?
Then trying breathing it and see what happens.
Water is not a pollutant either. It is necessary to sustain life,true?
What happens if you drink 25 litres of water in 2 hours?
Pleawe note that these are not disputed points. Noone is arguing about this. It is known science, and most posters here will confirm that for you.
btw. Windpower IS cheaper than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
I totally support nuclear.
No, it doesn't. What I posted proved to you that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising at an unprecedented rate - a point you had asked for information on.
This is where it is really worth trying to block out the politics and just try and focus on logic.
We know that humankind has increased our output of CO2 a thousandfold during the past century.
And as we just saw, we know that levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere have risen a thousandfols in the past century.
You can see where I am going with this, can't you?
Then trying breathing it and see what happens.
Water is not a pollutant either. It is necessary to sustain life,true?
What happens if you drink 25 litres of water in 2 hours?
Pleawe note that these are not disputed points. Noone is arguing about this. It is known science, and most posters here will confirm that for you.
btw. Windpower IS cheaper than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
I totally support nuclear.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #87
Absolutely ASTOUNDING that the world's scientists could have missed that basic point ! ! !
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
greenhouse effect: Definition from Answers.com
Greenhouse Effect - What are Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect?
The Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse effect
The Greenhouse Effect | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
What is the greenhouse effect?
Greenhouse Effect: Background Material
NASA's Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Enhanced 'greenhouse effect' causes global warming - USATODAY.com
Ancient clams yield new information about greenhouse effect on climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
7(h) The Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse effect | Define Greenhouse effect at Dictionary.com
Greenhouse gas emissions lowest in 20 years, thanks to natural gas | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog
greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/greenhouse_effect.aspx
Greenhouse effect - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
greenhouse effect - definition of greenhouse effect by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
The Greenhouse Effect - Thermodynamics, Heat, Climate Change - PhET
greenhouse_2011
Greenhouse Effect definition of Greenhouse Effect in the Free Online Encyclopedia.
Greenhouse-effect | Define Greenhouse-effect at Dictionary.com
Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse Effect, by Thomas C. Schelling: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Global Warming Interactive, Global Warming Simulation, Climate Change Simulation - National Geographic
Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse effect | Easy to understand definition of greenhouse effect by Your Dictionary
Greenhouse effect
greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Last edited:
- Banned
- #88
Sources of carbon dioxide
Natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide include volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, wildfires and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms. Man-made sources of carbon dioxide include the burning of fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport, as well as some industrial processes such as cement making. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration. Plants, algae and cyanobacteria convert carbon dioxide to carbohydrates by a process called photosynthesis. They gain the energy needed for this reaction from absorption of sunlight by chlorophyll and other pigments. Oxygen, produced as a by-product of photosynthesis, is released into the atmosphere and subsequently used for respiration by heterotrophic organisms and other plants, forming a cycle.
Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.[18] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[19] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).[20] These natural sources are nearly balanced by natural sinks, physical and biological processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some is directly removed from the atmosphere by land plants for photosynthesis and it is soluble in water forming carbonic acid. There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans.[21] In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.[22] The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages and is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods. Estimated carbon in global terrestrial vegetation increased from approximately 740 billion tons in 1910 to 780 billion tons in 1990.[23]
Anthropogenic CO2 increase
While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human activity.[24] Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[24] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling them to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.
Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[25] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in 1990.[25] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[26][27][28] In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes.[29]
This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[30] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.[31][32] Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
18. ^ "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2013-05-12.
19. ^ Gerlach, T.M. (4 June 1991). "Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes". Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union (American Geophysical Union) 72 (23): 249, 254–5. Bibcode:1991EOSTr..72..249.. doi:10.1029/90EO10192.
20. ^ U.S. Geological Survey, "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects", volcanoes.usgs.gov
21. ^ Cappelluti, G.; Bösch, H.; Monks, P.S. (2009). Use of remote sensing techniques for the detection and monitoring of GHG emissions from the Scottish land use sector. Scottish Government. ISBN 978-0-7559-7738-3.
22. ^ Canadell JG, Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, et al. (November 2007). "Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (47): 18866–70. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10418866C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702737104. PMC 2141868. PMID 17962418.
23. ^ Post WM, King AW, Wullschleger SD, Hoffman FM; King; Wullschleger (June 1997). "Historical Variations in Terrestrial Biospheric Carbon Storage". DOE Research Summary (CDIAC, U.S. Department of Energy) 34: 99. Bibcode:1997GBioC..11...99P. doi:10.1029/96GB03942.
24. ^ a b e.g. Gosh, Prosenjit; Brand, Willi A. (2003). "Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research" (PDF). International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 228: 1–33. doi:10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6. "Global change issues have become significant due to the sustained rise in atmospheric trace gas concentrations (CO2, N
2O, CH
4) over recent years, attributable to the increased per capita energy consumption of a growing global population."
25. ^ a b G.P. Peters et al. Global carbon budget 2010 (summary), Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
26. ^ Page, S.; Siegert, F.; Rieley, J.; Boehm, H.; Jaya, A.; Limin, S. (2002). "The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997.". Nature 420 (6911): 61–65. doi:10.1038/nature01131. PMID 12422213. edit
27. ^ Lazaroff, Cat (2002-11-08). "Indonesian Wildfires Accelerated Global Warming". Environment New Service. Retrieved 2011-11-07.
28. ^ Pearce, Fred (6 November 2004). "Massive peat burn is speeding climate change". New Scientist.
29. ^ Calculated from file global.1751_2008.csv in [1] from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
30. ^ US Global Change Research Information Office, "Common Questions about Climate Change"
31. ^ "Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa". NOAA. Retrieved 2013-05-11.
32. ^ "Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark". BBC. 10 May 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
Last edited:
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
knock yourself out s0n.......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]
Might as well be standing stark naked in the middle of Siberia screaming "FIRE"!!!!!
nobody cares........
- Banned
- #90
Wrong on both counts. It requires tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce large scale windmills and they are far more expensive to operate than fossil fuel powered power stations.
One windmill that cost 21,000 has generated a whopping 4 BUCKS in savings!
Now that's a greeeeat return on investment!
"Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.
The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.
That's according ..."
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314...living-up-manufacturers-claims?nclick_check=1
But, as we all know, the manufacture and construction of fossil fuel-power plants produces NO CO2 AT ALL! It's a FOOKING MIRACLE I TELL YOU!
There is nothing about the construction of a wind generator that produces any significant amount of CO2. To insist otherwise is simple dishonesty. Or ignorance. The "dirtiest" component in that regard would be concrete. Newer designs have replaced almost all concrete with steel. "All wind turbines recover their complete full-cycle energy cost in the first few (usually three) months of operation." - Ohio State Edu link below
The Ohio Wind Working Group (OWWG), a forum on wind energy development, says the state has the potential to generate 66,000 megawatts, enough to power the state twice over. That's how much money Ohio can save with wind energy, all of it. In 2006 wind energy in the state generated $250 million worth of electricity and created 1,700 jobs. "By 2030, Ohio could benefit from $7.6 billion revenue from the wind industry," says the OWWG.
Read more: How Much Money Will the Wind Farms Save Ohio? | eHow
More good reading at:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E21.3.pdf.xpdf
Last edited:
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Wrong on both counts. It requires tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce large scale windmills and they are far more expensive to operate than fossil fuel powered power stations.
One windmill that cost 21,000 has generated a whopping 4 BUCKS in savings!
Now that's a greeeeat return on investment!
"Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.
The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.
That's according ..."
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314...living-up-manufacturers-claims?nclick_check=1
But, as we all know, the manufacture and construction of fossil fuel-power plants produces NO CO2 AT ALL! It's a FOOKING MIRACLE I TELL YOU!
There is nothing about the construction of a wind generator that produces any significant amount of CO2. To insist otherwise is simple dishonesty. Or ignorance. The "dirtiest" component in that regard would be concrete. Newer designs have replaced almost all concrete with steel. "All wind turbines recover their complete full-cycle energy cost in the first few (usually three) months of operation." - Ohio State Edu link below
The Ohio Wind Working Group (OWWG), a forum on wind energy development, says the state has the potential to generate 66,000 megawatts, enough to power the state twice over. That's how much money Ohio can save with wind energy, all of it. In 2006 wind energy in the state generated $250 million worth of electricity and created 1,700 jobs. "By 2030, Ohio could benefit from $7.6 billion revenue from the wind industry," says the OWWG.
Read more: How Much Money Will the Wind Farms Save Ohio? | eHow
More good reading at:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E21.3.pdf.xpdf
- Banned
- #92
Saigon was quite clear what he meant by the term "dirty".
Semantic bullshit.
As your denialist buddies will tell you, it is actually a "trace"gas here on Earth and it is most certainly NOT one of the most abundant compounds in the universe.
Yes. Do you believe anti-global warming efforts are a threat to the health of the world's plant life?
I also support nuclear power, but I would argue a few points with you. From a global warming perspective, nuke plants are certainly desirable. From a resource-efficiency standpoint, the future looks good. The waste issues are formidable at the moment, but breeder reactor technology has enormous promise as an efficient means to dispose of dangerous residuals. Unfortunately, of course, they are a dual-edged sword from their production of weapons grade materials. Thorium reactors are promising and, somewhere a good ways down the line, fusion reactors have the promise of allowing us to rapidly eliminate our dangerous fission waste products. As I said, I support nuclear power, but it presents a number of risks and challenges and should be used with caution.
It is cheaper than coal and, when environmental effects are taken into account, it is fabulously less expensive. It also has a slight advantage regarding fuel costs.
Was that supposed to be a meaningful query?
Your local weatherman would disagree with you. You can predict wind but the accuracy of your predictions goes down rapidly as one looks further out. General predictions - say seasonally-based can be made as well. The future is an unknown in all regards. The accuracy of our predictions regarding coal price and availability also go down as we look further and further out. The same is true for petroleum, natural gas, uranium... the lot. The differences are only a matter of degree.
They ship the blades, lock the rotors and wait. Do you think it impossible to build a wind generator capable of sustaining hurricane force winds?
I think you need to do a little more reading.
Last edited:
Boss
Take a Memo:
But it's NOT unprecedented, as QW's chart showed, it's been happening like this for 400k years. It has actually spiked higher, so you've shown nothing "unprecedented" at all.
Yes, let's focus on the logic and not the politics. It's not unprecedented that CO2 levels are rising, they have been spiking like this for hundreds of thousands of years, long before mankind was around to contribute to them. Man creates CO2 through industrialization, so the only way to eliminate man's contribution is to get rid of industrialization. The only other way CO2 is created by man, is through breathing and living, and our population has increased a thousandfold during the past century, so something should be done about all the humans on the planet as well. I think, before we get carried away, we need to look at the effects of these spikes in CO2, and the fact that they generally result in a difference of a few degrees in temperature, at best.
Not really, because so has industrialization and population. It has caused a net increase of a few degrees in median temperature. As we've observed for 400k years, the planet can handle it, nothing catastrophic is going to happen, and eventually the levels decline again. Man's contribution through industrialization and breathing, only accounts for a small amount of the CO2 present in our atmosphere.
Well this can be said about anything. If you breathe pure oxygen, it will eventually kill you. That doesn't mean it's a pollutant or dirty. Now, the level of CO2 to breathe and be in any kind of danger, is 800ppm, according to OSHA. We're never going to reach this level in our atmosphere.
Wind power may be cheaper than coal in production of electricity, but it is also less reliable. Not to mention the fact that we only produce a fraction of electricity with coal. The most efficient way to produce electricity, and the most reliable, is nuclear. I'm glad you support nuclear, now maybe you can convince some of your moonbat friends to stop protesting the building of more nuclear power plants?
PredFan
Diamond Member
99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.
- Banned
- #95
The vast majority of climate scientists and a very strong majority of all other scientists believe that global warming is primarily caused by human GHG emissions. I find that point considerably more significant than the opinions of the public.
- Banned
- #96
We can't force you to be right either. But we can refute nonsense when we see it. AGW is not a scam. The world is getting warmer. The Greenhouse Effect is the dominant cause. The Greenhouse Effect is acting on increased levels of CO2, methane, water vapor and so forth. The source of those gases is either anthropogenic or a result of the warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions.
Boss
Take a Memo:
Well yes, it IS semantic bullshit when you say that CO2 is "dirty," because it's not. In fact it is an essential compound needed for all plants to live. Without plants, we can't survive.
Well yeah, 300 parts per million, is a trace. But CO2 exists all over the universe in abundance because carbon exists all over the universe in abundance. Nature accounts for FAR more CO2 in our atmosphere than humans. Plant life lives on CO2, so if you want to reduce CO2 levels, plant a tree! It's not harmful to humans at 300ppm, or even 600ppm. OSHA regulations for miners working underground and other hazardous environments, limit human exposure to 800ppm, but this is only the point at which OSHA says it's unsafe, humans can actually breathe up to 1,200~1,500ppm, and not die from it. We'll never reach these levels in nature because it dissipates into space or is absorbed by the oceans, if it is not used by the plant life on Earth.
I don't know, I just find it odd that you are waging war against the very thing that plants need to survive. Seems a bit stupid to me. Botanists, (who ARE scientists, btw) claim that, up until this latest 'spike' in atmospheric CO2, that all plant life was STARVING for CO2, and it has only recently increased to a level which enables plants to thrive. So does it not bother you, that you are actively working against the very element needed to revive the rain forests? Not that eliminating man's contribution will matter much, it's only a small fraction of what causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but still... kinda dumb to be fighting so strongly against it.
I'll bet you money right here and now, that in the United States, more people have died from accidents involving windmills, than have died as a result of nuclear energy.
I am suspect of any studies regarding wind power, because I don't think they account for the enormous maintenance costs, or the 'downtime' involved. Again, wind is not reliable, we can't predict when it is going to blow and when it will not blow. Plus, in order to fill the current demand for electricity in a major city, you'd need thousands of miles of windmills, stacked in grids, up and down the coastline. People like the Kennedy's don't want to look out of their exclusive Summer homes and see windmills, so we have a problem there.
No, I was merely asking a question to prove a point. I have no problem with someone wanting to "get off the grid" by installing windmills, but wind power can't replace coal, there are far too many applications where coal is better suited. Plus, coal is our most abundant resource, and we have thousands and thousands of people who work in the coal industry. Again, coal OR wind, is not as efficient as nuclear, so if we're going to retrain all these people in the coal industry, might as well go nuclear.
You're totally missing my point. We can say, the Summer months are coming and we know the demand for electricity will be higher, so let's order some more coal... you can't order more wind. You're totally dependent on mother nature, you may not have as much wind this year as last year. What happens when demand spikes and wind doesn't? We can store some power, but what if mother nature decides to freak a little and not produce as much wind for a period of time? It is far too unreliable to ever be our primary source of energy.
I don't know, I was just asking a question. I know nuclear power plants don't have a problem producing power during a hurricane.
Why is that? Don't you have all the answers? Shouldn't I just follow whatever you say, and believe you know what the hell you're talking about? I think my biggest problem here is, I have done a lot of reading, and I am marginally smarter than you. This keeps me from being a gullible fool when it comes to AGW, and the effects of man on the climate. If only I could undo all my reading and find a way to make myself dumb again, you might be able to convince me of this lunacy.
mamooth
Diamond Member
Bullshit. Most engineers are myopic and fairly helpless outside of their specialty. I know that, as an engineer.
Climate science requires generalism. You need physics, chemistry, biology, and loads and loads of statistics. Engineers don't have that. Especially the statistics. An engineering BS requires one basic statistics course, which is laughably inadequate for the sciences. Even the damn psychologists, about as "soft" as you can get, are far better statisticians than the engineers.
What a lot of engineers do have is stupid unwarranted arrogance. They know a lot about their little thing, so they incorrectly assume they must know everything.
PredFan
Diamond Member
And I find your hyperbole hackneyed and booring.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
DEFUND THE SUPREME COURT WE CAN LIVE BETTER WITHOUT IT
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 2
-
-
Epstein files - way, way too many coincidences for this not to be anything but bad -Dusti Rhea Duke- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 2
-
-
