EPA doing its job, no wonder so many panties in a wad!

"The Commons" are all resources that are commonly held right to by all people. Some lands are considered part of the commons, but the term is best applied to items like Air and Water.

That's recent liberal horseshit propaganda. "The commons" refers to a feudal land use practice first explained by William Foster Lloyd:

Tragedy of the Commons: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

The rational explanation for such ruin [the tragedy of the commons] was given more than 170 years ago. In 1832 William Forster Lloyd, a political economist at Oxford University, looking at the recurring devastation of common (i.e., not privately owned) pastures in England, asked: “Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures?”

Lloyd’s answer assumed that each human exploiter of the common was guided by self-interest. At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himself, “Should I add another animal to my herd?” Because the herdsman owned his animals, the gain of so doing would come solely to him. But the loss incurred by overloading the pasture would be “commonized” among all the herdsmen. Because the privatized gain would exceed his share of the commonized loss, a self-seeking herdsman would add another animal to his herd. And another. And reasoning in the same way, so would all the other herdsmen. Ultimately, the common property would be ruined.

Liberals have tried to transform the terminology into meaning that "the commons" is something sacred that the government should regulate. Originally it was meant to demonstrate precisely the opposite, that common ownership should be abolished wherever possible.




Indeed. I believe it was his attempt to warn people of the unintended consequences of the Voter Reform Act of 1832. That was the first of I think three (can't remember) Reform Acts that saw the eventual destruction of the Empire.
 
As per usual, you're confusing cause and effect. CO2 was higher in the Pliocene because temperatures were warmer, not visa-versa. The reason for the warmer Pliocene climate has been known for decades. When the land Bridge between South American and Antarctica disappeared it allowed the polar current to entirely surround Antarctica, and then it soon became covered with glaciers. That lowered temperatures to modern levels.

It had nothing to do with the concentration of CO2.

So what?!?! How many times do you need to be told that, just because sometying had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't have another cause now. CO2 keeps the planet temperate for the most part. How can you possibly say that more couldn't make it warmer?
 
It's entirely relevant to all that blather you posted about how wind power is growing by leaps and bounds. It takes thousands of wind turbines to replace a single coal fired power plant, and their utilization is often as low as 3%.



Here ya go:

Nanticoke Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nanticoke Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America, delivering up to 2,760 MW[1] of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada. Previous to unit shutdowns, its generating capcity was 3,964 MW.[2]



They are unsightly and they kill birds by the thousands. Just ask anyone who lives near one.





They are also loud as hell. I know several people who moved away from wind farms as they were being driven crazy by the whop whop whoping going on incessantly.

So it is better to load up our children with lead and mercury? Even as the fans in the computers were engineered to be much quieter, so can the windmills be. Each form of power has drawbacks. And there are vast stretchs of land, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Southeastern Oregon, that have very few people and high wind potential.





You've been weighted down with lead and mercury for your whole life and you don't seem.....oh wait, OK maybe you are correct, it does make people stupid, that much is proven:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
As per usual, you're confusing cause and effect. CO2 was higher in the Pliocene because temperatures were warmer, not visa-versa. The reason for the warmer Pliocene climate has been known for decades. When the land Bridge between South American and Antarctica disappeared it allowed the polar current to entirely surround Antarctica, and then it soon became covered with glaciers. That lowered temperatures to modern levels.

It had nothing to do with the concentration of CO2.

So what?!?! How many times do you need to be told that, just because sometying had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't have another cause now. CO2 keeps the planet temperate for the most part. How can you possibly say that more couldn't make it warmer?






Uhhhh because all empirical evidence says it doesn't. The only place where CO2 increases global temps is in the fevered imagination of cultists like yourself, and the piss poor computer models they create. That's it.
 
As per usual, you're confusing cause and effect. CO2 was higher in the Pliocene because temperatures were warmer, not visa-versa. The reason for the warmer Pliocene climate has been known for decades. When the land Bridge between South American and Antarctica disappeared it allowed the polar current to entirely surround Antarctica, and then it soon became covered with glaciers. That lowered temperatures to modern levels.

It had nothing to do with the concentration of CO2.

So what?!?! How many times do you need to be told that, just because sometying had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't have another cause now. CO2 keeps the planet temperate for the most part. How can you possibly say that more couldn't make it warmer?

Does more ice always equal more cold? Does less ice always equal less warming? CO2 has a saturation limit and is logarithmic, meaning the more you have does not always mean more warming. This was just admitted by the ocean acidification scientists who claimed more CO2 would cause the oceans to turn acidic. They just recanted this claim and if the ocean has a saturation limit, the fact the atmosphere has one as well should be pretty easy to see. even for an idiotic pre-teen like you.

We have already established that you and your dad do not think on a wide enough scale to talk science on here...
 
As per usual, you're confusing cause and effect. CO2 was higher in the Pliocene because temperatures were warmer, not visa-versa...It had nothing to do with the concentration of CO2.

Please clarify your assertions, are you trying to imply that atmospheric CO2 levels have no effect on surface temperature?

If all you are saying is that pliocene CO2 levels were an equilibration feedback response due to existent conditions and circumstances then I have little issue with your statements. There are probably some other factors to look at, but for the most part, this is an accurate assessment of the situation. In most natural situations, CO2 is a climate feedback factor, there are only a few special situations in which CO2 becomes a forcing factor instead of merely being the feedback that it is in most circumstances.

Furthermore, pliocene CO2 ratios were approximately what they are today (365-415ppm), the temperature is higher because the early pliocene increases in atmospheric CO2 occurred much more slowly and in general equilibrium as a feedback with the surface temperature. If we cease all additional sequestered carbon emissions today, atmospheric CO2 levels would stabilize at around 425ppm within the next century or so and surface temperatures would slowly equilibrate over the next couple of centuries to a level that would approximate a global average temperature of ~18° C (~3.5° C higher than the current global average of 14.6° C).
 
Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.

Average utilization of coal fired plants is over 90% as opposed to under 20% for wind powered generators. furthermore, such a plant can be built on a couple of acres as opposed to the hundreds of acres required by wind generation.

nonsequitor

It's entirely relevant to all that blather you posted about how wind power is growing by leaps and bounds.

Please link to the post which supports your assertion that I stated or implied that "wind power is growing by leaps and bounds."

It takes thousands of wind turbines to replace a single coal fired power plant, and their utilization is often as low as 3%.

So you are saying that since one wind turbine is not equal to one coal-fired power plant which generally contains multiple boilers and multiple turbines per boiler, that this is a problem or detraction,...how?

Most wind farms, which would be more the proper comparison to a "power plant," typically generate about 500MW of power, compared to the average coal-fired power plant which generates 500MW of power. If we want to compare extremes, the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) wind farm which integrates several local Tehachapi farms into an expanded system with several new construction developments and is estimated will have ~2,000 wind turbines generating around 4.5 GW (4,500MW).

Can you please point out the reference to the 4GW coal-fired plant you mentioned?

Here ya go:

Nanticoke Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nanticoke Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America, delivering up to 2,760 MW[1] of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada. Previous to unit shutdowns, its generating capcity was 3,964 MW.[2]

Weren't you arguing earlier that we should be looking at generated power instead of capacity?

Windfarm land is generally on unproductive land that is unsuitable for other development or on land that is multipurposed to accommodate agriculture, recreation, and or nature preservation spaces.

They are unsightly and they kill birds by the thousands. Just ask anyone who lives near one.

I see nothing unsightly about them, especially in comparison to the smoke stacks, cooling towers, and downwind pollution spread by coal plants, which kill the fishing and hunting habitats over large areas. The issue with birds is greatly overstated and predominately more urban legend/myth than serious issue of concern.


http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf

Wind Energy Myths - CanWEA

http://www.seic.okstate.edu/owpi/EducOutreach/ForTeacher/Lesson6_Myths.pdf

This all said, there are only limited locations where wind is suitable for more than a supplementary power role and even in the few areas where it is suited to playing a significant role it needs to be integrated with a solid base-load alternate source of power or connected to a secondary energy storage system (eg a hydro pumped storage system: Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) to be truely efficent and compatible as a constant draw system.
 
...Uhhhh because all empirical evidence says it doesn't. The only place where CO2 increases global temps is in the fevered imagination of cultists like yourself, and the piss poor computer models they create. That's it.

Please cite and reference this evidence.
 
As per usual, you're confusing cause and effect. CO2 was higher in the Pliocene because temperatures were warmer, not visa-versa...It had nothing to do with the concentration of CO2.

Please clarify your assertions, are you trying to imply that atmospheric CO2 levels have no effect on surface temperature?

If all you are saying is that pliocene CO2 levels were an equilibration feedback response due to existent conditions and circumstances then I have little issue with your statements. There are probably some other factors to look at, but for the most part, this is an accurate assessment of the situation. In most natural situations, CO2 is a climate feedback factor, there are only a few special situations in which CO2 becomes a forcing factor instead of merely being the feedback that it is in most circumstances.

Furthermore, pliocene CO2 ratios were approximately what they are today (365-415ppm), the temperature is higher because the early pliocene increases in atmospheric CO2 occurred much more slowly and in general equilibrium as a feedback with the surface temperature. If we cease all additional sequestered carbon emissions today, atmospheric CO2 levels would stabilize at around 425ppm within the next century or so and surface temperatures would slowly equilibrate over the next couple of centuries to a level that would approximate a global average temperature of ~18° C (~3.5° C higher than the current global average of 14.6° C).





Give the man a ceegar! CO2 levels increase hundreds of years after warming has occured according to the Vostock ice cores.
 
...Uhhhh because all empirical evidence says it doesn't. The only place where CO2 increases global temps is in the fevered imagination of cultists like yourself, and the piss poor computer models they create. That's it.

Please cite and reference this evidence.





Here's one of dozens. The relevent section is highlighted in blue for the comprehension impaired...



"There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.


Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core
 
Those older power plants, while inefficient, were providing power. Shutting them down without newer replacement plants will stretch the power demand over fewer power plants and grids thus causing brownouts and planned rolling blackouts.

Not only will energy be more expensive but when use goes up this winter people will freeze to death due to EPA and Earth First, Eco-Fascist do-gooders forcing an agenda rather than help provide cheap energy for the masses.

According to Mr Clean people negatively affected by these stupid regulations should riot.

This is what happens when you fuck with a person's livelihood.
 
...Uhhhh because all empirical evidence says it doesn't. The only place where CO2 increases global temps is in the fevered imagination of cultists like yourself, and the piss poor computer models they create. That's it.

Please cite and reference this evidence.
(...) According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

Interesting, but it does not support your assertion that CO2 does not increase global temperatures, it merely confirms that in this specified instance, CO2 acted as a feedback factor rather than as a forcing agent. This is well understood and does not contradict CO2 acting as a forcing agent in the current, and several paleoclimate, episodes. This is, and has been well explained in clear, simple english, but for the benefit of those who are hard of learning, I will be happy to repeat the significance and proper scientific understanding of the issue you have misunderstood.

When we look at the events signified in the Vostok ice core data we see initial changes in temperature during this paleoperiod which are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (a confluence in the Milankovitch cycles), which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In an episode of warming, such as the one outlined in your highlighted quip, the lag between temperature and CO2 is the result of the mechanism (ocean temperatures rise) which stimulated the release of CO2. In this case, as the orbital factors created increases in seasonal insolation, the oceans slowly warmed. Warmer waters have a reduced capacity to hold dissolved CO2, so the warming oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release and increase of atmospheric CO2amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In what is more properly known as a feedback effect, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation on their own.

"Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III"
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

"Ice-driven CO2 feedback on ice volume"
http://www.clim-past.net/2/43/2006/cp-2-43-2006.pdf

"Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction"
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~synte/papers/cuvi04.pdf

If these references are beyond your competency, New Scientist has an article on Climate Myths dealing with the misunderstanding you appear to be attempting to propogate, that may be at a level more commensurate with your abilities.

"Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming"
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
 
Reality check for leftists:

There is no Magic Energy. Solar and wind will not scale up economically to replace the 45% of electrical power we get from coal.

That's just the way it is.
First off; there is no such thing as "clean burning coal."
And do you have fact based information to support your claim regarding the economic benefits of coal extraction and energy conversion?
Mountain top removal and pissing black smoke into our atmosphere will cost us dearly.
 
Please clarify your assertions, are you trying to imply that atmospheric CO2 levels have no effect on surface temperature?

Precisely; and you did the math yourself and proved that it is so and yet, your faith is so strong that you reject a proof that you performed yourself.

How interesting is that?
 
King Obama is using the EPA to do what he can't get passed through congress, he is trying to cripple the country so we can elect him King that is his real goal. This is what happens when you elect an idea and not a solution. Obama has not idea what the solution is and the Libs can only blame Bush, they don't have an idea either. You may not like our ideas but at least we have some and they have worked in the past and they will work now. Get used to it.
 
King Obama is using the EPA to do what he can't get passed through congress, he is trying to cripple the country so we can elect him King that is his real goal. This is what happens when you elect an idea and not a solution. Obama has not idea what the solution is and the Libs can only blame Bush, they don't have an idea either. You may not like our ideas but at least we have some and they have worked in the past and they will work now. Get used to it.

Anything besides ideological delusions and empty rhetoric to support these assertions?
 
King Obama is using the EPA to do what he can't get passed through congress, he is trying to cripple the country so we can elect him King that is his real goal. This is what happens when you elect an idea and not a solution. Obama has not idea what the solution is and the Libs can only blame Bush, they don't have an idea either. You may not like our ideas but at least we have some and they have worked in the past and they will work now. Get used to it.

Anything besides ideological delusions and empty rhetoric to support these assertions?

Trakar can you point one time in this forum where you have actually defended a claim, remark, or position you took in an argument or debate? Seriously dude you never defend anything you say, you just run away for a few days and come back with side remark or change your argument or point...

Here is an example of debating you on here..

random poster: I say CO2 is good for the planet.

trakar: Anything besides ideological delusions and empty rhetoric to support these assertions?

random poster: CO2 feeds plants which makes them grow and make bigger, better and stronger plants, making the planet more green and life supporting.

trakar: <this area filled by a long and overly worded bit of nonsensical circle talk designed to distract the readers which has nothing to do with the random posters statement> .

random poster: Huh? that has nothing to do with what I said nor does it prove I am wrong...

trakar: I have found this piece of super smart guy evidence that only we super smart guys are privy to that tells me the planet is warming because of CO2. Yes I have now nullified your statement with this important too-smart-for-you evidence... Moving on...

random poster: WTH?

trakar: (waits 2-3 days) See my evidence is more scientifically correct than yours...

Thats you in a nutshell trakar, a posturing, BS artist with a thesaurus and delusions of forum brilliance..:lol:
 
King Obama is using the EPA to do what he can't get passed through congress, he is trying to cripple the country so we can elect him King that is his real goal. This is what happens when you elect an idea and not a solution. Obama has not idea what the solution is and the Libs can only blame Bush, they don't have an idea either. You may not like our ideas but at least we have some and they have worked in the past and they will work now. Get used to it.

Anything besides ideological delusions and empty rhetoric to support these assertions?

Trakar can you point one time in this forum where you have actually defended a claim, remark, or position you took in an argument or debate? Seriously dude you never defend anything you say, you just run away for a few days and come back with side remark or change your argument or point...

Here is an example of debating you on here..

random poster: I say CO2 is good for the planet.

trakar: Anything besides ideological delusions and empty rhetoric to support these assertions?

random poster: CO2 feeds plants which makes them grow and make bigger, better and stronger plants, making the planet more green and life supporting.

trakar: <this area filled by a long and overly worded bit of nonsensical circle talk designed to distract the readers which has nothing to do with the random posters statement> .

random poster: Huh? that has nothing to do with what I said nor does it prove I am wrong...

trakar: I have found this piece of super smart guy evidence that only we super smart guys are privy to that tells me the planet is warming because of CO2. Yes I have now nullified your statement with this important too-smart-for-you evidence... Moving on...

random poster: WTH?

trakar: (waits 2-3 days) See my evidence is more scientifically correct than yours...

Thats you in a nutshell trakar, a posturing, BS artist with a thesaurus and delusions of forum brilliance..:lol:





oltrakarfraud is a poseur.
 

Forum List

Back
Top