Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Keepitsimple

Climate Science 101

Recommended Posts

But you can ignore those facts if you wish.

what facts did you present... exactly?

if one wanted to actually legitimize your pollution emphasis, it would be prudent to highlight that anthropogenic sourced CO2 does act as a pollutant due to its impacts on global warming and climate change... and it's major detrimental ocean acidification effects on marine ecosystems. In consideration of the legal definition of pollution and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, it's quite clear anthropogenic sourced CO2 meets the definition of pollution, one posing a significant threat to public health and welfare. We've beat this one up pretty good in other MLW climate change related threads... usually, some wag will point to the related U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the U.S. Clean Air Act and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and other vehicles... and equally point to the U.S. EPA's moves to respect that U.S. highest court ruling, vis-a-vis it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings.

you obviously know nothing of the carbon cycle and 'tipping points' on anthropogenic sourced CO2 upsetting the natural absorption-emission balance.

the sun? Feel free to offer your substantiation that shows the sun responsible for the most recent warming? The sun has been talked of in many other previous MLW thread exchanges... I'm still waiting for someone to actually provide peer-reviewed science that has stood the test of peer-response and been able to attribute recent warming to the sun... perhaps you can step forward - hey? I believe Simple trotted out something recently in another thread - here:

This whole AWG because of carbon dioxide is a side sham show and a distraction from the real problem which is pollution.

hey, thanks for coming out - as I said, identifying the 'players' is key... recognizing those that can't see the 'forest for the trees'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lock yourself in a room of CO2 and see how long you last, you'll be dead in 3 minutes...CO2 is concern in Sick Building Syndrome, it does not need to be in high concentrations before it causes illness...

Now lock yourself in the room with a few plants. The air will get stale, but it will be breathable. Put those plants and yourself in a room with carbon monoxide and you both lose.

And there are many other factors contributing to a sick building syndrome, C02 is not one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_building_syndrome

Sick building causes are frequently pinned down to flaws in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Other causes have been attributed to contaminants produced by outgassing of some types of building materials, volatile organic compounds (VOC), molds (see mold health issues), improper exhaust ventilation of ozone (byproduct of some office machinery), light industrial chemicals used within, or fresh-air intake location / lack of adequate air filtration (see Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value).

Symptoms are often dealt with after-the-fact by boosting the overall turn-over rate of fresh air exchange with the outside air, but the new green building design goal should be to avoid most of the SBS problem sources in the first place, minimize the ongoing use of VOC cleaning compounds, and eliminate conditions that encourage allergenic, potentially-deadly mold growth.[2]

But this is a result of us making modern buildings air tight for energy efficiency. This demands more reliance on HVAC systems to replenish the air in the building. Overall I think that the sick-building-syndrome is not a supporting argument for AGW.

CO2 is a toxin as is every gas(oxygen as well) when not in proper balance, we've evolved to breathe a mixture of gases in fixed proportions vary from those proportions and it causes problems...you can ignore those facts if you wish but those are the facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

Even if that went up to 2%, I seriously doubt it will have the impact people make it out to be.

toxins from factories are an issue and those are relatively easy and quickly fixed, an atmospheric CO2 imbalance will take centuries to repair...

However they are not being dealt with overall in westernized developed nations. Developing countries are exempt from any accord like Kyoto for example. Those accords only affect developed nations with technologies already in place to reduce emissions. India and China can produce all emissions they want simply because they are classified as developing countries. Each country has about 1 billion people, which totals about 3/7ths of the worlds population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to think that any evidence for AGW is somehow evidence that we should "do something". It is not.

Yes I do - but as I indicated on the 'What do we do about it' thread - adaption (doing nothing right now) is an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bugger off... I'm quite tired of your subtle digs on debate style...now raised overtly.

Waldo, let's be straight: You're on the same team as me, so I reserve the right to rap you on the knuckles as hard as I like when you go off on somebody. This place MLW is good because of the quality of debate, not because we have more people who agree with us.

If you don't like me pointing out your antics if/when they manifest themselves into embarrassment, then just don't act that way and I will be content to shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Developing countries are exempt from any accord like Kyoto for example. Those accords only affect developed nations with technologies already in place to reduce emissions. India and China can produce all emissions they want simply because they are classified as developing countries. Each country has about 1 billion people, which totals about 3/7ths of the worlds population.

India and China did ratify the Kyoto protocol... however, they were granted a reprieve from an obligatory reduction on CO2 emissions for 2 specific reasons:

1. their historical economic impact didn't parallel the most significant emission outputs associated with the warming period of industrialization, and

2. a significant contributing influence on their emission levels today reflects directly upon industry production fueled by demand from 'western countries'; i.e. the effective outsourcing of emissions to India/China.

as for the Copenhagen Accord (regardless of where it is... or isn't) - India & China formally accepted their inclusion into the accord... notwithstanding the voluntary measures taken... notwithstanding the position China is forging for itself as a leading advocate for sustainable energy and efficiencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what facts did you present... exactly?

The fact that C02 is plant food. And the fact that the sun has a greater effect on our climate than what people think.

if one wanted to actually legitimize your pollution emphasis, it would be prudent to highlight that anthropogenic sourced CO2 does act as a pollutant due to its impacts on global warming and climate change...

So to legitimize my point I have to use something that already legitimizes your point?

and it's major detrimental ocean acidification effects on marine ecosystems.

It would not be that all our sewer systems in major cities end up dumping into the ocean? Take a look at something called 'Garbage Island' that huge floating patch of plastic particles in the ocean. That has already had an impact on oceanic life. The amount of fishing we do in the oceans will have an effect.

There are so many factors contributing to why the environment is degrading, but C02 is tops among the AWG people. I am not worried about AWG, because I will die of some form of cancer (suspected) because I breathed in sulpher dioxide for most of my life while living in Sudbury Ontario. Home of the INCO (now Vale) superstack. That has immediate and lasting effects on your respiratory system. C)2 is the last of your concerns here.

In consideration of the legal definition of pollution and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, it's quite clear anthropogenic sourced CO2 meets the definition of pollution, one posing a significant threat to public health and welfare.

If that is the case, then you might want to reconsider breathing.

We've beat this one up pretty good in other MLW climate change related threads... usually, some wag will point to the related U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the U.S. Clean Air Act and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and other vehicles... and equally point to the U.S. EPA's moves to respect that U.S. highest court ruling, vis-a-vis it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings.

you obviously know nothing of the carbon cycle and 'tipping points' on anthropogenic sourced CO2 upsetting the natural absorption-emission balance.

I know that plant life offsets this carbon cycle.

the sun? Feel free to offer your substantiation that shows the sun responsible for the most recent warming? The sun has been talked of in many other previous MLW thread exchanges... I'm still waiting for someone to actually provide peer-reviewed science that has stood the test of peer-response and been able to attribute recent warming to the sun... perhaps you can step forward - hey? I believe Simple trotted out something recently in another thread - here:

The sun is 109x the size of Earth, with a mass I can't even wrap my head around, and with a surface temperature of over 5000 C.

Why would you not consider the sun as a major factor on temperatures on the planet? Why do we concern ourselved with solar flares as much as we do? It wrecks havoc on our communication systems, would it be reasonable to conclude that the sun will have an effect on our temperatures globally?

hey, thanks for coming out - as I said, identifying the 'players' is key... recognizing those that can't see the 'forest for the trees'.

http://library.thinkquest.org/11226/why.htm

The Carbon Cycle is a complex series of processes through which all of the carbon atoms in existence rotate. The same carbon atoms in your body today have been used in countless other molecules since time began. The wood burned just a few decades ago could have produced carbon dioxide which through photosynthesis became part of a plant. When you eat that plant, the same carbon from the wood which was burnt can become part of you. The carbon cycle is the great natural recycler of carbon atoms. Unfortunately, the extent of its importance is rarely stressed enough. Without the proper functioning of the carbon cycle, every aspect of life could be changed dramatically.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/41794.html

Human population has exploded in the last 200 years. Deforestation has exploded in the last 100 years. If you have more human activity without the carbon sink that is plant life to absorb the excess C02, then you can say AGW is real. But to say we need to reduce emissions is only part of the solution. I am really taken aback that people like you give me the look of puzzlement when I say C02 is plant food and we can easily offset the C02 by planting more trees/plants.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/amazon_crops.html

Scientists using NASA satellite data have found that clearing for mechanized cropland has recently become a significant force in Brazilian Amazon deforestation. This change in land use may alter the region's climate and the land's ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now lock yourself in the room with a few plants. The air will get stale, but it will be breathable. Put those plants and yourself in a room with carbon monoxide and you both lose.

And there are many other factors contributing to a sick building syndrome, C02 is not one of them.

sorry you're wrong, so is wiki...off gassing of building products, mold, bacteria are components of SBS poor ventilation that fails to remove excess CO2 is another, SBS is my nephews area of expertise as a HAVAC engineer, I'll take his word on before a misunderstood wiki article, the USA government has paid him millions for his knowledge so I assume he knows what he's talking about...
But this is a result of us making modern buildings air tight for energy efficiency. This demands more reliance on HVAC systems to replenish the air in the building. Overall I think that the sick-building-syndrome is not a supporting argument for AGW.

no one said it was until you made the claim that CO2 wasn't a toxin...you claiming CO2 is not a toxin is not a supporting argument for denying AGW because it is a toxin...all gases are toxins to various degrees
Even if that went up to 2%, I seriously doubt it will have the impact people make it out to be.

long term exposure at 2% will affect your health...
However they are not being dealt with overall in westernized developed nations. Developing countries are exempt from any accord like Kyoto for example. Those accords only affect developed nations with technologies already in place to reduce emissions. India and China can produce all emissions they want simply because they are classified as developing countries. Each country has about 1 billion people, which totals about 3/7ths of the worlds population.
but the industrialized world caused the problem and is most capable of reducing the problem...China is doing far more than we are to reduce their emissions than we are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India and China did ratify the Kyoto protocol... however, they were granted a reprieve from an obligatory reduction on CO2 emissions for 2 specific reasons:

1. their historical economic impact didn't parallel the most significant emission outputs associated with the warming period of industrialization, and

2. a significant contributing influence on their emission levels today reflects directly upon industry production fueled by demand from 'western countries'; i.e. the effective outsourcing of emissions to India/China.

That is a problem with the life styles we live. We want cheap products to buy. If we had Americans building items for Americans, the price of said item would be quite expensive. But because we can have it cheaply made in other countries that don't have the environmental restrictions as well with a lack of labour standards, we can get that fancy new smartphone for cheap. And overall that does contribute more pollution to the environment that will have a more immediate impact on our way of life and quality of life.

So we in the west are directly contributing to this problem buy outsourcing and wanting all the bling future generations will have to pay for. The countries that allowed China and India to be exempt needs to be revisited. Is it purely because of C02 or is it because we can have inexpensive items?

Because of your two points, I now have to question the motives for allowing China and India exempt status. Sounds more economical than environmental. Partly why the Cap and Trade proposal by Mr.Internet and his people is seen as nothing more than a money trading scheme. You can offset your carbon output by paying into this fund. You can continue to do so as long as you keep paying. This no way solves or even addresses the supposed problem of C02 greenhouse gas emissions contributing to AWG.

as for the Copenhagen Accord (regardless of where it is... or isn't) - India & China formally accepted their inclusion into the accord... notwithstanding the voluntary measures taken... notwithstanding the position China is forging for itself as a leading advocate for sustainable energy and efficiencies.

It might be more immediate over in China with the population they have and more Chinese wanting a pieve of the good life pie. The recent olympics put a light on pollution in Beijing alone. Industry was told to slow down, and cars were kept off the roads for some time to clean the air around the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what facts did you present... exactly?

The fact that C02 is plant food. And the fact that the sun has a greater effect on our climate than what people think.

in the context of climate change, your arguing for the benign influence of CO2 based upon the 'CO2 as plant food' meme... is a non-starter. It carries no weight or significance in terms of understanding the effects of an imbalance raised by the weight of anthropogenic sourced CO2. If you can move beyond simple unfounded generalizations you could provide insight into your suggested, "sun's greater effect". As I previously requested, "feel free to offer your substantiation that shows the sun responsible for the most recent warming?... provide peer-reviewed science that has stood the test of peer-response and been able to attribute recent warming to the sun".

as for the rest... the scale of your legitimately raised concerns over ocean pollution pales in relation to ocean acidification impacts brought upon by AGW.

first you suggest CO2 influence is benign... you suggest it's simply 'plant food'. Now you shift into suggesting a concern over the influence of deforestation on emissions, (what? Not benign anymore?), can simply be offset by 'planting more trees'. How's that global push to plant more trees working out so far, particularly in relation to deforestation and other land use changes? You most certainly are correct in suggesting that emission reduction is only a part of the required solution; however, I've never actually come across a presentation/paper/article that presumes to identify a balancing factor, one that simply enables a reduction of mankind's/industry fossil fuel emission levels based upon a tree-planting equivalency. Citation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India and China did ratify the Kyoto protocol... however, they were granted a reprieve from an obligatory reduction on CO2 emissions for 2 specific reasons:

1. their historical economic impact didn't parallel the most significant emission outputs associated with the warming period of industrialization, and

2. a significant contributing influence on their emission levels today reflects directly upon industry production fueled by demand from 'western countries'; i.e. the effective outsourcing of emissions to India/China.

as for the Copenhagen Accord (regardless of where it is... or isn't) - India & China formally accepted their inclusion into the accord... notwithstanding the voluntary measures taken... notwithstanding the position China is forging for itself as a leading advocate for sustainable energy and efficiencies.

That is a problem with the life styles we live. We want cheap products to buy. If we had Americans building items for Americans, the price of said item would be quite expensive. But because we can have it cheaply made in other countries that don't have the environmental restrictions as well with a lack of labour standards, we can get that fancy new smartphone for cheap. And overall that does contribute more pollution to the environment that will have a more immediate impact on our way of life and quality of life.

So we in the west are directly contributing to this problem buy outsourcing and wanting all the bling future generations will have to pay for. The countries that allowed China and India to be exempt needs to be revisited. Is it purely because of C02 or is it because we can have inexpensive items?

Because of your two points, I now have to question the motives for allowing China and India exempt status. Sounds more economical than environmental. Partly why the Cap and Trade proposal by Mr.Internet and his people is seen as nothing more than a money trading scheme. You can offset your carbon output by paying into this fund. You can continue to do so as long as you keep paying. This no way solves or even addresses the supposed problem of C02 greenhouse gas emissions contributing to AWG.

yes, you are absolutely correct in suggesting the west, is an effective emissions outsourcer. We've touched upon this in past MLW threads where we've shown the level of U.S. emissions is effectively 'stable'... not increasing. The U.S., the world's number one consumer, can show an effective stable emissions level, by outsourcing it's emissions to China/India... most certainly that U.S. stable emissions level can't be attributed to any U.S. domestic deployed emissions reduction strategy (obviously), or any industry scaled efficiencies... so, ya - U.S. emissions have been outsourced to China/India.

cap & trade? Would you accept and advocate for 'fee and dividend'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can move beyond simple unfounded generalizations you could provide insight into your suggested, "sun's greater effect". As I previously requested, "feel free to offer your substantiation that shows the sun responsible for the most recent warming?... provide peer-reviewed science that has stood the test of peer-response and been able to attribute recent warming to the sun".

I wasn't sure of what GH was saying...the sun is the factor in the AGW or is he stating the obvious, the sun does play a part in our climate...

Ghost Hacked-

Also what contributing factors does the sun have on our climate and overall weather on this planet?

the sun has be reluded out as the cause of the recent warming, just the opposite it's been very inactive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the context of climate change, your arguing for the benign influence of CO2 based upon the 'CO2 as plant food' meme... is a non-starter. It carries no weight or significance in terms of understanding the effects of an imbalance raised by the weight of anthropogenic sourced CO2. If you can move beyond simple unfounded generalizations you could provide insight into your suggested, "sun's greater effect". As I previously requested, "feel free to offer your substantiation that shows the sun responsible for the most recent warming?... provide peer-reviewed science that has stood the test of peer-response and been able to attribute recent warming to the sun".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]

Only 30 years ago we were told that Gobal Cooling was going to be catastrophic. Were they wrong then? And are they wrong now?

as for the rest... the scale of your legitimately raised concerns over ocean pollution pales in relation to ocean acidification impacts brought upon by AGW.

Deforestation on land can also directly contribute to the PH levels dropping in the oceans, which will affect marine life. The trees on land act like a carbon sink that takes the pressure of the oceans.

first you suggest CO2 influence is benign... you suggest it's simply 'plant food'. Now you shift into suggesting a concern over the influence of deforestation on emissions, (what? Not benign anymore?), can simply be offset by 'planting more trees'. IN terms of global temps rising, then you got to look things on the global scale. And vegetation on land is part of the solution.
How's that global push to plant more trees working out so far,

I would not be so quick to dismiss the impact trees have on reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You can toss that out if you want, but if you do not want to consider it, then I feel there won't be a resolution.

particularly in relation to deforestation and other land use changes? You most certainly are correct in suggesting that emission reduction is only a part of the required solution; however, I've never actually come across a presentation/paper/article that presumes to identify a balancing factor, one that simply enables a reduction of mankind's/industry fossil fuel emission levels based upon a tree-planting equivalency. Citation?

There really is no cite needed. We know that plant life offsets the carbon emissions we as animals produce. It's just a simple and well understood fact. I really don't understand why people would dismiss this outright. If you understand photosynthesis, then you understand how plants can be part of the solution to the problem.

We are looking for technological solutions when a natural solution is already in place and has been in place for centuries. But we contribute to the degradation by not replacing the vegetation we chop down for consumption. Trees take a long time to grow, decades, centuries, and we are using them at a faster rate than they can be naturally or humanly replaced.

I doubt I will convince anyone with this logic or reasoning, but that might be more to the point of taking these scientists word at face value. Hackergate kind of shows us that there are serious flaws in how the scientific community is going about this whole ordeal which is causing a divide among scientists just like global cooling did in the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure of what GH was saying...the sun is the factor in the AGW or is he stating the obvious, the sun does play a part in our climate...

It does, but I guess the question is how much compared to human activity.

the sun has be reluded out as the cause of the recent warming, just the opposite it's been very inactive...

We have been hearing that from scientists. The sun is in a cool phase. Now when that phase is over, I am expecting to notice a big enough difference in the temperature on Earth. If AWG is a major contributor due to C02, and when the sun's warming cycle begins we should see a very rapid quite noticeable climate/temperature change. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

The suns warming cycle is expected to start in the next couple years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only 30 years ago we were told that Gobal Cooling was going to be catastrophic. Were they wrong then? And are they wrong now?

Hackergate kind of shows us that there are serious flaws in how the scientific community is going about this whole ordeal which is causing a divide among scientists just like global cooling did in the 70s.

obviously you can see your use of quote tags needs improvement... in any case, I've purposely segmented out your 70's cooling references. I trust you won't repeat this 70s global cooling myth in the future. The following is simply one of the many... many... posts thrown back at those that continue to perpetrate the myth - for their own sorry agenda/reasons:

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...even in the 60's or 70's...public hysteria over a couple of magazine articles, even at that time a warming planet was the dominant view... but the idea of a warming planet wasn't very exciting or newsworthy to a scientifically illiterate media and public...
Been busy but here you are.

wyly, yet again? We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the
that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but the industrialized world caused the problem and is most capable of reducing the problem...China is doing far more than we are to reduce their emissions than we are
By 2030 the cummulative historical emissions from China will exceed the cummulative historical emissions of the US. Its per capita emissions are already higher than France. You have to pretty clueless to believe this "industrialized countries go first" BS. If you care about emissions you must demand that China and India reduce their emissions too.

China also does not give a damn about CO2. It cares about energy because it needs so damn much. As a result it is leaving no (energy) stone unturned including a massive build out of coal and nuclear. China also likes the idea of milking western taxpayers who are stupid enough to pay for useless "renewable" technology. The idea that China is a "leader" in emission emission reductions is a sick joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deforestation on land can also directly contribute to the PH levels dropping in the oceans, which will affect marine life. The trees on land act like a carbon sink that takes the pressure of the oceans.

We know that plant life offsets the carbon emissions we as animals produce. It's just a simple and well understood fact. I really don't understand why people would dismiss this outright. If you understand photosynthesis, then you understand how plants can be part of the solution to the problem.

We are looking for technological solutions when a natural solution is already in place and has been in place for centuries. But we contribute to the degradation by not replacing the vegetation we chop down for consumption. Trees take a long time to grow, decades, centuries, and we are using them at a faster rate than they can be naturally or humanly replaced.

I doubt I will convince anyone with this logic or reasoning, but that might be more to the point of taking these scientists word at face value.

what you perceive as outright dismissal is more a response that questions your reforestation/afforestation approached solution, that on a practical, scaleable level, borders on an almost geo-engineering mindset and applicability, notwithstanding it's viability, merit or subjected political/policy adherence.

in putting your solution eggs in the reforestation basket, you may also want to give consideration to a recent paper - Ecosystem Carbon Stock Influenced by Plantation Practice: Implications for Planting Forests as a Measure of Climate Change Mitigation... a study that finds that reforestation and afforestation may lower the potential for forests to lessen the impacts of climate change - questioning whether large-scale plantation growths have the same ecosystem carbon stock as natural forests; in effect showing that plantations substantially reduce carbon stock in ecosystems in comparison with natural forests. The study challenges the idea that planting non-native or native-improved growth species on historical forest land yields greater carbon accumulation rates. The papers authors argue against the replacement of natural forests by reforestation (plantations), to help stave off climate change. This reforestation on non-forested fields (e.g. agricultural lands) does help with the control of carbon emissions; however, it in turn, has a negative impact in regards to the conversion of farmland to forests and a corresponding decrease in the amount of soil carbon absorption. Additionally, the papers shows that the conversion also has an affect on methane, as converted soil loses 80% of its capability to degrade methane as compared to natural forests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 2030 the cummulative historical emissions from China will exceed the cummulative historical emissions of the US. Its per capita emissions are already higher than France. You have to pretty clueless to believe this "industrialized countries go first" BS. If you care about emissions you must demand that China and India reduce their emissions too.

China also does not give a damn about CO2. It cares about energy because it needs so damn much. As a result it is leaving no (energy) stone unturned including a massive build out of coal and nuclear. China also likes the idea of milking western taxpayers who are stupid enough to pay for useless "renewable" technology. The idea that China is a "leader" in emission emission reductions is a sick joke.

outside of the now dated Kyoto Protocol negotiations, where are you interpreting a prolific and sustained drive for continued isolation of China/India from reducing their emissions? Your stated, 'sick joke' ramblings, don't seem to acknowledge the significant Chinese initiatives/investments... particularly as relates to your coal reference:

And whatever tiny fractional decrease in Co2 emissions all of that will result in will be instantly reversed by the next couple of coal fired power plants china builds over the coming weeks.

oh really?
Since 2008, 16 large coal plants have been completed in the United States, and 16 more are under construction, according to AP's Matthew Brown. "Combined they will produce an estimated 17,900 megawatts of electricity, sufficient to power up to 15.6 million homes--roughly the number of homes in California and Arizona," writes Brown. "They also will generate about 125 million tons of greenhouse gases annually."

We spend years and billions and billions on a minor decrease in Co2 emissions, causing huge problems for our economy, and the result is instantly swamped by new Chinese power plants in a couple of weeks. THAT in a nutshell, is what's happening with these expensive schemes to reduce emissions in politically correct western countries.

there is more than enough criticism that can be leveled... at most any country; however,
- notwithstanding we've been over this 'China bashing' theme in other MLW threads:

Certain members of the U.S. Congress believe that America shouldn't do anything about climate change until China does. Putting aside the moral illogic of that position, let's focus on
something China is doing: shutting down old, dirty coal plants.....
at the rate of roughly 2 a month
.

Xue Jing, director of statistics and information at the China Electricity Council (CEC), said at an earlier conference that China will invest more in the power grid and clean energy, and gradually decrease the proportion of power plants that are coal-fired.

Statistics from the CEC report show that in 2008, China’s investment in nuclear power and wind power increased 72 percent and 88 percent year on year, respectively. At the same time, investment in coal-fired plants declined 22 percent

China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

China is also leading the way investing $1 Billion in building a 250-megawatt, utility-scale and more efficient IGCC coal generating plant in Tianjin that will use CCS technology to control its emissions... to be completed in 2011 through a partnership that includes a U.S. coal company, a consortium of Chinese utilities and coal companies, and the Chinese government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't seem to acknowledge the significant Chinese initiatives/investments
China is building a huge number of NEW coal plants. It makes sense that they would use the latest technology. If the US actually built new plants they would do the same. The problem in the US is the CO2-obsessives block construction of new coal plants so utilities are forced to keep the old and less efficient ones running.

IOW. The only reason China is making "progress" on coal efficiency is because China does not care about CO2 emissions. It is a sick joke to claim that they are "leading" anything.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is building a huge number of NEW coal plants. It makes sense that they would use the latest technology. If the US actually built new plants they would do the same. The problem in the US is the CO2-obsessives block construction of new coal plants so utilities are forced to keep the old and less efficient ones running.

IOW. The only reason China is making "progress" on coal efficiency is because China does not care about CO2 emissions. It is a sick joke to claim that they are "leading" anything.

what's that? You're saying no new coal plants are being/have been built in the U.S.? Obviously you couldn't be bothered to read the previous link provided

U.S.A. - Old Time Coal

Since 2008, 16 large coal plants have been completed in the United States, and 16 more are under construction, according to AP's Matthew Brown. "Combined they will produce an estimated 17,900 megawatts of electricity, sufficient to power up to 15.6 million homes--roughly the number of homes in California and Arizona," writes Brown. "They also will generate about 125 million tons of greenhouse gases annually."

here's an updated one for you... feel free to ignore it, as well... while you continue to squawk your 'sick joke' screech!

Old-style coal plants expanding

Utilities across the country are building dozens of old-style coal plants that will cement the industry's standing as the largest industrial source of climate-changing gases for years to come.

An Associated Press examination of U.S. Department of Energy records and information provided by utilities and trade groups shows that more than 30 traditional coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction.

The construction wave stretches from Arizona to Illinois and South Carolina to Washington, and comes despite growing public wariness over the high environmental and social costs of fossil fuels, demonstrated by tragic mine disasters in West Virginia, the Gulf oil spill and wars in the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's that? You're saying no new coal plants are being/have been built in the U.S.? Obviously you couldn't be bothered to read the previous link provided
Welll it is good to see that not all states have caught the california disease. That said, it appears counting from 2008 is a bit of cherry picking stats because prior to that new coal plant construction was stalled due to the enviro-wackos. I guess the need got too big to ignore.

In any case, an 'old style' plant in the US still is still 40% efficient which far exceeds china's installed base which is around 27-30% efficient. The new super critical reactors can get up to 44% efficient. In any case, you still are ignoring the massive construction of NEW coal plants in China - even efficient ones - only adds to the hypothetical emission problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

The fact that C02 is plant food. And the fact that the sun has a greater effect on our climate than what people think.

To bad more CO2 is bad for plants in much the same way the more cake is bad for fat people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does, but I guess the question is how much compared to human activity.

the temperature sweet spot that we live in is very very small the sun and the internal heat that the earth provide are relatively constant in the bigger picture...any thing we do to change the relative balance is significant for us, for the planet itself it's insignificant it will go on with or without us...
We have been hearing that from scientists. The sun is in a cool phase. Now when that phase is over, I am expecting to notice a big enough difference in the temperature on Earth. If AWG is a major contributor due to C02, and when the sun's warming cycle begins we should see a very rapid quite noticeable climate/temperature change. Is that a reasonable conclusion?
that's the easy conclusion but it won't have that big of an effect we should see more high temps on el Nino years and not as cold la Nina's, but they'll average out I would think with the general increase of average temps...

picture a graph with a smoothed line in a slow and steady increase, that would be global temps...then overlay another line going up and down over that temperature line, those would be the temperatures of el Nino and La Nina years...

The suns warming cycle is expected to start in the next couple years.
that will only give us stronger el Ninos, when added to a warmer planet could give us some new record temps...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey wyly, you spout a lot of points, but with little back-up. You just regurgitating the Mann et al schpele?

I asked some questions that you just ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey wyly, you spout a lot of points, but with little back-up. You just regurgitating the Mann et al schpele?

I asked some questions that you just ignored.

and you're a typical snot-driveling blowhard that has yet to offer any substantiation on anything... and when challenged to do exactly that - substantiate - you whine, revert to blathering on about Gore/Mann and pull the denier victimization card. I'm not clear what questions you claim are being ignored... I do know you quickly slithered away after this exchange, where I'm still waiting for you to actually frame an argument and support it with something beyond your personal ramblings... still waiting.

Hey Waldo, what facts do you bring to this discussion. You blather really well, spouting the AlGorithsm beautifully, but you don't present anything other than the rants of the believers. I have a Ph.D. in photochemistry. That's like the study of how electromagnetic radiation (light, IR, UV X-rays) interact with matter. I know how CO2 absorbs IR and how I know how water absorbs IR. Mr. Mann sits there with his pile of discredited statistics and is mainly wrong.

I'm not saying I'm correct, but you guys screaming that you have found the holy grail are full of it.

then put up something other than your continued need to get your Gore-on... do you really think continuing to bleat on about Gore means anything... at all? Care to step-up and speak to those discredited statistics of Mann... and your claims of him being mainly wrong. While you're doing that, particularly as it relates to progresses in climate science, you might also speak to who gives a FF (other than Steve McIntyre and his denier minions) over a decades old reconstruction... you could start there - hey? We've been down this road several times in other MLW threads - it'll be an easy cut/paste. :lol:

uhhh... is your 'supposed' education reference a reach for argument by authority? (/snarc). Is this the way you always react when asked to substantiate your claims?

Yet again you blather away and don't present a single fact.

I on the other hand present:

Fact: CO2 is present in ppm concentrations while water is present in whole percentages.

Fact: CO2 is compared to water a poor absorber of IR.

What say you?

I say you could use that vaunted PhD of yours and apply relevance and context to some type of argument I presume you're trying to make. While you're at it, don't hesitate to step forward and provide any peer-review science/papers that you'd like to leverage as support... for some type of argument I presume you're trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's that? You're saying no new coal plants are being/have been built in the U.S.? Obviously you couldn't be bothered to read the previous link provided
Welll it is good to see that not all states have caught the california disease. That said, it appears counting from 2008 is a bit of cherry picking stats because prior to that new coal plant construction was stalled due to the enviro-wackos. I guess the need got too big to ignore.

In any case, an 'old style' plant in the US still is still 40% efficient which far exceeds china's installed base which is around 27-30% efficient. The new super critical reactors can get up to 44% efficient. In any case, you still are ignoring the massive construction of NEW coal plants in China - even efficient ones - only adds to the hypothetical emission problem.

nice backhanded acceptance that you were wrong in stating the U.S. has built no new coal plants... ya, like only 32 completed/under construction since 2008.

but now you've jumped to spouting off a claim I cherry-picked the year 2008... that prior to that year, "enviro-wackos", had stalled any construction. Should we wonder why you didn't bother to cite anything to support such a claim? Let's see if the U.S. Department of Energy's, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), can assist in ascertaining the basis of the TimG claimed "enviro-wackos" constraining influence:

=> Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants - slide 5/20: Historic Capacity Additions by Years:

•Actual plant capacity, commissioned since 2000, has been far less than new capacity announced; the year 2002 report of announcements reflected a schedule of over 36,000 MW to be installed by 2007, whereas ≈ 4,500 MW (12%) were achieved

•The trend over several years has reflected the bulk of power plant developments shifting out in time due to
project delays

•Delays and cancellations have been
attributed to regulatory uncertainty (regarding climate change) or strained project economics due to escalating costs in the industry

•Cancellations become more prevalent as prospects of fulfilling all projects in the queue become impractical

so... "attributed to regulatory uncertainty (regarding climate change) or strained project economics due to escalating costs in the industry". When looking at the actual time-line... since 2000, ~200 coal-fired plants have been proposed for construction. Of that ~200 proposed since the year 2000, less than half have been canceled or postponed since 2007. About your claims of cherry-picking the year 2008...

continuing on... NETL does not go beyond the broad reference attributing the delays and cancellations (since 2007) to either, "regulatory uncertainty (regarding climate change) or strained project economics due to escalating costs in the industry". But somewhere in there is the TimG "enviro-wachos" claim... where could it be... where could it be? Oh, that's right, the U.S. Supreme Court decision came down in April, 2007 - ruling that the U.S. Clean Air Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate CO2 emissions... which translated through the process/hearings route to the EPA's 2008 Endangerment Finding... which continues on towards ultimate regulation. So, TimG... those "enviro-wackos" of yours... I guess that would be the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - right? From the linked NETL report, slide 13/20 provides ready insight into a review of economies vs. efficiencies (within the context of stated, "regulatory uncertainty")... the majority of new U.S. plants under construction/proposed are still the less efficient/lower cost/older technology plants, although one can be encouraged, somewhat, to see the actual number of higher efficiency/new technology plants referenced.

as to your last point that presumes to highlight efficiency differences between "old technology" coal plants (China vs. U.S.), even if one were to accept your unsubstantiated efficiency numbers, I provided the earlier linked reference stating China is actively engaged in replacing it's complement of 'old technology' coal plants... to the tune of 2 plants every month being replaced with new higher efficiency plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...