Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 8961 - 8980 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
but Ron, that article obviously doesn't claim anything close to
"Yet the EPA says cutting out all the coal power plants will have ZERO effects on the CO2 output." so you must have read something else. The word shutdown is not even in the article.

Did you just make up that quote?
AndyMan

Sport climber
CA
Oct 5, 2013 - 05:24pm PT
No global warming for 2 decades. Global cooling for the past decade. Antarctic sea ice at record highs. Arctic sea ice record increase. Rate of sea level rise decreasing. Cyclones and hurricanes at a 30 year low. Polar bear numbers increasing (for the Gore kiddies).

Still not a shred of evidence of any kind that man's CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age.

Come on all you frightened pussies, in your own words, where is the EVIDENCE that man's CO2 caused any of the global warming that stopped 2 decades ago.

Credit: AndyMan

Credit: AndyMan
Paul Martzen

Trad climber
Fresno
Oct 5, 2013 - 06:15pm PT
The normal "pollutants" that we have been trying to clean up for the last 40 years are side effects of combustion. Typical pollutants are from incomplete combustion, dirty fuel, or too hot or cold combustion. Sulfuric acid comes from high sulfur coal. Incomplete combustion produces various hydrocarbon and particulates. Not sure what produces NOX, high heat in the combustion chamber, maybe. All these pollutants are potentially cleanable with efficient and complete combustion or after combustion technologies.

As you note, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It does not have any detectable harmful effects on humans at these levels. It is a primary result of combustion and is only related to the total amount of fuel being burned. The more fuel burned the more CO2. In order to capture that CO2, you have to spend just as much energy as was released when you burned it.

When ever you burn wood or eat food, you release CO2, but that CO2 was captured out of the atmosphere by plants while they were alive, recently.

The gasoline that we burn in our cars or the coal in powerplants was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago over a span of a few million years. The plants that were slowly converted to oil and coal underground were once living on the surface, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Over that long time span, atmospheric CO2 slowly dropped from much higher levels down to the levels that we are used to. Life in general did just fine with those high CO2 levels and higher temperatures. Humans and mammals weren't around so we don't know how we would have done then.

Most of the CO2 on earth is locked up in carbonates in sedimentary rocks. The amount locked up in oil and coal is probably much less, but still significant.

Venus is an example of a planet with a primarily CO2 atmosphere, something like 96% CO2. The temperature on the surface is around 740 degrees Celsius, because of the greenhouse effect.
See this website comparing the atmospheres of Earth, Venus and Mars.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 5, 2013 - 06:41pm PT
The atmospheric pressure at the surface on Venus is also about the same as 3,500 feet under the ocean, and the clouds are Sulfuric acid. At those pressures CO2 isn't even a gas.

Then it is also 23% closer to the sun. Since the radiation from any object follows the inverse square law that means the available energy from the sun is WAY more than at one solar unit.









mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 5, 2013 - 06:55pm PT
The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022.

The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice.

Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.

Here's the part the willfully ignorant fukwads conveniently skip over, blindly assuming CO2 is the only GHG of concern:

This proposed rule will limit GHG emissions from new sources in this source category to levels consistent with current projections for new
fossil fuel - fired generating units.

I totally see why Rong and his petroleum loving buddies over at the Washington Examiner Tabloid would get their panties all wadded up over a proposal that sets current carbon emissions as the baseline... with NO anticipated economic impacts. How dare they!


Yet the EPA NEVER said anything remotely close to Rong's idiotic claim that:

cutting out all the coal power plants will have ZERO effects on the CO2 output.

Willful ignorance... distortion of truth... illiteracy... whatever... Rong is Rong no matter how you slice it.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 5, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/10/05/if-all-you-see-911/
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Oct 5, 2013 - 08:48pm PT
Lead set a record with 43.5 inches as of 7:30 p.m. Friday. That total will be higher once official numbers are recorded, said Katie Pojorlie, meteorologist at the National Weather Service in Rapid City. Rapid City set a record with 19 inches before midnight Friday. The old record was 1.4 inches in 2005

One crazy assed storm is equated to climate, hahaha.

I see the problem, some of the people arguing here
don't have any understanding of what climate is.
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Oct 5, 2013 - 09:09pm PT
"One crazy assed storm is equated to climate, hahaha."

The warmists do that all the time. They're still dry humpin Sandy
as all the evidence they need of doomsday happening soon unless
a burdensome carbon tax is levied.

They say the cash is needed to attend climate change rave parties
(called COP's) and fund their cronies sure to fail luxury
solar panel factories.


johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Oct 5, 2013 - 11:34pm PT
The warmists do that all the time. They're still dry humpin Sandy
as all the evidence they need of doomsday happening soon unless
a burdensome carbon tax is levied.

Yes, it cuts both ways when singling out one storm.
Paul Martzen

Trad climber
Fresno
Oct 7, 2013 - 01:12am PT
The atmospheric pressure at the surface on Venus is also about the same as 3,500 feet under the ocean, and the clouds are Sulfuric acid. At those pressures CO2 isn't even a gas.

Then it is also 23% closer to the sun. Since the radiation from any object follows the inverse square law that means the available energy from the sun is WAY more than at one solar unit.

I am wondering why the pressure should be 92 times that of Earth's nitrogen atmosphere. CO2 is heavier than N2 but not 92 times heavier. Maybe somebody can explain this to me. Must have really surprised the Soviet space scientists when their Venera probes kept getting crushed by pressure far above the planets surface.

As for the other points, I find no mention of liquid CO2 on Venus and photos show a hot dry surface. What I read is that the atmosphere is 96% CO2. It looks like the temperature is so high that normal CO2 liquification is impossible at any pressure. The graph linked below indicates that the pressure on Venus is very close to the critical point of CO2 where it becomes a supercritical fluid, but there is no mention of this in the literature on Venus that I have looked at so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg

I found two very interesting points about solar radiation on Venus. Reportedly, the acid clouds high in the atmosphere block 90% of the suns rays so that light reaching the surface to warm the planet is much less than on earth. But, even though less light reaches the surface, its heat is more effectively trapped there by the CO2 atmosphere.

Though Venus is twice the distance from the sun as Mercury, Venus is much hotter. Mercury is nearly as hot in locations directly facing the sun, but the temperature drops off quickly as the sun angle decreases. Mercury's poles are around -93 C and the nightside is around -173 C. This is because Mercury has no atmosphere to trap heat and insulate the planet. The surface of Mercury heats up from direct sunlight, then re-radiates that heat directly back into space.

A very interesting aspect of Venus is that there is almost no temperature variation across the surface, from night side to day side or from equator to poles. This despite the fact that night time on Venus lasts for nearly half a year, giving it plenty of time to cool off if it could. This means that the transport of heat around the planet by the winds is fairly rapid and that the radiation of heat into space from the poles and night side is very, very slow.

We experience a similar phenomena on earth in very humid locations when the temperature at night hardly cools off at all. But it does cool off a little bit over the night as some heat radiates into space. Just think if it did not cool off at all over a 4 month night!! That is Venus. Mercury, without an atmosphere, is more like a dry earth desert, where it is hot during the day, but very cold at night.
John Duffield

Mountain climber
New York
Oct 7, 2013 - 10:05am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#324363
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 7, 2013 - 11:00am PT
Hmm I think electro-magnetic radiation drops off in inverse CUBE proportions. But I could be wrong

so if venus is 23% closer to the sun I think it would get about 2.2 times the thermal radiation from the sun. Odds of my math being correct .. 50/50

(100/77)^3
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 7, 2013 - 11:22am PT
Ron

Dr. Ball is an energy industry paid quack with almost no science credentials and no published work since 1994.

"Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]"

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]

Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station.[6]
--------


It costs billions to fight the facts. But it can be done effectively. This thread is a beautiful example of that.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 7, 2013 - 11:33am PT
It was some time ago I heard about Tim Ball. Ron is really good at finding the real experts on climate change. Have you found Milloy yet?
crunch

Social climber
CO
Oct 7, 2013 - 11:45am PT
Lots of cool info about Venus and its atmosphere here:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/14.TerrPlanAtmos.html

"Not only does VENUS have more atmosphere then EARTH, but it is nearly all CO2--a green house gas--while Earth's atmosphere is mostly N2 with only a small amount of CO2. Hence, Venus is much hotter than Earth."

Venus' atmosphere
Venus' atmosphere
Credit: crunch

EDIT: link does not work. Doh. Well, here's a photo showing the winds:

Venus, in UV, showing cloud bands
Venus, in UV, showing cloud bands
Credit: crunch

This Hubble Space Telescope ultraviolet-light image of the planet Venus was taken on January 24, 1995. At ultraviolet wavelengths cloud patterns become distinctive. From previous missions, astronomers know that such features travel east to west along with the Venus' prevailing winds, to make a complete circuit around the planet in four days. (Credit: L. Esposito, University of Colorado, Boulder, and NASA)
raymond phule

climber
Oct 7, 2013 - 11:46am PT

What Ball said is actually what IS happening. Models dont match reality. Simple really. And the premeditation for those models is now obvious.

How would you know? You cant even read a page about EPA with totally misrepresenting what they said. How could you be able to understand the output from any model?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 7, 2013 - 11:55am PT

No actually that figures strongly in this Fort. NOT ONE person can claim superiority over ma nature. And without EXACT input from natural occurrence and the values they represent, no model will come close.

?????????
raymond phule

climber
Oct 7, 2013 - 12:01pm PT
So a model needs to be able to predict something exactly to be useful?
dirtbag

climber
Oct 7, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
^^^^^. Illiterate ^^^^^
raymond phule

climber
Oct 7, 2013 - 12:35pm PT

You guys are bashing US for nonsense posts ROFLMAO!!!

Yes, because your posts are nonsense.

I asked you a question. You can always answer it if you want to have a discussion.
Messages 8961 - 8980 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews