Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 5, 2013 - 03:12pm PT
You can gaze at that wonderful image of a far away galaxy...

Fact is EDH, M31, the galaxy I posted, can actually be seen with the naked eye. That is if you do not live in the jungle of light polluted city.

It is located directly in between third northern star of Casopia and the quarter northern portion of Andromeda. A good trained eye can truly make out the spiral cloud. Between 2100 and 2200 right now this time of year is perfect viewing.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HRKRNH
Oct 5, 2013 - 03:54pm PT
Granted ED, but how do we know when a new direction in that shift will or is occurring through natural means? Seems weve studied the man made elements extensively. Yet the EPA says cutting out all the coal power plants will have ZERO effects on the CO2 output. All the fuss over CO2 which is increased in green houses across america to enhance growth of flora.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:05pm PT

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

I would really like to see a direct quote of that claim.

What really do you believe that they said in that article? That the release of less CO2 would result in the same release of CO2 or something without logic like that?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
Rong:
Yet the EPA says cutting out all the coal power plants will have ZERO effects on the CO2 output.

Ray:
I would really like to see a direct quote of that claim.

Hahaaa... yeah, good luck with that. I assure you it was a misunderstanding stemming directly from the ignorance of the interpreter... who regurgitated the bullshit interpretation to Rong.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
No, I remember that article but cant remember the details. I am sure that all or at least most of the misunderstandings in this case is fully ron's own.

I believe that EPA said that it would be no real difference in CO2 release with some new rules in regard to coal plants. The reason where probably that the new rules didn't make it attractive to change to better coal power plants so that the rules would change nothing.

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
Lol I guess it would depend on what you replaced them with.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HRKRNH
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:40pm PT
http://washingtonexaminer.com/epa-admits-new-coal-regulations-wont-reduce-global-warming/article/2536384



i guess im the only one that can type in to the browser : EPA says shutting down coal plants wont reduce CO2. Then hit enter.

So in the end its a nothing gained for CO2 yet the rules are for reducing CO2 .. I smell a skunk.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:44pm PT
Yes, but I believe that the main point from EPA where that they where not going to shut down the old coal plants and they where thus not replaced with anything.

But I am really not sure. I just skimmed the beginning of the article. Realized that Ron's interpretation where wrong as usual and stopped skimming. It could have been some other reason.
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?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HRKRNH
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
Ill elaborate for you Ray. In the name of reducing CO2,, laws will be in effect that do not reduce CO2.. Just "pork" if you will. How much money has been wasted on that effort alone? Good question. Now this doesnt have to do DIRECTLY with climate change, but rather the cesspool of false BS that surrounds the issue. Keep in mind new plants will likely go other directions just as a cost benefit and need no new "laws"..



And a question to ED, much has been done starting in the early 80s to help our pollution levels in many large cities and states. This has also gone on in other countries. So we must have already been reducing the rate of pollutants including the non pollutant CO2 one would think- in a semi detectible manner. Yet the "graphs" dont really show that. You would think a long enough span like 30/40 yrs would be notable and detectable as a trend.??
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
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 5, 2013 - 05:30pm PT
what is the ancient name for M31?

Ah, let's see.... maybe the same as the constellation just to the east of it....

Andromeda?

How many times EDH have you completed the 8 hour Messier Marathon?



122 miles of Interstate 90 between WY and SD were shut down yesterday due to complete blizzard conditions and drifts up to six feet high. This is the first time "EVER" in early October that this has occurred.

Also this....

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
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20131005/ARGUS911/131005003/South-Dakota-snow-totals-set-records-Lead-Rapid-City
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 5, 2013 - 05:34pm PT
Maybe the Oceans are "BOILING" but the rest of the frking planet is COOLING.

Facto MONO!


Mark my words... the SIERRA will have 20-40% above avg AVG snowfall this season.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HRKRNH
Oct 5, 2013 - 05:36pm PT
im renaming you Monotnograph ;^)


get it,, monotonous / graph transmogrified..
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HRKRNH
Oct 5, 2013 - 05:53pm PT
Jeepers? Jeepers creepers whos got yur peepers?


And FYI, you "aint" Ed. Ned...

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.
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews