Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Hey Rick. No doubt there many other complex mechanisms that tend to buffer the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
My concern is that those buffers have limits. Unknown limits. We have a pretty interesting experiment going on here. Testing those limits in ways we have no similar historical data for.
A decade or so of buffering does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling. I hope the buffering is very robust but suspect that instead it is being stretched to the limit and about to burst. As most buffering systems I am familiar with will do if pushed too hard.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
It is interesting how the people that is the most closed minded once all the time claim that it is everyone else that is closed minded. Projection?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Lol I guess it would depend on what you replaced them with.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
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
|
|
"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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!