Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coal is the first target to be eliminated as the damage from it's use cost more than the beneift it produces....

Tar sands are no where near the issue other than being inefficient at producing oil and using more energy than needed tho it's been getting better....

Coal is only making the pigs like Koch fat....
at every one else's expense

The True Cost of Coal Power

Due to its abundance and low market price, coal combustion is the largest source of energy production in the world, accounting for 40% of all electricity worldwide. In the USA it accounts for 45% of electricity generation, and approximately 75% in Australia.

Unfortunately, coal combustion is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions as well, accounting for 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions worldwide, and 72% of CO2 emissions from global power generation. In addition, non-power generation uses increase its contribution to global human CO2 emissions to a whopping 41% (as of 2005).

Coal Externalities
A major problem with coal is that its full costs are not reflected in its market price, and thus while we may seemingly purchase and burn coal cheaply, in reality we are paying a much higher cost in the long run, if we look at the big picture. Economists refer to the impacts on human and environmental health which are not reflected in the price of coal as "externalities". Those who benefit from the seemingly cheap electricity don't pay for these externalities directly, but the public eventually has to pay in the form of medical bills, environmental cleanups, etc.

In a new report published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Epstein et al. (2011) do a full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal, taking these externalities into account. Among the factors included in this analysis were:

government coal subsidies
increased illness and mortality due to mining pollution
climate change from greenhouse gas emissions
particulates causing air pollution
loss of biodiversity
cost to taxpayers of environmental monitoring and cleanup
decreased property values
infrastructure damages from mudslides resulting from mountaintop removal
infrastructure damage from mine blasting
impacts of acid rain resulting from coal combustion byproducts
water pollution

Note that most of these external factors do not apply to most non-fossil fuel energy sources. The majority of the externality costs come from reduction in air quality, contribution to climate change, and impacts to public health. Epstein et al. find that the total cost of these externalities ranges from approximately 9 to 27 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated, with a median of approximately 18 cents per kWh. The authors note that this is a conservative estimate, because they have not accounted for every associated impact.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html

snip

Bottom Line
Ultimately it's a significant problem that we rely so heavily on coal to meet our energy needs due to its artificially low market price. It's like eating junk food for every meal. It's cheap, it tastes good, but it's not healthy and eventually you'll pay the price through poor health, high medical bills, and a shortened lifespan.

We may not pay the costs of climate change, lost biodiversity, air and water pollution, adverse health effects, etc. up front, but we do have to pay them eventually. We need to follow the recommendations of Epstein et al., transform our energy infrastructure, and move away from our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels.

Coincidentally, the US EPA has just proposed national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from power plants. These standards will "require many power plants to install widely available, proven pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year." This is a good step in ensuring that some of the externalities discussed in this article are internalized and taken into account.

Coal power plants were exempted from meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act until 2000, and these new EPA standards will finally ensure that air pollution from coal power plants is regulated, rather than being freely released into the atmosphere.

no more free sewers......
 
Because it's cheaper now.

Any chance of any evidence supporting your assertions at all?

Yeah...all those Coal Plants!

Hey...don't you and Macdoc and the rest realize that you have failed? No one is buying your Global Warming nonsense - at least not anyone important. Yet...you continue to blather on like chronic alcoholics long after the party has died.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who is behind the climate change denial effort...

prima facie evidence of the type of distortion above


Not Just Koch Brothers: New Study Reveals Funders Behind Climate Change Denial Effort

Dec. 20, 2013 — A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.

The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.

If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming," said Brulle. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight -- often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians -- but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.

Key findings include:

Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.
"The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."

At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts to deny scientific findings about global warming.
 
Oh Noes....Climate Scientists get stuck in Antarctic Ice during Summer and await rescue! Wow...it's so Warm now that ships are getting stuck in all the Ice!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...cue-mission-dispatches-mv-akademik-shokalskiy


Wait...lemme guess. Somehow you Global Warming Alarmists are going to tell us that the Warmer it gets, the more Ice we'll have....right?

wich holds more moisture, air at a temp. of -25 or air at a temp. of -20?
when warmer air holds mor moisture, it can snow more. and more snow means more pressure on the ice, wich leads to increased iceflow, wich leads to more sea ice......

:rolleyes:
 
Yeah...all those Coal Plants!

Hey...don't you and Macdoc and the rest realize that you have failed? No one is buying your Global Warming nonsense - at least not anyone important. Yet...you continue to blather on like chronic alcoholics long after the party has died.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.

nice projection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.

I've been keeping away from this thread, since the mod team tends to frown at the way I address deniers.

I will still take the time to let you know that you are doing a fantastic work, since all your inanities have been refuted with very interesting figures and articles. If it weren't for the likes of you, this thread would be less interesting.

Just like the circus if, as an example, it was devoid of clowns. Or contortionists.

So please, don't let the fact that you are constantly proven wrong stop you. At some point all the minimally intelligent professional deniers will jump ship, and then maybe you will get an interview on the Alex Jones show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other problem with C02 - ocean acidification

Ocean Acidification Summary for Policymakers 2013

This summary for policymakers reports on the state of scientific knowledge on ocean acidification, based on the latest research presented at The Third Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World, held in Monterey, California, in September 2012. Experts present the projected changes from ocean acidification for ecosystems and the people who rely on them, according to levels of confidence for these outcomes.

more
http://www.igbp.net/publications/su...nacidificationsummaryforpolicymakers2013.html


The average pH of ocean surface waters has fallen by about 0.1 units, from 8.2 to 8.1, since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This corresponds to a 26% increase in acidity. Please see original infographic for sources and further information.

Biological systems are not built to withstand that kind of rapid change in environment.

lots here on it from people who are dealing with the current impacts

http://bcsga.ca/ocean-acidification/
 
Oh Noes....Climate Scientists get stuck in Antarctic Ice during Summer and await rescue! Wow...it's so Warm now that ships are getting stuck in all the Ice!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...cue-mission-dispatches-mv-akademik-shokalskiy


Wait...lemme guess. Somehow you Global Warming Alarmists are going to tell us that the Warmer it gets, the more Ice we'll have....right?

It is becoming routine for "climate scientists" to blame cooling on warming.

I see the China Icebreaker had to back off .... the ice was too thick ...

Next they will say global warming caused the sudden thick ice

See a pattern here ??

I have watched this circus since the 1980's , the "Global Warmists" have changed disguises so many times it has become a science to them.
 
wich holds more moisture, air at a temp. of -25 or air at a temp. of -20?
when warmer air holds mor moisture, it can snow more. and more snow means more pressure on the ice, wich leads to increased iceflow, wich leads to more sea ice......

:rolleyes:

So that makes my point exactly .... planet earth will turn the extra warmth back into cold ice and cold snow ... it is self correcting cycle ... why do you always leave that out of your "settled science" models ??
 
So that makes my point exactly .... planet earth will turn the extra warmth back into cold ice and cold snow ... it is self correcting cycle ... why do you always leave that out of your "settled science" models ??

:dl: oh man this is hilarious...brutalizing the laws of physics.

read my lips...THERE IS NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK - it's only snowing because there is cold air which there will always be while the earth is tilted.
More snow does not = colder. Just means there is more moisture to form snow when the warm moisture laden air hits a cold front as it has been doing fairly regularly.

Global warming means more snowstorms: scientists - Phys.org
phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html‎
Mar 1, 2011 - Climate change is not only making the planet warmer, it is also making snowstorms stronger and more frequent, US scientists said on Tuesday.

That is one reason more snowstorms are expected...even this year as well given the polar dipole presence.

It's the same reason there is minor glacier growth in the Antarctic east because the atmosphere has more moisture which falls in that desert.

The gain there in glacial mass does not offset the loss in Antarctica as a whole.

If you are going to play in the adult science forum.....learn some science.

Investigating Pine Island Glacier

A fast-flowing ice stream

Pine Island Glacier is one of the largest ice streams in Antarctica. It flows, together with Thwaites Ice Stream, into the Amundsen Sea embayment in West Antarctica, and the two ice streams together drain ~5% of the Antarctic Ice Sheet1. Pine Island Glacier flows at rates of up to 4000 m per year2.

It is of interest to scientists because it is changing rapidly; it is thinning, accelerating and receding3, all of which contribute directly to sea level, and its future under a warming climate is uncertain.

Pine Island Glacier is buttressed by a large, floating ice shelf, which helps to stabilise the glacier, but this ice shelf is itself thinning and recently calved a huge iceberg.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/pine-island-glacier/
 
Last edited:
So that makes my point exactly .... planet earth will turn the extra warmth back into cold ice and cold snow ... it is self correcting cycle ... why do you always leave that out of your "settled science" models ??

Your lack of comprehension regarding even basic elementary school science principles and understandings hardly puts you in a position to refute or challenge this issue. How about simply admitting your ignorance of these concepts and asking for an explanation instead of trotting out a court jester routine.
 
Here's evidence based on WHO research:


Quote:
For coal, oil and biomass, it is carbon particulates resulting from burning that cause upper respiratory distress, kind of a second-hand black lung. Our lungs just don’t like burnt carbonaceous particulates, whether from coal or wood or manure or pellets or cigarettes. The actual numbers of deaths in China from coal use exceeded 300,000 last year since they have ramped up coal so fast in the last decade and they usually do not install exhaust scrubbers. The impact on their health care system has been significant in not just deaths, but in non-lethal health effects and lost days of work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Comments? Is the WHO cherry-picking?
.


No kidding our lungs do not like burned particulates .... but fossil fuels are still much better than living in smokey caves cooking over dung fires and gnawing on goat cheese..

The industrial age fueled by fossil fuels has lengthened lifespans considerably , it feeds billions of people , funded medical breakthroughs , provides clean running water to our homes .... yadayada

These tremendous benefits are forgotten by the "settled scientists" who think they are the saviors of mankind and saviors of the planet
 
This guy has it correct about business getting on with it

it's a good read
http://www.newscientist.com/article...eave-the-coal-in-the-ground.html#.UsDxBnlIn3w

that's exactly the situation in Canada with the oil companies wanting a carbon tax and the government too stupid and ideology driven to even consider it....

It's not going to be the government alone that moves this process along as the political process is handcuffed from loonie tunes from both fringes....you can find prime examples of both in this forum :(
.


With all respect sir ... it is you who is using the fossil fuels. You are then the problem .... all the energy companies do is supply you with it.

Stop using fossil fuels right this minute if you feel they are so terrible.

But NO ... you want ME to stop...

Your position reeks with utter hypocrisy and you just dont get it sir.

I do get it and I want to stay warm , fuel my car , fuel my helicopter , and fuel the 747 for my next ski trip to the Alps.

I am not a hypocrite , I love my fossil fuels and the tremendous benefits they have brought to mankind.
 

10 Climate Change

M: Coal generates almost half of the nation’s
electricity, but 4/5 of utility sector greenhouse
gases. Coal burning produces 1½ times more
CO2 than oil and 2 times that from natural gas.
Black carbon (soot), methane and ozone also
warm the atmosphere.

Are you aware of the fact that without CO2, every tree and flowering plant on Earth would die?

Have you ever seen a graph showing actual greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Are you aware that the overwhelming bulk and only meaningful component of greenhouse gases on this planet is water vapor?

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/07/16/greenhouse_gases_in_atmosphere.jpg

Are you aware that total human contribution to greenhouse gases on this planet is something like .28 of one percent?

http://www.americanthinker.com/#2 SourcesGreenHouseGas.gif

Are you aware that we are at a 100-year low for solar activity, that there has been snow in Israel and Egypt within the past month and that the coldest temperature ever measured on Earth ( -140F) was measured at Antarctica just a couple of weeks ago?

All of this indicates that we are at the beginning of a second little ice age. Real ice ages had cosmic causes and we'd have a century or more of warning but a little ice age is just a question of fluctions in the way a star operates and the fact they heat up and cool down periodically.

Nonetheless a little ice age is serious business and you should understand that windmills and solar panels are not going to save anybody from what is coming. People are going to die over these asinine "green(TM)" policies.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom