Climate change warning

[HDRider]

Free?

 

[HDRider]

The US uses some 2 terawatts (that's 2 million megawatts or 2,000 gigawatts) of power on a typical weekday. A typical wind turbine puts out only 1.4 megawatts.

There are 53,000 wind turbines in the US producing 84,143 megawatts (MW).

Solar produces 0.94% of total U.S. electricity with wind amounting to 5.55% of all generated electrical energy.

 

[Bright Raven]

Solar is not in the top four subsidized industries:

According to a study conducted between 2008-2010, here are the top four government subsided industries:

1. Financial
2. Utilities
3. Telecommunication
4. Oil, Gas, & Pipelines

The top five subsidized corporations:
1. Boeing - 13 billion
2. GM - 3.5 billion
3. Royal Dutch Shell - 2 billion
4. Dow Chemical - 1.4 billion
5. Goldman Sachs - 662 million

 

[Douglas]

^How about a link to that article. If you are talking dollars may so, but if you are talking percentages you are way off. What you are likely talking about is standards deductions like depreciation all business get. These companies are high on the list because they are very big or very heavily dependent on capital/equipment not because of special deals. Solar is a small industry but would not exist without subsidies.

And the biggest subsidy is not really a subsidy at all. Most states mandate public utilities to use wind and solar to a certain degree regardless of cost, so the folks paying the higher electric bills pay theses subsidies every day and doubt that article/survey included that cost.

 

[Bright Raven]

^How about a link to that article. If you are talking dollars may so, but if you are talking percentages you are way off. What you are likely talking about is standards deductions like depreciation all business get. These companies are high because they are very big or very heavily dependent on capital/equipment not because of special deals. Solar is a small industry but would not exist without subsidies.
And the biggest subsidy is not really a subsidy at all. Many state mandates public utilities to use wind and solar to a certain degree, so the folks paying the higher electric bills pay theses subsidies every day.

Yes. In terms of total dollars. Financial was at the top due to the financial meltdown during that period.

The significance is that the energy sector is heavily subsidized. Not only solar.

BTW: subsidizes are justified for those companies in that list. They are widely held equities and are in most retirement portfolios. It would be a shame to let them fail.

 

[Douglas]

Of course all that financial support was subsequently paid back with no cost to the taxpayers, save GM/GMAC which should not have been part of TARP. Which indicates a type of data cherry picking to intentionally mislead.

Based on the size of the energy sector it is not heavily subsidized, most of special breaks like percentage depletion and expensing of intangible drilling costs are for small companies and not available to the big integrated oil companies.

So deduction to farmers for their equipment depreciation that is identical to the oil companies is not a subsidy just because we don't like them and they are big.

 

[Bestoutwest]

What bothers me the most about the climate change debate is the hypocrisy:
-Al Gore flying in his private plane to an event on global warming.
-People protesting the oil industry while floating in their plastic kayaks made from.......
-City folks complaining about cow farts while taxis and delivery trucks idle all day on the streets of NYC, LA, Dallas, etc, and the constant flights to a ton of destinations that no one really needs to go to.

I could go on, but what good would it do. Is the earth warming? Yes, there is evidence that it is. Is it man made? Well, only time will tell. Will humans become extinct? Yes, and some other life form will move in. That's the history of the planet, it's been going on for over 4 billion years and will continue on until the sun engulfs the earth at some point in the very distant future.

 

[M-5]

What bothers me the most about the climate change debate is the hypocrisy:
-Al Gore flying in his private plane to an event on global warming.
-People protesting the oil industry while floating in their plastic kayaks made from.......
-City folks complaining about cow farts while taxis and delivery trucks idle all day on the streets of NYC, LA, Dallas, etc, and the constant flights to a ton of destinations that no one really needs to go to.

I could go on, but what good would it do. Is the earth warming? Yes, there is evidence that it is. Is it man made? Well, only time will tell. Will humans become extinct? Yes, and some other life form will move in. That's the history of the planet, it's been going on for over 4 billion years and will continue on until the sun engulfs the earth at some point in the very distant future.

actually that is wrong we've been cooling for 30 plus years

 

[Bestoutwest]

actually that is wrong we've been cooling for 30 plus years

Here are a couple websites that have some graphs. I like graphs, info at a glance if you will.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... emperature

Here's another that shows a now vs. then for a glacier. Again, the jury is still out on exactly how much damage humans are doing. However, I believe that we're still WAY too wasteful when it comes to our purchases and waste. But that's a different topic for a different day.
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/20 ... -and-then/

 

[Bright Raven]

What bothers me the most about the climate change debate is the hypocrisy:
-Al Gore flying in his private plane to an event on global warming.
-People protesting the oil industry while floating in their plastic kayaks made from.......
-City folks complaining about cow farts while taxis and delivery trucks idle all day on the streets of NYC, LA, Dallas, etc, and the constant flights to a ton of destinations that no one really needs to go to.

I could go on, but what good would it do. Is the earth warming? Yes, there is evidence that it is. Is it man made? Well, only time will tell. Will humans become extinct? Yes, and some other life form will move in. That's the history of the planet, it's been going on for over 4 billion years and will continue on until the sun engulfs the earth at some point in the very distant future.

Perhaps a new species will carry our genes forward but when Sol expands into out safe perimeter, better get the hot dogs ready for one last wiener roast. :cowboy:

 

[M-5]

Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto was a "first step" then it was in the same wrong direction as the later "Bali roadmap".


8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen ... ange/16467

 

[Bright Raven]

Climate change is a FACT. If someone is stating that the the climate has never changed consider this:

There are crocodile fossils in the Green River Formation of Wyoming. I have seen them in person.

One of the most important fossil sites for understanding the Eocene is found at Green River, located in western Colorado, eastern Utah and southwestern Wyoming in the United States. During the Eocene, this region was located at much the same latitude it is today, though global climate was more equable. Therefore, the climate in which the organisms lived differs somewhat from that of the present-day western United States. The fossils, especially plants, found at this site indicate that the climate was moist temperate or sub-tropical, with temperatures ranging from 15 to 20 degrees Celsius. In addition to the plants, another piece of evidence suggesting that the climate was sub-tropical was the presence of fossilized crocodiles. Crocodiles can only survive in areas with a constant, warm temperature.

 

[M-5]

Climate change is a FACT. If someone is stating that the the climate has never changed consider this:

There are crocodile fossils in the Green River Formation of Wyoming. I have seen them in person.

One of the most important fossil sites for understanding the Eocene is found at Green River, located in western Colorado, eastern Utah and southwestern Wyoming in the United States. During the Eocene, this region was located at much the same latitude it is today, though global climate was more equable. Therefore, the climate in which the organisms lived differs somewhat from that of the present-day western United States. The fossils, especially plants, found at this site indicate that the climate was moist temperate or sub-tropical, with temperatures ranging from 15 to 20 degrees Celsius. In addition to the plants, another piece of evidence suggesting that the climate was sub-tropical was the presence of fossilized crocodiles. Crocodiles can only survive in areas with a constant, warm temperature.

I agree the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. And will still be changing long after we are gone. SO who was responsible for the warm sub tropical climate during the Eocene period and Im sure that period is responsible for all the fossils I have on my place in every rock I did up out of my fields, which means that That land was under water some time ago .

 

[Bright Raven]

M-5

Climate change is extensively documented in the geological history of earth.

1. Continents move by the process of sea floor spreading and plate tectonics.

2. Ocean currents change do to movement of the tectonic plates.

3. Volcanic activity has been extensive during past geologic periods. During the Mesozoic, the atmosphere of the earth was thick with gases and Carbon dioxide spewed out of volcanos.

4. Mountain chains are lifted by plate tectonics, then over time they are eroded away. That has major climatic impact. For example, the Rocky Mtns are relatively young but the Appalachian mtns are very old. In their youth, the Appalachian mtns were higher than the Rockies.

All these factors and more, affect climate. It takes a very very uneducated person to not acknowledge geological climate changes.

 

[M-5]

M-5

Climate change is extensively documented in the geological history of earth.

1. Continents move by the process of sea floor spreading and plate tectonics.

2. Ocean currents change do to movement of the tectonic plates.

3. Volcanic activity has been extensive during past geologic periods. During the Mesozoic, the atmosphere of the earth was thick with gases and Carbon dioxide spewed out of volcanos.

4. Mountain chains are lifted by plate tectonics, then over time they are eroded away. That has major climatic impact. For example, the Rocky Mtns are relatively young but the Appalachian mtns are very old. In their youth, the Appalachian mtns were higher than the Rockies.

All these factors and more, affect climate. It takes a very very uneducated person to not acknowledge geological climate changes.

I Agree whole heartedly and it is a truly Ignorant person that think man is responsible when scope and size of this planet and the forces at play are to somehow be altered by making rules and charging fees to change it.

 

[Bright Raven]

This is a graphic depiction of Mesozoic Era earth. The volcanic activity during that era would have produced more green house gases in one day than man has since the birth of Christ.

 

[Jogeephus]

I'm confused. I don't understand why everyone is so upset over CO2 emissions when increased CO2 makes plants grow faster and produce more oxygen and more biomass. That would be a good thing wouldn't it? I remember the acid rain scare where we were told sulfuric acid would be raining down on us in a few years so scrubbers were put on the smoke stacks and catalytic converters were made mandatory to prevent this. Now we have to add sulfur to our fertilizer applications because there is no longer enough sulfur in the atmosphere to provide for the needs of the plants. But what effect is this regulation having on plants they don't receive fertilizer? It would seem reasonable to think CO2 should be the least of our worries when methane is a much worse greenhouse gas. Methane is formed naturally and there are large sources of methane such as swamps. These could be filled to mitigate this pollution but its against federal law to fill in a swamp. Its all so confusing. Its almost as if the government just wants to justify another tax but that couldn't be. The government is there to help us. Right?

 

[Douglas]

As cattle producers we really don't want to talk about methane do we.

 

[Jogeephus]

As cattle producers we really don't want to talk about methane do we.

Why not? If they are going to say my cow is bad then we can bring it into perspective and say the Okefenokee swamp and the Everglades need to be filled in because I can guarantee you these emit more methane than all of our herds combined. And while we are at it we should outlaw rice farming. The whole argument is simply a ruse to get us to buy into a tax that will amount to around $300 per household yet it will do nothing but like the pockets of lobbyists and bureaucrats.

I do believe in conservation and do believe we should look towards alternative energy sources but simply levying a tax is BS and that is what this is all about.

 

[Bright Raven]

I'm confused. I don't understand why everyone is so upset over CO2 emissions when increased CO2 makes plants grow faster and produce more oxygen and more biomass. That would be a good thing wouldn't it? I remember the acid rain scare where we were told sulfuric acid would be raining down on us in a few years so scrubbers were put on the smoke stacks and catalytic converters were made mandatory to prevent this. Now we have to add sulfur to our fertilizer applications because there is no longer enough sulfur in the atmosphere to provide for the needs of the plants. But what effect is this regulation having on plants they don't receive fertilizer? It would seem reasonable to think CO2 should be the least of our worries when methane is a much worse greenhouse gas. Methane is formed naturally and there are large sources of methane such as swamps. These could be filled to mitigate this pollution but its against federal law to fill in a swamp. Its all so confusing. Its almost as if the government just wants to justify another tax but that couldn't be. The government is there to help us. Right?

Joe, you are confused.

First, excess carbon dioxide is different than what is enough for plants. CO2 is necessary to make sugars in the process of photosynthesis. There is suffient CO2 for that process. Excess CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. There is no shortage of CO2!

Second, acid rain and sulfur in fertilizers is not as connected as you are suggesting. Sulfur emissions are sulfur oxides. Fertilizers are usually in the form of sulfate. Huge difference in environmental impact.