Climate change warning

[Bright Raven]

Joe. There is no correlation between reducing sulphur emissions and the need for sulfur in fertilizers. Remember. That sulfur was tied up in fossil fuels, it was not in the environment as a source of sulfur to plants.

 

[Jogeephus]

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.

Studies using "climate change money" proved this to be true. More CO2 the faster the plants grow granted limiting conditions still apply. During the dinosaur days there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. As a result, plants were larger which helps explain how the dinosaurs could survive of course you will probably tell me that there were no such things as dinosaurs.

"is not as connected" Splitting hairs now are we. What I do know is we had to start adding sulfur because we no longer can get enough from the atmosphere. I got the cancelled checks to prove this.

 

[M-5]

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.

Studies using "climate change money" proved this to be true. More CO2 the faster the plants grow granted limiting conditions still apply. During the dinosaur days there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. As a result, plants were larger which helps explain how the dinosaurs could survive of course you will probably tell me that there were no such things as dinosaurs.

"is not as connected" Splitting hairs now are we. What I do know is we had to start adding sulfur because we no longer can get enough from the atmosphere. I got the cancelled checks to prove this.

Order Some N today and had to get sulfur added to it .

 

[Bright Raven]

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.

Studies using "climate change money" proved this to be true. More CO2 the faster the plants grow granted limiting conditions still apply. During the dinosaur days there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. As a result, plants were larger which helps explain how the dinosaurs could survive of course you will probably tell me that there were no such things as dinosaurs.

"is not as connected" Splitting hairs now are we. What I do know is we had to start adding sulfur because we no longer can get enough from the atmosphere. I got the cancelled checks to prove this.

No. Not at all. That you add sulfur is not in question. My point is that you would be adding sulfur even in the absence of scrubbers.

In regard to CO2: As I demonstrated with the graphic, CO2 levels were exponentially higher during the Mesozoic Era when volcanic activity was ubiquitous. However, it did accelerate changes in climate which affected life on the planet and even may have been a cause of massive extinctions during that Era. My point is there is no shortage of CO2. I cannot imagine anyone advocating deliberately accelerating CO2 emissions.

 

[Jogeephus]

In regard to CO2: As I demonstrated with the graphic, CO2 levels were exponentially higher during the Mesozoic Era when volcanic activity was ubiquitous. However, it did accelerate changes in climate which affected life on the planet and even may have been a cause of massive extinctions during that Era. My point is there is no shortage of CO2. I cannot imagine anyone advocating deliberately accelerating CO2 emissions.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. I'm not advocating putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. What I am saying it is its not the poison the spin doctors are painting it out to be. Nature is a resilient thing. Increase CO2 will have both positive and negative effects on nature but in the end it will balance out and we will be alright so there is no need to levy another tax for the bureaucrats to squander.

 

[Bright Raven]

In regard to CO2: As I demonstrated with the graphic, CO2 levels were exponentially higher during the Mesozoic Era when volcanic activity was ubiquitous. However, it did accelerate changes in climate which affected life on the planet and even may have been a cause of massive extinctions during that Era. My point is there is no shortage of CO2. I cannot imagine anyone advocating deliberately accelerating CO2 emissions.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. I'm not advocating putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. What I am saying it is its not the poison the spin doctors are painting it out to be. Nature is a resilient thing. Increase CO2 will have both positive and negative effects on nature but in the end it will balance out and we will be alright so there is no need to levy another tax for the bureaucrats to squander.

That is rational.

In regard to the tax. Tell me about That? Is it a new proposal?

 

[Douglas]

Joe is absolutely right about sulfur:

With the move from burning coal to natural gas and low-sulfur coal and an increase in the use of scrubbers, only about 25 percent as much atmospheric sulfur is available today, compared to 40 years ago. Sulfur balances in agricultural fields are now negative, with more removed each year in crop harvests and leaching than is added from fertilizers and deposition, scientists have found, suggesting that farmers may need to apply sulfur fertilizer at some point in the future, particularly on fields with less soil organic matter.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105735.htm

 

[Jogeephus]

In regard to CO2: As I demonstrated with the graphic, CO2 levels were exponentially higher during the Mesozoic Era when volcanic activity was ubiquitous. However, it did accelerate changes in climate which affected life on the planet and even may have been a cause of massive extinctions during that Era. My point is there is no shortage of CO2. I cannot imagine anyone advocating deliberately accelerating CO2 emissions.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. I'm not advocating putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. What I am saying it is its not the poison the spin doctors are painting it out to be. Nature is a resilient thing. Increase CO2 will have both positive and negative effects on nature but in the end it will balance out and we will be alright so there is no need to levy another tax for the bureaucrats to squander.

That is rational.

In regard to the tax. Tell me about That? Is it a new proposal?

This is not a new proposal at all. This is the unspoken agenda behind this whole thing. I am actually a gov't licensed carbon sequesterer and in our training all this stuff was discussed. This all goes back to the Kyoto Treaty and what they have in mind. If I were a selfish man I should be all for this nonsense because I stand to make a fortune doing it. The whole scheme is similar to wetlands mitigation where one pays a sin tax basically. In this case the "polluters" will have to pay a fine for their emissions. That sounds so warm and fuzzy on the surface since it will be the mean old energy companies who will have to pay for their sins but in the real world these companies will inevitably pass this fee on to you - the consumer because it is you who are consuming their product. They told us the fee would work out to about $300 per household.

The irony here is it was actually the republicans and conservative business leaders who came up with the idea at some meeting. They were trying to find a way to set money aside to encourage research in viable alternative energy sources. They had planned to create a fund where when someone came up with a good idea there would be money to fund it. This was all going to be a voluntary thing. However, some tax hungry politicians learned of the idea and it has morphed into what it is now. Bush squashed it by not ratifying the treaty but it sputters to life from time to time. Most recent attempt was when Obama entered into Paris Treaty which I think was unconstitutional. Not sure. But it looks like it was coming back to life till Trump squashed it. But even though he squashed it I think we are still obligated to pay for three years or something like that. I think one of the professor's who was tasked to teach the course said it best when he said, "this is will be a huge industry that does nothing" and I agree with him.

In some of the European countries who swallowed the hook line and sinker their energy prices have skyrocketed and we here in Georgia are cutting pine trees and pelleting them and shipping the pellets to Europe so they can burned so they can mitigate the added taxes on fossil fuels. I forget the ratio they have to use but we are shipping a pile of these to them because this is green energy and good for the environment. :bang:

 

[dun]

The whole subject makes me think of the old saw "Figures don;t lie but liars figure"

 

[Bright Raven]

Joe is absolutely right about sulfur:

With the move from burning coal to natural gas and low-sulfur coal and an increase in the use of scrubbers, only about 25 percent as much atmospheric sulfur is available today, compared to 40 years ago. Sulfur balances in agricultural fields are now negative, with more removed each year in crop harvests and leaching than is added from fertilizers and deposition, scientists have found, suggesting that farmers may need to apply sulfur fertilizer at some point in the future, particularly on fields with less soil organic matter.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105735.htm

I read that article quickly. It is very interesting. The article suggests the sulfur emissions contributes to the elemental sulfur in soils. Along with sulfur from carbon deposits. There is no presentation of methods or data. It would be more credible to see how they reached their conclusions.

It does not change the issue of SO2 emissions versus SO4 which is how most fertilizers deliver sulfur.

 

[Douglas]

Joe is absolutely right about sulfur:

With the move from burning coal to natural gas and low-sulfur coal and an increase in the use of scrubbers, only about 25 percent as much atmospheric sulfur is available today, compared to 40 years ago. Sulfur balances in agricultural fields are now negative, with more removed each year in crop harvests and leaching than is added from fertilizers and deposition, scientists have found, suggesting that farmers may need to apply sulfur fertilizer at some point in the future, particularly on fields with less soil organic matter.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105735.htm

I read that article quickly. It is very interesting. The article suggests the sulfur emissions contributes to the elemental sulfur in soils. Along with sulfur from carbon deposits. There is no presentation of methods or data. It would be more credible to see how they reached their conclusions.

It does not change the issue of SO2 emissions versus SO4 which is how most fertilizers deliver sulfur.

There are hundreds out there:

http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/wc ... _Crops.pdf

Farmers see the sulfur index in their soil test declining every year. Now most dry nitrogen fertilizer sources contain 5-10% sulfur. Never did before.

The issue is long settled
http://www.croplife.com/crop-inputs/mic ... ing-issue/
https://www.advan6.com/ammoniumsulfate/ ... download=1
https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Con ... for_crops/

 

[Bright Raven]

That a sulfur deficiency is becoming a concern is different that relating it to the installation of scrubbers. I will concede that it is a contributing factor. Just scanning the articles, there are other factors.

 

[Jogeephus]

That a sulfur deficiency is becoming a concern is different that relating it to the installation of scrubbers. I will concede that it is a contributing factor. Just scanning the articles, there are other factors.

The important thing is our children aren't melting from acid rain. If I were a politician I'd love to take credit for saving your children from being burnt up by sulfuric acid. I could probably find enough voters who would appreciate my efforts and insure my re-election because children melting at the bus stop is a horrendous mental picture.

 

[M-5]

Just picked up a load of 30-0-0-65

 

[Bright Raven]

That a sulfur deficiency is becoming a concern is different that relating it to the installation of scrubbers. I will concede that it is a contributing factor. Just scanning the articles, there are other factors.

The important thing is our children aren't melting from acid rain. If I were a politician I'd love to take credit for saving your children from being burnt up by sulfuric acid. I could probably find enough voters who would appreciate my efforts and insure my re-election because children melting at the bus stop is a horrendous mental picture.

Looks like the clean air act is working.

I admit from 33 years of regulatory enforcement, we don't always get it right. I remember some things we required on surface mines that made absolutely no sense.

 

[M-5]

Duplicate post

 

[Jogeephus]

Looks like the clean air act is working.

I admit from 33 years of regulatory enforcement, we don't always get it right. I remember some things we required on surface mines that made absolutely no sense.

I don't mean to sound like I'm discounting the importance of conservation or anything like that. The mandate for BMP's was a wonderful thing and has done much good for the environment. The thing is, as I'm sure you know, these things are much more complex than most understand - including scientists but especially the lawyer politician types.

Nature is an amazing thing. Nature hates a vacuum and moves toward an equilibrium. Politics are much easier to understand. To understand politics, all we need do is follow the money and this scheme is nothing more than a tax wrapped up all cute and cuddly.

 

[TexasBred]

Joe is absolutely right about sulfur:

With the move from burning coal to natural gas and low-sulfur coal and an increase in the use of scrubbers, only about 25 percent as much atmospheric sulfur is available today, compared to 40 years ago. Sulfur balances in agricultural fields are now negative, with more removed each year in crop harvests and leaching than is added from fertilizers and deposition, scientists have found, suggesting that farmers may need to apply sulfur fertilizer at some point in the future, particularly on fields with less soil organic matter.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105735.htm

Been adding sulfur to my fertilizer for a number of years.

 

[Bright Raven]

Looks like the clean air act is working.

I admit from 33 years of regulatory enforcement, we don't always get it right. I remember some things we required on surface mines that made absolutely no sense.

I don't mean to sound like I'm discounting the importance of conservation or anything like that. The mandate for BMP's was a wonderful thing and has done much good for the environment. The thing is, as I'm sure you know, these things are much more complex than most understand - including scientists but especially the lawyer politician types.

Nature is an amazing thing. Nature hates a vacuum and moves toward an equilibrium. Politics are much easier to understand. To understand politics, all we need do is follow the money and this scheme is nothing more than a tax wrapped up all cute and cuddly.

Yes, the environmental protection process gets complex. First, Congress passes an Act. The content of the acts is prepared by legislators, lawyers, and technical consultants. The result is an Act that the regulatory agency is mandated to implement. Then the regulatory agency, through the process of promulgation, prepares regulations to implement and carry out the mandate of the Act. The end result is not perfect. Often times, it does not go far enough for one side and it goes too far for the other side.

Regarding the tax, having worked on teams that promulgate regulations, having worked as an enforcement agent and an enforcement specialist. The money is not the objective. The objective is to achieve the environmental change that spawned the reason Congress passed the Act. In general, it is not about taxing. The money generated by environmental regulation is not significant.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Looks like the clean air act is working.

I admit from 33 years of regulatory enforcement, we don't always get it right. I remember some things we required on surface mines that made absolutely no sense.

I don't mean to sound like I'm discounting the importance of conservation or anything like that. The mandate for BMP's was a wonderful thing and has done much good for the environment. The thing is, as I'm sure you know, these things are much more complex than most understand - including scientists but especially the lawyer politician types.

Nature is an amazing thing. Nature hates a vacuum and moves toward an equilibrium. Politics are much easier to understand. To understand politics, all we need do is follow the money and this scheme is nothing more than a tax wrapped up all cute and cuddly.

Yes, the environmental protection process gets complex. First, Congress passes an Act. The content of the acts is prepared by legislators, lawyers, and technical consultants. The result is an Act that the regulatory agency is mandated to implement. Then the regulatory agency, through the process of promulgation, prepares regulations to implement and carry out the mandate of the Act. The end result is not perfect. Often times, it does not go far enough for one side and it goes too far for the other side.

Regarding the tax, having worked on teams that promulgate regulations, having worked as an enforcement agent and an enforcement specialist. The money is not the objective. The objective is to achieve the environmental change that spawned the reason Congress passed the Act. In general, it is not about taxing. The money generated by environmental regulation is not significant.

I figured you to be smarter than that. Look at the money spent on vehicle fuel emissions alone? Unleaded gas, ethanol, low suffer diesel. The EPA has cost this country tremendously, we owned the world when we had industry. Environmental regulations is what caused the US to lose our foothold in the world's economy.