Global warming is not the opposite of snow (gasoline, independent, solution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's fine to have these doubts of the effect attempts to regulate our contributions to climate change will bring, but it does nothing to change the science.
None of us here, like our brother/sister citzens at large, are qualified to render VALID and FACT-BASED opinions on global warming anymore. WHY? is answered by the amount of bad science and lies just recently revealed. It takes the dispassionate honesty and integrity of the laboratory and corrupts it with deviant political motivation. After those very recent email and related corruption revelations and weak denials you cannot blame ANYONE for not accepting your position. The behavior and actions of those proponents and Gore is at the heart of it. That progressive deviant liar has set honest debate back a good ten years, because any released NEW study will have to be systematically reanalyzed and scrutinized for the slanting of the truths therein contained. Another reason I despise Gore so. Politicians have no business mixing in with science, none whatsoever!
That reminds me....my old 'Get US out of the UN' sign is worn and sun-bleached...I must get a new one!
I must ask you sir: Do you know the meaning of projection?
I ask you to consider something that is not at all science related for a moment:
A) Read your comments at environmentalists and scientists attempts to twist science to meet ones political motive
B) Consider your commentary in that last post and then look up the meaning of "projection" and its context to your argument: to make it easier for you I will include a cut and paste explanation here:
8. (Psychology) Psychol b. the process of projecting one's own hidden desires and impulses See also defence mechanism
I must ask you sir: Do you know the meaning of projection?
I ask you to consider something that is not at all science related for a moment:
A) Read your comments at environmentalists and scientists attempts to twist science to meet ones political motive
B) Consider your commentary in that last post and then look up the meaning of "projection" and its context to your argument: to make it easier for you I will include a cut and paste explanation here:
8. (Psychology) Psychol b. the process of projecting one's own hidden desires and impulses See also defence mechanism
This thread, and hundreds of others like it, give climate change deniers the chance to prove, once again, the power of anti intellectualism and rejection of scientific data from decades of research.
Americans continue to prove they are the dumbest people in the industrialized world.
When Sarah Palin and George W. Bush cast doubt on climate change it's easy to see they both find a receptive audience
Yes you do, over and over.
I've already asked you and others .... I'll ask again ... if CO2 causes global warming, then SHOW EVERYONE the data .. plain and simple ... just show us all the CHART of the rise in C02, followed by this Rise in temperature it causes? That should be very easy to do ... surely, if CO2 causes it, right?
Then shut up and show it! Don't keep making claims ... calling others stupid .. SHOW US THE SCIENTIFIC DATA.
You haven't done this because you can't. Because global warming causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around.
You're going into the problem with the difference between mining bituminous (soft) and anthracite (hard) coal. Soft is always less efficient and more problematic for the environment no matter what. BTU efficiencies beween the two mitigate against soft coal and I can't see that changing. The shale oil industry will advance quicker than any effort at really making soft coal economically sound.
I don't know what you are referring to specifically but anthracite is much harder product to mine because they may only be working in seams a few feet thick. Out west it might be a hundred feet thick. They basically have to follow it and in one case I'm aware of it petered out to a few inches and eventually they had to stop. Because of the higher cost to mine and desirable qualities it's double the cost of bituminous coal.
Anthracite and Eastern Bituminous have about 24 to 25 million BTU's per ton. In some places the average ton of soft coal exceeds the BTU's for anthracite. The soft coal out west has lower BTU contents below 20 million per ton.
Where the difference lies in efficiency is anthracite is burned directly in the home and the boilers and stoves are about 80% efficient and in the case of the Axeman-Anderson almost 90%. I believe the average power plant is only in the 30 to 40% range and you have losses during transmission.
Since we also have very little energy being expended to get the product to the consumer the argument can be made using anthracite to heat is more environmentally friendly than someone using oil or electric.
Funny, the only ones who mention Beck,FOX Hannity and Limbaugh on this thread are the ones who perpetuate the hoax of man made global warming.
I guess when all else fails, stereotype.
If Global Warming is not a threat, then whatever is done to combat it is nothing more than make work. Perhaps we need some make work industry. On the other hand, if it is a threat, perhaps we need some make work industry. Bottom line, we need some make work industry.
I don't know what you are referring to specifically but anthracite is much harder product to mine because they may only be working in seams a few feet thick. Out west it might be a hundred feet thick. They basically have to follow it and in one case I'm aware of it petered out to a few inches and eventually they had to stop. Because of the higher cost to mine and desirable qualities it's double the cost of bituminous coal.
Anthracite and Eastern Bituminous have about 24 to 25 million BTU's per ton. In some places the average ton of soft coal exceeds the BTU's for anthracite. The soft coal out west has lower BTU contents below 20 million per ton.
Where the difference lies in efficiency is anthracite is burned directly in the home and the boilers and stoves are about 80% efficient and in the case of the Axeman-Anderson almost 90%. I believe the average power plant is only in the 30 to 40% range and you have losses during transmission.
Since we also have very little energy being expended to get the product to the consumer the argument can be made using anthracite to heat is more environmentally friendly than someone using oil or electric.
I'm basically agreeing with you. My limited comment had primarily to do with the residential/commercial 'rural' market (though I should have specified that) where I imagine most of the bituminous goes. It would be impossible in urban areas to use it in place of gas or oil now. I'm not certain if there are differing air standards, for those two areas, but I would assume so. In the old days, coal-fired residential plants were still in use up thisaway, but are extinct anymore of course.
I've already asked you and others .... I'll ask again ... if CO2 causes global warming, then SHOW EVERYONE the data .. plain and simple ... just show us all the CHART of the rise in C02, followed by this Rise in temperature it causes? That should be very easy to do ... surely, if CO2 causes it, right?
Then shut up and show it! Don't keep making claims ... calling others stupid .. SHOW US THE SCIENTIFIC DATA.
You haven't done this because you can't. Because global warming causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around.
Now look what you've gone and done Tex! They're gonna have to get indoctrination on evaporation, condensation, thermal inversion, carbon mass and so many things that they are not able to hook together and intellectually deal with to logically address your question. Not to jump in front of your parade, but in the spirit of that old liberal "affirmative action" for dummies protocol I'm going to offer a leg-up assist. In the interim I'm gonna check out some real carbon emissions down Daytona way. Later!
They may find this basic formula helpful:
The overall reaction of photosynthesis is:
carbon dioxide + water + solar energy -> glucose + oxygen
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + solar energy -> C6H12O6 + 6 O2 *
(*apologies for the lack of subscript capabilities)
The oxygen that is produced during photosynthesis will surely sustain non-producing life forms, such as animals, and most micro organisms. Animals are called consumers, because they use the oxygen that is produced by plants. Carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere during respiration of and by consumers, which breaks down glucose and other complex organic compounds and converts the carbon back to carbon dioxide for reuse by producers. In some quarters this is know as "the natural order of things". Now why don't you Neanderthalian knuckle-draggers simply start at this very basic point and make your "scientific" case. (This could get entertaining!) And don't forget what those trees and plants and other of Mother Nature's vegetation emits either. And all those seaweeds, lichen and other matter the sea washes ashore with each lapping of every wave, big and small on terrestrial shores... O-my-gosh!! Where the Hell is Bad Al-gorithms when you really need him? We're *ss deep in carbon matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dr. Hugo
And don't forget what those trees and plants and other of Mother Nature's vegetation emits either. And all those seaweeds, lichen and other matter the sea washes ashore with each lapping of every wave, big and small on terrestrial shores... O-my-gosh!! Where the Hell is Bad Al-gorithms when you really need him? We're *ss deep in carbon matter.
