Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[DC Tom]

they burned coal mostly. so what. similar in particulate matter produced. wood may even produce more. educate me.

 

Particulate emissions from wood and unfiltered coal burning differ by a factor of about a thousand.

 

But the odd thing is that no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming from any of the institutions which have been making these adjustments. Not from NASA GISS. Nor from NOAA, which maintains the dataset known as the Global Historical Climate Network. Nor from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which, with the Met Office, maintains the third of the world’s three surface data records, known as Hadcrut.

 

.

 

And you're basing that on what?

 

Have you been to NASA GISS or NOAA's web sites? They have a lot of information on how they process their data sets. I don't know that they have info on how they process the temperature data sets - I haven't looked, as I haven't been too concerned about it (there's plenty of sources of error and inaccuracy in the "settled" science itself that I feel no particular need to invent malicious conspiracies).

 

I promise you I'm looking now, though.

[birdog1960]

 

Particulate emissions from wood and unfiltered coal burning differ by a factor of about a thousand.

 

And you're basing that on what?

 

Have you been to NASA GISS or NOAA's web sites? They have a lot of information on how they process their data sets. I don't know that they have info on how they process the temperature data sets - I haven't looked, as I haven't been too concerned about it (there's plenty of sources of error and inaccuracy in the "settled" science itself that I feel no particular need to invent malicious conspiracies).

 

I promise you I'm looking now, though.

 

not that any of the cons here will be satisfied but: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/community/details/i-woodstoves_addl_info.html

 

and as an aside, we have a goodly number of morons that burn their garbage including plastics. that's a very good reason for laws prohibiting such bs.

 

assuming your 1000:1 figure is correct, no way should electric plants be burning coal without scrubbers. and that would make them economically unviable, at least for the foreseeable future..

Edited February 11, 2015 by birdog1960

[ExiledInIllinois]

why would climate change be associated with communism?

 

 

Of course I do not mean the physical aspects of climate change. Climate change is a given. It's the politics of climate change that get associated w/communism because the enviromentalism behind it needs constant revolution. The one's that are wrecking the movement always bring out the bogeyman and accentuate the negative. The movement needs to accentuate the positive of the changing climate and environment. BTW, the climate and environment will always be changing.

[birdog1960]

 

 

Of course I do not mean the physical aspects of climate change. Climate change is a given. It's the politics of climate change that get associated w/communism because the enviromentalism behind it needs constant revolution. The one's that are wrecking the movement always bring out the bogeyman and accentuate the negative. The movement needs to accentuate the positive of the changing climate and environment. BTW, the climate and environment will always be changing.

huh? say again.

[DC Tom]

not that any of the cons here will be satisfied but: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/community/details/i-woodstoves_addl_info.html

 

and as an aside, we have a goodly number of morons that burn their garbage including plastics. that's a very good reason for laws prohibiting such bs.

 

assuming your 1000:1 figure is correct, no way should electric plants be burning coal without scrubbers. and that would make them economically unviable, at least for the foreseeable future..

 

Yes, I know the EPA's regulations on the subject of wood burning. They recently lowered the allowable particulate from wood-burning stoves to 12 micrograms per cubic meter.

 

But you were talking about London's toxic pea soup fogs, which had ****-all to do with wood burning. Unscrubbed coal burning puts on the order of 40 grams per cubic meter of particulate in the air, and probably higher in 1950's London (since England exported its high-grade coal to rebuild the post-war economy, and industry and residents burned much lower grade lingite). So the bottom line is...you're insanely stupid for even implying that London's fogs were because of burning wood.

 

And a majority of US plants have scrubbers. Considering in the past 10 years, the number of coal generating plants with scrubbers has roughly doubled, they certainly don't seem cost-prohibitive.

[4merper4mer]

Have any of you doofuses taken into account that burning wood smells awesome or that forest fires happen naturally anyway?

[ExiledInIllinois]

huh? say again.

 

What's to say again? Let the climate change.

[Gary M]

 

There are valid reasons to "alter" data in scientific research, you know. Changes in measurement techniques require adjustments to legacy data, for example.

 

I don't know if they apply in this case...but then, neither do you, since neither one of us has read the research that specifies the reason or methodology for the adjustment. Looking at graphs is not enough.

 

You take all the fun out of this!

 

ever read first hand accounts of london from as little as 75 years ago? buses had a guy with a flashlight guiding the way through the smog. in the country, it's more dilute but it ultimately pollutes the same finite atmosphere.

 

 

 

[TH3]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/seven-reasons-cheap-oil-can-t-stop-renewables-now

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

 

A couple of pages back I asked where people were:

 

1. AGW is real and should be attended to.

2. AGW is real but oil/coal supports the 7 billion people on this earth and we don't want to go back to the 1800's.

3. AGW is a hoax

4. GW is simply not happening.

 

Of course no one really chimed in.

 

I would say its all moot and it shouldn't matter what box you check. As one can read the smartest guys in the room are investing heavily in solar and as the costs come on par/below FF - all the arguments go away. No matter where you stand - if renewable clean energy can be had that makes our - and every - country self sufficient - and costs less - isn't that a proposition that you can't argue with? That is unless you have something to lose by that situation.

 

I think the only real last hurdle to solar's inevitable predominance is the next leap of energy storage.

[Gary M]

A couple of pages back I asked where people were:

 

1. AGW is real and should be attended to.

2. AGW is real but oil/coal supports the 7 billion people on this earth and we don't want to go back to the 1800's.

3. AGW is a hoax

4. GW is simply not happening.

 

Of course no one really chimed in.

 

 

Was number 4 supposed to be AGW?

 

Because I would agree with that..

 

GW is happening and has always happened, and human activity has nothing to do with it.

[DC Tom]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/seven-reasons-cheap-oil-can-t-stop-renewables-now

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

 

A couple of pages back I asked where people were:

Of course no one really chimed in.

 

Don't take it personally. We're just ignoring you.

 

 

Oh, wait...you can take that personally.

Edited February 11, 2015 by DC Tom

[Tiberius]

 

 

I think the only real last hurdle to solar's inevitable predominance is the next leap of energy storage.

No, I think it will have to get more efficient and the continued and significant reduction in energy needed to power lights needs to continue improving

[DC Tom]

No, I think it will have to get more efficient and the continued and significant reduction in energy needed to power lights needs to continue improving

 

How much electricity is used for lighting annually, nationwide?

 

Actually, before you answer that...how is a power source that only works when the sun is out going to become more viable by the increased efficiency of a technology primarily used at night?

[TH3]

 

How much electricity is used for lighting annually, nationwide?

 

Actually, before you answer that...how is a power source that only works when the sun is out going to become more viable by the increased efficiency of a technology primarily used at night?

 

I get that you guys are more interested in critiquing than proposing....but I just like pointing it out. I think roughly 10-15 percent of electricity goes to lighting - AC and appliances chew up a bigger percentage.

 

How to power a source at night - really? Energy storage - which I pointed out is the primary hurdle to electric dominance. If electric production via solar gets cheaper than FF then you have to be able to store it to make it simply take over - the market will take care of that - given time to overcome the inertia of FF.

 

I actually think that solar panels on homes does not make sense - we don't have our own generators - the same principle in action - no scale and homes are rarely positioned to be optimally efficient. I think the future is solar farms and localized (in your basement) energy storage.

 

That would be cool - you could buy and store energy on futures or when the price falls -

No, I think it will have to get more efficient and the continued and significant reduction in energy needed to power lights needs to continue improving

 

I work in the building industry - all buildings - residential and commercial are undergoing HUGE reductions in energy consumption. Houses built today are 30 percent more efficient than ones built 10 years ago. This of course though is offset by energy needed for internet and cell devices and infrastructure. SO get off the internet and save a polar bear.

Was number 4 supposed to be AGW?

 

Because I would agree with that..

 

GW is happening and has always happened, and human activity has nothing to do with it.

 

Then you would be #3 - AGW is not happening.

Edited February 11, 2015 by baskin

[DC Tom]

 

I get that you guys are more interested in critiquing than proposing....but I just like pointing it out. I think roughly 10-15 percent of electricity goes to lighting - AC and appliances chew up a bigger percentage.

 

Proposing doesn't teach anything. Assigning homework does. I wanted gatorman to look it up and realize how stupid his proposal was. Not the least of which was for dismissing your observation about energy storage.

 

(And the answer is approx. 12%, by the way)

[Chef Jim]

You want proposals? Nukes. Lots and lots of nukes.

[birdog1960]

 

I get that you guys are more interested in critiquing than proposing....but I just like pointing it out. I think roughly 10-15 percent of electricity goes to lighting - AC and appliances chew up a bigger percentage.

 

How to power a source at night - really? Energy storage - which I pointed out is the primary hurdle to electric dominance. If electric production via solar gets cheaper than FF then you have to be able to store it to make it simply take over - the market will take care of that - given time to overcome the inertia of FF.

 

I actually think that solar panels on homes does not make sense - we don't have our own generators - the same principle in action - no scale and homes are rarely positioned to be optimally efficient. I think the future is solar farms and localized (in your basement) energy storage.

 

That would be cool - you could buy and store energy on futures or when the price falls -

 

I work in the building industry - all buildings - residential and commercial are undergoing HUGE reductions in energy consumption. Houses built today are 30 percent more efficient than ones built 10 years ago. This of course though is offset by energy needed for internet and cell devices and infrastructure. SO get off the internet and save a polar bear.

 

Then you would be #3 - AGW is not happening.

couldn't open your links here in the office but i suspect they talked about private citizens selling electricity to power companies right now for them to resell to the public. it's being done. it cuts down on the need for other nonrenewable sources of electricity and it has the potential for great expansion. it's part of the solution, no doubt. it's the kind of thinking that's not only desirable but imperative.

[Deranged Rhino]

You want proposals? Nukes. Lots and lots of nukes.

 

It worked on Mars.

[/dev/null]

 

It worked on Mars.

[Deranged Rhino]