At a campaign event in Newton, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, argued that carbon dioxide is getting more emphasis than it deserves in the climate change debate, likening the gases of the Earth to people in a 10,000-seat-stadium.
“There would be 4,200 people in the stadium wearing nitrogen jerseys, representing that portion of the atmosphere,” Tiahrt said. “Twenty-four percent would be wearing oxygen jerseys, and four people would have on carbon dioxide jerseys. We are arguing about how long the sleeves are going to be on one of those jerseys.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on ACORN stole election?
- HLP on ACORN stole election?
- American_Way on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- American_Way on Open thread 11/21
- American_Way on ACORN stole election?
- Boxlock20 on ACORN stole election?
- Boxlock20 on ACORN stole election?
- HLP on ACORN stole election?
- Jed on Opinions still mixed about health reform
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/20
134 Comments
Never underestimate Tiahrt’s ability to look like a complete fool. I wonder if Tiahrt takes medication and looks at the ingredients. Does he think that since the percentage of active ingredients is less than 1% that it can’t actually work?
Boy howdy . . . bet he didn’t think that one up himself.
Tiahrt once again demonstrates a lack of knowledge of basic science and arithmetic. True, air is a mixture of gases. But he is way off in his breakdown of amounts.
Every high school science student learns that air consists of about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen leaving about 1% “other” gases. These “other” gases are carbon dioxide, water vapor, hydrogen, menthane, ozone, the famous noble gases, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide and DUST and POLLEN.
Of course, all land animals and many plants take in oxygen from the air without which they couldn’t live. The small amount of carbon dioxide in the air is used by plants. The water vapor is what we call humidity and varies with temperature, etc.
So getting back to Tiahrt’s camparison, the 10,000 people woulld be wearing t-shirts as follows:
7,800 nitrogen t-shirts,
2,100 oxygen t-shirts, and
100 wearing miscellaneous t-shirts representing the carbon dioxide, water vapor, hydrogen, ozone, etc. plus dust and pollen.
You choose the colors of the t-shirts!
“JMWalker” –
Y’think?
Perhaps he was inspired by the 10,000 people who’ll regularly show up in the 15,000-seat downtown arena.
Not a great analogy, but it indicates how ludicrous and scientifically unsound the ‘Henny Penny’ approach of the ‘Warmer’s’ climate change is.
See, the problem, “Regular” –
…is:
We can’t keep spewing fossil fuel residue into the atmosphere without consequences.
Clear enough for you?
Somehow or other the CONs have ignored the carbon monoxide spewed by every ounce of fossil-based fuel sent into the air we breathe. CONs ignore cap-and-trade effectively reduced sulfur that used to be sent into the clouds and resulted in acid rain.
CONs want to bomb oil fields in the Middle East so they can continue to drive their 4-by4s, even if it means unprovoked aggressive wars. CONs simply believe they won’t live long enough to be around when an unprepared civilization realizes fossil fuels are a finite resource; that once Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia are sucked dry, and the Appalachian Mountains are reduced to the West Virginia plains, and carbon dioxide-sucking jungles have been deforested — there will need to be some way to power civilization.
Even the densest of CONs should be capable of realizing that. But they still wanna drive their monster trucks and ‘69 Camaros into their personally ever-approaching horizons.
“I got mine!” is the CON mantra in the meantime.
CONs are going through the chihuahua frenzies, nipping at the ankles is some desperate hope of establishing relevance.
But CONs — in their vitriolic personal hatred of Al Gore — have decided to bite at the ankle of carbon dioxide pollution. And just like chihuahuas, you’re irrelevant; merely annoying.
MonkeyHock appeals to the sky-is-falling crowd with
“flattening mountains” and “de-forested jungles.”
Flattening mountains isn’t a problem that I’m aware of and de-forestation is pretty much caused by over-cutting and urban growth.
Got anything else Primate Brain?
Being a primate.. I resemble that remark!
“Regular” responds with name-calling and ignorance –
“Flattening mountains isn’t a problem that I’m aware of….”
Yeah, well.
If stuff you’re ignorant of is a problem, it’s not mine.
“DavidB” –
I suspect that is “Regular’s” way of telling us he’s a reptile.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 3, 2009 at 7:43 am | Permalink
“Regular” responds with name-calling and ignorance –
“Flattening mountains isn’t a problem that I’m aware of….”
Yeah, well.
If stuff you’re ignorant of is a problem, it’s not mine.
———————
Do tell MonkeyHock?
Please explain to us all how mountains of coal originate?
You may actually re-invent the science of geology and coal formation.
West Virginia miners may want to have this knowledge so they don’t have to dig underground anymore.
You really want this, “Regular?”
Oh, my.
Google is your friend. Or, in this case, your enemy.
I’ll give you an opportunity to discover for yourself and wrest a modicum of saving face.
(Not that I’m counting on that, mind you. But you have a chance.)
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 3, 2009 at 7:58 am | Permalink
You really want this, “Regular?”
Oh, my.
Google is your friend. Or, in this case, your enemy.
I’ll give you an opportunity to discover for yourself and wrest a modicum of saving face.
(Not that I’m counting on that, mind you. But you have a chance.)
———————-
Sure MonkeyHock, let me know how all those flying plants that existed back in the days of pre-historic times created the coal formations in West Virginia.
MonkeyHock is a classic example of duh clueless Lib, who argue climate science, but do not know a carbon from a car tire.
As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume, approx .0387%. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. More than any contribution by man.
Argon makes up the bulk of the ‘rare’ gasses. Argon is present in the Earth’s atmosphere at 0.94%
CO2 represents only approx. 3.87 people out of that 10,000 so Tiahrt was right on, pretty close by saying 4 people. Don’t know where he came up with the other numbers though.
Start here, “Regular” –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining
I’m sorry, this is irrelevant isn’t it?
We had a vote in the house on curbing carbon emissions. Todd and the Earth destroyers lost.
MH – gee, so perceptive…a politician didn’t come up with a talking point..good thing your party doesn’t spin talking points…like 47M “uninsureds” which is from a 2006 survey and of course doesn’t break down how many are within a few months of getting Medicare, how many are illegal immigrants, how many are college kids who wouldn’t buy insurance anyway (takes away from beer money!), or how many were folks just between jobs who got insurance within a month or two once they got their job…no…they wouldn’t ALL choose a misleading 47M # to sell propaganda…
As for Tiahrt’s example, it didn’t come from him. Came from a geologist named Dudley Hughes:
“CO2 Rare in Atmosphere
Earth’s atmosphere is made up of several major gases. For simplicity, let us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas. The approximate numbers of people representing the various types of gas are set out in the accompanying table.
Not included in the table is “water vapor,” the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.
Carbon dioxide is represented as only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas.”
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20952/Carbon_Dioxide_Levels_Are_a_Blessing_Not_a_Problem.html
But since you like to take it to the next silly level..”everyone knows less than 1% active ingredients is still enough”..let’s be specific.
1. 4 out of 10,000 is actually .04 of 1%, not even a tenth of a percent, rounding UP. This is ALL C02 in the atmosphere..natural, man-made, the works!
2. Cars/light trucks amount to 1.5% of “man-made C02″…so those evil SUV’s that your boys have you hatin’ on (such a useful idiot), amount to AT BEST .0006% of ALL C02 in the atmosphere..and that’s giving it 1.5% credit against all C02, not just the man-made emissions..so yeah, unlike your side, I’m being insanely generous.
3. If Dems loved the mountains & beautiful vistas so much…why do they hate nuclear power so much? Why do they prefer miles and miles of windmills, right of way cleared for thousands of miles for inter-state transmission lines, etc….when all the solutions, even to the insanity of their C02 diatribe, is to build nuke plants closer to the demand centers…vs trying to build tens of thousands of windmills in the midwest to send the electricity to the coasts?
But please continue on throwing platitudes. It just shows how weak the lame C02 case is.
So MonkeyHock, how many mountains are being flattened by this method? Will the Appalachian mountain range completely disappear?
Is this coal floating on the surface? What causes the uplift of coal deposits?
Were there flying plants back in the day and they dropped their load on mountain tops?
What’s the percentage of this flying plant coal compared to mining coal?
You didn’t connect to the link, didja, “Regular?”
Your silly little questions are irrelevant, given Mountaintop Removal Mining is happening now in Appalachia.
Reality, “Regular.”
It’s a concept.
Consider it.
“We are arguing about how long the sleeves are going to be on one of those jerseys.””
Uh no.
We are fundamentally changing how we do things in this country with an eye to how it affects the environment and addressing the best way to go forward.
And it is long overdue.
It is sad that there is still a lingering and vocal minority of people who do not care about their country, their planet, or the future. But we do have laws and means of….helping them to act more responsibly.
Whether they want to or not.
Tiahrt is wrong about CO2 being over-emphasised.
The impact of a greenhouse gas depends on its radiative properties, and lifetime in the atmosphere.
CO2 has a significant impact on Earth’s climate, despite the relatively low levels. And CO2 has a long lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere.
Mountain top removal eh MonkeyHock?
Perhaps the environmentalists should concentrate their efforts on those evil glaciers?
After all, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the countries had their mountains leveled by these rapers and pillagers of the American mountain landscape.
“DFB” –
Perhaps you might respond to my post instead of cut-and-posting boilerplate.
Like the chihuahua biting at ankles, you want to focus the conversation on… ankles.
Burning fossil fuels is the issue. On so many levels.
You CONs want to ignore that.
Doesn’t that mean, if were pumping out more carbon dioxide in the the air, it would just be more suitable for plants then.
Would a solution be, to plant, trees, plants, and fauna everywhere in urban environments.
Then the plants can just make more oxygen for us?
There’s been studies done, that indoor air quality a lot of the times, is worse than outdoor air quality. But they say, people who have a lot of plants in their house, their indoor air quality improves drastically. Plants must play some part, in cleaning the air we breathe. So wouldn’t it just make sense, to go crazy, and plants a ton of the green stuff, all over cities, and on roof tops?
Oh my, “Regular” –
You’re resorting to gibberish.
Sorry, I can’t deal with that.
I guess you win.
Or they could blow up 5 million megatons of dust bombs in the air, and blot out the sun for a little bit. That would cool the earth down.
I just said 5 million megatons, I really have no idea how many megatons it would take.
I suggest that Congressman Tiahrt wear a jersey with one very long sleeve. You know, the wrap-around kind that ties in the back.
From link in header:
“Tiahrt said research done by the Goddard Space Flight Center, a branch of NASA, indicated global warming is not a result of increased carbon dioxide emissions, as some scientists theorize, but is a result of solar flares warming the Earth.”
———————–
LOL! That’s dumber than his jersey analogy.
Goddard did not “indicate” that claim.
That’s from a AGW science denier who has a virtual office — which Hank seems to think isn’t a virtual office, because it has a street address.
MH whines: “DFB” –
Perhaps you might respond to my post instead of cut-and-posting boilerplate. ”
___________
And for once, why doesn’t a lib such as yourself respond with actual substance? Someone asked/suggested Tiahrt didn’t come up the analogy…I provided where it came from.
Then..with simple gradeschool math…I shredded your silly “less than 1% “active ingredients” weally, weally matters” talking point. So for a change, explain how C02, being .04% of the total atmosphere, the majority of that .04% being naturally occurring….explain how reducing something in the parts per billion range…”saves the planet”.
As for you lame attempt at redirection…I’m more than happy to talk about fossil fuels…oh wait..I did mention them…the part about only 1.5% of just the man-made portion of C02 comes from cars/light trucks….huh..weird. Then knowing your ilk…I pre-emptively covered your “oh yeah, well coal fired plants suck!” puke, with my comments on nuke plants.
Is it just standard with you guys to spit crap, snark, insults, etc…and somehow think you’re making a legitimate argument?
Don’t worry, Cos will be along soon to say, “IPCC Report!”…..”AGW Denier!!!!”….”Peer Reviewed!!!!!”, then you guys can declare “the debate’s over” and the circle jerk can continue on….
So cosmos, tell everyone how 14CO2 reacts more slowly in the atmosphere than 12CO2.
We’ll await your discussion and your subsequent Nobel prize.
Reguliar has started drinking a little early today!
LOL ;>
cosmos_originally
Posted July 3, 2009 at 8:52 am | Permalink
From link in header:
“Tiahrt said research done by the Goddard Space Flight Center, a branch of NASA, indicated global warming is not a result of increased carbon dioxide emissions, as some scientists theorize, but is a result of solar flares warming the Earth.
_____________________________________________
I’m using solar flares tomorrow to bar-b-q hot doggies and hamboogies!
“DFB” offers –
“…simple gradeschool math…”
Go with what ya got.
MH offers…well nothing..but at least it’s consistent.
Monkeyhawk posted July 3, 2009 at 9:39 am
“DFB” offers –
“…simple gradeschool math…”
Go with what ya got.
———————-
DFB doesn’t even have that.
DFB substantive discussions and MH are not on speaking terms.
Cos – wow, did you check with the IPCC Report for that comment, or with peer reviewed science? You should really stick to your one-trick pony/single issue scam…your “wit” is even more lame than your nic.
But..since you decided to join your team in offering zero substance (as Okie points out)…why don’t you riddle me this, oh “one who cuts & pastes with fury & wrath” (whatya think, it’s the new Native American name I gave you)…just in terms of pure common sense…I know that’s a struggle for ya…but maybe you’ve got a friend or parent you can ask this one….from a purely statistical probability standpoint, which of the following would be more likely than not, to impact the global temperatures:
A. The sun..you know that silly little yellow thing in the sky that provides 100% of the ambient heat on every planet in our “solar system” (weird, the don’t have a “C02 system”…), the thing that can cause our temps to swing from below zero to in excess of 100 degrees…EVERY year…or..
B. The trace gas, that in whole makes up less than .04% of the entire atmosphere, and just a fraction of that total having anything to do with man….
Take off your ideology glasses for a second, and ask yourself which one of those potential factors…”any reasonable person” (to use a court system methodolgy…) would believe has the most impact on the global temperature.
Now Tiahrt had to use such an example for his audience. They use to understanding through colorful cartoon characters and Todd is not noted for his artistic abilities.
Monkeyhawk,
Now DFB seems to be arguing that only the factor that has the “most impact on the global temperature” can have an impact on Earth’s climate.
DFB’s incredibly stupid arguments are a hoot!
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 3, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink
Monkeyhawk,
Now DFB seems to be arguing that only the factor that has the “most impact on the global temperature” can have an impact on Earth’s climate.
DFB’s incredibly stupid arguments are a hoot!
—————————–
If it is stupid, take the sun out of the AGW equation and see how much warming you get.
And yet another global warming thread……
Cosmos – gee, if it only it weren’t so painfully predictable…no substance, just a statement from an idiot who somehow believe that makes it fact.
But I’ll give you another shot at it…which “factor” is bigger mathematically (I’m sure you probably struggled with fractions/%’s in gradeschool, but I’ll risk it, that you’ve got something even snarkier to add vs common sensical)..the sun, which provides 100% of ambient heat…or something that makes up a fraction of .04% of the atmosphere which “traps” said head provided by the sun? And make sure you incorporate the amounts of C02 REQUIRED in the atmosphere to sustain life, the amounts released by common decomposition of plant/animal/etc life, as well as it’s correlation to its ability to “trap heat” as compared to other “trace gases” such as water vapor or methane.
Let me give you a highly technical experiment so you can apply “science”….at 2pm in any location on the globe, is the temperature warmer in direct sunlight, or under the Sunsetter awning pitched by the AGW hero’s VP Candidate look-a-like? Weird..a scientific experiment that’s repeatable…
Regular posted July 3, 2009 at 11:07 am
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 3, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink
Monkeyhawk,
Now DFB seems to be arguing that only the factor that has the “most impact on the global temperature” can have an impact on Earth’s climate.
DFB’s incredibly stupid arguments are a hoot!
—————————–
If it is stupid, take the sun out of the AGW equation and see how much warming you get.
—————————–
LOL!
Now Regular seems to be arguing that “the sun” is the only important factor in Earth’s climate.
Take CO2 out of Earth’s atmosphere, and see what happens to Earth’s climate.
Cosmos – seriously, have you got anything in your bag of tricks besides deflection?
It’s a very simple question that you avoid, which source provides the most influence on the ambient temp of the earth..the sun, or C02 which conveniently is also required to sustain life on this planet.
Let’s put it another way to fit your sensitivities…is C02 the “only factor” affecting the climate on earth?
cosmos thinks that his IPCC generated theories that the earth’s relation to the sun stays the same all the time no matter what season it is and there is no night or day.
Temperatures on earth can be a flat, averaged number according to cosmos, never changing and only affected by co2.
Sorry folks, night time and winter will be canceled this year according to cosmos, the sun has no affect on the earth’s climate.
I’m using solar flares tomorrow to bar-b-q hot doggies and hamboogies!- satantom
Maybe you should just breath on them saton. Tomorrow’s likely to be cloudy.
DFB, I bet you’re not afraid to tell us what your scientific background is. CosMo is afraid to tell us.
That’s because cosMo has no formal education in the earth sciences. He thinks that political science is superior to all other disciplines of science.
likening the unemployed of America to people in a 10,000-seat-stadium, Todd argues that argures that 9,000 would be wearing employed placards around their necks and a mere 1000 would be wearing ‘will work for food’ placards.
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 11:49 am
Let’s put it another way to fit your sensitivities…is C02 the “only factor” affecting the climate on earth?
——————–
No.
Donn – My scientific background’s similar to most on this site, college degree (not in science, but took Chem/Phys/Bio..hey, I coulda been AlGoracle!), have been everything from a Controller to a Trader to Bus Dev guy, to now self-employed… but I do silly antiquated things like read books…and I know, I know, even sillier of me, I read both sides of the argument on any issue I can and formulate opinions from there…silly me…when there’s a wealth of blogs to cut & paste from!
Sorry, no PHD in climatology here…just that stupid common sense stuff we don’t use anymore…like getting 2nd opinions on important medical decisions from MD’s…or realizing that politicians on both sides are incapable of consistently telling the truth…or not paying sticker for a car because the “expert” salesman told me it was a great price…or questioning why we want to commit unilateral economic suicide while China/India/Russia/etc laugh at our idiocy…silly stuff like that.
Ok, Cos…let’s try another way…
In all the factors that effect climate, how does C02 stack up against:
1. The sun
2. Water vapor
3. Methane (make sure you count the fact that methane is 25 times more “GHG”ish than C02
4. Retained heat from asphalt, rooftops, etc (human settlement activities).
5. Placement of temp stations…like the ones they put in Marysville CA that was surrounded by an asphalt driveway and a/c unit…that..this is gonna sound crazy…trended “up”…while the one placed in Orland, CA outside developed real estate trended down…? (from “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years” by Fred Singer & Dennis Avery)
6. Natural GHG emissions such as carbon lifeform decay, volcano emissions, etc?
Context is everything in a debate, so if your stance is so rock solid, your crew should be dying to have open debate, instead of Al G. stating “the debate’s over” constantly…that simple statement makes the whole argument just as suspicious as every statement Obama (or most politicians) makes that begins with “Like I’ve always said…”, it makes it political and not science anymore.
Thanks for your honesty DFB.
See cosMo it didn’t hurt. At least he knows something about “scientific methodology” that you like to copy and paste.
Here’s a couple of simpler questions for you cosMo. Did you graduate from high school? Did you take any 101 college science classes?
FYI: You can google the meaning of “101 college science classes”?
“We are arguing about…”
WE’RE not arguing about anything Toad.
You and your fellow Earth destroyers may continue to make much noise.
But the debate is over and the grown ups back in charge.
The American standard of living as we know it need not necessarily degrade. But it MUST change.
“You and your fellow Earth destroyers may continue to make much noise”
Ryan, what have your fellow socialists the USSA and Red China done for the environment?
Go look at the pollution is those countries. While you’re at go play on some other playground, because you’re in way over your head. You might drown here.
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
3. Methane (make sure you count the fact that methane is 25 times more “GHG”ish than C02
———————-
Explain why you omitted the facts that CH4 is only about 1700 ppb, and CH4 has a shorter lifetime than CO2.
Explain why you are trying to argue that factors are not significant, if they are not the most significant factor.
Explain what caused CO2 to rise by about 100 ppm since the 1700’s.
USSA = USSR
donndublin is arguing that it’s okay for the U.S. to pollute the Earth, because other nations do it?
“Explain what caused CO2 to rise by about 100 ppm since the 1700’s.”
The natural warming cycle is responsible. CO2 lags the temps.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
google is your friend.
cosMo is a liar.
By your reasoning, if the U.S. cuts it’s “pollution” it will change the climate of the earth even if China and India raise their “pollution” at much greater rate than the we reduce ours.
BTW: The biggest form of “polution” is the ocean by far. You’re getting dizzy with your constant spinning and dodging of the facts.
I think you must be a paid blogger for China or India. That’s why you always say “U.S.” instead of “we”.
Bluejay are you the little echo chamber responsible for saying ‘me too’ ‘me too’. You never contribute to this topic except to say that we have voted you down and ‘the grownups’ are now in charge. This from a person with his hand out that contributes nothing in taxes except a few cents in gasoline taxes to run his lawnmower.
I have no doubt that Cosmos is a paid blogger for someone. He has no personal opinions about GW just the tripe that he posts from his favorite websites.
I quit taking him seriously a long time ago. He might even be a robot with few thinking skills.
Cos – let me apply your “strategy”
you wrote: “Explain why you are trying to argue that factors are not significant, if they are not the most significant factor.”
_________
Not trying to argue any such thing…just asking you to compare/contrast EVERY factor (surprise, you chose the most insignificant…) instead of just pulling C02 out of context and suggesting that you are being intellectually honest in your opinion.
Hey, I kinda like your approach, ignore the meat, pull out 1 detail and deflect!
But I’ll throw you a bonus question, just to play along. Instead of suggesting that govt..with its litany of failures on BOTH sides…is the be all, end all solution (which of course I mean just our govt, other nation’s govts don’t count..)..why isn’t science developing a market for C02, like they did with sulfurs coming out of the coal fired generation plants? You see, there, they figured out scrubber technology, where they could utilize aqueous ammonia to attract the sulfur and create Ammonium Sulfate..ie, fertilizer, which could then be sold. Similar concepts are available for C02 emissions, such as using it for food in bio-diesel algae beds to create more diesel supply, which the US is short. Some of those algaes even prefer brackish water that’s polluted with ag run-off, which would also help alleviate ocean dead zones…or selling it back to the oil/gas producers for C02 flooding of mature fields (in lieu of new drilling), thereby sequestering it undergound…and getting paid for it. Or the iron filings in the ocean to produce algae blooms (fish food) to soak up add’l C02? Or even just supporting that silly, proven technology..nuclear power?
Actually, carbon dioxide is minor compared to the pollution caused by the powerful industrial solvent Dihydrogen Monoxide. The stuff has spread to every corner of our environment- our precious groundwater, the air we breathe, the soil in which we grow our food, the grass on which our children play, it’s even found in significant concentrations in our oceans! There have been many deaths associated with it- even small amounts cause death if inhaled- and yet our government from which we expect protection has failed to act!
We must act to rid our precious planet of this dangerous pollutant!
DEJ – yeah, water’s dangerous stuff…should never let it pollute bourban.
Why should we pay the price for pollution when China, et al, don’t cut back?
“oliveoyl” –
China and India now say, “If America doesn’t contribute to reducing pollution, why should we?”
I’ve noticed none of you CONs have responded to my 7:26 am post in this thread.
Monkey: I read your 7:26 rant. I liken it to that skunk odor you smell when one of the little beggars get run over. You smell it, know it’s nasty, but you just want to get past it and move on down the road. Thus, no comment.
I think we should do what we can to reduce CO2, but not at a high cost to the economy. Not in times like these. The Obama made way too many promises, and is trying to do way too many things, some of which that conflict with each other. Such as cap and trade and boosting the economy
Thanks, “outlander” –
I was needing a free space.
So I guess, from your reaction to my 7:26 am post to this thread, you’re pretty much in favor of spewing pollution into the atmosphere, perpetuating dependence on an ever-reducing non-renewable energy source, in a market dominated by people who consider the West enemies?
How’s that worked out so far?
As regards the original quote/silly analogy that occasioned this thread, best case is that Barbie/Todd really IS that colosally stupid, while worst case is that he thinks all the rest of us are.
Cosmos – just to give you some help with my previous question…which might seem more sensible…to create $1T in new taxes under cap & pillage…or spend $308B on algal ponds to “replace all of the petroleum fuels with biodiesel” with the addl benefit of cleaning up ag/human waste otherwise polluting oceans? That would leave $700Bish to build nuke plants, which are incredibly more efficient, economic & reliable than windmills.
http://www.biodieselnow.com/blogs/algae_as_a_feedstock/archive/2006/12/13/widescale-biodiesel-production-from-algae.aspx
“In “The Controlled Eutrophication process: Using Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agircultural Fertilizer Recycling”3, the authors estimated a cost per hectare of $40,000 for algal ponds. In their model, the algal ponds would be built around the Salton Sea (in the Sonora desert) feeding off of the agircultural waste streams that normally pollute the Salton Sea with over 10,000 tons of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers each year. The estimate is based on fairly large ponds, 8 hectares in size each. To be conservative (since their estimate is fairly optimistic), we’ll arbitrarily increase the cost per hectare by 100% as a margin of safety. That brings the cost per hectare to $80,000. Ponds equivalent to their design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources. We found that at NREL’s yield rates, 15,000 square miles (3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $308 billion to build the farms.”
Jed
Posted July 3, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
Actually, carbon dioxide is minor compared to the pollution caused by the powerful industrial solvent Dihydrogen Monoxide. The stuff has spread to every corner of our environment- our precious groundwater, the air we breathe, the soil in which we grow our food, the grass on which our children play, it’s even found in significant concentrations in our oceans! There have been many deaths associated with it- even small amounts cause death if inhaled- and yet our government from which we expect protection has failed to act!
We must act to rid our precious planet of this dangerous pollutan
_____________
Algore must be heavily invest in “the powerful industrial solvent Dihydrogen Monoxideit”, along with the rest of the liberal elitists.
donndublin,
Now THAT’S what a true backlasher sounds like! Fight the liberal power!
Good post DFB.
Professional engineers do more to clean up the environment in a few years than most other professions do in a lifetime.
I have done consulting work on groundwater clean up, sewer treatment facilities and lines, flood control, windmill generation plants, hydroelectric plants, and geothermal systems.
What kind of business are you in?
#
CF2K
Posted July 3, 2009 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
donndublin,
Now THAT’S what a true backlasher sounds like! Fight the liberal power!
___________
Working on systems to clean up industrial solvents have kept me busy over the years.
I know first hand of the politics involved in the industry.
It’s my fiancee’s birthday, so I’m outta here.
donndublin,
While I have no doubts about your professional competence as an engineer, you’ve kind of missed the boat on the whole irony thing. Given your line of work, not a great surprise.
Enjoy your night on the town with fiancee.
I got an idea.
How about if Mr. Tiahrt eats one one-hundreth gram of plutonium?
Since his body weight is about 100,000 grams, it’s just a tiny 1/10,000,000th of his total weight.
Ignore the fact that he would be dead in two weeks however . . .
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
you wrote: “Explain why you are trying to argue that factors are not significant, if they are not the most significant factor.”
_________
Not trying to argue any such thing…just asking you to compare/contrast EVERY factor (surprise, you chose the most insignificant…) instead of just pulling C02 out of context and suggesting that you are being intellectually honest in your opinion.
————————-
CO2 is not the “most insignificant” factor.
And DFB still has not explained why we should ignore the impact of higher levels of CO2.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/07/do-the-wave-for-tiahrts-climate-change-analogy/#comment-614371
Cos posted:
“And DFB still has not explained why we should ignore the impact of higher levels of CO2.”
________
Never said C02 doesn’t matter at all, nor that rising C02 levels don’t matter at all. I’m simply stating, and you’re avoiding, the fact that context matters. And lame attempts at correlations like Capn posted are exactly what makes me that much more suspicious.
I think most people suspicious like myself, simply struggle with the logic that if C02 makes up .04%, not even 1/2 of 1 percent of the entire atmosphere, and that’s counting ALL of it. What is the breakdown between C02 required to sustain life plus naturally occuring C02, leaving only the amount left that’s “man-made”. So it’s not even a factor of .04%, the real man-made C02 contribution is something more like .02% if I’m being very generous to your argument. Now, of that .02%, exactly how much is that going to be reduced by the US going on some cap & tax fantasy ride? With such minute volumetric measurements, as I’ve asked, how would reducing C02 by this amount, versus reducing water vapor/methane or some other scenario stack up against the $1T C02 plan (in cost, benefit, ease of implementation, ripple effect, job loss, etc). These are the kinds of things that make people crazy when you state “the debate’s over”. I have yet to see an ACTUAL debate of any kind. In the real world, you’d get fired for such poor decision making as not laying out all the alternatives, comparing costs/benefits, and offering a range of outcomes with sensitivities on outcomes for various input values. Walking into a board room/bank and saying “debates over, because I said so” would earn you a quick dismissal, but somehow you folks believe it furthers your “cause”.
It makes no sense, Cos. Nobody wants to “pollute” the planet, nobody. But I showed you an example above on algae ponds that could replace ALL US motor fuels, for less than a third of what cap & tax will cost taxpayers. I’ve asked you about iron filings in the ocean to spur algae bloosm as C02 sequestration. AGW, as run by politicians, ain’t about AGW anymore. It’s about what new nooses can be set up for radical greenies to strangle targets with at their choosing. For example, you never answered my question as to whether or not those freaks left the language in about AGW lawsuits to be filed against US govt/US companies. The propaganda ain’t about AGW and “saving the world”. If it weren’t, you’d beat fossil fuels for good with better alts, like the way the CD wiped out cassettes, the way it’s always worked in this country, not by govt fiat.
DFB posted July 4, 2009 at 8:39 am
With such minute volumetric measurements, as I’ve asked, how would reducing C02 by this amount, versus reducing water vapor/methane or some other scenario. . .
———————
DFB,
Are you ignorant of what the “b” in ppb represents, and/or the fact that the radiative forcing of CH4 also depends on the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere?
Or are you being “intellectually dishonest”?
And please explain your “scenario” for reducing water vapour.
Wow, what a surprise…Cos ignores 99.9% of the debate and tries to find yet another “minute volumetric” argument.
Yeah, Cos, “b” is for “billion” as in a “thousand million”.
Now answer the damn questions, I’m sick of your silly game.
1. How much of the less than .02% of the C02 in the atmosphere is man-made?
2. How much of that meaningless amount will be reduced by the US going unilateral on C02 emissions?
3. Which impacts the atmosphere’s ambient temp more:
a. C02
b. water vapor
c. methane
d. other
Trust me, just because you spell vapor, “vapour”, it just proves to me even more what sham you are. Since water “vapour” is far more abundant, and GHGish, why don’t you tell me about all the ideas for reducing water “vapour”. I’ve given you a few scenarios for reducing C02 logically, which you’ve ignored. Let me see…how did you put it before…”do your own research” for reducing water vapor.
I can post random links that scientist disagree with your “consensus of scientists”. See
“SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for April 2009 reveals that:
(1) Unpredicted ocean cooling over the past five years disproves the theory that manmade “global warming” has a significant effect on the Earth’s temperature. None of the IPCC’s computer models had predicted ocean cooling. All had predicted ocean warming. They were wrong.
2) Rapid surface atmospheric cooling, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, has now continued for seven and a half years.
(3) The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100. However, for seven years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 575 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections.
(4) Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 F (1.5 C) per century, not the 7 F (3.9 C) the IPCC imagines. For 600 million years there has been no correlation between CO2 concentration and the Earth’s temperature.
5) Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 foot/century since 1993. Though James Hansen of NASA says sea level will rise 246 feet, sea level has scarcely risen since the beginning of 2006.
(6) Sea ice extent in the Arctic is above the 30-year average, and has set a nine-year record high. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high in 2007, and is now the third-highest in 30 years. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years.
(7) The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index is a 2-year running monthly sum of activity in all hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. It shows that there is now less severe tropical-storm activity than at any time in 30 years.
(8) Solar activity is at a 100-year record low. We may be facing a 70-year Maunder Minimum – extreme cooling.
(9) Science Focus this month studies “data revisionism” – how scientific results are bent to promote false alarmism.”
It’s all words. I’m not throwing someone else’s talking points. I’m asking you to prove or disprove simple logic that any thinking human being asks, and you divert/deflect. Your silence speaks volumes.
Enjoy your 4th!
Cos – screw it, since I know you’ll come back with more babble, let me give you something to fire at. You want an idea to reduce water “vapour”, here ya go:
In places like Africa/Afghanistan, where water is a precious & scarce resource, on the coasts, build condenser plants (ie, intake air, produce water). To fit your sensitivities, power it with solar panels/wind turbines during the day, & biodiesel derived from algae beds at night (just to add a little C02 sequestering to the mix). Insanely simple process (mother nature does it all the time), lower the temp, add a little pressure and voila, you squeeze water “vapour” from air. Build a few pipelines into the “bush” and you’ve got drinking water and irrigation water for crops. Algae from beds also makes a rich fertilizer for crops. Crops would also soak up some more C02 in places where baren wasteland now stands. Might get some of those places off the US govt dole as well. You know, teach a man to fish vs feed a man a fish.
There ya go. Simple idea, just made it up. Attacks more than one issue all at once, with obvious economic/human rights benefits. Far easier & economic source of clean water than de-salinization concepts that require massive amounts of energy. What say you?
DFB posted July 4, 2009 at 10:06 am
3. Which impacts the atmosphere’s ambient temp more:
a. C02
b. water vapor
c. methane
d. other
——————–
DFB,
Tell us how humans can reduce “water vapor”. By running huge dehumidifiers for many years, until we finally lower CO2 levels?
Do you not understand the fact that the radiative forcing of CH4 also depends on the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere?
Please answer my 1:34 pm post from yesterday.
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
3. Methane (make sure you count the fact that methane is 25 times more “GHG”ish than C02
——————————————–
Explain why you omitted the facts that CH4 is only about 1700 ppb, and CH4 has a shorter lifetime than CO2.
DFB posted July 4, 2009 at 10:45 am
Build a few pipelines into the “bush” and you’ve got drinking water and irrigation water for crops.
———————
Irrigation would evap the water back to the atmosphere.
Also, you’d have to remove very large amounts of water vapour from the atmosphere, to lower global water vapour levels.
Cos – why should I answer this question:
“Explain why you omitted the facts that CH4 is only about 1700 ppb, and CH4 has a shorter lifetime than CO2.”
When you avoided my inquiry a couple months ago as to the studies done proving that the decrease in methane vented to atmoshpere over the last 20 yrs hasn’t effected GHG impact? For decades, methane had no global market, except here in the US & Europe. So at the separators, all the methane produced with oil was simply released to atmosphere. Then 20 yrs or so ago, they started figuring out how to “export” it by using it as a feedstock for methanol & ammonia/urea/UAN exports, as well as the next advances in LNG transportation via vessels. So, if that shift in emitting GHGs started in the last couple decades, and CH4 has a 5 yr life, huh, that matches up pretty well with the timeline of temps starting to decline in the late 90’s. See how that works, I can take “facts” and paint a correlation just like you can.
Now, if CH4 is “only about 1,700 ppb”, seems like that’s more than 386 ppb (C02). And if it has 25 times more heat trapping capability than C02, that would mean CH4 in the atmosphere effects the GH effect, making the factors equal, the equivalent of 8,500 ppb of C02 (1,700 x 25 divided 5 half-life). As I’ve said, and you keep ignoring, context is everything.
Now, as for water vapor, and your poo-pooing of an idea that would provide a lot of relief to poor/starving human beings. Why don’t you do the same correlation comparison between water vapor and the proposed decrease in C02 you believe the US is going to contribute to the globe, then we can debate. Until then, you’re throwing out red herrings, because once again, you ignore context in protection of your ideology. Does water evaporate? Sure it does, but it also gets consumed by humans, plants & animals, so what’s your point? C02 & CH4 “evaporate” back into the atmosphere all the time, from the oceans, decaying plant/animal life, volcano emmissions, natural wildfires, etc. So what’s your point?
How about things like Amine Treaters? They’ve been scrubbing nat gas streams of C02 for decades. Now, they’ve even got membranes to filter out C02. Why would it not make sense to either:
A. Create a market for C02, such as filtering it out of the air to feed C02 flooding projects in mature oil/gas basins. The C02 is then sequestered undergound.
B. Create a market out of converting C02 into something more useful. Isomerization Units convert normal butane into iso butane, crackers turn ethane into ethylene/propane into propylene, nitrogen plants turning methane/air into fertilizer. What combination of catalysts/pressure/heat could be applied to mix C02 with something else to make marketable product? The oxygen can be diverted to the burners to supplement the fuel to run the treater.
Making something economic makes it far more impervious to the whims of ideological politicians than legislation that is easily repealed, as are your crew’s other angle of signing treaties.
DFB posted July 4, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Now, if CH4 is “only about 1,700 ppb”, seems like that’s more than 386 ppb(sic) (C02). And if it has 25 times more heat trapping capability than C02, that would mean CH4 in the atmosphere effects the GH effect, making the factors equal, the equivalent of 8,500 ppb of C02 (1,700 x 25 divided 5 half-life). As I’ve said, and you keep ignoring, context is everything.
———————-
DFB,
You should learn the basics of an issue before attacking it.
The CO2 data is expressed in ppm, not ppb.
Cos – gee you got me, but since you keep ignoring the question about how much of that 386 ppm is actually man-made vs REQUIRED for life as well as naturally occurring….I can only assume there’s a reason why you’re hiding behind the 100% measurement, instead of debating the discounted level of man-made, and further discounted level of exactly what you think of that portion can be eliminated by crap & tax/unilateral govt mandate. No, as usual, you pick out 1 sliver and ignore the meat of everything else I posted. So, C02 at 100% content = .04%. So, at a minimum I cut C02 in half for naturally required/occuring content in the atmosphere, leaving me with .02%. Of that .02% (the manmade portion), the US unilaterally going “green” via govt fiat, might change in the world’s total ppm content is what…1-2%? So it changes it from .04% in total to .0396%, and that’s being generous. Whoo, I can feel the chilly weather that’ll bring on already!
Whenever you decide to actually debate the entire issue, even against an idiot like me, instead of cherrypicking what you THINK is making some kind of brilliant point, let me know. Till then, you bore me.
DFB posted July 5, 2009 at 3:18 pm
. . . but since you keep ignoring the question about how much of that 386 ppm is actually man-made vs REQUIRED for life as well as naturally occurring…
——————–
DFB,
Again, you should learn the basics of an issue before attacking it.
“Life” does not “REQUIRE” CO2 at the very high levels of 380+ ppm.
“Life” managed very well with CO2 at around 280 ppm for about the previous 10 thousand years.
Humans burning fossil fuels, and causing land-use changes caused CO2 to rapidly rise.
Cos – see..now you’re actually adding something. I don’t have to “know the basics” of your religion to challenge the simple common sense of it.
“Life” also managed pretty well at levels higher than 380 ppm..it’s how the dinos got so big. So your qualifying language of “very high levels” just shows me you’re selling a pitch. I’m not even denying that burning fossil fuels/clearing forests/pavement everywhere/etc has added to the 100ppm difference, just challenging the extreme focus on C02 & disregard for ANY other factors that might contribute as well.
Let’s just say we could magically turn a knob and dial it back to 280 ppm tomorrow, how much would the temp drop? Since I was being generous with giving the “man-made” increase portion about 200 ppm.
Now, back on methane…you guys should really get your sales pitch straight, because you’ve got that Kennedy freak going to Capitol Hill, between rehab stints, declaring that livestock burps/farts are far more GHGish than even all the motor fuels in the US. That if you eat meat, you’re worse than the Nazis during the Holocaust. Seems crazy..till you start to see govts taking the idea of taxing livestock farts legislatively serious. So which is it? Is methane a meaningless gas that’s too minute to matter (weird, when I was describing .04%, which should’ve been .01% as the man-made portion, you told me the small % didn’t matter in the C02 pitch…but the small % argument is part of your methane dismissal…)??
You see, the difference is, I don’t proclaim myself to be an “expert”, such as you do. But I do force myself to think, and not just follow the latest fad. I’m not feeding you talking pts, I’m giving you simple logic from my own noodle…so if this stuff seems farcical to an idiot like me…that makes me listen to the “deniers!” with PHD’s behind their name a little closer.
Climatologists screamed that the next ice age was coming, then we’d all be cannibals by now due to warming, then ALL weather patterns cooling/warming were due to us…..prophets have foretold the demise of the world since 100 AD…and the only thing they have in common is, they’ve all been wrong. Just the mere fact that you guys had to inject politics so deeply into your movement is enough to make me take pause. Like I said, make a solution economic/value adding and it’s impervious…build your model on political/ideological whims (administrations/congressional majorities/SCOTUS majorities change…economic math doesn’t), and it’s doomed to fail, no different than the ethanol debacle.
DFB,
Whatever. . .
Your rambling 6:02 pm rant doesn’t make any sense. Go learn the basics, and then try to make a rational argument.
Cos – whatever…funny how fast you go to comments like “Go learn the basics”, when you’ve got no talking pts to respond with.
Let me simplify it for you, so you don’t have to address all the trimmings:
If methane doesn’t matter, why do the freakshows that worship your religion attack livestock burps/farts? You’ve argued vehemently that methane doesn’t matter..so does it, or doesn’t it? As basic as it gets.
Simple question that I’ve asked you probably 5 or 6 times over the past 6 months or so…and every time, you bail.
DFB posted July 5, 2009 at 7:30 pm
You’ve argued vehemently that methane doesn’t matter..
—————
Really? Copy/paste from my posts to prove your claim.
Cos – again…nice deflection. Just something for you to think about…when you’re presented with a simple question, like if methane is so irrelevant, relative to C02 importance, why does your crew feel the need to focus on cow farts…and your response is, “I never said those exact words…implied the crap out of them…but NEVER those exact words!”, then your argument loses credibility pretty quick.
Same goes for “AGW Denier!”, or “IPCC Report!!”, or “Your scientists don’t count!”.
Now, do cow burps/farts matter or not?
Now as for examples of where you implied CH4 is irrelevant, relative to C02…
“Explain why you omitted the facts that CH4 is only about 1700 ppb, and CH4 has a shorter lifetime than CO2.”
DFB,
My asking you about the level and lifetime of CH4 was not implying that CH4 is “irrelevant”.
It was asking you to explain your confusion and/or ignorance.
And DFB proved that s/he is very confused and/or ignorant.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 5, 2009 at 10:39 am | Permalink
DFB posted July 4, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Now, if CH4 is “only about 1,700 ppb”, seems like that’s more than 386 ppb(sic) (C02). And if it has 25 times more heat trapping capability than C02, that would mean CH4 in the atmosphere effects the GH effect, making the factors equal, the equivalent of 8,500 ppb of C02 (1,700 x 25 divided 5 half-life). As I’ve said, and you keep ignoring, context is everything.
———————-
DFB,
You should learn the basics of an issue before attacking it.
The CO2 data is expressed in ppm, not ppb.
DFB posted July 5, 2009 at 7:30 pm
You’ve argued vehemently that methane doesn’t matter..
—————
DFB,
Copy/paste from my posts to prove your claim
550 ppm is idea level for rapid growing of plants.
Expressed in parts per billion:
368,000 ppb Total CO2
288,000 ppb base line pre-industrial CO2 Level?
68,500 ppb natural co2
11,800 ppb man-made co2
Compared to all other gases including water vapor, man-made co2 is about 0.001 percent of total atmospheric gases.
Hey…Cos, does your toolbelt come with a built in deflector shield?
As I’ve stated SEVERAL times, I’M not the one portraying myself as an “expert”…that glory goes to YOU.
Now for the 27th time, answer the question! If methane is so irrelevant, as in direct correlation to C02’s importance…why do you freakshows seem to have such disdain for livestock burps/farts???????????
I provided just one of your rants about how methane is irrelevant, so reposting your same lame attempt at rewriting your words shows you don’t have an answer…you think deflecting is somehow a winning strategy.
DFB posted July 6, 2009 at 9:53 am
I provided just one of your rants about how methane is irrelevant, . . .
——————
DFB,
No, you did not do that. I simply asked you:
“Explain why you omitted the facts that CH4 is only about 1700 ppb, and CH4 has a shorter lifetime than CO2.”
Since you have stated that “context is everything”, please explain the “context” of my asking you why you omitted the level and lifetime of CH4.
And since you seem concerned about GWP, please post some comments about the GWP of SF6.
DFB posted July 6, 2009 at 9:53 am
If methane is so irrelevant, as in direct correlation to C02’s importance…
———————
Who claimed that methane is irrelevant?
Man-made CO2 is about 11.8ppm.
This is what Congress is rolling the dice on with cap and trade, higher taxes and doomsday reports from the IPCC.
That means there are 999988.2ppm of other stuff in the atmosphere affecting climate.
If each part represents a marble, then man-made co2 would represent 11.8 marbles out of one million (1,000,000)marbles.
Regular wants some soup. . .
Maybe Hank has been helping Tiahrt research(sic) climate science?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/07/do-the-wave-for-tiahrts-climate-change-analogy/comment-page-3/#comment-614287
cosmos hates reality, but prefers to live in the fantasy world of GORACLE worship and IPCC fables.
Reg – trust me, if cos didn’t have circular references, he/she wouldn’t have any argument. We spend several exchanges with he/she telling me how methane is meaningless relative to C02 (1,700 ppb vs 386 ppm!!!! radiative force!!!). Not to mention the painfully obvious deflection when asked to add context by comparing the various factors (sun, C02, methane, water “vapour”), you know like a logical person would do..all of which is dismissed by him/her. Then..when painted into a corner to defend livestock burps/farts that his/her worshippers proclaim to be the equivalent in evil of the Holocaust…suddenly, he/she starts to plead ignorance in any such stance…and they wonder why people laugh at their “their debate’s over!” rhetoric!!
To reiterate Cos, when your facts are irrefutable, you WELCOME debate, because your case is undeniable. Using politicians to push your agenda just proves how weak your position is. Just don’t forget..politicians are fickle..as well as voter’s desire for which party’s in power..
DFB,
I welcome debate.
I was simply pointing out to you that although CH4 has a higher GWP, CH4 is at a lower level than CO2, and has a shorter lifetime than CO2.
Those facts, plus the fact that added CH4 is causing about 1/3rd the increased radiative forcing of added CO2 does not make CH4 “irrelevant” or “meaningless”.
And the strategy of trying to reduce CH4 emissions sharply is logical, because it has a shorter lifetime than CO2.
Again DFB, who claimed that methane is “irrelevant”?
Can’t you support the claims that you posted, without attacking me, and/or climate science?
“Again DFB, who claimed that methane is “irrelevant”?”
You did, over and over and over.
Suddenly after a few days of back and forth….you post
“And the strategy of trying to reduce CH4 emissions sharply is logical, because it has a shorter lifetime than CO2.”
Funny, because all this time, you’ve tried to point to everything available to suggest that methane is irrelevant vs C02…remember your comments like “do you even know what the “b” means in ppb?” How many times did I ask you to show how each factor compares/contrasts relative to each other??
In “science”…how do you know which “input” is responsible for whatever results if you change multiple “inputs”? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to prioritize and attack the most critical “input” first? Are you going to reverse field on water vapor too and suggest that it would be logical if it were sharply reduced too?
Why now is it a logical strategy to go after CH4 as well as C02?? Was it purely because you had to figure out how to reframe the livestock burp/fart debate to try and make it appear as if you’ve been supporting reduction of CH4 all along??
What “claim” is it exactly that I’m supposed to provide support for?
Poor DFB. . .
S/he just can’t understand that I was making fun of her/him for making a big deal out of methane’s GWP of 25, but ignoring the fact that methane levels are lower than CO2.
DFB posted July 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
In all the factors that effect climate, how does C02 stack up against:
. . .
3. Methane make sure you count the fact that methane is 25 times more “GHG”ish than C02
—————————–
Oh well. . . I guess DFB’s inability to understand the obvious helps explain his/her being an AGW science denier.
Hey DFB! What do you think about SF6, which has a GWP of about 23,000 !
DFB posted July 6, 2009 at 3:31 pm
What “claim” is it exactly that I’m supposed to provide support for?
——————————
Who claimed that methane is “irrelevant”?
DFB posted July 6, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Are you going to reverse field on water vapor too and suggest that it would be logical if it were sharply reduced too?
———————————–
DFB,
Please try to learn the basics.
Water vapour is a feedback, and we do not (at this time) have any way to control global levels.
There was about two inches of feedback on the ground towards Ark City. Guess the Arkansas River down there is overflowing with feedback.
Regular still wants some soup. . .
DFB posted July 6, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Wouldn’t it be more prudent to prioritize and attack the most critical “input” first?
———————–
It’s more prudent and logical to reduce both CO2 and CH4 levels, simultaneously.
Ok…the dance is making me dizzy…
Let’s try a completely new approach. One I’m sure you’ll get a kick out of.
I keep asking myself, what’s in it for the fed govt to suggest that it’ll be GREAT if we replace more of the fuels that PAY taxes (fed/state excise, severance taxes on production, prop tax on assets, income tax on profits, etc, etc) with a healthy chunk of energy that doesn’t exist yet, and that we have to PAY for in all new investment, subsidies, loan guarantees, tax abatements (prop tax), mandates, etc. What are the lion’s share of these taxes used for? State/fed excise taxes are earmarked for infrastrucure (roads/bridges) & state property/income/sales taxes are used to fund most states largest budget line item, education. Now, what two areas are also considered in disarray and in need of add’l funding…not cuts? Timing wise, funny that we just got through bailing out states recently too.
So here’s the conspiracy angle for ya…the fed govt gets to wrest more control away from states who won’t be able to fund 2 VERY popular services, roadwork/education, and will be required to beg DC for more money, for which, as always will come with a multitude of strings. Some directly correlated, some not at all, but strings that must be accepted to maintain current services.
To add a little more depth to my “theory”, isn’t it odd that virtually all oil/gas/coal is produced in “red” states (TX, AK, OK, KS, WY, WV, TN, LA, MS, UT, ND, MT), with CO & PA as the only “swing states” that could be impacted.
So, you involve politicians as your “frontmen” to sell the pitch..you can see where that leads my jacked up head..why, because politicians worry more about making sure they get re-elected than they do about logic, economics or prudence (Btw, still not scientifically “prudent” to experiment with multiple inputs..unless you just want to make the results unverifiable).
Here’s a bonus question just for fun. The Dept of Energy’s ‘09 & /’10 budgets add up to a little over $65B. How many nuclear plants could’ve been built for that amount, instead of wasting it on over 100K employees/contractors who work for an agency started in the 70’s with it’s sole mission to make us “energy independent”?
DFB posted July 6, 2009 at 5:35 pm
(Btw, still not scientifically “prudent” to experiment with multiple inputs..unless you just want to make the results unverifiable).
————————-
LOL!
It’s not scientifically “prudent” to experiment without a control — there is no control for the experiment that humans have been running on Earth’s climate system.
And DFB. . . you’ve probably got a “jacked up head” because you don’t seem to understand the difference between science, and policy.
Cos –
LOL!
since, once again, you project yourself as the “scientific method” expert, and I fully admit I’m not, why don’t you tell me about all the other science “projects”, where multiple inputs are “tested” all at the same time (medicine, chemical, psychological, take your pick of any science). While you’re at it, where’s the “placebo effect” portion of this “test”, where we just tell everyone the globe warms/cools by itself…and see how many people buy into the propaganda? Gee…that might be an example of a “control” in an experiment…like is required in all experiments…geez, do your “expert” buddies buy that you have some kind of science expertise??
The reason you’ve got a “jacked up head”, is because you can’t be detached enough to see that whenever you inject politicians into the forefront of the debate, science and policy are NEVER mutually exclusive. (slavery, states rights, civil rights, women’s suffrage, abortion, healthcare, war, education, just funding of science,…pick a topic any topic, they’re NEVER mutually exclusive with your approach)
Kinda like how ironic it is that the “rich” nation of the US is held to such a different standard/expectation for economic suicide than a “developing” country like China…if economics have nothing to do with the argument, why inject them at the solution phase for just a select few?
But let me go ahead and show you how it fits in the rest of the “policy” debate…since you seem to be a single-issue voter (watch out, according to Napolitano that could get you on “the list”):
Progressive Policy Platform
Energy:
1. Cap & trade punishes red states, because most of US oil/gas/coal production comes from solidly red states. The absolute worst states in the union fiscally, CA/NY/NJ, are the states the fed govt chooses to emulate at a national level as far as energy regs…this is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to protect those 120 or so electoral votes from those states for the Dems, ie, make the other 47 states live up to the regs that’ve failed miserably in 3 of their key strongholds??? And don’t forget the “Blue/Green Alliance” designed to ensure that unions get to benefit from all green mandates, since they never could take over the oil/gas/coal industries.
Religion:
1. Red states are usually the most Christian, so do all you can to minimize Christian influence (don’t recognize Nat’l Day of Prayer, cancel the Christian sponsored flyover this past weekend, step back from Israel & support Palestine, “we are not a Christian nation”, too many ACLU attacks to count, op/ed pgs are filled with anti-Christian propaganda almost daily, Tiller killing is a good example of taking advantage of a situation to feel free to refer to the “Christian Taliban”/”Christian Terrorists”/etc/etc/etc, same for Sanford’s situation which is more about attacking family values than it is about Sanford specifically, Dems talking of limiting charitable deductions for which churches/faith based orgs will be hurt the most)
“Right to Work”:
Obviously, right to work states are virtually all red states. Unions have choked companies in forced union states, so out comes card check talk, blatant pay-offs of UAW members, SEIU Pres who has weekly meetings w/Obama personally and was the only non medical field/politician representative allowed at the healthcare “roundtables” held at the WH, etc.
Healthcare:
The states in the worst shape from healthcare costs are virtually all blue states (other than maybe border areas in TX/AZ), unions have killed competitive viability in blue states with healthcare costs of employees/retirees, doctors are reducing patient load of medicare/medicaid patients (Dems especially target poor for votes) due to inability to cover costs based on govt mandated fees, talk of taxing those with healthcare benefits, utilization 2006 Census Bureau stat of “47M without insurance” but adding no context as that spot # included 9.5M illegal immigrants, 17M in households with income in excess of $50k, 18M between the ages of 18-34 and were most likely least in need of insurance or chose not to buy it, only 30% of nonelderly people who became uninsured remained uninsured for more than 12 mos – 50% regained insurance in 4 mos or less, or how many were “elderly” who were within 12 mos of being eligible for Medicare so chose to wait it out….yet now BOTH parties site the 47M as a blanket uninsured # and VERY few ever add any context to it…in other words, the GOP is letting the Dems control the propaganda unchallenged.
DFB,
You do not even seem to know what a control is, and does.
And thank you for again proving my earlier point, by unnecessarily combining science and policy.
If you AGW deniers could refute AGW science, you wouldn’t need to post long irrational rants about policy issues.
Hey, whatya know..Cos posts a lame opinion, with no back-up, and declares it fact! “The debate’s over!” “AGW Denier!!”
But thank you again for taking the crown as the self-appointed scientific expert. See, the thing is, I know EXACTLY what a control is..so you can keep doing your little dance all you want, just proves over and over how lame & shallow your argument is. As for proving your point…make one and I’ll be glad to disprove it!
As an example, let’s take a stroll back through your “feedback” puke…if “feedback” is so meaningless, and “we” don’t know how to extract/capture it, remind me again why Wichita’s got a system for gathering/treating stormwater and injecting into aquifers? Huh, weird..water “vapour” falls out of the “atmosphere”, and we utilize it in a way that doesn’t just “let it evaporate”, huh…also has a side benefit of being used for drinking water/ag use…wonder if they had a control (letting it flow into the rivers/soak into ground/evaporate as usual) and multiple inputs to prove out that test…
DFB,
So you don’t have any science to refute AGW science?
You just have lame personal attacks, another bogus “if “feedback” is so meaningless” attack, and irrational rants about stormwater systems?
Okay. . .
How about this, let’s just cut to the chase. Riddle me this, has oil/gas/coal dominated the energy industry over the last decade because of:
A. Economics – ie, cheaper/more efficient than alternatives
B. Government fiat via policy
C. Science
The problem you keep avoiding, is the govt policy is temporary. You make a better mousetrap and you win every time.
“So you don’t have any science to refute AGW science?”
_________________
And you don’t have any logic to refute logic?
Okay…
DFB,
You’ve probably got a “jacked up head” because you don’t seem to understand the difference between science, and policy.
DFB cites logic.
Using his reasoning, the fact that humans relied on horses for transportation for a thousand years means that they were the best form of transportation.
DFB–
Burning oil is relatively cheap. And what makes it so cheap is that no one is paying for the environmental damage it causes.
If I burn leaves in Wichita, I get fined for stinking up the air. But if I drive a Humvee and pump tons of pollutants into the air, I’m not charged a penny.
If polluters were paying for their pollution, oil wouldn’t be so cheap.
If polluters were paying for their pollution, oil wouldn’t be so cheap.
====================================
What else wouldn’t be so cheap?
Anything Plastic.
Lubricants.
Insulation.
Shoes.
Tires.
Lotion.
Building Materials.
Paving and Concrete materials.
Solvents.
Pesticides.
Vet supplies.
Pharmaceuticals.
Fertilizers.
The prices on these items would also sky rocket.
cosmos deifies his religion by writing:
AGW deniers
Only someone who worships a practice would call someone a denier.
cosmos worships the GORACLE and his profit Hansen.
Worships?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denier
Capn writes:
“Using his reasoning, the fact that humans relied on horses for transportation for a thousand years means that they were the best form of transportation.”
______
What is it with you guys (well Chas most of the time) and your “points” that make no point at all?? Yeah, humans rode horses for thousands of years..because it better than WALKING! Weird thing, they used boats for thousands of years too, because horses didn’t work well in water. Then, the figured out the steam engine, then the combustion engine, eventually jet engines to improve on driving…what is your point??
Anti – dangit, you beat me to the punch, always love to see the avoidance around the question of how windmills/solar panels/ethanol plants/etc will start kicking out all those products as well.
But Capn, don’t forget, if it weren’t for oil, we wouldn’t have whales anymore either, since it replaced oil made from whale blubber..you know, because it was cheaper & more efficient.
Why is it so hard to understand, that if you just beat oil economically, THAT solution is impervious to the latest fads of ideological politicians? Trying to win by political will alone, is at best a house of cards.