EPA JUST A SNIFF AWAY IN ALASKA...NYT ARTICLE

[volunbeer]

It's the same reason that we clean up our own yard when we know there are far dirtier places that time would be better spent and make the city look better. We haven't fully grasped the "one world" concept yet. We want our micro climate better.

Ah, but here is the rub. If you buy the assertions about man-made global warming being the result of CO2 produced by humans then there is no difference in CO2 emissions in Laos vs CO2 emissions in Montana. Period. They claim that atmospheric CO2, produced by man (cause they can't do anything about natural CO2), is the primary driver of global warming. The idea that the West, with the larger economies and higher consumption of fossil fuels, can continue to shave a percentage point here or a percentage point there yet ignore the established and proven things that could be done to cut CO2 output in the third world by a 1/2 or a 1/3rd defeats their own argument.

We are paying billions for what looks more and more like a fake crisis used to levy taxes and regulations upon the West while the largest pollution sources are found in the developing world. The dirtiest water and most hazardous materials are found in the developing world.

They can't have it both ways. If a cow fart in India has as much impact on the atmosphere as a cow fart in Fargo, ND, then it stands to reason that every nation on Earth should view each coal plant stack equally and it would therefore be the responsibility of all of us to clean it up. We should take the steps there to get their air to the standards we reached ten years ago (much cleaner). That is not the way it works though..... this scheme has cost us a massive amount of money and retarded our economic growth and it has not gotten any warmer despite their predictions spanning over 20 years. The UN seeks to gain control of major economies in the name of "climate change." Eventually, left unchallenged and unchecked, they will come for your stove just like they demonized your SUV.

 

[volunbeer]

So what I have come up with is, live at the top of the hill. And don't make particulates

It's always best to live on the shielded side at the top of the hill - less wind and no particulates!

 

[rwhite]

Ah, but here is the rub. If you buy the assertions about man-made global warming being the result of CO2 produced by humans then there is no difference in CO2 emissions in Laos vs CO2 emissions in Montana. Period. They claim that atmospheric CO2, produced by man (cause they can't do anything about natural CO2), is the primary driver of global warming. The idea that the West, with the larger economies and higher consumption of fossil fuels, can continue to shave a percentage point here or a percentage point there yet ignore the established and proven things that could be done to cut CO2 output in the third world by a 1/2 or a 1/3rd defeats their own argument.

We are paying billions for what looks more and more like a fake crisis used to levy taxes and regulations upon the West while the largest pollution sources are found in the developing world. The dirtiest water and most hazardous materials are found in the developing world.

They can't have it both ways. If a cow fart in India has as much impact on the atmosphere as a cow fart in Fargo, ND, then it stands to reason that every nation on Earth should view each coal plant stack equally and it would therefore be the responsibility of all of us to clean it up. We should take the steps there to get their air to the standards we reached ten years ago (much cleaner). That is not the way it works though..... this scheme has cost us a massive amount of money and retarded our economic growth and it has not gotten any warmer despite their predictions spanning over 20 years. The UN seeks to gain control of major economies in the name of "climate change." Eventually, left unchallenged and unchecked, they will come for your stove just like they demonized your SUV.

Global warming aside. That coal plant in Laos isn't making it hard for the folks in Fairbanks to breathe. So what are we going to clean 1st?

 

[volunbeer]

They are two different problems. Fairbanks is a localized particulate problem caused by inversions and wood burning for heat and exhaust. I responded to the "global warming" in the thread - I did not introduce it.

The answer to the problem in Fairbanks is cheap electricity so people don't need to burn wood (even though they likely enjoy it as we do). Outside of that, I don't know what more they could do other than target those who are burning wood improperly, but I don't know how much difference it would make.

I just decided one day while watching children's shows with my kid (full of global warming propaganda) that I would respond when I hear people parrot what the media tells them. If the media was so smart, we would have a President in a pantsuit right now. All of us, myself included, suffer from behaving like lemmings..... we are conditioned to go with the flow. The older I get, the more I want to think for myself and challenge what I believe or what I am told. It is not to be contrary although it is likely perceived as such, it is to be a free thinker who recognizes that he does not have all the answers nor do they. I don't like "group think" - especially when so much of our GDP is spent on it. My friends (yes, they are friends) make a living off "studying the problem" when NOTHING those promoting it has proven true.

 

[rwhite]

So even if we work off the premise that it's all a hoax. Have all the strides we've made in cleaner air been for naught? Even IF it was in the name of global warming, climate change or whatever the crisis de jour is, we have cleaner air now, then when this entire "hoax" was presented to the world. Maybe it took the creation of a crisis to get us there but there aren't many companies (or people) going to do it unless forced or regulated.

 

[bholler]

(full of global warming propaganda) that I would respond when I hear people parrot what the media tells them.

So if the makeup of a planets atmosphere has no bearing on the temps of a planet how do you explain the fact that planets don't progressively get cooler as they get farther from the sun? And yes you are right in the past decade or so we have been "greening our planet slowly but look at the difference over a longer term than that and that short term trend does not make up for what was done before. Yes it is good we are making it better without a doubt but we still have a long way to go.

Now you say we need to work to change all countries emission but then you criticize the un for trying to get a global initiative. So which is it?

 

[volunbeer]

So if the makeup of a planets atmosphere has no bearing on the temps of a planet how do you explain the fact that planets don't progressively get cooler as they get farther from the sun? And yes you are right in the past decade or so we have been "greening our planet slowly but look at the difference over a longer term than that and that short term trend does not make up for what was done before. Yes it is good we are making it better without a doubt but we still have a long way to go.

Now you say we need to work to change all countries emission but then you criticize the un for trying to get a global initiative. So which is it?

The UN does very little for the emissions of developing countries. They get everyone to sign something and then only the Western nations try to meet the goals. The reality is developing nations cannot afford it when basic scrubbers that remove SO2, Hg, and CO2 are easily afforded by the West. We have been greening the planet far longer than a decade. Pretty much since forestry, irrigation, and modern agriculture began the Earth has been greener.

What exactly is the "short-term trend" making up for? The Industrial age?

Emissions today far exceed any we had during the industrial age or the beginning of the automobile. Even WWII, with all of it's noxious gas, is dwarfed by the fuel consumption in China today. Yet, it cooled and we barely understood the concept of clean air then.

If the Earth moved farther from the sun it would cool. In fact, the planets that we can measure temperature on in our own solar system have cooled recently in light of decreased solar radiation.

https://www.quora.com/What-would-ha...m-the-sun-say-about-half-the-distance-to-Mars

Planets do cool the further away from the sun they become. I am really not sure where you are going with that. Mars is further from the sun than we are, they have much less atmosphere (composed mostly of CO2 by the way - almost exclusively CO2), and I believe it is approximately 60-100 degrees cooler than the Earth give or take a few degrees. Anything that moves away from the sun will become cooler. In fact, the best evidence that solar radiation increases or decreases our temperatures would be found on the other planets in our solar system and there is good evidence available from those planets supporting the hypothesis that the sun is the main driver of our temperature - not man.

 

[bholler]

Planets do cool the further away from the sun they become. I am really not sure where you are going with that. Mars is further from the sun than we are, they have much less atmosphere (composed mostly of CO2 by the way - almost exclusively CO2)

yes and then Jupiter is warmer than Mars. And Venus is hotter than Mercury. So yes in general planets cool as they get further from the sun but there are a few exceptions caused by heavy atmospheres. And by the way Venus which is the hottest planet in our solar system has a heavy atmosphere made mainly of co2 and so2

We have been greening the planet far longer than a decade. Pretty much since forestry, irrigation, and modern agriculture began the Earth has been greener.

So you think north America has more biomass of plant life nw than it did before Europeans came here? Please enlighten us with those supposed facts.

the sun is the main driver of our temperature - not man.

Yes that is absolutely true and no one has ever said otherwise. We play a very small part in the combination of factors that determine the temperature of our planet. But the fact is that our atmosphere plays a major role in the temp of our planet and we are screwing it up

 

[jatoxico]

The idea that the West, with the larger economies and higher consumption of fossil fuels, can continue to shave a percentage point here or a percentage point there yet ignore the established and proven things that could be done to cut CO2 output in the third world by a 1/2 or a 1/3rd defeats their own argument.

We are paying billions for what looks more and more like a fake crisis used to levy taxes and regulations upon the West while the largest pollution sources are found in the developing world. The dirtiest water and most hazardous materials are found in the developing world.

Well I'll say again, what climate scientists would have and what they can get are two different things. We don't have a global gov't (yet thankfully) and these agreements are just saturated in the politics of the developed world vs the undeveloped and who did what to who and who wants more money to comply and which despotic @$#%^ stole the money etc. Common sense is always down on the list. Same as it ever was. Not sure how you take that as evidence that its all a fake crisis.

 

[bfitz3]

Maybe in some cases having an EPA stove does not solve everything. My next door neighbor has what I think is a big Regency wood stove with secondary combustion. ( I have seen it only once few years ago so no model #) He buys wood in log length, after waiting 1 year he then cuts , splits and calls it seasoned. He makes huge splits ,like 8x8x18 . Red oak that still weights a ton . He uses that so it lasts longer in his stove. His chimney smokes for hours, big time. Good thing not in my direction. He tells me that he has to clean his chimney every few weeks and removes buckets of creosote. He is a nice guy otherwise,but he is resisting to change his ways. When I try to talk to him about what I learned on this site: css, wait 2-3 years, burn , he looks at me like I'm crazy. When I told him that I love pine for shoulder season and to burn down the coals, he almost called the state to have me committed. I think than without educating people on good burning practice, replacing older stoves won't solve all the problems.

Give the guy 3 or 4 weeks of seasoned wood. Ask him to try it and, if nothing else, note how much cleaner the stack is. Maybe make a convert?

 

[bfitz3]

I really enjoyed this thread until the glare of tinfoil obscured the original topic.

 

[Jags]

A single moment of lost civility or insult will trigger the nuclear option on this thread. Respect will carry the day...

 

[tarzan]

A single moment of lost civility or insult will trigger the nuclear option on this thread. Respect will carry the day...

Even though this thread has experienced quite an evolution from the original post I hope everyone plays nice and the thread continues.

As in most debates, it's likely that both camps are too firmly entrenched to be swayed but those of us following with open minds can learn from there arguements.

 

[volunbeer]

bholler - it is greener now than it used to be - historical, anthropological, and core sampling show it is so. In fact, there are an estimated 3 trillion trees now (a lot of chainsawing to do!) - a pretty stunning number. I am not sure what you are basing your opinion on - NASA and many other organizations have said this.

I don't think we are "screwing up the atmosphere", but if we were, why are we not doing more to address the easiest places to make big gains on reducing CO2? That would not be in the Western world - it would be in the 3rd world. I don't buy their argument, but assuming for a second that I did - why would we not get the best bang for the buck in fixing the problem?

jatoxico - I don't buy that CO2 is a pollutant. I base that on many years of watching the predictions and claims and finally admitting that everything they were saying was wrong. It is simply wrong. I remember the initial statements about global warming and what was said then has not proven true.

I am not being disrespectful to anyone and I can politely agree to disagree, I simply wish people would examine the evidence instead of believing what so many claim to be absolutely true. I am all for clean air and clean water, but our "war on CO2" is not doing nearly as much to help those issues as we think. It has become a political issue and group think makes people react as if someone who politely disagrees said something racially offensive or downright rude when they question it. That is silly - we are all adults. The fact remains that Al Gore, generally the face of the movement, has no degree or formal education on the topic, yet he has made by most estimates over 100 million dollars selling the idea.

I think the next decade or two will show that the science is not settled and the Earth is far more resilient and complex than we believe. It will also show that CO2 is not a pollutant.

 

[volunbeer]

"Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth." - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

------------


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...larmists-debunk-their-science/2/#3ec7dca850b2

 

[bholler]

I am not being disrespectful to anyone and I can politely agree to disagree,

And I appreciate that I may disagree with you but no need to be rude or disrespectful.

I think the next decade or two will show that the science is not settled and the Earth is far more resilient and complex than we believe

I can totally agree with that.

It will also show that CO2 is not a pollutant.

But not that entirely I will say that co2 is not necessarily a pollutant but it has been proven that when the co2 levels in the atmosphere climb to high it seriously affects our climate.


Now can you please address the examples I have given about other planets and ther fact that they do not simply get cooler in order as they get further from the sun

Now yes it would be great if we could work with underdeveloped countries to reduce their pollution levels as well. but does that mean we should also stop all work here?

 

[volunbeer]

The only planet that defies the rule of distance to the sun is Venus, which is warmer than Mercury despite being further from the sun. Venus has the thickest atmosphere of any planet in our solar system. It is 80 to 90 times thicker than our own atmosphere so it traps far more heat. Other planets cool as they get further from the sun and they have little ability to retain heat due to minimal atmosphere.

I don't think we should stop work here in the U.S. I am simply pointing out the fact that the biggest proponents tell us if we don't cut CO2 emissions the planet will cook us. If that is the case, why do they spend money upgrading a coal plant in "your town here" for a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions when they can have a much larger impact (50% or more) by installing basic scrubbers in a plant that has none? The only people required to pay for emissions cuts are the West - isn't that strange in light of the quote from Edenhofer above?

We can do better across the board, but for the most part we have seen huge improvements in air quality in the U.S. Everything comes down to a balancing act and it should come with transparency and a simple cost-benefit analysis so all of us can see what our money is being used for. There might be more interest in "why" then.

 

[bholler]

The only planet that defies the rule of distance to the sun is Venus, which is warmer than Mercury despite being further from the sun. Venus has the thickest atmosphere of any planet in our solar system. It is 80 to 90 times thicker than our own atmosphere so it traps far more heat. Other planets cool as they get further from the sun and they have little ability to retain heat due to minimal atmosphere.

Then you also have Jupiter it is out of order to. But just look at mercury it has very little atmosphere and yes the side facing the sun gets extremely hot but the other side is extremely cold like a 400 degree swing from one side to the other because it does not have enough atmosphere to hold any heat in. Yes absolutely we should be doing more to combat emissions in other countries but that does not mean climate change is a hoax.

 

[bfitz3]

Fact... CO2 is a greenhouse gas (high school level experiment)
Fact... CO2 has dramatically increased in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, it IS increasing the earth's temperature. It's amazing what a layer of insulation does. (How many times have statements about improving a house's efficiency been touted on this forum?)
Fact... The industrial revolution has resulted in the release many many gigatons of CO2 previously sequestered beneath the surface of the earth. Humans are a contributing factor to global warming as we have installed global insulation.
Fact... Not all of this CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Much is absorbed into the oceans.
Fact... Adding CO2 to water decreases its pH (or at least lowers its buffering capacity. Once it's gone, the pH will drop, possibly precipitously.)
Fact... The acidification of the oceans will/is changing their biology. This is quite dangerous as 2/3 of the planet's oxygen comes from the oceans. (The word dangerous is my opinion.)

While the models do not always agree and do not always come to fruition, they do converge to the same conclusion... That man has and continues to alter the planet's climate in ways that are unpredictable, and generally not good for our existence.

So... To me, it seems like we have some guy (let's call him "Al") who walked in on 100 people staring at a gun on the table. None were able to check the chamber. 99 of them are saying either it might be loaded or that it is loaded based on experiments/observations that have been done in the presence of each other. One guy says it isn't loaded and he knows so because he doesn't trust the motives of the other 99. I can't fathom why Al would pick up the gun and point it at his head.

 

[volunbeer]

Man is not the primary contributor of CO2 - nature produces far larger amounts. Every tree rotting in the forest is producing it. It is part of the Earth's life cycle. While we certainly contribute, the steps taken in the West have been outweighed by economic development in the third world where the CO2 output is increasing every year. We are spending more money for diminishing returns in the West - again, goes to my point - where is the best bang for the buck in reducing CO2 output assuming you are correct?

What if CO2 is not a pollutant (I don't believe it is) and the Earth is capable of dealing with it (I believe it can)? What if, despite all our efforts, we are not able to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to circumstances beyond our control? Would we not be better off spending that money elsewhere for clean water, health, and reducing toxic pollution?

Fact - we are not warming. Period. That is what they have used to sell the program - global warming. They can call it climate change all they want, but they were wrong then - why does everyone believe they are right now?

 

[bfitz3]

If it was wrong, some aspiring scientist would do the research to refute the work of thousands of scientists in every country and of every political persuasion. The money and desire is there to fund said research. All that would be left is for said scientist to collect their Nobel prizes.

There is not a global conspiracy. There is one political group in one world that has politicized the science for their own gain. Neither of us should believe the 'beliefs' of the other. We should believe the results of globally reproduced research across many many scientific fields.

The amount of natural CO2 creation is irrelevant. The earth was at equilibrium. The equilibrium point has changed as, again, many many gigatons of CO2 have been introduced to the system by man. That is fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, again, a cold hard fact.

The data directly contradict your claim that the planet is not warming. And no, the warming is not the result of natural cycles. That has been thoroughly researched. If you have evidence to the contrary, be that person to collect a stack of Nobel prizes.

As for bang for the buck, I'm not going to waste my time googling this, but it is certainly right in spirit to say that if China and the US were to reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, an attainable goal, it would likely equal a 100% reduction in emissions from Africa, an impossibility.

Can we just end this and pray that the thread returns to something more productive?

 

[begreen]

Man is not the primary contributor of CO2 - nature produces far larger amounts. Every tree rotting in the forest is producing it. It is part of the Earth's life cycle. While we certainly contribute, the steps taken in the West have been outweighed by economic development in the third world where the CO2 output is increasing every year. We are spending more money for diminishing returns in the West - again, goes to my point - where is the best bang for the buck in reducing CO2 output assuming you are correct?

What if CO2 is not a pollutant (I don't believe it is) and the Earth is capable of dealing with it (I believe it can)? What if, despite all our efforts, we are not able to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to circumstances beyond our control? Would we not be better off spending that money elsewhere for clean water, health, and reducing toxic pollution?

Fact - we are not warming. Period. That is what they have used to sell the program - global warming. They can call it climate change all they want, but they were wrong then - why does everyone believe they are right now?

That is correct, but the systems have balanced themselves nicely. Human contributions have tipped the balance and have changed the equation. Oceans are getting supersaturated with CO2 which is lowering the pH. Concentrations in the upper atmosphere are quite high and increasing. Whether or not C02 is called a pollutant or not is semantics. Yes the earth can deal with it, it has in the past. But it may have to wipe out a lot of life to restore balance. So why chit in our own bed?

Also, human and human related activities add other gases besides CO2. Some like methane are even stronger greenhouse gases. Yes, the earth also releases methane, but the system has been pretty nicely balanced up until the industrial age. And yes, we are warming. The global average is steadily increasing. This won't be terrible until we reach the tipping point where momentum accelerates the problem and large ice masses melt, including the glaciers that feed the rivers that supply half of humanity with water.

As for the cooling hiatus in the early 2000s? It was a data error.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

 

[jpowell1979]

CO2 is only pollution because politicians can tax it as a byproduct of industry. PM2.5 is only pollution if you some one breathes it in high concentrations. Both are greatly abundant in nature absent any human presence.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[bholler]

CO2 is only pollution because politicians can tax it as a byproduct of industry.

Or because in high levels it is detrimental to the environment.

PM2.5 is only pollution if you some one breathes it in high concentrations.

Would you want the air in your house to contain that much particulate matter every day?

Both are greatly abundant in nature absent any human presence.

Yes but we are adding to it at much higher levels than we need to.

 

[bfitz3]

And so, I insult myself, most uncivily, so Jags will impose the nuclear option on this thread...

"My mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberries!"

Please?!