(08-31-2015 11:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:34 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  The argument for manmade CO2 levels causing global warming is simply correlation. Correlation is NOT causation.

The argument for manmade CO2 causing global warming is that CO2 is highly infrared active and increases the radiative forcing of the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). What is not fully understood are the feedbacks and the effect of aerosols and clouds, they can be positive, negative or both, but it's not a correlation/causation problem.

When temperatures were decreasing, some theorized the impact would be like a volcano and cause an ice age, the way Mt. Tambora caused the "year without summer" around the globe in 1815.

Now with temperatures rising, they are theorizing a Venus like effect.

They have a correlation and they are theorizing to find a cause. So it is. They didn't come up with the theory first and then find a correlation.

I have shown time and time again that this simply isn't true for the overwhelming majority of scientists who studied the topic, yet you keep repeating this as if it's valid. Are you honestly just not interested in gaining an objective assessment of the information as it's actually researched? Because at this point you're dumbing down an extremely complex and thoroughly researched line of science to such an extent that it comes off as if you're unwilling to look at the research itself.

I linked the first research paper I could find which used climate models, and I asked you to look through it. You don't have to read it cover to cover, just simply open it up and look through it, because that alone will show you just how incorrect these sorts of statements are.

(08-29-2015 08:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:@UCF
I'm engaging in hyperbole because of the absolute inability of most (not pointing at anyone in particular) to see the reasonability of skepticism.

Reasonable skepticism is fine, but I honestly don't see anything in your posts that comes off as reasonable skepticism. It's important to understand the difference between reasonable and unreasonable skepticism though, for instance we still don't understand the Higgs boson particle which gives all matter mass, but it's still unreasonable to be skeptical about all aspects of gravity. The same applies here, and with literally everything we understand about the universe and how it works.

Scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth in the 1500s. That was wrong.

The fallibility of scientists in the 1500s is considerably more on point that your comments.

Quote:As for the next ice age bit, I'm old enough to remember seeing the magazine covers with pictures of smokestacks asking whether we were creating the next ice age. Remember, the 70s are before the internet, so links to 40 year old Time or Newsweek aren't easy to come by. There was significant talk about it. Whether it was a majority of climate scientists, I don't know.

If you're willing to admit that it wasn't based on the accepted climate science of the time, then why are you using it as evidence against current climate research? That seems to be wholly unreasonable. Who cares if Newsweek had a story about it (they did, and it's right here) or if Time ran a cover on it (they didn't, but they ran three might look like it if you didn't read the stories, which were about the energy crisis and not Global Warming), if you agree that the evidence shows the science at the time wasn't pushing that narrative? What's perhaps even more telling, the Time cover most people immediately think of

#1-those aren't the covers I was thinking about.
#2-I did read the stories at the time.
#3-It was broadly reported and was supported by some scientists. What I said was I didn't know how many, NOT that scientists didn't believe it. It may well have been a majority. If anyone was pushing that it was causing global warming, it wasn't getting publicity. Because the globe was NOT warming at the time.



Is a fake. This is the actual cover

Quote:Part of the reason for the massive development along the coasts is that global temperatures did cool and serious hurricanes significantly decreased in number in the 60s and 70s. It used to be that frequent hurricanes discouraged it. Scientists knew the CO2 in the air was increasing and some tried to explain the decrease in temperatures by claiming CO2 was doing it.

Sure, but as I showed in my last post, the overwhelming majority of them stated otherwise, so much so that by the late 70's, there was a vast majority of papers which showed that CO2 caused an increase in temperatures.

Quote:One thing that is true is that scientists have manipulated data to support the belief that man is causing global warming (and this isn't confined to climate scientists-scientists are human too). Its also clear that scientists in the climate field can't dispute the consensus without risking their career. And the nature of academics is to argue and fight for their positions, so once they have staked a position, its about defending it, not seeking the truth.

None of this is clear. Again, have you read the research itself? Did you read the methodology which was claimed to have been manipulated? Of course scientists can, and have, manipulated data to achieve goals in the past, but that doesn't just grant you the ability to call into question any research you disagree with unless you have evidence of that manipulation. And for climate denialists, any modification of past measurements, even if they're due to a better methodology and provide more accurate measurements, is evidence of data manipulation. You don't claim a person using a newer technology to analyze bones is inherently manipulating the data to support their hypothesis, but that is the standard that climate science is held to.

As for the statement that those who disagree with the consensus risking their jobs, again I can't help but look at the list of national scientific and organizations I listed which agree with the concept of anthropomorphic climate change. It's simply unbelievable that the climate scientists of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and Israel are all under the same pressure to agree with the scientific consensus. These nations don't even agree that they all exist as nations, and yet you truly believe that academic pressure is so strong that it stifles all dissent across these borders? Even OPEC, Exxon, and British Petroleum agree with anthropomorphic climate change, do you really believe they are doing so because of pressure from academia? I think even you would agree that's a ludicrous concept.

Quote:A lot of the proponents talk about global warming and human activity creating it as one issue.

I don't, so again, let's talk about what I write and I'll only talk about things you write.

Quote:I believe the globe is warming and that there is sufficient evidence to support that. But that evidence isn't that great. They recently had a dispute over whether the globe had warmed or cooled over the last 15 years! And yet they expect us to trust them on climate change over millennia. Fact is they have no temperature readings before the last 130 years or so. They don't have broad based readings around the globe but for the last 30 years or so. They don't have really extensive readings until the last 15 years and so and can't even figure out if we are warming or cooling over that period!

It's hard for me to address the claim over the a dispute without you linking me an article or a topic of an academic journal to review. As for the rest of your post, that's simply not true. We've had accurate readings for decades, and the data provided by those readings has shown an increase in warming. But if you'd provide an article or journal that says otherwise, I'd love to read it. I'd assume you're referring to the temperature pause that was thoroughly debunked by addressing the fact the oceans were trapping the heat, but I don't want to assume anything.

Quote:The argument for manmade CO2 levels causing global warming is simply correlation. Correlation is NOT causation. For the first 25 years of the Super Bowl, if an original NFL team (including the Colts & Steelers who moved to the AFC) won the Super Bowl, the market did better than if an original AFL team won. There was only one year the market went up when an original AFL team won and that gain was the smallest gain. Every year an original NFL team won, the market went up. You could probably build a model showing how the market would do based on the Super Bowl. But, of course, it would have no validity.

Yet that is what the climate scientists are doing. They do have a theory on why it would impact warming. But its still just correlation. Their models show increased CO2 levels impacting the climate because that's how they wrote the programs. They are matching it to CO2 levels and temperatures over the last 130 years. Therefore, their models couldn't show anything else. And their egos won't allow them to admit what a small understanding they have of long term global climate cycles.

This is entirely untrue. Climate science is backed by a litany of other evidence which supports it, and it's somewhat telling that you're not reading my comments if you think that this is truly the case. As I've already said once, we know greenhouse gases trap heat, that is replicable science based on chemistry we can test. Also like I said above, climate scientists used evidence from other planets and their atmosphere to show how that effects their surface temperature. Quite frankly, the fact you actually think that climate scientists are simply doing simply correlational studies, without looking for other evidence and controlling for all sorts of other variables just shows how much you need to read actual climate research. Here is random scientific journal which uses climate change models, if you're going to make the criticism you just made, at least have respect to read it, because nothing you just said above is accurate in the least.

Quote:What makes it really obvious many are vapid intellectually is that there are some things that should be obvious if you really believed the scientists. Yet the true believers don't propose these things. If you really believe, you have to think there will be massive dislocations over the next 50 years. You need to be economically strong enough to deal with all the infrastructure and human relocation costs. Also, you need to stop encouraging coastal development. Yet Democrats and Republicans alike, recently passed a bill to keep subsidizing coastal flood insurance. Instead, what you get is efforts to destroy the oil and gas and coal industries in a way that would clearly have severe negative impacts on the economy. And realistically, unless you get India, China and rapidly growing Africa to make the same steps, what the US and Europe do is pretty much meaningless.

I don't even know how to begin to address this, it's all over the place and not at all related to the science of climate change, and how you are not applying reasonable skepticism to this issue.

It points out:
1) A lot of people are true believers and don't know what they are talking about.
2) When people don't accept the "solutions" which aren't really "solutions," they disparage critics. That is really a third piece which many, including on this thread (and I'll address my comments to anyone I want-I don't need to respond only to you), don't know how to separate-a) is the globe warming, b) what is causing it, c) what is the appropriate solution if it is.

You're just repeating yourself, and not providing any evidence to support it. I present evidence showing that no, the science did not think that there would be a global cooling in the 1970's, and your response is "Well articles wrote about it". That's not compelling, and it makes me question whether or not you're actually interested in a discussion on this issue, or if you just think anecdotes override actual evidence?

I've put in actual time to address your issues, I've found sources to back up my claims, and I've taken the time to go point by point to politely show you evidence that your stance is simply not accurate. Your response is to repeat yourself, and state "Well I know what I saw". One of us isn't willing to have a discussion here, and it's not me. Provide me some sources. Show me evidence for why you believe the things that you do. That's how this works.

(08-29-2015 09:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I believe that man plays a role in climate change. I also believe the planet is warming at this point in time. I also believe that the world gov'ts will show us how seriously they take climate change as influenced by CO2 emissions, and we'll see how many people in leadership positions rank it vs other issues.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the various gov't and scientific communities, if there is no tangible evidence that nuclear power is about to get a HUGE push - whether it's via gov't fast tracking of existing requests to build one, gov't funding of nuclear power research and a marketing push by the gov't to sell nuclear power to the nation - then we know by their actions that no one in the gov't truly gives a fvck.

Based on the current ideas put forth by the gov't, I truly believe that they don't give a fvck. IF climate change generated by manmade CO2 emissions is a matter of life or death, then no NIMBE's would be tolerated and no one would be permitted to stand in the way of building a next generation nuclear reactor.

I don't think NIMBY's are as big a problem as you say they are. We don't seem to have a problem finding plenty places for coal-fired plants. If we could just build 5-10 average-sized nuke plants it would take a much bigger bite out of the carbon emissions than fracking or any of the minuscule gains in wind and solar in the Obama administration.

I think the main hold-up is a coalition of both fossil fuel interests and myopic green leftists who are basically getting in the way of doing anything beyond lifting a finger for more nuclear power. Frankly, I think there are a lot of greens who only want solutions that give them peace of mind and don't care about the actual hard mathematical and engineering realities.

It would also help if it were stressed that regardless of the reality of AGW there are good reasons for building more nuclear reactors, having more energy independence, and making investments in wind and solar and even more long-term stuff like maybe fusion or Thorium fission. The anti-capitalist luddite-type rhetoric (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea) and the "climate change is a fact you flat-earth philistines" rhetoric doesn't help.

Obama's stance on nuclear power seems a bit confusing. He has verbally supported expansion of nuclear power in the US, but so far as I can tell, the EPA regulations are continuing to make building new plants difficult.

Also googled a simple question "Why aren't there more nuclear power plants in the US?" The entire first page was green energy companies and liberal universities discrediting the need for more nuclear power plants.

(08-31-2015 12:03 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I believe that man plays a role in climate change. I also believe the planet is warming at this point in time. I also believe that the world gov'ts will show us how seriously they take climate change as influenced by CO2 emissions, and we'll see how many people in leadership positions rank it vs other issues.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the various gov't and scientific communities, if there is no tangible evidence that nuclear power is about to get a HUGE push - whether it's via gov't fast tracking of existing requests to build one, gov't funding of nuclear power research and a marketing push by the gov't to sell nuclear power to the nation - then we know by their actions that no one in the gov't truly gives a fvck.

Based on the current ideas put forth by the gov't, I truly believe that they don't give a fvck. IF climate change generated by manmade CO2 emissions is a matter of life or death, then no NIMBE's would be tolerated and no one would be permitted to stand in the way of building a next generation nuclear reactor.

I don't think NIMBY's are as big a problem as you say they are. We don't seem to have a problem finding plenty places for coal-fired plants. If we could just build 5-10 average-sized nuke plants it would take a much bigger bite out of the carbon emissions than fracking or any of the minuscule gains in wind and solar in the Obama administration.

I think the main hold-up is a coalition of both fossil fuel interests and myopic green leftists who are basically getting in the way of doing anything beyond lifting a finger for more nuclear power. Frankly, I think there are a lot of greens who only want solutions that give them peace of mind and don't care about the actual hard mathematical and engineering realities.

It would also help if it were stressed that regardless of the reality of AGW there are good reasons for building more nuclear reactors, having more energy independence, and making investments in wind and solar and even more long-term stuff like maybe fusion or Thorium fission. The anti-capitalist luddite-type rhetoric (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea) and the "climate change is a fact you flat-earth philistines" rhetoric doesn't help.

I've not seen anyplace in the US building new coal fired plants. New natural gas plants and cogen attached to existing coal facilities sure, but most coal plants are being phased out. As I stated in another thread, building small scale nuclear power is contingent IMO upon the facility being co-located near areas of high demand, aka cities. Otherwise the benefits of miniaturization are lost due to transmission inefficiencies over long distances. California, with almost 40 million people closed SONGS in 2013, leaving the state with just one nuclear facility. The Golden State has effective outsourced energy generation to neighboring states.

[quote='UCF08' pid='12309616' dateline='1440898418']

None of this is clear. Again, have you read the research itself? Did you read the methodology which was claimed to have been manipulated? Of course scientists can, and have, manipulated data to achieve goals in the past, but that doesn't just grant you the ability to call into question any research you disagree with unless you have evidence of that manipulation. And for climate denialists, any modification of past measurements, even if they're due to a better methodology and provide more accurate measurements, is evidence of data manipulation. You don't claim a person using a newer technology to analyze bones is inherently manipulating the data to support their hypothesis, but that is the standard that climate science is held to.

As for the statement that those who disagree with the consensus risking their jobs, again I can't help but look at the list of national scientific and organizations I listed which agree with the concept of anthropomorphic climate change. It's simply unbelievable that the climate scientists of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and Israel are all under the same pressure to agree with the scientific consensus. These nations don't even agree that they all exist as nations, and yet you truly believe that academic pressure is so strong that it stifles all dissent across these borders? Even OPEC, Exxon, and British Petroleum agree with anthropomorphic climate change, do you really believe they are doing so because of pressure from academia? I think even you would agree that's a ludicrous concept.

If you think its ludicrous, I suggest you try to learn more about peer pressure. The National Geographic article talking about science skepticism addresses that very point, although they use it to attack skeptics.

The fact that they can't figure out what happened in the last 15 years demonstrates that what is truly ludicrous is claiming their is certainty in their conclusions about the past trends and future trends.

[
[quote]I believe the globe is warming and that there is sufficient evidence to support that. But that evidence isn't that great. They recently had a dispute over whether the globe had warmed or cooled over the last 15 years! And yet they expect us to trust them on climate change over millennia. Fact is they have no temperature readings before the last 130 years or so. They don't have broad based readings around the globe but for the last 30 years or so. They don't have really extensive readings until the last 15 years and so and can't even figure out if we are warming or cooling over that period![/quote]

It's hard for me to address the claim over the a dispute without you linking me an article or a topic of an academic journal to review. As for the rest of your post, that's simply not true. We've had accurate readings for decades, and the data provided by those readings has shown an increase in warming. But if you'd provide an article or journal that says otherwise, I'd love to read it. I'd assume you're referring to the temperature pause that was thoroughly debunked by addressing the fact the oceans were trapping the heat, but I don't want to assume anything.


This is entirely untrue. Climate science is backed by a litany of other evidence which supports it, and it's somewhat telling that you're not reading my comments if you think that this is truly the case. As I've already said once, we know greenhouse gases trap heat, that is replicable science based on chemistry we can test. Also like I said above, climate scientists used evidence from other planets and their atmosphere to show how that effects their surface temperature. Quite frankly, the fact you actually think that climate scientists are simply doing simply correlational studies, without looking for other evidence and controlling for all sorts of other variables just shows how much you need to read actual climate research. Here is random scientific journal which uses climate change models, if you're going to make the criticism you just made, at least have respect to read it, because nothing you just said above is accurate in the least.




Other planets? Care to name them? I think you might be able to name one.

You continually over-simplify my arguments and miss the point. Let's make it simple:
1) temperatures were falling. Some scientists came up with a theory that the CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the next ice age.
2) temperatures start rising. Most climate scientists now suggest that the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause rapidly rising temperatures. They then build a theory and try to support it in various ways.

The point is that they are generating theories to support short term trends with the belief that changing the CO2 in the atmosphere necessarily changes the climate.

Yet they have no way of knowing how much change is due to natural processes and no way to test it.

As for past temperature records, all it takes is a simple wiki search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

This doesn't address all the issues, but does point out how limited the data for the past is.

There have been other articles pointing out the obvious, that temperature readings outside the industrialized world were pretty limited until recent years. There was little data for most of Africa and much of Asia and South America. The wiki article mentions that the information is much more limited for the tropics and southern hemisphere.

(08-31-2015 11:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:34 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  The argument for manmade CO2 levels causing global warming is simply correlation. Correlation is NOT causation.

The argument for manmade CO2 causing global warming is that CO2 is highly infrared active and increases the radiative forcing of the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). What is not fully understood are the feedbacks and the effect of aerosols and clouds, they can be positive, negative or both, but it's not a correlation/causation problem.

When temperatures were decreasing, some theorized the impact would be like a volcano and cause an ice age, the way Mt. Tambora caused the "year without summer" around the globe in 1815.

Now with temperatures rising, they are theorizing a Venus like effect.

They have a correlation and they are theorizing to find a cause. So it is. They didn't come up with the theory first and then find a correlation.

We've known about the greenhouse effect for 150 years and the result of burning fossil fuels on the radiative forcing of Earth for 100 years. So yes, the theory did come first. The argument that increased levels of CO2 and other gases will ramp up the greenhouse effect is based on solid theory. However as I said before, the uncertainty lies with feedback loops and aerosols. The theory of the effect of those is very poorly understood, but the direct effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is known with certainty. Correlation has nothing to do with it. If you want to take an anti-AGW line then there are many talking points that you could successfully use. This is not one of them.

And please link these studies that you are posting about instead of just citing a supposed result.

Quote: If you think its ludicrous, I suggest you try to learn more about peer pressure. The National Geographic article talking about science skepticism addresses that very point, although they use it to attack skeptics.

Again, you're just postulating this without any evidence. And you're just dismissing the point I've raised on this topic twice now, that the sheer volume of scientific organizations from such vastly different nations and corporations makes this sort of criticism extremely hard to buy. This isn't just western academia that believes this, and this isn't just academia that believes this, the largest oil producing companies in the world admit that needs to be addressed. You're arguing that EXXON and BP are feeling peer pressure to such an extent that they ignore their own research. You really think OPEC is bowing down to this same peer pressure? Come on, that's simply a lazy assertion levied by those who have no actual evidence otherwise, and is even more absurd considering the groups who agree with the concept of AGW despite the fact it goes directly against their own best interests.

Quote: The fact that they can't figure out what happened in the last 15 years demonstrates that what is truly ludicrous is claiming their is certainty in their conclusions about the past trends and future trends.

You keep claiming this fact, and you've yet to show any evidence for it being the case. Either present something I can directly comment on, or accept the evidence I've presented so far which shows that this statement is simply not true.

Quote: Other planets? Care to name them? I think you might be able to name one.

Venus and Mars are the most studied in our own solar system, but that is but a single way in which we can confirm our models and theories, and yet you're continuing to act as if these scientists are looking for a simple correlation.

Quote:You continually over-simplify my arguments and miss the point. Let's make it simple:
1) temperatures were falling. Some scientists came up with a theory that the CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the next ice age.
2) temperatures start rising. Most climate scientists now suggest that the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause rapidly rising temperatures. They then build a theory and try to support it in various ways.

If I can be blunt, those are already painfully simple arguments, they're about the most simple arguments a person is going to encounter from someone denying global warming. I've addressed this half a dozen times already, by pointing out scientific research overwhelmingly stated that CO2 would cause heating and not the ice age. Your response has been to state either that 'you read articles in the 70's that said otherwise' or just repeating yourself like you did above. Here is my response, which I am reposting from earlier in this discussion with you, it's a summary of all climate change research and it's conclusions, and it shows that the research was clear and your statement is nonsense.



So either find evidence otherwise, or stop repeating these claims as if they have any merit whatsoever. Please, either address this information, or stop posting these comments because it's getting to the point where I'm convinced you're not actually interested in a discussion.

Well ...

To think man hasn't negatively and severely impacted climate is kind of like thinking we haven't poisoned waters or devastated forests or caused the extinction of (I don't know how many) species or created smog or created a plastic island of trash in the middle of the Pacific and so on. We're worse than fire ants, when you get right down to it.

I'm no scientist, but to me it seems the overwhelming opinion of those who are is that climate change is driven by human activity and it's going to get worse as polar icecaps melt and speeds the process.

I'm also of opinion it's too late to fix anything, we're past whatever 'tipping point' there was were we could clean up our acts and make things better. We just need to mitigate as best we can and hope our grandkids' grans don't have to go outside wearing space suits.

And I honestly hope I'm wrong.

As a living thing in this biosphere, you know you have it good when you can think and care about how your activities affects other living things. Truly a remarkable time to be alive.

(08-31-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 12:03 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I believe that man plays a role in climate change. I also believe the planet is warming at this point in time. I also believe that the world gov'ts will show us how seriously they take climate change as influenced by CO2 emissions, and we'll see how many people in leadership positions rank it vs other issues.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the various gov't and scientific communities, if there is no tangible evidence that nuclear power is about to get a HUGE push - whether it's via gov't fast tracking of existing requests to build one, gov't funding of nuclear power research and a marketing push by the gov't to sell nuclear power to the nation - then we know by their actions that no one in the gov't truly gives a fvck.

Based on the current ideas put forth by the gov't, I truly believe that they don't give a fvck. IF climate change generated by manmade CO2 emissions is a matter of life or death, then no NIMBE's would be tolerated and no one would be permitted to stand in the way of building a next generation nuclear reactor.

I don't think NIMBY's are as big a problem as you say they are. We don't seem to have a problem finding plenty places for coal-fired plants. If we could just build 5-10 average-sized nuke plants it would take a much bigger bite out of the carbon emissions than fracking or any of the minuscule gains in wind and solar in the Obama administration.

I think the main hold-up is a coalition of both fossil fuel interests and myopic green leftists who are basically getting in the way of doing anything beyond lifting a finger for more nuclear power. Frankly, I think there are a lot of greens who only want solutions that give them peace of mind and don't care about the actual hard mathematical and engineering realities.

It would also help if it were stressed that regardless of the reality of AGW there are good reasons for building more nuclear reactors, having more energy independence, and making investments in wind and solar and even more long-term stuff like maybe fusion or Thorium fission. The anti-capitalist luddite-type rhetoric (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea) and the "climate change is a fact you flat-earth philistines" rhetoric doesn't help.

I've not seen anyplace in the US building new coal fired plants. New natural gas plants and cogen attached to existing coal facilities sure, but most coal plants are being phased out. As I stated in another thread, building small scale nuclear power is contingent IMO upon the facility being co-located near areas of high demand, aka cities. Otherwise the benefits of miniaturization are lost due to transmission inefficiencies over long distances. California, with almost 40 million people closed SONGS in 2013, leaving the state with just one nuclear facility. The Golden State has effective outsourced energy generation to neighboring states.

They're making coal plants impossibly expensive and they keep changing the rules. They are trying as hard as they can to kill off coal plants without outlawing them the way they did oil generating plants.

Coal plants should be impossibly expensive, they are by a wide margin the most polluting and dangerous form of energy production we have.

Didn't Soros just buy stock in a coal mine/plant/operation? Just asking.

(09-01-2015 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Coal plants should be impossibly expensive, they are by a wide margin the most polluting and dangerous form of energy production we have.

It's a necessary evil until a viable and cost effective alternative is offered up.

(09-01-2015 09:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Coal plants should be impossibly expensive, they are by a wide margin the most polluting and dangerous form of energy production we have.

It's a necessary evil until a viable and cost effective alternative is offered up.

But we do have that in the for of Natural Gas. And with all of the fracking simply burning off the NG because it currently lacks a customer, it constitutes a plentiful resource. Environmentally, burning gasoline is better at this point than coal. And that's doesn't include Nuclear and Hydro options.

If you visit the EIA Website, you can see America's current energy portfolio measured over a three year period. Natural Gas represents a sizable portion of generation and is the the quickest alternative to bring online to replace coal. I just happen to think the EPA and the Federal Government have done a terrible job a incentivizing such a transition. Imagine if the efforts that have gone into wind and solar had concentrated on COGAS plants located in/near major metros instead.

(09-02-2015 05:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Coal plants should be impossibly expensive, they are by a wide margin the most polluting and dangerous form of energy production we have.

It's a necessary evil until a viable and cost effective alternative is offered up.

But we do have that in the for of Natural Gas. And with all of the fracking simply burning off the NG because it currently lacks a customer, it constitutes a plentiful resource. Environmentally, burning gasoline is better at this point than coal. And that's doesn't include Nuclear and Hydro options.

If you visit the EIA Website, you can see America's current energy portfolio measured over a three year period. Natural Gas represents a sizable portion of generation and is the the quickest alternative to bring online to replace coal. I just happen to think the EPA and the Federal Government have done a terrible job a incentivizing such a transition. Imagine if the efforts that have gone into wind and solar had concentrated on COGAS plants located in/near major metros instead.

Yes natural gas is a wonderful alternative that needs more exploration, but it is still a fossil fuel and we would merely be replacing CO2 emissions with CH4e emissions and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The net effect of decreasing CO2 and increasing CH4 is unknown, and many view natural gas plants as just another short-term solution.
I think I'm remembering right that natural gas and coal supply about equal amount of the US electric supply at the moment and I'm all for building new natural gas plants rather than coal.

(09-02-2015 07:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:36 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Coal plants should be impossibly expensive, they are by a wide margin the most polluting and dangerous form of energy production we have.

It's a necessary evil until a viable and cost effective alternative is offered up.

But we do have that in the for of Natural Gas. And with all of the fracking simply burning off the NG because it currently lacks a customer, it constitutes a plentiful resource. Environmentally, burning gasoline is better at this point than coal. And that's doesn't include Nuclear and Hydro options.

If you visit the EIA Website, you can see America's current energy portfolio measured over a three year period. Natural Gas represents a sizable portion of generation and is the the quickest alternative to bring online to replace coal. I just happen to think the EPA and the Federal Government have done a terrible job a incentivizing such a transition. Imagine if the efforts that have gone into wind and solar had concentrated on COGAS plants located in/near major metros instead.

Yes natural gas is a wonderful alternative that needs more exploration, but it is still a fossil fuel and we would merely be replacing CO2 emissions with CH4e emissions and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The net effect of decreasing CO2 and increasing CH4 is unknown, and many view natural gas plants as just another short-term solution.
I think I'm remembering right that natural gas and coal supply about equal amount of the US electric supply at the moment and I'm all for building new natural gas plants rather than coal.

Agreed. I'm a proponent of thorium nuclear plants and reprocessing nuclear waste to use the plutonium. But until we can convince people that the risks are greatly exaggerated, NG will have to do for now.

Only solution is less people on earth!!!

No politician wants to bring up the topic so it will not be addressed in the near future.

Mother nature is sure to find a way to control population showing no remorse.