New info on Global Warming

[Beantown]

I agree Babe Utah had done a lot. But Utah still has a high amount of coal burning factories and they were probably a decade late on providing Mass transit spanning from Provo to Ogden. They should have done that before they expanded I-15 in my opinion. They worked to make room for more cars on the freeway rather than working to remove cars from the freeway.

Also I live in the Bay Area not in Southern Utah.

 

[babe]

Since the mid-nineteen hundreds, "Science" has been largely hijacked as a vehicle for social change. The dependence upon government grants is the cause, and the culture of most American universities as bastions of elitist ideologues hell-bent on pushing the pervasive ideals of social progress has created a culture that is intolerant of independent thinking. Corporate tax-sheltered grants vested in securing favorable trends in research and development compound the problem. A "scientist" can hardly secure a place in the professional ranks without obsequiously complying with the "culture" of the "Establishment".

All you need to realize that the hububb about global climate change, or warming. . . . . or even cooling if they ever go back to that. . . . . is that we live in a substantial environment in the ongoing trends of a nature that has some big engines running already. If we don't harvest trees and make use of grasses. . . . say in feeding cows or other life. . . . all the carbon that is taken from out atmosphere will still go back somehow. . . .. in a range fire, through bacterial decay in the soil, in natural on-going chemistry in oceans and in sunlight. . . once something is excreted or dies, it starts going back to nature. Coal and oil deposits all represent carbon that was once in the atmosphere. Yeah, we had global warming to beat the band. . . we had forests thriving at the poles of this planet, and dinosaurs all over.

Things that affect us include internal nuclear fission deep within the earth, enough to keep the core molten and to generate epochs of volcanism as superhot rock melts its way up through the crust of the earth. Other things are known and reasonably suspected as plausible as well. We know about solar cycles by observation across decades. We have good reason to correlate longer term cycles, on the order of 60,000 years' cycles, related to our changing position in the milky way galaxy. There is a possible changing flux of ionic material and gases impacting our upper atmosphere and changing the equation of earth's absorption and retention of solar heat or other radiative fluxes we do know about.

Earth has for millions of years already been going through cylces of ice ages and interglacial warm periods. We are in one now. . . .. have been for oh maybe 10 to 14K years, longer that most such warm spells in recent earth history.

I have seen some reports which the swarm of doomsayer GW and CC pushers just won't acknowledge. Stuff like the math they use being just plain damn wrong. Off by an order of magnitude in correlating predicted warming effects with measured increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

yep. CO2 increases the heat capacity and therefore reduces radiative thermal losses from our atmosphere, and it will act like a bit of a blanket. yep, I think burning fossil fuel is sorta dumb when we have other sources of energy, and I'd like to break up our oil cartels and eliminate their stranglehold on our government. We do have a whole lot more oil and other carbon fuel reserves than we've been told. And nuclear power can be safe if we build the plants right, and we can safely sequester and store, if not find uses for, the nuclear wastes. We have the possibility of fusion reactors that will be cleaner. Cold Fusion is a real phenomenon and may one day become a very significant source for energy for the whole world.

time to stop listening to the chicken little bought and paid for stooges of the cartels and elitists, folks. . . . and move on with real science and improving technology.

 

[One Brow]

I have seen some reports which the swarm of doomsayer GW and CC pushers just won't acknowledge. Stuff like the math they use being just plain damn wrong. Off by an order of magnitude in correlating predicted warming effects with measured increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

They don't acknowledge these reports because the people who produce them rely on distortions and selective evidence, with the occasional outright lie thrown in.

To date, the predictions of climate scientists (those who you call CC pushers) from 30 yers ago have been show to be too timid. We have been warming faster than they predicted.

 

[babe]

I agree Babe Utah had done a lot. But Utah still has a high amount of coal burning factories and they were probably a decade late on providing Mass transit spanning from Provo to Ogden. They should have done that before they expanded I-15 in my opinion. They worked to make room for more cars on the freeway rather than working to remove cars from the freeway.

Also I live in the Bay Area not in Southern Utah.

OK, Bay Area duly noted. . . . .

good scrubbers do a lot in reducing particulates and acid emissions on coal fired plants. I believe we can still do fossil fuel plants, just do more scrubbing. I am not believing the CO2 is worthy of demonization. We will have more grass and tree growth in an exponential response to any increase in atmospheric CO2. Our atmosphere was once inhospitable to aerobic life because it was mostly CO2, and during those ages there was massive depostion of carbonate rocks, called "pre-Cambrian" which had no fossils or evidence of life like later epochs. We had succeeding geological ages with similar massive carbonate deposits with sea life remains, and later with woody fossils, and still later ages with lots of oil content from decaying photosynthetic plants, huge seams of coal. . . . huge pools of oil. . .. and still there was lots and lots of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ice ages didn't happen until about a hundred million years ago when the CO2 was depleted. What this tells me is that our planets' photosynthetic capacity is greater than our supply of CO2. CO2 is now a limiting resource for life on this planet. It is not a bad thing to burn the damn wood and oil, OK????

 

[babe]

They don't acknowledge these reports because the people who produce them rely on distortions and selective evidence, with the occasional outright lie thrown in.

To date, the predictions of climate scientists (those who you call CC pushers) from 30 yers ago have been show to be too timid. We have been warming faster than they predicted.

OK, let's cut to the chase. Hogwash.

believe what your experts tell you, and ignore who cuts their checks, throw ignorance after ignorance and chase your tail trying to put down anyone who isn't compliant with the progessive ideology you push.

I started this little spiel with a short recital of how ignorance is a perpetual fact of human existence and how all we price ourselves on today might be tossed aside in the future by equally if not even more ignorant folks.

like I said above, the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere has undergone epochal changes and in the recent past only has become too low, with the advent of ice ages becoming the consequence. Life thrives on CO2, and the photosynthetic capacity of our ecosystem, land, oceans, and atmospheric, is far and away powerful enough to respond to incremental increases in CO2. Life will go on, the increase in temp will be about one-tenth the predictions being based on the math being used in the projectitons today, and in fact the earth is actually hugely benefited by this trend. It is doomed to be geohistorically short-lived as it is. I still say we should go to other energy sources which are more efficient in terms of many factors, such as labor costs, transportation costs, transmission costs, and such.

 

[franklin]

And Yah, I never liked the idea of public transit like TRAX or even the buses because I know it just burns up hours of productive time for many people, and is bureaucratically inefficient. But I have for many years been on the UTA van pool program that takes people driectly from a convenient pickup point to their jobs. Most larger employers have some of this. But as much as I dislike government meddling and bureaucracy and political power being absorbed by the "elite" of our society. . . .. any effort at efficiently allowing people to get around with less car engines running in the valley is a good thing.

what I'd like to see is laws that allow smaller entrepreneurs to get into the van business with grants from the tax revenue that's supposed to fund the endless expansion of UTA. Hey, there are youngsters who are unemployed who can find oh say ten people in the neighborhood who go basically downtown to work, and he can get a grant, buy a van, and give them the ride on a contractual basis. . . . Point A to Point B. One less kid without a job.

Buses are by far the most inefficient form of transportation in Utah as far as NOx and fuel consumption is concerned. BY FAR. Frontrunner is awful as well -- locomotives are great when you can stack cargo from floor to ceiling, which isn't an option with hominids. (I hear the newer Tier 4 engines are much better, however)

The vanpool program is awsome. Your idea would be even better. Calculate in cost savings from expanding road systems and these grants would be far cheaper and thus shouldn't be considered a subsidy anymore than a new freeway lane would.

I agree Babe Utah had done a lot. But Utah still has a high amount of coal burning factories and they were probably a decade late on providing Mass transit spanning from Provo to Ogden. They should have done that before they expanded I-15 in my opinion. They worked to make room for more cars on the freeway rather than working to remove cars from the freeway.

We don't have coal fired power plants along the Wasatch Front that operate during the wintertime inversion periods. For example, BYU switches to natural gas -- something that just might become permanent with all this cheap gas.

Also, see above for how ill-informed your mass transit worship is. As much as you SL Trib groupie enviro's love it, the environmentalists in this state hate it. Call 'em yourself and ask.

 

[babe]

Buses are by far the most inefficient form of transportation in Utah as far as NOx and fuel consumption is concerned. BY FAR. Frontrunner is awful as well -- locomotives are great when you can stack cargo from floor to ceiling, which isn't an option with hominids. (I hear the newer Tier 4 engines are much better, however)

The vanpool program is awsome. Your idea would be even better. Calculate in cost savings from expanding road systems and these grants would be far cheaper and thus shouldn't be considered a subsidy anymore than a new freeway lane would.



We don't have coal fired power plants along the Wasatch Front that operate during the wintertime inversion periods. For example, BYU switches to natural gas -- something that just might become permanent with all this cheap gas.

Also, see above for how ill-informed your mass transit worship is. As much as you SL Trib groupie enviro's love it, the environmentalists in this state hate it. Call 'em yourself and ask.

You're one of the people in here whose opinions I usually respect. I think I've run across some of the criticisms of mass transit before, and I'd just love it if you're right. However, my point was the littler one, the possibly vain hope that the TRAX system and bus systems can reduce dependence on cars. All I really need to stand on in this discussion is the possibilities of reducing noxious emissions. I agree natural gas, perhaps if pre-scrubbed for contents which might exist in some sources. . . like the coal seams with sulfer and nitrogren content. . . .is cleaner and more suitable as a fuel in the basin valleys of northern Utah. We can do better with any type of generating plant theoretically, but there is a law of diminishing returns that effectively/economically limits the gains we could hope for.

probably a program for home/building insulation would be fairly high on the cost/benefit charts over a lot of other things. . .. say like banning hair spray cans say.

Some people pop off every now and then with an idea that we need big fans, or a fleet of helicopters, to blow the inversion away. Yah. The Salt Lake Valley includes the Great Salt Lake, the Bonneville Salt Flats. . . .

I believe we do warm up our inversions by a few degrees because of all the combustion and the CO2 and water in the air. . . . . before the city was here, it was probably even ten degrees colder under the same cold air/high pressure weather systems.

 

[franklin]

Arright babe, Imma twig out on this one a bit.

You're one of the people in here whose opinions I usually respect. I think I've run across some of the criticisms of mass transit before, and I'd just love it if you're right. However, my point was the littler one, the possibly vain hope that the TRAX system and bus systems can reduce dependence on cars.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much anti-auto and don't want to come across any other way. I'll also be the first person clinging to alternative energy the moment it becomes realistic.

However, I'm agnostic about the possible solutions. i.e. TRAX is an awesome way to displace air pollution outside problem areas. HOWEVAAAA, UTA is insanely expensive to build out and a ride costs more than the total cost of driving yourself. $800mm budget with a tiny $37mm in overpriced rider revenue is not a solution IMO and deserves all the scrutiny from angry voters as it gets, and then some. I'm an advocate of nearly free fare just to make it worth what the voters have already paid for.

My .02, If Huntsman Jr. or Herbert were truly interested in helping solve the problem then they'd start satelliting newly built offices so workers are closer to their homes. This wouldn't cost the state a thing extra. Or, they'd have built new buildings within walking distance of the major transit hubs. This probably would be expensive, but offset by gutting the new private industry mandates that are being pushed down.

We'd also have a gas tax that forces polluters to pay for their crimes.

All I really need to stand on in this discussion is the possibilities of reducing noxious emissions... We can do better with any type of generating plant theoretically, but there is a law of diminishing returns that effectively/economically limits the gains we could hope for.

Gas tax, gas tax, gas tax. Avoiding the autos is like avoiding defense and social security in budget discussions.

I agree natural gas, perhaps if pre-scrubbed for contents which might exist in some sources. . . like the coal seams with sulfer and nitrogren content. . . .is cleaner and more suitable as a fuel in the basin valleys of northern Utah.

Local utilities burn Questar's pipeline quality gas, so you've already got the pre-scrubbing. The new power you see built throughout the valley are HRSG technology -- relatively super low emitters of NOx and CO2 (for those who care about that), almost zero SOx cause pre-scrubbed, and aren't prone to breakdown like coal plants (a source of larger particulates).

I've become much more comfortable with nat gas as the primary energy source as I think the supply disruption concerns that coal doesn't have in proportion can be largely mitigated by our already vast supply networks.

probably a program for home/building insulation would be fairly high on the cost/benefit charts over a lot of other things. . .. say like banning hair spray cans say.

The hairspray stuff... gas tax, gas tax, gas tax. & I want it completely offset by payroll deductions and prebates to fixed income so it wouldn't cost a red cent. This is the only free lunch in America, yet per usual it's the most politically unpalatable... C'mon babe, join the market-based solution club with me and become my co-advocate! I need at least one.

As far as home insulation goes, we've added 50 million homes on top of 70 existing and don't use an extra joul of energy even though we've added gadgets galore. Insulation has already paid huge dividends and may that continue. My source is the annual US EIA reports but I'm not combing through it for the franklin skeptics/trolls.

 

[One Brow]

OK, let's cut to the chase. Hogwash.

Perhaps, but fact nonetheless.

believe what your experts tell you, and ignore who cuts their checks,

Because the scientists you rely on, which are funded by petroleum and coal industries, are so much more independent?

Life will go on, ...

Of course. What I want is for human life to go on, and even better, human life with the benefits of civilization we now enjoy.

 

[franklin]

Perhaps, but fact nonetheless.

Your insinuation that scientists 30 years ago were predicting anything is hogwash. The only fact here is they speculated using junk science.

 

[One Brow]

Your insinuation that scientists 30 years ago were predicting anything is hogwash. The only fact here is they speculated using junk science.

30 years ago = 1983, right?

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

A 1981 Science publication by Hansen and a team of scientists at Goddard concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted. They used a one-dimensional radiative-convective model that calculates temperature as a function of height. They reported that the results from the 1D model are similar to those of the more complex 3D models, and can simulate basic mechanisms and feedbacks.[38] Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise out of the climate noise by the 1990s, much earlier than predicted by other researches. He also predicted that it would be difficult to convince politicians and the public to react.

By the early 1980s, the computational speed of computers, along with refinements in climate models, allowed longer experiments. The models now included physics beyond the previous equations, such as convection schemes, diurnal changes, and snow-depth calculations. The advances in computational efficiency, combined with the added physics, meant the GISS model I could be run for five years. It was shown that global climate can be simulated reasonably well with a grid-point resolution as coarse as 1000 kilometers.

The first climate prediction computed from a general circulation model that was published by Hansen was in 1988, the same year as his well-known Senate testimony.

 

[babe]

Franklin, I find so little in your entire post to quibble with. . . . you obviously are more informed and have studied this better and more recently than I have. I'm signing up with you.