Posted on 10/16/2008 3:34:41 PM PDT by xcamel
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=alHWVvGnkcd4&refer=canada
Link only
This is important
bttt
Take a powder, and try not to hurt yourself, Troll.
Putting that in perspective - imagine the auto makers saying we will eliminate CO2 from your car's exhaust but it will take one out of every three gallons of gas you put in the tank to do it.
At the plant where I work we are spending 300+ million for additional pollution control and will end up putting less MW on the line.
Consumers don't have a clue about the costs about to hammer them.
Unbelievable! Nobody could be that dumb, oh wait. . .
No, he’ll make sure every asthmatic child gets a Breathalyzer, which is the kind of goof he makes when not on the teleprompter. LOLOLOLOLOL!
Doesn't sound good. More divine edicts decreed by some unelected, self-righteous bureaucrats from within the belly of the federal beast.
Point well taken. This is an emotional topic, and to convert the "believers" so to speak, we do need to stay factual.
The data that I have seen suggests global warming is a function of the sun. When the sun heats up, it expands (hotter molecules take more space than cooler ones; this is why hot air rises). As the sun increases in size, ever so slightly, it cools. Then gravity takes over and pulls its molecules into a tighter sphere. The closer the sun's molecules are, the more fusion that occurs, creating more heat, and the cycle begins again.
Naturally, this cycle does not occur quickly. Some scientists think it takes between 1000 and 1500 years. Not too many scientists yet link this cycle to global warming yet, although sun spot theories are beginning to emerge. But I will remind you that in the year 1000 Leif Ericsson founded a colony on Greenland, where it thrived in an environment about 6 to 7 degrees warmer than it is now. Also, he founded Vinland, in present day, New Foundland. Vinland got its name because of the grapes that grew there in the warm weather.
Thanks!
Please see post 87. I think the sun spot theory might be on to something.
First I’ve heard of it but it doesn’t take much to figure out where it’s likely to go.
I'm not sure if I buy the downstream corrosion by oxygen argument, but his basic premise is sound. Excessive use of a number of things can have deleterious effects and require regulation. A classic example is nitrogen fertilizer. There is NO doubt that nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plant growth. That's why farmers put nitrogen-containing fertilizer on fields. It's good, it enhances productivity. But excess use is wasted, and it runs off the fields, into the waterways, and causes in-stream and downstream problems, primarily due to enhanced algal growth which leads to reduction of dissolved oxygen in the water -- which kills fish, bottom dwellers, like tasty crab and shrimp -- and also lower light levels, which kills seagrasses where larval fish and baby crabs and shrimp and other things hang out. So nitrogen fertilzer use in agriculture should be regulated. Same goes for phosphates in fertilizers and also in detergents.
IF the climate change effects of CO2 will become deleterious to the environment -- I'm pretty sure you know where I stand on that -- then excess CO2 from industrial emissions should be regulated. Despite everybody's love of bringing up the fact that we exhale CO2, the natural system is generally in balance*. It is the imbalance due to human activities, which is causing rapidly increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, that needs to be addressed.
* In fact, if you look closely at the best flux estimates, were it not for human activites, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would probably be decreasing very slowly. I.e., without human activities, the natural fluxes out of the atmosphere exceed the natural fluxes into the atmosphere. (That includes all respiring organisms, from bacteria to humans.)
As always, I think it should be addressed technologically rather than economically. Just read an article yesterday about solar power stations in space -- might work, and also give NASA a stake in the national economy rather than just being primarily a research organization.
When does the Oxygen Ban start? What a clueless dork.
See post 91. CO2 is not low by “historical standards”. The concentration now exceeds any concentration measured during the glacial-interglacial periods of the Pleistocene, by almost 100 ppm. Going further back in time for climate comparison requires addressing other factors in the Earth’s climate that are different than the modern era, such as ocean circulation and continental location.
You have it backwards, it will be mandatory. Trees will be arrested when they drop their leaves in the fall.
The American “experiment” is dead if dems get a super majority in Congress and a totalitarian in the White House. Go ask Joe “the Plumber” about questioning Obama, the totalitarian bit rings true.
That's not accurate. Due to the isotopic signature of fossil fuel CO2, the contribution of human activities to the total CO2 content of the atmosphere can be estimated with high accuracy. The chance in the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 is called the "Suess effect". The Suess effect measurement can be correlated with basic estimates of industrial emissions that coincide with the observed increase of atmospheric CO2, using ice core bubbles that predate modern measurement techniques. A third method of making this estimation involves determining natural and human fluxes to the atmosphere, and examing the total system balance. This has been done and correlates both with the emissions estimates and the Suess effect.
Our climate experts can’t even accurately tell us where a hurricane will land in 48 hours.
Climate experts don't forecast hurricanes. Meteorologists do that.
Carbon Dioxide is nothing compared to Dihydrogen Monoxide.
A nice turn of phrase using the word "industrial". But residential power users will take the biggest hit. But you are right that we might as well get used to the fact that Obama will likely win and no matter who wins we will end up with some sort of policy. Need to minimize the harm of that policy since we all know the climate benefits of it will be nil.
See post 96. While this effect does happen, it is not nearly as significant as you think. In fact, careful measurements by oceanographers at thousands of locations in the ocean, both in the water and in the overlying atmosphere, indicate that the ocean waters are currently a net sink for CO2. If they were not, then based on estimates of industrial emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would have risen much faster than has been observed. Approximately 50% of total human industrial CO2 emissions are estimated to have been absorbed by the oceans since the "dawn" of the Industrial Age.
I can provide links to some of this research, both explained in layman's terms or to the actual research papers, if you're interested. Also check out my profile, point #5, sub-point #1, and reference 8.
There's no quantitative analysis with any accuracy showing how much CO2 comes from fossil sources. The big thing that is missing is accounting for natural fluctuations in the isotope ratios. There are certainly qualitative analysis that show "much" of the CO2 comes from fossil sources and the simple fact is the excess CO2 (regardless of isotopes) can't have come from natural sources (e.g. oceans) in sufficient quantity to form today's CO2 spike.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.