You say you will only agree with alternative energy when it's the cheapest source of energy.
I just wondered how much the loss of life of our troops and the money we spend on war factors into what you consider, "the price of oil".
You see, your fuel oil bill and the price of gas at the pump is only a small part of what we're paying for oil. At what point do those other factors enter into your decision making on what the actual cost of oil is when all us said and done?
When I factor in the loss of life and the actual monetary cost of war, I say alternative energy is already a bargain.
This seems to be something you wish to avoid like the plague. So be it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
You mean like you do? "It will tank the economy! Climate change isn't real! It will kill jobs and industry!". I could go on but let's make this clear.
Not all people who support fighting climate change are liberals.
Quote:
Americans demand climate action (as long as it doesn't cost much): Reuters poll
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 70 percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, want the United States to take “aggressive” action to combat climate change - but only a third would support an extra tax of $100 a year to help, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday.
So as long as your price for oil/gas doesn’t go up the cost of soldiers lives is inconsequential?
Good God man Stevie Wonder can see better than you. Where did I ever say that. Many of you folks around here just sit around and do this everytime you start posting
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/03/aoc-dumbfounded-town-hall-must-eat-babies-save-planet/ Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded to a woman at her town hall who proclaimed that we must “eat the babies” to save the world from climate change, and she urged everyone to “treat the situation compassionately.” A clip emerged Thursday evening of Ocasio-Cortez’s town hall at the Queens Public Library, featuring a flustered woman who proclaimed that we need to “eat the babies” in order to save the planet from climate change.
This woman is clearly mentally ill. She also talks about bombing countries to rid the world of population. They may want to put her on some sort of watch because she is clearly presenting herself as a potential danger. Regarding AOC...she handled the insanity of the woman's rant very well.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So as long as your price for oil/gas doesn’t go up the cost of soldiers lives is inconsequential?
Good God man Stevie Wonder can see better than you. Where did I ever say that. Many of you folks around here just sit around and do this everytime you start posting
Dude you said it pretty clearly actually....
Quote:
No I never once considered the cost of war into oil prices paid in the USA. Maybe you can enlighten me and tell me how much that has driven up the price of gas, and home heating oil per gallon?
You haven’t considered the cost of lives.., and since it hasn’t driven up the actual cost of oil you don’t seem bothered.. Maybe you were being facetious?
I said in this thread I was against any of our soldiers being sent overseas to fight over oil. Pit ask me if I had taken into account the cost (monetary) of us sending troops to the middle east to fight over oil. My reply was NO I have not, and I asked him to enlighten me on the cost.
At no time anywhere have I ever compared life vs cost of oil.
Hell you know I am 100 percent against abortion. I am 100 percent against the death sentence. I am pro life. Not just pro birth.
Y’all should read the article, and read the governor of Wyoming whining about his budget.
I feel bad for the kids, but I don’t feed bad for the state overall. They voted and support politicians who want to delay the inevitable, and now the inevitable has predictably arrived.
My thoughts and prayers are with them.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump has deregulated almost everything that stood in the way of coal. And still mines are closing.
At some point people are going to have to step up and realize that natural gas is simply cheaper and the market has changed accordingly rather than "looking for somebody to blame".
What part of "regulations have been rolled back" and "natural gas is far cheaper than coal" are you struggling with?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Yes, it seems the free market is speaking and those who would normally call for that now want the big government interference they are always condemning.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Well they are for socialism except when they're against it. It seems they're pretty happy with government subsidies for fossil fuels which includes coal when the government gives them a hand out. But then blames the government even when almost every regulation that they claim holds coal back has been done away with.
The fight for a filthy environment rolls on.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
What part of "regulations have been rolled back" and "natural gas is far cheaper than coal" are you struggling with?
I guess the same part of Obama put those regulations into place that raised the cost of building and operating a coal fired Plant. That's like being Pregnant bro. It's to late to unring the bell and not be preggers.
How arrogant of you to say "Keep denying, however. Remember, you are the dinosaur and Gen Z and all of us standing with them are looking past you and your likes and will fight to make change, to value people & planet over profit and to protect, restore & fund environmental protection and climate action."
Experts? I guess you missed the Michael Mann scandal where he was falsifying data to prove global warming was real. Al gore is also a good example of an expert.
I have a suggestion. Why dont you muster up a group of those hero kids, give them trash bags, and see how many of them live up to the convictions you think they have, when they actually have to do something other than take a day off from school, hold signs, and chant what they're told.
If you really need to know, I was an astrophysics major in college. Any warming in the past 1000 years had more to do with the sun than anything else. In fact, you could put the sun down for the past 10,000 years.
Funny how this astrophysics scholar didn’t mention the sun once in his take of global warming.
An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming Richard D. Schwartz* Table of Contents Recommended Reading Search GoogleScholar for RD Schwartz Search GSA Today
Absent in much of the public debate on climate change has been discussion of the basic science behind it. This perspective discusses that science by comparison with the well-known laws of motion and gravitation. The basic science behind global warming is firmly established. The connection between observed temperature and atmospheric CO2 increase is much more than sheer supposition.
A great deal of confusion is present within the general public on the role of greenhouse gases in causing global warming. Even within the scientific community there sometimes seems to be a lack of understanding of the physics of greenhouse gas warming, especially among scientists who are not familiar with molecular physics. It is often assumed, especially within the general public, that global warming can be understood by supposition only. The reported correlation between the increase in global temperature and the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is taken to represent the basis of the science.
Manuscript received 23 May 2011; accepted 20 July 2011 doi: 10.1130/G129GW.1 * Deceased 28 July 2011 (corresponding e-mail: Thomas Crowley, ). The author was professor emeritus and former chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. He obtained a Ph.D. in astronomy at the University of Washington in 1973 and published an analysis of global “dimming” using transmission coefficients obtained from astronomical data. There has been little public discussion of the actual scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming. In this note, I present the case from the viewpoint of an astrophysicist. Geologists are probably most familiar with the role of orbital insolation variations (Milankovitch cycles) as a major contribution of astronomy to geosciences. But astrophysicists have long appreciated the important contribution of greenhouse gases in the warming of planetary atmospheres and that the scientific basis for this warming is firmly established in the science of molecular physics. Here, a parallel is drawn between the relatively simple application of Newtonian physics to problems in mechanics and the more complex enterprise of applying molecular physics to greenhouse warming.
The scientific basis, in theory and experiment, underlying greenhouse gas warming is as robust as any aspect of modern science. A good analogy can be found in our understanding and application of the laws of motion and the law of gravity. Few would question the efficacy of the basic mathematical laws of motion and the inverse square law of gravitation in computing the trajectories of artillery shells, orbiting satellites, and interplanetary spacecraft. Classical Newtonian laws can be used to determine the trajectory of an artillery shell to a high degree of accuracy. Given the velocity of the artillery projectile, wind, and the effects of gravity, the point of impact can be located with great precision. Of course, there are uncertainties that must be considered. But “uncertainty” or “error” is not meant to imply that the laws of physics are incorrect. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the interpretation of “uncertainty” held by much of the general public in the context of global warming discussions.
Uncertainty in the context of global warming models refers to the numerical uncertainties for the input information that must be factored into calculations. In the case of the trajectory of the artillery projectile, it might be computed for given wind conditions that the projectile has a 98% probability of hitting within 10 feet of the intended target position if fired from a distance of one mile. The point is that the laws of motion and gravitation permit highly accurate calculations of the trajectory of a projectile, but that in the real world there are many factors that can slightly perturb the trajectory. To reach an estimate of the actual trajectory, one must include these perturbing factors.
The scientific basis and calculations for greenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere have many parallels to the problem of computing projectile trajectories (“greenhouse warming” is a misnomer; in a greenhouse, warming is due to confinement of air warmed by sunlight, whereas in “greenhouse gas” warming, gases confine more heat in the atmosphere).
What is the physical theory behind the greenhouse gas effect, and can it be computed from the laws of physics? The answer is a resounding yes! The effects of heat trapping by greenhouse gases was first noted over a century ago and understood from the viewpoint of classical physics involving the absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation by matter and the thermodynamics of gas. The mathematical and physical laws of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter underlie our understanding of greenhouse gas warming.
This understanding gained a firm basis with the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. This development enabled detailed calculations of the physics of absorption, scattering, and emission of electromagnetic radiation by atoms and molecules that make up Earth’s atmosphere. Highly sophisticated radiation transfer codes have been perfected to calculate the energy balance in an atmosphere as energy is transferred through atmospheric layers. Trace polyatomic molecules such as water vapor, CO2, and methane have rotation, bending, and vibration degrees of freedom, and are quite effective at intercepting infrared radiation radiated by Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.
When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.
At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.
“Greenhouse gas” warming occurs because the collisional de-excitation time for greenhouse molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states. This is the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, and can be computed from the laws of physics and demonstrated and measured in laboratory experiments. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the science behind greenhouse gas warming (see YouTube video).
Although there are parallels between computing projectile trajectories and computing global warming, there are also differences. In the case of trajectories, one can repeat an experiment many times and measure the uncertainty. In the case of global warming, there is only one Earth’s atmosphere with which to “experiment.” One arrives at formal uncertainties in the models by varying the input parameters (for example, the rate of CO2 input into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning) and computing many such models.
Modeling global warming is more complex than the relatively simple modeling of the trajectory of a projectile. A great many uncertainties, including the effects of clouds, solar variation, volcanism, and the complex coupling of atmosphere, oceans, land, and the carbon cycle, must be incorporated into models.
There are other planets, however, for which greenhouse gas warming is important, and for which modeling can test the importance of the process. In particular, both Mars and Venus have predominantly CO2 atmospheres. If the Martian atmosphere consists of 95% CO2, why is it not much warmer? The basic answer is that the very low gas pressure (0.01 earth atmosphere) of the Martian atmosphere allows most excited CO2 molecules to radiate away their energy before they have a chance to collide with another molecule and deposit heat in the atmosphere. Even so, there is enough warming to raise the temperature by ~6 °C over what the case would be if the Martian atmosphere consisted of nitrogen rather than CO2.
In the case of Venus, not only is the atmosphere dominated by CO2 (98%), but the pressure is ~90 earth atmospheres (because Venus and Earth are of comparable size, and outgassing accounts for the CO2, the total carbon in the Venusian atmosphere is approximately the same as in Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, and crust). This means that excited CO2 molecules will collide with one another so frequently that few will have a chance to lose energy through radiation to outer space. Therefore a much higher fraction of the infrared radiation from the surface and the atmosphere is trapped within the lower atmosphere, leading to a very high (nearly 900 °F [460 °C]) atmospheric temperature.
In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C. CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases are responsible for the remaining 25% of heating. Without these greenhouse gases, Earth would be in a frozen state. Most contrarians fail to recognize the great importance of carbon dioxide in producing the warming of Venus and Mars. The fundamental physics of the important feedback of increasing water vapor (another important greenhouse gas) in response to carbon dioxide warming (i.e., warmer air holds more water vapor) has been applied in thermodynamics for more than 150 years. These two powerful concepts provide a very firm foundation for the fundamental soundness of global warming physics.
Even a cursory reading of international climate assessments (IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) indicates inclusion of quantitative estimates of many factors that influence radiation forcing and their uncertainties. Scientists may disagree with the uncertainties associated with, for example, the net effect of clouds on radiation forcing. But those disagreements must be weighed in the context of a mountain of published evidence that supports the conclusions and uncertainties reported by the IPCC.
In summary, many criticisms of global warming models are specious and fail to reflect an understanding of the basic science behind the models and the extensive history of the development of radiation transfer codes in modeling planetary and stellar atmospheres. Some contrarians engage in arguments that the warming observed is due to “natural” mechanisms that have been in play for millions of years. Such proposals should be required not only to identify the specific natural mechanisms in question, but quantify them and present observational or experimental evidence that the mechanisms play a role on a time scale of the past 150 years. Such proposals also ignore the fact that proxy geochemical data show strong support for the conclusion that CO2 increases have played the largest role in explaining these past intervals of global warmth!
Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect. It remains unfortunate that the opinions of a handful of contrarians should be given the same weight in the press and the popular media as the studied conclusions of thousands of scientists. This reinforces the general perception that the “science” of global warming is uncertain, and provides fodder for some (but by no means all) business and political factions to question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
What part of "regulations have been rolled back" and "natural gas is far cheaper than coal" are you struggling with?
I guess the same part of Obama put those regulations into place that raised the cost of building and operating a coal fired Plant.
The cost we all bear for cleaning up after irresponsible dirty as hell coal mine operations for the past 200 years and their gluttonous customers. The cost you want to pass along to future generations because you want cheaper dirty fuel now. Deplorable.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
The cost we all bear for cleaning up after irresponsible dirty as hell coal mine operations for the past 200 years and their gluttonous customers. The cost you want to pass along to future generations because you want cheaper dirty fuel now. Deplorable.
You Sir are one of their gluttonous customers as am I, and every other person in the USA who uses a furnace, air conditioner, drives a car, flies on a plane, uses a motor boat, rides some of the rides at some amusement parks, cuts their grass, turns on lights, TV's computers. Uses cell phones, etc, etc, etc.
You Sir are one of their gluttonous customers as am I, and every other person in the USA who uses a furnace, air conditioner, drives a car, flies on a plane, uses a motor boat, rides some of the rides at some amusement parks, cuts their grass, turns on lights, TV's computers. Uses cell phones, etc, etc, etc.
and we want cheaper and cleaner energy to power all of those things.
which is already starting to happen. lolololol you're so salty. you will always be on the wrong side of this argument. the country is going green whether you like it or not.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Wow, you're right. He made no mention of the sun. That either makes him a sellout or negligent.
I especially like how he compared earth's atmosphere to venus. Venus has 98% co2, which means the high temperature on venus are caused by the weight of the atmosphere, which is 90 times more than earth. Our atmosphere is around 0.03% co2. Big difference. We also have the happy consequences of co2 absorbtion due to plant life and oceans. He even states the gas the does the most for any temperature warming is water vapor.
Oddly enough that would lead even a simpleton to make the conclusion of more water vapor, more rain, more plants, more co2 absorbtion. Seeing as the last ice age had so much water locked up at the poles, it was colder, dryer, with less plant life. Amazing.
Now I'm going to get back to venus for a minute to show the sun's affects. A day on venus lasts 117 days. This is due to it's rotation being counter to the movement in orbit. The actual rotation take 243 days, and the year is 225 days. That's a very long time to be eradiated by the sun.
and we want cheaper and cleaner energy to power all of those things.
You mean cleaner as in Natural gas obtained from fracking?
Did you know that fracking causes Air pollution that also extends beyond the immediate drilling site and transportation route, since a by-product of natural gas drilling is methane gas, one of the worst greenhouse gas pollutants contributing to climate change.
Did you realize One of the main chemicals released in the fracking process is methane, and it is estimated that 4% of it escapes into the atmosphere during extraction. Because methane is 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat, the release of this gas is detrimental to the air quality of surrounding fracking sites.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act--this regulatory exclusion is often referred to as the Halliburton loophole.
Lets see pollute all of our water (gee that sounds clean) Inject 8 MILLION gallons of water, and 40,000 gallons of chemicals every single time they inject the well. Wow that sounds really clean as well.
The Associated press recently reported that Wyoming's air quality near rural drilling sites is worse than Los Angeles'--with Wyoming ozone levels recorded at 124 parts per billion compared to the worst air day of the year for Los Angeles, at 114 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency's maximum healthy limit is 75 parts per billion. WOW more cleanliness.
Apparently you didn’t read my comment to Arch about fracking.
We will eventually lower our fracking use as well.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Wow, you're right. He made no mention of the sun. That either makes him a sellout or negligent.
I especially like how he compared earth's atmosphere to venus. Venus has 98% co2, which means the high temperature on venus are caused by the weight of the atmosphere, which is 90 times more than earth. Our atmosphere is around 0.03% co2. Big difference. We also have the happy consequences of co2 absorbtion due to plant life and oceans. He even states the gas the does the most for any temperature warming is water vapor.
Oddly enough that would lead even a simpleton to make the conclusion of more water vapor, more rain, more plants, more co2 absorbtion. Seeing as the last ice age had so much water locked up at the poles, it was colder, dryer, with less plant life. Amazing.
Now I'm going to get back to venus for a minute to show the sun's affects. A day on venus lasts 117 days. This is due to it's rotation being counter to the movement in orbit. The actual rotation take 243 days, and the year is 225 days. That's a very long time to be eradiated by the sun.
Guess what? Our major co2 absorption is depleting fast. The Amazon is burning. You want to support the dumping of emissions into our atmosphere and say humans aren’t a big part of the problem, be my guest. We don’t need your attitude and backward thinking. We’re going green and you can go kick rocks and stew about it.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilder...rs-ago-its-true
We fixed the problem in this country long before environmenalists started whining. Go whine at other countries.
The average age of forests in the United States is younger than it was before European settlement. The greatest diversity is found in the oldest forests, so there may be more forest now, but because it is so young, it is home for fewer animals, plants, insects and other organisms than a fully developed, mature forest ecosystem. It also means that protecting old growth forests is imperative. ____________
And right now, groups are wanting to cut down the old forests around the world, not the new ones which are way under developed.
Hey guys!!! Erik got caught just reading the headline!!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The average age of forests in the United States is younger than it was before European settlement. The greatest diversity is found in the oldest forests, so there may be more forest now, but because it is so young, it is home for fewer animals, plants, insects and other organisms than a fully developed, mature forest ecosystem. It also means that protecting old growth forests is imperative. ____________
And right now, groups are wanting to cut down the old forests around the world, not the new ones which are way under developed.
Hey guys!!! Erik got caught just reading the headline!!!
Wrong again swish. Maybe I'll just make that your knick name.
It's nearly impossible to replace forest diversity. Most of the woodlands along the east coast are 3rd or 4th generation forests. I knew that without even reading it in the article. I'd you want to buy a plot of lave and grow oak trees for the next 400 years, be my guest, because that's the only way to do it. No go be ashamed if you live in a wood framed house.
You and GM will always be on the losing side of this argument.
Always.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Some people just think you can pollute forever and there are no consequences. They even dispute very old science from Isaac Newton. They wish to dispel one of Newton's three basic laws of that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It's like they think they can throw trash in their back yard every week and after five years they won't own a dump.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
