Ask Me Help Desk - Climate Change?

The price you pay for NOT cleaning the air of fossil fuel emissions and rebuilding the energy delivery grid, is less protection from solar influences like UV rays and solar radiation. That science is not in dispute.

Pay me now, or pay me later, but it will be a lot more expensive when you are desperate for clean air, and water. Not just the cost of clean air and water, but efficiency in its use which we now lack.

Doesn't matter about the costs now, that corporations don't want to pay, nor do consumers want passed on to them, but you will pay it later, so we do have options to consider, if you want to be objective.

Corporations have no incentive, other than money, but government does and we as consumers should be requiring safety over profits. Better to have fire protection, and not use it, than to need it, and not have it. Just ask the guys who work on rigs that drill in the ocean, or miners that dig for coal, just to name a few. Safety can be expensive, but so is health care, so how much is your life, and the quality of life worth? Don't leave that to a CEO, or a paid scientist, or the Government for that matter.

The air is much cleaner than it was in the 1970s or any time in the last 3 decades... or for a century for that matter (anyone see pictures of D*ckens London ? )[fyi... it's absurd that the name
D1ckens is censored on this site ]

Why is the air cleaner ? Because legitimate pollutants like , sulfur dioxide were identified and addressed. Carbon monoxide,mostly from automobiles, is down 74 percent in that time despite Americans continued love affair with the car ;and Americas increased usage of coal(60 percent ).

Think about it.. the skys are cleaner in a century despite the fact the US population has quadrupled in that time . That's because true pollutants were identified and technological measures were created to combat them .

It's a bridge too far to say that C02 is a pollutant . Americans will jump on board when a legitimate issue is identified . C02 as pollution doesn't pass the smell test.

Quote:

It's a bridge too far to say that C02 is a pollutant . Americans will jump on board when a legitimate issue is identified . C02 as pollution doesn't pass the smell test.

Sorry Tom, but your science is way off. All you have to do is watch any weather report on any TV station and they always give an air quality report, and warning to certain groups and in Texas, they tell certain people to stay indoors during periods of high temperature, not just for overheating, but some people with breathing disorder are especially affected. Why? Because even naturally occurring chemical combinations are subject to change when conditions of temperature are introduced. Like water turning to ice or steam.

CO, is dry ice in a frozen state, and will burn unprotected skin, and don't let it be subjected to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, where as a gas its density changes and becomes more dangerous to us humans. City humans and those around highways and industrial sites that emit CO2 as a by product run the risk of serious health problems through constant exposure.

So for my money, your argument is incorrect, and as a pollutant, and a deadly one, it more than passes the smell test, just on scientific facts.

This ain't junk science

Hey Ex which scientists do you want me to believe? Those who predict a hotter Earth? Or those who predict a colder one? It seems an ice age is back on the agenda courtesy of Sol our sun.
Earth could be heading for another 'Little Ice Age,' US scientists say | News.com.au

You see seventy years is enough time for us to get our act together or is it? I'm going to put it down to normal variability because at this rate I won't be here to worry about it, which of course I am not doing

Tal , around here they give ozone warnings when the temperature heats up. What is ozone ? Trioxygen... not C02.

Perhaps you weren't around when the smog was visible floating around our urban centers and the Cuyahoga River burned .

Om gosh! Now I know the problem, you flunked chemistry, and didn't pass basic science 101.

ozone (trioxygen) - (trioxygen) - Oxygen, Gas, and Radiation

Quote:

A colourless gas, O3, soluble in cold water and in alkalis; m.p. –192.7°C; b.p. –111.9°C. Liquid ozone is dark blue in colour and is diamagnetic (dioxygen, O2, is paramagnetic). The gas is made by passing oxygen through a silent electric discharge and is usually used in mixtures with oxygen. It is produced in the stratosphere by the action of high-energy ultraviolet radiation on oxygen (see Ozonation) and its presence there acts as a screen for ultraviolet radiation (see Ozone Layer). Ozone is also one of the greenhouse gases (see Greenhouse Effect). It is a powerful oxidizing agent and is used to form ozonides by reaction with alkenes and subsequently by hydrolysis to carbonyl compounds.

Temperature, and electricity are factors (catalysts) in changing gases, and elements from one form to another. Actually the air is full of gases that have various affects on the air quality, and the humans that breath them. Electricity is good, natures way of cleaning the air. Heat only helps to bond gases because it speeds up the atoms making them bondable to other atoms (of the gas). Any weakening of the ozone layer, and we are vulnerable to radiation, and those gases that we are warned about that are trapped by the ozone layer, is dangerous and deadly.

You are talking apples and oranges because ozone is deadly when mixed with other gasses that are a by product of man, who creates pollutants. Too much pollutant introduced into the ozone layer cut the effective chemical balance of that layer to protect us humans and other residents of EARTH from UV rays that the Sun produces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Sorry Tom, but your science is way off. All you have to do is watch any weather report on any TV station and they always give an air quality report, and warning to certain groups and in Texas, they tell certain people to stay indoors during periods of high temperature, not just for overheating, but some people with breathing disorder are especially affected. Why? Because even naturally occurring chemical combinations are subject to change when conditions of temperature are introduced. Like water turning to ice or steam

I live in Texas, we never get air quality reports. We get allergy reports, but not air quality because our air is here is clean.

Quote:

CO, is dry ice in a frozen state,

CO is carbon monoxide.

Speaking of alternative energy, the 38 Democrats and 33 Republicans in the Senate voted to end ethanol subsidies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Speaking of alternative energy, the 38 Democrats and 33 Republicans in the Senate voted to end ethanol subsidies.

Hello again, Steve:

I've noticed that you're a throw the baby out with the bath water type of guy. It's true, the government made a mistake trying to turn food into fuel... That doesn't, of course, mean the government should NEVER EVER put our money into the future development of alternative energy...

The difficulty we have here, is when we want to SOLVE a real problem, some congressmen thinks the problem we're about to solve, is HIS re-election problem, or some lobbyist thinks the problem we're solving relates to the bottom line of HIS clients, or some farmer thinks the problem we're solving is how to put his children through private school. So, ALL the money designed to fix the real problem, goes elsewhere..

When and/or IF we finally address our real problems, maybe our real problems can get solved. But, we're fiddling, while our country burns.

excon

Nope, I'm not that kind of guy but you keep describing me that way. If I were, I'd be dumping half my team every time my lead drops a point or two. But no, I'm patient and I just give it a tweak or two here and there to keep it humming along nicely and everyone else a distant second.

I've said it all along, do it smartly. I'm not interested in "feel good" 'solutions' that add more headaches and make me spend more of my money. In other words, until we have real answers let's use what we have and what we know works wisely. We need to invest in research and technology and to use another idiom, stop putting the cart before the horse as in ethanol subsidies, CFL's and electric cars.

Quote:

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
I live in Texas, we never get air quality reports. We get allergy reports, but not air quality because our air is here is clean.

Texas and coal - SourceWatch

And Texas news stations give pollen and mold counts along with air quality reports all day long. Just watch Fox News, or any other weather channel for that matter because the higher the temperature, the more it reacts to other things in the atmosphere, like pollutants.

Maybe Amarillo has no big industry, or major pollution makers, but the Metroplex, where I am, is famous for dangerous air when the temps ar 90's, and 100's, like now. Allergies or NOT.

Quote:

CO is carbon monoxide.

My bad, I meant CO2 carbon dioxide, my point was though that as a by product, of other natural, and artificial catalysts, it dangerous.

You had a great draft, did you use the system they provided, or from your own list, as I did?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Maybe Amarillo has no big industry, or major pollution makers, but the Metroplex, where I am, is famous for dangerous air when the temps ar 90's, and 100's, like now. Allergies or NOT.

We make fiberglass, smelt copper and gold, build nukes and have coal-fired electricity... and clean air.

Quote:

You had a great draft, did you use the system they provided, or from your own list, as I did?

Ah, so you're the StrangerRangers? No I basically left ESPN's rankings untouched. I haven't got a clue about fantasy baseball but I'm learning... and winning :)

The air quality in Amarillo is twice as clean as the Metroplex. I lived in Collin County a few years ago, nothing but farms and ranches, and great clean air. Should have stayed.

we have great clean air here to and we have coal fired power stations within 30 miles. We have particulate pollution from pine forests and canola in season, this causes asthma. The environmentalists should realise that supposedly environmentally friendly industries also pollute. I am unaware that CO2 is a health hazard, but then before I came here I was also unaware canola was a health hazard.

This AGW is a load of hogwash, CO2 emissions are not the only source of supposed global warming. Volcanos account for far more methane and CO2 than humans, how about we work on curbing those emissions? We don't do it because it is in the too hard basket, so we have taken the soft option of attacking the coal and oil industries. Variations in the sun spot cycle also account for more warming and cooling than AGW. You cannot control a problem by attacking one variable.

I suggest we research tapping the energy potential of volcanos rather than wasting our time measuring atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and allegedly measuring changes in ambient temperature

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I am unaware that CO2 is a health hazard,

Hello clete:

Really? Plug yourself into a tank of it, and report back...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

Really?? Plug yourself into a tank of it, and report back...

excon

No Ex I prefer my CO2 in beer

That's the thing about science, sometimes we draw a conclusion before all the facts are in. Last time I checked, volcanoes and trees where a part of nature, both uncontrolled and little understood by man. But a million cars on one highway, and a few polluting industries that do affect human health, are something man can do something about and should knowing a bit about its effects. Now I have nothing against coal, and oil, except when they put profit before human health, and safety, and it's a fact of history they do nothing they don't have to in those areas. Wonder why they want to gut the EPA,. wait for it... its ALL about the MONEY, because something's are to expensive, or slow down the flow of CASH into their pockets.

Even after the BP spill, and all that that entailed, which may not be in the news anymore, after a disaster like that, they are still rushing to drill, baby drill, without even correcting the problems that made it a disaster in the first place. HOW SOON WE FORGET.

But as they say, when you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it. Which is how I explain the conservative movement in the Republican party by the way. Profits before humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Profits before humans.

But this is the market economy we are told is the answer to every problem. Right now the market is exercising its prerogative not to create jobs, but cling to its profits, and this is seen as something bad, something that must be overturned.

You can't have it both ways. If a government is to create employment it must spend, often in areas where spending wouldn't ordinarily be directed.

So what do you get; subsidies to replace old vehicles, install solar panels and paint rocks white. Perhaps you have reached the stage where you need a nice set of famine walls. How about a subsidy to bulldoze all those old houses that are in mortgage default to create parks

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Right now the market is exercising its prerogative not to create jobs,

But Mother Nature is creating jobs by blowing down homes, pulling up trees, wrecking stores and government buildings, tossing vehicles into the air, flooding civilization and newly-planted farmland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But Mother Nature is creating jobs by blowing down homes, pulling up trees, wrecking stores and government buildings, tossing vehicles into the air, flooding civilization and newly-planted farmland.

Are you suggesting nature knows how to run a country and the elect don't? Didn't I just say Bulldoze those default mortgage properties? So are you suggesting employment to tear down levies, compulsorary disposal of old vehicles, ripping up parks and returning farmland to the wild. You could have a whole new industry building houseboats for river dwellers, makes more sense than fighting the river

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But Mother Nature is creating jobs by blowing down homes, pulling up trees, wrecking stores and government buildings, tossing vehicles into the air, flooding civilization and newly-planted farmland.

T'was ever thus

I did not even know this was in the works, but Texas has told the feds what they can do with their light bulb ban.

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban

Do we make incandescent bulbs in Texas? If not, I reckon there's another job creator for our state. And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

Hello again, Steve:

So, throwing your trash into the air isn't so bad after all? How did I know that's how you really felt?

excon

So, do you want me to live in the dark, or live with the toxins? Which is it?

You don't have to do either. The technology is out there to have power, and a clean environment. Its expensive but you get a tax credit for using it. So why don't they?

For the same reason you didn't get a carburetor that allowed you greater range and better efficiency, even though they had that technology too (and still do).

There is a lot of resistance to changes, and the resistance has the money. They always have, Steve.

Since the technology is not in the stores and at a price I can afford, my choices are limited to incandescent, living in the dark, living with the toxins or burning oil lamps. Which would ex prefer for me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

my choices are limited to incandescent, living in the dark, living with the toxins or burning oil lamps. Which would ex prefer for me?

Hello again, Steve:

If my impudent teenager asked me that question, I'd tell her to do without makeup.

excon

Don't worry Steve, you are on the clean end of the process, the finished product. The problem is on the production end of it, where the dirty stuff goes on.

You did know there is NO such thing as clean coal don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

If my impudent teenager asked me that question, I'd tell her to do without makeup.

Well there's no need for makeup if you live in the dark. Ok, so how about we do without real meat?

Artificial meat could slice emissions, say scientists

Mm, mm... can't wait to try me some cultured cube steak.

Extra: More climate change news, the world's oceans are in "shocking" decline according to a group called IPSO. The solution?

Quote:

"We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News.

How are we going to do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I did not even know this was in the works, but Texas has told the feds what they can do with their light bulb ban.

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban

Do we make incandescent bulbs in Texas? If not, I reckon there's another job creator for our state. And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

Well it's a good move but they may find incandescent light bulbs become a great deal more expensive. Any bets on a ban on the importation of incandescent light bulbs?

As to ISPO concern about the oceans all I can say is the only way to solve that problem is a mass extinction of humans, let's face it folks, we are in the middle of a MEE, that's mass extinction event

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

You don't have to do either. The technology is out there to have power, and a clean environment. Its expensive but you get a tax credit for using it. So why don't they??

For the same reason you didn't get a carburetor that allowed you greater range and better efficiency, even though they had that technology too (and still do).

There is a lot of resistance to changes, and the resistance has the money. They always have, Steve.

On the first part we have old technology that works just fine for power generation and its not listed as "green" by the government. Why ? Did you know hydro power isn't a "green" power source? All it has is moving parts and the footprint to make it happen. The building of a damn plus what it takes to make the generating turbines and upkeep. It doesn't use fuel to make electricity. Why are the enviromentalists against it?

As far as a carburetor goes that was replaced by fuel injection only because of the high cost involved in making one to meet the emission standards of the time. You can only run an engine so lean before you lose all benefits so going to direct injection has solved tha part of the puzzle. When is the last time you heard a car in a parking lot diesel ? It takes a carb to do that. Also the standard that the industry is held to rather then a free standing method is holding back many inovations in the auto industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

On the first part we have old technology that works just fine for power generation and its not listed as "green" by the government. Why ? Did you know hydro power isn't a "green" power source? All it has is moving parts and the footprint to make it happen. The building of a damn plus what it takes to make the generating turbines and upkeep. It doesn't use fuel to make electricity. Why are the enviromentalists against it?

Dad you know there is no sense in this climate change debate, we have to have new technologies, not technologies that last a hundred years. You could not build enough dams to generate the power anyway and hydro is the system of the local power scheme, no money in it for big generators, who have to fight the environmentalists tooth and nail to build a dam.

Quote:

. Also the standard that the industry is held to rather then a free standing method is holding back many inovations in the auto industry.

What has been holding back innovation in the auto industry for years is the oil companies, they didn't want the impact of moving away from the internal combustion engine or having to meet emission standards

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

As to ISPO concern about the oceans all I can say is the only way to solve that problem is a mass extinction of humans, let's face it folks, we are in the middle of a MEE, that's mass extinction event

I can't agree we're in the middle of a mass extinction event, but you're right on the other. The only way to get to zero CO2 emissions is for everyone and everything to stop breathing. Of course all the plants would die so then the final MEE can take place.

Speaking of emissions though, the bad economy is exciting to the left in this sense, emissions are down.

American Economy Quickly Nearing Perfection

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The only way to get to zero CO2 emissions is for everyone and everything to stop breathing. Of course all the plants would die so then the final MEE can take place.

Hello again, steve:

If you'd just STOP the hysteria for a minute, we could actually SOLVE the problem... But, as long as you frame the choice between one disaster or another, there's NO solution...

That's the problem with science deniers. They THINK they're saying something very profound, but they're not. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY thinks we should get rid of all the CO2. But, I'm sure you'll come up with something equally ridiculous like, should I go dark or throw my trash into the air.

Oh, that's right. We JUST did that one.

excon

Such hyperbole !We've gone from AGW skeptics to science deniers .lol. Do you not think your own rhetoric equally ridiculous ?

But ex my friend, the scientist said the only solution was zero CO2 emissions. You keep thinking I'm making this stuff up and I'm not. When someone makes an absurd claim such as that I'm going to point out that absurdity, which you call my hysteria. I know he isn't the only scientist to make such a claim.

And on that note, noted Nobel winner and filthy rich, jet-setting environmental activist Al Gore wants to "stabilize the population" by empowering women so there will be fewer of us throwing our trash in the air.

You're the one that's over the top, I'm just being sarcastic. I didn't think you needed the sarcasm font.

Michael Mann is in the thick of it again . He and a group of scientists did another 'pick and choose' the data studies about the oceans. This time it was convenient for him to choose to account for the Medieval Warming period that he ignored in his hockey stick graph(although this time it was rename the "Medieval Climate Anomaly").

In this case the scientists looked at a single sea fossil(foraminifera... single-celled protists ) from a single region of the Atlantic Ocean to make broad predictions of global sea level rises .
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...WT.mc_ev=click

And they even used radio carbon dating to verify their claims. I'm sorry, I find hard to believe anyone can accurately measure a millimeter of sea level rise, especially from 2000 years ago.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice all the creeks and rivers are higher than normal, and precautions are losing ground. Where did all that water com from, and how come we can't get some in Texas?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice all the creeks and rivers are higher than normal, and precautions are losing ground. Where did all that water com from, and how come we can't get some in Texas??

Its on its way as we speak. The condition that has had our weather doing screwy things has now ended officially.

La Nina over, ocean conditions return to neutral in the Pacific, forecasters say - The Washington Post