-
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com -
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/en...gulations.html
"""The Associated Press reports more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants will close and another 36 plants could also be forced to shut down as a result of new EPA rules regulating air pollution."""
http://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/
"""Coal provides 24-hour ?baseload? power whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing; the U.S. electricity supply barely kept up with demand during the extreme freeze created by last winter?s ?polar vortex,? and a new wave of coal shutdowns could further limit supply.
?Last winter, the grid was pushed to the edge,? says one industry official. ?With these new regulations, it could get pushed over the cliff.?""""
http://watchdog.org/147793/epa-power-plant-rules/
"""EPA regs threaten to close coal-fired power plants, but states push back"""I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Robbie.. Oceans do adsorb CO2, this is known. It's estimated at roughly 30% of the carbon Dioxide produced is absorbed by the Ocean. That sounds great right?
Except if you look at the "Big Picture"
I have a word for you to look up.. Ocean Acidification
Read up on Ocean Acidification and tell me if you think it's a good idea to continue polluting the air with excessive CO2 gasses and assuming the Ocean will clean it all up.
This is the problem with everything I read on the denial side of the argument. They use very specific things and cherry pick data but fail to look at the bigger picture or even at very simple things as this example of what happens to the CO2 once the ocean absorbs it.
It doesn't just disappear into the ocean Robbie, it continues to cause problems further down the chain. You have to look at the entire picture to see how bad this is for us.
Now if the plankton are eating it up, then of course that should be studied.. However there is a very big hole in this argument. If the Oceans could readily handle the added CO2.. Why does it continue to increase? Also what about the rest of the excessive CO2 left in the atmosphere that the ocean doesn't absorb. It's left as greenhouse gas and continues to drive global warming.
If the earth was already solving the issue why are the CO2 levels increasing each year?Last edited by crockett; 06-04-2014, 10:01 AM.In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.Comment
-
Richard...come on man.
Nobody "Sold" me anything. I told you where I first heard it. I linked to the science article explaining it.
As for "business 101"...it's obvious if you are paying attention at all.
If you own a giant company making billions of dollars, and you create CO2 emissions as part of your production...you are now in "trouble" with the EPA.
But there may be NO way for you to produce that product without some CO2 emissions.
So the EPA sets up "carbon credits". And they give every industry a certain number of them.
The carbon credit allows your company to put out a certain amount of tons of co2 into the air each year.
But what happens if you put out more?
Well, they made SELLING the carbon credits legal!
Open your eyes.
So if you have a company that produces a product with very little CO2 emissions...you will have a bunch of "extra" carbon credits.
And there is a market for that. Hundreds of millions of dollars being made with "carbon credit" trading.
Now seriously Richard. If you are not up to speed on this subject...please don't derail the thread by making me give you these long explanations. Just do what I do...stay out of it if you aren't up to speed.
You've just successfully deflected me showing crockett why he is dead fucking wrong.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
All that says is the tiny plankton consumes more C02 than previously thought, not that its going to balance the planet of excess C02. The article also plainly admits the oceans are warming.
The bigger issue with that is though, as these tiny planktons use more C02 they multiply faster and take up the food source of larger plankton which causes a host of even worse problems....
"If the tiny plankton blooms, it consumes the nutrients that are normally also available to larger plankton species," explains Ulf Riebesell, a professor of biological oceanography at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany and head of the experimental team. This could mean the larger plankton run short of food.
Large plankton play an important role in carbon export to the deep ocean, but in a system dominated by the so-called pico- and nanoplankton, less carbon is transported out of surface waters. "This may cause the oceans to absorb less CO2 in the future," says Riebesell.
The potential imbalance in the plankton food web may have an even bigger climate impact. Large plankton are also important producers of a climate-cooling gas called dimethyl sulphide, which stimulates cloud-formation over the oceans. Less dimethyl sulphide means more sunlight reaches Earth's surface, adding to the greenhouse effect. "These important services of the ocean may thus be significantly affected by acidification."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0913085756.htmComment
-
Already looked that up. It was part of my answer to you. There were a flurry of papers (as I said) trying to push that out there.
Turns out the plankton solved that too.
Dude...nature and the Earth are bigger than mankind. I'm sure if we simultaneously blew up every nuclear weapon on Earth that maybe THEN we could really affect the future of the planet.
But until the govt. stops the carbon credit market, the Pres. stops leaving a carbon footprint bigger than the total of some small towns, the military stops putting out more CO2 than some small countries, and the Feds use federal money to put solar panels on everyone's homes INSTEAD of bailing out banks....then that should tell you just how "seriously" the govt. even takes this bullshit.
It's all about making money. I see no sense of "urgency" from our govt over this.
Just a bunch of talk (which ironically contributes CO2 lol) and proposals that take place 20 or 30 years from now.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
I don't know the answer to that.
What I do know is that nature always seems to adapt. And that the history of scientists making these "climate change" predictions over the last 40 years has shown them to be wrong each time as nature changed and corrected itself.
I'm not a scientist. And I've wasted enough time looking shit up today.
But look at my post above at the end where I question what the govt. is actually DOING.
I think that says it all.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
Agreed, nature does have a way of adapting. The bottom line is this, no one knows for sure what the outcome all this is, there is simply to many variables at play. But I think we can all agree that temperatures are rising along with C02 and methane levels, how that plays out in the future is anyones guess. Personally I don't think its a good thing, nor do I think the planet is immune from changing to the point humans are no longer able to exist on it.Comment
-
Big picture you say? Looking at the "big picture" requires looking at things on geologic time scales and not just the past 100 years like the alarmists do.
As for your "ocean acidification" alarm-ism:
The Myth of ?Acidification? of Oceans
?Acid? is an emotive word to the general public, which is why it is seized upon by the alarmists in their search for yet another scare. In reality increasing CO2 makes the ocean become ?less alkaline?, but never ?acid?.
pH is a measurement of the amount of hydrogen ion concentration in a solution, the log of the hydrogen ion concentration with the sign changed. Because it is a log scale it is very hard to move a pH of 8.2 to 7.0, which is neutral.
The pH needs to be less than 7 to be ?acid?, and this has not happened through at least the past 600 million years because it would dissolve limestones, and limestone have been deposited in the sea and not re-dissolved in the sea through all that time.Comment
-
Ok, lets just go along and say that all the CO2 absorbed by the Ocean is eaten up by plankton and doing this causes no other ill effects to the oceans. Highly unlikely IMO but lets just go with it for arguments sake.
Meaning CO2 issues in the ocean are solved. What about the added CO2 in the atmosphere? The oceans don't suck it all up and the larger percentage of what is created stays in the atmosphere as greenhouse gas, which continues to drive global warming. What about that problem?
Here is my problem Robbie..
If your side is right, the worst case, is we waste a bunch of money.
If my side of the argument is right and we don't try to do anything.. We all die.
What is the bigger risk? Do nothing, waste some money or end all life on this planet?Last edited by crockett; 06-04-2014, 10:34 AM.In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.Comment
-
Ok I'll bite..
So your article claims that CO2 is good for the oceans as it encourages plant growth. Once again on the surface, this sounds great. Yet it isn't.
The author of that article is very much right, the added CO2 does increase plant growth.. Unlucky for us, is the fact that the plant growth that is increasing is algae. Alge is over running the oceans at an alarming rate. Killing coral reefs and other plant life around the world, when it blooms it also kills fish.
Does that sound good for us?
Also you mention we have to look at Geological time lines. Ok.. that's fine and dandy but we aren't dealing with geological time lines. the CO2 levels are rapidly increasing and have done so since the industrial revolution as we have added more and more pollution into the skys. We have speed up the rate that normally would have taken thousands of years to achieve.
It doesn't matter what happens over 5 thousand years when a super volcano randomly blows up and throws all the levels out of whack. We are that super volcano..Last edited by crockett; 06-04-2014, 10:54 AM.In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.Comment
That had to be pretty funny to watch.
Comment