Coal Lobbyists Are Taking a Hatchet to the Natural Gas Industry
After my year in the White House Press Corps, I vowed never to return, and took a really long shower, hoping to scrub every last spec of prejudice, self interest, and institutionalized dishonesty off of my battered carcass. But sometimes I see some maneuvering that is so unprincipled, crooked, and against the national interest that I am unable to restrain my fingers from the keyboard. For shorthand, let’s call them lies.
I’m talking about the absolutely merciless hatchet job the coal producers are inflicting on the natural gas industry. Coal today accounts for 50% of America’s 3.7 trillion kilowatts in annual power production. That’s a lot of vested interest. Chesapeake Energy’s (CHK) Aubrey McClendon says correctly that if we just shut down aging conventional power plants that are over 35 years old, and replace them with modern gas fired plants, the US would achieve one third of its ambitious 2020 carbon reduction goals. The share of relatively clean burning natural gas of the national power load would pop up from the current 23% to 50%. Even the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope says this is the fastest and cheapest way to make a serious dent in greenhouse gas emissions.
So what do we get? The press has recently been flooded with exaggerated or untrue reports of widespread well poisonings and forest destruction caused by the fracting processes that was used to recently discover a new 100 year supply of ultra cheap CH4. While the coal industry has had 200 years to build a formidable lobby in Washington, the gas industry is a neophyte, their only public champions being McClendon and T. Boone Pickens.
But memories in Washington are long, and Obama & Co. recall all too clearly that this was the pair that financed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that torpedoed Democrat John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. What goes around, comes around.
Whose hands are dripping with blood here? Peabody Energy (BTU), which ripped 200 million short tons of the black stuff out of the ground in 2008, followed by Rio Tinto (RTP) at 140 million tons, and Arch Coal (ARCH) with 134 million tons, poured millions of dollars into Washington to lavishly finance lobbyists. Their mission is to render toothless Cap & Trade legislation, block subsidies for natural gas which both parties seem to agree on, dilute environmental legislation, and promote the myth that the whole global warming thing is nothing more than a leftist hoax, thus keeping hands off King Coal.
Senators and congressmen from the top three coal producing states have been the eager facilitators: Wyoming at 467 million short tons in 2008 (Thanks Dick Cheney!), West Virginia at 157 million tons, and Pennsylvania at 65 million tons. That dinosaur of a union, the United Mine Workers, is another guilty party. You might even blame Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern (BNR), which earns 70% of its revenues from shipping coal across the country for export to China. This is the wellspring for the money that is financing all those conservative initiatives, energy related, or not.
This will be unhappy news for the 23,000 the American Lung Association expects coal emissions to kill this year. How many will clean burning natural gas bump off? None. Can’t the coal industry be happy selling everything they rip out of the ground to China? If you are lacking an ounce conscience and are willing to turn a blind eye to where your trading profits come from, then use the current sell off in all hard assets to pick up BTU, RTP, and ACI. China’s demand for our coal remains insatiable, and domestic demand isn’t about to go up in smoke overnight either. You can always donate your profits to the Sierra Club. After all, I recommended Russia, why not King Coal.
There! I’ve had my say. Now I’m going to go have another long shower.
For more iconoclastic and out of consensus analysis, you can always visit me at www.madhedgefundtrader.com , where the conventional wisdom is mercilessly flailed and tortured daily, or listen to me on Hedge Fund Radio at http://www.madhedgefundtrader.biz/ .
(14 votes)
»
-
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 03:34
#250763
"Their mission is to... and promote the myth that the whole global warming thing is nothing more than a leftist hoax."
I hate to break it to you but man-made global warming is a load of BS. One large volcanic eruption emits more 'global warming gases' than all of the planes, cars, factories, etc.. (combined) that have ever operated in the last 110 years. One cow emits as much 'global warming gases' as an SUV driven 15,000 miles. The warming and cooling of this planet is nearly entirely driven by the sun's activity. Period.
When 'every' scientist agrees, as Gore likes to claim, that global warming is our fault; chances are it's propaganda. Gore claimed Katrina was because of 'global warming', and that we'd have many more Cat-5 hurricanes because of it. Still waiting on that (or any significant number of hurricanes for that matter).
It was about 35~ years ago that the media was just as emphatic over the coming Global Ice Age. Funny how quickly that pendulum swung. Me thinks Gore and his cronies have an agenda. But what do I know? Wonder why they decided to call it Climate Change not too long ago? Your claim looks like it might be wrong, change the way you define it.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:23
#250939
Yes, Mr. Politician, you might want to check out some of the actual science at places like American Thinker, for example, as it sounds like you skipped those courses in school. Do you get a cut from Al Gore's fraudulent offset sales?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:04
#250998
Or wattsupwiththat.com
Regarding the 23,000 Americans killed by coal this year,
a) Mr Racist, how many Chinese are being killed? Why are Chinese deaths so unimportant?
b) Could you please post the 23,000 names? I'd like to know who they are so I can check that you are not just, you know, making things up.
On account of, I see these billboards all the time saying that 23,842 Americans will die from 2nd-hand smoke this year. But nobody seems to know their names...Makes a fellow suspicious that the data is not all the solid.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:39
#251548
Does smoking kill people? Do you have all their names? How can you know which ones smoking kills when its probabilistic (i.e. not everyone who smokes gets cancer, not every cancer is from smoking)?
Here's the report that details the impacts of coal with scientific references.
http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Power_Plant_Emissions.pdf
It's the fine paticulate matter from coal that causes the problem, mostly in the elderly, average loss of life 14 years.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:44
#251705
Dear Duck:
AGW is to date, an unproven hypothesis.
1. So far, the AGW models have made a few predictions that can be tested. In each case, the predictions are inconsistent with reality. If you used an equivalently accurate model to invest in the market, you would be broke today, having invested everything on high margin in a temperature increase ETF in 2000.
2. The AGW modelers do not and have never published confidence intervals with their predictions, always a bad sign. Either they don't know what the confidence intervals are (bad modeling) or they don't like what they tell you (results cherry-picking).
3. The models have a bunch of parameters and the parameters are backfit to some window of past data right up to the present. The AGW community has never figured out the concept of out of sample testing.
4. There is now non-trivial evidence that the processing of the raw data has been accomplished by the use of deeply suspect adjustments to temperature. The adjustments are still not public. But statisticians have now looked at several temperature stations and reverse engineered the adjustments climate researchers have made to the raw records by comparing the adjusted values to the raw values. The results are appalling and appear indefensible. In addition, there is now a good deal of evidence that the temperature record itself is not compiled properly and biased over time as a whole. Did you know that the early records are compiled from over 6,000 stations and that the current temperature records from only 1,500. Would it concern you that the 4,500 stations that have been dropped over the years from the temperature record are heavily biased toward high-elevation stations? Or that the researchers did not (after dropping a station from future use) bother to go back and recompute the earlier temperature record without using the dropped station station? Frankly, it concerns me that the entire data set we are about to make trillions of dollars of decisions on is may be puppy chow.
When I started looking into AGW several years ago, I assumed the science was good but hoped there were better solutions available than the statist solutions being proposed. I was quite surprised to learn how shoddy the science itself was.
That said, if I see properly collected data and properly built and validated models (that is, they make good predictions about the future, not just the past) that provide actual confidence intervals and that make better predictions than alternative hypotheses (eg the solar spots model), I'm open to the AGW hypothesis. But right now, it is an unproven hypothesis that has not made very good predictions.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 20:09
#251743
Obviously, you've never seriously looked at the science. Almost every modeling study I've looked at includes confidence intervals (or error bars); this is basic science that you learn as an undergraduate.
The uncertainty of climate change (magnitude and not whether it's happending) is what got me interested in it. How do you make good decisions in such a situation where the climate and economic systems are so complex that there is substantial uncertainty in both temperature changes, the physical impacts of climate change and the cost of doing something? Do you wait until the uncertainties are resolved even though there may be catastrophic consequences? Or do you hedge you bets? Make decisions based on the best available assessments of the probabilities? What should probably drive policy more than anything is taking actions that avoid the real potential catastrophic outcome, a form of insurance if you will.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:14
#251605
Ideology is not proof. Educate yourself before you start spouting off.
Google "Detection and attribution" and you will learn something about how scientists actually detect the changing climate signal and then attribute climate change to human causes. If you've never read the detection and attribution literature or even heard of the term, you don't know what you are talking about.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:49
#251085
Didn't you hear, the science is settled!!!
-University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/
-The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/29/weird-science-east-anglia-cru-threw-out-their-raw-data/
-NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/09/east-anglia-homogenization-falsified-declines-into-increases/
-East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/16/video-east-anglia-crus-below-standard-computer-modeling/
-No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/04/no-rise-in-atmospheric-carbon-over-the-last-150-years-university-of-bristol/
-IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/17/oops-ipcc-to-withdraw-claim-that-agw-will-wipe-out-himalayan-glaciers-by-2035/
-IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/30/ipcc-chief-hid-glacier-information-for-months/
-Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/more-bogus-agw-information-in-ipcc-report/
-Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/31/ipcc-based-claims-on-a-student-dissertation-and-a-magazine-article/
-Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/07/even-more-problems-found-in-ipcc-report-on-agw/
-Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/14/former-cru-chief-admits-warming-may-not-be-unprecedented/
-Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/14/was-there-any-actual-warming-to-begin-with/
-African-crop claims exposed as false
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/15/ipcc-warnings-about-african-crops-also-bogus/
-IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/16/did-the-ipcc-fudge-the-hurricane-data-too/
-Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/01/ipcc-science-on-hurricanes-no-longer-settled-either/
-Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/02/another-american-media-failure/complicit%20in%20the%20alleged%20scientific%20malpractices
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:41
#251550
Yes, I did hear the science is settled. 95-97% of the scientists studying the issue come to the same conclusion some do not.
Did you hear that some people still think the Earth is flat, that astronauts did not land on the moon, and that cigarettes do not cause cancer?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:47
#251261
What I cannot figure out is how there are so many people here on zero hedge who easily recognize political games when it comes to finance and banking, but are straight up f#kin6 ret@rded when it comes to climate change.
Would you not admit that if you poured a gallon of oil in your swimming pool that it would be polluted? Would you not admit that if you sat in your running car in your garage with the door closed that you might be breathing tainted air? (If you do not believe me, I recommend you try it out for some darwin effect.) So the question of climate change is not a matter of if; but how much? How much pollution does it take to have a real impact?
I am not 100% confident that climate change is occuring due to human activity. I am 100% confident that you are f#kin6 ret@rded if you dismiss with the evidence cited by anon 250763.
For those that claim climate change is simply a conspiracy drummed up by cap and trade folks, I would suggest you separate the two. There are plenty of people that are strong advocates of climate change policy that do not believe that cap and trade is anything more than a game to benefit the likes of GS.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:59
#251492
I've got bad news for you:
CH4 + 2O2 => 2H2O + CO2
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:17
#251610
Plant Chlorophyll + Sunlight + CO2 ---> O2
How sweet it is! Think first, no Garbage. Moderation is good,but coal tar sucks large.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:45
#251555
The political games almost all come from the climate change deniers. Political ideology trumps science. They don't want to believe the humans could have caused this issue (only the province of God) or the don't want companies to be regulated. I've never met one climate change denier that understands the scientific response to any of the "hoax" myths that are regularly regurgitated without any thought.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:56
#251567
I am 100% confident that photosynthesis is the solution! Cut down trees so people can write checks to get rid of CO2? I like the time square count down clock, gives climate change that 2012 feel. we should actually start 2012 legislation, 5% tax to stop the end of the world, it is less than 2 years away!
Pollution is a problem, fossil fuels... smoke stacks and muffler exhaust, I get that. When people call it a scam they are not saying pollution is not happening, maybe the earth is heating or cooling?
The solution is the tell... paying a tax, or creating hidden taxes when companies pass those climate costs onto the consumer is not a solution, pollution still occurs... solar, geothermal, wind, bla bla, that is the solution.
I live on the east coast and have shovelled a lot of snow this year, is global warming the cause of massive snowfall?
Who funds climate change research and what do they own? It is not what science says it is who pays for the research.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:29
#251531
Volcanoes emit on average 1/200th of the human emissions each year. On geologic timescales this is absorbed in the weathering of rocks and precipitates at the bottom of the ocean.
Just repeating the deniers myths does not exhibit intelligence.
If you want the whole story find sources that will give you both sides of the story. The one way to identify the denier sites is that they never, and I mean never, provide the scientific response to their claims (many of which are plausible, they have to be at least plausible otherwise nobody would ever be convinced).
But look at a website like realclimate.org Here you can find all the latesst science in layman and professional terms, all with links to the actual published articles in any dispute. The scientific response to each climate "hoax" myth is available.
So you have to ask yourself: which would you trust more, a website that only gives you one side of the story or a website that provides both sides of the story.
(Gore is a popularizer and not always scientifically accurate, take a look at the science itself.)
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 07:40
#250829
Ok....Let us simplify all of this....
.............
The US overhauls its political and tax structure....
Both individual and corporate taxes are eliminated....and
replaced by a simple 15% consumption tax....
All expenditures and major legal changes are voted by category by each township localized govt. which reports to each state....all via internet local vote....
Thus the lobbyist system ie thereby eliminated....
The lobbyist system should not be legal because only the largest companies/groups that have the MONEY can afford them....
Burn it down....
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:41
#250963
Anthropogenic global warming is a crock of bull.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:51
#251377
As are you, my bag-headed comrade.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:51
#251562
Why are you so surprised that humans could change the climate? Did you miss all the impacts we have on land, water and air? Isn't it obvious we have the power to influence the environment?
Pull your head out and take a look around.
With all these other obvious effects it's not hard to imagine we could affect the climate system. The difficulty with climate is no one can observe the effect based on personal experience. Any extreme effect such as Katrina could have occured without climate change. Climate change changes the odds of observing extreme events, but it is impossible to observe any extreme event and claim climate change as the cause. We can only see the climate change signal statistically over time, by observing how the odds have changed.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:46
#250970
"Their mission is to... and promote the myth that the whole global warming thing is nothing more than a leftist hoax."
"at www.madhedgefundtrader.com , where the conventional wisdom is mercilessly flailed and tortured daily,..."
Seems to me Mr Mad you are having a problem trying to walk and chew gum at the same time.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:54
#250982
Great! So the price of Nat Gas goes up, then what do I use to heat my home, coal?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:55
#250983
If the coal lobby's attacks on nat gas means that Cap and Trade fails, I guess I'm a supporter of those mean and terrible conspirators.
I'm actually a big supporter of a greater use of nat gas, but the idea of passing on 40% to 50% greater energy taxes and bills to consumers via Cap and Trade is crazy. When all of the major oil and nat gas producers suddenly start investing in carbon credit trading divisions I begin to understand that this doesn't have anything to do with improving the environment or making energy cheaper, it just creates another sophisticated market for trading....ala Enron. When Enron created a market for broadband there was not a need, it was simply a manufactured market so skim dollars away from folks. Seems very similar to this situation where we create "carbon offsets" to benefit whom?
Long live coal lobbyists!
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:57
#250987
wow - blaming cheney reduces your credibility.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:35
#251155
For majority of Americans it increases his credibility.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:16
#251314
It shouldn't, regardless of your politics. The implication from the text is that Cheney had something to do with a lot of coal being mined in Wyoming in recent years. The logic behind that suggeston is kind of puzzling. The last time Cheney was in Congress was 1989. He never served in the Senate or any Wyoming state office. How exactly would he be the one to thank for Wyoming's role in coal mining? If the claim is that the Bush administration's policies have something to do with coal mining, then why place the parenthetical after Wyoming?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:06
#251396
+10
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:58
#250988
Global warming is bullshit spewed by the same folks that brought you quantitative easing, TARP, Goldman, etc etc...control is that they want and they are extending their tentacles into every facet of our lives to gain it.
http://green-agenda.com
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:54
#251566
Environmentalists tend to be alarmists and overstate the case by exagerating what will happen, but i would bet anyone here that in the next 20-30 years everyone will come to accept this science, just as we now accept that cigarette smoking causes cancer.
In 20 years, people that deny anthropogenic climate change will appear to everyone like people who claim the earth is flat do now. I have no doubt.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:03
#250995
The notion that man controls the climate, aka Global Warming, is a hoax... Really hate to break that to you, buddy. Also, Al Gore did not invent the internet.
Score one for the good guys... America has over 200 trillion tons of coal; enough for 200 years of energy. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:48
#251178
I think we should just keep burning this 200 year supply. Not being able to see the sun and blue sky through an enormous mass of air born particulate is a small price to pay.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:07
#251307
We already are and have been for nearly 100 years. Yet the skies are blue and the sun is shining... What flavor koolaide you sippin?
on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 13:37
#252560
What color are your lungs? Never saw the pictures of buildings in London, NYC, Warsaw etc. black from all the coal burning residue?
People like yourself who assume political inclination from a one line post are generally assholes.
So what kind of asshole are you? A stupid fucking asshole. Ar just a run of the mill jerkoff asshole?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:04
#250999
Do you think you've uncovered something here? Really? Way to go deep cover. Is it just remotely possible that all these competing industries do "hatchet" jobs on one another one way or another? I'm close to both the coal and natgas industries, and I can tell you that neither is perfect. You can certainly argue coal is "dirtier" when used, but if you like using your computer or heat, well, it will have to do for now. And have you ever seen natgas dewatered? Specifically some of the tight gas found in coal and shale? Well, that aint too pretty either and has implications for aquifers as well. The real hatchet job has been done on the nukes, at least that tide appears to be turning for now...
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:50
#251086
amen, on nuclear. Folks should read Gwyneth Cravens "Power to save the world"
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:16
#251023
We are talking about "clean coal" though right?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:37
#251061
Spoken like your typical liberal.
The biggest fraud with global warming isn't whether or not it is going on but rather "the sky is falling" bokum consequences being ginned up. Warmer is better.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:47
#251081
. China, in particular, has the highest number of coal mining related deaths in the world, with official statistic 6,027 deaths in 2004.[
Those are documented, named deaths from coal mining alone.
This article has a lot of presuppositions, but that doesn't mean it is all wrong.
Coal has a long history of political positioning and attacking competitors. They were leading the charge of "no nukes" in the 70's when it became apparent that nuclear was a serious threat. You can thank coal for funding that.
follow the money.
I have my serious doubts about AGP. The dog don't hunt so well.
Clearly, we need to figure out better ways to mine for coal without killing 5-10 thousand Chinese a year. More radiation comes from coal plants than nuclear. This is fact.
I say do it all, and do it well.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:55
#251096
madhedgefundtrader,
You just had to do it, didn't you. You just had to ruin a good piece about energy lobbying with reference to the absolute nonsense that is global warming theory. I mean honestly, how anyone could think that a rapidly industrializing, fossil fuel dependent world of 6 Billion people and counting could have any effect on the climate and biosphere whatsoever is beyond me. It's not like humanity hasn't already been transforming the environment since the dawn of agriculture or anything. C'mon, get real, we are nothing more than ants, people!
So please stop dragging the name of good King Coal through the slurry. Global warming is a vast left-wing conspiracy concocted by a cabal of secret bankers with the intention of profitting from your breath, and Al Gore is the godless false prophet selling lies to the masses. I can't think of another enterprise that is more shameless in its focus on deception, control and profit. Thank god the world still has its share of freedom fighters to unmask all the lies and defend the honour of King Coal, who has ruled with such selflessness and compassion and yet finds himself under siege by this vast and vile global "warming" conspiracy. My god people, it was snowing this winter, the world is getting colder, wake up! Next thing you know, they are going to start claiming that mountaintop removal is destructive, or that towns don't look nicer flooded knee-deep with tailing pond waste. When will this madness end?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:37
#251160
I hope that's a tongue planted firmly in cheek.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:43
#251172
We are talking about "clean coal" though, right?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:50
#251186
Anthropogenic Global Warming is inescapably occurring. Individual scientists, from around the globe, started documenting this beginning in the 1980s.
Just begin to consider the numbers, and China is just one number, going from 10 quadrillion BTUs of energy consumption to 55 quadrillion BTUs, from 1975 to 2007. The world population, those cooking, heating, driving, consuming human beings, has gone up by billions!!
There used to be the "conspiracy" when I was a kid, that 500,000 Red Chinese troops were massed at the Mexican border, and no one was doing anything about it! Same thing about the "climate change deniers" today as those "red scare" people in the 1950s. No facts, just grand sweeps of meaningless words. You deniers sound like Hitler calling forth his lost divisions in 1945, oblivious to their annihilation years before. Simply invoking something without any facts doesn't make it true. Instead of denouncing AGW, why not advocate for reducing energy consumption? Steam trains of the 19th century operated at 3% thermal efficiency. Cars operate at less than 19% thermal efficiency. We have a long way to go to have a cheaper, cleaner society. Why not be positive instead of conspiratists? The conspiratists who insist there is some sort of concerted, covert plan to promote AGW to satisfy some top secret agenda, yet insist no one can run a single-payer health plan with the same concerted, covert methodology.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:02
#251579
The first calculation by a scientist about what would happen to the climate with a doubling of CO2 was by nobel prize winner Svante Arrhenius in . . . 1896.
This isn't new science boy's.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:21
#251321
"how anyone could think that a rapidly industrializing, fossil fuel dependent world of 6 Billion people and counting could have any effect on the climate and biosphere whatsoever is beyond me."
Well, that's clearly the right standard to employ. If one could think that global warming exists, then it must exist. I think that's the same rigorous critical thinking employed by the Goracle.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:03
#251392
From here on the oregon coast it looks different. Personal observation is neccessary when you cant trust the science or politics.
We are still waiting for winter! Theres been no frost this year and it only froze once so far in the bird bath. Our tulips are coming up too early.
None of this means a thing to the folks 25 floors up and far , far removed from nature.
People in ivory towers dont think like a farmer and are not in tune to nature.
This has been a very warm winter so far.
Which is interesting because as i undestand it we are still in an unexpected solar minimum
Am beginning to think there maybe a relationship to the galactic cycle we are in and our consequential pass truh the 7 year edge of our own blackhole.
We often fail to see the bigger picture, i am still seeking out info re the 25,000 year cycle .
If my theory is correct we will have more earthmovements of greater severety until 2012
By july 2015 we will have passed truh it and hopefully there will be many survivors.
Historical information regarding this cycle is scant, cave drawings from that time are found in france. Also flash frozen material was found from that time period.
If this is as serious as i think all this money/value trouble is no trouble at all.
If i find out more i will post it.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:33
#251449
Heard of El Niño?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 21:11
#251796
There are plenty of frozen bird baths in the midwest, at any rate even a bird brain understands that natural gas burns cleaner than coal. The whole "green" movement loses credibility just by the fact that natural gas is a natural replacement for all the coal and it is not happening.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:27
#251143
Of course they are working to kill it. It appears every industry in the united states is devoted to the idea that what ever the best solution we have, don't do it.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:45
#251177
Oh, so "both parties" agree on subsidies for natural gas, that must be a really great idea then. How dastardly of those coal lobbyists to be fighting the transfer of public funds to natural gas producers!
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:03
#251207
Tyler, I really am having a difficult time understanding your selection of contributors to ZH. If your strategy is to make you look good, it is working. If it is because you think it is making your site better, you are mistaken.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:51
#251273
+ 1000000
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:23
#251223
MHFT = (Frank Abagnale Jr.+Doogie Howser)/2
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:31
#251234
I used to think your contributions were interesting. No more clickies from me. You jumped the shark this time, Fonz.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:33
#251240
I looked for a reference for the 23,000 deaths from coal emissions, but I only found one referernce to a 2004 study "Commissioned by environmental groups and undertaken by a consultant often used by the Environmental Protection Agency, the study concluded that 22,000 of those deaths are preventable with currently available technology."
This was from a news article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/
But, the one link in the story was a dead link. So, where did the 23,000 deaths come from? How do we know it is accurate. BTW, I would expect coal producing states to be lobbying for coal. Dragging Cheney into the post was beyond stupid.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:06
#251590
Here's a link with scientific references
http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Power_Plant_Emissions.pdf
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:45
#251258
23,000 die..big deal over 100,000 die from mistakes at hospitals
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:55
#251380
Yeah, but trying to reform the health care/hospital/insurance cabal makes you a lousy communist, so we'll try working on these 23K for a bit.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:10
#251407
its a big deal when its YOU!
Ask any coal miner how healthy their job is.
Unlike office workers, they come home with soot on their faces and in their hair. Of course it gets in their lungs.
You can smell and see it in the air.
But its all good for us.
There death, and there is unneccessary death.
When the unneccessary death is willful and knowing ..i call it murder and many of us are accessories to the crime
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:05
#251587
While I do believe in keeping polution to a minimum, you can't live in our society the way we do and not create some pollution. Should we all just kill ourselves and get it over with? Don't worry about the rotting corpses, b/c I'm sure all the wolves that are over-running our mountains and forests will clean that up. Thus we save the planet from the human polluters and we save the elk from being wiped out by the wolves! Nice, a twofer. (Sorry, out here in the wild west we have a bit of a wolf controversy)
As for the coal miners, well, they should kind of know the risks before starting the work shouldn't they? As for me being an accessory to the coal crime- NOT. Don't use coal where I live, so you can stuff your guilt trip "merehuman". Oh, but I do use fire wood -geez I forgot. Not only am I polluting everyone's air, but I'm also taking away the food from the bark beetles. I guess I have committed a crime! Off to Gitmo for me.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:09
#251597
I don't believe in keeping pollution to a minimum, that would be too expensive. I believe we should reduce pollution as long as the benefits of reducing each unit is greater than the cost of reducing each unit and no further.
Avoiding health impacts and avoiding damages caused to other companies from pollution are the benefits of reducing it.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 13:51
#251275
At least you can spell, punctuate, write a complete sentence, and construct a readable paragraph. That's more than 95% of Americans can do these days.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:23
#251328
Face it, all energy sources have a problem either from being mined or from an emissions viewpoint. As for "King Coal"..it is probably the worst of all. Mining it is filthy, you have to whittle down a mountain, make an open pit, essentially destroy an aquifer, synthetic gas from it is big $$$, burning it is from an emissions point loaded with CO2 and sulfur, the waste slag is loaded with RCRA metals. Until we can get a handle on fusion, the only alternative is fission. So let's cut the red tape, tell the enviro-wackos to take a hike and build the damn things.......
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:32
#251341
Step 1: Massively ramp up spending on the infrastructure necessary to allow for natural gas vehicles (first on the fleet level, then for individual consumers). By displacing petroleum demand, you placate the enviros. But moreover, you reduce dependence on oil-producing nations. (Yes, yes, more comes from Canada than anywhere else. But the "anywhere else" still represents an uncomfortable segement.)
Step 2: Allow the oldest coal-fired plants to be decommissioned. Replace them with the option that requires the least government subsidy to meet the same load: clean coal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. Nuclear seems like the best bet, but that's still a mighty big subsidy.
Step 3: Accept the fact that we will burn some coal for a long time to come. Allow the newer coal-fired plants to continue doing their work. Allow for minimal amounts of smart regulation to minimize their effect on the environment, but recognize that it is not cost-effective to over-regulate them. It's a tradeoff. You might not like it, but you might like the alternatives even less.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 14:47
#251371
Anyone who "knows" global warming is or is not true is full of scheisse. What we DO know is a danger as the result of burning coal and what I'm more concerned with is the waste created from coal ash. This crap piles up in artificial resevoirs meant to hold the ash, but the EPA keeps no tabs on these toxic pools. Somewhere, sometime soon, this will be a real tragedy.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:09
#251405
Mad Hedge Fund Trader is ridiculous. Talk about somebody who can't handle free speech.
Every try to leave a critical comment on his site.
Come on MHFT, why so anti-criticism.
Stand up and take it like a man instead of name dropping every 5 seconds.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:18
#251422
Another brainwashed fool. That will be the last posting of any sort I read from madhedgefundtrader. Sigh.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:18
#251423
OK, I agree coal needs to be phased out. It does pollute the air, water, ect. Maybe natural gas is part of the solution; decentralized power sources like windmills, rooftop solar, and passive solar can almost completly eliminate pollutions from power generation and transportation if you get a plug in electric car. Plus, it eliminates your dependency on public utilites and allows complete self sufficency with power source that would remain if our whole gov't falls and public utilities become undependable with it.
I do have to say though, as a resident of Southern Colorado, the whole fracking methods do release gas into public water supplies. I know this because YOU CAN LIGHT MY TAP WATER ON FIRE. One of the guys that is trying to fight for some protection from this got on the news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHCkvN_MLxs . We are also not coal lobbyists, we just miss being able to drink, wash dishes, bathe, ect. without hauling in a cyctern.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:22
#251429
What about wind power? I know, everyone is always like "what if the wind doesn't blow? Then you won't have any power." That's why we should be building in places like Southeastern Wyoming where the wind has been blowing nonstop since the friggin late Pleistocene. And even if you built them in a place where the wind stops blowing, just make sure they're are near a hydroelectric dam. The energy output from the dam can be moderated in accordance with the local wind speed to produce the desired power output.
Nuclear would be good if we could finally agree on a place to store the waste, and Natural gas would be good except for the chemicals pumped into the groundwater during hydraulic fracturing. Wind's only weakness that I can see is it's intermittency. Of the 3 problems above, I believe intermittency is the mildest and easiest to overcome.
on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 14:32
#252647
Wind is good, no doubt. But it's virtually impossible for wind to serve anywhere near as much load as coal, gas or nuclear. Wind should be a part of the strategy, but it can't be the solution.
Nothing's impossible, you say? Ok, true enough. But things do become economically impossible. There are not enough resources available to build the number of turbines that would be necessary to serve that kind of load (even if it were somehow possible to get past the enviros to site all of those wind farms). It's analogous to the Australians, who have recenlty given up on any future nuclear plants -- not because of the usual nuclear fears, but because their water shortage is so acute, it becomes economically impracticable to devote water to the nukes.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:28
#251434
Sir:
Please seperate CO2 fueled anthropogenic man made gloabal warming form deaths by coal airborne pollutants.
Anthropogenic global warming may turn out to be a huge hoax, but there is some truth to the idea that poorly controlled burning of coal can lead to problems. What is needed are better ways to manage the use of coal.
Please cut the BS.
www.energysolution.us
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 15:30
#251444
Wahh, my tulips are coming up early, no frost this year wahhh...
As long as personal anecdotes are now proof, my ground is frozen 6 feet deep, 2 feet deeper than normal and this proves what? Nothing!
What is proof is Dr Jones admitting he hid data as a normal part of his work at CRU East Anglia, lying liberals wil l always lie for control.. The IPCC admitting its story on the Himalayan glaciers melting was a college students fanatasy and oh yeah, that ocean level rise thing we screwed up on that too..
First comment and my last read of MHFT.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:13
#251603
Personal anecdotes are not proof. Educate yourself before you start spouting off.
Google "Detection and attribution" and you will learn something about how scientists actually detect the changing climate signal and then attribute climate change to human causes. If you've never read the detection and attribution literature or even heard of the term, you don't know what you are talking about.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:17
#251517
Coal and natural gas have their niche uses. They can fill a gap until another advanced energy supply is up and running. The renewable sources such as solar, geothermal, tidal, wind and biomass will never be able to supply the necessary kilowatts to sustain the general welfare. Man-made climate change is a fraudulent concept.
Nuclear energy is a boon for humankind. There are energy deficits all throughout the world. Without reliable energy streams a nation cannot raise its general welfare. Israel runs on 7000 MW per capita; Norway 18,000 MW. Colder climates need more energy; Haiti 250 MW. No explanation needed. The potential of nuclear desalination plants is also profound. A literal Ganeden down here on terra firma is predicated on the supply of reliable energy sources. There is enormous energy able to be unlocked in a single atom. The universe is full of energy. Scarcity is a mindset.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 16:57
#251570
Can anyone who disputes climate change here give me one piece of evidence, that climate scientists have not already considered?
Just one?
I didn't think so.
If you try, make sure you look for the scientific response first; otherwise you're just spewing uninformed blather...
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:09
#251668
Ducky,
I don't know about the others, but I don't dispute climate change, just that humans are causing all of it. Humans pollute, yes. In fact, people are pigs, but that doesn't create a warming climate necessarily.
Climate change is part of history -warm to cold, cold to warm...
As for the so-called scientific experts, well, they just cooked their own goose with the whole climate-gate scandal. Who can believe that group of scientists any more?
My self preservation instincts have taught me to not listen to those that lie. Liars are like pedophiles -they cannnot be cured or trusted!
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 20:19
#251746
One group of scientists did some dumb and inexcusable things. However, the conclusions of 100 years of science does not depend on this group.
I'll address the natural variation below.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:14
#251678
Ducky,
I don't know about the others, but I don't dispute climate change, just that humans are causing all of it. Humans pollute, yes. In fact, people are pigs, but that doesn't create a warming climate necessarily.
Climate change is part of history -warm to cold, cold to warm...
As for the so-called scientific experts, well, they just cooked their own goose with the whole climate-gate scandal. Who can believe that group of scientists any more?
My self preservation instincts have taught me to not listen to those that lie. Liars are like pedophiles -they cannnot be cured or trusted!
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:21
#251682
You can't then prove a negative hypothesis. The hypothesis is that global warming, now conveniently called "climate change" (as if the climate isn't changing all of the time anyway!) is changing for the worse due to human activities and at such a rate that it is dangerous to human and ecological existence. Since the current evidence has been shown to be a complete sham, the hypothesis remains false.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 20:24
#251748
What does this even mean?
Can evolution ever be "proved"?
If all scientific evidence supports it is it proved? Even though someday, somewhere there may be one piece of evidence that can disprove it?
If you want to ignore the scientific evidence go ahead. If you want to think that a field of science is only true if it never includes humans that do wrong things, you're going to be waiting a long time.
Have medical scientists ever faked the data, cooked the books? So now you don't go to the doctor?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:30
#251694
Are you on Al Gore's payroll or something? Have you been paid to troll this thread or are you a "true believing" zealot intent on spreading da troooooooooooof!1!1!!eleventy.
Regardless of the recent revelations of chicanery and data manipulation, as well as the pre-existing and ongoing obfuscation of methodology, model, and source data, you guys in the AGW camp are going to go to the mattresses on this, eh?
There have been past periods of extreme warming and cooling, long before man's impact became even statistically significant; like the medieval warming period, for one. And, here's a novel thought-perhaps solar activity is the more dominant driver in this instance!
With all due respect this is less about science, and more about political sway and control; about one group's abiloity to regulate and dictate the actions of another. The "science" is far from settled. In actual science, matters are never settled nor determined by consensus. Indeed, labs all over this country routinely verify the existence and effect of gravitional forces.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 20:28
#251754
You've been reading too many global warming is a hoax sites. You hit two of the top 10 propagated myths that "disprove" AGW in one short post: medieval warming and variation in solar activity.
Both are TRUE but disprove nothing. Check out realclimate.org for both sides of the argument for both issues to educate yourself beyond one-sided nonsense.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 21:05
#251787
Oh, Ducky, ducky, ducky . . . .
I'm wondering if you even understand what you just wrote.
It's not a matter of what they considered, or didn't consider. The so-called scientific community that has supplied the support for the AGW political movement has surely considered a great many things, but they've also screwed the pooch beyond any shadow of doubt. You seem to assume that no scientist would ever lie or cheat. Sad to say, this is not and never has been the case. THAT's why the scientific community expects every result to be replicable by anyone else with the tools and knowhow to do so. These GW clowns did not do that. They concealed their "data" from everyone else, for years and years, on the flimsiest of reasons. That made us suspicious, right there. But now we have the smoking gun. Now we know that they've cherry-picked data, they've faked data, they've actively concealed data that didn't fit their preconceived models, and they've fiddled their models without mercy. And now it's no longer a case of skeptics posting opposing analyses for an argument, we now have Phil Jones admitting all this in public, and admitting that for 15 years now there HAS NOT BEEN ANY MEASURABLE WARMING.
So while they may have (in your mind at least) CONSIDERED everything, they still gave us fraudulent results.
I've spent my entire career in engineering, and specifically in engineering the measurement of one thing or another. I've ALWAYS been a GW skeptic, because I've known all along that the data they are building these models from has no credibility whatsoever. It never COULD have any credibility, because nobody knows how the vast majority of the thermometers which created the historical record were calibrated. The probable errors, even conservatively estimated, is three to ten TIMES the amount of "warming" they were(are) claiming. And that's just for the past 200 years or so. Prior to that, they're just guessing. Even the calibration of some of the satellites we've had up in the modern era has to be suspect. Ten years ago we had two different satellite data sets, but we cannot know whether they are any good, because the two satellites were never collecting data at the same time. We call this a "correlation test". If I had tried to get my customer to pay for two instruments that could not be shown to give the same results from testing the same object, he sure as Hell wouldn't write me a check. Well, that's what's wrong with the GW crowd. Their data stunk, they ran all sorts of tricks to try to make it look good enough to meet the customer's expectations, and we now know that they were lying all along. The customer (us) is now lining up the bouncers to have them thrown out into the (wet and snowy) street.
Cheers!
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 17:20
#251615
Adam,
Thread winner excellent post. Scarcity is a mindset and a policy problem. Reverse Jimma Carter's prohibition on reprocessing and we have now made a large dent in the waste problem. Reverse Obama's closure of Yucca mountain and scarcity is truly a mindset. Fossil fuels have their place as density of energy in especially oil when used in transport is difficult to replace. With sufficient energy in the form of nuclear we can really pursue these alternate solutions while not shivering in the dark..
Duck, even if it were real, it would be a net bonus to mankind, luddite...
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 20:29
#251756
It certainly will be beneficial to some countries, for example Canada and Russia, but net gain, no.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:00
#251656
Too bad Al didn't get to be president. He could have told us the right temperature for the earth and done an Executive Order decreeing that we keep it there. Then we would be safe forever after. We need to listen to him because he is really really smart.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:09
#251669
k duck, i'll bite - evolutionary bio guy u of chicago 88
1. No "real" scientist would ever call something as thin as climate change a given or proved. Now if you are fighting for tenure or a big ass grant - well then, bob's (Al's) your uncle and off the races you go.
2. Orbital mechanics - we are in a 9 body system and the equations have no single solution (they are unsolvable - hence the need for mid course spacecraft corrections) i.e. the earth's distance to the sun is not fixed and we have only captured solid position data in the last say 20 years. Oh - did I mention the sun's output varies and so does the daily energy flow via the solar wind, CME's etc..??
3a. earth is a wonderfully self regulating system. Some examples - remember pv = nrt, yippie you do. So if you increase temp of atmosphere what are you going to get - hint pressures have not risen - so guess what, volume goes up. Now if you increase the volume of a sphere (oblate spheriod I know) you get bingo - more surface area and what does surface area to space give you - a bigger radiative surface. And it varies all the time. Neeeto temp goes up, area goes up temp goes down - damn that's cool
3b. We get massive melt in polar regions - guess what, more plant life is uncovered and you get more co2 uptake by the plants that are now uncovered - nifty neeeto - who made this rock called earth
3c. Did natural selection in plants just stop..?? i.e. if more co2 is available ya think those plants may tend to select for those geneotypes that use co2 more effectively..?? I do.... well golly jee, ya think some assumptions have to be made yet about climate change and the inputs to the models..??
3d. I can pretty much guarantee you that biomass numbers are grossly underestimated. Just look at roofs and in gutters for missing biomass.... hmmm, wonder if those numbers have really big errors and how does that flow through the model..?? ro ro astro
and my favorite -
4. All the assumptions used in any climate change model have errors - those errors are not singular - they add together and kinda go logarithmic the more you have and the bigger the error - way to many assumptions and way to little "actual data" - sorry nobody was around to make measurements 100,000 years ago - that data is iffy at best and plant crap as a proxy - ohh that's good - remember natural selection - ya, they change over time so to pick something known today to proxy shit in the wayback machine is - well crap of dino proportions. Errors are way too big to make a call in either direction. More data is needed across a range of fields - and to be betting economies and major bucks on this fix when the errors and assumptions are off the scale is pretty much a crime. Oh did I mention - pretty much all astrophysics dorks will tell you the Sun is toast in a like 4 billion years so we are all fuk'd anyway. Why waste time and or money - party on baby..!!
Now answer for me -
What is normal average temperature of earth..??
Are we moving away from it..??
Are we moving to it..??
Would you be willing to bet the lives of all your future offspring that "global warming" is a fact..?? Literally - we would round them up and put a cap in their noggin if YOU were wrong..?? Come on - ya got to be sure now and stick to your principals - wanna take that bet with all the errors and assumptions in the data..??
Disclaimer - While I discount the recent and politically driven "climate change" phooey, I am a firm believer that as human populations increase it WILL become a problem. It is however actually a lot easier to change human population than it is to change the environment. For me healthcare (and a litany of horse shit government socialized crap) is/are the problem as we have reversed and overridden the natural selection process in humanity. That is a very bad thing to have messed with. I do like natural gas - it is in widespread use all over the country (globe) just not as much in the power gen sector as it should be. We need balance and a plan to change over time - well until the Sun goes red and really giant on us....
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 20:42
#251764
Your natural selection assertions are interesting theories, but your attempting to negate a 100 years of science with a few assertions.
Sun will run out of fuel (actually burn only 10%) and turn into a red giant swallowing the earth in an estimated 10 billion years.
In the meantime, we do have data from ice cores drilled in Antarctica that go back 400,000 to 600,000 years (two different studies). Climate certainly does vary with orbital parameters; there's a ice age cycle every 110,000 to every 130,000 years, mostly ice ages with roughly 20,000 year interglacial periods.
There is also a solar cycle of 11 and 22 years. Every 11 years the magnetic pole of the sun reverses and then completes the cycle the next 11 years. Solar output and solar flares varies over this cycle.
All of these and more factors cause climate to vary. But which factors cause climate to vary as we've observed in the last 100 years. Answer: none of the natural factors only the human contribution.
Read about "detection and attribution" if you want to review the true science instead of pseudo conspiracy websites.
Your polar example with more plants there taking up CO2 ignores the change in the albedo effect (i.e. when there is no longer snow and ice there, reflectivity will go down, and more solar energy will be absorbed, heating the earth).
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 21:24
#251813
Now answer for me -
What is normal average temperature of earth..??
There is no normal temperature, it varies over the ice age cycles. During an interglacial such as when civilization arose (ie this interglacial) temperature is near the top of the range.
Are we moving away from it..??
Temperature is going up, we have not quite gone beyond the historical range. However, CO2 which correlates with temperature mainly through feedback effects (ie orbital parameters start interglacial warming, then CO2 releases magnify the temperature increase). Anyways, CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in the last 400,000 years and going much, much higher than ever observed in the last 400,000 nears. This is incontrovertable, measuring bubbles in ice core prove it.
Are we moving to it..??
The media often over simplify things. They often write as if the pre-industrial temperature is the optimal temperature for civilization. There is no way to prove that. Civilization (agriculture) arose during an interglacial. Humans will adapt (especially those that can afford it) to climate change. Those countries that are most dependent on agriculture, the developing world, will have the hardest time adapting. The speed of the climate change will influence our ability to adapt. Sea level impacts and agriculture will be the sectors mosts impacted.
I only advocate starting by cutting emissions by 10%, because the cost to the economy is uncertain. A low carbon tax or barely binding cap, will create an incentive to use energy differently and innovate. The ONLY reason society has not done anything to combat climate change is the perceived cost of doing something. Let's do a little and see what the cost really is.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:27
#251689
For about $500 billion the US could construct about 100 nuclear power plants that would completely replace all the coal fired plants in the US. If we reprocess fuel like Japan and France, the waste problem goes away. (France's cumulative nuclear waste from 40 years of nuclear power lie in 3 pools in one building. Advanced reactor designs could even use the waste as fuel. Thorium based reactors could provide the US with 10,000 years of electricity. We could even use the excess heat from the reactors to turn coal into gasoline in a cleaner Fischer-Trope process. There's more oil equivalent in the US coal deposits than the whole of the Middle East combined, and then some. That and exploration along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts would make the US energy independent. A better use of the stimulus cash than the transfer payments and pet projects its being used on now.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 20:45
#251768
Nuclear will have to be part of the answer. In this age of terrorism though security is a serious issue. Don't want to see anyone fly a jet into a nuclear reactor.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 18:28
#251690
For about $500 billion the US could construct about 100 nuclear power plants that would completely replace all the coal fired plants in the US. If we reprocess fuel like Japan and France, the waste problem goes away. (France's cumulative nuclear waste from 40 years of nuclear power lie in 3 pools in one building. Advanced reactor designs could even use the waste as fuel. Thorium based reactors could provide the US with 10,000 years of electricity. We could even use the excess heat from the reactors to turn coal into gasoline in a cleaner Fischer-Trope process. There's more oil equivalent in the US coal deposits than the whole of the Middle East combined, and then some. That and exploration along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts would make the US energy independent. A better use of the stimulus cash than the transfer payments and pet projects its being used on now.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 19:24
#251728
How do we know if its true or not? How far back does detailed weather data go back? 100 yrs. How do we know that this is not a 100, 500, 1000 yr. or more cycle. I do know that what we are doing now probably isn't good for the earth, and definitely is irresponsible if we are looking to the future.
If we could spend a fraction of the money we spend creating wars to secure more oil for the future and use it to diversify our energy sources then we just might have a chance.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 21:04
#251784
There are three main data sets that support the science.
Recent direct measurments: CO2 concentrations directly measured on mountain in Hawaii since 1958, and temperature records that go back couple hundred years.
Tree ring data: using regression analysis (alpha and beta in investing) between the measured temperature record and annual tree growth, one can estimate the temperature back a couple of thousand years.
Ice core data: Ice cores drilled in Antarctica have trapped bubbles from the time ice formed. Two mile columns of ice go back up to 600,000 years. Melt the ice and measure the composition of the atmosphere. Measure the density of various pollens and one can infer the what was growing at the time and what the climate was like.
This is fossil data. It's not perfect, but it's real. If you want to study the distant past (humans or dinosaurs) fossils are all you have. This temperature data is the basis for the "natural variation" claims that somehow "disprove" anthropogenic climate change by some writers above. It is also the basis for real climate studies that have linked orbital parameters to the cycle of ice ages.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 21:12
#251799
How do you prove the calibration accuracy of ANY of these three datasets? None overlap, so you can't
We know now that the so-called "tree-ring data" comes from just THREE (or is it ONE?) trees, while all the other trees in that dataset were thrown out because they didn't agree with the foregone conclusions.
To the extent that we have measured CO2 in fossil air, we find that the CO2 rise doesn't occur until AFTER the fossil warming has taken place.
"When the facts prove to me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do YOU do?" (J.M.Keynes)
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 22:28
#251887
Three trees? Is that a joke? Or have you been drinking the kool-aid at the denier websites?
You seem to be taking the position that none of this evidence means anything because it is not some theoretically perfect data that does not exist.
Do you believe in dinosaurs? Can you learn anything from the fossile record?
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 21:14
#251803
Don't eat the fish....
http://water.usgs.gov/wid/FS_216-95/FS_216-95.html
american workers need jobs, why not reduce the environmental footprint that we humans leave behind us, cleaner air, water and soils for our children? Clean up the pollution we leave and inflict on those who come after us?
Burning coal is a slow death, they pollute more long term than Nukes.
on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 21:15
#251804
My point is that we don't know if this is a cycle, and if it is then how many year cycle is it. Obviously we don't know the answer. The data if it goes back 600,000 yrs how does it being in ice for that long affect it and how reliable is the science that tells us how old it is. There are a lot of variables and science is continually advancing but not perfect as you said and in some cases not reliable. Regardless of whether it is true or even partially true the responsible thing to do would be to reduce the carbon emissions. I don't believe cap and trade is the answer, just another derivitive. Thanks for the info.