Climate Change Report

[AM64]

So this quote from the other poster is BS?

Initially, federal appropriations funded all TVA operations. Federal funding for the TVA power program ended in 1959, and appropriations for TVA’s environmental stewardship and economic development activities were phased out by 1999. In 2014, TVA made its final scheduled repayment on Congress’ original $1 billion investment in the TVA power system, but TVA continues to make annual payments on the government’s remaining equity investment in TVA.

TVA is now fully self-financing, funding virtually all operations through electricity sales and power system bond financing. TVA sets rates as low as feasible and reinvests net income from power sales into power system improvements and economic development initiatives. TVA makes no profit and receives no tax money.

TVA at a Glance

 

[Roustabout]

TVA at a Glance

I accept the error.
That has nothing to do with costs. It’s all passed down one way or the other.

 

[Mick]

Gripe?
I said, “problem solved.”
Why don’t you just agree and move on?

This is why it's idiotic for me to even try with you.

Did you not read the link. This is proven and established tech. If you could neutralize CO2 would you support coal fired plants?

Thats been around for awhile but was cost prohibitive for the coal fired power plants. I don't know if that's changed and if the industry would adopt that "standard" or "regulation", I don't see why not.

I probably read the article 2 years ago.

So, it cost too much to save the planet?

It was in the article you posted, Didn't you read it? Is that what that you got from the article, or you just don't have anywhere else to go in this conversation?

I read that it’s expensive. So what?
It also said that others felt like they could make it much cheaper, especially by targeting emissions at their source.

Do you know how much carbon taxes are costing us now? Since you have no facts, you likely don’t.
We spent a billion dollars of tax money for a scrubber on Bull Run Steam plant and they are tearing it down. And that’s just one plant.

I said I was fine with the technology. What's your gripe? Is it that it was funded with tax dollars (which you will need to verify because I can't take your word for anything).

 

[FLVOL_79]

Gotta love the mass hysteria about climate change. Its so nuts congress listened to a child talk to them about it. That seems to be par for the course for libtards. Children dictating what you should do. No wonder so many kids grow up with garbage parenting.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Yeah, somehow according to greenhouse theory solar energy gets by CO2 in the atmosphere but the heat can't get back out. And there's more magic - if we heat up the oceans, they release CO2 to increase the effectiveness of the super magic mirror.

"Magic"!

 

[FLVOL_79]

Clearly, this particular Administration is not capable of running a neighborhood lemonade stand, never mind addressing an issue like climate change. If you haven't noticed, the anti-science President has done everything in his power to accelerate climate change - hey, let's burn more coal, that sounds like a good plan! By the way, the science is settled, thinking otherwise is simply asinine.

Yeah..what are you doing to combat climate change? Riding a bike to work? Only eating kale? Turned off your electricity? Well, no, you keep posting here...

 

[BartW]

Bart, what can you tell me about the effects of an increase in temperature of the crust on plate tectonics and volcanic activity?

Yes, there is actually a connection. It’s not a direct result of heating the crust per se. But following deglaciation you do see isostatic rebound where the crust rises due to buoyancy and the loss of overburden. So it noticeably affects tectonics, but not really plate tectonics (continental drift) as far as I know. Similarly, the loss of overburden from deglaciation does cause increased volcanism.

Isostatic rebound is a process that takes place over tens of thousands of years (and is ongoing from the last ice age). It’s established that volcanism does at least respond on that timescale, but I’ve seen some relatively recent research that shows that it responds over shorter timescales (hundreds of years) too, but I don’t know how robust that finding is. I’d have to look it up.

In any case, these effects are way down my list of concerns. The effects are significant when you’re talking about removing miles of ice during deglaciation. But there simply isn’t enough ice cover today for our melting it to have very significant impacts in these respects, in my opinion. I mean, there will obviously be a lot more active volcanism in Antarctica if we melt the Antarctic ice sheets, but we’d already be living in Waterworld at that point anyway (if we are living at all)

 

[BartW]

Al Gore caught flak from a very quiet majority then. I can think of instances where the Big Oil guys got called out, and other various hacks. But it seems that as long as the hack agrees you dont hear them get called out. The issue is that it pushes the public opinion and by extension public/government intervention in ways that arent efficient and it compounds the issue.

The scientist whose work Gore misquoted was irate. There were several news articles that quoted various scientists denouncing his incorrect claims. Of course, social media didn’t exist and Al Gore had only recently invented the internet back then, so it’s understandable that you may not have heard. Scientists tend to be a relatively quiet bunch, and it’s not like people listen when they speak, anyway.

But I agree, the media’s poor coverage of climate change is a big reason we’re in this pickle today.

To the section I left on 1%: i would say the heat generation is directly tied to the CO2 production. So if our production of CO2 is enough to change things, the heat is at least as bad. And as i pointed out it is the actual driver to the climate change. We are talking about 1 degree over a century. So that 1 percent may seem insignificant, but it could be a big chunk of the acceleration we are seeing.

I also doubt it's only 1% heat production. Not saying it's going to be 50% vs the sun. But i would take an educated guess its somewhere around 10%. One of the major reasons being is it's impossible to create cooling. All you do is move heat from one area to another. So there is a lot more you have to consider than just heat production bia burning a fuel. Even just the transmission of electricity creates heat.

Doing a pretty simple back-of-the-envelope calculation, if you assume 100% of the energy from all the fuel we burn is transformed into waste heat, it’s still only about 1% (.03 W/m2) of the added heat due to the increased greenhouse effect (3 W/m2), which itself is only about 1% of solar insolation (300 W/m2). So your educated guess is off by about 3 orders of magnitude. Feel free to look into it. The term you will want to search is “Anthropogenic Waste Heat Flux”

Lastly i think we have talked about this before and i honestly cant remember how it went but on the insulation it works both ways. If we are somehow trapping heat in, it means we would be excluding it as well. Most materials and processes for the movement of heat work just as well forward as they do backwards. Up vs down in this case. If we are trapping 10% more heat in it means we should be excluding 10% more heat gain from solar radiation heating the atmosphere. It would typically require some type of phase change for a material to work differently in a different direction. I doubt that happens naturally.

Your last bit is another part I dont see addressed. If we are reflecting heat back in, we are also reflecting heat back out unless CO2 has some super magical powers like a two way mirror.

Yeah, somehow according to greenhouse theory solar energy gets by CO2 in the atmosphere but the heat can't get back out. And there's more magic - if we heat up the oceans, they release CO2 to increase the effectiveness of the super magic mirror.

"Magic"!

This demonstrates a common fundamental misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works. Greenhouse gases absorb and reradiate energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum. The sun’s energy is largely in the visible portion of the spectrum. The vis spectrum energy that hits the Earth's surface heats it, causing to radiate energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum. So yes, in a sense, the atmosphere is like a super magical two-way mirror (aka, a greenhouse…)

For more specifics, google “Earth’s Energy Budget” or consult your child's elementary school textbook

 

[FLVOL_79]

The scientist whose work Gore misquoted was irate. There were several news articles that quoted various scientists denouncing his incorrect claims. Of course, social media didn’t exist and Al Gore had only recently invented the internet back then, so it’s understandable that you may not have heard. Scientists tend to be a relatively quiet bunch, and it’s not like people listen when they speak, anyway.

But I agree, the media’s poor coverage of climate change is a big reason we’re in this pickle today.

Doing a pretty simple back-of-the-envelope calculation, if you assume 100% of the energy from all the fuel we burn is transformed into waste heat, it’s still only about 1% (.03 W/m2) of the added heat due to the increased greenhouse effect (3 W/m2), which itself is only about 1% of solar insolation (300 W/m2). So your educated guess is off by about 3 orders of magnitude. Feel free to look into it. The term you will want to search is “Anthropogenic Waste Heat Flux”





This demonstrates a common fundamental misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works. Greenhouse gases absorb and reradiate energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum. The sun’s energy is largely in the visible portion of the spectrum. The vis spectrum energy that hits the Earth's surface heats it, causing to radiate energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum. So yes, in a sense, the atmosphere is like a super magical two-way mirror (aka, a greenhouse…)

For more specifics, google “Earth’s Energy Budget” or consult your child's elementary school textbook

Keep reaching homie

 

[BartW]

I read that it’s expensive. So what?

It also said that others felt like they could make it much cheaper, especially by targeting emissions at their source.

Do you know how much carbon taxes are costing us now? Since you have no facts, you likely don’t.
We spent a billion dollars of tax money for a scrubber on Bull Run Steam plant and they are tearing it down. And that’s just one plant.

You’re not paying any carbon taxes now and the scrubber your coal plant installed was most likely used to limit sulfur dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. Mandating scrubbers is a top-down Command & Control style regulation, not a bottom-up market-based system like a carbon tax. Ironically, in the past it was democrats who supported C&C and were skeptical of market-based systems, and it was Reagan and Bush who pioneered the market-based cap-and-trade systems to successfully fight lead poisoning, acid rain, and ozone depletion.

Carbon capture and storage is expensive and not currently scalable (much more so than existing alternative energy). And despite Trump’s claims that he supports “clean, clean, coal” he’s actually cut funding to CCS research. Of course, this is the only technology that could save the coal industry. While Trump claims to fight for coal, the industry has continued its death spiral under his watch.

Lastly, of course, it’s worth pointing out that CCS technology (and nuclear, btw) could benefit tremendously from a carbon tax.

 

[Roustabout]

You’re not paying any carbon taxes now and the scrubber your coal plant installed was most likely used to limit sulfur dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. Mandating scrubbers is a top-down Command & Control style regulation, not a bottom-up market-based system like a carbon tax. Ironically, in the past it was democrats who supported C&C and were skeptical of market-based systems, and it was Reagan and Bush who pioneered the market-based cap-and-trade systems to successfully fight lead poisoning, acid rain, and ozone depletion.

Carbon capture and storage is expensive and not currently scalable (much more so than existing alternative energy). And despite Trump’s claims that he supports “clean, clean, coal” he’s actually cut funding to CCS research. Of course, this is the only technology that could save the coal industry. While Trump claims to fight for coal, the industry has continued its death spiral under his watch.

Lastly, of course, it’s worth pointing out that CCS technology (and nuclear, btw) could benefit tremendously from a carbon tax.

I’m aware of what the scrubber was for. That wasn’t my point. The point is that all this money was doesn’t and now they are shutting dow coal.
We are all paying carbon taxes. They are just hidden. Have you seen CAFE penalties auto manufactures pay? You’re being naive.
We’ve put men on the moon. The tech is proven to work and it’s only a matter of money. Period.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

Epic...should be shown in every classroom!

 

[0nelilreb]

Epic...should be shown in every classroom!

LOL that’s a slap in the face . I love it

 

[Roustabout]

Brilliant

 

[DC_Vol]

Epic...should be shown in every classroom!

“Virtue signaling little turds”...I’m going to remember that one.

 

[Obsessed]

Smart. Also good for molotov cocktails just in case we got to burn a gator stadium to the ground.

They will do it themselves after we win tomorrow

 

[BartW]

We’ve put men on the moon. The tech is proven to work and it’s only a matter of money. Period.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Carol Roth: Stop scaring our kids – the world is NOT about to end and we are NOT all about to die

Children today should be enjoying their youth. They arguably live in the greatest time ever, with unparalleled access to information, connectivity around the globe, advances in health care and tremendous opportunity. But instead of embracing optimism, the adults in their lives are filling them with fear.
In the last few weeks, from town halls on climate change to “climate justice” marches, I have seen scores of children – some teens, some squarely of elementary school-age – proclaim their anxiety about the world ending.

Depending on the source, children are being told that if we don’t act right now to solve one particular “crisis” or another, we will all be dead in anywhere from 18 months to 12 years. That’s not a message of hope and optimism that kids should be embracing.
...

 

[BigOrangeD]

What’s Fact & What’s Fiction in Climate Change Debate—Gregory Wrightstone [Eagle Council Special]


American Thought Leaders - The Epoch Times
Published on Sep 22, 2019
At the 48th annual Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Council, we sat down with Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist, self-described climate contrarian, and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know.” In his view, Earth and humanity are actually prospering, contrary to what we’re being told.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

You are tender little fella getting all worked up, so sensitive to valid criticism of the moron in the White House - blaming Climate Change on China is proof-positive that Trump is a absolute fool and a global embarrassment.
If I posted all of Trump's idiotic quotes on Climate Change I would break the VN server.

Have you ever read the Paris accord?

 

[LouderVol]

The scientist whose work Gore misquoted was irate. There were several news articles that quoted various scientists denouncing his incorrect claims. Of course, social media didn’t exist and Al Gore had only recently invented the internet back then, so it’s understandable that you may not have heard. Scientists tend to be a relatively quiet bunch, and it’s not like people listen when they speak, anyway.

But I agree, the media’s poor coverage of climate change is a big reason we’re in this pickle today.

Doing a pretty simple back-of-the-envelope calculation, if you assume 100% of the energy from all the fuel we burn is transformed into waste heat, it’s still only about 1% (.03 W/m2) of the added heat due to the increased greenhouse effect (3 W/m2), which itself is only about 1% of solar insolation (300 W/m2). So your educated guess is off by about 3 orders of magnitude. Feel free to look into it. The term you will want to search is “Anthropogenic Waste Heat Flux”





This demonstrates a common fundamental misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works. Greenhouse gases absorb and reradiate energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum. The sun’s energy is largely in the visible portion of the spectrum. The vis spectrum energy that hits the Earth's surface heats it, causing to radiate energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum. So yes, in a sense, the atmosphere is like a super magical two-way mirror (aka, a greenhouse…)

For more specifics, google “Earth’s Energy Budget” or consult your child's elementary school textbook

link to quotes? the only stuff I could run down from 10 plus years ago were scientists saying they were glad a public figure was involved.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1280px-The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

not sure if that link comes in on your Earth Energy Budget. I find some very strange numbers coming out of it. At least to my understanding of the way science works.

340.4 from the sun hits the earth.
99.9 is reflected solar radiation.
with 77.1 absorbed by atmosphere
the remaining 163.3 is absorbed by the surface.

seems straight forward enough.

the next bit seems to fall into what I was saying.
the surface emits 398.2, which is more than double the amount of energy absorbed from the sun. Its also not a product of the 340.3 (awfully close to that solar radiation) that is reflected back by just the green gases, lol, and the solar radiation hitting the earth 163.3. If it was we would be looking at the surface to dump more than 500 back out. but that isn't happening. so somewhere in this simple part of the equation something is getting lost information wise.
*

*
all this to be saying the EEB seems to support my stance that we are producing more heat than your .3%. and it even looks like my guess on 10% was low. there are plenty of other natural phenomena that produce heat (everything really), but considering the tricks we have learned to use to take advantage of the way nature works I know we produce more heat than fuel we consume.

Again the human factor doesn't seem to be adequately addressed. The greenhouse gas explanation relies on a two different conflicting ideas. 1, that radiation is slowed from going out, but also 2, that amount of radiation it receives and gives off is greater than what can be explained by a closed system. To break down that last part we have increased CO2 levels by 25% (from 300ppm to 400ppm (give or take)), yet the infrared increase is now more than 200% what it should be? There has always been CO2 and other things in our atmosphere, so assuming it works the way the EEB says it does, we have always been compounding some heat back onto earth. But now we are seeing a compounding rate somewhere north of 200% from a 25% increase? remember we receive 163, but emit almost 400, with 340 coming back down. the math doesn't work out.

It seems much simpler an explanation that the increase in temps is tied to a non natural source; than it is to say the atmosphere acts in this real funky way that doesn't seem to play out in the math. (25% increase in CO2 = 200% increase in reflected energy due to CO2?). Either that or it seems that this compounding issue was going to happen anyway, temps were always going to go up, as the earth is always going to be self compounding even without extra.

 

[LouderVol]

*
to me that implies something is happening on the surface of the earth to cause a lot more than radiation of surface temps than just the sun. Well what sources, my guess is humans are a lot of that.

And according to the diagram the outgoing emissions from the earth is done as infrared. Which refutes your point of it acting as a two way mirror. maybe you just meant a really scratched up two way mirror. or to step back from that analogy of mine to another, the greenhouse gasses are an insulator for the infrared light. because the infrared still does escape through it. which fits the insulator analogy better than a mirror. so I will drop the mirror bit.

if we are assuming it acts as an insulator it still explains a rise in heat we are experiencing. But only if you consider an additional heat source from inside the insulation. as the math points out, just looking at the numbers the amount of infrared energy the surface is giving off is more than twice as much as it gets from the sun. the EEB even talks about the various steps of the atmosphere and how that energy is stored and remitted. with some going both ways (its all not just back down) meaning that as we made it hotter more would be escaping as well (which we apparently aren't measuring)

and to your point about fuel to energy that is a bad (incomplete) look at the way things work. I don't remember the exact numbers ASHRAE uses but you don't get one unit of heating for one unit of fuel consumed. That would be a TERRIBLY inefficient system. depending on the fuel/process for heating your home you should be getting something like 15/20 units of heat for each unit of fuel you consume. We get some "free energy" from the phase change processes. but that efficiency doesn't apply to cooling, IIRC its something like 3/4 units of cooling to 1 unit of fuel. Remember you cant produce cold, you just make heat move the direction you want, which is why you don't get those same built in efficiencies. the factor of efficacy (hopefully thats the right term) still just comes from the phase changing process of what we use to move the heat around.
*

I pulled this part of the text out as holely wall of text.

 

[Roustabout]

What’s Fact & What’s Fiction in Climate Change Debate—Gregory Wrightstone [Eagle Council Special]


American Thought Leaders - The Epoch Times
Published on Sep 22, 2019
At the 48th annual Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Council, we sat down with Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist, self-described climate contrarian, and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know.” In his view, Earth and humanity are actually prospering, contrary to what we’re being told.

The left would have billions back with inefficient wood burning to heat their homes.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Climate change activists 'shut down DC' and disrupt morning commutes at busy intersections

 

[BigOrangeD]

Climate change activists 'shut down DC' and disrupt morning commutes at busy intersections

Fools.