Sea Level Rise From Global Warming

What are subsidies for wind and solar and why are coal plants being shut down ??

Carbon dioxide does not sink in any "well stirred" gaseous mixture which is our atmosphere. Stratification only occurs in a completely stagnant environment.

 

And it is the carbon cycle that is being disrupted.

- - - Updated - - -

It should be cooler now but it isn't. Can you guess why?

- - - Updated - - -

It will never cycle back to 4.5 billion years ago.

 

Here's the deal though. While we might require the use of fossil fuels for power generation that doesn't imply we should accept unnecessary pollution in doing so. The Coal Industry has stated that off the shelf "clean coal" technology can economically reduce the atmospheric pollution from coal by up to 40%. They've been telling us that for at least 10 years. It's my understanding that out of all of the existing coal fired power plants only one has been converted to use the technology and that was a test case. So why, after over 10 years, haven't the existing power plants been converted?

We also know that natural gas, also a fossil fuel, can be used to produce power and it actually does so for less cost than coal and produces far less pollution. We have an abundant supply of natural gas so why are we using coal at all?

The fact is that using coal in the manner we do today is reducing the standard of living and not improving it. We have both a replacement fuel that costs less and produces less pollution in natural gas and even if we needed to use coal we could do so with up to a 40% reduction in pollution cost effectively.

 

The coal plants I've read about that were "shut down" was because they converted to natural gas that costs less to produce electrical energy.

While CO2 doesn't stratify in the atmosphere it does disperse equally in the atmosphere. When CO2 is sucked out of the atmosphere by plant growth it lowers the CO2 level near the ground and then the CO2 from above moves down to fill the void of CO2 created. Plants, like the rain forest trees that require a lot of carbon per square foot of surface area, produce a suction effect on the CO2 which pulls it out of the atmosphere.

 

The solution to climate change is under our feet. Using plants to sequester carbon and soil to store it. It is a win win proposition. We need to put carbon back in the soil where it belongs. If this is done rain will return to dry places and the soil itself will store and filter massive amounts of water.

 

You have not heard of the slowdown in warming the last 20 years? Also there is a known lag between solar activity and actions on earth.

 

There is no evidence solar activity is causing current warming. And no slowdown in current warming. The NOAA study is being disputed

 

That requirement for clean coal is driven by the bogus EPA regulations on fine particulate matter greater than 2.5 micrometers. The basis is a study which the EPA refuses to release the raw data. The study has never been duplicated and real world data indicate that the conclusions of the study do not match the real world affects on humans. You understand in wrong - coal plants are effectively being shut down and coal miners are losing their jobs because of this regulation which does not reflect the real world. Natural gas is a viable alternative and competes well with Appalachian coal but Powder River coal is much less expensive. So here we are in the US with higher energy costs and higher unemployment thanks to the EPA and the Obama administration's obsession with reducing CO2 in the atmosphere which will do nothing to reduce the global average temperature by the year 2100.

There is no pollution costs with existing coal fired power plants.

 

It doesn't matter what drove the coal industry to develop clean coal technology. The fact is that the coal industry did create the technology and the coal industry has been claiming for at least 10 years that this technology can economically reduce the atmospheric pollution from coal by up to 40%. That means that up to 40% of the atmospheric pollution by the coal industry is unacceptable because it's completely unnecessary.

You claim that coal pollution doesn't cost anything. So the coal ash pollution of the Dan River by Duke Energy didn't cost anything. The pollution of the ground water by Duke Energy with coal ash leakage making the water toxic and undrinkable isn't costing anything. This is just the "solid waste" pollution from one coal company and doesn't even account for the toxic air pollution being created by the burning of coal.

You're correct on one point, we're not charging the coal industry to clean up the land, water and air that it's polluting but we should. Of course if the coal industry had to pay the price of cleaning up the pollution it creates the coal industry wouldn't exist at all.

 

What kind of pollution are you talking about and how does is affect humans ??

Coal ash problems have been identified and fixed (and the coal industry paid for those solutions). That's how progress is made. Wind turbines and large scale solar installations kill birds (are the wind and solar companies paying fines for each bird killed ??). Those problems are being addresses as well.

 

Other than Co2, sulphur dioxide, and mercury ? I can't off hand think of many more pollutants caused by coal burning.

 

Birds being killed is a weak argument against wind power when compared to coal burning. Here in Bama we are restricted on the amount of fish we can eat because of mercury poison in the water.

 

Those are all claimed but the criteria used in the bogus fine particulate matter which I've discussed before. SO2 was solved years ago. There is no reason for shutting down the coal industry.

 

Coal fired power plants account for ~ 10% of the total mercury emissions per year. Nature accounts for ~ 70%. What is the basis of the warnings of eating fish ?? What is the amount of fish required to be eaten before crossing the threshold ?? And what is the threshold used for the warnings ??

 

I did not suggest shutting down the industry but people should be honest about things. This is what botheres me most the outright dishonesty of many corporations and industry.

 

It does? how is that possible when the sun is in a minimum cycle? You just confirmed the heat leaves the atmosphere to space, so how can it be heating? That isn't logical.

 

you sure you got that right. shortwave infrared is coming into the earth all the time. It's why we warm up, the surface produces longwave IR and it is emitted to space. Longwave IR also comes into the earth and is absorbed by CO2 at the top of the atmosphere. Now you can post up an experiment that shows your version, but I doubt you have one.

- - - Updated - - -

when one has nothing to present!!! LOL

 

It should be cooler now but it isn't. Can you guess why?

Well it has where I live here in Chicago. It's why I know the data you read is manipulated bubba.

Maybe you could tell us that the data is not manipulated and that would be inaccurate. You know this right?

 

honesty? really, honesty? did you type that with a straight face?

 

It has to be heating if it wasn't the surface of the earth would be frozen year round.

 

What you should be worried about is the dishonesty of the gov. The 2.5 micron fine particulate regulation and the refusal of the EPA to release the base data from the study used to justify the regulation is the latest example of that.

 

I will not argue the data. The earth is warming regardless of any data manipulated or not. It is called global warming for a reason.

 

I don't trust the government either. It is run by money. The government lies consistently.

 

The globe has been warming at essentially the same rate for the last 150 years.

 

There are experiments that prove it and they have been posted before. It is too much trouble to post something like that on my phone. But if you are interested you can find it for yourself. I have problems posting proof to people that are not really interested and will not accept the truth anyway.