Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[flacaltenn]

Without salt in your diet, you will get sick and die. So, since salt is neccessary, just go ahead and eat a pint of it. Cannot do you any harm, it is neccessary, you know.

When the concentration of CO2 is low enough, you get snowball Earth. When it is quite high, you get tropics at the poles. And when it changes rapidly, you get periods of extinction. That is geological history.

Water only stays in the atmosphere for ten days or less. Remove all of it, and the oceans immediatly would evaportate enough to put the vapor back into the atmosphere in a few days. Double the amount, and it would rain out in a matter of days. But CO2 is there for much longer;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm...d=0&subtop=342&lv=list.listByChapter&r=239797

Once emitted, gases remain in the atmosphere for varying amounts of time. Very “short-lived” compounds, such as particulate matter (PM), remain airborne on average for only hours or days. CH4 also has a relatively short average lifetime, though much longer than PM, remaining in the atmosphere for roughly 12 years. The half-life of CO 2 emissions is roughly 100 years (5 to 200 years: IPCC, 2001), but about a quarter of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere after hundreds of years and about one-tenth for hundreds of thousands of years (Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Archer et al., 1998). Finally, many of the synthetic gases such as halocarbons (or gases that contain the halogens chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or iodine) are extremely long-lived, remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. When emissions—from the U.S. (the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator) as well as other countries—remain in the atmosphere over long periods, they accumulate and are measured as atmospheric concentrations. U.S. GHG emissions from 1890 to 2000 are estimated to have contributed about one-fifth of the increase in global GHG concentrations (den Elzen et al., 2005).

OMG GoldiRocks.. You make me laugh so much..

The half-life of CO 2 emissions is roughly 100 years (5 to 200 years: IPCC, 2001), but about a quarter of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere after hundreds of years and about one-tenth for hundreds of thousands of years (Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Archer et al., 1998).

There's that adorable certainty and PRECISION we expect from AGW science and IPCC..
30 Yrs into this bummer of a circus and we have a number between 5 and 200 years..

Of course that was back in 2000 or so --- and NOW the evidence is much closer to the 5 than the 200 ever was.. Lets' call it 10 ---- OK Dokey? Or MAYBE --- you could get the clown college to hurry up and refine this for us ---- SO THAT THEIR MODELS HAVE A PRAYER of working before HealthCare.Gov does???

No pressure dude.. The entire f'ing planet is about to vaporize, but don't let that keep you from RETAINING that uncertainty just for Public Relations value...

 

[westwall]

Without salt in your diet, you will get sick and die. So, since salt is neccessary, just go ahead and eat a pint of it. Cannot do you any harm, it is neccessary, you know.

When the concentration of CO2 is low enough, you get snowball Earth. When it is quite high, you get tropics at the poles. And when it changes rapidly, you get periods of extinction. That is geological history.

Water only stays in the atmosphere for ten days or less. Remove all of it, and the oceans immediatly would evaportate enough to put the vapor back into the atmosphere in a few days. Double the amount, and it would rain out in a matter of days. But CO2 is there for much longer;

http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm...d=0&subtop=342&lv=list.listByChapter&r=239797

Once emitted, gases remain in the atmosphere for varying amounts of time. Very “short-lived” compounds, such as particulate matter (PM), remain airborne on average for only hours or days. CH4 also has a relatively short average lifetime, though much longer than PM, remaining in the atmosphere for roughly 12 years. The half-life of CO 2 emissions is roughly 100 years (5 to 200 years: IPCC, 2001), but about a quarter of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere after hundreds of years and about one-tenth for hundreds of thousands of years (Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Archer et al., 1998). Finally, many of the synthetic gases such as halocarbons (or gases that contain the halogens chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or iodine) are extremely long-lived, remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. When emissions—from the U.S. (the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator) as well as other countries—remain in the atmosphere over long periods, they accumulate and are measured as atmospheric concentrations. U.S. GHG emissions from 1890 to 2000 are estimated to have contributed about one-fifth of the increase in global GHG concentrations (den Elzen et al., 2005).

Comparing apples with elephants again I see. Or why don't we use something even more appropriate as regards quantities, you're comparing an anthill vs Mt Everest.

 

[elektra]

'Windmills create millions of tons of CO2, more or as much as any other industry. Facing the truth is impossible for Green Energy advocates

 

[ScienceRocks]

Windmills make ZERO co2 emissions, moron.

Maybe when we're making them,. Explain to me how wind Turing a turbine = co2.

Do you have data backing up your case? Anti-science republican.

 

[elektra]

Windmills make ZERO co2 emissions, moron.

Maybe when we're making them,. Explain to me how wind Turing a turbine = co2.

Do you have data backing up your case? Anti-science republican.

Wind Turbines make "ZERO", or "Maybe"?

I am a moron yet in two sentences you go from "ZERO" to "Maybe". I am Anti-science when you deny CO2 emissions of Wind Farms when the answer is seconds away with an easy Google search.

The Sweet Winds of Change | Job Stories | Putzmeister Concrete Placing Equipment

A “Sweet” Market
Action, relying on their Putzmeister BSF 32-meter truck-mounted boom pump, recently placed more than 26,500 cubic yards of a “hot” and challenging concrete mix for a wind farm near Sweetwater, Texas.

Concrete, go figure you need Concrete which is made from Cement, and last time I heard the Cement Industry was the largest single source for CO2 emissions. Consider one ton of Concrete uses 420 tons of coal, emitting over a ton of CO2 per ton of Concrete.

Seems 26,500 cubic yards of Concrete will use over 10,600,000 tons of Coal. Wow, a ton of CO2 per ton of Concrete, that is a lot of CO2, a lot more than Matthew's "Zero" figure.

Emissions from the Cement Industry ? State of the Planet

Cement manufacturing is highly energy – and – emissions intensive because of the extreme heat required to produce it. Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and generates nearly a ton of CO2. Given its high emissions and critical importance to society, cement is an obvious place to look to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That is just one tiny wind farm, how about;

Ohio's First Large-Scale Wind Farm Uses Lafarge Cement for Turbine Concrete Foundations

Lafarge provided Type I portland cement from its Paulding plant to Irving Concrete of Ohio, which built a strategically located portable ready-mix batch plant to produce approximately 122,500 cubic yards of concrete for the project. The construction of 15- to 20-foot-deep concrete foundations to support all of the 328-foot-high towers with 2-MW turbines required 30,000 tons of cement

A cubic yard of Concrete weighs about two tons, that means this one Wind Farm produced 60,000 tons of CO2!

That's just the CO2 emitted from the Concrete used for the installation, that does not count the Cement Trucks, the Cranes, the workers private vehicles and company vehicles.

That is 60,000 tons of CO2 without even considering manufacturing.

But, to Matthew and those who advocate the false promise and fraud of "Green Energy", they are oblivious to the Science of their ideals and beliefs about "Green Energy". To Matthew and the other Advocates they will simply ignore the facts presented, they simply are mindlessly following beliefs based on stereotypes.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So is paving roads or
Building buildings and/or bridges

Should be looked down on??? I am fighting for a long term energy source that will out last the fossil fuels. So the next time we build a concrete coal plant = co2. Of course it does...I am for infrastructure.

We're not going to be ready when we do lose these fuel sources.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You forget that my message on this board is infrastructure, science, education and r@d. I am mostly fighting against such shit as in china(oil spills and mineblow outs) and for a long term solution to run our own civilization on. I quite honestly feel that it isn't oil, coal and natural gas in the long term.

How is that anti-science??? The truth is co2 I honestly don't consider a pollute but just a gas that reflects a little more energy back towards the surface. Certainly doesn't kill people like coal smog and isn't infite like solar, wind or hydro.

I strongly feel that we need to go to a 1/3rd mixture of sources that make sure we're ready....Nuclear, hydro, hydro-thermal, solar, wind, wave, etc.

I WANT 100 more GW of Nuclear for America. Build 20x5 gw nuclear plants.

 

[elektra]

You forget that my message on this board is infrastructure, science, education and r@d. I am mostly fighting against such shit as in china(oil spills and mineblow outs) and for a long term solution to run our own civilization on. I quite honestly feel that it isn't oil, coal and natural gas in the long term.

How is that anti-science??? The truth is co2 I honestly don't consider a pollute but just a gas that reflects a little more energy back towards the surface. Certainly doesn't kill people like coal smog and isn't infite like solar, wind or hydro.

I strongly feel that we need to go to a 1/3rd mixture of sources that make sure we're ready....Nuclear, hydro, hydro-thermal, solar, wind, wave, etc.

I WANT 100 more GW of Nuclear for America. Build 20x5 gw nuclear plants.

Solar and Wind is not infinite, it must be collected using a Solar Panel or Wind Turbine that has a finite lifespan. Further the amount of land suitable for these technologies is also finite. Further, short term or long term, you need Oil, Gas, Coal, HydroCarbons to build and maintain Green Energy, and at that, you must increase the use of Hydro Carbons to build more Green Energy Plants.

Use more raw materials and natural resources to produce less electricity is just plain nonsense.

Green Energy Advocates claim to embrace science but to do so Green Energy Advocates ignore reality.

 

[manonfire]

Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance

 

[elektra]

Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance

The ability to collect Solar or Wind energy is finite, period. How can you produce Solar Panels or Wind Turbines with zero Hydrocarbons. You can not.

Further, suitable site are also finite, another fact that limits the collection of said energies.

Green Energy is finite yet Advocates claim its infinite. Misuse of words, so sad.

 

[orogenicman]

Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance

The ability to collect Solar or Wind energy is finite, period. How can you produce Solar Panels or Wind Turbines with zero Hydrocarbons. You can not.

Further, suitable site are also finite, another fact that limits the collection of said energies.

Green Energy is finite yet Advocates claim its infinite. Misuse of words, so sad.

The sun has about 5 billion years of fuel. Yeah, it's not infinite, but it will out live us all.

 

[elektra]

Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance

The ability to collect Solar or Wind energy is finite, period. How can you produce Solar Panels or Wind Turbines with zero Hydrocarbons. You can not.

Further, suitable site are also finite, another fact that limits the collection of said energies.

Green Energy is finite yet Advocates claim its infinite. Misuse of words, so sad.

The sun has about 5 billion years of fuel. Yeah, it's not infinite, but it will out live us all.

Are you claiming we can put an infinite amount of Solar Panels up? Land is finite, hence the use of Solar Power is finite.

Peak Solar, when there is no more land or sea to put Solar Panels on, I bet Peak Solar occurs before Peak Oil.

 

[Abraham3]

Are you actually this dense? When someone complains about the GHG emissions of a coal plant,does the complaint concern the hydrocarbons burned in the production of the turbines and boilers and steam lines or the CO2 released making all the concrete in the foundation? No, because those amounts are TRIVIAL compared to the GHG's that will be produced by the combustion of fuel during the plant's lifetime.

Your calculations - or the calculations someone is trying to feed you - are absurdly incorrect. The CO2 produced in the manufacture of a solar or wind farm (or a coal-fired plant) is a singular event. The GHG per KWH-produced for a coal plant continuously rises as long as the plant exists. For wind and solar facilities, it continuously falls.

Put on your thinking cap before making such claims. They are nonsense.

 

[orogenicman]

The ability to collect Solar or Wind energy is finite, period. How can you produce Solar Panels or Wind Turbines with zero Hydrocarbons. You can not.

Further, suitable site are also finite, another fact that limits the collection of said energies.

Green Energy is finite yet Advocates claim its infinite. Misuse of words, so sad.

The sun has about 5 billion years of fuel. Yeah, it's not infinite, but it will out live us all.

Are you claiming we can put an infinite amount of Solar Panels up? Land is finite, hence the use of Solar Power is finite.

Peak Solar, when there is no more land or sea to put Solar Panels on, I bet Peak Solar occurs before Peak Oil.

Obviously, you aren't the brightest bulb in the lamp. Why would we ever need to put up an infinite amount of solar panels to meet our needs?

 

[orogenicman]

For those who say that climate models cannot predict past events:

New generation of climate models capable of simulating abrupt climate change

Scientists have, for the first time, demonstrated that climate models are able to simulate past abrupt changes in the Earth's climate - giving more confidence in predictions of future global climate change.

The climate model investigated in the study is the EC-Earth model, developed by a consortium of European countries together with the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts in Reading.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance

The ability to collect Solar or Wind energy is finite, period. How can you produce Solar Panels or Wind Turbines with zero Hydrocarbons. You can not.

Further, suitable site are also finite, another fact that limits the collection of said energies.

Green Energy is finite yet Advocates claim its infinite. Misuse of words, so sad.

Silly ass, when we built the first cars, we used horse drawn wagons to deliver the parts. Possibly the analogy is too subtle for you?

 

[elektra]

Are you actually this dense? When someone complains about the GHG emissions of a coal plant,does the complaint concern the hydrocarbons burned in the production of the turbines and boilers and steam lines or the CO2 released making all the concrete in the foundation? No, because those amounts are TRIVIAL compared to the GHG's that will be produced by the combustion of fuel during the plant's lifetime.

Your calculations - or the calculations someone is trying to feed you - are absurdly incorrect. The CO2 produced in the manufacture of a solar or wind farm (or a coal-fired plant) is a singular event. The GHG per KWH-produced for a coal plant continuously rises as long as the plant exists. For wind and solar facilities, it continuously falls.

Put on your thinking cap before making such claims. They are nonsense.

Your post is the only thing here that is nonsense, I provided no calculation, I simply provided the amount of CO2 in thousands of tons released by one single Wind Farm. I provided a fact, an amount.

Either CO2 is significant or its not significant, you can not have it both ways. Thousands of tons of CO2 per wind turbine is significant.

 

[elektra]

The sun has about 5 billion years of fuel. Yeah, it's not infinite, but it will out live us all.

Are you claiming we can put an infinite amount of Solar Panels up? Land is finite, hence the use of Solar Power is finite.

Peak Solar, when there is no more land or sea to put Solar Panels on, I bet Peak Solar occurs before Peak Oil.

Obviously, you aren't the brightest bulb in the lamp. Why would we ever need to put up an infinite amount of solar panels to meet our needs?

And you obviously need a "bright bulb" right in your eyes to understand a simple post, I never stated we needed but infinite amount of solar panels.

Peak Solar, when we run out of our "finite" resources to place Solar Panels.

Peak Solar also occurs when we run out of Hydrocarbons which are used at increased rate to produce Solar Panels. Peak Solar occurs at the same time as Peak Oil, cannot produce nor maintain Solar Panels without Oil.

 

[elektra]

Solar and Win enegy is infinite, it is merely a matter of appliance

The ability to collect Solar or Wind energy is finite, period. How can you produce Solar Panels or Wind Turbines with zero Hydrocarbons. You can not.

Further, suitable site are also finite, another fact that limits the collection of said energies.

Green Energy is finite yet Advocates claim its infinite. Misuse of words, so sad.

Silly ass, when we built the first cars, we used horse drawn wagons to deliver the parts. Possibly the analogy is too subtle for you?

I pretty much skip over the most ridiculous posts, such as yours, hence you will not see me responding to many of your posts.

 

[Old Rocks]

We used a million tons of coal in coal fired generation plants in 2012. That is 3.7 million tons of CO2 produced just in the burning of coal, not even counting the CO2 produced in the building of the generating plants.

See how that works? If you want to play numbers games, you damned well better understand when the numbers are against you.