EPA: Power plants main global warming culprits

[mpg]

EPA: Power plants main global warming culprits - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The most detailed data yet on emissions of heat-trapping gases show that U.S. power plants are responsible for the bulk of the pollution blamed for global warming.
Power plants released 72 percent of the greenhouse gases reported to the Environmental Protection Agency for 2010, according to information released Wednesday that was the first catalog of global warming pollution by facility. The data include more than 6,700 of the largest industrial sources of greenhouse gases, or about 80 percent of total U.S. emissions.

 

[Tigger]

Ok. So what would you like to see done about it? Are you the one who's going to turn their power off so we can shut down these plants?

 

[Blue_State]

Do people still believe in Global Warming?

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Do people still believe in Global Warming?

Stupid scientists and their unreasonable demand for empirical evidence before rejecting their theories. :roll: Isn't that one email that one time enough to completely debunk everything they ever say that disagrees with the status quo? :mrgreen:



The anti-global warming crowd reminds me of something Terry Pratchett once wrote about people not teaching their kids self-defense to protect them from getting into a fight.

 

[spud_meister]

This is why I'm all for nuclear power.

 

[EagleAye]

Even if AGW isn't believed, one must consider the huge amount of pollutants (largely forgotten lately) released by burning coal.
coal power: air pollution | Union of Concerned Scientists

The answer is to build more nuclear, wind, solar, wave, and hydro plants, and then watch the unemployment drop through the floor while all these plants are built and then maintained.

 

[Erod]

Do people still believe in Global Warming?

Sadly, yep.

Actually, I think gay marriage causes global warming.

 

[Harshaw]

Yeah! More electric cars!

 

[Deuce]

Sadly, yep.

Actually, I think gay marriage causes global warming.

Well, some guys seem to blame every other issue on the gays, why not this one I guess?

But if gays cause global warming, and global warming isn't real, does that mean gay marriage is a scientific hoax?

 

[Jetboogieman]

But if gays cause global warming, and global warming isn't real, does that mean gay marriage is a scientific hoax?

 

[AdamT]

Sadly, yep.

Actually, I think gay marriage causes global warming.

Didn't Santorum propose that we burn gays for energy? I could be wrong about that.

 

[EagleAye]

Well, some guys seem to blame every other issue on the gays, why not this one I guess?

But if gays cause global warming, and global warming isn't real, does that mean gay marriage is a scientific hoax?

Silly. Everybody knows Global Warming is a Russian plot to corrupt our precious bodily fluids, in tandem with "fluoridation." :roll:

 

[Iron Yank]

Yeah! More electric cars!

The only problem is, electric cars get there charge from power plants which burn mostly fossil fuels. So whats the real gain by having one?

Honestly with all the evidence out there of Fraud by the pro global warming scientists that has now been exposed, how can anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a peanut believe in this obvious scam anymore? :doh

Cripes Liberals how about some critical thinking for a change.

 

[American]

Do people still believe in Global Warming?

Yeah, kind of like kids believing in Santa Claus.

 

[EagleAye]

The only problem is, electric cars get there charge from power plants which burn mostly fossil fuels. So whats the real gain by having one?

Honestly with all the evidence out there of Fraud by the pro global warming scientists that has now been exposed, how can anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a peanut believe in this obvious scam anymore? :doh

Cripes Liberals how about some critical thinking for a change.

And what if the power plants were nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and geo-thermal? Then you wouldn't be giving your money to Saudi Arabia, who fund terrorism and support militant Imams who are advocate that you (and every other American) be exterminated. And you'd be living in a cleaner environment in a country that owes nothing to any foreign government. I really dislike the idea of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan carrying American balls around in their purse, don't you?

And I agree that some critical thinking is in order. Please consider the following that resulted in critical thinking of invalid claims of fraud.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[15][16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations

According to The Guardian, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and science historian Naomi Oreskes make the case that the "attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry".[124] Noting the initial media circus that occurred when the story first broke, Oreskes and Erik Conway, in an article about the history of climate change denial, observed that in the aftermath of the "climategate" investigations, "the vindication of the climate scientists has received very little coverage at all. Vindication is not as sexy as accusation, and many people are still suspicious. After all, some of those emails, taken out of context, sounded damning. But what they show is that climate scientists are frustrated, because for two decades they have been under attack."[125]

Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at Burson-Marsteller, also observed what appeared to be an organised effort to discredit climate science. Royce described "climategate" as "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science, and disproportionate reporting of the original story "widely amplified by climate deniers", with much less coverage of reports that had cleared the scientists.[126] Journalist Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review criticised newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever."[127] CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.[128]

 

[Harshaw]

The only problem is, electric cars get there charge from power plants which burn mostly fossil fuels. So whats the real gain by having one?

Honestly with all the evidence out there of Fraud by the pro global warming scientists that has now been exposed, how can anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a peanut believe in this obvious scam anymore? :doh

Cripes Liberals how about some critical thinking for a change.

The sarcasm in my post seems to have eluded you.

 

[teamosil]

Do people still believe in Global Warming?

Belief in science isn't going anywhere kiddo.

 

[teamosil]

This is why I'm all for nuclear power.

Yeah, pretty much everybody is for nuclear. The problem is that in the short term it isn't really viable. We have a very limited capability to online new plants. It's very expensive and time consuming. The secretary of energy's plan is to push nuclear as fast as we can, planning to have the grid mostly switched over to nuclear within 50 years. But, we can't just keep burning fossil fuels for 50 years. The damage to the environment would be mind boggling, and it would most likely become too expensive to continue to use before we were ready with the nuclear, so we'd be double screwed. So, his proposal is to try to use efficiency improvements and alternative energy to bridge the gap. Sounds about right to me.

 

[Blue_State]

Belief in science isn't going anywhere kiddo.

I put you in the group of people who believe that the world is 5000 years old if you think the evidence we have from 200 years of temp reading and atmosphere readings mean we are causing global warming. We don't even have enough data now to determine if it is going to rain in 3 days.

When people talk about global warming, they are so close to the item they can't identify it.

/interior

Ant looking at an ice cube.

OMG...its a glacier!!!!!

 

[AdamT]

I put you in the group of people who believe that the world is 5000 years old if you think the evidence we have from 200 years of temp reading and atmosphere readings mean we are causing global warming. We don't even have enough data now to determine if it is going to rain in 3 days.

When people talk about global warming, they are so close to the item they can't identify it.

/interior

Ant looking at an ice cube.

OMG...its a glacier!!!!!

Can you think of a single reason why anyone would take your uninformed opinion over the opinion of the massive scientific consensus? Other than brain damage?

 

[EagleAye]

...if you think the evidence we have from 200 years of temp reading and atmosphere readings mean we are causing global warming. We don't even have enough data now to determine if it is going to rain in 3 days.

Do you believe scientists when they say CO2 traps heat? Here's an explanation:

Your Questions: Carbon Power : NPR

First, the sun bathes the Earth in radiation. Some of that radiation we can see – visible light — and some of it we can't, like ultraviolet light.

When solar radiation strikes Earth, the atmosphere reflects some of it back into space. The rest is absorbed by the atmosphere or penetrates through to the surface, where it is absorbed by land and water. Think of how a paved parking lot or puddle of water warms on a sunny day.

Then — and this is key — the Earth beams part of that heat back up to space — in the form of infrared energy. But while the transparent gases in the atmosphere let incoming sunlight pass through (that's where the name "transparent" comes from) they absorb or trap some of the infrared radiation sent up by the Earth. This infrared energy heats up the gas molecules, which then release some of that heat, helping warm the Earth. (In a real greenhouse, this "re-radiation" doesn't play a big role — the glass simply traps the warm air in the greenhouse.)

Also, it turns out that different atmospheric gases have different abilities to trap and radiate heat. The four major warming gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

CO2 is actually important to have in the atmosphere. Without enough of it, the Earth would get too cold for us. In fact, when we say humans are producing CO2, it does NOT mean the total amount of CO2 on Earth has changed. It stayed the same. Human beings don't create it out of nowhere. It's better to say human beings release CO2. That's more believable isn't it? Most CO2 is locked in ice and permafrost and in fossil fuels. When we burn fossil fuels we release CO2. This released CO2 heats the earth a small amount which leads to ice melting, and that releases even more CO2. Yes, ice melts every year, but there is some ice that hundreds of thousands of years old. When this old ice melts it adds to the net amount of CO2 we wouldn't have otherwise.

We know all this because ice cores can look much farther back than just 200 years, they can look back 650,000 years.

Q. How far outside of the historical range for CO2 levels are we at this point? — Jim Foreman, Sacramento, Calif.

Pretty far. Scientists studying air bubbles trapped in ice cores have found that over the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere ranged from about 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. Just prior to Britain's Industrial Revolution, levels hovered at 280 ppm, according to the latest report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. CO2 levels had risen to 379 ppm by 2005, and are increasing at an average of nearly 2 ppm per year.

The trend is pretty similar for other major greenhouse gases produced by human activities. Methane concentrations have more than doubled from 715 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1774 ppb in 2005. And nitrous oxide levels have spiraled from 270 ppb to 319 ppb.

 

[Helix]

build nuclear power plants, preferably thorium.

and yes, build one next to my town. we need the jobs.

kthx

 

[Deuce]

The only problem is, electric cars get there charge from power plants which burn mostly fossil fuels. So whats the real gain by having one?

Honestly with all the evidence out there of Fraud by the pro global warming scientists that has now been exposed, how can anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a peanut believe in this obvious scam anymore? :doh

Cripes Liberals how about some critical thinking for a change.

Evidence of fraud? You mean the evidence that was investigated by multiple independent groups and found to not actually indicate fraud?
Cripes conservatives how about not listening to Fox News for a change

I put you in the group of people who believe that the world is 5000 years old if you think the evidence we have from 200 years of temp reading and atmosphere readings mean we are causing global warming. We don't even have enough data now to determine if it is going to rain in 3 days.

When people talk about global warming, they are so close to the item they can't identify it.

/interior

Ant looking at an ice cube.

OMG...its a glacier!!!!!

Uhh, it's not just from looking at temperature charts. Learn something about a field of research before you dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Pointy]

Even if AGW isn't believed, one must consider the huge amount of pollutants (largely forgotten lately) released by burning coal.
coal power: air pollution | Union of Concerned Scientists

The answer is to build more nuclear, wind, solar, wave, and hydro plants, and then watch the unemployment drop through the floor while all these plants are built and then maintained.

I feel absolutely certain that you know just how long it takes to have a working Nuclear Power Station, from inception to finished product is a minimum of 8 years.

Regarding Hydro power plants, with the continuing drought threatening the US, pray tell where will the water come from.

Yes what you propose may well send Unemployment through the floor, but what you fail to mention is a Time frame.

Also please remember we have a person sitting in the Peoples White House with his feet up on the desk in front of him, who has never been able to take a decision as well as being unable to utter a word without a teleprompter or two on hand.

 

[teamosil]

I put you in the group of people who believe that the world is 5000 years old if you think the evidence we have from 200 years of temp reading and atmosphere readings mean we are causing global warming. We don't even have enough data now to determine if it is going to rain in 3 days.

Three problems with your reasoning on this:

1) We look to the opinions of scientists, not random blokes off the street, in scientific matters because they have the knowledge to allow them to understand the issue and the training to be able to apply that knowledge. You do not, so your assumptions don't carry any weight where their conclusions do. 97% of climatologists agree that AGW has been scientifically proven. So, that's that.

2) We can track the temperature back thousands of years. Ice cores, sediment layers, etc, all can give us that information. Again, that's why we look to scientists instead of random blokes- they understand the tools available where the random bloke does not.

3) You're understanding the whole thing backwards. The change in temperature isn't the evidence for AGW. The effect that greenhouse gases have on the temperature has been known since 1896. You can test it exactly in a lab in like 10 minutes. High school science classes do it all the time. The role measured temperatures play is that if there were some other force that scientists haven't discovered that is countering the rise in temperature, that would show up in the measured temps. If that had happened, scientists would have known they had to look for more variables. Even if the temperatures had been falling for 5,000 years that wouldn't mean AGW was false, it would mean that AGW was happening, but that some other, bigger, factor was working in the opposite direction. But, of course, that isn't what happened. The measured temperatures turned out to match up with what we would expect to happen when you release this much greenhouse gas.