As a general rule, I try to avoid arguing with trolls and Limbaugh fanatics -- these comments are intended to warn other readers about inaccuracies in the previous post.
Go back and check. The "scientific consensus" back then was that the smoke and smog was cooling the earth and the temprature would be dropping and we would have glaciers in Nebraska.
Please, absolutely do go back and check, but check the scientific literature, not the NY Post or the National Enquirer. Apparently, in tz's universe "a couple of speculative articles in the popular press" is synonymous with "scientific consensus". His assertion of a "scientific consensus" is preposterous. Virtually no atmospheric scientists were even researching this issue then, much less arriving at a consensus that cooling was occuring. There were a few articles in regular newspapers, but practically no research was done, presumably because the hypothesis was not taken seriously by meteorologists. Contrast that with research on global warming today: several thousands scientists from all over the world publishing enormous amounts of papers, and the vast majority are in agreement that warming is occuring. The comparison tz makes is absurd.
This consensus had only one thing in common with the current global warming (and the CFCs - of course Mt. Pinatubo spewing more chlorine than has every been used in CFCs directly into the stratosphere couldn't have any effect on the ozone layer...).
Isn't it amazing how a person can utterly destroy their credibility in a single sentence? There is a small problem with tz's (sarcastically implied) assertion that vulcanism is responsible for ozone depletion: It has been proven incorrect. Conclusively. Volcanoes produce chlorine, but in the form of hydrogen chloride (HCl). HCl is water soluble, and the vast, vast majority of HCl in the atmosphere get washed out almost immediately. HCl is a factor in ozone depletion, but it's contribution is a tiny fraction of CFC's contribution. The evidence for this is quite solid: CFCs contain chlorine. If CFCs are responsible for the chlorine in the stratosphere, one would expect to find the remaining fragments of the CFC molecules present there also. They are there, and in the expected amounts. Anyone arguing that vulcanism is the primary agent of ozone depletion is hopelessly ignorant or deliberately lying.
Basically, Man is killing the earth, ecosphere, atmosphere, oceans, etc. and that we must kill off 95% of the people on earth (or contracept them) and return to a dark ages lifestyle.
So mainstream environmentalists are now advocating genocide on a worldwide scale. Hmm... I must have missed that press release. And BTW, if anyone out there knows how it is possible to "contracept" a human being after not only conception but even birth, I'd be fascinated to hear your theory.
Smog is formed in a photo-chemical reaction involving hydrocarbons and NOx compounds. Heat may affect the reaction rate, but it sure as hell isn't combining with any of the reactants.
If you've got any evidence that levels of ozone, hydrocarbons and NOx were lower in Texas, please post it. Otherwise, stop whining.
Er, cooling towers are not used exclusively by nuclear power plants...
and we dont have nuclear warheads in orbit. At least not yet, but give W. a little time.
Because it's uneconomical. Simple as that.... Wind power has environmental effects too (birds are killed!), and does not generate as much power as one might hope
Got any actual facts to back up your claim that wind power poses a significant threat to birds? How many birds are we talking about? More, say, than would die from loss of habitat due to strip mining?
Studies indicated that hundreds of millions of birds are killed by automobiles, cats, and window-strikes. I haven't heard of any evidence that that wind turbine bird deaths would approach even a fraction of those numbers. And these figures don't even broach the issue of population declines due to habitat loss.
Furthermore, how does this relate to economic infeasibility? Have you checked the figures for wind power generation costs lately? They have decreased by about order of magnitude in the last decade. Wind turbines are becoming economically competitive with oil, gas and nuclear power generation. Coal is still substantially cheaper of course, but the billable of cost of coal power does not include environmental externalities.
As long as coal, oil, and other fossil fuels are abundant and cheap, the economy will be unwilling to support alternatives
Nice theory, but empirical evidence indicates otherwise. Experiments with "green power" pricing options in California and other places have enjoyed robust public support.
Slashdot Mirror
Go back and check. The "scientific consensus" back then was that the smoke and smog was cooling the earth and the temprature would be dropping and we would have glaciers in Nebraska.
Please, absolutely do go back and check, but check the scientific literature, not the NY Post or the National Enquirer. Apparently, in tz's universe "a couple of speculative articles in the popular press" is synonymous with "scientific consensus". His assertion of a "scientific consensus" is preposterous. Virtually no atmospheric scientists were even researching this issue then, much less arriving at a consensus that cooling was occuring. There were a few articles in regular newspapers, but practically no research was done, presumably because the hypothesis was not taken seriously by meteorologists. Contrast that with research on global warming today: several thousands scientists from all over the world publishing enormous amounts of papers, and the vast majority are in agreement that warming is occuring. The comparison tz makes is absurd.
This consensus had only one thing in common with the current global warming (and the CFCs - of course Mt. Pinatubo spewing more chlorine than has every been used in CFCs directly into the stratosphere couldn't have any effect on the ozone layer...).
Isn't it amazing how a person can utterly destroy their credibility in a single sentence? There is a small problem with tz's (sarcastically implied) assertion that vulcanism is responsible for ozone depletion: It has been proven incorrect. Conclusively. Volcanoes produce chlorine, but in the form of hydrogen chloride (HCl). HCl is water soluble, and the vast, vast majority of HCl in the atmosphere get washed out almost immediately. HCl is a factor in ozone depletion, but it's contribution is a tiny fraction of CFC's contribution. The evidence for this is quite solid: CFCs contain chlorine. If CFCs are responsible for the chlorine in the stratosphere, one would expect to find the remaining fragments of the CFC molecules present there also. They are there, and in the expected amounts. Anyone arguing that vulcanism is the primary agent of ozone depletion is hopelessly ignorant or deliberately lying.
Basically, Man is killing the earth, ecosphere, atmosphere, oceans, etc. and that we must kill off 95% of the people on earth (or contracept them) and return to a dark ages lifestyle.
So mainstream environmentalists are now advocating genocide on a worldwide scale. Hmm... I must have missed that press release. And BTW, if anyone out there knows how it is possible to "contracept" a human being after not only conception but even birth, I'd be fascinated to hear your theory.
Smog is formed in a photo-chemical reaction involving hydrocarbons and NOx compounds. Heat may affect the reaction rate, but it sure as hell isn't combining with any of the reactants. If you've got any evidence that levels of ozone, hydrocarbons and NOx were lower in Texas, please post it. Otherwise, stop whining.
Er, cooling towers are not used exclusively by nuclear power plants... and we dont have nuclear warheads in orbit. At least not yet, but give W. a little time.
Got any actual facts to back up your claim that wind power poses a significant threat to birds? How many birds are we talking about? More, say, than would die from loss of habitat due to strip mining?
Studies indicated that hundreds of millions of birds are killed by automobiles, cats, and window-strikes. I haven't heard of any evidence that that wind turbine bird deaths would approach even a fraction of those numbers. And these figures don't even broach the issue of population declines due to habitat loss.
Furthermore, how does this relate to economic infeasibility? Have you checked the figures for wind power generation costs lately? They have decreased by about order of magnitude in the last decade. Wind turbines are becoming economically competitive with oil, gas and nuclear power generation. Coal is still substantially cheaper of course, but the billable of cost of coal power does not include environmental externalities.
As long as coal, oil, and other fossil fuels are abundant and cheap, the economy will be unwilling to support alternatives
Nice theory, but empirical evidence indicates otherwise. Experiments with "green power" pricing options in California and other places have enjoyed robust public support.