Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
There you go again...
Passing judgment as if you are the most intelligent poster on the site.
What a pompous buffoon.
So jackass, what is the percentage of man's co2 contribution compared to naturally occurring greenhouse gas?
Carbon credits needed....
Unbelievable..
Cheeseheads Should Cheer the Stupidity of California’s Proposed Methane Regulations
By Isaac Orr
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is considering implementing strict new regulations that would require farmers to capture methane emissions produced by their cattle, which CARB claims might one day mean “a gallon of California milk might be the least greenhouse gas intensive in the world.” As someone who was born and raised on a dairy farm in Wisconsin and resents the fact California produces more milk than “America’s Dairyland,” part of me hopes they’re stupid enough to go through with them.
CARB’s proposed regulations would attempt to cut methane emissions from dairy operations in half by 2015 and provide a 75 percent reduction in dairy manure emissions by 2030. Regulators have suggested building dairy digesters to capture and convert methane into electricity, changing the diets of their cattle by adding methane-reducing additives and attempting to breed cattle that emit fewer methane emissions into the air.
entire article:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/Heart...ty-california’s-proposed-methane-regulations/
Unbelievable..
Cheeseheads Should Cheer the Stupidity of California’s Proposed Methane Regulations
By Isaac Orr
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is considering implementing strict new regulations that would require farmers to capture methane emissions produced by their cattle, which CARB claims might one day mean “a gallon of California milk might be the least greenhouse gas intensive in the world.” As someone who was born and raised on a dairy farm in Wisconsin and resents the fact California produces more milk than “America’s Dairyland,” part of me hopes they’re stupid enough to go through with them.
CARB’s proposed regulations would attempt to cut methane emissions from dairy operations in half by 2015 and provide a 75 percent reduction in dairy manure emissions by 2030. Regulators have suggested building dairy digesters to capture and convert methane into electricity, changing the diets of their cattle by adding methane-reducing additives and attempting to breed cattle that emit fewer methane emissions into the air.
entire article:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/Heart...ty-california’s-proposed-methane-regulations/
Nobody in the hysteria camp ever likes to cough that little stat up.
Wez was almost a skeptic and then his tail went right back between his legs.
He even thought for a moment, that nobody claimed AGW was proven fact.
This is what happens when political science becomes a policy driver, and unelected, unaccountable government boards, like CARB are unleashed on the taxpayers.
Its nice to see you open up, and say how you feel.
I dont think you're ignorant, or willingly dishonest. You're just old, and cranky, and a little slow witted.
It could be worse.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Reminds me of Henry Fonda "On Golden Pond"
Wez
DA
Why would we care what anyone practicing hysteria thinks? Are you suggesting AGW is hysteria?
Wez
DA
espola hasn't said AGW is a proven fact, did I miss something?
Wez
DA
Is it hysteria to argue against what our scientists are telling us, to the point of promoting bunk science to protect certain interests?
The notion that many promote (Ted Cruz), that AGW is a left wing conspiracy to take more power away from the people, is, imho, more hysterical than people promoting an overly apocalyptic scenario.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hypocrite. Your trip to Hawaii and your entire life is an argument against what Scientist are telling you. You squash your own argument with every post. Oh and BTW, youʻre not a scientist and therefore should not pretend to be one. Scoot now and continue your daily fossil fuel consumption like the rest of us.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Passing through. When I get back to this, let me make sure i understand. Your argument is that the climate warming we are seeing currently, with currently meaning the inception of direct measurements in the 1880's, is part of a natural warming trend that began 20,000 years ago at the trough of the last isolation minimum?
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Proven --
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:
Here C is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant alpha (α) has been assigned a value between five and seven.
Surprised nobody came back at you with this little chestnut from the climate blah-blah-blah-go-sphere. The ∆ gets lost somewhere along the way......
https://www.google.com/search?q=gra...sAQIHQ&biw=1267&bih=617#imgrc=1AI1GcqjXu10VM:
"SOMEONES AT THE DOOR!"
Its seems to me, we are at, or near the top of a warming trend that started roughly 20,000 years ago.
The inception of current measurements plays a role, as far as it is continued for many thousands of years into the future, in determining the validity of past forms of measurement.
Today, we can see a sub-warming trend within the overall trend that picked up after the 1880s. Coincidentally, the 1880's signaled the end of a sub-cooling trend within the larger warming trend of the last 20,000 years.
So, yes, we are at, or near the top of a warming trend that started roughly 20,000 years ago.
Looking at some measurements, it appears we are in a plateau, where things can swing up or down, before the inevitable descent into cooler, and less hospitable days.
Its not "my argument", its just an observation based on historic patterns.
We can always count on you.
Im beginning to see a pattern.