Comments on: Poland Is Getting Fracked

By: Spudder

Spudder — Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:12:00 +0000

solar power isn’t viable in poland?

see map below, and compare potential to e.g. germany.
then see how much germany is creating with their solar irradiance: cleantechnica.com/2013/06/26/solar-power-by-country-solar-rankings-by-country/

By: Donny

Donny — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:08:00 +0000

Except that Poland takes 90-some of theirr energy from burning coal. 40 million of people need to have fuel, they need to keep their energy needs at a certain level.

In Poland winter lasts for november to march, solar power is not viable. Poland has no steep rivers, few hilly unsettled areas, and their alternative is either buy fuel from Russia or switch to nuclear power – but the EU won’t allow that.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 03:32:00 +0000

Do you know what a greenhouse gas is? Would you like me to give you a definition?

By: Steeple

Steeple — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 03:12:00 +0000

Whoa there, Ron.

Climate is as complex of a mathematical challenge as there is. It is a multi variable equation, with some of the variables having an influence on the effect of other variables.

To believe that the conentration of GHG alone can determine our global temps is simply infantile.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 02:07:00 +0000

That’s not what I would color you.

I’m looking through my Crayola box for “Intentionally Stupid”….

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 01:28:00 +0000

Well, there you have it, folks. A person who is able to say that AGW doesn’t exist but isn’t able to say whether or not CO2 or methane are greenhouse gases. It’s hard to think of anything more idiotic. It’s like telling people you regularly have sex with Angelia Jolie without being able to state whether or not she has a penis.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:42:00 +0000

Color me unconvinced. Looks like cherry picking the data to me.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

And the models look broken to me:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Bold claims require bold proof.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 04:29:00 +0000

Climate change?

Studied.

Proven.

Models?

All models built on rising CO2 levels causing a rise in global temperatures found correct.

That many have underestimated the rise in temperature do not make them incorrect, it indicates that they need to be further refined in order to be more accurate.

If you get 97% of all climate scientists agreeing on something then you can take that to the bank. It has great value.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:54:00 +0000

You don’t know whether or not CO2 or methane are greenhouse gases?

By: Steeple

Steeple — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:46:00 +0000

Didn’t say that. But AGW has been discredited. Feel free to prove me wrong.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:40:00 +0000

So you are saying that CO2 and methane aren’t greenhouse gases?

By: Steeple

Steeple — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:10:00 +0000

Nice try putting words in my mouth, Ron.

You know that the burden of proof for AGW rests on your side’s shoulders, and the models used by the AGW proponents have been wrong. Go ahead and prove causation. The floor is yours. And use your words, Ron. None of the “97% of scientists say” nonsense.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:47:00 +0000

Seriously? You don’t think that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Has everyone who has ever measured its infrared absorption been lying? Do you think the IR meters they use in bottling plants to measure the CO2 in drinks don’t work? Holy bubbling beverages Batman! Do you think that because the albedo of Venus is so high its average surface temperature is actually lower than that of earth? Or is it that you don’t believe that human activity has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you think that the theory of combustion is wrong? After all, it’s just a theory. Do you think that if I burn one tonne of carbon in a surplus of oxygen it won’t create 3.67 tonnes of CO2? Because the theory of combustion would have to be wrong if the burning of fossil fuels hasn’t been sufficient to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by over a third.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:39:00 +0000

Let’s not get into that argument; neither will persuade the other.

But tell me what this has to do with fracking in Poland?

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:37:00 +0000

Okay. Step Zero. Are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or are you saying that human activity is not increasing its concentration in the atmosphere?

By: Steeple

Steeple — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:05:00 +0000

Even if we disagree on your opening statement, what does that have to do with fracking? Poland wants to develop its own gas production to replace that of which they buy from Russia.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 05:29:00 +0000

Okay. First step. You do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the increase in its concentration resulting from human action has increased global temperatures by about 1 degree celcius since the start of the 20th century?

By: Steeple

Steeple — Sat, 10 Aug 2013 04:30:00 +0000

Really, a guy who describes his background as “being involved in motorsports” merits a post here because he can repeat the play on words of Fracking for only about the billionth time?

When someone has some real evidence that fracking creates environmental damage, please nudge me.

Meanwhile, perhaps the Polish people can become less dependent on Russian gas. Not that the Russians and the Poles have any difficult history between the two of them.

By: agelbert

agelbert — Sat, 10 Aug 2013 04:22:00 +0000

It’s deplorable. [img]http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif[/img]