Visit our Popular Forums

jackdale · 21-06-2016, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryewe

Errr....that coal you mention? Didn't it start out as wood...that hadn't yet decomposed...and, when burning, does finally decompose during a chemical reaction with oxygen, while releasing heat and light?

A natural process...needing only a little concentrated heat to get it started.

Same with oil...unless you think crude formation is abiotic.

The sequestering of carbon through buried coal beds and oil in underground formations lowered the CO2 levels to the levels that existed for the past 800,000 years, at least. By extracting and burning those fossil fuels we have raised the CO2 levels back to those not seen in 4-5 million years.

Using technology we can produce heat and light without emitting CO2. And we can use hydrocarbons in more appropriate ways as materials feedstock, lubricants, etc..

Lake-Effect · 21-06-2016, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

... no amount of environmental rhetoric or taxation will sway those whose dependence on fossil fuels is non-discretionary. And that's just in the developed world. Good luck with swaying China, India, and countless other countries in the rapidly developing world who are finally benefitting so greatly from such cheap energy.

You're wrong about taxation/duties/subsidies/etc not having effect. And who, exactly, has a non-discretionary dependence on fossil fuel? Let's examine those.

In case you haven't noticed, we are paying absurdly low prices for gas. There's no better, more affordable time than now to start applying carbon pricing, which would result in gas prices that are still lower than 5 years ago.

Quote:

Our best path forward is unfettered science through the time-proven peer review process, not suppression of opinions some political faction or another doesn't happen to approve of.

That's hilarious when contrasted with your previous gymnastics over the "consensus" and government funding of "pro-AGW" research, and government plots.

But hey. Get on the phone to your Congress-critter and demand more and better science. More stuff for you to slag later.

seandepagnier · 21-06-2016, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Drive a smaller car; live in a smaller house; telecommute; recycle; design stuff with the objective to last longer rather than cheapness to make; teach people that last year's model still works the same this year; discourage the throw away society; restrict consumerism; avoid products with excessive packaging; avoid drinking bottled water in regions with potable water supplies; respect the environment in general; try and breed less.

For starters.

Logically to promote your goals, if you can do all that wouldn't you want to breed more, at least until there are more people like that than what you can find now?

SV THIRD DAY · 21-06-2016, 16:08

California just announced a closing of a Nuke plant that accounted for 9% of the State's power use...CO2 emissions...here we come

**StuM** · 21-06-2016, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Since respiration is part of the natural short term CO2 cycle your comment is irrelevant.

Burning fossil fuels is not part of the natural short term CO2 cycle.

There, fixed it for you.

Lake-Effect · 21-06-2016, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

There, fixed it for you.

There's nothing NATURAL about burning tens of thousands of years of sequestered carbon in like 200 years. Even some of your posted graphs have shown that clearly.

Reefmagnet · 21-06-2016, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Now go look in a mirror and repeat that 1000 times.

My post is all fact.

..based on <1% of the available data.

Besides, what proof do you have that humans and "their food crops" won't sustain, or even prosper, in a warmer world?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reefmagnet · 21-06-2016, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribbit

My biggest surprise in this thread, is that there's actually someone left in the World still silly enough to use Norton anti-virus.

One can only hope it came free with a new PC.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reefmagnet · 21-06-2016, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Logically to promote your goals, if you can do all that wouldn't you want to breed more, at least until there are more people like that than what you can find now?

What yo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Exile · 21-06-2016, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're wrong about taxation/duties/subsidies/etc not having effect. And who, exactly, has a non-discretionary dependence on fossil fuel? Let's examine those.

I see that the complexity of the many issues surrounding CC aren't getting any easier for you. When it comes to the basic economics surrounding issues that have already been extensively discussed, maybe better to (re)read and listen rather than write and talk so much.

In case you haven't noticed, we are paying absurdly low prices for gas. There's no better, more affordable time than now to start applying carbon pricing, which would result in gas prices that are still lower than 5 years ago.

We are paying a price for gas that is dictated by a large oversupply due mostly to N. American fracking technology and Saudi Arabia's unwillingness or inability to curtail production. This is happening as worldwide demand continues to increase, mostly due to growth in China and India, albeit at a slower pace because their economies have slowed. The bottom line is that demand has little to do with the low price of gas that you find so "absurd." Ergo, artificially raising the price through taxation will accomplish little, and hurt poorer people who don't have the option of buying an expensive hybrid or electric car to get to work, or installing solar panels on their roofs. Enough examination for you on the concept of non-discretionary dependence on fossil fuels?? None of this is opinion, politics or ideology, and none of it very difficult to grasp.

Here's a little insight into how the rest of the world works, i.e. the world outside your tiny minority who are apparently consumed by fantasy and self-righteousness. The article is in response to a White House marketing campaign to "help" the rest of us understand why action on CC is akin to purchasing "climate insurance."

False Security: Why Climate 'Insurance' Arguments Fall Flat | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

A sampling:

Not so with climate "insurance." We don't know what risks we're insuring against. We don't know what the costs of the potential damage might be, or if there will be any costs at all. We don't know if the premiums we'll be forced to pay will do anything to reduce those risks. And we ignore the very real costs that climate change policies will impose on the world's poor.

Other than that, it's a great idea.

That's hilarious when contrasted with your previous gymnastics over the "consensus" and government funding of "pro-AGW" research, and government plots.

The "consensus" is bogus, but a more objective and thus credible one conducted by climatologists themselves through a non-partisan body could be quite useful. Extensive govt. or private funding of scientific research always runs the risk of creating bias. It's human nature and nothing unique nor personal towards the scientists themselves. No govt. plots or conspiracies imho, only pressures to conform, advance careers, and get re-elected.

But hey. Get on the phone to your Congress-critter and demand more and better science. More stuff for you to slag later.

"Congress-critter?" I know the US Congress has not been held in high esteem for quite awhile now, but I never heard individual members called "critters." Anyone know if there is an age requirement for posting on this forum?

jimbunyard · 21-06-2016, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's nothing NATURAL about burning tens of thousands of years of sequestered carbon in like 200 years. Even some of your posted graphs have shown that clearly.

Just to be clear, most coal is believed to be derived from deposits laid down in the Carboniferous Period, from roughly 360 to 290 million years ago. So if we burned it all in a thousand years, (seems last estimate I heard was that we have about a six hundred year supply at current usage rates), we'll be using up, depending on how one looks at it, that resource at a rate either 70,000 or 360,000 times faster than it was produced (and by implication, could be reformed [except it probably can't, because it seems that the formation of coal has something to do with certain fungi, that didn't exist at that time, not breaking down the plants that eventually turned to coal]).

A similar statement can be made for oil products; crude oil (conventional and 'tight'), natural gas, and oil sands and shales, except that the consumption rate is even higher, given the (mostly optimistic) scenarios of those reserves lasting 100 years additionally.

Would have to say though that it is quite 'natural' (maybe even good) for a species to work itself into a corner. It seems pretty obvious that all species are made up of individuals that, by nature and necessity, are fundamentally concerned primarily with their own success...

What seems un-natural is that the individuals that make up a supposedly intelligent and self aware species seem to be unable to use that intelligence to their and its' advantage (especially given that the success of the species derived largely from intra-species co-operation). Kinda like a healthy young lion starving when the veldt's full of juicy antelope...

jackdale · 21-06-2016, 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

..based on <1% of the available data.

Besides, what proof do you have that humans and "their food crops" won't sustain, or even prosper, in a warmer world?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Been there, done that.

GoingWalkabout · 21-06-2016, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

California just announced a closing of a Nuke plant that accounted for 9% of the State's power use...CO2 emissions...here we come

You've got it wrong. No c02, they are going solar panels and wind to replace the energy loss.

But they have a big problem. In order to build out enough solar panels to replace 9% of the States power needs and they will have to cover at least 50 square miles with solar panels.

First, I don't know how they will get the building permits through. Do you know how many rare frogs, snakes, insects etc. will take precedence over the building project.

Then you have the daily slaughter of birds. Do people realize how many birds get mercilessly fried a day by monster solar arrays.

Last but not least, what will the ongoing cost be for panel cleaning and let's not forget the replacement costs due to cell failure every 10 years.

But sure. Let's replace a non eco damaging energy source that provided energy for 30 years.

**weavis** · 21-06-2016, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

You've got it wrong.

Last but not least, what will the ongoing cost be for panel cleaning and let's not forget the replacement costs due to cell failure every 10 years.

But sure. Let's replace a non eco damaging energy source that provided energy for 30 years.

You mean the fact fact that the nuclear waste is now having to be contained and stored for thousands of years is non eco damaging?

Somehow people are not looking at the complete picture....