BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was the second lowest on record. In contrast, Antarctic sea ice extent remained higher than average.
The pace of sea ice loss was near average for the month of June, but persistently warm conditions and increased melting late in the month may have set the stage for rapid ice loss in the coming weeks.

Ice extent remains below average in the Barents Sea as well as in the Chukchi Sea, continuing the pattern seen in May.







 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Digging coal out of the ground and exporting it around the globe where it's burned is a significant addition to the worlds GHGs and toxic air pollution. It's far more toxic than oilsands.

Worlds biggest polluters are the countries producing coal: China, USSA, Australia, Indonesia, India

It matters not to the world if it's burned at home or exported to be burned elsewhere. Global pollution is global, there is no 'peeing end' in the atmosphere pool.


While Australia’s domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represent some 1.5% of the global total, its global carbon footprint – the total amount of carbon it pushes out into the global economy - is much bigger.

Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter. By adding emissions from exported coal to domestic emissions, Australia’s carbon footprint trebles. Its coal exports alone currently contribute at least another 3.3% of global emissions.

In aggregate, therefore, Australia is at present the source of at least 4.8% of total global emissions. That’s without considering natural gas exports. The greenhouse gas emissions in other countries from ... coal export ... will greatly outweigh the proposed reductions in Australia's emissions from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

While Australia imposes safeguards on the export of uranium, it does not impose any requirements for carbon capture and storage of greenhouse gas emissions of exported coal. Australia thus contributes substantially more to the global warming which, according to the Garnaut Climate Change Review will lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Murray Darling Basin as they have existed during recorded history to date. Australia is also a major exporter of liquefied natural gas, another fossil fuel.


About 0.15 per cent of global GHG emissions comes from Canada's oil sands development. All of Canada's crude oil exports are 0.91% of global GHGs. The total GHGs produced by the extraction and consumption of Canadain oil including the oil sands is 1% of the global total.

Australia's contribution to global GHGs is 3.3 to 4.8 times more than all of Canada's crude oil use and exports, including oilsands.

Our members from Australia [Tilly & Tommy] are in complete denial about this, but it's to be expected, they think they're the 'most respected nation' in the world, but they're just one of the major polluters. Their comfortable fat lifestyle is at the expense of filthy global coal pollution.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Nothing False About Temperature Data

Noise on the Telegraph

The deniers have no "real" data so they just invent a conspiracy theory

Who is Paul Homewood?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
From Scientific American

Zero Carbon or Bust


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Unseasonal warm blast for Queensland Australia!
Kim Westcott, Friday July 24, 2015 - 18:59 EST

Parts of QLD have seen their warmest July day in two decades.

There hasn't been a warmer July day at Kowanyama since 1995, when the mercury hit 35 degrees. The mercury finally came to a stop at 34.8 degrees this afternoon, only 0.3 degrees from making the record books. At Century Mine temperatures were seven degrees above-average for this time of year, reaching 35 degrees today.

For large parts of the Northwest such as Camooweal, Mount Isa, Cloncurry and Phosphate Hill it was the warmest July day in five years, as the mercury reached nine degrees above the July average. In the Central West, it was also the hottest July day in five years for Longreach, Blackall and Winton.

The warm spell is primarily due to heat slowly building during the day under sunny skies over the past week. The unseasonal warm spell will linger over central and northern QLD into the weekend. For most places, Monday will bring a noticeable drop in daytime temperatures by three-to-five degrees.






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Zero carbon or bust What a joke. Does anyone really believe that this is possible or necessary. First off we don't earn enough money individually to pay the fees and tax penalties that would be imposed upon us for just day to day living everything would come with a fee or tax. Whole industries and govt. departments would be created all with their hands out to fill their greedy pockets.
No matter what we do,will make absolutely squat of a difference in the whole picture except we will be poorer and controlled more than we can imagine. PEOPLE this has been going on for 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of years before man was even around. The earth has always gone through cycles hot then cold hot then cold, high carbon dioxide then low, high again then low. Ice core samples drilled down to before humans were here showed higher concentration of co2 than we have now. How? were did it come from? Yes we are a very wasteful society and we pollute more than we should, I agree we should all have solar panels and a wind turbine,reduce our waste I am all for that.
I am not for more control and tax so rich people can get richer and we will get poorer, and still see areas of the earth having disasters due to climate change. No one will be able to live in the north where I live, as our winters are 7 months long. All our food comes from California or Mexico in the winter which gets here by diesel trucks, we heat our homes with natural gas or wood, all emits co2.
You need to be very very very careful for what you are asking for and giving power too.If the Govt. can see that their fear campaign is getting credibility and that if they pushed, it the majority will back them, WATCH OUT. As time goes by and you have no money and you cant fart without a meter strapped to your ass registering your co2 and methane content and automatically your account is taxed, and the earths co2 levels continue to rise and there is still disasters all over the earth. It will be too late to say I thought this was supposed to help this is not what I signed up for.
I write this contemplating lighting my wood stove feels like fall out pouring rain and can see my breathe in the air fresh snow on the mountain tops. In July???? Global Warming my ass.


96 dodge ram 2500 12 valve cummins, 4 inch lift kit, 4 inch stainless exhaust, cold air intake, b+d performance transmission, 2 tank wvo conversion using sun wizards design, plantdrive conversion vegmax2, megatherm, 30fphe, arctic fox tank heater, 3 manual 3 way valves, looped return on veggie
 
Location: bc canada | Registered: September 16, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I write this contemplating lighting my wood stove feels like fall out pouring rain and can see my breathe in the air fresh snow on the mountain tops. In July????


Yup, same here, further north. I've already fired up the woodstove a few mornings this month.


The toxic pollution from coal is the biggest problem. Those in the coal producing countries are always trying to deflect the attention to CO2, and away from the toxic pollution they spew. The forum members from Oz are good examples of that.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Tar Sands: one of the Dirtiest hydrocarbons

In northern Alberta, mostly foreign-owned oil companies are aggressively extracting bitumen from tar sands, which they turn into one of the dirtiest and most destructive forms of energy on the planet. In the process, they are creating serious social, economic and environmental problems in Alberta, North America and all over the world.
Bitumen, the sticky stuff that ancients used to glue the Tower of Babel together, is the world’s most expensive hydrocarbon.
The region has become a global Deadwood, complete with rapturous engineers, cut-throat cocaine dealers, Muslim extremists, and a huge population of homeless individual

Tar sands development releases an inordinate amount of climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is the leading edge of a new era of carbon intensive "extreme energy". If we extract all known tar sands oil, the Earth's temperatures will rise substantially, leading to complete climate catastrophe.






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Im not getting involved in the oil and coal debate you guys can fight over that. Seems to me its become more of nationalistic hydrocarbon slinging event than discussing causes of global warming.
I enjoy more productive hobbies such as trying different blends in my veg tank not just 100% and charting fuel economy, boost pressure and pyro temps. Adding diesel kleen in the grey bottle seeing if it improves my economy on veg oil, things that improve how my truck runs and increases the longevity of the engine.
I only come on here for a good laugh as I sit and enjoy my coffee which if you guys keep empowering the govt. I will not be able to afford. Oh well I will just drink water pure clean Canadian spring water that we will sell to you all eventually and it will be worth more than oil and then maybe I can afford coffee again that is until the next iceage comes and freezes them all.
 
Location: bc canada | Registered: September 16, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The primary cause of global warming is natural processes, the human contribution from burning hydrocarbons to produce CO2 is small.
Habitat destruction and toxic pollution from burning coal have a much greater effect on the planet. Those who keep flogging the Anthropogenic Global Warming dead horse are merely trying to distract people from stopping toxic pollution and habitat destruction.
Since their standard of living is dependent on producing dirty coal, we can't expect them to be objective about stopping toxic pollution.

Intelligent people know that coal is the dirtiest hydrocarbon fuel, there's no debate, only flimsy justifications to continue toxic pollution for fun and profit.




 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Sun could hold key to solving California's water problems

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blog...blems-192646788.html

By Ben Knight

California’s dreadful multi-year drought has left one of the world’s most hugely productive agricultural zones in dry and draining desperation.

But a bold new water recycling scheme – greener, cleaner and far more efficient – is offering some urgently needed hope.

In the state’s vast Central Valley, a company called WaterFX is developing a practical, potentially game-changing way to reclaim and clean agricultural waste water.

“It’s typically thought that, because of the high energy consumption associated with distilling water – which is essentially boiling it – it’s not a good use of our energy resources,” WaterFX co-founder Matthew Stuber told Yahoo Canada.

“However, once we couple it with renewable energy, it becomes a different proposition.”

WaterFX plants use solar energy to turn waste water into steam, which cooks out all the impurities. As clean, fresh water condenses, that energy is released, recaptured and pumped right back into the process.

“So instead of just using it once to boil water – one unit of energy making one unit of water – we have one unit of energy being recycled so many times, we can get 18 or 19 units of water. It’s many times more effective.”

Even the polluting by-products – salts and agricultural chemicals – can be reclaimed, recycled and put back to work.

“This is actually just the natural water cycle,” Stuber explained.

“The sun shines on the ocean, the ocean evaporates water, it forms clouds, the clouds come over the land and it rains fresh water down. We’re doing the exact same thing, except in a closed system.”

Traditional desalination methods burn fossil fuel, get limited results, and produce large amounts of brine and toxic sludge. WaterFX is side-stepping all of this – in small, efficient plants that will soon be able to reclaim half a million gallons of water every day.

“You can put these systems at ground zero of water scarcity,” Stuber said.

Of course, California has limitless access to the near-infinite waters of the Pacific Ocean. But heavy regulation and an understandable desire to preserve the beauty of the coastline has made building desalination plants problematic.

That’s why a small, clever alternative – that doesn’t even need ocean water – is so intriguing.

“We’re actually generating a new source of water that’s sustainable wherever you need it. In that way, as demand waxes and wanes, we can adjust these systems accordingly.”

This is desperately needed. Not only is there no rain, the ancient aquifers that have long been the lifeblood of California agriculture are being rapidly depleted, and may soon run dry.

“No matter what, there’s going to be agriculture in California,” Stuber said.

“That’s a huge priority for the entire United States. And even though we’re talking about massive drought right now and huge water cutbacks, water’s still being delivered, and used for irrigation.

“Being that California agriculture consumes a huge percentage of the total water that’s consumed – about 80 per cent – making a dent there reduces the agricultural water footprint. It creates new water sources for other uses.”

And new hope, as well.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Tar Sands Dirty Little Secret — “Petcoke”

The Canadian tar sands have been called the “most environmentally destructive project on earth”, with good reason.
But what if we told you that a significant proportion of the climate impact from exploiting the tar sands has been overlooked?

“Tar sands bitumen is a semi-solid hydrocarbon.
In fact a barrel of bitumen contains 24% more carbon than a barrel of conventional light oil.
This additional carbon does not make its way through to the gasoline and diesel manufactured from tar sands bitumen. It is removed. This ‘removed’ carbon doesn’t disappear; far from it.
In fact 15 to 30 percent of a barrel of tar sands bitumen is converted during the refining process into a coal-like solid fuel called petroleum coke or ‘petcoke’.

This is considered a byproduct of tar sands refining and most analysts assessing the climate impact of the tar sands have to date dismissed the emissions from burning this petcoke.

Petcoke is like coal, but is in fact dirtier. Petcoke has even higher carbon emissions than already carbon-intensive coal, emitting between 5 to 10 percent more CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. A ton of petcoke yields on average 53.6 percent more CO2 than a ton of coal.

So even if petcoke did simply replace coal, which is not the case, the net emissions from whichever activity the petcoke is fueling (eg: power generation) are higher.






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:

Originally posted by 96 canola
Zero carbon or bust What a joke. Does anyone really believe that this is possible or necessary. First off we don't earn enough money individually to pay the fees and tax penalties that would be imposed upon us for just day to day living everything would come with a fee or tax. Whole industries and govt. departments would be created all with their hands out to fill their greedy pockets.


no mention on how it's affecting you right now. BC has had a carbon tax since /08
The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

B.C.’s carbon tax shift works

The carbon tax is revenue neutral, meaning every dollar generated by the tax is returned to British Columbians through reductions in other taxes.

quote:
The Minister of Finance is required by law to annually prepare a three-year plan for recycling carbon tax revenues through tax reductions. This plan is presented to the Legislative Assembly at the same time as the provincial Budget. The Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Plan and Report presented in Balanced Budget 2014 shows the tax reductions that return carbon tax revenues to individuals and businesses.

Based on the revised forecast of revenue and tax reduction estimates, revenue neutrality has been met for 2013/14. In fact, the reduction in provincial revenue exceeds the $1,212 million in carbon tax revenue by $20 million



quote:
originally posted by 96 canola

Ice core samples drilled down to before humans were here showed higher concentration of co2 than we have now. How? were did it come from?


that's just plain false no ice core has ever shown a co2 concentration above 320ppm, never. check your source, someone is lying to you

quote:
If the Govt. can see that their fear campaign is getting credibility ....



What fear campaign would that be?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
that's just plain false no ice core has ever shown a co2 concentration above 320ppm, never. check your source, someone is lying to you


WHAT?! Its been over 7000 PPM in the past!



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...iferous_climate.html

Someone is intentionally wearing blinders....
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
That's not an ice core.

what is that graph based on?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
I tried to figure that out for sure. It said in another place it was an ice core, but no citation to prove it.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ice core's only go back 800k years. Probably the furthest back we can go with any accuracy so far. if it's saying that data is based on ice core's it's lying. according to the data it's based on rocks or more importantly the weathering of rock among other things

who ever runs that website made the graph but no one put their name to it. I got to wonder why (if this is a science site ) there is no author

I smell a fake unless you can find a source


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
EPICA/Dome C and Kohnen Station

quote:
The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) first drilled a core near Dome C at 75°S 123°E (560 km from Vostok) at an altitude of 3,233 m. The ice thickness is 3,309 ± 22 m and the core was drilled to 3,190 m. It is the longest ice core on record, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 kyr BP (Before Present).[13] Present-day annual average air temperature is -54.5 °C and snow accumulation 25 mm/y. Information about the core was first published in Nature on June 10, 2004. The core revealed 8 previous glacial cycles. They subsequently drilled a core at Kohnen Station in 2006.[14]


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...iferous_climate.html

quote:
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).



Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...ocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Compare Oxygen (O2) concentrations.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...ate.html#anchor83826

See an estimate of CO2 concentrations over the past 15,000 years, based on plant stomata.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html


There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

There is plenty of hard scientific evidence, not 'models', which proves that CO2 concentrations were much higher in the past and that present concentrations are near minimum for the earth's history.

Some people are just so willfully ignorant that we've got to spell it out for them, they can't figure out how to use the links themselves, and instead try to argue over inconsequential details, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Most of the time they're nothing but contrarians*, arguing with everything, and providing no evidence to support their beliefs. The links are provided, they can educate themselves if they wish.


*
quote:
contrarian. Someone who automatically tends to take the opposite point of view from the person to whom they're speaking, or to disagree with society at large out of a sort of knee-jerk reflex.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 184 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014