I have a vested interest in my life, which depends on gas heat, electricity, transportation. None can be replaced economically.
My old hippie ideals of a berm home, farm, etc. were never achievable even when young
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW 146 Replies latest social current
-
-
peacefulpete
I also have a vested interest in my own life. And not having had children don't have a genetic investment in the future. So... should I not support improving energy efficiency and new technologies? Should I instead insist nothing can be done to improve our use of resources?
I doubt you feel completely anti-efficiency or anti-technology. You seem rather to believe that it is impossible to have greener energy and keep your lifestyle. Thing is, energy production has already shifted to greener options dramatically in many parts of the world and you probably never noticed.
And the value of good planning and simple passive solar building design can't be over stressed. Such simple and free planning can reduce the largest energy consumer, HV/AC by 50%.
Sure some stuff is oversold. I have a degree in thermal technology and understand the role marketing and capitalism has in promoting some technologies not well suited to the markets they are sold in. Ground (or air) source heat pumps for example work well in climates like the UK or Tennessee but are widely sold in areas with colder climates where they are pointless and inefficient. So some skepticism on the part of consumers is prudent.
It's never an all or nothing situation. We can improve our use of resources with wise use of existing technologies and still have transportation and warm homes.
-
Sigfrid Mallozzi
Climate changes do not mean that humans warming their houses, powering their cars, cows farting, or corrupt politicians milking the systems spreading climate fear are responsible.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
-
peacefulpete
SigfridM...The website you found that chart at has much to say on the topic. If you trust the chart why not read the analysis
. Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 50% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (Fig. 2). Other measurements that can fingerprint the source of this CO2 (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions from fossil fuel usage and human-induced changes vegetation and soils. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. Methane (CH4), another important greenhouse gas, also shows an unprecedented increase in concentration over the last two centuries. Its concentration is now much more than double its pre-industrial level. This is mainly due to emissions from agricultural sources and fossil fuel production, that comes on top of natural emissions from wetlands and other sources.
-
Disillusioned JW
Vidgun I trust the reliability of the AP News, but not of wild claims plastered on social media sites without adequate supporting documentation. At https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-bill-gates-foundation-name-952700093300 they say "Gates Foundation wasn’t named the Institute for Population Control".
Where is your source for the photo and the information about the electric cars? Without a source, the photo of cars parked in a lot is not any proof to me of your claim about the cars. Companies are in existence for the recycling of various kinds of electric batteries.
The sea ice in the Arctic is on a continuing melting trend (though obviously it freezes during winter).
Virtually all (if not all) of petroleum oil (and coal) extracted out of the ground was made by decay (under pressure) of vegetation (and maybe of animals) during massive extinctions many millions of years ago over millions of years and are thus fossil fuels. I learned that over 20 years ago from scientific articles/books. See https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/fossil-fuels/ for example. It says in part the following.
"Fossil fuels are made from decomposing plants and animals. These fuels are found in the Earth’s crust and contain carbon and hydrogen, which can be burned for energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas are examples of fossil fuels. Coal is a material usually found in sedimentary rock deposits where rock and dead plant and animal matter are piled up in layers. More than 50 percent of a piece of coal’s weight must be from fossilized plants. Oil is originally found as a solid material between layers of sedimentary rock, like shale. This material is heated in order to produce the thick oil that can be used to make gasoline. Natural gas is usually found in pockets above oil deposits. It can also be found in sedimentary rock layers that don’t contain oil. Natural gas is primarily made up of methane."
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/why-well-never-run-out-of-oil says the following.
"The Origin of Oil
Unlike coal, which is widely distributed throughout the world, petroleum is more difficult to find and extract. Coal forms wherever plants were buried in sediments in ancient swamps, but several conditions must exist for petroleum — which includes oil and natural gas — to form.
The first is an accumulation of algae and other microorganisms in shallow seas, like those that periodically formed as the continents drifted apart and moved together again over hundreds of millions of years. Second, these microorganisms must get trapped in silt, which can happen wherever giant rivers emptied into shallow seas. “There wouldn’t be much oxygen, so they were preserved instead of rotting away,” says Roger Anderson, a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Finally, these pools of dead microorganisms must be subjected to the right conditions — say, a temperature of about 150 degrees, under pressure for a few million years. That prolonged pressure-cooking causes chemical reactions that convert proteins, carbohydrates, and other compounds in the material into crude oil. If the temperature rises to about 200 degrees, the result will be natural gas.
No matter where oil is found, it is always a sign that the area once lay at the bottom of a stagnant sea. And in places like the Salt Lake in Utah and the Black Sea, oil continues to be formed today. In the Gulf of California, near the Colorado River delta, researchers pulled up a mud sample and found it laced with petroleum — a sure indication that, somewhere down below, oil is now being formed. That may prove to be an oil-rich province someday, but don’t rush just yet to bid for exploration rights, says Anderson. “It’ll take about 10 million years before its ready.”Even the most inhospitable locations are being made drill-friendly. A decade ago, oil was discovered in just over 200 feet of water off the coast of Newfoundland. Because icebergs flow through the area, no ordinary oil platform would work. Then engineers hired by a group of oil companies designed an iceberg-proof goliath. Its base is a huge 16-pointed star made of 650,000 tons of concrete and steel. (The points, which are supposed to deflect and break up icebergs, have not yet actually collided with one.) The price: $4 billion. The platform, called the Hibernia, is expected to recover 615 million barrels of oil over 15 to 20 years. That’s not much compared with, say, the 200 billion barrels that Saudi Arabia holds in its oil fields. But it’s a good example of how oil companies are branching out and squeezing oil from improbable places.
Know Your HydrocarbonsFossil fuels — the hydrocarbons known as peat, coal, oil, and natural gas — are formed from the constituents of deeply buried and preserved organic matter. They make good fuels because the energy stored in the bonds between carbon and hydrogen is abundant and easy to release in combustion with oxygen. Some hydrocarbons are simpler than others. Coal, for example, is mostly carbon, while petroleum — which includes oil and natural gas — is mostly carbon and hydrogen. Still, crude oil is anything but simple. It’s made up of carbon molecules of many different sizes. The lightest— — with the shortest carbon chains — make good motor fuels because they are easily vaporized in engines. The heaviest hydrocarbons form viscous oil, paraffin, and asphalt. But even the longer carbon chains can be broken up chemically — in a process called cracking — to create fuels made of lighter molecules."
Are you a young earth creationist? I am convinced of evolution. Non-evolutionary Creationism is at odds with the scientific evidence, but evolution is supported by science.
The book called "Daniel" was not written when it claims to have been written and it is not inspired by God, any god.
-
Disillusioned JW
Sigfrid Mallozzi, the chart you provided covers hundreds of thousands of years (compressed into a small amount of screen space), but the human caused industrial revolution didn't begin till about 300 years ago and most of the CO2 emitted by it was in the last 100 years. The chart provided by you doesn't really show what has happened in the past 300 years ago. Furthermore, the chart's URL says it is for the Antarctic but the changes in ice quantity and and polar warming am talking about are primarily of the Arctic (where is there no land mass at the pole). That is the opposite side the planet than the Antarctic (where there is a large land mass at the pole)! The polar melting of ice is primarily at the Arctic.
-
Disillusioned JW
A moment ago I clicked on your link and I noticed that there is another chart shown (besides the one shown by you) and it is very different than the one you show. I then I clicked on the image (opening it into a new tab) to see a much enlarged image. That image is a much larger image and is located at https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg , with the far right of the chart spiking way up for the blue (Carbon dioxide) and green (Methane) lines) and off the chart to the right. It confirms what I have been saying and not what the climate deniers are saying!! See the image below and note that its time frame is stated in years BP (Before Present). By Before Present it means before the year 1950 CE/AD, hence the portion the graphs that go off the right side of the chart for the years after the year 1950 CE/AD..
Note that the temperature line (in red with the graduation marks on the right) closely synchronizes with the carbon dioxide line and that temperature line lags behind the methane line. Also note that the lines of those two gases each have a very recent huge spike! This chart thus very strongly supports the fact of climate change being progress and that a considerable increase in global temperature is likely imminent.
One the graph you provided (of which an enlarged image is at https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ice_Age_Temperature.png ) the vertical line for zero thousands of years ago is probably for the year 1950 (since the "Present" in "Before Present" when used by geologist and archaeologists, especially when used in carbon dating, means the year 1950).
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction of typos: The last paragraph of my prior post should say the following.
"On the graph you provided (of which an enlarged image is at https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ice_Age_Temperature.png ) the vertical line for zero thousands of years ago is probably for the year 1950 (since
the "Present" in "Before Present" when used by geologists and archaeologists, especially when used in carbon dating, means the year 1950). -
Rivergang
Sea level rise ...... not at all in the Southern Hemisphere.
Where did you get that from?
In fact, sea level rise in this part of the world has been as per the global average (including accelerated rates since 1993).
-
Vidqun
Sorry, I had it wrong. On the wall it says: "Center for Global Human Population Reduction." Or it is helluva good Photoshop, which I doubt. I was close though. In the end it boils down to the same thing. In Kenia they distributed a vaccine against tetanus. Interestingly, most of the girls that had received the vaccine are either sterile or abort their fetuses. Read up on it. It's well documented. The m-RNA vaccines also cause infertility ans stillborn births. It is also well documented.
