Word Association (2024)

[Srikcir]

20 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Scientist now believe that these high levels of CO2 created a Greenhouse Gas effect

"Scientist" meaning a single scientist, likely geologist Ian Plimer who is not a climate scientist.

Discredited by Scientists.

"These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes"

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

A simple graphic showing difference from https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

[GOLDBUGGY]

15 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Methane, CH4, has one carbon atom with 4 hydrogen atoms. It has a lifespan of 10 years in the troposphere. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Not so sure about the Life Span when you consider that Methane makes up 20% of all the Green House Gases in the atmosphere. Which also traps 28 times more heat than CO2.

 

But it should make people feel better in knowing that Scientists believe that the Dinosaurs produced more Methane Gases that our present Farm Animals do.

[boomerangutang]

37 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

The year without summer reminds me of growing up on the Prairies in Central Canada, but that is another story. But yes Glaciers come and go as you have stated. During one Ice Age the Ocean Levels dropped so much that this created a Land Bridge between Russia and Alaska.

Another thing I find odd is people talk like we have never had high CO2 in out atmosphere before. That is far from the truth. Considering that our greatest source of Oxygen (O2) comes from plants which adsorbs CO2 to generate O2 then consider this.

In our greatest Ice Age, Glaciers made it as far as the Equator in some places. So and obvious question arises from this fact in how much plant life did we have then when almost the entire Earth and Oceans were completely covered in sheets of Ice?

Again the answer is obvious and as a result our levels of O2 were very low then. During this Ice Age, Volcanoes were very common and plentiful then as well. Which can be traced back from the Ice Packed Glaciers in places like Greenland, which remained undisturbed.

So with high Volcanism, which besides soot and ash produces high levels of CO2, and with low O2 Levels, Scientist now believe that these high levels of CO2 created a Greenhouse Gas effect, causing the Earth to warm up, and the Glaciers to recede, ending that Ice Age. Otherwise we still might be covered in Ice and Snow.

Mother Earth has an extraordinary ability to recover from any catastrophe, even when we may not survive during this time. An Ice Covered Earth even slowed down the Earths Rotation and Wobble, which resulted in the loss of part of the Magnetic Field. But here we are today to be able to talk about it.  

Again, your missive is about about climate fluctuations over millions of years.  That's interesting, but doesn't cut to the core of the matter.  The issue at hand is what has happened in the past 50 years, and what's projected to happen in the next 250 years.  

 

If I'm a mechanic, and you come to me with your car and want your oil changed.  You don't want a 5 hour speech about 87 oil-change stories from the beginning of my great grandfather's mechanical career.  No, you want your oil changed.  

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

19 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

"Scientist" meaning a single scientist, likely geologist Ian Plimer who is not a climate scientist.

Discredited by Scientists.

"These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes"

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

A simple graphic showing difference from https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Your talking about present day. I was talking about a time before Man existed. Wish some people would at least read the post before they reply to it.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Not so sure about the Life Span when you consider that Methane makes up 20% of all the Green House Gases in the atmosphere. Which also traps 28 times more heat than CO2.

I think you are mixing up the amount and the effect.

 

Methane: 2ppm (parts per million)

CO2: 400ppm

 

Methane is 28 times more potent greenhouse gas, therefore it's effect compared to CO2 is 2ppm*28 = 54ppm. About 15% compared to CO2.

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Guest

[GOLDBUGGY]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Again, your missive is about about climate fluctuations over millions of years.  That's interesting, but doesn't cut to the core of the matter.  The issue at hand is what has happened in the past 50 years, and what's projected to happen in the next 250 years.  

 

If I'm a mechanic, and you come to me with your car and want your oil changed.  You don't want a 5 hour speech about 87 oil-change stories from the beginning of my great grandfather's mechanical career.  No, you want your oil changed.  

 

True about the Oil Change. But it would be interesting for me to have you tell me where Oil comes from and how it was made in the first place. Or more importantly, how you dispose of this Dirty Oil.

 

But when we are talking about the effects of Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming, where nobody truly knows how bad it is, or what will be the true underlining effects and result will be, then it helps to look and study the past in hopes it will help predict the future. Why do you think they dig through layers upon layers of Ice Sheets in Greenland and study these Ice Cores? To give Environment Students Summer Jobs?

 

For example now knowing the a huge Asteroid landed in the Gulf of Mexico and totally wiped out all the Dinosaurs, then there is a very good possibility that another one like that one will wipe us out to. So now they are mapping Asteroids and making plans on how to avoid an impact with Earth. I think a good thing.

 

My point being that this is not the first time the Earth has gone through Global Warming or had high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in fact there were many periods like this. Which I think by learning the causes and effects from the past can help us make plans for the future.

[GOLDBUGGY]

19 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I think you are mixing up the amount and the effect.

 

Methane: 2ppm (parts per million)

CO2: 400ppm

 

Methane is 28 times more potent greenhouse gas, therefore it's effect compared to CO2 is 2ppm*28 = 54ppm. About 15% compared to CO2.

 

 

 

So what is your point?

 

That Methane is a dangerous Greenhouse Gas, like I said? Or it isn't, like you seem to be claiming?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

So what is your point?

 

That Methane is a dangerous Greenhouse Gas, like I said? Or it isn't, like you seem to be claiming?

My point is that I care about the science and scientific facts. That's the only way to really understand the problem AND find realistic solutions. 

 

The problem with climate discussion has been that there are too many humanists yelling how bad things are, often not understanding the underlying scientific facts. 

 

That bring up the next problem. There are too many taboo subjects when trying to find solutions. Nuclear power, tampering with atmosphere, seeding oceans with iron etc. etc. 

 

Not every solution is feasible, but at least there should be wide variety of discussions about the solutions. 

[Srikcir]

12 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

That Methane is a dangerous Greenhouse Gas, like I said? Or it isn't, like you seem to be claiming?

Methane is but not to the extent that CO2 is due to released quantity. For example:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

[digger70]

12 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

There could be some truth in what you say as history also has shown.

 

But don't say to much as those on the green train are making a lot of money right now and you will upset them.

Ain't that the Truth,,,Some people are making Millions out of this Scaremongering,,,

[boomerangutang]

3 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Ain't that the Truth,,,Some people are making Millions out of this Scaremongering,,,

Scientists get paid for their work.  Is that bad?    I can think of many professions where nefarious people make a lot more money, and they do a lot of damage to society.   Scientists trudging across terrain in Greenland to take measurements, aren't the problem - unless viewed by deniers.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Ain't that the Truth,,,Some people are making Millions out of this Scaremongering,,,

I know. It's shocking the way Exxon and the Kochs, among others, has been sponsoring this fake climate warming scandal. Lucky they don't command huge amounts of money and resources or the danger of those clowns destroying us all would be even worse.

[joeyg]

14 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Yes no doubt that the USA has plenty of excellent fertile soil there. They also have plenty of lakes, forests, mountains, and deserts. One of the hottest and driest places on Earth is Death Valley in the USA.

 

And Yes, large countries, and especially ones with huge populations, tend to have the most Arable Land. That is only logical. But again the most Arable Land does not mean the most Fertile Land. But none the less you dragged this conversation off on a totally different tangent anyway.

 

A poster stated that due to this land in the North being covered in ice, and then melting due to global warming, that this land would not be arable or fertile. I replied stating that at one time nearly all of Canada was covered in ice during the last great ice age, and from your own chart there is still plenty of arable and fertile land there.

 

So no point in me carrying on a discussion that perhaps Bangladesh has the most fertile soil in the world, but can't even support it's own people with food from it, and they being subject to terrible flooding every year. That was not the point I was trying to make here.

I give up and Thank you.

 

[owl sees all]

What about the gas from farts? I don't know the exact composition of a fart but a couple of year ago a scientist in UK postulated that if we could capture all the farts form cows in the UK it would be a gas fuel for 25% of vehicles (need to convert the vehicles of course).

 

Anyone have some raw data on this?

 

 

 

[joeyg]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

What about the gas from farts? I don't know the exact composition of a fart but a couple of year ago a scientist in UK postulated that if we could capture all the farts form cows in the UK it would be a gas fuel for 25% of vehicles (need to convert the vehicles of course).

 

Anyone have some raw data on this?

 

 

 

Yes.  "He who smelt it dealt it" - New England Journal of Medicine

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

What about the gas from farts? I don't know the exact composition of a fart but a couple of year ago a scientist in UK postulated that if we could capture all the farts form cows in the UK it would be a gas fuel for 25% of vehicles (need to convert the vehicles of course).

 

Anyone have some raw data on this?

Poor cows :)

While that is kind of silly science, it's the attitude we need to combat global warming. 

 

In reality it might be best to collect the methane from the ceilings of the farm houses as well as from the manure. 

The latter has already been done. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html

 

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Guest
Image didn't attach

[Srikcir]

26 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

What about the gas from farts?

According to researchers at New Zealand's largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch, up to 95% of the emissions comes from the cow's mouth rather than its behind.

https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

 

[owl sees all]

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

According to researchers at New Zealand's largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch, up to 95% of the emissions comes from the cow's mouth rather than its behind.

https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1 562144730

Just read the piece. I am enlightened. Thanks.

 

Sometimes one can remember something from way back and just can't recall the details. Never too old to learn.

[joeyg]

9 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

According to researchers at New Zealand's largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch, up to 95% of the emissions comes from the cow's mouth rather than its behind.

https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

 

I have good intel that most of "it" comes out of politicians mouths... 

[ExpatOilWorker]

12 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Just published:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1009060-carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016-un-says/?utm_source=newsletter-20171030-1857&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news

The amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere grew at record rate in 2016 to a level not seen for millions of years, potentially fuelling a 20-metre rise in sea levels and adding 3 degrees to temperatures

 

No need to get excited, we will break that record again in 2018 and 2019 and 2020.....and...

[thaibeachlovers]

52 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

What about the gas from farts? I don't know the exact composition of a fart but a couple of year ago a scientist in UK postulated that if we could capture all the farts form cows in the UK it would be a gas fuel for 25% of vehicles (need to convert the vehicles of course).

 

Anyone have some raw data on this?

 

 

 

I don't know about cows, but as far as sheep go it's belching and not farting that releases the naughty gas. That's from a farmer I know.

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I know. It's shocking the way Exxon and the Kochs, among others, has been sponsoring this fake climate warming scandal. Lucky they don't command huge amounts of money and resources or the danger of those clowns destroying us all would be even worse.

Exxon hardly use any oil, it is the "us all" that want it so much that even high taxes can't stopping them.

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Poor cows :)

While that is kind of silly science, it's the attitude we need to combat global warming. 

 

In reality it might be best to collect the methane from the ceilings of the farm houses as well as from the manure. 

The latter has already been done. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html

 

 

Ceilings of farm houses? Cows don't live in farm houses, and probably more farm animals live outside than in barns.

Technology to capture and store CO2 exist. There is no need to discuss anything- just get on and build the factories to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That they don't is significant.

[joeyg]

Just now, ExpatOilWorker said:

Exxon hardly use any oil, it is the "us all" that want it so much that even high taxes can't stopping them.

I haven't owned or driven a motor vehicle in 3 years.  I do both fart and belch regularly though.

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

 

 

[heybruce]

To the head-in-the-sand brigade that keep reminding us that the climate is always changing and the earth was much hotter in the past--we know.

 

Natural changes that take place over thousands or tens of thousands of years don't worry us.  Changes comparable to those that took thousands of years in the past but may happen in the next few decades worry us.

 

If you go from 100 km/hr to zero over tens of seconds you will be fine.  If you do the same in a fraction of a second you will be dead.  The rate of change matters.

[owl sees all]

2 minutes ago, joeyg said:

I haven't owned or driven a motor vehicle in 3 years.  I do both fart and belch regularly though.

I have just read a piece on cows and how much they belch and fart. Didn't really consider humans until your post Joey. 

 

Medical research companies pay people to take part in trials. Would it be possible to send people (unemployed or homeless) to a special establishment,  fix them up to a device, feed them fart inducing food and harness their gas.

 

On second thoughts; what about the prison pop'? Every 5 litres gets a day off their sentence.

[joeyg]

7 hours ago, owl sees all said:

I have just read a piece on cows and how much they belch and fart. Didn't really consider humans until your post Joey. 

 

Medical research companies pay people to take part in trials. Would it be possible to send people (unemployed or homeless) to a special establishment,  fix them up to a device, feed them fart inducing food and harness their gas.

 

On second thoughts; what about the prison pop'? Every 5 litres gets a day off their sentence.

Indeed.  This post destined to be a classic.... 

[GOLDBUGGY]

20 hours ago, joeyg said:

I have good intel that most of "it" comes out of politicians mouths... 

True!

 

It is not only cows who can make good Bull Shit.

[GOLDBUGGY]

19 hours ago, joeyg said:

I haven't owned or driven a motor vehicle in 3 years.  I do both fart and belch regularly though.

Good Point!

 

Maybe the Governments can come out with some "Excess Gas Tax" for something like that. You might be allowed to Deduct on average 2 of these a day, or more if you can produce Medical Receipts. After that there is a Flat Tax.

 

Might no be a great deal for the people who make cabbage, sour kraut, or hot beans, but a small sacrifice for the betterment of the environment.