7.5 billion burning carbon couldn't be the problem.
forgot password / register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#misc


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
778,981 comments by 11,534 users, 4 online now: HEY YOU, just any guy, mell, Patrick
new post
« prev   misc   next »

2
0

7.5 billion burning carbon couldn't be the problem.

By HEY YOU following x   2017 Jun 30, 9:55am 822 views   19 comments   watch   quote     share  


Your children aren't special,they add to the destruction of the environment.

http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2017/06/3-years-to-fix-climate-change-30-years.html

1 APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   ignore (5)   2017 Jun 30, 2:14pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

FACE!

ALL THAT IS LEFT FOR DINNER!

2 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 30, 3:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

"The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said."

I would gladly pay it.
Hey Trump, I'm going solar. You can kiss my hairy ass.

3 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 30, 4:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Hey Trump,
Thanks for the extra coal.

4 BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 1, 7:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Black carbon persists across the planet, accelerating glacial melt. If global warming encourages an uptick in the size and frequency of wildfires in the coming decades, as expected, the rise in black carbon deposits will likely accelerate glacial melt.

New research shows black carbon deposits vary across the planet, but persist in a variety of glacial ecosystems.

Black carbon is the soot-like particulate matter released by the combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel and biomass -- through man-made processes, like the burning of coal, and natural means, like wildfires.

Climate scientists are interested in black carbon because deposits among snow and glaciers affect melting rates. Black soot absorbs more energy than white snow and ice.

Scientists at the University of Colorado, Boulder recently conducted a global survey of black carbon deposits. Molecular analysis of the deposits helped scientists trace the sources of black carbon deposits and measure changes in deposition rates.

On Greenland's ice sheet, researchers found evidence of an uptick in black carbon. The sooty deposits were carried by winds from wildfires raging a few thousand miles away in the Canadian Arctic.

"We could tell that the carbon was fresh from these fires," Alia Khan, a post-doctoral researcher at Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center, said in a news release. "The molecular signature from these samples was distinctly different from the rest of our dataset."

If global warming encourages an uptick in the size and frequency of wildfires in the coming decades, as expected, the rise in black carbon deposits will likely accelerate glacial melt.

Researchers were able to detail how sun exposure alters the chemical structures in older black carbon deposits. They also showed glaciers, ice sheets and melted water can transport black carbon particles.

"The influence of distant forest fires on melt events on the Greenland ice sheet is inherently challenging to demonstrate and these clear chemical results provide another line of evidence for this connection," said Diane McKnight, a professor at Boulder.

Scientists published their findings in the journal Geophysical Research Letters**.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/06/30/Black-carbon-persists-across-the-planet-accelerating-glacial-melt/1951498848171/?utm_source=fp&utm_campaign=ls&utm_medium=4

**http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1944-8007/ (Note: the link is not working correctly, you can read the article by clicking the link in the main article posted)

5 Ernie   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 1, 7:23am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Strategist says

The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said

Sadly, the money collected will be very likely paid to useless bureaucrats and none will go to actually preserving rainforests.

6 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Jul 1, 7:53am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

drBu says

Strategist says

The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said

Sadly, the money collected will be very likely paid to useless bureaucrats and none will to to actually preserving rainforests.

Got that right. It would be more effective to ban imports from burned rainforests or tax the shit out of them so that burning rain forests is not a good business model.

7 Ernie   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 1, 8:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

PeopleUnited says

It would be more effective to ban imports from burned rainforests or tax the shit out of them so that burning rain forests is not a good business model

Agreed 100%. And also ban use of palm oil, which a short while ago was to be environmental savior (NATURAL! GREEN! RENEWABLE!) but now it turns out that palm plantations are destroying rainforests. Palm oil example also shows that environmental friendliness claims have to be heavily scrutinized.

8 Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2017 Jul 1, 8:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

drBu says

Agreed 100%.

+!

The Earths Equatorial rain-forest deforestation is the number ONE Global calamity. And the Global Warming retards are only there to serve to keep secret the grand scale of the destruction and the ramification that it is having on earths climate and how it impacts tropical weather patterns. i.e Hurricane Season.

9 BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 1, 12:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

It's all Hubbards fault for picking an overly sensitized planet to colonize...

10 BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 9, 12:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

We’re outpacing the most radical climate event we know of. Lots of carbon got dumped into the atmosphere 56 million years ago.

To find a sudden warming that's driven entirely by greenhouse gases, you have to go back 56 million years to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). At the start of the PETM, a geologically sudden surge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere caused warming and a large change in the ocean's pH. It took well over 100,000 years for conditions to return to anything normal. During that time, the extinction rate rose, and many ecosystems were disrupted or shifted by thousands of miles.

But understanding the PETM has proven a challenge, as it's not clear how much carbon entered the atmosphere or where it came from. A new paper in today's issue of Nature takes existing information about carbon dioxide levels and isotope ratios and combines them with data on the amount of carbon that dissolved into the oceans. The results provide a new indication of how much carbon entered the atmosphere—10,000 gigatonnes—and suggests volcanoes put it there.

Somewhat disturbingly, however, the data reinforces past indications that the PETM was relatively slow compared to our current carbon binge.

The Earth as a whole was warming during the Paleocene. It was also undergoing a series of "hyperthermals" during which orbital changes drove short periods that were somewhat warmer than the baseline. Then, within a geological blink of an eye, there was a massive influx of carbon into the atmosphere, enough to throw off the ratio of carbon isotopes that had prevailed. Temperatures soared by at least 5 degrees Celsius, and the acidification of the oceans set off an extinction event. While the warming took less than 20,000 years to occur, the planet stayed unusually warm for about 200,000 years.

Much More: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/new-study-were-outpacing-the-most-radical-climate-event-we-know-of/
11 Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Sep 9, 4:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Strategist says
Hey Trump,

Thanks for the extra coal.


Do you even know what methylmercury poisoning is?
12 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 9, 4:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

HEY YOU says
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2017/06/3-years-to-fix-climate-change-30-years.html


Has the author killed himself yet? What is he waiting for? Is he some kind of climate skeptic?
13 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 9, 6:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Dan8267 says
Strategist says
Hey Trump,

Thanks for the extra coal.


Do you even know what methylmercury poisoning is?


I don't. I have heard of mercury poisoning, but not methyl mercury poisoning.
14 Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Sep 9, 7:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Strategist says
I don't.


And that is why your opinion does not count. It is based on ignorance. If you knew and understood exactly what methylmercury poisoning is, you would realize how incredibly stupid it is to be pro-coal.

Coal power plants release many pollutants. These pollutants enter the atmosphere and rain down on the land, the ocean, rivers, and lakes. Some of these pollutants enter the food supply, particularly seafood. For example, tuna fish used to be a very healthy food that children loved. Now tuna fish contains methylmercury and causes many health problems in children, adults, and even birth defects in embryos.

This problem is caused entirely by coal power plants. The coal industry benefits from Trump's policies, but other industries including the fishing industry suffers far more than the coal industry benefits. Again, it's a net loss and that's not including all the resulting economic costs from birth defects, health problems, and loss of productivity from sick workers. And of course, we're not even weighing in the human suffering because that doesn't have a dollar assessment.

Fish is suppose to be a healthy food, but today it's poisonous. There is NO level of methylmercury that is safe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JJ3DIkegaU
Are you still pro-coal?
16 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 9, 7:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Dan8267 says
Are you still pro-coal?


Holy shit. I am anti coal, anti oil, anti fossil fuels, and anti anything that causes pollution.
I only drive hybrids and electric cars. They will be powered by the solar panels I am buying.
I successfully convinced many friends and acquaintances to go hybrid and electric. They are all happy and thankful.
ExxonMobil hates me. Arabs hate me. The Sierra Club loves me.
So, Dan, when are you getting an electric car?
17 anonymous   ignore (5)   2017 Sep 9, 7:53pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I have never lived more than ten miles away from my job in my entire life. I never fly private air. I've used mass transit for at least a fourth of my working life. I have always used small fuel efficient cars. My family vacations within the continental US.

Tax somebody else.
19 Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Sep 9, 9:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Strategist says
So, Dan, when are you getting an electric car?


When my current car is no longer drivable. It's not environmentally sound to buy a new car, even an electric one, when you have an already good car. Did you not see that episode of Adam Ruins Everything?

Strategist says
Holy shit. I am anti coal, anti oil, anti fossil fuels, and anti anything that causes pollution.


Quit your sarcasm and answer the question. Now that you know about methylmercury poisoning, are you still pro-coal? Can you see how making one industry more profitable can make many other industries less profitable when the favored industry is simply cost shifting? Do the math.

Comment as anon_1c765 or log in at top of page:

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail   old posts by year  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home