|
jlf1961 -> RE: Proof that climate change is bullshit... (8/26/2017 6:49:45 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marini
Hi Jeff, I hope you are okay and not in the path of the storm.
I thought about starting a Hurricane Harvey thread, I think I still will.
Last I checked we have had hurricanes for hundreds of years, and recorded hurricanes for over 150 years.
I am not sure how much global warming has to do with hurricanes.
They have been talking about how bad this "might" be for weeks, and definitely for over a week.
With this much coverage, unless people are disabled, anyone that stays in the path of a hurricane, usually wants to gamble.
Weather reporters state that certain area's might have rain for a week, and certain area's might take months to recover from this.
Man can do many things, but you can't play or fool Mother Nature.
stay safe
Where I am, they are predicting one to two inches of rain, which if it happens you can pretty much count on the cotton crop being screwed, along with the peanuts south east of here.
The good news is that if we do get that much rain this late in the year, winter wheat and rye will do good, and should have a bumper crop of late season pecans.
Bosco, you are correct, there have been predictions of far more and far worse hurricanes, which have not happened, in fact, with few exceptions, hurricanes have been weaker and most have stood out to sea.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Keep in mind all of the "altered" data to ensure that its hot. I haven't seen the actual "real" science that supports that assertion. I've seen, for instance the Ausie manipulation of data and the manipulation of using less than reliable shipboard water sensors to support the data, as well as the limiting of thermometer reading in cold spots, but I haven't seen things like satellite sensors agreeing. I've seen that hasty changes to readings that weren't reasonable being done...just in time for the Paris agreement...
The data has not been 'altered.'
The last ten years have been hotter, and have set records.
As to the cause, my personal opinion is that the biggest impact humans have had on climate is deforestation, mostly in south America and for the purpose of farming grain crops.
Less trees in the rain forest means less rain, and a large impact on the carbon cycle.
However, there are a lot of countries, such as the US, that produce such a surplus of grain crops that result in world wide low grain prices, so importing grains is cheap.
But, and this is the fucked up part, their are a number of species of trees that would be fast growing in such a climate, and wood is a renewable resource if properly managed.
Wood, specifically hard woods, thanks to the centuries of over harvesting in Europe and North America, is a large profit product.
In other words, those farmers in Brazil who burned out hundreds of thousands of square miles of trees to grow grain to make a small immediate profit could have selectively harvested those same trees and made a higher profit for generations, with no impact on the carbon cycle.
But human nature is one of immediate gratification. We want what we want ten minutes ago.
There is another plant that would provide a lot of oil and other compounds that an industrial world requires, but due to the 'stigma' attached to it, it is illegal.
Another perk of this particular plant is that it will literally clean up toxins in the ground that it is planted in. Times Beach Missouri, the town that was abandoned due to ground pollution from dioxin laced oil put down on the dirt roads could be cleaned up and livable in less than five years just by planting this particular species.
True, any idiot that decided to try and smoke it would be dead in a matter of hours due to the toxicity of the buds, but oil produced by the plant could be used for biofuels, and other products.
The plant is the marijuana plant. The two schools licensed to grow it for research discovered it produces a high quality of oil that can be refined into most of the products made from crude oil and it will cleanse ground it is planted in remarkably well.
It could be planted in areas poisoned and rendered useless by crude oil contamination back in the early years of oil production, as well as areas poisoned by mining processes and industrial waste.
Like I said, anyone that tried to smoke the shit would be committing suicide, but if they are too stupid to heed warning signs, it would be their own fault (I am an advocate of removing warning labels, like those on blow dryers telling people not to use them in showers.)
Even major oil companies have looked at the plant for a source of 'supplemental natural oils' for the bio fuel market.
And when you consider that Rudolf Diesel originally designed his engine to run on vegetable oil, it makes sense.
Hell you can even get a lot of plant oil out of Kudzu, that fucking crap that some idiot imported as a ground cover that is currently over growing the south and seems to be immune to every weed killer known to man.
That shit grows at a rate of 60 feet per season, or one foot a day. (I am not joking) If someone could find an efficient way to harvest it, the oil from that plant could make the US independent of foreign oil in a year (okay I may be stretching it, but that shit makes me think of the old horror movie 'the blob.')
And any oil that can be refined to produce diesel can, in its raw form (not cooked food oils) be refined into other oil based products. And the remarkable thing about plant based oils is that any product made from them is biodegradable.
Plastics made from plant oils will start to break down in five years, unless you maintain the item (International Harvester ran into that problem with corn oil based plastics on their heavy equipment.)
Fuels made from it is carbon neutral, profitable and renewable.
And the problem is not 'Big Oil' fighting the development of such resources, there initial cost at restructuring refineries would be minimal, it is government agencies like the EPA (that keep screaming "needs more research") as well as the US Agricultural department who's major complaint is how to regulate it (you know, using the same programs that tell farmers not to grow shit) and finally, pertaining to pot, the DEA and DOJ who are screaming it is an illegal substance with no medical application (dont matter that the medical uses of marijuana have been known for centuries and it is no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol.)
And no, I am not a pot user, I am one of the very small number of people who, if I use the stuff, has the effect of sending my heart rate through the roof (what good is smoking something to 'relax' or 'chill' if it feels like my heart is going to explode?)
So, there are alternatives to some of the shit people are claiming as the cause of climate change, and while they are screaming about climate change and the eventual doom of the planet on one hand, they are doing their best to keep alternatives from being utilized.
One 'climate change' organization has fought bio oil production in just about every industrialized country, but strangely enough, advocate electric cars, and solar and wind energy.
Funny thing, a lot of the money going into the groups is from the same group of people heavily invested in solar, wind and electric cars and high efficiency batteries.
Ever looked at the carbon foot print of electric cars?
The final product is great, but consider this:
Lithium, in quantities needed to produce lightweight, high output batteries, is found in very few regions on the planet, and not in the US.
The mining of lithium requires heavy equipment, using petroleum for fuel... a lot of it.
The major lithium refining centers are not in the third world countries where it is mined, so it has to be shipped over the ocean on ships using diesel.
The companies that make the batteries do not refine the lithium, so after refining it is shipped by truck, train or ship using diesel.
By the time it gets to the electric car, you may as well have built 6 cars per ton and put them on the road.
Not to mention the toxic waste from producing the lithium at the mines and refining.
Solar cell production is just as bad, as well as wind turbines for wind farms.
Where the hell is the 'eco saving' for these things? You want altered statistics, start there.
As far as climate change goes, I am not one of the "mankind is the only thing responsible for it' group, humans have contributed to it, but give me a break.
When it comes to the environment, hell yeah I want clean air and clean water, I want ground where I can grow things, graze cattle.
But, my point is that the 'villains' are not the big oil companies, or the car companies, or all the other industries that are always linked to the conspiracy, it is the government.
For bio fuels, there are plants that are not food crops that the government has declared illegal, or demands more fucking research, when the research has been around for fifty years.
For lumber, the freaking 'naturalists' are keeping land that was clear cut in past eras that could be replanted with fast growing trees and thus save the old growth, but these idiots file injunctions to keep it from happening because it will harm the habitats of wildlife that moved in to these areas (without mentioning that most of the wildlife in danger are rodents, aka really big fucking rats and other pest animals.)
Or when a logging company goes in to selectively harvest, these shit headed bastards put steel spikes in the trees that when hit by a saw or harvester will shatter blades producing lethal shrapnel.
I bet you these bastards are not living in tents, but in houses built with wood frames.
Did you know that Exxon produced the first report on global warming and its impact in the late sixties. They did not bury it, they actually had it published. Then they started looking at profitable alternatives to keep their million dollar salaries.
Oil companies have known about bio fuels since WW2, why, because the Germans were using it to fuel their tanks and aircraft. The Allied bomber offensive were hitting synthetic oil production facilities as early as 43.
It wasnt big oil that kept the technology out of the mainstream, it was the government, and for the reason of tax revenues.
Consider this, the Federal government gets revenue off oil when it is imported and when it is sold. The higher the cost of crude oil, the higher the import tax.
Now, if Exxon, Texaco an Shell switched to bio fuel and synthetic oil production, the import tax vanishes, since there would be no imports of crude oil.
Under an old law, farm products, no matter what they are used for, are not taxed at point of production, but at point of sale. Which is why International Harvester and other companies started looking at plant based plastics, to cut their production costs.
And while Liberals will scream climate change, global warming and pollution of whatever type, they will not, under any circumstances change laws that will directly impact federal revenues.
Conservatives on the other hand will scream about high individual taxes, play with corporate tax laws, but will not under any circumstances change a damn thing that will cut federal revenues by cutting a large chunk of import taxes.
When you consider the number of plants that are not food crops, that will grow on land that will not support food crops, that produce oils that can be refined to the same products as petroleum, which would cut costs paid by oil companies, which makes them more profitable, even if it means that gas and diesel drops to just over a buck a gallon, do you really think that the oil companies dont want them grown? Or to switch from crude oil to something cheaper?
And the reports squashed by the Koch brothers and all the reports against climate change the 'climate change gurus' are claiming were not squashed because the denied it is happening, they were squashed because they listed a shit ton of alternatives that would make a drastic impact, a more drastic impact than eliminating burning hydrocarbons.
The companies produced reports that agreed with much of what was being claimed, but disagreed and how to fix or address the issue and solve 'perceived' problems.
Consider this, the government mandated pollution standards beginning in the seventies, on engines that everyone will agree are inefficient, and need more fuel to produce the desired power.
So, we ended up with the catalytic converter among other things, and car makers spent billions to meet those standards, and then the standards were tightened, so they spent billions more.
Well all that R and D cost has to be recouped, so they pass the cost on to the buyer.
The buyer pays for the car, then the sales taxes, and on some models, a luxury tax, which goes to government bank accounts. Taxes are based on price.
In 1976, a new corvette, fully loaded, cost 19000. Today, that new corvette starts at 55000.
The biggest difference between the two years is emission control crap and economy boosting crap, mandated by the government.
On an engine technology, that at best is 25% efficient at converting fuel to energy (the diesel is 40 to 45% efficient.)
You want an efficient engine, go to a turbine, and yes, it can be adapted to road use, because it was done in an Indy car in 67. The damn thing was so good it got banned from the tracks.
It was not big oil that hated it, nor the car makers, it was the government that labeled the technology 'experimental' and thus, turbines were left on the side lines, and the 'experimental' label has yet to be dropped for auto use.
|
|
|
|
