Thread: Greenhouse gases.....grizzle time

Just imagine all the gas from the Dinosaur's
Methane ?

there might be a majority of scientists saying global warming is real but that does not mean they are right, the majority of people used to think the earth was once flat and had the evidence to back their claims, but there were a few dissenters who thought otherwise. I too remember growing up with the theory that we were heading into another ice age...espoused by the same scientists who today champion global warming. Whether the dissenters against them are right or not I do not know.

Interestingly the news had on the other day that scientists have 'discovered' that trees produce large amounts of methane too...good excuse to cut down more

My late MIL used to reckon that there was never so much rain until man landed on the moon, the spikes on the lunar module apparently punched holes in the surface of the moon and we got wet as a result.
The joys of dementia..............

BIt like Billy Connolly talking about his dad, everyone worries about him, but fook, he's happy, why should we worry.

Originally Posted by womble

there might be a majority of scientists saying global warming is real but that does not mean they are right,

Nor does it mean that they are wrong.

the majority of people used to think the earth was once flat and had the evidence to back their claims, but there were a few dissenters who thought otherwise.

Back then, there was no education as such, and ignorance and superstition
was the mechanism for 'understanding" the world.
I too remember growing up with the theory that we were heading into another ice age...espoused by the same scientists who today champion global warming. Whether the dissenters against them are right or not I do not know.

Different 'scientists'. The climatologists were mute on the subject. The geological evidence was of four fairly regular ice ages, so they just extrapolated and went with the odds.

Interestingly the news had on the other day that scientists have 'discovered' that trees produce large amounts of methane too...good excuse to cut down more

I'd like to hear from someone why methane is a net greenhouse gas. Vegetation grows because atmospheric carbon dioxide is bound chemically to help create the actual biomass. That this is then digested and farts ensue doesn't explain how they figure there is more carbon released.

Originally Posted by Iain

there is a little notice on the back telling me that ""I"" have sent 2.5 tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I just can't win.

Tell them to give you other options if they want to keep you as a Customer.

Put it back on them

OR tell them to stick it ............ um??? Up their Exhaust Stack:eek:

Be like a politician; turn it around.
speaking of Politics and being GREEN.....................:mad:

Just connect botty to the BBQ cylinder, take a deep breath, and PUSH: Cylinder recharged :eek:

Two problems Steve:
1. If it's liquid it aint methane
2. Whilst managing several decibels after beer and pizza I doubt I could manage 150 psi

What about using a large syringe? Extraction and insertion could be achieved by this novel method.
Let me know how you get on, but stories only - no photos!

From one who works in the industry - maybe not too hard and working is such a flexible word - this push to "green" energy is a crock of shyte

The politicians want to be seen to be good global citizens, and thereby do the "PC" thing by the planet, but if they go too far down the green track, where are they going to get the revenue generated from places like where I work:eek:

IF australia is so concerned about the GLOBAL WARMING issue, why hasn't Bonsi Johnnie signed onto the Kyoto Agreement?, instead the governments have put the responsibility back onto the power generators to "improve" greenhouse emmissions. They have tried such silly schemes like CARBON CREDITS, not sure exactly how it worked, but along with most industry buzz words this to means F.A

Granted australia (and the world) can not go merrily burning fosil fuels ad inifitum, but look at the alternatives:

Solar.... the cost of PRODUCING the solar panels is more than the return from using solar energy! and then storing the produced power....just how much natural resource is used to smelt/blend/purify what is required to make a simple battery?

Wind... Not such a bad idea, find a spot of isolated coast line, bung up a coulpe of windmills, and start making cheap power.. WRONG, the power may be cheap - not free, you have to factor in the cost of infastructure like power lines, transformers and the like, then look at the issue of wind speed, if the breeze is too slight, no gerneration, if the gusts are too strong, again no generation!, however for the 10 percent of the year that the wind is juuuussst right, cheap power. ALSO, one wind generator will produce at a maximum, 3-6 Megawatts, IF you know what the fosil stations produce, LOY YANG puts out 2500 megawatts an hour 24 hours a day all year, you do the maths and see how many wind farms we need.

Nuclear- nuff said who wants a toxic dump near them, waste fuel rods, weapons grade stuff

Hydro.. good clean cheap power, just dam a river and re-route the water throught a turbine or two.. simple... WRONG AGAIN.. if you look at the operation of the snowy scheme, you will notice that they use the water from "storage dams" to produce the electricity. what you dont see is the amount of power they use to PUMP THE WATER AROUND during the evening just so you can feel good about using a "free power" source during the day.

Natural Gas.. still a fosil fuel not as bad emmission wise but not as cheap either.

So when you see that YOU are responsible for 2.5 tonnes of green house gas each billing cycle, look at the alternatives and think of some way which will be truely good for the planet


Wheeew [rant mode off]

Originally Posted by Brudda

IF australia is so concerned about the GLOBAL WARMING issue, why hasn't Bonsi Johnnie signed onto the Kyoto Agreement?....snip...., [rant mode off]

I hear you, Brudda. I don't know what the answer to all of this is, but I do know that Kyoto ain't it. Even if Kyoto had 100% consensus, and compliance, it wouldn't change the equation enough to matter.

If climate change is real (and I respect the voices arguing for it more than those against), then we need much deeper cuts to global fossil fuel use than
Kyoto provides for. Factor in higher per capita use in the rapidly developing world and a growing population means that we need cuts so profound that our economy would tank.

I'm going to go out a plant a few trees. I'll probably have to do this every day for the rest of my life to break even, carbon-wise.

Quite so. Solar payback after you account the cost including the amount of fosil fuels used in the manufacture is around 15-20 years. A solar panel has a life span of 25 years. There is barely worth the effort. It's certainly not a planet saver. It is just about impossible to do on a large enough scale to replace Loy Yang.

There are some solar technologies that are worthwhile. Like the Sunball which has a payback in less than 10 years.

There is also convection power generation which would certainly work in Australia.

On an individual basis you can make a difference. The biggest thing you can do is to design or redesign your house to be more efficient. I'm talking about 8 & 9 star ratings not 5. Solar passive. Natural heating and cooling using a greenhouse on the north side of the house and a shade house on the south. Don't live in a McMansion. Everyone builds 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom and 3 living area houses when the average family is 4.5 people. Solar and wind (if you live in the right place) on a small scale can work, if you chose the right technologies.

The government doesn't care if we frick the environment. It only cares about growth and jobs. Ultimately, this need for growth and consumerism will end in tears. The changes that are needed will be unpleasant and any government that impliments them will be voted out of office. So it will remain business as usual. Until the SHTF.

Every year the human population consumes 400 years worth of resourses. It is plain to see that it isn't sustainable in the long term and probably in the medium term.

The population is growing rapidly and more Chinese and Indians want to live the lifestyle of the westerners. This will be disasterous for the environment. China is increasing its focil fuel usage by 30% per year. Completely unsustainable.

In my opinion, you should eat, drink and be merry because we're fricked in any case.

Originally Posted by Grunt

On an individual basis you can make a difference. The biggest thing you can do is to design or redesign your house to be more efficient. I'm talking about 8 & 9 star ratings not 5. Solar passive. Natural heating and cooling using a greenhouse on the north side of the house and a shade house on the south. Don't live in a McMansion. Everyone builds 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom and 3 living area houses when the average family is 4.5 people. Solar and wind (if you live in the right place) on a small scale can work, if you chose the right technologies.

.

I tried talking to someone from one of the local councils about deciduous trees around houses-cool shade in summer, light in winter. They wouldn't have a bar of it.

When we build our next house I am going to make my own double glazing and insulate like there's no tomorrow. If we get enough land I'll also check out a heat pump.

There is a good book to counter the Mcmansion syndrome: "Building the not so big house", by Susan Susanka. Thoughful, articulate. She is an architect who was tired of building two-storey foyers and living rooms for show instead of actual use.

Greg

Originally Posted by gregoryq

Quote:
Originally Posted by womble

the majority of people used to think the earth was once flat and had the evidence to back their claims, but there were a few dissenters who thought otherwise.

Back then, there was no education as such, and ignorance and superstition
was the mechanism for 'understanding" the world.

People may have believed the world was flat up until say the 1500s, but this was not due to a lack of education! Universities have been around for a lot longer than that! Ancient civilisations had centres of learning and educated classes.

Well educated scientists of the times believed in a flat earth for a number of reasons. I suspect the main reason was that everyone else did too... Which might explain why a lot of people today are hot under the collar about global warming.

I don't think that the number of 'educated' people was all that high. I believe that illiteracy was the norm, and only basic counting skills too.

You have chosen to lump those who see the merit in the theory as modern flat earthers. What ever floats your boat (on the rising sea)

BTW, while compelling, I am not a fan of anecdotal evidence. The fact that the last nine of ten years have been the warmest on record (in what? 150 years?) does start to sound like either a temporary aberation or the start of a change. I have been a user of the atmosphere for 51 years, man and boy, and it does seem as though our current climate belongs to a different statistical universe than we enjoyed previously. My perceptions may be(probably are) faulty, but by the time this is obvious it will be too late to fix.

Cheers

Greg