"The inconvenient truth about climate change is that solving it will involve digging, blasting & leaching more minerals from the skin of this planet than ever before.

No one much likes to talk abt this. But talk about it we must.

Because eliminating fossil fuels is a HARD SLOG"


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1543219541337165824.html

We affect it some, but not nearly to the apocalyptic extent that the enviro-whakos allege with their exaggerated black swan scenarios.

They are possessed by their moralist ideological cult which instructs them they can be morally superior by engaging in social advocacy.

Quote:

---

The answer matters, because if it's substantial, maybe we should embrace big transformations to change it... in order to truly save the planet. But if it's small, there's a very strong argument that says the economic upheaval far outweighs the benefit of disrupting our way of life.

My gut tells me the answer is "small," but I'm open to facts and data that are broadly peer-reviewed. So far I can't find anybody who can produce that... all we get is emotion and hyperbole.

---

And let's just say that it's 1 - human caused, and 2 - substantial. So? Cold kills more humans than heat. We need heat to live. If the oceans rise a bit, what net effect on humans does that have? Next to zero.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

One thing we do know about increased CO2, the earth is greening.

---

So you agree that we are having an effect?

Anyway, I know it seems like maybe my earlier comments are an argument for going to extremes to address human influence on climate change, it's really not. I'm just not a denier - ie that we are having no effect.

I read this book ( https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-LvRp_fc-AIVm3xvBB2lIQc4EAAYASAAEgIo8PD_BwE&hvadid=568647870677&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9027721&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=9944846320377446885&hvtargid=kwd-1210994604891&hydadcr=22535_9636730&keywords=unsettled+koonin&qid=1656858615&s=books&sr=1-1 ) and would suggest for those of you that are not at either end of the spectrum on this issue and can still listen to reasonable arguments for or against.

I guess, as I think about the issue of the left wanting to control us, I would probably revise my earlier statement - but only as it pertains to climate change. I do think that there are many that truly believe (partly due to MSM misinformation and hysteria) the result of human influences on the climate are going to lead us to a hell on earth that we (homo sapiens) have never experienced before - ie mass extinctions, irreversible damage to ecosystems, breakdown of our agricultural system and ocean fisheries and ability to feed the ever growing human population. Some of these people also believe the only way to accomplish the magnitude of change necessary to get to net zero and "save the planet" is a New World Order that has complete control over mankind's energy economy.

Others want the New World Order for other reasons, but climate change is the excuse to use to attain it.

My Name Is Judge said:

---

The inconvenient truth about climate change is that the planet's climate is cyclical, and that humans have no bearing on it….

The ever changing climate has become a boogeyman for establishment government to steal money from the working middle class…

---

Ding Ding! It's all a grift for money and power.

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

Hydro power disagrees

LOYAL AG said:

---

The same electric grid that can't keep the AC on during the summer is supposed to support summer AC and power all of our cars? I heard a couple of years ago that the average age of an electrical tower in California is 67 years which suggests to me we aren't even investing in the grid that's going to support delivery of all this critical electricity.

Add in the fact that solar isn't currently a viable solution in huge portions of the country and it's clear we're forcing ourselves away from fossil fuels without any real plan to land in a place with reliable energy to peoples homes. This is a very dangerous game the greenies are playing.

---

It's not a game, it's a plan. They are not stupid and they know it's not viable or controllable. It will magically disappear when they've accomplish their end goal.

To presume 7 billion people reliant on mostly fossil fuels is a big impact might not be a good assumption. The world is a big place, 70% covered with water and large parts of continental land masses sparsely populated.

1. Do you have any idea what % human activity adds to the total volume of CO2 world wide?
2. Do you have any idea what % CO2 is relative to the total volume of greenhouse gases world wide?

I will make a few guesses as I am not sure myself but I think these two guesses are in the ballpark:

1. Human activity produces less than 3% of the total volume of CO2. More than 97% is naturally occurring.
2. CO2 is less than 5% of the total volume of greenhouse gases world wide.

If my guesses are anywhere close to correct that would put our contribution to the world wide volume of co2 greenhouse gases at 5% x 3% = 0.15% of the total world wide volume greenhouse gases.

If close to being accurate would that scale be surprising? Would that cause you to revaluate the cost/benefit relative to a battery reliant power delivery chain and the largely ignored environmental costs and use limitations of batteries.

Edit - there is no power generation option to us on this planet that will have no impact. Efficiency and cost benefit have to be evaluated. I believe the current conversation is much more about politics and control than objective analysis.

techno-ag said:

---

---

Not an apples to apples comparison.
How was the steel for the pipeline made? Iron had to be mined and melted and formed I to billets. Then the billets are heated again to form pipe, and then welded. Then it is transported by truck to a port and shipped across the world by sea. Then the joints have to be welded together every 40' to make a pipeline.

That's just the pipeline. And it is now full of air.

To get oil, you have to drill tons of holes in the ground, some of them several miles deep. The oil comes up as a mixture of oil, gas, water, sand and other ***** This has to be separated, processed, and stored Before it can go in the above pipeline. The gas has to be processed to remove H2S and other nasty impurities and compressed to move to storage caverns. The oil has to be pumped at several locations to reach its next storage terminal. The oil alone isn't very useful, so the oil has to go from the storage terminal to a refinery where it is heated and altered to get the useful stuff out. Then the gasoline and diesel are sent to yet another terminal where they are either piped or trucked out for distribution to gas stations. Then we put it in our 14 mpg trucks and burn it releasing co2 into the atmosphere while we sit in traffic with one person per car moving at 10 mph.

So maybe a better visual would be to put an iron ore mine, a steel mill, a pipe mill, a well pad/platform/FPSO, a pipeline, a pump station, a compressor station, a crude terminal, a gas plant, a refinery, a marketing terminal, a transport truck, and a gas station to show the true environmental impact.

i-miss-the-republic said:

---

aglaes said:

---

To say human activity has no effect is illogical..

---

Hey Aglaes, look up. Stare into that giant ball of hydrogen fusion in the sky. It has the volume of one million Earths. Hurts, right? So much that you'd go blind in 60 seconds. THAT is what has the most effect on earth's temperature. Not cow farts and human CO2. The earth is HUGE. Don't believe me? Go look up ice core records for the past 10,000 years or so. They are freely available from many sources. Solar output changes and hence our climate.

---

Please carefully read everything I wrote in both of my posts on this thread.

agracer said:

---

Cepe said:

---

If you really dig into "green energy " you see it's all a sham. Incredibly destructive environmentally and we haven't really gotten to the disposal of toxic wastes yet.

If the country wants to vote to move away from oil and gas that's fine but we need a comprehensive plan, including nuclear, to get us there. Just shutting off the spigot and making everyone suffer is not a plan and is actually detrimental because it will cause a rebound in the opposite direction.

---

Hydro power disagrees

---

hydro power isn't a sham? Impounding millions and millions of gallons of fresh water for electricity isn't a sham?

Agreed . You have to show the same entire
Value chain impacts of both. It's still not very clear which is the cleaner tho. I'm
Not opposed to making a transition but not forcing it for the sake of power transfer . Let the market drive the transition.

Matt Hooper said:

---

1. Human activity produces less than 3% of the total volume of CO2. More than 97% is naturally occurring.
2. CO2 is less than 5% of the total volume of greenhouse gases world wide.

---

First - carefully read my 2 previous posts in this thread.

According to the book I referenced, the following are reservoirs of carbon on earth:
- Oceans - 40,000 Gt (gigtons or 1 billion tons), most of that in deep water, not close to the surface
- Soil and living things - 2,100 Gt
- fossil fuels still underground - 5,000-10,000 Gt
- atmosphere - 850 Gt (almost all as CO2)

The vast majority of carbon is locked up deep in the earth's crust - like 1.9 billion Gt

There is a seasonal flow of carbon from the atmosphere to plants and back to the atmosphere again as decaying organic matter. Since the northern hemisphere contains the greatest land mass, we see that seasonal flow as a decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere in the north's spring/summer as plants take CO2 from the atmosphere, and an increase in the north's fall / winter as vegetation loses leaves and decay, etc..

This seasonal flow is about 25% of the atmospheric total average CO2 - or about 200 Gt. The amount that fossil fuels currently adds to this annual flow is about 4-5% - like 10 Gt annually (so you are not far off).

About half of that fossil fuel added CO2 is taken up by oceans and increased vegetation - increased CO2 has increased the total balance of vegetation. The remaining stays in the atmosphere, increasing CO2 levels which have risen by about 2.3 ppm per year over the last 50 yrs - from about 300 ppm to about 400 ppm in that time.

This explanation is somewhat simplified. There are other slower processes that also take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

1876er said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

---

Not an apples to apples comparison.
How was the steel for the pipeline made? Iron had to be mined and melted and formed I to billets. Then the billets are heated again to form pipe, and then welded. Then it is transported by truck to a port and shipped across the world by sea. Then the joints have to be welded together every 40' to make a pipeline. Those steel plants just don't make pipe for pipelines, they make a vast array of metal products.

That's just the pipeline. And it is now full of air.

To get oil, you have to drill tons tons? of holes in the ground, some of them several miles deep. The oil comes up as a mixture of oil, gas, water, sand and other **** if sand is coming up, there is some **** going wrong and that well isn't producing. This has to be separated, processed, and stored Before it can go in the above pipeline. It is separated and stored, might be some minor processing at the site depending on the quality of crude coming out, but most fields have collection points where it is easier to transport. Not all pipelines are for crude, there are huge numbers that are refined product already. The gas has to be processed to remove H2S and other nasty impurities and compressed to move to storage caverns All gas is processed to store in salt domes?. The oil has to be pumped at several locations to reach its next storage terminal not too sure about that, seems overly redundant upping the cost of handling. The oil alone isn't very useful, so the oil has to go from the storage terminal to a refinery where it is heated and altered to get the useful stuff out with most all by product being turned into a myriad of other uses, not just tossed out into a huge trash heap. Then the gasoline and diesel are sent to yet another terminal where they are either piped or trucked out for distribution to gas stations. Then we put it in our 14 mpg trucks and burn it releasing co2 into the atmosphere while we sit in traffic with one person per car moving at 10 mph we have traffic 24/7 and no other materials outside of petroleum is trucked?.

So maybe a better visual would be to put an iron ore mine, a steel mill, a pipe mill, a well pad/platform/FPSO, a pipeline, a pump station, a compressor station, a crude terminal, a gas plant, a refinery, a marketing terminal, a transport truck, and a gas station to show the true environmental impact. All those facilities sound like great sources of jobs, let's just trade that for child labor in third world countries that have no regard for regulations, thus the child labor.

---

i-miss-the-republic said:

---

aglaes said:

---

To say human activity has no effect is illogical..

---

Hey Aglaes, look up. Stare into that giant ball of hydrogen fusion in the sky. It has the volume of one million Earths. Hurts, right? So much that you'd go blind in 60 seconds. THAT is what has the most effect on earth's temperature. Not cow farts and human CO2. The earth is HUGE. Don't believe me? Go look up ice core records for the past 10,000 years or so. They are freely available from many sources. Solar output changes and hence our climate.

---

It is hard to argue with or throw logic at these "true climate change believers". No amount of logic or common sense presented will penetrate these dense skulls.

That is great info.

It is a great way to scale the trace impact fossil fuel use has in proportion to larger global scale. Especially when factored against large scale cyclic influences that have seen ice ages come and go.

LOYAL AG said:

---

The same electric grid that can't keep the AC on during the summer is supposed to support summer AC and power all of our cars? I heard a couple of years ago that the average age of an electrical tower in California is 67 years which suggests to me we aren't even investing in the grid that's going to support delivery of all this critical electricity.

Add in the fact that solar isn't currently a viable solution in huge portions of the country and it's clear we're forcing ourselves away from fossil fuels without any real plan to land in a place with reliable energy to peoples homes. This is a very dangerous game the greenies are playing.

---

The electric grid is underutilized at night which is when cars would mostly be charged, and cars could feed the grid during the day with immediate response while waiting for peaking plants to come on.

I live in a high rise, but if I'm ever back in a house I can't want for the freedom solar + batteries brings.

Matt Hooper said:

---

To presume 7 billion people reliant on mostly fossil fuels is a big impact might not be a good assumption. The world is a big place, 70% covered with water and large parts of continental land masses sparsely populated.

1. Do you have any idea what % human activity adds to the total volume of CO2 world wide?
2. Do you have any idea what % CO2 is relative to the total volume of greenhouse gases world wide?

I will make a few guesses as I am not sure myself but I think these two guesses are in the ballpark:

1. Human activity produces less than 3% of the total volume of CO2. More than 97% is naturally occurring.
2. CO2 is less than 5% of the total volume of greenhouse gases world wide.

If my guesses are anywhere close to correct that would put our contribution to the world wide volume of co2 greenhouse gases at 5% x 3% = 0.15% of the total world wide volume greenhouse gases.

If close to being accurate would that scale be surprising? Would that cause you to revaluate the cost/benefit relative to a battery reliant power delivery chain and the largely ignored environmental costs and use limitations of batteries.

Edit - there is no power generation option to us on this planet that will have no impact. Efficiency and cost benefit have to be evaluated. I believe the current conversation is much more about politics and control than objective analysis.

---

Didn't a volcano erupt recently that eclipsed all human CO2 output for all the existence of mankind?