-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Don't know about demanding he save the planet.
I'd be happy if he showed just a little bit of leadership.
Maybe not shitting his pants would be a good start
What is Carbon Capture and Storage? | Climate Council
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves capturing and storing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power stations, energy intensive industries, and gas fields by injecting the captured greenhouse gases back into the ground. CCS is extremely expensive and cannot deliver zero emissions.
www.climatecouncil.org.au
They didn't get a coronavirus vaccine right first time either.What is Carbon Capture and Storage? | Climate Council
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves capturing and storing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power stations, energy intensive industries, and gas fields by injecting the captured greenhouse gases back into the ground. CCS is extremely expensive and cannot deliver zero emissions.
Get the impression from some of these activist groups that they won't be happy if CCS succeeds.
I'm not sure on carbon capture either, it needs more research IMO, but there are some climate groups that I don't believe have really thought through what we need.
We absolutely need to move towards a carbon free or as close as we can get to one, future, however there are multiple issues to address and there is also the timeline affected here. I know that Shell for example are being bashed for continuing to invest in oil and gas projects whilst also investing in renewables. Whilst demand is there for oil and gas then we do need to continue to replenish production otherwise costs will increase exponentially. We've already seen significant price spikes in the cost of oil / coal / iron ore (at times) which ultimately are passed onto end consumers.
Take gas, its used in various things but predominantly in the manufacturing of plastic and the heating and cooling of properties. In the short term (the next 20 years), how do the climate pushers expect us to heat our homes if we stopped investing in gas right now? What will it therefore be replaced with? Grid power? This is essentially brand new demand from the grid, so would require a significant increase in grid capacity. All of this takes time, but a lot of groups seem to be jumping to the end solution and saying that that is it, but there has to be an interim solution, we certainly need a path towards where we want to be (and coal should be the 1st to go), but whilst we are discussing emissions, farming seems to be conveniently left out of discussions with most climate groups focusing on power supply etc, yet the quickest impact on reducing methane is by reducing our reliance on beef. Cattle in Australia are the 3rd biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and make up over 50% of our methane released. Partly this is due to farmers using non-natural feeds, I understand the majority of cattle are constantly sick because they consume grains (which are grown on deforested land) as opposed to their natural grasses, this fattens them up quicker but makes them sick which causes increased amounts of methane.
If the climate groups pushed for a beef free day for example, this would have a significant impact on decreasing the amount of beef sold. Even if they do this by reducing cattle stocks, it will result in prices increasing, and consumers will automatically move to other meat sources, whether that be lamb, pork, chicken or fish.
We need to also not forget these type of emissions when discussing climate, and reducing the volume of cattle that are available for meat production, you will reduce demand for grains (which means more food available for humans), less greenhouse gas emissions from the cattle. This is by far and away the quickest method to drop emission because it can occur practically immediately. Movements into more solar / wind power will take time, converting gas heaters to some other source will take time, conversion of diesel generators / engines in vehicles / ships / planes will take time.
We absolutely need to move towards a carbon free or as close as we can get to one, future, however there are multiple issues to address and there is also the timeline affected here. I know that Shell for example are being bashed for continuing to invest in oil and gas projects whilst also investing in renewables. Whilst demand is there for oil and gas then we do need to continue to replenish production otherwise costs will increase exponentially. We've already seen significant price spikes in the cost of oil / coal / iron ore (at times) which ultimately are passed onto end consumers.
Take gas, its used in various things but predominantly in the manufacturing of plastic and the heating and cooling of properties. In the short term (the next 20 years), how do the climate pushers expect us to heat our homes if we stopped investing in gas right now? What will it therefore be replaced with? Grid power? This is essentially brand new demand from the grid, so would require a significant increase in grid capacity. All of this takes time, but a lot of groups seem to be jumping to the end solution and saying that that is it, but there has to be an interim solution, we certainly need a path towards where we want to be (and coal should be the 1st to go), but whilst we are discussing emissions, farming seems to be conveniently left out of discussions with most climate groups focusing on power supply etc, yet the quickest impact on reducing methane is by reducing our reliance on beef. Cattle in Australia are the 3rd biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and make up over 50% of our methane released. Partly this is due to farmers using non-natural feeds, I understand the majority of cattle are constantly sick because they consume grains (which are grown on deforested land) as opposed to their natural grasses, this fattens them up quicker but makes them sick which causes increased amounts of methane.
If the climate groups pushed for a beef free day for example, this would have a significant impact on decreasing the amount of beef sold. Even if they do this by reducing cattle stocks, it will result in prices increasing, and consumers will automatically move to other meat sources, whether that be lamb, pork, chicken or fish.
We need to also not forget these type of emissions when discussing climate, and reducing the volume of cattle that are available for meat production, you will reduce demand for grains (which means more food available for humans), less greenhouse gas emissions from the cattle. This is by far and away the quickest method to drop emission because it can occur practically immediately. Movements into more solar / wind power will take time, converting gas heaters to some other source will take time, conversion of diesel generators / engines in vehicles / ships / planes will take time.
This is a great step forward in power generation but creates issues in the grid system, that can and will be overcome, as to how to produce power that can be generated and released to the grid in a more consistent manner and this is where battery storage alongside rooftop solar should be utilised more.
www.abc.net.au
South Australia sets 'world first' with five 'negative demand' solar events
South Australia has set what is believed to be a world record: generating more electricity from solar than they consumed on five occasions in the past five weeks.
www.abc.net.au
Others can have carrots for dinner if they like. I'm having steak.
Hands off my steak! *smile* vegans.
Haha I'm defo no vegan. Its more about reducing beef and eating other meats. Beef should remain available but maybe eat other meat proportionately, though I guess if someone told me to stop eating bacon, I'd probably take them out the back and ensure they were never heard from again.
Whats wrong with a lamb or pork steak? I love lamb steak.
Lee's reaction is why no politician, or climate group, can attempt to tackle agriculture.
People's irrational connection to their food allows them to ignore the effect on the climate and the general environment, as well as ignoring the cruelty involved in food production.
We just need to reduce consumption of meat and also do the work to ensure cattle are emitting less methane. There are solutions out there.
Given the gigatonnes of carbon being emitted, just where does this supposedly get stored, and for how long? CCS is an excuse to let the fossil fuel industries continue their polluting. As a short term and very limited contingency it has very low potential, as a long term solution it is simply bullsh1t.
DS
Given the gigatonnes of carbon being emitted, just where does this supposedly get stored, and for how long? CCS is an excuse to let the fossil fuel industries continue their polluting. As a short term and very limited contingency it has very low potential, as a long term solution it is simply bullsh1t.
DS
I reckon that supports my point. rather than offer any sort of reasonable points to support your view you write nonsense.
why not reduce consumption?
if consumption of cows was reduced, farming of cows would reduce, and the emissions from cows would reduce. pretty simple really.
I think other people wanting to dictate what I eat is the very definition of nonsense. It isn't shark fin soup or sun bear bile.
just to clarify, if you were wanting to eat shark fin soup or sun bear bile it would be ok to dictate what you eat? one could consider that contradictory.
and dont worry no one is trying to dictate what you eat, as you demonstrably dont believe in climate change, you wont be targeted to change your diet. it are those who profess to believe we should do something to reduce emissions, but see the connection to their diet who will be
Reckon it's fair enough to expect people to show restraint when it comes to eating endangered species.
Oh I believe in climate change, I just don't believe in climate change.
You believe what you want to believe Lee, I don't believe anything about climate change, I look for credible evidence presented accurately and then form opinions based on evidence rather than beliefs.
Which brings me back to your favourite luke-warmists, the mob at Uni of Alabama Huntsville, who don't seem to get their updates posted here when they show warming.
Their October update has come back with warming of 0.35C over their deceptive recently altered baseline. They are trying to give the impression of less warming by changing their baseline from 1981-2010 to now being 1991-2020. If we went back to their previous baseline the warming is 0.51C. Of course their previous baseline doesn't go back beyond the point when we started pumping gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, but the satellite measures don't go back beyond December 1978 so there is a good reason for that baseline. What is also noticeable about their "measure" of warming is that it is an outlier, not only is it claiming less warming than surface measure, but they claim warming of 0.14C per decade, in contrast to the other satellite measure of temperature which claims warming of 0.214C per decade. Given UAH are the outliers you really have to conclude they have an agenda: they moved their baseline to minimise the headline figure and their findings are below just about all other measures.
It is happening and it is serious, no matter what some want to believe.
DS
Which brings me back to your favourite luke-warmists, the mob at Uni of Alabama Huntsville, who don't seem to get their updates posted here when they show warming.
Their October update has come back with warming of 0.35C over their deceptive recently altered baseline. They are trying to give the impression of less warming by changing their baseline from 1981-2010 to now being 1991-2020. If we went back to their previous baseline the warming is 0.51C. Of course their previous baseline doesn't go back beyond the point when we started pumping gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, but the satellite measures don't go back beyond December 1978 so there is a good reason for that baseline. What is also noticeable about their "measure" of warming is that it is an outlier, not only is it claiming less warming than surface measure, but they claim warming of 0.14C per decade, in contrast to the other satellite measure of temperature which claims warming of 0.214C per decade. Given UAH are the outliers you really have to conclude they have an agenda: they moved their baseline to minimise the headline figure and their findings are below just about all other measures.
It is happening and it is serious, no matter what some want to believe.
DS
