Climate continues to change.

[phrodeau]

Coal would only be carbon neutral if it was being created as fast as it’s being burned.

 

[Que]

Coal would only be carbon neutral if it was being created as fast as it’s being burned.

You can grow a tree as fast as you can burn one? Really?

 

[LupusDei]

You can grow a tree as fast as you can burn one? Really?

Not a single tree. But you don't see forest behind the trees. Your forests grow faster due to increased carbon levels, that's a fact.

 

[jaF0]

Coal is FAR greener than solar or wind.

Solar panels require materials that are ripped from the ground in massive strip mines and processed using toxic chemicals and processes that are environmentally devastating. They'll work well for 10 years, acceptably for another 10 and tolerably on the last 10 and then they're so much toxic waste that has to be replaced by raping the environment again.

Wind mills, well, the BEST thing you can say about them is they employ hordes of workers picking up the bird carcasses beneath them, killed by the scythe like blades...

Coal on the other hand is nothing more than trees and other vegetation that spent a few million years under ground being squashed. A while longer and it turns into DIAMONDS. (Which, btw also make perfectly good, environmentally friendly heating fuel)

Coal is carbon neutral, just like burning wood. Every last bit of carbon released by burning coal is simply being returned to the environment from whence it came.

Uhhhh, where do you think coal comes from? Ever been to coal country? What about all the diesel fuel used to dig it out?

 

[gunthernehmen]

I swear to God. Some of you people wouldn't recognize humor if it ran up and bit you on the nose. What kind of parties do you people go to? There must be a lot of sleepy people there.

Solar and wind are both reasonably green technologies (where appropriate) especially wind. The observations are true, just (slightly) exaggerated.

Coal USED to be the horrible destroyer of Gore's nightmares. Today, home coal furnaces approach the same efficiencies as natural gas or oil fired units. OUR coal fires power plants no longer dump columns of soot into the air, either. (not true of those in China, India, etc.)

Coal has its problems, but no more so than ANY other source of power suitable for an industrial civilization.

 

[Rokk0n]

Bullshit.


When it comes to clean-burning high-efficiency home heating, the dung-burning stove is king!

 

[phrodeau]

You can grow a tree as fast as you can burn one? Really?

No. That claim only exists in your head.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Bullshit.


When it comes to clean-burning high-efficiency home heating, the dung-burning stove is king!

Just make sure it's DRY first!

 

[thør]

Calling Lit Climate Scientists, et al

Dear lit colleagues,

Today the Second-Order-Draft (SOD) of the IPCC Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) has been made available for expert review. For the scientific community, this is the last opportunity to provide comments. The deadline for providing comments is January 11, 2019.

Relevant chapters for the cryosphere (glaciers, permafrost, sea-ice, snow) include Chapter 2 (High Mountain Areas), Chapter 3 (Polar regions) and Chapter 4 (Sea-level change). Note that the entire report includes both the physical science as well as the human dimension of the overall topic intertwined in each chapter.

The quality of the final report, to be published in September 2019, depends to a high degree on critical reviews from the community. The author team will have to respond and address every single review comment that is submitted through the IPCC system.

To submit expert review comments on the draft or parts thereof, you have to register online (latest by January 4) https://www.ipcc.ch/apps/comments/srocc/sod/register.php

Any publications to be considered in the final report must have been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal by 15 October 2018 and must be accepted at the latest by 15 May 2019.

 

[thør]

One yahoo from NASA says......

 

[Rightguide]

Winter is coming. Time to fire up the coal stove!

Yeah, climate's changing.

 

[OldJourno]

Some reading for those who insist that we must abide by the Paris Accords to save the world:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-g20-emissions/

 

[Rokk0n]

Malarky. The mass of evidence against global warming has melted!

 

[OldJourno]

I read that this cold wave that covers much of the U.S. can be attributed to a lack of sun spots.
Such bullshit. As if the sun has anything at all to do with how warm it is here.
THERE WILL BE NO ICE ON THE NORTH POLE BY 2012 AND MAN WILL BE TO BLAME.

 

[Rokk0n]

So I suppose if we continue the heated debate over global warming that

polarizes the nation, that means the problem is solved!

 

[OldJourno]

No, but the heated debate will mean we no longer will need heating oil subsidies for the needy. Hot air will keep all the poor children warm at night.

 

[Rokk0n]

You probably don't believe in the eventual flooding of the coasts due to climate

change either, because this conversation can't sink any lower!

 

[OldJourno]

You probably don't believe in the eventual flooding of the coasts due to climate

change either, because this conversation can't sink any lower!

I do believe it. According to Al Gore, it will happen in 2015. Loss of life will be significant.

 

[Que]

You probably don't believe in the eventual flooding of the coasts due to climate

change either, because this conversation can't sink any lower!

The progressives who buy beachfront property obviously do not. Did progressives that advocated rebuilding the ninth ward of New Orleans clearly do not...It's already below sea level.

 

[Rokk0n]

The progressives who buy beachfront property obviously do not. Did progressives that advocated rebuilding the ninth ward of New Orleans clearly do not...It's already below sea level.

Hell, you can fart in the pool and flood New Orleans.

 

[thør]

Write about it.

Nature is hiring two associate or senior editors to join the Earth team at Nature Communications (www.nature.com/ncomms/) to work out of our offices in either London, Shanghai, New York, or Berlin. Editorial experience is not required, and while postdoctoral research experience is preferred it is not essential. A thorough understanding of the fundamentals of the subject is key and an interest in areas beyond your speciality is required. Come join us!

Biogeosciences: go.nature.com/2RPYZtI (applications close 28th November)

Climate/Paleoclimate sciences: go.nature.com/2z8kuyP (applications close 5th December)

 

[Que]

This is why no one should ever listen to an acolyte of Frodo's Church of Climate Alarmism:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html

Their fixation on incremental reductions in carbon use in various applications blinds them to the big picture of environmentalism. Environmental stewardship is not that complicated do what you can to not f****** the planet and leave as much natural environment as you can for the next generation.

In order to believe what he believes you have to completely ignore any and all unintended consequences and you have to be incapable of actually doing two column accounting. They are always interested in the supposed benefits of whatever idiotic plan they've come up with next but they never listen when they're told what the actual net costs are.

We are STILL doing ethanol, just as an example.

Frodo truly believes that carbon from burning a tree is somehow beneficial to the environment versus Burning carbon from coal oil or natural gas. Carbon is carbon it doesn't matter where it comes from where you want to get it from is the source it's the least amount of work to get it out and burn it. You also want to burn as much as possible because the more you burn the more energy you create the more energy you create the more people you will lift out of poverty. And ultimately this planet has no value at all to humans other than what it benefits humans. What difference does it make if we leave a wonderful Planet behind and extinct the human race.

 

[von_Bismarck]

This is why no one should ever listen to an acolyte of Frodo's Church of Climate Alarmism:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html

Their fixation on incremental reductions in carbon use in various applications blinds them to the big picture of environmentalism. Environmental stewardship is not that complicated do what you can to not f****** the planet and leave as much natural environment as you can for the next generation.

In order to believe what he believes you have to completely ignore any and all unintended consequences and you have to be incapable of actually doing two column accounting. They are always interested in the supposed benefits of whatever idiotic plan they've come up with next but they never listen when they're told what the actual net costs are.

We are STILL doing ethanol, just as an example.

Frodo truly believes that carbon from burning a tree is somehow beneficial to the environment versus Burning carbon from coal oil or natural gas. Carbon is carbon it doesn't matter where it comes from where you want to get it from is the source it's the least amount of work to get it out and burn it. You also want to burn as much as possible because the more you burn the more energy you create the more energy you create the more people you will lift out of poverty. And ultimately this planet has no value at all to humans other than what it benefits humans. What difference does it make if we leave a wonderful Planet behind and extinct the human race.

What is the timeframe for sequestering carbon as coal compared to the timeframe for sequestering carbon as a forest?

 

[Que]

What is the timeframe for sequestering carbon as coal compared to the timeframe for sequestering carbon as a forest?

Idiot.

Carbon "sequestered" DOES NOT CARE where it was previously chained. Carbon is Carbon. A pound of carbon that was previously underground as coal becomes a pound of carbon in a tree EXACTLY as fast as a pound of carbon that was recently a tree.

Releasing carbon is releasing carbon. Sequestration rates will increase slightly but not really significantly as levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increase. If carbon is a problem it doesn't matter where it comes from.

Logging cannot possibly be LESS carbon intensive than coal mining.

Making and transporting Ethanol is NOT less carbon intensive than drilling, pumping, and refining oil. It for damned sure is not less carbon intensive than piping natural gas.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Idiot.

Carbon "sequestered" DOeS NOT CARE where it was previously chained. Carbon is Carbon. A pound of carbon that was previously underground as coal becomes a pound of carbon in a tree EXACTLY as fast as a pound of carbon that was recently a tree.

You should have saved the "idiot" remark for yourself, Queef.

There most certainly is a difference in the probable environmental impact between burning coal and burning biofuel. Learn the difference, and you'll learn what phrodeau is referring to.

Protip: stay away from lecturing about anything pertaining to science. When you do, you always end up looking foolish.