Green New Deal

[basquebromance]

I've just bought stock in the LA to Honolulu railroad!

Rush Limbaugh joked about that on FOX

 

[Flopper]

For the 800,000 years we have records of, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.

Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.

Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.

In our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

As I recall from the article the reduction in CO2 was due to reduced consumptive due to reduction in economic activity during the recession. If fracking was the cause of the CO2 reduction, then we would be seeing it in following 10 years in which the use of fracking more than doubled.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Consensus is the foundation of religion.

It has no place in scientific discovery.

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

Sort of. Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. We know how to turn it up, produce more greenhouse gases. Turning it down may be much more difficult because we don't know how to remove large volumes of CO2 and we're not sure if any natural effect would restore the balance. So even if we abolish the use of fossil fuels someday and stop the resulting climate change, the climate may not return to the state it was before heavy fossil fuel use. The following link describe the thermostatic effect.
NASA GISS: CO₂: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

Not sort of. Water vapor is FAR more efficient.

{
Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.

At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference.

This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed.

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere.

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.}

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas | New Scientist

 

[RealDave]

For the 800,000 years we have records of, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.

Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.

Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.

In our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

 

[Lesh]

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

Sort of. Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. We know how to turn it up, produce more greenhouse gases. Turning it down may be much more difficult because we don't know how to remove large volumes of CO2 and we're not sure if any natural effect would restore the balance. So even if we abolish the use of fossil fuels someday and stop the resulting climate change, the climate may not return to the state it was before heavy fossil fuel use. The following link describe the thermostatic effect.
NASA GISS: CO₂: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

Not sort of. Water vapor is FAR more efficient.

{
Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.

At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference.

This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed.

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere.

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.}

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas | New Scientist

Here we go with this shit again.

Learn the science or stop lying about it.

CO2 magnifies the effect of water vapor

 

[RealDave]

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

Sort of. Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. We know how to turn it up, produce more greenhouse gases. Turning it down may be much more difficult because we don't know how to remove large volumes of CO2 and we're not sure if any natural effect would restore the balance. So even if we abolish the use of fossil fuels someday and stop the resulting climate change, the climate may not return to the state it was before heavy fossil fuel use. The following link describe the thermostatic effect.
NASA GISS: CO₂: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

Not sort of. Water vapor is FAR more efficient.

{
Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.

At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference.

This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed.

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere.

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.}

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas | New Scientist

CO2 controls the amount of water vapor the armosphere can hold.

"If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables."

It's Water Vapor, Not the CO2 - American Chemical Society


So, cut with your denier bullshit. Pull your head out of your ignorant ass & get a fucking education.

 

[RealDave]

I've just bought stock in the LA to Honolulu railroad!

Yet another assfuck you can't read the NGD.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

 

[Flopper]

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

Sort of. Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. We know how to turn it up, produce more greenhouse gases. Turning it down may be much more difficult because we don't know how to remove large volumes of CO2 and we're not sure if any natural effect would restore the balance. So even if we abolish the use of fossil fuels someday and stop the resulting climate change, the climate may not return to the state it was before heavy fossil fuel use. The following link describe the thermostatic effect.
NASA GISS: CO₂: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

Not sort of. Water vapor is FAR more efficient.

{
Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.

At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference.

This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed.

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere.

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.}

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas | New Scientist

"Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."
NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

As I recall from the article the reduction in CO2 was due to reduced consumptive due to reduction in economic activity during the recession. If fracking was the cause of the CO2 reduction, then we would be seeing it in following 10 years in which the use of fracking more than doubled.

This is true, the recession lowered emissions because of less people working. Less people working means less production and less people driving to work every day.

But if you look at the chart below, you will notice our high in C02 when the economy was good just before the recession. Our economy was good, but today it's much better. Yet why are our C02 levels not higher than during the glory years of George Bush? It's actually lower.

So couple that with a higher population that we have today, it simply doesn't make sense unless something lowered our emissions. And if you Google C02 emissions per capita and compare that to other years, it's even more impressive.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

Natural Gas not produced by fracing is certain better than coal or oil. It emits 50% less green house gases than coal and 25% less than oil which is why it is in most plans to eliminate fossil fuel. The problem with fracking is it emits greenhouse gases. The process releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured. The result is natural gas from fracking is only slight better than coal and worse than fuel oil. There are methods that are cleaner but they are more expense.

Converting to natural gas before fracking was considered to be a good first toward getting off fossil fuels. However with 60% of natural gas coming from fracking, that's not valid. If we can go to a better method of capturing greenhouse gases at the wells, then it might return as a good alternative.
https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

 

[Ame®icano]

So mocking smart aggressive women. Do they threaten any manhood you might have.

Furthermore, the NGD does not make all college tuition free. Read it again, assfuck, and quit being so uninformed.

"smart"

Rather loony.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

Natural Gas not produced by fracing is certain better than coal or oil. It emits 50% less green house gases than coal and 25% less than oil which is why it is in most plans to eliminate fossil fuel. The problem with fracking is it emits greenhouse gases. The process releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured. The result is natural gas from fracking is only slight better than coal and worse than fuel oil. There are methods that are cleaner but they are more expense.

Converting to natural gas before fracking was considered to be a good first toward getting off fossil fuels. However with 60% of natural gas coming from fracking, that's not valid. If we can go to a better method of capturing greenhouse gases at the wells, then it might return as a good alternative.
https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

You don't think the producers are trying to figure out a way to capture lost product?

Windmills and solar panels are not our future. Fracking is. We would have never become the worlds top exporter of energy with windmills and solar panels.

Look.........I don't care what you believe or don't believe. If you want to wait at bus stops the rest of your life, take trains across the country for your vacation, ride a bicycle or drive an electric car, I'm fine with that. But when you try to force the rest of us to comply with your concerns, of course we are going to take a stance against that because we don't subscribe to your ideology. We believe in something totally different.

 

[Lesh]

Forbes says your chart is wrong.

THEY say that Carbon emissions have gone UP by 3.4%

U.S. Carbon Emissions Are Up 3.4%. "So What?" Is The Wrong Reaction

 

[Lesh]

Windmills and solar panels are not our future.

They better be...or we're gonna have real problems

 

[Snouter]

The irony is that planes are the most fuel efficient way to travel across the country! And fastest and least expensive, etc. Trains are actually the least efficient. But they can be cool in certain situations. Especially the one in the Wild, Wild West series in the 60's featuring James West and Artemus Gordon.

Fuel Efficiency: Planes vs Trains vs Automobiles - prch

 

[Lesh]

The irony is that planes are the most fuel efficient way to travel across the country! And fastest and least expensive, etc. Trains are actually the least efficient. But they can be cool in certain situations. Especially the one in the Wild, Wild West series in the 60's featuring James West and Artemus Gordon.

Fuel Efficiency: Planes vs Trains vs Automobiles - prch

Holy shit are you an idiot.

DId you bother to read that piece?

Planes are only efficient when carrying 500 people...they're talking about fully loaded 747s.

How many of those are in service in Continental travel?

It also points out that trains in Japan and Europe are far more efficient because people USE them more.

And then you're ignoring the whole maglev thing.

They have maglev in Russia at least in theory...don't they Igor?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The irony is that planes are the most fuel efficient way to travel across the country! And fastest and least expensive, etc. Trains are actually the least efficient. But they can be cool in certain situations. Especially the one in the Wild, Wild West series in the 60's featuring James West and Artemus Gordon.

Fuel Efficiency: Planes vs Trains vs Automobiles - prch

Holy shit are you an idiot.

DId you bother to read that piece?

Planes are only efficient when carrying 500 people...they're talking about fully loaded 747s.

How many of those are in service in Continental travel?

It also points out that trains in Japan and Europe are far more efficient because people USE them more.

And then you're ignoring the whole maglev thing.

They have maglev in Russia at least in theory...don't they Igor?

Yeah, my boss went to Europe for vacation. He said it would have been great if they didn't have to take public transportation everywhere. People don't use trains here because nobody wants to be on a bus or train with a bunch of other strangers coughing and sneezing unless you really have no choice. I like going into my car and going straight to work without having to leave 45 minutes earlier because a bus will make over a dozen stops along the way.

 

[Lesh]

No one is taking away your car little fella.

 

[RealDave]

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

Natural Gas not produced by fracing is certain better than coal or oil. It emits 50% less green house gases than coal and 25% less than oil which is why it is in most plans to eliminate fossil fuel. The problem with fracking is it emits greenhouse gases. The process releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured. The result is natural gas from fracking is only slight better than coal and worse than fuel oil. There are methods that are cleaner but they are more expense.

Converting to natural gas before fracking was considered to be a good first toward getting off fossil fuels. However with 60% of natural gas coming from fracking, that's not valid. If we can go to a better method of capturing greenhouse gases at the wells, then it might return as a good alternative.
https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

You don't think the producers are trying to figure out a way to capture lost product?

Windmills and solar panels are not our future. Fracking is. We would have never become the worlds top exporter of energy with windmills and solar panels.

Look.........I don't care what you believe or don't believe. If you want to wait at bus stops the rest of your life, take trains across the country for your vacation, ride a bicycle or drive an electric car, I'm fine with that. But when you try to force the rest of us to comply with your concerns, of course we are going to take a stance against that because we don't subscribe to your ideology. We believe in something totally different.

When they talk about capturing gas at the wells, they are talking about oil wells that produce a little bit of gas they they sometimes burn off at the well.