Where Does the Carbon Really Come From?

[fredball]

Where Does the Carbon Really Come From?


Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in


Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in

just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT

you have made in the past five years to control CO2

emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we

are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every

plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into

oxygen for us humans and all animal life.



I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon

emission savings you have accomplished while suffering

the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids,

buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish

your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project,

throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies,

using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick

in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and

speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,

nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing

all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs

...well, all of those things you have done have all gone

down the tubes in just four days.



The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in

just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in

Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made

to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200

active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one

time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much,

but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on

earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized

800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.



And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and

Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.


Just remember that your government just tried to impose

a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus

"human-caused" climate change scenario.



Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention"Global Warming" any

more, but just"Climate Change" - you know why? It's

because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the

past century and these global warming bull artists

got caught with their pants down.



And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading

Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that

will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

Read More

 

[mosinguy1]

I wish people would just look at history, look at the rings on very old trees you will see years of hot and cold repeating itself. The same goes if look at core samples from glaciers.

It has been said before evertime you have a major eruption it wipes out all the work the tree huggers have been tryin to shove down our throats.

All this crap about global warming or whatever they want to call it is just a ploy to make money!!!!!

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Heard some statistics years ago that humans along with their activities/industries/vehicles/etc contribute 2% of the CO2 and the other 98% comes from the earth. So even if you took us back to the stone age and everyone stopped breathing you'd still only be able to manage just a sliver of it.

 

[fuhr52]

But we must demonize fossil fuels. This what is destroying the planet. This is the activity that's help make Al Gore and his tree hugging special interests very rich. So keep hugging those trees and make Al Gore and his cronies even richer.

 

[zers]

here's what I don't get, global warming or not, why do people oppose innovating new, cleaner ways to generate energy? If the air is cleaner, that sounds like a win to me.

 

[3MTA3]

here's what I don't get, global warming or not, why do people oppose innovating new, cleaner ways to generate energy? If the air is cleaner, that sounds like a win to me.

We are all for that, the problem is that most of the so called "clean energy" pollutes more during its entire life cycle, esp when you include manufacturing. Take solar cells, for example. After they are manufactured, very clean. Unfortunately, half of them are manufactured in China, which has so little regard for industrial pollution, that a cloud of smog now reaches all the way to Japan. An engineer I worked with in the power industry told me that the total energy/money it took to create a solar cell would never be reclaimed during it's useful life. Ethanol is another example where we do not get as much energy out of the fuel than it takes to create it. To me, the best tip off that we don't get out of a technology what we put into it is the presence of a subsidy necessary to make the product affordable enough to sell. If we get less out of than we put into it, then that energy has to come from somewhere. As in so many things, follow the dollar to get to the truth. Money = energy. If the money equation does not balance, then neither does the energy.

 

[RVTECH]

told me that the total energy/money it took to create a solar cell would never be reclaimed during it's useful life.

I believe the same equation exists for those horribly ugly eyesores call wind turbines!

 

[fuhr52]

If the government has to force us to use a product, some bureaucrat is getting very rich.

 

[3MTA3]

I believe the same equation exists for those horribly ugly eyesores call wind turbines!

Anything that requires a subsidy to be cost effective is not a net energy producer. For now I gotta go with:
Drill, baby, drill
Frack, baby, frack
Nuke, baby, nuke

 

[BAMCIS]

Anything that requires a subsidy to be cost effective is not a net energy producer. For now I gotta go with:
Drill, baby, drill
Frack, baby, frack
Nuke, baby, nuke

Amen brother!!!

 

[fredball]

here's what I don't get, global warming or not, why do people oppose innovating new, cleaner ways to generate energy? If the air is cleaner, that sounds like a win to me.

I'm not against other energy sources what I am against is the cost of so called green energy , and all the waisted money to company's like solindra 15 billion and sun industries 7.8 billion and then when the truth comes out we find that they were campaign bundlers for BHO who would have guessed it. when the technology is all dialed in yes lets do it but till then lets use what we have and not demonise it ,

 

[Phather]

when the technology is all dialed in yes lets do it but till then lets use what we have and not demonise it ,

Therein lies the rub, it takes money to develop new technologies. Should we have not funded the research of nuclear weapons until a viable nuclear weapon already existed? We spend copious amounts of money researching new defense weapons to maintain a world edge, why would we not want to do the same with energy production and efficiency? One will never know their own capabilities unless they test them. Those that demonize the green movement and portray it as nothing but a power and money play had better realize that the other side is doing the same.

 

[Phather]

Heard some statistics years ago that humans along with their activities/industries/vehicles/etc contribute 2% of the CO2 and the other 98% comes from the earth. So even if you took us back to the stone age and everyone stopped breathing you'd still only be able to manage just a sliver of it.

From what I found it is closer to 4% now. By this logic, nobody should invest money because a 4% return is hardly anything, right?

Lets play a hypothetical situation. You bring in $1000 each month and that is just enough to pay your bills. You spend $500 on rent, $300 on food, and $190 on utilities, with $10 left over each month. You have $3000 in savings. While you have a well intentioned child, they take an average of $40 cash out of your wallet per month while you are sleeping. You can absorb $10 of that , but the remaining $30 comes out of savings to make sure you can pay the bills each month. Because of this child, your net loss is $30 per month. This can continue without affecting your ability to make ends meet until your savings account is depleted, 100 months after your kid started stealing from you. When you eventually get evicted for non-payment of rent, whom to you blame? After all, your kid only took $20 here and there. This is a simplified model of how nature works. The earth can absorb some of what we are producing, but the result is that we are causing the scales to creep up until they reach a tipping point. I do my best to not contribute to this, not because someone is telling me to, but because I learned as a child that one should always leave their campsite cleaner than when they arrived.


Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist


FWIW, buying into the green crusade is nothing more than consumerism(pollution) under a new guise. Our family of 4 produces 1-2 kitchen garbage bags in trash each month because we have decided to live simply and with less, not because we buy things with "green" on the label. Here is a link to a short video that explains just how much we pollute the environment.

The Story of Stuff Project

 

[Phather]

Anything that requires a subsidy to be cost effective is not a net energy producer. For now I gotta go with:
Drill, baby, drill
Frack, baby, frack
Nuke, baby, nuke

During the development of fossil fuel technologies, the government subsidized the oil and gas industries at a rate 5 times greater than what the government is giving renewable industries now. Most recent subsidy data I could find indicated that fossil fuels have received $72 billion between 2002-2008, whereas renewable energies have received $29 billion. Guess oil isn't so cost effective after all?

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

If the government has to force us to use a product, some bureaucrat is getting very rich.

like gasoline?

 

[mosinguy1]

oil, natural gas, coal , hydro and atomic all proven. So far wind, solar and ethenol have failed and proven to be non cost effective.

 

[fredball]

During the development of fossil fuel technologies, the government subsidized the oil and gas industries at a rate 5 times greater than what the government is giving renewable industries now. Most recent subsidy data I could find indicated that fossil fuels have received $72 billion between 2002-2008, whereas renewable energies have received $29 billion. Guess oil isn't so cost effective after all?

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

This is and untrue statement , back when gas was discovered ,(the government subsidized the oil and gas industries )no such thing took place at all ,all of it was privately funded, but if a liberal says it's well it must be or keep saying it till it becomes true

 

[3MTA3]

like gasoline?

Educomate me, please - how does the government force me to use gasoline?

 

[fuhr52]

like gasoline?

Who is forcing you to buy gasoline? Motor vehicles require fuel to operate. The government isn't forcing you to buy a motor vehicle. Ride a bike or use mass transit. The government is forcing you to buy gas mixed with alcohol. Alcohol is more expensive to produce, has to be transported by diesel trucks, is less efficient then gas alone.

 

[lola85]

What about the sustainability benefits of green energy? Fossil fuels are essentially depletable resources. While we may not get as much bang for our buck with wind turbines and solar power right now how are we supposed to progress in that technology if we stick to our old ways?