DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Hydrocarbon Industry Skullduggery
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/7Iwt1Obw1A9OF4rmgyl-UYRo4MEJDf68gFtbGNW6JHUtpykjdICNc8oASCFbrYsucF5Fg17XbLG86FfHFO8yE4EkX6gjGVlOvmRAD7s5dGscLlHcisQ_pzhkscbiV_-D4oBdJi6nkSe_a2el9qT1VJhzoNSsAEZvHHg=s0-d-e1-ft#https://gallery.mailchimp.com/d1f5797e59060083034310930/images/2f11cead-050f-4018-bfed-c12fb45691e5.png[/img][/center]
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click [i]here
HTML http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa<br
/>to subscribe.[/i]
April 11, 2019
[center]Trump 🦀 loosens regs on pipelines, Amazon
employees organize for climate, & more
HTML https://mailchi.mp/climatenexus/trump-loosens-regs-on-pipelines-amazon-employees-organize-for-climate-more?e=0fd17c5b57[/center]
#Post#: 12293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]CleanTechnica[/font]
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!
Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/shop/#!/
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/fraudulent-tokens.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Chevron’s Fig Leaf Part 4: Carbon Engineering’s Only
Market Is Pumping More Oil >:([/center]
April 19th, 2019 by Michael Barnard
SNIPPET:
Carbon Engineering recently garnered $68 million in investment
in its air-carbon capture technology from three fossil fuel
majors. This is part 4 of the 5 article series assessing the
technology and the value of the investment.
The first piece summarized the technology and the challenges,
and did a bottoms-up assessment to give context for what Carbon
Engineering is actually doing. The second piece stepped through
Carbon Engineering’s actual solution in detail. The third piece
returned to the insurmountable problem of scale and deals with
the sheer volume of air that must be moved and the scale of
machinery they have designed for the purpose. This fourth
article will look at the market for air carbon capture CO2 and
assess why three fossil fuel majors might be interested. The
final article will address the key person behind this technology
and the expert opinions of third parties.
There is zero net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere if air
carbon capture is used for enhanced oil recovery.
Full article: [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/19/chevrons-fig-leaf-part-4-carbon-engineerings-only-market-is-pumping-more-oil/
Agelbert COMMENT: This is a well thought out, thoroughly
researched and accurately presented series of articles. Thank
you, Michael Barnard 💐, for telling it exactly how it
is.
I've thought about the Carbon Dioxide issue for several years. I
have always questioned the motives behind the hydrocarbon
industry cheerleading CO2 capture and sequestration.
IMHO, after looking at this from several reality based angles
(unlike the unreality based happy talk pushing MO of the
🦕😈🦖 fossil fuelers), the fact that the
best present day technology to keep the CO2 concentration down
(which is used in Nuclear Submarines, which are forced to
surface every six months because they cannot keep CO2 below
8,000 PPM after that time period) cannot get CO2 levels anywhere
near 5,000 PPM, never mind the 350 PPM we desperately need to
get back to in order to avoid the worse effects of the Sixth
Mass Extinction now in progress from excessive GHG emissions,
evidences that the proposed CO2 reduction technology,
euphemistically called "capture and sequestration" technology,
is a fraud. 👎
IOW, all the technofixes out there refuse to admit that the GOAL
here is NOT to keep the Hydrocarbon Industry profitable. The
GOAL is 350 PPM, period. Anything else is simply wishful
thinking.
So, IMHO, we have to resort to biological solutions involving
rapid photosynthesis.
I researched this thoroughly. There is no plant life that can
beat algea at rapid photosynthesis, which is the sine qua non
requirement for reaching the 350 PPM goal, but algae is so
hydrophylic (water loving) that too much energy is required to
dry it for storage. 👎 No, passive solar energy will not
work to dry algae. That has been tried unsuccessfully. Also,
algea can grow rapidly only in a very narrow range of the
biosphere.👎 Algea is not the answer.
🤔👨‍🔬
But, there is a floating plant, the tiniest angiosperm
(flowering plant) known to science, that can do the job of rapid
photosynthesis that we need on a planetary scale.
🌍🌎🌏🌞
► It is extremely hardy.
► It grows in nearly all areas of the planet, with a
longer growing season that any other plant life form except
phytoplankton.
► It doubles it's mass every 48 hours or so, depending on
the availability of Sunlight, Carbon Dioxide and cheap
fertilizer like pig feces.
► It is tiny, but not microscopic. It can easily be
harvested without heavy machinery.
► Unlike microscopic algae, Drying these tiny plants with
passive sunlight is also easily done.
► It is easily stored.
► It can even be used as animal feed AND supplemental
nutrition for humans too.
► It has been used to clean ponds and lakes of toxic heavy
metals. When used for this pupose, it becomes poisonous and must
be treated as hazardous waste.
The common name is Duckweed, of which there are a number of
species of floating plants. My favorite is Lemna minor
✨🌞
The science based case for a planet scale Lemna minor project
has actually been made by evidence of a floating plant when the
Arctic had shallow freshwater seas (millions of years ago).
Scientists now believe a rapid cooling that took place at that
time, even though the CO2 level was even higher then than it is
today, was directly caused by the proliferation of Azolla
floating plants in that sea. They rapidly lowered the CO2
levels, sinking when they died and being replaced by others,
until ice formed over them. They cooled ALL of Earth's
atmosphere ⛄ from a CO2 PPM concentration that was higher
than the one we are saddled with now.
"This freshwater surface layer allowed Azolla to repeatedly
spread across the ocean surface forming mats of vegetation
during a succession of episodes called the ‘the Arctic Azolla
Event‘. The event lasted for almost a million years from about
50 to 49 million years ago."
Arctic Azolla Event - You can watch a Powerpoint presentation
about the Arctic Azolla Event on this page. - One of the most
remarkable discoveries about Azolla came in 2004. A scientific
expedition to the North Pole showed that this remarkable plant
had a massive effect on the Earth’s climate 50 million years
ago.
HTML http://theazollafoundation.org/azolla/the-arctic-azolla-event-2/
It happened before. We can make it happen again. 💫
True, we do not ⌛ 🌡️ have a million years
or so to do the job, but we don't need more than a few decades
to scale this biological CO2 sequestering program to all desert
areas of the planet on gigantic shallow (a little more than one
meter of depth is all you need) artificial lakes.
True, the fact remains that this aquatic family of plants, like
Azolla, requires plenty of water, a resource that is mostly not
available in desert areas. THAT, however, is a problem that
human engineering CAN solve, unlike trying to get CO2 down to
350 PPM with technology that cannot even keep it below 5,000
PPM!
[center][img
width=60]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-190419232147.png[/img][/center]
If Azolla in the Arctic freshwater sea 50 million years ago, a
tiny portion of the planetary surface, could cool down an
overheated atmosphere with a much higher CO2 PPM concentration
than we have now, there is no rational excuse for not
duplicating that event with a crash program to grow Duckweed in
all the non-arable land areas of the planet.
👍👍👍
The Hydrocarbon Hellspawn have NOTHING to offer. They CANNOT
DELIVER an atmospheric CO2 PPM reduction to 350 PPM. All they
can do is bill us for technofixes that allow them to profit over
planet while the CO2 concentration continues to rise!
[center][img
width=80]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817134803.gif[/img][/center]<br
/>
[img
width=100]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-111018132401-16881856.gif[/img]<br
/>Let's stop being crazy and stupid. Let's GO WITH A PROVEN
BIOLOGICAL CO2 reducing solution.
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://chestofbooks.com/flora-plants/flowers/Woodland-Blossoms/images/Duckweeds.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Duckweed, the plant that may save mankind by enabling
our species to live symbiotically, instead of parasitically,
with the biosphere. Part 1
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg217/#msg217[/center]
[center][img
width=100]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-111018132401-1686487.gif[/img][/center]
Proof of concept graphic (obviously the ponds will have to be at
least a million times bigger than those shown and made from
natural materials with Renewable energy powered machinery):
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-231118194330.png[/img][/center]
This video pushes Duckweed as a biofuel source. I post it so you
can see how fast it grows. I still believe we certainly can use
Duckweed for biofuels, but the most vitally important use we
need to make of this fast growing plant is the reduction of CO2
from our atmosphere 🔊 NOW, before the biosphere we
depend on is cooked! ☠️ 😱
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/_i_2h2CoQII[/center]
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE
Clean Energy Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human
health depleting CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have
ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are
trying to AVOID [/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE!
Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 12294--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]CleanTechnica[/font]
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!
Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/shop/#!/
April 20th, 2019 by Michael Barnard
[center]Chevron’s Fig Leaf Part 5: Who [img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp[/img]<br
/>Is Behind Carbon Engineering, & What Do Experts Say?[/center]
SNIPPET:
But there’s more about Dr. Keith [img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp[/img].<br
/>Not long ago he co-authored a study with one of the members of
his geoengineering group stating that wind farms would create
global warming. Yes, that’s right. One of the major solutions to
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is actually a problem, according
to Keith. He and his collaborator’s thinking was deeply shoddy
and much mocked when it came out. Once again, that paper was in
Joule, the no-impact-factor, brand-new journal that his latest
Carbon Engineering paper is in. Perhaps there’s something to be
learned from that? The co-author of the wind-farms cause global
warming nonsense paper, Lee Miller, was lead author with Keith
as co-author in another much-derided attack on wind energy,
claiming it had massive limits to the ability to provide power.
Full (MUST READ!) article (don't miss the comments 😀):
[img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/20/chevrons-fig-leaf-part-5-who-is-behind-carbon-engineering-what-do-experts-say/
One of my Comments: [quote]"What is it with Time Magazine’s
HotEs that they get things wrong so badly?"[/quote]
That one is easy!
[center][img
width=100]
HTML http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1375371542_tumblr_m7jevgcaFm1qzqdem.gif[/img][/center]
Recent photo of [s]Dr, Keith[/s] 🙊 taken after meeting
with Fossil Fuel Industry representatives advocating Carbon
"Capture & Sequestration" 😉:
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img][/center]
Expect "smart" people like Dr. Keith to advocate the following
solar geo-engineering "solution" when 2036 Catastrophic Climate
Change massive atmospheric heating is everywhere on the globe:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-030119172448.png[/img][/center]
The above civilization bankrupting BOONDOGLE, would actually
work to lower temperatures. However, it would do absolutely
nothing to prevent the death of keystone shell forming species
at the base of the ocean food pyramid. They would continue to
die from ocean acidification due to CO2 uptake in the oceans.
To that "slight problem" of dead oceans, the fossil Fuel
Industry, of course, has an answer too (see below).
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-101118134711.png[/img][/center]
THIS is the bottom line for the Fossil Fuel Industry, despite
what all the credentialed bought and paid for lying, ethics
free, empathy deficit disorderd scientists claim:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818220747-15881860.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]
CAPITALISTS 👹💵🎩 OPPOSE the Green New
Deal because it forces capital to eat costs it has imposed
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040718162656-14241872.gif<br
/>on people and on the environment for decades.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg11841/#msg11841
[/center]
#Post#: 12295--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]CleanTechnica[/font]
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!
Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/shop/#!/
[center]Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been
Better Spent On Wind & Solar[/center]
April 21st, 2019 by Michael Barnard
Recently, a firm called Carbon Engineering received $68 million
in investment from a trio of fossil fuel majors for its air
carbon capture solution. This triggered a five-part
CleanTechnica series on Carbon Engineering, its approach and why
it is not a serious answer to global warming. The process of
researching the series and discussions around it raised the
question of what the total global investment in carbon capture
and sequestration has gained us. The answer is grim, but there’s
a great news story that emerges from the sooty ashes of carbon
capture.
[move]Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2
every year as the complete global history of CCS[/move]
The first piece of the puzzle is just figuring out how much has
been spent on carbon capture schemes globally. There aren’t good
sources publicly available on this point, but there are multiple
press releases for major investments. Where there was obviously
work being done but not dollar values, some extrapolation was
required, so the numbers for China and the Middle East are
approximations. Those are only capital costs with no operating
costs and they are moving millions of tons around, so the
operating costs are non-trivial and also unreported in easily
available sources. The majority of that money has been spent in
the past decade.
The build-up gets close enough to $7.5 billion to round up for
the purposes of the analysis.
There’s a global organization with some 40 staff devoted to
reporting on carbon capture and producing glowing reports of its
successes, the Global CCS Institute. It claims to be “an
international climate change organisation whose mission is to
accelerate the deployment of CCS as an imperative technology in
tackling climate change and providing energy security.” A review
of its membership finds a lot of a fossil fuel majors, and the
energy security claim is an interesting add-on to its mandate.
It seems more like a PR arm of the fossil fuel industry,
especially after reviewing global carbon capture results.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Global 🐉🦕🦖
CCS Institute works really hard to avoid talking even about the
capital costs. Its reports talk about the great work being done
to reduce costs without actually, you know, specifying how much
money has been spent vs how much carbon has been sequestered.
The Global CCS Institute maintains a database of ‘large’-scale
carbon capture facilities. It mostly doesn’t track actual
sequestration but merely annual potential. The ‘large’ is in
quotes because there are only 19 of them and only three of them
exceed a million tons a year. The scale of the problem is in
gigatons, so when there are a total of three facilities bigger
than 4 orders of magnitude too small, calling the set large is
at best relative and in reality a misnomer. It was necessary to
extract the data and extrapolate potential net sequestration.
Of the 19 ‘large’-scale plants, only 4 are not just pumping CO2
into oil wells for enhanced oil recovery. Per a workup done for
the Carbon Engineering series, every ton of CO2 pumped into the
ground returns 0.9 tons of CO2 when the resulting oil is burned.
So enhanced oil recovery use of CO2 is at best 10%
sequestration, and the vast majority of CO2 in carbon capture
schemes is used for that purpose. This doesn’t account for
leakages in the process or the carbon-cost of moving millions of
tons of CO2 around, but it’s one of a series of efforts made to
give carbon capture and sequestration as much credit as
possible. It needs it.
Only Norway seems to be serious, and it’s still at a pretty
trivial level. Its Sleipner and Snøhvit CO2 Storage facilities
have been operating for 1–2 decades and have sequestered about
30 million tons of CO2.
The next part of the analysis was assessing what the carbon
avoidance value of spending the same money on wind generation
instead. Two approaches were taken. The first was a 1-decade
view as the majority of investment was spent then. The second
was a 5-decade view aligning wind investments to when carbon
capture facilities came on line.
Once again, the carbon capture approaches were treated
generously. The decade saw roughly 22 million tons of CO2
sequestered by facilities that became operational. Every CCS
facility was considered to achieve maximum annual results for
each of the years of the decade they were active even though few
of them have achieved that, with Boundary Dam in Canada as one
example accidentally operating at 40% for a year without anyone
noticing. In at least one case, the approach counts most of a
year for CCS when it came in during November of the year. The
only hardships imposed on CCS were an accurate accounting for
the percentage actually sequestered when it’s being used for EOR
and exclusion of historical capture facilities in the 10 year
view, but that’s addressed in the 50-year view.
The wind generation was limited to onshore sites. Slightly stale
metrics for the capital cost of wind energy ($2 million per MW)
were used. Wind generation was assumed to be in average wind
regimes as opposed to the Great Plains of the USA so that their
capacity factors were only 40%. The expenditure was loaded more
to recent than past. The avoided fossil fuel generation was
assumed to be 1:1 per MWh, but assumed for the first cut to be
an even mix of coal and gas generation for 0.8 tons per MWh of
emissions. Carbon capture is being given every opportunity to
show its value with these constraints.
Under those generous conditions, if $7.5 billion had been spent
on wind energy instead of CCS over the past decade, about 50%
more CO2 would have been avoided than spending the same money on
sequestration. About 33 million tons of CO2 wouldn’t have been
emitted by fossil fuel sources while about 22 million tons were
sequestered by more recent schemes.
If the avoided generation was all coal with its 1.1 tons of CO2
per MWh, then the avoided CO2 would be in the range of 50
million tons of CO2. If it were replacing coal and gas according
to their percentages of 38.3% and 23.1% of global generation
respectively, then the avoidance would be in the range of 40
million tons.
This excludes the long-running (and pretty cheap) Norwegian
approaches as they are outside of the limit, and long-term
enhanced oil recovery feeds such as the US Shute Creek Gas
Processing Plant which has been pumping out CO2 for enhanced oil
recovery since 1986.
To avoid excluding large sequestration schemes, the 50-year
perspective is useful, spending roughly equivalent amounts of
capital on wind farms instead of sequestration in each year a
major CCS facility came on line, starting with 1972. Again the
facilities were assumed to be operating at maximum sequestration
each year, the undoubtedly higher operational costs were ignored
and zero leakage in the process including in the long-term store
was assumed. For the wind generation, the capacity factor for
older wind farms was dropped from the 40% used in the initial
model to 30%. The table is too large to include, so results will
be summarized. If anyone wants to look at the underlying data in
detail, it’s available.
If wind generation had been built each year instead of the
various CCS schemes, roughly 122 million tons of CO2 would have
been avoided instead of the very generous 85 million tons the
schemes managed. That’s 37 million tons or 43% more. Frankly, it
was surprising to see that even under generous treatment carbon
capture achieved this much.
If the avoided generation was all coal with its 1.1 tons of CO2
per MWh, then the avoided CO2 would be in the range of 170
million tons of CO2, double the best case scenario for CCS. If
it were replacing coal and gas according to their percentages of
38.3% and 23.1% of global generation respectively, then the
avoidance would be in the range of 130 million tons, over 50%
better.
Another piece of context: Global oil and gas revenues were about
$2 trillion in 2017 alone. They’ve managed to get governments to
shell out for a lot of the carbon capture costs. Let’s assume
they managed 25% coverage to be, yet again, overly generous. The
$7.5 billion at 75% over 10 years turns into about $600 million
a year. A little math tells us that CCS is consuming at best
0.03% of the annual budgets of oil and gas globally.
Interestingly, that’s about exactly the amount that three oil
and gas majors ‘invested’ in the Carbon Engineering direct air
capture company recently.
Does that look serious?
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>Or does that look like PR dollars for social license to contin
ue
to pump oil? [img
width=70]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818204546.gif[/img]
Right now there is roughly 600 GW of wind generation capacity
globally. It is displacing about 1,800 million tons of CO2
annually, about 22 times as much as the best case global total
scenario for CCS. There is another 400 GW of utility-scale solar
capacity, which is displacing roughly another 1,200 million tons
of CO2 annually. Wind and solar are displacing between them
roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global
history of CCS.
We’re seeing about 100 GW of new wind and solar capacity
annually around the world. That 100 GW of capacity will displace
roughly 300 million tons every year for its lifetime. Given the
roughly 30-year lifespan, each year we are building wind and
solar capacity that will displace roughly 9,000 million tons of
CO2, over 100 times the total global carbon capture history. And
once again, the operational and maintenance costs of wind and
solar are a fraction of the CCS approaches.
CCS is a rounding error in global warming mitigation. It’s hard
to see how it could possibly be more. And it brings into stark
relief the unfortunate reality that the IPCC depends far too
much on carbon capture and sequestration approaches in terms of
dealing with global warming.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/21/carbon-captures-global-investment-would-have-been-better-spent-on-wind-solar/
Agelbert COMMENT: Mike, here is an idea that you may want to
look into. As you know, I am a vociferous critic of Carbon
Capture and Sequestration technology (i.e. taking a portion of
CO2 out of the continued INCREASE), which I consider a scam and
a mens rea deliberate diversion/obfuscation from the sine qua
non goal of reaching 350 PPM (i.e. subtracting CO2 from our
biosphere).
All that said, perhaps there is a way to do that with
technology, above and beyond the plant based (i.e. giant Lemna
minor ponds in desert areas).
Though I haven't read anything about it yet, I'm sure the
Hydrocarbon Industry is looking into this really efficient CCS
technology (though certainly with a jaundiced eye) that I
propose.
What I am talking about is extracting CO2, not from the
atmosphere, but from the ocean, where it is far more
concentrated than in the air.
I recently read this: "People get confused about the difference
between ocean HEAT absorption (which is 93%) to greenhouse gas
absorption by the sea, (which is 25%). Since 93% of our excess
heat goes into the ocean, that means only 7% is causing the
disruption we are feeling now!
If the ocean takes less carbon dioxide, as scientists predict,
then not only will there be more greenhouse gases, but those
gases will remain longer, and become a larger share of our
actual emissions in the atmosphere."
Full article: The Burning Question
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg12128/#msg12128
As you can see, the ocean captures a lot of CO2. The oceans, so
far, have acted asa giant atmospheric heat limiting buffer,
taking up a significant share of the CO2 emissions from the
burning of hydrocarbons in human civilization. Unlike the
atmospheric CO2, the CO2 in the oceans is much more concentrated
(i.e. easier to collect).
According to scientists, the oceans are getting to the point
where they cannot absorb CO2 at the same rate.
Well, doesn't that mean that Dr. Keith [img
width=160]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]<br
/>and his hydrocarbon industry well funded pals could, maybe, co
me
up with some CCS underwater technology that would actually
SUBTRACT CO2 from the biosphere?
It is obvious that it is easier to extract CO2 from a medium
that has a higher concentration of those molecues.
That medium is ocean water. The CO2 is mostly present in the
form of HCO3, which is causing ocean acidification and killing
shell forming life forms that constitute the base of the ocean
trophic pyramid food chain.
I'm sure any government would favor funding this technology
because it helps keep ocean life viable. The fishing industry
would applaud, of course.
It would also help oceans to continue to absorb the 25% of CO2
(and 93% of the heat) that they now absorb from the atmosphere,
to our benefit.
The "downside" for the hydrocarbon industry is that, of course,
there are no undersea profit over planet power plants belching
out CO2 that they can play some CCS scam game with.
Ocean CCS would actually help the biosphere in general and
humans in particular, unlike the CCS air capture fraud.
Hopefully, Dr. Keith and friends will start thinking this is a
good idea, instead of thinking with their short term profit
wallet.
If you learn of any of this research, please share it in your
article series. The survival of human civilization may very well
depend on efficient undersea CCS.
#Post#: 12296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: As I have said for YEARS, the old, "We are all in
this together [img
width=70]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>(i.e. we are all "equally to blame" for the biosphere damage a
nd
"must share equally" the costs of mitigation [img
width=60]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-080419191019.png[/img])"<br
/>TRICK is the BIG PLAN of the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn AND pollute
r
pals everywhere.
April 26, 2019
[center]History Of Denial Belies Present Day Position of Nat’l
Assoc of
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gif<br
/>Manufacturers[/center]
On Monday, the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, the
National Association of Manufacturers’ special project to fight
#ExxonKnew and similar climate lawsuits, put out a statement
about how “we are all in this together,” as though it were a
friendly actor on board with climate action. “Only by working
side-by-side to tackle climate change,” the front group wrote,
“can we make a real difference.” The statement concludes by
reiterating that kumbaya unity, saying that “on Earth Day, let’s
stop looking backward and start moving forward to work
collaboratively on substantive policies. Only then will we have
any real impact.”
But NAM’s already had quite a real impact on climate, and that
impact is why it doesn’t want people looking backwards to see if
anyone mislead the public about climate change. As it turns out,
NAM was a key convener of one of the earliest organized climate
change denial networks, the Global Climate Coalition.
As a new trove of documents hosted at ClimateFiles reveal, the
oil, coal, gas and utility-funded group was instrumental in
early efforts to inject doubt into the public’s perception of
climate science throughout the 1990’s and played an obstructive
role in the early IPCC and UN COP meetings.
In a new post at DeSmogBlog, Mat Hope describes how the GCC went
after the IPCC in the ‘90s, spending hundreds of thousands of
its energy-industry-provided dollars on an “IPCC Tracker fund”
in the run-up to the 1997 Kyoto meeting to make sure the group
knew everything that was happening in the protracted IPCC
process. Despite being keenly and intimately involved in the
peer-review process, to the extent that it bragged about how
“language proposed by the GCC was accepted almost in its
entirety,” it nonetheless publicly attacked the peer review
process.
Over at ClimateLiability News, Karen Savage reports this week
that GCC appears to have coordinated a series of attacks on IPCC
author Dr. Ben Santer in the Wall Street Journal and similar
outlets. Santer, of course, was the lead author of the chapter
in the 1995 IPCC report that ultimately declared that “the
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
climate.” Those 12 words were negotiated at length in a process
that GCC (and their allies in the Saudi and Kuwaiti
delegations) was a part of, but once the sentence was published
in the report, deniers claimed it was cooked up by Santer alone
in some smokey back room, in violation of IPCC rules.
Savage also provides documents showing a draft of a primer on
climate change, written by a real climate scientist for GCC’s
Science and Technology Assessment Committee (STAC), which reads
in no uncertain terms that climate change science “is well
established and cannot be denied.” The primer also pointed out
that the work of deniers like Patrick Michaels and Richard
Lindzen “raise interesting questions about our total
understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer
convincing arguments against the conventional model of
greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”
So the GCC was told plainly that the science was undeniable, and
deniers’ work was unconvincing. Yet instead of adopting a
position the group purports to be taking now, nearly three
decades later, it instead removed those statements altogether.
In its place, the GCC added attacks on Santer’s findings and
further language focusing on uncertainty of the science.
It’s no surprise, then, that NAM is concerned enough about
[font=times new roman]climate liability lawsuits[/font] to
😈 set up a whole new project to fight them--a project
that writes Earth Day bromides about the importance of focusing
on the future, and not the past.
If we did start “looking backwards,” we might see how NAM
already had plenty of “real impact” when it “worked
collaboratively” with fossil fuel money to deceive the public
about the need to reduce emissions.
HTML https://mailchi.mp/climatenexus/doi-shelves-offshore-drilling-plans-pipeline-giant-tries-to-take-on-the-internet-more?e=0fd17c5b57
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212425.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 12297--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img
width=600]
HTML https://scontent.forf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58675159_10156695170530129_6985411067358740480_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent.forf1-2.fna&oh=7164419cbd8af491827019aa8da44883&oe=5D2E4005[/img]
#Post#: 12298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Surly1 link=topic=263.msg12194#msg12194
date=1556466565]
[center][img
width=300]
HTML https://scontent.forf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58675159_10156695170530129_6985411067358740480_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent.forf1-2.fna&oh=7164419cbd8af491827019aa8da44883&oe=5D2E4005[/img][/center]
[/quote]
Yep. 😈👹💵🎩[img
width=130]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818184306-16302042.png[/img][img<br
/>width=80]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-010319144633.png[/img]🏴‍🚩☠️<br
/>
[center][img
width=280]
HTML https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51981zskAPL._SX342_.jpg[/img][/center]
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200915151613.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 12299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
May 3rd, 2019 by Nexus Media [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>Don't miss the Agelbert comments! [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201903.png[/img]<br
/>[img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201722.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185039-165118.gif<br
/>
[center]“Dimming The Sun” — The Killer Argument For A
Profoundly Dangerous Climate Fix
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/03/dimming-the-sun-the-killer-argument-for-a-profoundly-dangerous-climate-fix/[/center]
#Post#: 12300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=AGelbert link=topic=263.msg12261#msg12261
date=1556917415]
May 3rd, 2019 by Nexus Media [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>Don't miss the Agelbert comments! [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201903.png[/img]<br
/>[img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201722.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185039-165118.gif<br
/>
[center]“Dimming The Sun” — The Killer Argument For A
Profoundly Dangerous Climate Fix
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/03/dimming-the-sun-the-killer-argument-for-a-profoundly-dangerous-climate-fix/[/center]
[/quote]
What could possibly go wrong?
#Post#: 12301--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: May 5, 2019, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Surly1 link=topic=263.msg12269#msg12269
date=1556970237]
[quote author=AGelbert link=topic=263.msg12261#msg12261
date=1556917415]
May 3rd, 2019 by Nexus Media [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>Don't miss the Agelbert comments! [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201903.png[/img]<br
/>[img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201722.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185039-165118.gif<br
/>
[center]“Dimming The Sun” — The Killer Argument For A
Profoundly Dangerous Climate Fix
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/03/dimming-the-sun-the-killer-argument-for-a-profoundly-dangerous-climate-fix/[/center]
[/quote]
What could possibly go wrong?
[/quote]
Tell me about it. I had a small war with some fine fellows who
have fecal coliform invasion syndrome in there glial cells
(their brains are full of Hydrocarbon Hellspawn happy talk
propaganda bullshit).
I went back there today and tried to educate one of them with a
(slightly ;) ) more polite approach. Hopefully, it helped some
reader who comes accross it. [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221017161839.png[/img]<br
/>
FWIW, I'm posting it below with the response sequence. It may be
useful to you as you encounter more and more of this wishful
thinking insane crap that gets gets pushed by the hydrocarbon
hellspawn, more and more, as things get inevitably get more
dire:
mipak
Just paint everything white and make the sun bounce back to
space at a proportion to just cooling us off (not too much!).
White Streets (black stripes instead of white ones!), white roof
tops, all white cars, white painted grass (football will never
be the same), etc, etc. Of course this is preposterous just as
is the other stuff. The best solution is to pare down the
population from about 7 billion to 2 billion and then make
everything electric. But of course mankind will never agree to
that.
agelbert > mipak
👎 Preposterous.
Go study GHG absorption frequencies before you display such
ignorance about how albedo actually works.
Here's a clue. It is true that albedo of white stuff in the
Arctic and Antarctic works to keep heat (IR radiation) from
being absorbed by the atmosphere.
However, white stuff located SOUTH of the Arctic circle (and
NORTH of the Antarctic corresponding area) DOES NOT provide
enough albedo to get the solar radiation out into space before
it is trapped in our atmosphere.
WHY? Because the more direct angle of the solar rays striking
the surface of the earth where most of us live causes the
incoming photons to get converted into IR frequencies right
away, even from white stuff reflecting them. IR (infrared)
frequency rays get trapped by CO2 before they can exit.
As to your "cull the human population solution", nature will
take care of that.
Omega Centauri > agelbert • 14 hours ago
Huh. No, the two options for a photon hitting the surface are
(1) absorb and turn into heat -later emitted as IR, or (2)
reflected. Sure most "white" surfaces heat up, but not nearly as
much as dark surfaces. But, the reflected photons got to make it
back through the atmosphere, if they hit clouds they might just
reflect back down. So you get less of an effect than a simple
computation would suggest.
Some researchers at U of Colorado invented a surface material
that reflects so well -and emits IR well too, that in full
sunlight it is cooler than the ambient air. They want to use
this to cool buildings without needing energy. Deployed over
large areas it might help reduce the global temp a bit.
agelbert > Omega Centauri • 2 hours ago
Well, let me parse what you said a bit, because you are
operating under some simplistic, and partly erroneous,
assumptions about photon energy frequency bands.
There are several options in regard to the effects of photon
reflection activity frequencies, not just two.
As you know, an incoming photon, by the time it gets to the
surface of the earth, has been stripped of much of its higher
frequencies in the upper UV band. That is why we don't all die
when sunlight hits us, as would happen if we were exposed to UV
C during daylight hours.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://www.rosco.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/GAM-1.jpg[/img][/center]
The ozone layer way up there does that bit of frequency
downshifting. 👍
Every bit of downshifting from then on gets rid of some UV B,
but the visible spectrum band of several frequencies inside
those incoming photons is still not in the Infrared band. That
is why those photons don't get trapped on the way in by CO2 or
CH4 or H2O (Greenhouse Gases that have several different IR
absorption bands BUT do not absorb UV or visible spectrum photon
bands - i.e. UV and visible light goes right through GHG on the
way in).
The instant a visible light (several photon frequencies, not
just one) photon package hits the surface of the earth, no
matter how reflecting said surface is, some downshifting occurs,
these lower energy photons, as when light hits a white colored
and/or mirrored surface, already contain some infrared band
frequencies they did not have. That bit of IR won't make it past
the GHG blanket. Any UV that the incoming photon had has been
downshifted into the visible light spectrum (or infrared, as
happens when UV gets past your sunblock and/or all the way to
your epidermal DNA to start you on the way to skin cancer).
Now for the rest of the photon package reflecting off the white
or mirrored surface. The reflected photons are in the slightly
downshifted visible light spectrum. That's for highly reflective
surfaces - the lion's share, 99% PLUS of this planet's surface
reflects IR frequency bands, with a tiny portion, enough for us
to see what is around us, in the visible light spectrum
frequencies our eyes are designed to detect.
That light massively downshifts to 99% PLUS infrared frequency
bands (there are several IR frequency bands, not just one - GHG
absorbtion frequencies match them nearly perfectly BECAUSE the
tri-atomic nature of said GHG set up a photon bouncing trap for
infrared bands).
Making buildings reflective of visible light does nothing to
cool the atmosphere simply because the visible light photons
quickly degrade to IR photons that will never make it back to
outer space before either H2O (atmospheric water vapor, that is
increasing massively because of baked in global warming - see:
positive feedback deleterious heat increasing loop), CO2 or CH4
traps them and we continue to COOK because of incredibly STUPID
people that think we can keep burning hydrocarbons without
suffering the horrendous, Sixth Massive Extinction Consequences.
[img
width=70]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-190419232147.png[/img]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png[/img][/center][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/3847_Glacier%20Melt%20Acceleration.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]An enormous waterfall gushes off the Nansen Ice Shelf.
Credit: Jonathan Kingslake[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fn8m4qnmvwlmzw43veiv.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-251218182854-20872494.png[/img][/center]
[img
width=640]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-030119172448.png[/img]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page