About: Coal : Can we kick our addiction?
Think about this! If the atmosphere was represented by a distance of 100 meters, the C02 would be 40 mm long, about as long as your thumb! Thats 400 parts per million! A trace gas essential for plant life! Stop freaking out it;s a CON so stop scaring children. Love to all!
okei bois, i understand that you loves your BTU's as a standard of measurement. But what about switching to kWh ? Should be super relatable unit to use.
Are we past the Global Tipping Point yet? ie: The point at which Global Warming outruns our ability to control it. I realize that this is a hard question to answer. The optimists would say we are not past the Global Tipping Point yet - the point at which we cannot avoid AT LEAST 4 degrees Centigrade = 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit of average Global Warming - a complete cataclysmic disaster ------------equivalent to the Permian Extinction about 260,000,000 years ago!!!!!!!! ( about 95% of all species on Earth went extinct )
( THE great problem: relies on just donations )
There is only one way, in my opinion, to 'persuade' 99% of us to choose sustainable energy, and that is by price. 99% of us feel obliged to choose what we can afford. Carbon tax will have to be applied in proportion to the CO2e of every substance on its first trade. Revenue can be returned as support for home insulation, alternative technology etc. Further incentive for alternative tech results from the stimulated demand. For example, synthetic fuel for planes becomes cheaper than taxed aviation fuel.
Thanks again. Always good stuff. Id failed to realise that coal mining was such a contributor to methane emissions.
5G smart system bee killer. Do without it.
Simple answer is NO. More lengthy explanation is, the US, and the European Union.....possibly, but most likely not. China, and India, and any other "developing" country......NO!
And most importantly, you actually don't WANT the world to get off coal. It's called global dimming. As soon as we were off coal, we'd heat up 3 C almost instantly. Science....not my opinion. Source.....James Hanson.
The better question is, Are we ever going to get off fossil fuels period. Whole answer....NO!!! And even if we did, it doesn't matter!!!
What is pretty much wholly ignored, is the fact that "renewables" use VAST amounts of fossil fuels to do everything from mining the raw materials, to the transportation of materials, to the processing and manufacturing of materials, to the transportation of the products, to the installation of the products. Far, far, far more than you would use to just pull the oil out of the ground, and simply turn it into fuel.
It's not much different a concept than ethanol, and ethanol is 1000 times more (at least) of a pollutant through its entire life cycle of what it took to MAKE a gallon of ethanol, than it would have been to just burn a gallon of gas.
Very simply, you can't get more energy OUT of something, than you put IN to something. It's thermodynamics 101.
We will never get off fossil fuels until they're gone, and we have no choice because, there is NO VIABLE REPLACEMENT for fossil fuels.
It's really that simple. But....we'll be long dead of many other things long before we run out of fossil fuels, because of our dependence on fossil fuels.
So.....you can rest easy on that at least.
What aload of rubbish.
We don't need to make an extreme effort to rid ourselves of dreaded coal. Eventually that will happen because the economics of extraction and cleaning up after it will excede renewables.
If you are worried about all that terrible CO2, then DON'T, because it is bullshit, beat up by alarmists who are almost stupid enough to believe in a flat earth.
Today the earth is greener than it has been in millennia. The reason being, HIGH CO2 !!
Deserts are greening up like never before in human memory, because of high CO2 in the atmosphere that is acting like a fertiliser for plants and reducing their need on water.
That's right, high CO2 requires less water for plants to flourish. That's the reason Farmers using greenhouses buy CO2 and pump it into their greenhouses raising the amount of CO2 to as much as 1800ppm, the optimum for plant growth and production. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxktLAsBPo
Professor Guy McPherson takes the most extreme position, that stopping coal use will immediately increase temperature by a couple of degrees caused by ending the "dimming effect" as less smoke and sulfates from burning coal will allow more sunrays to get through. This additional temperature increase will cause a runaway global warming due to chain reactions of blue artic water absorbing more sunrays, faster melting of artic permafrost, and melting of methane hydrate under the artic sea. This chain reaction will result in a rapid increase in temperature destroying grain crops, and other farm animals resulting in massive famines, which threatens the extinction of humans within a decade or two. He claims that It is an end-times scenario which cannot be avoided, as stopping coal use will reduce the coal-smoke that is blocking some sunrays, while continuing the use of fossil fuels will continue the greenhouse gas buildup. Very few people agrees with him that we are doomed, and locked in to an end-times scenario of rapid and imminent human extinction. The Bible's Book of Revelation agrees with him that the end times will happen, and the end times cannot be avoided, although rather than human extinction, the Book of Revelations allows about a quarter of people to survive through a massive destructive period of three and half years to seven years, which are the tribulation and great tribulation periods. The Bible says that "And men were scorched with great heat," and "...the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up." and a host of other destructive forces such a earthquakes, and red tides. Since wheat, rice, and corn are grasses, having all grass burning up will cause massive famines. Assuming like McPherson claims that runaway global warming will bring on a rapid end times scenario, can the Book of Revelations be interpreted to support such a global warming caused end time scenario? In the Book of Revelations, four colored horses of white, red, black, and pale-green colors bring in the end times. In modern times, horses have been largely replaced by mechanical-horses, such as the iron-horse, the horseless carriage, and high-horse-power steam, diesel, and gasoline engines. The efficient high-horse-power white-steam engine was invented by James Watt, and the white-steam engine started the Industrial Revolution, which started man-made global warming. It can be interpreted that the mechanical-horse powered by white colored steam represents the white horse. Black coal and black crude oil represent the black horse. States producing and using black fossil fuels tend to use red as their state color, and may be interpreted as the red horse. The greenback is often used to called the US dollar, which sometimes is call petrodollar, and may be the pale-green horse. Although the dollar, and its association capitalism are in general considered to be beneficial, they are not without victims like the Native Americans decimated by them. The tribulation happens in a short time of 3 to 7 years, too fast for plants, animals, and humans to react as McPherson claims. The Book of Revelations has many other destructive forces in play beyond just high heat like earthquakes, red tides, and even freezes. Perhaps the weight of water of major sea level rises may cause plates to shift more generating more earth quakes, and perhaps even trigger off super-volcanos which blocks out the sun's rays causing freezes? The major difference is that around a quarter will survive, rather than an extinction of humans
SCIENTIFIC FACT & COMMON SENSE ALERT!!!
Solar energy has a density of 1.5 microjoules per cubic meter, over twenty quadrillion (20+15 zeros) times LESS than oil, which is 35 to 45 gigajoules (10,000 kWh) per cubic meter. Even wood & cow dung has higher energy density than solar and wind. Good luck using 100% solar & wind...maybe after learning how to rewrite laws of physics. Stupidity at its best!!
Not to mention the devastating environmental ramifications by using solar and wind. Probably, should go ask the bats..why the species going to be extinct by killing millions....'climate monster' should go camping outdoors often instead of just living in his huge mansion with 30,000+ dollar energy bill.
What about disposing old solar panels? Dump it in the oceans along with all the plastic junk, probably sell to Africa before the dumping to make more money!
Perfect plan to extort money from the poor by soaring utility bills or worse extend poverty.
ZERO care for people or animal life and for the planet on the whole!!! None!
Why not use widespread nuclear power if climate cult have "dysfunctional carbon phobia"??? What lame rubbish excuse going to be used?...wait...I think I know..."safety & cost"....real reason, if energy is dirt cheap, then 'climate monster' can't line its own pockets or keep fattening up to clog its arteries!!!
BTW second to nuclear, methane is an extremely efficient, cheap and clean energy source.
Truth about methane explained in "Demonizing Our Cleanest Energy" video, link below :- https://youtu.be/VokewpSZYPM
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox---Galileo Galilei
The numbers don't lie, we recently passed 100 million barrels of oil(equivalent) in fossil fuels burnt daily on planet earth and growing. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-12/100-million-barrels-the-world-hit-a-daily-oil-liquids-record
Lots of weirdos in the comment section below, beware.
This comment is for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ojaDMadZXU
This video does not properly describe how the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere causes warming because there is no description of the ABSOLUTELY VITAL role of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate. For a so-called "greenhouse effect" in a planet's atmosphere to affect surface temperature it absolutely requires TWO THINGS and not just ONE THING. It absolutely requires:
1) The type of gases with the "springy" covalent bonds that have energies matching those of frequencies of transverse electromagnetic radiation which the surface emits (the GHG molecule's "absorption spectrum"), and
2) An atmosphere with a temperature lapse rate in which atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude.
LWR EMISSION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" emits depends on how often it collides because it can (and almost always does) obtain the harmonic motion in its "springy" covalent bonds by collision. So if it collides 3,000,000,000 times / second then obviously it'll get a "ringing" of its oscillating atomic nucleus (carbon for CO2) more often than if it collides 2,000,000,000 times / second (average for Earth's troposphere is 2,700,000,000 collisions / second for a molecule). Since the collision rate depends on temperature because the molecules are flying around faster (that's precisely what "temperature" & "heat" are in a gas, the average speed/weight of molecules, in a liquid or solid its "jostling" rather than "flying around") therefore at higher temperature there will be more LWR photons generated because more collisions. A scientists named "Max Plank" figured this out and other scientists developed the Stefan-Boltzmann equation PF = 5.6703 * (temp<Kelvin>/100)**4 where "PF" is the power flux in w/m**2 for a bulk quantity of gas. Since temp<Kelvin> decreases on average by 6.75 degrees for each 1 km increase in altitude therefore the power flux emitted by the GHGs decreases strongly (as the 4th power) as the altitude of the GHGs increases.
LWR ABSORPTION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on how often it collides so the amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on the temperature of the parcel of atmosphere that it is in.
The tiny portion of you who have functioning brains, as I do, will immediately realize that the combination of
1) LWR EMISSION strongly increases with air temperature (5.6703 * (temp<Kelvin>/100)**4), and
2) LWR ABSORPTION doesn't depend in the slightest on air temperature, and
3) The temperature of Earth's troposphere decreases with altitude
means that increased GHGs in Earth's troposphere (definitely not any higher though) MUST cause tropospheric warming because increased GHGs means the quantity is getting higher and that means cooler and, per above, that means less LWR emission per unit GHG quantity but no change in LWR absorption per unit GHG quantity, so exactly the same LWR as before from below gets absorbed but less LWR than before gets sent upwards (the direction in which some of it will get to space). Very simple little bit of basic physics. British 13 year old grammar school child level.
This is why there can be no so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's tropopause and the "greenhouse effect" works BACKWARDS in Earth's stratosphere (increased GHGs should cool the stratosphere as I've just explained, and they definitely are, it's being measured by satellite instrument). Since the video here doesn't describe the absolutely vital role that the tropospheric temperature lapse rate plays in the "greenhouse effect" therefore it is highly incorrect and can easily be debunked by any self-respecting coal/oil shill (though perhaps they don't exist) not at all because the "greenhouse effect" is invalid science but because THIS VIDEO ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE PHYSICS OF THE SO-CALLED "GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN EARTH'S TROPOSPHERE".
this channel has its head in dreamland...no common sense ...what a waste of electricity
have no fear, the world economy will collapse soon enough. then all those coal fired power-plants will be shut down at that point in time.
First "Annual State Of The Climate Address": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVSGyvAl2AI
If 50% of the power is going to come from Solar, what is going to happen when a 3-year blackout of the Sun from a volcano event? Who will be getting their power cut off?
Only 18% of power is the electricity grid. Are we in dreamland thinking that renewables are going replace even 50% of our power needs?
How long will it take to plant a Trillion trees to remove 2/3 of man made CO2 each year?
Trump snuck that into his speech and Democrats didn't stand...
So much for the green party... 🤣