Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

What is government doing to make all that happen other than sucking money out of peoples pockets?

One thing they're certainly not doing is making it easier for alternative energy sources to compete by subsidizing fossil fuels.

Imagine if the all the billions of dollars worth of subsidies to fossil fuels were diverted instead to alternative energy production.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

One thing they're certainly not doing is making it easier for alternative energy sources to compete by subsidizing fossil fuels.

Imagine if the all the billions of dollars worth of subsidies to fossil fuels were diverted instead to alternative energy production.

What constitutes subsidies is debatable. Viable loans and loan guarantees are not really subsidies, in fact, they can be investments. Supporting carbon capture projects is actually something government is doing to reduce emissions other than just taxes. Because of its high energy content and easy portability, there is no real substitute for petroleum unless we can develop cost effective synthetic or bio fuels in large quantities. Petroleum products are also Canada's largest export, worth well over 100 billion annually. Imagine what would happen without the revenues they provide. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

One thing they're certainly not doing is making it easier for alternative energy sources to compete by subsidizing fossil fuels.

We in B.C. pay the highest price in north America for gas for our vehicles.

The subsidies are not direct subsidies to production.  I believe they are more in line with tax credits or tax deductions for expenses and possibly reduced royalties.   If you take away tax write-offs, you would be increasing the cost of oil production.  That would increase the cost of all oil products and drive up the price of fuel at the gas pumps.  It would be the consumer that would simply pay more to gas up their vehicles.  We presently pay about one third the price of gas in taxes in B.C.  So the idea of environmentalists to cut any tax benefits to the oil companies would only drive up the price of gas to the consumers.  Environmentalists simply don't care how much the consumer is harmed.  They would shut down the energy industry, as the NDP wants to do, no matter how it would destroy human on earth if they had their way.

Alternative energy sources do not exist to be able to replace fossil fuels in the amount the world uses.  There are some alternative energy sources, but the infrastructure and economic availability to replace the hundreds of millions of vehicles does not exist.  EVs are still too expensive, and charging stations not available on the scale that would be required does not exist.  EVs also are deficient for cold climates where it takes a lot of electrical power to heat the car when it is 20 or 35C below zero.  They also are not long range for people that must travel long distances regularly.  Battery replacement is out of sight and can cost what a vehicle is worth.

Edited April 2 by blackbird

[taxme]

23 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Don't fall into that conspiracy trap.

To make it really (over)simple, an aircraft jet engine burns at over 650 degrees C. The aircraft flies at 30,000 ft plus. The temp up there is easily minus 60 C, even in summer. What you see is basically water vapour, condensation.

Kinda like you see your breath in the winter.

Of course they are some combustion byproducts but nothing extraordinary.

Chuckle Chuckle.

Gawd, people like you must be really stupid because you never seem to get what is being said here. Yes, there is a vapor trail left behind by your normal passenger aircraft, and only lasts for about ten minutes or so and then disappears. Got it now? 

But when some military aircraft leaves behind a trail, of whatever they are spraying up there, the trail could last for an hour or even longer. Got it now? 

What do you not get as to what i am asking here? What is that white spray that sticks around for a very long time? Tyhat is what i want to know? Got it now? 

[taxme]

22 hours ago, Black Dog said:

No need to answer the questions because they are premised on the idea that people are spraying things in the air, a thing which isn't happening.

You can see an FDNY vehicle in the background of the first picture so can you tell me what other air crash occurred in Manhattan in the last 20-30 years?

That happens to be painted in American Airlines colours? Also you know there were literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, right? Also, if it was a missile and not AA Flight 77, what happened to that aircraft and its passengers and crew?

If you think a plane that slams into a concrete structure at nearly 500 mph is going to stay in nice big pieces you're even dumber than you seem and that's quite a feat.

Uh, to get on the plane in the first place? Like have you ever flown anywhere before?

You believe a lot of dumb dogshit my guy!

That's not critical thinking, that's oppositional defiance disorder, a thing toddlers have.

Oh my god this is a bit, isn't it?

We can debate this forever and we will never get anywhere. There were plenty questions being asked about the TT fiasco as to what really happened. I do not have to believe the MSM part of the story because i will never believe as to what the MSM ever has to say. Obviously, you do, and boo-hoo for you. 

Regards the Star Trek comment, i was just trying to make a joke which a dummy like you took the bait. You are the bit much here yourself. 🤡

[Venandi]

47 minutes ago, taxme said:

What do you not get as to what i am asking here? What is that white spray that sticks around for a very long time? Tyhat is what i want to know? Got it now? 

In the interest of saving bandwidth I'll try and demystify it for you..

What you're referring to are contrails. They're caused by water vapour from the combustion process forming ice crystals in the colder ambient temperatures at altitude. Various impurities, also part of the combustion process, provide particles called condensation nuclei that the droplets form on. So, if water droplets do form, they freeze into ice crystals and form a contrail.

Dissipation times vary depending on the temperature / humidity profile and the amount of moisture/nuclei produced. Some military aircraft like the C130 and CP140 (same engines BTW) burn dirty and usually leave a noticeable exhaust trail at the best of times. Contrails can last from minutes to hours and expand significantly if/when they persist.

Military briefing packs normally contain an altitude estimate for contrail formation, something that pilots of surveillance aircraft seek to avoid like the plague. Otherwise, altitudes are selected based on direction of flight and fuel efficiency.

There is some debate about reflectivity and contrails contributing to global heat retention, but other than surveillance mission planning, I've never given them a second thought.   

Edited April 2 by Venandi

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We in B.C. pay the highest price in north America for gas for our vehicles.

The subsidies are not direct subsidies to production.  I believe they are more in line with tax credits or tax deductions for expenses and possibly reduced royalties.   If you take away tax write-offs, you would be increasing the cost of oil production.  That would increase the cost of all oil products and drive up the price of fuel at the gas pumps.  It would be the consumer that would simply pay more to gas up their vehicles.  We presently pay about one third the price of gas in taxes in B.C.  So the idea of environmentalists to cut any tax benefits to the oil companies would only drive up the price of gas to the consumers.  Environmentalists simply don't care how much the consumer is harmed.  They would shut down the energy industry, as the NDP wants to do, no matter how it would destroy human on earth if they had their way.

Wah.

Meanwhile Trudeau spent billions to buy a goddamn pipeline and build another one for Christ's sake.

Quote

Alternative energy sources do not exist to be able to replace fossil fuels in the amount the world uses.  There are some alternative energy sources, but the infrastructure and economic availability to replace the hundreds of millions of vehicles does not exist.  EVs are still too expensive, and charging stations not available on the scale that would be required does not exist.  EVs also are deficient for cold climates where it takes a lot of electrical power to heat the car when it is 20 or 35C below zero.  They also are not long range for people that must travel long distances regularly.  Battery replacement is out of sight and can cost what a vehicle is worth.

Try throwing billions in subsidies at alternatives instead of fossil fuel companies and see what happens.

Don't be surprised if fossil fuel companies are the first ones in line.

[taxme]

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

I believe actual data compiled by people whose job it is to collect data, not what comes out of someone's ass on a blog. NASA and other agencies are not main stream media. You are so far down your conspiracy rabbit hole no one can talk sense to you.

Why do lefty liberal losers like you always like to throw the conspiracy word around? I know why? Lefties like you think that by using the word conspiracy against people like me, that should hopefully shut us up. It does not work anymore. Lefties like you are the ones that always keep trying to cover up as many conspiracies as you can that you know are happening and are legitimate.

When some serious incident or event happens there will always be people like me who will want to ask some questions as to what really happened if anything did happen at all. There is nothing wrong asking questions about any event that has happened. Lefties like you do not have to call people like me a bunch of conspiracy nut jobs. 

NASA is always up for questioning. 😁

[Aristides]

26 minutes ago, taxme said:

Why do lefty liberal losers like you always like to throw the conspiracy word around? I know why? Lefties like you think that by using the word conspiracy against people like me, that should hopefully shut us up. It does not work anymore. Lefties like you are the ones that always keep trying to cover up as many conspiracies as you can that you know are happening and are legitimate.

When some serious incident or event happens there will always be people like me who will want to ask some questions as to what really happened if anything did happen at all. There is nothing wrong asking questions about any event that has happened. Lefties like you do not have to call people like me a bunch of conspiracy nut jobs. 

NASA is always up for questioning. 😁

Because you have no verifiable evidence. You just make stuff up while denying anything that shows you are wrong.

You don’t ask questions, you just ignore what you don’t want to hear.

I don’t like the idea we are killing the planet any more than you but denial won’t stop it.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

Gawd, people like you must be really stupid because you never seem to get what is being said here. Yes, there is a vapor trail left behind by your normal passenger aircraft, and only lasts for about ten minutes or so and then disappears. Got it now? 

But when some military aircraft leaves behind a trail, of whatever they are spraying up there, the trail could last for an hour or even longer. Got it now? 

What do you not get as to what i am asking here? What is that white spray that sticks around for a very long time? Tyhat is what i want to know? Got it now? 

Are you really serious???

Military aircraft also fly at the same altitudes and temperature zones and use jet engines to. Some military aircraft have older engines and they are not as efficient and the exhaust is not as clean as newer engines so the trail is a little darker but it is still the same principal.

The amount of time any vapour trail remains is totally dependant on the atmospheric conditions , mainly the humidity and winds at altitude.

Are you really serious in believing they are injecting something to the vapour trail???

Hey, here is one for ya...the Chinese sent weather balloon into the jetsream to see where they will go so that they can inject a substance up there and it will travel over us.....    Run with that one LOL

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

We can debate this forever and we will never get anywhere. There were plenty questions being asked about the TT fiasco as to what really happened. I do not have to believe the MSM part of the story because i will never believe as to what the MSM ever has to say. Obviously, you do, and boo-hoo for you. 

There's a point where skepticism of official narratives ends and reflexive contrarianism and bloody-minded stupidity begins and buddy you have sailed past that a long time ago to the point where you won't even accept evidence before your very eyes

1 hour ago, taxme said:

When some serious incident or event happens there will always be people like me who will want to ask some questions as to what really happened if anything did happen at all. There is nothing wrong asking questions about any event that has happened. Lefties like you do not have to call people like me a bunch of conspiracy nut jobs. 

What's the point in "asking questions" if won't listen to the answers unless they're what you want to hear? Like I said, you have a toddler's mindset.

[herbie]

Electricity isn't viable is a nonsense statement. As you can produce it from almost anything, and it does not produce CO2 it and hydrogen are favoured.

Tell you what the govt is doing: handing back carbon tax rebates to score political points rather than directing that money back to incentives, research and infrastructure. Experts say the tax has reduced CO2 by at least 1%. Could've reduced it way more with incentives extended to buy a simple hybrid vehicle. To expanded transit - there is no more Greyhound option. Exploration credits for lithium and hydrogen deposits. Still shitting on LNG when simple conversions are less than BEV incentives and could instantly reduce emissions on any existing vehicle.
I'm interested in results and only support a carbon tax as it does a little rather than nothing at all, which is the only alternative being offered.

 

[herbie]

If you're confused, it's because LNG can reduce CO2 and other pollution right now, for far less expense and disruption. We knew that 40 years ago when they promoted it because of gas shortages and pollution reduction, we owned 2 propane vehicles, my BIL had a fleet of LNG delivery trucks and his personal car.
We're doing it now to get oil & coal fired plants to use LNG. To see results fast and buy a little more time for other alternatives to evolve.
Wind & solar are already cheapest. Tidal and geothermal soon will be too. All the yak over small reactors ad thorium are just talk that will take 10-25 years to permit and build and we know we're close to a tipping point now. So take the thumbs out of your ass and DO something.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Electricity isn't viable is a nonsense statement. As you can produce it from almost anything, and it does not produce CO2 it and hydrogen are favoured.

Tell you what the govt is doing: handing back carbon tax rebates to score political points rather than directing that money back to incentives, research and infrastructure. Experts say the tax has reduced CO2 by at least 1%. Could've reduced it way more with incentives extended to buy a simple hybrid vehicle. To expanded transit - there is no more Greyhound option. Exploration credits for lithium and hydrogen deposits. Still shitting on LNG when simple conversions are less than BEV incentives and could instantly reduce emissions on any existing vehicle.
I'm interested in results and only support a carbon tax as it does a little rather than nothing at all, which is the only alternative being offered.

 

Really? How do you produce it from nothing and who is going to do it? How do you produce enough of it without generating CO2? Green hydrogen can only be produced by electrolysis which requires massive amounts of electricity to produce in quantity and you get less energy out than you put in. Liquid hydrogen also has to be kept at minus 270 degrees to keep it from boiling off so you won't be able to fill up your car and then let it sit for days. Solar and wind sure won't provide enough to double our generating capacity in the next ten years and a tax that you give back to select people won't do it. You can not power everything with electricity, batteries just don't have the energy density and there are other issues when it comes to high power requirements like aircraft. Gasoline contains 70 times as much energy per KG as a Li battery. A Tesla Model S requires a 1400 lb battery to go as far as a car getting 30 mph on 75 lbs of gas.

Edited April 2 by Aristides

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

eally? How do you produce it from nothing and who is going to do it? How do you produce enough of it without generating

Oh come on, you make electricity from anything that moves, heats or cools, from light or radiation, umpteen chemical reactions or gravity. None of which require burning anything.
There are natural deposits of free hydrogen too and not very expensive ways to make it, so you're utterly dismissing the idea of fuel cell EVs when there is nothing more efficient.

You American? It might surprise you to learn you can make alcohol out of something besides corn too!

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Oh come on, you make electricity from anything that moves, heats or cools, from light or radiation, umpteen chemical reactions or gravity. None of which require burning anything.
There are natural deposits of free hydrogen too and not very expensive ways to make it, so you're utterly dismissing the idea of fuel cell EVs when there is nothing more efficient.

You American? It might surprise you to learn you can make alcohol out of something besides corn too!

So why aren't we doing it? If it is so simple, why can government come up with nothing but a tax? Where are these deposits of free hydrogen, this is a new one to me. Fuel cell vehicles need fuel, it's in the name. 

[cannuck]

On 4/1/2024 at 12:27 PM, Aristides said:

 

So why are atmospheric carbon levels continually rising? Obviously the plants can't handle all that extra carbon.

It isn't about being able to breath, it's about not cooking our planet and turning into another Venus.

That is the correct question to ask, so I will repeat the very simple answer that those with extremist agenda on both sides continually ignore:   Because by far the largest sink of carbon on this planet is the ocean - not rain forests, not Arctic swamps, etc.   The frigging HUGE thing out there we call not only the saline oceans but also he freshwater inland seas.   What we have managed to do from throwing all of our garbage into waterways is poison about a quarter of all of the phytoplankton in global waters.   One single class (diatoms) are responsible for the release of 40%+ of all oxygen on this planet.   As we kill plankton off we remove the absorption of carbon resulting in not only more carbon in the atmosphere but lower pH in waterways and water bodies.   For the few who would like to learn and understand instead of mindlessly spewing a bunch of political agendae buzzwords and phrases, I will, as usual, provide a link to a genuinely authoratative science-based source:   https://goesfoundation.com/

One of my responsibilities in business is to be the bad guy in assessing the technical validity of claims or concepts, and without writing a dozen pages about it: the whole direction of most of what we see from governments and "scientists" about our environment fails even THE most basic litmus tests.   The whole mess conveniently ignores the fundamental facts that our list of problems (and indeed there are many) are topped by 2 things that nobody seems to have the brains or balls to understand and deal with:   Poisoning of our oceans and unsustainable population.

[Aristides]

21 hours ago, taxme said:

Gawd, people like you must be really stupid because you never seem to get what is being said here. Yes, there is a vapor trail left behind by your normal passenger aircraft, and only lasts for about ten minutes or so and then disappears. Got it now? 

But when some military aircraft leaves behind a trail, of whatever they are spraying up there, the trail could last for an hour or even longer. Got it now? 

What do you not get as to what i am asking here? What is that white spray that sticks around for a very long time? Tyhat is what i want to know? Got it now? 

So why don't upper level winds disperse your phantom chemicals the same as they disperse frozen water. What about all those trails made during WW2. Do you think they were busy spreading chemicals while trying to kill each other at the same time. You are incapable of answering the most basic questions. If contrails stick around it's because there is no wind to disperse them. 

Edited April 3 by Aristides

[Aristides]

16 minutes ago, cannuck said:

That is the correct question to ask, so I will repeat the very simple answer that those with extremist agenda on both sides continually ignore:   Because by far the largest sink of carbon on this planet is the ocean - not rain forests, not Arctic swamps, etc.   The frigging HUGE thing out there we call not only the saline oceans but also he freshwater inland seas.   What we have managed to do from throwing all of our garbage into waterways is poison about a quarter of all of the phytoplankton in global waters.   One single class (diatoms) are responsible for the release of 40%+ of all oxygen on this planet.   As we kill plankton off we remove the absorption of carbon resulting in not only more carbon in the atmosphere but lower pH in waterways and water bodies.   For the few who would like to learn and understand instead of mindlessly spewing a bunch of political agendae buzzwords and phrases, I will, as usual, provide a link to a genuinely authoratative science-based source:   https://goesfoundation.com/

One of my responsibilities in business is to be the bad guy in assessing the technical validity of claims or concepts, and without writing a dozen pages about it: the whole direction of most of what we see from governments and "scientists" about our environment fails even THE most basic litmus tests.   The whole mess conveniently ignores the fundamental facts that our list of problems (and indeed there are many) are topped by 2 things that nobody seems to have the brains or balls to understand and deal with:   Poisoning of our oceans and unsustainable population.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/oceans-have-been-absorbing-the-worlds-extra-heat-but-theres-a-huge-payback

[cannuck]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So why don't upper level winds disperse your phantom chemicals the same as they disperse frozen water. What about all those trails made during WW2. Do you think they were busy spreading chemicals while trying to kill each other at the same time. You are incapable of answering the most basic questions. If contrails stick around it's because there is no wind to disperse them. 

Just to add a bit of clarity regarding winds aloft:  don't confuse what we see as a turbulent interface between surface and wind as you leave the "boundary layer".   Winds aloft are simply moving air, turbulence only happens at the interface between two different air masses.  So, a contrail (and anything contained within) simply move along their way relatively intact.  In WWII, the amount of fuel burned by aircraft was much smaller than what a typical turbine uses today - and enroute altitudes for commercial airliners can be a fair bit higher - so our modern contrails tend to be a lot larger (thus easier to see and last longer).   BTW: if you want to see real time winds aloft, atmospheric particle drift, wave action, ocean currents, temps of all of the above there is an excellent website to view:  https://earth.nullschool.net/

[Army Guy]

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

One thing they're certainly not doing is making it easier for alternative energy sources to compete by subsidizing fossil fuels.

Imagine if the all the billions of dollars worth of subsidies to fossil fuels were diverted instead to alternative energy production.

Imigine if the 22 bil raised by the carbon tax was put to use by supporting all the green projects...But we blew that one.

 

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, herbie said:

Electricity isn't viable is a nonsense statement. As you can produce it from almost anything, and it does not produce CO2 it and hydrogen are favoured.

Tell you what the govt is doing: handing back carbon tax rebates to score political points rather than directing that money back to incentives, research and infrastructure. Experts say the tax has reduced CO2 by at least 1%. Could've reduced it way more with incentives extended to buy a simple hybrid vehicle. To expanded transit - there is no more Greyhound option. Exploration credits for lithium and hydrogen deposits. Still shitting on LNG when simple conversions are less than BEV incentives and could instantly reduce emissions on any existing vehicle.
I'm interested in results and only support a carbon tax as it does a little rather than nothing at all, which is the only alternative being offered.

 

According to this article the carbon tax has zero effect on climate change, and the government sources have skewed results that are attributed to covid, and the doubling of fossil fuel cost per barrel...So maybe your backing the wrong horse, nothing this current government has implemented so far has produced any real results...

But i do agree the 22 bil in carbon taxes collected could have been used in better ways to invest in new tech. And since it will be a decade or more before we find a replacement for fossil fuels, and implement it across the country, getting our LNG to market could help with reducing global emissions, and help boost our economy. 

Terence Corcoran: After the carbon tax, axe Ottawa's tree plan (msn.com)

[cannuck]

to begin with, a sensationalist and ultra-political rag such as The Manchester Guardian is hardly a credible source of ANYTHING.   You will note this story blames everything on anthropogenic carbon emissions.  If you read about greenhouse gasses carefully you will realize that water vapour and methane are by far the most important GHGs and if you read carefully in the goes foundation link I provided you will see how poisoning of he phytoplankton is far more contributory to water atmospheric water vapour levels than anthro fuel burning (that pales in comparison to natural HC deflagration and decomposition - the latter contributing HUGE amounts of methane).

You need to learn to reasonable pursue the truth instead of just accepting what someone is paid to say has to say.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

Just to add a bit of clarity regarding winds aloft:  don't confuse what we see as a turbulent interface between surface and wind as you leave the "boundary layer".   Winds aloft are simply moving air, turbulence only happens at the interface between two different air masses.  So, a contrail (and anything contained within) simply move along their way relatively intact.  In WWII, the amount of fuel burned by aircraft was much smaller than what a typical turbine uses today - and enroute altitudes for commercial airliners can be a fair bit higher - so our modern contrails tend to be a lot larger (thus easier to see and last longer).   BTW: if you want to see real time winds aloft, atmospheric particle drift, wave action, ocean currents, temps of all of the above there is an excellent website to view:  https://earth.nullschool.net/

This can be true, there are lots of variables. Temperature and relative humidity are a couple more. You can have aircraft at altitudes only 1000ft different, one will be contrailing and the other won't. The only way you know if your own aircraft is contrailing is if the sun is at the right angle and you can see its shadow on the cloud below you.

Edited April 3 by Aristides

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, herbie said:

If you're confused, it's because LNG can reduce CO2 and other pollution right now, for far less expense and disruption. We knew that 40 years ago when they promoted it because of gas shortages and pollution reduction, we owned 2 propane vehicles, my BIL had a fleet of LNG delivery trucks and his personal car.
We're doing it now to get oil & coal fired plants to use LNG. To see results fast and buy a little more time for other alternatives to evolve.
Wind & solar are already cheapest. Tidal and geothermal soon will be too. All the yak over small reactors ad thorium are just talk that will take 10-25 years to permit and build and we know we're close to a tipping point now. So take the thumbs out of your ass and DO something.

Actually NB will have started construction as soon as approvals are made, in several parts of the province, up to 12 SMR for the bulldune area for the new hydrogen producing plant, plus several for the provinces power grid, they expect to be operational by 2032 which is less than 8 years from now. other provinces are also going the same route, Ont, and Sask i believe...

They are also looking at storing electricity from solar and other sources, via batteries of some sort...but they are competing with the SMRs for funding.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/climate-committee-small-modular-reactors-nuclear-1.6748152

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/smr-nuclear-power-provinces-canada-1.6399928