These coal ads make me sick as, cannot understand why we signed in Paris and Kyoto and still want to sell as much of it as we can. Global warming? Who cares....... Brainwashing our own population, but apparently it works: http://www.minerals.org.au/news/launch_of_new_coal_advertising_campaign By now the world might think we are just fukking liars. Any thoughts? Regards
Dr. James Hanson has done a fantastic job of covering the topic of Climate Change from all angels and Global Dimming is a topic that caused him significant cognitive dissonance. The ash, soot and dust from industry.......... much like a major Volcanic eruption, have a tendency to prevent sunlight from reaching the earth........ this phenomena has came to be termed Global Dimming and a good case can be presented that without admitting it........ many major governments, including the USA, have decided to deliberately use Global Dimming to delay,......... postpone......... a general Global Warming trend....... because like myself, they may have decided that the threat of rising ocean levels was indeed one of the most immediate threats posed by Climate Change. I attempted to use some humour to explain how confusing this part of the formula can be: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...0-election-but-negates-global-dimming.351581/ In alternate time line Mr. Gore wins the 2000 election but negates Global Dimming....
Burning coal may not actually be as serious a problem as the possible results of us stopping from burning coal???! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-fast-enough-to-address-wais-collapse.443154/ A carbon tax will NOT work fast enough to address WAIS collapse.
Well yes plenty thoughts, also that the timing is awful. There is a re-emergence of black lung disease, thought to be eradicated until 2015, 19 cases in Queensland but I spoke to someone here in Victoria the other day who said their brother has it (Victorian) so there's definitely more. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-...-expands-to-include-coal-port-workers/8334860 This sort of hypocrisy is not really unusual, Norway who prides themselves on their renewable energy is one of the largest oil producers in the world.
Well, that is in stark contrast to what most leading scientists stand for. And it doesn't add up, at least in my opinion. But who knows which factors contribute more to global warming than others and in which concentration things can be made responisble. For me, the facts are there. Temperatures taken from the last 150 years and things come together... The more we burn coal, fuel and other goodies, the warmer it gets. To say the countries like the US burn coal to help minimizing global warming could come straight from a coal mining industry ad. Cheers
The transcript from this documentary on Global Dimming is worth reading. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml
sw, in 1990 I did a uni course in applied engine construction and their emission impact. Even back then the lecturer told us of results from animal testing (to research the influence of carbon emission from diesels) in the lungs of mice. This result was devastating, THE MORE CARBON IN THE AIR, THE MORE LUNG CANCER SHOWED. Burning fossil fuel should be a thing of the past, cheers
Actually it was the data from the three days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that really got people worried. Merely one cause of Global Dimming was virtually eliminated...... commercial air traffic.... and temperatures were up by about one degree during those three days until normal flight patterns got going again. One nation on earth has experienced COOLING in their climate since 1950..... that same nation led the world in a combination of planting trees and in large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture, reforestation projects.... as well as for towns. That nation was Israel. (China has planted a greater sheer number of trees but Israel leads when this is combined with large scale desalination). Taking arid land and turning it green sure seems to be the fastest acting method of climate stabilization. We know that it works in less than a decade but a carbon tax could actually take over a century to impact temperatures. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...rleans-and-florida-from-rising-oceans.300460/ The Sahara Forest Project...and saving New Orleans and Florida from rising oceans! Is turning deserts green a good response to climate change? No, only a carbon tax of some form will stop climate change! 2 vote(s) 7.1% * Yes, plants are both a carbon as well as a water sink! 11 vote(s) 39.3% No, we should never engage in geo-engineering of any form or shape, EVER!!! 6 vote(s) 21.4% * Yes, with one billion hungry, how can we go wrong by producing more food? 14 vote(s) 50.0%
Actually... I think I linked to the wrong one..... the Maldives Island study documentary is better in some major ways. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
I do believe that we are going to switch over to hydrogen.... hopefully within fifty years.... but we have to figure out an answer to rising ocean levels first......... The collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will cost trillions...... not merely billions......
An often overlooked problem in burning coal is radioactivity. Seems the coal has radioactive impurities that then get dispersed in a wide area downwind. Far more released than from a nuclear power plant (Nuclear plants release virtually no radiation). One of the most "DoubleSpeak" terms is "Clean Coal" - there is no such thing. Just dirty and dirtier. Coal is a fuel for the 18 century, not a fuel for the future.
Hi Dennis, had a quick read through. So while the planes were not flying over the US after 9/11, this scientist Dr. Travis reckoned it also showed in Wisconsin, some 1400 ks away. I remember due to 9/11 all flights were cancelled, but how many would have not flown above Wisconsin that day? It can't be that many to allow a rise in 1 degree C? Couldn't this increase in temperature had any other reason? I do believe that the best scenario for us would be to stop burning all fossil fuel, regardless. And not only because of lung deceases.... And yes I agree on hydrogen. We had some Merc buses in Perth in the mid 2000's I believe, as a test fleet and being propelled by hydrogen. Don't know why they stopped researching.... http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/news/media-statements/hydrogen-fuel-cell-bus-trial-draws-to-a-close The example of Israel with their reforestation program is good, although many nations do the same, except for those which do the opposite with their rain forests in particular. Honestly I think there are less forests and trees on this planet than 200 years back. And if you have ever cycled through a forest and straight after arriving in a build up area, the difference in temperature can be several degrees. That's nothing new, as I found out as a child on my pushbike. So I think we can agree on reforestation, but not on climate dimming. But what I also suspect is that we even don't know half the truth..... Anyway, cheers mate
There is going to be an epidemic equal to the James Hardy disaster Lung disease is the worst way to go
Roughly one fifth of CO2 rise is due to deforestation - and places like Papua will have lost 50% of its forests by 2020 This was one of the reasons why there should have been an international carbon trade - so that third world countries could be rewarded for NOT cutting trees down
Hmmm the new clean coal technology coming out of Japan looks a LOT different - very high temperature furnaces though. I would have to do some real research to post absolutes on this though http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...echnology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040
Hey Dennis, interesting post. What I understand is that CO2 and aerosols & other pollutants have different effect on solar radiation. One absorbs heat and the other reflects it back into space. So dimming simply counteracts effects of global warming it seems? Just from what I've read from article it doesn't suggest that burning coal is in anyway good but in the instance that the world can't control itself then burning coal is an inadvertent stop gap solution. As SW and others have alluded to, pollution will continue to pose significant health issues for humans, which is a given and is an increasing concern in the event of unabated dimming. So really the solution is still decreasing coal burning and increasing renewable energy. In turn we can gradually decrease other pollutants that cause global dimming, which pose major health risks. I'm trying to piece this together.
I smell something M2......I think it's BS. We have technology to take us into renewable clean and non intrusive energy future. Abbott and his cronies wound back the clock on our clean energy future and the renewable industry that would have made us world leaders in technology and innovation in green energy. I can't help but feel disgust for this egotistical filth who played with our future as a nation, for his own personal goals and subject moralistic motivations. I'd wanna do more than shirt front the clown.
That is exactly correct..... I really admire how Dr. James Hansen dealt with the serious cognitive dissonance here.... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html I believe that we are in a lot of trouble and I really cannot refute one major point made by one of the posters here who claims to have connections with Langley. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...erm-effects-of-climate-change-logical.454306/ Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical? I believe that the following statements are logical and accurate! I think that we desperately need to make some serious changes. Thread: Ignorance shown in my 2008 campaign, my apology to Ms. Elizabeth May! Actually I do believe that AboveAlpha is incorrect and there is at least one possible response to climate change that is known to work within one decade...... large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture, reforestation and for towns. A New Mexico biologist and coach has a response that is practical....and can work..... www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/ Carl Cantrell.
My ads: Coal - Formed when there were dinosaurs. Continue using it and we will follow the dinosaurs. Coal - THE fuel for the 18th century. Clean Coal - Just kidding, there is no such thing.
Why is the nation claiming to be the worlds best so eager to stay behind? Coal is the past, not the future... Regards