+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12123
Total Topics: 254
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi  (Read 958 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #105 on: April 02, 2019, 09:17:42 pm »




« Last Edit: May 05, 2019, 07:33:21 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #106 on: May 05, 2019, 06:23:02 pm »
Hey Surly, check this out!

I didn't do a thing but this pops up above the subject line:

Quote
Warning: topic is currently/will be locked!
Only admins and moderators can reply.

It looks like our Hydrocarbon Hellspawn friends are having some more "fun" with this forum.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #107 on: May 05, 2019, 06:34:42 pm »
Since a hacker has locked the "Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions" topic so only Admins can post on it, I am starting a new topic thread with a slightly modified name.

NOTICE TO THE HACKER: I will do this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN until you get tired of your fun and games. If you persist with your folly, you will leave a track record and the big dogs at Create-A-Forum will ruin your fun and games, so NOW!

Have a nice day, Mr. Bought and Paid for 🐒 TOOL of the 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Fossil Fuel Government.










« Last Edit: May 05, 2019, 07:37:48 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #108 on: May 05, 2019, 06:58:42 pm »

The Origins of Venezuela’s Economic Crisis

April 2, 2019


Venezuela has become a popular argument against socialism amongst conservatives because of the deep economic crisis it is currently traversing. Defenders of the Bolivarian project, though, say that US sanctions and economic war are to blame for the crisis. Greg Wilpert presents an analysis that tries to take all the factors into account

https://therealnews.com/stories/the-origins-of-venezuelas-economic-crisis


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #109 on: May 05, 2019, 07:01:41 pm »
Burning Up: A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption ”A book by Simon Pirani

APR 05, 2019| BOOK REVIEW

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #110 on: May 05, 2019, 07:02:51 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

April 11, 2019

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #111 on: May 05, 2019, 07:03:34 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


Chevron’s Fig Leaf Part 4: Carbon Engineering’s Only Market Is Pumping More Oil  >:(

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:

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 their 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.

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!

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!


Let's stop being crazy and stupid. Let's GO WITH A PROVEN BIOLOGICAL CO2 reducing solution.




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):


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! ☠️ 😱


 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #112 on: May 05, 2019, 07:04:19 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

April 20th, 2019 by Michael Barnard

Chevron’s Fig Leaf Part 5: Who Is Behind Carbon Engineering, & What Do Experts Say?

SNIPPET:

But there’s more about Dr. Keith . 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 😀): 

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?"

That one is easy!


Recent photo of Dr, Keith 🙊 taken after meeting with Fossil Fuel Industry representatives advocating Carbon "Capture & Sequestration"  😉:

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:


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).


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:
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #113 on: May 05, 2019, 07:05:10 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

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.

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

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 Snřhvit 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? Or does that look like PR dollars for social license to continue to pump oil?

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.

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

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 and his hydrocarbon industry well funded pals could, maybe, come 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.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #114 on: May 05, 2019, 07:05:46 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: As I have said for YEARS, the old, "We are all in this together (i.e. we are all "equally to blame" for the biosphere damage and "must share equally" the costs of mitigation )" TRICK is the BIG PLAN of the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn AND polluter pals everywhere.

April 26, 2019

History Of Denial Belies Present Day Position of Nat’l Assoc of  Manufacturers

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 climate liability lawsuits 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.

https://mailchi.mp/climatenexus/doi-shelves-offshore-drilling-plans-pipeline-giant-tries-to-take-on-the-internet-more?e=0fd17c5b57

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #115 on: May 05, 2019, 07:06:22 pm »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #116 on: May 05, 2019, 07:07:04 pm »

Yep. 😈👹💵🎩🏴‍🚩☠️

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #117 on: May 05, 2019, 07:07:49 pm »
May 3rd, 2019 by Nexus Media  Don't miss the Agelbert comments! 

 



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #118 on: May 05, 2019, 07:08:23 pm »
May 3rd, 2019 by Nexus Media  Don't miss the Agelbert comments! 

 

What could possibly go wrong?
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21807
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Evil Actions
« Reply #119 on: May 05, 2019, 07:08:52 pm »
May 3rd, 2019 by Nexus Media  Don't miss the Agelbert comments! 

 

What could possibly go wrong?

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.

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.


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.

[/center]


An enormous waterfall gushes off the Nansen Ice Shelf. Credit: Jonathan Kingslake




Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Flight by ZaymondRig
May 19, 2019, 11:59:13 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 19, 2019, 08:23:44 am

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
May 18, 2019, 05:38:41 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
May 18, 2019, 01:01:27 pm

Viruses of the Mind by AGelbert
May 17, 2019, 11:02:29 pm

The Anti-Democratic Elite Fix Was IN From The Very Start of the USA by AGelbert
May 17, 2019, 10:28:49 pm

Genocide by Surly1
May 16, 2019, 09:07:47 am

Global Warming is WITH US by Surly1
May 16, 2019, 07:39:36 am

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
May 15, 2019, 05:29:08 pm

Carbon Neutral Buildings by AGelbert
May 15, 2019, 04:23:03 pm