Fossil Fuel Survialist Guide for the Sane

 
joeblack5
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri. Jan. 16, 2009 9:57 am

Post by joeblack5 » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 12:56 am

Hi Bruce, here is the origin and full information of your misguided story....
I assume you realize that ian pflimer and Thomas Gunn are on someone payroll.

Origin:On 11 December 2015, Facebook user Thomas Gunn spread a longstanding myth that volcanoes produce vastly more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activities, writing that a single volcanic eruption causes more than 10,000 times the CO2 emissions than mankind has generated in our entire time on Earth.

Similar claims have circulated for several years among climate change skeptics. In 2009, geologist Ian Plimer wrote in his book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science that "volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans," while others have revised the claim to state that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than cars do. While these latter claims are more reasonable than Gunn's assertion that a single volcanic eruption generates more CO2 than humans have in the history of mankind, researchers have found that annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions "dwarf" annual volcanic CO2 emissions.

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory explained how much CO2 is generated by volcanoes in a 2007 article:

Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

While 200 million tonnes of CO2 may seem like an extraordinary large amount, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found that the estimated amount of CO2 generated annually by human activity is 135 times higher:


 
User avatar
SWPaDon
Member
Posts: 9857
Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
Location: Southwest Pa.
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
Other Heating: Oil furnace

Post by SWPaDon » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 1:00 am

joeblack5 wrote:
SWPaDon wrote:OK, numbers have been found, but some of you may not like it.

CO2 output of Bituminous coal in Pa. is 205 pounds per million BTU's. It's 227 pounds per million BTU's for Anthracite.

I like it because it shows that anthracite is pretty pure and for that matter burns pretty clean.
Just have to burn a lot less..
So pay a little more for the future of your child's children and up with solar and wind, better insulation and more geothermal and electric vehicles.
It actually shows that Anthracite is producing more of that 'nasty, manmade global warming causing co2, that you were harping about. So now that you know how bad it really is, you should stop using it altogether............in the interest of saving the planet.

 
User avatar
SWPaDon
Member
Posts: 9857
Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
Location: Southwest Pa.
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
Other Heating: Oil furnace

Post by SWPaDon » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 1:10 am

I almost forgot, They were claiming that 'manmade global warming' was causing the antarctic to melt and the ice shelfs to break off. The 'volcanoe' talk reminded me that, that was a lie also. Like volcanoes in the arctic, they are wreaking havoc in the Antarctic also.: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/

 
joeblack5
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri. Jan. 16, 2009 9:57 am

Post by joeblack5 » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 1:29 am

Haha, LOL, yes I know Don, but there is nothing nasty about it as long as you accept the responsibility. That is why a carbon tax would be beneficial. I burn about a 4 ton a year, 4000 sqft house and 1500 sgft barn , rest is solar heat and 1.5 ton wood pellet in the living.

Do not want to pay more but innovation and progress would be well served by paying a fair share of carbon tax.

AND that is where the problem really is , it is just about money.

In the overall perspective of heating a house anthracite is pretty efficient, less polluting then wood , unless you use wood pellets, probably better then Natural Gas with all the leaks these guys have and a lot better then straight electric heat.

 
joeblack5
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri. Jan. 16, 2009 9:57 am

Post by joeblack5 » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 1:30 am

Hi Don I missed the vulcano talk where was that?

 
User avatar
SWPaDon
Member
Posts: 9857
Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
Location: Southwest Pa.
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
Other Heating: Oil furnace

Post by SWPaDon » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 1:45 am

joeblack5 wrote:Haha, LOL, yes I know Don, but there is nothing nasty about it as long as you accept the responsibility. That is why a carbon tax would be beneficial. I burn about a 4 ton a year, 4000 sqft house and 1500 sgft barn , rest is solar heat and 1.5 ton wood pellet in the living.

Do not want to pay more but innovation and progress would be well served by paying a fair share of carbon tax.

AND that is where the problem really is , it is just about money.

In the overall perspective of heating a house anthracite is pretty efficient, less polluting then wood , unless you use wood pellets, probably better then Natural Gas with all the leaks these guys have and a lot better then straight electric heat.
There is a line on your income tax form, where you can pay more taxes if you want, feel free to do so............don't include the rest of us in on your non-existent manmade problems.

 
User avatar
Formulabruce
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat. Feb. 02, 2013 8:02 pm
Location: in the "Shire" ( New Hamp -shire)
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harmon Mark 1 Goldenfire
Coal Size/Type: BLASHAK Nut and Stove size
Other Heating: Blower from a gas furnace if I need to move air, no heat

Post by Formulabruce » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 4:10 am

joeblack5 wrote:Haha, LOL, yes I know Don, but there is nothing nasty about it as long as you accept the responsibility. That is why a carbon tax would be beneficial. I burn about a 4 ton a year, 4000 sqft house and 1500 sgft barn , rest is solar heat and 1.5 ton wood pellet in the living.

Do not want to pay more but innovation and progress would be well served by paying a fair share of carbon tax.

AND that is where the problem really is , it is just about money.

In the overall perspective of heating a house anthracite is pretty efficient, less polluting then wood , unless you use wood pellets, probably better then Natural Gas with all the leaks these guys have and a lot better then straight electric heat.
CARBON TAX?? HAHA!! you are in the WRONG place to start that BS . This was last tried in Australia, in Earnest. It did NOT work, and the difference was miniscule at best, OH, and it darn near KILLED their economy... Did you know WHO gets Carbon tax dollars? I bet you dont.... You see the carbon tax is about MONEY, NOT a "replacement" for Carbon of any sort. I guess the "Guilty" feel better paying Other governments that have some so called "credits". I Really have No Idea why you burn ANY coal, the Guilt must be unbearable. Innovation and "progress" will and does happen with the chance at making money. The Govt already blew Mega MILLIONs on Solar and we the PEOPLE paid off congressional investors when they went under....
I am all for using what works best and is cost effective and efficient ( 30 lbs a day of coal in dead of winter) , but Carbon taxes are a free money give away. Reminds me of the UK based world Climate organization that LIED to the world about Global temps.
Climate change is NATURAL........La Nina IS almost in Place..... combined with Low solar activity, I predict you may need MORE Coal this winter....


 
joeblack5
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri. Jan. 16, 2009 9:57 am

Post by joeblack5 » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 8:22 am

Well Bruce, I would not see why I am in the wrong place to make that comment.
You are spitting a lot of misinformation about global warming. I have not seen any of your arguments supported.

Regarding the carbon tax:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
As you can see many countries with much better living standards then ours have Carbon Taxes.
Many countries like India and China have it .

Why don't you read up a little more about plimer and gunn first. And see if Abbot ( australia) still supports plimer theory about man made global warming ( he does not)

You first should get your facts right, then you talk about solutions.

I would agree with you that the carbon tax , as with any tax, could be used more efficiently.

 
User avatar
gaw
Member
Posts: 4437
Joined: Fri. Jan. 26, 2007 2:51 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Stoker Coal Boiler: Keystoker KA-6
Coal Size/Type: Rice from Schuylkill County

Post by gaw » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 9:16 am

Maybe this has been posted before.


 
User avatar
SWPaDon
Member
Posts: 9857
Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
Location: Southwest Pa.
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
Other Heating: Oil furnace

Post by SWPaDon » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 9:43 am

joeblack5 wrote:You first should get your facts right, then you talk about solutions.
average atmospheric CO2 saturation is 401ppm in 2016. Pre industrial levels at 280ppm:
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm

The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant production causes a "CO2 depletion" to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food production.

http://www.naturalnews.com/039720_carbon_dioxide_myths_plant_nutrition.html#ixzz4QYlXBUWZ

Minimum concentration in PPM to support plant life varies from 185 ppm to 225 ppm:
http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/29943/whats-the-o ... oxide-need

Given this information, and knowing that plants give provide the oxygen that keeps you alive, as well provide food to keep you alive, you need to answer the question previously asked................ Just how low do you want the CO2 levels to go, Sir?

Although I do like the site you referenced for 'carbon tax schemes' :rofl:

 
rberq
Member
Posts: 6445
Joined: Mon. Apr. 16, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Central Maine
Hand Fed Coal Stove: DS Machine 1300 with hopper
Coal Size/Type: Blaschak Anthracite Nut
Other Heating: Oil hot water radiators (fuel oil); propane

Post by rberq » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 10:02 am

Formulabruce wrote:Volcanoes POLLUTE Big Time.
Mt. Etna eruption produced 10,000 times as much CO2 as man has in his entire history
joeblack5 wrote:… the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found that the estimated amount of CO2 generated annually by human activity is 135 times higher
Fake news, like the Mt. Etna thing, is so catchy and so easy to distribute these days, that decisions based on science are doomed whenever science conflicts with somebody’s pocket book. :(

 
rberq
Member
Posts: 6445
Joined: Mon. Apr. 16, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Central Maine
Hand Fed Coal Stove: DS Machine 1300 with hopper
Coal Size/Type: Blaschak Anthracite Nut
Other Heating: Oil hot water radiators (fuel oil); propane

Post by rberq » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 10:12 am

SWPaDon wrote:The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels ...
Other things being equal.
That phrase should be added to your statement that food crops would grow faster.
That is, crops would grow faster with more CO2 if they had equivalent water and temperature and breezes and soil conditions, all of which will be affected by rising temperatures. You can put all the CO2 you want in Death Valley, and still find your string beans don't grow well.

 
joeblack5
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri. Jan. 16, 2009 9:57 am

Post by joeblack5 » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 10:39 am

Yes the well known Mr Giaever who is on the payroll of Heartland institute :
wikipedia:
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2]:233–34[3] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[4][5] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[6] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[7]

Study up on Mr Giaever who is a pretty smart cookie, unfortunately his field of exertise in 1960 was physics. Together with his choice of being paid by unethical folks like the heartland put him not in the row of peopel who have anything usefull to say about global warming.

On 13 September 2011, Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position.
The APS Fellow noted: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"[14]

 
User avatar
warminmn
Member
Posts: 8110
Joined: Tue. Feb. 08, 2011 5:59 pm
Location: Land of 11,842 lakes
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Junior, Efel Nestor Martin, Riteway 37
Coal Size/Type: nut and stove anthracite, lignite
Other Heating: Wood and wear a wool shirt

Post by warminmn » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 10:44 am

All this climate talk is making me eyeball my junk tires for heating use. :)

 
User avatar
SWPaDon
Member
Posts: 9857
Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
Location: Southwest Pa.
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
Other Heating: Oil furnace

Post by SWPaDon » Sun. Nov. 20, 2016 10:51 am

rberq wrote:
SWPaDon wrote:The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels ...
Other things being equal.
That phrase should be added to your statement that food crops would grow faster.
That is, crops would grow faster with more CO2 if they had equivalent water and temperature and breezes and soil conditions, all of which will be affected by rising temperatures. You can put all the CO2 you want in Death Valley, and still find your string beans don't grow well.
So you are saying that warmer weather means less percipitation. And I suppose you will want me to watch Al Gore's documentary ( which by the way has been banned in the UK) as proof of this non-existant claim you are making?

And I'll ask you the same thing.............just how low do you want the atmospheric CO2 to be, knowing that your very existence depends on those plants that people like you are trying to kill?


Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”