Latrobe Valley carbon capture plant opens | Page 3 | Scientific Discoveries and Advancements | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Latrobe Valley carbon capture plant opens
December 18, 2009
8:04 pm
Avatar
Tairaa
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2842
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Where is your scientific study that refutes my statements of fact.

It isn't fact just because you said it.

wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth

Which is more credible then you are, so now the ball is in your court.

Do you really think trees can tell the different between co2 that was created by a cow farting & the co2 created from the billions of car on our hi ways.

Do you really think that matters?

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

December 19, 2009
12:23 pm
Avatar
rath
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4297
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"Tairaa" wrote:

Where is your scientific study that refutes my statements of fact.

It isn't fact just because you said it.

wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth

Which is more credible then you are, so now the ball is in your court.

Your so right.

Wikipedia ....... a journal of international distinctions.

Wikipedia, is well known for only sourcing the most thorough' research & most skilled scientific minds.

Know wonder you have no idea what your talking about.

Wikipedia ............ πŸ™„ πŸ™„ πŸ™„

Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

Shame on you.

Next you'll try & quote me the back of a match book.

πŸ™„

Catch Up Tairaa.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1081

December 19, 2009
12:24 pm
Avatar
rath
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4297
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Deal to Save Forests Could Be Copenhagen's Bright Spot

U.N.-backed REDD program could mean billions of dollars for developing countries and forest communities as rich nations buy carbon offsets to meet their emissions reduction obligations at home.

After two weeks of sometimes tense negotiations at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, one bright spot has been support for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation.

For the first time in decades of international climate talks, an incentive to save tropical forests is on the negotiating table.

A U.N.-backed plan for "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation," or REDD for short, is designed to pay the poorer nations to save their forests.

Charlie Cronnick at the environmental group Greenpeace says it could be a very positive development.

"It can be a genuine contribution to the inevitable ongoing fight to protect the climate because what is absolutely certain is we're not going to get anything like what we needed out of Copenhagen," he said.

The program could mean billions of dollars for developing countries and forest communities as rich nations buy carbon offsets to meet their emissions reduction obligations at home.

But Charlie Cronnick says that for the project to be successful, it must be done the right way.

"There has got to be adequate funding," he said. "It has to respect the rights of indigenous people and protect bio-diversity. In other words it can't just be an excuse to cut down forests and put in plantations and things like palm oil or other monocultures."

Nick Nuttall, spokesperson for United Nations Environment Program, adds that policymakers need to also be careful that the project does not simply displace deforestation to areas not covered by the program. But for the deal to come into effect in the first place, a number of loose ends need to be tied up.

"The question is, you know, whether we will get a comprehensive package of various measures that are needed to get a deal here in Copenhagen. You know, we've got issues of financing, we have issues concerning REDD, we have issues of technology transfer," said Nuttall.

Nuttal says, however, that there is widespread support for the program among all parties concerned and it will move ahead in one form or another- as part of a Copenhagen deal or outside of it.

For the climate talks at Copenhagen that have been beset by complications, the REDD program could be a bright spot. Scientists say deforestation accounts for about one-fifth of the greenhouse emissions damaging the environment and the program could go a long way in tackling the problem.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/en ... 10462.html

December 19, 2009
7:01 pm
Avatar
Tairaa
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2842
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"rath" wrote: [quote="Tairaa"]

Where is your scientific study that refutes my statements of fact.

It isn't fact just because you said it.

wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth

Which is more credible then you are, so now the ball is in your court.

Your so right.

Wikipedia ....... a journal of international distinctions.

Wikipedia, is well known for only sourcing the most thorough' research & most skilled scientific minds.

Know wonder you have no idea what your talking about.

Wikipedia ............ πŸ™„ πŸ™„ πŸ™„

Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

Shame on you.

Next you'll try & quote me the back of a match book.

πŸ™„

Catch Up Tairaa.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1081

You are... Too dumb to mock. You just don't pick up on it... πŸ™„

I am AWARE of the mechanisms behind wikipedia, I said that it's MORE CREDIBLE THEN YOU. Which it most certainly is. If you would like to show me where 90% of CO2 is man made, when it is typically understood in the scientific community that in fact the opposite is true, then get on it! Until then you are simply wrong, no two ways about it.

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

December 21, 2009
6:50 pm
Avatar
rath
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4297
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"rath" wrote: Where is your scientific study that refutes my statements of fact.

"Tairaa" wrote:
I am AWARE of the mechanisms behind wikipedia, I said that it's MORE CREDIBLE THEN YOU. Which it most certainly is. If you would like to show me where 90% of CO2 is man made, when it is typically understood in the scientific community that in fact the opposite is true, then get on it! Until then you are simply wrong, no two ways about it.

Your always trying your best to avoid the issues art you.

You never answer the Questions or back up your unfounded claims.

You just avoid the questions by supporting your own statements.

πŸ™„ πŸ™„ πŸ™„

Im ((( shocked & horrified ))) at your inability to give any sort of argument that is even slitly based on fact, you just cant do it, can you.

"rath" wrote: Where is your scientific study that refutes my statements of fact.

Man up' already.

December 21, 2009
9:17 pm
Avatar
Tairaa
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2842
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Your always trying your best to avoid the issues art you.

No

You never answer the Questions or back up your unfounded claims.

Wrong

You just avoid the questions by supporting your own statements.

You mean, I support my argument. Which is not avoiding questions at all.

Im ((( shocked & horrified ))) at your inability to give any sort of argument that is even slitly based on fact, you just cant do it, can you.

rath wrote:
Where is your scientific study that refutes my statements of fact.

Man up' already.

You're a hypocrit, as I recall this is how it happened:
You said:

The co2 in trees is by no means natural.

Do you really think trees can tell the different between co2 that was created by a cow farting & the co2 created from the billions of car on our hi ways.

it does not work like that.

90% of the carbon in trees, is still man made.

With no supporting facts. So I said:

Show me your sources.
Oh, you've got none.

and,

Do you really think that matters?

Too which you reply,

Where is your scientific study that refutes my statements of fact.

SO that would be YOU, in fact, that's dodging the question and not supporting your arguments with facts.

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

December 26, 2009
5:06 pm
Avatar
Aquatank
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1060
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Figuring out the amount of man-made CO2 in plants is an iffy business.

According to this article ( http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_ ... from_space ) natural carbon sinks suck in about half of what we currently put out. Thats 1/2 of a .5 to .10 rise yearly. Lets say its half of .10 and call it .20. No you can use that as the the variable but then you have decided what year to start at, this is difficult since it has alaways been there since humans first started using fire. It should be at the point where made made CO2 exceeded the natural sink absorbtion. But since I don't kno that I'm going to say 100 years ago. That means the trees are 20%+- man made. But we must also remember that the .20 ansorbtion wasn't always .20 it grewto that point over many years so some years it was lower than todays.

But I'm guessing at something I think is iffy for a non research specialist to guess at and its a totally erroneous guess. Why? because its based on how much we put out not how much over all the plant takes in. Thusly its really 20%+- of 100 years Human made CO2 is in natural sinks.

Not To mention the viscious cycle is accelerated by the increase of Methane http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_ ... rise_again

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
120 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10314

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24915

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 9153

Posts: 124501

Newest Members:

imran, Roger Stankovic, Jason

Administrators: John Greenewald: 642, blackvault: 1776