|
|
|
|
|
| | Interesting article about the godfather of global warmingPage 2 of 2 (1, 2) | Sort of? That sounds like waffling, rather than an answer.
Here's the thing about science, we're ALWAYS learning more. Things aren't always black and white - one cause does not always equal one result, and vice versa.
Really? How can you know that? The amount of energy involved in impacts of large extraterrestrial objects, or changes in the earth's orbit, or movements within the earth, or large-scale vulcanism, or the gravitational effect of the moon is so vast that it dwarfs anything man does. The Pleistocene glaciations resulted in very extreme changes in the earth's climate, and man's role in them was negligible.
I majored in Environmental Engineering, I've worked for 3-4 years in water resources and with numerous people who have far far more experience than me. My University Professors hold Ph. Ds and have published many scientific articles. All of this has pointed to mankind worsening climate change conditions. Remember, I said we weren't responsible for it - just that we've contributed to worsening the highs/lows.
What does that mean? You make the earth sound like a ship that was built to be seaworthy, but whose foolish crew is now pushing beyond even its robust capabilities. What evidence is there that someone or something built the earth to accommodate disruptions like those, or, for that matter, for any other purpose? The earth just happens to have survived for 4.6 billion years--not because of the way it was "built."
There's good evidence Mars has not accommodated the disruptions it's experienced, or at least not very well. It seems to have lost its atmosphere and its liquid water, and to very nearly have broke in two at some point. And facts like the existence of the Moon, the odd inclination of a couple of the outer planets, and the presence of an asteroid belt suggest some planets or planet-like bodies didn't survive at all. None of that had anything to do with people.
The Earth is built to accommodate climate change in the sense that anything that hasn't evolved to survive, dies. Planets are old, we are not. In a million years, Mars could be flourishing with life for all we know. Forests grew long before mankind inhabited this world, given that they act as a natural filter/absorbent of CO2, how can you deny the fact that we've reduced their numbers have not had an effect? If I remove a roof shingle from a roof, do you think it'll be as efficient when it rains? How about if I remove 10?
I wonder how you know how significant the effect of people on the climate cycle is. Are you a scientist?
I'm an Environmental Engineer and I agree with him. As do my coworkers and Professors who have far far more experience in the field.
True. The fracking solution is a trade secret, developed by research & development depts. of the energy companies, funded entirely by them. They spent the $$$ developing & perfecting it, & rightfully can keep it from the competition.
There's a difference between releasing the ingredient information and releasing the quantities of the ingredient information. The former is necessary for safety/regulation (see drugs and pharmaceuticals), whereas the other is something they're entitled to hold secret. If Mercury made your sausage taste better, do you think it's something that the company deserves to hold secret? No, because you'd be poisoned. Mind you, that was a rather extreme exaggerated example. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 6:41:46 PM |
Meanwhile, I've heard of people in W. Virginia who can ignite the water coming from their taps. The gas is getting into their groundwater.
Perhaps you don't realize that methane seeps , as well as petroleum seeps, occur naturally. That is how the world's first oil well was developed - Edwin Drake decided to drill on Oil Creek where the Native Americans had been using the natural seeps for hundreds of years..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well
Without being anywhere near any kind of well for hundreds of miles, you could have enough naturally occurring methane in tap water to ignite it. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 7:12:42 PM | SSC, yes I understand that methane seeps. And, don't get me wrong about my views on fracking.... First, as I said in a previous post we need the energy. Fracking seems to be a less destructive method of energy extraction than mining coal. And, the burning of natgas gives off less pollutants and is more energy rich than a similar amount of coal.
However, the fracking process is still a fairly new one. I'm simply saying find out what the future ramifications of this process are. Be more upfront about the chemicals used. And, control the processes used in fracking to ensure a minimal environmental impact. Hey, fracking could be the answer to our energy problems. Or, it could create a whole new set of them.... As this article states, do the due diligence. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/dukenvironment/f11/in-the-midst-of-a-fracking-firestorm | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 7:48:36 PM | | I agree, but let's see. Oil wells = 153 years. Fracking = 60 years. How much longer do you want to study it? I'm not being a smartazz, just wondering how long you would prefer to study fracking and its effects. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 8:04:55 PM | Did you read that link? Not just a question of study but finding proper ways of wastewater disposal and how to deal with incidents when and if they happen. Kind of like when there is an oil spill as in having a plan of attack in case of emergency.
That and being more transparent on what chemicals are used in the process. Something the article said that I did'nt know, The wastewater from the process is 20 to 30 times more saline than seawater. Plus, it contains radioactivity. They were injecting it into deeprock injection wells but they are filling up.
I guess I mean knowing how the process effects the environment and putting proceedures into effect to minimize the damage. More like implementation than study I suppose. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 8:07:16 PM |
Perhaps you don't realize that methane seeps , as well as petroleum seeps, occur naturally...
Perhaps you do not realize that there are people who have been affected by fracking and the practice of pumping chemicals into the ground is not a good thing for anyone other than the people making money from it.
Though if you feel so strongly that it is not a problem I have a friend that lives in Pennsylvania that would be happy to send you some of his tap water for you to drink. Now mind you if you have issues with barium, arsenic, manganese, and glycol compounds you may want to pass.
Articles like the one you posted are there to help governments reduce the powers of agencies that oversee these actions by spreading more misinformation and it is happening both in Canada and the USA as environmental agencies are losing their budgets and being cut. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 8:21:28 PM |
Sort of? That sounds like waffling, rather than an answer.
Here's the thing about science, we're ALWAYS learning more. Things aren't always black and white - one cause does not always equal one result, and vice versa.
Best answer to a dumb comment I've seen on this thread. Black and white thinking is a big problem with something as complex as an issue as this. Right now we have clues - best to investigate them, look at all the factors, trade these off, discuss them and come up with a best solution. This is what engineers and scientists do, rather than paint things as all good and all bad, as some folks, like politicians, like to do.
There's a difference between releasing the ingredient information and releasing the quantities of the ingredient information. The former is necessary for safety/regulation (see drugs and pharmaceuticals), whereas the other is something they're entitled to hold secret. If Mercury made your sausage taste better, do you think it's something that the company deserves to hold secret? No, because you'd be poisoned. Mind you, that was a rather extreme exaggerated example.
Full disclosure of the chemical formulations with easy access to information would be best in an ideal and honest world. Unfortunately, this has been tried and information has made its way into the wrong persons hands, such as competing companies. Chemical companies are uptight about their proprietary information being leaked out from their own customers to the competition. This leads to the corporate health and environmental officers having to guard it and only release safety precaution statements and vague ideas of content.
Its a tough dilemma to be in really. It relies on a lot of good faith , professionalism, trust and judgement. You can always be accused of reveling too little or too much.
Now if someone were to try to hide something bad or illegal in their chemicals from the authorities, they should be fined and beaten to the full extent of the law. Such behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible. It does the industry no good to have actors like this causing harm to people and the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, there are people always that are wankers. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 8:37:10 PM |
Though if you feel so strongly that it is not a problem I have a friend that lives in Pennsylvania that would be happy to send you some of his tap water for you to drink. Now mind you if you have issues with barium, arsenic, manganese, and glycol compounds you may want to pass.
Diclorothane, dibromoflouromethane, toluene bromoflourobenzene, acetylene, strontium,barium, arsenic, manganese, ethylbenzene, ethane, bromide, sulfur, lead, magnesium, cadmium, mercury, radon and glycol compounds are also in my water.....even traces of oil......as tested BEFORE any fracking took place. Typical Appalachian ground water that humans & animals have been drinking and fish have been swimming in for thousands of years.
These are naturally occuring elements that are present in ground water. They are all within safe limits, as they naturally occur. Even treated city tap water contains all these elements.
Without being anywhere near any kind of well for hundreds of miles, you could have enough naturally occurring methane in tap water to ignite it.
True. Deadly methane pockets have been released simply by drilling a new WATER WELL. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/29/2012 6:36:01 AM |
Perhaps you do not realize that there are people who have been affected by fracking and the practice of pumping chemicals into the ground is not a good thing for anyone other than the people making money from it.
Though if you feel so strongly that it is not a problem I have a friend that lives in Pennsylvania that would be happy to send you some of his tap water for you to drink. Now mind you if you have issues with barium, arsenic, manganese, and glycol compounds you may want to pass.
Perhaps YOU do not realize that I live in Pennsylvania, right smack in the middle of the Marcellus Shale, and I'd bet that I have done a lot more research than you have since it directly affects me (good or bad).
We also have coal mines and oil wells here, which can affect the water quality. I have always enjoyed my tap water no matter where I've lived in PA. The water authorities send out the testing results on a regular basis. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/29/2012 6:46:25 AM | ssc
imagine living in pennsylvania and drinking the water there
tsk
surely you should listen to the canadians who know ALL about these things in pennsylvania
shame on you missus
p.s. scottish tap water is the dogs bollocks
In 2010 Scottish Water carried out nearly 324,000 tests on water at treatment works, storage reservoirs and consumers' taps. Of the 155,302 tests on samples taken directly from taps in homes, 99.83 per cent met the standard. This compares with 99.78 per cent in 2009 and 99.14 per cent in 2003, the year after Scottish Water was formed.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/08/25101241
(saying that the canadians have not verified this report so it may be lies) | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/29/2012 6:51:08 AM | | I know, Vlad, I know...my bad...I only live here, so obviously a guy who doesn't even live in the same country (let alone the same state) knows a lot more than poor ignorant me. Guess I should just bow to his superior knowledge. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/29/2012 7:49:17 AM |
We also have coal mines and oil wells here, which can affect the water quality. I have always enjoyed my tap water no matter where I've lived in PA. The water authorities send out the testing results on a regular basis.
True. But others think that mining coal & pumping oil in the region were/are responsible for the multitude of those "poisonous chemicals" that are present in our regional water. That is furthest from the truth.
ALL OF THOSE CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS IN MY WATER SHOWN IN POST #33 ARE ALSO NATURALLY OCCURING IN COAL.Untouched natural coal seams blanket the entire region. Pennsylvania crude oil is also naturally occuring & abundant. Both that coal & oil are as close as only a few hundred feet underground, which is where our ground water supply springs from. These naturally-occuring chemical compounds found in naturally occuring & yet-untouched regional coal & oil deposits leech into the ground water supply, much the same as it has leeched for hundreds of thousands of years. They have nothing to do with present-day fracking, coal mining, or oil wells. They are all NATRUALLY within safe limits set by the EPA.
Our underground water aquifers flow thru vast untouched underground coal seams. Everything evil people associate with coal is part of the very ground water that us moronic, racist-a$$ed West Virginians & neighboring Pennsylvanian/Appalachian regional humans & animals have been drinking, fish have been swimming in, & trees have been absorbing for thousands & thousands of years.
The wastewater from the process is 20 to 30 times more saline than seawater. Plus, it contains radioactivity.
Not much different than the wash water you send down the drain after washing a load of laundry with typical laundry detergent that contains up to 20% sodium. Sea water is only about 3% saline. The radioactivity comes from naturally occuring in-ground radon, abundant in the Appalachian region, & also naturally occuring in its ground water & shale deposits. | |
|
| Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 4/17/2013 6:04:52 PM |
Every time a volcano erupts, it spews thousands more times the toxic ash and emissions into the air than all the factories and cars in the world combined.
If this is true then all the debate about global warming is out the window! | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
