How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Thats pretty cool(the vid) and Ive never seen that before.
Where I was not much rotted so I dont think there would have been too much methane build up especially with the water near zero all the time.
Could that methane have come from a coal seam under the lake or is it all from rotting vegetation?
Nope. Under the organic matter sits the worlds hardest granite.
I've looked into harvesting that resource to run my LF 70's.
It is complex but can be done. You need a gas dryer and a tank array.
Until the price of the tanks come down in price and weight (especially weight) will potential be reached.
You mean the Canadian shield?:x
I use to curse that stuff,especially the rose granite which the crusher could barely scratch.
Not much rotted where I was,you could drink the water allmost anywhere and the only way the tundra got contaminated is if someone walked on it and crap came off their boots.There was a few places the Innuit wouldnt let you walk because the caribou would pick up some kind of hoove disease and it came off the hunters kamiks or so I was told.
The "sheild" indeed. When someone asks me if "working underground is scary", I say "you tell me, you live under a wooden roof".
I've spent the last 6 years mainly drilling from 58 degrees north to 300-400km past the treeline where the lignus overburden is 20m thick in spots. Year by year the thickness of the permafrost that traps in the gasses has been getting thinner and thinner.
I'm sorry if I'm not helping in deunking the myth but I see what I see and it is drastic.
Oh yeah...speaking enviro impact and the locals. There is another nasty gas sitting below that frost with the capability of wiping out large areas.
Radon.
The best is yet to come....
Radon.
The best is yet to come....
petros:
Beat me to it, there is so much that it "methane" could be a global killer. Radon is localized.
Beat me to it, there is so much that it "methane" could be a global killer. Radon is localized.
I'd hate to be a in a low area when the radon does come up. People tend to live in valleys.
The deniers can scoff all they want.
I know how my industry has changed in massive ways because of warming and I know the change is long from over.
The deniers can scoff all they want.
I know how my industry has changed in massive ways because of warming and I know the change is long from over.
I agree,the permafrost is very delicate,while it never melted under the grass where I was at if you scraped back the shrubs so that the brown dirt showed it was a matter of minutes before it would start melting.When the inspector told us our blasting shack had to be a mile from camp we dragged it there,on the way back there was 2 streams flowing where the skids dragged and the lake was allready silting.
Glad I wasnt running that show at the time.8O The head enviro engineer flew all the way from montreal to see that one.
I also spent 7 weeks trying to scrape the permafrost to bedrock for a million gallon fuel tank to sit on.Now that was painfull,I got about an inch scraped off every day and finally we just blasted it.I think our drillers said they had permafrost down to about 150 feet doing core samples.
Its a whole different environment thats for sure,nothing at all like the south here and any small change would be very noticeable.
I dont think its a matter of ice in the arctic melting,it does that every summer but more of it melting sooner or faster and that would lead to the top layer of permafrost getting more sunlight which might bring different plant species and change maybe the habitat and acidity levels in the waters and who knows what else?
I see a lot of the hysteria though from peeps trying to make a buck off it and that pisses me off.
Anywhere theres rotting vegetation or coal there is methane.My municipality has over 3000 miles of tunnels and shafts under it from the coal days and quite a few houses had to be destroyed because of the methane seeping into their house.
The past 5 years has been hit and miss for ice roads. My air bills have gotten frightening.
Those 150m cores may still be frozen but I'll tell you this from experience, they aren't has hard as they once were and the crystal structure is changing. It's not as simple as saying "it's frozen to 150m".
I know the 4 years I was there the ice stayed the same and winter came the end of september like clockwork.I stayed as far away from the boart guys as I could,most were half crazy.:lol:
They were drilling gold samples and not ice so thats just one thing they allways had to tell you before flying out to the drill,how deep it was froze.
This was quite far north though and we were running 50 ton cat trucks loaded with sand from an esker on our ice road,it was 8 feet thick at the thinnest spot.
About 3 times thicker then the stuff they drive on in ice road truckers(love that show).
Why do you think it's called "over BURDEN"? Of course we'll bitch about the ugly **** beast that guards the treasure and metres per day that pays money.
I've worked from Axel on down. There has been obvious surface changes that far up but when it comes to the southern end of the arctic the changes are reaching far below surface.
I've worked from Axel on down. There has been obvious surface changes that far up but when it comes to the southern end of the arctic the changes are reaching far below surface.
Unbe-phukking-lievable.
October 27, 2009
Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
October 27, 2009
Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
Isn't this chief Lord Stern the same guy that says we should eat our pets
to save the planet due to a pet's environmental footprint? That we should
all be keeping herbivores (& not carnivores like cats or dogs) that we can
communally share (further reducing a pet's carbon footprint) and then we
should periodically eat our herbivore pets (hamsters & rabbits & chickens)?
to save the planet due to a pet's environmental footprint? That we should
all be keeping herbivores (& not carnivores like cats or dogs) that we can
communally share (further reducing a pet's carbon footprint) and then we
should periodically eat our herbivore pets (hamsters & rabbits & chickens)?
If you look so innocent, it is because Lord requires that animals as pets be loved by humans. It was the gods whom originally require from humans that they domesticate animals so that they can have readily familiar surrogates to perform sacrifices.
My Bad. It was some other Folks and this Lord Stern Guy quoted them:
Save the planet: eat a dog? | Stuff.co.nz
The couple has assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into
account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.
"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every
year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.
"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having
Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the
environmental impact ... is comparable."
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164
kilograms of meat and 95 kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square meters of
land to produce 1 kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed
Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000 km
a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One
hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-
footprint is 0.41 ha – less than half of the dog's.
They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15 ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen
Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014 ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to
owning a plasma TV.
Save the planet: eat a dog? | Stuff.co.nz
The couple has assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into
account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.
"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every
year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.
"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having
Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the
environmental impact ... is comparable."
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164
kilograms of meat and 95 kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square meters of
land to produce 1 kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed
Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000 km
a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One
hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-
footprint is 0.41 ha – less than half of the dog's.
They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15 ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen
Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014 ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to
owning a plasma TV.