Registered Members Login:
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

Reply to this topic

Greenhouse Issues, Deniers and Economics and Impacts
post Posted: Feb 8 2019, 06:00 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,455
Thanks: 877

Chinese methane emissions are rising at an alarming rate despite recent government regulations aimed at curbing the climate-changing pollutant, a new report has revealed.

A study released in the journal Nature on Tuesday shows a steady growth in China’s methane emissions, primarily from the country’s massive coal mining sector, undermining Beijing’s claims to be leading the world on climate change action.

“Methane emissions in China appear to be increasing, business as usual. We were unable to detect any impact of regulations on the country’s methane emissions,” the report’s lead researcher Scot M. Miller told CNN.

China is among the world’s largest emitters of methane. While methane is less prevalent in the earth’s atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it traps “28 times more heat” according to the Global Carbon Project.

In 2010 the Chinese government enacted a series of new polices requiring methane from coal mining to be captured, or to be converted into carbon dioxide. But scientists found that the policies had failed to curb overall emissions.
China’s annual methane emissions increased by 50% for at least five years after government regulations were passed in 2010. The jump is equivalent to the total emissions of other large nations such as Russia and Brazil.

CNN News

Why do Australia, USA, Europe etc have to not only reduce their emissions, but pay the rest of the world for the privilege courtesy of the Un Climate Fund, when the biggest emitter not only doesn't have to curb theirs, but merrily goes on increasing it?
Because its based on Politics, not science.


sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.
post Posted: Jan 29 2019, 06:15 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,786
Thanks: 3215

In Reply To: NPH's post @ Jan 29 2019, 06:02 PM

Yep fine,

thanks. Just digressing as it will be I suspect a driver in future investments as time goes on.
I note you didn't like the left leaning of my other stuff .... its where USA is going, thankfully I might add.

Trump merely exposed how uncaring and totally immoral the 0.1% are on most things.


All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.
post Posted: Jan 29 2019, 06:02 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 76
Thanks: 10

In Reply To: kahuna1's post @ Jan 28 2019, 08:17 PM

Mark, are you OK mate?

Said 'Thanks' for this post: kahuna1  
post Posted: Jan 29 2019, 03:24 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 6,966
Thanks: 2390

In Reply To: kahuna1's post @ Jan 28 2019, 02:45 PM

Come off it Mark
Permafrost is soil, rock or sediment that is frozen for more than two consecutive years. In areas not overlain by ice, it exists beneath a layer of soil, rock or sediment, which freezes and thaws annually and is called the "active layer". In practice, this means that permafrost occurs at an mean annual temperature of −2 °C (28.4 °F) or colder.

Active layer thickness varies with the season, but is 0.3 to 4 meters thick (shallow along the Arctic coast; deep in southern Siberia and the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau).

"Every long-term security is nothing more than a claim on some expected future stream of cash that will be delivered into the hands of investors over time. For a given stream of expected future cash payments, the higher the price investors pay today for that stream of cash, the lower the long-term return they will achieve on their investment over time." - Dr John Hussman

"If I had even the slightest grasp upon my own faculties, I would not make essays, I would make decisions." ― Michel de Montaigne
post Posted: Jan 28 2019, 08:17 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,786
Thanks: 3215

In Reply To: kahuna1's post @ Jan 28 2019, 02:45 PM

Hi Why only 200 million tons removed plating trees ... vs 2 billion ? One may have noted the apparent mistake in the above post. Or below in this case
Reason being is that trees die and rot or are burnt and capture of CO2 whilst good, is NOT forever and a cycle begins if we plant more trees, one that well ... goes round and round and actually unless frozen and captured or CO2 removed, the gain is not a lot about 2% ....

Do it grow something, capture pure CO2 and put it 2,000 meters into the ground and its gone for good, or a very long time if done well. there are better things than trees to capture CO2, best of all needs a lot of energy and unless cold fusion is invented, we will need a lot of different solutions from reducing emissions by man eventually to NET 25% then ZERO then going the other side and capturing for a long time the 2 trill tons we have sent by now then the 2 trillion of so frozen in the arctic and then add however much at 35-40 billion tons we emit from now on.
Daunting, but possible. As to the ocean and warming aspects, Coral is gone, forget even trying, what can hopefully be limited is acidification beyond a level too far beyond the 7.8 level which I suspect is 2060 or so v estimates of 2120. Just thought I would correct that, apparent error. Plant a tree is a good thing, but the cycle of life and CO2 life is what it is.

Take care Mark K

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.
post Posted: Jan 28 2019, 02:45 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,786
Thanks: 3215


I deal with realities, planting a hectare of trees removes 4 tons per year of CO2. Planting 1 sq km or 100 hectares 400 tons, with all available land pretty much under crop or pasture, if, and IF ... we planted 5 MILLION sq km of land ... deserts ... it would remove for about 50 years, a mere 200 million tons of CO2.

Yes a good thing, but I suspect something the guy you quoted is aware of the math. When we put 35 billion tons into the air each year, removing 200 million tons is, well .... good but ... NOT a solution. I am not hysterical as this thread suggests, just a realist. I do know there are better ways of removing CO2 and whilst trees, planting 5 million SQ km year one then YEAR 2 .... by year 20 all land ... ALL even the top of mount Everest would be covered at the end of the carbon cycle for trees they burn ... or rot and new ones grow up, its not captured forever. Even then 200 mill v 35 billion rising to 40 billion is ... well under 2% by 2075, is NOT a solution some seem to think r believe it is.

There is hope, a small window, depends more on Arctic Methane and its rate of release again NOT covered in any predictive model used by governments yet, sadly a reality.

As I said I try and deal with realities and eventually, whether via massive disaster which probability rises above 50% post 2050 to 85% if not 90% by 2100 of a global crop fail ... humanity, as we know it, changes, or does not. Davos forum did not deal with either tax theft, inequality or climate change and the Oligarchy meeting prior to it was, as per normal more concerned with ... their own issues. Me I am just the guy who, well .... writes stuff, checks projections and at times annoys the hell out of them via asking stupid but obvious questions.

I will not be around either way. I suspect I will see in coming years, a rising CH4 Methane count and exponentially rising one at that. First it heats at 26 times CO2 then via chemistry breaks down to CO2 and H2O but the breakdown rate already has gone 40% from a mere 20 years ago.

Sorry to be a realist, but when the things in the atmosphere that break down one of the worst greenhouse gasses become less and less, I do wonder is even my just assuming the rate of breakdown stays the same and the release is kept to say 100 years v what seems likely 20-30 ... in 100 years, humanity as we know it, around for 100,00 years or modern times say 2000 BC till now, an eye-blink geologically is in for an interesting 200 years. One which, WILL DEFINE us and likely, without early action, redefine the ability of this planet with an ocean so acidic that most life there stops by 2200 or so, heated to 36 degrees at the equator which the deniers seem to have forgotten the last time 65 million years ago occurred, its a race, for who or what survives post 2300.

Oh happy U tube on Permafrost with most of the guys I follow and have met, all ignored .... out of current models speaking on the topic. the best guy, from Oxford is NOT in there, he is more Melting Ice v Permafrost

I do what I can ... and thats, a fair bit.

For the first link ... the deniers claim ice is NOT melting and its NASA ... over 20 years of artic ice covering this Methane Bomb

the second one ...

well its all methane so to speak !!

why or HOW people deny this issue is not beyond me. Its all about self interest and money. Times are a changing. OLDEST PERMAFROST is actually over a million years old. I am not sure they mention the total number ... but its about 50 years of current emissions BUT ... at 26 times the impact due to it being CH4 first then ... CO2 ... Methane hits a lot harder in temperature change ... a well known and simple chemical reaction. So does 1,300 years or doubling of current CO2 impact anything happening in the space of 50 years ?

Yep inevitable as such, cant be stopped even if we tried right NOW ... we can Limit however the diabolical impacts, if we try. IF .... if NOT ... when DEEP permafrost is warming 1.6 degrees kelvin .... DEEP as in 200 meters deep ... stopping this, is not possible. Its changed already. What we do from here, as a species I will watch and try to change.

Enough sharing from me for a while.
cheers Mark K

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.

Featured Stock Stories

post Posted: Jan 21 2019, 11:00 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 6,791
Thanks: 2307

In Reply To: kahuna1's post @ Jan 21 2019, 10:55 AM

Climate Change issues are on top of this years global risks being addressed at Davos

Attached File  global_risks_2019.png ( 50.35K ) Number of downloads: 5

The complete 14th Edition of The Global Risks Report 2019 can be accessed here - >

The herd instinct among forecasters makes sheep look like independent thinkers. Edgar Fiedler

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

Said 'Thanks' for this post: kahuna1  
post Posted: Jan 21 2019, 10:55 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,786
Thanks: 3215


last post this thread for a while ....
The convincing argument of the main denier ... is a really good one ... he however is funded by the Koch Brothers and their Cato institute is so far of right its ... insulting.

His argument and it seems logical, seems convincing as do his qualifications, which. well my 2 pages of mish mash ...are irrelevant. Listen ... and make your own mind up ... OPEN YOUR MIND and dismiss clinically and impartially the crap or obvious.

His main argument is that, pre 1950, there was NOT enough greenhouse CO2 to cause the change. I agree. I totally agree. There are 10 or so ... well known reasons why ... we warm. Sun is number one ... number 2 is CO2 .... three is particles in the air .... four is OTHER greenhouse gases ... on and on it goes.

Something happened in say 1800 and we started burning fossil fuels ... but what this person deliberately misses is the PRISTINE nature of the atmosphere. For a million years, the earth cleaned itself .... not much volcanic activity ... every 100,000 years an ice age as the orbit of the earth around the sun HAD ITS WOBBLE ... a thing he ignores, either out of lack of knowledge or likely his employer.

This aside, in 1800 ... good Ozone ..., NO smog ... 240-260 million PPM CO2 ... same for other greenhouse gasses and the accuracy of the measurements via ICE core bubbles is beyond gold standard back to say 900,000 years ago !!

CO2 impacts at a level of 1 ....
Methane ... 26 times that with a thermal bomb ... until it breaks down into CO2 and H2O ... so what happens when you DIG UP COAL ? What is Coal seam gas made of ? Methane ...

Methane went NUTs ... 727 ppb in 1800 to 1116 ppb in 1950 or 389ppb at 26 times the impact of CO2 ... so ... well ... it must be added to the totals and its THERMAL boom ... is well known. All into a pristine atmosphere ... this added with the even deadlier Nitrous oxide via an impact 5 times even MORE than Methane and 125 or so times CO2 ... whilst in .... PPB v PPM or 1,000 to one ... well as agriculture advanced and well ... fertilizer occurred even by 1950 this had risen 10% or 25 PPB taking and stripping the ozone layer ....

then what happened ? OH CFC impact at well 23,000 times CO2 ,,,, even by 1950 .... **** the ozone layer one hand protecting us ... being stripped away ....

Of course it had an impact ...

Countervailing this ... NUMBER TWO impact on the global warming side is ... CRAP IN AIR ... particulates and by reflecting and blocking the sun ... by 1900 ... NOT much ... by 1950 ... A LOT ... and more so today ... thankfully shielding us. Yep smog is good ... not really but ... some solutions for the future will NEED to address this and more clouds and water vapor slowing a heating effect IS something deniers ignore.

Dig up coal .... METHANE explodes into the air as its released ... DERR ... or I would say that to the main denier who whilst sounds intelligent .. his denial, of what is pristine clinical data is an oversight. Lots of systems as you can see interacting .... smog and sun going a bit slower post 1970 .... limiting rise ... for now.

Enough. believe what you will.
Kiss your kids as their life, post 2050 will not resemble ours. Post 2100, well, with 50% plus of oxygen coming from the ocean and funny thing is ... It hates acid .... 20% of Protein and that's for 7 billion not 10 billion .... its going to be interesting as time goes on.

I can only, with regret, announce Humanity is technically extinct at this point. We however have a very narrow window, less than 20 years, even if one of my worst case things happens sooner rather than latter, its going to occur either way. And that I might add is without any other massive bad event we have seen in the past that alters CO2 quickly. Say super volcanoes and so on. We have enough to worry about even now.

Happy to join Stephen in this one along with 50,000 other scientists ... me I am just the guy they get to build AI and prediction models ... or more often NOT ... I build them anyhow and correct theirs or crap they put into them.

What is of NOTE is the TIPPING point .... where we can do something .... and likely ... Cannot. Or the pain of doing something exceeds capacity to do it. NOW ... if I had my way, painless economically and we the 95% or 99% would not notice it as our governments struggled and did the right thing for everyone. As we go forward and post 20 years ... no change ... the painless ... even possible ... passes.


Mark M

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: tombeet  
post Posted: Jan 21 2019, 10:53 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,786
Thanks: 3215

PS ....
Unless we go to actually near zero human CO2 by 2050, things are virtually impossible to alter in the future.

Stephen, who had a disease that afflicted someone I admired and loved and she was the bravest person I know, battling for 11 years to watch her son grow up as she battled ALS, Motor Neuron and Lou Gerhigs s Stephen had, I would prefer her son to live in a world without what is an avoidable end date.

Stephen, one of the most brilliant minds of our generation left us in 2018, he however had a view on this topic and whilst I DID NOT and DO NOT agree with his conclusions in total, his view was that in 400 years the planet would be an acid sea and 250 degrees C. Stephen is of course, Stephen Hawkin.

At the bottom of all this are mere chemical reactions, LAWS .... Scientific ones about energy in and out, or HOW certain compounds react, and then are broken down. If you don't like science, then Stop reading .

As to some of the more idiotic predictions of the past, and even now, sea rise and some from the 1970;s were, well ... stupid and the only way the sea will rise a lot is if the BIGGEST chunk of ice melts and that's Antarctica. Unlikely, I suspect in the next 100 years, the stuff on the actual land, but the fringes, yep .... sure ... but they are 15% of the total. Land actually rises or falls, so a rise in water v impact, without taking into account if the land itself is rising or falling makes even this seemingly simple thing extremely complex. Heating of water and its expansion verses, more evaporated due to higher temps, v A vortex effect as the earth spins, FEW take this into account with more water in the initial stages.

On and on and on these things go. But, in the end CO2 burnt for fuel, eventually breaks down. Since most don't know where the hell most oxygen comes from, or most heat ends up .... ITS THE BLOODY OCEAN ... I will be watching with interest a few things as time goes on. One is I suspect, impossible to avoid and will release 50 odd years of greenhouse gasses and I hope to hell its NOT quickly.

Others, seem to think planting a tree is the answer, or using brute force to capture CO2 ... which is in fact idiotic due to LAWS of science and the energy required is about the same ... if NOT equal to that expended in the first place, to turn it back into captured CO2.

As to tree.s and indifference and well .... lack of bothering ... until its too late ... is the end I suspect either way of humanity. A tree .... or a hectare at best absorbs 4 tons of Co2 per year ... one sq km or 100 hectares is .... 400 tons and at 33 BILLION HUMAN tons of CO2 .... ignoring the natural 23 BILLION tons the earth CAN handle and did so for millions of years .... absorb ... 23 itself ... its the 33 we NOW emit that is the issue.

With 50 million sq km of land used to feed us, even if we say planted 5 million of deserts in Australia out of the 7 million total .... needing to absorb say 33 billion tons .... its impossible EVEN to see 5 million sq km planted ... at 400 tons per sq km .... it would absorb ... gee ... all 5 million .... oh 2 billion pout of 33 billion JUST FOR ONE YEAR .... next year another 33 billion .... and so on ... and when the trees die ... the cycle STOPS .... or if they are burnt down .... its not captured other than short term..

There is of course a few solutions .... Green energy is actually LOWER COST than fossil fuels. LOWER >... NOT MORE ... some issues of course are the non sunlight or wind times .... but able I suspect to be overcome. Then again, the OLIGARCHY and their ownership of fossil stuff. prevails ... the need to immediately STOP this excess or reduce oit to 10% of what it is ... is of course possible without too much disruuption economically ... I even have a bloody solution. One the world is ready for ... but not the 1% or 0.1% ....

As to changes, they are set in stone ... some of them ... we cant go back ... its already out there. The solution is likely a few things and NOT what some of the PR Oligarchy types are pushing or pretending.

In the meantime, the Ocean is dead ... DEAD ... not much we can do about that. So too, whilst we hit 10 billion population, the likely-hood of a mass extinction event and starving of not million but billions post 2050 is well, over 50% even now, for me, its over 80% likely a crop fail on a massive scale hitting Africa and lower per capita GDP nations and their inability to pay MORE for food, will be an issue.

Oh bliss ... it is ... as to CO2 capture and NOT hitting 1.5 degree's by 2100, at this point in time I think its MORE not 2 degrees but 3 if not 4. Some serious things missing from the latest predictions out of 50,000 scientists and as a demographer and realist, two things hold the 2 -4 degree by 2100 difference and at 2 degrees ... by the way ... they all agree 80% likely mass crop fail .... the two more degrees have to do with what the bloody sun is going to do and I dont KNOW ... the last 30 years, despite warming 4% in 300 million years, the last 30 years have been a pause in its activity .... so does this change ? I d0ont know ....

A box of crackers for the other thing .... if you can name it ... and WHY its going to be a time bomb .... if it occurs.

As to reversing and trying to minimize some of the impacts .... tree;s whilst good, not the answer ... nor brute force massive energy requiring to remove and sequester CO2 ...

All however is an aside. ... seriously. One cannot compete with a billion dollar funded right wing think tank ... let alone 20 of them. All tax deductible .... best practice science is ... irrelevant. I own a coal mine or oil field ... Trumps ... hahah ... trumps all other issues. Economically things are a total joke and the COST of fixing this, is one that is ONE WHICH WILL NOT BE FELT .... well not by most. But for that to occur, a lot of things need to change and time is NOT something the world has.

enough .... I need to shoot my BB gun at the economic and global side .... in hopes it will change this topic.


All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: tombeet  
post Posted: Jan 21 2019, 10:51 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 2,786
Thanks: 3215

Oh golly ....
Gee and ... disturbing some stuff on here.

For education .... a very good, all be it a FEW ... ERRORS still in this guys video. Debunks some of the myths ... and deniers crap

Greenhouse exists.
Threat exists.

Deniers, public ones, three main ones, two funded by oligarchs, one a Nobel prize winner, but since I have quite often provided peer review on Winners scientific papers and at times, not kind. The Prize winner ... in physics who is a denier .... IS AN IDIOT. Paid for mind you. His knowledge is narrow AND whilst it sounds convincing, there are in fact around 10 things that change CO2 and its absorption. SOME happen like clockwork ... others ... not as such. But again easily verified via fossil records.

More modern denier is paid for via Koch Brothers, Oligarchy leaders and massive polluters ... and again, he sounds convincing ... but ignores ... totally so many things.

like trying to predict ... or prove something, there is as these de-bunkers TRY .... easy ways to shred something if YOU ... either don't include it .... or ignore it.

NOT EVERYTHING .... can possibly be verified via old records. WHY say an ice age occurred during a 2000 PPM CO2 level period 200 million years ago IF ... IF ... you ignore and both the main deniers ignore and DONT KNOW via sheer ignorance the SUN is 4% warmer NOW v then .... all be it the last 30 years ... its activity is LOWER than any time ... the SUN itself has bloody cycles.

The fact that the earth in its orbit around the sun ... wobbles .... and does so at measured periods ... in the last 1 million years via ice cores we see ... every 100k or so years .... an ice age as the Wobble in the orbit as expected reduces out put ...

Oh and 260 million years ago ... something formed ... as continents crashed into each other ... erosion itself is a powerful CO2 cleansing agent, but ... something formed ... capturing vast amounts of CO2 ending these spikes in temperature. Unlikely ever to occur again anyhow. I speak of course about COAL AND OIL AND GAS deposits .... as continents crashed into each other, often vast regions of vegetation, co2 holding pens ... were buried and turned over time into coal and oil deposit, AGAIN ... easily verified via fossils and examination of them.

Bother the seemingly credible deniers paid for by the far right .... seem to know little ... then there is some Lord who ... well owned a short shop and is a stupid idiot ... and then lastly ... the weather guy ... polished he is as a presenter ... he however left the weather channel well over 30 years ago ... his
background ... not that it matters ... is BA in journalism ... which in today's world gets one the UN ambassadors job at the UN .... but is NOT anything I would listen to.

His view that recent warming did not and has not occurred, is, well, thinking local weather is climate and with 20 people measuring temperature change in a serious way and since 1979 .... via satellite, the FACT is ... we are warming.

It is the RATE ... that concerns me. The population growth concerns me.

I have concluded, the ocean is DEAD and unless action well beyond proposed slowing of CO2 ... is not done, virtually all life in the ocean will cease by say 2200. Prior to that, well, a lot of things will occur.

I will not be around for them, but would prefer humanity to last beyond say 2300, but this seems unlikely.

Such is life and the needs of the few.
We can however change, but with the political side such as it is, oligarchy running USA and via default western society and we are leaderless .... change and massive change needed by 2040.

Not interested ... is the view of most. Indifference, until, well its too late. I mean not to scare anyone and some pretty absurd predictions have been made on this topic over the years. I merely join 50,000 scientists, and as one of the better builders of AI and projection models for the future, and the model I have post 2050, is alarming and by then, the possibility of stopping it after another 30 years at 35 million tons in excess ... of CO2, the planet cant deal with, well ... it is what it is ...

Take care

Mark k

All views expressed are my own opinions. While I take every care when posting no guarantee to the absolute veracity of the postings is given or implied. Please do your own reseach and consult a professional investment advisor before investing.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: tombeet  

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic

You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.