It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A 2500 Square Mile Methane Plume is Silently Hovering Over the Western US

page: 3
44
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
More coal plants are the Way to Go




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Fracking is just one more reason why we need to do away with Big Oil and their devastation of the eco-system. Fracking is a hideous evil almost as bad as Dick Cheney.


You have a quick alternative that we can switch to over night and secure all the jobs that regular Joe's currently have?


You missed the point, our world is evil & needs to end. Starting with big oil.


Maybe you could start by removing yourself from the equation first?
a reply to: Eunuchorn


edit on 3-1-2015 by groundplant because: Didn't quote correctly



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: blackz28

What??



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: gamesmaster63

Do you understand the nastiness of the chemicals needed to create these solar panels?

I literally watched a semi-conductor plant rise from the ground up about a mile away from my old house, and my old marketing firm (which I did the design work for) had them as a marketing client. I asked how nasty those chemicals that would be stored in the multi-thousand gallon tanks are, and I didn't like the answer.

Don't pretend that the process to manufacture all of this tech for the pieces of this "green" energy aren't just as potentially bad for the local environment as fracking or old-fashioned drilling is. Just because you can't yet cite a history of things like chemical spills or groundwater damage from the chemicals doesn't mean that it's magically better than anything else.

The funny thing is, that Hemlock Semiconductor Plant just announced it's permanently closing its doors before the entire plant site was even fully built and functional. They claim it's because of China's cheap solar-power production. But keep in mind, the building of that plant destroyed 1,300 acres of farmland that was already in use. Don't forget the amount of fossil fuel used during the construction of the site, and the amount of materials used in the construction, and the amound of displaced animal habitats, and the amount of coal-powered electricity used over the last six years...etc., etc.

Many studies have proven the fact that, from start to finish, "green" energy alternatives are no more green than using fossil fuels. Increasing toxic-material production plants for these "green" technologies is no better than increasing power plants. One must be delusional to believe that.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

So what are the concentration numbers? The reason I ask is that concentrations that are 1% (for example) higher than normal could be described, using generic terms, in ways to generate hysteria and yet do not deserve much concern.

On the other hand, a plume of methane which amounts to 100 or 200% higher than norms would be concerning, and concentration levels of 1000ppm would be extremely concerning and worthy of much more hysteria than is being driven.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned about a high concentration of methane....



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: groundplant

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Fracking is just one more reason why we need to do away with Big Oil and their devastation of the eco-system. Fracking is a hideous evil almost as bad as Dick Cheney.


You have a quick alternative that we can switch to over night and secure all the jobs that regular Joe's currently have?


You missed the point, our world is evil & needs to end. Starting with big oil.


Maybe you could start by removing yourself from the equation first?
a reply to: Eunuchorn



Believe me, I wish I could.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am neither delusional nor stupid, I am looking at the long term. Yes, the construction of the solar panel arrays have potential environmental impact, but the long term continued acquistion and use of fossil fuels has a far greater long term impact than solar roadways. The majority of the manufacturing capability for the solar panels that would be used in the hexagons is already in place, so there would be very little need for new construction. Some retooling of glass plants and construction of the vehicles and equipment to initially place and then repair damage to solar roadways could be done in less than a year.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: gamesmaster63

The whole co2 hysteria really gets me. Totally exagerated and ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: gamesmaster63

Many of these plants are not of a size capable of producing the quantity needed for such usage.

Please don't misunderstand me--I think that with our intelligence and technology these days, there's no reason that we can't have something like solar roadways or bike paths, or just make solar-panel roofs the new norm in construction (or at least a cost-effective option).

I just don't subscribe to the guise that, from start to finish, it's so much "greener" than current technology. Eventually, I guess it could be come that way, but right now, it's not, and wouldn't be for at least a few decades.

ETA: Also, I'm a big fan of 'renewable' energy, like wind and solar and hydro-electric, but the problem is that wind and solar just aren't very efficient at producing power right now, or at least they're not as efficient as they need to be to fully replace fossil-fuel produced energy. But I would love to see us get there, just not at the expense of the taxpayer, and not on the backs of existant industries in the form of cap-and-trade legislation, which does zero in the long-term to reduce carbon footprints.
edit on 8-1-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Agreed.

I tend to view Earth as a whole system, much like the human body--it will find a way to balance itself out, just as the human body does with strep throat or pink eye. Sure, it may take a while, but it doesn't need the help of humanity as a doctor to do it, and sometimes the medicine prescribed would have unintended negative consequences.

Just like the BP oil spill...the lasting effect just wasn't there like the alarmists said, and surprise, surprise--it turns out that there were organisms that actually fed on the oil itself. It's almost like nature often has the answer without the intervention of humanity--whodathunkit?! The Earth will survive, regardless. CO2 will not affect it dramatically at all.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Here's the thing: The Milankovitch cycles have trumped greenhouse gases every time. If it were a football game the score would be Milankovich 80-0.
An Ice Age began with co2 levels at 4800ppm, vs our currently 400ppm. Periods in prehistory which experienced greater levels of life and diversity of life featured higher co2 levels than what we see today.

Co2 is not a pollutant. It is a necessity for life.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is VASTLY overstated. Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Co2 is most of the remaining 5%. Man produces an estimated 38 million tons of co2 annually. Nature produces an estimated 770 million tons of co2 annually.

Ergo, man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is roughly 5% x 5%. One quarter of one percent. Yeah, that is worth the hysteria.

In the past, when earth has seen the end of glacial periods, earth experiences global warming for a period of time. That warming preceded co2 rise on the curve. Global warming continues until a maximum is reached and then global cooling kicks in and eventually the glaciers begin to grow again.
All this regardless of what co2 levels are....

So...we have seen global warming since the beginning of the industrial age... Does correlation equal causation? Umm...no. We have seen a generally steady rise (with some notable exceptions) of temps and co2 levels since the beginning of the current interglacial period. Surprise! Wait...no surprise. All this has happened many times before.

Everyone knows the oceans hold co2...it is an accepted fact that when cooling oceans suck up atmospheric co2 and when warming they release (net) co2. Perhaps this simple phenomena explains why interglacial periods of warming begin when co2 levels are at their lowest and it isnt until warming has lasted 200-1400 years that co2 levels begin to rise. Not perhaps...pretty obvious actually.

4 of the last 5 interglacial periods saw temperatures rise to levels above what we are experiencing now. The remaining interglacial's max was about where we are now. One may assume that global cooling is just around the corner and anyone who thinks that 400ppm co2 levels will prevent global cooling is ... wrong.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I look at it like this...if you have a diseased limb, a festering poisonous puss filled growth under the skin let's say...it is necessary to cause some addition trauma to the diseased limb, in order to remove the poisonous growth.

We have to cut the skin, to remove the problem.

In case you didn't realise, the poisonous puss filled growth is Oil and the environmental damage we are accumulating by using it, and the additional damage to the limb, or the incision made to cut out the growth, is the additional environmental damage caused by the manufacture of the Solar panels.

If we don't cut open the limb, we can't eradicate the poisonous growth...if we don't eradicate the growth, we lose the limb, and eventually the entire body...IOW, you have to create a little damage, to prevent the spread of the poisonous growth.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Shhhh...You're making sense. We can't have that when discussing AGW issues, don't you know that?




posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Could you, perhaps, describe the "environmental damage we are accumulating by using it" in scientific quantifiable terms instead of just a generalized statement? I, for one, would like to take pot shots at your "data" with real, verifiable science that does not come from agenda driven websites.

I bet ya cant. I am betting you do not want to touch it with a 10 ft pole. You would rather just parrot the crap posted on agenda driven websites.




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join