Stanford scientists find the climate and health impacts of natural gas stoves are greater than previously thought

[Rigby5]

That argument logically makes no sense.

Let's say humans didn't even exist.

If the planet, through natural processes, started producing more Co2, then what, would that be bad? Would it then "accumulate?"

What if there were a particularly long stretch of droughts that caused a series of catastrophic wildfires around the globe, at the same time several super volcanoes erupted?

Then what?



I guess that is fine, because that would be "natural Co2," and the planet could tell the difference, right? It would maintain balance, as long as it is not human produced Co2.

Wrong.
There always are massive temporary CO2 sources and that is not bad because plants simply become more abundant.
It only when you massively increase CO2 continually, while massively reducing trees and ocean fauna, that there becomes a serious imbalance.
And if there were no humans, then I simply would not care if the planet heats up unbearably.
The only thing I care about is that massive heating from excess CO2 would cost human society, huge financial losses.
We would all have to move and there would be far less land mass to move to.

 

[MisterBeale]

Methinks that's already been happening to a degree Mr B

~S~

I know.

When ever the topic comes up, I ask them for last years break down of naturally produced Co2, versus human caused Co2. . . no one ever wants to give me those statistics, nor the significance of it.

Just that the planet can deal with natural Co2, but not man made Co2. . .

With out telling me why.

 

[Rigby5]

Who's going to handle the nuclear waste which has a half life of tens of thousands of years or longer. No one wants to deal with the waste from plants that are online now.

Nuclear waste is a fake issue.
Nuclear power plants do have waste, but actually LESS nuclear waste than was originally in the environment before it was mined.
So doing things like entombing it at old reactor sites, burying it in old mines, etc., is no worse than where it originally came from.
Nuclear power plants do NOT increase the amount of nuclear material, but actually decrease it.

 

[jc456]

Now they want to starve us? Take the cows the stoves, the gas! My stand is the same fk them

 

[Flash]

The global warming kooks are going to use this as an excuse to ban the use of natural gas. Just watch:

​

Rethinking cooking with gas | Stanford News​

​

Natural gas stoves release methane – a potent greenhouse gas – and other pollutants through leaks and incomplete combustion. Stanford researchers estimate that methane leaking from stoves inside U.S. homes has the same climate impact as about 500,000 gasoline-powered cars and the stoves can expose people to respiratory disease-triggering pollutants.​

​

Humans have cooked with fire for millennia, but it may be time for a change. Natural gas appliances warm the planet in two ways: generating carbon dioxide by burning natural gas as a fuel and leaking unburned methane into the air. A new Stanford-led study reveals that the methane leaking from natural gas-burning stoves inside U.S. homes has a climate impact comparable to the carbon dioxide emissions from about 500,000 gasoline-powered cars.​

​

This extra warming from home methane leaks contributes about a third as much warming as the carbon dioxide generated by combustion of the stove’s natural gas, and sometimes exposes users to respiratory disease-triggering pollutants. The findings, published in Environmental Science & Technology, come as legislators in numerous U.S. municipalities and at least one state – New York – weigh banning natural gas hookups from new construction.​

​

“Surprisingly, there are very few measurements of how much natural gas escapes into the air from inside homes and buildings through leaks and incomplete combustion from appliances,” said study lead author Eric Lebel, who conducted the research as a graduate student in Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). “It’s probably the part of natural gas emissions we understand the least about, and it can have a big impact on both climate and indoor air quality.”​

​

An overlooked contributor to a growing problem Although carbon dioxide is more abundant in the atmosphere, methane’s global warming potential is about 86 times as great over a 20-year period and at least 25 times as great a century after its release. Methane also threatens air quality by increasing the concentration of tropospheric ozone, exposure to which causes an estimated 1 million premature deaths annually worldwide due to respiratory illnesses. Methane’s relative concentration has grown more than twice as fast as that of carbon dioxide since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution because of human-driven emissions.​

​

While pipeline leaks of natural gas, which is more than 90 percent methane, have been studied extensively, natural gas-burning cooking appliances have received comparatively little attention.​

​

Over one-third of U.S. households – more than 40 million homes – cook with gas. Unlike other gas appliances, such as space and water heaters that are usually placed away from living quarters, cooking appliances directly expose people to their emissions, which can include formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and nitric oxides that can trigger asthma, coughing, wheezing and difficulty breathing, occasionally resulting in hospitalization. Hood use and ventilation help reduce concentrations of nitrogen oxides and other co-produced pollutants in kitchen air, yet surveys show that home cooks on average use hoods for kitchen ventilation only 25–40 percent of the time.​

If it was up to these Environmental Wacko kooks we would shut down everything in our economy, you know, to save the planet.

 

[Clipper]

Global Warming Hoax
Russian Collusion Hoax
Scamdemic Hoax

All designed to exert more and more control over people's lives by the Fascist Globalist DemNazi Master Race.

Scientists have been warning about climate change for over 30 years, before Russian collusion or the pandemic was even thought of, Tree Humper.

Have you been out to lunch all this time?

 

[MisterBeale]

Wrong.
There always are massive temporary CO2 sources and that is not bad because plants simply become more abundant.
It only when you massively increase CO2 continually, while massively reducing trees and ocean fauna, that there becomes a serious imbalance.
And if there were no humans, then I simply would not care if the planet heats up unbearably.
The only thing I care about is that massive heating from excess CO2 would cost human society, huge financial losses.
We would all have to move and there would be far less land mass to move to.

O.K.

I'll believe that paradigm when I see some data to back it up, and when the establishment decides to dismantle and stop the construction of government and international corporate data centers.

But? The whole global governance paradigm hinges on them.

So, the paradigm being wheeled out by the technocracy clearly has to be a false one. YOU are being gas-lit.

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III] - Wrong Kind of Green

"Social license is being harvested to reset the capitalist system – under the guise of a climate emergency and saving the planet. This we know: the planet will not be saved by those that have destroyed it."

www.wrongkindofgreen.org

If we stop the construction of the Data Centers? Then what the scientists, the corporations, the governments are saying, must be true. If we don't stop their construction. . . ? What they are saying has to be a bunch of gas-lighting and lies, it CAN'T be as dire of a situation as they claim, and control and power must be more important to them.

duh.

If you fail to think about this critically? Then you fail to think.

 

[Rigby5]

I know.

When ever the topic comes up, I ask them for last years break down of naturally produced Co2, versus human caused Co2. . . no one ever wants to give me those statistics, nor the significance of it.

Just that the planet can deal with natural Co2, but not man made Co2. . .

With out telling me why.

A couple billions years of evolution is why.
Plants and vulcanism have been in some sort of equilibrium for billions of years.

And again, it is NOT just our 35% increase in atmospheric CO2.
It is the fact we keep adding 5 trillion tons of additional carbons, PLUS the fact we are denuding the equatorial rain forests, and killing continental shelf fauna with pollution.
The massive recent human cause imbalance is from massive changes in both sides of the equation, not just more CO2.
But the problem is not static and we are constantly increasing the CO2 concentration.
Then we will start causing an massive increase in water vapor and methane in the atmosphere as well.
It will accelerate and rapidly accumulate heat.
There is massive positive feedback potential, the exact opposite of the equilibrium that existed before.

The Carbon Cycle: Sources and Sinks

Exploring the Environment - Global Climate Change (ETE-GCC) Modules developed by the Center for Educational Technologies at Wheeling Jesuit University includes six new global climate change problem-based learning modules funded through a cooperative agreement with NASA. The ETE-GCC modules are...

ete.cet.edu

 

[22lcidw]

If living in cold, I want heat for comfort. In everything they do, Progs cause misery. Water, energy, transportation and more.

 

[Rigby5]

O.K.

I'll believe that paradigm when I see some data to back it up, and when the establishment decides to dismantle and stop the construction of government and international corporate data centers.

But? The whole global governance paradigm hinges on them.

So, the paradigm being wheeled out by the technocracy clearly has to be a false one. YOU are being gas-lit.

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III] - Wrong Kind of Green

"Social license is being harvested to reset the capitalist system – under the guise of a climate emergency and saving the planet. This we know: the planet will not be saved by those that have destroyed it."

www.wrongkindofgreen.org

If we stop the construction of the Data Centers? Then what the scientists, the corporations, the governments are saying, must be true. If we don't stop their construction. . . ? What they are saying has to be a bunch of gas-lighting and lies, it CAN'T be as dire of a situation as they claim, and control and power must be more important to them.

duh.

If you fail to think about this critically? Then you fail to think.

Not true.
The electrical demands of computers diminish all the time.
It was the old mainframe computers that used the most electricity.
Modern computers like a smartphone are more powerful and use a tiny fraction of the electricity.
Data centers do not use much electricity, and use less every year.

Bitcoins is not a useful data center.
It is new, wasteful, and foolish most likely.
There is no need for bitcoin.

 

[Rigby5]

If living in cold, I want heat for comfort. In everything they do, Progs cause misery. Water, energy, transportation and more.

Heat means less rain, less plant growth, less food.
If nothing else it means moving away from the coasts, as oceans can rise as much as 250'.

 

[bripat9643]

There is lots of ground to cover but I'm content to just accept that you accept that your graph might not be accurate.
My main premise is that deforestation continues, albeit it may be at a reduced rate in 2021?

No it doesn't, moron. I already posted the evidence that deforestation has been reversed.

Does that contribute to a rise in CO2? We are agreed that it does and the rise is recorded.

Does more manmade CO2 contribute to climate change? That's a very detailed discussion that you may be interested in debating further.

I'm not a climate scientist or a climate expert, and I'm assuming that you aren't either. My argument will therefore need to be based on the opinions of mainstream science.

What you mean is it has to based on sources that confirm your prejudices. You're a typical brainwashed leftwing minion wearing the normal blinders.

 

[bripat9643]

Heat means less rain, less plant growth, less food.
If nothing else it means moving away from the coasts, as oceans can rise as much as 250'.

Wrong. A warmer climate is a wetter climate with more plant growth producing more food.

All of Antarctica would have to melt for the oceans to rise 250 ft, and the odds of that happening are indistinguishable from zero

 

[bripat9643]

Who's going to handle the nuclear waste which has a half life of tens of thousands of years or longer. No one wants to deal with the waste from plants that are online now.

You said the key point: The left-tards in the world don't want to do it. Rational people understand that it can easily be dealt with. France is running on 70% nuclear. If they can do it, why can't we?

You prog morons behave as if you believe the waste is going to climb out the ground and chase you down.

 

[Rigby5]

No it doesn't, moron. I already posted the evidence that deforestation has been reversed.



What you mean is it has to based on sources that confirm your prejudices. You're a typical brainwashed leftwing minion wearing the normal blinders.

I don't think reforestation has at all been reversed.
The US tries to encourage it and we may be successful, but equatorial rain forest is far more significant, and slash and burn there is still the norm.
There is also a serious concern over the the ocean faun on the continental shelfs that absorb carbon.
They are being poisoned by pollution and killed by warming that causes higher water temperature and increase acidity.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong.
Go look Karl Marx.
His main motivation was to stop the economic slavery created by the industrial revolution making almost all cottage industries obsolete.
If you actually read what he wrote, he favored Anarchism for the political structure, where "the state would whither away and die".

{...
With the withering away of the state there will be no police force or army or any agency to suppress the proletarians. The withering away of state according to Marx and Engels is inevitable. The proletarians will overthrow the bourgeoisie from power which means an end of bourgeois rule and disintegration of state machinery.
...}

Withering Away of State: Meaning, Engels, Lenin and Stalin’s View (with Evaluation)

ADVERTISEMENTS: This article provides an overview on Withering Away of State:- 1. Meaning of Withering Away of State 2. Engels’s Version of Withering Away of State 3. Lenin’s Interpretation 4. Stalin’s Explanation 5. Evaluation. Meaning of Withering Away of State: The two models of Marxist...

www.politicalsciencenotes.com

Marx did not at all believe in the centralized state of Stalinism in any way.

Somehow the state never withers away when the communists are running things.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think reforestation has at all been reversed.
The US tries to encourage it and we may be successful, but equatorial rain forest is far more significant, and slash and burn there is still the norm.

NASA believes it is. Argue with them.

There is also a serious concern over the the ocean faun on the continental shelfs that absorb carbon.
They are being poisoned by pollution and killed by warming that causes higher water temperature and increase acidity.

What the hell is "ocean faun?" If you meant "fauna," then you used the wrong term. "Fauna" is animals, not plants. America's rivers have mostly cleaned up. Water pollution is not much of a problem anymore, at least not in the advances industrial countries. Rivers in third world countries are another matter, however.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong. A warmer climate is a wetter climate with more plant growth producing more food.

All of Antarctica would have to melt for the oceans to rise 250 ft, and the odds of that happening are indistinguishable from zero

No, warmer is almost always much drier, like the Sahara used to be cooler swamp.
Warmer produces high pressures that repel low pressures off the oceans and carrying moisture.

But yes, 250' is the max, if all ice melts.
And it not only could happen, but almost has to at this point.
We likely have passed the point it could have been stopped.
We already are seeing Siberian frozen methane being released in massive amounts, and methane is over 20 times the greenhouse gas, heat accumulator.

 

[Rigby5]

Somehow the state never withers away when the communists are running things.

Communists have NEVER run any government.
They only run families, tribes, monasteries, kibbutzim, etc.
Lenin and Stalin murdered all the communists in Russia.

 

[bripat9643]

No the argument that we only have to deal with human created CO2 does NOT require the planet telling the difference between natural and artificial CO2.
The point is the whole planet, including humans, adapted to the natural CO2 level and that causes no problem.
That is constant.
There is equilibrium, so the result does not change.

The problem is only the recent increase in CO2 in the last 100 years, that is beyond equilibrium and therefore ACCUMULATING.
That has increased the CO2 % in the atmosphere by over 35%.

Normally levels of CO2 are good.
We do not want the planet to be 100 degrees colder and 40 degrees colder at night.
Warm and consistent are good.
But if the frozen ocean bottoms and currently frozen tundra warm enough to release their greenhouse gases, then a runaway race condition of positive feedback, could end most life on the whole planet.

The natural CO2 level changes all the time. It's been getting lower for thousands of years to the point where plants can barely live on what exists now.