• Forums
  • Best Betting Sites
  • Sportsbook Promos
  • Best Sports Betting Apps
  • NFL Betting Forum
  • NBA Betting Forum
  • MLB Betting Forum
  • NHL Betting Forum
  • NCAAF Betting Forum
  • NCAAB Betting Forum
  • Soccer Betting Forum
  • Tennis Betting Forum
  • General Discussion
  • Help Forum
  • Guidelines
  • FAQ
  • Forum Updates
    Covers Logo
    Covers App
    Faster picks. Smarter bets.
    All in the NEW Covers App
    Download on the App Store Download on the Google Play Store
    • Sports
      • NFL
        • Back
        • NFL
        • NFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NFL Picks
        • NFL Prediction Prices
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NCAAF
        • Back
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAF Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NCAAF Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NBA
        • Back
        • NBA
        • NBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • NCAAB
        • Back
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • NCAAB Picks
        • Injuries
      • MLB
        • Back
        • MLB
        • MLB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • MLB Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NHL
        • Back
        • NHL
        • NHL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NHL Picks
        • Injuries
      • Soccer
      • UFC
      • WNBA
        • Back
        • WNBA
        • WNBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • WNBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • CFL
        • Back
        • CFL
        • CFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • CFL Picks
      • Golf
        • Back
        • Golf
        • Golf Home
        • Golf Odds
        • Masters Odds
        • PGA Championship Odds
        • US Open Odds
        • British Open Odds
        • Ryder Cup Odds
        • Golf Picks
    • Odds
      • All Odds
      • NFL
      • NCAAF
      • NBA
      • NCAAB
      • MLB
      • NHL
      • Golf
      • Soccer Odds
        • Back
        • Soccer Odds
        • MLS Odds
        • Champions League Odds
        • Premier League Odds
      • UFC
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • Election Odds
      • Futures
        • Back
        • Futures
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • MLB
        • NHL
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAF
      • Sports Odds History
      • Politics
        • Back
        • Politics
        • Politics Home
        • Presidential Election Odds
        • Midterm Election Odds
        • House Midterm Odds
        • Senate Midterm Odds
        • Texas Midterm Odds
        • Michigan Midterm Odds
    • Picks
      • All Picks
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • NHL
      • MLB
      • NCAAF
      • NCAAB
      • Golf
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • User Picks
      • Team User Picks
      • Consensus Picks
        • Back
        • Consensus Picks
        • All Consensus Picks
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • NHL
        • MLB
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAB
        • CFL
        • WNBA
        • Consensus FAQ
        • Public Money
    • Prop Projections
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • MLB
      • NHL
    • Betting
      • US Betting Sites
      • Canada Betting Sites
      • Sportsbook Reviews
      • States
        • Back
        • States
        • US Legal Tracker
        • Revenue Tracker
        • Arizona
        • Arkansas
        • California
        • Colorado
        • Connecticut
        • DC
        • Florida
        • Georgia
        • Illinois
        • Indiana
        • Iowa
        • Kansas
        • Kentucky
        • Louisiana
        • Maine
        • Maryland
        • Massachusetts
        • Michigan
        • Mississippi
        • Missouri
        • Nevada
        • New Hampshire
        • New Jersey
        • New York
        • North Carolina
        • Ohio
        • Oregon
        • Pennsylvania
        • Tennessee
        • Texas
        • Vermont
        • Virginia
        • West Virginia
        • Wyoming
      • Provinces
        • Back
        • Provinces
        • Alberta
        • British Columbia
        • Manitoba
        • New Brunswick
        • Newfoundland and Labrador
        • Northwest Territories
        • Nova Scotia
        • Nunavut
        • Ontario
        • Prince Edward Island
        • Quebec (English)
        • Quebec (francais)
        • Saskatchewan
        • Yukon
      • By Sport
        • Back
        • By Sport
        • Baseball
        • Basketball
        • Boxing
        • College Football
        • F1
        • Football
        • Super Bowl
        • Golf
        • Hockey
        • Horse Racing
        • March Madness
        • Soccer
        • UFC
        • World Cup
      • Betting Apps
        • Back
        • Betting Apps
        • Best Sports Betting Apps USA
        • Ontario Sports Betting Apps
      • Rest of World
        • Back
        • Rest of World
        • UK Betting Offers
          • Back
          • UK Betting Offers
          • UK Betting Sites
          • bet365 Bonus Code UK
          • 888Sport Promo Code UK
          • William Hill Sign up Offer
          • Betway Sign up Offer
          • BetVictor Bonus Code UK
      • Betting Guides
        • Back
        • Betting Guides
        • All Guides
        • Glossary
        • Betting Calculators
          • Back
          • Betting Calculators
          • Odds Converter
          • Parlay Calculator
        • Futures Betting Guide
        • Moneyline Betting Guide
        • Over/Under Betting Guide
        • Parlay Betting Guide
        • Point Spread Betting Guide
        • Prop Betting Guide
        • Sports Betting Guides
          • Back
          • Sports Betting Guides
          • How To Bet On Sports Guide
          • NFL Betting Guide
          • NHL Betting Guide
          • NBA Betting Guide
          • MLB Betting Guide
          • NCAAB Betting Guide
          • NCAAF Betting Guide
          • Golf Betting Guide
          • Tennis Betting Guide
        • Teaser Betting Guide
      • Betting News
        • Back
        • Betting News
        • All News
        • Industry News
        • Podcasts
        • Covers Videos
        • Covers Writers
        • Offers & Boosts
    • Promos
      • Sportsbook Promos
      • Canada Sportsbook Promos
      • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • bet365 Bonus Code
        • BET99 Promo Code
        • BetMGM Bonus Code
        • BetRivers Bonus Code
        • Caesars Sportsbook Promo
        • DraftKings Promo Code
        • Fanatics Sportsbook Promo
        • FanDuel Promo Code
        • Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
        • Sports Interaction Promo
        • Stake Promo Code
        • theScore Bet Promo Code
        • TonyBet Promo Code
      • Bonuses By Region
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Region
        • Arkansas Promos
        • Arizona Promos
        • Colorado Promos
        • Connecticut Promos
        • DC Promos
        • Illinois Promos
        • Indiana Promos
        • Iowa Promos
        • Kansas Promos
        • Kentucky Promos
        • Louisiana Promos
        • Maine Promos
        • Maryland Promos
        • Massachusetts Promos
        • Michigan Promos
        • Missouri Promos
        • New Jersey Promos
        • New York Promos
        • North Carolina Promos
        • Ohio Promos
        • Pennsylvania Promos
        • Tennessee Promos
        • Vermont Promos
        • Virginia Promos
        • West Virginia Promos
        • Wyoming Promos
    • Forum & Contests
      • All Forums
      • NFL Betting Forum
      • MLB Betting Forum
      • NCAAB Betting Forum
      • NCAAF Betting Forum
      • NBA Betting Forum
      • NHL Betting Forum
      • Soccer Betting Forum
      • Contests
        • Back
        • Contests
        • Contests Home
        • Streak Survivor
        • King of Covers
        • My Contests
    • Casino
      • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Back
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes No-Deposit Bonuses
        • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Back
          • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Card Crush
          • Casino.click
          • Chanced Casino
          • Crown Coins Casino
          • FreeSpin Casino
          • LoneStar
          • McLuck
          • Mega Bonanza Casino
          • PlayFame
          • Pulsz
          • Stake.us
      • US Casinos
        • Back
        • US Casinos
        • US Online Casinos
        • US Online Casino Bonuses
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • bet365 Casino Promo Code
          • BetRivers Casino Promo
          • Borgata Casino Bonus Code
          • Caesars Casino Bonus Code
          • DraftKings Casino Promo
          • Fanatics Casino Promo
          • FanDuel Casino Promo Code
          • Golden Nugget Casino Promo
          • Hard Rock Bet Casino Promo
          • Hollywood Casino Promo Code
      • Canada Casinos
        • Back
        • Canada Casinos
        • Canada Online Casinos
        • Provinces
          • Back
          • Provinces
          • Alberta Online Casino
          • BC Online Casino
          • Ontario Online Casinos
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • BC.GAME Bonus Code
          • Cloudbet Promo Code
          • RainBet Promo Code
          • Roobet Promo Code
          • Shuffle Promo Code
          • Thrill Promo Code
    • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Market Apps
      • Prediction Market Promos
      • Kalshi Promo Code
      • Kalshi Referral Code
      • Polymarket Promo Code
      • Polymarket Referral Code
      • DraftKings Predictions Promo Code
      • Novig Promo Code
      • ProphetX Promo Code
      • Underdog Promo Code
      • Betr Promo Code
      • OG Promo Code
      • Fanatics Markets Promo Code
      • Plus500 Promo Code
      • Gemini Predictions Promo Code
    • NFL Week 7
      NFL Week 7
      • NFL Odds
      • NFL Picks
      • Patriots-Bears Picks
      • NFL ATS Picks
      • NFL Prediction Markets
      • NFL Betting Sites
    Covers Account
    Log in Create account
    Join free Log in
    All Forums | Politics

    Global warming :: is it just a 'chinese hoax' like trump told us or is it serious?

    «First Previous 363738 ... 464748 Next Last»
    StumpTownStu
    UNIMAN
    Raiders22
    thirdperson
    sundance
    ...
    Participants:
    Search
    Views: 8899
    Posts: 1183
    «First Previous 363738 ... 464748 Next Last»
     
    StumpTownStu
    StumpTownStu
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2016
    Posts: 22236
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:37 PM ET #876

    Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN:

    @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems.

    Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil.

    Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things.

    R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN:

    @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems.

    Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil.

    Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things.

     
    UNIMAN
    UNIMAN
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2014
    Posts: 10454
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:40 PM ET #877

    Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:

    Your statement is full of contradictions. How does overpopulation not require more consumption? You cannot spew your own comparison of earth now to 800k years ago & then tell me my point is irrelevant. China manufacturing is THE biggest polluter ......& the "per capita" argument makes no sense since they also have the largest population. Recent history shows the US & Europe are the only ones trying to reduce emissions.  For every "scientist" blaming humans for climate change, there is another that will dispute it. You wanna shut down carbon emissions? Eliminate the human race.

    So this comes right back around to this post above. It's over population. Rain forests now adding CO2 the equivalant of the country of Japan because man is moving in. Stop all fossil fuels and CO2 will continue to rise it appears, maybe slower but still on the rise.

    Good news other areas are taking up a lot of the slack. Agriculture is benefiting and taking in CO2. Northern forests are absorbing more. 

    So why aren't we planting more trees? Taking great care of our forests? Seems like a logical priority.

    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:

    Your statement is full of contradictions. How does overpopulation not require more consumption? You cannot spew your own comparison of earth now to 800k years ago & then tell me my point is irrelevant. China manufacturing is THE biggest polluter ......& the "per capita" argument makes no sense since they also have the largest population. Recent history shows the US & Europe are the only ones trying to reduce emissions.  For every "scientist" blaming humans for climate change, there is another that will dispute it. You wanna shut down carbon emissions? Eliminate the human race.

    So this comes right back around to this post above. It's over population. Rain forests now adding CO2 the equivalant of the country of Japan because man is moving in. Stop all fossil fuels and CO2 will continue to rise it appears, maybe slower but still on the rise.

    Good news other areas are taking up a lot of the slack. Agriculture is benefiting and taking in CO2. Northern forests are absorbing more. 

    So why aren't we planting more trees? Taking great care of our forests? Seems like a logical priority.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:45 PM ET #878

    Well, the burning accounts for some but is not as long-lasting if you assume a one-time event and not perpetual.

    The decay will last longer and the soil release has to be factored in and the soil retention is then affected:

    Changes associated with deforestation continue for decades after forest clearing eventually extend to deep subsoils and strongly affect soil functions, including nutrient storage and recycling, carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions, erosion resistance and water storage, drainage and filtration. Reforestation reverses many of the effects of deforestation, mainly in the topsoil, but such restoration can take decades and the resulting soil properties still deviate from those under natural forests. Improved management of soil organic matter in converted land uses can moderate or reduce the ecologically deleterious effects of deforestation on soils. We emphasize the importance of soil knowledge not only in cross-disciplinary research on deforestation and reforestation but also in developing effective incentives and policies to reduce deforestation.

    But the key thing is the loss of forest and its benefit overall.  The deforestation adding CO2 is not as big a deal to me.

    Reply

    Well, the burning accounts for some but is not as long-lasting if you assume a one-time event and not perpetual.

    The decay will last longer and the soil release has to be factored in and the soil retention is then affected:

    Changes associated with deforestation continue for decades after forest clearing eventually extend to deep subsoils and strongly affect soil functions, including nutrient storage and recycling, carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions, erosion resistance and water storage, drainage and filtration. Reforestation reverses many of the effects of deforestation, mainly in the topsoil, but such restoration can take decades and the resulting soil properties still deviate from those under natural forests. Improved management of soil organic matter in converted land uses can moderate or reduce the ecologically deleterious effects of deforestation on soils. We emphasize the importance of soil knowledge not only in cross-disciplinary research on deforestation and reforestation but also in developing effective incentives and policies to reduce deforestation.

    But the key thing is the loss of forest and its benefit overall.  The deforestation adding CO2 is not as big a deal to me.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:46 PM ET #879

    Plus a lot of these lands are not used in agriculture afterwards.  Last study I saw showed huge amounts in Asia, Africa, and the Amazon that were abandoned, etc.

    Reply

    Plus a lot of these lands are not used in agriculture afterwards.  Last study I saw showed huge amounts in Asia, Africa, and the Amazon that were abandoned, etc.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:48 PM ET #880

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things.

    A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less.

    Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it.

    It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha!

    Reply

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things.

    A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less.

    Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it.

    It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha!

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:51 PM ET #881

    This will explain some of the soil release of CO2 even in smaller areas.  So, imagine a much larger forest area.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-020-00500-z

    Reply

    This will explain some of the soil release of CO2 even in smaller areas.  So, imagine a much larger forest area.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-020-00500-z

     
    StumpTownStu
    StumpTownStu
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2016
    Posts: 22236
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:57 PM ET #882

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    Plus a lot of these lands are not used in agriculture afterwards.  Last study I saw showed huge amounts in Asia, Africa, and the Amazon that were abandoned, etc.

    Most aren't abandoned. Early South American deforestation had to do with the timber industry, as some of their lesser known hardwoods made great replacements for some of the more known Mahogany. Now many of those hardwoods are notable in their own right. Most large scale deforestation these days is for raising cattle, or for planting things such a palm for the palm oil industry. 

    R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    Plus a lot of these lands are not used in agriculture afterwards.  Last study I saw showed huge amounts in Asia, Africa, and the Amazon that were abandoned, etc.

    Most aren't abandoned. Early South American deforestation had to do with the timber industry, as some of their lesser known hardwoods made great replacements for some of the more known Mahogany. Now many of those hardwoods are notable in their own right. Most large scale deforestation these days is for raising cattle, or for planting things such a palm for the palm oil industry. 

     
    StumpTownStu
    StumpTownStu
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2016
    Posts: 22236
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 1:59 PM ET #883

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha!

    I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle.

    R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha!

    I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 2:31 PM ET #884

    https://theconversation.com/how-forests-lost-8-000-years-of-stored-carbon-in-a-few-generations-animated-maps-reveal-climate-lessons-for-tree-planting-projects-today-185686

     

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57839364

    Reply

    https://theconversation.com/how-forests-lost-8-000-years-of-stored-carbon-in-a-few-generations-animated-maps-reveal-climate-lessons-for-tree-planting-projects-today-185686

     

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57839364

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 2:38 PM ET #885

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha! I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle.

    I am saying people say farts when it is the burps that contribute the majority of the cow's release.

    Reply

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha! I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle.

    I am saying people say farts when it is the burps that contribute the majority of the cow's release.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 2:40 PM ET #886

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things.

    Yes, way more than you would think and for various reasons.  I think outside of America -- Asia, Africa, Amazon it is upwards of 25-30% of the deforested areas.  Very inefficient use there.

    Reply

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things.

    Yes, way more than you would think and for various reasons.  I think outside of America -- Asia, Africa, Amazon it is upwards of 25-30% of the deforested areas.  Very inefficient use there.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 2:42 PM ET #887

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha! I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle.

    Correct. Decay is a long ongoing process.  The burning is done quicker.  The the soil release has to be factored in.  I think Amazon was a net ~30% loss of Carbon in last 10-20 years or so.

    But I am told that the efforts to slow deforestation has helped in a lot of places and it is getting better now.  Or, at least closer to what we consider 'normal'.

    Reply

    @StumpTownStu

     

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha! I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle.

    Correct. Decay is a long ongoing process.  The burning is done quicker.  The the soil release has to be factored in.  I think Amazon was a net ~30% loss of Carbon in last 10-20 years or so.

    But I am told that the efforts to slow deforestation has helped in a lot of places and it is getting better now.  Or, at least closer to what we consider 'normal'.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 2:44 PM ET #888

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Plus a lot of these lands are not used in agriculture afterwards.  Last study I saw showed huge amounts in Asia, Africa, and the Amazon that were abandoned, etc. Most aren't abandoned. Early South American deforestation had to do with the timber industry, as some of their lesser known hardwoods made great replacements for some of the more known Mahogany. Now many of those hardwoods are notable in their own right. Most large scale deforestation these days is for raising cattle, or for planting things such a palm for the palm oil industry.

    Even the non-abandoned areas are not used as efficiently as the forest was doing as well, in regards to absorption. 

    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Plus a lot of these lands are not used in agriculture afterwards.  Last study I saw showed huge amounts in Asia, Africa, and the Amazon that were abandoned, etc. Most aren't abandoned. Early South American deforestation had to do with the timber industry, as some of their lesser known hardwoods made great replacements for some of the more known Mahogany. Now many of those hardwoods are notable in their own right. Most large scale deforestation these days is for raising cattle, or for planting things such a palm for the palm oil industry.

    Even the non-abandoned areas are not used as efficiently as the forest was doing as well, in regards to absorption. 

     
    StumpTownStu
    StumpTownStu
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2016
    Posts: 22236
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 3:20 PM ET #889

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha! I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle. I am saying people say farts when it is the burps that contribute the majority of the cow's release.

    More comical to say farts.

    R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @StumpTownStu   Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: @StumpTownStu  This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449 So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested. So decay is likely the top culprit it seems. Makes no sense. They don't simply leave most of that plant matter to decay. It's inefficient. They clear those spaces to replant cash crops or to raise cattle. Piles of healthy timber would take forever to decay. Granted, it would decay much faster if mulched but still. There is some explanation missing from this. Are they measuring cow farts? Much of that deforested land is used to raise cattle. A lot is used to raise palm for palm oil. Side note: Palm oil is fucking horrible for you and it's literally in so many things. A large amount of that land is not used.  It would, even so, be way less. Decay for this amount would take a long period of time, even after burning lots of it. It would be mostly cow burps -- surprisingly enough.  Most folks do not realize this. Haha! I mentioned this earlier. Decay of healthy timber takes incredibly long. I mention the possibility of cow farts. It sounds crazy but a lot of deforestation of tropical rain forests, specifically in South America, is to raise cattle. I am saying people say farts when it is the burps that contribute the majority of the cow's release.

    More comical to say farts.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 17, 2023 - 3:31 PM ET #890

    @StumpTownStu

     an_roll_laughpeace_5

    Reply

    @StumpTownStu

     an_roll_laughpeace_5

     
    thirdperson
    thirdperson
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2005
    Posts: 9493
    Posted: Aug. 18, 2023 - 12:59 AM ET #891

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    But there is huge evidence that the CO2 is not the cause but the effect of warming.  The media has led people into believing that curbing carbon emissions is key to stopping warming.  It is not. Once normal cycles get going, El Niño, volcanoes, sun, ocean currents, etc.  The CO2 starts to rise.  It is a lagging effect of warming and not the other way around. For example, once the oceans start to warm they release more CO2, etc.

    Historical data shows carbon dioxide is both cause and effect of warming. As ocean temperature rises, carbon dioxide increases to amplify warming trend so that 90% of warming follows carbon dioxide increase in positive feedback loop. In pre-industrial age, carbon dioxide lags temperature. For example, climate change due to Earth orbit over thousands of years. However industrial age is different because carbon dioxide leads temperature.

    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

    But there is huge evidence that the CO2 is not the cause but the effect of warming.  The media has led people into believing that curbing carbon emissions is key to stopping warming.  It is not. Once normal cycles get going, El Niño, volcanoes, sun, ocean currents, etc.  The CO2 starts to rise.  It is a lagging effect of warming and not the other way around. For example, once the oceans start to warm they release more CO2, etc.

    Historical data shows carbon dioxide is both cause and effect of warming. As ocean temperature rises, carbon dioxide increases to amplify warming trend so that 90% of warming follows carbon dioxide increase in positive feedback loop. In pre-industrial age, carbon dioxide lags temperature. For example, climate change due to Earth orbit over thousands of years. However industrial age is different because carbon dioxide leads temperature.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 18, 2023 - 1:49 AM ET #892

    @thirdperson

     Nonsense -- read up on this. peace_5

    Reply

    @thirdperson

     Nonsense -- read up on this. peace_5

     
    thirdperson
    thirdperson
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2005
    Posts: 9493
    Posted: Aug. 18, 2023 - 5:35 AM ET #893

    Ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide is declining because of deforestation.  Logging can turn forests into carbon sources because dead trees release carbon dioxide which remain in atmosphere for centuries.  Deforestation contributes 10-20% of global greenhouse gases  Over 100 countries have signed COP26 deal to reduce deforestation.

    Reply

    Ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide is declining because of deforestation.  Logging can turn forests into carbon sources because dead trees release carbon dioxide which remain in atmosphere for centuries.  Deforestation contributes 10-20% of global greenhouse gases  Over 100 countries have signed COP26 deal to reduce deforestation.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 18, 2023 - 9:35 AM ET #894

    @thirdperson

     Yes.  We just discussed this.  Go back and provide numbers for your previous stuff. peace_5

    Reply

    @thirdperson

     Yes.  We just discussed this.  Go back and provide numbers for your previous stuff. peace_5

     
    sundance
    sundance
    MVP
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2002
    Posts: 16805
    Posted: Aug. 19, 2023 - 7:10 PM ET #895

    Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation!

    Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun. 

    The above statement is from a human being and is not racist in any way, shape or form.

    Reply

    Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation!

    Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun. 

    The above statement is from a human being and is not racist in any way, shape or form.

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34784
    Posted: Aug. 19, 2023 - 8:08 PM ET #896

    @sundance

     peace_5

    Reply

    @sundance

     peace_5

     
    sundance
    sundance
    MVP
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2002
    Posts: 16805
    Posted: Aug. 19, 2023 - 8:35 PM ET #897

    @Raiders22

    peace_5

    Reply

    @Raiders22

    peace_5

     
    thirdperson
    thirdperson
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2005
    Posts: 9493
    Posted: Aug. 20, 2023 - 3:13 AM ET #898

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance:

    Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation! Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun. 

    According to Energy information administration, solar and wind energy have been a lifeline propping up Texas power grid.  Old plants which run on coal, nuclear and natural gas have gone offline as demand surges during the summer.  In 2020, wind power first surpass coal as second largest electricity source.  Since renewable sources are cheaper, they help to keep electricity prices low.  Texas produces the most wind energy of any US state.

    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance:

    Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation! Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun. 

    According to Energy information administration, solar and wind energy have been a lifeline propping up Texas power grid.  Old plants which run on coal, nuclear and natural gas have gone offline as demand surges during the summer.  In 2020, wind power first surpass coal as second largest electricity source.  Since renewable sources are cheaper, they help to keep electricity prices low.  Texas produces the most wind energy of any US state.

     
    KellyM_1964
    KellyM_1964
    MVP
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2009
    Posts: 16793
    Posted: Aug. 20, 2023 - 3:31 AM ET #899

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance: Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation! Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun.  According to Energy information administration, solar and wind energy have been a lifeline propping up Texas power grid.  Old plants which run on coal, nuclear and natural gas have gone offline as demand surges during the summer.  In 2020, wind power first surpass coal as second largest electricity source.  Since renewable sources are cheaper, they help to keep electricity prices low.  Texas produces the most wind energy of any US state.

    good info                didnt know those facts    but the states must prepare better for the future

    "I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance: Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation! Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun.  According to Energy information administration, solar and wind energy have been a lifeline propping up Texas power grid.  Old plants which run on coal, nuclear and natural gas have gone offline as demand surges during the summer.  In 2020, wind power first surpass coal as second largest electricity source.  Since renewable sources are cheaper, they help to keep electricity prices low.  Texas produces the most wind energy of any US state.

    good info                didnt know those facts    but the states must prepare better for the future

     
     
    KellyM_1964
    KellyM_1964
    MVP
    Participation Meter
    Joined: May, 2009
    Posts: 16793
    Posted: Aug. 20, 2023 - 3:31 AM ET #900

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance: Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation! Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun.  According to Energy information administration, solar and wind energy have been a lifeline propping up Texas power grid.  Old plants which run on coal, nuclear and natural gas have gone offline as demand surges during the summer.  In 2020, wind power first surpass coal as second largest electricity source.  Since renewable sources are cheaper, they help to keep electricity prices low.  Texas produces the most wind energy of any US state.

    good info                didnt know those facts    but the states must prepare better for the future

    "I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance: Headline: Texas power prices surge 6,000% as grid operator asks residents reduce energy usage due to 'low wind ' generation! Only liberals believe that windmills and solar are the answer to our ability to produce energy and power. Fossil fuels and natural gas have been the answer to our energy needs. I don't want my heat dependent on the wind or the sun.  According to Energy information administration, solar and wind energy have been a lifeline propping up Texas power grid.  Old plants which run on coal, nuclear and natural gas have gone offline as demand surges during the summer.  In 2020, wind power first surpass coal as second largest electricity source.  Since renewable sources are cheaper, they help to keep electricity prices low.  Texas produces the most wind energy of any US state.

    good info                didnt know those facts    but the states must prepare better for the future

    All Forums | Politics
    «First Previous 363738 ... 464748 Next Last»

    Hot Forums IconHot Forum Topics

    • Claiming Prizes 57,808
    • Wednesday 10/21/2026 967
    • 🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets 279,661
    • I'm embarrassed for Trump supporters 61,606
    • PART DEUX 133
    • NFL THREAD * 151 * 26,125
    • Lies, Inaccuracies & Stupidity 33,174
    • NCAA WEEK 7 *** Railroad to Paradise *** 14,664
    • I Thought Trump Campaigned on Lowering Prices!?!? 32,431
    • Sac's Week 7 Plays 897

    Warning - External Link

    Report User

    Thank you for reporting
    This content is abusive or harmful
    This post is spam
    An error has occurred
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Delete Post

    Are you sure you would like to remove this post?

    Remove Thread

    Are you sure you would like to remove this thread?

    Scan Results

    Login/Register

    Happy to have you join the conversation. To do so, please login or create an account.
    Accounts are free and easy to create.

    Search


    Loading…

    Loading…

    About Us
    Contact Us
    Careers
    Our Team
    Brand
    Testimonials
    Betting Guides
    Sportsbook Reviews
    Betting News
    Podcasts
    Responsible Gambling
    Betting Sites
    US Betting Sites
    Canada Betting Sites
    Canada Casinos
    Best Betting Apps
    Contests
    Streak Survivor
    King of Covers
    Ultimate Race
    Office Pools
    The Covers community has
    810,221
    lifetime members worldwide
    Join our community today
    Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
    Covers is the world
    leader in sports
    betting information.
    21+
    Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
    Help Privacy Privacy Choices Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
    YouTube logo
    Facebook logo
    Twitter logo
    Instagram logo
    LinkedIn logo
    Google News logo
    Covers is verified safe by:
    Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo
    Covers Logo
    Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
    If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.