Global Change in the Carbon Age

James Lemon · Aug 13, 2017

The Mighty Fraser River is the longest river within British Columbia, Canada, rising at Fraser Pass near Blackrock Mountain in the Rocky Mountains and flowing for 1,375 kilometres (854 mi), into the Strait of Georgia at the city of Vancouver. It is the 10th longest river in Canada. The river's annual discharge at its mouth is 112 cubic kilometres (27 cu mi) or 3,550 cubic metres per second (125,000 cu ft/s), and it discharges 20 million tons of sediment into the ocean.

To give you an idea of what a cubic meter would look like, image seven forty five gallon drums of water.

This is the winter run off season the main part of the river flows on the other side of the trees in the distance. The immediate area will be over run with dirt bikes, fisherman, and some rock hounds. In a few more weeks.

Doug Kerr · Aug 13, 2017

Hi, James,

Very nice shot, comforting in a way, and a nice discussion of what we are seeing.

I don't understand your caption at all.

James Lemon said:
To give you an idea of what a cubic meter would look like, image seven forty five gallon drums of water.

Yes, I can image that. Then what?

In any case, a cubic meter is about 264 gallons (unless we are speaking of imperial gallons, in which case it is about 219).

But for US liquid gallons, one cubic meter would be more nearly six 45-gallon drums.

Thanks again for the nice picture.

Best regards,

Doug

Asher Kelman · Aug 13, 2017

This is a river. Yes there is carbon everywhere. But how are they connected? What is the "carbon age" to do with your picture?

Asher

James Lemon · Aug 14, 2017

Doug Kerr said:
Hi, James,

Very nice shot, comforting in a way, and a nice discussion of what we are seeing.

I don't understand your caption at all.

Yes, I can image that. Then what?

In any case, a cubic meter is about 264 gallons (unless we are speaking of imperial gallons, in which case it is about 219).

But for US liquid gallons, one cubic meter would be more nearly six 45-gallon drums.

Thanks again for the nice picture.

Best regards,

Doug

Asher Kelman said:
This is a river. Yes there is carbon everywhere. But how are they connected? What is the "carbon age" to do with your picture?

Asher

Doug ,Asher

Glad you like the image! Thank you for your precise calculation Doug mine was only meant a rough idea for someone who might not understand what one cube of water might look like. In any event it is a huge amount of water. I think volumes on the river are measured in 17 different places but I have no idea as to whether or not the volumes have increased or decreased over recent period of time. Since the river has been flowing for thousands of years I think it would be a safe guess that it as slowly decreased in volume over a long period of time. I wonder if one day it might just dry up and if so when? Something to think about anyway.

I will post more pictures under this same caption as it is a work in progress. The river is always in a state of constant change just like the planet is. The only consistent thing about this river is that it flows into the ocean. The carbon age has to do with the current age in which we live but how long will it last is the question? The first discovery of coal in the 1800's conventional oil about 1859 and more recently unconventional oil.

The thread is about observation, no strict rules, it is not confined to what's in the frame of the pictures. Anyone can post pictures here and discuss their observations and what their pictures might mean to them or the ideas they are trying to convey with them.

Best, regards
James

Doug Kerr · Aug 14, 2017

I made a global change today.

in a musical score I was working on in a notation program. I changed the play duration of all notes to 85% of face time value.

Best regards,

Doug

Jerome Marot · Aug 14, 2017

Nice river. 112 cubic kilometres per year is 112 millions metric tons of water: 112 x 10^6 tons.

Global carbon dioxide emissions per year are about 30 billions metric tons: 30^10, about 2679 rivers like this one.

To release the same amount of carbon dioxide from burning trees, we would need to burn a forest the size of Africa. Each year. We can't do that (besides large parts of Africa are not covered with trees), so we do it with fossile fuels. It took nature about 50 millions years to store all that carbon in fossile fuels and we are releasing it in a matter of decades.

Roshni Patel · Aug 14, 2017

Nice river shot concept.

Michael_Stones · Aug 15, 2017

Jerome Marot said:
Nice river. 112 cubic kilometres per year is 112 millions metric tons of water: 112 x 10^6 tons.

Global carbon dioxide emissions per year are about 30 billions metric tons: 30^10, about 2679 rivers like this one.

To release the same amount of carbon dioxide from burning trees, we would need to burn a forest the size of Africa. Each year. We can't do that (besides large parts of Africa are not covered with trees), so we do it with fossile fuels. It took nature about 50 millions years to store all that carbon in fossile fuels and we are releasing it in a matter of decades.

If your figures are correct Jerome (and I've no reason to think otherwise), what you wrote succinctly clarifies issues about climate change from both quantitative and historical perspectives. Cheers, Mike

James Lemon · Aug 15, 2017

Jerome Marot said:
Nice river. 112 cubic kilometres per year is 112 millions metric tons of water: 112 x 10^6 tons.

Global carbon dioxide emissions per year are about 30 billions metric tons: 30^10, about 2679 rivers like this one.

To release the same amount of carbon dioxide from burning trees, we would need to burn a forest the size of Africa. Each year. We can't do that (besides large parts of Africa are not covered with trees), so we do it with fossile fuels. It took nature about 50 millions years to store all that carbon in fossile fuels and we are releasing it in a matter of decades.

Roshni Patel said:
Nice river shot concept.

Jermome, Roshni

Thank you for your comments and your visual description Jerome! It would be my guess that the current carbon age (burning fossil fuels) will last a short period of time in the grand scheme of things. Not so long ago, one could spend a barrel of oil to punch a hole in the ground in places like Oklahoma & Texas and get fifty barrels in return. The US is no longer the global supplier of oil as it once was back in the early days. I was inclined to believe in "Hubberts Peak Oil Theory" when we started processing unconventional oil with new technologies.
I don't know what the level or volume of CO2 emissions are here in Canada? We are the second largest country in the world, have a small population. Canada has the most water in the world, and vast amounts of trees. My understanding is that Canada is a huge carbon sink, absorbing four times more C02 than it produces. We also have a huge reserve of unconventional oil.
On the other hand, China (the third largest country in the world) is a heavy producer of C02, due to their reliance on coal – a fact that should cause concern among world leaders. Despite recent plans to sell some of our unconventional oil to China and alleviate some of their dependence on coal with an added benefit of reduced Global C02 emissions; we will keep this oil in the ground and continue to ship them huge amounts of coal from our ports instead.
Your analogy of the burning trees in Africa has sparked an idea for my next picture.

Best, regards
James

James Lemon · Aug 16, 2017

City Fuel

Tom dinning · Aug 21, 2017

James Lemon said:

Is there a credit for this photo?

James Lemon · Aug 21, 2017

Tom dinning said:
Is there a credit for this photo?

Tom

Don't know the photographer, it is a family photo.

James

Asher Kelman · Aug 21, 2017

James Lemon said:
Tom

Don't know the photographer, it is a family photo.

James

Any idea where it was taken?

Asher

James Lemon · Aug 22, 2017

Asher Kelman said:
Any idea where it was taken?

Asher

Asher

The photo was taken somewhere on Hastings street in Vancouver British Columbia back in 1915. The man on the left with the draft horses was my wife's grandfather. He was about 29 years of age at the time. He had a farm in the Matsqui district not too far downstream from the location of the previous photo.

I don't know why the photo was taken. At the time he was hauling bricks from the Clayburn Village with his wagon and team of horses. The bricks were for the construction of the second Vancouver hotel being built by the Canadian Pacific Railway.The hotel passed onto the Canadian National Railway, which demolished the building in 1949. The third Hotel Vancouver, built in 1937 two blocks away, is still operating today. The company that made the bricks was established in the late 1800's the company still exists to this day and so does the village of Clayburn. The distance from Clayburn to the Vancouver hotel is about 47 miles.

It is obvious that the photo is about the team of horses being the main subject. When I was first shown the photo I was intrigued by the building in the background advertising City Fuel company green and dry firewood. Will the human species still exist in another 102 years from now or will the planet be less populated with less resources.? Maybe science will discover something miraculous in the near future if they quit spending too much time and energy trying to predict the weather?

Best , regards
James

Tom dinning · Aug 24, 2017

James Lemon said:
Asher

Maybe science will discover something miraculous in the near future if they quit spending too much time and energy trying to predict the weather?

Best , regards
James

Perhaps you could pass the message on to the farmers who rely on weather prediction for crop management, or the airlines that plan routes based on similar information, or the fishing industry for the same reason. Then there's the mundane issues like sporting events, in fact any out door event including a picnic with the kids. Cyclone prediction and forecasting is an essential part of survival where I live.

Its not just about you getting wet when you go outdoors, James. Perhaps that is natures revenge for not giving support to the hard working meteorologists. I'm afraid praying for a sunny day doesn't have the scientific backing for determining future possibilities. At least when you call the weather man there's someone listening.

James Lemon · Aug 24, 2017

Tom dinning said:
Perhaps you could pass the message on to the farmers who rely on weather prediction for crop management, or the airlines that plan routes based on similar information, or the fishing industry for the same reason. Then there's the mundane issues like sporting events, in fact any out door event including a picnic with the kids. Cyclone prediction and forecasting is an essential part of survival where I live.

Its not just about you getting wet when you go outdoors, James. Perhaps that is natures revenge for not giving support to the hard working meteorologists. I'm afraid praying for a sunny day doesn't have the scientific backing for determining future possibilities. At least when you call the weather man there's someone listening.

Tom

I am referring to long term weather predictions. In the short term farmers don't kneed the weather man to tell them if it raining outside or not. They seed and harvest their crops as the weather dictates.

James

Tom dinning · Aug 25, 2017

James Lemon said:
Tom

I am referring to long term weather predictions. In the short term farmers don't kneed the weather man to tell them if it raining outside or not. They seed and harvest their crops as the weather dictates.

James

You should get out more, James. My niece is a cotton researcher and so is her husband. They advice cotton growers on crop management. A significant part of that is long term weather prediction; even up to 20 years ahead. They can no longer rely on day to day observations for maximizing their output.

I don't know where you live but here the farmers don't live like the Amish. They are feeders of the world and the world demands efficiency to meet the global needs.

So, before you sprout your nonsense go visit a meteorologist, talk to a few modern farmers for a start.
Get your head out of the clouds before you get wet.

I know. I'm being offensive for ridiculing your opinion. Well, that's because that's all it is; an opinion, and it has no basis in fact so it deserves ridiculing.

And keep in mind that 'global changes' is about climate not weather.

Have a read: https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/

James Lemon · Aug 25, 2017

Tom dinning said:
You should get out more, James. My niece is a cotton researcher and so is her husband. They advice cotton growers on crop management. A significant part of that is long term weather prediction; even up to 20 years ahead. They can no longer rely on day to day observations for maximizing their output.

I don't know where you live but here the farmers don't live like the Amish. They are feeders of the world and the world demands efficiency to meet the global needs.

So, before you sprout your nonsense go visit a meteorologist, talk to a few modern farmers for a start.
Get your head out of the clouds before you get wet.

I know. I'm being offensive for ridiculing your opinion. Well, that's because that's all it is; an opinion, and it has no basis in fact so it deserves ridiculing.

And keep in mind that 'global changes' is about climate not weather.

Have a read: https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/[/QUOTE

Tom

Science or meterolists can not predict the future, plain and simple, but you are entitled to believe in "Chrystal Balls" if you choose.

James

Tom dinning · Aug 25, 2017

James Lemon said:
Tom dinning said:

You should get out more, James. My niece is a cotton researcher and so is her husband. They advice cotton growers on crop management. A significant part of that is long term weather prediction; even up to 20 years ahead. They can no longer rely on day to day observations for maximizing their output.

I don't know where you live but here the farmers don't live like the Amish. They are feeders of the world and the world demands efficiency to meet the global needs.

So, before you sprout your nonsense go visit a meteorologist, talk to a few modern farmers for a start.
Get your head out of the clouds before you get wet.

I know. I'm being offensive for ridiculing your opinion. Well, that's because that's all it is; an opinion, and it has no basis in fact so it deserves ridiculing.

And keep in mind that 'global changes' is about climate not weather.

Have a read: https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/[/QUOTE

Tom

Science or meterolists can not predict the future, plain and simple, but you are entitled to believe in "Chrystal Balls" if you choose.

James

Click to expand...

You obviously took the time to read what i sent in the link.
You're really showing your ignorance, James.
Please don't tell me God ahs a part in all this. I'll choke on my sandwich.

James Lemon · Aug 26, 2017

Tom dinning said:
James Lemon said:

You obviously took the time to read what i sent in the link.
You're really showing your ignorance, James.
Please don't tell me God ahs a part in all this. I'll choke on my sandwich.

Click to expand...

Tom

Its obvious you like to jump to conclusions and make assumptions based on speculation.Nature is highly complex, and the only prediction you can make is that she is unpredictable, but you and others don't get this.

Apparently the state of Texas is currently being hit by a category 4 hurricane nothing like it in 12 years. The meteorologists and cotton researchers must of been too busy to notice this one!I have a friend that is in the area. He has 700 acres of cotton to harvest yet and 400 of soybeans. Forecast for 30" of rain. He is in rough shape tonight, moving cattle out of low ground. A major hurricane Tom with devastating impacts.

James

Tom dinning · Aug 26, 2017

James Lemon said:
Asher

James

I think I just switched sides, James.
or maybe I might just make a side of my own.

Everyone knows I like a good fight. My manner may be course and my language less than desirable at times, but I do enjoy a difference of opinion.
At the ripe old age of 8 years, I had words to say to a Presbyterian minister visiting my school. He said to the class Evolution was rubbish. Even at 8, I could rip the best of them apart. Mind you, it cost me some pain and a letter home to my mother.

I associate my thinking with no one, least of all Asher or yourself. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to discuss any issue. How would it be if either of you continued to think the way you do? I feel obliged to interfere, compelled even.

Not that it will make any difference to any of us. We are what we are. Our responses are as a result of that.

Rejoice in the differences. Allow the pulse to pump your blood. Stand up for what you believe.
Make a fool of yourself. Its all entertainment to me.

Jerome Marot · Aug 26, 2017

James Lemon said:
Nature is highly complex, and the only prediction you can make is that she is unpredictable, but you and others don't get this.

I think we all quite get your argument, but it is a sophism. Sure, we cannot predict the future and the further away the future is, the less refined the predictions will be. That part is true. The part which is not true and is at least implied in your posts is that since the far future is uncertain, the choices we make today as to how much fossile energy we use do not matter.

They do matter. It is simple common sense that humanity cannot release carbon dioxyde at an unprecedented rate into the atmosphere and expect it to have no effect on the ecosystem whatsoever. It is also extremely unlikely that these effects will be globally disruptive. It is not absolutely sure, but only a fool would willingly take the risk given the possible consequences.

You and others' unwillingness to accept the argument is also rather puzzling. What are you trying to defend? The right to use your car? Nobody is taking that from you, personally. What the 2015 Paris agreement requires is a soft landing, so as not to disrupt the world economy: increase the percentage of energy produced by renewables (and Canada already does quite good, as it produces lots of hydro-electricity), increase energy savings, etc... You can actually do your part while still saving money: choose your next car to be more fuel efficient, get better insulation for your house, avoid food waste and minimise buying stuff which needed to be transported from the other side of the planet, etc...

Tom dinning · Aug 26, 2017

Jerome Marot said:
James Lemon said:

I think we all quite get your argument, but it is a sophism. Sure, we cannot predict the future and the further away the future is, the less refined the predictions will be. That part is true. The part which is not true and is at least implied in your posts is that since the far future is uncertain, the choices we make today as to how much fossile energy we use do not matter.

They do matter. It is simple common sense that humanity cannot release carbon dioxyde at an unprecedented rate into the atmosphere and expect it to have no effect on the ecosystem whatsoever. It is also extremely unlikely that these effects will be globally disruptive. It is not absolutely sure, but only a fool would willingly take the risk given the possible consequences.

You and others' unwillingness to accept the argument is also rather puzzling. What are you trying to defend? The right to use your car? Nobody is taking that from you, personally. What the 2015 Paris agreement requires is a soft landing, so as not to disrupt the world economy: increase the percentage of energy produced by renewables (and Canada already does quite good, as it produces lots of hydro-electricity), increase energy savings, etc... You can actually do your part while still saving money: choose your next car to be more fuel efficient, get better insulation for your house, avoid food waste and minimise buying stuff which needed to be transported from the other side of the planet, etc...

Click to expand...

Did I say that, Jerome? It doesn't sound like me. Perhaps James is channelling. I'm on your side.

Tom dinning · Aug 26, 2017

James Lemon said:
Tom dinning said:

Tom

Its obvious you like to jump to conclusions and make assumptions based on speculation.Nature is highly complex, and the only prediction you can make is that she is unpredictable, but you and others don't get this.

Apparently the state of Texas is currently being hit by a category 4 hurricane nothing like it in 12 years. The meteorologists and cotton researchers must of been too busy to notice this one!I have a friend that is in the area. He has 700 acres of cotton to harvest yet and 400 of soybeans. Forecast for 30" of rain. He is in rough shape tonight, moving cattle out of low ground. A major hurricane Tom with devastating impacts.

James

Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting meteorologists could stop such an event. Even an idiot would know that if you live in Texas, expect a hurricane or two.
Only your God could stop such an event. What's he doing? Busy giving the flu to my wife, probably.

Jerome Marot · Aug 26, 2017

Tom dinning said:
Did I say that, Jerome?

No, you did not. I edited the quote accordingly. The quoting system is a bit messy on this forum.

James Lemon · Aug 26, 2017

Tom dinning said:
James Lemon said:

I wasn't suggesting meteorologists could stop such an event. Even an idiot would know that if you live in Texas, expect a hurricane or two.
Only your God could stop such an event. What's he doing? Busy giving the flu to my wife, probably.

Click to expand...

Tom

You suggested that meteorologists could see 20 years into the future and that cotton researchers can maximize famers profits well into the future. Yet the meteorologists did not give any warning in this case to evacuate nor did they understand the significance of this category 4 hurricane. Oh yes the current weather will dictate how these farmers harvest their crops and cut their losses. But you probably believe your financial adviser as well. When he says something like don't worry about risking your life's savings Tom we will do it for you. Maybe the Russians had something to do with it?

James

James Lemon · Aug 26, 2017

Jerome Marot said:
I think we all quite get your argument, but it is a sophism. Sure, we cannot predict the future and the further away the future is, the less refined the predictions will be. That part is true. The part which is not true and is at least implied in your posts is that since the far future is uncertain, the choices we make today as to how much fossile energy we use do not matter.

They do matter. It is simple common sense that humanity cannot release carbon dioxyde at an unprecedented rate into the atmosphere and expect it to have no effect on the ecosystem whatsoever. It is also extremely unlikely that these effects will be globally disruptive. It is not absolutely sure, but only a fool would willingly take the risk given the possible consequences.

You and others' unwillingness to accept the argument is also rather puzzling. What are you trying to defend? The right to use your car? Nobody is taking that from you, personally. What the 2015 Paris agreement requires is a soft landing, so as not to disrupt the world economy: increase the percentage of energy produced by renewables (and Canada already does quite good, as it produces lots of hydro-electricity), increase energy savings, etc... You can actually do your part while still saving money: choose your next car to be more fuel efficient, get better insulation for your house, avoid food waste and minimise buying stuff which needed to be transported from the other side of the planet, etc...

Jerome

No I was not implying that the choices we make today do not mater. The deception comes from people like Al Gore telling us the same old things he was ten years ago. He now has a cult like following of "eco warriors" cheering from the side lines, preaching "Environmental Armageddon".

Yes economics does play an important role but the global economy can only function on cheap oil. It does not make economic sense to ship iron ore from Canada to China for a miniscule cost savings on labour for a ton of steel when oil prices are high. The global financial collapse of 2009 was caused by the high price of oil not because of some fraudulent mortgages in places like Oklahoma.

I have presented some previous economic scenarios that could have decreased C02 emissions substantially. I can present numerous other viable solutions if you like. Free market systems solve problems not a bunch of radical sign toting "eco warriors". Yet these very same economic terrorists that are well funded by huge special interest groups have had a negative impact on the way the Canadian governments does business. These same groups are currently disrupting another huge hydro electric project in British Columbia that could have severe consequences to all interested parties if it were to be halted. So if the world is releasing huge amounts of C02 at such unprecedented rates I would think that purchasing small fuel efficient cars would prove to be only a Band-Aid solution.

James

Jerome Marot · Aug 26, 2017

James Lemon said:
No I was not implying that the choices we make today do not mater. The deception comes from people like Al Gore telling us the same old things he was ten years ago. He now has a cult like following of "eco warriors" cheering from the side lines, preaching "Environmental Armageddon".

You should notice that nobody in this thread mentioned Al Gore.

James Lemon said:
Yes economics does play an important role but the global economy can only function on cheap oil. It does not make economic sense to ship iron ore from Canada to China for a miniscule cost savings on labour for a ton of steel when oil prices are high. The global financial collapse of 2009 was caused by the high price of oil not because of some fraudulent mortgages in places like Oklahoma.

I sure hope that the global economy can function without cheap oil, because the stuff is bound to become expensive at some point. There is only so much of it.

James Lemon said:
I have presented some previous economic scenarios that could have decreased C02 emissions substantially. I can present numerous other viable solutions if you like. Free market systems solve problems not a bunch of radical sign toting "eco warriors". Yet these very same economic terrorists that are well funded by huge special interest groups have had a negative impact on the way the Canadian governments does business. These same groups are currently disrupting another huge hydro electric project in British Columbia that could have severe consequences to all interested parties if it were to be halted. So if the world is releasing huge amounts of C02 at such unprecedented rates I would think that purchasing small fuel efficient cars would prove to be only a Band-Aid solution.

Transportation accounts for more than 60% of oil use, so increased fuel efficiency will result in commensurate gains.

World%20oil%20demand%20by%20sector%202012.png

Tom dinning · Aug 27, 2017

Good morning James

Is a fine day outside, as suggested by BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) last week then agin they were well informed. It's the climate here, you see.

Your argument seems to be loosing strength. You managed to get Texas, Gore and the Russians in to support you but I wonder if you've heard back from any of the. Say hello from me.

Meanwhile, might I suggest you get back to your original point, whatever it was. Something about global change in the carbon era. I'm sure the world awaits your every word on the matter.

"Judge a man not by what he knows, but what he admits he doesn't know. Then ask him how much he wants to learn. Then and only then will you know his full worth"

James Lemon · Aug 27, 2017

Jerome Marot said:
You should notice that nobody in this thread mentioned Al Gore.

I sure hope that the global economy can function without cheap oil, because the stuff is bound to become expensive at some point. There is only so much of it.

Transportation accounts for more than 60% of oil use, so increased fuel efficiency will result in commensurate gains.

Jerome

Combine all the automobiles ,trucks, trains, boats, and planes on the planet and transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Although cars are much cleaner burning than they were in the days of using leaded fuel. I like to purchase my fuel from Royal Dutch Shell!

James

Global Change in the Carbon Age

Well-known member

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member

Registrant*

Registrant*

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member