This mistake is BIG over C02 and resevoirs

Discussion in 'Environment' started by tinydancer, Aug 2, 2011.

  1. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,534
    Thanks Received:
    9,368
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +21,070
    I mean come on. This is a huge "whoopsies".

    The original calculation is out by 273 million metric tons? And this really makes a difference because of this:

    "Hydroelectricity supplies an estimated 20 per cent of the world's electricity and accounts for more than 85 per cent of electricity from renewable sources"

    Here's part of the article and I've included a link.

    Hydroelectric reservoirs emit about one-sixth of the greenhouse gases previously attributed to them, says an international team of scientists.

    They emit 48 million metric tonnes of carbon annually, a downgrade from earlier estimates of 321 million metric tonnes, according to a study of 85 reservoirs published in this week's online version of Nature Geoscience.

    "Our analysis indicates that hydroelectric reservoirs are not major contributors to the greenhouse gas problem," Jonathan Cole, a limnologist at New York State's Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, said in a release.

    "But there are some caveats," he warned. "To date, only 17 per cent of potential hydroelectric reservoir sites have been exploited, and impacts vary based on reservoir age, size, and location."


    Hydro reservoirs produce less CO2 than believed - Technology & Science - CBC News
     
  2. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,758
    Thanks Received:
    4,610
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,220
    Being that energy must flow from warm to cold I don't understand, what the deal is. The physics says that the cooler Atmosphere can't transmit energy to the warmer surface.

    The first and second law of thermodynamics doesn't allow it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
  3. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,534
    Thanks Received:
    9,368
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +21,070
    What's really strange is that apparently Obama is going to cut funding for hydropower.


    Obama Wants To Cut Hydropower Funding
    By Russell Ray
    April 19, 2011 | 33 Comments



    Hydropower advocates must be puzzled by President Obama’s plan to build a nation powered by clean energy.

    As the Obama administration promotes an ambitious new goal to produce 80 percent of the nation’s energy from clean resources by 2035, Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal 2012 would slash funding for hydropower research and development by 21 percent.

    Talk about irony.

    Hydropower is the world’s largest and most reliable form of renewable power, and it deserves a strong presence in any comprehensive plan to generate more clean energy in the U.S. Cutting funding for hydropower research and development amid deepening concerns about climate change is a crime against common sense.


    Great article at link.

    Obama Wants To Cut Hydropower Funding | RussellRay
     
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Is clean energy viable? I read somewhere that the crops needed to fill a 25 gal SUV with ethanol could feed a person for a year. do you think this is right within an order of magnitude?
     
  5. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,398
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +886
    ??????

    So what?

    Annual human CO2 emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels and cement production, are about 30,000,000,000 tons per year. That's 30 billion tons/year. And you think 273 million tons is "huge"? LOL. That's less than one one hundredth of our total CO2 emissions.
     
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,268
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,075
    How does that compare to Earths atmosphere?
     
  7. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,534
    Thanks Received:
    9,368
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +21,070
    Sadly and with all due respect, you have completely missed the point of the OP.

    Let me put this in ECW terms.

    They fucked up.:lol: They fucked up. :lol:The scientists fucked up on the original estimate:lol:.

    That's the point. I'm supposed to believe that they can accurately predict what's going to happen in 50 years by these freaking star gazers using a global warming crystal ball?

    Hell's bells no one can even forecast a 3 day weather pattern. And I'm supposed to believe the world is going to end from people who have a financial interest in carbon trading?

    I don't think so.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,567
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,383
    Now you silly little snit, who pointed out the error? Scientists.

    So, the manner in which the original estimate was made is going to have to be reviewed. Maybe it was based on a couple of reservoirs, maybe the people that made the second estimate made an error, that is also a possibility. Both were published in peer reviewed journals, so there will be some review on the part of the scientists that made the original estimate.

    However, as has already been pointed out, even the larger amount is miniscule, and not a problem on the global scale.

    As to why more dams are not being built, one might look to what kind of geology it takes to have a safe hydroelectric installation. Also, what kind of land are you flooding for the reservoir? How about the effect on the fisheries?

    Hydroelectric is an excellant renewable resource. But it too has costs and problems that have to be addressed when a dam is built.
     
  9. westwall
    Online

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,018
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,786



    What it points out MENSA boy, is that the leading lights of your religious movement can't fucking add or subtract.
     
  10. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    Run the numbers of atmospheric composition to truly see what a joke and infinitesimally small this error is too. 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, and of that 0.06% is created by man.

    I keep seeing this scene from Good Morning Vietnam over and over when people argue over the minutia of how much CO2 is produced by man. Lt. Hauk just replaced Adrienne Cronauer on the air, and complains to the General that he felt that a certain section of the polka loving men was under-represented by the playing of 'modern' music. The General retorts by saying it don't matter if you play polkas or don't play polkas.

    But of course, the only thing about the weather that needs be said from that movie is this.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXdmTtk1Mm4&feature=related]‪Weather Report with Walter Cronkite‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
     

Share This Page