CDZ avoiding climate catastrophe : paying attention to our methane output should be of bigger concern to us, i and quite a few others think

[Mac-7]

Because they can't run the same type of scam on nuclear that they can off of the so-called bullshit renewables.

In some cases maybe

But as much as libs fear global warming, nuclear power scares the shit out of them too

They tend to carry around a lot of personal hangups

 

[flacaltenn]

Methane can leak from oil and natural gas wells, natural gas pipelines and the processing equipment itself. According to data from the US Energy Information Administration, the US has thousands of active wells for natural gas, millions of abandoned oil and gas wells, about two million miles of natural gas pipelines, and several refineries that process the gas.

Let me open your "horizon" on this a bit.. Gas and oil seepage goes on DAILY in huge amounts anywhere that there are HCarbon deposits residing naturally. The Gulf of Mexico is totally laced with areas of methane seepage. Some of reported volume flows would probably cancel out the rarer pipeline issues if you realize that these have been going on for CENTURIES, virtually 24/7...

Here's one link.. You'll find numbers to compare on other sites..

Gulf of Mexico 2012: Background: Gas Seep Exploration: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research

oceanexplorer.noaa.gov

This is similar to the FACT that there is a CO2 cycle as well that is TOTALLY dominated by NATURE -- not man.. Man's discharge of CO2 is only 5% of what NATURE puts up into the atmosphere every year.. Nature also SINKS all of its emissions PLUS almost a half of what man puts up into the land and the seas..

 

[flacaltenn]

If you were to go back in time to a day before white men set foot upon this continent, the methane produced by one bison herd would be more than all the factories in today's America.

I don't know if bison would overwhelm all of our current CO2 emissions, but SURELY the fauna that was here pre-westernization would SWAMP our current cattle emissions. That part of the GW accounting is simply fraudulent. Need better and more honest bookkeepers... LOL...

 

[flacaltenn]

No matter how much "heat" a molecule of methane retains, it can not pass on an equal* amount to the other 535,905 parts of the atmosphere it is in ratio to.

Once again we see misrepresentation and distortion of numbers/data to provide out of perspective propaganda.

It's not a matter of warming the larger gas constituents in the atmos.. It's the re-radiation of infra-red energy which is what the GreenHouse does.. And its that part of the IRed energy that HITS the surface that keeps us from being popsicles.

The messaging that departs from ACTUAL science on Global Warming isn't that CO2 or CH4 are not Greenhouse gases.. It's the adjunct theories on CATASTROPHIC GW that are not "settled".. Those theories that gives CO2 and CH4 SUPERPOWERS that they simply do not possess..

That's what brings us headlines about "tipping points" at which the earth is doomed in XX years.. Or runaway GW where every feedback in the models is POSITIVE feedback and for which there is ZERO contemporaneous empirical evidence.

YES -- the GreenHouse is warming.. NO -- it's NOT an unstable system.. The power of these gases to warm the greenhouse goes down logarithmically with their increase in concentration..

 

[YoursTruly]

The democrats solution to climate change:

Throw money at it.

 

[justoffal]

you'll need to prove that argument with independent source data.

from what i know, CO2 pollution has already caused major extra methane releases from Siberia, and all those cows and pigs we raise for our meat and dairy ain't doing the planet (and thus us humans as well) any good either.

On top of that, the events in Siberia are very likely to spread to that rather large piece of land called Greenland, where there is *also* a lot of still partially frozen permafrost soil holding a *lot* of methane.

i'll be happy to continue this once you come up with scientific data that outlines how much methane gets released without human interaction, like from the sea bed (and btw, who is to prove that that is not increased by rising temperatures?), and how much methane is going up into the air due to human activities...

Of course it's the rising temperature that's causing the methane release the question is and always has been what is causing the rising temperature?
Is there a feedback loop? Probably.
But the existence of a feedback loop does not establish the source of the total heat accrual often not measured simply in temperature but in total latent heat content.

 

[justoffal]

It's not a matter of warming the larger gas constituents in the atmos.. It's the re-radiation of infra-red energy which is what the GreenHouse does.. And its that part of the IRed energy that HITS the surface that keeps us from being popsicles.

The messaging that departs from ACTUAL science on Global Warming isn't that CO2 or CH4 are not Greenhouse gases.. It's the adjunct theories on CATASTROPHIC GW that are not "settled".. Those theories that gives CO2 and CH4 SUPERPOWERS that they simply do not possess..

That's what brings us headlines about "tipping points" at which the earth is doomed in XX years.. Or runaway GW where every feedback in the models is POSITIVE feedback and for which there is ZERO contemporaneous empirical evidence.

YES -- the GreenHouse is warming.. NO -- it's NOT an unstable system.. The power of these gases to warm the greenhouse goes down logarithmically with their increase in concentration..

Additionally heat transfer rate is a function of Total temperature difference....often referred to as delta T. The more heat retained by the atmosphere the greater and more rapid the heat transfer to nearby open space.

Nature has given us a certain form of shock absorber in that respect.

It should be noted however that as the sun moves towards and through its third stage that the balance of hydrogen fusion versus helium fusion continues to shift in the higher energy direction. There is no amount of legislation, good feeling or well-meaning intention that can do a damn thing about that.

 

[badbob85037]

If the world stopped producing carbon dioxide tomorrow all of life would come to an end in hours...so, I cannot believe any of the drivel.

I go by what I see. Working in the construction industry and living in the Arizona desert I can tell you when it's hot. I can tell you where I was and what i was doing every day of 125 degrees or over and it hasn't happened in over 7 years. If we listened to Algore we would have all drown or grown gills by now Just follow the money and stop being so stupid.

 

[justoffal]

If the world stopped producing carbon dioxide tomorrow all of life would come to an end in hours...so, I cannot believe any of the drivel.

Yep... Our life on this planet is referred to as the carbon cycle. That should tell you something.

Jo

 

[Billy_Bob]

A new lie from the rabid left that has no basis in chemistry to prove it...

 

[Ivan88]

Let me open your "horizon" on this a bit.. Gas and oil seepage goes on DAILY in huge amounts anywhere that there are HCarbon deposits residing naturally. The Gulf of Mexico is totally laced with areas of methane seepage. Some of reported volume flows would probably cancel out the rarer pipeline issues if you realize that these have been going on for CENTURIES, virtually 24/7...

Here's one link.. You'll find numbers to compare on other sites..

Gulf of Mexico 2012: Background: Gas Seep Exploration: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research

oceanexplorer.noaa.gov

This is similar to the FACT that there is a CO2 cycle as well that is TOTALLY dominated by NATURE -- not man.. Man's discharge of CO2 is only 5% of what NATURE puts up into the atmosphere every year.. Nature also SINKS all of its emissions PLUS almost a half of what man puts up into the land and the seas..

Bravo, flacltenn! Good Job.
All the political noise and whining about "evil Carbon" is complete lies with evil intent.

 

[Captain Caveman]

you'll need to prove that argument with independent source data.

from what i know, CO2 pollution has already caused major extra methane releases from Siberia, and all those cows and pigs we raise for our meat and dairy ain't doing the planet (and thus us humans as well) any good either.

On top of that, the events in Siberia are very likely to spread to that rather large piece of land called Greenland, where there is *also* a lot of still partially frozen permafrost soil holding a *lot* of methane.

i'll be happy to continue this once you come up with scientific data that outlines how much methane gets released without human interaction, like from the sea bed (and btw, who is to prove that that is not increased by rising temperatures?), and how much methane is going up into the air due to human activities...

Today, co2 is approx 440ppm. It was 2,400ppm in the Cretaceous Period and some 4c warmer. Why did life flourish in the Cretaceous Period?

 

[flacaltenn]

Today, co2 is approx 440ppm. It was 2,400ppm in the Cretaceous Period and some 4c warmer. Why did life flourish in the Cretaceous Period?

Generally, you're right. In actuality, it's more complicated than saying the WHOLE EARTH in ANY period was X Deg warmer. The land masses on Earth didn't even SEPARATE from the "pangea" status until well after the Cretaceous. There isn't a single "Climate Zone" on the planet and Global Warming is not truly UNIFORM everywhere on the globe.

One of the reasons that 2400 ppm is not as scary as people MIGHT THINK is that the Greenhouse warming power of CO2 as a gas GOES DOWN DRAMATICALLY as the concentrations get higher.

We started the Indust. Age at about 280ppm. As you said, we're at 440ppm or so. That's not even a DOUBLING of the concentration. So if now we hit double 280 = 560, physics and chemistry by themselves say we'll get 1.1DegC change. But the NEXT DOUBLING of surface temp change will be 560 to 1120ppm -- which is DOUBLE the amount of CO2 to get the same additional temperature increment. So 2400ppm during the Cretaceous period is the second doubling after that.

So -- That would be (by simple analysis, not global modeling) about 3.6DegC WARMER than the globe was in 1890s or so. That's pretty good for envelope calculation.

But look at what that would take.. We'd have to affect the NATURAL BALANCE of atmospheric CO2 by MORE than 8 TIMES what we've put up there since the Indust Age began. Maybe 10 times as much since we haven't quite doubled it yet.

There are complexities on top on this calculation about how warming changes the NATURAL CO2 cycle, but it gives you some idea of how far we ARE from "going Cretaceous".. LOL,.,.

 

[Muhammed]

My question, especially to the Republican audience and leaders that frequent this forum, is this :
Would you allow Biden to curtail the US' methane output, and with that set an example for the rest of NATO and the world?
An example that by the way would increase world-wide goodwill for the USA.

Fuck no.

You're a low IQ easily brainwashed idiot.

You global warming doomsday cult dupes are the stupidest people on the planet.

 

[jc456]

If the world stopped producing carbon dioxide tomorrow all of life would come to an end in hours...so, I cannot believe any of the drivel.

they still don't understand how it all works. And they have the nerve to discuss science. Oxygen is never mentioned by these stupid fks.

 

[jc456]

In some cases maybe

But as much as libs fear global warming, nuclear power scares the shit out of them too

They tend to carry around a lot of personal hangups

the demofks hate life. It's why they can just kill it off.

 

[sartre play]

Its a compilated issue, difficult for many of us to understand. We all should support the things we do understand, And do what we can to protect the air water and soil to the best of our ability.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Generally, you're right. In actuality, it's more complicated than saying the WHOLE EARTH in ANY period was X Deg warmer. The land masses on Earth didn't even SEPARATE from the "pangea" status until well after the Cretaceous. There isn't a single "Climate Zone" on the planet and Global Warming is not truly UNIFORM everywhere on the globe.

One of the reasons that 2400 ppm is not as scary as people MIGHT THINK is that the Greenhouse warming power of CO2 as a gas GOES DOWN DRAMATICALLY as the concentrations get higher.

We started the Indust. Age at about 280ppm. As you said, we're at 440ppm or so. That's not even a DOUBLING of the concentration. So if now we hit double 280 = 560, physics and chemistry by themselves say we'll get 1.1DegC change. But the NEXT DOUBLING of surface temp change will be 560 to 1120ppm -- which is DOUBLE the amount of CO2 to get the same additional temperature increment. So 2400ppm during the Cretaceous period is the second doubling after that.

So -- That would be (by simple analysis, not global modeling) about 3.6DegC WARMER than the globe was in 1890s or so. That's pretty good for envelope calculation.

But look at what that would take.. We'd have to affect the NATURAL BALANCE of atmospheric CO2 by MORE than 8 TIMES what we've put up there since the Indust Age began. Maybe 10 times as much since we haven't quite doubled it yet.

There are complexities on top on this calculation about how warming changes the NATURAL CO2 cycle, but it gives you some idea of how far we ARE from "going Cretaceous".. LOL,.,.

Sounds lovely, however our greenhouse gas reality is well explained here and neatly summed up:

Currently our atmosphere and ocean are flooded with CO2, and we can see that the carbon sinks can’t keep up because the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans are rising quickly.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (raspberry line) has increased along with human emissions (blue line) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750. Credit: NOAA Climate.gov
Unfortunately, we don’t have thousands of years to wait for nature to absorb the flood of CO2. By then, billions of people would have suffered and died from the impacts of climate change; there would be mass extinctions, and our beautiful planet would become unrecognizable. We can avoid much of that damage and suffering through a combination of decarbonizing our energy supply, pulling CO2 out the atmosphere, and developing more sustainable ways of thriving.

Promote sustainability or continue shoving your head in the sand with a vengeance. It's always tempting to just say "To each their own" or "Can't we all just get along?" but the choice is clearly a deeply moral one in this case.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sounds lovely, however our greenhouse gas reality is well explained here and neatly summed up:

Promote sustainability or continue shoving your head in the sand with a vengeance. It's always tempting to just say "To each their own" or "Can't we all just get along?" but the choice is clearly a deeply moral one in this case.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

Hundreds.