[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Trump - kcar - May 25, 2018 - 7:05pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - May 25, 2018 - 7:02pm
 
That's a terrible idea. Let's do it! - Lazy8 - May 25, 2018 - 6:30pm
 
Those lovable acronym guys & gals - R_P - May 25, 2018 - 6:17pm
 
Free Mp3s - R_P - May 25, 2018 - 5:38pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - May 25, 2018 - 5:36pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - Antigone - May 25, 2018 - 3:25pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - May 25, 2018 - 3:21pm
 
World Music - rhahl - May 25, 2018 - 2:43pm
 
Things You Thought You Heard Out Loud - Proclivities - May 25, 2018 - 1:57pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - May 25, 2018 - 1:23pm
 
Coffee - Proclivities - May 25, 2018 - 1:11pm
 
Guns - R_P - May 25, 2018 - 12:54pm
 
Freedom of speech? - R_P - May 25, 2018 - 12:44pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - May 25, 2018 - 12:42pm
 
Way Cool Video - SeriousLee - May 25, 2018 - 12:22pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - May 25, 2018 - 12:13pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - May 25, 2018 - 12:07pm
 
Name My Band - SeriousLee - May 25, 2018 - 11:48am
 
how do you feel right now? - SeriousLee - May 25, 2018 - 11:44am
 
What Did You Do Today? - SeriousLee - May 25, 2018 - 11:09am
 
Baseball, anyone? - SeriousLee - May 25, 2018 - 11:03am
 
deleting/editing comments function gone - sirdroseph - May 25, 2018 - 10:51am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Chwkbud - May 25, 2018 - 10:48am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - DownHomeGirl - May 25, 2018 - 10:03am
 
North Korea - cc_rider - May 25, 2018 - 9:17am
 
Nature's Creatures - Proclivities - May 25, 2018 - 9:14am
 
Memorial Day - cc_rider - May 25, 2018 - 8:14am
 
songs that ROCK! - sirdroseph - May 25, 2018 - 2:23am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - haresfur - May 24, 2018 - 10:17pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - haresfur - May 24, 2018 - 9:23pm
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - haresfur - May 24, 2018 - 9:22pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - AliGator - May 24, 2018 - 9:06pm
 
Race in America - R_P - May 24, 2018 - 6:33pm
 
Live Music - kurtster - May 24, 2018 - 6:30pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - May 24, 2018 - 4:13pm
 
Things that piss me off - Antigone - May 24, 2018 - 2:59pm
 
New Music - ptooey - May 24, 2018 - 2:02pm
 
Art Show - oldviolin - May 24, 2018 - 1:16pm
 
Animal Resistance - Proclivities - May 24, 2018 - 1:10pm
 
Military Matters - R_P - May 24, 2018 - 1:03pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - k_trout - May 24, 2018 - 12:21pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - sirdroseph - May 24, 2018 - 11:37am
 
Afghanistan - R_P - May 24, 2018 - 10:28am
 
Photos you haven't taken of yourself - Antigone - May 24, 2018 - 10:19am
 
Books read recently - islander - May 24, 2018 - 9:48am
 
illegal immigrants - meower - May 24, 2018 - 7:16am
 
The Truth Unfolds - Red_Dragon - May 23, 2018 - 6:15pm
 
Breaking News - R_P - May 23, 2018 - 10:49am
 
Celebrity Deaths - GeneP59 - May 23, 2018 - 9:16am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Proclivities - May 23, 2018 - 6:56am
 
Environmental, Brilliance or Stupidity - miamizsun - May 23, 2018 - 5:04am
 
Latin Music - R_P - May 23, 2018 - 12:24am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottN - May 22, 2018 - 8:54pm
 
BACK TO THE 80's - R_P - May 22, 2018 - 7:16pm
 
TV shows you watch - kcar - May 22, 2018 - 6:12pm
 
How To Be Politically Correct, A Primer - R_P - May 22, 2018 - 4:09pm
 
oh boy CAKE! - haresfur - May 22, 2018 - 2:49pm
 
what about those emo kids? - Proclivities - May 22, 2018 - 11:27am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - May 22, 2018 - 10:56am
 
When are you too old to drive? - meower - May 22, 2018 - 10:27am
 
Back to the 00's - rhahl - May 22, 2018 - 10:21am
 
XPRIZE & Singularity University - miamizsun - May 22, 2018 - 4:12am
 
Milk squirting in Turkey??? - miamizsun - May 22, 2018 - 4:06am
 
Your Current Crush - Alexandra - May 21, 2018 - 11:12pm
 
Immigration - haresfur - May 21, 2018 - 11:11pm
 
Ridiculous or Funny Spam - R_P - May 21, 2018 - 10:50pm
 
Those Silly FBI Guys! - ScottFromWyoming - May 21, 2018 - 10:21pm
 
"Everybody Must Get Stoned" actually not about drugs - Manbird - May 21, 2018 - 8:44pm
 
International Year of Rumi - 2007 - oldviolin - May 21, 2018 - 6:30pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - May 21, 2018 - 6:07pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - R_P - May 21, 2018 - 5:34pm
 
The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America - Manbird - May 21, 2018 - 5:28pm
 
Toodledo and/or OpenID - Manbird - May 21, 2018 - 5:18pm
 
Fun For Fingers - Manbird - May 21, 2018 - 5:12pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Global Warming Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32  Next
Post to this Topic
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: May 3, 2018 - 9:04am

Powerful Investors Push Big Companies to Plan for Climate Change
rhahl
If it sounds good, it is good.
rhahl Avatar



Posted: May 3, 2018 - 7:54am

CounterSpin interview with Dahr Jamail on Antarctic ice, by Janine Jackson

 
A little known mechanism of antarctic ice destruction.

 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: May 1, 2018 - 9:33pm

 kcar wrote:

Yeah, I think you largely nailed it. I think there were some here who believed that kurtster was trying to use methane as a FUD-inducing distraction about global warming. He says no, he was just trying to point out that it's not all about CO2. 

 
That is correct.  It was the only real point I was trying to make.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: May 1, 2018 - 9:16pm

 haresfur wrote:
Well I can't follow this dog's breakfast of whinging about who has or hasn't recognised the importance of various greenhouse gases, with tangents into whether pollution you can't see is a problem if there has been improvement in pollution you can see.

So my summary of a few of the important points
 
C02 is the most important greenhouse gas - not the most potent, but has concentrations increasing at rates high enough to cause the greatest effect in atmospheric warming.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas because emissions are increasing fast enough to increase warming in spite of its shorter atmospheric half life than CO2.
 
There is a feedback mechanism that concerns many scientists regarding methane because emissions are expected to increase due to release from melting permafrost
 
There is active research in changing the feedbase to reduce methane emissions from ruminants but my understanding is that is unlikely to stablise emissions. Eating kangaroo is greener than beef or lamb I'm just not that fond of the stuff. Being vegetarian is better still, but, at least in Australia, there is a lot of land not suited to much other than pasture and you get into all sorts of farm economics arguments.
  
There is significant methane emission from fossil fuel production - double whammy. Flaring it off is probably better than nothing but continues to release CO2 and contribute to the problem. Don't hold your breath for the US EPA to make much headway on this issue. Not that the Australian government is doing a very good job.
 
CO2 is the most siginificant greenhouse gas (yes I said it before). If you accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, then you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one. Bonus point: If you don't accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one anyway.

ETA: a good summary

 
Yeah, I think you largely nailed it. I think there were some here who believed that kurtster was trying to use methane as a FUD-inducing distraction about global warming. He says no, he was just trying to point out that it's not all about CO2. 

Side-thought: my guess/hope is that the best way to reduce methane from domesticated meat-providing animals is to tissue-engineer meat in a lab. While we wait for that to happen, we should eat less meat. 

Again, miamizsun provided this link to a great op-ed/interview in the New York Times about the number of ways we can attack global warming. Thought I'd re-post it to get the general conversation back on track. 

A Smorgasbord of Solutions for Global Warming


haresfur
I get around
haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: May 1, 2018 - 7:54pm

Well I can't follow this dog's breakfast of whinging about who has or hasn't recognised the importance of various greenhouse gases, with tangents into whether pollution you can't see is a problem if there has been improvement in pollution you can see.

So my summary of a few of the important points
 
C02 is the most important greenhouse gas - not the most potent, but has concentrations increasing at rates high enough to cause the greatest effect in atmospheric warming.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas because emissions are increasing fast enough to increase warming in spite of its shorter atmospheric half life than CO2.
 
There is a feedback mechanism that concerns many scientists regarding methane because emissions are expected to increase due to release from melting permafrost
 
There is active research in changing the feedbase to reduce methane emissions from ruminants but my understanding is that is unlikely to stablise emissions. Eating kangaroo is greener than beef or lamb I'm just not that fond of the stuff. Being vegetarian is better still, but, at least in Australia, there is a lot of land not suited to much other than pasture and you get into all sorts of farm economics arguments.
  
There is significant methane emission from fossil fuel production - double whammy. Flaring it off is probably better than nothing but continues to release CO2 and contribute to the problem. Don't hold your breath for the US EPA to make much headway on this issue. Not that the Australian government is doing a very good job.
 
CO2 is the most siginificant greenhouse gas (yes I said it before). If you accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, then you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one. Bonus point: If you don't accept that methane is a greenhouse gas, you have no basis for rejecting CO2 as one anyway.

ETA: a good summary


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: May 1, 2018 - 1:00am

 kurtster wrote:

I do more than just read things and have far more other sources than Fox.

For years here, long before you became a regular here, I have tried to bring up other things including methane besides CO2 regarding this subject.  Every time, 100% of the time, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters.  Why do you think I barely get involved in this discussion ?  Do you see me in these threads on any kind of regularity ?

Finally there is a very credible source that mentions things other than CO2 and I decide to get involved again and support the things brought up in the article and once again, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters ... that is until you give me a modicum of support on this thought.  And now you take it away.

And geo engineering has been going on for decades ...   But that is another subject entirely.  And I get beat up on that too.  I even started a thread on it 9 years ago, using that term.  But now you bring up the term.  What exactly do you mean by or consider to be geo engineering since you brought it up ?

So back to non participation and let the CO2 alarmists continue on their path unchallenged, as usual.

 


You'll have to point me to your past posts where you warn about methane. I believe you but skimmed backwards to 2014 in this thread (for such a serious topic, there aren't all that many posts here) and I don't think I saw posts from you warning about methane. 
{#Think} (more of a shrug than a think, but it's late and I have insomnia). 
I did see this from you back in 4/29/14—I vigorously disagree with it btw: 

What bothers me the most is how we are distorting our entire economy to address this in money losing propositions.  We cannot overcome the foreign outputs of China and India and other nations whose priorities do match ours.  So in essence we are only chasing our tails and bankrupting ourselves financially and even morally in this futile endeavor.  The moral example is that it is now ok to kill eagles and other birds when wind farms are doing the killing.

That's not to say that we do nothing.  Just not what we are doing now.  We should direct our energy towards finding ways to cope and adapt rather than try and reverse it. 

Change is the only constant in life.  All this time, energy and money being spent to try and prevent change (or put the genie back in the bottle) is downright foolish and futile. Politicians and there masters only make money when something goes wrong.  They do not make any money when they fix things.

Companies are actually making profits from solar panels and wind mills (solar panels less so because of the glut and uncertain state of federal subsidies and overseas competition). The solar energy industry employs a multiple of the people that the coal industry employs. Energy from renewables is cost-competitive with energy from hydrocarbons—would be more than cost-competitive if we imposed a carbon tax on hydrocarbons to reflect the costs caused by their pollution. If you're so hep to change, you might want to change your opinion of renewables. Companies are profiting handsomely from them. The money-losing proposition you want to be worried about is the coal industry. You might want to let your buddy Donnie know that as well. 

India and China are not going to rein in their use of coal if they don't see a commitment from the US to rein in its carbon emissions. As things stand, China has the largest installed capacity of solar, wind and hydro electricity generation in the world. Renewables provide around 24% of the country's electricity generation. Unfortunately, coal still accounts for most of the rest of China's energy production. 

"We should direct our energy towards finding ways to cope and adapt rather than try and reverse it."

I have no idea what you mean or propose in concrete terms by this, but I'll tell you this. Steve Chu is a brilliant man—a Nobelist in physics, a former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and former Secretary of Energy. Chu once said that given our hydrocarbon consumption patterns, he didn't see how the coastal cities in California could survive rising sea levels. Do you think that we should cope with the loss of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, etc?

Not everyone gives a damn about our polar ice caps or rising sea levels or dramatically changing weather patterns. But the destruction of major cities makes them wake up a bit. 

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 30, 2018 - 8:07pm

 kcar wrote:

Wow, you really don't read much about global warming, do you?

I assure you that the EPA, the IPCC and just about every other organization involved with global environmental issues have long been aware of methane's role in global warming. I studied global warming at the graduate level back in the early 90s and everyone was well aware of methane's greater short-term ability to contribute to global warming when compared to carbon dioxide.

There is no "CO2 fantasy" as you put it. GWP is an attempt to figure out which greenhouse gases are doing the most to trap and hold radiated heat. I don't know the whole story behind GWP20 vs. GWP100 but I suspect that part of the reason the EPA has used GWP100 is that methane breaks down into CO2 and water vapor, so it's possible that the global warming effect of a unit of methane in the atmosphere continues after that unit of methane has broken down into carbon dioxide. 

We need to limit emissions of both carbon dioxide and methane. The science of global warming and the contributing gases has long been established and accepted. 

"The impatience in dealing with this is causing us to not consider the big picture and misdirecting us into wasting resources."
Impatience?!?! Are you f$%#in' kidding me? We are on the edge of irretrievably damaging our global climate. We may have to engage in serious geo-engineering to save our collective ass. I urge to stop getting your knowledge about global warming from FOX News and other denialist organizations and become better informed. 

 
I do more than just read things and have far more other sources than Fox.

For years here, long before you became a regular here, I have tried to bring up other things including methane besides CO2 regarding this subject.  Every time, 100% of the time, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters.  Why do you think I barely get involved in this discussion ?  Do you see me in these threads on any kind of regularity ?

Finally there is a very credible source that mentions things other than CO2 and I decide to get involved again and support the things brought up in the article and once again, I get beat down and told that only CO2 matters ... that is until you give me a modicum of support on this thought.  And now you take it away.

And geo engineering has been going on for decades ...   But that is another subject entirely.  And I get beat up on that too.  I even started a thread on it 9 years ago, using that term.  But now you bring up the term.  What exactly do you mean by or consider to be geo engineering since you brought it up ?

So back to non participation and let the CO2 alarmists continue on their path unchallenged, as usual.
islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Apr 30, 2018 - 7:58pm

 Lazy8 wrote: 
No, it's a completely new conspiracy about clean diesel....

Knock it down, it will get another coat of turd polish and show up again just over the horizon.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Apr 30, 2018 - 5:24pm

 kurtster wrote:
 

It gave me real hope that for the first time, real numbers and math were being applied to help define what the actual problem(s) is(are) and the real priorities we should set up.  Up until now, all attention has been focused on CO2, to the point of emotional insanity imho.  I grew frustrated by the refusal to admit that there is a greater and more pressing problem to deal with than CO2.  I did not dismiss CO2 as a concern, just attempted to get its proper place recognized.



 
Wow, you really don't read much about global warming, do you?

I assure you that the EPA, the IPCC and just about every other organization involved with global environmental issues have long been aware of methane's role in global warming. I studied global warming at the graduate level back in the early 90s and everyone was well aware of methane's greater short-term ability to contribute to global warming when compared to carbon dioxide.

There is no "CO2 fantasy" as you put it. GWP is an attempt to figure out which greenhouse gases are doing the most to trap and hold radiated heat. I don't know the whole story behind GWP20 vs. GWP100 but I suspect that part of the reason the EPA has used GWP100 is that methane breaks down into CO2 and water vapor, so it's possible that the global warming effect of a unit of methane in the atmosphere continues after that unit of methane has broken down into carbon dioxide. 

We need to limit emissions of both carbon dioxide and methane. The science of global warming and the contributing gases has long been established and accepted. 

"The impatience in dealing with this is causing us to not consider the big picture and misdirecting us into wasting resources."
Impatience?!?! Are you f$%#in' kidding me? We are on the edge of irretrievably damaging our global climate. We may have to engage in serious geo-engineering to save our collective ass. I urge to stop getting your knowledge about global warming from FOX News and other denialist organizations and become better informed. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 30, 2018 - 4:13pm

 kurtster wrote:
Once upon a time we had street cars, until the clean diesel Generous Motors buses were brought to town.
 
Oy, not this again!
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 30, 2018 - 11:36am

 islander wrote:

Any insanity comes from dealing with the denialists and their constantly shifting rationales on why we should do nothing.  Just a little while back it was "solar cycles, nothing can be done, let's burn all the carbon!". Before that it was "scientists said global cooling in the 70's, can't trust them, nothing can be known, burn all the carbon!"  I think there were a few other iterations along the way, but they all ended with "nothing can be done, burn all the carbon!".   So yeah, people are getting a little tired of the game of "hey look, we moved the goal posts, let's restart the discussion while the oil industry plunders away".

 
So I can count you in as CO2 is still the most pressing issue.  

We deniers are not moving the goal posts, its you alarmists who keep doing it.

I've lived through the CT of Peak Oil.  This CO2 fantasy will also end up being another CT in the end as well.

The impatience in dealing with this is causing us to not consider the big picture and misdirecting us into wasting resources.  
islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Apr 30, 2018 - 9:11am

 kurtster wrote:
 

It gave me real hope that for the first time, real numbers and math were being applied to help define what the actual problem(s) is(are) and the real priorities we should set up.  Up until now, all attention has been focused on CO2, to the point of emotional insanity imho.  I grew frustrated by the refusal to admit that there is a greater and more pressing problem to deal with than CO2.  I did not dismiss CO2 as a concern, just attempted to get its proper place recognized.



 
Any insanity comes from dealing with the denialists and their constantly shifting rationales on why we should do nothing.  Just a little while back it was "solar cycles, nothing can be done, let's burn all the carbon!". Before that it was "scientists said global cooling in the 70's, can't trust them, nothing can be known, burn all the carbon!"  I think there were a few other iterations along the way, but they all ended with "nothing can be done, burn all the carbon!".   So yeah, people are getting a little tired of the game of "hey look, we moved the goal posts, let's restart the discussion while the oil industry plunders away".
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 30, 2018 - 7:21am

 kcar wrote:
I'm jumping in here, so I may be missing big chunks of this discussion, but kurtster sorta has a point even though his numbers are muddled. Climate scientists have calculated methane's greenhouse gas effect in a way that takes into account its greater greenhouse-gas potency andits briefer life in the atmosphere. However, the EPA and others may be stretching calculation of that impact over 100 years and that may be way too long.  

This link to an EPA page has an explanation of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a measurement that takes into account several factors about different gases to compare them. GWP according to this page is based on 
1. how much of the gases are in the atmosphere

2. how long they stay in the atmosphere and 

3. how strongly do they affect the atmosphere.  
 
Thank you.  You didn't miss much that matters.  The point I was trying to make was based on this wonderful article shown below:

 miamizsun wrote:  

It gave me real hope that for the first time, real numbers and math were being applied to help define what the actual problem(s) is(are) and the real priorities we should set up.  Up until now, all attention has been focused on CO2, to the point of emotional insanity imho.  I grew frustrated by the refusal to admit that there is a greater and more pressing problem to deal with than CO2.  I did not dismiss CO2 as a concern, just attempted to get its proper place recognized.




kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Apr 29, 2018 - 11:07pm

 kurtster wrote:

I'll try this one more time using your chart which if I read it correctly is the current distribution of GHG. Right ?

So CO2 comprises 76% of the current total and the others account for 24%.  Am I right so far ?

So, if we only used the number for methane to apply for the whole 24% ...  So according to the article, methane is at least a minimum 28 times worse than CO2 in terms of its affect on global warming.  So let's see how this works ...

I'm not sure exactly how to get the numbers correct but I think that the 24% becomes 60% ± and the CO2 76% becomes 40% ±  or a 3 to 2 ratio.  I'm sure that someone with higher math skills than I can figure it out exactly, but I think that I am pretty close.  It might even be closer to a 4 to 1 ratio or even a 5 to 1 ratio when that 2% F gas is adjusted for its minimum 146 times greater impact.  I would love to see someone do the actual math.

This is in the present.  CO2 while still a problem, it is already the lesser of the current problems. 

Your position still is that CO2 is the greatest problem in dealing with GHG. Is that correct ?  If we are talking about the present, it doesn't matter how long these gases remain, because the impact is constant over time unless mitigated because your composition number percentages will remain constant.

and you say ?

 

 

I'm jumping in here, so I may be missing big chunks of this discussion, but kurtster sorta has a point even though his numbers are muddled. Climate scientists have calculated methane's greenhouse gas effect in a way that takes into account its greater greenhouse-gas potency and its briefer life in the atmosphere. However, the EPA and others may be stretching calculation of that impact over 100 years and that may be way too long.  

This link to an EPA page has an explanation of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a measurement that takes into account several factors about different gases to compare them. GWP according to this page is based on 
1. how much of the gases are in the atmosphere

2. how long they stay in the atmosphere and 

3. how strongly do they affect the atmosphere.  


From another EPA page: 

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

  • CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.

  • Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.


 A different site offers some calculations about methane: 


While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75 ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. 



It strikes me that scientists have already taken into account methane's far superior ability to capture radiation and its smaller amounts in the atmosphere when calculating methane's global warming potential. 


HOWEVER: if you were reading the above closely, you may have noted an inconsistency: Global Warming Potential is measured over a 100-year period but methane lasts only 10 years in the atmosphere, not 100. 

A climate scientist at a non-profit is trying to get others to acknowledge this inconsistency and change their measurement of Global Warming Potential: 



But policymakers typically ignore methane's warming potential over 20 years (GWP20) when assembling a nation's emissions inventory. Instead, they stretch out methane's warming impacts over a century, which makes the gas appear more benign than it is, experts said. The 100-year warming potential (GWP100) of methane is 34, according to the IPCC.

There is no scientific reason to prefer a 100-year time horizon over a 20-year time horizon; the choice of GWP100 is simply a matter of convention.

The 100-year GWP value underestimates the gas's negative impacts by almost five times, said Ilissa Ocko, a climate scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. The quick warming in the short run catalyzed by methane can affect environmental processes, such as the flowering of plants, she said at the American Geophysical Union meeting last week.

"The short-lived climate pollutants that we emit from human activities are basically controlling how fast the warming occurs," she said. "This is because they are very powerful at absorbing radiation."



...

EDF and some scientists are calling on the United Nations and policymakers to stop relying on GWP100. They would instead like experts to use GWP20 and GWP100 as a slashed pair. 



The EPA has this to say about GWP20: 

Because all GWPs are calculated relative to CO2, GWPs based on a shorter timeframe will be larger for gases with lifetimes shorter than that of CO2, and smaller for gases with lifetimes longer than CO2. For example, for CH4, which has a short lifetime, the 100-year GWP of 28–36 is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87. For CF4, with a lifetime of 50,000 years, the 100-year GWP of 6630–7350 is larger than the 20-year GWP of 4880–4950.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 29, 2018 - 9:02pm

 R_P wrote:
 kurtster wrote:
As a denier according to so many here, this is meaningful stuff.  It identifies what the real problems are.  You cannot solve a problem until you know exactly what it is.  This gives me hope that rational thought and real solutions can be devised.  All this stuff about CO2 being our primary concern is blown to hell here.

Not at all. You draw the wrong conclusion from the mere availability of solutions that might mitigate the total output of all responsible gases (even in CO2 equivalence such as the F-gases in solution no. 1) at some point in future.

 
I'll try this one more time using your chart which if I read it correctly is the current distribution of GHG. Right ?

So CO2 comprises 76% of the current total and the others account for 24%.  Am I right so far ?

So, if we only used the number for methane to apply for the whole 24% ...  So according to the article, methane is at least a minimum 28 times worse than CO2 in terms of its affect on global warming.  So let's see how this works ...

I'm not sure exactly how to get the numbers correct but I think that the 24% becomes 60% ± and the CO2 76% becomes 40% ±  or a 3 to 2 ratio.  I'm sure that someone with higher math skills than I can figure it out exactly, but I think that I am pretty close.  It might even be closer to a 4 to 1 ratio or even a 5 to 1 ratio when that 2% F gas is adjusted for its minimum 146 times greater impact.  I would love to see someone do the actual math.

This is in the present.  CO2 while still a problem, it is already the lesser of the current problems. 

Your position still is that CO2 is the greatest problem in dealing with GHG. Is that correct ?  If we are talking about the present, it doesn't matter how long these gases remain, because the impact is constant over time unless mitigated because your composition number percentages will remain constant.

and you say ?

 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 29, 2018 - 8:07am

 miamizsun wrote:


those pics are awesome

 
Some other interesting pics of Los Angeles.  Once upon a time we had street cars, until the clean diesel Generous Motors buses were brought to town.  I actually do remember seeing these still in operation.  This is a pic of one down by the Nu Pike Amusement Park in Long Beach.  The source page for these pics and larger views.    Have to scroll down some to find them.



Here's another of a smog removal plan ... a giant exhaust venting system.  Cost in the 50's estimated to be only $200 to $300 million ...

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 29, 2018 - 5:56am

 kurtster wrote:
An interesting link I stumbled on while finding pictures ...

L.A.'s Smoggy Past, in Photos
 

those pics are awesome
R_P
Oînk, oînk, OÎNK!
R_P Avatar



Posted: Apr 29, 2018 - 1:41am

 Steely_D wrote:
I was really enjoying the different perspectives until it started being less about ideas and more about insults.

If something's right, then why the personal attacks? Just prove the point.
 
While it doesn't 'prove' a point, it makes another one...
Steely_D
Angular banjoes sound good to me.
Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 28, 2018 - 10:55pm



 Get the picture, Mr. Boss-of-Statistical-Analysis-While-Using-Apples-and-Oranges?

 
I was really enjoying the different perspectives until it started being less about ideas and more about insults.

If something's right, then why the personal attacks? Just prove the point.
R_P
Oînk, oînk, OÎNK!
R_P Avatar



Posted: Apr 28, 2018 - 9:48pm

 kurtster wrote:
 R_P wrote:
Repeating doesn't make it more true (or CO2 less of a problem). It's common knowledge that other gases have a powerful effect. But it isn't a simple multiplication game. They have different effects, incl. in the time they stick around (methane is more powerful but has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere vs. CO2), or what actual effect they have on the atmosphere.

He talks about the potential release, not real current pollution. Take away the other gases (and their potentially increased effects) and you still have a massive problem just from CO2. And all these gases contribute to the problem. But then again you like to point out the biggest (bigger) problem in order to minimize another. Hello, heart disease.

We've known for a while that more warming (or food waste) will release additional methane which is more disastrous (again in potential) in the total picture. The same goes for those F-gases which may be released at end-of-life, unless they are recycled. All on top of CO2 emissions.

A. Since it's a wide range mentioned for that F-gas potential, what would be the reasonable multiplication factor? You can't know for certain. Again, it isn't straightforward multiplication. What we do know is the on-going increase of CO2 continues to have a big impact. The current warming trend correlates closest with those CO2 emissions. Other gases will just increase the trend, if they're not mitigated like he proposes.

B. The most important point is that solutions are great, but not without the political will and investment.


A. Well, if we took the minimums for Methane, 28X and for F-gas, 146X more powerful than CO2, they still dwarf CO2.

These gases are toxic. 

CO2 is not, in any recorded levels through history.  

Then there is all the frozen Methane on the ocean bottom.  Another factor in the overall rise of the earth's surface temperature is the ocean's rising temp which is greatly being affected by underwater volcanoes and various heat vents, more so than by surface weather.  We cannot stop these underwater events and should just some small pockets of frozen methane thaw, those results have the potential to be devastating.

B. Yes, but let's be honest and admit that CO2 is a smaller part of the overall problem than is currently being put forth.  CO2 mitigation is all about money.  And that there is less fear to be had and money to be made mitigating these other factors. 
 
Again, methane stays a decade in the atmosphere. CO2 stays for thousands of years. Get the picture, Mr. Boss-of-Statistical-Analysis-While-Using-Apples-and-Oranges?

Toxicity isn't the factor we're necessarily interested in (even water can cause intoxication in sufficiently large amounts). It's the effect they have on the atmosphere w.r.t. warming it. And all these gases (a.k.a. GHG or Greenhouse Gas) do just that. So that's a nice red herring right there.

The denial still runs as strong as ever. And sure, why not end with a conspiracy?
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32  Next