Methane worse than CO2

[Skull Pilot]

.

I am no fan of policy which is not based on facts. CO2 policy is not based on science as the science is not at such a state where anything definitive can be said one way or the other. Thus, such policy is artificial. Then, any rational observer must ask to what end is this artificial policy?

Much of the science is definitive - at least to the extent that we know WHAT is happening, if not definitive as to WHY it is happening, or what that might mean 100 years down the track.

Which leaves us 2 solutions - either act now and replace outmoded technologies with new ones - or do nothing and hope for the best. ....

And, as acting has as much chance of effecting any change as it does at not effecting any change, it is beyond a silly policy.

It is artificial. To what end, then?

You tell me.

Why is it always either or. Especially when acting as you say means either we let the government take more of our income for programs that will be plagued with cost overruns and corruption for things that will work minimally at best or we all die.

Talk about paranoia

There are more than 2 things we could do. and the best options are the ones where government involvement and control is minimized

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Many greenhouse gases are far worse than CO2. But they're not the product of evil capitalistic American mankind's fossil fuels combustion fetish, so they are not talked about much.

Every cult/religion needs a devil, and for the AGW cult, CO2 and evil capitalistic American mankind is it!

 

[uscitizen]

So we are back to Reagan and his bovine flatulence?

 

[Sodafin]

...And, as acting has as much chance of effecting any change as it does at not effecting any change, it is beyond a silly policy.

It is artificial. To what end, then?

You tell me.

And end that experts - and here I mean people with 20 years experience and a raft of degrees in the subject - believe is both necessary and viable.

Otherwise it wouldn't be on the table at all.

 

[Sodafin]

Why is it always either or. Especially when acting as you say means either we let the government take more of our income for programs that will be plagued with cost overruns and corruption for things that will work minimally at best or we all die.

Talk about paranoia

Why do you believe that?

Other than sheer paranoia, I mean. What actual evidence do you have - anywhere in the world - that reducing emissions will have that effect?

Please be specific.

 

[Si modo]

Sorry, I need a translation. I have no idea what your post no. 24 means.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is it always either or. Especially when acting as you say means either we let the government take more of our income for programs that will be plagued with cost overruns and corruption for things that will work minimally at best or we all die.

Talk about paranoia

Why do you believe that?

Other than sheer paranoia, I mean. What actual evidence do you have - anywhere in the world - that reducing emissions will have that effect?

Please be specific.

Why do I believe what?

That government programs will be rife with corruption and cost 5 times more than estimated?

Oh I don't know.......experience.

 

[Sodafin]

Why do I believe what?

That government programs will be rife with corruption and cost 5 times more than estimated?

Oh I don't know.......experience.

Firstly - you are assuming there will be government programs, whereas in countries another 10 years down the line, much of the development has been made by private companies. The role of the government has often been just to provide some stimulus capital to get companies up and connected to the national grid.

Secondly - even "cap and trade" (Which I'm a little cynical about myself) is more about private companies changing their own production methods than anything else.

Lastly - I see no more evidence that companies selling solar or wind products will be anymore corrupt than those selling coal or nuclear - and very probably less.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do I believe what?

That government programs will be rife with corruption and cost 5 times more than estimated?

Oh I don't know.......experience.

Firstly - you are assuming there will be government programs, whereas in countries another 10 years down the line, much of the development has been made by private companies. The role of the government has often been just to provide some stimulus capital to get companies up and connected to the national grid.

So the government taxes me to give money to privately owned companies that are owned by their friends and contributors and then continues to subsidize them into eternity with taxpayer dollars. Yeah no corruption there

Secondly - even "cap and trade" (Which I'm a little cynical about myself) is more about private companies changing their own production methods than anything else.

All run by the government where we will pay the penalties via higher costs for absolutely everything so as to be passed on to the government because it will be impossible to reduce carbon to pre 1900 per capita levels

Lastly - I see no more evidence that companies selling solar or wind products will be anymore corrupt than those selling coal or nuclear - and very probably less.

So they'll be just as corrupt and that's better right?

 

[Sodafin]

So the government taxes me to give money to privately owned companies that are owned by their friends and contributors and then continues to subsidize them into eternity with taxpayer dollars. Yeah no corruption there

No, there isn't - all I hear is paranoia. I don't see any basis in reality for that at all.

Btw, "PRIVATE" means just that. If you actually look at what has happened in other countries, you will find their stimulus packages have already finished in many cases. Meaning tax payers aren't charged a cent, and actually benefit from the jobs and revenue created through exports.

That is the reality, and that can be proven.

Paranoia can't be proven.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So the government taxes me to give money to privately owned companies that are owned by their friends and contributors and then continues to subsidize them into eternity with taxpayer dollars. Yeah no corruption there

No, there isn't - all I hear is paranoia. I don't see any basis in reality for that at all.

Via cap and trade, they are very close to achieving a decades-long fantasy they have nurtured -- taxing the air you breathe.

And you're seemingly okay with it.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Holy Shit! Does this mean we can't eat beans anymore?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the government taxes me to give money to privately owned companies that are owned by their friends and contributors and then continues to subsidize them into eternity with taxpayer dollars. Yeah no corruption there

No, there isn't - all I hear is paranoia. I don't see any basis in reality for that at all.

Btw, "PRIVATE" means just that. If you actually look at what has happened in other countries, you will find their stimulus packages have already finished in many cases. Meaning tax payers aren't charged a cent, and actually benefit from the jobs and revenue created through exports.

That is the reality, and that can be proven.

Paranoia can't be proven.

You are assuming that all other countries governments are not rife with corruption?

Boy you must be like 12 years old or something.

This is the USA and catering to special interst groups at the expense of taxpayers is what we do here.

And just where do you think government gets all this money to give to start up companies?

Government's only source of money is the tax base. Government cannot spend any money that it does not take from someone else.

So again the answer is to get the government out of it.

 

[Sodafin]

[

You are assuming that all other countries governments are not rife with corruption?

Boy you must be like 12 years old or something.

This is the USA and catering to special interst groups at the expense of taxpayers is what we do here.

And just where do you think government gets all this money to give to start up companies?

Government's only source of money is the tax base. Government cannot spend any money that it does not take from someone else.

So again the answer is to get the government out of it.

No, I'm not 12 - but I am a political journalist.

I know of no example of corruption in the energy sector in this country, nor in most other EU countries. That doesn't mean I always like how it is run, but it means that it is legal, open and above board.

I believe the same is largely true of the US energy sector - if there is any corruption, by all means present it here and we can take a look at it. Certainly you could be right - but I'd need proof to be convinced.

btw, I think you'll find when companies export, their corporate tax payments go the state. Hence, the money used in the energy sector can operate as a cycle, providing the sector can export, as it does in Spain and Germany.

 

[Old Rocks]

First, addressing the subject of the thread.

CO2 and CH4 are not seperate issues. As the increasing heat in our atmosphere melts the permafrost and yedoma, a form of permafrost containing a huge amount of water, enormous amounts of both CO2 and CH4 are emmitted. In fact, some lakes now in the yedoma have spots that never freeze in the winter because of the bubbling of the methane.

As the CO2 in our atmosphere has warmed the oceans, including the Arctic Ocean, the shallow clathrates in the Arctic Ocean have began to emit CH4.

Now CH4 is not just 20 to 25 more times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, it is at least 30 to 60 times as powerful as CO2, because, when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H2O. In the upper atmosphere, the latter is especially effective.

There is no known economical way to use the CH4 that is bubbling out of the lakes, the same goes for the ocean clatherates.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. We have also added 250% more CH4. At no time in the last 15 million years have the GHG levels been this high. Then we have also added industrial gases.

The talk of keeping the CO2 level below 450 ppm is misleading. For, counting the effects of methane and industrial GHGs, we have already reached and surpassed that in equivelant heating effects.

Given the dishonesty of the people regarding the effects of AGW, such as the people we see on this board, I do not see us even making a real attempt to get a handle on the CO2 until it is well past 600 ppm, and the world is losing population from the effects. Not that it makes that much differance, because I think that we have already gone past the tipping point where sometime in this century, the stored carbon in the sinks of the permafrost and clathrates will contribute far more than mankind.

PERMAFROST - POTENTIAL CLIMATE BACKBREAKER - Reversing Climate Change - Zimbio

Scientists Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University, Russia and Judith Marquand of the University of Oxford (I could not find a publication by them on this; this is from an issue of New Scientist) have discovered that permafrost in the western Siberian sub-Arctic region is experiencing relatively rapid thawing due to the extremely rapid warming in the region (~3°C in 40 years). Siberian permafrost differs from North America and Europe because they are underlain by yedoma, an organic-rich Pleistocene-age loess permafrost with ice content of 50-90% by volume (Walter et al., 2006). The rapid warming in western Siberia has exposed much permafrost to thawing and the creation of thermokarst yedoma lakes.

Walter et al. (2006) and Walter et al. (2007) have described the uncertainties in estimating the budget of atmospheric methane production from Siberian and other high latitude lakes because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. However, through a new technique of mapping bubbling point sources, they have been able to estimate that Siberian yedoma lakes emit ~3.8 teragrams (trillion grams) of methane annually, increasing previous estimates of methane released from the lakes by 58%. Because yedoma lakes are only a fraction of northern lakes, ebullition measurements in other lake regions would probably further increase methane emission estimates.

 

[Old Rocks]

Second.

Yes, global warming and the controling of the emissions of CO2, CH4, and industrial GHGs has become a political football. Very interesting, and very counterproductive reaction to a clear and present danger.

The Conservatives have clearly become the party of denial. All the way from denying that there is any warming at all, to denying that CO2 is involved in the warming. In spite of the fact that the atmospheric role of CO2 as a GHG was established in science over a century ago, and the causation of that effect established by Tyndal in 1858.

As the effects of the warming become increasing apparent for all to see, these criminally stupid ideologues must be held accountable for the delays that will cost our descendents dearly. Damned right it is going to be political from here on in.

 

[uscitizen]

Those wind power waste products are so dangerous to store and dispose of.

 

[Si modo]

First, addressing the subject of the thread.

CO2 and CH4 are not seperate issues. As the increasing heat in our atmosphere melts the permafrost and yedoma, a form of permafrost containing a huge amount of water, enormous amounts of both CO2 and CH4 are emmitted. In fact, some lakes now in the yedoma have spots that never freeze in the winter because of the bubbling of the methane.

As the CO2 in our atmosphere has warmed the oceans, including the Arctic Ocean, the shallow clathrates in the Arctic Ocean have began to emit CH4.

Now CH4 is not just 20 to 25 more times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, it is at least 30 to 60 times as powerful as CO2, because, when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H2O. In the upper atmosphere, the latter is especially effective.

There is no known economical way to use the CH4 that is bubbling out of the lakes, the same goes for the ocean clatherates.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. We have also added 250% more CH4. At no time in the last 15 million years have the GHG levels been this high. Then we have also added industrial gases.

The talk of keeping the CO2 level below 450 ppm is misleading. For, counting the effects of methane and industrial GHGs, we have already reached and surpassed that in equivelant heating effects.

Given the dishonesty of the people regarding the effects of AGW, such as the people we see on this board, I do not see us even making a real attempt to get a handle on the CO2 until it is well past 600 ppm, and the world is losing population from the effects. Not that it makes that much differance, because I think that we have already gone past the tipping point where sometime in this century, the stored carbon in the sinks of the permafrost and clathrates will contribute far more than mankind.

PERMAFROST - POTENTIAL CLIMATE BACKBREAKER - Reversing Climate Change - Zimbio

Scientists Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University, Russia and Judith Marquand of the University of Oxford (I could not find a publication by them on this; this is from an issue of New Scientist) have discovered that permafrost in the western Siberian sub-Arctic region is experiencing relatively rapid thawing due to the extremely rapid warming in the region (~3°C in 40 years). Siberian permafrost differs from North America and Europe because they are underlain by yedoma, an organic-rich Pleistocene-age loess permafrost with ice content of 50-90% by volume (Walter et al., 2006). The rapid warming in western Siberia has exposed much permafrost to thawing and the creation of thermokarst yedoma lakes.

Walter et al. (2006) and Walter et al. (2007) have described the uncertainties in estimating the budget of atmospheric methane production from Siberian and other high latitude lakes because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. However, through a new technique of mapping bubbling point sources, they have been able to estimate that Siberian yedoma lakes emit ~3.8 teragrams (trillion grams) of methane annually, increasing previous estimates of methane released from the lakes by 58%. Because yedoma lakes are only a fraction of northern lakes, ebullition measurements in other lake regions would probably further increase methane emission estimates.

That's all well and fine.

However, it is also irrelevant. There is no solid science indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, thus the irrelevance. As a reminder, correlation is not causation.

 

[Sodafin]

However, it is also irrelevant. There is no solid science indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, thus the irrelevance. As a reminder, correlation is not causation.

OK - then how do you personally explain the fact that, for instance, 99% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat?

How do you explain the fact that ocean levels are rising, and ocean ph changing?

It's one thing to say that it is not a CO2 issue - another to provide an alternative explanation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

However, it is also irrelevant. There is no solid science indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, thus the irrelevance. As a reminder, correlation is not causation.

OK - then how do you personally explain the fact that, for instance, 99% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat?

How do you explain the fact that ocean levels are rising, and ocean ph changing?

It's one thing to say that it is not a CO2 issue - another to provide an alternative explanation.

glaciers advanced and retreated for billions of years before man walked upon the earth