Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,076
#4,076
BartW said:
Huh? Methane is a relatively potent albeit short-lived greenhouse gas. We should (and are) paying attention to methane emissions from melting permafrost, clathrates, etc.

One thing we need to do a better job of is monitoring methane leaks from fracking. It appears they’re significantly higher than what industry reports to the EPA. There’s a ton of misinformation about fracking out there (which on the whole is relatively safe) but that is one legitimate concern.

Tackling methane won’t accomplish squat without cutting CO2 emissions though.
Click to expand...

How did you come to that conclusion ?
 
#4,077
#4,077
MG1968 said:
I lived in Folly Beach, SC about 35 years ago. I was back there about 4 years ago and you know what? The beach is in the exact same place it was in 1979.
Click to expand...
$1.3 million drainage project aims to curb flooding on Folly Beach

Folly Beach renourishment sand disappears in storm

FOLLY BEACH - Huge waves kicked up by Friday's storm scoured and swept away newly poured sands on the east end of this island. Homeowners who had worried whether the renourishment project would come quickly enough to save their homes now have lost much of the sand in little more than a month.

It's another kick in the gut to property owners, the city and taxpayers who have squabbled over the handling of the controversial, delayed $30 million project.

Sand doesn't stay put; that's the bottom line. But the rapid vanishing of the berm rubs salt into the controversy over the gullies and a larger controversy over the viability of the continuing project that calls for renourishment every eight years or as needed until 2043.

Since its start in 1993, costs have escalated over each successive renourishment and now have both federal and local officials leery. The last time the work was done, in 2005, the cost was $12 million - little more than a third of the current cost.

The gullies were left unfilled when the contractor stopped pouring sand at the "public" boundary. City officials and the Army Corps couldn't reach an agreement on whether the owners of 35 beachfront lots should have to sign over easements to the portions of their properties that are now beach, or pay an estimated $2.5 million or more for the work.

Meanwhile, residents say this renourishment provided less sand than the last round. The Army Corps said less sand was used because there was less beach to work with. But that's partly because erosion worsened as the work was delayed at least a year beyond the need because of federal legislative budget posturing. Federal money pays for most of the work. The city pays a minor share.

After the last renourishment in 2005, passing hurricanes did enough damage along the same stretch that a patch job had to be done two years later - at two-thirds of the original $12 million cost. The area has been rapidly eroding since.

"Until they wrap the island with rock, they're never going to fix it," Weiss said. "It's just going to be fill (more sand) and fill and fill."
Click to expand...
Your tax dollars at work folks. Btw, remember this gem?
BartW said:
Oil refinery threatened by sea-level rise, asks government to fix problem
Click to expand...
State approves refinery plan for eroding shoreline

Why do we subsidize this $hit?
 
#4,078
#4,078
VolsNSkinsFan said:
You also realize the CC is pro-life and that is in direct conflict with most climate change advocates who push for abortion as a population control.

What a terrible side to be on "hey let's push abortions on poor people because Ocean Drive in South Beach might flood"
Click to expand...
theFallGuy said:
Let's not forget we are going to have to go vegetarian as well to reduce the cow fart problem that is killing the planet.
Click to expand...
3q3bvxxf-1353902236.jpg
 
#4,080
#4,080
Obsessed said:
He didn't read the actual scientific studies and the accompanying numbers.

Methane is a very real cause of the "global warming"....

But there is no money in that.
Click to expand...

I love how fraking and tar sands are thrown into the conversation with climate change... There's more damn ice in the polar caps than ever and we're worried about cows farting.😜
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,081
#4,081
FLVOL69 said:
I love how fraking and tar sands are thrown into the conversation with climate change... There's more damn ice in the polar caps than ever and we're worried about cows farting.😜
Click to expand...

Yea but how many years did you go to school and stake your livelihood in the global warming fairy tale?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,082
#4,082
FLVOL69 said:
How did you come to that conclusion ?
Click to expand...
Which part? That fracking is relatively harmless? That methane leaks are a legit concern? Or that cutting only methane emissions won’t do much to mitigate AGW?
Obsessed said:
He didn't read the actual scientific studies and the accompanying numbers.

Methane is a very real cause of the "global warming"....

But there is no money in that.
Click to expand...
I still have no idea what you’re getting at. “Global warming is real, but it’s caused by methane”? First it was CFCs, now it’s CH4? These are both greenhouse gases. I don’t know how or why one would argue for the greenhouse effect by CFCs or CH4 while denying the greenhouse effect of CO2.

FTR, here are their relative contributions:
ar4_fig_spm_2.png

FLVOL69 said:
I love how fraking and tar sands are thrown into the conversation with climate change... There's more damn ice in the polar caps than ever and we're worried about cows farting.😜
Click to expand...
If you’re shooting for the Antarctic sea ice angle you’re doing it wrong. Ice caps are land ice, which is pretty much universally melting.
govols/cc said:
Yea but how many years did you go to school and stake your livelihood in the global warming fairy tale?
Click to expand...
0

UW has an excellent climate science division (and top 5 geoscience program internationally) but my degrees and job are only tangentially related.

Again, if global warming weren’t real, climate scientists would simply study something else. It’s a highly interdisciplinary field and many who study it are in fact crossovers from other areas like astronomy, atmospheric science, biology, chemistry, computer science, geology, meteorology, physics, etc…

A good example for you that comes to mind is the Texas Tech evangelical astrophysicist-turned-climatologist Katharine Hayhoe:

“I naively thought that I would study climate science until we fixed the problem and then I’d go back to astrophysics”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,084
#4,084
Though there is considerably less of it put into the atmosphere each year, methane is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon-dioxide or CO2.

The accumulation of methane is not a new problem, but one that appears to be worsening as hydraulic fracture drilling (or fracking) and other intensive fossil fuel extraction operations continue to soar in the southwest region of the country. The latest NASA analysis of the phenomenon put the approximate “average extent of the gas plume over the past decade at 2,500 square miles.” Frankenberg pointed out that this estimate pre-dates the most recent gas and oil drilling boom now underway in the southwest.

A 2,500 Square-Mile Methane Plume Is Silently Hovering Over The Western US
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,091
#4,091
Obsessed said:
Ofcourse this was over looked in 2007.


To evaluate the effect of such changes on the volume of the seasonally thawing
organic material, we overlaid the permafrost projections on the digitized geographically
referenced contours of 59 846 wetlands in the Russian Arctic. Results for the mid-21st century
climate indicated up to 50% increase in the volume of organic substrate in the northernmost
locations along the Arctic coast and in East Siberia, where wetlands are sparse, and a relatively
small increase by 10%–15% in West Siberia, where wetlands occupy 50%–80% of the land. We
developed a soil carbon model and used it to estimate the changes in the methane fluxes due to
higher soil temperature and increased substrate availability. According to our results, by
mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase
by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain
unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by
approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 ◦C global temperature rise.


http://permafrost.su/sites/default/files/erl2007.pdf
Click to expand...
Siberian Methane Release is on the Rise

How global warming could turn Siberia into a giant crater ‘time bomb’
 
#4,096
#4,096
- 7 the freakin high in the middle of Illinois this Wed ? Yeah its winter not global warming -- keep trying Bart
 
#4,099
#4,099
Sandvol said:
You know Bart the apocalyptic predictions just aren't happening. The models aren't correct. The feedbacks aren't times 3. They aren't even times 1. The poles aren't melting. So you and your minions are throwing out all these Red Herrings that don't mean anything. If you weren't such a liberal hack you'd admit you've been wrong with this whole thing and apologize to everyone on the board. But it isn't about being right or wrong is it? It is about your agenda.
Click to expand...

Actually they don't cry foul. What they do is wait for an excuse to cut their risks. Global warming is simply giving them an excuse. Andrew did the same in S. Fl. Allstate spun off the Allstate Floridian insurance company. Rates tripled if you lived in Florida.
 
#4,100
#4,100
"Not only was she immediately blown away by the fact that climate science was grounded in physics, but even more so by the urgency of the problem, “and this was way back in the early 1990s.”

So much urgency that no Doomsday events have happened in her 25 years of studying this perceived "problem".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top