Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

How are we doing re GHG emissions?

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

How are we doing re GHG emissions?

Unread postby Devil » Sat 19 Feb 2005, 11:44:13

I found a newspaper article which is reproduced at http://www.bnellis.com/kyoto/ giving a nation-by-nation run-down on many state's progress under Kyoto. (Apologies for OCR formatting errors!)

Points which stand out:
1. All the 12 countries which have made the best progress (25-65% reduction in GHG emissions) are in Eastern Europe. There are many reasons behind this: economic reforms; EU aid to help these countries develop clean industry; EU pressure to close the most polluting plants etc.
2. Ignoring Monaco, which is too small to be significant, the top 4 countries with the worst increase in emissions are those European countries which have benefited from much development aid.
3. The tonnes per capita column is the most interesting. Ignoring Luxembourg, which is also too small to be significant (half-a-dozen more cars filling up will almost double the enissions figures!) the worst offenders in absolute terms are
USA 19.8 t/capita
Australia 18.0
Canada 14.2
4. Countries with a standard of living comparable with the above 3 include
Sweden 5.3 t/capita
Switzerland 5.4
France 6.2
5. If we average the three countries in each of 3. and 4. above, we get 17.3 and 5.6 respectively, a ratio of about 3:1. Even allowing for different life styles, this shows that, IMHO, we do not need to be gross emitters to have an excellent standard of living.
6. Is it coincidence that the two countries with the highest per capita consumption just extraordinarily happen to be the two developed countries which opted out of Kyoto and also use coal for >50% of their electricity production?
7. Unfortunately, the table doesn't give the overall per capita emissions for the EU as a whole, but, based on a population of 460 million, it should average about 8.9, less than half that of the other large Union in N. America.

Comments welcome!
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby pilferage » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 19:54:43

Devil wrote:If we average the three countries in each of 3. and 4. above, we get 17.3 and 5.6 respectively, a ratio of about 3:1. Even allowing for different life styles, this shows that, IMHO, we do not need to be gross emitters to have an excellent standard of living.


I agree with your observation, however, something else that stuck out like a sore thumb was the relative geographic size of the U.S., Canada, and Australia, compared to Sweden, Switzerland, and France...
specifically, the relative population density.
While I think we can reduce our emissions, I don't think we could ever get close to those three given how our population is distrbuted wrt to the locations of the 'goods' we consume. Not that we can't easily cut them in half, but I doubt we could go significantly farther than that.
I wonder how the rail systems of these countries compare...
"Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. "
User avatar
pilferage
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun 21 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)

Unread postby JayHMorrison » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 21:03:08

France using nuclear for 70% of it's electricity is surely a huge reason for keeping their number low. The only realistic hope for seriously bringing down the total level of GHG is for China and the USA to seriously embrace nuclear and phase-out coal. Also, getting the Green Party in Germany to cancel their idiotic plan to shutdown all nuclear power would help.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
JayHMorrison
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu 17 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Unknown

Unread postby rowante » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 06:38:09

Devil, what are your personal opinions on the Kyoto Protocol as a tool to reduce climate change? I have read criticisms (Lomborg, I know, I know, he's not a scientist) claiming the impact of Kyoto would only mitigate change by 6 years. It seems to be such a paltry attempt, if he is correct.

However the first round in reducing ozone depleting gases was similar, I guess. It soon became apparent that much more needed to be done. Further effective reductions closely followed.

According to this article, Australia is set to meet the Kyoto target that would have been imposed had we signed. The bit about the land clearing was interesting... last year Queensland passed the Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act which finally stopped the bulldozers in the worst offending state.

Logistically Australia could replace its coal power stations with nuclear. Politically (without some sort of energy crisis *chuckle*) I would say impossible.
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley

Sydney Peak Oil
rowante
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue 06 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney, Australia

Unread postby Devil » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 09:20:06

pilferage wrote:
Devil wrote:If we average the three countries in each of 3. and 4. above, we get 17.3 and 5.6 respectively, a ratio of about 3:1. Even allowing for different life styles, this shows that, IMHO, we do not need to be gross emitters to have an excellent standard of living.


I agree with your observation, however, something else that stuck out like a sore thumb was the relative geographic size of the U.S., Canada, and Australia, compared to Sweden, Switzerland, and France...
specifically, the relative population density.
While I think we can reduce our emissions, I don't think we could ever get close to those three given how our population is distrbuted wrt to the locations of the 'goods' we consume. Not that we can't easily cut them in half, but I doubt we could go significantly farther than that.
I wonder how the rail systems of these countries compare...


Sorry, but I don't think population density is overly significant. Population/km² (Enc. Brit 2004 edition):
USA 30.7
Canada 3.1
Australia 2.6
France 109.3
Switzerland 176.4
Sweden 19.8
As you can see, Sweden has a lower density than the USA, but a fraction of the per capita consumption, whereas Switzerland has a much higher density than the USA but a similar per capita consumption to Sweden. The density of Oz is a fraction of the USA but has a slightly lower per capita consumption. I see no correlation there, quite frankly.

The Swiss and French rail systems are all-electric and heavily into passenger traffic, even for distances of 800 - 1000 km (France), but goods are more often transported by road in both countries. From what I've seen while waiting for a 2-km long train to pass at a crossing, the US rail system is more diesel-electric and is used for heavy bulk merchandise (coal, agricultural produce) more than passengers. Can't pronounce on the other countries.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby Devil » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 09:28:45

JayHMorrison wrote:France using nuclear for 70% of it's electricity is surely a huge reason for keeping their number low. The only realistic hope for seriously bringing down the total level of GHG is for China and the USA to seriously embrace nuclear and phase-out coal. Also, getting the Green Party in Germany to cancel their idiotic plan to shutdown all nuclear power would help.


I agree that nuclear helps keep their figures favourable, but the USA COULD have been 70% into nuclear with some forethought. Switzerland is 36% into nuke. Notwithstanding, both France and Switzerland have non-nuclear cars and home heating (mainly oil and natural gas).

Distributed electricity in the USA accounts for only 12.2% of the total energy input of the country, and 21.2% of this from nuke sources, so this does not really account for such wide differences.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby nocar » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 10:05:57

I do not think the population density argument is very convincing, at least not if you look at the countries as a whole.

USA has a pop dens of 29 persons per sq km, Sweden has 20 persons per sq km, France has 106, Switserland 177 persons per sq km.

Thus Sweden and USA quite similar. (Canada and Australia of course way lower densities but higher GHG.)

Why do Sweden emit less GHG than USA? We got scared in the 70s and built nuclear reactors to heat homes with electricity (bad mistake in my opinion). Previously it was done with oil. We have rather well insulated houses, and district heating in cities. Electricity comes from nuclear and hydro, but sometimes in very cold weather we import electricity from coal power plants in Denmark. I do not know whether this will count as Swedish or Danish GHG, but it is very little over all. Some houses and distric heating places are heated by wood (80 percent of Sweden is covered by forest)
We use lots of electricity, and quite wastefully, so we are not very low on energy use - we are low on GHG only because we do not use fossil fuel to make electricity. Prices are low - the hydro part which now is 50 years old is responsible for that (but there are no available sites left). People have lights on all night in their gardens, and many have electric heating on in their weekend houses all the time even if they are not there (usually turned low, but still.. And weekend houses are common, about half the population has access to one, if you count those owned jointly with relatives)
We have high taxes on gasoline, and therefore drive less than half the number of miles that Americans do. Due to the taxes and the low dollar, people here are not aware of the steep increase in the price of crude since last year. We do have electric trains, but at least 90 percent of traveling is done by car, and a lot of the rest by diesel buses. We do not use air conditioning in summer - no need, too cool, but we do have a long heating season.

Suburbs are more densely built, so many children still walk to school.
If population density makes a difference, it does so in terms of city planning, not overall population density. Densely built cities/suburbs are much more energy efficient. And apartments are more energy efficient than houses.
Sweden imports lots of fresh veggies. I suppose it takes a lot of fossil fuel (GHG) to grow them, but it is counted as GHG in Spain and Italy instead. Or Kenya - our stores carry fresh green beans from Kenya!
So it is a mixed bag really. But Americans sure can save a lot of GHG by building smaller houses, keeping them cooler in winter and warmer in summer. And particularly by driving less.

Nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby Devil » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 10:19:12

rowante wrote:Devil, what are your personal opinions on the Kyoto Protocol as a tool to reduce climate change? I have read criticisms (Lomborg, I know, I know, he's not a scientist) claiming the impact of Kyoto would only mitigate change by 6 years. It seems to be such a paltry attempt, if he is correct.

However the first round in reducing ozone depleting gases was similar, I guess. It soon became apparent that much more needed to be done. Further effective reductions closely followed.

According to this article, Australia is set to meet the Kyoto target that would have been imposed had we signed. The bit about the land clearing was interesting... last year Queensland passed the Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act which finally stopped the bulldozers in the worst offending state.

Logistically Australia could replace its coal power stations with nuclear. Politically (without some sort of energy crisis *chuckle*) I would say impossible.


Having worked for many years with atmospheric scientists, I know that Kyoto, per se, is too little, too late. But it is a start. It is interesting your comparison with the Montreal Protocol. When this was signed (not ratified) in 1987, the initial measures were to limit 5 CFCs and 3 halons with a progressive reduction to 50% by 1 July 1998, also too little, too late. The first decisions (Helsinki 1989) already called for a total phase-out by 2000 and this was contained in the 1990 London Amendment and many other CFCs and other chemicals were included, as well. This was also too little, too late. Now, there are over 60 chemicals as controlled substances and most of them were phased out by 1 Jan 1996 in developed countries. Also, there were severe trade and other sanctions included for non-conforming/non-signatory countries. I expect a similar scenario will take place for Kyoto and things will get progressively tougher. It is therefore a welcome start, which should have taken place a decade ago.

IMHO, we should strive to reduce global fossil fuel use by at least half by 2020 - this is feasible by a concerted effort and a better international public awareness. By doing so, we will largely mitigate the effects of PO AND improve worldwide public health and therefore reduce rocketing health-care costs.

Whereas land-clearing does have a negative effect, the converse is not necessarily the case. It is absolutely no substitute for stopping the emissions in the first place and, at the best, is only a temporary palliative.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby rowante » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 03:56:41

Devil, interesting to note you have actually worked with atmospheric scientists. The major nay-sayers to human caused GW, attack the models as too simplistic to accurately portray the real world. How do the scientists in the field react to this sort of criticism?

The Russian finance minister was on Australian TV last night ranting about environmental fundamentalists or Kyotoists, as he termed them, attempting to control economies with their totalitarian doctrines! He trotted out the usual arguments: bad models & that the Earth had a much warmer atmosphere 2000 years ago. I thought instantly that it is no surprise that an economist would have absolutely no faith in models, due to the laughable success rate of economic modeling (no better than astrology, kids).
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley

Sydney Peak Oil
rowante
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue 06 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney, Australia

Unread postby Antimatter » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 04:28:29

I thought instantly that it is no surprise that an economist would have absolutely no faith in models, due to the laughable success rate of economic modeling (no better than astrology, kids).


LOL so true

Have a look at realclimate.org for commentry by climate scientists on media stories etc. Theres lots of info about models and their merits on there if you dig through...its a great resource on climate change. :)
User avatar
Antimatter
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Australia

Unread postby Devil » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 09:39:34

It is true that models are not perfect. The problem is that we don't have enough supercomputing capacity to refine them.

Let me compare CC forecasting with weather forecasting (two entirely different things, BTW, so don't confuse them). With weather forecasting, the grid that is used is far too coarse, typically 100 km x 100 km with 15 slices to the tropopause, say, 800 to 1,000 m each. Local topography is largely ignored with such a large grid. However, the modelling from the data obtained is analysed, changes being weighted to have more effect, and past experience is also used to factor in some of the gaps. The result is that we have a 24 h forecast in most places that is >95% accurate in event/place but is less so in time, with errors of ±10 hours being fairly commonplace. Of course, the longer the forecast, the less accurate it becomes, so that at 5 days it is little more accurate than looking at a bunch of seaweed or asking Aunt Emily how her arthritis is feeling (except under anticyclonic conditions which are somewhat more predictable).

With CC forecasting, we don't have to forecast over 24 hours or 5 days, but over 50 or 100 years. The way this is done is to analyse the global temperature over the last 5000 years, but especially over the last 150 years, when positive data was being collected. We also collected data for all the natural cycles, volcanic eruptions, major forest fires, weather anomalies, El Nino activity etc. Finally, we collected data on the atmospheric gas analyses. Putting all these together, a model was created which gave a remarkably good fit between global temperature and all the known variables, especially over the past 150 years. (See my website at http://www.cypenv.org/Files/climate_change.htm for graphs.)

Now, what does this mean for the present day? Firstly, there is a prima facie case that human activity is very contributory to global climate. Many men have been hanged on weaker evidence than this. Secondly, the fact that the fit between the grey and red curves does allow for a certain margin of error, which is known.

And what does it mean for the future? Firstly, we have to forecast scenarios of different rates of different GHG emissions; things like worst case where we burn up all the fossil fuel in n years, best case where we stop emitting GHGs and a number of intermediate scenarios such as with Kyoto in force as it stands, increased measures and so on. We then have to factor in all the natural cycles (obviously, we cannot factor in sporadic events like volcanic eruptions and forest fires, but we can make some educated guesses regarding semi-cyclical ones, like El Nino). From these data, we have to estimate the influence of climate changes on ocean currents, which are the most influential factor governing climate, so that models have to contain variables of positive and negative feedback effects, changes of albedo due to increased evaporation and lowered ocean salinity and so on. Combined with the margins of error, we can calculate the maximum and minimum effects under each scenario.

These models are constantly being updated. What I find interesting is that all the models forecast a global temperature rise due to man-made emissions between now and 2100, even with the minima and a reduction of actual emissions. In some cases, this may be as low as a fraction of a degree, compared with today. The other extreme is over another 10°C rise. Most scenarios oscillate between means of 2°C and 6°C, which are the most likely effects.

That having been said, there is a worrying development; one of the factors is the melting of ice, both polar and oro-glacial. Over the past two years, this has progressed faster than anticipated, in both cases. This has a distinct positive feedback influence and it would seem that the models need a correction to compensate for this. This would give higher global temperatures at a given time but I cannot say by how much at this moment.

The effects of climate change? At this time, we cannot forecast the effects likely at any given place. All we can say is that, as the global temperature rises, we shall definitely see more weather extremes, which includes cold, as well as heat, and more violent episodic events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms etc., but we don't know where and when. There is anecdotal evidence that this may already have started in recent years.

Finally, I have two quotations for the naysayers:
Although scientific evidence that human activitieswere causing stratospheric ozone depletion was quite robust in the late 1980s, there were a number of sceptics who said, "wait for perfect knowledge; there is uncertainty in the ozone models." Unfortunately, the sceptics were absolutely right. The models were inaccurate. They underestimated the impact of human activities on stratospheric ozone. This means that even with the Montreal Protocol and its adjustments and amendments, society will have to live with stratospheric ozone depletion not only over Antarctica, but over all of the globe, except for tropics and subtropics, for at least another 50 years. Some of the same sceptics are now saying that not enough is known about climate change.

Robert T. Watson, Co-chair Scientific Assessment Panel, Montreal Protocol, former Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See http://www.environmentaldefense.org/doc ... erview.pdf for a short interview of Dr Watson.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

UNEP: Rio Declaration, Principle 15 (signed by many world leaders, including Pres. George Bush, Sr.)
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby pilferage » Fri 25 Feb 2005, 01:11:37

Devil wrote:Sorry, but I don't think population density is overly significant. Population/km² (Enc. Brit 2004 edition):
USA 30.7
Canada 3.1
Australia 2.6
France 109.3
Switzerland 176.4
Sweden 19.8
As you can see, Sweden has a lower density than the USA, but a fraction of the per capita consumption, whereas Switzerland has a much higher density than the USA but a similar per capita consumption to Sweden. The density of Oz is a fraction of the USA but has a slightly lower per capita consumption. I see no correlation there, quite frankly.


What I'm positing is that in countries such as America, Australia, and Canada, you end up moving goods/people much farther than in France, Switzerland, and Sweden because our population (as well as being less dense in general), is also relatively homogeneous in terms of it's distribution (suburban life vs. city life). While Sweden might have comparable population density, I doubt it has the homogeneouty of the suburban American population. Also, the western mountain ranges probably lend to a heterogeneous population distribution.

The Swiss and French rail systems are all-electric and heavily into passenger traffic, even for distances of 800 - 1000 km (France), but goods are more often transported by road in both countries. From what I've seen while waiting for a 2-km long train to pass at a crossing, the US rail system is more diesel-electric and is used for heavy bulk merchandise (coal, agricultural produce) more than passengers. Can't pronounce on the other countries.


Since rail is much more efficient than automotive (especially for public transit), there's great emission reduction (as well as the use of electric vs. diesel) in that arena. The problem is, due to the way most Americans live, they need an individual car for their daily commute. It'd take at least a decade to provide the public transportation needed to replace the automobile here...

What I'm getting at is that in America, we couldn't touch those European countries any time soon in terms of emissions (maybe we could cut our emissions in half), even if we did our best to modernize. Our entire lifestyle is far too distributed to do that easily or quickly.
Last edited by pilferage on Sat 26 Feb 2005, 05:44:06, edited 1 time in total.
"Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. "
User avatar
pilferage
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun 21 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)

Unread postby Devil » Fri 25 Feb 2005, 05:00:10

pilferage wrote:
Devil wrote:Sorry, but I don't think population density is overly significant. Population/km² (Enc. Brit 2004 edition):
USA 30.7
Canada 3.1
Australia 2.6
France 109.3
Switzerland 176.4
Sweden 19.8
As you can see, Sweden has a lower density than the USA, but a fraction of the per capita consumption, whereas Switzerland has a much higher density than the USA but a similar per capita consumption to Sweden. The density of Oz is a fraction of the USA but has a slightly lower per capita consumption. I see no correlation there, quite frankly.


What I'm positing is that in countries such as America, Australia, and Canada, you end up moving goods/people much farther than in France, Switzerland, and Sweden because our population (as well as being less dense in general), is also relatively homogeneous in terms of it's population distribution (suburban life vs. city life). While Sweden might have comparable population density, I doubt it has the homogeneouty of the suburban American population. Also, the western mountain ranges probably lend to a heterogeneous population distribution.

The Swiss and French rail systems are all-electric and heavily into passenger traffic, even for distances of 800 - 1000 km (France), but goods are more often transported by road in both countries. From what I've seen while waiting for a 2-km long train to pass at a crossing, the US rail system is more diesel-electric and is used for heavy bulk merchandise (coal, agricultural produce) more than passengers. Can't pronounce on the other countries.


Since rail is much more efficient than automotive (especially for public transit), there's great emission reduction (as well as the use of electric vs. diesel) in that arena. The problem is, due to the way most Americans live, they need an individual car for their daily commute. It'd take at least a decade to provide the public transportation needed to replace the automobile here...

What I'm getting at is that in America, we couldn't touch those European countries any time soon in terms of emissions (maybe we could cut our emissions in half), even if we did our best to modernize. Our entire lifestyle is far too distributed to do that easily or quickly.


Yes, but Canada and Oz have much lower densities - and more dispersed populations than the USA - yet they have somewhat lower per capita emissions.

I agree that it would take time for these countries to modernise their infrastructures and, at the rate they're going, 10 years is far too optimistic. Just to take one example, over 52% of USA electricity is generated from coal, with an overall efficiency of 31%. This means that 69% of the coal emissions from power generation serve no useful purpose, other than to create pollution of the air and increase your health-care costs inordinately. (These figures are approximate, because they include more efficient processes; the coal figures alone are probably much worse.)

Certainly, you will NEVER touch European country figures if you don't start to do something about it.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: How are we doing re GHG emissions?

Unread postby eric_b » Sun 27 Feb 2005, 14:57:16

I think Kyoto is 'A Good Thing', but I agree it's too little too late.

I definitely feel global warming is a threat, but I don't see
much that can be done about it until most fossil fuels have
been consumed. I feel we will likely see CO2 levels rise to over
500 ppm by the end of this century. Any reduction in cosumption
in western countries will likely we offset by increased consumption
in the third world. If PO hits soon, we will likely, at least in the
short term, consume more coal.

I love Weather and Meteorology, and from I've read lately it
seems there's little doubt global waming is real,
the only question at this point is how bad it will be. I'm taking
part in the <climateprediction.net> experiment, which is running
global weather models on volunteered computers in an attempt to
assess how bad GW would be with a CO2 level of around 500 ppm
(a level we will likely see). The experiment still will be running
for another year ot two, but the disheartening thing is already the
upper bound on any global warming we may see has grown to
over 11 C (~19 F). A 10-11C average increase in global temperatures
would be catastrophic.

Personally, I see nuclear power as our most viable alternative
energy source, but until public opinion changes and PO arrives
I doubt we are going to be seeing many more nuke plants, at
least in the US.

-Eric B
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us

Build a global Earth observatory

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 04 Jan 2018, 17:45:16


An enclosure for measuring gas exchange between plants and the atmosphere at a station in Finland.Credit: Juho Aalto Climate change. Water and food security. Urban air pollution. These environmental grand challenges are all linked, yet each is studied separately. Interactions between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere influence climate, air quality and water cycles. Changes in one affect the others. For example, increasing carbon dioxide enhances photosynthesis. As they grow, plants withdraw greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but they also release volatile organic compounds such as monoterpenes. These speed up the formation of aerosol particles, which reflect sunlight back into space. Our actions — such as emission-control policies, urbanization and forestry — also affect the atmosphere, land and seas1–5. Satellites and stations on the ground track greenhouse gases, ecosystem responses, particulate matter or ozone independently of each other. Coupled observations are occasionally performed, but .


Build a global Earth observatory
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26


Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests