Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Mon 30 Apr 2018, 12:51:48**

onlooker : Note also that the Sun itself is older and warm much more Earth than 250 millions years ago.

Posted: **Mon 30 Apr 2018, 13:18:06**

Sys1 wrote:onlooker : Note also that the Sun itself is older and warm much more Earth than 250 millions years ago.

Yikes

Posted: **Mon 30 Apr 2018, 19:39:22**

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-metha ... re/5638298

Having sent young generations to kill and die in wars, the powers to be are now presiding over the greatest mass extinction of nature since 66 million years ago.

Posted: **Mon 30 Apr 2018, 22:32:14**

Thanks for the link...onlooker
M_B_S

Posted: **Fri 04 May 2018, 21:56:55**

A newly-identified positive feedback loop for methane generated by rotting bulrushes (cat-tails):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43990403

Posted: **Sat 05 May 2018, 00:40:39**

Hello,

will anyone care to comment on this recent post on the arctic news blog?

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/04 ... orrow.html

This seems to be the appropriate thread to ask for opinions.

Thank you.

Posted: **Sat 05 May 2018, 10:43:33**

Thanks for posting this link here, c.

On the one hand, it is certainly legitimate to apply knowledge we gain about other planets' climate systems to increase our understanding of earth systems. After all, most of James Hansen's early work was about Venus.

But that doesn't mean whatever happens on another planet is proof it will happen here, it seems to me. There are so many other factors that could come into play with the enormous numbers of differences between the makeup of the two planets.

That being said, I think the paper may be making a valid point if they are saying that such a relatively sudden blow out on earth cannot be entirely ruled out. But I would want to look at it a bit more carefully and hear from others on this and other forums before drawing any hard and fast conclusions.

Posted: **Mon 21 May 2018, 19:56:30**

The linked reference indicates that the instantaneous GWP for methane should be used for calculating values of CO2e. This indicates consensus climate science values for CO2e err on the side of least drama:

Nightingale, P.: Only the instantaneous global warming potential is consistent with honest and responsible greenhouse gas accounting, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2018-22, in review, 2018.

https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2018-22/

Abstract:

This paper presents a simple model to describe the impact on global warming of methane (natural gas) when used for energy production. The model is used to estimate the near-term effect of energy policies based on natural gas as a bridge fuel. The results make it clear that the commonly employed global warming potential of methane with a 100-year time horizon has the following problems:

1: it produces misleading results;

2: is inconsistent with meaningful tracking of greenhouse gas emissions; and

3: is incompatible with the precautionary principle.

(thanks to aslr at asif for link and text)

Posted: **Sat 02 Jun 2018, 13:11:36**

dohboi wrote:The linked reference indicates that the instantaneous GWP for methane should be used for calculating values of CO2e. This indicates consensus climate science values for CO2e err on the side of least drama:

Nightingale, P.: Only the instantaneous global warming potential is consistent with honest and responsible greenhouse gas accounting, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2018-22, in review, 2018.

It is rather obvious that if CH4 levels are constant or increasing then the full radiative transfer properties of CH4 have to be used and not some time-adjusted values. The current approach only makes sense if one has a one-time initial CH4 amount that is allowed to decompose via photochemistry. But this is not the case since emissions (increasing ones at that) ensure that CH4 levels will not attenuate. So over any climate simulation period the CH4 distribution is actually showing increasing concentrations.

Actually GCMs do it right, they use the actual (assuming emissions are properly prescribed) CH4 concentrations to calculate the heating rate and not some time-adjusted amounts. So every ppb of CH4 added to the concentration that persists gives 72 times more impact than an equivalent amount of CO2. I do not know why CH4 is always discussed with a time discount. There is no scenario under which CH4 concentrations will decrease in the next few hundred years. As humans we have to care about such "short" timescales.

Posted: **Wed 06 Jun 2018, 04:55:40**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJ63zDBUZ4

Methane, CO2, ESAS - weekly update (May 19, 2018)

Margo presents a weekly update to global conditions with an emphasis on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and sulfur dioxide release over Hawaii.

Margo's first interview with Dr. Guy McPherson: Dr. Guy McPherson - Preparing for Near-Term Human Extinction (Mar. 17, 2017): https://youtu.be/dU7iBM45mHQ
:idea:

*******************

To be fair the reaction of the masses (we are predators) will mostly not be not love but war.

Posted: **Mon 18 Jun 2018, 10:48:47**

The Arctic’s carbon bomb might be even more potent than we thought

Research released Monday suggests that methane releases could be considerably more prevalent as Arctic permafrost thaws.

http://www.fasterthanexpected.com/2018/ ... e-thought/

Posted: **Fri 22 Jun 2018, 08:09:57**

US emissions of methane – a potent greenhouse gas – are 60% higher than EPA thinks

Posted: **Fri 22 Jun 2018, 17:08:13**

ralfy wrote:US emissions of methane – a potent greenhouse gas – are 60% higher than EPA thinks

It was very foolish of the Obama administration to encourage US power plants to shift to NG for power generation. And even more foolish for them to craft the Paris Accords in such a way that there are no limits on methane releases.

Now we've changed the whole US power producing infrastructure in such a way that the US is emitting huge amounts of methane, and goosing climate change into high gear.

Cheers!

Posted: **Sat 23 Jun 2018, 13:35:29**

the actual article has nothing to do with fracking. It is talking about methane emissions measured from facilities that would include all sorts of sourced hydrocarbons. Note that the article specifically says the difference between their measurements and the EPA (which were substantially lower) has to do with the fact in this study they happened to sample abnormal operational conditions (meaning it is not a continuous release). They also point out that such release is easily fixed given that ongoing normal release from facilities and operations is much lower.

Alvarez, R. et al, 2018. Assessment of methane emissions from the US oil and gas supply chain. Science, 21, DOI: 10.1126/science.aar7204

Posted: **Sat 23 Jun 2018, 14:05:09**

Its clear that increased use of NG is associated with increased leakage of methane to the atmosphere. Some of these leaks are associated with fracking, some with processing, some with transport, and some with energy production.

One study in Utah estimated 6-12% of the methane produced from fracked wells there eventually leaked into the atmosphere (A. Karion et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4393 (2013). Thats a HUGE amount of leakage.

Hopefully its not that bad everywhere, but there is a real problem there.

Cheers!

Posted: **Sat 23 Jun 2018, 16:31:53**

Plantagenet wrote:Its clear that increased use of NG is associated with increased leakage of methane to the atmosphere. Some of these leaks are associated with fracking, some with processing, some with transport, and some with energy production.

One study in Utah estimated 6-12% of the methane produced from fracked wells there eventually leaked into the atmosphere (A. Karion et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4393 (2013). Thats a HUGE amount of leakage.

Hopefully its not that bad everywhere, but there is a real problem there.

Cheers!

**************************

There is indeed a big problem : The sattelite methan readings over US and RUS and CAN are fearfull.... here 2016

=> 2017 C

Posted: **Sat 23 Jun 2018, 19:31:48**

Its clear that increased use of NG is associated with increased leakage of methane to the atmosphere.

The EIA reports that methane emissions in the various oil and gas basins dropped significantly between 2011 and 2016. As an example in the Anadarko basin emissions dropped from 9.1 mmt to 6 mmt and in the San Juan Basin emissions dropped from 8.6 mmt to 4.6 mmt

And there is some critical review of the above mentioned paper which was published by a group calling itself the Energy Defense Fund.

http://eidclimate.org/five-things-know-about-new-edf-methane-study/

the criticisms are outlined as follows:

#1. Exclusive Use of Facility-Scale Study Data Goes Against National Academy of Sciences’ Recommendations and Likely Exaggerates Emissions
(EDF in this study did not combine bottom up and top down measurements as is recommended, they did so in the past and recovered much lower numbers)
#2. Lack of Industry Collaboration Goes Against National Academy of Sciences’ Recommendations (EDF admits some of the studies done were not truly random and industry was not involved which flies in the face of recommendations)
#3. “Alternative” Emissions Estimate That Is In Line With EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (And Past EDF Research) Is Not Included In Repor
(This “alternative” estimate finds the national methane leakage rate is 1.4 percent, which (not surprisingly) not only aligns with past EDF studies, but also the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory.)
#5. Despite EDF’s Alarmist Characterizations, Natural Gas’ Climate Benefits Remain Clear
(need to have greater than 4% of natural gas in US emitted as methane in the short term and 8% long term before coal outweighs the benefit of natural gas)

Posted: **Sat 23 Jun 2018, 20:17:31**

rockdoc123 wrote: the Energy Defense Fund....

There is no such thing as the "Energy Defense Fund." :lol:

I googled on it and got only 4 hits....none of which were right. Then I clicked through your link to the original study and it appears you have made a typo. The scientists who authored the study list their actual affiliation as the ENVIRONMENTAL Defense Fund.

Gosh. So you made a typo. Don't worry about it though---its perfectly OK with me. As I explained to you in another thread, people make typos all the time. Its no big deal unless some loon goes berserk and starts ranting on and on for days about it, and neither of us is at all likely to do that, are we?

Cheers and have a great day! :lol:

Posted: **Sun 24 Jun 2018, 11:51:56**

As I explained to you in another thread, people make typos all the time. Its no big deal unless some loon goes berserk and starts ranting on and on for days about it, and neither of us is at all likely to do that, are we?

there is a difference between a typo and a very obvious math mistake made not once but twice and then emphasized with all sorts of self-praise extolling how you were right. Again you haven't fooled anybody...please stop.

Whatever agency wrote the paper it is clear that there are some issues with their latest approach as I outlined above.

Posted: **Sat 07 Jul 2018, 13:38:24**

2800 ppb CH4

=> :!:

Edge of Extinction: Methane - Ticking Time Bomb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVDfOVNdn8

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2