Switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate, study indicates

Sep 08, 2011
Shifting from coal to natural gas would have limited impacts on climate, new research indicates. If methane leaks from natural gas operations could be kept to 2.5 percent or less, the increase in global temperatures would be reduced by about 0.1 degree Celsius by 2100. The reduction in global temperatures would be more minor with higher methane leakage rates. Credit: Courtesy Springer, modified by UCAR.

Although the burning of natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal, a new study concludes that a greater reliance on natural gas would fail to significantly slow down climate change. The study appears this week in the Springer journal Climatic Change Letters.

Tom Wigley, a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), underscores in his study the complex and sometimes conflicting ways in which fossil fuel burning affects Earth's climate. While coal use causes warming through emission of heat-trapping , it also releases comparatively large amounts of sulfates and other particles that, although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight.

The situation is further complicated by uncertainty over the amount of methane that leaks from natural gas operations. Methane is an especially .

Wigley's computer simulations indicate that a worldwide, partial shift from coal to natural gas would slightly accelerate climate change through at least 2050, even if no methane leaked from natural gas operations, and through as late as 2140 if there were substantial leaks. After that, the greater reliance on natural gas would begin to slow down the increase in global , but only by a few tenths of a degree.

"Relying more on natural gas would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but it would do little to help solve the climate problem," says Wigley, who is also an adjunct professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia. "It would be many decades before it would slow down global warming at all, and even then it would just be making a difference around the edges."

A small impact on temperatures

The burning of coal releases more carbon dioxide than other , as well as comparatively high levels of other pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, , and particles such as ash. Since natural gas emits lower levels of these pollutants, some energy experts have proposed greater reliance on that fuel source as a way to slow down global warming and reduce the impacts of energy use on the environment.

But the effects of natural gas on climate change have been difficult to calculate. Recent studies have come to conflicting conclusions about whether a shift to natural gas would significantly slow the rate of climate change, in part because of uncertainty about the extent of methane leaks.

Wigley's new study attempts to take a more comprehensive look at the issue by incorporating the cooling effects of sulfur particles associated with coal burning and by analyzing the complex climatic influences of methane, which affects other atmospheric gases such as ozone and water vapor.

By running a series of , Wigley found that a 50 percent reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas use would lead to a slight increase in worldwide warming for the next 40 years of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit (less than 0.1 degree Celsius). The reliance on natural gas could then gradually reduce the rate of global warming, but temperatures would drop by only a small amount compared to the 5.4 degrees F (3 degrees C) of warming projected by 2100 under current energy trends.

If the rate of methane leaks from natural gas could be held to around 2 percent, for example, the study indicates that warming would be reduced by less than 0.2 degrees F (about 0.1 degree C) by 2100. The reduction in warming would be more pronounced in a hypothetical scenario of zero leaks, which would result in a reduction of warming by 2100 of about 0.2-0.3 degrees F (0.1-0.2 degrees C). But in a high leakage rate scenario of 10 percent, global warming would not be reduced until 2140.

"Whatever the methane leakage rate, you can't get away from the additional warming that will occur initially because, by not burning coal, you're not having the cooling effect of sulfates and other particles," Wigley says. "This particle effect is a double-edged sword because reducing them is a good thing in terms of lessening air pollution and acid rain. But the paradox is when we clean up these particles, it slows down efforts to reduce global warming."

In each of the leakage scenarios, the relative cooling impact of natural gas would continue beyond 2100, continuing to offset by several tenths of a degree.

The study also found that methane leaks would need to be held to 2 percent or less in order for natural gas to have less of a climatic impact than coal due to the life cycle of methane. Both coal mining operations and the use of natural gas release varying amounts of methane, but the escaping gas's influence on climate also depends on emissions of other gases, such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides, that affect the amount of time methane remains in the atmosphere.

A range of possible methane leaks

To compare the impacts of natural gas and coal, Wigley drew on a number of studies that have evaluated emissions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants from coal, as well as methane associated with the use of both fuels. Rather than try to assign a fixed percentage to leaks from operations, which can vary widely and are difficult to measure, Wigley analyzed the impacts of leakage rates from 0 to 10 percent—a broad range that encompasses existing estimates.

To project future energy demand, Wigley used a midrange estimate by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program that assumed no changes in government energy policies. He also assumed that emissions from coal would drop sharply over the next few decades due to pollution control devices.

Wigley then analyzed the impacts of a 50 percent reduction in burning by using a simplified computer climate model known as MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced ), pronounced 'magic.' The software, which Wigley helped develop, simulates changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and their influences on global climate.

Explore further: Water in the Netherlands–past, present, and future

More information: Wigley T. (2011) Coal to Gas: The Influence of Methane Leakage. Climate Change Letters. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0217-3

Related Stories

Fracking leaks may make gas 'dirtier' than coal

Apr 12, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters (105:5).

Storage of greenhouse gasses in Siberian peat moor

Jan 29, 2007

Wet peat moorlands form a sustainable storage place for the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide but are also a source of the much stronger greenhouse gas methane. According to Dutch researcher Wiebe Borren, peat moorlands will ...

Computer model looks at cooling the Earth

Sep 14, 2006

A U.S. computer model study suggests two unusual methods, including injecting sulfates into the atmosphere, might be used to stabilize the Earth's climate.

Recommended for you

Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks

4 minutes ago

Deep in the hilly grasslands of remote Inner Mongolia, twin smoke stacks rise more than 200 feet into the sky, their steam and sulfur billowing over herds of sheep and cattle. Both day and night, the rumble ...

Water crisis threatens thirsty Sao Paulo

8 hours ago

Sao Paulo is thirsty. A severe drought is hitting Brazil's largest city and thriving economic capital with no end in sight, threatening the municipal water supply to millions of people.

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2.5 / 5 (41) Sep 08, 2011
Although the burning of natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal, a new study concludes that a greater reliance on natural gas would fail to significantly slow down climate change.


'cause anthropomorphic CO2 does nothing; zip, zero, nada, to planetary climate.

Solar output and cosmic rays. Orbital mechanics. Axial tilt. Water Vapor. Dust and particulates.

Any effect of CO2 is lost in the standard error of measurement, and always has been. Having fallen for the biggest scam since the Ozone and CFCs; don't you warmists feel really dumb now?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2011
Although the burning of natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal, a new study concludes that a greater reliance on natural gas would fail to significantly slow down climate change.

One advantage would be, though, that you can shift a natural gas plant over to biogas when it becomes available.

Like with electric vehicles: they give you the option to switch over to green energy sources when they become available. Gasoline powered cars don't give you that option.
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2011
Like with electric vehicles: they give you the option to switch over to green energy sources when they become available. Gasoline powered cars don't give you that option.


That is not entirely true. Many of the newer vehicles can be converted just by replacing the computer with one adapted to use with alternative fuels, with few to no other modifications.

I own a vehicle that already is fitted with a computer that allows either gasoline or alternative fuels. Now, if only these alternative fuels would become more readily available. I'd use them if they were available near enough to me to be economically feasible to use.

I also plan to convert one of my other gasoline vehicles to electric when its ICE dies. It is quite doable.
plaasjaapie
3.2 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2011
LOL! Sounds like an argument to keep on using coal to me. :-)
OdinsAcolyte
2.3 / 5 (24) Sep 08, 2011
The sun has more influence than all of mankind through all of time. Climate changes. People don't. Get a grip. Youth and ignorance go together.
Shelgeyr
2.3 / 5 (31) Sep 08, 2011
I have some problems with this article...

While coal use causes warming through emission of heat-trapping carbon dioxide...

This is a hypothesis stated as a given fact.

Methane is an especially potent greenhouse gas.

Another hypothesis stated as a given fact.

I don't subscribe to "Climatic Change Letters", so I don't know how even-handed they are, or even IF they are, but I've got to say that given the name, the bias seems built right in. Else why would that journal even exist?

...computer simulations indicate (snip) shift from coal to natural gas would slightly accelerate climate change (snip) even if no methane leaked...

Would "slightly accelerate climate change" with no leaks? If I bought the above two premises, that wouldn't make sense...

But the effects of natural gas on climate change have been difficult to calculate.

I think the phrase they were looking for (or actively avoiding) was "impossible to calculate".
Shelgeyr
2.6 / 5 (34) Sep 08, 2011
It would be many decades before it would slow down global warming at all...

What global warming?

Recent studies have come to conflicting conclusions...

That's bound to happen when you're studying a "problem" that is fictitious, vague, and supposedly global in scope.

...in part because of uncertainty about the extent of methane leaks.

The fact that they CAN'T quantify the methane leaks - something they arguably could acquire physical access to in order to measure (since we're talking about man-made wells), says something about the feasibility of assessing the temperatures and masses of the various layers of our little ocean of water and our great big ocean of sky.

Also, adding in any single big unknown factor (like "how many millions of Amps are in the electric current connecting the Earth to the Sun, and what effect, if any, does that have on our climate?") renders their simulations especially moot.
lengould100
2.3 / 5 (21) Sep 08, 2011
Gee, looks like the nonscience crowd is out in force today eh. Exxon giving bonuses today?

It appears the the author may also have missed the fact that very often a LOT of CO2 comes out of the ground along with natural gas and is simply separated and discharged to the atmosphere. I've seen documents on Japanese projects offshore in Indonesia where 50% of what came out of the well was CO2, simply separated and vented at the wellsiten no doubt along with a few percent of methane.
Shelgeyr
2.8 / 5 (32) Sep 08, 2011
found that a 50 percent reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas use would lead to a slight increase in worldwide warming for the next 40 years of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit

Really? With what margin of error? I seriously doubt they (or anyone) could predict within 0.1 degree Fahrenheit the average temperature of the building I work in for a single month, much less over 40 years (or at the end of 40 years).

Aside from all the deception and fraud, the big problem that remains even if all this AGW stuff was true, is that this is a frightfully large amount of consternation over an immeasurably insignificant temperature change, and political hyper-overreaction is doing significant harm to the economy. What this article basically says to me is "Hey, Industrialized Countries! Although we can't really scientifically explain WHY, and we know it, nevertheless - we're coming after your natural gas usage!"
Shelgeyr
2.8 / 5 (34) Sep 08, 2011
like the nonscience crowd is out in force today eh

You mean the authors? Yeah, looks like someone left their cage door open again. I think they ran low on bananas.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 08, 2011
Switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate, , , ,


Global temperatures are controlled by the Sun [1], not by CO2 or smiling politicians!

www.physorg.com/n...ate.html

Solar flares and emission lines of heavy elements (Fe, Mg, etc) in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) spectrum:

www.physorg.com/n...res.html

Falsify two basic assumptions that Chairman Mao and Henry Kissinger made in 1971, and dutifully implemented by , . . . . . , Al Gore, the UN IPCC, etc.

a.) The AGW model of Earth's changing climate, and
b.) The SSM model of the Sun's constant heat.

Earth's climate changes; Life continues to evolve; Earth's heat source is variable [2]

1. Neutron repulsion, The APEIRON Journal (2011) in press
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Origin and evolution of life," J. Mod Phys. (2011) vol 2, 587-594 http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

OKM

that_guy
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2011
It's all a pretty twisted puzzle. Although generally I believe in taking the long view, it doesn't appear that changing from coal to natural gas provides enough benefits for the huge amount of investment required. Even though any switch will not have a great affect immediately, for exactly the same reasons, it looks like we should try to make coal as clean as possible, until it can be reasonably replaced with renewables.

I wonder if the new electrolysis methods (from the ammonia fuel article) would make a Hy power plant feasable?
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (97) Sep 08, 2011
..Wigley found that a 50 percent reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas use would lead to a slight increase in worldwide warming for the next 40 years of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit


Does any one with brains believe that climate scientists have anything approaching this kind of understanding of global climate that they can claim such precision? This is abject fraud.

Notice how they don't want any other potential solutions, not nuclear, not gas, ... nothing that they fear will compete with massive redistribution of wealth, social engineering, and control of energy use. Whether the 4% of co2 due to man in the atmosphere, is the preverbal straw that will break global climates back or not, the politics of AGW are a monopoly of the anti-capitalist left.
GreyLensman
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2011
When we eventually stop using either (due to some future breakthrough), the CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for far longer than the CH4.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (95) Sep 08, 2011
Well, AGW claims that around 750 gigatons of natural CO2 moves through the carbon cycle each year, so yea.

They claim that humans release an additional 29 gigatons each year (4%), but around 40% of that is absorbed, so humans are responsible for only18 gigatons each year.

According to AGW nature cannot accommodate this extra CO2 in it's absorption cycle,.. somehow the extra amount upsets the natural balance of the carbon cycle.

This doesn't make sense to me. How does nature know when to stop making more volcanoes and cows?

Let's say that there were more cows or more volcanoes on the planet that released an additional 4% co2,... AGW hypothesis would still claim that the extra 4% (x 0.60) would upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle.

[Please consider the above as a question as I'm no expert.]
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (90) Sep 08, 2011
... in others words they would still claim that any addition to the now 780 gigatons (with more cows and volcanoes), would upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. How does nature know the difference between "natural" and human co2?
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (89) Sep 08, 2011
,... how much time does it take to accommodate an extra amount?
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 08, 2011
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 08, 2011
New solar flare videos and emission lines of elements from flares:

www.physorg.com/n...res.html

www.physorg.com/n...m67.html

Should confirm or deny an iron-rich solar interior [1-4] and the validity of:

a.) The AGW model of Earth's changing climate, and
b.) The Bilderberg model of the Sun's constant heat [4].

With kind regards,
Oliver

References:

1. "Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 20 (1983)
www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

2. "Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm solar diffusion", Meteoritics 33-A97, 5011 (1998)
www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

3. "Trans-iron elements in solar energetic particles", APJ 540, L111 (2000)
http://epact2.gsf...0HiZ.pdf

4. "Neutron repulsion", in press
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

5. "Bilderberg Sun", Solar Physics 3, 5 (1968)
http://adsabs.har....3....5G
Jeddy_Mctedder
2.1 / 5 (17) Sep 08, 2011
things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better. it could take 10 years, 100 years. or another 1000.

the dark ages lasted about 800 years. and then we got the enlightenment. if the world goes into another recessive era. i only hope when we come out of it, men will live on the moon and cool stuff like that.

thing is 800 years, when you really think about it, is NOTHING>

we are too fixed on the now now now. things will not change nearly as fast as people want to believe. and the things that will change ( like the financial collapse of the u..s ) will happen on a much shorter time scale than people want to think they will.

a financial collapse will come within 10 years, and then we'll get passed it just like argentina, russia, mexico, indonesia, and all the other countries did.
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 08, 2011
things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better. it could take 10 years, 100 years. or another 1000.

the dark ages lasted about 800 years. and then we got the enlightenment. if the world goes into another recessive era. i only hope when we come out of it, men will live on the moon and cool stuff like that.

thing is 800 years, when you really think about it, is NOTHING

we are too fixed on the now now now. things will not change nearly as fast as people want to believe. and the things that will change ( like the financial collapse of the u..s ) will happen on a much shorter time scale than people want to think they will.

a financial collapse will come within 10 years, and then we'll get passed it just like argentina, russia, mexico, indonesia, and all the other countries.


I deeply regret that it took 40 years to realize that

a.) The SSM model of the Sun and
b.) The AGW model of climate are

Two peas in the same propaganda pod!

Hang in there! OKM
hard2grep
2 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2011
The only way to get around global warming effectively is to start burning witches again. Everyone knows the answer is the population and that's why the world has gotten rougher. Face it, there aren't enough Christians around to make any difference in the population. It cannot be the Catholics because of the revenue loss from alcohol and gambling; You have to think of school funding for our children. I have changed my mind... Instead of burning witches, we should burn all the trolls.
Gilbert
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 09, 2011



'cause anthropomorphic CO2 does nothing; zip, zero, nada, to planetary climate.


The word of the day is anthropoGENIC. 'climate sceptic' e-tard 0.
looseyarn
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2011
FAce it, Copenhagen was the last possibility to decide on whether or not the mankind wants to melt the West Antarctic Ice Sheet so the only thing left is to burn.
MDG
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2011
I Believe in Climate change...
Has been happening since the last Ice age, or creation whatever you want to believe... (it is faith based, just like the latest hysteria)
It cooled Last night, and it warmed again today.
Ant it rained today, and it didn't yesterday...
Change happens.
Oh with this Leakage of Methane...
So they can't measure the leakage from wells??
Nor can they predict it???
SO what makes any intelligent person think they can measure or stop leakage form CO2 sequestration wells???

As one Professor of Mine said, Methane should only be used in the petrochemical industry, because it is the purest form of hydrocarbon we have easy access to, we should't be burning it when there are alternatives, like coal, and oil, though these also should only have the "Useless" hydrocarbons burnt, as there are many chemicals if importance to materials science, and other industries in the cocktail...

Remember, once upon a time Gasoline was a useless waste...from Paraffin refining.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2011
A question and an assertion from someone without brains.

"Does any one with brains believe that climate scientists have anything approaching this kind of understanding of global climate that they can claim such precision? This is abject fraud." - NoumenTard

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (18) Sep 09, 2011
It only took me 0.0 seconds to realize that OmaTard's claim that the sun is made from Iron or Neutrons, is delusional nonsense.

It took me 10 minutes to realize that he needs chemical assistance to reduce the severity of his mental disorder.

"I deeply regret that it took 40 years to realize that " - OmaTard
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (16) Sep 09, 2011

"how much time does it take to accommodate an extra amount?" - NoumenTard

5 PicoTards of your time.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (90) Sep 09, 2011
Vendicar, how old are you? Surely you're not an adult.
omatumr
1 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2011
New solar flare videos and emission lines of elements from flares:

www.physorg.com/n...res.html

May confirm or deny:

a) An iron-rich solar interior [1-4] and the validity of:
b) The AGW model of Earth's changing climate, and
c) The Bilderberg model of the Sun's constant heat [5].


See also: www.theregister.c...res_sdo/

References:

1. "Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 20 (1983)

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

2. "Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm solar diffusion", Meteoritics 33-A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

3. "Trans-iron elements in solar energetic particles", APJ 540, L111 (2000)

http://epact2.gsf...0HiZ.pdf

4. "Neutron repulsion", in press

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

5. "Bilderberg Sun", Solar Physics 3, 5 (1968)

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

OManuel
SincerelyTwo
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2011
omatumr, Your oh-so-well formatted blabbity-blah isn't being paid attention to, I don't even know why you go on like this, it's so damn annoying and nobody cares. Why don't you save all of that for school reports and just focus on something else for a change?
Shelgeyr
2.8 / 5 (20) Sep 09, 2011
@Noumenon
Please don't feed the VD trolless - she's obviously a lonely, angry child.

(Author Robert Asprin would probably insist the proper term is "trollop", but we should just let that slide...)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2011
"Vendicar, how old are you? " - NoumenTard

I am old enough to recognize a retard when I see one, smart enough to recognize a mental disorder when I see one, and honest enough to call out a liar when I see one.

Omatard fits categories 1 and 2.
You Tard Boy fall into category 1 and 3.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (20) Sep 09, 2011
"How does nature know the difference between "natural" and human co2?" - NoumenTard

Via the isotopic ratio of C14 to C12.

Poor NumenTard. Can't even manage to comprehend the basics that children readily comprehend.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2011
"a financial collapse will come within 10 years" - Jeddy

The U.S. financial collapse has already started. But I agree, the real thing starts in just a few years. I give it 15 max, but most probably 5 to 10.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2011
"According to AGW nature cannot accommodate this extra CO2 in it's absorption cycle,.. somehow the extra amount upsets the natural balance of the carbon cycle. This doesn't make sense to me." - NoumenTard.

In order to balance, higher rates of CO2 output must be countered by higher rates of sequestration. Principally Ocean sequestration. Those rates are primarily influenced by ocean chemistry.

Since the ocean is vast Ocean chemistry changes slowly and hence lags well behind in sequestration.

As a result, sequestration dramatically lags increases in the level of atmospheric CO2.

And once again you have proven yourself to be completely ignorant of basic science.

omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2011
Please consider these experimentally established facts:

1. Earth's climate has changed and is changing.
2. The Sun has evolved and is evolving.
3. Life has evolved and is evolving

We are now protected from the Sun's pulsar core by:

a.) A solar mantle of mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca
b.) A solar photosphere of waste products (H and He)
c.) Distance from the Sun

References:

1. "The demise of established dogmas formation of the Solar System", Nature 303 (1983) 286

http://tallbloke....1983.pdf

2. "Is the Universe expanding?", J. Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

3. "Origin and evolution of life", J. Modern Physics 2, 587-594 (2011)

http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

4. "Neutron repulsion", The APEIRON J., in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Formerly NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (83) Sep 11, 2011
And once again you have proven yourself to be completely ignorant of basic science.- Scott Nudds aka Vendicar


Did you not see where I wrote this,...

[Please consider the above as a question as I'm no expert.


Are you an expert, are you a climate scientist or a wiki-jockey/janitor?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (83) Sep 11, 2011
"According to AGW nature cannot accommodate this extra CO2 in it's absorption cycle,.. somehow the extra amount upsets the natural balance of the carbon cycle. This doesn't make sense to me." - NoumenTard.

In order to balance, higher rates of CO2 output must be countered by higher rates of sequestration. Principally Ocean sequestration. Those rates are primarily influenced by ocean chemistry.


Where only talking 2.5% more though. There is not enough time-resolution in the historical data to know if there has ever been a similar amount of co2 released in a such similar short time frame and how it effected global climate or natures response. Humans do not have a complete handle on this,... it's way to complex with too many unknowns to justify the precision of predictions claimed.

http://www.telegr...ide.html
bluehigh
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2011
5 PicoTards of your time.


Thats just so funny. 5/5 for originality.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (82) Sep 11, 2011
5 PicoTards of your time.


Thats just so funny. 5/5 for originality.


Actually, if you google his screen name, you will discover that this man-child has been concatenating "-tard" onto screen names and phrases for over a decade!! The exact opposite of originality, in fact bordering on psychoses in it's constantcy.
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2011
Not being much into stalking and mostly taking people on what I personally experience rather than any historical baggage, you may be correct but I'm happy with face value. In any case it adds some levity when discussions here get too extremely polarized. However in the few seconds that I did bother to search I found this ...

.. but Vendicar Decarian was always one of the most entertaining posters in this group ..


However, I am bothered that Vendi might be a girl called Scott!

bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2011
Noumenon, thats not to say that I disagree with your comments. Its just this whole debate seems an endless re-hash of the same old arguments. I know I should care more but its hard to do so, when battered by supposed facts that are poles apart and almost impossible to reconcile.
jsdarkdestruction
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2011
omatumr, Your oh-so-well formatted blabbity-blah isn't being paid attention to, I don't even know why you go on like this, it's so damn annoying and nobody cares. Why don't you save all of that for school reports and just focus on something else for a change?

oliver isnt allowed within 1000 ft of schools as he is a convicted registered sex offender.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2011
Switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate, study indicates

Duhh!

omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2011
As noted here:

www.physorg.com/n...ays.html

The Sun's pulsar core is not controlled by politicians nor scientists who pretend ability to control or predict Earth's changing climate.

These are illegitimate offspring from the forty (40) year gestation period of a Chinese Dragon fertilized in Peking on 9-11 July 1971:

www.gwu.edu/~nsar...h-40.pdf

The pregnancy was hidden more than thirty (>30) years before being cited as footnote #4 in declassified documents on President Nixons trip to China on 21-28 Feb 1972:

www.gwu.edu/~nsar...ndex.htm

President Nixon gave the first public hint in announcing on 5 Jan 1972 plans to dismantle the Apollo space program:

http://claudelafl...ams.html

Nixon met USSR leaders on 22-29 May 1972 but gossip at the Lunar Science Conference on 10-13 Jan 1972 that world leaders would sign a world peace treaty in space while orbiting Earth never materialized.

O K Manuel
GSwift7
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 16, 2011
Switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate, study indicates


I can't believe this, but I'm with howhot again.

There have been numerous studies that say we would see little effect even if we totally stopped using oil tomorrow. So, changing from one hydrocarbon to another is even less impactfull.

On the other hand, if new sources of economically obtainable fuel become available, then it should slowly help the devoloping nations start to modernize and that WOULD have a good effect. Not sure how large, but it can't hurt.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (16) Sep 16, 2011
... in others words they would still claim that any addition to the now 780 gigatons (with more cows and volcanoes), would upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. How does nature know the difference between "natural" and human co2?

780 giga tons sounds pretty big.
How much carbon is that? A cube of carbon 7000 meters per side.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2011
There is one advantage of gas over goal power plants: ramp-up time.

You can start up (or ramp up) a gas power plant much quicker than a coal power plant.
This makes them much more suitable as a backup energy systems for an energy grid that is largely fed by alternative power sources with high variabilities.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (15) Sep 16, 2011
18e9 tons of CO2 carbon content would cover the earth's surface with a layer of carbon ~6 micro-meters thick.
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2011
"How does nature know the difference between "natural" and human co2?" - NoumenTard

Via the isotopic ratio of C14 to C12.


That's pretty funny. And, you, sir, are incorrect. It is via the isotopic ratio of C13 to C12 that is believed to determine the differences between natural and manmade CO2.

Although a recent couple studies actually showed some Japanese volcanoes emitted C13 to C12 ratios that read like anthropogenic ratios, calling the data of other studies into question when thought through, it still is believed that C13 to C12 ratios are those which can help determine the difference in emission sources.

C14 is pretty useless in this regard for such analysis. Do I hear the pot calling the kettle "black," VendiTard? :)