Earth still absorbing about half carbon dioxide emissions produced by people: study

Aug 01, 2012
Earth's carbon sinks have doubled their uptake in past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth's climate even as CO2 emissions have quadrupled. It's unclear how long this trend can continue, say scientists involved in study led by CU-Boulder. Credit: Global Campaign for Climate Action, Alfred Palmer

Earth's oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists to be published August 2 in the journal Nature.

The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet's oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.

"Globally, these carbon dioxide 'sinks' have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere. However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely," said NOAA's Pieter Tans, a climate researcher with NOAA's Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., and co-author of the study. The University of Colorado's Ashley Ballantyne is lead author.

As carbon emissions by human activities have increased (purple), some carbon has stayed in the atmosphere (red) and some has been absorbed by natural “sinks” on land and in the oceans (blue). Natural sinks, including land ecosystems and the oceans, remove about half of the carbon emitted by human activities back out of the atmosphere. Note: The graph depicts carbon accumulation, which is proportional to carbon dioxide accumulation. Credit: NOAA illustration

Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by but also by and some natural processes. The gas can also be pulled out of the atmosphere into the tissues of growing plants or absorbed by the waters of Earth's oceans. A series of recent studies suggested that natural sinks of carbon dioxide might no longer be keeping up with the increasing rate of emissions. If that were to happen, it would cause a faster-than-expected rise in and projected .

Ballantyne, Tans and their colleagues saw no faster-than-expected rise, however. Their estimate showed that overall, oceans and continue to pull about half of people's out of the atmosphere. Since emissions of CO2 have increased substantially since 1960, Ballantyne said, "Earth is taking up twice as much CO2 today as it was 50 years ago."

The rest continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, where it is likely to accelerate global warming.

This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various regions.

"Since we don't know why or where this process is happening, we cannot count on it," Tans said. "We need to identify what's going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future CO2 levels and how climate change will progress in the future."

Tans, Ballantyne and colleagues at the University of Colorado, including the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, dissected the long-term records of CO2 levels measured by NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at remote sites around the world, including the top of a mountain in Hawaii and the South Pole. Those CO2 levels reflect global averages of the , which are affected by natural cycles as well as people's activities.

The researchers also scrutinized national and international inventories or bookkeeping estimates of CO2 emissions by people and compared those to the increasing atmospheric levels of the gas.

"The uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and by ecosystems is expected to slow down gradually," Tans said. Oceans, for example, are already becoming more acidic as they absorb about a quarter of the pumped into the air by human activities. "As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans," Tans said. "We just don't see a letup, globally, yet.

Explore further: US plans widespread seismic testing of sea floor

More information:
Carbon dioxide data and trends: esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The Carbon Cycle: esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/faq_cat-3.html

Related Stories

If not in atmosphere, where does carbon go?

Nov 02, 2007

A prominent atmospheric scientist Monday (Oct. 29) called for more research into natural carbon “sinks,” which today absorb almost half of man-made carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere and which will play a large ...

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero carbon emissions

Feb 15, 2008

Now that scientists have reached a consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are the major cause of global warming, the next question is: How can we stop it" Can we just cut back on carbon, or do we need ...

Recommended for you

Australia approves huge India-backed mine

40 minutes ago

Australia has given the go-ahead to a massive coal mine in Queensland state which Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Monday could ultimately provide electricity for up to 100 million Indians.

Phytoplankton use turbulence to survive

1 hour ago

A unique water profiling instrument developed by The University of Western Australia's Centre for Water Research (CWR) is enabling scientists to understand the impact of even the most subtle turbulence on ...

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
3.7 / 5 (18) Aug 01, 2012
This really isn't an encouraging finding, since a lot of that CO2 is going into the oceans and turning into carbonic acid. Ocean acidification is by the way potentially as damaging as global warming itself - and it's explicitly caused by increased CO2 levels.
NotParker
2 / 5 (17) Aug 01, 2012
It appears nature has a lag. It would catch up if CO2 stopped going up.

If everyone switched to shale gas, CO2 would go down.

We are saved.
Bewia
1.8 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2012
Shale gas produces carbon dioxide as well and its mining is very unfriendly for underground water sources. If we would destroy them in the period of existing droughts, we would face the double problem. Cold fusion is the only long term solution of all that mess.
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Aug 01, 2012
Shale gas produce around 40% less CO2 per joule of energy from miles underground ... a long way under water sources.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2012
NP says something almost sane:
It appears nature has a lag. It would catch up if CO2 stopped going up.


And then NP follows with his obligatory advertisement for shale gas:
If everyone switched to shale gas


The problem is it's still CO2 being released from a finite sequestered source. Do we even need it for energy? Renewable resources like wind and solar voltaic will last 25 year or more and once built release not a single gram of CO2.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2012
ParkerTard has figured out why there is a small lag between post glacial warming and atmospheric CO2 enhancement.

"It appears nature has a lag." - ParkerTard

But he isn't smart enough to realize how this invalidates much of his earlier denialist whining.
...

"If everyone switched to shale gas, CO2 would go down." - ParkerTard

Here ParkerTard confuses a delay in an increase with a reduction.

These kinds of reality distortions are common among the mentally diseased.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 01, 2012
ParkerTard now confuses energy density and CO2 production with the depth of a drill rig.

"Shale gas produce around 40% less CO2 per joule of energy from miles underground ... a long way under water sources." - ParkerTard

You might think that he is drunk. But it is mental disease talking.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2012
The UK has spent hundreds of billions of pounds on wind energy and quite regularly get between 0 and 1% of their electricity from wind.

If they spent 10 trillion pounds they would quite regularly get between 0 and 100% of their energy from wind, but they couldn't predict which amount even a few hours into the future.

And the Chinese would produce more CO2 in 1 day than the UK would produce in a decade and no one in the UK would have a job because all the jobs would be somewhere else.

SatanLover
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2012
china is being heavily condemned by the world right now for their coal plants.
mrlewish
Aug 01, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2012
I think Bloom Boxes are a great example of the green con.

The claim: Clean Energy.

Reality: Way less efficient than combined cycled gas turbines, 10x as expensive and positively filthy compared to a natural gas power plant.

http://www.breitb...-Credits
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2012
Vendicar said
These kinds of reality distortions are common among the mentally diseased.


Is it bad if I giggled a little?
n0ns3ns0r
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2012
Vendicar: You shouldn't spend so much time ripping on Parker. He's probably getting paid to post denialist nonsense. Gold farming in MMORPG's is big in China. I wouldn't be surprised if some PR company hired a forum trolling service to spread misinformation.
RobPaulG
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 02, 2012
Plants love CO2. Animals love warm weather. Let's put some more CO2 into the system for a happy planet. Do your part people.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
Gold farming in MMORPG's is big in China

What a load of cats! MMORPGs just suck down resources and create tons and tons of CO2. MMORPGs consume rare earth metals, consume vasts amounts of coal, infrastructure and band-width to boot! Ohh but you can't call out the EPA on them because that might effect some NASDAC stock. Trolls would roll over in their graves from MMORPGs lack of environmental friendliness. The body of MMORPG players would swelter and adjust to the massive environmental damages they are causing to the global system. The MMORPGs would BUST!, BUST! at the seams knowing some PR company hired a forum trolling service...

Yeah right. Interesting.

Howhot
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2012
Plants love CO2. Animals love warm weather. Let's put some more CO2 into the system for a happy planet. Do your part people.


Bumper-sticker of the Tea Party.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2012
Very good interview with Richard Muller, and a very good preamble.

http://www.kqed.o...08010900
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
Thanks VD for link. Wow, Richard Muller is a BOZO.
I really wonder how many years he's caused the world to delay activity to reduce CO2 increases.

GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2012
I wouldn't be surprised if some PR company hired a forum trolling service to spread misinformation


I'm sure that does happen, but I doubt they would bother with an itty bitty little web site like this. I think they have their cross-hairs set on bigger sites like Fox, MSNBC, Washington Post, NY Times, etc. You are a long-time reader here, and you know very well that the posters here are mainly just the same regular small bunch of us. We have been arguing amongst ourselves over the same tired old issues for several years now. Besides, the big (dis)information campaigns are 99% volunteer. Why pay anyone when there are so many thousands of people willing to do their bidding for free. It's easy to find web sites which instruct people on how to respond to hot button topics on forums. In fact, certain people here seem to be doing just that. I would not think they are smart enough or skilled enough to get paid for it though. If so, then someone is wasting money.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2012
Thanks VD for link. Wow, Richard Muller is a BOZO


None of his papers (four of them altogether) have passed peer review. JGR rejected the first three and the fourth just came out. If you think Richard is a bozo, then you should look up some of the things his wife Elizabeth has said. She has claimed that the papers were rejected for minor reasons, but one of the reviewers saw that and went public with his major concerns about the papers. As with most things climate-related this is probably 50/50 between politics and science though.

Since Muller hasn't yet revealed his complete methodology, I don't see how anyone can really judge the quality of the work yet. He has promised to release it though.

Since Muller's results strongly resemble both the NOAA and CRU datasets, I suspect the work is probably just as credible as those. I don't think it justifies some of the conclusions they have made based on the work though. Again, politics I think.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
Shale gas produce around 40% less CO2 per joule of energy[...]


And a few percent of methane leaks. Making it worse than coal in the short-term(~decades) and better than coal in the long-term(centuries).

[...]from miles underground ... a long way under water sources.


6% of well-casings fail immediately and 60% fail withing 20 years according to the pensylvannia DEP.

Gas(includes some other nasties, like benzene) and frack fluid migrates along the cement bond-line or through a cement crack and that's how it can end up in the water table.

There's also the good, old-fashioned surface spills, which happen with depressing regularity.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
Parker Tard has an interesting posting profile.

Either he is unemployed or is being paid to post anti-environmental nonsense.

"You shouldn't spend so much time ripping on Parker. He's probably getting paid to post denialist nonsense." - n0ns3ns0r

View with proportional spaced font
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2012

Eastern Time

a 0 :...
a 1 :
a 2 :...
a 3 :
a 4 :
a 5 :
a 6 :
a 7 :
a 8 :
a 9 :.......
a 10 :................
a 11 :....................
p 12 :..............................
p 13 :..........................
p 14 :.......... 12 - Lunch
p 15 :...............
p 16 :................
p 17 :................
p 18 :...............
p 19 :...............
p 20 :......
p 21 :.......
p 22 :................
p 23 :.............
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2012
Either he is unemployed or is being paid to post anti-environmental nonsense.


or he has a job like mine, where he can sit and read garbage on the internet while he's at work, and rarely gets on when he's home. I'll bet my timeline would look almost the same.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2012
Shale gas produce around 40% less CO2 per joule of energy[...]


And a few percent of methane leaks. Making it worse than coal in the short-term(~decades) and better than coal in the long-term(centuries).


Not according to numerous articles published on Physorg.

marble89
2 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2012
Why not save as much of the hydrocarbons as possible for what there is no real substitute for - making of plastics etc. Future generations will thank us ! Once you burn a hydrocarbon it is destroyed forever. As a plastic it can be reused and recycled ...
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2012
Why not save as much of the hydrocarbons as possible for what there is no real substitute for - making of plastics etc. Future generations will thank us ! Once you burn a hydrocarbon it is destroyed forever. As a plastic it can be reused and recycled ...


Many plastics require more energy to recycle than it takes to make new material.

"Misconception # 1: Plastics that go into a curbside recycling bin get recycled.
Not necessarily. Collecting plastic containers at curbside fosters the belief that, like aluminum and glass, the recovered material is converted into new containers. In fact, none of the recovered plastic containers from Berkeley are being made into containers again but into new secondary products such as textiles, parking lot bumpers, or plastic lumber all unrecyclable products. This does not reduce the use of virgin materials in plastic packaging. "Recycled" in this case merely means "collected," not reprocessed or converted into useful products."
wwqq
4 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2012
Not according to numerous articles published on Physorg.


Numerous, as far as I can tell, being defined as 2 articles referencing the same study.

And even this article does not support you, as it is talking about the long term(100 years).(global warming potential of methane over 20 years is ~3 times stronger than over 100 years).
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2012
Not according to numerous articles published on Physorg.


Numerous, as far as I can tell, being defined as 2 articles referencing the same study.

And even this article does not support you, as it is talking about the long term(100 years).(global warming potential of methane over 20 years is ~3 times stronger than over 100 years).


Methane is measured in parts per billion, CO2 is measured in parts per million.

Most of the shale gas leakage claims can be traced to one discredited idiot at Columbia.

But you are an example of what the cult really believes. You don't care if shale gas is cleaner. It is cheaper and you hate the fact poor people can afford to heat and power their homes. You want them to freeze. You want power outages. Any lie will do for you.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
And yet water table contamination from fraking is found all over North America.

"Most of the shale gas leakage claims can be traced to one discredited idiot at Columbia." - ParkerTard

Poor Mentally ill ParkerTard.

He is so mentally diseased that he believes that once a vast area of bedrock is fractured, gas will only flow through those cracks that he wishes them to flow through.

He has a pocket of magic pixie dust that makes his wishes come true.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2012
Doubtful since my estimates are that he is spending 15 hours a week posting to this site. In addition he has admitted in another thread to posting on at least one other site, and has identified himself as a person who maintains an anti-environmental blog.

"or he has a job like mine, where he can sit and read garbage on the internet while he's at work, and rarely gets on when he's home." - GSwift

So once again, ParkerTard is either unemployed, or employed to post anti-environmental propaganda.

GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2012
So once again, ParkerTard is either unemployed, or employed to post anti-environmental propaganda.


I'm still thinking that a professional would do a better job. His posts aren't very good sometimes. Most of the things he posts are just stuff he gets from other sites like WattsUpWithThat.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2012
Renewable resources like wind and solar voltaic will last 25 year or more and once built release not a single gram of CO2.


While I agree that we need to move away from fossil fuels for powering our civilization, I'm highly skeptical we can do so using solar panels and wind mills...

Even if their efficiency could be boosted to some kind of realistic level, you're still going to run into problems of where to put them eventually. They may be "renewable", but they're certainly not real estate friendly...
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2012
And yet water table contamination from fraking is found all over North America.


Fracking has been going on since 1948. It is much, much cleaner than the mining for rare earth metals used in wind turbines and solar panels.

http://www.dailym...tes.html

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2012
Not according to numerous articles published on Physorg.


Numerous, as far as I can tell, being defined as 2 articles referencing the same study.


"more recent industry data and a critical examination of Environmental Protection Agency data supports leakage rates closer to 1.5 percent for both conventional and hydrofractured wells."

http://phys.org/n...ded.html

http://phys.org/n...ive.html

http://phys.org/n...ade.html

Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2012
So NP, how much CO2 reduction (and green house gasses) would happen using your shale gas approach? Wikipedia has a break-down of fossil fuels - CO2 and while Natural gas is half, it seems like you would like to ramp up production to fill the other half. In other words no reduction in CO2 occurs and we are still heading for a 600ppm CO2 atmosphere in 100 years (probably less).

http://en.wikiped...ions.svg

Fossil fuels added 33.5 GIGATONS of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2010. Methane, which is a worst greenhouse gas, will cause even more warming. There is even concern from the thawing of the Arctic and Antarctic permafrost releasing massive amounts of stored methane trapped under ice.

So, when you say 1.5 percent leakage rate, how many GIGATONS of methane would that be? Have you any estimates of the amount of additional global warming that will cause?

NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2012
So NP, how much CO2 reduction (and green house gasses) would happen using your shale gas approach?


As my physorg references states:

" replacing them with natural gas stations will be faster, cheaper and achieve 40 percent of the low-carbon-fast benefit,"

Translation: You get 40% less CO2 from switching to NG than you would if you switched to Nuclear, solar and wind.

And you get the benefits a lot sooner. And a lot cheaper.

http://phys.org/n...ded.html

And we know greenies will block any attempt to switch to nuclear, so the fantasy switch to Nuclear, solar and wind will never actually occur.

The nice thing about methane is it lives in atmosphere for a very short time before ozone breaks it down.

NG is still a small part of the methane source

http://oceanlink....0EPA.gif
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2012
Then the alternative interpretation of ParkerTard posting around 15 hours a week here, and to other sites as well (as he has now admitted) and maintaining his own blog, is that he is unemployed.

"I'm still thinking that a professional would do a better job." - GSwift7
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2012
Then the alternative interpretation of ParkerTard posting around 15 hours a week here, and to other sites as well (as he has now admitted) and maintaining his own blog, is that he is unemployed.

"I'm still thinking that a professional would do a better job." - GSwift7


Adults were having a discussion ...

But ok, I'll play. You post 10x as much as I do VD. And of that 10x, none of it has any use at all.

Who pays you? Some fanatical group trying to make people think the internet is a waste of peoples time?
wwqq
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2012
Notparker, only one of those articles is remotely relevant(estimates methane leakage) and even that article does not support your case.

1.5% leakage of methane is essentially a wash with coal on GHG forcing on a 20 year time frame.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
Air sampling by NOAA over Colorado found 4% Methane Leakage.
wwqq
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2012
Methane, which is a worst greenhouse gas, will cause even more warming.


Methane is far more effective than CO2, but it is not even close to gas with the highest global warming potential(e.g. see sulfur hexafluoride)
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2012
WW, according to a Cornell University study it was closer to 6 percent. You know the AGW denier group will never admit how dangerous green houses gasses are (sarcasm), so lets see if we can do some math on them. We are talking about a 1.4 to 6 percent leakage rate from all natural gas acquired. How many gigatons is that?

So the question becomes how many tons of methane are released into the atmosphere from accidental release (also knowing that methane is a 25x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2).

In 2007 it was this:
http://www.noaane...ane.html

Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2012
WWqq keep the conversation going. Methane is 25x more potent than CO2 for infrared reflectivity, and combined with CO2 is a pretty nasty heat trapping combination. Here is a good website: I hope all the deniers visit,

http://oceanlink....ane.html

From that, we can conclude that 24% of global atmospheric methane is from fossil fuels. 1/4! Even to me, that is a stunning figure. Wow. One quarter of all of earths atmospheric methane is from fossil fuel!

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
And have come to the conclusion that you are a liar, and that your references don't support your assertions.

"Adults were having a discussion ... " - ParkerTard

Poor Mentally Diseased ParkerTard.
He still believes that lying is the only way to advance his Conservative ideology.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2012
Notparker, only one of those articles is remotely relevant(estimates methane leakage) and even that article does not support your case.

1.5% leakage of methane is essentially a wash with coal on GHG forcing on a 20 year time frame.


Cornell Professor Lawrence M. Cathles disagrees

http://phys.org/n...ded.html

I understand the reluctance of coal supporters like you to accept shale gas. Coal has made civilization possible. And Josh Fox has been well paid by the coal industry (or Gazprom).
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
Gets yer sunday paper here. Read all about it.

Another incompetent paper from radio weather announcer Antony Watts (Watts up with that).

Read all about it...

http://www.skepti...que.html
kirsdela
1 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2012
like Arthur replied I am shocked that a student able to earn $9035 in four weeks on the internet. have you seen this web link NuttyRich.com
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
1.5% leakage of methane is essentially a wash with coal on GHG forcing on a 20 year time frame.


Cornell Professor Lawrence M. Cathles disagrees


You cannot possibly be this dense. He's talking about a 100-year timeframe. How many times do I have to keep telling you this before it sinks in?

What scant empirical data we have puts fugutive methane emissions at 4%.

Natural gas is a bridge to more fossil fuels. If we're going to use it at all, the dumbest thing we could possibly do is suck it out of the ground as fast as possible and burn it. The very least you can do is use it as a chemical feedstock for N-fertilizer and other valuable products.

NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2012
1.5% leakage of methane is essentially a wash with coal on GHG forcing on a 20 year time frame.


Cornell Professor Lawrence M. Cathles disagrees


You cannot possibly be this dense. He's talking about a 100-year timeframe.



No.

"He concluded that no matter the timeframe considered, substituting natural gas energy for all coal and some oil production provides about 40 percent of the global warming benefit that a complete switch to low-carbon sources would deliver."

No matter the timeframe considered.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
[...]

No matter the timeframe considered.


No. He's talking about the time-frame of the transition to natural gas; go read the actual paper. He is still only considering the long-term.

The crossover point on GHG forcing for natural gas on a 20-year time frame is ~2% fugitive methane.

The few actual measurements we have point to a 4% leakage rate.

Climate change is a problem NOW. We cannot afford to go on a ~30-year gas binge and lul ourselves into complacency, thinking we're doing something about GHG emissions all-the-while making the problem even worse in the short term.
wwqq
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2012
Natural gas is not a bridge to wind and solar; it is an enabler of wind and solar. They are not as much stand-alone devices as they are ways to save minor amounts of natural gas.

The optimism that we are going to develop grid-scale energy storage and electrify transportation in the next couple of decades, in the middle of a gas-binge, is completely unwarranted.

If we do this, we're going to have a massive gas binge, drill hundreds of thousands of wells(the gas is in the joints in the shale, the gas is everywhere, so you have to drill everywhere). We'll wake up in a daze, with a GHG hangover, discover that we didn't do a damned thing for thirty years and proceed with unconventional oil and good old trusty semi-combustible dirt(AKA coal).

We need to stop procrastinating right now and deploy nuclear and some solar where it makes sense(e.g. for A/C), we need to be electrifying rail now, we need to install a heck of a lot of heat pumps now, we need to develop grid energy-storage now.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2012
[...]

No matter the timeframe considered.


No. He's talking about the time-frame of the transition to natural gas; short term.


"Although a more rapid transition to natural gas from coal and some oil produces a greater overall benefit for climate change"

The sooner you do it, the better.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
We need to stop procrastinating right now and deploy nuclear and some solar where it makes sense(e.g. for A/C), we need to be electrifying rail now, we need to install a heck of a lot of heat pumps now, we need to develop grid energy-storage now.


1) Nuclear is hated by greenies, so no chance.

2) NG or duel fuel for rail makes way more economic sense.

We have hundreds of years of gas. No need to do anything but use the gas we have.
Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2012
Nuclear is hated by greenies

Actually it isn't hated by greenies. Its just that when something goes wrong, it goes wrong big-time! Just look to Chernobyl if you need an example. If it wasn't for long term waste, and it's long-term liability and proliferation issues, Nuclear is pretty green.

We have hundreds of years of gas...

How do you know? How many terrawatts of gas are stored away in the deep underground bunkers. How do you get to it?

Lastly, how do you keep it affordable? Solar can get you almost too-cheap-to-meter, how will NG compete?

Reality called ... it wants sanity back.

NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
Nuclear is hated by greenies

Actually it isn't hated by greenies. Its just that when something goes wrong, it goes wrong big-time! Just look to Chernobyl if you need an example. If it wasn't for long term waste, and it's long-term liability and proliferation issues, Nuclear is pretty green.

We have hundreds of years of gas...

How do you know? How many terrawatts of gas are stored away in the deep underground bunkers. How do you get to it?

Lastly, how do you keep it affordable? Solar can get you almost too-cheap-to-meter, how will NG compete?

Reality called ... it wants sanity back.



Solar is a very poor performer in the winter, fall and spring and at night.