Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science ...

Howarth and subsequent discussions

http://my-pages.net/alerteschiste/fichiers/Howarth-venting-and-leakingof-methane-from-shale-gas-development.pdf

Might be interesting to read about all that at NYT but guess what? It's still blocked u-no-where

Anyway, the Howarth estimates are top-down. While not necessarily wrong, they do make us think that some bottom-up estimates would be worth having.

((Commercial announcement follows))

Well, Picarro has gotcha covered
How Much Methane Escapes from Leaking Natural Gas Distribution Pipes? | Picarro

is the example, use the same approach (CRDS and GPS in your car, drive to the right places) and map the methane plume (if any) from your favorite well or frack sites.

((commercial ends))

All that is surprisingly easy, except finding enough $$ for the CRDS. The hard part is the meteorology-driven inversion model that turns the measured plume into an efflux rate. Such models are found on the internet, but are not set up for casual downloaders. Best hook up with somebody at a local university who knows what 'Gaussian plume' means. Usually applied to 'tower emissions' so you set that to height=0

If you wanted to make a meal of this, instead of a snack, you'd look at several different 'extraction sites', different sizes, target reservoir depth, and geological cap types.

 

You just don't get it. I will try one more time and we'll see if you can grasp the concept. Overpopulation of the planet with a finite number of resources. Population increases, while the resources decreases.

This is as simple as the above can be explained. Oil, even though it is finite, will be around in this country for generations to come. Your pie in the sky statements of getting America off of oil is just that. It will not happen in our lifetime, so deal with it.

Try living everyday life "oil free" - see how far you get.

DBCassidy

 

Food for thought.
Up to 233 billion barrels of oil discovered in southern Australia | Watts Up With That?

 

COOL!

DBCassidy

 

BUMP my post.
Just in case you missed it.Does it matter that the AGW claims are bullshit or not.
Prove its not bullshit and Ill be a believer.
I voted for Obama BTW.


Back to reality.
Mojo

"President Obama, I agree we should strongly consider the overwhelming judgment of science. Let’s apply the overwhelming judgment of science to your three cherry-picked examples and see what the science reveals."
The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims - Forbes

​

​

 

I agree that some version of reality can be found in Watt's and Taylor's commentaries. Not the only version, to be sure, but a version that carries some weight in policy circles.

As far as proving, I do what I can by pointing to published research. Not all of it, too be sure, because the amount is quite a lot. But when pointing 'on my own', as opposed to responding to issues raised here, I tend towards mentioning the more circumspect. When claims elsewhere seem to go well beyond evidence, I am not shy to mention that. The 'species extinction per degree of warming' was a recent example. more on that in a new thread. Yes, I'll bring some more 'good news' from Today's issue of Science.

 

I agree, BUT, most of those emitters CANhave capture and controls put on them, particularly land fills and live stock. (not to mention gas wells!). The really big concern is perma frost melting releasing vast quantities , uncontrolable, and the potential to release from sea water.

Icarus

 

Bob, the Picarro blog I linked shows that ground-level detection is possible. You are quite correct that upward diffusion of the plume will be rapid except when there is a low-level T inversion. But this does not make it undetectable (not to these gadgets ). It means to scale the measurement to the release rate, you need to know how the plume disperses in the atmosphere.

As far as airborne detection, I am trying to get the relevant parties interested, honest. Not just for CH4 but for all the IR absorbers, there is a big gap between ground-level and satellite look-down studies. Drone and gas-detection technologies are just about ready to hook up and fill that gap.

 

Icarus, I got ya on the permafrost C. Don't know if it has been a press release, but the US National Science Foundation is focusing its funding on cold-soil C. In times of limited $$, focus is good and somebody else (Euro, China) can fund the others. So, I have no complaint.

Nobody knows how to measure marine methane hydrate loss. The Russians are trying. I think this would be a great use for the airborne measuring platforms I mentioned already.

Nat Geo has a few responses to the inaugural speech

10 Ways Obama Could Fight Climate Change

But with nothing from the 'let's do the 20th century again' voices. Form your own conclusions.

 

Very good read. Good effort in showing the path to sustainability is not achieved with any one solution (e.g. shut down all coal/nuclear/etc. plants) being the answer. It takes an whole series of separate, but totally interrelated changes. Many of those changes are counterintuitive. That hinders real progress from the folks that should know better. Unfortunately, both sides of the political divide just vary in their politics of hindrance.

 

Risk communication is an important topic. Human nature is funny: we can become outraged about perceived risk, at the same we can become complacent about huge risks (smoking, driving etc). Basically, it is possible to manipulate public opinion if you know how to play the risk communication game. Right now we have a lot of special interest groups trying to encourage outrage in one direction or the other. This is better known as politics as usual. What I try to do when possible is point out when manipulative risk communication tactics are being used. But it is hard to get discussions on a non-manipulative level ground. This is probably part of the reason we do not have many scientists in public office in USA.