Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Feb 8, 2012, 9:58:21 PM2/8/12
to
Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
> Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, with up to 20 percent concentration of other hydrocarbons (usually ethane) as well as small amounts of impurities such as carbon dioxide. Natural gas is widely used and is an important energy source in many applications including heating buildings, generating electricity, providing heat and power to industry and vehicles and is also a feedstock in the manufacture of products such as fertilizers.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
> Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, with up to 20 percent concentration of other hydrocarbons (usually ethane) as well as small amounts of impurities such as carbon dioxide. Natural gas is widely used and is an important energy source in many applications including heating buildings, generating electricity, providing heat and power to industry and vehicles and is also a feedstock in the manufacture of products such as fertilizers.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Wally W.
Feb 8, 2012, 10:12:39 PM2/8/12
to
Are you still counting complaints about idiotic crossposts to
sci.physics that are free of physics content?
G=EMC^2
Feb 8, 2012, 10:12:34 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 9:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals...
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
>
> > When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> > "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
>
> See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals...
> > When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> > "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
>
>
> CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
>
> > Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, with up to 20 percent concentration of other hydrocarbons (usually ethane) as well as small amounts of impurities such as carbon dioxide. Natural gas is widely used and is an important energy source in many applications including heating buildings, generating electricity, providing heat and power to industry and vehicles and is also a feedstock in the manufacture of products such as fertilizers.
>
> Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Exxon City 50 miles north of Denver has great oil and gas. It ships
> CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
>
> > Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, with up to 20 percent concentration of other hydrocarbons (usually ethane) as well as small amounts of impurities such as carbon dioxide. Natural gas is widely used and is an important energy source in many applications including heating buildings, generating electricity, providing heat and power to industry and vehicles and is also a feedstock in the manufacture of products such as fertilizers.
>
> Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
the gas all the way to Chicago. 1% in this gas is helium,and that is
a lot. Helium is now cheap. China is running trucks and cars(30%) on
natural gas. Natural gas is cleaner than electric when Progress
Energy a GOP Mafia power company gets into the picture. They kill
children with their radio active smoke from burning dirty coal. This
has been proven at the U of Mass TreBert
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 8, 2012, 10:32:45 PM2/8/12
to
you make a good point about coal,
its traces of radioactivity, considering the vast quantities
that are burned.
the OP makes a good point, by proxy, that
the mining of natural gas is leaky ... but,
how much was leaking, before we were mining it?... perhaps,
it only leaked at the midocean rifts,
where -- in spite of the massive vulcanism -- it seems that
the anoxic life-forms are super-efficient at fixing the carbon
therein.
this is like the Redondo Seep, between here and Catalina Island
off of Los Angeles:
you can find globs of tar on the beach from it, but
it has never been quantified as to how much was produced,
before we began pumping the stuff like crazy (and
i don't know of any estimate of its current production).
incidentally, oil and natural gas can be carbon-dated; so,
there.
its traces of radioactivity, considering the vast quantities
that are burned.
the OP makes a good point, by proxy, that
the mining of natural gas is leaky ... but,
how much was leaking, before we were mining it?... perhaps,
it only leaked at the midocean rifts,
where -- in spite of the massive vulcanism -- it seems that
the anoxic life-forms are super-efficient at fixing the carbon
therein.
this is like the Redondo Seep, between here and Catalina Island
off of Los Angeles:
you can find globs of tar on the beach from it, but
it has never been quantified as to how much was produced,
before we began pumping the stuff like crazy (and
i don't know of any estimate of its current production).
incidentally, oil and natural gas can be carbon-dated; so,
there.
Bama @wh.gov Kenyan ASSH (___O___) Bama
Feb 8, 2012, 10:59:01 PM2/8/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HJCdnZTmDaXQq67S...@mchsi.com...
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
>
>> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
>> of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
>> what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious
>> pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now
>> produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel
>> might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
>
What Climate change?
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
>
>> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
>> of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
>> what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious
>> pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now
>> produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel
>> might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
>
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study
shows
Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead
scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a
serious concern
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Feb 8, 2012, 11:29:11 PM2/8/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
What a surprise, though no one bothers to define "High" or differentiate
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
between natural leaks and leaks in the recovery system.
Yet another physics-free post on environmental matters to a physics group.
What a cross posting ass.
Eric Stevens
Feb 8, 2012, 11:36:55 PM2/8/12
to
if any of our oil or natural gas is as young as this.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
AGWFacts
Feb 9, 2012, 11:00:09 AM2/9/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:58:21 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
Surely this did not surprise anyone.
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
> of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
> what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution
> to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced
> the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not
> be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
(human and other) than burning coal is. Even if mining natural gas
results in a higher amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
the number of deaths due to burning coal will drop---- a huge
plus.
> "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane
> emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist
> at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author
> on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research.
> Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to
> think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need
> to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
>
> See:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
>
> CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
>
> Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting
> primarily of methane, with up to 20 percent concentration of other
> hydrocarbons (usually ethane) as well as small amounts of impurities
> such as carbon dioxide. Natural gas is widely used and is an important
> energy source in many applications including heating buildings, generating
> electricity, providing heat and power to industry and vehicles and is also
> a feedstock in the manufacture of products such as fertilizers.
>
> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca
AGWFacts
Feb 9, 2012, 11:07:34 AM2/9/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:12:34 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
> >
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
> >
> >
> > When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
> > of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
> > what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution
> > to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced
> > the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not
> > be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> >
> > "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane
> > emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist
> > at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author
> > on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research.
> > Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to
> > think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need
> > to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
> >
> > See:
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
> > When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
> > of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
> > what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution
> > to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced
> > the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not
> > be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> >
> > "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane
> > emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist
> > at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author
> > on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research.
> > Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to
> > think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need
> > to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
> >
> > See:
> >
> > CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
> >
> > Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting
> > primarily of methane, with up to 20 percent concentration of other
> > hydrocarbons (usually ethane) as well as small amounts of impurities
> > such as carbon dioxide. Natural gas is widely used and is an important
> > energy source in many applications including heating buildings, generating
> > electricity, providing heat and power to industry and vehicles and is also
> > a feedstock in the manufacture of products such as fertilizers.
> >
> > Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
> Exxon City 50 miles north of Denver has great oil and gas. It ships
> the gas all the way to Chicago. 1% in this gas is helium,and that is
> a lot. Helium is now cheap. China is running trucks and cars (30%) on
> > CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
> >
> > Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting
> > primarily of methane, with up to 20 percent concentration of other
> > hydrocarbons (usually ethane) as well as small amounts of impurities
> > such as carbon dioxide. Natural gas is widely used and is an important
> > energy source in many applications including heating buildings, generating
> > electricity, providing heat and power to industry and vehicles and is also
> > a feedstock in the manufacture of products such as fertilizers.
> >
> > Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
> Exxon City 50 miles north of Denver has great oil and gas. It ships
> the gas all the way to Chicago. 1% in this gas is helium,and that is
> natural gas. Natural gas is cleaner than electric when Progress
> Energy a GOP Mafia power company gets into the picture. They kill
> children with their radio active smoke from burning dirty coal. This
> has been proven at the U of Mass TreBert
"Proven?" Not at all. However, it is an observed fact that buring
> Energy a GOP Mafia power company gets into the picture. They kill
> children with their radio active smoke from burning dirty coal. This
> has been proven at the U of Mass TreBert
coal kills people. Coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for
example, one of the first definitive studies on the subject,
published in year 1976:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
Year 2000:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf
Year 2001:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
Year 2004:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/
"Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
released Wednesday."
The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
year:
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html
AGWFacts
Feb 9, 2012, 11:09:28 AM2/9/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:12:39 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
Physics isn't physics?
> Are you still counting complaints about idiotic crossposts to
> sci.physics that are free of physics content?
This article helps even up the no-physics content of the
newsgroup. I recall how Usenet was, many years ago, before you
net.k00ks shit all over Usenet.
> Are you still counting complaints about idiotic crossposts to
> sci.physics that are free of physics content?
newsgroup. I recall how Usenet was, many years ago, before you
net.k00ks shit all over Usenet.
AGWFacts
Feb 9, 2012, 11:10:04 AM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:29:11 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> > > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
> > >
> > > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
> > >
> What a surprise, though no one bothers to define "High" or differentiate
> between natural leaks and leaks in the recovery system.
Look at the baseline, Shit-for-brains.
> between natural leaks and leaks in the recovery system.
erschro...@gmail.com
Feb 9, 2012, 11:23:05 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 8, 10:59 pm, "Kenyan ASSH \(___O___\) Bama" <ASSH (___O___)
Bama @ WH. gov> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
From the article: "The global GIC mass balance, excluding Greenland
and Antarctic PGICs, is −148 ± 30 Gt yr−1"
So not even including the 2 biggest ice sheets, the earth is losing
148 gigatons of ice every year.
Thanks for the reference!
Bama @ WH. gov> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:HJCdnZTmDaXQq67S...@mchsi.com...
>
> > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals...
> news:HJCdnZTmDaXQq67S...@mchsi.com...
>
> > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
>
> >> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
> >> of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
> >> what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious
> >> pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now
> >> produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel
> >> might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
>
> What Climate change?
>
> The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study
> shows
>
> Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead
> scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a
> serious concern
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?...
> >> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
> >> of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
> >> what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious
> >> pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now
> >> produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel
> >> might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
>
> What Climate change?
>
> The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study
> shows
>
> Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead
> scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a
> serious concern
>
From the article: "The global GIC mass balance, excluding Greenland
and Antarctic PGICs, is −148 ± 30 Gt yr−1"
So not even including the 2 biggest ice sheets, the earth is losing
148 gigatons of ice every year.
Thanks for the reference!
Bama @wh.gov Kenyan ASSH (___O___) Bama
Feb 9, 2012, 11:33:21 AM2/9/12
to
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af0d0a65-e97d-4a0d...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Let us know whenGrenland gets green again as it was in the Vikings days a
few hundred years ago.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Feb 9, 2012, 12:55:57 PM2/9/12
to
Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Feb 9, 2012, 12:58:24 PM2/9/12
to
Wally W.
Feb 9, 2012, 2:56:26 PM2/9/12
to
>> Are you still counting complaints about idiotic crossposts to
>> sci.physics that are free of physics content?
>
>This article helps even up the no-physics content of the
>newsgroup.
> I recall how Usenet was, many years ago, before you
>net.k00ks shit all over Usenet.
Number one on the list here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/about
Top posters
This month 334 agwfa...@ipcc.org
Who is shitting all over usenet?
Sam Wormley
Feb 12, 2012, 9:48:29 PM2/12/12
to
On 2/9/12 11:55 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
> is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
>
Aw, jimp, methane is a *very important greenhouse gas*. Since it
> Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
> is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
>
has even more atoms, its *vibration modes* are even more complicated.
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
Infrared Spectroscopy: Here Comes the Heat
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Here_Comes_Heat.pdf
The interaction of IR (energy) with greenhouse gasses is more
physics than any other discipline!
Wally W.
Feb 12, 2012, 10:33:44 PM2/12/12
to
<http://support.google.com/groups/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=46492&topic=2383736&ctx=topic>
A few highlights:
When you post an article, think about the people you're trying to
reach. Try to get the most appropriate audience for your message, not
the widest.
You shouldn't post to groups you don't read
Avoid posting messages to more than one group unless you're sure it's
appropriate.
Even Google Group posters are encouraged to remove their head from
their ass before they post.
AGWFacts
Feb 12, 2012, 8:17:47 PM2/12/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:23:05 -0800 (PST),
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:59 pm, "Kenyan ASSH \(___O___\) Bama" <ASSH (___O___)
> Bama @ WH. gov> wrote:
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:HJCdnZTmDaXQq67S...@mchsi.com...
> >
> > > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
> >
> > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals...
> >
> > >> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
> > >> of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
> > >> what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious
> > >> pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now
> > >> produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel
> > >> might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> >
> > What Climate change?
> >
> > The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study
> > shows
> >
> > Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead
> > scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a
> > serious concern
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?...
> From the article: "The global GIC mass balance, excluding Greenland
> and Antarctic PGICs, is ?148?ą?30?Gt?yr?1"
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:59 pm, "Kenyan ASSH \(___O___\) Bama" <ASSH (___O___)
> Bama @ WH. gov> wrote:
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:HJCdnZTmDaXQq67S...@mchsi.com...
> >
> > > Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
> >
> > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals...
> >
> > >> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north
> > >> of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of
> > >> what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious
> > >> pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now
> > >> produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel
> > >> might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
> >
> > What Climate change?
> >
> > The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study
> > shows
> >
> > Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead
> > scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a
> > serious concern
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?...
> From the article: "The global GIC mass balance, excluding Greenland
>
> So not even including the 2 biggest ice sheets, the earth is losing
> 148 gigatons of ice every year.
>
> Thanks for the reference!
Yes: human-caused climate change currently causes over one
> So not even including the 2 biggest ice sheets, the earth is losing
> 148 gigatons of ice every year.
>
> Thanks for the reference!
trillion tonnes of ice to be lost every year since year 2005, with
lower amouts previously. Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
the scientists are wrong.
--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy
Peter Webb
Feb 12, 2012, 11:18:06 PM2/12/12
to
"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:e3pgj7d1638pbvq54...@4ax.com...
Where is your evidence that one trillion tons of ice was lost between 2010
and 2011 ?
> Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
> scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
> the scientists are wrong.
>
?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Feb 13, 2012, 12:39:45 AM2/13/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/12 11:55 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
>> is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
>>
>
> Aw, jimp, methane is a *very important greenhouse gas*. Since it
> has even more atoms, its *vibration modes* are even more complicated.
> http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
All irrelevant to what was posted.
>
>> Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
>> is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
>>
>
> Aw, jimp, methane is a *very important greenhouse gas*. Since it
> has even more atoms, its *vibration modes* are even more complicated.
> http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
<snip yet more irrelevant crap>
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 3:23:52 AM2/13/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:17:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:
Scientists can prove their claims. Can you do that?
Otherwise its a hypothesis.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Otherwise its a hypothesis.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Bama @wh.gov Kenyan ASSH (___O___) Bama
Feb 13, 2012, 10:28:31 AM2/13/12
to
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:23:05 -0800 (PST),
Climate change is why there is no longer a 1 mile think ice sheet
covering cities in NY like Albany, Utica, Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo,
etc. Not to mention the entire country of Canada.
But don't worry, another Ice age is coming and Canada will soon be covered
in Ice again.
Next ice age not likely before 1,500 years: study
LONDON (Reuters) - High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere
mean the next ice age is unlikely to begin for at least 1,500 years, an
article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=76
Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:22am EST
hanson
Feb 13, 2012, 10:35:42 AM2/13/12
to
"AGWFarts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> aka AGWFarts,
aka self-cocksucker "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
aka "V-for-Vendicar" aka "Vendicar Decarian" aka "Scott
Douglas" who initially posted as --"Scott Nudds" said that
he is a "Kenyan ASSH \(___O___\) which produces High
Methane Emissions from his ASSH \(___O___\)... wrote:
>> >
<snip crap>
another.
>
hanson wrote:
Indeed you do, Nuddley, indeed, indeed... You are one of
those Little Green Idiots out of the hordes of Enviro Shits
and Green Turds who believe anything as long as it does
enrich the wallets of Al Gore & large Corporate interests.
LOL and ROTFLMAO...ahahaha... ahahahahanson
aka self-cocksucker "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
aka "V-for-Vendicar" aka "Vendicar Decarian" aka "Scott
Douglas" who initially posted as --"Scott Nudds" said that
he is a "Kenyan ASSH \(___O___\) which produces High
Methane Emissions from his ASSH \(___O___\)... wrote:
>> >
<snip crap>
Yes: human-caused climate change currently causes over one
trillion tonnes of ice to be lost every year since year 2005, with
lower amouts previously. Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
the scientists are wrong. .... I choose to believe one theory over
trillion tonnes of ice to be lost every year since year 2005, with
lower amouts previously. Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
another.
>
hanson wrote:
Indeed you do, Nuddley, indeed, indeed... You are one of
those Little Green Idiots out of the hordes of Enviro Shits
and Green Turds who believe anything as long as it does
enrich the wallets of Al Gore & large Corporate interests.
LOL and ROTFLMAO...ahahaha... ahahahahanson
AGWFacts
Feb 13, 2012, 11:56:09 AM2/13/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:48:29 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/12 11:55 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
> > is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
"Physics isn't physics!" --- net.k00k
> On 2/9/12 11:55 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
> > is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
> Aw, jimp, methane is a *very important greenhouse gas*. Since it
> has even more atoms, its *vibration modes* are even more complicated.
>
> http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
>
> Infrared Spectroscopy: Here Comes the Heat
>
> http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Here_Comes_Heat.pdf
>
> The interaction of IR (energy) with greenhouse gasses is more
> physics than any other discipline!
idea why Earth has warmed anomalously and at an unprecedented
rate. The atomic physcist Pauli explained how (i.e., why)
increased atmospheric CO2 results in increased global average
temperature, back in the 1930s.
--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy
AGWFacts
Feb 13, 2012, 11:58:11 AM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:18:06 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:17:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:17:47 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
> > the scientists are wrong.
> Where is your evidence that one trillion tons of ice was lost between 2010
> and 2011 ?
No.
> > the scientists are wrong.
> Where is your evidence that one trillion tons of ice was lost between 2010
> and 2011 ?
AGWFacts
Feb 13, 2012, 11:58:32 AM2/13/12
to
> Can you do that?
Do what?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Feb 13, 2012, 1:57:17 PM2/13/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:48:29 -0600, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/12 11:55 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> > Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
>> > is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
>
> "Physics isn't physics!" --- net.k00k
Yes, we already know you have no clue what the word "physics" means and that
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/12 11:55 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> > Physics is physics but a post about methane leaking into the envirionment
>> > is an environmental topic, not a physics topic.
>
> "Physics isn't physics!" --- net.k00k
you have mental issues.
>> Aw, jimp, methane is a *very important greenhouse gas*. Since it
>> has even more atoms, its *vibration modes* are even more complicated.
>>
>> http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
>>
>> Infrared Spectroscopy: Here Comes the Heat
>>
>> http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Here_Comes_Heat.pdf
>>
>> The interaction of IR (energy) with greenhouse gasses is more
>> physics than any other discipline!
>
> In fact, if not for our understanding of physics, we would have no
> idea why Earth has warmed anomalously and at an unprecedented
> rate. The atomic physcist Pauli explained how (i.e., why)
> increased atmospheric CO2 results in increased global average
> temperature, back in the 1930s.
But since you have no clue what "physics" means, it is probably pointless
to expect you to understand what "theoretical" means.
Wally W.
Feb 13, 2012, 3:03:46 PM2/13/12
to
A "Where ...?" question is not answered by "No."
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 3:34:09 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:56:09 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:
Except that models developed on that theory do not correctly depict
the temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere. Nor does the theory
predict the general plateau experienced for the last 15 years.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
the temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere. Nor does the theory
predict the general plateau experienced for the last 15 years.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 3:36:25 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:58:32 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
Yes they can. Their claims are limited to what they can prove. All
else are hypotheses.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
else are hypotheses.
>
>> Can you do that?
>
>Do what?
I didn't think you could.
>> Can you do that?
>
>Do what?
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Bill Snyder
Feb 13, 2012, 3:40:34 PM2/13/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:36:25 +1300, Eric Stevens
Hogwash. There is no proof in science, only disproof.
>>> Can you do that?
>>
>>Do what?
>
>I didn't think you could.
>
Nor can you, or anyone else.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
>>> Can you do that?
>>
>>Do what?
>
>I didn't think you could.
>
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 3:49:17 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:35:42 -0800, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>"AGWFarts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> aka AGWFarts,
>aka self-cocksucker "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
>aka "V-for-Vendicar" aka "Vendicar Decarian" aka "Scott
>Douglas" who initially posted as --"Scott Nudds"
Is THAT **IDIOT** still around here? He was hanging round here in
>"AGWFarts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> aka AGWFarts,
>aka self-cocksucker "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
>aka "V-for-Vendicar" aka "Vendicar Decarian" aka "Scott
>Douglas" who initially posted as --"Scott Nudds"
1999 when I left sci.environment.
He doesn't seem to have learned very much in all those years.
See http://tinyurl.com/7xemktw
> ... said that
>he is a "Kenyan ASSH \(___O___\) which produces High
>Methane Emissions from his ASSH \(___O___\)... wrote:
>>> >
><snip crap>
>Yes: human-caused climate change currently causes over one
>trillion tonnes of ice to be lost every year since year 2005, with
>lower amouts previously. Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
>scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
>the scientists are wrong. .... I choose to believe one theory over
>another.
>>
>hanson wrote:
>Indeed you do, Nuddley, indeed, indeed... You are one of
>those Little Green Idiots out of the hordes of Enviro Shits
>and Green Turds who believe anything as long as it does
>enrich the wallets of Al Gore & large Corporate interests.
>LOL and ROTFLMAO...ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Regards,
>Methane Emissions from his ASSH \(___O___\)... wrote:
>>> >
><snip crap>
>Yes: human-caused climate change currently causes over one
>trillion tonnes of ice to be lost every year since year 2005, with
>lower amouts previously. Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
>scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
>the scientists are wrong. .... I choose to believe one theory over
>another.
>>
>hanson wrote:
>Indeed you do, Nuddley, indeed, indeed... You are one of
>those Little Green Idiots out of the hordes of Enviro Shits
>and Green Turds who believe anything as long as it does
>enrich the wallets of Al Gore & large Corporate interests.
>LOL and ROTFLMAO...ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Eric Stevens
Peter Webb
Feb 13, 2012, 4:57:16 PM2/13/12
to
news:89gij7djt7oi07kb7...@4ax.com...
Yes, they can.
You are confusing "claims" with "theories".
For example, the claim that "the earth lost one trillion tons of ice between
2010 and 2011" is capable of being proved true or false; it relates to an
historical event.
Speaking of which, this looks to me like another one of those "facts"
invented by AGW Believers, aka "lies".
Have you any evidence that the earth lost one trillion tons of ice between
2010 and 2011, or did you simply invent this fact out of thin air? Where is
your evidence?
You are confusing "claims" with "theories".
For example, the claim that "the earth lost one trillion tons of ice between
2010 and 2011" is capable of being proved true or false; it relates to an
historical event.
Speaking of which, this looks to me like another one of those "facts"
invented by AGW Believers, aka "lies".
Have you any evidence that the earth lost one trillion tons of ice between
2010 and 2011, or did you simply invent this fact out of thin air? Where is
your evidence?
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 5:30:07 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:40:34 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
wrote:
If a claim can be verified by repeated experiment then in that sense
it is provable. i.e. it is proved to the order of accuracy of the
experiment.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
it is provable. i.e. it is proved to the order of accuracy of the
experiment.
>
>
>>>> Can you do that?
>>>
>>>Do what?
>>
>>I didn't think you could.
>>
>
>Nor can you, or anyone else.
I quite agree. Therefore it is only a hypothesis.
>
>>>> Can you do that?
>>>
>>>Do what?
>>
>>I didn't think you could.
>>
>
>Nor can you, or anyone else.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Bill Snyder
Feb 13, 2012, 5:41:40 PM2/13/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:30:07 +1300, Eric Stevens
Again, hogwash. By that wacky definition Newtonian physics was
"proven" many times over, to ever-increasing levels of accuracy.
Einstein overturned it, just the same. That's because a theory
can only be disproven, never proven.
>>
>>
>>>>> Can you do that?
>>>>
>>>>Do what?
>>>
>>>I didn't think you could.
>>>
>>
>>Nor can you, or anyone else.
>
>I quite agree. Therefore it is only a hypothesis.
Nope, it's a theory. You really need to learn the distinction.
"proven" many times over, to ever-increasing levels of accuracy.
Einstein overturned it, just the same. That's because a theory
can only be disproven, never proven.
>>
>>
>>>>> Can you do that?
>>>>
>>>>Do what?
>>>
>>>I didn't think you could.
>>>
>>
>>Nor can you, or anyone else.
>
>I quite agree. Therefore it is only a hypothesis.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Feb 13, 2012, 6:14:26 PM2/13/12
to
Einstein was not necessary, though he was handy.
If Einstein had not existed, the increased accuracy in measuring things
and the increased speeds of moving things as technology progressed would
have enventually caused measurements to diverge from Newtonian physics.
Then there would have been repeatable experiments to show that Newtonian
physics is not strictly and absolutely true.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 13, 2012, 6:38:46 PM2/13/12
to
you act as if there is no data, or that
you are familiar with the data!
> The limit of carbon dating is not much more than 50,000 years. I doubt
> if any of our oil or natural gas is as young as this.
you are familiar with the data!
> The limit of carbon dating is not much more than 50,000 years. I doubt
> if any of our oil or natural gas is as young as this.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 13, 2012, 6:43:07 PM2/13/12
to
the totality of evapotranspiration on land has
been reduced by what causes that part of urban heat-islanding,
ipso facto. meanwhile,
ever since Sputnix, AnIS and GrIS have only risen.
> >> Where is your evidence that one trillion tons of ice was lost between 2010
> >> and 2011 ?
thus:
been reduced by what causes that part of urban heat-islanding,
ipso facto. meanwhile,
ever since Sputnix, AnIS and GrIS have only risen.
> >> Where is your evidence that one trillion tons of ice was lost between 2010
> >> and 2011 ?
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 7:08:18 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:38:46 -0800 (PST), 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bottom quoting left undisturbed, even though this is not an email.
Please don't bottom quote.
You act as if you know something. What is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
"As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite
is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[9] This age is
derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis,
whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination
during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[9] will not
report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample)."
In special cases they can push it further, but not that much further.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bottom quoting left undisturbed, even though this is not an email.
Please don't bottom quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
"As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite
is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[9] This age is
derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis,
whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination
during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[9] will not
report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample)."
In special cases they can push it further, but not that much further.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 7:12:25 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:41:40 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
And it took measurements of an unprecedented order of accuracy to
demonstrate that Einstein was correct. Before then his theory was just
another theory.
confirm it.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
demonstrate that Einstein was correct. Before then his theory was just
another theory.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Can you do that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do what?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't think you could.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nor can you, or anyone else.
>>
>>I quite agree. Therefore it is only a hypothesis.
>
>Nope, it's a theory. You really need to learn the distinction.
If its a theory, please tell us the general nature of an experiment to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Can you do that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do what?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't think you could.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nor can you, or anyone else.
>>
>>I quite agree. Therefore it is only a hypothesis.
>
>Nope, it's a theory. You really need to learn the distinction.
confirm it.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Androcles
Feb 13, 2012, 7:19:39 PM2/13/12
to
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bh9jj7hojqjfr4ddp...@4ax.com...
it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
Some morons with fancy titles don't know multiplication from division.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 13, 2012, 7:20:59 PM2/13/12
to
why is it necessary to assume, a)
that oil & natural gas ages have anything to do
with the strata fron which they are taken, and b)
that there is no data?
your cite said "some facilities won't go past 60Ky, but
that may not be needed, anyway.
that oil & natural gas ages have anything to do
with the strata fron which they are taken, and b)
that there is no data?
your cite said "some facilities won't go past 60Ky, but
that may not be needed, anyway.
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 8:46:08 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:20:59 -0800 (PST), 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Top posting corrected.
>> In special cases they can push it further, but not that much further.
>why is it necessary to assume, a)
>that oil & natural gas ages have anything to do
>with the strata fron which they are taken, and b)
>that there is no data?
>
>your cite said "some facilities won't go past 60Ky, but
>that may not be needed, anyway.
>
It was you who said "incidentally, oil and natural gas can be
carbon-dated; so, there" and I have been pointing out that most oil
and natural gas is far too old to be carbon dated. Strata has nothing
to do with it.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Top posting corrected.
>> In special cases they can push it further, but not that much further.
>why is it necessary to assume, a)
>that oil & natural gas ages have anything to do
>with the strata fron which they are taken, and b)
>that there is no data?
>
>your cite said "some facilities won't go past 60Ky, but
>that may not be needed, anyway.
>
carbon-dated; so, there" and I have been pointing out that most oil
and natural gas is far too old to be carbon dated. Strata has nothing
to do with it.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 13, 2012, 9:09:03 PM2/13/12
to
exactly, since these are permeable strata,
not necessarily the ultimate source of the biomass; and,
that's all we are talking about, biomass,
not "fossils" per se, which is just an absurdity, although
it's really just a tradename without any technical connotation.
there certainly is carbon-dating of the oil;
it is done by the oilcos to "fingerprint" adjacent wells.
not necessarily the ultimate source of the biomass; and,
that's all we are talking about, biomass,
not "fossils" per se, which is just an absurdity, although
it's really just a tradename without any technical connotation.
there certainly is carbon-dating of the oil;
it is done by the oilcos to "fingerprint" adjacent wells.
Eric Stevens
Feb 13, 2012, 10:53:22 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:09:03 -0800 (PST), the Top Posting Ingnoramus
1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Strata has nothing to do with it.
>exactly, since these are permeable strata,
>not necessarily the ultimate source of the biomass; and,
>that's all we are talking about, biomass,
>not "fossils" per se, which is just an absurdity, although
>it's really just a tradename without any technical connotation.
>
>there certainly is carbon-dating of the oil;
>it is done by the oilcos to "fingerprint" adjacent wells.
Please give me a non-religious source for carbon dating of oil.
1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Strata has nothing to do with it.
>exactly, since these are permeable strata,
>not necessarily the ultimate source of the biomass; and,
>that's all we are talking about, biomass,
>not "fossils" per se, which is just an absurdity, although
>it's really just a tradename without any technical connotation.
>
>there certainly is carbon-dating of the oil;
>it is done by the oilcos to "fingerprint" adjacent wells.
>
>> Strata has nothing to do with it.
Regards,
>> Strata has nothing to do with it.
Eric Stevens
hanson
Feb 14, 2012, 12:56:31 AM2/14/12
to
.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
he is a "ASSH \(___O___\) which produces High
Is THAT **IDIOT** Nudds still around here? He was
>
hanson wrote:
[1] Good one, Stevens, but you missed lots of hilarious moments
like in here when Nudds nuddled around with a Jewish whore in:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/44eac74649636806>
wherein Naomi Goldstein said to Nuddley:
"Scotty, you creamed in your pants when I took my bra off.
The other guys laughed at you and called you "Scuttle Nutts".
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
>
AGWFarts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> aka AGWFarts,
aka self-cocksucker "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
aka "V-for-Vendicar" aka "Vendicar Decarian" aka "Scott
Douglas" who initially posted as "Scott Nudds" & said that
AGWFarts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> aka AGWFarts,
aka self-cocksucker "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
aka "V-for-Vendicar" aka "Vendicar Decarian" aka "Scott
he is a "ASSH \(___O___\) which produces High
Methane Emissions from his ASSH \(___O___\)... wrote:
>
<snip crap>
Yes, uman-caused climate change currently causes over one
>
<snip crap>
trillion tonnes of ice to be lost every year since year 2005, with
lower amouts previously. Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
the scientists are wrong. .... I choose to believe one theory over
another.
>>>
hanson wrote:
Indeed you do, Nuddley, indeed, indeed... You are one of
those Little Green Idiots out of the hordes of Enviro Shits
and Green Turds who believe anything as long as it does
enrich the wallets of Al Gore & large Corporate interests.
LOL and ROTFLMAO...ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>>
"Eric Stevens" wrote:
lower amouts previously. Scientists know why: fucktards insist the
scietists are all wrong, but they won't explain how they "know"
the scientists are wrong. .... I choose to believe one theory over
another.
>>>
hanson wrote:
Indeed you do, Nuddley, indeed, indeed... You are one of
those Little Green Idiots out of the hordes of Enviro Shits
and Green Turds who believe anything as long as it does
enrich the wallets of Al Gore & large Corporate interests.
LOL and ROTFLMAO...ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>>
Is THAT **IDIOT** Nudds still around here? He was
hanging round here in 1999 when I left sci.environment.
He doesn't seem to have learned very much in all those years.
See <http://tinyurl.com/7xemktw> ...[1]
He doesn't seem to have learned very much in all those years.
>
hanson wrote:
[1] Good one, Stevens, but you missed lots of hilarious moments
like in here when Nudds nuddled around with a Jewish whore in:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/44eac74649636806>
wherein Naomi Goldstein said to Nuddley:
"Scotty, you creamed in your pants when I took my bra off.
The other guys laughed at you and called you "Scuttle Nutts".
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Bill Snyder
Feb 14, 2012, 9:35:44 AM2/14/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:25 +1300, Eric Stevens
I believe there are extant theories of star formation, and
evolution, and continental drift, and a few other things which are
not readily testable by experiment. And it's worth saying once
again that while an experiment can falsify, it cannot "confirm."
evolution, and continental drift, and a few other things which are
not readily testable by experiment. And it's worth saying once
again that while an experiment can falsify, it cannot "confirm."
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 14, 2012, 1:50:24 PM2/14/12
to
the guy who invented carbon-dating retired at my U,;
all of his stuff is probably there, but
I was told of this at a seminar by another Nobeliste
in chemistry, who developed a means of making fuel
from CO2 (say from a coalfired plant) and methane,
which is in commercial tryouts.
it's the oil company's that got the data;
whether or not they draw any obvious conclusion,
who knows, it will probably be in line with their Peack Oil analysis,
with which I must currently concur.
> Please give me a non-religious source for carbon dating of oil.
thus:
this is a nice metastudy, as far
as retrospective statistics can go. I note that: a)
the nighttime warmth anomaly is duly noted & said to be
coherent with years of modeling; and that b)
there is no hypothesis given for that,
at least in this summary (meaning, perhaps,
it is just shoved into the models, ad hoc;
see _A Vast Machine_ MITPress 2011 .-)
thanks for not playing, folks -- again.
thus quoth:
record daily highs to record daily
lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations
in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950
through September 2009
all of his stuff is probably there, but
I was told of this at a seminar by another Nobeliste
in chemistry, who developed a means of making fuel
from CO2 (say from a coalfired plant) and methane,
which is in commercial tryouts.
it's the oil company's that got the data;
whether or not they draw any obvious conclusion,
who knows, it will probably be in line with their Peack Oil analysis,
with which I must currently concur.
> Please give me a non-religious source for carbon dating of oil.
this is a nice metastudy, as far
as retrospective statistics can go. I note that: a)
the nighttime warmth anomaly is duly noted & said to be
coherent with years of modeling; and that b)
there is no hypothesis given for that,
at least in this summary (meaning, perhaps,
it is just shoved into the models, ad hoc;
see _A Vast Machine_ MITPress 2011 .-)
thanks for not playing, folks -- again.
thus quoth:
record daily highs to record daily
lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations
in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950
through September 2009
Eric Stevens
Feb 14, 2012, 6:21:59 PM2/14/12
to
I think you should get back to your normal dose of pills.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Feb 14, 2012, 6:24:37 PM2/14/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:35:44 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
Theories allow you to make predictions. The predictions can be tested
and the validity or otherwise of the theory confirmed. That has been
done with the theories of star formation, evolution and continental
drift.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
and the validity or otherwise of the theory confirmed. That has been
done with the theories of star formation, evolution and continental
drift.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
k...@kymhorsell.com
Feb 14, 2012, 9:58:56 PM2/14/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
> Air Sampling Reveals High Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Field
>
>
>> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
>
>> "If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced," says Gabrielle P?tron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but P?tron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. "I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale."
>> When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog--but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
>
>
>
> See:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=air-sampling-reveals-high-meth
>
> CH4 + 2 O2 ==> CO2 + 2 H2O
...
Yes, there's that little problem, but even just leaking methane means
per molecule more than 70x on plain old CO2 (over 20y).
(While the relative GW potential is not normally calculated because
it's considered a "submissive" or "reactive" GHG whose concentration
and therefore effect varies with temperature, on a per-molecule basis
c/f CO2 it's supposed to be between 2x and 3x although there is
this calculation:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091013114156AA0E6pU
that finds it's "effectively" about 0.23).
--
[The loud spastic moron theory -- CO2 can tell who added it to the atm:]
you retarded or what , its the NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES TAHT WE SEE, IT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CO2 ..
YOU SPASTIC MOOORION
-- "no one" <kraw...@adam.com.au>, 14 Jul 2011 17:23 +0930
0 new messages