Re: global warming

On Oct 15, 1:32 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:40:21 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman





<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:30 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:01:21 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman

<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:14 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:09:09 +0000 (UTC), d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don

Klipstein) wrote:
In <d5fc456e-0d76-4c9b-8709-0fe061dce...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:

Very true. Burning methane (which can be a bit tricky) gives you a lot
more energy per ton of carbon dioxide formed. We've still got to move
to sustainable enrgy sources in the long term, but loads of methane
will give us more time to make the transition.

 What's tricky about burning methane?  It's the main ingredient of
most natural gas.

We made coffee this morning and it involved burning methane! I suppose
that makes us very clever.

Pure methane? Or natural gas with enough ethane and propane to serve
as kindling?

My post above, which encouraged you to pontificate on the dynamics of
methane - not that you need much prompting to begin pontificating -
was about natural gas. US household-supply NG is usually around 90%
methane, sometimes over 99% if it's been processed as LNG.

My point is that there's lots of it, fairly cheap, hundreds of years
worth. And it's very easy and reliable to burn.

The article that you cited did talk about methane, and getting pure
methane to burn easily and reliably does make more demands on the
design of the burner than regular natural gas, which is - in turn -
harder to burn than old-fashioned town gas. I'm old enough to remember
the conversion operations, with gas fitters visitng every house.

And - in case you didn't notice - I share your enthusiasm, though I do
note that our atmosphere isn't big enough to let us burn even methane
for hundreds of years.

We're dumping about 8e9 tons of carbon into the atmosphere now, much
of it from burning coal. Most is absorbed somehow.

Roughly one third of it is being absorbed in the oceans, while the
rest is accumulating in the atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

where it is pushing the concentration up by a about 3ppm per year. The
current level - about 385ppm - is higher than it has been for the ast
20 million years. Our contribution only represents about 10% of the
annual CO2 circulated through the atmosphere by plants and the animals
that eat them, but - despite your claims - plant life doesn't seem to
be disposed to absorb much more CO2 when the concentration in the
atmosphere rise. The current concentration - about 385ppm - is about
40% higher than it was at the start of the industrial revolution -
270ppm, but plants don't seem to be growing 40% faster.

NG is a better deal
than coal. The mass of the atmosphere is around 5e15 tons. I don't see
the problem.

The fact that you don't see the problem reflects a defect in your
perception - you don't know enough about the subject to understand
what is going on.

You don't believe in anthropogenic global
warming -presumably you are still busy getting your head around the
fact that the world is round - so this point doesn't seem to have
registered  with you.

Do some math before you type.

Always good advice - if a little redundant in this instance. You
miight try following it yourself, though you'd obviously have to
search out a few more numbers before you could subject them to useful
mathematical analysis.

Writing off 8e9 tons of carbon emission because it is "negligibly
smaller" the 5e15 ton mass of the atmosphere isn't the kind of
mathematical analysis than wins prizes. The persistent 3ppm per year
rise in CO2 level in the atmosphere is not seen as negligible by
people who do understand what is going on.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: global warming
    ... to sustainable enrgy sources in the long term, but loads of methane ... was about natural gas. ... We're dumping about 8e9 tons of carbon into the atmosphere now, ... The mass of the atmosphere is around 5e15 tons. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: global warming
    ... to sustainable enrgy sources in the long term, but loads of methane ... was about natural gas. ... We're dumping about 8e9 tons of carbon into the atmosphere now, ... The mass of the atmosphere is around 5e15 tons. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: global warming
    ... to sustainable enrgy sources in the long term, but loads of methane ... was about natural gas. ... And it's very easy and reliable to burn. ... note that our atmosphere isn't big enough to let us burn even methane ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: global warming
    ... to sustainable enrgy sources in the long term, but loads of methane ... was about natural gas. ... And it's very easy and reliable to burn. ... The mass of the atmosphere is around 5e15 tons. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: global warming
    ... to sustainable enrgy sources in the long term, but loads of methane ... was about natural gas. ... And it's very easy and reliable to burn. ... The mass of the atmosphere is around 5e15 tons. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)