Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.

On 10/31/24 09:06, Paul S Person wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:47:11 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
 

>
>
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>

On 10/30/24 17:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Bobbie Sellers  <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>
      More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

>
Maybe.  The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable.  So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with
fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
>
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
>

       There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
>
       All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
       When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum?  And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
       If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed.  That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
>
       bliss

>
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet.  At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of
frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed.  The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.

>
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
>
    "The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
     underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
     the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
     reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
     time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
     released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
     Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
     estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
>
    "The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
     a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
     methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
     carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
     carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
>
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
>

>
We humans did not cause this, it is nature.  And this phenomena happens
all over the planet.  I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the
several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
>
Lynn
>

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
>
bliss

>
No, for the sake of civilization.

Where is this civilization of which you speak?
Oh you mean tecnological advancement which is all that
we see of civilization today. In the past before  we
went crazy to travel very fast and go to places we
think are better than where ever we are we had some
evidence of civilization but it was dependent on
human labor frequently involving horror upon horror of
human slavery.

 Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
 Yet both were civilizations.

And they may have done ecological damage by their technology
but they barely began to raise the CO0 levels. Most of the fuels they
used were not fossil fuels. However they failed to replant the forests
that they cut down for various purposes.
   Fossil fuels waited for the Industrial Revolution
  What is called the first Industrial Revolution lasted from the mid-18th century to about 1830 and was mostly confined to Britain. The second Industrial Revolution lasted from the mid-19th century until the early 20th century and took place in Britain, continental Europe, North America, and Japan. It involved the wider use of fossil fuels first
in the form of coal to run steam engines and then to produce steel.
Finally they discovered Petroleum aka rock oil and began to break it
down into its volatile components. Oil replaced coal for transport
in internal combustion engines and in steam engines when still in
use. Now we not only made COO plus other contaiminents by traveling
but by making the fuels.
I hope that the barbarism we will descend to in the
coming years will retain some elements of civilization and
the knowlege that we spoiled a lovely time on the Planet
Earth for faster and easier.
bliss