Australian Politics Forum - Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky
Reply #30 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 1:33pm

# wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 4:25pm:

# wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 2:54pm:

muso wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

...
The Natural CO2 fluxes balance each other out.
...

Rider wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

...
Are you saying that every ppm of co2 equals itself out....... ...

Isn't that the way stable systems work?

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

...
How was the calculation of natural CO2 done? What empirical measurements? Or do we rely on models?

Which denialist has got your knickers in a knot this time?

Isn't the argument that the system was balanced until humanity interfered? So what is your problem?

So, in times past, when we had in excess of 1200ppm, it was a balanced system?

I'll take that as a 'no'.

So tell me, what is the direction and magnitude of the natural imbalance?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

...
Just trying to understand where the equilibrium point is.
...

What makes you think there's only one "equilibrium point"?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21603 Gender:	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #31 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 1:58pm # wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 1:33pm: What makes you think there's only one "equilibrium point"? if there is more than one equilibrium point; how can we define which one will gives us CAGW?
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #32 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 2:12pm lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 1:58pm: # wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 1:33pm: What makes you think there's only one "equilibrium point"? if there is more than one equilibrium point; how can we define which one will gives us CAGW? 42, I think.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky
Reply #33 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:05pm

The 2007 IPCC emissions scenarios project a range of total emissions from 770 to 2100 Gtc by 2100 (note that each of these scenarios assume no specific action aimed at reducing carbon emissions). The estimates of CO2 concentration by 2100 range from 540 to 970 ppm, but NONE of these concentrations are stabilised. I.e. CO2 concentration is not at the point where total natural and man made emissions equals total deep ocean sequestration (or in other words, equilibrium). To estimate stabilised CO2 concentrations you first need estimates of where emissions might stabilise.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21603
Gender: male

Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky
Reply #34 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:32pm

Paella wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

The 2007 IPCC emissions scenarios project a range of total emissions from 770 to 2100 Gtc by 2100 (note that each of these scenarios assume no specific action aimed at reducing carbon emissions). The estimates of CO2 concentration by 2100 range from 540 to 970 ppm, but NONE of these concentrations are stabilised. I.e. CO2 concentration is not at the point where total natural and man made emissions equals total deep ocean sequestration (or in other words, equilibrium). To estimate stabilised CO2 concentrations you first need estimates of where emissions might stabilise.

yes and what were the revisions on the last report? AR5.

Deep ocean sequestration has only been found since necessary adjustments were made to the Argo buoys.

Back to top

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #35 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:40pm lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 1:58pm: # wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 1:33pm: What makes you think there's only one "equilibrium point"? if there is more than one equilibrium point; how can we define which one will gives us CAGW? What makes you think we can?
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21603 Gender:	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #36 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:58pm # wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:40pm: What makes you think we can? I don't- I thought you, perhaps, thought YOU could.
Back to top	IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #37 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 7:03pm lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:58pm: # wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:40pm: What makes you think we can? I don't- I thought you, perhaps, thought YOU could. So why not just take the advice of the majority of the best qualified?
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #38 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 8:03pm lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:58pm: # wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:40pm: What makes you think we can? I don't- I thought you, perhaps, thought YOU could. Nobody can answer meaningless questions. Not even you. I'll stand by my answer. It's 42. Prove me wrong.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #39 - Feb 9^th, 2014 at 8:13pm Gas is absolutely seen by industry as the partner into the future for energy for a low emissions reduction perspective and covering the energy supply gap.
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #40 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:09pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 8:13pm: Gas is absolutely seen by industry as the partner into the future for energy for a low emissions reduction perspective and covering the energy supply gap. By industry, perhaps, but not by scientists. At least, not by the author of the OP. Which to believe?
Back to top	IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky
Reply #41 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 5:38pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:

Deep ocean sequestration has only been found since necessary adjustments were made to the Argo buoys.

?!

There is no other form of natural permanent sequestration, and you think we just found it?

Are you saying that until we adjusted the Argo Boys, we never knew how all that black stuff under the ground got there?

But it's beside the point, which is that CO₂ stabilises when emissions from all sources equals total sequestration, argo buoy pedantry notwithstanding.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky
Reply #42 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 5:47pm

Gas is seen by producers as a medium term energy source - an interim solution until renewable infrastructure can be established. I know that for a fact.

If natural gas is used as a replacement for coal by employing modern Combined Cycle Gas Turbine generation (with heat recovery) then you can expect a carbon footprint 1/3 of that of the most efficient coal generation. If it shuts down an old inefficient coal fired power station, the advantage is 10 to 1.

It is also one step away from ISCC (Integrated Solar Combined Cycle).

As I said before, Ross Garnaut also saw that as a way forward in his strategy for transforming the electricity sector.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up8-transforming-elect...

The OP is trying to blame the lack of strategy on the use of natural gas. That just doesn't make sense. Intrinscially, Natural Gas has a lighter carbon footprint.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 10^th, 2014 at 5:57pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21603
Gender: male

Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky
Reply #43 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 6:16pm

Paella wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 5:38pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2014 at 6:32pm:

Deep ocean sequestration has only been found since necessary adjustments were made to the Argo buoys.

?!

There is no other form of natural permanent sequestration, and you think we just found it?

Are you saying that until we adjusted the Argo Boys, we never knew how all that black stuff under the ground got there?

But it's beside the point, which is that CO₂ stabilises when emissions from all sources equals total sequestration, argo buoy pedantry notwithstanding.

'This gives rise to the concept of “missing energy” (Trenberth and Fasullo 2010). Where is the energy going? New estimates of ocean heat content show a growing large discrepancy between ocean heat content integrated for the upper 300 vs 700 vs total depth. The latter continues a fairly steady upward trend while the surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content undergo a hiatus in warming after about 2004. The role of the ocean in taking up energy well below the surface is emerging as a major issue in observations and modeling. Improved monitoring of TOA energy imbalance such as from a suite of small radiometers in space would prove exceedingly useful.'

http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/energy-and-climate-dr-kevin-e-t...

You don't trust Trenberth?

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 290	Re: Overreliance on Natural Gas: Risky Reply #44 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 8:29pm That article is about ocean-atmosphere heat transfer. Not CO₂ sequestration.
Back to top	IP Logged