Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 18, 2010 at 12:35

Les - Say someone wanted to cite information from that Howarth Report - Analysis ... any idea what kind of APA style citation one should use?

thanks, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 19, 2010 at 7:05

Sesport, my apologies but I am not familiar the topic of APA citation.

I have attached a copy of the report.

Attachments:

• GHG emissions from Marcellus Shale -- with figure -- 3.17.2010 draft.doc.pdf, 66 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 19, 2010 at 7:56

oh look they quote the ipcc. GIGO. wonderful.

also "Far better would be to rapidly move towards an economy based on
renewable fuels." so burning biomass and making corn ethanol is better than NG.

i'm sorry ya'll but i cannot take this as anything other than what i think it is, politically motivated propaganda against fossil fuels.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 20, 2010 at 3:40

Thanks, Les. APA is the manual that is used for formatting citations in professional papers.

My question was in regards to your first link ...

http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2167647930?profi...

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 21, 2010 at 4:50

Sesport, sorry - now I understand. Unfortunately the "Analysis" was a brief summary that included information from my work without the calculation details or the cites to the information sources.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 21, 2010 at 5:48

Thanks, Les. I'll bet you've filled several notebooks by now. lol, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 17, 2010 at 4:47

I wonder how this compares to the natural methane emissions from the oceans and land?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 17, 2010 at 6:58

I had heard a story about Al Gore essentially getting a govt scientist fired for publishing something about trees producing pollution (aromatics from pines or some such..., don't remember the details). The story left me with the feeling that energy-related science is 90+% polluted with politics. Any time lots of money is involved... Anyway, PETA no doubt is ready to convert us all to vegetarians because it will save the planet by getting all those polluting cows out of the pastures... ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 17, 2010 at 7:15

interesting you brought that up! here's an article i posted months ago in the political forum about that very topic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7564682/...

"It's been generally assumed that if you increase livestock numbers you get a rise in emissions of nitrous oxide. This is not the case,"

hey half a dozen of one, six of the other. these "scientists" are way more of a threat to our economic well-being than "climate change." there's so much we don't understand, it's not productive to go flailing about making all sorts of hysterical claims while funneling as much cash as possible down the nearest available political rat hole.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 18, 2010 at 4:31

I wonder how far this carbon credit business would get with Gore and friends if there were to be no money involved with it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 17, 2010 at 7:07

p.g. nobody really knows, there's no good way to measure it. the epa estimate annual global emissions at 208,000,000 tons annually from natural sources, but even they admit this number is "highly uncertain."

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

they're using the IPCC as references on that page. i just straight up don't trust any numbers that come out of that mess. i'd be willing to bet natural sources are considerably underestimated. take annual termite emissions, the epa says anywhere from 2,000,000 tons to 22,000,000 tons. really, a factor of 11? they might as well say "we don't really know."

it's also interesting that they use CO2 "equivalent" for the total u.s. methane emissions. /shrug

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 19, 2010 at 8:22

from the "report" in question "Methane is by the far the major component of natural gas,
and it is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72-times more powerful than is CO2 per molecule in the atmosphere" is a straight up lie, i've seen approx 21 as the correct figure over and over.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/ "Methane is... 20 times more effective" (than co2 re global warming)

http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSitePage=123 "...in 100 years, one tonne of methane will have an effect on global warming that is 21 times greater"

http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=285 also cites 21 as the number

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg03rpt/summary/special_to...
Gas 1996 IPCC GWP 2001 IPCC GWP
Methane 21 23

notice how their number started moving up recently. apparently it's "global warming potential" is 72 now. i'd like to know what caused methane's "GWP" to effectively triple in the last 5 years or so.

this is bad science on top of bad science cubed. they are helping to destroy the credibility of the scientific community in general, and it has become apparent that the peer review process itself needs to be reviewed with a gimlet eye.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page