"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.


Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Thursday, March 02, 2006

US Greenhouse Gases Rose In 2004

U.S. greenhouse gases rose 1.7 pct in 2004 -EPA
The United States, the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, released about 7.075 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent last year, according to a draft report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have risen 15.8 percent from 1990 to 2004, according to the EPA.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most people are unaware but you might want to check out methane as a greenhouse gas.
I note that the Reuters report cites methane and nitrous oxide as greenhouse gases and in so doing, it necessarily implies that these other greenhouse gases are included in the 15.8% increase of emissions during the period between 1990 & 2004.
While the EPA may catalogue these gas emissions independently, that is not done so in this report. I attempted to read the report linked and it is no longer available.
Did the report say that the 1.7% increase of CO2 happened between 2003 & 2004?
Also, consider this, simply stating how much these CO2 emissions had increased is misleading.
We also must be told what was oxidized in the production of the CO2.
Because if Natural Gas (Methane) contributed to the increase, which it certainly did, then there should also be noted an overall decrease in the earth's atmospheric storage of solar energy. The following comes from the United States Geological Survey’s website. (
Methane trapped in marine sediments as a hydrate represents such an immense carbon reservoir that it must be considered a dominant factor in estimating unconventional energy resources; the role of methane as a 'greenhouse' gas also must be carefully assessed.
Methane, a "greenhouse" gas, is 10 times more effective than carbon dioxide in causing climate warming.
Methane bound in hydrates amounts to approximately 3,000 times the volume of methane in the atmosphere. There is insufficient information to judge what geological processes might most affect the stability of hydrates in sediments and the possible release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane released as a result of landslides caused by a sea-level fall would warm the Earth, as would methane released from gas hydrates in Arctic sediments as they become warmed during a sea-level rise. This global warming might counteract cooling trends and thereby stabilize climatic fluctuation, or it could exacerbate climatic warming and thereby destabilize the climate.
Therefore, when Natural Gas is being used for energy production, then those “metric tonnes” of commensurate CO2 should be removed from the factor by an order of magnitude, which would proportionately equal the insulating properties of Methane in the greenhouse models.
I have never found this data correctly applied to the scientific models.
However, I am not making any claims for or against Global Warming. I am simply stating that there are actual solutions to the “problem” that are ignored.

Furthermore, even if these solutions are/were being implemented, the models could not and would not accurately reflect the fact, because scientists and statisticians have never correctly noted the greenhouse properties of the principal chemical components in the conversion from one to another.

Incomplete data means we have an incomplete problem, thus creating ill-informed people taking unorthodox decisions to formulate incomplete solutions.

ps I'm sorry if I double post. But, the first attempt did not say that it had been saved.

11/10/06 7:04 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is open to all Members of the UN and of WMO.

14/10/06 12:23 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand that these panels are assessing the information, however, the reports that are issued are selectively parsed and then those selected portions contain misinformation because of the obvious failure to give all of the data to the public.
The Stern Review that was reported yesterday was misreported on NPR News, because the NPR report made the erroneous claim that the use of Methane (Natural Gas) is contributing to climate change, in the “Added CO2” that is put into the atmosphere.
But, the NPR report made no mention of Methane being “10 times more effective than carbon dioxide in causing climate warming.”
Therefore, unless the burning one molecule of Methane produces 11 molecules of CO2, the NPR Report was misleading.
This is common. The report shown at the top of your page is equally misleading. People are being pulled into making policy decisions based on incomplete information dribbled out from all of these reports.
I have now received the entire Stern Report, but it will take some time to review the full 700+ pages. However, the scant summary that was given to all of the News outlets on October 30, 2006 was intended to do one thing, mislead the public into demanding policy decisions that are incomplete and “political” in tenor.


1/11/06 2:57 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE ccwman:

Sheesh, it took me about half an hour to find your post. I guess that is what happens when people post to an old article.

I am aware that the US and Australia don't pay much attention to the UN's panel. I am not convinced that this isn't because of political/economic motivations, rather than a disagreement on the science.

I think the disagreement on the science is based in economic and political concerns.

So, basically, I think that economic and political concerns would drive the acceptance or non-acceptance of a scientific model.

Personally, I think that global climate change, whether exacerbated by human activity or not, is going to have a HUGE deleterious effect upon large parts of the earth within five years.

I think that large portions of heavily populated areas will become virutally inhabitable, especially so in Australia, where we are having massive water shortages already.

The tenous areas of human habitation will feel it first. This refers to heavily popuated areas in Austrtalia which will continue to suffer from massive water shortages.

Now, I don't really care if anyone agrees with me on this issue or not. I will be selling up within 5 years and moving to an area which I hope, through some sort of constructive research, will feel the effects of global climate change less severely.

You are of course welcome to come back to my blog in 5 years time and go "nernernerner" if none of this happens.

1/11/06 5:10 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sorry for posting to an old article.
I’m also sorry that I haven’t been clear on the points that I am attempting to make.
Those points being:
1. There is an excessively abundant world resource that could easily be used in lieu of petroleum.
2. This resource, when it is not utilized contributes nearly 10 times more, to global climate change, than when it is used for energy.
3. This resource is never recognized for its benefits to resolving global climate change.
4. This resource, when it’s employed, is listed with petroleum, as being a contributing element to global climate change.
You are correct, that I am giving global warming the “nernernerner” treatment.
However, there is a reason why I have become dubious of the science behind global climate change. That reason is outlined in my previous two posts on the subject. The science is only selectively reported.
When climate change is asserted in a report, the selectivity in data that is released to the news outlets always points to ONE potential solution, while ignoring or misleading the points that I have made about Natural Gas.
Ms. BEEPBEEP, did you know that Natural Gas/Methane is actually 10 times more effective in contributing to global climate warming that Carbon Dioxide? I did not until I found the USGS article, written by Dr. William Dillon, which was posted in my first article.
Did you know that Methane bound in hydrates amounts to approximately 3,000 times the volume of methane in the atmosphere? I didn’t either until I read this article.
I don’t know if the use of Methane as an alternative fuel source would contribute more than 10 times of the free Carbon Dioxide or if it would produce less. However, even if it were to produce 10 times as much CO2 as does petroleum, it would still make sense to utilize it for energy rather than just allowing it to go untapped into the atmosphere. At least this way we are serving our worlds gross domestic resources for the good of man.
This point seems obvious.
Why are the reports pushing to slow economic development only?
FYI, my personal vehicles use Natural Gas at a 1/3 the cost of petroleum ($0.899/gallon equivalent).
99% of my company’s fleet uses Natural Gas.
Yet, this use still shows up in the Science reports, as being “bad” de facto, simply because my company is contributing to the worlds economy. Please, Ms. Beepbeep, answer me “Why?”
I am, with good reason, becoming cynical about those who are reporting the Global Climate Change issue the loudest.

3/11/06 1:58 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Money is the motivator for any of the reports against human beings having an effect on global climate.

Most scientists who do not agree that human activity is exacerbating global climate change, are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries.

It is a bit like the fight against cigarettes. It took decades for business to be backed into a corner and admit that cigarettes were harmful to human health.

Why did it take so long? Because they wanted to make as much money as they could before they were backed into a scientific corner.

14/11/06 5:57 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate your candor on this point.

And I too, will concede that money is the main issue.
However, the distinction that I will note is that those groups, who say that they most want to reduce or slow global warming, act against their purported interests, on the mater of energy production via Methane (Natural Gas) use, in lieu of petroleum products.

My assertion is that they work against their purported goal for one reason and one reason only.
1. Money!

They might lose money if they succeed, but that is not likely. And I don’t believe this is, in any way, a factor of the money issue.

The real truth is, that the companies who control petroleum production also control Methane (Natural Gas) production.

Therefore, if the Global Warming interests succeed in moving world markets to Methane (Natural Gas) in lieu of petroleum, they have not succeeded in the “real” and ultimate goal of harming the profitability of the energy producing companies.

The Global Warming interests are socialists and Marxists at heart. Regardless of whether their rank & file supporters are, such as you.

Otherwise there should be a long list of advocacy groups pushing the world markets to utilize Methane (Natural Gas), for the good of humankind.

They will not do this, will they...?

God bless,

8/12/06 6:22 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home