flaring

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > flaring

flaring03-10-2019 05:15
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	The flaring (burning) of methane yielding CO2 is actually less harmful short term than just releasing the methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 but it doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long. Burning (flaring) it puts the weaker greenhouse gas (CO2) in to the atmosphere but the long term effect of CO2 is greater than methane.
03-10-2019 05:59
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	We can start tomorrow rerouting that methane pipe. How bout just west of your home?
03-10-2019 06:38
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: The flaring (burning) of methane yielding CO2 is actually less harmful short term than just releasing the methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 but it doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long. Burning (flaring) it puts the weaker greenhouse gas (CO2) in to the atmosphere but the long term effect of CO2 is greater than methane. When CH4 burns, doesn't it become CO2 and 2H2O? If so, what impact does the water have? I would think that in New Mexico that it helps the land as it is both arid and lacking in CO2. After all, most natural gas does come from New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the US, right? edited to add: getting facts right does matter. What you're ignoring is how we are poorly managing finite resources. The long term effects which includes economic viability was not mentioned. To give you an idea, when finite sources of energy and CO2 run out, what then? We need CO2 for the ozone layer per the IPCC. Without the ozone layer you don't get salad or fish for dinner. Edited on 03-10-2019 06:43
03-10-2019 17:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	keepit wrote: The flaring (burning) of methane yielding CO2 is actually less harmful short term than just releasing the methane into the atmosphere. How is CO2 harmful? How is methane harmful, aside from farts? Don't you have to have harm in order to say that one is more harmful than the other? keepit wrote: Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 What does that mean? Look I realize that it's standard straight-up Global Warming religious dogma that you are regurgitating. The Church of Global Warming has its congregation pray to Climate and to reject the evil of all greenhouse gases of which methane is the strongest individually but water vapor is the most powerful due to its quantity ... but that CO2 is just plain evil, nevermind that it is a life-essential compound. I get it. ... but aside from your irrational beliefs, do you have any idea what harm or threat or peril is imposed by any of them ... aside from farts? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2019 22:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: The flaring (burning) of methane yielding CO2 is actually less harmful short term than just releasing the methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 but it doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long. Burning (flaring) it puts the weaker greenhouse gas (CO2) in to the atmosphere but the long term effect of CO2 is greater than methane. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. * You can't create energy out of nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

03-10-2019 22:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: The flaring (burning) of methane yielding CO2 is actually less harmful short term than just releasing the methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 but it doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long. Burning (flaring) it puts the weaker greenhouse gas (CO2) in to the atmosphere but the long term effect of CO2 is greater than methane. When CH4 burns, doesn't it become CO2 and 2H2O? Yup. None of it is capable of warming the Earth using IR emitted from the Earth's surface. James___ wrote: If so, what impact does the water have? None. James___ wrote: I would think that in New Mexico that it helps the land as it is both arid and lacking in CO2. Not enough water. There is CO2 in New Mexico just as in anywhere else. James___ wrote: After all, most natural gas does come from New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the US, right? Nope. Natural gas is available pretty much anywhere. James___ wrote: edited to add: getting facts right does matter. What you're ignoring is how we are poorly managing finite resources. Methane is a renewable resource. It is not limited. Oil is a renewable resource. It is not limited. James___ wrote: The long term effects which includes economic viability was not mentioned. Market prices automatically determine that. James___ wrote: To give you an idea, when finite sources of energy and CO2 run out, what then? Methane and oil are both renewable sources of energy. CO2 is not energy. James___ wrote: We need CO2 for the ozone layer per the IPCC. CO2 does not react with ozone or participate in the formation or destruction of ozone. James___ wrote: Without the ozone layer you don't get salad or fish for dinner. You would get fish, since they are not affected. Water also stops harmful UV light. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-10-2019 03:11
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	James, What is the connection between the ozone layer and CO2?
05-10-2019 03:39
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: James, What is the connection between the ozone layer and CO2? I've known about this for years. It suggests that CO2 + H2O > CH2O, O2. The O2 increases the amount of oxygen elements in the Chapman cycle which explains how the ozone layer works. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2014: Chapter 5 Scientific Summary Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
05-10-2019 03:54
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	James, Is ozone depletion still a problem and would it still be a problem if CO2 levels hadn't increased?
05-10-2019 04:17
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: James, Is ozone depletion still a problem and would it still be a problem if CO2 levels hadn't increased? They've been saying that ozone levels are ready to start increasing for the last 20 years. Then they found out that gases they thought couldn't reach the ozone layer actually got there. This link says FINALLY. Some others as well. Note the cooling they associate with it. Up to - 0.5° C. by the end of the century. If that's true, then what did that cause since the 1978 when temperatures started rising? The ozone layer will recover first in the northern hemisphere where the most CO2 is generated. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere
05-10-2019 04:38
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	So, is the increase in Ozone due to decrease in CFC's or due to the increase in CO2 or both?
05-10-2019 05:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: So, is the increase in Ozone due to decrease in CFC's or due to the increase in CO2 or both? It's because of both. According to the link, the amount of emissions harmful to the ozone layer has decreased by 98% since 1986. CO2 or the O2 in it is helping to replenish the Chapman cycle. At this time time it would mostly be CO2 and water vapor. As far as the IPCC goes, they attribute 60% of atmospheric warming to water vapor. https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer Edited on 05-10-2019 06:09
05-10-2019 16:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: So, is the increase in Ozone due to decrease in CFC's or due to the increase in CO2 or both? It's because of both. @ keepit, there was never an ozone issue and there is no issue now. Atmospheric ozone (O3) forms continually from atmospheric oxygen (O2) due to sunlight ... and rapidly breaks down again back into O2. Our atmosphere does not have a fixed O3 reserve that is diminishing. The sun mass produces ozone every minute of every day and nighttime breaks it down. If you were to magickally break down all O3 into O2 today, tomorrow it would all be back to normal as if you had done nothing. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2019 20:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: James, What is the connection between the ozone layer and CO2? There is none. CO2 is not involved in the production or destruction of O3. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-10-2019 20:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: James, Is ozone depletion still a problem and would it still be a problem if CO2 levels hadn't increased? It never was a problem. It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer, even if we wanted to. Ozone is created by the action of sunlight on oxygen. The only way to destroy the ozone layer is to remove the Sun (everybody's dead) or remove the oxygen (everybody's dead). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

05-10-2019 20:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: James, Is ozone depletion still a problem and would it still be a problem if CO2 levels hadn't increased? They've been saying that ozone levels are ready to start increasing for the last 20 years. Then they found out that gases they thought couldn't reach the ozone layer actually got there. This link says FINALLY. Some others as well. Note the cooling they associate with it. Up to - 0.5° C. by the end of the century. If that's true, then what did that cause since the 1978 when temperatures started rising? The ozone layer will recover first in the northern hemisphere where the most CO2 is generated. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere The ozone layer is not increasing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-10-2019 20:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: So, is the increase in Ozone due to decrease in CFC's or due to the increase in CO2 or both? Neither CO2 nor CFC's react chemically with ozone at all. CFC's do not destroy ozone. You can put CFCs in a tank of ozone and nothing happens. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-10-2019 20:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: So, is the increase in Ozone due to decrease in CFC's or due to the increase in CO2 or both? It's because of both. According to the link, the amount of emissions harmful to the ozone layer has decreased by 98% since 1986. CO2 or the O2 in it is helping to replenish the Chapman cycle. At this time time it would mostly be CO2 and water vapor. As far as the IPCC goes, they attribute 60% of atmospheric warming to water vapor. https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer * You can't create energy out of nothing. * No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-10-2019 07:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:Neither CO2 nor CFC's react chemically with ozone at all. CFC's do not destroy ozone. Actively being deceptive as usual: "CFCs any of a class of compounds of carbon, hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine, typically gases used in refrigerants and aerosol propellants. They are harmful to the ozone layer in the earth's atmosphere owing to the release of chlorine atoms on exposure to ultraviolet radiation." You guys just lie. Go ask big foot IBD, he's disappointed too. IBdaMann wrote:... there was never an ozone issue ... Lame, lame, lame. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
06-10-2019 09:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Neither CO2 nor CFC's react chemically with ozone at all. CFC's do not destroy ozone. Actively being deceptive as usual: "CFCs any of a class of compounds of carbon, hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine, typically gases used in refrigerants and aerosol propellants. They are harmful to the ozone layer in the earth's atmosphere owing to the release of chlorine atoms on exposure to ultraviolet radiation." Mindlessly quoting scripture is not a proof. Ozone and CFC's do not chemical react at all. Salt doesn't react with ozone at all. Chlorine is an extremely reactive gas. It will react with something else long before it gets to the ozone layer. Ozone is created by UV-B light in the lower stratosphere. It is destroyed again by UV-C light in the upper stratosphere. See the Chapman cycle. If CFC's destroy ozone, why is the hole over the pole, where there are no CFC's? tmiddles wrote: You guys just lie. Go ask big foot IBD, he's disappointed too. Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:... there was never an ozone issue ... Ozone was never an issue. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-10-2019 09:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Ozone was never an issue. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to. As usually you put nothing on the table. You act as though someone mentioned Big Foot. I'm not wasting time on another one of your wild and unsupported claims. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-10-2019 16:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Ozone was never an issue. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to. As usually you put nothing on the table. You act as though someone mentioned Big Foot. I'm not wasting time on another one of your wild and unsupported claims. As usual, Into the Night is correct and rather than simply acknowledge what he is teaching you, you pout, fold your arms and then run to your mommy's basement. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Join the debate flaring: