SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the more-correllation-and-not-causation? dept.
Starting in 2007, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. began dropping off and by 2013 had been cut by 11 percent.
Many have attributed the drop in CO2 to the switch from coal to natural gas to generate electricity, as natural gas production in the U.S. ramped up thanks to new fracking technologies. Even TreeHugger reported on a Harvard study that suggested a correlation between lower gas prices and a drop in CO2.
But a new study from researchers at the University of Maryland suggests that the economic recession was a bigger driver in the drop in carbon emissions. The study, published in Nature Communications, compares various factors that contributed to the decreased emissions.
...
The researchers found that the sharpest decline in CO2 happened during the worst of the recession, between 2007 and 2009. During that time, they calculate that 83 percent of the decrease is due to economic factors like consumption and production. As the economy started to recover after 2009, emission crept back up.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 23 2015, @07:14PM
Which signal was stronger? Who knows.
What we do know is that Gas powered plants emit (via direct measurement) about 20% less CO2 than coal, per watt.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday July 23 2015, @09:23PM
Actually what scientists been saying in the last 5 years is that we're already exceeding 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere which means even if we were to stop stop all emissions 5 years ago, the planet will still be getting warmer a couple of more degrees for the next 100years until the carbon dissipates assuming there won't be any unforeseen major chain reactions (like the one we're witnessing right now in the ice caps as they're melting at an exponential rate instead of linear that EVERY single model used until 3 years ago).
Truth is, we're about 30years past clean-energy solutions. That is, the current debates (in the scientific communities or out side of the US) are how, and how much, should we intervene (i.e. climate engineering through the introduction of synthetic compounds into the atmosphere) to stop and reverse the damage. Currently, the consensus is wait and see simply because data is still coming and not everyone are satisfied with the current prediction models or even begin to agree on an intervention method.
If I had to guess, eventually as water prices rise, one of the more affected nations will take matters to their own hands and launch their own climate-engineering program in the next decade or two unless the UN will pass a VERY meaningful resolution coming this or the next summer.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @09:31PM
This Geo-engineering is going to be disastrous. What is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect they wish to counter? How can you devise a plan to alter albedo without knowing that? Did you realize that stefan-boltzmann law calculation that gives 33 C is total nonsense?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=88&&a=509 [skepticalscience.com]
It is ridiculous to try to learn about this stuff. I only found out that by trying to know how to calculate the average temperature of the moon. The people teaching this are either A) confused themselves, or B) purposefully confusing the discussion. You can find the IPCC, multiple textbooks, and even James Hansen in 1981 using that 33 C number. Yet they admit it has nothing to do with anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @10:48PM
Are you the one who was asking last Wednesday how to calculate the moon's temperature? I wrote you up a late response, don't know if you saw it. Take a look [soylentnews.org] and let me know if it helps you at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @11:28PM
Yes I am the same AC. Thanks. I am not really looking for an exact estimate but just something that gets in the ballpark of 200 K. Do you have any opinions on this?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf [arxiv.org]
A major point is that temperature is proportional to the fourth root of solar irradiance (T~I^.025). So you get different (delta~100 K) results from taking the average of the solar irradiance and calculating an overall temperature vs calculating a temperature at each point and then averaging that. According to that source the true answer lies somewhere in between.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2015, @12:30PM
Also, sorry for any confusion but I was looking for surface temperature. My understanding is that the core is thought to have little role there.