Not a member? Register Now. * Required
Ways to Slow Pollution and CO2 Emisisions
posted by richieb on 3/6/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
I don't believe humans are the cause of global warming. But we do need to clean up our air. The government should give incentives to open nuclear fission plants and research nuclear fusion plants. They should give incentives to clean coal energies. Also, they should also continue to fund research for alternative energy.
view 1 reply respond to this comment
Clean Up Our Air?
posted by LtDan on 3/7/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Richlieb, when you say that we humans should ;clean up our air, what exactly do you mean? Do you truly believe that the air is ours to command? Your comment clearly says that you do not go along with the Algorian hoax that carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is causing dangerous global warming. BUT WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE DOIING? Or should we doing anything at all in this "air cleaning" endeavor? Don't we have bigger fish to fry on the environmental front? North Atlantic cod protection? Blue Fin Tuna protection in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean? Cetacian protection worldwide? Reduction and/or redirection of north slope fresh water runoff into the Arctic Ocean so as to preserve the Atlanic Conveyor and the Gulf Stream? We CAN handle these REAL problems in much more effective and efficient fashion if we cut ourselves loose from the imaginary problem of carbon dioxide and global warming. That "problem" is indeed an imaginary problem, and it is indeed distracting us from REAL problems we should be addressing and solving as we transition out of the current interglacial period and into the next.
respond to this comment
Mighty presumptuous, aren't we? (we as in Humans)
posted by GimmeAbreak on 2/2/2010 - This comment was recommended 3 times
Having once calculated actual carbon emissions by all entities on earth, and taking into account the 10-trillion or so cubic miles of atmosphere, I came to realize it would take over 300,000 years for humans alone to have any impact whatsoever on the carbon balance, and that's if every car, truck, factory, airplane and anus emitted 100% pure smog as exhaust (rather than the 10 parts per Million that we do). The carbon balance is changing because the planet is heating up from within, all by itself, as it does every few million years or so, and to think we humans have caused it is sheer folly. 1000 times more presumptuous is the thought that we humans can stop it. We can't stop the planet from spinning on its axis, and we can't stop it from heating up (or cooling into an ice age). All the arguments, accusations, and global conferences are useless yada yada, which here on my computer look a lot like ASDF, ASDF, ASDF.
view all 34 replies respond to this comment
Mighty presumptuous ????
posted by RonL on 2/3/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
This is meant as only a thought, humans might have the power to make a difference. Our globe is a spinning mass in the vacuum of space, the friction in relation to mass is very small. If a number of rockets (????) were aligned in the best possible direction and fired in unision, the thrust could well affect the increase or reduction of rotational speed of the earth. A mounumental task for sure and maybe a task that would require world corporation in a joint venture, but like global warming, the question would be, Should speed be changed and in which direction?? We should never sell mankind short in what can be done, making the right decision has always been the biggest problem.:)) Ron
Gasification
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/4/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Hey Ron, have you looked at those gasification links? I would think you might get into that? It's early on, so there's still time to be a pioneer.
posted by RonL on 2/5/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Mark, I looked at the two links and do find them of interest, however my first thoughts are to find ways to eliminate combustion of any type of fuel, we have examples all around and within this globe we live on, sun by day provides heat while the spin of the earth causes distribution of thermal differences and the effects are seen in storms producing much damage everywhere. Heat within the earth gives geothermal examples such as Old Faithful in yellowstone national park and others all around the world. One of my personal theriories of some of the unexplained ocean hot spots, would be the floor having fissures that swell open for a brief time, allowing molten lava to flow out and then solidify releasing huge amounts of heat into the cold waters. For all practical purposes there are many examples of what to us are perpetual events, finding ways to mimic any of them in a small way might well be our future. One example of something so simple it has been has been considered a toy and never been given a serious look is the Hero's Turbine. Building a design that houses a generator within the sphere and produces steam by electric heating coils and then using the steam to drive the sphere (a reaction process) which in turn drives the generator, can give a perpetual cycle by reusing the water over and over. This is a micro version of the geothermal process, and for an extreme comparison consider the mechanics of a bubble jet printer. Back to the gasification process of wood, my main question is how long will our trees last if even 1/10th of one percent of the cars around the world started using this method?? I suspect not long, but then, consider how much house energy needs could be met ? we do need to look at every option. Ron
We have to respect the data!
posted by starman on 2/5/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
How then can you explain the Keeling curve? These data are secure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
http://www.dreamgreen.ca/CO2.html
Begging the Question
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/5/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
'How, then' is begging the question. You promote 'science' with 'science'.
Humans are affecting atmospheric composition!
posted by starman on 2/8/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
To be specific, the Keeling curve (referenced above) is the graph showing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide (measured above the thermal inversion layer, far from sources or sinks of CO2) plotted against time. It has shown an annual fluctuation of about 5 parts per million CO2 for the past 50 years. The increase occurs during northern hemisphere winter, arising from the burning of fossil fuels and plant decay, followed by a slightly smaller reduction in summer from the absorption of CO2 by photosynthesis. Superimposed on this annual cycle is a year-on-year increase that roughly matches the amount of fossil fuels burned per year. In 1960 Charles Keeling showed that human activity is directly affecting the Earth's atmosphere. All the data and calculations since then have confirmed this. Gimmeabreak, if you have a calculations that show otherwise, please do publish them.
http://www.dreamgreen.ca/warming.html
Food Fight
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/8/2010 - This comment was recommended 1 time
I don't claim to know the weather, and I don't engage in academic data fights. You seem to draw your own conclusions from whatever the data and how they were taken about 'burning of fossil fuels and plant decay' before asking for reason, as seems to be en vogue with the scientific community. You should realize that there are very few labs out of millions or more in 'the scientific community' that even start their tests with right ingredients. They order from catalogs that are in the business of making provisions for testing equipment and supplies. Usually, the 'scientists' don't even know where their equipment or supplies come from, or how they are produced. Why, then, should I accept the authority of the origins of the data that such equipment and supplies generates when the scientists themselves don't even know the origins of their own equipment and supplies? Still, I feel better about growing lots of trees and using them than I do about mining lots of fuel and burning it. But that's not science, that's just my own feeling.
Keeling Curve
posted by LtDan on 2/9/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
The Keeling Curve is a graph of carbon dioxide readings made at the Mauna Loa observatory for the past sixty years or so. Those readings indicate that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere atop that mid-Pacific volcano has steadily increased over those sixty years. Temperature readings taken over those same sixty years at various places around the globe indicate that the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has increased by a degree or so during those sixty years. Is that explanation enough? The obvious conclusion to be drawn from those two data sets is that the increase in the carbon dioxide content of the air atop Mauna Loa has caused the average atmospheric temperature of the planet to increase by a degree or so. Then there is, of course, the OTHER obvious conclusion to be drawn from those two data sets: that the increase in our planet's atmospheric temperature has caused the carbon dioxide content of the air atop Mauna Loa to increase. Starman, which obvious conclusion do you favor? Or is it possible that two things can happen at the same time without there being ANY cause and effect relationship between them?
CO2 curve and other simple things
posted by about new energy on 2/17/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Lt Dan, in http://www.alaskastock.com/Alaska_Glacier_Photos.asp you find the phrase 'So, most of the glacier ice in Alaska is less than 100 years old! Therefore, most of the glacier ice is not ice-age leftover'. According to Prof. Courtillot who is an eminent physicist with a heavy curriculum (president of the Geophysics Institute of Paris - remarkable conference on Internet, although without English subtitles). Its main findings, besides on the 'hockey stick' seem : in the USA, a constant temperature, thus no warming during the 20th century, the hottest year being 1930. He works with other groups using the latest techniques. In Europe, an unexplained temperature positive jump between 1985 and 1987, of about 1 degree Celsius. Added to this is a constant temperature from 1900 to 1985, the same from 1987 to 2007. You may also read the last interview of Phil Jones of East Anglia University. This is not all, according to measures of CO2 concentrations during the 19th century (reliable chemical measurements after 1850- see prof. Jaworowski and others), numbers varied between 300 and 400 ppm, 335 ppm being considered a prudential estimate (?). For coastal changes, prof. Morner of Stockholm university seems an established authority. I only give you apparently reliable sources and have no personal opinion in this, I only look for measurements, BUT STILL DO NOT SEE HOW TO VERIFY THEIR VALIDITY. About my answer 'part II' on BHs, the delay is due to a double lack of time and clarity from recent observations. Comment by about new energy
monopolies and objectivity
posted by about new energy on 2/11/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
posted by about new energy Secure observational data do not exist in science because such 'data' are provisional by definition. Break monopolies and you get closer to objectivity, synonym to scientific truth. In this view, simply get a few dozens INDEPENDENT stations of observation (modern equipment is quite inexpensive now). On Internet, you may also look for established university professors finally investigating this basic issue.
History speaks through water & ice
posted by starman on 2/24/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
You don't really need ANY scientific instruments to demonstrate that global warming is happening. Look at the historical accounts of when lakes, rivers and enclosed seas froze and thawed in the past, and compare that with current behaviour. Especially at polar latitudes where the warming is most pronounced, the change is striking. Ask an Inuit.
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/features/ClimateChange/receding_arctic.html
THE REAL PROBLEM
posted by about new energy on 2/9/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Many may agree on what GimmeAbreak said. However, the main problem is only partially there, way to say that global warming, or cooling, is still too unknown to be eventually settled soon. The real problem is thus very distinct and is about replacing oil, coal, uranium and natural gas in 50 years or so ( I hope 100 years, so that we would have more time !). It is therefore a scientific problem depending on new discoveries and inventions to be finally promoted through practical programs encouraging new ideas agreeing, at least partially, with observed empirical facts instead of beautiful ideas, 'all' of that nature having proved unproductive until now. Many who wish to patent a concrete proposal feel afraid to do so because they worry about a possible refusal by a patent office - also because others might mysteriously retake part of their rejected submission later on (justified or not). This is the first practical problem to solve by finally protecting real intellectual rights before their further commercial version by others. I am waiting for suggestions on this major topic, before I would give my feeling on all this later - I simply need the feedback from others. The second problem, although far from being the last one, would be about funding inventions presenting realistic possibilities, through financial entities not acting as customarily unproductive 'philanthropists' and similar.
The Real Problem
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/10/2010 - This comment was recommended 1 time
The real problem is that the 'global scientific community' has ALREADY given the ultimatum that world government must control energy OR ELSE! I don't buy it. And I won't be buying the 'observed empirical facts' of modern academia for some time to come.
Foregone Conclusions
posted by LtDan on 2/10/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree with you, Mark. I don't accept the foregone conclusion that we are going to have to find, in the next fifty to one hundred years, replacement energy sources for all the current energy sources we use. Even the fanatical global warmalists don't insist that such breakneck speed is necessary. Indeed, most of the lead characters in that dramatic troupe are very fond of nuclear energy since much of the money behind their movement comes from wealthy companies and individuals who are heavily invested in nuclear power. (General Electric and Westinghouse come to mind.) * * * I am sure sick and tired of the miserable cold weather we are having here in the East, but it does seem to be serving a useful purpose in demonstrating the silliness of the global warming hysteria. Of course the true believers will just switch their rhetoric from 'global warming' to 'climate change' and insist that somehow carbon dioxide and fossil fuels are to blame for the nasty weather.
Power Source
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/11/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Lt Dan, as I said, I don't claim to know the weather. I would like to see more individuals independent of central suppliers, since that provides the most flexibility in any situation. Individuals have nearly forgotten how to produce for themselves, and that is a recipe for enslavement in any situation. knowledge is difficult to gain and easily forgotten.
A bit of imagination
posted by about new energy To Lt Dan. You and I do not know the future, but I simply find adequate fighting for real scientific innovations if accompanied by technological applications. I think that the world will move ahead, but only if we base again theoretical and experimental physics on an objective search of truth in the field of new sources of energy. This is so because the general framework for green energies is obsolete to say the least, in great part because we did not take them seriously enough, which I will try to explain. Due to the accumulation of scientific setbacks I will briefly detail, no modern nation is ready today for a real 'green' conversion - this is the first reality. The second reality is that we are not in condition to enter a new financial scheme such as carbon trade or any other, after the so-called sub-primes and CDS, from which our economies, I mean here US and European mainly, are still in a phase of recuperation. To give you an example of our scientific setback, you may click on http://cnx.org/content/m14044/latest/ and visualize Fundamental Force Types by Sunil Kumar Singh, where you will read NO QUANTITATIVE EXPRESSION FOR NUCLEAR FORCE IS YET KNOWN, NO QUANTITATIVE EXPRESSION FOR WEAK FORCE IS YET KNOWN. However, this may not be true since proposals have been published for both forces. Since these are not backed up financially according to my information, most universities are not even interested in reading them. This is the reason why we still ignore more than 50 % of the true physics. Now, if you imagine that one of these proposals is correct, we just miss it when we need it so much. If you imagine also that exists another working proposal for a free non-polluting and renewable energy, any energy having been a free gift at its start without exception, what do you think we should do: ignore it as usual or 'take a chance' although with a very small probability of success. I would appreciate your answer on this. Now, if you defend the thesis according to which very little has to change, you may simply demonstrate it with facts and numbers, so that life would be simpler in the future without doing much, which I find hard to believe.
IMAGINATION? VERY LITTLE MORE NEEDED.
posted by LtDan on 2/13/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
New Energy, what the 'scientific community' is only now recognizing --- very slowly --- is that the now-obvious expansion of the universe actually includes ALL of the universe. EVERYTHING in the universe is expanding in size, except for the matter encased within 'black holes.' That includes you and me and the Earth and the other planets, and EVERYTHING. With the exception of the matter in black holes, all matter in the universe, including both visible matter and all invisible 'dark matter,' expands at a steady, accelarating rate, thus accounting for the phenomenon we know as 'gravity.' This expansion is hardly noticeable to us humans, since all but one of our units of measurement traditionally used in determing relative sizes are also expanding at the universal expansion rate. The only exception is the so-called 'light year.' The speed of light is constant, apparently, so we observe, by means of the red shift, far distant matter, such as distant galaxies, speeding away from us and from one another, at the universal rate of expansion. Until we accept this universal expansion rate as being truly universal, we will continue to puzzle about weak forces and strong forces and the true nature of gravity. * * * But as for current energy needs for our planet, it is difficult to imagine how the universl expansion idea can be used by us to heat our homes and light our streets. Any ideas to offer?
IMAGINATION? VERY LITTLE MORE NEEDED - Part I
posted by about new energy on 2/13/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Lt Dan, you do the right thing by entering the energy problem with universe expansion and black holes (to be referred to as BHs in what follows). You may find the paper titled X-rays from the Edge of Infinity by Fulvio Melia (Nature 413, 25 - 26, 2001). You would then read (not the identical text here) that the orbits of stars closest to Sagittarius A, so at the center of our galaxy, are approximately 30,000 times larger than the horizon of this black hole of 2.6 million solar masses. This simply means that stars are not swallowed by this black hole. If they were to be absorbed one day, we would now be observing tens of thousands stars in this non singular region far from the horizon. Last year, I had to review a paper by an established theorist who basically said the same thing, plus few others. I now include brief extracts of this report, attempting to complete this answer to your concerns in Part II: "I appreciate the author intrusion into strange financial supports of scientific research and other curiosities of what is supposed to constitute modern theoretical science.. ..Defining a singularity is problematic if not differentiating between 'apparent singularities' (?) that are in fact physical, from others being true ones since void of any physical meaning.. ..part of a good theory would be simply wrong in a definite region. This appears to be so inside a BH.. ..because Schwarzschild's metric makes no physical sense inside a BH, the author refers to it as being singular in that region, which seems the only correct conclusion.. ..This is part of the well-known conflict between interior and exterior solutions in matter and outside it - for example, if there is no matter current outside - encountered in unifying attempts in the years 1920 -30, mentioned by Marie-Antoinette Tonnelat in her great book (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1965). She did not detail this much, but those who work on these things know that the field situation differs totally in the two domains.. ..TO THE AUTHOR WRITING we cannot define a BH by saying nothing can leave, because general relativity does not discuss anything entering, I ANSWERED since we do not know the physical metric inside, we simply can say nothing - Comment by about new energy
Real problems are more than one
posted by about new energy Scientific academies really worked well for putting scientists in touch with colleagues of other countries; let us say one hundred years ago or so. Now seems to exist a strong tendency to enlarge financings of "research" (nice word) at the international level, probably the most efficient way to kill scientific innovation by conditioning it to other imperatives of unscientific nature. This, with an inevitable consolidation of some financial interests, as it has always been the case through history, although never involving science so much, so that science, MAINLY PHYSICS HERE although only partly about energy and climate, has progressively emerged as a front for money during the 20th century. Some say that this curious trend evidences the decline of capitalism, free enterprise and possibly liberty itself, although human beings are inevitably "condemned to liberty" (Sartre). However, I think that a serious discussion SHOULD FORMALLY DISTANCE ITSELF FROM POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY, IDEOLOGY and simply remain about fundamental scientific issues and their direct applications, evidently technological, industrial and commercial, simple causal chain. However, I do not know if this is possible, due to the poisonous intervention of financial and political interests. We should also keep in mind that 'productivism' built on true science is not a luxury since the production of goods and practical services has always been, and will always be the only way to assure our survival. Contrasting with this apparent decadence characterized by an inadequate financing of fundamental issues, the works of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger and others did cost nothing or almost, since none of them received a particular grant. Experimental physics is very distinct since having become extremely expensive, totally out of reach from individuals. Finally, we do not have this type of problems with chemistry, biology, medicine, pharmaceutical products, etc.. and may therefore copy again the simple Galileo-Newton scientific method they use.
Individuals
Very sound and exciting comments. To me, in the midst of these global movements to organize and control people and resources, there is a new age of individual power on the horizon. If you look at the advances of media, to where now an individual can print up or transmit professional paper, text, graphics, photos, videos, etc, that is a revolution. Media conglomerates are loosing their grip on the mass mind, and individuals are dawning. I believe the same trend is going to happen with energy. People are still learning to recognize the power of fire, on the edge of a failed global government motion to control it. I believe soon enough, and manufacturing will follow power production, individuals will find small power generating steam turbines, etc, very affordable. Machine and stamping operations, etc, small arc furnace applications, etc. will find their way into the little back-yard shop. The same also with science. You are absolutely right that there is so much potential for true scientific discovery on an individual budget. And now that people don't need a University Press to share their work, it is only a matter of time before more small and affordable technologies are available to individuals, and humanity embarks on an age of learning and sharing like never before. I would like to see a central database of measures, or a global standard for reporting measures, of a data table, a label, one single variable that is measured, and one time stamp for each measure.
posted by about new energy on 2/12/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
(by about new energy) To Mark - Newton, Einstein, and many other theorists, worked as lonely individuals; the list of other individuals who worked alone and were successful is a very long one. Although I do not have the exact details, I read that Newton waited twenty years before having the courage to publish his major findings. During all his life, Einstein fought the 'scientific' superstitions, starting with the electromagnetic ether in 1905. He met therefore a strong opposition, even until now and I guess forever, which is why he remains so important. I think this makes your point. Individuals fighting obscurantism do it at all levels of society, but remain generally unknown. They are the unnamed heroes, working against authoritarian collectivism managed by incompetents above. You find these individuals as independent workers and producers in the private sector, but also as simple workers with initiative, whose advice Honda used for invading the world market with modern motorcycles in 1962 or so, later on with cars.
Fear to Achieve
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/13/2010 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Many individuals are afraid of venturing out on their own. And they should be. Once you leave the confines of group norms and behaviors, it is very difficult to make a way at first. But individuals should realize, the individual, EVERY individual, has more power available of every kind today than at any time in history. And you need not abandon civilization to reach for your dreams and accomplishments. If you are afraid, make a weekend hobbie of serious scientific research, for example. Publish your work to blogs, etc. You might have difficulty finding colleagues at first, but it won't be long before you find other individuals waking up to the unused potential that has already been provided and is simply waiting for individuals to dream, work, and endeavor according to their own calling.
Internet Spread of Ideas
The internet presents humanity with the greatest opportunity in history to get to know one another, to understand one another, and to exchange ideas freely across great distances. There is also the danger that so many ideas will be generated that many of the truly good ones will be lost in the swirling tide, but there doesn't seem to be any good way to prevent that from happening without the appointment of elite 'idea editors' who would police the traffic and, in so doing, function as censors. That would be worse than the swirling tide.
Control Freaks
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/13/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Lt Dan, that fear of 'what might happen if we don't control people and ideas' has been maybe the greatest cause of evil among mankind. But no matter, they cannot maintain what will soon enough be impossible to control. The first thing they planned to do was trigger a bloody revolution to gain control over what they are loosing, but that isn't working out. Soon enough, and the control freaks will be out in the cold. But individuals should take up the opportunity with urgency! Internet and communications is only a small part of the available resources. If you just look at the fact that, say, in engineering you can get a very high quality 1000lb bearing for less than a day's wages shoveling dirt. Or in science, you can get accurate temperature and pressure gauges and heat controls for a small oven for the price of a few lunches at McDonald's. Almost any individual can build a machine frame and add a 10K lb hydrolic press for less than a month's rent or interest on a home loan. Those are just a few small examples of the incredible power available today to individuals.
Oops!!
posted by starman on 2/20/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
This topic thread began on 2/2/2010 with this statement: “Having once calculated actual carbon emissions by all entities on earth, and taking into account the 10-trillion or so cubic miles of atmosphere, I came to realize it would take over 300,000 years for humans alone to have any impact whatsoever on the carbon balance.” Let’s take a look at that first number. The volume of the atmosphere may be estimated by multiplying two numbers: the surface area of the earth (510 million square kilometers) times the effective height of the atmosphere. The atmosphere tapers off in density out to the altitude of the auroral zone, where the incoming solar wind becomes dominant for the physical conditions, but the effective height of the atmosphere, that is the height to which it would extend if it remained at sea level density, is a mere 8.2 km. Anyone who has seen a photo of the earth’s horizon from space is aware that the atmosphere forms a very thin veneer indeed over the earth. The volume is thus 510 million times 8.2 = 4 .2 billion cubic kilometers, not 41 trillion cubic kilometers as implied. This error by a factor of 10,000 implies that the change thought to occur over 300,000 years will in fact occur in 30 years. That’s not a very long time.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/the-doubters-do-disservice-to-climate-facts/article1472224/
Let's unwrap that statement
"World government must control energy OR ELSE!" Do nations go to war over energy supplies? Has that not been the cause of most wars of the past century? Fossil energy is proprietary - it takes a lot of capital to find it, more capital to develop it, and more again to market it. Governments love to tax it. Sustainable energy, on the other hand, comes from the sun, and expresses itself as wind, waves and falling water. It all there for the taking. No one owns sunshine or the wind. No one can tax them. That's the beauty of sustainable energy - all peoples and a nations of the earth have equitable access. And the sun sends us over 10,000 times more energy each and every second than humans are currently consuming in all activities. Could there be an opportunity here?
http://kleptomania.ca/
**Governments Love to tax it**
posted by RonL on 2/24/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
All things you mention are free, YES, but when a mechanical process to convert to energy is being used by the mass of a population, the machine will be taxed or controled in some way. If I remember correctly, a few topics ago, a prof. Terry made a comment that waterwheels in Europe were taxed on the basis of how much water flowed over them, this was a contributing cause of their demise. Never under estimate the greed that drives taxation.
IPCC and new energies ?
posted by about new energy on 2/21/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
We may be entering an atmospheric cooling phase confirming a temperature stabilization from 1995 to, let us say, 2009. This would be the recent element that was impossible to foresee in the 1970-1995 period, As a result, the fear of warming would somewhat settle down, although not suppressing the other fear of lacking adequate energy substitutes, usually referred to as 'green energies' whose necessity is evident. In this view, the IPCC might be enlarged to include a specific department about new energy substitutes, which would encourage productive suggestions and initiatives from individuals, and work with new energy departments from universities, assist them, etc.. Thinking of financing discoveries would then follow the demonstration of their practical soundness, at least partly confirmed. If such a proposal looks feasible, as it should as a realistic scientific alternative, this would simply mean that 'the ball' is presently in the camp of the IPCC ? Debating contrary viewpoints certainly makes sense if getting to some down-to-earth solutions, followed by other constructive ones, etc... Comment by about new energy.
Taking the Earth's Temperature
posted by LtDan on 2/21/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
I've been entgaged in this global warming debate for five years or more, and I still don't understand how and where "the scientists" determine what the Earth's average temperature is. How do we know if global warming or global cooling is occurring? I'm sure there must be a well-known method in use that no one can dispute, but I would sure like to know what it is.
posted by about new energy on 2/22/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
To Lt Dan. A few years ago, a great expert said that an average world temperature did not make any sense, but did not explain why. A few months ago, another European expert expressed a similar view, interestingly evoking thermodynamics and the fact that such local thermodynamic systems do communicate. My opinion, supposing I have one, is that the arithmetic average of two temperatures from two 'equivalent' (?) sub-systems only makes sense if being both measured simultaneously, so that such systems could be considered as constituting 'closed systems' at a definite time. If I had to participate in this, I would attach each thermometer on a square concrete post with a little roof protecting it from rain and sun exposition, far from any construction, traffic, etc.. This, to say that temperatures taken by satellite only serve meteorological purposes since characterized by an approximation of about 4 feet according to what I read. A second problem is the repartition of such thermometers, their geographic density on earth and on ships, their altitude, etc.. However, the variation in time of all these temperatures would indicate if the world climate if cooling or warming, accepting that a well-defined average world temperature would remain far from having a precise physical meaning. It is also clear that there is no physical theory of world climate, which besides other things should involve plasma physics (rather incomplete), together with thermodynamics of gas molecules mixed with radiation (other problems?). Besides, I still do not understand why the word 'thermodynamics' is currently absent in comments and discussions by skeptics and non-skeptics.
Taking The Earth's Temperature
posted by LtDan on 2/27/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
I suspect that there are at least one hundred locations scattered around the planet where people have been keeping accurate, consistent temperature records on a daily or even hourly basis over the past one hundred years. How hard can it be to compare those records and determine if the climate has been growing warmer or cooler over the last century?
Taking The Earth Temperature
posted by about new energy on 2/28/2010 - This comment was recommended 1 time
To Lt Dan. I previously mentioned Prof. Courtillot, quite eminent geophysicist from Paris, who now works with his team on climate, and found that there had been no warming in the USA during the 20th century (diagrams on his video conference), in contrast with Europe where a strange jump of about one degree Celsius was observed between 1985 and 1987 - unexplained. He got the US data directly from sources in the USA. I will see if he gave more precision about his sources, for example the University of Illinois that apparently (?) centralizes world information about glaciers, ice, etc.. You may simply contact them, eventually on Internet I guess, they might orient you for what you need to know (different centers, etc..). There are other serious organisms measuring 'similar' things in the States, but do not seem mentioned much on TV, in newspapers, etc.. . I am personally against a 'world temperature' that does not mean much to me, and prefer average temperatures per sub-continents, or even smaller geographic entities. According to what I read, there existed more than 2,000 (??) different observation stations of temperature on the planet, but they might have reduced in number; if this is true we would be measuring different types of temperatures than before ? The repartition of these stations is also a very delicate operation, and the measures, let us say 4 or 6 times a day, perhaps more, should be made at simultaneous GMT hours (rigorous synchronization), otherwise I do not see how they could make (thermodynamic) sense. Comment by about new energy.
Average Global Temperature
posted by LtDan on 3/3/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
That anomalous one degree Celsius increase in Europe between 1985 and 1987 reminds me of something I encountered years ago when I was active in the acid precipitation controversy. Those who were demanding severe controls on sulfur dioxide emissions in Europe presented a chart which purported to show a significant drop in precipitation pH over a ten year period. When the matter was investigated, it turned out that the first four years of sampling was done using open bucket collection containers. The final six years of sampling was done using covered containers which opened and closed automatically at the beginning and the end of precipitation events. These covers prevented airborne dust from settlng in the containers between precipitation events. With the elimination of the alkaline buffering from dustfall, the samples showed an abrupt pH drop from 4.9 to 4.5. The sudden nature of the drop was concealed by smoothing out the ten year graph line. The "scientists" essentially drew a straight line on their graph from the readings obtained in year one to the readings obtained in year ten, implying that a substantial change in pH had occurred gradually over the ten year period. That gave them their "desired results."
Not so!
posted by starman on 2/25/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
There is an error of 10000 in the "mighty presumptuous" statement. See explanation below dated 02/20/2010.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_volume_of_Earth%27s_atmosphere
What would a real carbon emissions treaty include?
posted by starman on 2/1/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
The evidence is that the last 150 years of fossil fuel burning have reversed the 15 million years of natural decline in atmospheric CO2 that preceded it. Our planet has seen the present higher levels of atmospheric CO2 before, but humankind has not. The phenomenon of rapid atmospheric change on a planet of 6.8 billion humans may have uncontrollable consequences including famine, flooding, biodiversity loss, and other effects we are totally unprepared to handle. The evidence suggests natural carbon sequestering by atmosphere and oceans can remove about one quarter our current rate of CO2 emissions. The exact rate of emissions that can be reprocessed by nature is debatable, but it is probably about 6 or 7 Gigatons annually. Whatever the actual number, we need to pay some attention to it. On what basis then should nations proceed to limit their carbon emissions? Certainly not, as has been proposed, on past behavior, for past excesses in no way justify future ones. Emission quotas must be based on human needs, as well as planetary limits. Energy is what makes things happen in the world. We need to recognize three components or purposes in our use of energy: Sustenance: energy is required for basic survival, including production of food, clothing and shelter. Comfort: energy may be needed to provide a comfortable living temperature. Productivity: energy for agricultural production, manufacturing, transportation. A successful climate treaty will be one that allocates the amount of fossil fuel use by country based on sustenance, comfort and productivity requirements. The first two requirements are per capita (with allowance for extreme climates), the third is based on productivity as measured by gross domestic product, for example. The total allocations for all nations shall not exceed the limit CO2 emissions the planet can reprocess. All peoples and nations have relatively equitable access to sustainable energy, which is CO2-free. We need only apportion by nation the energy derived from fossil fuels.
view all 12 replies respond to this comment
Who is in denial?
posted by feedbackdestroyer on 2/14/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
"The phenomenon of rapid atmospheric change on a planet of 6.8 billion humans may have uncontrollable consequences including famine, flooding, biodiversity loss, and other effects we are totally unprepared to handle. " This is complete and utter scaremongering from a quasi-religious viewpoint based much more upon prejudism than upon science. There is far greater possibility that the addition of carbon to the atmosphere will have totally the opposite effects from the ones described here. On this guy's website he obnoxiously refers to intelligent people who doubt the validity of anthropogenic global warming as "deniers" - making clear his biased opinions. Perhaps he should reflect on the fact that those who fall hook line and sinker for the streams of misinformation dished out by the IPCC (UN) based on a total reliance on nothing other than extremely dodgy computer modelling for all of their predictions of gloom and doom - are the real deniers. They deny open and true scientific debate in the name of their highly political green agendas. They are potentially more dangerous than anything else through their "globalised stupidity". This sort of political drive is what made Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" compulsory viewing in UK schools for all children. Fortunatley this was challenged in the High Court and and an injunction was enforced to oblige the disclosure of 13 major errors in the film prior to each showing in the schools. I'll bet anything the author of "dreemgreen" is in denial about those major errors. What about the scaremongering of the UN climate chief getting it wrong about glaceirs melting in the Himalay's by 2035 - misquoting one single scientist who had claimed 2350 as the date for melting. What about the proof based on the Vladivistok ice core samples that turned around to bite IPCC and the Koyoto protocol by demonstrating the CO2 rises after global warming and is not the cause? What about the deliberate removal of the Medieval warm period in the data used to show the infamous hockeystick curve which falsely shows warmer temperatures today than in our recent past. Sorry, but am I a "denier" to pay attention to all this detail - or is Mr Aikman the one in denial here.
Three points to consider
posted by starman on 2/14/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
1. Look at the numbers. All the data we have say that we are significantly changing the atmosphere, and that, decade by decade, the world is getting warmer. Also, that over eight cycles of warming and cooling in the last million years, carbon dioxide and temperature have varied in a like manner. Correlation does not prove causality, but at least it suggests some form of relationship. But, maybe the data are corrupted and maybe scientists lie or are misled. Then we should…. 2. Compare now and then. When Captain George Vancouver reached Glacier Bay in Alaska in 1794, the entrance to the 100 km long fiord was blocked by a massive glacier stretching the length of the bay. All that is open water now: 100 km of glacier gone in 216 years (www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience ). In the interior plateau of British Columbia, an area the size of Britain is now deforested due to climate change. Okay, we don’t always understand what we see with our own eyes, but who cares because….. 3. Whatever we think or believe about climate may not matter. The indisputable fact is we are consuming in 200 years fossil fuels that took nature 200 million years to create. This is not a good plan for human survival. The simple fact is that petroleum is too valuable to use for heating our homes when we can do that with the energy of wind, falling water, and geothermal. We should save petroleum for the really good stuff, like aviation. Its value will not decrease in the years to come.
http://www.dreamgreen.ca/climate.html
Global Warming Hysteria
posted by LtDan on 2/17/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Starman, you say that 'all the data we have say that we are significantly changing the atmosphere.' That is utter nonsense! NONE of the data we have indicate that humans are changing the atmosphere in any significant way. I would venture to guess that you believe the melting of the Glacier Bay, Alaska glacier over the past two hundred years was caused by human beings burning fossil fuels. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? Two centuries ago, when George Vancouver observed the glacier coming out of the entrance to the present Glacier Bay, our dear planet was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, a climatological event that was, without any doubt, caused by a concatenation of Milankovitch cycles. When that passed, a heat recovery occurred quite naturally. Human beings had nothng to do with it. The fact that the recovery from the Little Ice Age coincided with the industrial revolution does not provide evidence that the industrial revolution caused the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The opposite is much more likely the truth --- the recovery from the Little Ice Age in all likelihood prompted and promoted a renaissance in mankind's ability to survive, innovate, thrive and produce.
Fast and slow climate variations.
posted by starman on 2/18/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
See the discussion of the Keeling curve in the discussion thread started on 2/2/2010. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is well documented by independent observers., widely separated over the Earth. Milankovitch cycles arise from perturbations of the Earth orbit, calculated theoretically. The shortest has a period of about 23,000 years; other cycles of around 41,000 years, 70,000 years, 100,000 years and about 400,000 years are expected. Of these, only the 100,000 year cycle is convincingly present in reconstructed climate records from ice cores. These cycles don't tell us anything on a timescale of 200 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Fast and slow climate variations
posted by LtDan on 2/18/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Starman, what do you think caused the Little Ice Age? Or are you one of those hockey-stick people who don't believe there actually WAS a Little Ice Age? Of course you are right about the Milankovitch cycles --- they are thousands of years long --- but their peqks and valleys do coincide from time to time, and the solar output cycles, which Milankovitch didn't deal with, can be superimposed upon the Milankovitch cycles in interesting ways. The so-called solar Maunder Minimum occurred over the eighty year perios at the depth of the Little Ice Age. This was a period of time when sunspot activity essentially came to a halt for reasons no one has ever been able to figure out. * * * I think it is high time for the Algorian True Believers to quit trying to make all the rest of us tilt at windmills and neglect to deal with the real problems the world faces today. Do we have climate change occurring? Of course we do! The Earth's climate has constantly changed over the billions of years the planet has existed. But now, for the first time in history, we find ourselves at a point in mankind's evolution where we know enough about past climate changes to make educated predictions of changes to come. At this juncture, it is utterly nonsensical for us to believe that we can stop climate change from occurring. We can sensibly prepare for it, but we mustn't waste our time and resources on silly and costly efforts to stop it.
A simple precaution
LtDan, you are quite correct to say that climate change is a natural thing, and that the Little Ice Age was a natural phenomenon most likely caused by the Maunder minimum of solar activity. We have no observational or theoretical basis to predict the possibility of something akin to the Maunder minimum recurring or not. If solar magnetic activity were to shut down again for an extended time, then a very strong case might exist to dig up the remaining fossil fuels and burn them as fast as possible, to avert another ice age. But that is not what we see happening at this moment. Atmospheric and climate changes are occurring at a rate that can only be explained by human activity. Indeed, it seems likely that the only times when atmospheric change and climate change have occurred faster in Earth history have been catastrophic natural events. One of these was the K-T extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K/T_extinction_event ) of 65 million years ago. More recently was the Younger Dryas event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_event ) of about 12,000 years ago. Yes, the relative importance of natural and human-caused climate change will not be definitively known for some time. The body of evidence, should we choose to recognize it, is that human-caused effects are several times larger than natural effects at present. This fact alone should give us pause. The simple and only precaution needed is to curtail our use of fossil fuels and rely on sustainable energies, a move compelled by the very nature of fossil fuels anyway: they are fossils; they aren’t making any more of them. Whatever fossils fuels are left are too valuable to be wasted where other energy sources can provide for our needs. Economics and environmental science are giving us the same message. Let us not be the authors of global catastrophe.
Climate Change and its Causes
posted by LtDan on 2/22/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
"Atmospheric and climate changes are occurring at a rate that can only be explained by human activity." * * * Starman, I don't believe that for a minute, and niether should you. Do you honestly believe that we humans know so completely the processes involved in climate that we can safely conclude that anything going on in that area that we don't understand must be something being caused by humans? When the Little Ice Age suddenly came upon the northern hemisphere in the first few decades of the 14th Century, the people of that time didn't understand what had caused the sudden bad weather to occur. Naturally they assumed it was caused by humans, so they began a widespread campaign to discover and kill witches. Thousands of people were killed, but the cold weather continued apace for five centuries. But they were on the right track, if you global warmalists are to be believed. They just didn't burn enough witches, and other carbon fuels, to generate sufficient carbon dioxide to counteract and beat back the global cooling.
No to distructive Carbon Emissions Treaty
posted by ErnieNOTco2 on 2/20/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
Starman, you are wrong on every point. CO2 as a Green House Gas? Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.0387% (387 ppm) of the earth’s atmosphere by volume (2009y) but CO2 comprises only around 1 percent of total Green House Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. The bulk, water vapor, comprises 95 percent of all GHGs. The other GHGs are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone and CFCs. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% (40,000 ppm) in extremely warm and humid air. Water vapor therefore averages about 2 – 3% in atmosphere while CO2 is about 0.0387% (0.04%) by volume averaged over the planet. There is about 60 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide under average conditions. [It is worth noting that most supporters of global warming leave out water vapor when charting GHG’s.] XXXXXXXX Of the approximately 1% of CO2 to total GHG’s, ~ 3% of the 1% is anthropogenic or Human caused. (Goldburg). Human addition (anthropogenic) is 8 Gton which is approx. 1 % of total atmospheric CO2 (750 Gton in atmosphere). Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP (Global Warming Potential), the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%. Negligible compared to water vapor, not to mention solar affects. XXXXXXX The Carboniferous Period (about 286 -360 million years ago) and the Ordovician Period (about 438 million years ago) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. The Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. (C.R. Scotese and R.A. Berner, 2001) XXXXX Vostok Ice Core Data, about the timing of CO2 and climate change – from extensive studies in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP (Before Present). The results of their meticulous analysis led them to conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years." (Caillon et al., 2003) All historical data to date supports a finding that increasing atmospheric CO2 can lag temperature by as much as 100 – 800 years but consistently shows it as a lagging, not a leading indicator of Global warming. Ernie
Water vapor amplifies carbon dioxide blanketing
posted by starman on 2/22/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
You’ve touched on some interesting physics here, so let me try to explain. As noted, the greenhouse “blanketing effect” of water vapor in the atmosphere is much greater than that of carbon dioxide. If carbon dioxide were acting alone as the sole agent trapping heat in the atmosphere, its effect would not be that great. Because the water-bearing capacity of air is strongly temperature dependent (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_humidity#Absolute_humidity ), a very slight increase in atmospheric temperature caused by CO2 yields a very significant increase in its water-bearing capacity. Hence water vapor is a powerful amplifier of the blanketing effect of CO2. The water vapor content of the atmosphere varies tremendously on very short time scales and on relatively short (compared to the earth’s dimensions) spatial scales. We call those effects weather. We can’t control that. We can control CO2 emissions. Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone all are highly reactive, and have a short lifetime in the atmosphere. In essence, nature deals with them quickly; carbon dioxide, much more slowly. I worked in astronomical spectroscopy for many decades. In the infrared region one finds many terrestrial spectral absorption features in the light from astronomical sources as you move from the infrared region (beyond 0.7 micron wavelength) out to the millimeter wave region. Many of these absorption features arise from carbon dioxide; far more arise from water vapor! But ultimately the CO2 effects are multiplied by the water vapor, holding back the heat radiated from Earth. A little carbon dioxide goes a long way on a watery planet. Yes, hundreds of millions of years ago, in the Carboniferous and Ordovician periods, the temperature may have been similar to today despite much higher atmospheric CO2. But: (1) the continents were nothing like today’s world (2) atmospheric and oceanic circulation were nothing like today’s world, and (3) the solar constant at the earth was significantly less, as the sun had not evolved to its present state. Any simple comparison is therefore naive.
Water Vapor
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 2/23/2010 - Be the first to recommend this
I don't see how it can be said that a slight blanket rise in temperatures from CO2 could magnify the greenhouse effect of water vapor, since the reason that warmer air can contain more water is because it is less dense, so the overall density from cold air to hot air for the water it can contain is the same. It is the sudden drop from warm to cold that precipitates larger water particles. But what I would like to know is if you know anything about the Chem Trails, which I have just found out are real? How a project of such a global magnitude could be carried out without any respect whatsoever for public awareness and debate is truly a terror.
Blanketing, another word for greenhouse effect
Blanketing here refers to an increased greenhouse effect. Just as a blanket on a bed holds in body heat while sleeping, blanketing holds the Earth's heat in by reducing the transmissivity of the atmosphere. Warmer temperatures mean more precipatable water vapor in the atmosphere, meaning more and stronger spectral absorption lines (in the infrared) which block the radiated energy of Earth into space. The Earth's cooling is lessened. To restate the above discussion, CO2 blanketing isn't that significant. CO2 blanketing amplified by water vapor blanketing is significant. In the desert, the temperature really drops at night - but the decrease is much less in a damp climate. Reference: "Earth systems: processes and issues" by Wallace Gary Ernst, page 227
http://www.dreamgreen.ca/