July 30th, 2008, 07:33 PM
We all know that Global Warming is going on, and something must be done. But what is this something. Many different things have been proposed. Alternative sources of energy, lifestyle changes, and various other things. What are your opinions on the best and most effective way to stop global warming?
Cloud seeding, from your own back yard
Clouds are incredibly fickle, easy come/easy go. Yet they totally own Earth's albedo. Weather owns climate. So a little effort goes a long way. Ever noticed how a jet trail spreads and grows?
Seed clouds by allowing aerosol blowoff. We do it cheaply any moment by rotating fields out of irrigation. I.e. take a field that was steppe/prairie/desert before we started irrigating it, and, don't irrigate it. Controlled dustbowl.
Allocating for aerosol production means less crops and I honestly doubt we'll ever find the will.
grow more plants
That's what we've been doing though. Our visible footprint on Earth is the formerly dry lands, now densely planted and irrigated. Should we green over harsh deserts now?Originally Posted by BumFluff
However the rain forests are still being cut down. How much of that oxygen producing does the rain forest contribute again? Something like 30%. and we are pumping a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be handled by those plants we plant. I'm all for those people that have been making some headway in terms bringing plant life to former desert areas but still it isn't enough.That's what we've been doing though. Our visible footprint on Earth is the formerly dry lands, now densely planted and irrigated. Should we green over harsh deserts now?
What I see about what may be a natural occurrence of there being more CO2 in the atmosphere is plant life will begin to become more prosperous due to it's greater energy source.
While everybody knows a tree helps, and we can count the trees, how much forests help is unclear. That funky forest soil should be taken into account. See Biosphere 2. Commercial greenhouses work because potting soil is oven-sterilized and mature plants are removed to rot elsewhere.
I really think our love for surface foliage prevents objectivity.
Why do you assume that terraforming good for Earth? Especially in context of warming? Is a very green Earth livable and sustainable?
u make a good point
Many theories on how to rid the world of greenhouse gasses include some form of plant life. Why? Because plants use CO2 to breath and produce oxygen. A few weeks ago I believe I posted a new theory proposing some form of plant life (can't remember the name) to trap CO2 in order to clear it from swamp land. Other theories I've heard include plankton, rain forests and so on. If it's bad for the environment why are people, who deal with things on a regular basis and are much more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I, proposing it be done in some form or another?While everybody knows a tree helps, and we can count the trees, how much forests help is unclear. That funky forest soil should be taken into account. See Biosphere 2. Commercial greenhouses work because potting soil is oven-sterilized and mature plants are removed to rot elsewhere.
I really think our love for surface foliage prevents objectivity.
Why do you assume that terraforming good for Earth? Especially in context of warming? Is a very green Earth livable and sustainable?
It's a simple, vivid, and appealing message.
Anyway the question was about global warming in particular. We know for certain that changes in cloud cover directly affect temperature. We also know the limiting factor in cloud formation is the scarcity of seed aerosols, not humidity. Increased heat does cause increased evaporation, but not necessarily more clouds. The seeds are key.
I agree that there are a few factors that need to be looked at (cloud cover being one of them) but remember we also need precipitation in order to survive. Perhaps we need to begin a few of these theories to stop global warming and hopefully together they'll work.It's a simple, vivid, and appealing message.
Anyway the question was about global warming in particular. We know for certain that changes in cloud cover directly affect temperature. We also know the limiting factor in cloud formation is the scarcity of seed aerosols, not humidity. Increased heat does cause increased evaporation, but not necessarily more clouds. The seeds are key.
My motherland is temperate rainforest, so naturally I feel the world can't overdo wet, overcast, and evergreen. It's a man-made "disaster" scenario I could live with.
Besides halting (tropical) rainforest destruction, how would you grow more plants without destroying what's left of our arid lands?
I don't think our arid lands are going to be destroyed any time soon. Desertification is an ongoing process in many areas in the world and many people see it as a problem. I'm not debating that we should recover all arid lands to vegetative lands but in order to achieve a CO2 level that is adequate enough to a comfortable environment we certainly have to consider recovering some of them. First thing on the list should be finding other fuel sources though. Hydrogen/electric cars are one of those sources as are solar cells, wind energy and wave energy but we need to have a whole lot of those small energy producers in order to make the same type of energy we get from a coal power plant.My motherland is temperate rainforest, so naturally I feel the world can't overdo wet, overcast, and evergreen. It's a man-made "disaster" scenario I could live with.
Besides halting (tropical) rainforest destruction, how would you grow more plants without destroying what's left of our arid lands?
We'll do that whether we like it or not. Even if we're only motivated by the bottom line.
I find it odd you leave hydroelectric off the list. Yet somehow i knew you would as that omission seems the norm now, in discussions about alternative or "green" energy. It's been bothering me for years.
Typically I enter these discussions with the apparently far-out suggestion we use hydro, wherever there are mountains, high tides, powerful rivers, strong currents... which covers just about any place on Earth. So I recommend it generally to everyone.
Hydroelectric seems to me a very good solution. It's proven technology. A few dams can power the bulk of a province, because hydro is hugely powerful. There is no great manufacturing or upkeep cost. The ecological impact is mild - just another alpine lake is... well, innocent... and mounting turbines where there once was a waterfall is hardly disruptive. It's not even costly - I'm using it now, lavishly, because the poco (BC Hydro) is able to generate with relatively puny overhead. There's not a lot that can go wrong. It's incredibly reliable and continuous, and you can bring turbines on and off line in less than a second to match demand - I've never seen a brownout in my life.
People talk hopefully about solar, wind, wave, etc. and hiss at evil coal and fossil fuels generally. It's a common theme. And when I inject into these conversations the word "hydroelectric" I soon regret my indiscretion because people by and large clam up or pretend I hadn't said that. This has happened to me again and again. I may engage people about any power source good or bad or wacky, but not hydro. Apparently it's taboo.
What's up with that?
Yes hydroelectric power is a great possibility and I forgot to put it in my list but it is only good for those places (Such as BC) Where it can be used. There are more places in the world where it can't be used than where it can. Many more. After doing some looking into it I've learned Hydroelectric power represents nearly two thirds of the total electric output in Canada and Canada is the leading producer of hydroelectric energy followed closely by the United States.We'll do that whether we like it or not. Even if we're only motivated by the bottom line.
I find it odd you leave hydroelectric off the list. Yet somehow i knew you would as that omission seems the norm now, in discussions about alternative or "green" energy. It's been bothering me for years.
Typically I enter these discussions with the apparently far-out suggestion we use hydro, wherever there are mountains, high tides, powerful rivers, strong currents... which covers just about any place on Earth. So I recommend it generally to everyone.
Hydroelectric seems to me a very good solution. It's proven technology. A few dams can power the bulk of a province, because hydro is hugely powerful. There is no great manufacturing or upkeep cost. The ecological impact is mild - just another alpine lake is... well, innocent... and mounting turbines where there once was a waterfall is hardly disruptive. It's not even costly - I'm using it now, lavishly, because the poco (BC Hydro) is able to generate with relatively puny overhead. There's not a lot that can go wrong. It's incredibly reliable and continuous, and you can bring turbines on and off line in less than a second to match demand - I've never seen a brownout in my life.
People talk hopefully about solar, wind, wave, etc. and hiss at evil coal and fossil fuels generally. It's a common theme. And when I inject into these conversations the word "hydroelectric" I soon regret my indiscretion because people by and large clam up or pretend I hadn't said that. This has happened to me again and again. I may engage people about any power source good or bad or wacky, but not hydro. Apparently it's taboo.
What's up with that?
As many places can't use hydroelectric power as a means of producing energy because of the landscape I think that there needs to be other technology in place instead. Nuclear reactors are a possibility but this opens up an entire slew of other problems and dangers.
Same is true for wind, solar, or wave though. Yet people everywhere fantasize about having those toys in their backyards even where totally inappropriate. Look:
The weather and landscape seen in that photo is typical of the region: light to non-existent winds, often overcast, forested unpopulated mountains with streams and rivers gushing down every cranny, and lakes, thousands of them.
We haven't built a major hydro project in ages, because that entails destruction of precious stream habitat. We've already given up on dams because the public won't allow drowning of innocent trees to make a reservoir. We're barely meeting growing demand. We've begun to use gas thermal generation, and quietly trade not sell power with our oil-burning neighbors. We're becoming an energy importer. Now, BC Hydro is trying to compromise by pushing micro hydro (run of the river) as clean alternative to big efficient dams.
But no. Hydro in any form is unacceptable. In the photo, they're protesting small scale hydro projects specifically, and urging (read the comments) for a future where every British Colombian has solar panels and windmills jutting off the roof. The general public supports this vision. Plant-in-the-ground solar yard lamps are very popular. They don't actually work very well here, but showing them in the front lawn lets everybody know you're dedicated to a certain vision.
I'm afraid this stupid fixation on toy energy hamstrings appropriate investment.
Toys. Yes really. Some parts of the world, toy energy is the only clean option besides nuclear. It's the best they can do. Some other regions can do far better, and should not lose sight of the fact.
I think you're correct in calling the idea of having solar panels and wind turbines in every back yard as a fantasy myself. Again, as you state, weather conditions are not always appropriate for all types of power generators. I found that magazine I was talking about earlier about future types of energy producers (Popular Science July 2008). I'll run over a few of them.Same is true for wind, solar, or wave though. Yet people everywhere fantasize about having those toys in their backyards even where totally inappropriate. Look:
The weather and landscape seen in that photo is typical of the region: light to non-existent winds, often overcast, forested unpopulated mountains with streams and rivers gushing down every cranny, and lakes, thousands of them.
We haven't built a major hydro project in ages, because that entails destruction of precious stream habitat. We've already given up on dams because the public won't allow drowning of innocent trees to make a reservoir. We're barely meeting growing demand. We've begun to use gas thermal generation, and quietly trade not sell power with our oil-burning neighbors. We're becoming an energy importer. Now, BC Hydro is trying to compromise by pushing micro hydro (run of the river) as clean alternative to big efficient dams.
But no. Hydro in any form is unacceptable. In the photo, they're protesting small scale hydro projects specifically, and urging (read the comments) for a future where every British Colombian has solar panels and windmills jutting off the roof. The general public supports this vision. Plant-in-the-ground solar yard lamps are very popular. They don't actually work very well here, but showing them in the front lawn lets everybody know you're dedicated to a certain vision.
I'm afraid this stupid fixation on toy energy hamstrings appropriate investment.
Toys. Yes really. Some parts of the world, toy energy is the only clean option besides nuclear. It's the best they can do. Some other regions can do far better, and should not lose sight of the fact.
Energy producing highways - Invented by Mark Oberholzer (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...n_id=rss_daily) have wind turbines in the center median of major highways to produce energy from the wind of passing automobiles.
Energy Paint - Invented by Somenath Mitra at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. The paint contains two types of nanoparticles; one to collect the suns energy while the other converts it to electricity.(http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/07/22/...n-solar-cells/)
Tidal Turbines - Scientists estimate that energy from the tides of the world could produce 12 percent of the worlds total consumption. The worlds first tidal turbine was recently installed off the coast of England. (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=ca)
Wave Machines - The wavebob (http://www.wavebob.com/latest_news/) is another alternative.
Holy flip and Business Week is giving this the time of day. It works by leeching vehicle energy though air friction. We'll make those gas guzzlers pay for this mess, huh? Better yet mount rubber paddle turnstiles the cars have to push through. Or yoke the cars and have them chug around and around huge grindstones to oppressive music.
Those other links weren't quite in the realm of perpetual motion though, thanks. Yet they all have gross inherent inefficiencies I just can't understand engineers let go. For example the tidal turbine is mounted (real life, not artist's conception) mounted in shallow open water. Why not dunk some rubble down to double the flow around those vanes? It makes no sense.
It seems to me that business, government, and the general public are lapping up so many flaky projects even a high school student should be able to prove no better than whirligigs. Am I way off base here?
Dealing with the 'gas guzzlers' that you mention... In the magazine they use hydro or electric powered cars. No gas, no CO2.Holy flip and Business Week is giving this the time of day. It works by leeching vehicle energy though air friction. We'll make those gas guzzlers pay for this mess, huh? Better yet mount rubber paddle turnstiles the cars have to push through. Or yoke the cars and have them chug around and around huge grindstones to oppressive music.
Those other links weren't quite in the realm of perpetual motion though, thanks. Yet they all have gross inherent inefficiencies I just can't understand engineers let go. For example the tidal turbine is mounted (real life, not artist's conception) mounted in shallow open water. Why not dunk some rubble down to double the flow around those vanes? It makes no sense.
It seems to me that business, government, and the general public are lapping up so many flaky projects even a high school student should be able to prove no better than whirligigs. Am I way off base here?
And yes I do believe there are many upon many flaky ideas pertaining to energy production but I'm sure out of those many flaky ideas at least one good idea out of say... 100 will show some promise. Personally I think tidal turbines are a great idea. There is nothing better than to make the largest bodies on this plant into an energy producing machine. As technology increases no doubt the collection form and amount of these tidal turbines will vastly improve.
CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb.This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
April 28th, 2009, 02:06 AM
i think, whatever the technology, if it can't be done in a mass size, the effect won't be optimal. If government, create the law and system for every industry so the industry will produce their product by zero waste process. i think every environmental issue that has something to do with waste would be reduced significantly. that is just one of an example.
Unfortunately it's not always that simple. If you plant trees at high latitudes for example, you get slow uptake of Co2 because they grow slow, but decrease the albedo which makes it overall warmer--especially during the winter. We'd probably experience a similar trade off in many desert regions.While everybody knows a tree helps,
--
In the short run, making our industries and homes more efficient with existing tech is probably the best bet--there's lots of effective low tech such as better insulation, waste water heat exchangers etc that still aren't used in the majority of homes. A lot of this stuff has been around for decades but weren't put into the typical track homes to save a few bucks.
May 22nd, 2009, 01:00 AM
Parts of me think that as a result of the pollution, nature is all ready developing and evolving as a reaction. In other words I think mother nature will take care of the waist. Not with out consequences, I would think.
June 8th, 2009, 02:14 AM
Heres an artical about one scientist who thinks bacteria are the answer to our biofuel shortage.
http://www.livescience.com/environme...biodiesel.html
While that might be the case in BC, in the Lower 48 we have already dammed every dammable river. The Corps of Engineers has dammed everything that made economic sense and quite a few that made no sense, because that's what the Corps does for a living. Wherever the Corps couldn't justify a power dam the Bureau of Reclamation built an irrigation dam so we can grow cattle feed in the desert. There are literally thousands of dams on just about every river in the US and there's hardly any scope here for additional hydropower. It sounds lovely in theory, but hydro is not the answer for the US.
Look up Teton Dam for an example of dam building gone crazy.
I don't think we need to worry 2 much about nuclear. Uranium is 5 times as plentiful as gold. That's raw Uranium. To use it in a reactor, you've got to enrich it to the point where it's got 10 times the normal U-235 content, which means 9/10 of it becomes "depleted uranium" that probably won't ever be put in a reactor.
So, the total potential react-able uranium is 1/2 the total amount of gold in the world. (5/10) So, we'll run out of nuclear fuel before we ever get so much nuclear waste built up that we can't store it somewhere.
Dude you've twisted my words out of context, and argued against your own earlier point.Unfortunately it's not always that simple...
So now we're in agreement.
I guess that settles it.
You have the Alaskan Panhandle though. The untapped hydro energy is fantastic. Someday I hope that region will operate like Oman, only tankers shipping liquified hydrogen not oil.
The CANDU reactors were designed to efficiently burn raw uranium. Canada lacked enrichment equipment at the time, and we planned to export these rough & ready models overseas as required by the NPT.
At which point, the zeppelin thread becomes even more interesting that it already was. I'd love to see people begin using zeppelins as a means of transporting large amounts of raw hydrogen, and then attaching heavy objects to the zeppelin as well to boot.I guess that settles it.
You have the Alaskan Panhandle though. The untapped hydro energy is fantastic. Someday I hope that region will operate like Oman, only tankers shipping liquified hydrogen not oil.
[/quote]The CANDU reactors were designed to efficiently burn raw uranium. Canada lacked enrichment equipment at the time, and we planned to export these rough & ready models overseas as required by the NPT.
Wow, I didn't know about this until you mentioned it. It makes me sad to know that anyone bothers to burn enriched uranium now. It's such a waste.
I wiki'd it, so here are the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
The second link is important because apparently the way they manage it is by using heavy water as the moderator.
People discuss on inaccessible factors like solar variation and solar system pass through galactic cloud. Practically speaking about what really we can do is change in current technology for the production of power. A quick change in current technology can get a move on the current economic and employment crisis.
Most of those dams weren't build with any power turbines to produce power. Many would be suitable to add them if we were willing to spend the money.While that might be the case in BC, in the Lower 48 we have already dammed every dammable river. The Corps of Engineers has dammed everything that made economic sense and quite a few that made no sense, because that's what the Corps does for a living. Wherever the Corps couldn't justify a power dam the Bureau of Reclamation built an irrigation dam so we can grow cattle feed in the desert. There are literally thousands of dams on just about every river in the US and there's hardly any scope here for additional hydropower. It sounds lovely in theory, but hydro is not the answer for the US.
Look up Teton Dam for an example of dam building gone crazy.
--
Overall though, we're far too focused on how to produce power, when the real problem is more one of how to store and transport energy than how to produce it.
Lynx_Fox makes a great point, that "the real problem is more one of how to store and transport energy than how to produce it." Now, we already have a system of gargantuan solar energy collectors plus batteries in place, but we haven't tapped into them. This is the evaporating surfaces of oceans, that accumulate potential kinetic energy as higher altitude lakes and rivers. This world energy resource is concentrated largely through coastal mountain ranges of Chile and the Pacific Northwest. Natural terrain focuses it into hundreds of kinetic energy streams more powerful than any wind, matter-of-fact, every day of the year. And of course it's more concentrated than the sunlight hitting a solar panel. The problem is in distributing this power globally.At which point, the zeppelin thread becomes even more interesting that it already was. I'd love to see people begin using zeppelins as a means of transporting large amounts of raw hydrogen, and then attaching heavy objects to the zeppelin as well to boot.I guess that settles it.
You have the Alaskan Panhandle though. The untapped hydro energy is fantastic. Someday I hope that region will operate like Oman, only tankers shipping liquified hydrogen not oil.
Setting electric turbines into the power streams is easy. Transmission losses limit the range of distribution though. Also few vehicles run on wires. Maybe we can bottle this energy where it's locally plentiful, as compressed hydrogen, and ship it out? In that scenario the efficiency at which we crack water, right there at the practically infinite hydro source, is not so important. So then we have a lot of bottles to export, say, to all those fuel starved Arab countries of the future. It just so happens a complete hydro bottling system, from energy source to consumer product, may as well be a complex of adjacent buildings, on the coast. Put the bottled fuel on ships. Keep clogging the commuter lanes with cars, of course, but burn renewable hydrogen instead of fossil fuel.
That's my distopia of choice.
I agree. This is the goal of the Smart Grid. Several promising storage technologies are being developed too. A good overview is here (same link posted in another thread):
http://www.oe.energy.gov/Documentsan...rid-report.pdf
I think one step many can take (but won't) is the use of solar hot water. The house I purchased had 2 4x10 panels and I managed to get one of them working again. That panel heats an 80 gallon tank to 145F +. Temperatures at the panel I've measured at over 220F. If it wasn't for the water pressure in the panel itself the water would boil. Needless to say getting this one panel working again dropped my electric bill about $35 a month. In turn I'm producing less green house gases. I've also replaced all the lights in the house with florescent or compact florescent replacements. It's really stupid not to. We also got rid of our SUV and purchased a Prius a year or so ago. All of my electronic projects are currently also being powered by solar electric.
Bang for the buck though solar hot water pays for itself the fastest and saves a ton of energy. It's also very simple to maintain. The Prius is also doing a nice job paying for itself vs the SUV. It doesn't however pay for itself as fast if you were to say trade in your Honda Civic for a Prius. It may even be a waste of money. Myself personally I'll be buying a VW turbo diesel and let my wife keep driving the Prius.
I just got done watching a show about the bottom of the ocean. Lots and lots of geothermal activity. Why don't we use our oil drilling abilities to harness the earths natural heat. Deep wells with turbines inside the tubes full of water.
People always complain that converting electricity to Hydrogen, compressing it, and then converting it back to electricity later on is very inefficient, but..... when we're talking about getting a small fraction of something vs. getting 100% of nothing by not tapping the resource at all...?Setting electric turbines into the power streams is easy. Transmission losses limit the range of distribution though. Also few vehicles run on wires. Maybe we can bottle this energy where it's locally plentiful, as compressed hydrogen, and ship it out? In that scenario the efficiency at which we crack water, right there at the practically infinite hydro source, is not so important. So then we have a lot of bottles to export, say, to all those fuel starved Arab countries of the future. It just so happens a complete hydro bottling system, from energy source to consumer product, may as well be a complex of adjacent buildings, on the coast. Put the bottled fuel on ships. Keep clogging the commuter lanes with cars, of course, but burn renewable hydrogen instead of fossil fuel.
That's my distopia of choice.
Yep, the setup has relatively low embodied energy. Simple low tech works better than a complex of *ahem* Bunbury *cough* indirect gadgets.
It's green, but I think this means transmission lines running long way to consumer, so losses there. Deep sea not continental shelf right? That's too far for power lines.
***
Vancouver city hall just passed a bylaw requiring new condo and apartment buildings include at least 20% electric car plug-ins. I suspect they're reading these forums and want to stick it to Pong. :x
More efficient to simply burn the hydrogen at consumer end. In an engine or house furnace for example. Also, less gadgetry.
I dunno, sometimes I think the green technology is driven rather by love of "cool new stuff". People like (In)Sanity who do something non-sexy but effective could be more common. What really scares me is if we develop (and possibly enforce by law) a consumer culture where people keep buying the latest thing that'll save the planet. Like if we manufacture more photovoltaic yard lamps this is helping.
Too funny about the yard lamps. I suspect one of those lamps uses more power to produce then 10 of them will produce in their lifetime. I'm of course just tossing out numbers. I started on the whole solar electric kick only to figure out it will take me 25 + years to just break even. Solar hot water is about 7-8 years tops to break even. So far I've spent about $50 to fix the system that was already in place on my home. I suspect it's from the 80's. Having 220+ F at the panel is more then enough heat as far as I'm concerned. Considering where I live the chance of me running out of hot water is slim to none.I dunno, sometimes I think the green technology is driven rather by love of "cool new stuff". People like (In)Sanity who do something non-sexy but effective could be more common. What really scares me is if we develop (and possibly enforce by law) a consumer culture where people keep buying the latest thing that'll save the planet. Like if we manufacture more photovoltaic yard lamps this is helping.
This is what interests me the most. The possibility of getting the renewable power that one region produces in over-abundance over to areas that can't produce any where near enough for their needs that way.
In the middle states of the USA, an unfortunately high amount of electrical power is generated from coal. They're just too far away from the prime renewable options, and so they're doing what's available.
I always believe the whole effort lies on us to make a difference. For example, imagine how much fuel that would be saved if we decided to cycle or even take a short walk to arrive at our destination. Some people may not realize that if you are not going to use your computer then just power off rather than letting it idle or even go into sleep. That itself still consumes energy. Every small thing although doesn't seem significant but when it adds up, it will mean a lot.
Well, I'm sure the total number of megawatts is impressive as a number, but I don't think it would figure very large as a percentage of consumption. I think it shows a lot of good intentions to do stuff like that, however.
There's an exercise gym near where I live that decided to hook power generators up to its stationary bicycles. They estimate that, in the course of an entire year of people riding them, they'll generate enough power to heat a small home. How much electricity do you think that gym consumes per year?
...plus to be thorough, we add the embodied energy (e.g. generation) to manufacture those turbines, plus manufacturing and trucking a gym-year's supply of energy bars and bottled spring water, and so forth...
It smacks of perpetual motion machines don't it?
My selfish interest is in seeing the Pacific Northwest (hydro powerhouse) filling tankers like Saudi Arabia does now.This is what interests me the most. The possibility of getting the renewable power that one region produces in over-abundance over to areas that can't produce any where near enough for their needs that way.
We now see aqueduc connection and faucets as standard in houses, the benefits are passed on from owner to owner. It would make a lot sense as a society to offer interest free loans for municipalities and homes for municipal and residencial infrastructure like solar water heating and geothermal network (and potentially solar panels when their cost goes down).the system that was already in place on my home
Politically, then, I think you'd have to make sure the Saudis don't see it coming. Otherwise they'll use their considerable financial reserves to buy TV spots misrepresenting the feasibility, or environmental impacts.... etc. ....My selfish interest is in seeing the Pacific Northwest (hydro powerhouse) filling tankers like Saudi Arabia does now.This is what interests me the most. The possibility of getting the renewable power that one region produces in over-abundance over to areas that can't produce any where near enough for their needs that way.
It would almost have to be a grass roots movement. I'm pretty sure some power companies are willing to charge a lowered amount for "off peak" power. Maybe some people could set electrolysis machines up in their homes, and feed power back into the grid during the "on peak" times of day. It depends on whether the difference in price is enough to offset the energy cost of conversion.
It probably wouldn't have a serious impact on the power grid, and I seriously doubt you'd make a lot of money doing it, but I'm thinking that if enough people do this enough times, and it works, that's evidence that can't be overturned on the TV set by paying some kind of "think tank" (usually composed of people with questionable credentials) to do a "study" that "proves" it won't be feasible.
The region already has entrenched "astroturf" (paid protesters) groups being played for Big Interests. They're used by timber, power, Native land claims, real estate etc. to block competing developments. Saudis funding placard waving hikers in some BC inlet would be bizzare & ironic... yet predictable: Notice what WWF is doing to quash alternative energy like palm oil or hydro, and notice that its major sponsors are the big oil corporations. The Saudis may claim they're just acting responsibly for the global environment; they'd be applauded (and likely tax-credited) for their eco-activism.
But how? Astroturf smothers & hijacks grassroots with feel-good simple solutions. How can we beat that?
WWF is sponsoring sustainable palm oil, somewhat unsuccessfully perhaps. Do you have any info on their big oil sponsors? I did a quick google but couldn't find anything, except that WWF sold its BP shares back in 2003.Notice what WWF is doing to quash alternative energy like palm oil or hydro, and notice that its major sponsors are the big oil corporations.
Thanks in advance for any info.
Good point. It's better if it's not a movement with any kind of organization or leadership to it. ... Which might mean it's not a "movement" at all, come to think of it. It would have to just be people doing it. Trying it out for fun and seeing if they get any results. You don't need public support to do something in the privacy of your own home, and once enough people have seen absolute proof by trying it, the facts should hard to distort, even for the least educated members of the public.
But how? Astroturf smothers & hijacks grassroots with feel-good simple solutions. How can we beat that?
Here are some numbers on peak power differences from my own power company here in Oregon. I'm pretty sure the "Combined effective rate" in blue, is what you actually pay:
http://www.pacificpower.net/File/File49907.pdf
Here's their peak power usage program:
http://www.pacificpower.net/Article/Article15450.html
It looks like, if you're a large volume user, you pay 9.159 cents per Kilowatt hour if you don't use the peak power program. If you do use the program, the differences are +6.124 cents for peak usage and -1.125 cents of off peak. So, if you stored up a kilowatt hour of electricity at off peak, and then sold it back at peak at 100% efficiency, you'd make about 7.25 cents. That is... if they had to buy it back. But I think they do have to. (?)
So, if you're buying at 8.034 cents, and selling at 15.283 cents, you need at least a 52.57 % efficiency of conversion electrolyzing to hydrogen, and then reconverting back to electricity in a fuel cell in order to break even. That might be unrealistically high, but... if you can work out a process to do it, using resources an ordinary person has access to, you might help create a new hobby for some people.
Here's a couple of sites that have some interesting ideas, but I don't know how efficient their process is. The platinum coated nickel wire required to re-convert the hydrogen back to electricity costs about $15.00 on the second site, which is not too bad. (If hydrogen use were to become widespread, however, I'm sure the price of platinum would go up.)
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12...ectrolysis.htm
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/...fuel_cell.html
Its first priority is to conserve tropical forest such as Borneo, where the palm plantations would be. WWF's Heart of Borneo initiative effectively ended China's investment in Malasian/Indonesian palm, so those countries will continue exporting petrol or go bankrupt.
All I got on Big Oil sponsorship of WWF was wiki. WWF's own relevent pages are "deleted or moved". Umm... Chevron gave $4 million to protect New Guinea forests... so WWF is building case against palm plantations there among other developments. You see how that's strategic to Chevron, right?
On the other hand IKEA's WWF donation is earmarked for developing sustainable resource cottage industry... you guessed it: WWF is helping set up light forest products manufacturing. I guess they're teaching poor Indonesian kids to bandsaw millions of wooden drink coasters named Mörk.
Anyway, I not saying there's some cynical conspiracy here - just good intentions, all different, sometimes contradictory. And WWF is one of those broadly "partnering" groups that facilitates many intentions.
Maybe you're right. I was thinking superproject on the scale of Alaska oil pipeline/terminal or northern aluminum smelters: Huge dam and huge tanker port.
That would be great. You're thinking like building some very powerful dams up in the North West shoreline, but far away from any major cities, then just converting the electricity straight to Hydrogen, right?
Maybe you're right. I was thinking superproject on the scale of Alaska oil pipeline/terminal or northern aluminum smelters: Huge dam and huge tanker port.
I'm just thinking that, if you can get people to do hydrogen related stuff as a hobby, or contribution, then there will be less ignorance for the oil powers to go around exploiting. Maybe spread the idea as a kind of recycling drive effort. People are usually are usually willing to do anything that makes them feel like they're making a difference, no matter how small it is.
For years my mother has kept all the aluminum foil she uses and recycled it. She's probably only ever saved something like 20 kilos in 10 years, but it still makes her feel like she's doing her part. If you can work out an on-peak/off-peak hydrogen process that saves any energy at all, I'm sure people will do it just for the sense of accomplishment. And then you've got a massively educated public.
Well, there is no way to stop global warming. It's a natural cycle. If you want to stop the little that we contribute, then tell Asia to stop with their black carbon emissions. The primary driver is the sun. It is the source for more than 99.9% of our heat. It has increased in radiative output by an estimated 0.25% since the 1700's. Cool the sun down, and we're in business.
What is 0.25%?
15 C global average = 288 K.
0.25% of 288 = 0.72 degree increase.
Owing to the overall rise in the temperature, the glaciers in the Antarctic region begin to melt which has increased the overall sea level. If this situation continues, many low lying areas will submerge in the near future. Global warming also increases the occurrences of hurricanes.
There are many easy solutions to reduce global warming and its impact. First of all, people should understand the problem and take measures accordingly to save the world.
* People should reduce the usage of electrical appliances which emits green house gases. For e.g. the refrigerator releases chloro fluro carbon (CFC) and the incandescent light lamp emits 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. This can be replaced by a compact fluorescent light bulb which saves much energy.
* Follow RRR-Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. People should not dump waste products in the ground. Plant products, food waste, vegetable dump undergoes anaerobic decomposition i.e. they break down to produce methane, a green house gas instead of oxygen. Hence the product usage and wastage should be reduced or recycled for a healthy atmosphere.
* Trees absorb a large amount of carbon dioxide. Many trees should be planted since they involve in photosynthesis, food preparation with the help of sunlight. During this process, trees absorb carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Also, existing forests should be saved and usage of plant byproducts shouldn’t be wasted.
* Usage of green power prevents 300 kg of carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere. The electricity obtained from the renewable resources like wind and water is called green power. The cost is also low in case of green power.
* Insulation of the ceiling of a house and power saving is the important factor to reduce global warming. The electric appliances should be switched off instead to hold it in stand by mode. This will save more power since stand by mode consumes 40% of the energy.
* People should use only energy efficient appliances. Thermostat should be used for air conditioners since it reduces the temperature automatically.
* Consumption of organic food should be increased because organic soil absorb large amount of carbon dioxide. Buying local food reduces the consumption of fuel. Cows emits large amount of methane due to their vegetarian diet. Hence meat consumption should be reduced. Also tetra packs should be used instead of tinned food.
* Periodic maintenance of the vehicles helps in efficient usage of fuel and reduces release of green house gases. Proper inflation of tyres should be done and fuel wastage should be avoided.
* Teach your neighborhood and friends about the cause and impacts of global warming and methods to reduce it. Conservation of forests also forms a factor to reduce global warming.
Hence, individuals and government should be concerned about the environment and stop the incoming danger due to global warming.
Buy Resveratrol
Have any evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real?
All I see are unproven cause and effect relationships. We have increased CO2, so we increased temperature. I say that's BS. I say our CO2 production may have contributed to as much as 0.15 C. You see, there are other factors. The cold sea water releases stored carbon dioxide as it warms. The sun has increased irradiation by at least 0.2% since the 1700's. The reason I say our part is probably no more than 0.15 C is that if all other things were equal, the ocean would absorb more than 98% of the CO2 we produce. We would only have about 300 ppm, or 20 ppm over the 280 ppm of the 1700's.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
CO2 does cause some warming, but warming releases stored CO2.
No need to save the world. If we piss her off, she will get rid of us. Your argument should be saving ourselves.
September 7th, 2009, 05:34 AM
AVOID burning plastics, for it releases carbon monoxide..that can support in thickening the ozone layer and may lead to global warming... another thing is, avoid cutting of trees.. report it immediately to the police those are the illegal loggers.
motorcycle ear plugs
Edit: I'm a dirty, rotten spammer. I really can't stand you stuffy intellectual wannabes but I pretend to post something so that I can plug my motorcycle ear plugs. Unfortunately, one of your site admins replaced my link with Hormel's, so if you want to learn about canned meat, click away. If you want to know more about motorcycle ear plugs, just send me an email at nickdemarco09@gmail.com -I just hope some spammer doesn't grab it. I also hope none of you sign me up for a bunch of porn or anything... sorry about that "stuffy intellectual" remark.
Do you ever stop and think just how much gasoline gets burned every day? I think I burn through 10 gallons a week. The Earth isn't infinity big. It's like what? 27,000 miles around?Have any evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real?
All I see are unproven cause and effect relationships. We have increased CO2, so we increased temperature. I say that's BS. I say our CO2 production may have contributed to as much as 0.15 C. You see, there are other factors. The cold sea water releases stored carbon dioxide as it warms. The sun has increased irradiation by at least 0.2% since the 1700's. The reason I say our part is probably no more than 0.15 C is that if all other things were equal, the ocean would absorb more than 98% of the CO2 we produce. We would only have about 300 ppm, or 20 ppm over the 280 ppm of the 1700's.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
CO2 does cause some warming, but warming releases stored CO2.
If we take that much CO2 that's been sitting underground, and release it, we shouldn't be surprised if it has a meaningful impact. Of course, if we're going to cause the glaciers to melt, then we've probably done it already. The CO2 we've released in the past will keep warming us until it happens. (So, no point in stopping now.)
Fair enough.No need to save the world. If we piss her off, she will get rid of us. Your argument should be saving ourselves.
We need to learn to think like farmers, instead of hunter/gatherers. A farmer re-uses what they already have, which is what has always made agriculture the more successful method.
I see you are real accurate in your guesses. You're only 2,000 miles off in round numbers.
Sure, have you seen how greenhouse gasses affect the greenhouse effect?
Consider this concept, it's a rough illustration of how CO2 traps IR. If you have a red wall, and you want to paint it white, you still see some red through it. You now have pink. Let's assume the single coat covered 80% of the red. You trapped 80% of the red. Now you paint it with a second coat of pain, and cover another 80% of the new pink color. You now have trapped 80% +(80% x 20%) = 96% of the color. A third cost gives you another 80% of the remaining 4%.
Although not entirely accurate, we have so much CO2 in the air, that adding more has in essences, no effect. It's a logarithmic response. Here's a graph to consider. It's from "An Inconvienent Truth:
I think we can all agree that Al Gore likely uses the maximum 26% range of the 9% to 26% greenhouse effect that CO2 has. Now consider this:
If 26% is the correct effect CO2 has, then raising it to 5% in the atmosphere would add about 3 degrees. However, evidence I've seen suggests it's below 15%. That would mean about a 2 degree increase of we actually ever let CO2 go to lethal levels. I believe it's at the 10% to 12% myself. The 9% gives us about a 1 degree increase. Scientists with cooler heads on the subject believe CO2 only accounts for about 5% of the greenhouse effect.
You have to remember. If the equilibrium of the ocean solubility stayed the same since the 1700's, the atmosphere would have only gone to about 300 to 310 ppm rather than the 380+ we see today.
Warming causes CO2 far more than CO2 causes warming!
Study the solubility of gasses in liquids sometime. How temperature changes the equilibrium. Here's a simple chart of sea water vs. temperature at different salinity levels:
Cobra, the question is how big of an effect do you need in order to cause change? Sure, it's a very very slight effect, but if a very very slight effect is enough, then it's still an issue.
What I think would count as evidence against concern would be to show that other effects have changed the temperature more, and without ill effect. For example: if we can show that different orbital cycles have changed the world's overall temperature by more than the CO2 emissions have, and the water levels didn't really change much, that would go a long way.
The big issue is keeping those ice caps cold. If we can add say... 2 degrees, and keep them frozen, then it's not a concern. If adding .001 degrees is going to cause significant thawing, then we're in a lot of trouble.
Nobody negates this, but the sun cannot explain the current changes we've been seeing. This is forty year old science which tells us that CO2 reflects heat back to the surface. How it's nearly 2010 and we're still arguing with denialists is beyond me.
Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse skeptics
Sun not to blame for global warming.
A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays
NATURE article in .pdf --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PD...uly%202007.pdf
This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming.
An additional problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, solar activity changes earlier in the 20th century.
Global Warming -- Research IssuesSolar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.
I've found a wealth of knowledge at the following, so perhaps you can catch yourself up too!
RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver
RealClimate - The lure of solar forcing
RealClimate - Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
RealClimate - Another study on solar influence
I would disagree. If you look at longer temperature trends, say since the 1700's, they generally do follow solar activity.Nobody negates this, but the sun cannot explain the current changes we've been seeing. This is forty year old science which tells us that CO2 reflects heat back to the surface. How it's nearly 2010 and we're still arguing with denialists is beyond me.
Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse skeptics
Sun not to blame for global warming.
A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays
NATURE article in .pdf --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PD...uly%202007.pdf
This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming.
There are so many other factors. Funny how your chart does have temperature following and lagging solar activity until about 1940. Guess what happened about them We started polluting the atmosphere like crazy! The sun couldn't get to the earth as well.An additional problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, solar activity changes earlier in the 20th century.
Now I'm not saying that's the cause of cooling, it could have been part of the other natural complex systems. You simply cannot take a graph that agrees with your bias and expect us all to agree.
Look at the long term data.
Wow...Global Warming -- Research IssuesSolar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.
Please don't tell me you trust models that were made to follow observed trends, to be a reliable source to say the belief is true...
Please don't tell me you trusty the IPCC politicians...
RealClimate is operated by a Global Warming Alarmist. I have shown many articles in the past to be in error. Gavin Schmidt has an agenda. He is not a good source for accuracy in my view.
I've found a wealth of knowledge at the following, so perhaps you can catch yourself up too!
RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver
RealClimate - The lure of solar forcing
RealClimate - Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
RealClimate - Another study on solar influence
Funny, while at his real job, his papers often say other than what he publishes at RealClimate:
Shindell et al. 2001:
Also see:Shindell, D.T., G.A. Schmidt, M.E. Mann, D. Rind, and A. Waple, 2001: Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum. Science, 294, 2149-2152, doi:10.1126/science.1064363.
We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift towards the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiation decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1-2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.
The Sun's Chilly Impact on Earth
All you've done is to attack credibility of the source, while completely forgetting that your attack means nothing unless you demonstrate where and how they are mistaken (I'll give you a hint: The mountains of evidence are all against you, and the approach you are taking is really no different than a creationist denying evolution).
I attacked and supplied evidence.
If you think that 0.3° to 0.4°C of solar increase according to a paper coauthored by Schmidt is insignificant, then fine. It's only half the estimated warming since the 1700's.
There are several factors to see with Global Warming. CO2 and Temperature do go hand-in-hand. However, those who actually study the two, find there is a general 800 year lag between temperature to CO2. Solar activity and temperature also go hand in hand. However, we can exclude by common sense, the temperature, influencing solar activity.
Have you read any of Dr. Glassman's work?:
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE; by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
As for a mountain of evidence, I disagree. Improperly assessing cause and effect is not evidence. Remember, a consensus of scientists also once believed the Earth was flat!
Measurable change to very difficult to assess. I don't have such answers.
We have little doubt that orbital changes cause global temperature changes. Thing is, those are in cycles of 19,000 years minimum. Not enough variation for us to witness.
This is where burning coal has more of an effect than the CO2 it produces. There is ample evidence that soot, from coal powered plants in Asia, without adequate scrubber technology, blankets the Arctic region with soot. The snow covered cap normally has an albedo of about 92% if I recall correctly. This diminishes into the 40's to 50's percentile. This is why we are losing more Arctic ice in the summer. The sun is heating it up by six to 8 times more than in the past. Then a larger portion of exposed ocean now absorbs a larger total heat from the sun.
In all the research I have done. I am a solid believe that the solar changes are the largest influence of temperature change. Soot covered ice is the second, with CO2 being the third.
Now CO2 is more of a positive feedback rather than the cause. Depending on who's numbers you believe, if all other factors were equal, using Henry's Law... Mankind's influence on CO2 in the atmosphere should have increased it no more than 30 ppm since industrialization. When the ocean warms, it releases CO2. When it cools, it absorbs it.
How can you trust a body of scientists to be honest when they completely ignore something so simple as Henry's Law?
Consider this. Since the ocean, in equilibrium with the atmosphere, hold more than 50 times the carbon in the carbon cycle than the atmosphere does, that means we gave to sequester more than 50 tons for every ton we want removed from the atmosphere!
Anyone who believes CO2 is the cause of global warming needs to do some serious thinking between the Carbon Cycle and Henry's Law.
Anyone not understand this is not qualified to argue the subject.
Like I said, you sound like a creationist denying evolution. I really see no point in arguing with you since you seem immune to facts (at least on this particular issue). You only accept data which reinforces your preconceptions, and reject data which negates them (despite it's abundance and cross-research modality consistency).
We've been studying this since the 1800s. It's basic chemistry. CO2 reflects certain wavelengths of light very well. The higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the less that light can escape to space (the more it is redirected back down toward the surface). This results in warming. As we continue to add CO2, the concentration goes up, and the amount reflected to the surface goes up accordingly.
We are burning lots and lots and lots of energy which was previously buried beneath the earth and pumping it into the atmosphere. For you to suggest this won't have an effect is simply laughable.
Like I said, this is hardly a new science, and it's quite well understand (read: not just politicians and conspirators trying to pull one over on us).
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
No, but it seems I am failing to explain it well, or you don't understand the facts.
Not true. I don't reject the warming from CO2, I reject the degree to which it plays a roll.
Wow...
How old are you anyway?
Well, it's a little beyond basic chemistry. The spectral absorption aspect of it is what you are referring to. It's not that CO2 reflects the wavelengths so much as it vibrates in tune with it and warms.
I clearly see you don't understand. If CO2 reflected more energy as it increased in the atmospheric mix, we would get colder with CO2, not warmer.
Have you quantified that heat? How does it compare to the approximate 85,700,000,000,000,000 watt of heat the earth receives from the sun at any given moment?
Did you know the earth would receive about 173,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy from the sun with no atmosphere?
Just multiply the solar intensity of 1365 watts per meter by the earths radius in meters squared time PI.
Can you please show me a post and quote me where I said that?
Yes, it is well understood by those who take the time to understand. So why do you disagree with me? Can you be specific?
Now I'm not going to read the massive text behind the history you linked, but if you would like me to respond to a portion, please point a small part out.
Wiki has some easily understandable concepts. For example, you can find the greenhouse effect is about 32 to 33 degrees C. You find a range that CO2 causes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. Now consider this:
Please look at the calculated change in temperature vs. change in CO2 at what ever percentage of the effect you wish to believe in. Worse case at the 26% has it at about 0.5 C.
Now consider this:
We really have to have allot of CO2 to make a difference. The pundits like to tell us we get a 1.5 to 3 C rise with a doubling of CO2. I don't see that. My point is they are lying about the roll CO2 plays.
I generated these charts on Excel with the available data. If you believe RealClimate, here is one of their charts:
Oh... I flipped it from transmission to absorption. This is how it appears on their website:
Please note that at 1 equivalent atmosphere, the CO2 transmits about 66.4% according to them. That means it absorbs about 33.6%. When it is doubled, it transmits about 63.6% and absorbs about 36.4% About a 10% increase for a doubling. If 26% of the 33 C is due to CO2, then CO2 accounts for 8.6C They show the doubling as adding about 0.9 C, yet the alarmists like to say we have up to 0.85C increase doe to CO2 since 1700.
Does that add up to you?
Here's Al Gore's prop in An Inconvenient Truth, and lectures:
Please note all these graphs have the same shape. I just quantified them better. Gore's chart has a 1 C increase for a doubling also.
Please note, both RealClimate and Al Gore appear to use the 26% extreme. If we use 9% for the low, we can expect that CO2 only played about a 0.15 C increase since 1700. The truth is probably about 15%, which would mean CO2 has increased the temperature by about 0.2 C since 1700.
Now I would like you to consider this:
If you have really studied the subject, you've see this graph that I chopped the middle out of and added lines. If CO2 drives temperature, then why is the area I marked at +/- 2 C Bond Event a rather tight range for the last 11,000 years. Not changing with the increase in CO2 over the last 8,000 years.
What about this:
I am completely convinced the sun has more influence than anything else. Here is a proven formula for the sun's patterns added together:
Now compare these two:
I forget where I got the first one, probably NASA's GISS. The second one is data I plotted from NASA. Before you say they don't like up completely, remember, there are other factors that influence temperature. Look at the long term. It isn't coincidental that over the last 300 years, temperature does follow solar activity closer than anything else.
Believe me, I have studied this subject in-depth.
Oyy... You just made my stupid detector go off the charts. For what you say to be true, CO2 would have to reflect nearly all the thermal energy. It does not do this, nor did I ever suggest it did.
When solar energy hits Earth, a small part of it is absorbed by the ground. Most of it is reflected. If there was no atmosphere, that energy would just go out into space, and earth would be much colder. What greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide do is reflect that energy back to earth, keeping much more heat from escaping... and hence keeping much more heat within the atmosphere.
Just because the amount is small by comparison does not mean it's insignificant.Have you quantified that heat? How does it compare to the approximate 85,700,000,000,000,000 watt of heat the earth receives from the sun at any given moment?
Did you know the earth would receive about 173,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy from the sun with no atmosphere?
<...>
We really have to have allot of CO2 to make a difference. The pundits like to tell us we get a 1.5 to 3 C rise with a doubling of CO2. I don't see that. My point is they are lying about the roll CO2 plays.
Let me ask you... Can I put military grade nerve gas in your bedroom if I only add 5 parts per million? I mean, according your logic, it can't possibly have any impact or danger because it's such a relatively small amount. The same issue is at play here. You assume that because the numbers are small by comparison that they cannot possibly account for the effect. You are arguing from a position of ignorance, and even though you have invested a lot of time in studying this, you are still working from flawed premises and fallacious logic.
Btw... You meant "role" above, not "roll." We're not making sandwiches here.
And... as to all your nifty graphs... since when is "photobucket" a peer-reviewed source? That's a new one on me.
And yet my very first post to this thread proved that assertion plainly false. I cited the most well respected scientific journal out there... NATURE... which stated without equivocation that the "sun is not to blame for the current warming trend" no matter which mechanism of warming you invoke.
Yeah. We're done here now.
I was responding to your stement. You said "CO2 reflects certain wavelengths of light very well." I was saying you were wrong, that the effect would be cooling if true.Oyy... You just made my stupid detector go off the charts. For what you say to be true, CO2 would have to reflect 100% of the thermal energy. It does not do this, nor did I ever suggest it did.
No kidding. It is you who are misunderstanding what I am saying. and improperly writing things like "CO2 reflects certain wavelengths of light very well," then saying I am the wrong one.
Wow... Just wow...
It is insignificant because it shouldn't be so high with what we emitted. The ocean should have absorbed more than 98% of our CO2. However, since the ocean is warming, the equilibrium has changed.Just because the amount is small by comparison does not mean it's insignificant.Have you quantified that heat? How does it compare to the approximate 85,700,000,000,000,000 watt of heat the earth receives from the sun at any given moment?
Did you know the earth would receive about 173,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy from the sun with no atmosphere?
<...>
We really have to have allot of CO2 to make a difference. The pundits like to tell us we get a 1.5 to 3 C rise with a doubling of CO2. I don't see that. My point is they are lying about the roll CO2 plays.
Do you understand solubility of gasses in fluids, the effect temperature has on it, and Henry's Law?
It appears you don't.
You're getting silly
So? Tell me, you never make mistakes?
Not using it as a peer reviewed source. Besides, Peer Review doesn't mean anything in a subject that has been hijacked by politics.And... as to all your nifty graphs... since when is "photobucket" a peer-reviewed source? That's a new one on me.
Sorry, they are wrong.
And yet my very first post to this thread proved that assertion plainly false. I cited the most well respected scientific journal out there... NATURE... which stated without equivocation that the "sun is not to blame for the current warming trend" no matter which mechanism of warming you invoke.
Are you saying they are always right?
Responses to your careless remarks. After-all, you said you've been studying it since the 1800's. You said CO2 reflects a great deal of light. Just responding to what you wrote.
Yeah. We're done here now.
I noticed you had nothing but criticism. I see you have not even attempted to disprove anything I said.
If we're done, that's fine. I understand if you are not up to the science of it.
The ocean's ability to uptake CO2 has decreased as CO2 concentrations have risen. You can cite Henry's Law all you want. The data supports my contention, and the links at this description point you to the multiple sources of peer-reviewed data which confirm that the oceanic sink is becoming saturated:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/1...arbon-dioxide/
Read more closely this time. I said no such thing.
Okay. It's time for me to stop feeding the troll.
Funny, it says the intake is reduced because of warming. Isn't that what I have been saying?The ocean's ability to uptake CO2 has decreased as CO2 concentrations have risen. You can cite Henry's Law all you want. The data supports my contention, and the links at this description point you to the multiple sources of peer-reviewed data which confirm that the oceanic sink is becoming saturated:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/1...arbon-dioxide/
The warmer surface water reduced the CO2 equilibrium in the water. Therefore, less CO2 is absorbed. Thing is, the equilibrium works both ways. If we didn't produce CO2, then the ocean would still expel it to balance the equilibrium.
Read more closely this time. I said no such thing.OK, I misread that one.
CO2 absorbs various wavelengths. It reflects very little.
Show me you understand the science instead of linking articles that support your point of view please. You are believing lies and propaganda.
Okay. It's time for me to stop feeding the troll.
I think what's causing most of the word confusion between us is your improper usage of the word "reflect." It's more complex than that.Actually, the earths average albedo on land is about 30%. the 70% heats the surface, and the surface in turn emits the energy back in the form of blackbody radiation which varies in spectrum with temperature, and emissivity of the object. Like albedo, the emissivity varies depending on surface type. Wiki has the earth average at 0.612 (61.2%) and other sources have it higher or lower.
Yes, and the earths temperature would be a relatively cold average well below freezing with severe day/night temperatures like the moon. However, most of the solar energy is absorbed, then re-emitted as infrared.
CO2 does not reflect. It absorbs and re-emits. If it reflected energy, it would reflect more solar energy as it increases in the atmosphere, cooling the earth instead of warming. Of the infrared emitted by the earth, at saturation, CO2, it is only capable or trapping about 20% of it from the coldest regions on earth to about 12% in the hottest. You see, as temperature of a black body increases, the peak of the emission decreases in wavelength.
Now if I take a blackbody calculator and input 0.612 emissivity (emissivity doesn't really matter, it's a % of the calculation) and check the ranges that CO2 affect at saturation, you get about 18.9% IR absorption at 110 F and it increases to 21.2% at -40 F. Now my numbers may be marginally off, I used 3.4 to 4.4 microns for the lower CO2 band and 13.5 to 18 microns for the upper. Added the powers and divided into Radiance in W/m2/sr. Thing is, water is more tricky because it varies from 0.025 vmr in the tropics to 0.0015 vmr in the polar winter. It averages a blockage of about 62% of infrared but will be more in the tropics and over water, and less near the poles and cooler high altitudes. If we use 62% and 20%, then CO2 is just less than 25% of the greenhouse effect. However, water overlaps the primary band of CO2, allowing CO2 to effectively only be about 50% of these calculations. I change the CO2 portion because we are talking about changes in CO2 for Global Warming, not changes in H2O. If we now use 10% and 62%, CO2 is about 14% that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. Now if you look at the spectral qualities, you see CO2 is already in near saturation. Only the smaller band of 3.4 to 4.4 microns has substantial room to grow. I already calculated it at saturation, which is about double it's real impact. Still, it only covers about 0.03% of the IR spectrum at the poles to about 0.68% at the equator. The other CO2 band varies from 18.2% to 21.1%.
If you wish to keep the term "reflect" then remember, the oceans reflect less than 10% of the received solar radiation. They absorb most of it.
I will tell you again... You need to start reading more closely. I said HEAT gets reflected, not light. Your entire tirade is an argument against something I didn't even say.
Either way, you've demonstrated that on this issue you are immune to facts and that you think peer-reviewed research across modalities is merely political propaganda and lies.
I truly have no interest in continuing this exchange with you. If you'd like to continue living in a fantasy land thinking humans are not the primary forcing in the current climate change issues, despite the mountains of evidence confirming this, then be my guest.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/200...-visiting-cff/
On the contrary, you did say reflected without using heat on the parts I first questioned, and you have not offered anything of substance showing you have an understanding of the various geosciences involved.
I'm glad not to have to respond to your non-sense any longer.
Wanted you all to know, I have a few errors in my 5:52 PM post. I left a couple in place as I was writing it and thought of another after the fact. They are insignificant and two of the three actually make my case better than what I laid out. The one that makes my case weaker does so very little.
Anyone know what they are?
Anyway, I wanted to make another post to illustrate what I think of people who correlate increased CO2 with our increased temperature:
December 22nd, 2009, 09:26 AM
I am living in a cloud area and my grand father is saying always that in old time it was very could and now he can live easily. he is also saying at that time they had no proper cloths and other facilities to avail and hardly only 20 percent of infants can survive the winter. now due to global warming we are at least living easly but this is a challenge to the world. this can be controlled by reducing gasses either from vehicles or by factories. Christian jewelry
| « MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC | Global Warming Conspiracy » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
