Where the ... is that global [climate change] warming?

[fri2219]

If someone calls it global warming, ignore whatever else they have to say. People who know what they're talking about call it global climate change.

The equator gets and retains the lion's share of infrared radiation the sun puts out, meaning that there is more of an energy difference to equalize through convection, or what we call weather. As a result, the differences and resulting energy flows change- not every spot gets permanently warmer.

[laserred]

"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."

To which, liquid magma can't possibly be a contributor to, right? I mean, lava flows are only around 900-1200*C, or about 1600-2200*F. My main point of this was to show that there are soooooo many inputs into the planet's temperature outside of human influence, and impossible to control, and on a larger scale to make any real changes humans make seem insignificant. IF we were going to make any kind of change that could be registered on a global scale, we'd basically need a global electromagnetic pulse to destroy everything that's been thought of or produced in about the last 170 years. Other than that, even if the "developed" (I say that loosely because there are still barbarians in nearly every government) countries were to overnight cease all fossil fuel emissions, 3rd world countries don't have the money or technology to even hope to reduce them on their own. I mean, why doesn't somebody design "carbon scrubbers" or something, that takes in air, atomically separates the carbon, and then spits out a big chunk of it that can then be used for something like the steel mills? Why hasn't anything like this ever been discussed?

[Tzupy]

The *carbon from CO2* you propose defeats the first purpose of fossil fuel burning - getting energy, and not spending energy.
If we had unlimited energy from nuclear fusion, I suppose we could afford to harvest CO2 and output solid carbon and oxygen.
But there are more sensible alternatives, check this: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/25727

[jaganath]

I mean, why doesn't somebody design "carbon scrubbers" or something, that takes in air, atomically separates the carbon, and then spits out a big chunk of it that can then be used for something

they already have:

http://www.physorg.com/news96732819.html

Why hasn't anything like this ever been discussed?

as you can see above, it has been discussed at length, just not in the local bar or wherever you were expecting to find planetary engineering conversations?

[laserred]

Jaganath, that's not anywhere close to what I said. Here's their quote on that technology:

The air extraction device, in which sorbents capture carbon dioxide molecules from free-flowing air and release those molecules as a pure stream of carbon dioxide for sequestration.

What I said:

somebody design "carbon scrubbers" or something, that takes in air, atomically separates the carbon, and then spits out a big chunk of it that can then be used for something like the steel mills.

And Tzupy, we don't need unlimited energy. You miss the recycling amount of the carbon we would be recovering... I'd be willing to bet that energy would be much less than the amounts required to mine or extract the equivalent amount using normal methods.

[floffe]

And Tzupy, we don't need unlimited energy. You miss the recycling amount of the carbon we would be recovering... I'd be willing to bet that energy would be much less than the amounts required to mine or extract the equivalent amount using normal methods.

No, it would not. Let's assume that we stop burning fossil fuel for energy tomorrow, while at the same time managing to catch all carbon dioxide released, and convert almost all of it into a form we can burn. After burning this new fuel, we will be left with less energy than we put into making it from CO2, because no process is 100% efficient. This has effectively transformed fossil fuel from an energy source to a net energy drain. That is because CO2 is on a very low energy level.

[jaganath]

Jaganath, that's not anywhere close to what I said. Here's their quote on that technology:

The air extraction device, in which sorbents capture carbon dioxide molecules from free-flowing air and release those molecules as a pure stream of carbon dioxide for sequestration.

What I said:

somebody design "carbon scrubbers" or something, that takes in air, atomically separates the carbon, and then spits out a big chunk of it that can then be used for something like the steel mills.

you're splitting hairs. what is the point of separating out atomic carbon? who has a use for it? never mind the increased energy requirement involved. whereas CO2 is a valuable industrial chemical.

[walle]

What is needed IMO is a brand new energy source, that and (to parrot myself) getting rid of those multimillion euro/dollar corporations which currently are standing in the way for the development.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

We have lots of potential energy sources, that would decentralize things:

Biodiesel -- from soybeans, palm or peanut oil, algae...runs in current diesel engines w/o modification

wind generators -- 1.5 million 2kw/hr distributed around the USA would cut our carbon output by 80%

wave power -- buoys that bob up and down on the waves can easily generate lots of power

geothermal -- MIT has developed a way to drill 7-8 mile deep holes, to easily generate power w/ steam generators, so this can work anywhere

micro-turbines -- these are at least 30% more efficient than electricity from the grid, and you do not have transmission losses

solar PV w/ efficient batteries, or possibly with hydrogen storage.

solar heat with 1,000F molten salt (United Technologies) that only loses 1% of it's heat per day -- so that electricity can be generated overnight or for several days.

aluminum (coated with gallium to prevent premature oxidization) will split water into hydrogen and aluminum oxide to generate hydrogen at the time and on the spot where it is needed. Re-smelt the aluminum (with a renewable source, natch) and repeat

bio-fuel cell a bacteria "eats" fermented plant matter, which has become acetic acid, and generates electricity (I almost forgot this one...) so you can turn compost (essentially) into electricity

methane recovery from sewage and landfills -- after the sewage is "digested" and produced all the methane, it has fixed nitrogen that won't dissolve in water which is great fertilizer


I'm pretty sure that a mix 'n matched selection from this group will do nicely!

[laserred]

Fabulous, Neil. Finally, somebody put it all together. But, one thing you missed for the PV and wind generators that people install.... you can use a grid-tie system, and when your house uses less energy than your private system generates, the local utility company essentially pays YOU for generating power for THEM! On a large, grand scale (California has the Million Solar Roofs and Solar Water Heating initiatives), this basically relegates power companies out of the picture as it allows widespread sharing. Think of it this way.... if all the houses in your neighborhood are equipped with a PV array, a geothermal water heater, and possibly wind generation, throw in some battery storage or even a hydrogen fuel cell, and there's a good possibility that you'd never need a drop of juice from the power company. Electricity generated by each household could be bounced around the power grid as necessary, and be 100% fossil-fuel free after you considered the production of the devices. Another cool product I did a report on is SolarWall, currently for mostly industrial buildings, but since it can be painted (or probably even anodized), it begs the question of using it for residential installations. Basically, my paper suggested using money from LIHEAP and federal grants and moneys for renewable energies to install solar heating products like SolarWall at minimal to low cost for the people who would recieve LIHEAP anyways. I mean, why continue lining the pockets of our local utilities with YOUR taxpayer dollars to pay for low-income heating when you can install a permanent, low-cost solution that will eventually eliminate its own funding?? I might not agree with some of the "theories" or papers published, but I can totally be on the same side when talking about renewable energies. I had some research on solar power, and the entire electrical consumption of the planet is something like 15 terawatts every day. Thats like 15 thousand million watts (it's early, so I might be wrong on the wording). Every day, 89 petawatts of sunlight (something like 89 million million watts) hits the earth's surface. So why the hell shouldn't we use this free resource? The answer is because it's just like all the natural cures and vitamins: it can't be patented, so drug companies can't charge you a fortune for it, the same as there's no way to tax or charge you for free sunlight once you've purchased the equipment to harness that energy. Whew. I think I'm done for now

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

Right -- this is doable and it will surely benefit us (and the reast of the earth) in many, many ways.

I'm planning on reading Plan B 3.0 (free PDF of entire book), by Lester R. Brown, that speaks to much of this, and more.

[klankymen]

I had some research on solar power, and the entire electrical consumption of the planet is something like 15 terawatts every day. Thats like 15 thousand million watts (it's early, so I might be wrong on the wording). Every day, 89 petawatts of sunlight (something like 89 million million watts) hits the earth's surface.

You're off by a factor of a thousand. terawatts are a million millions, and petawatts are a billion millions.

EDIT: NEW SOLUTION FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!! I JUST INVENTED IT!!! use solar heat to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, thus using up energy that would otherwise get stuck beneath cow farts (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, and thus cools the earth down!
The earth will record a continuing drop in temperature, since the sun isn't heating the earth anymore, until some idiot sets the hydrogen on fire, at which point the earth explodes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yay)

OK, but seriousness aside, storing solar heat in batteries or carbon actually cools the world down (until you use the power again).

[floffe]

OK, but seriousness aside, storing solar heat in batteries or carbon actually cools the world down (until you use the power again).

Sure, but considering the scales, if we'd be able to get 10% of our energy use from solar, that'd still be ~15ppm of the energy we receive from the sun, hardly enough to make serious dent in any warming trend

[laserred]

You're off by a factor of a thousand. terawatts are a million millions, and petawatts are a billion millions.

I said it was early, and still, the difference is 100 millions Put into simple werds, we could fry alot of eggs using solar power!

[aristide1]

Why did all the nay-saying flat earthers disappear when the facts started pouring in?

[laserred]

use solar heat to split water into hydrogen and oxygen

Good idea, but it would be more efficient and likely less space consuming to take solar energy, capture it with PV arrays, and use the electricity generated to do the hydrolysis. You can actually accomplish this on a minor scale using a cup of water, a 9V battery, and two metallic leads dipped into the water. Just don't light a match near the bubbles!!

[Tzupy]

It seems that global warming is going to help us survive during the next little Ice Age:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10630

[jaganath]

The "cosmic ray" hypothesis mentioned at the end of that article is based on some extremely doubtful science ->

http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... ge/dn11651

also, Dr. Kenneth Tapping wasn't aware that his comments had been taken out of context:

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/02/09/6488/

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Regards,

Ken

also, this R. Timothy Patterson fellow is a well-known AGW sceptic and has made some fairly bold predictions which we will soon know whether they are wrong or not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Patterson

In June 2007 he authored a general interest article in the Financial Post (part of the National Post) predicting general climatic cooling as the sun enters Solar cycle 25 about 2018.

given the usual hesitancy of sceptics to commit to any firm predictions, his intestinal fortitude is almost refreshing. in terms of the usual timescales on which the climate evolves, 10 years is basically the blink of an eye.

[NeilBlanchard]

Link to news report:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=18991463

[aristide1]

Link to news report:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=18991463

Your liberal use of knowledge is ruining the country!

[laserred]

Is this how far some of you want it to go? The wheels of sick-minded people are already long at work.... we have to stop them.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... lation.htm

[laserred]

Does this hit home with anyone? Getting pinched by energy prices? Foreclosed? Etc., Etc, Etc.???
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... _class.htm

[jaganath]

Is this how far some of you want it to go? The wheels of sick-minded people are already long at work.... we have to stop them.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... lation.htm

population control in principle is no bad thing. if you were one of the (hundreds of millions) of Indians living way below the poverty line in the modern-day equivalent of the Black Hole of Calcutta, you would surely agree. part of the reason why China has been so much more succesful than India in recent years is because they have got their birth rate under control. admittedly the measures they use are harsh and would be unacceptable in the West, but then it is not a democracy and the phrase "human rights" has no direct translation in Chinese. frankly the idea that we can reduce the population by 5 billion any time in the next 1000 years, short of a full-blown thermonuclear war, is laughable and anyone who proposes that is a crank (not unlike the people behind prisonplanet.com, by the way).

the site that you use as your source for (dis-)information reads like a "Greatest Hits" mishmash of all the loopiest yet unfathomably popular conspiracy theory gobbledegook, Bilderberg, NWO, Illuminati, etc. it would be funny if this was in the next Nic Cage film but I suspect you're deadly serious, which makes it all the more tragic. don't think just because this a casual message board with relatively liberal moderators that you can peddle utter garbage with impunity, people will call you on it.

[laserred]

Jaganath, I never proposed or believed that everything presented there as "fact" was that. However, if you believe that the government has you in its best interests, that would be tragic. That article wasn't saying we could reduce the population by 5 billion, it was saying that the "NWO"-ists are planning it. If you don't believe that they have weaponized and created enough viral and bacterial diseases to wipe out 5 billion people, then I feel for you, because when you finally realize it, it will be too late. I simply don't worry about it, because it's been in progress for a long time and likely can't be stopped anyways. For reference, who gave Saddam his weapons of mass destruction? Who gives Israel nuclear weapons and the latest war machines? Who supplies "friendly" governments that are actually dictatorships with weapons and military training? It just seems odd to me that a country that used to be the shining beacon of what was good and just in this world now is the largest supporter of terrorism. Yes, I said it. There's nothing else you can call it, invading a sovereign peaceful nation, overthrowing their government, installing a new puppet government, and murdering hundreds of thousands of people. Don't get me wrong, cause I'm sure you will- I support our troops 100%. They're just doing what they're told, even though they are being misused and then basically discarded. And sometimes, Jaganath, the most sensational, unbelievable stories are actually closest to the truth.

[qviri]

And sometimes, Jaganath, the most sensational, unbelievable stories are actually closest to the truth.

"Yeti Jesus Found on Mars!"

[wwcameron]

. Who gives Israel nuclear weapons and the latest war machines? Who supplies "friendly" governments that are actually dictatorships with weapons and military training? It just seems odd to me that a country that used to be the shining beacon of what was good and just in this world now is the largest supporter of terrorism. Yes, I said it.

I see where you are coming from, but I think you are very much overstating your point here.

Did the US supply Israel with nuclear weapons? Let me know where you learned that. I imagine they produced their own nukes. However, I'm sure their spies got the technology from somewhere. Israel is actually quite good at making there own war machines. Their tanks and their anti-missile missiles are top notch. They also make a fine gas mask. Of course, the US does supply them with some weaponry and a good deal of money.

We are all free to disagree with US foreign policy, but to call the US's operations in Iraq terrorism is too much. You can call it immoral or cruel, but let's save the word terrorism for those acts that serve no immediate purpose other than to instill fear. A beheading video taped for the world to see would be a good example. A 1 ton bomb dropped onto a wedding by mistake is not. At the minimum, when US actions result in civilian deaths it is an embarrassment for the US military. On the other other hand, a terrorist takes pride in such acts. There is a difference. This is not to say that one act is worse than another. You are free to judge which is worse. I just object to your use of "terrorism."

There's nothing else you can call it, invading a sovereign peaceful nation, overthrowing their government, installing a new puppet government, and murdering hundreds of thousands of people. Don't get me wrong, cause I'm sure you will- I support our troops 100%. They're just doing what they're told, even though they are being misused and then basically discarded.

Iraq - a peaceful nation? That's new to me.

And sometimes, Jaganath, the most sensational, unbelievable stories are actually closest to the truth.

This reminds me of a quote. It's not spot on, but I'm sure you'll see the similarity.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-Carl Sagan

[laserred]

Iraq - a peaceful nation? That's new to me.

I guess I left that one unexplained. In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq was no longer making WMDs and was no longer a true threat to any other country. We've seen all of the lies (WMDs, the Oil for Aid scam, the falsified information leading the US to war) and yet Congress sits idly by and made promises before the election of "No Impeachment, Period". My comment about Iraq being peaceful pertained to the fact that they were no longer an active threat, merely an imagined, fabricated one.

[Tzupy]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm
Hmm, let's burn some fossil fuels while we haven't frozen to death.

[laserred]

http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812

Where do I donate? Seems to me the founder of "The Weather Channel" should have some pretty fait accompli data that can't be corrupted by Bush policymakers.

[klankymen]

http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812

Where do I donate? Seems to me the founder of "The Weather Channel" should have some pretty fait accompli data that can't be corrupted by Bush policymakers.

Oh yeah, the American way out - shift the blame, preferably just sue somebody. You're doing it for the ideal - not to get millions of dollars. And not because you were stupid and put your cat in a microwave.