Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Penguin]

Didn't say we still didn't have a lot left.

I wonder if we do have a lot of those people... interesting demographics question.  But that is for another time, as we do have more demand than we do supply, oil will become impractical as a fuel (diamonds burn, but they don't run your car!).

(P.S. the response speed on this thread is astounding!)

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Didn't say we still didn't have a lot left.

I wonder if we do have a lot of those people... interesting demographics question.  But that is for another time, as we do have more demand than we do supply, oil will become impractical as a fuel (diamonds burn, but they don't run your car!).

(P.S. the response speed on this thread is astounding!)

-Penguin

i'm in the office doing some invoices...then back out into the shop to do a clutch on a subaru.

[Angus]

You guys speak of how little time we have spent on this earth, and then complain how weak our technology is. 
99% of our history had stone tools as cutting edge technology.  We can't just say that we can't do it because our tools aren't good enough yet. 

Oops, my bad on the graph guys.  But which graph did I mess up on?

From where do you recall such a fact?  Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets?  Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does.  Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.

-Penguin

[Angus]

Note that Hydrogen must be generated. That requires energy.

Then there's the issue with hydrogen fuel cells. This technology is at least 20 (30 is probably closer) years from being mature enough to be used on a general scale. I know this as my company is one of the prime developers of the hydrogen gas regulators and solenoid valves required. Of course, we also face the vast infrastructure problem as well as the safety issues of dealing with high pressure hydrogen (between 10,000 and 15,000 PSI).

Hydrogen is a long-term alternative, and the cost of getting it into general world-wide use will be in the trillions of dollars. Short term, the better solution is natural gas. Most gasoline powered vehicles can be adapted to burn natural gas for a relative pittance. Moreover, much of the required infrastructure is already in place. This fuel burns cleaner and there are estimates of at least enough to last 300 to 400 years. The down side is that natural gas is primarily methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas that CO2. Thus, the AGW mafia will resist it at every turn, despite evidence that natural emission of methane would dwarf human emissions by a factor of 1000/1. As of 2007, there were over 64 million consumers of natural gas in the United States alone for heating and cooking.


My regards,

Widewing

Now you are talking shop! Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, vastly more powerful than CO2. And there is actually an enormous lot to be harvested. All the dung....all the waste etc. Not to mention the sources bound in the arctic areas. Burn it and it's pretty clean and the GW effect is more or less gone.
In my country, the estimated production/extraction capacity is enough to support the logistics for methane for a lot of the car-fleet. And I am not into the twin busines yet.
And Penguin:
"From where do you recall such a fact?  Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets?  Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does.  Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water."
I ask you where you find pure "H" in nature. Because you don't. Most of it is harvested from water, H2O (more like 2H2O2 actually), which requires energy (electricity), and a lot of energy of the world's powergrid is already coming from fossile fuels.
The C is not running out either, just changing form when it binds to i.e. Oxygen. CO2. Energy is released when C ties to O2 basically.
I am no chemistry geek, but the ignorance around sometimes makes me wonder.

[Penguin]

Right, but you still need to get that carbon out, which like you said, requires a force.  That force has to come from somewhere, and eventually fossil fuels will be used in either the generation or the movement of the agent.  This makes it pointless to convert carbon and hydrogen into hydrocarbons.

It's not the bonding that gives us energy, it's the tearing of the long hydrocarbon bonds that gives energy.  Trust me, if it came from both sources, our cars would need very little to go.  The burning of the molecules releases plasma (free atoms), and these atoms go straight to the lowest energy state.  When electrons change energy states, they release one photon for every level, or quantum of energy they reduce by.  That is why you get heat and light from a fire, sound is just vibration of air.

Where did I say that we would be getting pure hydrogen?  I don't know why you are bringing that up, but you have a point.  We need a better way to get hydrogen into our system than burning fuel to power electrolysis.  Solar, wind, geothermal and many other sources are a great place to start with that. 

It's not the bonding that gives us energy, it's the tearing of the long hydrocarbon bonds that gives energy.  Trust me, if it came from both sources, our cars would need very little to go.  The burning of the molecules releases plasma (free atoms), and these atoms go straight to the lowest energy state.  When electrons change energy states, they release one photon for every level, or quantum of energy they reduce by.  That is why you get heat and light from a fire, sound is just vibration of air.

If I am ignorant, enlighten me.   

-Penguin

[Widewing]

"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds."

According to "Science Daily": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm


My regards,

Widewing

[Penguin]

That article's point is based on the research of a single person.  You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity.  Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.

Happy trails.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

That article's point is based on the research of a single person.  You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity.  Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.

Happy trails.

-Penguin

dude.....

remember, the verification of all of the scientists claims that say we're doing this stuff, are ALL in question now.

as to your last statement? they did.

[bj229r]

That article's point is based on the research of a single person.  You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity.  Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.

Happy trails.

-Penguin

The peer review process doesn't do that? I posted this earlier....no comment

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516286

A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.

Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."

In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.

"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.

[Widewing]

That article's point is based on the research of a single person.  You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity.  Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.

Happy trails.

-Penguin

Listen Junior, you couldn't do what he did, could you? I guess "anyone" must be a rather exclusive group, huh?

I merely provided a link to a report on a study done by an accredited scientist that disagrees with the prevailing hysteria. You certainly lack the credentials to dispute his findings, other that to parrot the AGW mafia's company line. The study merited enough respect to be published in the Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union.


My regards,

Widewing

[MORAY37]

"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds."

According to "Science Daily": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm


My regards,

Widewing

Interesting paper...I wonder if you actually read it, Wolfgang Knorr's actual paper?   It uses much of the same data that Khatiwala et al and Le Quéré used, but they came to a conflicting result, saying the uptake is slowing.  The difference between his work and theirs?  Knorr used annual data, whereas Khatiwala used monthly data in order to account for seasonal variability. Carbon uptake varies by seasons you see..... Knorr can't account for that, a fact he actually alludes to within his own submission.  The work in both papers is very good, otherwise.  I'll highlight the major ideas for you.

Knorr himself cautions at his own paper's use for the very purpose you are representing it.  

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily", says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed"

I figure you just took the data analysis on "Science Daily" and arranged it to suit what point you were trying to make.  Dr. Knorr would abhor this use.... after all, he is on the IPCC Scientific Working Group.  You remember the IPCC right?  The people that you say are behind this whole conspiracy right, lol?

Knorr, W, Law, R, Lenton, T, Lindsay, K, Maier-Reimer, E, Manning, AC, Matear, RJ, McGuire, AD, Melillo, JM, Meyer, R, Mund, M, Orr, JC, Piper, S, Platner, K, Rayner, PJ, Sitch, S, Slater, R, Taguchi, S, Tans, PP, Tian, HQ, Weirig, MF, Whorf, T & Yool, A. 'The carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2', in J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs et al (Eds.), Climate Change 2000: The Science of Climate Change. Contributions of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (pp. 183-237), Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Again, a little background work.  You might even try actually reading Wolfgang Knorr's "monstrous" 3 page online journal submission that you are quoting, rather than the short synopsis on "Science Daily".  After that, a quick search of Dr. Knorr's publications will assert his work on the subject, which are quite extensive and thorough. He is a pretty staunch supporter of AGW....

I mean, this is all work, not to be simply spoon fed to you.  You're a smart enough guy.  Read the actual work, before you use it out of context for the discussion.  The use of his work in the way you did illustrates you didn't even actually look at the abstract of the man's work.  Or maybe you just didn't understand it?

In your pursuit of this knowledge, you might want to consider the difference between "airborne fraction of CO₂" (which is what Knorr's paper is detailing) and "CO₂ fraction in the air", which is what causes AGW.    If you need a little help, just ask.  Knorr is actually just detailing that his analysis of the data shows that the sink has increased with increase in volume of emissions, not that there hasn't been an increase in CO₂ in the air.  Read a little.

Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has Remained relatively constant. When CO₂ emissions were low, the amount of CO₂ absorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low.  As human CO2 Sharply Increased emissions in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature correspondingly Increased. The airborne fraction Remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade.

There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when filtering Knorr does include this in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant.

Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is likely due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability due to becoming saturated. Several recent studies have found drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008).

The "Airborne Fraction" refers to the amount of CO₂ released into the air, after absorption.  This has remained unchanged, for reasons unknown.  It does not refer to the "fraction of CO₂ contained in the atmosphere".  This has increased constantly.

In other words, in 1850 when say 100 tonnes of CO₂ was released, 43% of that was taken up, leaving the remaining 57% (57 tonnes) to go into the atmosphere.  In 2000, when say 100 billion tonnes of CO₂ was released, that same 43% was absorbed by the carbon cycle, leaving 57 billion tonnes to soak into the atmosphere.  The percentage absorbed didn't change, the percentage in the atmosphere DID, obviously.  This is what Knorr's paper was detailing, which you would have known had you taken the time to read it.

All it takes is a little critical thinking, some thought, and less spoon fed response, Widewing.  If you read a little, you'd find Knorr agrees with AGW, his analysis of the CO₂ sink simply finds the 150 year trend.

And, although Penguin didn't do this either and his response is too quick in discounting Dr. Knorr's work (which is very good, BTW) without obvious cause, his point is generally valid.  "Junior" is owning you.

[Penguin]

Sorry, I didn't know where that article came from, and it seemed slightly dodgy due to no numbers actually being presented in it.  Shouldn't be too hasty!

Thanks Moray, well now, let's get back to the main point! (Jeez, that last post kinda left me out of ideas)

Where was I...  Ah, better purposes for oil!  Let's say that we have an unlimited amount (we assume that abiogenic is true), but fixed production.  We also assume that we can convert anything that is not prevented to by the laws of physics into oil with 0% waste:

No matter how you slice it, there will always be more people.  When you burn oil, it's gone forever.  You can recycle plastic, but burnt fuel- not so much.  If you recycle the plastic, the new oil will keep making materials for new plastic, satisfiying the need for food packing and syringes. 

If you burn it, you won't have enough for syringes, contraception, lubrication (for cars  ), and food packing as the population grows.  Now you will have trouble with operations, vaccinations, emergency medical care, and keeping food from spoiling.

Now try to lead your botulism ridden, starving, deformed, and grieving population through time without something going, horribly, horribly wrong.  Remember, this was all done assuming that the abiogenic theory is true. 

-Penguin 

[MORAY37]

Sorry, I didn't know where that article came from, and it seemed slightly dodgy due to no numbers actually being presented in it.  Shouldn't be too hasty!


-Penguin  

Science Daily is a great place to find good work, and always has links to the papers they present, so that you might look at it for your own determination at his method.  (My Master's thesis is on there from a few years ago, in the biology section.   ) You shouldn't discount any work submitted in a discussion without first checking its' merits, and do some background research on the author.  In this case, Widewing has blatantly misunderstood the actual work that Dr. Knorr really did, or can't read it.... one or the other.  Dr. Knorr's journal submission has nothing to do with CO₂ concentration rise in the atmosphere, he is talking about the absorption in the carbon cycle, prior to free [CO₂]  in the atmosphere.

Most denialists that are jumping on this particular article don't take the time to actually read it past what they understand the title to be.  It's actually quite comical, when you look at Dr. Knorr's various contributions to the IPCC report.

A good scientist remains a skeptic to a certain point, and Wide's source was a viable one.  He simply attributed the wrong meaning to it (probably due to not actually reading it, or simply not taking the time to understand it), and attempted to wrestle it to fit his own pre-existing view structure.  As a young scientist, take care not to do the same.

[Penguin]

Right, I should familiarize myself with a bunch of these websites so that I don't do that again.  Care to give me a list?

-Penguin

[MORAY37]

Right, I should familiarize myself with a bunch of these websites so that I don't do that again.  Care to give me a list?

-Penguin

Familiarize yourself with doing science, first and foremost.  Critical thinking and paper dissection is key to science in this era.  Many of the newer generation hasn't grasped this yet....and can't comprehend methodology, and skip to the results portion of papers.  READ METHODOLOGY FIRST when examining any peer reviewed work.... and determine what the PI (principle investigator) has done to shore up his position versus any weaknesses in his methodology.

The only online sources you should even consider provide links to the actual papers....and even then you must be VERY careful. For the general public, Science Daily is good, New Scientist is ok, if not reveling in some gratuitous research into sex for headlines.

Your high school or university will most likely have access to databases that are much better for peer reviewed research papers.  I know for a fact that even the local state college uses some of the same biology databases that the research institute I am employed at does.