Innovating out of global warming
NYT: In a Test of Capturing Carbon Dioxide, Perhaps a Way to Temper Global Warming
American Electric Power, a major electric utility, is planning the largest demonstration yet of capturing carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant and pumping it deep underground.
Various experts consider that approach, known as sequestration, essential to reining in climate change by preventing the gas from being added to the atmospheric blanket that promotes global warming.
...
The initial trial, at the company’s Mountaineer plant in New Haven, W.Va., will take a portion of the carbon dioxide from the flue, compress it into liquid form at more than 1,000 pounds of pressure per square inch, and inject it 9,000 feet below the earth’s surface, a technique that experts say is not well understood but would be essential to large-scale carbon sequestration.
It's early yet for this approach, but there are more like it. I say, be optimistic: if we innovated to created this problem, we can innovate to fix it.
I think we can come up with better ideas than this but it is good that we are searching.
If we inject it deep enough underground, does that mean it could eventually make new coal and/or diamond mines?
Carbon dioxide, CO2. Just separate the oxygen, which has plenty of uses. That leaves the carbon to make diamonds, pencils for third world schools, or throw it back in the firebox to burn again.
Burned again carbon, what could be more righteous than that?
OK, I've provided the solution, you handle the implementation. :dunce:
Can anyone envision one of these gigantic CO2 stashes finding a path to the surface, and suffocating whole towns like the volcano gases have done?
What I can imagine is many global warmists opposing innovating our way out, because it doesn't fit the agenda.
Co2 is big business. This
link is just one of many on Google. bb
Controlled fusion is the long term answer to clean, limitless energy. The ITER project, an international effort to produce a 500 megawatt tokamak (toroidal) fusion reactor, is scheduled to be completed by 2050. Great strides have been made in developing a functional magnetic containment field for the 100 million degrees C plasma which displays highly nonlinear flow characteristics and what could be more logical than bringing a small part of the Sun some 93 millions miles closer? I see a bright, although somewhat distant, future.
Why spending Bio of $$$$ on CO2 storage if we even aren't sure that CO2 is causing AGW? Wasted money that is better spent in Bangladesh if one really wants to save the World.
Let's assume that some plants are built and the CO2 is captured. For every tonne of anthracite [coal] burned, 3.7 tonnes of CO2 is generated. If this voluminous waste could be pumped back into the ground below the power station it would not matter as much, but the rocks that produce coal are not often useful for storing CO2, which means that the gas much be transported. In the case of Australia's Hunter Valley coal mines, for example, it needs to be conveyed over Australia's Great Dividing Range and hundreds of kilometres to the west. [pipelines cost about $1 million per mile, more when terrain is rough and uneven.]
Once the CO2 arrives at its destination it must be compressed into a liquid so it can be injected into the ground--a step that typically consumes 20 per cent of the energy yielded by burning coal in the first place. Then a kilometre-deep hole must be drilled and the CO2 injected. From that day on, the geological formation must be closely monitored; should the gas ever escape, it has the potential to kill. [...]
The largest recent disaster caused by CO2 occurred in 1986, in Cameroon, central Africa. A volcanic crater-lake known as Nyos belched bubbles of CO2 into the still night air and the gas settled around the lake's shore, where it killed 1800 people and countless thousands of animals.
From The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery.
These days, a 9000 foot onshore well is chump change, so why not drill two while they're at it? Set a straddle packer across a water zone, inject the CO2, and then draw the mix from the second well. Add a little syrup, instant Dr. Pepper.
These days, a 9000 foot onshore well is chump change, so why not drill two while they're at it?
Pumping CO2 is one of the techniques for extracting oil from wells once considered dry.
Meanwhile, CO2 sequestration is one of so many possible global warming solutions even provided in that entire Scientific American issue devoted totally to global warming and solutions. Step one starts with a summary: a 15 slice pie.
The experiements with CO2 sequestration are trivial. What is not yet known is how effective the technique may be. But then nay-sayers about global warming routinely attack innovation - since that is the definition of an anti-American. Injecting CO2 into wells or deeply into the ocean - all interesting ideas deemed worthy by those who first learn before they know.
Maybe we could just all follow ole Al "I invented the internet" Gore's example and own 4 houses and jet around the world in a private plane. Or use 22 times the average anual expenditure of energy in one month for one house. Hey that's the ticket. Follo ole Al's lead.
Pumping CO2 is one of the techniques for extracting oil from wells once considered dry.......TW
The gas used is mostly nitrogen, but you're correct in that injecting a formation, sometimes even with plain water, is a common technique and is called secondary recovery. And I wasn't seriously making light of the idea of CO2 injection, but I do think that extra measures should be taken to protect water formations. New casing, good cementing techniques, the good sense to P & A and redrill if the bond logs are poor, et cetera; particulary, and here's the real kicker with coal, if the gas has substantial hydrogen sulfide content. H2S is none other than a cast iron bitch to deal with.
Maybe we could just all follow ole Al "I invented the internet" Gore's example and own 4 houses and jet around the world in a private plane. Or use 22 times the average anual expenditure of energy in one month for one house. Hey that's the ticket. Follo ole Al's lead.
The fact that opponents of taking action on global warming are now resorting to personal attacks against the messenger says a lot about the strength of their argument.
The fact that opponents of taking action on global warming are now resorting to personal attacks against the messenger says a lot about the strength of their argument.
Unfortunately, it also says a lot about Al and how seriously he really takes the threat. I'm trying to figure out if this is-
a) another case where Dems want to shift the burden to others caring little for individual actions
b) hyperbole intended to get early action on a real long-term problem that poses little threat for many years
c) an easy way to control growth in a misguided attempt at a command economy
d) a recruiting effort for The Church of Al Gore Scientist
I have no idea what Gore's excuse is, and it disappoints me that he is a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean his message is wrong. Maybe he thinks he can make the largest impact on this problem by doing what he is doing as a politician, rather than making changes in his personal life that will have a relatively small impact on a global scale.
Your point about one persons impact is well taken, but it reminds me of listening to a good friend pontificate on the value of public transport while we drove his (Valdez class) Montero through backwoods PA.
We do need to get off fossil fuels for many reasons and I'm just as frustrated as global warmers about that.
Maybe he thinks he can make the largest impact on this problem by doing what he is doing as a politician, rather than making changes in his personal life that will have a relatively small impact on a global scale.
Plus, one reason his energy bill is so large is that he pays extra for green energy.
The other is that he uses a silly number of kilowatts per month, but it's okay because he is part of the ruling class and really really cares.
How does how much energy Gore uses have anything to do with global warming? It is just a cheap shot that brings no significance to the argument.
Also, how can anyone be so sure that they are right about global warming when we don't have proof of any reason?
My family of four used about 6720 kWh last year.
Generating electricity is how most CO^2 is freed up.
Maybe we could just all follow ole Al "I invented the internet" Gore's example and own 4 houses and jet around the world in a private plane. Or use 22 times the average anual expenditure of energy in one month for one house. Hey that's the ticket. Follo ole Al's lead.
You're right. "ole Al"'s the debbil. Speaking of the former Vice President,
this just in:
[SIZE="6"]
In the pay of hostile foreign powers, a turncoat former government official turned foreign agent violates US House rules, breaches House security. Conservatively erring on the side of caution, Georgia Republican Lynn Westmoreland warned “He could have been here talking about [COLOR="Red"]
chipmunks[/COLOR]”.[/SIZE]
Thank goodness *someone’s* looking out for the good of the country!
How does how much energy Gore uses have anything to do with global warming?
It demonstrates how destructive we all will be if we stifle innovation - as an MBA like George Jr advocates.
Why are Japanese and German autos so much in demand all over the world? Because they innovated - installed technologies that create less pollution - are therefore more reliable, cost less to build, cost less to operate, and create more jobs - for them. Where did those innovations come from? Mostly from America in companies that insisted cars don't pollute and therefore stifled American innovations.
Why does GM not have overhead cams, 70 Hp/liter engines, and hybrids? Those innovations that make less pollution, consume less energy, make people more productive, even eliminate the $130 tune up every three months ... all resulted because those American innovations, instead, appeared in foreign products.
Why in foreign products? Same mentality that stifled American innovation in the 1970s again wants to stifle innovation in 2000s. Same people who insisted auto pollution control was not possible now deny global warming. At what point are we condemned to relive a history we did not learn from?
What does a 'global warming does not exist' mentality have in common with those 1970 auto execs? Both insisted that environmental solutions would destroy jobs, destroy the economy, and have us all driving Pintos. Therefore others now have our jobs and stronger industries in their economies. At what point do those who 'deny global warming' stop stifling innovation to destroy American jobs, strength, wealth, and health?
We are supposed to learn from history. History says nations who confront global warming and who therefore innovate will be world leaders - richer, wealthier, healthier, dominant, better respected, with more jobs, and with royalty incomes from those other nations who did not innovate.
Al Gores household today is what we all will be doing twenty years from now if we deny - stifle innovation. Why does Al Gore's household consume so much power? Where are the innovations to eliminate the problem? Well, considering how many Americans are now thinking like Rush Limbaugh, just more products we will have to buy from foreigners. Just more industries that must collapse like GM and big steel only because they were anti-Americans; feared to innovate.
How does how much energy Gore uses have anything to do with global warming? It is just a cheap shot that brings no significance to the argument.
Bull shit. The President wana-bee should not be telling me to clean up my act as he jets around the country from one of his four houses to the next. If he uses the same amount of energy in one month (green house gas emission) as I use in a year, he is a hypocrite and needs to STFU. Pretty simple to me.
If the cheap shot doesn't appear to be working, by all means, go ahead and take another one, Mercenary.
Bull shit. The President wana-bee should not be telling me to clean up my act as he jets around the country from one of his four houses to the next. If he uses the same amount of energy in one month (green house gas emission) as I use in a year, he is a hypocrite and needs to STFU. Pretty simple to me.
IOW TheMercenary hates innovation; loves the status quo. No way around that post. TheMercenary hates innovation - that which characterizes and defines a patriotic American. So what does that define TheMercenary as?
If the cheap shot doesn't appear to be working, by all means, go ahead and take another one, Mercenary.
He's got a point. Same with Prince Charles coming to Philly then New York, with his whole gang, to accept that award for his environmental goodness. while in the process, caused enough extra energy use by the police and people sitting in traffic jams, to start a war over.
Acceptance of the message has a lot to do with the messenger.... like it or not, that's the way the world works. It will be accepted or rejected on trust, faith in the messenger, because people won't dig for the basis of the message. And in this case, the more they dig the more confusing it gets.
tw, going off on real Americans, true patriots, that 70hp per liter horseshit, MBAs, the lying prez, yada, yada, yada, doesn't win friends and influence people either. :2cents:
IOW TheMercenary hates innovation; loves the status quo. No way around that post. TheMercenary hates innovation - that which characterizes and defines a patriotic American. So what does that define TheMercenary as?
What are you? Like 20 years old? How would you draw such conclusions?
If the cheap shot doesn't appear to be working, by all means, go ahead and take another one, Mercenary.
The truth behind the messengers double standard are blantent and difficult to accept. I understand your desire to stick your head in the sand as the message is important. But you need to take a closer look at the man behind the curtain.;)
Acceptance of the message has a lot to do with the messenger.... like it or not, that's the way the world works.
The truth behind the messengers double standard are blantent and difficult to accept.
Gore is hardly the only messenger on global warming. It him and how many thousands of scientists?
Gore is hardly the only messenger on global warming. It him and how many thousands of scientists?
I agree, but funny how it took a political loser and a budget slide show to get the word out to the Congress. :3_eyes:
Gore is hardly the only messenger on global warming. It him and how many thousands of scientists?
I don't know how many, what's 50% of all of them?
The problem is the when you say Global Warming, you are not just talking about global warming. You are inferring a shitload of other things that may or may not be true. When somebody says they agree with you on Global Warming, then they are saying they buy into everything you believe about it.
That's just stupid. To put my opinion at the mercy of someone else's whims? I refuse to buy into that crap. I have my own opinions and no amount of bullying, insulting or accusations of being anti-American from anyone, is going to make me swallow the whole Global Warming the sky is falling package.
If Gore had his way, Global Warming would be right up there with, "Homeland Security" or "It's For The Children", so no questions, do as your told.
You want my help, then break it down. Tell why it's bad? Tell me how bad it will get? Tell me why It's my fault? Tell me what I can do and how it will change anything?
I don't want to hear if I sacrifice then something good may happen somewhere, someday.
Stick your fairy tales. I want facts and you ain't got 'em.:headshake
You want my help, then break it down. Tell why it's bad? Tell me how bad it will get? Tell me why It's my fault? Tell me what I can do and how it will change anything?
I don't want to hear if I sacrifice then something good may happen somewhere, someday.
Stick your fairy tales. I want facts and you ain't got 'em.:headshake
All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)
All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)
Come on that is crap and you know it. Sort of like a child molesting preacher telling you to not hurt the children. Or the pandering TV preacher telling me to be pure and having sexual relations with men and smoking crack cocaine on the side. Or how about the head of the ACLU recently arrested for child porn. Or the Congressman who takes kickbacks from a lobbiest and tells everyone to clean up thier act and not bend to influence by lobbiests. Or how about someone telling you to reduce your energy consumption all the burning up fuels that are 20 times the average user, and that would be Gore. I call bs on that. Don't stand up in front of me and tell me to cut down on my consumption when you jet around the country. If you want to ignore the hipocrites go ahead, I will attack the messenger if you preach one thing to me and do another.
All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)
What's happening is they are starting the campaign to win people over with big name messengers. Do you think Gore actually knows jack shit about this, or is buying whatever his advisors say? They(advisors) may or may not be right, but this tactic makes me only more skeptical of the message.
The front man should be at least credible in his support of his message if they want people to buy it on the strength of his say so. Like it or not, unfortunately, this is the way the majority will choose sides.
At that point any silly ass piece of legislation to come along that's tagged "for Global Warming", will be politically unhealthy to oppose......and that's a damn shame.:(
At that point any silly ass piece of legislation to come along that's tagged "for Global Warming", will be politically unhealthy to oppose......and that's a damn shame.:(
And most likely they are going to try to attach some gun control legislation to it.:rolleyes:
I don't know how many, what's 50% of all of them?
The problem is the when you say Global Warming, you are not just talking about global warming. You are inferring a shitload of other things that may or may not be true. When somebody says they agree with you on Global Warming, then they are saying they buy into everything you believe about it.
That's just stupid. To put my opinion at the mercy of someone else's whims? I refuse to buy into that crap. I have my own opinions and no amount of bullying, insulting or accusations of being anti-American from anyone, is going to make me swallow the whole Global Warming the sky is falling package.
If Gore had his way, Global Warming would be right up there with, "Homeland Security" or "It's For The Children", so no questions, do as your told.
You want my help, then break it down. Tell why it's bad? Tell me how bad it will get? Tell me why It's my fault? Tell me what I can do and how it will change anything?
I don't want to hear if I sacrifice then something good may happen somewhere, someday.
Stick your fairy tales. I want facts and you ain't got 'em.:headshake
Well Bruce, we have had this discussion before and I stupidly believed that I had made some impact on your opinions - at least let you open your mind to the possibility that we might be right. I cited several web sites that covered global warming in a reasonable manner, and you seemed to be satisfied then, but now you have reverted to your old beliefs.
As I said once before, we cannot design an experiment that will "prove" man's influence on global warming. We know that man has increased greenhouse emissions, and we know from statistical analysis and records going back thousands of years (eg. ice core samples), that while the current warming period is not unheard of, the *speed* at which it is taking effect is what alarms us. The fact that there have been other warm periods in Earth's history, and that we are not yet at the highest temperature, does not mean that the current global warming is not man induced. I am not necessarily endorsing Al Gore, because he has a political agenda, but this does not mean that he is wrong.
And the figure is more like 90% of us believe that it is man induced, not 50%.
Not true, my beliefs were formed partially by the information you provided and have not changed.
That said, the majority of the population will never see those websites or would bother to read them if they were aware they existed. Don't forget there's a large segment that doesn't know a PC from a microwave.
My point was the majority will be convinced of the severity, or lack thereof, of Global Warming by people like Gore. If they believe him, or not, will outweigh all the studies in the world. At that point they will accept or reject, any and every, thing they're told.
Like it or not, the messenger is very important to the conscription of adherents.:2cents:
All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)
Come on that is crap and you know it. Sort of like a child molesting preacher telling you to not hurt the children.
So you are saying that if you don't like the messenger, their message is automatically false? That just because the preacher does little boys, then you should too?
Bruce is right that Gore is less effective as a messenger because of his hypocrisy. His hypocrisy is distracting from his message. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his message.
Alexander's phalanxes and cavalry followed him because he was leading the charge. It's easier to give credibility to those that practice what they preach.
Gannett
House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming -- but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.
"I said, 'John, I can't do that,' " Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. "He said, 'Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.' "
Gilchrest didn't make the committee. Neither did other Republican moderates or science-minded members, whose guidance centrist GOP members usually seek on the issue.
...
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a research scientist from Maryland, and Michigan's Rep. Vern Ehlers, the first research physicist to serve in Congress, also made cases for a seat, but weren't appointed, he said.
"Roy Blunt said he didn't think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming," Gilchrest said. "Right there, holy cow, there's like 9,000 scientists to three on that one."
Alexander's phalanxes and cavalry followed him because he was leading the charge. It's easier to give credibility to those that practice what they preach.
Heh. I give you a solid maybe on this one.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, every time. There are those that believe because of what they see. There are those that believe because of what they hear. And there are those that believe because of who is doing or saying.
In fact, every one of us has all these traits, each of us uses these strategies to believe. But I believe that loud repetition has a dominant influence on what people believe, and, unfortunately, loudness and repetition have no need to be true to be effective.
My very serious doubt is . . . WHY!?
When one volcanic eruption releases a larger dose of "greenhouse gases" than the human race has generated during its entire existence, it should be obvious that our effect is minimal.
I understand Mars is warming as well. Isn't it amazing how much effect a few little solar powered rovers are having on such a big planet.
My own take on this is that a bunch of eco-terrorist Luddites are trying to pull the developed nations back to the level of the undeveloped nations.
Jerry
My very serious doubt is . . . WHY!?
When one volcanic eruption releases a larger dose of "greenhouse gases" than the human race has generated during its entire existence, it should be obvious that our effect is minimal.
I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.
I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this
U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. [SIZE="3"]Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes[/SIZE]--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
Heh. I give you a solid maybe on this one.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, every time. There are those that believe because of what they see. There are those that believe because of what they hear. And there are those that believe because of who is doing or saying.
In fact, every one of us has all these traits, each of us uses these strategies to believe. But I believe that loud repetition has a dominant influence on what people believe, and, unfortunately, loudness and repetition have no need to be true to be effective.
Ivan Pavlov and I agree with your last statement to a degree. However, if I ask someone to sacrifice comforts, I wouldn't expect results whilst eating an ice cream cone. Nor would I feel compelled to confess to a priest that has a thing for little boys' backsides. Alternatively, if someone hums a few bars, I'm more likely to chime in.
Where does President George W Bush's credibility as a Commander in Chief come from, then?
I don't think we disagree much, actually. I believe that when presented with another piece of evidence, such as Gore's cause celebre, it is evaluated in the context of what is already known or decided about the subject. I then add it to the collected information about the subject and if the credibility of the speaker is high, it makes a bigger change in my belief in the subject. I do not say that it makes me believe it more. Because a credible reporter might bring to my attention a piece of evidence that is contrary to my understanding of a subject. The same math applies--it would make a larger impact on my belief in the subject. But the impact would be in the direction of the credible report.
In my experience, there are a very few subjects about which I feel I am an expert. So I try to remain open to new information about everything I know. For pete's sake, that's how I got to know things in the first place. I took reports from credible sources and added them to my own experience. Rinse and repeat.
I apply this successful method to the topic of this thread as well. But I consider the content of the message far more valid than the square footage of the home of the messenger. Seriously. What in the world does that have to do with the questions "Are we warming? Why? How? How fast? Is it important?" The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.
Another hypocrital celeb joins the circuit as someone who should practice what he preaches. Hey John, nice plane collection you got there at the house.... :rolleyes:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+%27do+their+bit%27+for+the+environment/article.doHey mercy, remind me which one is you again, willya?
Hey mercy, remind me which one is you again, willya?
Neither, but I love the pic.;)
I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.
I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.
Don't for get the 20th century was the quietest century for volcanic activity .... ever.
If you want the source of that dig through that Inconvenient Truth thread.
The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.
That would be lovely if that's the way public opinion worked ... but it ain't.
You know better than to claim the messenger has no effect on the acceptance of the message by the public at large.
I understand you're trying to convince themercenary it should have no bearing on his decision, but the statement is far to broad to apply to the real world.
I understand you're trying to convince themercenary it should have no bearing on his decision, but the statement is far to broad to apply to the real world.
Yea, that's pretty futile.
I apply this successful method to the topic of this thread as well. But I consider the content of the message far more valid than the square footage of the home of the messenger. Seriously. What in the world does that have to do with the questions "Are we warming? Why? How? How fast? Is it important?" The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.
I think the problem is that barring complete knowlege of the subject on our part, we want a messenger who has credibility. We know Gore has no scientific credentials. He has probably taken fewer high level science/mathematics classes than the average Cellar poster. So what does his argument rest on? Personal credibility? He doesn't have that. His lifestyle says the environment is secondary to his personal and political convenience.
I've been really really wrong in the past and don't want to be a roadblock if GW is a serious/fixable problem but putting too many eggs in the Gore basket won't help the cause.
I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.
I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.
Don't for get the 20th century was the quietest century for volcanic activity .... ever.
If you want the source of that dig through that Inconvenient Truth thread.
So what does that mean? If it was quieter than usual, then it means that if it goes back to "normal" then global warming will become worse and more accelerated.
Then again, if the studies in the U.S. Geological Survey link are correct, it will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our CO2 production. We are currently producing 150 times the CO2 that the volcanoes are producing, and China hasn't fully ramped up its CO2 production. Seems silly to be worried about the negligible role of volcanoes when the world's largest country is about to send human CO2 productions through the roof.
We really need a whole bunch of volcano's to go off or a good nuclear winter. That would reverse things.
Minnesota was thinking of giving Gore an honorary degree; I don't think it happened though.
So what does that mean? If it was quieter than usual, then it means that if it goes back to "normal" then global warming will become worse and more accelerated.
Then again, if the studies in the U.S. Geological Survey link are correct, it will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our CO2 production. We are currently producing 150 times the CO2 that the volcanoes are producing, and China hasn't fully ramped up its CO2 production. Seems silly to be worried about the negligible role of volcanoes when the world's largest country is about to send human CO2 productions through the roof.
The fault in your reasoning is what I've objected to from the getgo. There is more to global warming than co2, way more.
A good volcano fart puts a lot more in the air than co2. Along with a shitload of other things, the dirt... oh, excuse me, particulate matter is in a word, shade. With a big one, a lot of shade for more than a year. It's all a very complicated balance, a lot of which we don't understand yet.
I predict todays Supreme Court decision is going to cause inflation undreamed of in the past. I sure hope I'm wrong on that one, and would be greatly relieved if someone would repudiate it.
Minnesota was thinking of giving Gore an honorary degree; I don't think it happened though.
Great, have a big ceremony. Just the pollution from the reporters covering it would set things back a year.
Where does President George W Bush's credibility as a Commander in Chief come from, then?
I don't think we disagree much, actually. I believe that when presented with another piece of evidence, such as Gore's cause celebre, it is evaluated in the context of what is already known or decided about the subject. I then add it to the collected information about the subject and if the credibility of the speaker is high, it makes a bigger change in my belief in the subject. I do not say that it makes me believe it more. Because a credible reporter might bring to my attention a piece of evidence that is contrary to my understanding of a subject. The same math applies--it would make a larger impact on my belief in the subject. But the impact would be in the direction of the credible report.
In my experience, there are a very few subjects about which I feel I am an expert. So I try to remain open to new information about everything I know. For pete's sake, that's how I got to know things in the first place. I took reports from credible sources and added them to my own experience. Rinse and repeat.
I apply this successful method to the topic of this thread as well. But I consider the content of the message far more valid than the square footage of the home of the messenger. Seriously. What in the world does that have to do with the questions "Are we warming? Why? How? How fast? Is it important?" The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.
You may be interpreting my posts as a denial of the existence of the global warming problem. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming and the problem requires immediate and possibly drastic action. However, your insistance that a champion of a cause need have no credibility, or that this individual not personally participate, is ludicrous. Luckily, there are other options in that I wouldn't follow Mr. Gore to the feed store, much less give his solutions (which aren't his to begin with) a second glance. I'll not sweat while he eats ice cream, and
mon ami, that is that.
@ Big V. I believe what you say, but you don't seriously think you're normal, do you?
I really don't think you represent the average Joe. You're smarter, more logical, more dedicated and more interested in how you and the world interact. I'll bet you hardly ever mull over whether to throw the empties out before you get to your home hood.
Sorry, xo-cubed. Should have said:
Luckily, there are other options in that I wouldn't follow Mr. Gore to the feed store, much less give his solutions (which aren't his to begin with) a second glance. I'll not sweat while he eats ice cream, and mon ami, that is that...........
I like how no one talks much about cutting back on the beef & meat industry.
Methane is 25x the greenhouse gas CO2 is.
If it is such an emergency, then get committed people... they sky is falling, right?
Go vegan... dairy does the same thing!
I like how no one talks much about cutting back on the beef & meat industry.
Methane is 25x the greenhouse gas CO2 is.
If it is such an emergency, then get committed people... they sky is falling, right?
Go vegan... dairy does the same thing!
"When averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2, however there is approximately 220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as methane."
Wikipedia
While methane is a contributor to global warming, CO2 is a much bigger contributor.
True, cows fart every 30 seconds, times millions of cattle. Termites are still number one though, right up there with swamps. Maybe we should eat termites.
"220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as methane", but how did it get there, how fast is it increasing and why?
Termites are a little sweet with a smoky aftertaste.
Termites are a little sweet with a smoky aftertaste.
Crunchy if you roast them up.
True, cows fart every 30 seconds, times millions of cattle. Termites are still number one though, right up there with swamps. Maybe we should eat termites.
"220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as methane", but how did it get there, how fast is it increasing and why?
The increase in CO2 got there from fossil fuel use and changes in land use.
How fast is it changing? See graph below. The Earth was going through cycles of ice ages until the beginning of the industrial age, and then the CO2 levels just took off.
Cows and termites collect carbon from plants and release it into the air. It is eventually reabsorbed by plants, to continue the cycle.
Fossil fuels introduce more carbon into the cycle.
@ Big V. I believe what you say, but you don't seriously think you're normal, do you?
I really don't think you represent the average Joe. You're smarter, more logical, more dedicated and more interested in how you and the world interact. I'll bet you hardly ever mull over whether to throw the empties out before you get to your home hood.
xoB, thank you for the fine compliment. I am honored. I really am interested, that's true.
As to the empties, heheh...I can remember traveling to other cities and landing in the airport, and having a snack including a bottled or canned beverage at one of the snack shops in the concourse. I looked, and looked and looked for the recycling bins for the bottles and cans, and for the paper, and never found them. I must have really looked the fool carrying my lunch waste from trash can to trash can searching for a place to put the "trash".
On the other hand, maybe the locals just weren't accustomed to seeing so much wool sock through my Birkenstocks.
Cows and termites collect carbon from plants and release it into the air. It is eventually reabsorbed by plants, to continue the cycle.
Fossil fuels introduce more carbon into the cycle.
Not carbon, methane.
As to the empties, heheh...I can remember traveling to other cities and landing in the airport, and having a snack including a bottled or canned beverage at one of the snack shops in the concourse. I looked, and looked and looked for the recycling bins for the bottles and cans, and for the paper, and never found them. I must have really looked the fool carrying my lunch waste from trash can to trash can searching for a place to put the "trash".
True to form.....duh. Empties... dead soldiers/sailors....beer cans/booze bottles rolling around the floor of the pickum-up truck.
I honestly believe that never crossed your mind.
The increase in CO2 got there from fossil fuel use and changes in land use.
How fast is it changing? See graph below. The Earth was going through cycles of ice ages until the beginning of the industrial age, and then the CO2 levels just took off.
Didn't we go around on that
before?
As I recall, cement production is as much a problem as anything.
From here,
http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/climatechart.pdfBack to innovations.
Terra preta is the dark rich soil that farmers used to make in the Amazon region before the advent of slash and burn agriculture. Apparently, using charcoal instead of ash builds the soil increasing fertility and sequestering carbon. This addresses the ecological disaster of burning vast areas of rainforest and feeds people. win win
Not carbon, methane.
Methane is made of carbon.
So is my dick, but the shade it casts makes it global warming neutral.
The shade, as well as the fact that, outside of any petroleum-based food products you've eaten, it is also made out of carbon from the normal cycle.
Methane is made of carbon.
So are charcoal briquettes but we were discussing methane from cattle and termites, not carbon. There's a big fucking difference between co2 and methane, which was the point.
Cool thing about methane is that it naturally decreases over time on its own. It interacts with other molecules in the upper atmosphere (I can't remember which ones right now, but a Google search would turn it up) to split apart into two more benign compounds. Methane has decreased consistently over time until humans started rice farming (produces lots of methane) and animal husbandry (cow burps.) It's encouraging, because it means that if we stopped those activities (fat chance), then the methane would eventually go back to pre-industrial levels.
Wikipedia says CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O.
doh
Yes, but that equation doesn't mention that a substantial amount of energy is required to make it happen. Any reaction that adds O2 and results in CO2 and H2O is basically just the substance burning. It's not spontaneous.
I don't have the thing in front of me where I read it, but if I recall correctly, it happens in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays (or some such) provide the energy. And while CO2 is a byproduct, and is also a warming compound, it warms less. 23 times less if I recall correctly from a post above.
In addition to producing more CO2, isn't another part of the problem deforestation? What I am not clear about is the relative properties of plants in scrubbing CO2. If you turn a rainforest into pasture, wouldn't the grass also process CO2?
I'm not sure, but I've started revisiting
The RainForest Site
Thank you! Your click has funded the preservation of 11.4 square feet of endangered rainforest. Please click every day and support the sponsors below, who pay for your gift.
So are charcoal briquettes but we were discussing methane from cattle and termites, not carbon. There's a big fucking difference between co2 and methane, which was the point.
Charcoal is also made from carbon in the normal cycle. There are all sorts of things that emit gasses in the normal cycle. Fossil fuels release carbon that has been sequestered since long before humanity appeared.
The normal cycle is also sequestering carbon. Those swamps that are burping methane are in the process of making coal and diamonds.
Now working with the premise we are looking for solutions, swamps and termites are the leading producers of nasty, 23 times more harmful, methane. But, cattle are a major producer that we can do something about fairly quickly. It's a solution, albeit an unpopular one, with bloody handed, sinews hanging from canines, predator eyed, meat eaters.
The normal cycle is also sequestering carbon. Those swamps that are burping methane are in the process of making coal and diamonds.
At the normal rate.
Meanwhile, foreigners are developing new products and markets because innovation is smarter than reading science rewritten by White House lawyers. For example, at best, maybe 40% of energy used to create electricity actually creates electricity. What happens to the well over 60%? Lost. Wasted. More global warming gases created to do nothing productive. The waste is that large.
Fiat had pioneered a solution back in the 1970s when energy prices were higher - in today’s money about $7 per gallon of gas. Their product disappeared when energy prices dropped to the lowest in the history of mankind.
SenerTec in Germany and Honda in Japan now manufacture household generators that produce electricity and then use that other 60+% of wasted energy to warm homes. This is normally done in Manhattan (NY) and in Philadelphia on a city wide scale to heat skyscrapers. Currently, the technology is cost effective in homes requiring 4000+ heating hours per year.
However White House lawyers tell us such solutions mean we must all drive Chevettes (product from a world's worst auto company) and live in dark, cold homes. Changes to the electric grid also required so that power can be purchased from what must be the new standards for household energy consumption. Nothing new here. This is simple thermodynamics. IOW innovation – not lawyers and MBAs– are required. Those who fear innovation also deny global warming solutions exist. Just another solution whose largest impediment is White House lawyers who rewrite research on global warming and stifle innovation. Notice where innovation goes to create new jobs, more wealth, etc.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4216744.html
Four scientific proposals to actively combat gw. One already started.
New fuel cell technology.
Looks good. Twice as efficient as equivalent generators.
While using non-hydrogen fuel means that the cell will produce CO2, Acumentrics fuel cells consume half as much fuel as a comparable small-engine generator, per kW. So they produce the same amount of electricity, while consuming half as much fuel, and producing half as much CO2.
