Global Warmists back off on prediction
Guess what? The earth's climate is kind of stable. Yes, global warming could be a problem, but we know that despite Al Gore's phoney charts, the earth has been warmer quite recently than it is now. Anyway, at least we can take this particular bit of paranoia off the table... unless these computer models are as bad as the previous ones. *dulp!*
OSLO — Mainstream climatologists who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination.This is interesting, because I just read in the paper yesterday that NASA has just completed some computer modeling that was too late to include in the inter-government panel's report a couple months ago. Their models show that the effects of global warming will be far worse much sooner than anyone else had predicted.
I'll see if I can dig that up.
I think the NASA model shows things getting hotter faster. This doesn't dispute that, they're just saying Northern Europe won't get cold from the changing current temp.
It will be interesting to see the changes in localized weather patterns as the average global temperature rises. The article about the NASA model said that for the Eastern US seaboard, the changes would not be good at all. Instead of summer temps in the upper 80s they were talking about summer temps over 100 for extended periods of time. This is by the end of the century.
They had a guy on the news over the weekend that was predicting 108 deg F for the East Coast Summers.
A hundred years from now.
Up ten degrees in 70 years. That's a hell of a lot.
But hey,
we'll probably be dead by then. Our kids will probably invent a fix-everything ray in the last minute. Anything we do now is just wasting money.
The unfortunate fact is that we really have no freakin' idea what the climate will be like in 10, 50 or 250 years. However, it does make good sense not to screw with the atmosphere or the oceans too much so we should probably just stick with that.
Less fortunate still is the sad fact that because there is so much static about who's right/wrong that even if someone did produce a correct model, we wouldn't even know it.
Equation for global warming.
X = Man made global warming
Y = Natural global warming
X + Y =10
Find X
snip~even if someone did produce a correct model, we wouldn't even know it.
Nor would they.
Equation for global warming.
X = Man made global warming
Y = Natural global warming
X + Y =10
Find X
And as long as there's uncertainty about X, we should assume it's zero and not do anything.
And as long as there's uncertainty about X, we should assume it's zero and not do anything.
Well, we always have the fix-everything ray if we are wrong.
I thought, maybe our kids should invent a time-machine, and bring the fix-everything-ray back here, but then I guess if they do that, they'd have done that, and everything could be fixed already. then I thought maybe there is a reason for that not happening yet, and then I thought there's a reason for everything, because The Lord works in mysterious ways. So, in conclusion, yeah we should just do nothing.
I think our creator is just about ready to throw the ant farm of humanity into the garbage.
Haven't you noticed he hasn't been watering us with the same care as he once did?
Equation for global warming.
X = Man made global warming
Y = Natural global warming
X + Y =10
Find X
Why do X and Y sum to a constant? I think its...
X + Y = Z
Solve for Z.
We can calculate the total global warming but we can't calculate why the Earth is warming. I pretty sure most people agree that the Earth is warming and that is backed by scientific fact.
What we don't know is why the Earth is warming. That is the point of the two variables and why I made the point that it is impossible to calculate X without Y and why it is impossible to calculate Y without X.
To get to the point, even though both variables do add to global warming, we can not say what is causing how much warming so it is a flawed argument to say that global warming is man-made or natural made. It just annoys me when people say "global warming is because of this" when they have no proof to back it up with.
Here's something possibly irrelevant to this conversation but I'm going to tell you anyway.
The Al Gore lecture is doing the rounds over here at the moment, and my husband and two sons went along on Monday night to listen to it and watch the pictures.
When question time came up, my 10yr old stood up and asked this question.
"If global warming is caused by holes in the ozone layer [in part] then why can't the warmth get back out of the holes?"
Equation for global warming.
X = Man made global warming
Y = Natural global warming
X + Y =10
Find X
Your reasoning reminds me of this scene in Fight Club:
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
...except that X, the consequential cost, is probably a lot higher than the cost of fixing the problem.
...except that X, the consequential cost, is probably a lot higher than the cost of fixing the problem.
There are fixes and then there are pretend fixes. Kyoto was a pretend fix akin to changing the oil in that rear differential. A public relations stunt saying, "We care!" Fully implemented, it would have very slightly delayed our reaching whatever number we're saying is too warm. (I say this assuming that CO2 doesn't follow warming but is causing it.)
I want us off fossil fuels for political and environmental reasons. I do, however, come back to the motives of the fear-mongerers. Conveniently enough, the biggest supporters of the Global Warming theory also support command economies a proven threat to humanity.
Lot of Canadians on the list, are you sure they aren't trying to fool us so Canada will thaw out?
I wonder if Bluesdave knows Dr David Evans?
There are fixes and then there are pretend fixes. Kyoto was a pretend fix akin to changing the oil in that rear differential. A public relations stunt saying, "We care!" Fully implemented, it would have very slightly delayed our reaching whatever number we're saying is too warm. (I say this assuming that CO2 doesn't follow warming but is causing it.)
I want us off fossil fuels for political and environmental reasons. I do, however, come back to the motives of the fear-mongerers. Conveniently enough, the biggest supporters of the Global Warming theory also support command economies a proven threat to humanity.
The only clear way to get off of fossil fuels is to use less - a lot less. For the forseeable future (a vague term that), there is no alternative fuel that can displace more than a small percentage of our current oil consumption. Nothing. Not ethanol nor biodiesel nor DME nor hydrogen nor electrons. We can achieve more through efficiency and conservation than we can through all the ethanol that we could produce from corn. This is briefly discussed in the
20 in 10 thread.[Homer] Orrrrr, we could use more, to use it up quickly, then there wouldn't be any to fight over. [Homer]
I wonder if Bluesdave knows Dr David Evans?
I know of him, but do not know him. He is a very smart guy, but not trained in climate research. You have to be careful when people with PhDs speak outside of their training. We have a tendency to think that because we have achieved a doctorate, that means we know everything. We don't.
David is quite correct when he says that the whole climate change debate has been hijacked by politicians. Several of us in my old project eventually came to the conclusion that we would never win the battle to convince the public. I always pushed the argument that it was better to sell the public on the benefits of cleaning up the environment, rather than throwing figures and graphs around, that were only going to confuse people. My point was that regardless whether man really is having an effect on the rate of climate change, it can only help the planet, and hence us, if we reduce pollution.
I am really worried about what is happening in China and India. It will be interesting to see how the Olympics go in 2008. The images of Beijing that I have seen, send chills down my spine. :greenface
Being hijacked not only by politicians, but charlatans and hucksters that prey on people who don't understand anything passed the headlines. Sure, people are subject to being scammed because they haven't delved into the story behind the headlines, but that doesn't excuse the scammers.
In fairness to the general public, we've dug into it pretty deeply here, in several threads, and still haven't been able to find definitive answers. There is a lot of opposing, subjective, conclusions, and conflicting data.
It's pretty well agreed that the Earth is warming up. I see no debate there, but why, how far it will warm, what the consequences will be and what we can do about it, are being debated.
Your position of, cleaning up can't hurt, is probably true. But I feel an organized effort, encompassing cost/benefit considerations, is the best way to attack the pollution problem. Unfortunately that requires government intervention, which scares most people because of the government's history of being inept and squandering resources.... not to mention full scale charges in the wrong direction.
China/India are indeed scary, just because of the scale and speed they are fouling the water, air and land. The long running, runaway, underground coal seam fires in northern China, probably spew out more pollution than most countries.
I have participated a few times in some of those threads, Bruce, if you remember. I tried to point out that it is impossible to design an experiment that will prove man's contribution to climate change. As you point out, there are conflicting "experts", and inconsistent data. I can only speak from my experience and the data we have collected. It becomes a pointless exercise repeating the same message over and over again, to the same audience. That is why I have not participated in every thread on the subject.
Climate change is like a religion. People believe what they want to believe, and others manipulate it for their own profit, or power.
Dave, I know I've asked you this before, but what Uni are you affiliated with?
I'm convinced you believe what you say to be the truth, to the best of your knowledge. And you are a genuine scientist, with no apparent axe to grind.
You've contributed a great deal of light, in threads with an abundance of speculation, guessing, hearsay and heat. You even asked your boss to shed some light.
But like you said yourself, there's a lot of conflicting stories and people giving answers that have no clue, or worse, an ulterior motive. I've got questions, as you well know. Nothing tricky, just plain old questions most everyone has. Unfortunately, questions are much easier to form than answers.
The other night on the TV news they were talking about a new computer model predicting a 10 degree increase in temperature and the very next day I hear another story. If the people that know the most don't don't agree, what are we mere mortals to think.... or believe?
Although I'm sure it's frustrating for you, please don't take my skepticism personally. I'm pretty frustrated too.
Oh, and bluesdave... don't let my skepticism dissuade you from preaching to the lurkers, you've got board creds.
China/India are indeed scary, just because of the scale and speed they are fouling the water, air and land. The long running, runaway, underground coal seam fires in northern China, probably spew out more pollution than most countries.
And that is why we should never sign Kyoto.
Yep.
When someone else decides to murder 32 people, I always think to myself that that's why I should do it too...cause someone else did.
Yep.
When someone else decides to murder 32 people, I always think to myself that that's why I should do it too...cause someone else did.
WTF???? Are you off your meds again?
My point was that not signing kyoto because india and china output more gasses is an irrational decision.
We all know that the US and other countries, including Australia have been very rational about not signing though. I'm sure you don't need me to explain why to you.
The Kyoto is a conspiracy to hurt the American economy.
Everyone knows that...
*can I post a picture of a man with a tin foil hat or would that be bad taste?*
The Kyoto is a conspiracy to hurt the American economy.
Everyone knows that...
*can I post a picture of a man with a tin foil hat or would that be bad taste?*
I doubt it is a conspiracy. How about you explain how the Kyoto agreement is good for the US economy when dealing on an international scale in competition with India and China.
It would be better if they complied.
Coal Man
There's at least one CEO left who is not buying global warming hysteria.
BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Saturday, May 19, 2007 12:01 a.m.
WASHINGTON--Every good party has its wet blanket. In the case of the energy industry's merrymaking for a global warming program, the guy in the dripping bedspread is a 67-year-old, straight-talking coal-mine owner by the name of Robert E. Murray.
You won't hear many of Mr. Murray's energy-biz colleagues mention him; they tend to avoid his name, much as nephews avoid talk of their crazy uncles. GE's Jeffrey Immelt, Duke Energy's Jim Rogers, Exelon's John Rowe--these polished titans have been basking in an intense media glow, ever since they claimed to have seen the light on global warming and gotten behind a mandatory government program to cut C02 emissions. They'd rather not have any killjoys blowing the whistle on their real motives--which is to make a pile of cash off the taxpayers and consumers who'll fund it.
And yet here's Mr. Murray, killjoy-in-chief at the global warming love-fest. "Some elitists in our country can't, or won't, tell fact from fiction, can't understand what a draconian climate change program will do [to] the dreams of millions of working Americans and those on fixed incomes," says the chairman and CEO of Murray Energy, one of the largest private coal concerns in the country. He's incensed by his fellow energy CEOs' "shameless" goal of fattening their bottom lines at the "expense of the broader economy." So these past months he's emerged from his quiet Cleveland office and jumped on the national stage, calling out the rest of his industry's CO2 collaborationists. He's testified in front of Congress; become a regular on television and radio programs; sat for profiles by journalists; and written letters to other energy companies exhorting them to think of the broader consequences.
It seems unlikely his campaign will slow the runaway global-warming train now hurtling through Washington. But Mr. Murray is certainly making the ride less comfortable for some corporate players. "For me, global warming is a human issue, not just an environmental one," he says in his slow, gravelly way, nursing a cup of coffee at a local shop here after recent congressional testimony.
"The science of global warming is speculative. But there's nothing speculative about the damage a C02 capture program will do to this country. I know the names of many of the thousands of people--American workers, their families--whose lives will be destroyed by what has become a deceitful and hysterical campaign, perpetrated by fear-mongers in our society and by corporate executives intent on their own profits or competitive advantage. I can't stand by and watch."
Tough words, and unusually brash ones for a respected CEO, though Mr. Murray is uniquely situated to deliver them. Unlike other energy executives--at industrial firms such as GE that make millions on wind turbines, or utilities such as Duke or Exelon who are making big financial bets on "clean energy"--coal CEOs such as Mr. Murray are the bad boys on the global-warming scene, and will see zero upside in a global-warming program. While the industry has certainly made advances on the real pollution front (sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxide), coal still accounts for the vast majority of all electricity-related C02 emissions.
The only way to really cut carbon emissions would be to severely limit the use of coal-fired power plants and manufacturing facilities, which is exactly what environmentalists have wanted for years. "We're one of the targets of this campaign," says Mr. Murray. "Putting in place a global warming program is about putting limits on the coal business and low-cost energy." The Ohio coal miner therefore has nothing to lose by speaking hard truths.
He's also well-qualified to speak them, hailing from a long line of coal miners proud of their roots and their industry. A no-nonsense guy, Mr. Murray became the family provider after his father was paralyzed in a coal-mining accident. By 16, he was mowing lawns every day after school, using a coal miner's cap with a light on the front so he could continue to work past dark. He'd set his sights on a medical career when he was unexpectedly offered a chance at a scholarship to become a mining engineer. "I'm a fourth-generation miner, but it's only by happenstance," he chuckles.
There followed 31 years at the North American Coal Corporation, where he rose to CEO and then left in 1987 after a disagreement. Striking out on his own, he mortgaged his home to buy his first mine. Today, Murray Energy operates 11 coal mines in Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Utah, producing 32 million tons of coal annually ($800 million in sales) for U.S. electric utilities. He employs about 3,000, although he estimates that if you look at all the secondary jobs created to provide goods and services for miners, his company has helped create some 36,000 jobs.
Those jobs are top of Mr. Murray's list of concerns, and he's been determined to make people hear about them. At a recent speech to the New York Coal Trade Association, designed to whip some of his fellow coal industry friends into action, Mr. Murray recalled what happened in his region after the 1990 Clean Air Act, which imposed drastic reductions in coal production: "In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, nearly 120 mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. Families broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished . . ." He finishes the thought by noting that a global warming program would make those prior coal cuts look like small potatoes.
These speeches and TV appearances have become more frequent--and it's a measure of just how big an irritant he's become to global-warming politicians and their new buddies in the energy industry, that when Mr. Murray was invited to impart his wisdom to Congress at a hearing in March, Democrats tried to keep him from testifying. They later gave in, although Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Chairman Jim Costa pointedly left the room when it was Mr. Murray's turn to testify.
Had Mr. Costa bothered to stay, he'd have heard a useful, and irrefutable, analysis of just what today's legislative proposals for a global warming program would mean to the economy, including the nation's many miners. "Some 52% of this country's electricity is generated from coal," Mr. Murray says. "Global warming legislation would place arbitrary limits on the use of coal, yet there's nothing to replace it at the same cost. There's nuclear, but the environmentalists killed it off and aren't about to let it come back. There's hydro, but we're using that everywhere we can already. There's natural gas, but supply and pipeline capacity is limited, and it's three times the cost of coal. Politically correct--and subsidized 'alternative energy' is very limited in capability and also expensive.
"So what you are really doing with a global warming program is getting rid of low-cost energy," he says. The consequences? Americans have been fretting about losing jobs to places such as China or India, which already offer cheaper energy. "You hike the cost of energy here further, and you create a mass exodus of business out of this country." Especially so, given that neither of those countries is about to hamstring its own economy in order to join a Kyoto-like accord. He points out that since 1990, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 18%, while China's have increased by 77%. Mr. Murray also notes that many countries that have joined Kyoto have already failed to meet their targets.
Mr. Murray, like most honest participants in this debate, can reel off the names of the many respected scientists who still doubt that human activity is the cause of rising temperatures. But he tends to treat the scientific debate almost as a sideshow, an excuse for not talking about what comes next. "Even if the politicians believe 100% that man is causing global warming, they still have an obligation to discuss honestly just what damage they want to inflict on American jobs and workers and people on fixed incomes, in the here and now, with their programs."
This is where Mr. Murray really gets rolling, on his favorite subject of his fellow energy executives and the role they are playing in encouraging a mandatory C02 program. "There is this belief that since even some in the energy industry are now on board with a program, that it must be okay. No one is looking at these executives' real motives."
To understand those motives, you've first got to understand how a cap-and-trade plan works. The government would first place a cap on CO2 emissions. Each company would then be given an "allowance" for emissions. If the company produced less CO2 than allowed, it could sell the excess credits to others. If a company wanted to produce more CO2 than its allowance, it would have to buy credits. "The strategy for these folks now is to go to Washington, help design the program to suit their companies, and snap up all the carbon emission allowances," says Mr. Murray. "The more allowances they get, the more they'll have to sell, and the more money they'll make. . . . This has nothing to do with creating 'regulatory certainty,' which is how they like to sell their actions. This has to do with creating money, for their companies, off the back of an economy that will be paying more for its energy."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010098Dave, I know I've asked you this before, but what Uni are you affiliated with?
If you mean who do I work for, the answer is no one now. I am retired. I have not been attached to the academic staff of any university; I worked for a government body (prior to that, a few companies). The project's goal is to distill data coming from researchers all over the world, and try to make some sense out of it. We then gave recommendations to the government, and also advised land users (such as primary producers), of our estimates of where the climate is heading. We (not me), wrote several computer models that tried to predict future rainfall in various regions of Australia. Our early models failed, as did those of many other researchers around the world. We all worked closely with many other researchers, so in that sense I had contact with many universities and research organisations. We used NASA data quite a bit.
We were all forced to sign non disclosure agreements in order to join the project, and the penalties were potentially quite serious - not to mention that if we were caught leaking information to the media, that would be the end of the person's career. This is why I have been very reticent to divulge too much information. Even though I am retired I still have a loose connection to the project.
That's very interesting thanks Dave. The reason I asked is because a lot of the things you post are very similar to the types of things my husband talks about. He's in environmental management.
Hey Dave, you could write a tell-all book and sell the TV/Movie rights for a fortune. Maybe you could star in it, too. And have a fan club and groupies... don't forget the groupies. Kind of like Trading Places with weather futures instead of Orange Juice futures.
Did I mention the groupies?
That's a great idea Bruce, but would the "groupies" be interested in a balding, grey haired old man? Somehow, I do not think so. :headshake
BTW, it is funny that you mention Trading Places. I was down at our local shopping mall this morning and saw that there is a two disc version of the movie available. The container did not say what is on the second disc. Unfortunately, I purchased the single disc version about a year ago (it was very cheap). It is a very funny movie. :D
Oh, wait! The guy with the inside poop on the OJ futures ended up in a gorilla suit! Better rethink that, I don't think you want that kind of groupie.
The Juggernaut is in motion.
Big wheel keep on turnin'
Proud Mary keep on burnin'
Rollin', rollin', rollin' over reason.
And this is my point. Thank you for NPR following up on my thought process from 2 days ago...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10221268Merc, it is not only NPR who are shouting warnings about China (and do not forget India). I have mentioned them several times. The problem is: what can we do about it? All countries want to do business with China, so no one wants to offend them. As I said in this thread, the Olympics in 2008 will be interesting.
I have debated whether to bring this up, but now seems a good time. Do you know what really worries us? It is not just global warming, green house gases, etc. It is the impending shift in the Earth's magnetic poles. I do not know how many Cellarites have been following this story, but the magnetic poles are moving. At the moment the North Pole is somewhere in the mid far North Atlantic. We do not how far the poles need to shift before they "flop", but some researchers are predicting that we are approaching that time (others disagree and say that the rotation will be gradual, and consistent). Imagine the effect on the Earth's wildlife. We know that these events have occurred many times before, but we do not know the resultant effect on the Earth's ecology.
Wow, bluesdave--I've read a little about the magnetic pole switching, but only ever in the vein of "this is way overdue to happen, and when it does the results will be mind-blowing," never "it's actually showing signs of starting to move."
What are the ramifications for our current technology? Obviously once the flip is final compasses will be backwards, but what about plane navigation systems and such?
It will potentially effect just about everything. Not just compasses (which have not been used seriously since GPS came into being). I am far from an expert on this subject, but I have read that many of the possible effects are unpredictable. We are not sure to what extent it will confuse our wildlife - their use of the Earth's magnetic field for navigation is still being debated. We also do not know if the change will effect the Earth's weather patterns, and ocean currents. It is a huge hole in our knowledge.
We do know that the poles have swapped before, but we have no way of knowing what damage was done. The last time man was not running around with truck loads of electronics, either. :(
It also falls into the category of, it ain't our fault, and we can't do anything to prevent it. The question is how will it affect us and how can we prepare to diminish it's impact. I've seen a hundred articles on it being a possibility but never any on what the effect will be other than birds getting confused.
Hey, that's great. All our old monitors can be shipped to South America instead of filling the landfills
It also falls into the category of, it ain't our fault, and we can't do anything to prevent it. The question is how will it affect us and how can we prepare to diminish it's impact. I've seen a hundred articles on it being a possibility but never any on what the effect will be other than birds getting confused.
As I said, not much is known about the likely effects. Unlike climate change, we have little knowledge of when the event will happen - only certainty that it is on the way.
You are correct Bruce. This one is not our fault, and I did not suggest that it was. There is probably nothing that we can do to prepare for it, other than wait.
Maybe it is a good time to find that old fashioned religion? :eek:
I was really just trying to breathe a bit of life back into this thread. :sniff:
I think we should put more money into space exploration so we can find ourselves a new planet. :)
What a defeatist attitude, Aliantha.
With all the technology at our disposal, we could fuck up a new planet a hell of a lot faster.
I read you Dave, but pole swaps and Super volcanoes are just out of our control.
Probably what we should be trying to figure out is how are we going to adapt to the coming climate changes?
What are we going to have to adapt too, would probably come first?
Well the climate is going to be hotter, so women should wear less clothing, for starters. Hey, I am being serious.
We've adapted to climate change quite well in Oz. :) Cept we're always thirsty. :(
Here you go Bruce, some positive news in the fight against Global Warming:
A new breakthrough in hydrogen storage technology could remove a key barrier to widespread uptake of non-polluting cars that produce no carbon dioxide emissions.
UK scientists have developed a compound of the element lithium which may make it practical to store enough hydrogen on-board fuel-cell-powered cars to enable them to drive over 300 miles before refuelling. Achieving this driving range is considered essential if a mass market for fuel cell cars is to develop in future years, but has not been possible using current hydrogen storage technologies.
I have been a supporter of hydrogen cells, but I accept that the cost is not reasonable, nor the length of mileage between "top-ups".
Here is the full story (at least it is the press release). These guys are heading in the right direction.
Such arrogance that people think they can stop or slow climate change.
If everybody started using battery powered cars do you really think it will have an impact on the environment?
First it was the world was flat, then it was everything revolved around the earth, then it was we are alone in the universe and the latest arrogance is we are warming the globe.
We are so full of ourselves that we have entire bogus political movements based on it.
There is a difference between stopping climate change and stopping man-made climate change.
The fact you think we are changing the climate at this stage is arrogant.
New Scientist had a recent issue devoted to answering the climate change objections. Nothing new but its well organized.
Climate change: A guide for the perplexedHere you go Bruce, some positive news in the fight against Global Warming:
I have been a supporter of hydrogen cells, but I accept that the cost is not reasonable, nor the length of mileage between "top-ups". Here is the full story (at least it is the press release). These guys are heading in the right direction.
Yes, but even if it was ready to go technology, to build a fueling network and the cars, would take some time and a ton of money.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, although you would probably welcome it down there, I'm just looking at the practical application aspect. It is a breakthrough, though, and a new direction for development.
What we really need is a way to store electricity, so we could utilize the generating capacity we're wasting. Also a way to catch and store lightning would be great, but the power companies wouldn't be happy.
everytime I see this thread, the term "global warmists" gives me a smile.
More fun than the topic, surely, which is a serious one, no matter which side you're on.
The fact you think we are changing the climate at this stage is arrogant.
The that fact that you think that we pose no threat and that we shouldn't try to stop in case we are doing something is ignorant.
The fact that you think it is impossible for humans to screw up the enviornment is ignorant.
The fact that you think we are arrogant is arrogant.
The fact you think we are changing the climate at this stage is arrogant.
I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you? :whofart:
I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you? :whofart:
bluesdave - don't you think it's a bit discriminatory to expect one to have an understanding of the topic of debate before posting an opinion to that debate?
But seriously, do you know what the level of consensus is among climate scientists on the issue of human-caused global warming? I've been to several meetings in the past few weeks that were sponsored by and attended by people who are very concerned about this, and who are committed to taking action. At an ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) meeting last Friday, the President of ASHRAE, Terry Townsend, gave a very dramatic speech about working to reduce the energy footprint of buildings in the US and around the world.
He said that he was talking to the leaders of China about how the Chinese could reduce their energy consumption. They stopped him and said "Don't tell us what to do. Don't tell us. Show us." I assume by this they meant that they want to see the US take action before they will.
Three days ago I was at a ConocoPhillips meeting called "A Conversation About Energy" and they are also concerned about global warming. There were some skeptics in the audience, but when a vice-president of one of the largest oil companies says, "We want people to use less oil," it gives you some feeling, if you're not too much of a skeptic, of the seriousness of the situation.
There seems to be a group of scientists who are not convinced that human activities are contributing to climate change, but I don't know if the doubters represent 80% or 50% or 10% of their peers. And I don't know if they are sincere, or if they have a financial interest in convincing people, like duck_duck, that nothing we are doing, or can do, will have any influence on the Earth's climate.
bluesdave - don't you think it's a bit discriminatory to expect one to have an understanding of the topic of debate before posting an opinion to that debate?
Of course I do not expect everyone to have the training, but they should at least have the sense to do some reading before posting outlandish comments (not you, I mean duck). Bruce is a prime example of what people should be doing. He reads as much research as he can, and has reached an opinion. I disagree with some of his opinions, but I highly respect him for at least putting the effort in.
But seriously, do you know what the level of consensus is among climate scientists on the issue of human-caused global warming?
You will never obtain 100% agreement between large numbers of people, regardless of the topic, but by far the majority of scientists
who actually work in the field of climate change research, believe that man has contributed to global warming. The whole planet is still coming to terms with climate change, and there is going to be debate for years to come. As you obviously know, we cannot design an experiment that will prove the extent of man's contribution - I have said this many times before. Cleaning up our act will at least make our natural environment a more pleasant place to live in.
Yes, but even if it was ready to go technology, to build a fueling network and the cars, would take some time and a ton of money.
I agree Bruce. I do not think that "we" have found the answers yet. As you point out (and I did too in my post), the cost of current alternative technologies is too great to be practical. This does not mean that we should stop looking for solutions.
I think hydrogen is a very bad idea. Hydrogen is not free, its very energy intensive. Its only a energy transport and the most inefficient one you can get. Its not an energy source.
This article by zubrin is a very good one and explains why this is so.
The Hydrogen Hoax
I think biofuels and ethanol is the way to go. If anyone knows a different point of view on hydrogen i would like to hear it.
I agree Bruce. I do not think that "we" have found the answers yet. As you point out (and I did too in my post), the cost of current alternative technologies is too great to be practical. This does not mean that we should stop looking for solutions.
Oh, hell no. Even after they have come up with a cheap, clean, doable solution, they shouldn't stop looking. There's always room for improvement in any invention/discovery/thing.... 'cept you and me.
I think hydrogen is a very bad idea. Hydrogen is not free, its very energy intensive. Its only a energy transport and the most inefficient one you can get. Its not an energy source.
Robert Zubrin is relying on the readers of his article to be untrained in chemistry. It sounds impressive to those readers. His costings do not reflect potential savings in mass production if hydrogen was widely used in our day to day lives. Do not forget that plasma televisions were several times their current price, only a few years ago. The same economic principle applies to nearly all manufacturing.
Every means of providing energy is going to involve the use of energy in the production of the base materials. Until we find some magic energy cell, that will always be the case. Some of the waste recycling prototypes that I have seen, produce hydrogen as a byproduct. This could be compressed and marketed. Obviously these methods would only produce large quantities of hydrogen if they were implemented on a large scale. I am simply saying that it does not have to be an expensive exercise.
This could be compressed and marketed.
That is the sentence that is a death knell for hydrogen as a fuel. You have now defined a fuel that is thermodynamically inefficient.
We don't need a 'magic bullet' fuel. Somehow, what we need gets confused with 'magic bullet' solutions such as hydrogen. We need efficiency. We need solutions that maintain those efficiencies on much smaller scales.
For every 100 units of energy put in hydrogen, well less than 20 actually arrives to perform productive work.
There is no way around fundamental theories such as thermodynamics. No solution is found in political posturing - for hydrogen or for ethanol. Start instead by identifying the problem. GM remains a classic example of the problem. Technology of the late 1960s was overhead cams. Late 1980s - 70 Hp/liter engine. Late 1990s - hybrids. So what does GM have? No engines with overhead cams. Missing 70 Hp/liter engines meaning their products require more cylinders. And no hybrids.
So GM accountants promotes hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' solution. Top GM management are business school graduates - and not from where the product is developed. Problems and innovations get ignored. No wonder they promote 'magic bullet' solutions while ignoring something more fundamental - principles of thermodynamics.
In both energy and global warming, both share the same problem: doing more from less. It is called innovation. And innovation is routinely stifed when top management does not come from where the work gets done. Same naive management then promote 'magic bullets' such as hydrogen to replace petroleum. Total nonsense.
One need only look who was promoting hydrogen to know hydrogen was not a viable solution: Rick Wagoner of GM and Geroge Jr. That summarizes why problems are not being solved.
I forgot to mention that methane is also a byproduct of waste recycling (I am talking about household vegetable waste and sewerage). And water. Don't forget water. We are running out of supplies of fresh water. Sewerage recycling can supply at least near drinking quality water - and if you spend extra dollars you can obtain water fit for human consumption. At a minimum, sewerage recycling would supply water for our parks and gardens, thus reducing the strain on our existing town water supply.
tw, the price for environmental improvement is not cheap. No one said it is. You are correct, in that in order to reduce pollution, and clean up our environment we have to spend money. Lots, and lots of money. You are also correct about ethanol. I started to say this before, then cancelled it. Ethanol still takes resources in order to refine it, and ship it. People who push ethanol think that it somehow magically emerges from sugarcane, and can be simply syphoned off into their car. No way.
Sometimes, doing something "cleaner" does not mean "cheaper" nor easier - at least in the short term. We have to accept this. We cannot give up. Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same. :eyebrow:
Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same. :eyebrow:
To beat that dead horse again, America has a serious innovation problem. Mostly because America still has a bad habit 'business school' attitude that stifles innovation.
Some tributes to those who fear innovation. A paper $1 bills. The penny. A 'buy American' concept. SUVs and V-8 engines. Purpose of a business is profit. Illegal immigration creates violent crime waves and economic downturns. Man to Mars and the ISS. Cost controls on quantum physics research. Intelligent design complete with swearing on a bible to tell the truth and then lying.
The history of America is about innovation. Innovate is what every great American patriot did. Just like in the 1970s, a solution to both environmental and energy problems was the same solution. Solutions today would solve both global warming and energy problems. Money is not even mentioned.
What is fundamental to stifled innovation? Every problem was "created and stifled" or remained unsolved due to 'fear and loathing'. Same people then assume big bucks will create innovation. Because some innovations require more dollars, then more dollars will create more innovation? Of course not. That business school mentality also perverts innovation.
Same mentality also promotes hydrogen as a 'blue steel' solution. Our problems start with too many lawyers, MBAs, and communication majors believing they can create innovation - only because they feel it must be so or because throwing money at it will create a solution. Throwing money like a grenade at a problem does not create innovation. Solutions are not always expensive. But solutions are routinely stifled by too many 'experts' who don't come from where the work gets done. Those same people promote hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' solution.
Not all environmental improvements are expensive. The SUV is a classic example of something that costs so much more and yet only makes things worse. One need only learn from early 1970s when the Apple Macintosh sat stifled and unsold in a Xerox lab. A solution to worldwide productivity that would remain mostly stifled for another 20 years. Why? Top management had no grasp of what that product really was. Its value did not appear on any spread sheet. Therefore it was not innovative.
More money would not solve that problem either. My post said nothing about more money to solve the problem. Money is rarely the problem. Too often, the naive promote money as a solution.
So what happened to that $100million given to GM in 1994 to build a hybrid? Where is that hybrid?
We need to get the Chinese and Indian governments on board with the same standards for reducing CO2 emissions before we talk. It does not mean we can't do things here in the US, because there is certainly enough that we can do at home. Just don't tell me I have to be constrained when some of the worst polluters get a pass.
...People who push ethanol think that it somehow magically emerges from sugarcane, and can be simply syphoned off into their car. No way.
bluesdave - you can burn pure sugar in your car right now. And to prove it, I just poured a bag in my wife's gas tank.:stickpoke
[What's that? Your car won't start? That's very strange. ]
... We cannot give up. Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same. :eyebrow:
Someday our kids or grandkids will come to us and say, "You knew this was happening? Why didn't you do something about it while there was still time?"
And what will we tell them?
Just don't tell me I have to be constrained when some of the worst polluters get a pass.
Notice how constrained TheMercenary is because he cannot burn leaded gas. But when hyping fear, TheMercenary forgets previous examples of innovation and resulting jobs created by addressing environmental and energy problems. Instead he promotes fear of a 2 year old - "They won't let me do that ... wa-a-a-a-a-h."
Meanwhile countries who address global warming early will be getting rich selling those products to other nations who will eventually also have to use that technology. Those who are patriotic American - love to innovate - understand the resulting rewards. Those who are wacko conservative - fear any change - instead fear they might have to change; might have to use innovations.
What TheMercenary posts were exact same 1970 reasons for removing pollution control laws from all cars. I tired of those fools then and the silly TheMercenary today who never learned why those 1970 2year olds were also fools. It’s called being a good extremist conservative - fears innovation - fear being a patriotic American. Smart people instead will advance mankind by innovating - developing new products that all others will have to consume.
TheMercenary - you again ignore the repeatedly posted example - oxygen senors. Or why Germans earn profits from cars all over the world because the Germans innovated - addressed pollution and energy problems.
Someday our kids or grandkids will come to us and say, "You knew this was happening? Why didn't you do something about it while there was still time?"
And what will we tell them?
I thought that I had already made that same point. :banghead:
You obviously have not read my posts on what my project is doing. We are not finding solutions. We are trying to assist land users in Australia to better handle our changing climate. We are not engineers, nor designers. Never claimed to be.
Someday our kids or grandkids will come to us and say, "You knew this was happening? Why didn't you do something about it while there was still time?"
And what will we tell them?
I will tell your grandchildren, I did more for them than your grandfather did for me.
I thought that I had already made that same point. :banghead:
You obviously have not read my posts on what my project is doing. We are not finding solutions. We are trying to assist land users in Australia to better handle our changing climate. We are not engineers, nor designers. Never claimed to be.
Unlike an offical document or scientific report, points are fleeting here. That must be why tw repeats himself so much.
You aren't engineers or designers but you understand their speak, as well or better than most.
tw, when you mentioned GWB I assumed that you were singing your usual song about misspent government funds. I apologise if I took your comments out of context - although it is interesting that you then sang that song in your next post. :rolleyes:
I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine. Some
fellow Aussies are involved in this research, and also
here.
Here is a press release from a few years back that summarises some of their research.
The CSIRO is also involved in
hydrogen research.
And then of course there is
this link that I posted a few days ago, and you guys chose to dismiss as nonsense.
So guys, you surely can see that there are people out there trying to find some answers, and it seems to me that they are making progress. It is going to take many years of research before we see really solid results.
I think it's important to keep in mind there is and never will be a magic bullet. There has to be many parallel solutions, tailored to the local, for energy conservation/production.
Looking for a one cure fits all is the surest way to kill progress because as soon as they find a solution that's economically viable, research money starts to dry up.
Thanks Bruce. I could not have put it better myself. :)
Robert Zubrin is relying on the readers of his article to be untrained in chemistry. It sounds impressive to those readers. His costings do not reflect potential savings in mass production if hydrogen was widely used in our day to day lives. Do not forget that plasma televisions were several times their current price, only a few years ago. The same economic principle applies to nearly all manufacturing.
Every means of providing energy is going to involve the use of energy in the production of the base materials. Until we find some magic energy cell, that will always be the case. Some of the waste recycling prototypes that I have seen, produce hydrogen as a byproduct. This could be compressed and marketed. Obviously these methods would only produce large quantities of hydrogen if they were implemented on a large scale. I am simply saying that it does not have to be an expensive exercise.
wait, for an answer you simply character attack zubrin? No, i dont think zubrins trying to fool people and i dont rely on him for my information. Its a simple reasoning and all the information is elsewhere. I just pointed out the article because he puts it all together in an easy to understand essay. Since you did not read the article i will restate the point.
Hydrogen
is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.
Hydrogen is made from steam reforming natural gas or from electrolysis. The current cheapest and most efficient method is through reforming natural gas but that does not solve anything. You are still have more energy wasted and produce more carbon than just simply burning the natural gas. Using electrolysis is much more expensive and you can only get about 50% of the energy converted.
The reason people think hydrogen is the fuel of the future is that they see a fuel cell, you put hydrogen in it and you get out water and energy. No wast and no carbon. But considering the whole problem including production of hydrogen and its the worst and most inefficient method. The only way to get a hydrogen economy is to massively increase electricity production and the only reasonable way to do that is to start building 100's of nuclear fuel plants now. If you do build the excess electricity production hydrogen still does not make sense. Its more efficient just to have a pure electric car and just charge it.
Here is the information from a nuclear industry
paper May 2007. The whole paper is worth reading its very clear and not to technical.
Nuclear power already produces electricity as a major energy carrier. It is well placed to produce hydrogen if this becomes a major energy carrier also.
The evolution of nuclear energy's role in hydrogen production over perhaps three decades is seen to be:
* electrolysis of water, using off-peak capacity,
* use of nuclear heat to assist steam reforming of natural gas,
* high-temperature electrolysis of steam, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors, then
* high-temperature thermochemical production using nuclear heat.
Efficiency of the whole process (primary heat to hydrogen) then moves from about 25% with today's reactors driving electrolysis (33% for reactor x 75% for cell) to 36% with more efficient reactors doing so, to 45% for high-temperature electrolysis of steam, to about 50% or more with direct thermochemical production.*
* From hydrogen to electric drive is only 30-40% efficient at this stage, giving 15-20% overall primary heat to wheels, compared with 25-30% for PHEV.
Low-temperature electrolysis using nuclear electricity is undertaken on a fairly small scale today, but the cost of hydrogen from it is higher (one source says: $4-6 per kg, compared with $1.00-1.50 from natural gas, but another source says cost will be same as electricity @ 4c/kWh when natural gas is US$ 9.50/GJ - cf $7 in July 2005).
High-temperature electrolysis (at 800°C or more) has been demonstrated, and shows considerable promise. US research is at Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Ceramatec.
So for alternative fuels there are really 2 choices, hydrogen which will take decades to implement, hundreds of nuclear power plants, and a whole new infrastructure plus some break through in storage. Or you can use biofuels which can be done now, use all the same infrastructure and combustion engines and be close to carbon neutral. The only reason hydrogen is pushed is because big energy companies would control the production of power plants and and the infrastructure. With biofuels entry costs are much lower and small players could compete with big energy so there is little interest. Ethanol from corn is probably not a very good idea but the farm industry supports it so its popular in the US.
I dont know how you could have missed to problems with a hydrogen economy. Just look anywhere on the internet for information. Even wiki has picked it up.
This is a good place to read about it
here and
here. It explains better than i can and in a very short format. Please read it before answering.
snip~ Its more efficient just to have a pure electric car and just charge it.~snip
Nope, you won't make mileage, refueling time, or performance targets to make them acceptable to the public. That said, they should keep trying.
snip~ With biofuels entry costs are much lower and small players could compete with big energy so there is little interest. Ethanol from corn is probably not a very good idea but the farm industry supports it so its popular in the US. ~snip
The problem there is they have yet to discover how to do the biofuels, anywhere near efficiently or economically without using corn, cane or some other high sugar plant. High sugar plants are energy intensive to produce and end up being energy storage/transfer systems rather than an energy source.
Nope, you won't make mileage, refueling time, or performance targets to make them acceptable to the public. That said, they should keep trying.
Pure electric car yes, you are right, they not ready yet. I was saying given 30 years and unlimited electricity, you might just want to electrify everything, i was comparing that to the hydrogen car option. I think what makes sense now and for the foreseeable future is hybrid electric/ethanol. That car would be electric for short drives around town and you would use the ethanol for between city driving. They already have user modified cars that will do this.
The problem there is they have yet to discover how to do the biofuels, anywhere near efficiently or economically without using corn, cane or some other high sugar plant. High sugar plants are energy intensive to produce and end up being energy storage/transfer systems rather than an energy source.
There's a place for ethanol produced by corn, sugar crops are better. I think the corn gets more support than it deserves for political reasons and its probably not the best way to make biofuel but certainly doable for now. There are going to be lots of ways to make biofuel. Food crops for now, in the long run maybe algae and bacterial digestion of cellulose.
We should never say something(hydrogen) will never be feasible and we're wasting resources by continuing to work on that. Innovations can't be scheduled, and not only a breakthrough in the direction your going, but an entirely new avenue to pursue might be discovered.
Look how many things have been discovered accidentally.
Further, the research should be open, reports published, then peer reviewed. That way no hanky panky, or suppression of discoveries. If peer review picks it apart, there may be others that feel the bad review is not justified, or even agree with the review but spot a nugget in the report that jibes with something they found themselves and sets them off in a new direction.
Now keep in mind, I'm coming up with this as an outsider, just from the bitches I've read, from researchers, about the system. The politics and egos involved in funding keeps them from being too daring in their requests or conclusions.
How far do you think $2 billion a week would go to solve that problem?
I thought that I had already made that same point. :banghead:
You obviously have not read my posts on what my project is doing. We are not finding solutions. We are trying to assist land users in Australia to better handle our changing climate. We are not engineers, nor designers. Never claimed to be.
bluesdave - I was actually reinforcing what you said. I was just trying to express it from a different point of view.
(I don't even plan to have kids, much less grandkids. I think that
that is the single most environmentally damaging thing that the average person does or can do.)
Eschaton, I provided links to university departments, and well respected academic research institutions, and you supply web sites written by individuals. Now before you go off in a huff, just hear me out. For a start the people who argue against hydrogen cells are basing their arguments on existing production methods of hydrogen. I have said several times in this thread that people are working on extracting the hydrogen from waste recycling plants, ideally using solar cells as the power source. Yes, the initial building of the plants will be expensive, but once they are up and running, they are relatively cheap to operate.
Electric cars are a great innovation, but what people forget is that if you live in a country that relies on coal powered electricity generation, you are not using clean energy to top up the batteries. Also, if your country or state uses hydroelectricity, and you are in a drought, that is also a problem.
I am glad that you said sugar crops, rather than sugarcane, because sugarcane is a lousy method of producing ethanol. It is a lousy method to produce sugar. Sugarcane strips the soil of all nutrients, and requires huge volumes of water, and fertiliser. Because it is typically grown on the coastal strip, the excess fertiliser is washed into rivers, then into the sea. This is causing a tremendous problem here, in our Great Barrier Reef.
If you are prepared to wait 30 years for the perfect electric car to be produced, why are you not prepared to wait that long for hydrogen research?
I agree with both you and tw, that today, using current technology, hydrogen cells are not going to be common place. I am putting my faith in the researchers I have cited, and others, and hope that they will find a solution. You say that you are looking to the future. Well, try it. I don't want to fight with you, because we both have the same goal. To clean up our environment.
As Bruce said, maybe one day a researcher will find something new that will cancel out all of our arguments. I will not be unhappy if this is the case. I want a workable solution. I do not own shares in a hydrogen cell production company. If hydrogen loses out to something much better, that is great. So be it. Let's be friends, and not enemies. :)
Here is the pdf of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
This summary, approved in detail at the 9th Session of Working Group III of the IPCC, Bangkok – Thailand, May 2007, represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning climate change mitigation.
I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.
I agree with both you and tw, that today, using current technology, hydrogen cells are not going to be common place. I am putting my faith in the researchers I have cited, and others, and hope that they will find a solution. You say that you are looking to the future. Well, try it. I don't want to fight with you, because we both have the same goal. To clean up our environment.
Yeah, im not trying to fight either. I respect what researchers are trying to do with hydrogen. It was the same where i went to college. There are a lot of departments here excited about working with different parts of the problem. I worked with a professor that was just studying different materials for gas adsorption. But the big picture is missed. I do belive hydrogen is being pushed ahead of more workable options because of politics. Same with corn based ethanol, its probably the worst and most expensive way to produce ethanol but it has a lobby. Its disappointing.
I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you? :whofart:
So you believe the IPCC and drive around with hybrid cars and buy carbon offsets like other dumb suckers? You did this based on your own research project concerning climate change? Or just suck down what the IPCC said?
duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.
I do belive hydrogen is being pushed ahead of more workable options because of politics.
You might be correct. I said in an earlier post that the whole climate change debate had been hijacked by politicians. You have no idea how many presentations we did to various politicians in the 90s, and even into this century, trying to convince them that climate change research is important. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to spend 1-2 hours explaining how global warming is going to be a problem (forget about who, or what caused it, for now), only to have a room full of blank faces looking back at you? Then, to add insult to injury, they then hijacked the whole thing on us in the last year or two, and then became "converted" to climate change. :mad:
I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine.
Yes, hydrogen may have usefulness as a battery. For example, some use hydrogen stored at low pressure to collect solar energy. Whether efficiencies can be improved upon is unknown. Promising but completely unknown. But hydrogen was obvious never an energy source. Obviously if only because George Jr said otherwise.
Hydrogen even in a car (as a battery) may have potential. Fuel cells were never an energy source. The concept has potential as a battery. But the naive promoted fuel cells as some kind of fuel. Some are experimenting with hydrogen storage materials. However restrictions such as excessively high temperatures and weight have made those technologies currently completely impractical. The point remains - hydrogen never was a viable fuel. However many who heard a president say otherwise in his State of the Union address therefore should have immediately known it must be a lie - and believed that lying president anyway.
Any potential solutions based in hydrogen are at least a decade away. Today we should be implementing what can work - that has potential proven in prototypes. GM - the classic example of failure - could not make a hybrid even when paid to in 1996? Again, directly traceable to the many who still believe in 'magic bullets' rather than identifying or addressing a problem.
The problem is not about 'magic bullets'. The problem is about *efficiency*. Some who promote or deny either global warming or energy problems simply forget where this entire discussion and solution lies: doing more with less. No communication major, lawyer, or business school expert can even guess how that solution might be implemented. Solutions must be defined by those who come from where the work gets done.
Who is the enemy of innovators? They are lead by George Jr and his band of anti-Americans. No exaggeration. No song. No political agenda. Just solid science fact. Just blunt and politically incorrect reality. This problem was identified repeatedly with numerous examples in
Perverting science for politics.
Why did so many forget what we need - efficiency? Notice who was perverting that reality with his 'message' - also called propaganda, spin, lies, or preachings of Rush Limbaugh. Promoted hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' caused others to ignore the real question: "how do we increase efficiencies?"
There is no way to avoid a major reason why this hydrogen myth was promoted – George Jr. At best, hydrogen may help solve another serious problem - short term energy storage - a battery. There is no viable alternative to petroleum fuels.
tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK. I am also not sure of how many there are - I know it is only a small number. At least it is a start. I'm not saying it is the final solution.
I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.
I don't blame you Bruce. Some of this stuff can be heavy going. The effect on GDP is a problem. This is why so many politicians back away from taking positive action. This is why China and India take their stands. They are just starting to reap the benefits of industrial growth, and do not want to risk damaging economic growth. The Australian Government is the same. At least they have given us some funding for research (they are playing both sides, of course).
duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.
Is that a yes or a weak attempt at an insult? I'll take it as both.
When I was ranting about the evils of sugar cane, I forgot to mention that before they harvest it, the crop is set on fire, thus throwing huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Just another reason to hate sugar cane, and be angry that the Australian Government continues to subsidise its production. I'm not against sugar, just sugar cane.
See tw, I'm learning. :cool:
tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK.
You are confusing 'working OK' with 'working efficiently'. How many times did I use that word 'efficient'? Also a question that demands numbers.
Bus can work inefficiently to be working OK? Did you grasp references to 'thermodynamic efficiency' in multiple posts? What is hydrogen's pressure in its tanks? Did you read the part where less than 2 out of 10 units of energy are available for productive work? How many miles on a 'tank' of hydrogen? Even GM's EV-1 electric car worked OK. So what happened? Why was EV-1 a complete disaster if it worked OK?
Why do I post this concept repeatedly - and must now repost it again?
Where are those cleaner cars operating on natural gas? They also worked OK. Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car. What happened to another technology that was working OK? Or was everything OK except the technology?
The Challenger also worked OK everytime previously. Therefore Challenger was safe to launch? Nothing wrong with that reasoning either? We are killing Al Qaeda in "Mission Accomplished". Therefore that war is working OK?
Defined was a larger problem about George Jr supporters who fail to think logically AND who avoid the fundamental problem - 'efficiency'. How many times was the word 'efficiency' referenced?
Do we use ten gallons of gasoline to get less than 2 gallons into a car? And then only 0.3 gallons does productive work? Do you call that increased efficiency? Welcome to your bus example. Did the english major who reported on those buses forget to think like a patriotic American - provide important facts - especially numbers? Why did she forget to provide basic numbers? Maybe she was reporting for Murdoch meaning that shorting of facts to promote an agenda is acceptable? Or maybe we can blame it all on her? But when she does not provide underlying facts and numbers - just like George Jr - then who is to blame for believing her?
Nothing is politically correct anywhere in this post. Instead it is blunt honest. Asked are some damning questions. If those buses are working OK, then where are these numbers? Why are they doing what no one else has been able to accomplish? GM's EV-1 electric car also worked OK. Where is it today? In piles. GM eventually bought them all back. But EV-1 also worked OK.
They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.
I could be wrong, but I believe there's less than 5% of cane crops being burned in Australia these days.
Aside from that point, you're right about everything else you've said about sugar cane dave. ;) (and I bow to your superior knowledge)
Here's a good
link-for-dummies about the sydney project.
tw's call for efficiency rings hollow when you look at the efficiency of posts. Now Aussie busses are Bush's fault.
Did someone say there are no magic bullets? Then why would an experiment to run city busses on hydrogen, thereby reducing greenhouse gasses in the city, have to be justified as sufficiently efficient? There's no reason to believe that down the road it can't be made sufficiently efficient.
It's a pilot project to see what hiccups will develop in a practical application. A PR experiment that will help get people thinking there
are alternative solutions, not to convince them hydrogen is the answer for them.
Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car.
"Most every" is actually less than 2/3 have gas service. The ones that do, have this ever scarcer fuel coming in at less than 3 psi. How far do you think your car would go, with the biggest tank you could carry, at 3 psi?
It would have to be compressed... high pressure and low temperature, by the same people that start fires just filling their cars with gasoline. No, best leave that to a filling station attendant that's been trained and tested handling high pressure connections.
Even so, the gas won't last forever so we have to keep plugging at different solutions, use gas for stationary uses, industrial and residential.
Gasoline is wonderful stuff, beyond compare...so far.
Hey, guess what... I know how to eliminate 6 Billion tons of CO2 being added to the air, every year. That's 6,000,000,000 tons... every year.
Over 20 years ago, Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. Everyone had a good laugh and life went on.
When
Michel Barsoum, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, heard Davidovits claim he laughed too. But when he was told nobody ever checked it out, he decided to disprove it with a few hours of electron microscopy.
Egyptian born Barsoum's daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s, so he's no amateur.
"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum says.
At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists."
"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."
Wow, if we could eliminate Portland cement for everything not poured underwater, what a tremendous energy savings and CO2 reduction.
bruce, i think you have something there....
As to the bus program, i read the slide show from the link, there was not much information there. Basically they said they would see how it works. I support the development of the technology to make cities cleaner but it does nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
Current hydrogen and most foreseeable hydrogen production is from natural gas, so of course fossil fuel companies are big on hydrogen.
At the end of the slide they had the cost analysis:
Hydrogen Costs - Today
Ex Refinery: $6/GJ
Delivered (truck): >$20/GJ
Gasoline: $6/GJ)
On-Site Electrolysis: $60/GJ ($0.07/kWhr electricity)
On-Site Electrolysis: $60/GJ
What's that? Making it at the point of sale with power off the grid? And what the hell is GJ?
Clicking on the bus link, I was a little taken back by that slick dog&pony show that BP had made. I was expecting something more along the lines of a typical government/municipal web site. That presentation is clearly not designed to inform, but to sell the concept and pat themselves on the collective back, as one of the good guys.
Well, whatever technology wins, BP will have a jump on the infrastructure.
... And what the hell is GJ?...
xoB, a GJ is a gigajoule or 10^9 joule. It's approximately 1 million Btu.
1 J = 1 kg*m^2/s^2
1 Btu = 1055 J
They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.
Yes, but not all burning has ceased:
Firing of sugar cane has also become less common with the rapid introduction of green cane mechanical harvesting. Sugar cane crops are now burnt once every three or four years at the end of the sowing/ratoon cycle.
That was taken from a CSIRO
link, which I admit is now quite old, but the page has not been removed or updated, so I assume that it is still correct information. It is good to see that the sugar industry is trying to clean up its act. I found many links at the CSIRO, and the Sugar Institute, that show they are serious. That is good news.
tw, I offered the hydrogen celled buses as an example of new technology being tested. It is only a pilot scheme. I have no control over whether the people involved, release figures - I said that I tried to find some information, and could not.
I have said repeatedly that the solution will come out of current and future research. How can anyone produce figures on technology that does not exist yet? I also said that I do not mind if hydrogen does not end up being the solution. If someone finds a better solution, then that is great.
Save your breath Dave, he doesn't want to hear anything but, "Yes, tw", "You're absolutely right, tw", "Whatever you say, tw", preferably with a lot of genuflecting.
He'll seize on a point from TV or magazine, put on the blinders and write 8 paragraphs talking about everything but the point he's found. Then he'll get pissed because you didn't understand what the hell he was babbling about.
If he wasn't warm and fuzzy, we'd have lynched him long ago.
Hey relax, I just saved you 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.
Hey Bruce, I think I have found a solution to tw's problem. He is always complaining about MBAs, and I just came across
this link for the University of Phoenix. He can do his MBA online! Then he won't feel so left out.
BTW, thanks for the CO2. How about we split the carbon credits (and sell them), and deposit the money into our bank accounts? ;)
tw, I offered the hydrogen celled buses as an example of new technology being tested. It is only a pilot scheme.
But before it was "I hate to rain on your parade, but ... they are working OK". Which is it? A pilot scheme that is vastly inefficient? Or a demonstration of something that is "working OK".
Aliantha offered a BP color glossy propaganda sheet with some numbers - vague numbers. It implies hydrogen costs at $6 per gigajoule. That comes to something like $5500 per megawatt-hour. Current technology electricity sells for about $40 per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market. Suddenly a pilot program that costs 140 times more is an example of greater efficiency? Only when rationalizing SUVs.
A gallon of gas is maybe $82 per megawatt-hour. Hydrogen costs may 70 times more?
BP's color glossy also claims CO2 outputs that apparently ignore CO2 generated to produce that hydrogen.
Numbers still make no sense for hydrogen as a fuel - which should have been obvious the minute George Jr promoted it. At 140 times more money for same energy, this is viable? This is "working OK"? Clearly not. Sydney's pilot program demonstrates that hydrogen is not a solution. Increased efficiency does not exist. Increased efficiency is what all solutions must achieve.
As Bruce notes:
That presentation is clearly not designed to inform, but to sell the concept and pat themselves on the collective back, as one of the good guys.
When extracting numbers, the color glossy's real conclusions are completely opposite of that presentation's 'feel'. If one reads it like an english major, then BP is doing good things. If a reader ignores personal biases (trageted by that presentation) and instead grasps the numbers, then that hydrogen program is a disaster.
Another interesting number - they are only using hydrogen at 4000 psi which keeps costs lower. GM has already stated that 10,000 PSI hydrogen is still insufficient energy for automobiles.
Bluesdave - there is no problem. You posted in error. The error was corrected. That bottom line conclusion is the only point made. So why do you impose you emotions into what was posted? As The Eschaton accurately notes:
Hydrogen is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.
A conclusion in direct contradicton to what George Jr promoted in his State of the Union Address and in direct contradiction to those who believe that lying president. Hydrogen as a fuel - long ago obviously rediculous. Hydrogen is so bad as to even be a poor 'energy storage and transmission' medium.
We will remain a petroleum dependant society for probably as long as all Cellar dwellers live. Time to start burning the stuff using responsiblity - a comment also directed right at those who remain in denial and even promote obsolete technology in SUVs.
tw...this hydrogen thing they're testing here is simply a test. The link I shared with you is not a scientific document. It's a document for dummies. It's not really meant to prove or disprove anything. We can all see that. It was just something to give people a little bit of an idea what the go is.
Every new technology is expensive until it become mainstream. Think about cars. Think about computers. Think about planes. Think about telephones.
Now think about how much simpler they make our lives and why mass production brought the cost of these technologies down.
That's the point tw. First you have to find out if a technology works. Then you have to work out a way to mass market it so that everyone can afford it, not the other way around.
Here's some
more info and education programs operating in Australia.
And here's
more
And a little bit
moretw...this hydrogen thing they're testing here is simply a test. The link I shared with you is not a scientific document. It's a document for dummies. It's not really meant to prove or disprove anything. We can all see that. It was just something to give people a little bit of an idea what the go is.
The presentation is intended to deceive - classic propaganda with no numbers. It provides near zero useful information - unless we go vindictively after its numbers. Anything that does not provide numerous numbers is typically promoting junk science reasoning - propaganda - fiction that only an english major could love.
The only way it can 'give people ... what the go is' is by providing basic numbers. it even ignores the massive carbon footprint to make hydrogen.
bluesdave represented the test as "working OK". No, it was not. The test demonstrated how bad hydrogen is as a fuel - confirming what underlying theories also suggest.
Moving on to the part you have not grasped. It was not just that telephone, transistors, etc would get cheaper with innovation (notice I said 'innovation' and not 'mass production'). Innovation could make mass production cheaper only because both the theory and experimental evidence suggested it could happen. Those technologies did not automatically get cheaper only due to 'economies of scale' - mass production. Innovation must be possible so that scale can create economies.
The problem with hydrogen as a fuel: even the theoretical numbers says those costs will not sufficiently decrease. Again, we cannot violate fundamental rules of thermodynamics that also involve conservation of energy.
The test was not "working OK". Test even violates a necessary condition - doing more with less. Hydrogen obviously is not a viable fuel. If you think otherwise, then what is the fundamental science theory that suggests otherwise? Where can innovation create such massive breathroughs. If you cannot say, then why do you assume 'economies of scale' will exist?
It is why we teach everyone science in school. So that you might understand what is necessary for achievement. Instead you are only promoting what junk science MBAs, lawyers and communication majors do. Somehow this magic idea called 'economies of scale' (also called mass production) will automatically reduce costs? Why does cost reduction not happen with drug prices? With age, a drug's price should decrease. Why do drug prices only increase even when production increases? Because 'economies of scale' is junk science reasoning by those who could not bother to first learn science details.
Do you really believe these myths about 'economies of scale'? If such existed, then GM automobiles would be the least expensive to build. GM cars are the most expensive cars - cost even more than a comparative Mercedes products. Your assumptions about 'economies of scale' are also why American steel manufacturers have costs sometimes double those of foreign manufacturers. Making a blast furnace bigger lowered costs? Guess what? No. Why are American steel manufacturers so inefficient? They also used your 'economies of scale' rationalization in places such as Sparrow Point, Fairless Hills, and Bethlehem. Now they run to government for protection.
The science does not work. That color glossy presentation is to intentionally deceive the naive. It was written so that people who judge by 'feel' will see a hydrogen future. Take the few numbers from that 'feel good' presentation. Then 'hydrogen as a fuel' experiment only confirms what the theory also says. It's just not viable.
Let's see. Suppose we make hydrogen from a petroleum based energy source at $80 per MW-Hr. By the time those 10 units of energy to make, package, and transport that energy to a car, then only 2 units remain. So now the hydrogen is $400 per MW-Hr. And these numbers assume 100% perfect 'economies of scale'. What were those costs for Sydney? About $5500 per MW-Hr. OK. With economies of scale, then the price might decrease 10 times. Even with a price reduction of ten times due to mythical 'economies of scale', prices still remain multiple times higher.
Notice the difference. I was not enthralled by a mythical 'economies of scale'. I used fundamental science concepts to optimize prices - and it still cost too much - does not increase efficiencies - does not 'do more from less'.
What have I demonstrated here? That assumptions of ‘economies of scale’ rather than learning the underlying science only results in junk science conclusions. You have zero reason to believe hydrogen as a fuel is viable. And yet you justified it by doing what junk science did to create the GM automobile. Due to ‘economies of scale’ reasoning, GM products are now the most expensive to build. ‘Economies of scale’ will not change the science of hydrogen.
The only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics tw.
That's about all I have to say on this one.
Suppose we make hydrogen from a petroleum based energy source at $80 per MW-Hr. By the time those 10 units of energy to make, package, and transport that energy to a car, then only 2 units remain. So now the hydrogen is $400 per MW-Hr. And these numbers assume 100% perfect 'economies of scale'. What were those costs for Sydney? About $5500 per MW-Hr. OK. With economies of scale, then the price might decrease 10 times. Even with a price reduction of ten times due to mythical 'economies of scale', prices still remain multiple times higher.
The point is "petroleum based" is not going to be an option in the future. The future is going to be expensive, very expensive. What we feel are logical solutions from past experience, may not be in the future.
The only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics tw.
That's about all I have to say on this one.
To simplify it - 'economies of scale' only exist where innovation is possible. It is a symptom and not a solution. That is why GM threw money at problems like a grenade - and only made problems worst. They did not innovate. There solution was 'economies of scale' which only resulted in their higher costs.
Mass production does not automatically reduce costs. But then the numbers were even provided. Even with cost reductions, hydrogen is still massively more expensive. Aliantha has only done what I see often. As soon as I put forth numbers, then eyes glaze over. One common expression during that glazing is: "only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics".
Hydrogen is not a fuel. And yet hydrogen is being promoted by some here as if it were a fuel. Hydrogen in those Sydney buses is only working - not working OK - as prices demonstrate.
Semantics? We will remain a petroleum based economy in everyone’s lifetime. Some technologies will supplement petroleum. But there is no way around petroleum due to its high energy per pound numbers and other fundamentally simple and irreversible facts. Time to grasp that reality and deal with it. Both global warming and energy problems require solutions that do more with less. There is no 'magic bullet'. There is no 'blue-steel'. "Mass production" (economies of scale)does not automatically make the impossible possible. But there are solutions.
[FONT=Arial]"Computers in the future may weigh no more than one and a half tons."[/FONT] —Popular Mechanics, Forecasting the Relentless March of Science, 1949
[FONT=Arial]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/FONT]
—Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943
[FONT=Arial]"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."[/FONT]
—The Editor in Charge of Business Books for Prentice Hall, 1957
[FONT=Arial]"But what . . . is it good for?"[/FONT]
—Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Divisions of IBM, commenting on the microchip, 1968
[FONT=Arial]"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."[/FONT]
—Ken Olson, President, Chairman, and Founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
[FONT=Arial]"I watched his face (Samuel F.B. Morse) closely to see if he was not deranged, and was assured by other Senators as we left the room that they had no confidence in it either."[/FONT]
—Senator Oliver Smith of Indiana, 1842, after witnessing a first demonstration of the telegraph
[FONT=Arial]"Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit their voices over wires, and even if it were possible, the thing would not have practical value."[/FONT]
—Editorial in the Boston Post, 1865
[FONT=Arial]"Radio has no future."[/FONT]
—Lord Kelvin, Physicist and President of the Royal Society, 1897
[FONT=Arial]"The radio craze will die out in time."[/FONT]
—Thomas Edison, 1922
[FONT=Arial]"There's a lunatic in the lobby who says he's invented a device for transmitting pictures over the air. Be careful, he may have a razor on him."[/FONT]
—Editor of the London Daily Express, commenting to a staffer on someone who had asked to see a reporter and was waiting downstairs
But there is no way around petroleum due to its high energy per pound numbers and other fundamentally simple and irreversible facts.
The cost per mile, monetarily and socially, is the bottom line. Right now petroleum can't be beaten, but that's not an unassailable position. If cleaner technology is developed or the cost skyrockets, the picture could change drastically.
HLJ, back in the 70s I was heavily into Hi-Fi, and purchased a number of Hi-Fi magazines every month. I still remember an editorial in one, where the editor was dismissing digital music as being impossible to achieve, and that we would never see it in our life times. How funny is that? I cannot remember precisely, but I think he was reacting to Philips announcing the development of the CD.
about technology, there are hard problems and there are easy ones. (first of all i cant predict the future im just telling my perception) Notice most of these false predictions have to do with information technology. I think information is one of the more tractable problems. i wont be surprised by anything that comes out in the next few years as far as that goes, better and better virtual reality, cheaper faster computers, even real AI. Now what about all those technologies that were predicted in the 50's that we would have? Flying cars, moon bases, traveling around the solar system in space ships, energy to cheap to meter. Fusion energy has been "just around the corner" for the past 50 years. Just because someone says it cant be done does not mean that science will find a way to do it around the corner. Thats way to optimistic. So what i am saying is that with energy i think we are really up against the limits dictated by the nature of things. I was promoting biofule here, and thats an option but whats hard to realize is the shear scale of our energy use. It is beyond what you can grasp in an intuitive manner. I was doing more research on biofuls and at a site supporting biofuel it was showing how even if we plant all our cropland with switch grass and assuming our best idea of what we can do in processing that once the technology is mature we can still only offset 25% of our gasoline use!!! Now that came as a surprise to me. (cant find the site i saw that at but this one gives similar numbers 30% by 2050) But this is WITH drastic efficiency measures such as reducing urban sprawl and congestion and mandating 50 MPG cars!!!
biofuel
Since land scarcity will clearly be an issue, some analysts argue that any biofuel strategy will need to be accompanied by a strong dose of conservation. According to "Growing Energy," a 2004 Natural Resources Defense Council report on biofuels, the U.S. is on track to consume 290 billion gallons of gasoline for transportation in 2050. By boosting fuel efficiencies and reigning in urban sprawl, the report says, we could feasibly cut this figure down to 108 billion gallons.
So here's where the mathematics of biomass come in. NRDC has forecasted that the number of gallons of ethanol produced per ton of dry switchgrass could jump from 50 gallons to 117 gallons by 2050. Crop experts say that current averages of five dry tons of grass per acre could easily double under a standard breeding program. These combined boosts in efficiency mean that enough switchgrass could be grown on a reasonable chunk of land to produce 165 billion gallons of ethanol by 2050. And because one gallon of ethanol contains 66 percent of the energy content of gasoline, 165 billion gallons of ethanol equates to -- you guessed it -- 108 billion gallons of gasoline.
It's an optimistic scenario, to be sure. On the efficiency side, it demands radical cuts in fuel usage. On the ethanol side, it requires an infrastructure of pipelines and pumps specially designed to transport the hygroscopic fluid.
Im starting to think maybe even biofuel is not going to do much. I think electric cars are better than most people think. The
Tesla car looks good. Electric car doubters check that out and tell me what you think?
maybe the only way to really get serious about global warming is to build 100's of nuclear fuel plants now? I dont support nuclear but right now it looks like the only real solution and i think we are better with nuclear than the CO2.
tw, you've picked the bits out that you wanted to argue and that's fine. Nowhere did I stipulate that mass production was the only way to reduce costs. Generally, in order to 'mass produce' something from a prototype it is necessary to innovate, so I would have thought that someone with your superior intelligence would have taken that as a foregone conclusion.
As to hydrogen fuel cells.
I'm not a scientist so I'm not able to argue the figures with you. All I'm trying to suggest and demonstrate is that real life trials are being run and they're working. Of course they're expensive. All trials are.
Are you suggesting that scientists should stop trying to provide new forms of energy? What alternatives would you like to discuss, as opposed to simply denegrating suggestions made by others.
tw, you've picked the bits out that you wanted to argue and that's fine. Nowhere did I stipulate that mass production was the only way to reduce costs.
First, I solve problems by zeroing in on the irrefutable fact. Fact remains that hydrogen must be manufactured from other fuels, is so inefficient as to cause massive energy losses in transport and storage, and therefore costs a hundred times more.
You may call that selective reasoning. But I have targeted the irrefutable fallacy in your reasoning by thinking like an engineer - not like an MBA or fiction writer who failed to first do research (sometimes called an english major).
Second, you claimed costs could be reduced by mass production. Fine. Your numbers (which I had to provide) don't work. Now you claim something else can solve the problem? Fine. What? What, using basic science theory, will solve that cost problem? Problems are not solved just because you believe they can be solved or because somebody throws money at it like a grenade. That would be junk science reasoning.
If you are so sure that hydrogen costs can be reduced, then you have (at minimum) a proposal or the outline of a concept. If not, you only have what George Jr routinely uses to know Saddam had WMDs - a feeling.
Third, I am trying to separate fuel cell technology from hydrogen as a fuel. They remain different topics. For example, a fuel cell may be possible as a battery. Hydrogen has potential as a battery. That is completely different from what George Jr, et al were promoting - hydrogen as a fuel.
As The Eschaton accurately notes:
Hydrogen is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.
As the Sydney bus program demonstrates, hydrogen is not a viable fuel. So why are some promoting hydrogen as a fuel? Look at who is doing it - George Jr. Rick Wagoner of GM. These men have near zero grasp of reality, MBA degrees, and a long history of running unsuccessful operations.
The bottom line again: we will remain a petroleum dependent economy for many generations. No way around basic science. Petroleum simply has too much energy per pound. What else can supersede these numbers? Again, you cannot arbitrarily ignore science facts. Ignoring creates junk science reasoning which also causes the stifling of innovation.
Why do the military academies graduate everyone as an engineer? They need people who can deal with reality - not junk scientists. If hydrogen has potential as a fuel, then you can cite technical reasons why. Hydrogen cannot be a fuel only because you 'feel' it can. Provided were damning numbers based in real science. You did not even dare to touch them. Then how do you know hydrogen will work as a fuel. Business school optimism?
Ed Esber also thought optimism could solve anything. Therefore in four years, he bankrupted the nation's largest PC software manufacturer. He 'felt' rather than learn irrefutable facts.
lord tw, you are flogging a dead horse. I think most of that is repost. I think everyone here realizes that hydrogen is not going to help the CO2 problem. It is however an energy technology. It does have zero pollution at the point its used at. Arguable it can be used to keep cities clean. Biofuel would still pollute where as hydrogen, at its user point is clean.
PS. tw we are both curious as to your solutions.
I'm curious, can we agree on these 6 points, not listed in order of importance?
1-Hydrogen is not going to be the replacement for oil. It will however be used in some places for it's attributes, how much depending on the improvement in technology.
2-Electric vehicles will most likely be a part of the transportation mix, and improvements in battery technology will be pivitol in the size of it's share
3-We will probably end up with a bunch of different axillary transportation solutions in different countries and cities just because of politics. 4-Because there is no single solution (yet), the economies of scale won't be as big as they could be.
5-The first and formost solution is to conserve the oil we have and reduce emissions, for our health and it might help, but certainly can't hurt, the environment.
6-Hybrids are probably the best short term solution to achieve #5 while research continues on multiple technologies.
HLJ, back in the 70s I was heavily into Hi-Fi, and purchased a number of Hi-Fi magazines every month. I still remember an editorial in one, where the editor was dismissing digital music as being impossible to achieve, and that we would never see it in our life times. How funny is that? I cannot remember precisely, but I think he was reacting to Philips announcing the development of the CD.
The interesting thing is that some of the people quoted (e.g. Ken Olson, Thomas Watson, Lord Kelvin) were in a position to really know what they were talking about, and would have had a strong influence on what others were doing in their field.
I think the biggest danger is to just say "It can't be done," and discourage others from trying.
Sometimes engineers think that they have all the answers. But it's necessary to be able to work with MBAs and politicians and mechanics and marketers and english majors, and all those other people who are
necessary to run a successful enterprise.
Engineers and scientists sometimes forget that they are just one little link in a long chain.
i agree with those points bruce. Nice summery. After reading up on the problem ill just restate that i think what no one realizes is the scale of the problem. The amount of energy we consume. This might be controversial for a lot of people but i think conservation will be the main way to cut emissions. All these other power schemes cant come close to replacing the energy we use from fossil fuel. Im not saying they arnt important to develop, they are. With the amount of energy we use there is no foreseeable way to replace that in the next 100 years.
PS. except maybe nuclear and that would mean hundreds of plants built starting now.
The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is working on a project to produce hydrogen using a wind turbine. At first it sounds like a dumb idea. The turbine creates electricity, then uses that to produce hydrogen, then incurs all the efficiency losses of compression, etc. as mentioned above by tw. Why not use the electricity directly? It seems much more efficient.
There's enough wind potential in Wyoming to power half of the country. They could put up turbines all over the state. The problem is that the places with the best wind don't have transmission lines, and transmission lines cost about $1 million per mile.
Another problem with wind is that it's not dispatchable, meaning it's great when the wind is blowing, but it can't be turned up and down to match the load. (Coal-fired power plants are called base-load, or firm, power. Firm power is valued more than intermittant resources, like wind and solar.)
If there is too much wind-power in a generation portfolio, the system becomes unreliable (above about 20% of generation), because there is too much production variation. This requires the utilities to have stand-by power, which are generators (e.g. natural gas) that are ready to ramp up very quickly if the wind dies.
Using wind (or solar) power to create hydrogen, instead of feeding directly in to the grid, can make wind power into a firm source; or the hydrogen can be bottled and used for transportation fuel.
This is an example of a creative solution that might not be obvious at first glance.
Thanks HLJ good post, good point. i had not thought of that.
Just to emphasize what you have all said before:
Without conservation and energy efficiency all is lost.
It sounds like a good plan, but when you figure a turbine is about $1000 per kilowatt to buy, the losses in the electrolysis creation of hydrogen, the 'bottling plant', the infrastructure to make this all work, it won't be cheap.
Now consider the pressure Al Gore is putting(indirectly) on the plants that produce half our electricity. The cost of transmission lines is peanuts compared to finding alternative power generation sources that will pass pollution muster.
I can see, when sufficient wind power is available, using excess(off peak) capability for other things like hydrogen production. Unless, of course, battery technology have increased to the point of making it a more viable method of storing that power.
Notice: if politicians have there way all bets are off.
Just to emphasize what you have all said before:
Without conservation and energy efficiency all is lost.
which brings us to the point of those that oppose taking action against global warming. They seem opposed to it because they think its all a plot by those socialist communist bastards to impose heavy handed government control on us. (said ironically tounge in cheek) But im realizing they are right. I had just thought it would take some good pushes in alternate energy technologies and we would be home free, but thats wrong. it is going to take some heavy handed government action and some new enforced conservation rules. its going to take mandating higher efficiency standards. And now this makes me worried. I think its the one thing americans wont take. We would take our suvs to hell with us. The people will not allow the government to take conservation measures that might impact there lifestyle in the slightest. I think we are lost :(
The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is working on a project to produce hydrogen using a wind turbine.
I like this a lot. I've heard a few (sometimes goofy) ideas to balance output with loads but this looks quite sensible. There are folks who oppose wind power because of the bird blender effect, but over-all it is a much better pro-environment power source than just about anything I've seen. You could also harness this to existing dams...
...There are folks who oppose wind power because of the bird blender effect...
You cannot support Wind Power without consciously accepting the reality of innocent bird deaths!!! :::head explodes:::
I prefer to think of bird blenders as a potential cheap source of protein. :yum:
Ahhh...synergy! We collect the "processed" birds for use as cat food!
You cannot support Wind Power without consciously accepting the reality of innocent bird deaths!!! :::head explodes:::
I am, right now, working on a (top secret) wind farm perimeter security system, which will completely eliminate bird deaths from wind turbines.
It consists of a series of high-powered lasers that will detect and instantly fry any bird that tries to enter the wind farm's air space.
Now I just need a clever name, like Clear Skies Initiative.
There are folks who oppose wind power because of the bird blender effect...
I think most people who oppose wind power just don't want the ugly windmills in their back yard. They use the birds as a "reason," but really it's simple NIMBYism. Can't say I blame them. I wouldn't want them in my view either if they can go somewhere else instead.
I'd say that you're right on the NIMBY deal. I think windmills are beautiful in form and function, powerlines are another story though.
A
good site I just ran across. It is squarely against global warming skeptics, but each question and answer page allows comments, so the skeptics can try to pick holes in the argument.
A good site I just ran across. It is squarely against global warming skeptics, but each question and answer page allows comments, so the skeptics can try to pick holes in the argument.
What is a Global Warming Skeptic? Anyone that doesn't buy Gore's Dog & Pony show?
I don't think the arguments on that page are particularly strong. There's a lot of vague references and generalizations although it might work on Grandma if she trusted the person telling her. Anyone with real skepticism would need much more than I see there.
I was looking at some Ariel photos of Europe and noticed this caption under a picture of an Airbus field in France.
What is a Global Warming Skeptic? Anyone that doesn't buy Gore's Dog & Pony show?
I don't think the arguments on that page are particularly strong. There's a lot of vague references and generalizations although it might work on Grandma if she trusted the person telling her. Anyone with real skepticism would need much more than I see there.
I was looking at some Ariel photos of Europe and noticed this caption under a picture of an Airbus field in France.
Ariel? Is that the part around the nipple?
The other problems with wind farms (over here) is the high price landowners are paid for the lease on their land. This causes reverse NIMBYism problems.
You really just can't win when you're trying to save the world.
tw, you're trying to make it seem like I've said something I didn't. you just go your own way with your rant matey.
Not what you said, what you didn't say.
Yes well, it's very unfortunate that birds are killed because of windfarming. I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think anyone else does either.
The fact remains that it's a technology which works and is relatively inexpensive to run once it's set up.
Reconciling the cost to wildlife against the benefits to humans is difficult in all such situations however in this case, I believe the cost is not as high as that which will be paid if we don't explore this technology.
As one of the articles TheMercenary linked to said, there are many human-related bird deaths due to other factors, such as tall buildings, windows, cats and cell towers. To put things into perspective,
here are some statistics from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Some numbers:
Building window strikes: 97 to 976 million/yr
Communication tower strikes: 4 to 40 million/yr
Cars: 60 million/yr
Cats: hundreds of millions/yr
Another source said "According to the Bird Conservancy, the 15 000 existing US wind turbines kill 10 000 to 40 000 birds per year, which compares with 50 million US bird deaths per year due to transmission towers and 200 million worldwide due to avian flu in 2005. Extrapolating to 5 million 5-MW turbines needed to satisfy all electric power and energy needs worldwide gives 3 million to 13 million bird deaths per year, much less than transmission towers in the US alone."
There is obviously a lot of uncertainty in the numbers, but if people are truly concerned about bird deaths they would get rid of their cats, their cars and their cell phones.
tw, you're trying to make it seem like I've said something I didn't.
I you cannot correct how your post is interpreted, then I have clearly interpreted what you have posted correctly. Meanwhile, the numbers do not lie. Aliantha does not dispute the numbers.
Hydrogen is not a fuel. Those claiming otherwise - and that would include Aliantha because she does not dispute it - have no idea why hydrogen as a fuel is a promotion by the naive - such as George Jr and Rick Wagoner of GM - to the naive.
tw...you suggested that I was an advocate for hydrogen fuel. All I did was provide you with information. As I have previously mentioned, I'm not a scientist so can't argue the pros and cons.
The only thing I do acknowledge with regard to hydrogen as a fuel source is that human beings need to explore all options because we're running out of oil. That's it. The sum total of my point.
If you're some kind of oracle and can tell that in the future there'll never be a feasible way to use hydrogen as a fuel source, then I bow to your superior knowledge.
The only thing I do acknowledge with regard to hydrogen as a fuel source is that human beings need to explore all options because we're running out of oil. That's it. The sum total of my point.
If you're some kind of oracle and can tell that in the future there'll never be a feasible way to use hydrogen as a fuel source, then I bow to your superior knowledge.
Basic science cannot be denied. Laws of thermodynamics don't change. There is no other fuel - even speculated - that can replace petroleum due to fundamental numbers such as energy per kilogram.
This time you posted what your point was; said something I can comprehend. Yes, alternatives must always be explored. But one does not go exploring by violating well proven concepts such as conservation of energy. We also cannot burn seawater no matter how many times fiction has claimed otherwise.
There are no miracle solutions. But obvious problems could be solved. For example, how much of 10 gasoline liters actually perform useful work? Probably less than 2. Automobiles are that grossly inefficient. Do we know how to improve these numbers? Yes, and without magic solutions. One technology stifled for so long that the Japanese finally refined it is the hybrid. Hybrids were even in pre-WWII locomotives. Stifled so long because fear of innovation has been especially strong in the American auto industry.
Solutions exist. So these same industry executives who stifled innovation suddenly proclaim a miracle solution in hydrogen? Not only is hydrogen not a viable fuel, but it is being used to protect executives who really need to be burned at the stake - with hydrogen.
Chrysler studied hybrids in the 1980s. It was too complex. Why? Well Chrysler, et al suffered through development of other technologies such as fuel injection. A technology found even in 1937 German WWII planes. It was not that hybrids were too complex. It was that Chrysler, et al had so stifled innovation as to not have time for the more innovative stuff. Fuel injection that finally became standard in the mid 1980 (and not properly implemented in GM until after 1990) was originally standard in German ME-109 fighter planes.
Numerous ideas exist that only require development. So instead we waste time on a technology that has near zero promise? Hydrogen?
What might be the next major advance in automobiles? A future generation hybrid may not even use piston engines. We use pistons today only because we know them - for the same reasons that transistors were once made of germanium. Hybrids now make practical tiny turbines in conjunction with new tech batteries. Turbines could even utilize 4 or 5 of those 10 gasoline liters in useful work. Theoretically, it is possible - which we cannot say about hydrogen as a fuel. Nothing here from an
oracle. It is a simple technical possiblity. Hydrogen as a fuel - not. Hydrogen as a battery - maybe.
Notice how we solve global warming and energy problems. We get energy from 4 or 5 gasoline liters. Doing more with less.
Yes we need to explore viable possibilities. But that means we need executives who know what reality is - who come from where the work gets done - and therefore don't hype mythical solutions. Hydrogen is promoted where innovation is again being subverted. Did it ever bother anyone that GM's chief engineer was a student of graphics art - not a mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineer? Could he see fallacies in something that violates thermodynamics? Of course not. He would have never taken a thermo course. Therefore he would be a perfect reason why innovation is stifled - why hydrogen is promoted at the expense of innovation.
Bottom line: hydrogen is being promoted as a fuel by those who stifle innovation and have a history of doing so.
GM has many chief engineers.
Dr. Mohsen Shabana is chief engineer for the GM Sequel (fuel cell car) project (
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]General Motors chief engineer: hydrogen as transportation fuel will shape the rest of the century[/SIZE][/FONT]).
You can read more about GM's fuel cells and advanced technology vehicles
here.
Finally,
AutoblogGreen has some interesting articles about technologies under development, including a 6-stroke cycle "steam" engine.
There are a lot of innovative projects going on around the world in the areas of energy efficiency, alternative fuels and CO2 reduction.
There is no other fuel - even speculated - that can replace petroleum due to fundamental numbers such as energy per kilogram.
We have nothing else that can match it's performance, doesn't mean it can't be replaced. It just means the cost of replacing it would be astronomical right now. Politics, however, could force that expenditure, so it would be wise to continue working on as many options as possible.
The AutoblogGreen site that I linked to above has an article about a process that makes hydrogen "by adding water to an alloy of the metals aluminum and gallium."
"Woodall says that the reaction of aluminum with water has the same energy content per unit weight of oil, about 20,000 BTUs or about 6 kWh per pound."
The AutoblogGreen site that I linked to above has an article about a process that makes hydrogen "by adding water to an alloy of the metals aluminum and gallium."
Hydrogen has energy content, by weight, competitive with oil. And then it must be compressed. Suddenly all advantages are lost.
What is the source of energy when water is added to alunimum and gallium alloys? We also do this with carbon rods in water. But that also does not make hydrogen energy.
Hydrogen could be manufactured and stored in large low pressure tanks. Energy stored for short term use that is useless for transportation - in essence a battery. Hydrogen is not a fuel. No viable technology exists even in theory to make it useful. So what technology with promise is GM working on? Notice how its top management - business school graduates - have thrown most all their eggs into one hydrogen basket. How many other technologies are therefore sitting stifled?
But again, its about doing more with less. Where are the programs to increase thermodynamic efficiencies in their piston engines. Or where are their programs to replace piston engines with something that is even more thermodynamically efficient? Government gives them millions of dollars in 1994 to build a hybrid? Eleven years later they still don't have a hybrid? What genius did that R&D?
YOu might like to have a look at
this site. It's a new way of running motors which use alternative fuel.
I don't see anything there after 2004.
Yeah, they couldn't get it to work. They're still working on it though.
I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think the theory of changing the mechanics is probably a good one. Conventional engines need something to 'fire' to make them work (in general). Maybe that's the problem.
There's more info about it online if you care to do a search.
Why Original SCT Failed
... read the original description of the SplitCycle engine. The performance claims made using the original design are not physically possible, and that is a fact now as it was a fact then. No speaking ability, no salesmanship, no force of will can change physical laws. I can certainly understand, in the beginning, people throwing money at this.
Was it sold using science or on some myth that throwing money at a problem can overcome fundamental thermodynamics? ....
I have to believe that, at the beginning, Rick Maynes believed in his idea, his invention. I also must believe that, at some point early on, he realized that he was good at raising money. And I truly believe that, at some point very early on, Mr. Maynes decided to spend a fraction of the $100,000,000 plus raised to keep up the window dressing, and keep the balance for himself and his associates. I believe that at some point, he made the decision that raising the capital and taking it was a hell of alot easier than taking the money, developing an engine, and throwing the dice. [/QUOTE] That is also how hydrogen has been promoted as a fuel. As stated before, one most drive right in with belligerence at the irrefutable fact - IOW why everyone needs a science education to grasp reality:
Early on, it was pointed out that a low compression ratio and short stroke simply had no chance of succeeding, it was a physical impossibility.
What is immediately obvious in its design pictures? Massive surface area compared to combustion volume. This is also why the rotary engine was so difficult to operate efficiently - to do more with less. Maximizing volume per surface area even was an alegbra problem we had to solve in high school math class.
Nothing posted here is nay saying. The devil is in the details. Those details were immediately evident. Therefore the patent holder’s claims must address those obvious flaws. It does not. These realities are why innovation is so hard. These realities are why GM could be so innovative when separate divisions did the innovating rather than now - all innovation from two 'central bureaucracy' design centers. The split cycle engine was an admirable attempt to accomplish what the Sterling engine was also supposed to do. But to see what can and cannot work, one must first have a basic grasp of reality - such as Conservation of Energy. Burning seawater also will not work as a fuel. And yet some have also proposed that 'solution'. Again, it is why the world needs all students with basic science courses every year while in school. Otherwise people will even believe George Jr.
Darn cosmic rays!
They don't have clouds though do they? The martians that is... Still the sun is more active. Good article in Discovery this month on the Dane doing the ray research. Whether or not he's on to something, it shows that politics are not real good for science.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Solar System...
OK, that link is 4 years old. Seen any updates on the data?
Here is one
As early as 2001, articles appeared, based on photographic studies, indicating that the Martian poles were melting; estimates then were that if they continued doing so at their present rate, in 1000 years they would be gone. Exactly how long this apparent warming trend has been going on is currently unknown.
For the most part, the scientific community has collectively yawned and said “that’s nice”.
Then in 2006, it was revealed that Jupiter, too, may be undergoing a global warming trend. Photography from the Hubble Space Telescope indicates that a major storm, similar to the “Great Red Spot”, a storm that has been underway for at least 300 years, is gaining altitude indicating an increase in heat in that area. Scientists now believe that Jupiter is in the midst of some type of global event which is modifying temperatures by as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the planet.
and
It appears that Pluto, too, is experiencing a warming trend. Pluto is a strange bird. In fact, the scientific community in August 2006 stripped it of its “planetary” status; it is now known as a “dwarf planet”. Still, photographic evidence from 2002-2003 suggests that it is “significantly” warmer than it was in 1988, with atmospheric pressure twice what it was when last observed; this despite the fact that in 1989 it reached it’s closest approach to the sun and for the last 16 years it has been moving further away. Of course, “significantly” is a relative term when discussing a planet where the atmospheric temperature ranges from -274 degrees F to -391 degrees F, depending on the altitude.
and
But one thing is certain, of all the forces that may be involved in global warming on other bodies in our solar system, SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and gassy cows can definitely be ruled out as culprits. Unless you believe that by merely sending a space probe to observe, we have somehow triggered a man-made global warming event.
But there is one other body in the solar system that also appears to be experiencing “global warming”. And it is one that uniquely affects all other bodies as well. A new study of the Sun shows that solar radiation has increased by 0.05 percent each decade since the late 1970s. So what, you might ask. It is a tiny increase. It would take a hundred years or more for this to make a significant impact on Earth’s climate, and you just said it has only been since the late 1970s.
Not exactly. In actuality, the ability to make precise measurements of solar activity has only existed since satellite technology made it possible to gather the necessary observations. Such technology was not in place until the late ‘70s. In other words, the trend could go back further – we simply do not know, because we didn’t have the ability to directly measure it any further back.
Like everyone else, scientists are human too. And as is the case with most humans, it can be very difficult to change their minds on something once those minds have been made up. Of late, it has become fashionable to blame everything that happens with our climate (or anything else), on human activity. Thus, we hear from the liberals that scientists have established beyond a shadow of doubt that the Earth is experiencing global warming (despite dissent from some in the scientific community), that such warming is entirely caused by human activity (despite dissent from some in the scientific community), and that the principal culprit in such activity is the United States of America, who should, in the main, bear the responsibility for fixing the mess they created. Any who disagree, especially any who might be in the scientific community, are labeled as knuckle-dragging right-wing whackos, nut-jobs, and religious zealots with sub-room-temperature IQs.
It's worth reading the whole article. It's obviously bias but he makes some interesting points.
Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate
One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.
"There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.
On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
The influence of these plumes on climate is complex because they can have
both a cooling and a warming effect, the scientists said. Scientists are convinced these plumes contain so many cooling sulfate particles that they may be masking half of the effect of global warming. The plumes may block more than 10% of the sunlight over the Pacific.
Asia is the world's largest source of aerosols, man-made and natural. Every spring and summer, storms whip up silt from the Gobi desert of Mongolia and the hardpan of the Taklamakan desert of western China, where, for centuries, dust has shaped a way of life. From the dunes of Dunhuang, where vendors hawk gauze face masks alongside braided leather camel whips, to the oasis of Kashgar at the feet of the Tian Shan Mountains 1,500 miles to the west, there is no escaping it. Only the dust escapes.
The team detected a new high-altitude plume every three or four days. Each one was up to 300 miles wide and six miles deep, a vaporous layer cake of pollutants. The higher the plumes, the longer they lasted, the faster they traveled the more pronounced their effect.
Until now, the pollution choking so many communities in Asia may have tempered the pace of global warming. As China and other countries eliminate their sulfate emissions, however, world temperatures may heat up even faster than predicted.
From July 2007 Discover Magazine
Wow what a great article - I especially found this part compelling
"Yes, but you have to give the sun a role. If you include the sun in the right way, the effect of CO2 must be smaller. The question is, how much smaller?
All we know about the effect of CO2 is really based on climate models that predict how climate should be in 50 to 100 years, and these climate models cannot actually model clouds at all, so they are really poor. When you look at them, the models are off by many hundreds percent. It’s a well-known fact that clouds are the major uncertainty in any climate model. So the tools that we are using to make these predictions are not actually very good."
This is the biggest whodunit, ever.
It's all part of normal temp flexuation. Weirder stuff was happening in the 1920s.
Fluc you white people too!
Does this mean Al Gore can pack up, admit he was wrong, apologize to millions and go home now?
Not likely, considering we don't know that he's wrong, yet. Neither do we know if he's right. I suspect it's somewhere in the middle and I'd suggest we stop playing politics and redouble our(collective) efforts to find the truth.
If there is things that will truly help, make a significant difference, we should nail them down and implement them.... rather than siphoning off effort and money into feel good measures that are a waste.
I agree that we should do what we can, but for him to make as many UNFOUNDED claims as he has is rediculous and he should be called out on them. If we, as a collective, can make a difference, then by all means let do it. But if we are having virtually no impact on the situation - why then should we spend time, energy and resources on something that we have no control over. That is an even bigger waste. Lets put those resources toward something we actually can do that will make a difference in the world.
All of his claims are well founded. Nothing in science is certain, but he does have good science on his side.
Since I didn't see his movie, I'll take your word for it. But that doesn't apply to all the rest of the claims I've seen presented in the press and on the net... even here in the (french horns) Cellar.
All of his claims are well founded. Nothing in science is certain, but he does have good science on his side.
His claims belong in the science perverted for politics thread. He has outdated rather poor science on his side. That has been discussed also - the facts as they are coming out show that his science did not take into account certain factors which negate his claims. Sun flares and the cloud issues are just two of them.
From the July 2007 article in
Discover Magazine:
His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet.
And then what five scientists from the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say in an August 2007 article in
Scientific American entitled The Physical Science behind Climate Change:
Suggestions that cosmic rays could affect clouds, and thereby climate, have been based on correlations using limited records; they have generally not stood up when tested with additional data, and their physcial mechanisms remain speculative.
I'd really like to read either of your articles - could you correct the link go to the relative info/article please?
There's a
search box on Scientific American. They won't give you the article for free, unfortunately.
thanks HM. Unfortunately, thats the same thing they've been saying all along. I would expect that. Hence the first line of the discover article:
"Most leading climate experts don’t agree with Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen."
Here is a scholarly article about how solar rays are not the sole cause of global warming:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17370024&dopt=Citation
3/9/07
In the four years since my original review (Keller[25]; hereafter referred to as CFK03), research has clarified and strengthened our understanding of how humans are warming the planet. So many of the details highlighted in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report[21] and in CFK03 have been resolved that I expect many to be a bit overwhelmed, and I hope that, by treating just the most significant aspects of the research, this update may provide a road map through the expected maze of new information. In particular, while most of CFK03 remains current, there are important items that have changed: Most notable is the resolution of the conundrum that mid-tropospheric warming did not seem to match surface warming. Both satellite and radiosonde (balloon-borne sensors) data reduction showed little warming in the middle troposphere (4-8 km altitude). In the CFK03 I discussed potential solutions to this problem, but at that time there was no clear resolution. This problem has now been solved, and the middle troposphere is seen to be warming apace with the surface.
There have also been advances in determinations of temperatures over the past 1,000 years showing a cooler Little Ice Age (LIA) but essentially the same warming during medieval times (not as large as recent warming). The recent uproar over the so-called "hockey stick" temperature determination is much overblown since at least seven other groups have made relatively independent determinations of northern hemisphere temperatures over the same time period and derived essentially the same results. They differ on how cold the LIA was but essentially agree with the Mann's hockey stick result that the Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the last 25 years. The question of the sun's influence on climate continues to generate controversy. It appears there is a growing consensus that, while the sun was a major factor in earlier temperature variations, it is incapable of having caused observed warming in the past quarter century or so.
However, this conclusion is being challenged by differing interpretations of satellite observations of Total Solar Insolation (TSI). Different satellites give different estimates of TSI during the 1996-7 solar activity minimum. A recent study using the larger TSI satellite interpretation indicates a stronger role for the sun, and until there is agreement on TSI at solar minimum, we caution completely disregarding the sun as a significant factor in recent warming. Computer models continue to improve and, while they still do not do a satisfactory job of predicting regional changes, their simulations of global aspects of climate change and of individual forcings are increasingly reliable. In addition to these four areas, the past five years have seen advances in our understanding of many other aspects of climate change--from albedo changes due to land use to the dynamics of glacier movement. However, these more are of second order importance and will only be treated very briefly.
The big news since CFK03 is the first of these, the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening.
But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions. Thus, while uncertainties still remain, we are now seeing a coherent picture in which past climate variations, solar and other forcings, model predictions and other indicators such as glacier recession all point to a human-induced warming that needs to be considered carefully. A final topic touched on briefly here is the new understanding of the phenomenon called "global dimming." Several sets of observations of the sun's total radiation at the surface have shown that there has been a reduction in sunlight reaching it. This has been related to the scattering of sunlight by aerosols and has led to a better quantification of the possibility that cleaning up our atmospheric pollution will lead to greater global warming. Adding all these advances together, there is a growing consensus that the 21st century will indeed see some 2 degrees C (3.5 degrees F) or more in additional warming. This is corroborated in the new IPCC Assessment, an early release of which is touched on very briefly here.
Scholarly? Maybe, but still one mans opinion on a myriad of data from many sources.
Henrik Svensmark is one man, and "Most leading climate experts don’t agree" with him.
That's why I'm skeptical of all the one man opinions.
Hmmm, that would mean the alternitive.... committees.
Shit, what a conundrum.
Or, look at all the "one man's opinions", and see there's a pattern.
That's why I'm skeptical of all the one man opinions.
But, the alternative would be...
Hmmm, that would mean the alternitive.... committees.
Shit, what a conundrum.
...yeah, you beat me to it. Don't humans tend to become stupider when in groups?
Or, look at all the "one man's opinions", and see there's a pattern.
I don't know if you mean all the one-man opinions about global warming, but, also, if you look at all the one-man opinions throughout
history, where the one man was scoffed at, but eventually vindicated... hold on... no, there isn't a pattern there, except in hindsight. There is no shortage of one-man jackasses. But you can't disregard something on that basis alone. The one-man opinions that change everything are too valuable to ignore.
I never said to disregard him. But when the massive scientific consensus says one thing, you can't latch onto a couple of naysayers to justify inaction. His results have been published, and can be reviewed. The Scientific American article is one such review, which says (via tw)
Suggestions that cosmic rays could affect clouds, and thereby climate, have been based on correlations using limited records; they have generally not stood up when tested with additional data, and their physcial mechanisms remain speculative.
Disregard? No, but I wouldn't take it as the absolute truth either.
They should do peer review more like a "roast" - if you published sloppy work, you would have to sit there and be humiliated in front of everybody.
They should do peer review more like a "roast" - if you published sloppy work, you would have to sit there and be humiliated in front of everybody.
That's what happened to the cold fusion dudes in
Spring of 1989 in Baltimore.
The spring meeting of the American Physical Society is normally a cool scientific congregation, but last week's gathering of 1,500 physicists in Baltimore was more like an unusually hot celebrity roast.
All articles written by scholars must be peer reviewed (generally by at least three equally qualified people) before they're ever printed. That means of course, that if the reviewers disagree or believe the article to be limited in factual content in any way, it would be very rare to see it printed in any notable scientific journal.
I doubt anyone believes there's one single cause of global warming. Most scholars will present data for you to consider and then you may draw your own conclusions from that and other sources.
It seems to me you're only looking at the abstract in ph's post in any case which means there's no citations to corroborate the claims made by the author. I suppose this could be a problem for all the other physicists that patronize this site.
So if we took into account the sun flares, factor in a few cloud formations and mix a dash of cosmic rays ...what do we end up with?
:rainbo: A definite maybe :rainbo:
I suppose this could be a problem for all the other physicists that patronize this site.
Yes, we frown on such umbrage.
I doubt anyone believes there's one single cause of global warming.
Agreed, I usually hear that solar energy was the main factor in global warming until recently or that the releasing of chemicals and gases has greatly increased the effects of the solar energy.
The second guess makes a lot of sense. The chemicals and CO2 is usually not the main factor (until recently maybe???), but a catalyst that has made the main factor much stonger.
Agreed, I usually hear that solar energy was the main factor in global warming until recently or that the releasing of chemicals and gases has greatly increased the effects of the solar energy.
The second guess makes a lot of sense. The chemicals and CO2 is usually not the main factor (until recently maybe???), but a catalyst that has made the main factor much stonger.
Are you saying its a synergistic reaction whereby the gases we emit are exponentially affecting the natural variances?
I used catalyst as a simile.
If the gases increase the effects of the natural rise in temperatures then the gases can be related to catalyst by making the final product much stronger than what would have happened naturally.
The differences is that a catalyst usually speeds up a reaction instead of strengthening it and a catalyst has no effect on the actual reaction while the gases will have an effect.
From Business Week.
From Pond Scum To The Jet Tank
BusinessWeek 08/13/2007
Boeing (BA ) has teamed up with a handful of airlines to figure out how to make a jet engine that's efficient and environmentally friendly. Among the candidates for the biofuel that will power this engine: algae.
Turns out the green gunk that coats stagnant ponds and unkempt aquariums offers advantages over other efficient fuels, such as ethanol made from corn. Algae-based fuels may hold up better in the extreme temperatures, pressures, and weather conditions at which jets operate. What's more, algae is abundant and grows naturally, which should make it cheaper to harvest than crop-based fuels. Boeing is working on the project with New Zealand-based Aquaflow Bionomic and Air New Zealand.
Separately, Boeing is testing other types of biofuel with Virgin Atlantic Airways in an effort to convert an engine to run on clean fuel by 2008. A spokesman says one promising candidate is babassu, a Brazilian fruit similar to the coconut.
Syncronized Choas proposed as predictive of climate change.
http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf
Oh and
CO2 is niet de grote boosdoener bij de klimaatverandering en de opwarming van de aarde. Dat is de conclusie van een groot wetenschappelijk onderzoek van het KMI dat deze zomer nog wordt gepubliceerd.
;)
It's a least another piece of the puzzle. I doubt like hell there is one lone answer to the climate's future.
And forget the second link, they aren't even smart enough to speak English.:bolt:
Dare I say, Bruce, that you'll get in Dutch?
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne announces in front of a B-52H¸ at Edwards Air Force Base¸ that the B-52H is now certified to fly a blended synthetic fuel. [U.S. Air Force photo]Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Michael W. Wynne, Aug. 8, announced the completion of the Air Force’s certification of Fischer-Tropsch fuel blends for the B-52H during a signing ceremony at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
Wynne signed a certificate at the ceremony certifying that a blended FT and standard JP-8 jet fuel is safe for operational use in all B-52H aircraft.
"This is a great day for the U.S. Air Force, it’s a great day to be here at the flight test center, and it’s another milestone achievement that’s been accomplished at the flight test center," said Wynne.
The B-52H was chosen as the test platform because of key advantages such as its eight engines, he said. The fuel system in the B-52 can simultaneously isolate, carry and manage both a test fuel and the standard JP-8 fuel.
The Air Force now plans to test and certify every airframe to fly on a domestically-produced synthetic fuel blend by early 2011.
Heh, often when I see "synthetic", I think "made from petroleum". What is synthetic jet fuel synthesized from?
The Fischer-Tropsch process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which carbon monoxide and hydrogen are converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Typical catalysts used are based on iron and cobalt. The principal purpose of this process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute, typically from coal or natural gas, for use as synthetic lubrication oil or as synthetic fuel.
edit
I would think they will certify others, like the pond scum fuel, as they become available.
I used catalyst as a simile.
I read that as "catalyst as a smilie" and I was thinking...where's that smilie, never saw that one? [/unrelated levity]
No Arctic ice cap by
the summer of 2030?
Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.
Good, it'll make it harder for the terrorists to come over the pole and easier to get at the Arctic oil reserves for our Hummers.
Bruce, did you mean to post that here, or in the Sexually Ambiguous Words thread?
...pretty expensive hummer
A decade later, how have our views on Global Warming shifted? A decade is an insignificant blip on any meaningful data set, but how have the intervening years of "muddy the waters" versus "nails in the coffin" science/news influenced us all?
Would it have mattered if we'd known that
Exxon has known about human-caused climate change since 1977?
Keep in mind that every scientific "fact" is just the latest guest. The better ones are made with documented research but it's still a guess.
I'm now all in on climate change.
Nobody really wants to know anyone's opinion on this, they just want to confirm their own, or have a fight. I've stopped talking about it, when I remember to (that's why I just deleted 6 paragraphs and replaced them with this)
Keep in mind that every scientific "fact" is just the latest guest. The better ones are made with documented research but it's still a guess.
And every post is still a lie. Anyone can spin nonsense. But global warming clearly exists and clearly is created by mankind. Unfortunately, plenty of ostriches also exist.
Reality does not change only because someone denies - without any facts or numbers. A best guess is overwhelmly promoted by research and numbers. Those who deny global warming have no such numbers - just twisted speculation inspired by emotions.
What is now seen? The guess (research) from 40 years ago got it wrong. Global warming created by mankind is happening faster than what was originally predicted.
Nobody really wants to know anyone's opinion on this, they just want to confirm their own, or have a fight. I've stopped talking about it, when I remember to (that's why I just deleted 6 paragraphs and replaced them with this)
Actually, I wanted to know and that's why I asked. Because the Cellar is an escape from the typical 'echo chamber' of social media, we can hear opinions from people whose intellect we respect, but whose conclusions we don't share. At best, this means my opinions are challenged and it gives me a reason to evaluate whether they should be changed; and at the very least it lets me understand the basis of people's viewpoint. This has happened many, many, many times, and I will never accept the premise that "people shouldn't talk about politics" or whatever.
In a thread here recently, Henry Quirk finally got through to me what people mean about the difference between Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and because of that I don't think people who are further right than me on the economic scale sound like gibbering nincompoops. I still disagree, but I see the opposing views being rooted in
the same exact concerns.
Also, I acknowledge UT as a champion for "not being stupid on the internet and talking in circles" and I see that and I commend you for that. That's another thing where my viewpoint was influenced because I listened to somebody explain something.
Actually, I wanted to know and that's why I asked. Because the Cellar is an escape from the typical 'echo chamber' of social media, we can hear opinions from people whose intellect we respect, but whose conclusions we don't share.
Unfortunately, almost no 'global warming' deniers post any research or even numbers. Their reasoning breaks down into a "conspiracy by scientist". And subjective (qualitative) conclusions - no numbers.
In a similar vein are so many who recommend Early Streamer Emission to protect from lightning. They claim those pointy devices will discharge the air - avert lightning. Once fact that repeatedly appears: no research demonstrates that popular myth. And still so many believe it only because it was the first thing they were told using wild speculation. Without any numbers and any reason why.
Same applies to global warming deniers (ie a Senator from Oklahoma). Only reason to deny it - emotions. Or one gets political power by hyping myths to the naive. A classic example that many adults still think like a child - emotionally.
Where were these people when science also proved destruction of the ozone layer? Back then, science was respected. And was therefore correct.
Science clearly says mankind is creating global warming. As more facts are discovered, the science is again and again confirmed. Only question has always been how much - how fasts.
One of the last deniers of global warming was a best expert on the Atlantic Oscillatory effect. However, once facts (numbers) for deep ocean temperatures were collected, even he reversed his conclusion. Even he admitted mankind is clearly creating this global warming.
Simulations from decades ago have been accurate; have identified the trends. However some variations in those trends were a source of controversy.
If what has been happening in deep oceans hold true, then this global warming may even accelerate. Will it? There is no doubt that mankind has created global warming. Only question is how fast - the details. And whether this climate change will continue or accelerate.
And finally, the coal industry deserves to be undermined (pun?). The coal industry has done no innovations in the past 40 years. Coal industry even undermined IGCC research. It might hurt short term profits. Innovation is never profitable on spread sheets until long after that innovation is no longer innovative.
So coal must invent every possible excuse to deny global warming. To destroy jobs - to continue stifling innovation.
"Henry Quirk finally got through to me what people mean about the difference between Capitalism and Free Enterprise"
You're welcome. :thumb:
No problem. Usually when people say extremely wrong things, they state it in big, fancy words--so you know they're full of it and you throw the baby out with the bathwater. You were wrong in layman's terms, so it was easier to spot where your mistake was. :stickpoke