Other Voices on Global Warming

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
palescotsman	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#21	[-]
Posts: 833 (03/31/07 14:51:17) Beam me up, Scottie! Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Now....I'm fully convinced of the reality of global warming and its causes. From that perspective, I wanted to talk about a theory I've heard of that may have some interesting implications. In comparison to Europe and Asia, the population density of the North America is remarkably low. North America, especially the US and Canada have huge tracts of national and state forests. While North America produces a grossly disproprotionate amount of CO2 (the US alone produces about 21% of the world's CO2, while having only 5% of the population), the trees and other plant life in North America consume more than is produced. The net effect is a CO2 sink over North America where the continent is a net CO2 consumer. This appears to be more a function of population density than any prudent planning on the part of the North Americans. When speaking of net CO2 emissions (that's CO2 production minus the amount consumed by plant life in a region), the world leaders in CO2 emissions are Europe and Japan which produce far in excess of what their plant life consumes. So when speaking of CO2 production....should this issue of net emissions be taken into account? Or is this theory scientifically unsupportable from the beginning?
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#22	[-]
Posts: 1778 (04/02/07 01:03:03) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@FLJeff; "You didn't do your homework, again. And I am rather surprised." Easy for you to claim when you excerpt certain parts of my posts, and leave out others. *Quote:* It's not my hypothesis, it's a fact. Adding any incremental quantity of GHG's to the atmospher, increases their concentration in the atmosphere, and raises the temperature above what it would be if they were not there. Thus, any emissions cause "global warming". To eliminate "global warming" caused by manmade emissions necessitates elimination of the consumption of these fuels. So if you say that total elimination of fossil fuels is not required, then by default you are stating that there is an acceptable amount of "global warming". A strange arguement. I guess the polar bear won't have to swim as far to avoid drowing. The glacier won't retreat as much. So how much additional "global warming" then, is acceptable to you? "I advised that there are two general ways to reduce emissions, of which one of them is to improve cycle or thermodynamic efficieny. You somehow read my post to mean that reduction in efficiency was the only means. The second general method, of course, is with various clean coal technologies, such as coal gasification. And when a clean coal technology is used in a more efficient cycle, you get a powerful combination. I am a big fan of IGCC plants." Errr, you just stated two methods? 1.) *Quote:* one of them is to improve cycle or thermodynamic efficieny 2.) *Quote:* And when a clean coal technology is used in a more efficient cycle, you get a powerful combination. Any process where you yield more useful work from the same unit of fuel is an efficiency gain. You merely restated it. Odd, that with all the "advice" you're giving me, you made no mention of carbon sequestration, which the EPA touts as one of the benefits of gassification, in that if O2 is used, CO2 sequestration is easier. The fact that these experimental technologies exists is not being disputed. But the underlying questions pertaining to practicality of these technologies remain unanswered. Technology costs. How much is it going to cost the United States alone to retrofit every coal fired plant in the US to coal gassification, and to sequester CO2 from all of them? How much a reduction in global mean temperature is that going to yield? Will the public regard the amount of abatement of "global warming" to be worth higher electricity cost?
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#23	[-]
Posts: 1778 (04/02/07 01:25:33) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@aspong; "If all you see in science is levels and not events then your perspective is severely limited." Do you have anything to argue your points on other than social arguement? "Yes there are circumstances where things merely change level. But there are also trigger moments when exceeding a level or a combination of movements triggers an avalanch response." How does "global warming", then, qualify as an "avalanche resposne"? What increase above 1880's global mean temperature and what corresponding concentration of man made carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone depleting chemicals is "global warming"? Have we reached it yet? When does the "avalanche" kick in? How hot does the planet really get then when we tip over this avalanche of yours? "What is rain? It is a trigger event." You're inventing terms and not very well. The mechanism of re-radiation of absorbed infra-red energy by concentrations of inra-red absorbing gases in the lower atmosphere has no "trigger" point, or state change point such as water vapor's state change properties. The amount of re-radiated engergy is proportional to the energy emitted by the earth's surface, the wavelenght's a particular gas absorbs, and the concentration of that gas. Given you don't understand the basics of what you're trying to "explain" to me, I cannot see attaching any meaning whatsoever to your admonition to not display my "ingronrance" by disputing the utter rubbish you posted about "trigger events".
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#24	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/02/07 01:56:56) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Sorry UT, but you don't seem to have a clue. Having studied meteorology, triggers may not be in your lexicon, but they certainly are discussed, in great detail too.
Florida Jeff	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#25	[-]
Posts: 2125 (04/02/07 02:06:40) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	UT, It is very frustrating to point these things out to you because, frankly, you simply do not understand the fundamentals of the industry, and of the major disciplines involved. Who ever mentioned IGCC retrofits of coal fired plants? Are you nuts? What cynicism - and ignorance to boot! You assume the worst, which is simply not true. The fact of the matter is that IGCC plants are operating commercially - have been for many years - but only 8 in the US. See the newly published ASME PTC-47. And utilities have more on order. I advised you to visit www.aep.com to read about one of them. Did you? Or did you just jump to conclusions? If you are really interested, the capital cost per installed kW is quite widely published, and compared to other technologies. It is really not that hard to find from reliable sources. Then, of course, professional that you are, you can consider operating costs, and maintenance costs, and come to your own conclusion. No one in his right mind would repower an existing coal fired plant with IGCC. Why the hell do you make this incredibly ignorant, stupid assumption? What are you fighting? Why don't you read the professional literature before you lash out, making stupid assumptions? This is not the first time. And, yes, there is an enormous distinction between improved cycle efficiency, say, by increasing main steam temperatures in a Rankine cycle, going to double reheat from single reheat Rankine cycles, intercooling a gas turbine in a Brayton or combined cycle, improving MECHANICAL efficiency of prime movers, etc, etc, etc, and process,or combustion improvements of a clean coal technology, such as coal gasification, pressurized fluidized bed combustion, or dry-low NOx combustion techniques. You can improve the efficiency of a conventional pulverized coal fired dirty power plant by any of those former technologies. But the latter technologies have altered the actual combustion process. This is very fundamental applied thermodynamics as practiced by mechanical engineers in the industry every day, UT, and your refusal to even attempt to understand it as a professional is quite frustrating. It is like talking to a Greenpeacenik who claims to have expertise. 1. Cycle and mechanical improvements to improve thermodynamic efficiency of generation, and, therefore, indirectly reduce pollution. 2. Process or combustion improvements to directly reduce pollution levels Those are the two categories that are used by mechanical engineers in the industry in discussing emissions control. I live this every day. Jeff
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#26	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/02/07 20:20:59) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	. I'm no longer a GW believer. After seeing All HeLL's link, and despite some of its falibilities, it has convinced me that GW is not what people say it is. It's disheartening to come to this conclusion, but I cannot deny it just to save myself from having been wrong. Please view the doco in Tim's link. It's at least as important as we thought GW is. In case you haven't seen his post, here's the link: link I watched it, initially taking notes on its faults. Eventually I stopped taking notes. It has its faults. But it's also very compelling.
Florida Jeff	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#27	[-]
Posts: 2125 (04/03/07 00:45:24) Unindicted Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Aspong, Let me know if you would like some other links. Jeff
vdiamond	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#28	[-]
Posts: 5407 (04/03/07 00:54:39) Administrator Indiana Jane Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Aspong, Can you give us a summary of what you learned from the link?
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#29	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/03/07 02:07:56) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ok, here's an attempt, but I highly recommend viewing the program. I doubt any summary would be a patch on watching the doco itself. As Al Gore pointed out, there is a very good corelation between CO2 and GW. When charted out, the line showing temperature variation over thousands of years, the amount of CO2 present closely matches that line. But what Al Gore fails to mention is that the CO2 line lags about 800 years behind the temperature line, suggesting that the release of CO2 is actually a product of global temperature and not the other way around. The greatest CO2 storage is the oceans. It appears that as they heat up, more CO2 is released, and as they cool down, more CO2 is absorbed. Why the lag? Well, the oceans being as big as they are take literally centuries to warm up or cool down as opposed to the atmosphere. When GW advocates see an ocean event, they put it down to current GW conditions. But the truth seems to be that because the oceans take so long to warm or cool, that an ocean event is more likely a response to something that happened a substantially long time ago, possibly hundreds of years. CO2 apparently normally comprises some 0.01something percent of the atmosphere. Man made CO2 makes up a fraction of that. Volcanic activity puts out many times more CO2 than man, animals and microbes combined. So our effect is minimal, even as weighed against so tiny a proportion of our atmosphere. The greatest greenhouse gas is water vapour. Cloud formation, the biggest contributer to the greenhouse effect, is brought about by a combination of moisture, particles and cosmic rays. (I'd heard about this years ago but forgot about it.) Cosmic rays are emminated from nearby stars (at some stage in their cycle, I've forgotten which) and affect cloud cover. During high solar activity, those cosmic rays are deflected, having a lessening effect on cloud formation. Before meteorology, people would predict weather according to sunspot activity, but since the science of meteorology came along, sunspot activity had been discarded. An English scientist decided to try resurecting the idea and began predicting the weather from it. He became far more accurate than the meteorological services. We're talking long term forcasts, not short range. He got so good at it that he punted his predictions on a local betting agency and won a lot of money from it - all in the name of science of course. Apparently we can thank Maggie Thatcher for the modern Greenhouse Gas movement. Way back when she had the coal miners go on strike she decided that coal and other forms of electricity generation were unreliable due to workforce issues. So she struck out for Nuclear. And when she heard about coal creating greenhouse gases, it gave her all the more cause to push her nuclear agenda. She went to the science community and offered money for GW research. One scientist said something like, if you wanted to study the spotted owl in northern Scotland you simply added the words "as they're affected by greenhouse emissions" to be more certain of getting funding. They showed graphs of global temperatures. One showing a "mini ice-age" a few hundred years ago, and a set of warmer conditions, much warmer than now even, several hundred years earlier. A graph showed the last century, with warming starting around 1890 and climbing at a steady pace until 1940. During and especially after the war, manufacturing and production went through the roof with the Post War Economic Boom, yet from 1940 to about 1970 global temperatures fell away eventually causing people to be concerned about a coming ice-age. Mid-70's they began to rise again. No one has a clue why global temperatures cooled during those 30 odd years. It doesn't match CO2 output. But the worst part is that developing nations are being pushed to take on GW practises now. GW advocates are telling impoverished villages that they must go solar or wind-powered. Some villages were shown with solar cells on top of small hospitals, just enough to run the medical refrigerator or the lights but not both. One African speaker said, "How are we supposed to modernize, have steel foundaries etc let alone reasonable power requirements, when we are required to use expensive solar power etc. In the west you don't have solar everywhere. If it was cheap you would. But your organizations require us to do it this way." The ex-co-founder of greenpeace (I've forgotten his name) is angry (to say the least) at how green activists keep upping the anti, especially when developing nations are being made to stay impoverished by green policies. These and much more was showcased to show that CO2 is not the problem. And as I said, any summary won't do the doco justice. After seeing this, and the more I think about it, the more I see how we're being ransomed to an invalid science to suit agendas that are more agressive than people are willing to believe. Hearing some news reports today on green issues, it actually started to make me angry. Yet here was I, just a couple of days ago, a staunch supporter. edited for additional comments and corrections due to my rollup keyboard being so difficult to use.
vdiamond	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#30	[-]
Posts: 5407 (04/03/07 02:18:38) Administrator Indiana Jane Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Aspong, Thank you very much. This is the first reasonable (that I could understand) explanation I've heard - either for or against the GW scare. I will check out the link...
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#31	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/03/07 02:45:28) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	you're welcome, and please do
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#32	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/03/07 02:47:29) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Let me know if you would like some other links. Thanks FJ. Post 'em here and I'll take a look.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#33	[-]
Posts: 1778 (04/03/07 11:25:11) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@aspong; "Sorry UT, but you don't seem to have a clue." Geez, it was a lot more fun when you were making up stuff like "triggers" to keep "global warming" alive. Now it seems you're melting down even faster than the polar ice caps.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#34	[-]
Posts: 1778 (04/03/07 11:39:10) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@FLJeff; "It is very frustrating to point these things out to you because, frankly, you simply do not understand the fundamentals of the industry, and of the major disciplines involved." It's precisely because I understand this industry that putting forth clean coal techologies as a solution to "global warming" is garbage. Not that there aren't good reasons to introduce them, but "global warming" isn't one of them. "Who ever mentioned IGCC retrofits of coal fired plants? Are you nuts?" Okay, maybe you're not understanding this concept. At present, we are 16% over the 1990 emissions levels. To reach Kyoto targets, since electrical generation is about half of our emissions, we would need to cut power plant emissions roughly by a half over present levels. You cannot achieve this by introducing "clean coal" technologies on a going forward basis. The installed base essentially has to be retrofitted, or replaced with these newer more efficient plants to bring us into compliance with Kyoto. "No one in his right mind would repower an existing coal fired plant with IGCC. Why the hell do you make this incredibly ignorant, stupid assumption?" It is what it would take to reach Kyoto targets. We're already way over the initial targets. I can't argue that the proposal is ridiculous, given using the IPCC's own estimates, full compliance with Kyoto brings virtually no benefit to model outcomes, and the cost is astronomical. I think I said that already in this thread. "This is very fundamental applied thermodynamics as practiced by mechanical engineers in the industry every day, UT, and your refusal to even attempt to understand it as a professional is quite frustrating." "1. Cycle and mechanical improvements to improve thermodynamic efficiency of generation, and, therefore, indirectly reduce pollution. 2. Process or combustion improvements to directly reduce pollution levels" In the abstract, sure, they will reduce emissions of "greenhouse gases" and the entire stream of more noxious pollutants. But in practical terms, this must be where you're frustrated, they are utterly meaningless in bringing us into compiance with Kyoto, or solving "global warming" because they don't address the installed base, which is already well over our target thresholds under Kyoto.
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#35	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/03/07 18:40:57) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	UT, you still don't have a clue. At least on the program I watched the presenters and scientists knew what they were talking about. Your falsification of GW on the other hand isn't even on the same planet. Now if you had a clue I might have listened to you. Instead, you palm off your science jargon in the hope of being believeable. You can call up some of the language, but have only the barest clue what it all means. At least when scientists talk they don't need to use the big words in an effort to sound believeable. You should try it sometime. Look at my explanation to vdiamond. Do you see any jargon in there? Is it not a reasonable presentation without the need for jargon? It doesn't need to be dressed up, unless you're insecure about your own credentials.
ExplodingToad	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#36	[-]
Posts: 287 (04/03/07 22:58:13) NASCAR househusband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	From my original list... 60. Dr. Fred Singer Climatologist The Competitive Enterprise Institute From a PBS interview... *Quote:* The argument is that there's a new cause for climate change, which is human beings. And that the dimensions of this change might exceed what is natural or normal. Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy. Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming. The surface record, however, continues to go up. The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites. My whole point here is to give voice to people who have viewpoints on GW not in the mainstream. Some of these guys do not agree with each other and yes, some are funded by oil energy companies while others still have views that I do not agree with but, there has been a trend lately where people like the ones I have listed and provided links for have been bullied into silence or ignored and that is something that is wrong. Please let me know what you think about this guy.
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#37	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/04/07 02:38:06) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thanks ET. He sounds somewhat similar to the people in the doco I mentioned. I hadn't heard that bit about temps being measured in cities though. That's possibly debatable because a lot of the readings I've seen mentioned are from outside cities, often right in the middle of the pastures.
ExplodingToad	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#38	[-]
Posts: 287 (04/04/07 14:44:50) NASCAR househusband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have also heard (but am still looking for a source) that when the USSR fell, many temperature reading stations in Siberia and the far north were shut down for lack of funds. Thus, the world-wide average temp. readings went up since around 1990 since there was a loss of data in some of the world's coldest regions.
aspong	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#39	[-]
Posts: 705 (04/04/07 19:51:29) Ho Ho, it is to laugh Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm gonna assume that they would make allowances for that. It would be unscientific of them not to. (grin) Anyway, I believe global temeratures have risen and can be seen in the reduction of some of the glaciers etc. Sea levels rising are not as simple as people think because sea levels take a long time to respond to climate change. So if oceans have risen, it's not because of anything we've done. And GW is most likely a part of our climate's natural cycle, affected dominantly by solar activity.
URBAN TROGLODYTE	Re: Other Voices on Global Warming	#40	[-]
Posts: 1778 (04/05/07 12:36:57) Fraud Prevention Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	@Aspong; "Your falsification of GW on the other hand isn't even on the same planet." With quotation, what post did I make do you claim is a falsificatioin? "Instead, you palm off your science jargon in the hope of being believeable." Are you done with the personal attack yet? Once again, find some "jargon" I "palmed off" as you claim, and why it isn't true, citing references. " You can call up some of the language, but have only the barest clue what it all means." Since you don't know what I know, you are in no position to judge what I comprehend or don't comprehend.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Other Voices on Global Warming

Quick Reply