I am wondering why scientists are focusing on reducing carbon (or other greenhouse gases) emissions or reducing activities which produce greenhouse gases. Why not focus on how to reuse or recycle the gases..? Aren't they (water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, etc) energy? Or is it because the pollution is nonpoint source and hence difficult to treat?
A final warning from the Arctic
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
How much would worldwide environmental devastation cost? How much are the lives of a million people worth, for instance?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
How?
Some heat exchange processes (transfering the excess heat to where heating is needed)?
Like, look, here in the northern hemisphere is winter.. so much heat is needed to keep people warm.the photos weren't doctored according to op ed I read by the photographer and I worry an apex predator isn't just going to die out its going to adapts. just you wait untill someone you know gets eaten by a polar bear.
Well, seeing as how people seem to think they caused all of the damned problems of global climate change, I'd say the worth of a million of the bastards ain't much! ...say, $0.50? Less?
They're the people who you think caused all the problems, yet you still think of people as "valuable"?? How?? Why?
Baron Max
This is a good point. Methane Hydrates for example are already being released at an exponential rate. It's a done deal. Apparently we cannot reverse the warming trend fast enough to stop this and so we better figure out how to use it. We are talking about a truly MASSIVE amount of potential energy.
They have figured out how to use one deposit in Inuvik, Canada (arctic circle deposit, also melting).
Some heat exchange processes (transfering the excess heat to where heating is needed)?
Yes but they want us northern countries to emit less CO2(and freeze?) AND ship all manufacturing where they are allowed to pollute.
I'm so fucking sick of multinational Corp games. That's what these meetings are.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I don't blame people for perusing prosperity, I only want us to find a way to mitigate the harm our species has caused.
I expect better than quoting Newscientist as a legitimate source James R.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Why, it's a legitimate source for scientific news.
Scientific news I agree. I would never base a scientific opinion on them. They print transient stories as they break, they're not interested in posting abandoned theories or tying together contiguous stories in depth. They'll post a story about Ice Sheets thinning one week, and another story about Ice Sheets thickening the next week.
Kind of like the NYTimes technology section. I read it and hear about all these fascinating developments only to look deeper into them and see they have fatal flaws that may be impossible to overcome.
Here's an interesting graph:
Why is the adjusted data adjusted up so much? Makes one wonder how much of the purported warming is simply due to "data adjustments". Convenient that the raw data from the recently hacked climate research center was thrown out.
Why is the adjusted data adjusted up so much? Makes one wonder how much of the purported warming is simply due to "data adjustments". Convenient that the raw data from the recently hacked climate research center was thrown out.
I don't understand why raw and homogenized data diverged so quickly in 1940. I would have guessed that increased temperature readings would have lead to a convergence of real and modified. Where did you get this graph?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Why do you put "adjustments" in quotes, as if it isn't important to account for things like changes in the location of the instruments, changes in the local environment like urbanization, etc. These are inhomogeneities. If these are not accounted for, the results would be wrong.
Because when the person making the adjustments has an ax to grind, they become suspect. Look at the graph, why the massive divergence between adjusted data and raw data after 1940?
It's part of the data the UK has been forced to release after the climategate scandal. Here's a quote:
What can be said is this: We now have substantial evidence, from several independent sources, that the data used as the basis for the IPCC report has been adjusted in undocumented ways, and those adjustments account for nearly all the warming we are told has been caused by humans.
Until the data is re-examined, fully, openly, and transparently, it is impossible to conclude how much of a contribution to global climate change humans have made, or whether that contribution has been made by human-generated CO2. And without knowing that, attempts to “fix the problem,” through cap and trade or Copenhagen agreements, is misguided at best — and dangerous at worst.
It's really looking like they completely cooked the fuckin' books.Until the data is re-examined, fully, openly, and transparently, it is impossible to conclude how much of a contribution to global climate change humans have made, or whether that contribution has been made by human-generated CO2. And without knowing that, attempts to “fix the problem,” through cap and trade or Copenhagen agreements, is misguided at best — and dangerous at worst.
Link
I'm hitting the sack, but this article probably deserves its own thread.
Last edited:
Baron Max:
Yes. It's fairly well established that under normal conditions atmospheric carbon dioxide gets recycled after about 50 years.
Yes. Probably your sources were talking about something different.
engineeringjoe:
It's actually quite hard to fake the melting of a large proportion of the arctic sea ice.
madanthonywayne:
Nonsense. It could be done with about 1% of GDP from developing nations devoted to the problem. Don't think people haven't modelled the costs.
We're already studying nuclear fusion. Estimated time of arrival for that varies, but most physicists estimate around 2030-40 at the earliest for commercial fusion power. By that time, if nothing else is done about carbon emissions, it will be too late.
As for you "geoengineering", are you talking about geosequestration, or something else? So-called "clean coal" is likely to be a fantasy for a number of reasons.
kira:
No. When coal is burnt in a power plant, for example, energy is extracted from the coal as heat (initially). Some of that heat (perhaps 30%) is converted to electricity; the rest of the heat is wasted. Along with the wasted energy, there are other waste products of burning coal. One of those is carbon dioxide.
Now, think about it. Obviously, the carbon dioxide must be in a lower energy state than the original coal, or else coal could not be burnt to form carbon dioxide, releasing energy in the process. The process is, basically:
coal + oxygen -> carbon dioxide + water.
Both carbon dioxide and water are very stable chemical compounds. Trying to extract more chemical energy from carbon dioxide is the same as trying to extract chemical energy from water. If you can think of a good way to extract energy from water, then perhaps you'll be on your way to thinking up a way to extract energy from carbon dioxide. The problems are essentially similar.
CheskiChips:
The photos tell their own story. I'm not trying to prove anything to you here. We can have a Formal Debate about that. (One day left for Buffalo Roam to sign up, or we go ahead without him.)
Yes. It's fairly well established that under normal conditions atmospheric carbon dioxide gets recycled after about 50 years.
Yes. Probably your sources were talking about something different.
engineeringjoe:
It's actually quite hard to fake the melting of a large proportion of the arctic sea ice.
madanthonywayne:
Nonsense. It could be done with about 1% of GDP from developing nations devoted to the problem. Don't think people haven't modelled the costs.
We're already studying nuclear fusion. Estimated time of arrival for that varies, but most physicists estimate around 2030-40 at the earliest for commercial fusion power. By that time, if nothing else is done about carbon emissions, it will be too late.
As for you "geoengineering", are you talking about geosequestration, or something else? So-called "clean coal" is likely to be a fantasy for a number of reasons.
kira:
No. When coal is burnt in a power plant, for example, energy is extracted from the coal as heat (initially). Some of that heat (perhaps 30%) is converted to electricity; the rest of the heat is wasted. Along with the wasted energy, there are other waste products of burning coal. One of those is carbon dioxide.
Now, think about it. Obviously, the carbon dioxide must be in a lower energy state than the original coal, or else coal could not be burnt to form carbon dioxide, releasing energy in the process. The process is, basically:
coal + oxygen -> carbon dioxide + water.
Both carbon dioxide and water are very stable chemical compounds. Trying to extract more chemical energy from carbon dioxide is the same as trying to extract chemical energy from water. If you can think of a good way to extract energy from water, then perhaps you'll be on your way to thinking up a way to extract energy from carbon dioxide. The problems are essentially similar.
CheskiChips:
The photos tell their own story. I'm not trying to prove anything to you here. We can have a Formal Debate about that. (One day left for Buffalo Roam to sign up, or we go ahead without him.)
engineerjoe
Registered Senior Member
I'll take my chances
And again I state:
Take out the clause in the Copenhagen treaty that relates to redistribution of hundreds of billions of dollars and see how many of those countries with their hands out stay and talk about the climate and how many drop it entirely.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
They adjust for errors in measurement because if they didn't you guys would pounce on them for being wrong, which they would be. Who is going to correct the data besides scientists? Politically motivated people like you?