Over 650 scientist challenge the UN OPCC and herr Gore!!

[gsvol]

I wonder if there is any way to compare the credentials of these two groups (those who advocate and those who refute)? I have no way of knowing who is who here, maybe you can give some info?

Who are the IPCC scientists?

First and foremost, Prof. Reiter believes, the IPCC is a creature of government that meets governmental needs and abides by governmental strictures, and does so without public scrutiny. In contrast, studies conducted under the more open auspices of the U.S. government's Global Climate Change Research program, for example, are entirely in the public domain.

Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.

"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains.

"The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential."

In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.

"The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that -- it is a panel among governments. Any scientist who participates in this process expecting the strictures of science to reign must beware, lest he be stung."

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009)

Climate Change Largely Irreversible For Next 1,000 Years, NOAA Reports

So, my point is to say that comparison of credentials isn't necessary at first - just an honest hashing out of what the problem is. ....... Does that mean that they must be right? No. But my point is that this is a small number of people, many of have a complaint which is not centered on the main question (as Inhoffe would suggest).

Likewise you have fanatics who support everything Al Gore says and would do everything the UN would propose. That certainly isn't and wouldn't be wise at all.

Lindzen is absolutely correct when he says there in no consensus on global warming, and furthermore, anyone who says that isn't so is either ignorant of the facts or just plain lying.

The false premise behind climate change.

A few humorous terms I picked up doing a search on AGW.

Thermaggedon

Venus Envy (ie Al Gore has...)

Goracle

Warmingologists??

Never forget, Al Gore is a consultant for Google!!

Here's the latest, pretty funny.

excerpts:

*Congressman for life Henry Waxman (D-CA) chairman of the house committee on Energy and Commerce has promised that he will move quickly and decisively to move climate legislation out of his committee before memorial day.

Waxman, of course, like most new liberals, does not trust markets; he trusts government, which is why he is chomping at the bit to use the power of government to force the energy sector to do what the market has heretofore done much more slowly.

Global warming has become the boogie man hiding under every bed and thus the perfect excuse for new liberals like Waxman to raise taxes, regulate business and nationalize industry -- all for our own good of course. The fact that much of what we are being told are nothing but theories, half truths or outright lies is why we are told the debate is over and that government fixes must be rushed through the legislative process. Climate change is the means to a political end that could care less about the science.

Consider the alarmists' warnings that changes in the concentration of C02 levels are having a devastating effect on temperatures. These claims have softened largely because as Christopher Mockton writing for Science and Public Policy.org points out, "The peer-reviewed literature is full of papers questioning the IPCC's estimates of climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 concentration… Indeed, low, harmless, beneficial climate sensitivity is almost becoming a consensus in the scientific literature."

He goes on to give very good refutations of many of the alarmists claims.

 

[gsvol]

I am not endorsing the group, only the information on the page.

Here are some interesting facts about the UN IPCC.

*snip*

..so we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report,

there were

5 economists,

3 epidemiologists,

5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists.

5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance.

7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers).

And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology.

But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.

Just as in the case of Rachel Carson, the marine biologist, we’re supposed to ignore the real data for the purpose of kneeling at the environmental alter and sacrifice blood and treasure on the basis of lies. This also gives the lie to “climatologists’” claims in general about warming, that we’re not supposed to question the holy writ that comes from the IPCC panel, because they’re the ‘experts’.

We decided to repeat the test for the contributors based in the USA.

Of the 70 US contributors, there were

7 economists,

13 social scientists,

3 epidemiologists,

10 biologists/ecologists,

5 engineers,

2 modellers/statisticians,

1 full-time activist (and 1 part time),

5 were in public health and policy, and

4 were unknowns.

17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn’t clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography.

When social scientists, computer programmers and administrative assistants comprise a significant proportion of IPCC contributors, the global warmer mantra that the IPCC represents the world’s top 2500 climate scientists is just plain old-fashioned not true.


Prominent scientists with far better credentials who disagree with the findings of the IPCC.

 

[TennTradition]

Which sections did these individuals contribute to? I doubt that a biologist is contributing to the climate modeling and temperature forecasts. Also, these contributors are people who assemble the literature, right? So, you have 17 climate scientists from the US (and more from other countries) pouring over hundreds to thousands of papers from the peer-reviewed literature written by many, many more climate scientists than are required to assemble the literature (and the process by which these papers are assembled should be transparent and is open to debate - as you previous post discussed). These climate scientists who wrote the peer-reviewed papers do not (necessarily) contribute to the actual IPCC report writing, but their data does contribute to the findings. It is simply incorrect to compare a diverse makeup of the IPCC across many well-defined and separate chapters dealing with the various aspects of climate change to a list of these similarly diverse actors (biologists, ecologists, social scientists, and "hard" scientists) which is sold as "man-made climate change isn't real."

 

[IPorange]

gsvol, your criticisms of the types of researchers involved in the IPCC is only exposing your lack of understanding of what the IPCC research was. Who better to determine what the effects of certain conditions on society than social scientists? Who better to determine the possible effects on ecosystems than biologists and the like?

Ask yourself what would dissuade you from dismissing global climate change, or possible human involvement in it. If you come up with nothing, then that shows a lot about where your opinion of the matter is based (or rather not based).

For myself, what would dissuade me from considering humans a likely factor in climate change? A continued cooling trend for the next 15 or 20 years that returned us to global temperature levels of the 70's would certainly change my stance. If the polar ice caps returned to their more typical summer extent of the last 60 years, in the coming years rather than nearly disappearing as they currently do, that would cause me to reconsider.

EDIT: As a side-note, geographers can be very strong physical scientists, depending on their expertise. Not saying you said otherwise, just saying.

 

[KB5252]

I am not trying to be argumentative but here is a story that tends to disagree with your assessment. Admittedly I do not understand this subject well. What am I to make of this?

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979 | Clipmarks

 

[TreeGreen]

I am not trying to be argumentative but here is a story that tends to disagree with your assessment. Admittedly I do not understand this subject well. What am I to make of this?

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979 | Clipmarks

This may be useful, although it doesn't include 2008. Pay attention the summer months melting, and the winter months melting:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

 

[allvol123]

Most people don't care about GW. Politicans appreciate the apathy and make a money grab on the issue.

 

[gsvol]

gsvol, your criticisms of the types of researchers involved in the IPCC is only exposing your lack of understanding of what the IPCC research was. Who better to determine what the effects of certain conditions on society than social scientists? Who better to determine the possible effects on ecosystems than biologists and the like?

I understand what the IPCC study was, whether you do or not, a rubber stamp for the UN iniatiive to gain more political and economic control over the nations of the world.

You certainly don't understand the history of eco-politics.

Congress is spending ridiculous amounts of money, leftists around the world are trying to lose the war against Islamofascism, and Al Gore is warning about how global warming "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fiber of life everywhere on the earth."

Gore, the comedic gift who just keeps on giving, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday while a winter storm walloped the Beltway.

He said that if immediate government action is not taken to combat greenhouse gas emissions, the world would end in a giant fireball.

"If we stopped global greenhouse gas emissions today, according to some scientists ... we would [still] see an increase in temperatures that many scientists believe would be extremely challenging for civilization," Gore testified. "If we continue at today's levels, some scientists have said it can be an increase of up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit."

Gore further warned of "climate refugees" if nothing is done.

Ask yourself what would dissuade you from dismissing global climate change, or possible human involvement in it. If you come up with nothing, then that shows a lot about where your opinion of the matter is based (or rather not based).

The history of Earth's climate.

The World 18,000 Years Ago

Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare.

Not a very fun place to live.

Our Present World

"Global warming" over the last 15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden. Today extreme deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and forests.

Wish it could last forever, but . . . .

Top ten problems for America, PEW research center:

For myself, what would dissuade me from considering humans a likely factor in climate change? A continued cooling trend for the next 15 or 20 years that returned us to global temperature levels of the 70's would certainly change my stance. If the polar ice caps returned to their more typical summer extent of the last 60 years, in the coming years rather than nearly disappearing as they currently do, that would cause me to reconsider.

Listen, I am a veteran, I have been through this before!!

Ice age??


As little as 30 years ago the talk wasn’t
about global warming, it was about an
imminent ice age.

Is an ice age likely?

Even possible?

Consider this: There have been more than
20 glacial advances, or ice ages, in just the
last two million years.

And we know from geological evidence that
each glaciation lasted anywhere from 20,000
to 100,000 years—no one knows why the
disparity—separated by warm periods that
last some 10,000 to 15,000 years.

What we can be reasonably sure of is that
we’re now in one of the warm periods, and
this one is already 13,000 years old.

Some scientists think it’s at an end and a
new ice age is about to begin.

No one really knows what causes ice ages.

Theories abound.

They include perturbations in the earth’s orbit,
changes in ocean currents, the earth periodically
passing through galactic dust that obscures the
sun, variations in the sun’s energy output,
changes in continental positions, uplift of
continental blocks, reduction of CO2 in the
atmosphere, etc.

Evidence or experiment may eventually resolve
which of the theories wins out, or it may turn
out that a combination of theories are true.

It may even be that none of the current theories
proves satisfactory and some entirely new theory
ultimately explains their cause.

But what is certain is how they take place.

It was once common wisdom to believe that
the advent of an ice age took place over
centuries or even millennia, and that they
ended the same way.

It was thought that the changes were so slow
that, if people were around to witness them,
each generation would hardly notice any change.

If the next glaciation were to come on slowly,
and we recognized it as the beginning of an
ice age, maybe there would be time for
civilization to adjust: to begin food storage,
to develop crop hybrids that will endure shorter
growing seasons, to move populations, factories,
and technology—the core of our civilization—
into southern climates, etc.

But we now have evidence that ice ages
come on with an abruptness that will catch
us by total surprise.

Physical evidence indicates that when the
last ice age started, the British Isles went
from a temperate climate to being completely
covered with glaciers hundreds of feet thick
in just 20 years.

Do scientists think it’ll happen that way again?

Yes. And if the next ice age starts here’s how
it may occur: At first we wouldn’t even realize
it, so the first few years we’d feel we were just
having one or two bad winters.

But after a few years rivers will freeze all-year
-round, snow from the previous years won’t
completely melt, glaciers will begin to form,
and some of what is currently now the world’s
most fertile ground will become unfarmable.

Countries bordering on both sides of the
Atlantic will change radically as a result
of changes in the Gulf Stream, and Europe,
which today is almost 20 degrees warmer
than other parts of the world at the same
latitude, will become as cold and dry as
Siberia.

The Sahara may again become forested while
the Amazon basin becomes a desert. Florida
may also become a desert, as it was in a
previous ice age.

At the same time, if the climate changes
enough to disturb the monsoon season that
fuels agriculture from Africa to China, where
over half the world’s six billion people now
live, hundreds of millions will starve when
the climate abruptly changes.

There’s no way to prepare them for that.

Canadian and Russian wheat will fail
completely. American agriculture, on
which much of the world depends, will
be scaled back by shorter growing seasons.

Not only will we not have enough food for
export, we won’t be able to grow enough
to sustain even our own current population.

And jobs? Factories will close, service
businesses will disappear, stocked
supermarkets will become a thing of
the past.

Get ready for your standard of living to drop
like a rock while you and your kin go hungry.

How far will the ice fields extend?

In North America they will most likely reach
as far south as present day Chicago.

But they may go further.

And this isn’t going to be some picture
postcard winter landscape. At the height
of the last ice age, the ice fields covering
much of North America were up to two
miles thick.

So, expect the great northern cities, such
as New York, Boston, Detroit, Toronto,
Montreal, etc., to be swept away before
advancing glaciers.

In the meantime, sea levels will drop and
more of the continental shelves will be exposed.

You’ll be able to walk from Siberia to Alaska,
from California to the Channel Islands, from
Britain to France, from Australia to New Guinea.

But when is this really all likely to happen?

Because no one knows what causes ice ages,
there’s no way to forecast when the next one
will start, how bad it will be, or what effect
the (allegedly man-made) global warming
taking place today will have on it.

We can’t tell whether it will be less severe
than the last one, when the ice sheets only
extended as far south as Wisconsin, or as
bad as some of the glaciations of half a
billion years ago when ice sheets formed
all the way to the equator.

Although this latter scenario is unlikely, no
one can be sure. But if it does, kiss the
human race good-bye.

What seems fairly certain is that we will
go from the world as it is today to full-blown
glaciation in less than 20 years, maybe in as
little as four or five. And there is no way the
United States can adjust to and survive a
climate change this abrupt.

Can we stop it?

We can’t even stop a single snow storm.

Imagine trying to stop an ice age that’s
going to go on for tens of thousands of
years.

 

[gsvol]

EDIT: As a side-note, geographers can be very strong physical scientists, depending on their expertise. Not saying you said otherwise, just saying.

I'm not sure what you are saying either, there seemed to be an insinuation of ignorance, I won't respond with an insinuation of stupidity but let me say, there are many many mysteries for which science has no explanation.

Some things we know and don't know.

We do know that;

The hockey stick thingie about global warming is pure bull hocky.

There is mega bucks to be made in carbon trade offs.

The UN would like to use this to gain political and economic power as well as corrupt stealing of money from the gullible. (recall the corruption in the Iraqi food for oil schemes.)

There have been much warmer periods in the history of mankind that were better and not worse for his welfare.

We don't know the real major drivers of extreme climate change such as;

Cycles of solar activity.

Are there major disruptions in our reception of sunlight from events we don't have knowledge of? ETC.

If you really want to get into what really qualified scientist think, rather than a IPCC vs others say kind of cow paddy throwing then I have plenty of real info that makes the UN and Al Gore look like the greedy fools they are.

Most people don't care about GW. Politicans appreciate the apathy and make a money grab on the issue.

Nail meet hammer!!!!

And if you ignore that atmospheric reality, then perhaps you’ll note that the neither the LCEA nor any other law that Congress can pass is likely to force China, India, Brazil, Mexico and other developing nations from more than making up for the GHGs that the U.S. may reduce in the future. China just recently passed the U.S. in terms of GHG emissions and has publicly stated that it doesn’t intend to harm its economy by reducing its GHG emissions in the future.


Meanwhile the World Bank's IMF proposes to build huge coal fired electrical plants in the near future in India.

I hope all these global warming groupies are going to like their $500 electrical bills.

 

[gasguy98]

My two cents:
This issue is way too politicized for me to have a solid opinion.
I guess it makes sense that the polution and CO2 we put in the atmosphere will affect something sometime. On the other hand common sense tells me that the earth can deal with it.

Like most things of opposing forces I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.
CO2 emissions are effecting the earth somewhat but it is not going to cause global disaster.

gsvol:
You always provide more facts on political issues than anyone on this board. It is hard to argue with what you post.

 

[jcwvolfan]

I agree with what has been stated here previously that this topic has been overly politicized. I believe enough so to cloud the legitimate science on both sides of the argument. And just like gasguy, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Since my formal scientific education is limited to 8 credit hours each of UT biology and geography (the earth science not the social science) I can’t speak on the same technical level as many on this board. However I do have some questions that hopefully some of them can answer that would help put this issue into perspective for many of us with less technical knowledge:
What is the best estimate as to the percentage of responsibility mankind holds for global warming?

What percentage of the earth’s atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases?

What percentage of these greenhouse gases is CO2?

What percentage of atmospheric CO2 emissions is due to humans?

 

[MG1968]

CO2 isn't even the dominant "greenhouse" gas. Water vapor is.

 

[TennTradition]

What is the best estimate as to the percentage of responsibility mankind holds for global warming?

What percentage of the earth’s atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases?

What percentage of these greenhouse gases is CO2?

What percentage of atmospheric CO2 emissions is due to humans?

I'm actually not sure what the number is on temperature increase...we've actually discussed that before...it may be somewhere around 1 degree C. The summary for policy makers of the IPCC 4th assessment report gives a 95% confidence on the radiative forcing attributable to man...which is then related to the warming.

I don't know what percentage of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases, but it has to be very very small.

As MG said, the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is by far water. CO2 isn't close to water in concentration. However, water is already at its equilibrium concentration in the atmosphere (thus all of the liquid water on the planet)...so we can't do anything to contribute to large-scale increases in water in the atmosphere (outside of raising the temperature of the atmosphere). Water is always at equilibrium levels, so its impact on warming has always been "priced in" on temperature.

Humans account for a small fraction of the total CO2 emissions. Basically, the earth had come to a decent equilibrium, emitting naturally a lot of CO2 and absorbing it back at the same rate - with a stabilization of CO2 in the atmosphere at about 280 parts per million. Man's activities are generally believed to have caused a disequilibrium, emitting CO2 faster than it is being absorbed by natural processes - so CO2 concentration has increased to just shy of 400 ppm. There are some other complexities at play here, too though...like positive feedback of CO2 from the ocean, etc. But, that is the basic gist.

 

[gsvol]

My two cents:
This issue is way too politicized for me to have a solid opinion.
I guess it makes sense that the polution and CO2 we put in the atmosphere will affect something sometime. On the other hand common sense tells me that the earth can deal with it.

Like most things of opposing forces I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.
CO2 emissions are effecting the earth somewhat but it is not going to cause global disaster.

Well said!!

If I'm not mistaken, one very reliable source has said that CO2 contributes less than one percent to the global warming effect, I'll have to look that up.

All of the global warming zealots ignore such acts of nature as the year of no summer, 1816.

In Tennessee there was sleet in July and frozen over ponds in August.

In some parts of the country a bushel of seed corn sold for $10. To put that in perspective, in about 1840 a relative of mine bought a 400 acre farm for $19 and change, in other words for a $20 gold piece with enough left over to buy some groceries.

That farm had 40 acres of cleared, tillable fields, a nice house, two large stock barns, a corn crib and several other out buildings and 360 acres of virgin timber.

gsvol:
You always provide more facts on political issues than anyone on this board. It is hard to argue with what you post.

Why thanks gasguy, that's nice of you.

You seem to be one of the more level headed, reasonable posters here.

I agree with what has been stated here previously that this topic has been overly politicized. I believe enough so to cloud the legitimate science on both sides of the argument. And just like gasguy, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

It has been politicized for the purpose of gaining political and economic power for those who have too much of those two things already.

Since my formal scientific education is limited to 8 credit hours each of UT biology and geography (the earth science not the social science) I can’t speak on the same technical level as many on this board. However I do have some questions that hopefully some of them can answer that would help put this issue into perspective for many of us with less technical knowledge:

Some have actually falsified data in order to promote UN programs that would be bad for America.

Here is a fair look at the past 1,000 years.

Nothing to hit the panic button over.

What is the best estimate as to the percentage of responsibility mankind holds for global warming?

What percentage of the earth’s atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases?

What percentage of these greenhouse gases is CO2?

What percentage of atmospheric CO2 emissions is due to humans?

Interesting questions.

Find some of the answers here.

I'm actually not sure what the number is on temperature increase...we've actually discussed that before...it may be somewhere around 1 degree C. The summary for policy makers of the IPCC 4th assessment report gives a 95% confidence on the radiative forcing attributable to man...which is then related to the warming.

I don't know what percentage of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases, but it has to be very very small.

As MG said, the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is by far water. CO2 isn't close to water in concentration. However, water is already at its equilibrium concentration in the atmosphere (thus all of the liquid water on the planet)...so we can't do anything to contribute to large-scale increases in water in the atmosphere (outside of raising the temperature of the atmosphere). Water is always at equilibrium levels, so its impact on warming has always been "priced in" on temperature.

Humans account for a small fraction of the total CO2 emissions. Basically, the earth had come to a decent equilibrium, emitting naturally a lot of CO2 and absorbing it back at the same rate - with a stabilization of CO2 in the atmosphere at about 280 parts per million. Man's activities are generally believed to have caused a disequilibrium, emitting CO2 faster than it is being absorbed by natural processes - so CO2 concentration has increased to just shy of 400 ppm. There are some other complexities at play here, too though...like positive feedback of CO2 from the ocean, etc. But, that is the basic gist.

Well CO2 is good for plant life and so is warmer weather.

 

[TennTradition]

Well CO2 is good for plant life and so is warmer weather.

The fertilize effect is a matter of on-going research, but the primary problem is that CO2 can only increase plant growth where carbon is the limiting nutrient. So, there will be an initial fertilization effect in many areas that will enhance growth - but nitrates, for example, may then become the limiting nutrient halting any additional benefits. It is something that must be factored in, though, no disagreement there.

 

[gsvol]

The fertilize effect is a matter of on-going research, but the primary problem is that CO2 can only increase plant growth where carbon is the limiting nutrient. So, there will be an initial fertilization effect in many areas that will enhance growth - but nitrates, for example, may then become the limiting nutrient halting any additional benefits. It is something that must be factored in, though, no disagreement there.

Ah so, 'flower friendly gasoline additives' must be the answer!

Given the climatic history of the Earth and that there haven't been times during warm periods that presented anything like the problems faced during ice ages, what is the comparison between CO2 levels during warm periods and CO2 levels during ice ages???

 

[TennTradition]

Ah so, 'flower friendly gasoline additives' must be the answer!

Given the climatic history of the Earth and that there haven't been times during warm periods that presented anything like the problems faced during ice ages, what is the comparison between CO2 levels during warm periods and CO2 levels during ice ages???

Historically, CO2 levels have lagged temperature levels due to the positive feedback response of the earth's ocean's due to their ability to "sequester" CO2 during cold periods and release it during warm periods. As a result, as orbital and solar patterns forced temperature cycles, CO2 levels would respond in kind - falling as we entered an ice age to minimum levels during the ice age and then climbing as we left the ice age. So, of ocean release in the dominant force for change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations - we see low CO2 during ice ages and high CO2 during warm periods (but with a lag). However, these high CO2 levels were not enough to stop emergence into another ice age once orbital/solar patterns shifted to send us into one.

 

[gsvol]

Historically, CO2 levels have lagged temperature levels due to the positive feedback response of the earth's ocean's due to their ability to "sequester" CO2 during cold periods and release it during warm periods. As a result, as orbital and solar patterns forced temperature cycles, CO2 levels would respond in kind - falling as we entered an ice age to minimum levels during the ice age and then climbing as we left the ice age.

So, of ocean release in the dominant force for change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations - we see low CO2 during ice ages and high CO2 during warm periods (but with a lag). However, these high CO2 levels were not enough to stop emergence into another ice age once orbital/solar patterns shifted to send us into one.

What you just posted would tend to indicate just the opposite what Al Gore and all the global warming groupies, especially legislative happy politicians, are saying.





As an aside, because of your work, stuff like this would seem to be right down you alley.

And then there was John Lorenzen of Woodward, Iowa a farmer who produced his own electricity with small homemade wind mills and used electrical power to separate oxygen and hydrogen and then powered practically everything he had with hydrogen which emits no pollutants and is in abundant supply.

If a simple farmer can do that then why would we possibly need to cycle gadzillions of dollars through carbon offsets etc etc etc.

Oh, I know, to make the rich richer and the poor poorer??

Pardon my cynicism but where is the common sense solution??? (to a theoretical problem at best.)

 

[TennTradition]

What you just posted would tend to indicate just the opposite what Al Gore and all the global warming groupies, especially legislative happy politicians, are saying.

I don't know about Al Gore or global warming "groupies," but I do know that any climate scientist would agree with that description - including those who contribute to the IPCC.

 

[TennTradition]

As an aside, because of your work, stuff like this would seem to be right down you alley.

And then there was John Lorenzen of Woodward, Iowa a farmer who produced his own electricity with small homemade wind mills and used electrical power to separate oxygen and hydrogen and then powered practically everything he had with hydrogen which emits no pollutants and is in abundant supply.

If a simple farmer can do that then why would we possibly need to cycle gadzillions of dollars through carbon offsets etc etc etc.

I must admit....I am quite confused about putting secret pills into water to make fuel. If you're putting it in internal combustion engines, then you are somehow converting water into an easily combustible fuel. That's pretty surprising if true...unless you're adding a significant volume of the other material (>75% by volume or so) to the water. Interesting concept...but odd, don't you think?

As for the comments about Lorenzen, I don't really see the conspiracy angle. If everyone were willing to put up windmills and solar panels, then I'm sure that we could generate a lot of electricity to either distribute to homes for use or perform hydrolysis to make hydrogen to burn in automobiles. There is one problem that hydrolysis isn't 100% efficient and hydrogen is hard to store - but you are making a clean fuel. I don't see how this can be construed as a secret or a ploy to make the rich richer...there was no cost analysis or energy-scale analysis in the story....how many windmills would each person have to have at their house to make enough hydrogen for them to use for all of their fuel resources. How much would hydrogen storage and safety equipment cost? What about electricity production for home use - not just fuel - how many more windmills would be required? How do we handle peak supply vs. peak demand? Do we have sufficient battery technology? etc...

 

[gsvol]

I don't know about Al Gore or global warming "groupies," but I do know that any climate scientist would agree with that description - including those who contribute to the IPCC.

The only conclusion I could draw from the data you produced (as succinctly as I've seen it done) is that CO2 is a follower of global temperature and not a driver.

That being said, why should we try to control CO2 in the atmosphere by limiting it, especially if we don't know how to produce it in sufficient quantities to avert an ice age???

I must admit....I am quite confused about putting secret pills into water to make fuel. If you're putting it in internal combustion engines, then you are somehow converting water into an easily combustible fuel. That's pretty surprising if true...unless you're adding a significant volume of the other material (>75% by volume or so) to the water. Interesting concept...but odd, don't you think?

If you look at a model of a molecule of water and a molecule of gasoline, what difference do you note??

Aren't they exactly the same except that the gasoline molecule has more carbon atoms???

As for the comments about Lorenzen, I don't really see the conspiracy angle. If everyone were willing to put up windmills and solar panels, then I'm sure that we could generate a lot of electricity to either distribute to homes for use or perform hydrolysis to make hydrogen to burn in automobiles.

What conspiracy angle?? Just that why do we need to run trillions of dollars throught the UN to solve whatever problem there may be??

Lorenzen's dad was using their own wind generated electricity in 1917.

Lorenzen bought one solar panel that was capable of running a porch light and said it was way too expensive to be practical. He was doing some research on how to make panels himself in 1990.

He used gasoline along with the hydrogen in his old truck and went from about 14 mpg to 40 mpg of gasoline used.

He also ran all his household appliances with hydrogen.

A professor from one of the California Universities said Lorenzen hadn't discovered any new technology, he was just putting it to practical use.

There is one problem that hydrolysis isn't 100% efficient and hydrogen is hard to store - but you are making a clean fuel. I don't see how this can be construed as a secret or a ploy to make the rich richer...there was no cost analysis or energy-scale analysis in the story....how many windmills would each person have to have at their house to make enough hydrogen for them to use for all of their fuel resources.

Lorenzen didn't need all that many windmills, he claimed his most efficient home made model was made from gallon cans like restaurants by veggies in, etc. Look to be the same principle as the sails on Cousteau's Calypso research ship.

How much would hydrogen storage and safety equipment cost? What about electricity production for home use - not just fuel - how many more windmills would be required? How do we handle peak supply vs. peak demand? Do we have sufficient battery technology? etc...

A lot of very interesting questions.

Peak supply vs peak demand would be if each dwelling had it's own production and storage and be self contained.

Lorenzen was using the same batteries his dad had been using in 1917.

Periodically he cleaned the inside of the batteries,the conductor plates, and adding a new electrolyte solution.

Are you familiar with work of the Rocky Mountain Institute and Amory Lovins??

 

[TennTradition]

The only conclusion I could draw from the data you produced (as succinctly as I've seen it done) is that CO2 is a follower of global temperature and not a driver.

That being said, why should we try to control CO2 in the atmosphere by limiting it, especially if we don't know how to produce it in sufficient quantities to avert an ice age???

There is no good historical basis to see if CO2 is also a driver of climate because we haven't had the type of massive, sustained non-temperature-driven release of CO2 as far as we can tell. Even forest fires aren't very good examples because vegetation grows back so quickly and re-sequesters the CO2. However, the IPCC reports have outlined the other science that is used to bridge the gap of historical evidence and today's practices to give some insight into what sort of greenhouse effect increase we should expect from these emissions.

If you look at a model of a molecule of water and a molecule of gasoline, what difference do you note??

Aren't they exactly the same except that the gasoline molecule has more carbon atoms???

I do not see them as exactly the same save the difference in carbon atoms at all. Yes, water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. And, yes, gasoline is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. But, thermochemically, they are quite different beasts. If the suggestion is that as long as you add carbon to the system through the tablet (that is derived from coal, for example), then you can make gasoline from water because you are adding the carbon to hydrogen and oxygen - that is a significant stretch. Even if you had free-floating carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms making their way around - you will end up with CO, CO2, H2, some H2O, etc - entropic effects would dominate and you would end up with these gases and some in liquid form. On the other hand, if you start cranking up the pressure, that could change things - but we're talking serious pressure, and that doesn't mean dropping a tablet in a bucket of boiling water. It would be an extremely surprising outcome from my perspective.

What conspiracy angle?? Just that why do we need to run trillions of dollars throught the UN to solve whatever problem there may be??

I must have mis-read what you were suggesting by the rich get richer and poor get poorer and picked up on a conspiracy angle. However, I would say that I haven't seen any proposals to run our future energy innovation strategies through the UN. There is a lot of good work being done now on energy innovation frameworks...the one I'm most familiar with is Richard Lester's Industrial Performance Center study...I'll be interested in seeing what they find out (should be released in about a year).

Periodically he cleaned the inside of the batteries,the conductor plates, and adding a new electrolyte solution.

There are a lot of areas to work on in energy - but the bright note is that there are a quite a few people looking at a lot of these questions. Although, a functioning hydrogen fuel economy is looking further away than I originally thought...storage is still being a bear, among other problems.

My understanding is that battery technology is one of the key limiting factors in growth of future energy infrastructures with respect to solar/wind or moving electricity to automobiles. While any old battery will do some portion of the job, my understanding is that this strategy fails pretty badly on the scale needed for our total energy market and demand characteristics.

Are you familiar with work of the Rocky Mountain Institute and Amory Lovins??

No...I am not. What should I look for, specifically?

 

[hndog609]

There is a lot of good work being done now on energy innovation frameworks...the one I'm most familiar with is Richard Lester's Industrial Performance Center study...I'll be interested in seeing what they find out (should be released in about a year).

Hey TT, could you give us the quick and dirty version of what this is about and what you expect from it? (no, I won't hold you to the second part. Just a learned guess will do fine)

 

[gsvol]

There is no good historical basis to see if CO2 is also a driver of climate because we haven't had the type of massive, sustained non-temperature-driven release of CO2 as far as we can tell. Even forest fires aren't very good examples because vegetation grows back so quickly and re-sequesters the CO2. However, the IPCC reports have outlined the other science that is used to bridge the gap of historical evidence and today's practices to give some insight into what sort of greenhouse effect increase we should expect from these emissions.

How about ice core samples that indicate historic CO2 levels???

There are lots of opinions that differ from the IPCC conclusions, (even from IPCC members), about bridging that gap and predicting the future. When they say 'bridge the gap', what they are asking is to take a leap of faith that their screwball theory is true.

Computer projections will indicate just what you want them to if you plug in the right data. (sometimes false)

There you go with one of their favorite scary buzz words; "greenhouse effect."

How about the "Greenland effect?"

As for me I don't have any problem with Greenland becoming again a place where people can have gardens in their back yards, polar bears notwithstanding.

I do not see them as exactly the same save the difference in carbon atoms at all. Yes, water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. And, yes, gasoline is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. But, thermochemically, they are quite different beasts. If the suggestion is that as long as you add carbon to the system through the tablet (that is derived from coal, for example), then you can make gasoline from water because you are adding the carbon to hydrogen and oxygen - that is a significant stretch. Even if you had free-floating carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms making their way around - you will end up with CO, CO2, H2, some H2O, etc - entropic effects would dominate and you would end up with these gases and some in liquid form. On the other hand, if you start cranking up the pressure, that could change things - but we're talking serious pressure, and that doesn't mean dropping a tablet in a bucket of boiling water. It would be an extremely surprising outcome from my perspective.

Zagrametrozirovan.

I don't know about dropping some sort of green pill but I still don't see why extreme pressure would be needed to bring about a chemical reaction that would have the carbon bind with the oxygen and hydrogen and resemble gasoline.

Theoretically that sounds much more plausible than the prospect that we will suffocate in a greenhouse Earth because there is too much CO2 in the air when we know there have been greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and nothing terrible happened.

I must have mis-read what you were suggesting by the rich get richer and poor get poorer and picked up on a conspiracy angle. However, I would say that I haven't seen any proposals to run our future energy innovation strategies through the UN. There is a lot of good work being done now on energy innovation frameworks...the one I'm most familiar with is Richard Lester's Industrial Performance Center study...I'll be interested in seeing what they find out (should be released in about a year).

You have not heard of the Kyoto Protocols???

There are a lot of areas to work on in energy - but the bright note is that there are a quite a few people looking at a lot of these questions. Although, a functioning hydrogen fuel economy is looking further away than I originally thought...storage is still being a bear, among other problems.

Well if you are commuting back and forth to work less than a hundred miles a day, hydrogen storage isn't that big of a problem.

Some guy came up with a car that uses the frame of the car to store hydrogen, I'm not sure I even understood how he did it but it works.

My understanding is that battery technology is one of the key limiting factors in growth of future energy infrastructures with respect to solar/wind or moving electricity to automobiles. While any old battery will do some portion of the job, my understanding is that this strategy fails pretty badly on the scale needed for our total energy market and demand characteristics.

That's what GM says.

True that might not be the magic thing to handle every situation, it certainly is very feasible for use to handle energy needs of family dwellings.

No...I am not. What should I look for, specifically?

Anything and everything he says.

Lovins had a PHD from Cambridge by the time he was 21 years old.

Amory Lovins was once described as the "top five" of the top ten energy experts in the world.

If TVA had listened to him back in the 70s and 80s, (on advise they paid for), today users of TVA electricity wouldn't be paying about $5 million a day on interest on loans they didn't even need to make.

Remember recently when the US government said it was going to more efficient lighting??? Lovins said thirty five years ago that if they would do that just in government buildings, we would eliminate the need to import any fuel oil at all.

Mother Jones: What will it take for renewables to go mainstream?

Amory Lovins: They already have in many places. The U.S. lags badly; only 4 percent of our power comes from micropower—cogeneration, wind, sun, small hydro, geothermal, biomass, and waste fuel. The reason the U.S. lags so badly is that we have obsolete rules that favor big over small, supply over efficiency, and incumbents over new market entrants. It's the very opposite of a competitive market. So a good dose of conservative economic principles would get us even further than trying to give technologies we like subsidies as big as the ones we don't like are already getting. Of course, desubsidizing the whole energy sector would be a wonderful advance.

Amory Lovins ten years ago.

Amory Lovins twenty years ago.

Amory Lovins 2008.

To spend time with Lovins is to see the world as one long string of bad decisions. Waste and profligacy are everywhere: in inefficient lights, heat-leaking windows, gas-guzzling trucks, poorly designed eateries. It's not that people are stupid, exactly. It's that their intelligence is limited. When they make decisions, they tend to worry only about their own self-interest, which they see in such narrow terms that they miss the larger opportunities all around.
Elizabeth Kolbertt, New Yorker Magazine, 2007.

Amory Lovins was once described as the "top five" of the top ten energy experts in the world.

 

[TennTradition]

Hey TT, could you give us the quick and dirty version of what this is about and what you expect from it? (no, I won't hold you to the second part. Just a learned guess will do fine)

The idea is to look at the holes in our current energy innovation system and develop a way to plug them - or perhaps blow it up and create a new one. The study will start with evaluations of current corporate R&D strategies, state and local energy investments, and federal activities. Basically, these are all disjointed and communication is stagnant - so developing techniques for coordinating these entities will be a key product of the study. Also, there are key questions about whether to attack this problem from the demand-side or the supply-side - with the key being which combination of both approaches will work best.

Also, it is fairly obvious that a supply-side approach is necessary, but how should that approach be managed? Most would argue that Congress has to stay largely uninvolved from a command-and-control standpoint, but how should the supply-side be run? The study will look at techniques for plugging these supply-side gaps and how to time them with demand-side technology pull.

The results are still about a year out, but I will follow-up this post with a way too long post (my apologies) that goes into a bit more detail here and I'll bring in some other perspectives.