Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Perhaps somebody needs to check and see if people connected with Greenpeace wants to buy La Manga at a reduced price?

0 Replies

Meanwhile here is an interesting concept re biofuels that I don't believe I have seen before:

ALGAE IS THE SOLUTION?

If you don't want to listen to the whole thing, fast forward to the last line which is most interesting.

0 Replies

we got into a discussion about the algae -biodiesel formulation on the diesel thread. Its a nifty proposition but Id like to see a study that uses sea surface for production of red algaes (these too are oil rich). All wed have to do is take the fatty acids from the algae and react with a hot epoxide(a base and a coal derived alcohol) and wed react the algae and remove the glycerine and youd have a great biodiesel. Low sulfur, and real clean.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Maybe what has been reported about average increases in sea level is malarkey. Maybe what they are observing is nothing more than a wobbling surface caused by earth's wobbling spin axis,

Unless the earth's rotation speeds up any wobble won't affect gravitational forces. Tidal forces are caused by gravity. It is measurable. The moon, sun and other planets all contribute, the moon being the primary force because it is the closest. Those forces don't change if the earth wobbles a little on it's axis. Centrifugal force exists on the earth but in case you hadn't noticed nothing flies off the surface because of it. The equator area of the globe bulges because of the centrifigul force but gravity is stronger. Even if the "wobble" causes the earth's crust to slip around, water is still a fluid and the increase in sea level in one place will be offset by decrease somewhere else unless the amount of water increases.

Quote:

or by variations in the sun's irradiance (liquid water expands when heated and contracts when cooled; freezing water floats on water while reducing unfrozen water levels,

Violates the principle of specific gravity. Ice floats but the majority of ice is below the surface. Ice and water are both made up primarily of the same molecule. Ice expands but the molecular weight doesn't change. This means the volume of ice below the surface is equivalent to the volume of water that makes up the ice. Impurities in the water or ice might affect it slightly but it will be negligible. Melting the ice doesn't change the water level

Quote:

and melting ice raises water levels).

Only if the ice wasn't floating on the water.

Quote:

Or it is caused by the rotation of the earth such that different halves are in the sun and in the dark on a moment by moment basis.

Day and night only started occurring in the last 40 years? Even you McG have to see that the statement by ican as this being a cause for rising sea levels is ludicrous.

Quote:

Also, weather or geological changes can cause that wobbling. !

Yes, they can cause a wobble but the wobble still doesn't change sea level.

Quote:

You gotta give ican credit. He doesn't mind letting everyone know how ignorant he really is about science.

Then prove to us how smart you are and refute with something other then that.[/quote]
Prove to us how smart you are McG.. Oh.. you already did by asking for refutation of statements that were completely silly.

0 Replies

The question would better be posed "Is algae the solution?"

Well he had a white lab coat on so he must speak with some authority.

So how much algae does it take to fill the tank of a medium sized car? In the UK it costs $200.

0 Replies

Yes, and I can remember a time when only the affluent could afford a new car. I can remember a time when only the affluent could afford a computer that was a chlid's toy compared to what I can get for a few hundred dollars now. Anything produced as a prototype and/or for a limited market is going to be far more expensive than is anything that is mass produced.

Did you listen to the last line Steve? If the gentleman making the presentation knows what he is talking about--Farmerman seems to believe that he does--this technology on a large scale could solve our energy problems with a fully renewable, clean fuel that would not require converting farmland from food crops and without our needing to import oil from anywhere.

0 Replies

And how much sea surface and red algae would this be to do anything significant? Sounds like another battle with environmentalists?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And how much sea surface and red algae would this be to do anything significant? Sounds like another battle with environmentalists?

But even the environmentalists wouldn't object to a system that is shown in that video. If this is legitimate and possible, this could finally be a win-win for everybody--even the true wackos.

0 Replies

In your link, Foxfyre, 1/10 th of the state of New Mexico I think is what the man said, would be a monstrous area, and hopefully he isn't talking about placing it all in New Mexico, as a few ranchers, farmers, and environmentalists might get more than slightly concerned. Sounds interesting though, as another idea, and as prices stay high, one of these ideas that come down the pike might actually be viable.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Did you listen to the last line Steve?

Unfortunately not. I couldnt hear him. Either he was speaking too quietly or this computer has no sound card, or i've gone deaf.

I'm sure algae scooped up from the surface of the sea will be one of a myriad of energy solutions long term. The point I keep making is that its not going to fill my tank NOW. And NOW is the energy shortfall, due to our dependency - "addiction" in the words of G Bush - on oil. I just watched Bush and Brown at a press conference. Brown is off to Saudi Arabia in a few days to beg them to increase production. (they can't the taps are full on). Brown also said the developed world would build 1000 new nuclear power plants. It seems Peak Oil reality has dawned at the highest levels of government.

But between now and filling your tank with liquid hydrogen from nuclear sources, or bio diesel from algae sludge you've a) got a long wait b) going to have to reduce your dependency on fossil fuel.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

In your link, Foxfyre, 1/10 th of the state of New Mexico I think is what the man said, would be a monstrous area, and hopefully he isn't talking about placing it all in New Mexico, as a few ranchers, farmers, and environmentalists might get more than slightly concerned. Sounds interesting though, as another idea, and as prices stay high, one of these ideas that come down the pike might actually be viable.

I think he was just using NM as an example. New Mexico, however, is a high altitude state with a minimum of really extreme weather, either hot or cold. Severe storms, large hail etc. are relatively rare and are mostly concentrated along the eastern third that is mostly devoted to farming, ranching, and petroleum production. Though we are still seismically active, it is minimal and not seen as a problem here. We are a large state--fifth in area among the 50 (or 57 according to Obama Smile

)--and, other than that strip along the Eastern side, and along the river valleys, we are mostly alpine mountain forests and finally large areas of desert that can be quite beautiful but otherwise isn't all that useful for much of anything. So New Mexico could be a really good choice for a large project of that type especially in the southern part of the state that gets abundant sunshine and minimal precipitation, especially snow.

And we're talking about 12,000 square miles - an area a little more than 100 x 100 square miles. I can think of a large tract of land known as 'Aquila Flats' in southern New Mexico for which an algae farm would be a distinct aesthetic improvement. Wind farms and large scale solar plants to power large cities would require much more land area than that.

Anyhow, I hope this is a plausible concept and that it catches on - quickly.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Did you listen to the last line Steve?
Unfortunately not. I couldnt hear him. Either he was speaking too quietly or this computer has no sound card, or i've gone deaf.

I'm sure algae scooped up from the surface of the sea will be one of a myriad of energy solutions long term. The point I keep making is that its not going to fill my tank NOW. And NOW is the energy shortfall, due to our dependency - "addiction" in the words of G Bush - on oil. I just watched Bush and Brown at a press conference. Brown is off to Saudi Arabia in a few days to beg them to increase production. (they can't the taps are full on). Brown also said the developed world would build 1000 new nuclear power plants. It seems Peak Oil reality has dawned at the highest levels of government.

But between now and filling your tank with liquid hydrogen from nuclear sources, or bio diesel from algae sludge you've a) got a long wait b) going to have to reduce your dependency on fossil fuel.

If the stupid Congress doesn't want to drill for our own oil, at least they should do something, one thing would be to eliminate the idiotic pricing of gasoline in tenths of a penny. Here is my latest post from a thread that I started that ended up in the Business and Technology News section.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3278105#3278105

0 Replies

AGreeing with okie here, with all the infrastructure and support, that 1/10 of NM would be the equivalent of New Jersey and 3 Delawares in area. Thats a large waste of space, even for NM.

Im still more convinced that the ocean surface, with about a 300 mi2 area (considering that it would be less "vertical" of an array. Also, an oceanaic array could take many different shapes , like paralleling an existing ocean stream or current in a semi tropical area. REd algae can be grown in many different climes and embedded in a seawater matrix would obviate the need for a lot of that scaffolding.

I agree that this is something that the market should be working on pronto.

0 Replies

AGreeing with okie here, with all the infrastructure and support, that 1/10 of NM would be the equivalent of New Jersey and 3 Delawares in area. Thats a large waste of space, even for NM.

Im still more convinced that the ocean surface, with about a 300 mi2 area (considering that it would be less "vertical" of an array. Also, an oceanaic array could take many different shapes , like paralleling an existing ocean stream or current in a semi tropical area. REd algae can be grown in many different climes and embedded in a seawater matrix would obviate the need for a lot of that scaffolding.

I agree that this is something that the market should be working on pronto.

0 Replies

Sorry about the double post. However, the discussion about rising sea levels is a scientific fact. Its not an "artifact of the Chandler wobble" . We are still in a post glacial stage in which isostatic rebound and sea level rises work against each other. See Pitman and Ryan (1996) and Kraft (1978) . There is a passell of literature about sea level rise and none of it is in doubt..

Since the end of the "little Ice age" in the mid 1800's, weve seen coastal US become flooded as tidal distributaries become inundated. We can see lots of drowned coastal forests that were still encluded by barrier islands. The exceptions are, of course, active sediment traps and sediment starved rivers (like the Mississippe) where the coastal barrier islands have been eroded by sediment starvation.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Did you listen to the last line Steve?
Unfortunately not. I couldnt hear him. Either he was speaking too quietly or this computer has no sound card, or i've gone deaf.

I'm sure algae scooped up from the surface of the sea will be one of a myriad of energy solutions long term. The point I keep making is that its not going to fill my tank NOW. And NOW is the energy shortfall, due to our dependency - "addiction" in the words of G Bush - on oil. I just watched Bush and Brown at a press conference. Brown is off to Saudi Arabia in a few days to beg them to increase production. (they can't the taps are full on). Brown also said the developed world would build 1000 new nuclear power plants. It seems Peak Oil reality has dawned at the highest levels of government.

But between now and filling your tank with liquid hydrogen from nuclear sources, or bio diesel from algae sludge you've a) got a long wait b) going to have to reduce your dependency on fossil fuel.

If the stupid Congress doesn't want to drill for our own oil, at least they should do something, one thing would be to eliminate the idiotic pricing of gasoline in tenths of a penny. Here is my latest post from a thread that I started that ended up in the Business and Technology News section.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3278105#3278105

Another thing they could do is push the states to agree on one formulation for a grade of gasoline so that refineries could set their process once and then make and ship the stuff without having to shut down and retool for dozens of different mandated gasoline formulas.

Also, if they are going to stick to the minimal sulphur content for diesel, they need to provide some lucrative incentives to and remove roadblocks to increase refining capacity that includes the ability to refine diesel to current specifications. Very few American refineries have the capability of producing the mandated low sulphur diesel which is why you pay a dollar or more for diesel than you do for gasoline now. (And THAT is driving up costs for everything we buy in a major way.)

0 Replies

Congress allowing the US to drill for its own oil is the best and cheapest way to end the US energy crisis!

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

148.

Internationally known forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague, forecasting expert Dr. Kesten Green of Monash University in Australia challenged Gore to a $10,000 bet in June 2007 over the accuracy of climate computer models predictions. "Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder." According to Armstrong, the author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, "Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the [UN] IPCC violated 72." Armstrong and Green also critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears in 2007. "Dire consequences have been predicted to arise from warming of the Earth in coming decades of the 21st century. Enormous sea level rise is one of the more dramatic forecasts. According to the AP's Borenstein, such sea-level forecasts were experts' judgments on what will happen," Armstrong and Green wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007. "As shown in our analysis, experts' forecasts have no validity in situations characterized by high complexity, high uncertainty, and poor feedback. To date we are unaware of any forecasts of sea levels that adhere to proper [scientific] forecasting methodology and our quick search on Google Scholar came up short," Armstrong and Green explained. "Media outlets should be clear when they are reporting on scientific work and when they are reporting on the opinions held by some scientists. Without scientific support for their forecasting methods, the concerns of scientists should not be used as a basis for public policy," they concluded. (LINK) & (LINK) Armstrong and Green also co-authored a November 29, 2007 paper with Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon which found that polar bear extinction predictions violate "scientific forecasting procedures." The study analyzed the methodology behind key polar bear population predictions and found that one of the two key reports in support of listing the bears had "extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years data - and data for these years were of doubtful validity." Both key reports violated critical evidence-based principles of forecasting, rendering their forecasts invalid, according to the report. The study concluded that "experts' predictions, unaided by evidence-based forecasting procedures, should play no role in this decision [to list polar bear as endangered]. Without scientific forecasts of a substantial decline of the polar bear population and of net benefits from feasible policies arising from listing polar bears, a decision to list polar bears as threatened or endangered would be irresponsible."

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

The point I keep making is that its not going to fill my tank NOW. And NOW is the energy shortfall, due to our dependency - "addiction" in the words of G Bush - on oil. I just watched Bush and Brown at a press conference. Brown is off to Saudi Arabia in a few days to beg them to increase production. (they can't the taps are full on).

The Saudis have just increased their production by 300.000 b/d.
But the problem NOW is not a lack of oil but rather an oil glut: Iran is accumulating surplus production in tankers : "Iran has at least 14 very large crude carriers, or VLCCs, floating near Kharg Island, a loading facility. " source

And the surplus crude problem has expanded to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia :
"Kuwait and Iran on Wednesday joined Saudi Arabia in slashing the price of their heavy crude exports to the deepest discounts in at least nine years, seeming to support OPEC's view that the world has enough of its supplies"
source

The real problem is the lack of refinery capable to use the heavy crude from the Middle East (no new refinery has been built in the West for more than 20 years !!!). And guess why on earth don't people want to invest in so much needed refineries ? Because of ... global warming.
"Refiners Face Obstacles to Processing Cheaper, Dirtier Crude Oil" source

So if you want to fill your tank NOW, don't blame Bush, blame the enviros, the nimby attitude and the legislators who block energy developpement plans out of AGW hysteria.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The equator area of the globe bulges because of the centrifigul force but gravity is stronger. Even if the "wobble" causes the earth's crust to slip around, water is still a fluid and the increase in sea level in one place will be offset by decrease somewhere else unless the amount of water increases.

Not exactly the same thing but apropos centrifugal force, the Earth revolution period is slowing about 2 ms every day. If the sea is rising (either by thermosteric effect, or by melting of Greenland & Antarctica ice shelves) as stated by AGWers, then, the equator must be swelling and the slowing must be accelerating (red dotted line). But it is not accelerating, it is decelerating (green line) !

http://pichuile.free.fr/images/earth_deceleration.png

0 Replies

The Saudis say they will increase production by 300k b/d. Whether or not they will deliver is another matter.

And I do blame Bush for such an inept and catastrophic invasion of a country with huge reserves that oil exports from Iraq has decreased since the days of Saddam.

You still haven't got it miniT. The end of cheap crude oil is over.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know