- Thank you received: 0
Oil and NASA's mission statement change
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
18 years 3 months ago #16336
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />Go to ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We discourage links to other sites except as citations that do not need to be clicked. Please make all discussions here self-contained so that no one needs to click on foreign links and suffer the consequences. -|Tom|-
<br />Go to ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We discourage links to other sites except as citations that do not need to be clicked. Please make all discussions here self-contained so that no one needs to click on foreign links and suffer the consequences. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 3 months ago #4229
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[Gregg] "Please, please slow down gentlemen with your ideas of directing more energy to the Earth's surface...."
I guess you weren't paying close attention. The system being discussed works by moving energy around, and by replacing some sources - coal and petroleum, for example - with allegedly greener sources - solar. It doesn't necessarily add more energy to the mix. In fact it will probably reduce overall energy consumption, at least in the beginning.
That does not of course make it risk free, as I have been stressing. Learning how to use it "without screwing ourselves" (quoting me from yesterday) is going to be a problem. But that is true of every major advance we have ever made. We would be foolish not to proceed. We would also be foolish not to proceed cautiously.
I guess you weren't paying close attention. The system being discussed works by moving energy around, and by replacing some sources - coal and petroleum, for example - with allegedly greener sources - solar. It doesn't necessarily add more energy to the mix. In fact it will probably reduce overall energy consumption, at least in the beginning.
That does not of course make it risk free, as I have been stressing. Learning how to use it "without screwing ourselves" (quoting me from yesterday) is going to be a problem. But that is true of every major advance we have ever made. We would be foolish not to proceed. We would also be foolish not to proceed cautiously.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Peter Nielsen
- Offline
- Premium Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 3 months ago #4230
by Peter Nielsen
Replied by Peter Nielsen on topic Reply from Peter Nielsen
Larry Burford wrote 18 Aug 2006 : 15:12:30: "I predict that the latest climate models would have to be scrapped after a little bit of such testing."
H2O has been a big problem for Climate Change scientists because it is the most important greenhouse gas in many ways and these most potent effects are much more difficult to model than CO2 effects, which is why H2O modelling hasn¡¯t quite fully happened yet.
H2O¡¯s two hydrogen arms vibrate more easily than CO2¡¯s two Oxygen arms, because they are least massive and H2O forms clouds in all of its solid, liquid, gas states (because H2O is extremely sticky), while the clouds of each of these states have different albedo and greenhouse, Incoming light and outgoing heat radiation scattering, effects.
Producing H2O clouds to increase albedo to reduce Global Warming (GW) would be a tricky (possibly impossible) enterprise, because GW-enhanced hurricane activity ultimately drives a significant portion of low level water clouds into the stratosphere where they contribute to GW as high level cirrus cloud. Jet aircraft contrails (condensation trails) do this directly, at least locally.
Cirrus clouds comprise ice crystals which are supposed to be stronger infrared resonators than water droplets. They thus have a stronger greenhouse effect than lower level clouds comprising water. It has thus been argued that the big increase in high level cirrus cloud cover which has accompanied GW is a significant co-contributor to GW, along with CO2, despite its opposite, increased albedo effect.
If it turns out we cannot use H2O to reverse GW, and we cannot sufficiently, economically realise any of the other ideas, we¡¯ve always got sulphur to fall back on. SO2, SO3 clouds would potently reduce GW by increasing Earth¡¯s albedo.
Someone has already suggested adding sulphur to jet aircraft fuel. I improve on this idea: Inject the sulphur into jet engines only in the stratosphere, so that the biospheric troposphere gets less polluted.
H2O has been a big problem for Climate Change scientists because it is the most important greenhouse gas in many ways and these most potent effects are much more difficult to model than CO2 effects, which is why H2O modelling hasn¡¯t quite fully happened yet.
H2O¡¯s two hydrogen arms vibrate more easily than CO2¡¯s two Oxygen arms, because they are least massive and H2O forms clouds in all of its solid, liquid, gas states (because H2O is extremely sticky), while the clouds of each of these states have different albedo and greenhouse, Incoming light and outgoing heat radiation scattering, effects.
Producing H2O clouds to increase albedo to reduce Global Warming (GW) would be a tricky (possibly impossible) enterprise, because GW-enhanced hurricane activity ultimately drives a significant portion of low level water clouds into the stratosphere where they contribute to GW as high level cirrus cloud. Jet aircraft contrails (condensation trails) do this directly, at least locally.
Cirrus clouds comprise ice crystals which are supposed to be stronger infrared resonators than water droplets. They thus have a stronger greenhouse effect than lower level clouds comprising water. It has thus been argued that the big increase in high level cirrus cloud cover which has accompanied GW is a significant co-contributor to GW, along with CO2, despite its opposite, increased albedo effect.
If it turns out we cannot use H2O to reverse GW, and we cannot sufficiently, economically realise any of the other ideas, we¡¯ve always got sulphur to fall back on. SO2, SO3 clouds would potently reduce GW by increasing Earth¡¯s albedo.
Someone has already suggested adding sulphur to jet aircraft fuel. I improve on this idea: Inject the sulphur into jet engines only in the stratosphere, so that the biospheric troposphere gets less polluted.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Peter Nielsen
- Offline
- Premium Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 3 months ago #9127
by Peter Nielsen
Replied by Peter Nielsen on topic Reply from Peter Nielsen
Gregg wrote 18 Aug 2006 : 17:38:30: "Please, please slow down gentlemen with your ideas . . ."
Nope, can't do that because:
1. H2O has been overlooked in the Climate Change debate, which involves so-called Science consensus leaders, for the very foolish reason that it had been put in the "too hard" basket.
2. I've long been hooked on finding really big News stories, big Truths that has been overlooked, like in my ebook.
3. I suspect we might be on to one of these with my ". . . Global Warming (GW)-enhanced hurricane activity ultimately drives a significant portion of low level water clouds into the stratosphere where they contribute to [further] GW as high level cirrus cloud."
4. This may be a very potent, almost unstoppable positive feedback mechanism once started. It may be potentially catastrophic (potentially Ice Age precipitating) in combination with other GW positive feedback mechanisms, methane and CO2 bubbling out of warming bogs, methyl hydrate bubbling up from the ocean floor and so on!
Nope, can't do that because:
1. H2O has been overlooked in the Climate Change debate, which involves so-called Science consensus leaders, for the very foolish reason that it had been put in the "too hard" basket.
2. I've long been hooked on finding really big News stories, big Truths that has been overlooked, like in my ebook.
3. I suspect we might be on to one of these with my ". . . Global Warming (GW)-enhanced hurricane activity ultimately drives a significant portion of low level water clouds into the stratosphere where they contribute to [further] GW as high level cirrus cloud."
4. This may be a very potent, almost unstoppable positive feedback mechanism once started. It may be potentially catastrophic (potentially Ice Age precipitating) in combination with other GW positive feedback mechanisms, methane and CO2 bubbling out of warming bogs, methyl hydrate bubbling up from the ocean floor and so on!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 3 months ago #17346
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Peter - this was probably just a typo, but others may be wondering:
methyl hydrate ... a liquid solvent sometimes sold as paint thinner.
methane hydrate ... a semi frozen mixture of methane and water sometimes found in marine sedimentary formations.
methyl hydrate ... a liquid solvent sometimes sold as paint thinner.
methane hydrate ... a semi frozen mixture of methane and water sometimes found in marine sedimentary formations.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 3 months ago #9193
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
We are talking about heavy cloud cover adding to the greenhouse effect. However, cloud cover and smoke tend to cause an increase in albedo and a cooling, such as was seen the summer after Mt. St. Helens. If GW cause an increase in upper level cirrus clouds, then the effect of all that white would be the reflection of solar heat back to space, I don;t know how to calculate it, but wouldn't be sexy if heat retained=heat reflected. Talk about equilibrium
Mark Vitrone
Mark Vitrone
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.377 seconds