| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bolaleman
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
 |
|
In the USA about half of the electricity is produced from burning
coal. Actually, more than 40 percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions are escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to the
greenhouse effect.
Now there is a new technology available, called the "oxyfuel process".
The trick: coal is not burned any more in normal air but in a blend of
pure oxygen and CO2. By stripping out the nitrogen and other gases
from the air, the burning coal produces mostly water vapor and nearly
pure carbon dioxide. After condensing the water, the CO2 can be
bottled and pumped underground (in this case, into an old natural gas
field to get even more methane out of the ground). One of the problems
is that stripping nitrogen out of air requires a good chunk of the
energy produced by the burning of the coal in the first place. After
all, nitrogen makes up 78 percent of the air we breathe.
This doesn´t sounds too bad but the question here is how safe and
permanent a geologic storage of the CO2 is. What happens if there is a
leak? Is it possible to store CO2 for thousands of years without any
environmental problems (this gas can interfere with groundwater and
contaminate it with heavy metals, for instance). How real is the
possibility that the CO2 reacts with the rocks to create permanent
storage as carbonate minerals?
For me there are still a lot of open questions and it is probably too
early to talk about "Clean Coal Power".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feel free to check out our all-in-one Coal and Geology Job
Board: http://2ajobguide.com/coal_jobs_mining_geology_jobs.aspx |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Meteorite Debris
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
Last time that great scribe Bolaleman <hulle06@hotmail.com> chipped away
at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
[quote]In the USA about half of the electricity is produced from burning
coal. Actually, more than 40 percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions are escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to the
greenhouse effect.
[/quote]
Clean coal is certainly foolish. Coal is an exhaustible fuel and peak
coal is coming 2032.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bolaleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
On Oct 11, 1:42 am, Meteorite Debris
<epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
[quote]Last time that great scribe Bolaleman <hull...@hotmail.com> chipped away
at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
In the USA about half of the electricity is produced from burning
coal. Actually, more than 40 percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions are escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to the
greenhouse effect.
Clean coal is certainly foolish. Coal is an exhaustible fuel and peak
coal is coming 2032.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
[/quote]
Coal probably never will be a really clean energy sources but it is
wrong to make it as "clean" as possible? It>s just impossible to get
rid of this energy source in the short term and the alternatives are
not much better - or do you think nuclear energy is cleaner? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
"Bolaleman" <hulle06@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3db7307f-39b8-4e5d-a55f-8078aa55676e@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
Centralised power systems are especially vulnerable to solar and magnetic
storms. Some of the phenomena I compare with magnetic reversals (see
http://palaeomagnetism.geologist-1011.net for details) are not noticeable in
electronic systems not attached to more than a few hundred metres of cable,
but devastating when several thousand kilometres of cable are subject to
induction.
The best reason to switch to decentralised power systems such as
methane-electric and household solar battery systems has nothing to do with
being environmentally friendly. Power supply contractors simply don>t do the
maintenance necessary to be capable of supplying the quality of power
required by modern computer systems, and they still don>t even manage their
own power spikes.
Coal may well be good for heavy industry, but unless someone gets heavy with
power contractors, people may eventually seek more reliable alternatives for
domestic supply. I live in a capital city and endure monthly outages. I>m
saving up to put my own power system in and go off the grid forever - not
because I think it good for the environment (which I don>t) - but because
I>m not getting the quality of power I>m paying for and enough is enough. If
the bottom ever drops out of coal, it>s not the greenies but the corporate
middlemen who are poisoning the power market with dodgy contracts, deceptive
trade practices, and lousy power quality.
I>m sceptical of "clean coal" and I think CO2 storage is a waste of money.
Economically, clean coal fails to address the dishonest business tactics
that prevail when institutional shareholders take control of essential
services such as electricity. From an environmental perspective, "clean
coal" fails to address the problem of photosynthetic deficit as a result of
several hundred years of extensive deforestation. I go into gory detail at
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net. If there is a CO2 leak, plants and
trees will accelerate growth to exploit the extra CO2, assuming we don>t cut
the trees down faster than they grow! This is what has been observed in
numerous experiments involving CO2 concentrations and plant life at varying
scales. (See http://climate.geologist-1011.net for bibliography and more
detail)
In the geological record, CO2 has been well above 5000ppm in conjunction
with global mean temperatures several degrees above the present - all with
no runaway greenhouse effect driven global warming catastrophe to show for
it. Contrary to ever popular glauconitic politics, global mean temperatures
and CO2 levels are not unprecedented, and in spite of some rather extreme
variations in the past, there never has been a runaway greenhouse event.
There are much worse things than the large scale cosmic Summer to worry
about - desertification is one, and the most direct driver of aridity is not
cooling but deforestation...
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bolaleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
On Oct 13, 6:37 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3db7307f-39b8-4e5d-a55f-8078aa55676e@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
Centralised power systems are especially vulnerable to solar and magnetic
storms. Some of the phenomena I compare with magnetic reversals (seehttp://palaeomagnetism.geologist-1011.netfor details) are not noticeable in
electronic systems not attached to more than a few hundred metres of cable,
but devastating when several thousand kilometres of cable are subject to
induction.
The best reason to switch to decentralised power systems such as
methane-electric and household solar battery systems has nothing to do with
being environmentally friendly. Power supply contractors simply don>t do the
maintenance necessary to be capable of supplying the quality of power
required by modern computer systems, and they still don>t even manage their
own power spikes.
Coal may well be good for heavy industry, but unless someone gets heavy with
power contractors, people may eventually seek more reliable alternatives for
domestic supply. I live in a capital city and endure monthly outages. I>m
saving up to put my own power system in and go off the grid forever - not
because I think it good for the environment (which I don>t) - but because
I>m not getting the quality of power I>m paying for and enough is enough. If
the bottom ever drops out of coal, it>s not the greenies but the corporate
middlemen who are poisoning the power market with dodgy contracts, deceptive
trade practices, and lousy power quality.
I>m sceptical of "clean coal" and I think CO2 storage is a waste of money..
Economically, clean coal fails to address the dishonest business tactics
that prevail when institutional shareholders take control of essential
services such as electricity. From an environmental perspective, "clean
coal" fails to address the problem of photosynthetic deficit as a result of
several hundred years of extensive deforestation. I go into gory detail athttp://deforestation.geologist-1011.net. If there is a CO2 leak, plants and
trees will accelerate growth to exploit the extra CO2, assuming we don>t cut
the trees down faster than they grow! This is what has been observed in
numerous experiments involving CO2 concentrations and plant life at varying
scales. (Seehttp://climate.geologist-1011.netfor bibliography and more
detail)
In the geological record, CO2 has been well above 5000ppm in conjunction
with global mean temperatures several degrees above the present - all with
no runaway greenhouse effect driven global warming catastrophe to show for
it. Contrary to ever popular glauconitic politics, global mean temperatures
and CO2 levels are not unprecedented, and in spite of some rather extreme
variations in the past, there never has been a runaway greenhouse event.
There are much worse things than the large scale cosmic Summer to worry
about - desertification is one, and the most direct driver of aridity is not
cooling but deforestation...
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
[/quote]
A correlation of CO2 concentration and greenhouse effect still is not
scientifically proved (mainly as water vapor influence on air
temperature is much bigger) but as there a lot of indications that
there might be a correlation politics needs to react. We cannot wait
fifty years more just waiting for a 100% safe scientific proof of such
a correlation. This might be too late for millions of affected people
- without talking about the potential economical effects.
Find green jobs: http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
http://2ajobguide.com/jobs_in_summer.aspx |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:42 am Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
"Bolaleman" <hulle06@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d9998ca-719c-4f7b-86dd-861173917ec5@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
[quote]A correlation of CO2 concentration and greenhouse effect still is not
scientifically proved (mainly as water vapor influence on air
temperature is much bigger) but as there a lot of indications that
there might be a correlation politics needs to react. We cannot wait
fifty years more just waiting for a 100% safe scientific proof of such
a correlation. This might be too late for millions of affected people
- without talking about the potential economical effects.
[/quote]
This is not about 100% safe scientific proof. That will never happen because
this is about the scientific evidence that *falsifies* the whole
catastrophic nature of global warming. Evidence is not democratic. If the
inferences of all the applicable evidence are not unanimous, neither the
thesis nor the antithesis can be correct because the interpretive context is
false to begin with. It doesn>t matter how many computer models show runaway
greenhouse, if test results are contradicted by actual examples of what
really happened when the applicable climatic parameters were combined in
history, then the hypothetical computer model is wrong - because the
evidence is always right being the arbiter of hypotheses. After all,
computer models are at best purely hypothetical, and at worst are an
arbitrary fiction. (There is an incomplete article at
http://logic.timothycasey.info that nevertheless goes into some detail about
the practical applications of quaternary logic)
Furthermore, scientific evidence suggesting real and urgent problems, such
as aridity consequent to deforestation, is systematically ignored while the
politicians go chasing ghosts and phantasms! (See
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net for more detail)
Consider: we are experiencing drought in spite of warmer conditions
suggesting that a more powerful mechanism for aridity is at work - powerful
enough to overcome temperature conditions that are known (actualistically)
to favour humidity. Moreover, rising CO2 can be attributed to photosynthetic
deficit as a result of deforestation, by more than four times the
attribution due to fossil fuel combustion. Deforestation is itself strongly
linked to historical aridification and unlike temperatures, CO2 levels, &
rates of climate change; the magnitude of anthropogenic deforestation is
unprecedented. This fact, unlike temperature, predicts the observed
geometric increase of modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The scientific evidence shows that deforestation is a vastly more damaging
problem than fossil fuel combustion and that the potential for a global
warming catastrophe is no more than sensationalised science fiction.
Furthermore, the number of factual errors on the part of climate
catastrophists contradicts the claim that their views are scientific. For
example, no singular feature of modern climate is unprecedented. (See for
yourself http://climate.geologist-1011.net)
Moreover, if we can be asked to act without totally proven justification,
then we can be asked to do anything or commit any crime. The Nazi holocaust
was not driven by inhumanity; the holocaust was driven by the precautionary
argument. No evil necessary - just add a liberal dose of parental precaution
and watch what people do naturally. The people who slaughtered those of
non-standard races did not want to wait fifty years for 100% proof either,
because like the climate catastrophists they too wanted to evade a purely
conjectural catastrophe - in their case it was genetic degeneration. On a
more practical note, catastrophists are compelled to evade their imaginary
catastrophe *before* the idea can be discredited by a lack of evidence as
the deadline draws nearer.
Aridification is a real catastrophe affecting many people in a real way. The
recent economic meltdown is insignificant next to the impact of droughts in
developing countries, where people concern themselves with finding something
to eat, more so than with whether they>ll be able to make their SUV payments
this year. While the primary cause of aridification is deforestation, we are
being asked to make the problem worse by finding a way, however dubious, to
halt or even reverse global warming. This is all because a purely
conjectural future catastrophe with well documented evidentiary
contradiction is propagandised as more significant than a real factual
catastrophe with well documented causes. This speaks to anti-competitive
strategies operating on a multinational scale.
Perhaps we are yet to learn this, but economic interdependence can never be
hierarchical because a gram of African pure gold is always identical to a
gram of American pure gold.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bolaleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
On Oct 14, 12:59 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d9998ca-719c-4f7b-86dd-861173917ec5@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
A correlation of CO2 concentration and greenhouse effect still is not
scientifically proved (mainly as water vapor influence on air
temperature is much bigger) but as there a lot of indications that
there might be a correlation politics needs to react. We cannot wait
fifty years more just waiting for a 100% safe scientific proof of such
a correlation. This might be too late for millions of affected people
- without talking about the potential economical effects.
This is not about 100% safe scientific proof. That will never happen because
this is about the scientific evidence that *falsifies* the whole
catastrophic nature of global warming. Evidence is not democratic. If the
inferences of all the applicable evidence are not unanimous, neither the
thesis nor the antithesis can be correct because the interpretive context is
false to begin with. It doesn>t matter how many computer models show runaway
greenhouse, if test results are contradicted by actual examples of what
really happened when the applicable climatic parameters were combined in
history, then the hypothetical computer model is wrong - because the
evidence is always right being the arbiter of hypotheses. After all,
computer models are at best purely hypothetical, and at worst are an
arbitrary fiction. (There is an incomplete article athttp://logic.timothycasey.infothat nevertheless goes into some detail about
the practical applications of quaternary logic)
Furthermore, scientific evidence suggesting real and urgent problems, such
as aridity consequent to deforestation, is systematically ignored while the
politicians go chasing ghosts and phantasms! (Seehttp://deforestation.geologist-1011.netfor more detail)
Consider: we are experiencing drought in spite of warmer conditions
suggesting that a more powerful mechanism for aridity is at work - powerful
enough to overcome temperature conditions that are known (actualistically)
to favour humidity. Moreover, rising CO2 can be attributed to photosynthetic
deficit as a result of deforestation, by more than four times the
attribution due to fossil fuel combustion. Deforestation is itself strongly
linked to historical aridification and unlike temperatures, CO2 levels, &
rates of climate change; the magnitude of anthropogenic deforestation is
unprecedented. This fact, unlike temperature, predicts the observed
geometric increase of modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The scientific evidence shows that deforestation is a vastly more damaging
problem than fossil fuel combustion and that the potential for a global
warming catastrophe is no more than sensationalised science fiction.
Furthermore, the number of factual errors on the part of climate
catastrophists contradicts the claim that their views are scientific. For
example, no singular feature of modern climate is unprecedented. (See for
yourselfhttp://climate.geologist-1011.net)
Moreover, if we can be asked to act without totally proven justification,
then we can be asked to do anything or commit any crime. The Nazi holocaust
was not driven by inhumanity; the holocaust was driven by the precautionary
argument. No evil necessary - just add a liberal dose of parental precaution
and watch what people do naturally. The people who slaughtered those of
non-standard races did not want to wait fifty years for 100% proof either,
because like the climate catastrophists they too wanted to evade a purely
conjectural catastrophe - in their case it was genetic degeneration. On a
more practical note, catastrophists are compelled to evade their imaginary
catastrophe *before* the idea can be discredited by a lack of evidence as
the deadline draws nearer.
Aridification is a real catastrophe affecting many people in a real way. The
recent economic meltdown is insignificant next to the impact of droughts in
developing countries, where people concern themselves with finding something
to eat, more so than with whether they>ll be able to make their SUV payments
this year. While the primary cause of aridification is deforestation, we are
being asked to make the problem worse by finding a way, however dubious, to
halt or even reverse global warming. This is all because a purely
conjectural future catastrophe with well documented evidentiary
contradiction is propagandised as more significant than a real factual
catastrophe with well documented causes. This speaks to anti-competitive
strategies operating on a multinational scale.
Perhaps we are yet to learn this, but economic interdependence can never be
hierarchical because a gram of African pure gold is always identical to a
gram of American pure gold.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
[/quote]
Timothy, this is an interesting approach but it also simplifies the
problematic. In order to understand the climate changes it is not
sufficient to discuss only the deforestation problem causing
aridification and a loss of CO2 sink capabilities. A quantitative
model needs to simulate the interactions of the atmosphere, oceans,
land surface, and ice and - I aggree - needs to be calibrated and
validated using historical climate data. There is for instance
evidence that the most important CO2 sinks are the oceans instead of
forests. Carbon dioxide readily dissolves in water and the oceans
provide a huge reservoir of carbon. Across the world>s oceans there is
a continual cycle of equilibration of dissolved carbon dioxide
(forming partially bicarbonate) in water with carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
There are already several climate models available which were
calibrated and validated on a local scale (see for instance
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14014304). A validated
global model is still not available as this is far too complex for
current computer programs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Find green jobs: http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
http://2ajobguide.com/jobs_in_summer.aspx |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
"Bolaleman" <hulle06@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:210c9ce9-b813-40d7-8961-dd37ddbd547b@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
[quote]Timothy, this is an interesting approach but it also simplifies the
problematic. In order to understand the climate changes it is not
sufficient to discuss only the deforestation problem causing
aridification and a loss of CO2 sink capabilities. A quantitative
model needs to simulate the interactions of the atmosphere, oceans,
land surface, and ice and - I aggree - needs to be calibrated and
validated using historical climate data. There is for instance
evidence that the most important CO2 sinks are the oceans instead of
forests.
[SNIP][/quote]
Although this point is made, we are not overharvesting plankton, and
land-based photosynthetic deficit accounts for more than four times the
carbon dioxide output from fossil fuel combustion. If all fossil fuel
combustion ceased tomorrow, CO2 levels would continue to rise. I don>t
believe that this is a bad thing because historically the biosphere has
always responded greedily to available CO2. However, aridification due to
deforestation is a real problem that is both historical and contemporary.
Aridification is far more damaging than a temperature swing, and I would
remind you that we are a few degrees below the normal temperature of planet
earth as averaged over the past half billion years. We can expect to see a
natural rise in temperature at some stage and this is perfectly normal given
that the current global mean is below average.
[quote]There are already several climate models available which were
calibrated and validated on a local scale (see for instance
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14014304). A validated
global model is still not available as this is far too complex for
current computer programs.
[/quote]
I>m not just a geologist. I write software and I am intimately familiar with
project management procedures. The biggest problem I>ve seen with
scientifically developed models is that science researchers are not familiar
with elementary application development methods. Simple things like test
beds are neglected. I do my share of interface modelling and if I wrote a
Ph.D. thesis every time I modified the formula, I>d have to be at least
fifty thousand years old! My point is that a test bed is used to find out if
key features of a model are realistic - often dictating hundreds or
thousands of changes in the case of complex algorithms.
In the case of climate modelling, data from geological history defines
certain limitations. A climate model that goes into a runaway change that
does not self correct is simply wrong, because geological history has
recorded the fact that the earth>s climate is self correcting.
When I read about the scientific development of a computer model, it
invariably lacks the thousands of tests and algorithm alterations, necessary
to bring the average program model in line with reality. Where are the
version lists, the bug lists, the test bed data, the source code etc. that
any contract programmer would be required to provide on the job? Without all
this, the model cannot even make a valid hypothesis - because it cannot be
connected in all its parts to something real. With all of the necessary
application source documentation and version control information, a computer
model may make for a valid hypothesis - but not a theory until verified by a
significant quantity of contemporary data.
Application models often run away because run-away processes are the most
common unflagged program bug and need to be independently verified (eg. by
historical events). If a run-away process cannot be independently tied to
real processes, the correct way to proceed is to treat it as a bug. Even
without the verification, the billions of years the universe has been in
operation without running itself into the ground are sufficient grounds to
dismiss all run-away processes as programming glitches.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jo Schaper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
Many of the geobiochemical models I have seen have huge error bars,
hence I, too am skeptical of the predictive models used by many of the
most rabid global warming advocates.
That being said, the CO2 increase (from whatever source) is undeniable.
We know a lot (through experiment) about the CO2-plant cycle, and the
effects of heating on the hydological cycle of the atmosphere.
As long as we stick with the measurable facts, the global warmists may
have a point. It>s stupid not to see the changes, and ignore them saying
nothing is happening, especially when we have the technology to minimize
our impact, but simply not the will to do so.
On the other hand, their sky is falling attitude is hurting them amongst
credible witnesses. They are using political tactics to solve a
scientific issue.
We can drive a middle road here. But no one on either side seems willing
to do so. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
Jo Schaper a écrit dans le message <48F73285.8010402@s9oc21ket.03net>...
[quote]Many of the geobiochemical models I have seen have huge error bars,
hence I, too am skeptical of the predictive models used by many of the
most rabid global warming advocates.
That being said, the CO2 increase (from whatever source) is undeniable.
We know a lot (through experiment) about the CO2-plant cycle, and the
effects of heating on the hydological cycle of the atmosphere.
As long as we stick with the measurable facts, the global warmists may
have a point. It>s stupid not to see the changes, and ignore them saying
nothing is happening, especially when we have the technology to minimize
our impact, but simply not the will to do so.
On the other hand, their sky is falling attitude is hurting them amongst
credible witnesses. They are using political tactics to solve a
scientific issue.
We can drive a middle road here. But no one on either side seems willing
to do so.
[/quote]
Nice to see a post that does not concern expanding Earth, square Earth
or hollow Earth.
A little off your topic but I just got this in my e-mail
"Dear Colleagues and Members of the Geological Society (UK)Hydrogeology
Group
With the growing importance of groundwater as a source of heating and
cooling, you may be interested to know that a new JISCMAIL group has
been set up to cater specifically to the topic of ground source heat.
The aim of the group is to provide a forum not only for academics to
come into contact with one another, but also where practitioners,
consultants and installers can contribute their expertise and knowledge.
We certainly hope that the group will attract budding "thermogeologists"
and also that buildings services engineers, architects, drillers and
regulators will subscribe. One of the major problems facing the
development of the ground source heating/cooling community in the UK is
the lack of communication and mutual understanding between these
professions...........................
You may join the Thermogeology JISCMAIL service at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=THERMOGEOLOGY.
JL |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bolaleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
On Oct 15, 11:04 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:210c9ce9-b813-40d7-8961-dd37ddbd547b@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]>Timothy, this is an interesting approach but it also simplifies the
problematic. In order to understand the climate changes it is not
sufficient to discuss only the deforestation problem causing
aridification and a loss of CO2 sink capabilities. A quantitative
model needs to simulate the interactions of the atmosphere, oceans,
land surface, and ice and - I aggree - needs to be calibrated and
validated using historical climate data. There is for instance
evidence that the most important CO2 sinks are the oceans instead of
forests.
[SNIP]
Although this point is made, we are not overharvesting plankton, and
land-based photosynthetic deficit accounts for more than four times the
carbon dioxide output from fossil fuel combustion. If all fossil fuel
combustion ceased tomorrow, CO2 levels would continue to rise. I don>t
believe that this is a bad thing because historically the biosphere has
always responded greedily to available CO2. However, aridification due to
deforestation is a real problem that is both historical and contemporary.
Aridification is far more damaging than a temperature swing, and I would
remind you that we are a few degrees below the normal temperature of planet
earth as averaged over the past half billion years. We can expect to see a
natural rise in temperature at some stage and this is perfectly normal given
that the current global mean is below average.
There are already several climate models available which were
calibrated and validated on a local scale (see for instance
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14014304). A validated
global model is still not available as this is far too complex for
current computer programs.
I>m not just a geologist. I write software and I am intimately familiar with
project management procedures. The biggest problem I>ve seen with
scientifically developed models is that science researchers are not familiar
with elementary application development methods. Simple things like test
beds are neglected. I do my share of interface modelling and if I wrote a
Ph.D. thesis every time I modified the formula, I>d have to be at least
fifty thousand years old! My point is that a test bed is used to find out if
key features of a model are realistic - often dictating hundreds or
thousands of changes in the case of complex algorithms.
In the case of climate modelling, data from geological history defines
certain limitations. A climate model that goes into a runaway change that
does not self correct is simply wrong, because geological history has
recorded the fact that the earth>s climate is self correcting.
When I read about the scientific development of a computer model, it
invariably lacks the thousands of tests and algorithm alterations, necessary
to bring the average program model in line with reality. Where are the
version lists, the bug lists, the test bed data, the source code etc. that
any contract programmer would be required to provide on the job? Without all
this, the model cannot even make a valid hypothesis - because it cannot be
connected in all its parts to something real. With all of the necessary
application source documentation and version control information, a computer
model may make for a valid hypothesis - but not a theory until verified by a
significant quantity of contemporary data.
Application models often run away because run-away processes are the most
common unflagged program bug and need to be independently verified (eg. by
historical events). If a run-away process cannot be independently tied to
real processes, the correct way to proceed is to treat it as a bug. Even
without the verification, the billions of years the universe has been in
operation without running itself into the ground are sufficient grounds to
dismiss all run-away processes as programming glitches.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
[/quote]
In the case of climate modelling, data from geological history defines
[quote]certain limitations. A climate model that goes into a runaway change that
does not self correct is simply wrong, because geological history has
recorded the fact that the earth>s climate is self correcting.
[/quote]
I heard about this self correcting theory which apparently is related
to the Gaia theory which claims that established life on Earth acts to
correct changes in overall climate, effectively displaying self-
organization. This might be true but we always need to consider the
time scale. The earth has been significantly warmer and colder in the
past but these changes took place during millions of years, definitely
much more than the current climate change which occurs in just a few
generations. It looks like as a self correction of climate will take
much too long for our civilization. Or is there evidence that it takes
much less time for climate to run into a new equilibrium?
--------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Green Job Database: http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jo Schaper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
[quote]"Jo Schaper" <jo34schaper31@s9oc21ket.03net> wrote in message
news:48F73285.8010402@s9oc21ket.03net...
Many of the geobiochemical models I have seen have huge error bars,
hence I, too am skeptical of the predictive models used by many of the
most rabid global warming advocates.
That being said, the CO2 increase (from whatever source) is undeniable.
We know a lot (through experiment) about the CO2-plant cycle, and the
effects of heating on the hydological cycle of the atmosphere.
This comes back to the removal of photosynthesising infrastructure. We have
quantified the amount of carbon in photosynthesising biosphere, we know the
rate of photosynthesis relative to this quantity, and we know the amount of
carbon released to oxidation processes by the rate of deforestation. From
this we can calculate the photosynthetic deficit in carbon dioxide
absorption and it is more than four times that of fossil fuel combustion.
[/quote]
I don>t believe this. You may have modeled a good guess, but unless you
are willing to speak English (what is a a photosynthetic deficit in
carbon dioxide absorption?) I strictly do not believe there is a firm
number for this. (My husband did his master>s thesis on
evapotranspiration and CO2 usage of 12 cottonwood trees by measuring gas
exchange along leaf surfaces. It varied constantly over a 24 hour
period, and with relative humidity, temperature, season, etc.) What are
your numbers?
[quote]The problem is that many of the "facts" about global warming were gathered
from environments engineered to deliver a very specific pattern. Professor
Mann used an algorithm to process his data, which algorithm would produce
the same curve regardless of the data that was fed into it - and the
infamous "Hockey Stick" was born. While this brazen betrayal of public trust
may explain some of the rabid scepticism that abounds, the IPCC then used
the instrumental temperature record to the exclusion of accurate and
verifiable satellite measurements of troposphere temperatures. They knew, on
the advice of scientists whose input they censored, that the heat island
effect guaranteed the instrumental record would erroneously deliver the same
temperature curve as Mann>s infamous "Hockey Stick". People have been caught
lying in support of this myth of exponential temperature change (see
http://climate.geologist-1011.net for the details), and as with other abuses
of science (eg. creationism) we have to ask why....?
[/quote]
However, we don>t live in the troposphere, the crops don>t grow in the
troposphere, the excess rain or aridity does not occur there, nor does
everyone live in heat islands, nor are glaciers or the tundra melting
there. I hardly think CC is on the same level a misapplication of
science as creationism. And I haven>t paid much attention to either the
Hockey stick or the IPCC. The IPCC data and conclusions may be flawed.
If you are looking for on the ground symptoms that something is up, one
can trace the northward migration of armadillos, the 100+ year record of
the NWS in the US, and the frequency of anomalous weather effects. Where
I live, we>re 20 inches over "average" rainfall, and we>re butting up
against a period of record new high. One year does not a record make.
But all climate is, is an accumulation of weather trends.
[quote]On the other hand, their sky is falling attitude is hurting them amongst
credible witnesses. They are using political tactics to solve a
scientific issue.
We can drive a middle road here. But no one on either side seems willing
to do so.
I think we have to stick to the evidence here, whether it takes the middle
road or not. At present the only part of the climate catastrophist theory
supported by hard scientific evidence is the CO2 increase - and
photosynthetic deficit due to land clearance produces more than four times
the CO2 that fossil fuel combustion produces - see
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net for more. This speaks to the value
of addressing real observable problems before considering pure conjecture -
especially when potentially deceptive practices are discovered.
[/quote]
You>ve got me confused on that point. I understand that you cut down the
trees, and CO2 is not scrubbed from the air. However, how can that be
"producing" CO2 in the same sense that fossil fuels do? The US at
least, has regained more forest cover than it has had since the
Europeans arrived. Forests are only part of the solution; the
CO2/plankton exchange rate is at least as important.
The solution to weather imbalance is going to have to be a combination
of science, technology and politics-- the latter, unfortunately, has to
be used to kick the first two in the butt to get something done. But
politicians are not doing their cause any good by screaming the sky is
falling, and that causes the other two to become complacent.
The move to the internal combustion engine came about partially because
the cities were getting too big, and the horse apple problem was
becoming a sanitation issue. Our current air and water regulations (and
reliance on oil and electric, not coal) came about because people began
becoming sick, streetlights were needed at noon and soot accumulated on
people>s laundry. I disagree that doing nothing is viable; neither is
going into full panic mode and killing ourselves off to save the planet.
[quote]
However, the pattern that emerges most consistently in the history of
science is that ideas backed by censorship of data, deception, threats or
any combination of these factors; are pure fantasy. I am yet to observe an
exception to this generalisation.
[/quote]
Of course not. Science, like everything else, is done by humans, and
humans do things for a number of sometimes not so nice motives.
[quote]
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
"Jo Schaper" <jo34schaper31@s9oc21ket.03net> wrote in message
news:48F73285.8010402@s9oc21ket.03net...
[quote]Many of the geobiochemical models I have seen have huge error bars,
hence I, too am skeptical of the predictive models used by many of the
most rabid global warming advocates.
That being said, the CO2 increase (from whatever source) is undeniable.
We know a lot (through experiment) about the CO2-plant cycle, and the
effects of heating on the hydological cycle of the atmosphere.
[/quote]
This comes back to the removal of photosynthesising infrastructure. We have
quantified the amount of carbon in photosynthesising biosphere, we know the
rate of photosynthesis relative to this quantity, and we know the amount of
carbon released to oxidation processes by the rate of deforestation. From
this we can calculate the photosynthetic deficit in carbon dioxide
absorption and it is more than four times that of fossil fuel combustion.
[quote]As long as we stick with the measurable facts, the global warmists may
have a point. It>s stupid not to see the changes, and ignore them saying
nothing is happening, especially when we have the technology to minimize
our impact, but simply not the will to do so.
[/quote]
The problem is that many of the "facts" about global warming were gathered
from environments engineered to deliver a very specific pattern. Professor
Mann used an algorithm to process his data, which algorithm would produce
the same curve regardless of the data that was fed into it - and the
infamous "Hockey Stick" was born. While this brazen betrayal of public trust
may explain some of the rabid scepticism that abounds, the IPCC then used
the instrumental temperature record to the exclusion of accurate and
verifiable satellite measurements of troposphere temperatures. They knew, on
the advice of scientists whose input they censored, that the heat island
effect guaranteed the instrumental record would erroneously deliver the same
temperature curve as Mann>s infamous "Hockey Stick". People have been caught
lying in support of this myth of exponential temperature change (see
http://climate.geologist-1011.net for the details), and as with other abuses
of science (eg. creationism) we have to ask why....?
[quote]On the other hand, their sky is falling attitude is hurting them amongst
credible witnesses. They are using political tactics to solve a
scientific issue.
We can drive a middle road here. But no one on either side seems willing
to do so.
[/quote]
I think we have to stick to the evidence here, whether it takes the middle
road or not. At present the only part of the climate catastrophist theory
supported by hard scientific evidence is the CO2 increase - and
photosynthetic deficit due to land clearance produces more than four times
the CO2 that fossil fuel combustion produces - see
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net for more. This speaks to the value
of addressing real observable problems before considering pure conjecture -
especially when potentially deceptive practices are discovered.
However, the pattern that emerges most consistently in the history of
science is that ideas backed by censorship of data, deception, threats or
any combination of these factors; are pure fantasy. I am yet to observe an
exception to this generalisation.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
"Bolaleman" <hulle06@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf025f52-b59f-4eca-8a03-3891530f737d@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
[quote]I heard about this self correcting theory which apparently is related
to the Gaia theory which claims that established life on Earth acts to
correct changes in overall climate, effectively displaying self-
organization. This might be true but we always need to consider the
time scale. The earth has been significantly warmer and colder in the
past but these changes took place during millions of years, definitely
much more than the current climate change which occurs in just a few
generations. It looks like as a self correction of climate will take
much too long for our civilization. Or is there evidence that it takes
much less time for climate to run into a new equilibrium?
[/quote]
I>m not thinking of self organisation so much as the interaction of numerous
independent processes. This can have the same complexity of response
observed in self-organising systems. However, self-organising systems are
based on competing agendas that share a common overall goal. Fight, flight &
flock are examples of competing agendas with the overall goal of survival as
the common objective. In this sense, there may be sentience in places where
we least expect to find it, but until we settle on an unambiguous, perhaps
mathematical definition, such speculations are not scientific. (There are
some ideas for a possible starting point at http://soul.timothycasey.info)
The present rate of climate change is also repeated many times in geological
history, and it is exceeded often in the past (see
http://climate.geologist-1011.net for more detail). The rates presented by
professor Mann using arbitrarily altered data and used on wikipedia from the
instrumental record are wrong. The instrumental record is contaminated by
the heat island effect, and Mann>s correction method would result in the
same curve no matter what data it was applied to. Claims to the effect that
'heat island effect is addressed in the surface instrumental temperature
curve' have been found to be fraudulently made. Tropospheric satellite
measurements of temperature (& to clarify your head is in the Troposphere
and so is mine), do not reflect an unusual rate of change.
In point of fact, we are still half way between ice age temperatures and
normal temperatures for planet earth. This is a long way below normal and
sudden increases in global temperature would not be unexpected. Furthermore,
the geological record has shown that it is warmer conditions that are
optimal for life on earth. Runaway processes are caused by changes to
infrastructure and not the balance of commodities.
The problem, if we are capable of producing one on a global scale, comes
back to excessive clearance and poor land management - more so than fossil
fuel combustion. I think that we need to deal with real verifiable problems
before we worry our little heads with purely speculative problems.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bolaleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: Clean Coal Power - An Illusion? |
|
|
On Oct 18, 11:40 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf025f52-b59f-4eca-8a03-3891530f737d@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
I heard about this self correcting theory which apparently is related
to the Gaia theory which claims that established life on Earth acts to
correct changes in overall climate, effectively displaying self-
organization. This might be true but we always need to consider the
time scale. The earth has been significantly warmer and colder in the
past but these changes took place during millions of years, definitely
much more than the current climate change which occurs in just a few
generations. It looks like as a self correction of climate will take
much too long for our civilization. Or is there evidence that it takes
much less time for climate to run into a new equilibrium?
I>m not thinking of self organisation so much as the interaction of numerous
independent processes. This can have the same complexity of response
observed in self-organising systems. However, self-organising systems are
based on competing agendas that share a common overall goal. Fight, flight &
flock are examples of competing agendas with the overall goal of survival as
the common objective. In this sense, there may be sentience in places where
we least expect to find it, but until we settle on an unambiguous, perhaps
mathematical definition, such speculations are not scientific. (There are
some ideas for a possible starting point athttp://soul.timothycasey.info)
The present rate of climate change is also repeated many times in geological
history, and it is exceeded often in the past (seehttp://climate.geologist-1011.netfor more detail). The rates presented by
professor Mann using arbitrarily altered data and used on wikipedia from the
instrumental record are wrong. The instrumental record is contaminated by
the heat island effect, and Mann>s correction method would result in the
same curve no matter what data it was applied to. Claims to the effect that
'heat island effect is addressed in the surface instrumental temperature
curve' have been found to be fraudulently made. Tropospheric satellite
measurements of temperature (& to clarify your head is in the Troposphere
and so is mine), do not reflect an unusual rate of change.
In point of fact, we are still half way between ice age temperatures and
normal temperatures for planet earth. This is a long way below normal and
sudden increases in global temperature would not be unexpected. Furthermore,
the geological record has shown that it is warmer conditions that are
optimal for life on earth. Runaway processes are caused by changes to
infrastructure and not the balance of commodities.
The problem, if we are capable of producing one on a global scale, comes
back to excessive clearance and poor land management - more so than fossil
fuel combustion. I think that we need to deal with real verifiable problems
before we worry our little heads with purely speculative problems.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the num...@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
[/quote]
Number Eleven: I completely agree with you that we should try to
resolve real problems and leave outside all the speculations. What are
the real problems right now? The most important I can think of is that
each day several animal species and an unknown number of plant species
are disappearing from this globe and that we are running into a global
disaster with billions of people threatened in their capability of
existence when the global temperature increase is going to continue. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
