Conflicting results

SeaLevelSatellite2000_12we21

I got some harsh feedback from the last post, particularly because of the idea that sea levels are not rising. The UN hired some scientists to research levels rising and when they found no positive results they were fired and replaced with scientists who found results more in line with the rest of the report.

don’t overestimate our knowledge of the global climate, particularly it’s influences and reactions, very little about the climate is intuitive

the earth is on a much larger time scale, we have existed for the smallest fraction of time and may not be as powerful as we think…I hope not.  Take a look at scenarios showing t what would happen if humans disappeared instantly.

The tides are mysterious, oddly enough in the 19th century we had the tides down to the minute but that’s a secret lost in the modern age.  Perhaps this is because it isn’t necessary  to sail on the tides anymore, I’ve had to do that when a motor broke and it’s quite a pain in the ass.

-we know more about the moon than the ocean

–this is not a reason to think emissions and pollution are not dangerous

at this point all sides of the political debate are throwing out a lot of BS…lots of spin on both sides.

find the studies by Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, he’s an expert in the field despite the slander of fools.

sea level fall morner

Advertisements

“It offends the human ego that nature is indifferent to our dreams”

This post is somewhat dated, I’ve been moving and haven’t had internet.

I forget where I heard that quote but if you haven’t guessed it relates to the G8’s “decision” not to allow an increase in global temp of more than 2C

This is dumb because it implies that we have a lot more control over global climate than we do.

Yes reducing carbon emissions would help the planet get back to an equilibrium but whether we can actually stop the current trends initiated more than two hundred years ago is a different question.

It is arrogant to state we have this much control over nature and stupid to assume that we know what will happen as temperatures rise.

Take sea level rise for example, IT IS NOT HAPPENING.  This is not to say we shouldn’t reduce emissions and be clean for the future, just that symbolic goals without any reason to believe we can accomplish them doesn’t seem like the most effective way to change things.

…Particularly not when developing countries (ie the majority of the world) refuse to abide by this “decision”

G8_climaterankingGraphic_z_2

Why burning carbon is bad, Chaos Theory and Laws of Thermodynamics

entropy

Givens:

The Earth is a closed system exposed to radiation.

  • Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy:
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value or equilibrium.
  • First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy:
The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system.

A Basic Explanation of Chaos Theory:  This is a mathematical theorem that attempts to predict the behavior (results) of complex systems.  The result (answer) is K, which is a range of values not an actual number.  The greater the number of variables, the larger the value of K.  In a system with an infinite number of variables or a system where a large proportion of the variables are unknown, K is also undefinable.

Chaos Theory is the backbone of climate modeling.

Preliminary Conclusions:

Climate Modeling is inherently inaccurate because the unknown variables are too many.

-The chemical composition of the Earth is drastically different than it has ever been before due to our proliferation of heavy elements.

–This means that models based on historical climate change are also invalid.

Hypothesis:

The equilibrium of the planet has been thrown out of balance due to human activity.

The system has had significant additional work done on it by human industrial and population growth, increasing the internal energy and entropy.

The accumulation of heavy elements in the atmosphere has caused a green house effect, whereby the system’s membrane has become less permeable in terms of heat transference while retaining the same degree of permeability in terms of ultraviolet radiation.

The One Conclusion:

The Earth is experiencing an increase in Heat and Entropy.

This does NOT mean anyone has any idea what will happen as a result, all we can do is takes informed steps to minimise the effects of the earth restoring it’s own equilibrium.

living_earth

A short discussion of Cap and Trade

cap_and_trade_article
Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.
A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.
It’s not every day we get to invent a commodity…
TeamLDCO (6:46:36 PM): do you have a post about cap and trade anywhere in your blog?
IRAHit (6:48:59 PM): no
IRAHit (6:49:09 PM): that’s a good idea though
TeamLDCO (6:49:23 PM): are you for or against it?
IRAHit (6:50:39 PM): well it seems to be working in europe as another commodities market
TeamLDCO (6:50:53 PM): hmm
TeamLDCO (6:51:16 PM): then why do conservatives say its a failure if it’s working?
IRAHit (6:51:24 PM): but it might put the US at a disadvantage
IRAHit (6:51:37 PM): they say it won’t work in the states
IRAHit (6:52:38 PM): cause china india africa south america ain’t capping shit
IRAHit (6:53:39 PM): we could pay a heavy price for being green
IRAHit (6:53:58 PM): though in the long term it would pay off
TeamLDCO (6:54:14 PM): thats what i think too
TeamLDCO (6:54:30 PM): so republicans don’t want to pay the initial costs
IRAHit (6:56:02 PM): well they seem to have less of a concern about global warming
IRAHit (6:56:14 PM): but yeah basically
IRAHit (6:56:52 PM): when the oil runs out we will be glad we have a sustainable energy infrastructure
TeamLDCO (7:00:13 PM): and
TeamLDCO (7:00:17 PM): at the current pace
TeamLDCO (7:00:24 PM): oil will be gone in our children’s lifetime
IRAHit (7:00:59 PM): probably ours
TeamLDCO (7:01:07 PM): geez

The Carbon cycle

Go back two hundred years

The carbon cycle has been occurring for four billion years.  Plants take carbon from the air and store it in themselves. When the plants die the carbon is either composted or trapped underground to become coal. Animals take carbon from plants and become oil in death.

As a result the level of carbon dioxide is the air has been steadily decreasing since life started to flourish.

Present day

We are putting all the carbon back in the air.

Perhaps a good way to explain the complex phenomenon of global warming is just to say we are turning back the clock, rapidly. The earth will find it’s equilibrium again but it might be a bumpy ride.

carboncycle

Who will stop burning coal? Transferring our Carbon footprint to the Third World

Nobody.

By most estimates we have used about a third of the coal deposits on the planet.

Led by western Europe, industrialized nations are moving towards a sustainable future.  Unfortunately this may mean that developing nations will reject sustainable technology in favor of the technologies we left behind.

With the rise of Nanosolar it may eventually become more cost effective than coal, particularly given our dependence on cheap oil for extraction.  Most likely we will sell our coal to countries that want it.

So we will all feel better about getting our energy in a clean way but is it possible to stop the use of coal?

US Coal Deposits:

coal_regions_us_reserves_1996

Gas Hydrate solid methane

gas-hydrate

collected from the bottom of the ocean. vast amounts. Why can’t drill for it like we do for oil?

Those were the questions I had about the large amount of natural gas trapped mostly on the bottom of the ocean by the pressure and cold temperatures. One obsticle with drilling is the extreme depths…not like offshore oil drilling which is done in relatively shallow waters.

Gas hydrates are crystalline solids consisting of gas molecules, usually methane, each surrounded by a cage of water molecules.  Gas hydrate looks and acts like ice, but it contains vast amounts of methane.

The real problem with considering this as a fuel source is the fuel would be Methane. Methane is a Greenhouse gas and when it is burned for fuel it produces Carbon Dioxide.   Taking the Hydrate out would also destabilize the sea floor and cause giant Tsunamis. So let’s not spend a lot of time and money on this kind of pipe dream.

%d bloggers like this: