Those not familiar with the topic might want to refer to this good short summary press release from the American, Russian and French scientists.
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html
Many more references, along with a useful graphic can be found at
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautio...nning/New_Data/
The original publications along with much more detailed graphics are at the Nature website at http://www.nature.com/services/link.taf?id...927DE5E41B7E0A6
, though I cannot seem to get it to respond. Anyone else have a working link?
My question is in reference to the 100,000 year cycles referred to a "orbital forcing", presumeably stable repeating variations in solar insolation to earths atmosphere easily observed on the graphic referred to above, in the original article in Nature, and confirmed by the group drilling ice cores in Greenland, also published in Nature. To quote the press release,
"The climate and environment parameters show the existence of four major cycles, with a periodicity of 100,000, 40,000 and 20,000 years. During the four cycles, the atmospheric characteristics varied within rather stable limits, with a temperature amplitude variation in Antarctica of about 12°C at land level and 8°C in the troposphere."
The nearest reasonable attempt at an explanation I've come across is the "Croll-Milankovich Cycles" at http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_731_Milank.htm . Does this mechanism appear strong enough to cause the variations obxerved? Are other explanations possible? What is the maximum period with which a satellite could continuously orbit the sun excentrically and still remain captive?
lengould
Excellent thread. This 100 000 year cycle may or may not be directly due to the planet's orbit around the sun. If it were, what would this planet, or the sun, be doing to create these alterations in the climate of Earth? I suspect that if the sun causes the Earth to do this, then there must be something that effects the sun, however galactic orbital shifts might occur. Lest the sun lets out some massive belch of radiation every 100 000 years, on its own, remains long to be seen. I would wager much on it entering some multi-facetted galaxial alignment that causes a great reduction in the power of the sun. Furthermore, it is yet to be determined which extra-solar entities may have such effect. I think analysis of what foreign stars, or possibly galaxial clusters, or maybe even entire galaxies, could have precisely such effect on the sun, would be to blame. I would analyze what extra-solar entities can be attributed to having an effect on the power of the sun, then, attempt to quantify those factors. Once that is done, you may be able to find the orbits of one of those factors is possibly blocked from the transmission of usual energies to the sun, at some point. Possibly it may be a star that is eclipsed by another star, or a massive planet, or any unknown amount of matter that orbits every 100 000 years between the sun and some star. That would be my estimation.
Possibly it is only the Earth itself that has growing pains every so often, but I would not think so, for 100 000 years seems well out of normal range of Earths time-walls, but who knows? So many unknowns...
Excellent thread. This 100 000 year cycle may or may not be directly due to the planet's orbit around the sun. If it were, what would this planet, or the sun, be doing to create these alterations in the climate of Earth? I suspect that if the sun causes the Earth to do this, then there must be something that effects the sun, however galactic orbital shifts might occur. Lest the sun lets out some massive belch of radiation every 100 000 years, on its own, remains long to be seen. I would wager much on it entering some multi-facetted galaxial alignment that causes a great reduction in the power of the sun. Furthermore, it is yet to be determined which extra-solar entities may have such effect. I think analysis of what foreign stars, or possibly galaxial clusters, or maybe even entire galaxies, could have precisely such effect on the sun, would be to blame. I would analyze what extra-solar entities can be attributed to having an effect on the power of the sun, then, attempt to quantify those factors. Once that is done, you may be able to find the orbits of one of those factors is possibly blocked from the transmission of usual energies to the sun, at some point. Possibly it may be a star that is eclipsed by another star, or a massive planet, or any unknown amount of matter that orbits every 100 000 years between the sun and some star. That would be my estimation.
Possibly it is only the Earth itself that has growing pains every so often, but I would not think so, for 100 000 years seems well out of normal range of Earths time-walls, but who knows? So many unknowns...
Paul: Thanks for the input. One matter to clarify, the variations appear to be 90,000 year cold periods with short 10,000 year warm periods. (We're just exiting the end of a 10,000 year intergalacial warm period now.)
I got some input from a respected professional astronomer on the issue. His statement was to the effect that any "captive satellite of the sun" large enough to affect it's radiation output at perigee would also be large enough to destroy the planet system, so that one's out the window.
Interesting hypothesis regarding "galactic alignments".
What is the period of the solar system's orbit around the Milky Way galaxy? (I seem to recall knowing that once, it's about exactly double the 100,000 year period if i remember). Sun traverses dust clouds 10,000 yrs each 100,000? Infalling matter increases solar output?
I got some input from a respected professional astronomer on the issue. His statement was to the effect that any "captive satellite of the sun" large enough to affect it's radiation output at perigee would also be large enough to destroy the planet system, so that one's out the window.
Interesting hypothesis regarding "galactic alignments".
What is the period of the solar system's orbit around the Milky Way galaxy? (I seem to recall knowing that once, it's about exactly double the 100,000 year period if i remember). Sun traverses dust clouds 10,000 yrs each 100,000? Infalling matter increases solar output?
Hi PaulVWWhalen and lengould,
Very interesting cycles. I have mentioned in other posts on this site that there is a possible positive feedback mechanism involved with sequestered methane both in the tundras and in deep oceans as methane "ices". A couple of degrees would be enough would tip the scales in releasing this stored gas. I am not certain about what actual amounts of Methane Hydrates are sequestered in the bottom of all the oceans but I will guess that they are highly significant if released over a short period of time. Carbon Dioxide is also a factor since a lot is also found absorbed in the Tundra. While the oceans will probably absorb the excess CO2 it will do nothing for the methane in the short term. Over thousands of years the methane will break up due to methane eating bacteria and other chemical processed which will disintegrate the molecules. This leads to the next cycle where these processes start over again.
As to the mechanisms that "naturally" periodically release this gas into the atmosphere... they could have a variety of mechanisms. One might be related to changing in the set point in the nuclear fires inside stars due to external phenomena. One such mechanism might be dark matter that is "sorta" known to be concentrated in the arms of the Milky Way where we are. This may provide some kind of moderator of accelerator to nuclear fires whose variation in density periodically spatially distributed by the clumping of other matter along the spiral arms may provide the trigger. This would work by the spiral galaxy's rotation of its visible mass causing periodic clumping of the dark matter much like the clumping of electrons in magnetrons.
This suggests that there may be unknown influences at work. One possible direction of investigation would be looking at possible contenders for this material. One obvious possibility would be neutrinos. Clumping of Neurinoes might cause some nuclear moderating or accelerating effect owing to the fact that Neurtinoes travel at the speed of light and they can easily penetrate to the core of a star and they would be affected by the "refractive index" of the stellar material but not be significantly absorbed by it. It is suggested that Neutrinoes are approximately 60% of the material in the Universe and is totally unseen. Almost all Neutrinoes ever produced are still with us today.
It is possible that Neutrino flux alone may be responsible for brightening and dimming of our star by a couple of percent, enough to affect solar insolation and affect all these other processes as a "knock on effect”. It may be possible to test this theory broadly by observation of other stars in our galaxy and in other galaxies and see if there is any periodicity in their output that may be spatially related to the geometry of the shape of its galaxy.
Cheers
Very interesting cycles. I have mentioned in other posts on this site that there is a possible positive feedback mechanism involved with sequestered methane both in the tundras and in deep oceans as methane "ices". A couple of degrees would be enough would tip the scales in releasing this stored gas. I am not certain about what actual amounts of Methane Hydrates are sequestered in the bottom of all the oceans but I will guess that they are highly significant if released over a short period of time. Carbon Dioxide is also a factor since a lot is also found absorbed in the Tundra. While the oceans will probably absorb the excess CO2 it will do nothing for the methane in the short term. Over thousands of years the methane will break up due to methane eating bacteria and other chemical processed which will disintegrate the molecules. This leads to the next cycle where these processes start over again.
As to the mechanisms that "naturally" periodically release this gas into the atmosphere... they could have a variety of mechanisms. One might be related to changing in the set point in the nuclear fires inside stars due to external phenomena. One such mechanism might be dark matter that is "sorta" known to be concentrated in the arms of the Milky Way where we are. This may provide some kind of moderator of accelerator to nuclear fires whose variation in density periodically spatially distributed by the clumping of other matter along the spiral arms may provide the trigger. This would work by the spiral galaxy's rotation of its visible mass causing periodic clumping of the dark matter much like the clumping of electrons in magnetrons.
This suggests that there may be unknown influences at work. One possible direction of investigation would be looking at possible contenders for this material. One obvious possibility would be neutrinos. Clumping of Neurinoes might cause some nuclear moderating or accelerating effect owing to the fact that Neurtinoes travel at the speed of light and they can easily penetrate to the core of a star and they would be affected by the "refractive index" of the stellar material but not be significantly absorbed by it. It is suggested that Neutrinoes are approximately 60% of the material in the Universe and is totally unseen. Almost all Neutrinoes ever produced are still with us today.
It is possible that Neutrino flux alone may be responsible for brightening and dimming of our star by a couple of percent, enough to affect solar insolation and affect all these other processes as a "knock on effect”. It may be possible to test this theory broadly by observation of other stars in our galaxy and in other galaxies and see if there is any periodicity in their output that may be spatially related to the geometry of the shape of its galaxy.
Cheers
GoodElf & LenGould,
I find myself leaning more towards Len's idea of galaxial orbit and how it effects our solar system and the Sun. So, I had the periods reversed and they are moreso cold than hot. I would venture that the Sun is fed energy along this galaxial orbit somehow, for small periods of 10 000 years. May it be also possible that the galaxy itself, on the whole, is fed energy from some other?
Neutrinos, are definitely in play right now. Isnt it true that neutrinos are being trapped within Earth, due to the greenhouse effect? If this is so, then that further dooms us, for it is probably the upmost level of effect upon us, due to the pollution levels causing the majority of this global warming now. For, how could we ever reverse these neutrinos from being trapped on Earth, and what effect will they be proven to have. Maybe they are the cause of the mutigenic effects we are seeing all over the planet now...
Regardless, space colonization is as crucial to our future, as fixing the man-induced environmental cataclysms upon Earth...
Happy 2005!
I find myself leaning more towards Len's idea of galaxial orbit and how it effects our solar system and the Sun. So, I had the periods reversed and they are moreso cold than hot. I would venture that the Sun is fed energy along this galaxial orbit somehow, for small periods of 10 000 years. May it be also possible that the galaxy itself, on the whole, is fed energy from some other?
Neutrinos, are definitely in play right now. Isnt it true that neutrinos are being trapped within Earth, due to the greenhouse effect? If this is so, then that further dooms us, for it is probably the upmost level of effect upon us, due to the pollution levels causing the majority of this global warming now. For, how could we ever reverse these neutrinos from being trapped on Earth, and what effect will they be proven to have. Maybe they are the cause of the mutigenic effects we are seeing all over the planet now...
Regardless, space colonization is as crucial to our future, as fixing the man-induced environmental cataclysms upon Earth...
Happy 2005!
Paul: I don't think anything can "trap" neutrinos, though my memory is not absolute and that may only apply to one of the three flavours. Present detectors are designed to pick up the ones which have travelled through the entire earth first as that weeds out all other possible sources of particles.
It occurs to me that what is more crucial than absolute control of greenhouse gas emissions is to calculate and manage the release rates to offset our scheduled drop into the next 90,000 yr glacial period. Agreed, methane hydrate releases are far more worrisome GHG's than CO2, though my understanding is that unlike CO2 individual methane molecules don't last very long in the atmosphere.
It occurs to me that what is more crucial than absolute control of greenhouse gas emissions is to calculate and manage the release rates to offset our scheduled drop into the next 90,000 yr glacial period. Agreed, methane hydrate releases are far more worrisome GHG's than CO2, though my understanding is that unlike CO2 individual methane molecules don't last very long in the atmosphere.
Hi,
There is a sine wave aspect to the sun's orbit around galactic center. It goes up and down thru the galactic plane as it orbits.
When it is farthest above and below the galactic plane there is less "dust" in its path. As it approaches and recedes from the plane this galactic planar ;'dust' increases.
This is probably a large factor in any long term climate cycle. The perhelion and aphelion of the earth's orbit are also probably large factors as is any variation in the inlination of the earth's orbit. Another factor is the actual inclination of the spin axis.
z
There is a sine wave aspect to the sun's orbit around galactic center. It goes up and down thru the galactic plane as it orbits.
When it is farthest above and below the galactic plane there is less "dust" in its path. As it approaches and recedes from the plane this galactic planar ;'dust' increases.
This is probably a large factor in any long term climate cycle. The perhelion and aphelion of the earth's orbit are also probably large factors as is any variation in the inlination of the earth's orbit. Another factor is the actual inclination of the spin axis.
z
Personally, I'm not even convinced there were climate changes. It seems to me that going from changes in the quatities of CO2 to changes in temperature is a bit of a jump. Furthermore, they give no explanation as to how they dated those cores. (I'm guessing they used the rings.) If the dates on those CO2 measurements are off, then whatever caused the statistical cycles may have a very different cause. the1
Hi PaulVWWhalen, z, lengould and the1physicist,
I do not think that matter actually falling into the sun or intra-galactic "dust" would affect the output of the sun. I am more inclined to the idea that something is interfering with the nuclear processes within our own star (locally). This is not the only cause of problems since at the same time we are interfering with the heat balance of our atmosphere. The combined effect may be fatal because of the cascade of other intra-atmospheric effects on earth such as the release of stored methane and CO2.
I am convinced by other data that the Suns output is at an all time high for quite some time and this may be due to the factors noted previously in the spiral arms of our galaxy and maybe neutrinos. We can do something about all this if we wanted to as a species. It depends on what we consider dear to our hearts. That new car in the driveway or the starving millions burning forest firewood to survive. choices choices.... Its a pretty red sports model. At the same time what about the other species on this planet? If not for us they would fare OK. Because of us they are probably mostly doomed.
Like I have said before it really does not matter whose fault it is or what is the "real" cause of all this.... Are we prepared to do anything about it? Is it simply the case that the rich people of the earth migrating to Mars or even further afield while the Earth dies... Or will they "exterminate" excess human vermin under the orders of a one-world government. Maybe the really rich will end up in special domes like in that old movie "Zardos" with Sean Connery? The wealthy segregated from the unwashed multitudes while the rest of the world goes to hell. I would remind you all what the ending of that was (not the one where Dorothy clicked her heels three times and said “no place like home”), but I think you know it can't be good. Get it out of your video store tonite.
Cheers
I do not think that matter actually falling into the sun or intra-galactic "dust" would affect the output of the sun. I am more inclined to the idea that something is interfering with the nuclear processes within our own star (locally). This is not the only cause of problems since at the same time we are interfering with the heat balance of our atmosphere. The combined effect may be fatal because of the cascade of other intra-atmospheric effects on earth such as the release of stored methane and CO2.
I am convinced by other data that the Suns output is at an all time high for quite some time and this may be due to the factors noted previously in the spiral arms of our galaxy and maybe neutrinos. We can do something about all this if we wanted to as a species. It depends on what we consider dear to our hearts. That new car in the driveway or the starving millions burning forest firewood to survive. choices choices.... Its a pretty red sports model. At the same time what about the other species on this planet? If not for us they would fare OK. Because of us they are probably mostly doomed.
Like I have said before it really does not matter whose fault it is or what is the "real" cause of all this.... Are we prepared to do anything about it? Is it simply the case that the rich people of the earth migrating to Mars or even further afield while the Earth dies... Or will they "exterminate" excess human vermin under the orders of a one-world government. Maybe the really rich will end up in special domes like in that old movie "Zardos" with Sean Connery? The wealthy segregated from the unwashed multitudes while the rest of the world goes to hell. I would remind you all what the ending of that was (not the one where Dorothy clicked her heels three times and said “no place like home”), but I think you know it can't be good. Get it out of your video store tonite.
Cheers
The video they need is "soylent green"
AR
AR
All this discussion does is to worry people when there is little to be done when most of the trees are destroyed the CO2 goes above 4% and we gasp to death.
I'm glad I'm my age
AR
I'm glad I'm my age
AR
Hi ARtone,
Gee.... I thought I was the gloomy one. We all need to lighten up a little. We don't want to get a "PG" rating on this thread. Recent events have colored the global landscape a bit but they are beyond us as individuals.
I Good Elf solmnly swear not to eat anyone (except my best friends) and then only if they are dead first. To start the new "brighter" and "happier" Elf and ARtone outlook I suggest everyone watch "Shaun of the Dead" and not "Dawn of the Dead".
Cheers (I think)
PS: See you all "The Day after Tomorrow".
QUOTE
ll this discussion does is to worry people when there is little to be done when most of the trees are destroyed the CO2 goes above 4% and we gasp to death.
Gee.... I thought I was the gloomy one. We all need to lighten up a little. We don't want to get a "PG" rating on this thread. Recent events have colored the global landscape a bit but they are beyond us as individuals.
I Good Elf solmnly swear not to eat anyone (except my best friends) and then only if they are dead first. To start the new "brighter" and "happier" Elf and ARtone outlook I suggest everyone watch "Shaun of the Dead" and not "Dawn of the Dead".
Cheers (I think)
PS: See you all "The Day after Tomorrow".
For all the doubters out there, try a close read of this USGS site. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ . (btw, they seriously understate possible sea level rises, taking no account of antartic continental rebound or ocean thermal expansion).
The only real question is not "is earth warming, and why" but "how much do we want the earth to warm, and who gets to benefit from that?" It would be a lot more depressing if we weren't just now exiting an interglacial.
The only real question is not "is earth warming, and why" but "how much do we want the earth to warm, and who gets to benefit from that?" It would be a lot more depressing if we weren't just now exiting an interglacial.
QUOTE
We can do something about all this if we wanted to as a species. It depends on what we consider dear to our hearts. That new car in the driveway or the starving millions burning forest firewood to survive. choices choices.... Its a pretty red sports model.
No offense GoodElf, but you have just proved what I have been saying for years: The real purpose of the environmental movement is the abolition of private property. Why is that? Well, if you do not own any property (not necessarily land), you are basically a slave to someone else: You still need whatever it is you do not own, so you will have to rent it or otherwise pay for it (with the money we don't have). So basically, as individuals gradually lose their property rights, the government quickly turns into a socialist, and then a communist dictatorship, all thanks to the 'environmentalist movement.' You can flame me if you want, but trust me, I am right on this one.
Hi the1physicist,
No offence meant here either. Why is it a question of politics when we are speaking about the survival of our species? What is your view about this problem? Left to natural processes you would have a pretty barren world devoid of any resources and unbreathable atmosphere.
I take it your solution is doing nothing and allow "natural" processes do something in lieu of you action. Your strategy appears to be all this will happen outside your lifespan so that’s OK then? I don’t think so! Nature abhors a vacuum. That goes for “mother nature” too. Something will fill the vacuum of your inaction. The question is which one do you want to be responsible for... Planetary ecosystem failure or a one world government?
Is that what you want? If so I think you better come up with a 'brighter" alternative that solves the problems and leaves you with your gas guzzler in the driveway (PS: I am not keen about the poor knocking down the forests either). I am all ears (no pun intended). I have plenty of private property and a car but no solution at present. I need practical alternatives… Not just "doing nothing".
And saying “trust me on this one”. I have no idea what environmental expertise you hail from but I am surrounded in my Department with chicken littles running in circles, much more radical than I, who have more PhD’s than we have had hot breakfasts. I am not hearing too many bright and shiny ideas from them either. Most seem to own RV's and they weep in their beards as they drive the kids three blocks to school each day. The RV's hardly ever leave that black strip of hydrocarbon that runs around all our houses. Just consider the heat balance problems from that alone.
You should also know that we ‘beat” communism and that’s in the past now (except for North Korea and they are no earth shattering superpower). If some one world government started to subdivide your property and dispense it to the underdeveloped nations of the world you would probably be “not too happy”, communist or not. The Nazi’s did similar things in Germany before WW2. It is very possible that either you have a family or intend to have a family… So what is in it for them? Future generations may spit when they mention our names with what we are intending for them as a legacy.
I understand your attitude but I can’t accept that ‘trust me” line is all we need to do. I can’t say which side of the queue either of us will be on when "they" begin to march us all into the “showers”.
Cheers
QUOTE
No offense Good Elf, but you have just proved what I have been saying for years: The real purpose of the environmental movement is the abolition of private property.
No offence meant here either. Why is it a question of politics when we are speaking about the survival of our species? What is your view about this problem? Left to natural processes you would have a pretty barren world devoid of any resources and unbreathable atmosphere.
I take it your solution is doing nothing and allow "natural" processes do something in lieu of you action. Your strategy appears to be all this will happen outside your lifespan so that’s OK then? I don’t think so! Nature abhors a vacuum. That goes for “mother nature” too. Something will fill the vacuum of your inaction. The question is which one do you want to be responsible for... Planetary ecosystem failure or a one world government?
Is that what you want? If so I think you better come up with a 'brighter" alternative that solves the problems and leaves you with your gas guzzler in the driveway (PS: I am not keen about the poor knocking down the forests either). I am all ears (no pun intended). I have plenty of private property and a car but no solution at present. I need practical alternatives… Not just "doing nothing".
And saying “trust me on this one”. I have no idea what environmental expertise you hail from but I am surrounded in my Department with chicken littles running in circles, much more radical than I, who have more PhD’s than we have had hot breakfasts. I am not hearing too many bright and shiny ideas from them either. Most seem to own RV's and they weep in their beards as they drive the kids three blocks to school each day. The RV's hardly ever leave that black strip of hydrocarbon that runs around all our houses. Just consider the heat balance problems from that alone.
You should also know that we ‘beat” communism and that’s in the past now (except for North Korea and they are no earth shattering superpower). If some one world government started to subdivide your property and dispense it to the underdeveloped nations of the world you would probably be “not too happy”, communist or not. The Nazi’s did similar things in Germany before WW2. It is very possible that either you have a family or intend to have a family… So what is in it for them? Future generations may spit when they mention our names with what we are intending for them as a legacy.
I understand your attitude but I can’t accept that ‘trust me” line is all we need to do. I can’t say which side of the queue either of us will be on when "they" begin to march us all into the “showers”.
Cheers
My whole view is that there is_no_imminent envorinmental problem (or one in the future). I personally beleive all the global warming, etc. statistics are being padded or otherwise exaggerated. Therefore, I do not have a solution because I do not think there is a problem. Also, whever I said "trust me", that was just my way of ending my post without having to explain it in great detail, but I guess I'll have to. Now, no offense to AR, but a perfect example of this whole process is England. What was once a great nation has been turned into a socialist country.
QUOTE
If some one world government started to subdivide your property and dispense it to the underdeveloped nations of the world you would probably be “not too happy”, communist or not.
Of course, if they took control of me all of a sudden I wouldn't be happy, and that is the whole point of the environmentalist movement, IMHO. By gradually taking away people's property rights, people will not even notice it. 'The environment' in this case is just a big scapegoat. Now if by some random chance, there really is some dire environmental disaster just waiting to happen, I'm still against it. This is because A., the amount of money/effort required to fix the 'problem' would most likely be astronomical, but more importantly, I believe there will be global nuclear war long before such a scenario unfolds. the1.
All that "socialist" and "communist" hogwash is just fluff. Ancient history. Doesn't describe any meaningfull dividion of thought in this century. Dinosaur days.
From here on the real political divisions are going to be different. Not sure what, but likely something like "marketists" vs "christains" (think of the philosophies he preached) or something like that.
From here on the real political divisions are going to be different. Not sure what, but likely something like "marketists" vs "christains" (think of the philosophies he preached) or something like that.
Hi the1physicist,
Hate to be too picky about this philosophy but I guess that sorta just what the Romans thought before Barbarians overran them. Of course the lead pipes piping water to the aristocracy probably rotted their brains first. Double jeopardy... Environmental disaster followed by complete annihilation as a race by the sword. Seems your “backup plan” in case you are wrong is exploding the world’s entire nuclear arsenals all at once to terminate the human race.
About chance being random in this case... I don't think so!
Hate to be too picky about this philosophy but I guess that sorta just what the Romans thought before Barbarians overran them. Of course the lead pipes piping water to the aristocracy probably rotted their brains first. Double jeopardy... Environmental disaster followed by complete annihilation as a race by the sword. Seems your “backup plan” in case you are wrong is exploding the world’s entire nuclear arsenals all at once to terminate the human race.
About chance being random in this case... I don't think so!
My whole view is that there is no imminent environmental problem (or one in the future).... Therefore, I do not have a solution because I do not think there is a problem
This is just not good enough. You would need to live on another planet to have this view. The evidence for a future environmental disaster is scientifically compelling. The issue is what is going to be the response! I hope that migration to another planet is what you are planning cause that is probably one of the few alternatives.
I wonder how many others out there have this death wish? Sounds like "Zardos" to me. Oh... This was a rhetorical question. I don’t need the thronging masses all replying to this in the affirmative.
Lucky for me we elves have a plan...
“The Change of the World also occurred, and at that time the Undying Lands of Valinor and Eldamar were removed from the Circles of the World. Mortal Lands became closed in on themselves and the Undying Lands were set apart. They were unreachable except by the white Elven-ships that sailed by what was named the Straight Road, which reached beyond the Spheres of the mortal World to that Undying Blessed Shore.”
Lord of the Rings.
Also, lengould, I read and reread your post and I still don't know what you're trying to say. Please clarify.
QUOTE
Now if by some random chance, there really is some dire environmental disaster just waiting to happen, I'm still against it. This is because A., the amount of money/effort required to fix the 'problem' would most likely be astronomical, but more importantly, I believe there will be global nuclear war long before such a scenario unfolds.
Hate to be too picky about this philosophy but I guess that sorta just what the Romans thought before Barbarians overran them. Of course the lead pipes piping water to the aristocracy probably rotted their brains first. Double jeopardy... Environmental disaster followed by complete annihilation as a race by the sword. Seems your “backup plan” in case you are wrong is exploding the world’s entire nuclear arsenals all at once to terminate the human race.
About chance being random in this case... I don't think so!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now if by some random chance, there really is some dire environmental disaster just waiting to happen, I'm still against it. This is because A., the amount of money/effort required to fix the 'problem' would most likely be astronomical, but more importantly, I believe there will be global nuclear war long before such a scenario unfolds. |
Hate to be too picky about this philosophy but I guess that sorta just what the Romans thought before Barbarians overran them. Of course the lead pipes piping water to the aristocracy probably rotted their brains first. Double jeopardy... Environmental disaster followed by complete annihilation as a race by the sword. Seems your “backup plan” in case you are wrong is exploding the world’s entire nuclear arsenals all at once to terminate the human race.
About chance being random in this case... I don't think so!
My whole view is that there is no imminent environmental problem (or one in the future).... Therefore, I do not have a solution because I do not think there is a problem
This is just not good enough. You would need to live on another planet to have this view. The evidence for a future environmental disaster is scientifically compelling. The issue is what is going to be the response! I hope that migration to another planet is what you are planning cause that is probably one of the few alternatives.
I wonder how many others out there have this death wish? Sounds like "Zardos" to me. Oh... This was a rhetorical question. I don’t need the thronging masses all replying to this in the affirmative.
Lucky for me we elves have a plan...
“The Change of the World also occurred, and at that time the Undying Lands of Valinor and Eldamar were removed from the Circles of the World. Mortal Lands became closed in on themselves and the Undying Lands were set apart. They were unreachable except by the white Elven-ships that sailed by what was named the Straight Road, which reached beyond the Spheres of the mortal World to that Undying Blessed Shore.”
Lord of the Rings.
QUOTE
The evidence for a future environmental disaster is scientifically compelling.
By all means, post it. I suppose that if there is an imminent environmental threat, there are basically two choices. Immediately stop all industrialization and return everything to the way it was 100 years ago, or else melt from global warming. Personally, I'd rather melt, but thene again, that's just me.Also, lengould, I read and reread your post and I still don't know what you're trying to say. Please clarify.
Hi the1physicist,
In the interests of a lot of "worry worts" I suggest that you have a peek into the work done here. I rub shoulders with a few of them but because I am just an elf you may say "rub kneecaps" (at least intellectually). Look at the section on "Climate Changes".
The Long Paddock
Other sites should include NOAA and this sub-site
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html
major article from there is:
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS R. KARL, DIRECTOR NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
July 18, 2001
In it he said (summary)....
In the interests of a lot of "worry worts" I suggest that you have a peek into the work done here. I rub shoulders with a few of them but because I am just an elf you may say "rub kneecaps" (at least intellectually). Look at the section on "Climate Changes".
The Long Paddock
Other sites should include NOAA and this sub-site
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html
major article from there is:
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS R. KARL, DIRECTOR NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
July 18, 2001
In it he said (summary)....
-The natural "greenhouse" effect is real, and is an essential component of the planet's climate process.
-Some greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities and increasingly trapping more heat.
-The increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases due to human activities are projected to be amplified by feedback effects, such as changes in water vapor, snow cover, and sea ice.
-Particles (or aerosols) in the atmosphere resulting from human activities can also affect climate.
-There is a growing set of observations that yields a collective picture of a warming world over the past century.
-There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
-Scenarios of future human activities indicate continued changes in atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.
-A greenhouse-gas warming could be reversed only very slowly.
It is presently not possible to generally define a safe level of greenhouse gases
-Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the natural variability of the climate system reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude and impacts of future warming are subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).
-To address these uncertainties, several areas of study have been identified in the assessments...
• Feedbacks in the climate system that determine the magnitude and rate of temperature increases and related precipitation changes
• Future usage of fossil fuels
• Carbon sequestration on land and in the ocean
• Details of regional climate change
• Natural climate variability and the interaction of these modes with other climate forcings including greenhouse gases and the direct and indirect effects of aerosols
Of course this guy could be a "commie" eh! Couple of points that I would like to add are :
• The date of the report ... the recent summit says things are worsening.
• Increase in long term solar flux due to some unidentified but natural phenomenon. This is what started this stuff and was not obviously prominent back in 2001.
• The possible long-term effect on polar sea ice and the North Atlantic Drift
It should be noted these are 'independent" sources of the alarmist views given by environmental groups. There is plenty of other data on several NASA sites too. I hate to pun but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I would not want people to become too alarmed just now but "doing nothing" is just not an option long term. The option list you gave is just too short. There must be other alternatives that are palatable to the World Population and affordable. I realize this is not easy.
Cheers
QUOTE
By all means, post it.
In the interests of a lot of "worry worts" I suggest that you have a peek into the work done here. I rub shoulders with a few of them but because I am just an elf you may say "rub kneecaps" (at least intellectually). Look at the section on "Climate Changes".
The Long Paddock
Other sites should include NOAA and this sub-site
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html
major article from there is:
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS R. KARL, DIRECTOR NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
July 18, 2001
In it he said (summary)....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By all means, post it. |
In the interests of a lot of "worry worts" I suggest that you have a peek into the work done here. I rub shoulders with a few of them but because I am just an elf you may say "rub kneecaps" (at least intellectually). Look at the section on "Climate Changes".
The Long Paddock
Other sites should include NOAA and this sub-site
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html
major article from there is:
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS R. KARL, DIRECTOR NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
July 18, 2001
In it he said (summary)....
-The natural "greenhouse" effect is real, and is an essential component of the planet's climate process.
-Some greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities and increasingly trapping more heat.
-The increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases due to human activities are projected to be amplified by feedback effects, such as changes in water vapor, snow cover, and sea ice.
-Particles (or aerosols) in the atmosphere resulting from human activities can also affect climate.
-There is a growing set of observations that yields a collective picture of a warming world over the past century.
-There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
-Scenarios of future human activities indicate continued changes in atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.
-A greenhouse-gas warming could be reversed only very slowly.
It is presently not possible to generally define a safe level of greenhouse gases
-Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the natural variability of the climate system reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude and impacts of future warming are subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).
-To address these uncertainties, several areas of study have been identified in the assessments...
• Feedbacks in the climate system that determine the magnitude and rate of temperature increases and related precipitation changes
• Future usage of fossil fuels
• Carbon sequestration on land and in the ocean
• Details of regional climate change
• Natural climate variability and the interaction of these modes with other climate forcings including greenhouse gases and the direct and indirect effects of aerosols
Of course this guy could be a "commie" eh! Couple of points that I would like to add are :
• The date of the report ... the recent summit says things are worsening.
• Increase in long term solar flux due to some unidentified but natural phenomenon. This is what started this stuff and was not obviously prominent back in 2001.
• The possible long-term effect on polar sea ice and the North Atlantic Drift
It should be noted these are 'independent" sources of the alarmist views given by environmental groups. There is plenty of other data on several NASA sites too. I hate to pun but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I would not want people to become too alarmed just now but "doing nothing" is just not an option long term. The option list you gave is just too short. There must be other alternatives that are palatable to the World Population and affordable. I realize this is not easy.
Cheers
Oh.... forgot the point about Methane sequestration in the oceans. Thats a "goodie".
QUOTE (the1physicist Posted on Jan 4 2005+ 03:37 AM )
My whole view is that there is_no_imminent envorinmental problem (or one in the future). I personally beleive all the global warming, etc. statistics are being padded or otherwise exaggerated. Therefore, I do not have a solution because I do not think there is a problem.
So you've given yourself "permission" to just ignore any logical train of thought? Great scientist. Are you the1physicist because no other scientist will work with you?
False. England was not "broken" by socialists, in fact it was the english Prime Minister (Churchill) who first sounded a warning about communism immediately post WWII.
England was in fact broken (intentionally) by the US government's (congress, not executive) concious decision to not assist it against Germany at the start of WWII. Instead US laid back and sold (at top price) goods to England until it was totally broke and had no more credit. Then US started "Lend/Lease", a system of loans for a nation with no more credit. Then carefully collected the debts postwar to ensure no re-bound. US idiots like this really p-- m- o--. Read your history. Most US elites except Roseveldt would have been happier if Germany won that war. Esp Bush (Sr.). What would have been outcome of WWII id Japan hadn't miscalculated at Pearl Harbour? I've done that debate with qualified historians who've agreed that would have been the outcome EXCEPT Japan couldn't deal any longer with the oil embargoes imposed, again by FDR. Thankfully he really wanted US into that war, else Hitler's "Expanded Homeland" and US would be close partners now, though US would have come out junior partners by a long shot. Congress is not noted for good judgement in longterm stuff.
False. England was not "broken" by socialists, in fact it was the english Prime Minister (Churchill) who first sounded a warning about communism immediately post WWII.
England was in fact broken (intentionally) by the US government's (congress, not executive) concious decision to not assist it against Germany at the start of WWII. Instead US laid back and sold (at top price) goods to England until it was totally broke and had no more credit. Then US started "Lend/Lease", a system of loans for a nation with no more credit. Then carefully collected the debts postwar to ensure no re-bound. US idiots like this really p-- m- o--. Read your history. Most US elites except Roseveldt would have been happier if Germany won that war. Esp Bush (Sr.). What would have been outcome of WWII id Japan hadn't miscalculated at Pearl Harbour? I've done that debate with qualified historians who've agreed that would have been the outcome EXCEPT Japan couldn't deal any longer with the oil embargoes imposed, again by FDR. Thankfully he really wanted US into that war, else Hitler's "Expanded Homeland" and US would be close partners now, though US would have come out junior partners by a long shot. Congress is not noted for good judgement in longterm stuff.
Of course, if they took control of me all of a sudden I wouldn't be happy, and that is the whole point of the environmentalist movement, IMHO. By gradually taking away people's property rights, people will not even notice it. 'The environment' in this case is just a big scapegoat.
Nerts.
So you've given yourself "permission" to just ignore any logical train of thought? Great scientist. Are you the1physicist because no other scientist will work with you?
QUOTE
a perfect example of this whole process is England. What was once a great nation has been turned into a socialist country.
False. England was not "broken" by socialists, in fact it was the english Prime Minister (Churchill) who first sounded a warning about communism immediately post WWII.
England was in fact broken (intentionally) by the US government's (congress, not executive) concious decision to not assist it against Germany at the start of WWII. Instead US laid back and sold (at top price) goods to England until it was totally broke and had no more credit. Then US started "Lend/Lease", a system of loans for a nation with no more credit. Then carefully collected the debts postwar to ensure no re-bound. US idiots like this really p-- m- o--. Read your history. Most US elites except Roseveldt would have been happier if Germany won that war. Esp Bush (Sr.). What would have been outcome of WWII id Japan hadn't miscalculated at Pearl Harbour? I've done that debate with qualified historians who've agreed that would have been the outcome EXCEPT Japan couldn't deal any longer with the oil embargoes imposed, again by FDR. Thankfully he really wanted US into that war, else Hitler's "Expanded Homeland" and US would be close partners now, though US would have come out junior partners by a long shot. Congress is not noted for good judgement in longterm stuff.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| a perfect example of this whole process is England. What was once a great nation has been turned into a socialist country. |
False. England was not "broken" by socialists, in fact it was the english Prime Minister (Churchill) who first sounded a warning about communism immediately post WWII.
England was in fact broken (intentionally) by the US government's (congress, not executive) concious decision to not assist it against Germany at the start of WWII. Instead US laid back and sold (at top price) goods to England until it was totally broke and had no more credit. Then US started "Lend/Lease", a system of loans for a nation with no more credit. Then carefully collected the debts postwar to ensure no re-bound. US idiots like this really p-- m- o--. Read your history. Most US elites except Roseveldt would have been happier if Germany won that war. Esp Bush (Sr.). What would have been outcome of WWII id Japan hadn't miscalculated at Pearl Harbour? I've done that debate with qualified historians who've agreed that would have been the outcome EXCEPT Japan couldn't deal any longer with the oil embargoes imposed, again by FDR. Thankfully he really wanted US into that war, else Hitler's "Expanded Homeland" and US would be close partners now, though US would have come out junior partners by a long shot. Congress is not noted for good judgement in longterm stuff.
Of course, if they took control of me all of a sudden I wouldn't be happy, and that is the whole point of the environmentalist movement, IMHO. By gradually taking away people's property rights, people will not even notice it. 'The environment' in this case is just a big scapegoat.
Nerts.
Further, if you do a close read of the 2001 UNEP IPCC report at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm, you'll find that, contrary to a lot of the bunk that's been posed against it by US petroleum interests, it's conclusions are EXTREMELY conservative scientifically. They don't propose anything that can't be backed up, and make no unsupported extrapolations. For example they only suggest a sealevel rise of less than a meter by 2100 EVEN IF CO2 levels rise to >900 ppm. What you'll learn by reading a report like http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ by USGS is that such a circumstance will almost inevitably result in an eventual total breakup of Antartic and Greenland icecaps, with a 65 meter rise then nearly inevitable. The point is, IPCC's reports appear to me to be BEST POSSIBLE CASE. I agree with them that the Antartic Ice cap will probably take several centuries to react to such a CO2 level, but once the CO2 is out there, the result is inevitable. What I don't agree with is IPCC's report completely ignoring the possibility. USGS states there is SOME possibility of the entire western shelf (> 8 m sea level rise) doing a very quick breakup if just two present bulwarks were to break. Neither report specifically discusses plate rebound effects on sea level, but (probably conservative) estimates may already be included in USGS.
See also http://www.glacier.rice.edu/invitation/1_ice.html "The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is fairly stable and responds to environmental changes slowly. In contrast, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be capable of changing very rapidly." This item from Rice scientists is not considered in IPCC, which states that the antartic icecap will only affect sea levels by < 1 meter by 2100! Very conservative.
A note: Once these glaciers are broken up, they will not re-form quickly even if the climate reverts to prior cold, because eg. in greenland, the glaciers are fed by snowfall which only falls as snow due to the altitude of the ice. If the ice cover thins down to where the altitude of precip. is much lower, then precip starts to fall as rain, which simply accelerates melting. Once started, ......
The other item that all these ignore is that a huge percentage of our most productive croplands are in present river deltas (Lousiana to Egypt to Bangaledesh, Yangtse, Congo, list goes on). Simply moving the shoreline back a few (hundred?) kilometers to accomodate such a sea level doesn't recover equivalent croplands.
You cannot ignore this stuff and still credit yourself as adhering to the scientific method.
See also http://www.glacier.rice.edu/invitation/1_ice.html "The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is fairly stable and responds to environmental changes slowly. In contrast, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be capable of changing very rapidly." This item from Rice scientists is not considered in IPCC, which states that the antartic icecap will only affect sea levels by < 1 meter by 2100! Very conservative.
A note: Once these glaciers are broken up, they will not re-form quickly even if the climate reverts to prior cold, because eg. in greenland, the glaciers are fed by snowfall which only falls as snow due to the altitude of the ice. If the ice cover thins down to where the altitude of precip. is much lower, then precip starts to fall as rain, which simply accelerates melting. Once started, ......
The other item that all these ignore is that a huge percentage of our most productive croplands are in present river deltas (Lousiana to Egypt to Bangaledesh, Yangtse, Congo, list goes on). Simply moving the shoreline back a few (hundred?) kilometers to accomodate such a sea level doesn't recover equivalent croplands.
You cannot ignore this stuff and still credit yourself as adhering to the scientific method.
QUOTE
It is presently not possible to generally define a safe level of greenhouse gases
-Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the natural variability of the climate system reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude and impacts of future warming are subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).
Translation: "Yes, global warming is occuring, but we cannot say for certain why." Ok folks, so its a couple of degrees warmer now than it was before. Big deal (IMHO). However, the point I would like to make is, if we're not even sure that we're causing global warming, how are we supposed to decide how to prevent it? It seems we will just have to wait until these studies come back, and only then can we make an educated decision.
-Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the natural variability of the climate system reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude and impacts of future warming are subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).
You cannot ignore this stuff and still credit yourself as adhering to the scientific method. And BTW, the Vostock reports published in Nature, reference first post this thread, do consider (and provide a good data set to calibrate for) solar variability, esp. Milankovitch cycles (to 100,000 yrs). You've given me no reason to ignore their graphs of CO2 + methane levels past 420,000 yrs v.s. ice age frequencies. Both track temperature rises almost exactly, and both are now well above all-time record highs and heading north at an accelerating pace.
Your attitude is to simply carry out a massive experiment on the biosphere and hope for the best. Dum dee dum dee dummm.
(ref. COP 10 Brazil "disappointment at the outcome of the climate talks in Buenos Aires, and anger at the USA and Saudi Arabia for their deliberate tactics of obstruction and delay.") further “And the danger of trying to negotiate with the US is clear. They are intent on wrecking the talks and are not capable of negotiating in good faith. Their position on the science is llegitimate, their refusal to accept responsibility for impacts on the developing world is immoral and their negotiating positions are absurd.”) http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climatesummit...s/IPR_Dec18.pdf
I have VERY little I agree with Greenpeace on, in fact this statement may be the only one. US, not satisfied to continue spewing pollution itself, is bent on obstructing anyone else trying to deal with the issue.
Your attitude is to simply carry out a massive experiment on the biosphere and hope for the best. Dum dee dum dee dummm.
(ref. COP 10 Brazil "disappointment at the outcome of the climate talks in Buenos Aires, and anger at the USA and Saudi Arabia for their deliberate tactics of obstruction and delay.") further “And the danger of trying to negotiate with the US is clear. They are intent on wrecking the talks and are not capable of negotiating in good faith. Their position on the science is llegitimate, their refusal to accept responsibility for impacts on the developing world is immoral and their negotiating positions are absurd.”) http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climatesummit...s/IPR_Dec18.pdf
I have VERY little I agree with Greenpeace on, in fact this statement may be the only one. US, not satisfied to continue spewing pollution itself, is bent on obstructing anyone else trying to deal with the issue.
Hi the1physicist and lengould,
It really doesn't matter who did what to whom and how often. It sorta reads like a TV Soapie. The issue is quite clear. I put all the points in the presentation forward - equally. If you pounce on a political nicety to help you cope with the enormity of the problem... fine. It is not a case of blame now. To say there is uncertainty in figures does not mean you can take comfort in that fact, it is just being equivocal and fair. If a furnace has a temperature of 1200 degrees and there is an uncertainty in that figure does not mean that mommy says you can go play in it.
With the help of THOMAS R. KARL and a few extra notes by me you have 20 points of "rather bad news". I didn't even count lengould's points. One of mine says "...Well there is some uncertainty and the figure may be adjustable up or down", I cannot see this as any source of comfort. This I can guarantee... The longer we wait the more that figure has a likelihood of the adjustment being on the upside rather than the downside. Eventually (and I do not think that's a very long time) "blind freddie" will be begging for someone to see the problem and do something. There will be a point when it will be too late to reverse serious planetary degradation.
Ever get the feeling that a select group have already got a fallback plan? And that fallback plan may not include you.
Yes, you are right... It's us Elves.... We’re off to the Undying Lands of Valinor... See ya!
Cheers
It really doesn't matter who did what to whom and how often. It sorta reads like a TV Soapie. The issue is quite clear. I put all the points in the presentation forward - equally. If you pounce on a political nicety to help you cope with the enormity of the problem... fine. It is not a case of blame now. To say there is uncertainty in figures does not mean you can take comfort in that fact, it is just being equivocal and fair. If a furnace has a temperature of 1200 degrees and there is an uncertainty in that figure does not mean that mommy says you can go play in it.
With the help of THOMAS R. KARL and a few extra notes by me you have 20 points of "rather bad news". I didn't even count lengould's points. One of mine says "...Well there is some uncertainty and the figure may be adjustable up or down", I cannot see this as any source of comfort. This I can guarantee... The longer we wait the more that figure has a likelihood of the adjustment being on the upside rather than the downside. Eventually (and I do not think that's a very long time) "blind freddie" will be begging for someone to see the problem and do something. There will be a point when it will be too late to reverse serious planetary degradation.
Ever get the feeling that a select group have already got a fallback plan? And that fallback plan may not include you.
Yes, you are right... It's us Elves.... We’re off to the Undying Lands of Valinor... See ya!
Cheers
Here's an idea. I'm sure you're heard of airconditioning, so why not just air condition the whole planet? Seriously, you could use a helium balloon to raise the heat sink into the stratosphere, and then the heat could just radiate into space. I would bet that it would also be cheaper than massive regulation on greenhouse emissions.
1) Unlike most "eco's", I'm not even sure that SOME global warming is a bad thing, which is the reason I started this thread. Given earth is just now preparing to exit a short pleasant interglacial and head into a 90,000 year ice age, avg. temp. 4+ degC lower than past recorded history, I THINK there is some argument that a certain amount of increase in GHG levels will beneficially counteract that natural cycle and have no net negative effect for at least 90,000 yrs. BUT, granting that,
2) I'm also quite convinced that that experiment needs to be conducted carefully, thoughtfully, and by a fully aware population which also has complete capability to CONTROL and/or halt increases in GHG levels before any significant damage happens from over-emissions. Without development and deployment of an largely non-fossil-carbon-based energy infrastructure, our economies cannot survive the need to perform this experiment scientifically, so I think we'd better get to it.
cheers
2) I'm also quite convinced that that experiment needs to be conducted carefully, thoughtfully, and by a fully aware population which also has complete capability to CONTROL and/or halt increases in GHG levels before any significant damage happens from over-emissions. Without development and deployment of an largely non-fossil-carbon-based energy infrastructure, our economies cannot survive the need to perform this experiment scientifically, so I think we'd better get to it.
cheers
Hi lengould and the1physicist,
I grow weary of this endless finger pointing. I agree with lengould's view. The only problem is we do not have control. I am glad to see the1physicist is trying to address the problem now. After all it is not "his" personal fault that we are in the do-do.
The recent conference in Buenos Aries on the Kyoto Protocols was a "wash out".
I think we all realize that CO2 levels would be basically unaffected with protocols as they presently stand. If they were "fully" implemented as they currently stand this would contribute to 1/500 of a degree change in global warming estimates to 2020. This is not scientifically testable so it would not be possible to see any benefit. The whole thrust of the Kyoto Protocols was that it was getting the underdeveloped world (Asia, India, China etc.) to "sign on" even though they would contribute initially 'nothing" towards the reductions. The "hope" was that they would sign on to a more stringent regime in 2020. The summit in Buenos Aries dramatically failed in this regard because the countries most affected by this will not forego economic development. Goodbye Kyoto!
Australia and the US signed on but refused to ratify the agreement (for good reason). I know Australia is "on target" but we all know this is going to do nothing for the rest of the World especially since they lack commitment (unless you realy like tokenism a lot!). The hope of carbon credit trading is also a failure since only the Europeans seem interested. The media in Australia are reporting this information today. Like I say, in the end it doesn't matter who did what and to whom.
The hope of the world lies in "big" technological advances not economics or politics. The only real hope is in novel sources of energy and a sure means to remove the "fossil" carbon from the atmosphere.
A lot of countries are thinking of carbon sequestration. I for one don't think so. For every 12 grams of carbon we sequester we will also be sequestering 32 grams of oxygen. There are no massive sources of oxygen on the earth other than in the atmosphere or in "water". I suggest neither of those two sources is a good idea. We will grow short of breath long before we solve the carbon problem. At best we gain 10 or 20 years in which to make a decision. The infrastructure will be "vast" and it will not solve the problem alone. It will also have a momentum of it's own economically, and may lead to our downfall. There are better ways to "invest" your dollars.
The answer lies in the fossil carbon cycle. Stop it now or you will all go blind! Seriously, we could shift towards non-fossil sources of carbon. This would "close" the carbon cycle and the earth would be saved (really). Such technologies exist where plant biomass is converted into alcohol and that is used in motor vehicles. Gas Stations as they exist now would be able to fill up cars. So far cost and political will is the problem. What do you want - cheap fuel or a future for your children? Choose wisely.
Electric motor vehicles are "difficult". It also has a huge penalty in pollution knock-on effects such as batteries etc. It will not work in the third world. Fuel calls are fine in the developed West but this is not going to be the problem in 2020.
The real "light on the hill" is Physics and Basic Research. It could clean up the problem if properly applied. What is working against it is Politics and Culture. The economic system is also at fault since there are no mechanisms built in to prevent a disaster. The Stock Market is a "herd of cattle" that respond to a single gunshot and will gallop over a cliff if it gets the wrong signal. So it is really up to all of you out there (Physicists). Too bad there is little or no expertise. The best minds have all gone into futures trading and advertizing.
Lets get this straight right here - Physics and Biosciences are the World's last and final hope. The politicians and the "free market" have all failed.
Cheers
I grow weary of this endless finger pointing. I agree with lengould's view. The only problem is we do not have control. I am glad to see the1physicist is trying to address the problem now. After all it is not "his" personal fault that we are in the do-do.
The recent conference in Buenos Aries on the Kyoto Protocols was a "wash out".
I think we all realize that CO2 levels would be basically unaffected with protocols as they presently stand. If they were "fully" implemented as they currently stand this would contribute to 1/500 of a degree change in global warming estimates to 2020. This is not scientifically testable so it would not be possible to see any benefit. The whole thrust of the Kyoto Protocols was that it was getting the underdeveloped world (Asia, India, China etc.) to "sign on" even though they would contribute initially 'nothing" towards the reductions. The "hope" was that they would sign on to a more stringent regime in 2020. The summit in Buenos Aries dramatically failed in this regard because the countries most affected by this will not forego economic development. Goodbye Kyoto!
Australia and the US signed on but refused to ratify the agreement (for good reason). I know Australia is "on target" but we all know this is going to do nothing for the rest of the World especially since they lack commitment (unless you realy like tokenism a lot!). The hope of carbon credit trading is also a failure since only the Europeans seem interested. The media in Australia are reporting this information today. Like I say, in the end it doesn't matter who did what and to whom.
The hope of the world lies in "big" technological advances not economics or politics. The only real hope is in novel sources of energy and a sure means to remove the "fossil" carbon from the atmosphere.
A lot of countries are thinking of carbon sequestration. I for one don't think so. For every 12 grams of carbon we sequester we will also be sequestering 32 grams of oxygen. There are no massive sources of oxygen on the earth other than in the atmosphere or in "water". I suggest neither of those two sources is a good idea. We will grow short of breath long before we solve the carbon problem. At best we gain 10 or 20 years in which to make a decision. The infrastructure will be "vast" and it will not solve the problem alone. It will also have a momentum of it's own economically, and may lead to our downfall. There are better ways to "invest" your dollars.
The answer lies in the fossil carbon cycle. Stop it now or you will all go blind! Seriously, we could shift towards non-fossil sources of carbon. This would "close" the carbon cycle and the earth would be saved (really). Such technologies exist where plant biomass is converted into alcohol and that is used in motor vehicles. Gas Stations as they exist now would be able to fill up cars. So far cost and political will is the problem. What do you want - cheap fuel or a future for your children? Choose wisely.
Electric motor vehicles are "difficult". It also has a huge penalty in pollution knock-on effects such as batteries etc. It will not work in the third world. Fuel calls are fine in the developed West but this is not going to be the problem in 2020.
The real "light on the hill" is Physics and Basic Research. It could clean up the problem if properly applied. What is working against it is Politics and Culture. The economic system is also at fault since there are no mechanisms built in to prevent a disaster. The Stock Market is a "herd of cattle" that respond to a single gunshot and will gallop over a cliff if it gets the wrong signal. So it is really up to all of you out there (Physicists). Too bad there is little or no expertise. The best minds have all gone into futures trading and advertizing.
Lets get this straight right here - Physics and Biosciences are the World's last and final hope. The politicians and the "free market" have all failed.
Cheers
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think I just had a massive revelation. If plants breathe CO2 and 'exhale' oxygen, why don't we just plant some plants? Better yet, humans breathe in oxygen, and exhale CO2. Gee, I guess we really are contributing to global warming. Therefore, I propose that we kill 1 million people per day until there's no one left, and feed them to the poor, starving Irish babies. (I seriously hope you realize I'm joking.)
If you're still concerned with the CO2 levels rising, here's another idea. Take the CO2 in the atmosphere and chemically turn it into oxygen and elemental carbon. Afterwards, you could use the carbon for fertilizer, nanotubes, whatever. You could even launch it into space and be forever rid of its eeeeeevil existence.
Hi the1physicist,
Nice try but no kewpie doll. Its not that we breathe is the main problem. It is the excess of carbon being released into the atmosphere. This excess is caused by "fossil" carbon. This carbon has been "sequestrated" by Mother Nature for hundreds of millions of years. We are dropping into the atmosphere where it can be absorbed only slowly. Yup...Trees can soak a bit up but it can't soak it all up. All those forests that have grown over hundreds of millions of years can't all fit here on the surface of the earth all at once. Ecosystems can handle breathing and stuff. What ecosystems can't handle is being disturbed from their equilibrium point.
That is what I meant by 'closing" the carbon cycle! Ultimately this must be the answer. There are a couple of ways to do this. Grow all your fuel or find a fuel that does not use "fossil" carbon and is politically and socially acceptable. You must also "outlaw" fossil fuel. Wind energy and solar energy will not run modern society. You need more than that.
What this means is if you close the carbon cycle I mean do not release significant amounts of "fossil" carbon into the atmosphere. The excess carbon is what is causing the problem. Carbon is "good". More carbon is not better. If the carbon we burn in cars and breathe out as animals is "fixed" by the growing of vegetable matter, harvesting of that vegetable matter is the process that regulates the release of carbon. You can't release any more carbon than you have to burn. This process also soaks CO2 up over a long period as well, given a chance. It is a net zero sum situation. It is also the only "sane" possibility if we want to retain the Earth as a habitable Planet.
If we just outlaw the "burning" of "fossil" coal then if we all did that and still met our energy needs from "growing" energy as "fuel" (alcohol?) or from other sources of energy (fusion?), we have solved the problem (long term). The problem will be much of the world is not going to agree to it. Short term there would still be a disaster looming due to current effects on the atmosphere. That's where "new Physics" comes in.
Cheers
Nice try but no kewpie doll. Its not that we breathe is the main problem. It is the excess of carbon being released into the atmosphere. This excess is caused by "fossil" carbon. This carbon has been "sequestrated" by Mother Nature for hundreds of millions of years. We are dropping into the atmosphere where it can be absorbed only slowly. Yup...Trees can soak a bit up but it can't soak it all up. All those forests that have grown over hundreds of millions of years can't all fit here on the surface of the earth all at once. Ecosystems can handle breathing and stuff. What ecosystems can't handle is being disturbed from their equilibrium point.
That is what I meant by 'closing" the carbon cycle! Ultimately this must be the answer. There are a couple of ways to do this. Grow all your fuel or find a fuel that does not use "fossil" carbon and is politically and socially acceptable. You must also "outlaw" fossil fuel. Wind energy and solar energy will not run modern society. You need more than that.
What this means is if you close the carbon cycle I mean do not release significant amounts of "fossil" carbon into the atmosphere. The excess carbon is what is causing the problem. Carbon is "good". More carbon is not better. If the carbon we burn in cars and breathe out as animals is "fixed" by the growing of vegetable matter, harvesting of that vegetable matter is the process that regulates the release of carbon. You can't release any more carbon than you have to burn. This process also soaks CO2 up over a long period as well, given a chance. It is a net zero sum situation. It is also the only "sane" possibility if we want to retain the Earth as a habitable Planet.
If we just outlaw the "burning" of "fossil" coal then if we all did that and still met our energy needs from "growing" energy as "fuel" (alcohol?) or from other sources of energy (fusion?), we have solved the problem (long term). The problem will be much of the world is not going to agree to it. Short term there would still be a disaster looming due to current effects on the atmosphere. That's where "new Physics" comes in.
Cheers
Hi the1physicist,
Duh... It can be done but if it takes more fossil carbon energy by weight to process one kilo of CO2 you have lost the plot. At best this may be only about 30% efficient. You are just increasing the temperature of the planet without reducing the total amount of CO2.
You can't win on that process unless you have invented a new source of energy. If you have that and it does not use 'fossil" carbon and you can get rid of the waste heat you might just pull it off.
I would prefer to give the energy away for free and not bother with this fruitless pursuit that would still need to be done for all the underdeveloped nations. Give them a break and save all of us.
Cheers
QUOTE
here's another idea. Take the CO2 in the atmosphere and chemically turn it into oxygen and elemental carbon
Duh... It can be done but if it takes more fossil carbon energy by weight to process one kilo of CO2 you have lost the plot. At best this may be only about 30% efficient. You are just increasing the temperature of the planet without reducing the total amount of CO2.
You can't win on that process unless you have invented a new source of energy. If you have that and it does not use 'fossil" carbon and you can get rid of the waste heat you might just pull it off.
I would prefer to give the energy away for free and not bother with this fruitless pursuit that would still need to be done for all the underdeveloped nations. Give them a break and save all of us.
Cheers
What if we could transform heat directly into usable energy? That would not only solve your global warming 'crisis', but also provide a very useful source of energy. I know this goes again our beloved "laws" of thermodynamics (which I believe are rather limited in their scope), but hear me out. I'm sure you're aware of Maxwell's Demon. With the newly developing field of nano-technology, we could build one-way gates on the atomic level. Multiply that by a whole bunch of gates, and you're got yourself a way of taking the random movements of gas (say hydrogen) into an ordered state.
A lot of "whistling in the dark" going on. The only thing that has any potential to address the problem is large-scale solar (augmented a little by wind). "Optical Rectenna For Direct Conversion Of Sunlight To Electricity" at http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv_prm/pdfs/papers/54.pdf Potential to 85% efficient, needs massive research support.
In the mean time, cover continental deserts with concentrating PowerTowers. But oh, i forgot. Cant do that cause energy from fossil is 2cents/kwhr cheaper and in many countries the public is not well enough educated to even accept an explanation of the reasons.
In the mean time, cover continental deserts with concentrating PowerTowers. But oh, i forgot. Cant do that cause energy from fossil is 2cents/kwhr cheaper and in many countries the public is not well enough educated to even accept an explanation of the reasons.
Hi the1physicist and lengould,
yup.. I think that qualifies as "radically' new technology. How you catch the little "bugger" might be a problem, a butterfly net with really small holes may help. Convincing the scientific community that you have "toddler tamed" Maxwells Daemon will take some doing though.
Seriously, that would qualify and so would a lot of other advanced technologies. The important point is getting one up to do the job before the world's environment deteriorates too much.
Now lengould's ideas have some mileage…
yup.. I think that qualifies as "radically' new technology. How you catch the little "bugger" might be a problem, a butterfly net with really small holes may help. Convincing the scientific community that you have "toddler tamed" Maxwells Daemon will take some doing though.
Seriously, that would qualify and so would a lot of other advanced technologies. The important point is getting one up to do the job before the world's environment deteriorates too much.
Now lengould's ideas have some mileage…
Optical Rectenna For Direct Conversion Of Sunlight To Electricity
But unfortunately they could only account for a few percent of the total Earths needs. But it is encouraging to hear that there is some ground breaking technologies out there. In a large scale "practical' system it may be less than ideal. As to wind power...I also think that if you had lived near these wind farms you certainly would think the neighbourhood had gone down the slot. There are severe restrictions as to location for these things on the earth's surface otherwise they will mostly be great motionless monuments to mankind’s folly (sorta like the statues of Easter Island)
The solar panel idea is only a real good idea if you do it "off world" and beam the energy to earth (I guess you could make antimatter with it and bring it down with a shuttle too - the efficiency is not really an issue if you can do that). Out there you are not bothered by the effects of weather and you benefit with increased solar flux as well. You can also work it 24 hours a day beyond the earth’s shadow. One good earthquake or tsunami on earth may knock out the entire power grid for the planet eh! Then the size and atmospheric variability (tornadoes, storms and hail) as well as the problems of peak load not being synchronized with peak output will be less important there too. The real problem with it would be the occasional meteor shower that passes by the Earth. You would need to have a pretty big gang of "riggers" out there prepared to risk life and limb in continuous repair jobs.
If I was able to choose my 'druthers" I think I would like to see "hot" and/or "cold" fusion really take off. This has a hope of being less environmentally destructive than these other alternatives which need to be on a huge scale. Cold fusion is still quite viable as a "possible" power source despite the naysayers. It is also very safe too. I would ask you to look up the US Naval Labs report on it for starters.
Cheers
QUOTE
I'm sure you're aware of Maxwell's Demon. With the newly developing field of nano-technology, we could build one-way gates on the atomic level
yup.. I think that qualifies as "radically' new technology. How you catch the little "bugger" might be a problem, a butterfly net with really small holes may help. Convincing the scientific community that you have "toddler tamed" Maxwells Daemon will take some doing though.
Seriously, that would qualify and so would a lot of other advanced technologies. The important point is getting one up to do the job before the world's environment deteriorates too much.
Now lengould's ideas have some mileage…
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm sure you're aware of Maxwell's Demon. With the newly developing field of nano-technology, we could build one-way gates on the atomic level |
yup.. I think that qualifies as "radically' new technology. How you catch the little "bugger" might be a problem, a butterfly net with really small holes may help. Convincing the scientific community that you have "toddler tamed" Maxwells Daemon will take some doing though.
Seriously, that would qualify and so would a lot of other advanced technologies. The important point is getting one up to do the job before the world's environment deteriorates too much.
Now lengould's ideas have some mileage…
Optical Rectenna For Direct Conversion Of Sunlight To Electricity
But unfortunately they could only account for a few percent of the total Earths needs. But it is encouraging to hear that there is some ground breaking technologies out there. In a large scale "practical' system it may be less than ideal. As to wind power...I also think that if you had lived near these wind farms you certainly would think the neighbourhood had gone down the slot. There are severe restrictions as to location for these things on the earth's surface otherwise they will mostly be great motionless monuments to mankind’s folly (sorta like the statues of Easter Island)
The solar panel idea is only a real good idea if you do it "off world" and beam the energy to earth (I guess you could make antimatter with it and bring it down with a shuttle too - the efficiency is not really an issue if you can do that). Out there you are not bothered by the effects of weather and you benefit with increased solar flux as well. You can also work it 24 hours a day beyond the earth’s shadow. One good earthquake or tsunami on earth may knock out the entire power grid for the planet eh! Then the size and atmospheric variability (tornadoes, storms and hail) as well as the problems of peak load not being synchronized with peak output will be less important there too. The real problem with it would be the occasional meteor shower that passes by the Earth. You would need to have a pretty big gang of "riggers" out there prepared to risk life and limb in continuous repair jobs.
If I was able to choose my 'druthers" I think I would like to see "hot" and/or "cold" fusion really take off. This has a hope of being less environmentally destructive than these other alternatives which need to be on a huge scale. Cold fusion is still quite viable as a "possible" power source despite the naysayers. It is also very safe too. I would ask you to look up the US Naval Labs report on it for starters.
Cheers
I know I have posted this before, but people don't seem to want to check it out. You mentioned cold fusion, and there's this guy named David Hudson that, among many other things, explains it.
www.luminet.net/~wenonah/hudson
Scroll down a bit for the audio links.
Also, the whole nanotech Maxwell's demon idea is not theoretically nor practically impossible, so I don't know where you go off downplaying it.
www.luminet.net/~wenonah/hudson
Scroll down a bit for the audio links.
Also, the whole nanotech Maxwell's demon idea is not theoretically nor practically impossible, so I don't know where you go off downplaying it.
Hi the1physicist,
You are quite right. In case anyone wants to know I was just "fooling around". Your idea does have merit. I really was referring to the way the general Physics Community reacts to new ideas like this idea "seemingly" defying the laws of thermodynamics. Anything is up for grabs in the future and I would be the first to say that every "law" has a special case "exception" built in for mankind to exploit.
The quaint idea of a Daemon in a box was just too "interesting" not to play with.
Sorry about that, I just was carried away!
Cheers
QUOTE
Also, the whole nanotech Maxwell's demon idea is not theoretically nor practically impossible, so I don't know where you go off downplaying it.
You are quite right. In case anyone wants to know I was just "fooling around". Your idea does have merit. I really was referring to the way the general Physics Community reacts to new ideas like this idea "seemingly" defying the laws of thermodynamics. Anything is up for grabs in the future and I would be the first to say that every "law" has a special case "exception" built in for mankind to exploit.
The quaint idea of a Daemon in a box was just too "interesting" not to play with.
Sorry about that, I just was carried away!
Cheers
No biggie. As a side note, I have a problem with the 'laws' of thermodynamics. First of all, they were developed by guys with poor equipment studying cylinders of compressed gases, but somehow the 'laws' apply to virtually everything. ? These laws are simply statements of statistical probability. They basically say that, left to themselves, systems tend to do certain things. The problem is, on the atomic level, there IS order. Hence, maxwell's demon. I guess the only issue now is how to construct the gates. Choice of gas is a non-issue: it should def. be hydrogen. Reason being that it is the smallest and lightest, so you don't have to design as complex gates. More importantly, for a given temperature, hydrogen gas particles have the greatest range of speeds.
Hi all
The funny thing about cold fusion is this
A BEC is almost as cold as you can get. The particles are in a touching single state and yet they still dont fuse. Which seems to suggest that you also need the heat.
That is of course if fusion is possible at all.
Waiting for the heat AR
The funny thing about cold fusion is this
A BEC is almost as cold as you can get. The particles are in a touching single state and yet they still dont fuse. Which seems to suggest that you also need the heat.
That is of course if fusion is possible at all.
Waiting for the heat AR
Hi Guest,
For a start a BEC is not normally made of Hydrogen atoms (eg: Na atoms). The electronic "cloud" of the atoms in a BEC is unaltered in size.
So one theory goes, the reason that hydrogen atoms absorbed into the palladium catalyst lattice structure fuse is because a process is occurring on the surface of the palladium that allows the electronic structure of the atoms to shrink down in size to allow the adsorbed atomic hydrogen nuclei to approach each other far closer than would be possible otherwise.
This has a two-fold effect. It allows a lot of atoms into the structure so the palladium can absorb a "huge" quantity of deuterium into the interstitial lattice and the mean cross section time the nuclei are very close goes up almost exponentially allowing the probability of the fusion reaction to be dramatically increased. One such additional mechanism proposed is muons from cosmic ray showers being absorbed into this structure and replacing some of the electrons in the electronic shells of the Hydrogen atoms.
The muons are very heavy electrons and are normally unstable but under these conditions they are stabilized temporarily by being in this structure. This means the size of the "shells" shrink way down compared with ordinary electronic shells to only a couple of atomic nuclear diameters. Normally the size of the shells is like the outer seats on the rim of a large stadium compared with a cherry in the centre as the nucleus. Now the "cherries" are all piled up with thin layers of a almost proto-electronic shell around them. The exchange forces can "tunnel" these shortened distances to catalyse the fusion reaction between atoms. Some random process will also be necessary to have these nuclei "juggle" together in the same place at the same time. This may be some thermal agitation, but not too much.
The exact details are unknown, so it is no point proceeding further with this idea at this stage until some more research is done.
The unexpected "explosions" of cold fusion apparatus may be due to too many cosmic ray muons being randomly in the "soup" at the one time. It needs some safeguards obviously to prevent this problem. It is a big enough bang to kill a person but small enough to "trap" with a better mechanical construction methodology
Cheers
QUOTE
A BEC is almost as cold as you can get. The particles are in a touching single state and yet they still daunt fuse
For a start a BEC is not normally made of Hydrogen atoms (eg: Na atoms). The electronic "cloud" of the atoms in a BEC is unaltered in size.
So one theory goes, the reason that hydrogen atoms absorbed into the palladium catalyst lattice structure fuse is because a process is occurring on the surface of the palladium that allows the electronic structure of the atoms to shrink down in size to allow the adsorbed atomic hydrogen nuclei to approach each other far closer than would be possible otherwise.
This has a two-fold effect. It allows a lot of atoms into the structure so the palladium can absorb a "huge" quantity of deuterium into the interstitial lattice and the mean cross section time the nuclei are very close goes up almost exponentially allowing the probability of the fusion reaction to be dramatically increased. One such additional mechanism proposed is muons from cosmic ray showers being absorbed into this structure and replacing some of the electrons in the electronic shells of the Hydrogen atoms.
The muons are very heavy electrons and are normally unstable but under these conditions they are stabilized temporarily by being in this structure. This means the size of the "shells" shrink way down compared with ordinary electronic shells to only a couple of atomic nuclear diameters. Normally the size of the shells is like the outer seats on the rim of a large stadium compared with a cherry in the centre as the nucleus. Now the "cherries" are all piled up with thin layers of a almost proto-electronic shell around them. The exchange forces can "tunnel" these shortened distances to catalyse the fusion reaction between atoms. Some random process will also be necessary to have these nuclei "juggle" together in the same place at the same time. This may be some thermal agitation, but not too much.
The exact details are unknown, so it is no point proceeding further with this idea at this stage until some more research is done.
The unexpected "explosions" of cold fusion apparatus may be due to too many cosmic ray muons being randomly in the "soup" at the one time. It needs some safeguards obviously to prevent this problem. It is a big enough bang to kill a person but small enough to "trap" with a better mechanical construction methodology
Cheers
I'm not sure exactly how we got to talking about cold fusion, but I will give you my $.02
QUOTE
The exact details are unknown, so it is no point proceeding further with this idea at this stage until some more research is done.
There is a man in Arizona named David Hudson that explains cold fusion in detail. goto http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/hudson/ and scroll down a bit to the audio lectures. Believe me, you will not regret listening to these.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The exact details are unknown, so it is no point proceeding further with this idea at this stage until some more research is done. |
There is a man in Arizona named David Hudson that explains cold fusion in detail. goto http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/hudson/ and scroll down a bit to the audio lectures. Believe me, you will not regret listening to these.
The unexpected "explosions" of cold fusion apparatus may be due to too many cosmic ray muons being randomly in the "soup" at the one time.
The unexpected "explosions" of cold fusion apparatus may be due to too many cosmic ray muons being randomly in the "soup" at the one time.
Nope, the explosions in cold 'fusion' are actually caused by the fission of the palladium atoms. Listen to those lectures for details.
^ That was me up there, I forgot to log in.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0307038
I just found the most interesting paper. It shows how Maxwell's original equations (in quaternions) actually allows for the direct conversion of heat into electricity. Basically, all you have to do is have an excess of charge, and then any relative acceleration between those charges (changes in current) will be amplified at the expense of temperature.
I just found the most interesting paper. It shows how Maxwell's original equations (in quaternions) actually allows for the direct conversion of heat into electricity. Basically, all you have to do is have an excess of charge, and then any relative acceleration between those charges (changes in current) will be amplified at the expense of temperature.
Hi 1physicist,
Many experimenters in the overunity field have reported the lowering of temperature at the same time that the overunity phenomenon was observed. Some times this lowering was reported to be dramatic.
z
Many experimenters in the overunity field have reported the lowering of temperature at the same time that the overunity phenomenon was observed. Some times this lowering was reported to be dramatic.
z
Hi the1physicist,
David Hudson's "Grand Science Adventure"
Yup.... Interesting! I guess that this guy has been at it longer than all of us. He appears to have an axe to grind (don't we all?). I read a couple of the items. There were so many I got lost. That one about "Does Gravity push or Pull?" Well I think it sucks!
Well this is not a website it is a rabbit warren. You would get totally lost in there and never find your way out. His webpages are longer than my posts. I hardly have the patience to read my own posts. Good thing I am not my own critic. That means I can't asses all of his writings either.
OK... He is also a religious freak (no offence). I think it may have got to him being "real" close to that sad accident. He must be phased by what he may have seen over the years. That does not mean he is wrong but it is hard to see what he is on about. As to the reference on Cold Fusion I found this but no more...
Maybe you can help me out there and post me direct with your reference. Solid state Physics is not my strong point and I can't asses this data. The lithium deuterate is used mainly in fusion weapons as a source of fusionable material under the action of Gamma Rays. In this case nothing will happen because the right pressure temperature conditions do not exist for energy release. Got me bushed! Can't see it!
As to fission being responsible for the explosion they had at the Lab a few years back (above) you would have to say that if that was the case why would anyone subject to the official secrets act even now, tell us that tidbit? If a glass of water and a little palladium can cause a fission blast this might be a viable "explosive". So why did they drop the project if that was the case knowing what Los Alamos has to do with all that? I do not see the link up with fission there.
I think Palladium will not fission (binding energy doesn't look good) and I sure know deuterium (or it's oxide) will not either. Also you would need a "chain reaction" that means excess neutrons and so forth. I would need to be convinced of that. It may be you mean that it was some kind of stored energy state. That's interesting too (sort of like Hafnium 178m2).
I think it would be a "bang" due to "over catalysation" in the reaction vessel - too many muons (just by chance). Though not enough research has been done on that yet to say what it was for sure.
I have bookmarked David Hudson's Website to make short forays into it in the future but I have to come up for air.
Cheers
David Hudson's "Grand Science Adventure"
Yup.... Interesting! I guess that this guy has been at it longer than all of us. He appears to have an axe to grind (don't we all?). I read a couple of the items. There were so many I got lost. That one about "Does Gravity push or Pull?" Well I think it sucks!
Well this is not a website it is a rabbit warren. You would get totally lost in there and never find your way out. His webpages are longer than my posts. I hardly have the patience to read my own posts. Good thing I am not my own critic. That means I can't asses all of his writings either.
OK... He is also a religious freak (no offence). I think it may have got to him being "real" close to that sad accident. He must be phased by what he may have seen over the years. That does not mean he is wrong but it is hard to see what he is on about. As to the reference on Cold Fusion I found this but no more...
QUOTE
Note: Hudson's explanation for the unexplained energy released in cold fusion studies is that the palladium electrode is converting to the high spin state over a period of several days using lithium deuterate, (provided by the experimenter) as an electrolyte which enables the breaking of the metal-metal bonds of the atoms into the monoatomic superdeformed high spin state.
Maybe you can help me out there and post me direct with your reference. Solid state Physics is not my strong point and I can't asses this data. The lithium deuterate is used mainly in fusion weapons as a source of fusionable material under the action of Gamma Rays. In this case nothing will happen because the right pressure temperature conditions do not exist for energy release. Got me bushed! Can't see it!
As to fission being responsible for the explosion they had at the Lab a few years back (above) you would have to say that if that was the case why would anyone subject to the official secrets act even now, tell us that tidbit? If a glass of water and a little palladium can cause a fission blast this might be a viable "explosive". So why did they drop the project if that was the case knowing what Los Alamos has to do with all that? I do not see the link up with fission there.
I think Palladium will not fission (binding energy doesn't look good) and I sure know deuterium (or it's oxide) will not either. Also you would need a "chain reaction" that means excess neutrons and so forth. I would need to be convinced of that. It may be you mean that it was some kind of stored energy state. That's interesting too (sort of like Hafnium 178m2).
I think it would be a "bang" due to "over catalysation" in the reaction vessel - too many muons (just by chance). Though not enough research has been done on that yet to say what it was for sure.
I have bookmarked David Hudson's Website to make short forays into it in the future but I have to come up for air.
Cheers
Good Elf, before I remark on anything, did you listen to his audio lectures or did you just read the website? The website isn't actually his, and IMHO, is kind of flaky. However, the audio clips are the real deal. Let me know, please.
Hi Elf
re the condensate (BEC)eletron cloud. this has nothing to do with a condensate its the nuclei which are being re-aligned to form the condensate.
Recent work has reported there being a very specific identifiable event point of cooling, this is the cubic particles translating from their "standing on one corner" orientation to "sitting down flat" and is why they can become a condensate due to the ability to close on each other and is why Fermionic can become condensates.
Not quite that simple as atoms can also be defined as fermionic due to odd numbers of particle in the nulei, this is explained by the odd particle realigning the cubes differently.
Not heard about this lab explosion before, surely it could not have been fission, there would not have been enough "Particle bullets" to create the chain reaction without it being a specifically designed small device.
Have you a link for this
re the condensate (BEC)eletron cloud. this has nothing to do with a condensate its the nuclei which are being re-aligned to form the condensate.
Recent work has reported there being a very specific identifiable event point of cooling, this is the cubic particles translating from their "standing on one corner" orientation to "sitting down flat" and is why they can become a condensate due to the ability to close on each other and is why Fermionic can become condensates.
Not quite that simple as atoms can also be defined as fermionic due to odd numbers of particle in the nulei, this is explained by the odd particle realigning the cubes differently.
Not heard about this lab explosion before, surely it could not have been fission, there would not have been enough "Particle bullets" to create the chain reaction without it being a specifically designed small device.
Have you a link for this
QUOTE
Have you a link for this
Well, listen to those audio clips, and then if you're still fuzzy, I'll explain. http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/hudson/
Hi the1physicist.
I confess that is what I did. I realized that that would be a huge commitment in time. I must say the guy appears to be a flake. I then thought that I should listen to the mp3's based on your apparent concern.
David Hudson
I must admit he spins a really good yarn. In there he has all he laws of physics, all the ideas of chemistry, all the ideas of quantum mechanics and all the ides about God the universe and everything. I guess if I spent $8.5 Million I think I would want at least that.
I got to say that if what he says is true then I think we better listen. The way he does it has all the hallmarks of a flake and a charlatan. It sound more like a "Sunday going to meeting" convocation with all the true believers saying "amen" to all the punch lines and telling them about the rapture. The website is full of religious invocations and new age philosophy.
For a dirt farmer from Arizona he seems to be highly knowledgable. I won't deny that! The history of his investigations into the soil on his property was engrossing. I have worked many years in most of these fields such as Agricultural Chemistry, the repair and maintenance of all types of elemental analysis instrumentation for instance X-ray Fluorescence, Gas Chromatography, Atomic Absorption, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Mass Spectroscopy, HPLC, Flame Ionization Detection, Neutron Absorption, Inductively Coupled Plasma. I never heard of any of this stuff or seen one anomaly stick it's nose up.
(Oh... Except that time I accidently created ball lightning on the desk in front of me and nearly had it in my lap).
"Ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
Batman.
I am also very knowledgeable in Physical and Inorganic Chemistry to Graduate Level University. I am also a qualified Geophysicist /Geologist. Never heard of any of this stuff. It could be that this is too new to be understood. Why has this been missed all these years? Is this fella got some really unusual geology on his property. These elements are pretty rare elsewhere in the World. That may be the reason. I sure would like to see this stuff.
OK the1physicist, where from here? I do not see that this directly influences Relativity (my main interest nowadays), it has no direct influence on Ice Cores in Antarctic, it will possibly influence future energy sources, it may have a direct effect on “Cold Fusion”. What I am worried about is the possibility of “misinformation” from some source even smarter than David Hudson. And us
The theological implications for me are zilch because it appears to me that he worships the “zero point energy” as a God. I can’t do that and I would not want to but in another forum thread ...
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> General discussions -> Off-topic-> Burning in Hell
I have recently said that God may not exist in the form many would want anyway... But I believed in a possible afterlife despite that. David Hudson links all this to biblical references (what is that to a ZPG God?) and to ancient alchemy (interesting). The crowd he hangs with seems to be some “new age” wackos like that Heavens Gate Crew. That does not help me decide he is not a fruitcake.
The1physicist.I don’t know if I should “kiss” you or terminate you with extreme prejudice! Don’t worry this was just a “colorful” turn of phrase. It is sort of in the same area of information as UFO’s at Area 51 and Alien Mind Control. How can any human (let alone an Elf) evaluate this information (without $8.5 Million) and walk away really knowing anything we ever knew was true or false?
Cheers (I think)
QUOTE
Good Elf, before I remark on anything, did you listen to his audio lectures or did you just read the website?
I confess that is what I did. I realized that that would be a huge commitment in time. I must say the guy appears to be a flake. I then thought that I should listen to the mp3's based on your apparent concern.
David Hudson
I must admit he spins a really good yarn. In there he has all he laws of physics, all the ideas of chemistry, all the ideas of quantum mechanics and all the ides about God the universe and everything. I guess if I spent $8.5 Million I think I would want at least that.
I got to say that if what he says is true then I think we better listen. The way he does it has all the hallmarks of a flake and a charlatan. It sound more like a "Sunday going to meeting" convocation with all the true believers saying "amen" to all the punch lines and telling them about the rapture. The website is full of religious invocations and new age philosophy.
For a dirt farmer from Arizona he seems to be highly knowledgable. I won't deny that! The history of his investigations into the soil on his property was engrossing. I have worked many years in most of these fields such as Agricultural Chemistry, the repair and maintenance of all types of elemental analysis instrumentation for instance X-ray Fluorescence, Gas Chromatography, Atomic Absorption, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Mass Spectroscopy, HPLC, Flame Ionization Detection, Neutron Absorption, Inductively Coupled Plasma. I never heard of any of this stuff or seen one anomaly stick it's nose up.
(Oh... Except that time I accidently created ball lightning on the desk in front of me and nearly had it in my lap).
"Ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
Batman.
I am also very knowledgeable in Physical and Inorganic Chemistry to Graduate Level University. I am also a qualified Geophysicist /Geologist. Never heard of any of this stuff. It could be that this is too new to be understood. Why has this been missed all these years? Is this fella got some really unusual geology on his property. These elements are pretty rare elsewhere in the World. That may be the reason. I sure would like to see this stuff.
OK the1physicist, where from here? I do not see that this directly influences Relativity (my main interest nowadays), it has no direct influence on Ice Cores in Antarctic, it will possibly influence future energy sources, it may have a direct effect on “Cold Fusion”. What I am worried about is the possibility of “misinformation” from some source even smarter than David Hudson. And us
The theological implications for me are zilch because it appears to me that he worships the “zero point energy” as a God. I can’t do that and I would not want to but in another forum thread ...
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> General discussions -> Off-topic-> Burning in Hell
I have recently said that God may not exist in the form many would want anyway... But I believed in a possible afterlife despite that. David Hudson links all this to biblical references (what is that to a ZPG God?) and to ancient alchemy (interesting). The crowd he hangs with seems to be some “new age” wackos like that Heavens Gate Crew. That does not help me decide he is not a fruitcake.
The1physicist.I don’t know if I should “kiss” you or terminate you with extreme prejudice! Don’t worry this was just a “colorful” turn of phrase. It is sort of in the same area of information as UFO’s at Area 51 and Alien Mind Control. How can any human (let alone an Elf) evaluate this information (without $8.5 Million) and walk away really knowing anything we ever knew was true or false?
Cheers (I think)
Alrighty, time to comment. First of all, let me say that I think his science is absolutely correct, but he does draw some very weird (religious) conclusions.
QUOTE
It sound more like a "Sunday going to meeting" convocation with all the true believers saying "amen" to all the punch lines and telling them about the rapture.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It sound more like a "Sunday going to meeting" convocation with all the true believers saying "amen" to all the punch lines and telling them about the rapture. |
The crowd he hangs with seems to be some “new age” wackos like that Heavens Gate Crew.
Yes, he was talking to a bunch of wacos ::eyeshift:: that day, but it doesn't mean he's one, of course.
Basically, the reason I wanted everyone to listen to those lectures is just to realize that there's a lot about this world that we don't know yet. I also happen to think they are very interesting. You can make any conclusion you want about them, but again, I do think his science is correct.
QUOTE
Why has this been missed all these years? Is this fella got some really unusual geology on his property. These elements are pretty rare elsewhere in the World. That may be the reason. I sure would like to see this stuff.
Actually, his comment about these elements being 'stealth' atoms is very true. I would agree with him in that these elements are actually rather abundant everywhere, but they simply can't be detected. (using conventional spectroscopic analysis) I was also able to find the procedure for making this stuff, if you're interested.Basically, the reason I wanted everyone to listen to those lectures is just to realize that there's a lot about this world that we don't know yet. I also happen to think they are very interesting. You can make any conclusion you want about them, but again, I do think his science is correct.
Hi the1physicist,
Referencing David Hudson. I am listening. I have no idea what this topic has doing in one about Ice Cores at Vostock or global environmental degradation. It does occur to me it may have something to do with dark matter. What the heck. How far can a dog run into the forest?
the1physicist Posted on Jan 11 2005, 01:57 PM
Why? Have you some independent information?
Why? Have you some independent information?
Yes, he was talking to a bunch of wacos that day, but it doesn't mean he's one, of course
Yeah... I was hoping you would say that, but just because he tells a really good story does not give him street cred. At least not on it's own. It seems to me there aught to be some confirmation of this material other than vague skew references to it somewhere other than in ancient alchemical texts.
OK but to be "real" science the experiment has to be repeatable. I do not have the prerequisite $8.5Mil. We only have his "word" that all this had occurred and that those "experts" said what they said. I think there are an endless number of white "insulating" powders in the world and they don't have to be superconducting and anti-gravitational. When is he going to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge?
I will agree with you that there is a lot we do not understand. But if this guy was right we have all the answers to Life the Universe and Everything all at once. We have explanations for God, where the life force resides, unlimited sources of energy, instant connection throughout the Universe (quantum entanglement), carvorite, invisibility, probably "spice" that is able to fold space and time (a la Dune). I am not kidding... It sounds like someone found the "Holy Grail". I am looking for a Grail, so post it to me immediately.
We are looking pretty silly right now even talking about this stuff. Good thing Elves have no reputations to worry about but what about you?
If he is "correct" (you said it twice - therefore it must be true?) then presumably you will accept his "religious theories" too? This is the end of knowledge and the acceptance of a Secret Society of Freemasons, Hermeticists and Rosicrucians ruling the Universe, and I don’t have my long robes with me. I would choke on those ideas, God being Zero Point Energy and in all of us. Wow – reductionism - equating a God with a Zero. You realize I am the one who does not believe. He also seems to be making claims of being the one prophesised in the Torah. If he is asking about volunteers for his "away team" I am definitely not in on that.
You will need to map out a way to explore this stuff that gives some answers. I would find the information difficult to independently prove and integrate. I am sure few if any "real" scientist would touch it with a barge pole.
Back to you for ideas. You posed the question...If you have answers drop them this way too.. Like I said do you think this "dirt farmer" might be being manipulated by some other influences because it seems to be a well thought out "pantheon" of Science.
Cheers
Referencing David Hudson. I am listening. I have no idea what this topic has doing in one about Ice Cores at Vostock or global environmental degradation. It does occur to me it may have something to do with dark matter. What the heck. How far can a dog run into the forest?
the1physicist Posted on Jan 11 2005, 01:57 PM
QUOTE
I think his science is absolutely correct
Why? Have you some independent information?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think his science is absolutely correct |
Why? Have you some independent information?
Yes, he was talking to a bunch of wacos that day, but it doesn't mean he's one, of course
Yeah... I was hoping you would say that, but just because he tells a really good story does not give him street cred. At least not on it's own. It seems to me there aught to be some confirmation of this material other than vague skew references to it somewhere other than in ancient alchemical texts.
QUOTE
I do think his science is correct
OK but to be "real" science the experiment has to be repeatable. I do not have the prerequisite $8.5Mil. We only have his "word" that all this had occurred and that those "experts" said what they said. I think there are an endless number of white "insulating" powders in the world and they don't have to be superconducting and anti-gravitational. When is he going to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge?
I will agree with you that there is a lot we do not understand. But if this guy was right we have all the answers to Life the Universe and Everything all at once. We have explanations for God, where the life force resides, unlimited sources of energy, instant connection throughout the Universe (quantum entanglement), carvorite, invisibility, probably "spice" that is able to fold space and time (a la Dune). I am not kidding... It sounds like someone found the "Holy Grail". I am looking for a Grail, so post it to me immediately.
We are looking pretty silly right now even talking about this stuff. Good thing Elves have no reputations to worry about but what about you?
If he is "correct" (you said it twice - therefore it must be true?) then presumably you will accept his "religious theories" too? This is the end of knowledge and the acceptance of a Secret Society of Freemasons, Hermeticists and Rosicrucians ruling the Universe, and I don’t have my long robes with me. I would choke on those ideas, God being Zero Point Energy and in all of us. Wow – reductionism - equating a God with a Zero. You realize I am the one who does not believe. He also seems to be making claims of being the one prophesised in the Torah. If he is asking about volunteers for his "away team" I am definitely not in on that.
You will need to map out a way to explore this stuff that gives some answers. I would find the information difficult to independently prove and integrate. I am sure few if any "real" scientist would touch it with a barge pole.
Back to you for ideas. You posed the question...If you have answers drop them this way too.. Like I said do you think this "dirt farmer" might be being manipulated by some other influences because it seems to be a well thought out "pantheon" of Science.
Cheers
I think I made it pretty clear I didn't believe in his religious conclusions. Anyhow,
QUOTE
It seems to me there aught to be some confirmation of this material other than vague skew references to it somewhere other than in ancient alchemical texts.
Didn't you hear him referencing published physics papers in his lecture? Please don't tell me there isn't any confirmation when he explicitly gives the references during his lectures.
Hi the1physicist,
Sorry... But I think they were not specifically reporting anything about that white powder stuff. They were working apparently independent of him. That wite powder has got to be the "biggie" and this stuff is apparently everywhere?? In scientific circles this would be an earthquake magnetude 12.
There were references to various and separate pockets of research which support the theory but as far as I could tell he never mentioned that they had found his mysterious "stealth matter". His lack of publication in the regular channels would be a problem.
Not his fault though but as they say "a cigar but no kewpie doll". This stuff really needs "peer review". It is too big to have it just stay in "Patent Wonderland" forever. If he does not want to do it surely one of his scientific mates can help out by publishing in Nature or something. They can acknowledge his work. It seems this is pretty easy to prove that this stealth white powder exists so it should be a cinch.
He has his patent now he can publish to his heart's content. PDF's could be made for his website.
I think I would be the first to cheer if it got up.
Cheers
Sorry... But I think they were not specifically reporting anything about that white powder stuff. They were working apparently independent of him. That wite powder has got to be the "biggie" and this stuff is apparently everywhere?? In scientific circles this would be an earthquake magnetude 12.
There were references to various and separate pockets of research which support the theory but as far as I could tell he never mentioned that they had found his mysterious "stealth matter". His lack of publication in the regular channels would be a problem.
Not his fault though but as they say "a cigar but no kewpie doll". This stuff really needs "peer review". It is too big to have it just stay in "Patent Wonderland" forever. If he does not want to do it surely one of his scientific mates can help out by publishing in Nature or something. They can acknowledge his work. It seems this is pretty easy to prove that this stealth white powder exists so it should be a cinch.
He has his patent now he can publish to his heart's content. PDF's could be made for his website.
I think I would be the first to cheer if it got up.
Cheers
Several reasons, 1physicist. We ARE planting plants. Thousands of them. The majority of the problem is that many greenhouse gases are NOT co2. There is methane, carbon monoxide, all of which, if the plants inhale any, inhale very little. Another problem is that assorted republicans and other ignoramus's deny that the high levels of Co2 in the atmosphere is not a problem, and that it is "Natural". THAT is why we don't just "Plant Plants."
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.