Possible Engineering Solutions to Atmospheric Warming

In the US you can't hardly get a license to build a nuclear power plant, and you want to light off a nuclear bomb? You really think we can predict the effects of that? I know you said up front is was a specious idea.

Seems to me you are trying to solve the wrong problem. Global warming is not in and of itself the engineering problem. The effects of global warming are the issue.

The two primary engineering problems as an effect of global warming are sea level rise, and changes in weather patterns. Both of these pose a problem for human populations in that they will require migration. People that live on Pacific islands, or close to the coast will need to move to higher ground, and people who live in places where weather becomes a problem either due to desertification or due to excessive rain will need to move as well. There are many other dooms day scenarios floating around, but in the short term the primary problems are associated with relocating people.

So, solutions to those problems include:

1) High efficiency desalinization: The technology exists, just need to get clean water to where it is needed, then you don't have to move people.

2) Low cost efficient housing. Many of the people that will have to move live in shacks as it is.

3) Efficient food production and distrubutions systems. Doable I think

But since you have a nice idea there with the nuclear devices, could we just go ahead and tie Al Gore to one before you light it off??

(Joking there about big Al, really I was joking! )

Maybe David's got a point though. You're looking at getting us out of the shit we're sinking into; he's postulating ways of flushing the shit away.

May be worth a bit of thought?

I'm ok with that John, but I am also a believer in the law of unintended consequence.

What are the possible unintended effects of trying to start a nuclear winter?

1) It gets too cold and we start a new ice age.

2) Radioactive poisons that he is directing into the sea kill plankton on a massive scale, and the CO2 level sky rockets.

3) The wind shifts and millions of people from radiation poisoning.

4) The explosion changes the orbital or rotational dynamics of the earth, and all hell breaks loose.

Just a few off the top of my head...

In the US you can't hardly get a license to build a nuclear power plant, and you want to light off a nuclear bomb?

What?????

Not in my back yard, but the US has an astounding record for lighting off nuclear bombs. ( and so do a bunch of third world countries now!)

License, morally correct, and politically correct are all different issues. Big boys have big toys.

I just want to know who the hell has decided warming is a friggin' problem.

Can we for one moment toy with the idea that it is the desirable effects of a perfect ecosystem maintaining homeostatic balance?

How about this - NO MORE GLOBAL WARMING THREADS FOR 1 DAY!

UUUgghhhhh!

... see how you can say that at Elv: 597 ft.

BTW it's just turned Tomorrow here ! (00.01 GMT).

Most of Illinois is only 150-200 ft elevation. I live in West Texas, elevation 3320, and I don't care, but it is cold too much of the time here, but there again it is hot too much of the time too. Could someone just go ahead and invent an outdoor thermostat? Not that it has to work, it can be a prototype, and you will still sell millions to the (non)thinking idiots out there.

Wow, your last 4 sentences I found myself singing the Marine Corp Hymm.

Well, as a newb, how was I to know

that the ennui related to discourse about this issue

would gag y'all silly.

And I'll have to cop to in incomplete thread title to respond to the critique

that "atmospheric warming" is not a likely subject for engineering consideration.

Therefore, then, please consider it amended to :

"Possible Engineering Solutions Applicable to Reduction of Insolation

Responsible for Atmospheric Warming Trends"

Assuming that we would like to mitigate or stop the cascade of feedback loops

which appear to be hastening the delta H,

and seeing as how no one has discovered a rheostat for the sun,

we should entertain some way to intercept the suns rays,

or raise the albedo (reflectance) of the earth.

==============

Getting all dismayed about "siting" of a nuk-U-lar blast

is to get involved in "politics":

what is sought is any idea that has any possibility of working,

good, bad, or indifferent.

==============

Of course we COULD turn to "religion",

and the "end times"

and the 144,000:

but this IS an "ENGINEERING" based forum, right?

RIGHT?..<<^{looking for rosary}

/

Haa! Welcome.

Watch your spelling though. Andy Germany is out on one of his weekly spelling enforcemnt tours. (I like to slip in littlw ones here and ther just to mess with him....)

What? what's that, oh. I see. Okay, well this IS an engineering forum. So I'm gonna go think up me sum smart stuff to cintribute.

cr3

Just because it is an engineering forum does not mean that there are not plenty of discussions of religion here too..

So there you have it: a controlled nuclear winter scenario.

So can we include free energy and global warming now? Since all three are a bit outlandish

geeze. I guess, having offspring, that my flippancy factor

is off a bit. There is, I hope, some possible response to this growing calamity,

rather than sitting back and watching the consequences unfold to their fullest:

and yes, being an engineer I have a projected expectation upon the members:

I'm sure that I will soon have more information, and adjust my expectations

accordingly.

If I'm "out of line" here, please advise. I do not seek trouble, nor wish to cause it.

If someone is tired of the topic, why wouldn't they just ignore it? Why comment about how "deja-vu-ish" it all is? Is there a heirarchy of Ascended Masters here whose Words are Sancrosect? Is there a "pecking order" here, with peckERS and peckEES?

Dude I was just bored and in a bit of a mood. You are right- I should shut my trap if I don't want to continue.

Feel free to disregard my posts today. But not this one. But the rest of 'em yes.

cr3

Not sure there is a "Pecking Order" here but I bet there are alot of "PeckERS" here for sure!

Big smooch.

I was peevish too. I tried to change my post, to eliminate the crankiness:

but once you approve it, I guess you can't "eat your words".

my apologies, and the smooch was a joke.

The ashy, powdery dispersant you anticipate dereived from ground-based nuclear detonations, wherein millions of tons of ground became vaporized. do you have any idea of how much ash would be formed by say a hundred megatons of fusion devices? Maybe 25 tons? Or the neutron flux created? No electricity, no phone, no computers, or calculators. Bring out the slip sticks. I haven't seen mine for about 45 years.

Rich

I thought nuclear winter was caused by firestorms?

Whatever happened to the "one minute to midnight" nuclear scare gang so loud mouthed during the cold war? Now that Iran is about to load up "40,000 martyrs" for Kamikazi nuclear warfare, we need them.

I personally think they morphed into environ"mentals" led by Al Gore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ&feature=related

Well, if you want to minimize some of the effects, why not position a solar shade above the North Pole and the Sargasso sea?

The shade would lower the temperature of the areas which would increase the ice and the albedo, and the Sargasso sea one might take some of the punch out of tornados as they make their way across the Atlantic. (Although, since it can be argued that tornados are Earth's attempt to transfer heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, this might not be wise)

It's doable - NASA's already looking at it - and it would be preferable to polluting the Earth even more with random nuclear blasts.

How about artifical photosynthesis. Take what plants do naturally and turbo charge the process....

The split off carbon atoms could be used for all sorts of useful things. The oxygens could be handy as well....

This may be a Good Idea - maybe just needs some big buck$ to deal with it.

Have you researched it yourself?

To reply to steve's comment about turbocharging photosynthesis-

1. First of all, why re-invent the wheel? Plants are doing it right for now, why try to improve on the existing setup?

2. Most plants on Earth are constantly starved for CO2. As the CO2 goes up, they'll naturally take advantage of that.

3. "Turbocharging" has already been proposed in a limited extent - some scientists want to take a few huindred cars, grind them up into superfine particles (diatomic size) and them spread them over the Antarctic section of the oceans to promoted plankton and krill growth. This will protect a collapse of the penguin and whale population in the area.

4. There are a number of scientific investigations going on right now to study the idea of turning seaweed into ethanol since some scientist started publishing results that indicate it may be feasible (and profitable). So that direction is being pursued.

The company I work for has announced commencment of a biodiesel from algae pilot plant to be built in Hawaii.

I am thinking though that this might be due to some executives that want to move to Hawaii...

We seem quick to point fingers at who or what is responsible for global warming (if it exists at all or if it might be cyclic) Try this:

It is well known that the magnetic poles move and sometimes (every thousand years or so as I recall) flip. The magnetic flux lines that pass through the poles and sort of encapsulate the earth serve to deflect the solar wind (great great amounts of energy). As long as the magnetic poles were "close" to the earths axis for many, many years, the amount of solar energy that got through the magnetic shield was relatively constant, hence, at that particular angle of attack, global warming was not an issue, coincidentally during the early years of industrial blossoming.

Now we find that the magnetic poles have moved some 50 miles in recent time (15 or 20 years?, please correct me if my numbers are off). The tilt of the earth, relative to the sun, has not. The massive growth of industry hasn't yet and probably never will peak and surely is a contributing factor but are we confusing that instead of the possibility that the change in angle of attack is allowing more of the suns energy to reach the earths surface?

Oh, I forgot one thing:

IF THE BEES DIE, WE ALL DIE!!

BALDERDASH!!

Bee's are an efficient way to polinate plants, but not the only way. That is a solvable engineering problem. We will not all die if the bees die.

Besides, the bumble bees aren't in trouble, nor are the African killer bees - just the honey bee, and they've identified the 2 biggest problems - mites (solved that) and cell phone towers(give them all tiny little maps).

If the bees die, we will not be able to replace their function in time by some engineering solution, so therefore, we all die. Thank you just the same for your response.

Solve Global Warming: Limit the President's entourage to a Volkswagen, a bicycle, and a two seat aircraft. That way, we can always hope the pilot falls asleep.

I would agree that it was the firestorms that gave rise to the nuclear winter scenarios, but the thought would be that since the ash from volcanoes has been noted to cause 3 year blackouts, perchance some rock formations would allow themselves to be blown to ashes, instead of melted globs of sand..

I was unaware that NASA was contemplating some kind of "polar umbrella".

How?

I still think a quadrillian or two pieces of reflective mylar chaff in either equatorial orbit, or an inclined orbit, may reflect well on the problem ^{(O ha ha ha...??)}

Whatever the cause, we need to turn down the sun a notch for 500 years or so..

I don't think they.re contemplating a 'polar' umbrella, but the idea of a solar shade is being looked at by someone.

Remember the Russian experiment where they unfurled a huge baloon in space? Made a tiny little dark spot on Earth? Sopmething on that order, but you'd have a LOT of balloons.

The mylar IS a good idea, I just think it'll tend to stay up there longer and be more controllable if its located in space. Baloons could be tied together, then tossed into the Sun if we didn't need them anymore.

I seem to remember Mr. Wizard saying that cosmic rays can pass through the atmosphere AND THE EARTH. They are only "deflected" magnetically. If this is correct, wouldn't balloons be useless?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUVKh9RqW-U

That's only if you figure that cosmic rays are the reason for global warming, Jaguar.

I wo0uld assume that these balloons would be reflective mylar and would simply reflect a portion of the Sun's visible and infrared light away from the Earth.

If you want to protect against cosmic rays, then you're going to need to restore the ozone layer. I seem to remember that we can't just manufacture ozone and pump it out into the upper atmosphere (the ozone we need is different from the ozone in the upper atmosphere or something), but I don't remember the details.

The problem in the Arctic is assumed to be from global warming, not the hole in the ozone layer.

Okay, without referencing, now that at least two of us agree that it is firestorms that theoretically induce nuclear winter, why can't we leave out the nuclear and have everyone light up fires simultaneously? – Voila', we have firestorms without radiation.

But seriously, I agree that the global warming panic will be a "non event." That is unless, to prevent this non event, we allow government to seize and coerce the use of private property in the way enviro"mentals" want to. They are never satisfied with conservation, they insist on pristine. The spotted owl is more important than mankind; it is heresy at the deepest level.

Gore and his crowd are the greatest threat we face to freedom and private property. We have witnessed how radical they are. The politics of fear - we are all going to die mentality, is nothing less than a leftist trick to rationalizing big government and plenty of coercive eminent domain. This is "progressive?" It is religion that sees man as the Satan in this a faith that insists with an amount of evidence tampering that man is the culprit in global warming.

Global warming is cyclical; it is natural and historical. Read the charts, gentlemen, the rise of co2 follows the path of the temperature not the reverse. It is the scientific smoking gun. Gore spins quite a tale with his inconvenient truth exaggerating numerous facts in order to deceive and manipulate. It is a mastery of propaganda.

Certainly, to eliminate pollution, we should do everything we can to stop unnecessary burning of anything on the planet. But the engineers of the world – the voice right here – display in a very scary way how they can come up with "solutions." The calculating among us can invent cures that are far worse than the disease.

"Many states, including California have not yet decided whether or not to include wildfire emissions when setting greenhouse gas targets." -LiveScience

Perfect example of government considering to regulate nature! Lunacy! Just whom is the fine for "over-emitting" going to be issued to? (The taxpayers, that's who.) Certainly can't fine the forest. Where will it end?

Might be an impetus to coming up with more efficient ways to fight the forest fires, though - that wouldn't be a bad thing.

If we can afford to have fighters flying constantly over Iraq, we can afford to have Piper Cubs equipped with Carbon dioxide "bombs" flying patrol over the forests to nail fires when they're just getting started. (Or maybe we should use our "smart" missles for that - certainly better than blowing people to pieces, in my book.

That's a cool idea...although some poor camper dude that gets CO₂ "bombed" while roasting marshmallows might not think so... Would make a funny story, though. With a visual ID procedure, I think it could work! Does the "bomb" technology exist? Of course you'd have to get past the additional CO₂ emissions limits. So far the track record of "small harm to prevent a large harm" argument isn't very good...

I take it you are referring to forest fires that were started by dubious means.

Naturally occurring forest fires are necessary to clear underbrush to provide space for new growth of trees. The ash remaining from the fires in fact acts as a fertilizer.

Take a look at the area around Mt. St Helens. As totally devastated as the area was, a wide variety of plant life is thriving, to the amazement of the scientific community.

You're going to have the extremists in any group - you shouldn't judge the environmental groups by the lunatic finges any more than you should judge the Muslims by Al-Qaida or the Christians by the televangelists.

Properly done, environmental friendliness makes economic sense because environmentally-friendly societies are efficient societies. It's bee bastardized by people that have applied it wrong.

I have serious disagrements with Cornelius.

First of all, the opening post set some "rules".

to wit:

"OK, time to brainstorn. Ludicrous solutions acceptable.

Bitching about Al Gore, or whether humankind caused the problem?

Unacceptable"

======

Cornelius then goes on to deprecate one of the two suggestions I came up with thru the following allusion...

"....(engineers)....display in a very scary way how they can come up with "solutions." The calculating among us can invent cures that are far worse than the disease."

=====================

Cornelius then goes on to stipulate falsehoods:

1. that CO2 follows temperature increases, rather than the inverse.

The others are gratuitious political jibes not the subject or intent of the thread author.

Should Cornelius have the knowledge or capacity to go head-to-head with me in regard to the calumny and falsehoods he has advanced, I would invite him to open another thread, where the error of his ignorance comments can be pointed out to him.

I am in no ways a "rule maker" here, but I would think that responders would have some respect for the thread title.

If a person is looking for GOD, they would be well advised to seek him/her/it in REALITY, which is in fact, omnipotent and everpresent. The convenience of waiting on superstition to "fix 'da deal" constitutes irresponsibility.

Let a thousand flowers grow.

Yours for reasonably intelligent discourse,

David

=============

Cornieleus uttereth:

I agree that the global warming panic will be a "non event." That is unless, to prevent this non event, we allow government to seize and coerce the use of private property in the way enviro"mentals" want to. They are never satisfied with conservation, they insist on pristine. The spotted owl is more important than mankind; it is heresy at the deepest level.

(Heresy? whoooooooooooooooooo said the spotted owl is more important than mankind? Your induction is specious.)

Gore and his crowd are the greatest threat we face to freedom and private property.

(What an ignorant statment, unrefined by a consideration process deeper than a dime..)

We have witnessed how radical they are. The politics of fear - we are all going to die mentality, is nothing less than a leftist trick to rationalizing big government and plenty of coercive eminent domain.

We ARE all going to die.. And "big government" does not fall entirely to the undefined group you refer to as "leftist". Unless Dubya is a "leftist"..

This is "progressive?" It is religion that sees man as the Satan in this a faith that insists with an amount of evidence tampering that man is the culprit in global warming.

What are you so defensive about? There is no judgement on "ignorance": only on the response made when the knowledge is firm that there is a problem. "Houston, we DO have a problem.."

Global warming is cyclical; it is natural and historical. Read the charts, gentlemen, the rise of co2 follows the path of the temperature not the reverse.

A, you are wrong. B, right or wrong, it is appropriate to respond to the imperative presented instead of sticking your head xx xxxx xxx! ..............................................................in the sand.

It is the scientific smoking gun. Gore spins quite a tale with his inconvenient truth exaggerating numerous facts in order to deceive and manipulate. It is a mastery of propaganda.

Shoot the evil satanic messenger, why don't you...?

Certainly, to eliminate pollution, we should do everything we can to stop unnecessary burning of anything on the planet. But the engineers of the world – the voice right here – display in a very scary way how they can come up with "solutions." The calculating among us can invent cures that are far worse than the disease.

And your suggestion is?

Really, start another thread with your comment(s) and we can go at it with civility and enlightened discourse over the facts of the matter as demonstrated by scientific analysis, confidence intervals, and common sense. Of course, "waiting for the rapture" is not an argument for doing nothing.

"Rules" or not, you insist we accept the premise that Global Warming (whether caused by man or not) is a problem. As a group of critical thinkers, such a premise just cannot be blindly accepted in this forum. (Honest debate requires all assumptions to be challenged.) There is at least as much (if not more) scientific evidence discrediting the notion of catastrophic warming as there is for it. Those parties, political or otherwise, who insist broad reforms be mandated, to the detriment of continued economic growth (especially in developing regions), based at best wholly on conjecture and poor models and at worst on bold-face lies are, by definition, fear-mongers. As many thread authors have discovered here on CR4, once a thread is opened, you have very little control where the discussion ranges. Feel free to vote any post as "off-topic", but to "call out" a member simply because their writings do not conform to the vision you had for the thread does us all and CR4 a disservice.

"you insist we accept the premise that Global Warming ... is a problem"

Is there anyone out there living less than 10m above current mean sea level who doesn't?

Good point...but it doesn't make it so.

Historical records state that during medieval times warm-weather crops were grown in areas that today cannot support them. In other words, the climate has been significantly warmer during recorded human history than it is today, or is even expected to rise by the most dire predictions. Depending on your definition of "Global Warming", not only is it not a concern, it may a flat-out myth.

Precisely. People are in fear of loosing their precious waterfront property. That makes me sad. I'm sure they would have no problem with the government spending millions, no, billions of taxpayers money to protect their wealth. Hey, when they bought it, were they so naive as to not realize it could be washed away in one good "100 year storm". Insuring it only passes the cost onto everyone else. When the sea levels rise, and they will (a hundred years or so), suck it up and move out.

I really don't give a toss about people who chose to live there and have the means to get away.

I was thinking, rather, of the millions on this planet who are not in this situation through choice.

I do not "insist" you do a damned thing! My original post is based on the concrete reality that global warming is a disaster from civilizations perspective, but you are welcome to think what you wish, supported or not.

^{There is at least as much (if not more) scientific evidence discrediting the notion of catastrophic warming as there is for it.}

No, there is NOT.

^{but to "call out" a member simply because their writings do not conform to the vision you had for the thread does us all and CR4 a disservice.}

Your opinion is heard. To you and to other disserved CR4 offended parties for whom you presume to speak, my most hearty apologies. As for calling out for someone to defend their erroneous statements (my opinion) I've no apologies whatsoever.

And for those who find my formatting offensive, ^{don't read it!}

^{==================}

^{And I invite YOU to defend against the premise that "global warming is a problem".}

You metaphorically mouthed the opine that it ain't, so back it up.

Try to use your own thoughts instead of some ref to some off-site tomes.

My PROJECTION onto this group of "engineers" of various sorts is that they (you)

have a capacity for independent thought based on analysis of information presented.

================

Now TRY to recall that blah blah blah, HEATING OF THE PLANET

is a problem, I POSIT!

PRESUMING that you or others accept that basic FACT, which is that HEATING OF THE PLANET IS A CURRENT PROBLEM..

then what do you propose be done about it?

I really have no intention of wasting my time confronting people of such ignorant mind set as to not agree that HEATING of EARTH is a current PROBLEM.

out

^{CSM Enginneer states}

^{"Rules" or not, you insist we accept the premise that Global Warming (whether caused by man or not) is a problem. As a group of critical thinkers, such a premise just cannot be blindly accepted in this forum. (Honest debate requires all assumptions to be challenged.) There is at least as much (if not more) scientific evidence discrediting the notion of catastrophic warming as there is for it. Those parties, political or otherwise, who insist broad reforms be mandated, to the detriment of continued economic growth (especially in developing regions), based at best wholly on conjecture and poor models and at worst on bold-face lies are, by definition, fear-mongers. As many thread authors have discovered here on CR4, once a thread is opened, you have very little control where the discussion ranges. Feel free to vote any post as "off-topic", but to "call out" a member simply because their writings do not conform to the vision you had for the thread does us all and CR4 a disservice.}

To begin, I refer you to my post #40.

Next, your entry:

"My original post is based on the concrete reality that global warming is a disaster from civilizations perspective...

Now TRY to recall that blah blah blah, HEATING OF THE PLANET

is a problem, I POSIT!

PRESUMING that you or others accept that basic FACT, which is that HEATING OF THE PLANET IS A CURRENT PROBLEM..

then what do you propose be done about it?

I really have no intention of wasting my time confronting people of such ignorant mind set as to not agree that HEATING of EARTH is a current PROBLEM."

If that does not indicate an insistence that your premise be accepted, I don't know what does.

"^{And I invite YOU to defend against the premise that "global warming is a problem".}

You metaphorically mouthed the opine that it ain't, so back it up.

Try to use your own thoughts instead of some ref to some off-site tomes.

My PROJECTION onto this group of "engineers" of various sorts is that they (you)

have a capacity for independent thought based on analysis of information presented."

You have offered no evidence for analysis to support this "fact", anecdotal or scientific, I have offered both to rebut. I have read several studies on both sides of the issue and a preponderance of the evidence has lead me to conclude at this time that "Global Warming" (in the popular, catastrophic sense) is a myth. I am always open to new evidence and a scientist/engineer is always revising conclusions based on best available data, so I am in no way closed-minded on the subject (as you seem to be), but you have offered nothing new to consider. Your acrimonious writing style and flat-out rejection of any opinion that does not agree with your pet premise does little to advance the credibility of the issue you promote. I appreciate that you don't feel the need to waste time debating an issue you feel is a concrete fact. I, however, cannot let junk science pass without challenge. The path we are following on the global warming thing is strikingly similar to the Y2K bug that billions of dollars were spent trying to prevent, to the detriment of the economy. The fear-mongers got that one wrong too.

You know, I'd like to read all of your posts, but after a few paragraphs of slinging complaints, it gets tedious and I move on and probably miss many good points. At least try to keep it concise. I'm not trying to be a pain in the a**.

Not to mention that the formatting is a little offensive. Nobody like to feel shouted at.

Guys....

It's Christmas time.

Let's try to set an example of peace, shall we?

Below is Dragons farms response to this thread which was apparently judged "off topic" which it is not.

====

my response.:

I think this is a cogent response, and appreciated.

However, the temperature increase dynamics 'already launched" have about a 300 year "window" before they begin to surcease, even if we quit burning hydrocarbons immediately.

Thus, we need a "shadow" from insolation, in my opinion, to mitigate the effects over this period.

I have ACCENTUATED the most articulated bit of WISDOM yet to be found in this thread, below.

=

saith Dragonsfarm:

^{Folks, there is a much less destructive method of curbing the human effect of global warming, (what little effect we have) stop using hydrocarbon fuels. Humans have the capability to make the earth uninhabitable for themselves, but they cannot destroy all life on this planet. Only nature can do that. At least four times in geological history, nature nearly wiped the slate clean: first with the destruction of anaerobic life, then the big freeze 2 billion years ago, then the eruption of the five super volcanoes, finally the Yucatan asteroid that allowed mammals to arise. Each of these destroyed 95% to 99% of all life on the planet at the time. Humans at the limit of dark hubris could not dream of accomplishing this.}

^{Whether the increased solar radiation causes an increase in CO2, or whether increased CO2 causes a higher retention of solar radiation, none can agree. It does not matter.}

What does matter is the response of Humanity^{. A balance must be struck between doing all that humans can do to eliminate their own destruction from a poisoned environment, and giving up their freedoms and rights to those who would destroy all the gifts and benefits of civilization and technology in the name of pristine nature. And the balance is possible and not even that difficult. We must only cooperate and stop preying upon each other. (i.e. My opinion must live so yours must die) And make no mistake, it is a predatory attitude.}

^{In an aside I have read Mr. Gore's book. Some of his ideas are thought provoking but more are ludicrous. We cannot and certainly would not return to a pre-internal combustion engine society. Which unfortunately is one of the things he advocates. Abolishment of personal freedoms for even more control by a bureaucratic, faceless, centralized and uncaring government is another.} Humans should be striving for power with each other, not power over each other. ^{Until that lesson is learned advancement and evolution are not possible.}

^{The substitute for Hydrocarbon fuels? Hydrogen, which can be made cheaply from water and whose only by product is water. It can be burned in any automobile with almost no modification. An electric fuel cell is an unnecessary step that today is being used as a distraction. ( It is unlikely to ever be put into mass production, because then, those whose power over is petroleum would lose that power, and they will kill to prevent it. And the current down to earth price of an automotive capable electric fuel cell ranges from $385,000 to $495,000.)}

^{I hope this does not offend, but illuminates.}

^{Verbosely yours Dragon}

An "off-topic" score of "5" indicates that Dragon himself judged the post off-topic.

Gee guys I'm sorry to have caused a ruckus!

HOWEVER MAYBE I CAN CAUSE A LITTLE MORE!

Phew . . . Now: Since I am accused of prevarication I will not be gentle.

The environ "mental" lost his temper in his rant above losing his cool. So it is with humility and sincerity I want to apologize for him and the embarrassment to C4.

But rhetorical bullying is typical of anyone who is challenged about their faith. It is sacrilege. Father Gore, or is it imam Gore, would not approve. And I must be banished from the scientific community because it is I who DARE CHALLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING PARADIGM!!!

The environ"mental" claims that I advance falsehoods . . . plural. However he mentions only one of scientific objectivity . . . that CO2 follows temperature increases, rather than the inverse. To judge properly the correctness of his outrage or my accuracy, I ask that the objective reader (not the environ"mental" choir) to render critique after spending three minutes with these accredited scientists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;feature=related

The rest of his tirade is subjective and . . . wrong.

Resolved: If we are to advance engineering ideas to solve a problem let them be from solid science not "greenie" mania with bullied suppositions and extrapolated conclusions. The yelling is over- they win?

Other than insistence, distortions and twisted reasoning, can environ"mentals" prove the basis of their faith? I don't think so; like the conspiracy theorists they mirror, they cannot handle scientific analysis that disagrees with their conclusions. So they break into shouting, panic, desperation and capital letters . . . underlined! Give us a break.

I say give us proof before you ask engineers to induce nuclear winter, give us proof before you take away our property, give us proof before you throw us back a hundred years, and give us proof before wacko Al Gore bans the internal combustion engine.

Y'know, it's quite possible to make your point without name calling and histrionics.

They're not "environ 'mentals'", they're people that you disagree with. Take the emotionalism out of the comment.

And banning the internal combustion engine would be fine if they could come up with a better way to produce locomotion.

I, for one, would be glad to see them take an expensive, heavy, failure-prone engine out of my car and replace it with an electrical motor that works for millions of miles, if they can come up with a power source that will work more than 40 miles at a time.

The promise of environmentalism isn't that we're all going to have to give up the things we love - it's a challenge to do what we're doing better, cheaper, and more efficiently.

For example, I run an "environmental" business, but I don't advertise it that way. I take perfectly good pieces of plastic offcuts that another company was throwing in the recycling bin (formerly the garbage) and resell them to people than need smaller sizes. The customers get a huge discount on the price that they would otherwise have to pay, I make some money and the environment doesn't bear the cost of needless recycling or production of plastic. Win - win - win.

Producing your own power lowers your costs and increases the safety of the national grid, because there are millions of points of generation instead of thousands. In a terrorist world, that has the side effect of making your energy supplies less vulnerable to an attack.

A lot of what we do now simply doesn't make sense when you look at it. Transporting green vegetables thousands of miles gets you a poorer-quality product at often ridiculous prices. Central power distribution only works as long as the lines don't go down (just ask Montreal or any other major city that has experienced prolonged blackouts). And a lot of our centralized product production has actually cost us jobs - localized production makes people rich, not multinationals.

The "spotted owl" argument is raised by people thatare trying to make the argument that it's a good thing to destroy an entire habitat by razing a forest. Most of them have never seen an actual clearcut - I have. It's a horrible thing to look at. Sustainable forestry not only protects the environment, but it forces the forestry and paper companies to get a whole lot better at what they're doing to survive. It's no co-incidence that the largest paper company in the world is in Finland - they manage to sell more goods than anybody else in an economic environment that is exceptionally more expensive than North America. The thing to do is to find out how they're doing it and then copy them or go them one better.

GOOD environmentalism is good business first.

Please . . . I said not the environ"mental" choir. That means those that have not swallowed the assumption (faith) that man causes it as opposed to nature itself.

We all know the planet is in a temporary warming cycle - let's hear the objective evidence that man is causing it. Demonstrate the truth not opinion - we have had too much propaganda! And we are blowing humungus resources on the assumption. Before we risk everything, like nuclear explosions that the environ"mental" suggests let us talk science not opinion.

If you believe that environ"mental" is name calling perhaps you should reread his ad hominum attacks that contained not fact one.

One more thing "clear cut" (pejoritive connotation handy for propaganda) is ugly unless it is to provide the room to construct your home.

Sir, your original response in this thread was loaded with unsupported opinions.

The great majority of scientists who have studied this matter are of the opinion that "global warming" is caused principally by CO2, and that the CO2 levels arise from the activities of man since the industrial revolution.

Apparently you are of the opinion that temperature increases cause the CO2.

What is the mechanism? Heating of the oceans? Warm water releasing what was previously dissolved?

1. Please elucidate the mechanism for your opinion.

In my opinion, the correllation in CO2 levels to the burning of hydrocarbon fuels provides a graphic indication of relationship.

My opinions in re this matter are independently arrived at, and my expression of them does not earn your "propoganda" assignment. The first two words in the company I have owned for 16 years are "Environmental Engineering..". This is not a new field of endeavor for me.

In my further opinion, environ"mental" is intended by you to be a rude characterization. If you have something to add, bring it.

=============

2. If heating generates CO2 (by whatever mechanism you may posit), since CO2 is increasing temperature, then also project the outcome of this feedback loop.

Thank you.

David

^{in resonse to:}

^{Please . . . I said not the environ"mental" choir. That means those that have not swallowed the assumption (faith) that man causes it as opposed to nature itself.}

^{We all know the planet is in a temporary warming cycle - let's hear the objective evidence that man is causing it. Demonstrate the truth not opinion - we have had too much propaganda! And we are blowing humungus resources on the assumption. Before we risk everything, like nuclear explosions that the environ"mental" suggests let us talk science not opinion.}

^{If you believe that environ"mental" is name calling perhaps you should reread his ad hominum attacks that contained not fact one.}

^{One more thing "clear cut" (pejoritive connotation handy for propaganda) is ugly unless it is to provide the room to construct your home.}

^{Okay, without referencing, now that at least two of us agree that it is firestorms that theoretically induce nuclear winter, why can't we leave out the nuclear and have everyone light up fires simultaneously? – Voila', we have firestorms without radiation.}

^{But seriously, I agree that the global warming panic will be a "non event." That is unless, to prevent this non event, we allow government to seize and coerce the use of private property in the way enviro"mentals" want to. They are never satisfied with conservation, they insist on pristine. The spotted owl is more important than mankind; it is heresy at the deepest level.}

^{Gore and his crowd are the greatest threat we face to freedom and private property. We have witnessed how radical they are. The politics of fear - we are all going to die mentality, is nothing less than a leftist trick to rationalizing big government and plenty of coercive eminent domain. This is "progressive?" It is religion that sees man as the Satan in this a faith that insists with an amount of evidence tampering that man is the culprit in global warming.}

^{Global warming is cyclical; it is natural and historical. Read the charts, gentlemen, the rise of co2 follows the path of the temperature not the reverse. It is the scientific smoking gun. Gore spins quite a tale with his inconvenient truth exaggerating numerous facts in order to deceive and manipulate. It is a mastery of propaganda.}

^{Certainly, to eliminate pollution, we should do everything we can to stop unnecessary burning of anything on the planet. But the engineers of the world – the voice right here – display in a very scary way how they can come up with "solutions." The calculating among us can invent cures that are far worse than the disease.}

"...temperature increases cause the CO2.

What is the mechanism? Heating of the oceans? Warm water releasing what was previously dissolved?"

That is exactly right.

Should that be the case,(which I submit it is not),

then why is it that the CO2 concentration of the oceans in increasing, ?

In another thread, I brought up the plight of the mollusks and other genera whose capacity to make their protective shells is being challenged because of the competing carbonate formation chemistry arising from increased CO2 in solution in the oceans, and the decreasing pH.

With all due respect, I do not believe both of these can be correct.

I would like to see data on whether we are seeing increased vegetation growth on a widespread basis.

plants on Earth are starved for CO2. If the CO2 is more plentiful, then we should see plants getting "fatter", for want of a better description. Of ourse you'd have to factor out all the negative effects from the other environmental issues to have a real comparison.

How high will the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere ultimately rise if mankind continues to increase the use of coal, oil, and natural gas? At ultimate equilibrium with the ocean and other reservoirs there will probably be very little increase. The current rise is a non-equilibrium result of the rate of approach to equilibrium.

One reservoir that would moderate the increase is especially important. Plant life provides a large sink for CO2. Using current knowledge about the increased growth rates of plants and assuming increased CO2 release as compared to current emissions, it has been estimated that atmospheric CO2 levels may rise to about 600 ppm before leveling off. At that level, CO2 absorption by increased Earth biomass is able to absorb about 10 Gt C per year (100). At present, this absorption is estimated to be about 3 Gt C per year (57).

About 30% of this projected rise from 295 to 600 ppm has already taken place, without causing unfavorable climate changes. Moreover, the radiative effects of CO2 are logarithmic (101,102), so more than 40% of any climatic influences have already occurred.

As atmospheric CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves transpire less and lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally.

Figure 21: Standard deviation from the mean of tree ring widths for (a) bristlecone pine, limber pine, and fox tail pine in the Great Basin of California, Nevada, and Arizona and (b) bristlecone pine in Colorado (110). Tree ring widths were averaged in 20-year segments and then normalized so that the means of prior tree growth were zero. The deviations from the means are shown in units of standard deviations of those means.

Figures 21 to 24 show examples of experimentally measured increases in the growth of plants. These examples are representative of a very large research literature on this subject (103-109). As Figure 21 shows, long-lived 1,000- to 2,000-year-old pine trees have shown a sharp increase in growth during the past half-century. Figure 22 shows the 40% increase in the forests of the United States that has taken place since 1950. Much of this increase is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has already occurred. In addition, it has been reported that Amazonian rain forests are increasing their vegetation by about 900 pounds of carbon per acre per year (113), or approximately 2 tons of biomass per acre per year. Trees respond to CO2 fertilization more strongly than do most other plants, but all plants respond to some extent.

Figure 22: Inventories of standing hardwood and softwood timber in the United States compiled in Forest Resources of the United States, 2002, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (111,112). The linear trend cited in 1998 (1) with an increase of 30% has continued. The increase is now 40%. The amount of U.S. timber is rising almost 1% per year.

Since plant response to CO2 fertilization is nearly linear with respect to CO2 concentration over the range from 300 to 600 ppm, as seen in Figure 23, experimental measurements at different levels of CO2 enrichment can be extrapolated. This has been done in Figure 24 in order to illustrate CO2 growth enhancements calculated for the atmospheric increase of about 88 ppm that has already taken place and those expected from a projected total increase of 305 ppm.

Wheat growth is accelerated by increased atmospheric CO2, especially under dry conditions. Figure 24 shows the response of wheat grown under wet conditions versus that of wheat stressed by lack of water. The underlying data is from open-field experiments. Wheat was grown in the usual way, but the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of circular sections of the fields were increased by arrays of computer-controlled equipment that released CO2 into the air to hold the levels as specified (115,116). Orange and young pine tree growth enhancement (117-119) with two atmospheric CO2 increases – that which has already occurred since 1885 and that projected for the next two centuries – is also shown. The relative growth enhancement of trees by CO2 diminishes with age. Figure 24 shows young trees.

Figure 23: Summary data from 279 published experiments in which plants of all types were grown under paired stressed (open red circles) and unstressed (closed blue circles) conditions (114). There were 208, 50, and 21 sets at 300, 600, and an average of about 1350 ppm CO2, respectively. The plant mixture in the 279 studies was slightly biased toward plant types that respond less to CO2 fertilization than does the actual global mixture. Therefore, the figure underestimates the expected global response. CO2 enrichment also allows plants to grow in drier regions, further increasing the response.

Figure 23 summarizes 279 experiments in which plants of various types were raised under CO2-enhanced conditions. Plants under stress from less-than-ideal conditions – a common occurrence in nature – respond more to CO2 fertilization. The selections of species in Figure 23 were biased toward plants that respond less to CO2 fertilization than does the mixture actually covering the Earth, so Figure 23 underestimates the effects of global CO2 enhancement.

Figure 24: Calculated (1,2) growth rate enhancement of wheat, young orange trees, and very young pine trees already taking place as a result of atmospheric enrichment by CO2 from 1885 to 2007 (a), and expected as a result of atmospheric enrichment by CO2 to a level of 600 ppm (b).

Clearly, the green revolution in agriculture has already benefitted from CO2 fertilization, and benefits in the future will be even greater. Animal life is increasing proportionally, as shown by studies of 51 terrestrial (120) and 22 aquatic ecosystems (121). Moreover, as shown by a study of 94 terrestrial ecosystems on all continents except Antarctica (122), species richness – biodiversity – is more positively correlated with productivity – the total quantity of plant life per acre – than with anything else.

Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed.

Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist.

Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible.

They are surely not environmental pollutants.

To some degree yes. It seems that the increase is so dramatic in some areas that algae outbursts erupt. These outbursts spread rapidly and starve all other vegetation of the other essentials to thrive; ie.. light and nutrients. These vast algae beds kill rather than support other life.

I am working on pulling up some supporting data. Probably later today, but it is out there.

When referring to content in another thread within CR4, please supply a link.

The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon per year. Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.

To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).

So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated numbers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62).

Ice-core records are reported to show seven extended periods during 650,000 years in which CO2, methane (CH4), and temperature increased and then decreased (63-65). Ice-core records contain substantial uncertainties (58), so these correlations are imprecise.

In all seven glacial and interglacial cycles, the reported changes in CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (66). These fluctuations probably involved temperature-caused changes in oceanic and terrestrial CO2 and CH4 content. More recent CO2 fluctuations also lag temperature (67,68).

Figure 16: Temperature rise versus CO2 rise from seven ice-core measured interglacial periods (63-65); from calculations (69) and measurements (70) of sea water out-gassing; and as measured during the 20th and 21st centuries (10,72). The interglacial temperature increases caused the CO2 rises through release of ocean CO2. The CO2 rises did not cause the temperature rises.

In addition to the agreement between the out-gassing estimates and measurements, this conclusion is also verified by the small temperature rise during the 20th and 21st centuries. If the CO2 versus temperature correlation during the seven interglacials had been caused by CO2 greenhouse warming, then the temperature rise per CO2 rise would have been as high during the 20th and 21st centuries as it was during the seven interglacial periods.

In 1957, Revelle and Seuss (69) estimated that temperature-caused out-gassing of ocean CO2 would increase atmospheric CO2 by about 7% per °C temperature rise. The reported change during the seven interglacials of the 650,000-year ice core record is about 5% per °C (63), which agrees with the out-gassing calculation.

Between 1900 and 2006, Antarctic CO2 increased 30% per 0.1 °C temperature change (72), and world CO2 increased 30% per 0.5 °C. In addition to ocean out-gassing, CO2 from human use of hydrocarbons is a new source. Neither this new source nor the older natural CO2 sources are causing atmospheric temperature to change.

The hypothesis that the CO2 rise during the interglacials caused the temperature to rise requires an increase of about 6 °C per 30% rise in CO2 as seen in the ice core record. If this hypothesis were correct, Earth temperatures would have risen about 6 °C between 1900 and 2006, rather than the rise of between 0.1 °C and 0.5 °C, which actually occurred. This difference is illustrated in Figure 16.

The 650,000-year ice-core record does not, therefore, agree with the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming," and, in fact, provides empirical evidence that invalidates this hypothesis.

Figure 17: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in parts per million by volume, ppm, measured spectrophotometrically at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, between 1958 and 2007. These measurements agree well with those at other locations (71). Data before 1958 are from ice cores and chemical analyses, which have substantial experimental uncertainties. We have used 295 ppm for the period 1880 to 1890, which is an average of the available estimates. About 0.6 Gt C of CO2 is produced annually by human respiration and often leads to concentrations exceeding 1,000 ppm in public buildings. Atmospheric CO2 has increased 22% since 1958 and about 30% since 1880.

Carbon dioxide has a very short residence time in the atmosphere. Beginning with the 7 to 10-year half-time of CO2 in the atmosphere estimated by Revelle and Seuss (69), there were 36 estimates of the atmospheric CO2 half-time based upon experimental measurements published between 1957 and 1992 (59). These range between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an upper range average of about 10. Of the 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less.

Many of these estimates are from the decrease in atmospheric carbon 14 after cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, which provides a reliable half-time. There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric "lifetime" of 300 years or more.

Human production of 8 Gt C per year of CO2 is negligible as compared with the 40,000 Gt C residing in the oceans and biosphere. At ultimate equilibrium, human-produced CO2 will have an insignificant effect on the amounts in the various reservoirs. The rates of approach to equilibrium are, however, slow enough that human use creates a transient atmospheric increase.

In any case, the sources and amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are of secondary importance to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming." It is human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas that is at issue. CO2 is merely an intermediate in a hypothetical mechanism by which this "human-caused global warming" is said to take place. The amount of atmospheric CO2 does have profound environmental effects on plant and animal populations (74) and diversity, as is discussed below.

could you cite your graphic sources for me? Very good stuff.

cr3

Those charts and the text are lifted wholesale from the link I supplied in post #38.

I came across the topic of thawing tundra a couple of years ago when I was looking on the internet to see if anyone considered using up carbon dioxide by growing sphagnum moss. I can't find the original article, but there is a lot of discussion on thawing tundra on the internet now. Like the original story that I read, I agree that we probably don't have as large of an effect on global warming as nature does.

Anyway, here is the way that I thought it would be good to harvest the natural gas that is trapped in frozen tundra.

Starting at the southernmost edge, use a trencher to dig 3 parallel trenches, maybe a hundred feet apart.

Use some long, insulated material to cover the expanse between the first and second trench, and between the second and third trench.

In the second (middle) trench, run a pipe that can carry hot gas to thaw the tundra artificially.

Run a similar pipe in the third trench that won't be used yet.

Originally I thought that the gas could be captured and piped as natural gas after it had been scrubbed of carbon dioxide, but now I am considering an easier way. Now there are catalysts that can combine methane and carbon oxides to produce ethanol or other organic fluids.

So, here is the rest of the idea.

Burn some of the gas to produce heat for melting the tundra via the central pipe in the central trench.

By the way, the insulated cover extends down into the trench and connects with the pipe so that gas can't leak around.

This exhaust gas can be fed from the center of the pipe (where the gas should be captured from the enclosures as well) and can just be released into the enclosure at the ends (there is carbon dioxide in there anyway).

The captured gas from the thawing tundra could be used to make ethanol or gasoline or some other liquid fuel because it is easier to transport liquid than it is for a gaseous material.

If more process heat is required, then the sphagnum that was removed to make the trenches can be gasified to produce more natural gas.

Otherwise, the sphagnum that was removed to make the trenches can be just put under the cover to be thawed along with the rest of it.

When the gas is gone from the first enclosure (between the first and second trench), then another trench can be dug a hundred feet beyond the third trench and another enclosure can be made there. Heat can be applied to the second pipe in the third trench to start thawing the third enclosure. Because this side of the second enclosure wasn't heated before, it will be now and the second enclosure should be left there until the north side of it is thawed.

A leapfrog process can be used like this until the entire tundra has been thawed, the gas captured, and it re-freezes.

Can the spent covers also be gasified? It seems to me that plastics all over the world could be gasified and we can re-use the organic matter for energy before releasing it into our environment.

It seems like this could be expensive, but so is prospecting for oil.

Rather than removing the old organic compounds from underground and releasing it into the atmosphere, why don't we use the organic compounds that are already up here and are going to be released into the atmosphere by nature anyway in a few years.

To further the idea, instead of abandoning the south expanses that are relieved of their carbon dioxide and methane, we could re-cover them with clear plastic and release some carbon dioxide into there (from burning or from the gas in the active sections) to grow new moss. After a while, this moss can be gasified and the process could become renewable.

These are just thoughts that I had.

Anyone care to reply?

"Global Warming" is the great American fraud. In response to your letter.

"loaded with unsupported opinions"- Wrong. Everyone who has studied engineering should be cognizant of the ethics of the profession. People reach conclusions from the available evidence. Opinion without proof is simply irrational and invalid. I demand proof.

Check my above links for proof of essential data that co2 follows temperature rise, the smoking gun fatal to the assumption that man has an effect on the weather. It reveals clearly that the assumption that man without footprint has any effect on the atmosphere. I want to hear proof otherwise. I demand it.

Before I will entertain any idea that we should deny man shelter or fail to provide affordable "little pink houses," for all as long as the market supports it, is limited by the offence to others (prove it) or on the whole. It just can't be an opinion when the creation of law and its enforcement is involved.

In my opinion, (which is as valid as yours); let the reader deem otherwise. But it's not as simple as "I have a different opinion" one needs support of history and the record. You can't just say "many disagree" without proof. Who the hell is "great majority of scientists?" We demand proof. That mentality of "loaded with unsupported opinions" has us stalled on the concept of ethics in the profession.

Last week I was appalled to find, labeled as brainstorming, the concept of creating nuclear winter with thermonuclear detonation to cure global warming – On an engineering cite! But we are brainstorming in the presence of the world. Is this "brainstorming or brain steering? If the profession cares about its ethics we must stand up and speak out against sophistry.

During the energy crisis of the 1970s, engineers saw the need for highly insulated commercial buildings and lower ventilation rates. As a result, people are sick and dead from airborne pathogens and allergens that could have been prevented if engineers had not rushed to solve a problem arrived at by premature conclusion. But some see the fraud as lucrative both in business and power.

We also know (maybe some don't realize) what haste has cost in wasted effort within manifest representations of the same mistake. Wasting immeasurable talent as people squander their creativity on scientifically questionable endeavors with rush engineering. God knows the amount of wasted money. Many are left holding monuments of experiments gone bad, still waiting for the "payback." Gone in the process is enormous incalculable energy in the cost to manufacturer gobs of the same HVAC error.

But this HVAC problem is only one short example of rush engineering - the "Rube Goldberg" factor." If we accept it at face value, Gore's "global warming" is aiming us toward many, many more of these type debacles, the cure being worse than the disease. We will find our property confiscated by eminent domain as wetlands, watershed or non-point source pollutants. When politicians get involved they bring authorities and awesome power with taxation and confiscation against the citizen's right to his daily bread and property. We must consider the ethics of such a thing. I will make my point then leave: You have no proof that man can change the weather.

Right now whether humans cause global warming is very argumentative. As responsible citizens we must draw the line when these politicos (I hope that is not calling names) play games with the facts to promote an agenda. Don't just let them designate conclusions and rave on. The Gore concept must not be simply accepted, there must be a consensus by responsible investigation, not simpleton denial and assumption. And then, based on a false conclusion, brainstorm about nuking the planet; such a thing could truly be Armageddon. Survivors would be required to live underground. HD Wells would come alive.

Even Gore's term "Global Warming is a politically charged, politically correct term to re-describe and redefine cyclical solar warming. Its language is rhetorically flourished with world order implications demanding action. And it is us who are to provide the solutions before we examine the facts of a conclusion based on "I feel!" It is the Emerald City of the left. This is not name-calling but truth.

Show me the facts, not fear mongering by propaganda. If you want name-calling here's one. The hypocrite, (private jet set) Gore concept is a discovery, not a revelation. And it is dubious that we can conquer the atmospheric trend even with the huge human sacrifice the left insists on. It's about power. And we must face the truth; there are politicos, usually from the same persuasion as Mr. Gore, that use every opportunity (war or depression) to advance their agenda by bullying the rest of us into rush engineering.

Now we are speaking a language that I understand. Thank you for speaking s l o w l y.

Very good stuff!

My Kudos to "guest" who provides such an elequent demonstration of my point that co2 follows temperature increase. I hope this closes the issue with this forum.

If Muhammad will not go to the mountain...

Mankind needs to begin treating the Earth as a closed environment spaceship. The really natural events like forest wildfires are taken care of by Mother Earth and dontneed to be managed. The problem as I see it is that there are so many different ideas circulating that one cant see the forest for all the trees. I have a real solutionand virtually nobody will listen. So I will present it here.

I have invented a totally variable hydraulic coupling hydrostatic drive which I have named 'Hydristor', combining the words 'hydraulic' and 'transistor'. One packaging format will be several standard sizes of Hydristor torque converter which fit within the existing bell housing space of every vehicle already running (and probably paid for or financially committed to). The standard Hydristor torque converter will fit into the bell housing space of numerous manufacturers vehicles using an adapter system. The Hydristor torque converter is stationary and never rotates. The torque converter is formed by close packaging of 2 fullly variable Hydristors with internal kidney timing ports which eliminate the need for any external hoses except for connection to a hydraulic pressure accumulator for energy recovery and storage. The expected efficiency will be in the mid to high 90s so the radiator cooling lines are eliminated. The front Hydristor directly connects to the engine crankshaft using the manufacturer's automatic transmission flex plate enabling the electric starter to work. The rear Hydristor connects directly to the output drive with no disconnct means as none is required. If you look up US 6022201 and 6527525, you will see that this pump is a rework of the 1925 Harry F. Vickers 'dual pressure balanced' pump/motor. I removed the elliptic cam ring which guides the vanes radial motion and replaced it by a concentric nested belt with the vane tips contacting the inner belt surface and the outside surface of the belt contacting 4 curved radially adjustable control pistons at 12,3,6, and 9 O'Clock like the face of a clock. The historical vane tip friction now drives the belt at near the rotor and vane speed and this creates a hydrodynamic film between the piston curvature and the belt outside surface. A self replenishing and minimizing seal is also formed due to the very small hydrodynamic bearing thickness created by the rotation of the belt. This results in greatly reduced rotating friction and also minimized fluid bypass. My first model was tested at Tecumseh test lab and reached a short run of 94.7% efficiency overall. This light years ahead of the historical vane pump and better that the axial piston swash plate pumps. Improvements I have made are shown in 6527525 and 20050036897 application pending with several provisionals in the pipeline to follow. What I have done is worked on improving the sealing during rotation and I believe it now in the 1% range. The expected overall efficiency will be 97% +. The Hydristor is now a hydraulic technology which is very high efficiency, fully an IVT (infinitely variable transmission) and will change the energy conversion paradigm on most energy issues.

A retrofit package which replaces the existing OEM torque converter or manual clutch and empties the OEM transmission case of parts will transmit power directly to the output drive via a supplied through shaft which passes through the now empty transmission case, said case serving only to hold up the engine. This will drop around 200 pounds from most retrofit vehicles. OEM vehicles can be easily changed with very little conversion issues other than shutting down those billion dollar multi-speed automatic transmission lines. The tank pressure will determine if the engine needs to run and the engine no longer runs the drive either in retrofits or new OEMs. When tank pressure hits the low limit point, the front Hydristor variablly spools the engine to run at the sweet spot until the pressure is at some midpoint. The restart of the engine is like a 98% efficient 'popping of a manual clutch'. The result will be that the highway economy is doubled or maybe tripled while the CO2 emissions are cut TO 1/4 because the engine runs very little of the time. Also, tank pressure sufficient to make the vehicle run at 60 Mph will enable traction limiting launches for 4WD/AWD vehivles approaching '1 g' getting that vehicle to 60 in just under 3 seconds. This will be true for any kind of engine, gas, diesel, peaanut oil, whatever. Once the tank pressure is there, away you go! All those unsold SUVs will benefit from a buyer flood demanding Hydristor conversions as a condition of purchase. By the way, city mileage will almost equal the new augmented highway mileage. The engines will last a half million miles, intervals of maintenance will greatly extend and the current crop of new hybrids will be obsolete compared to your 83 Chevy getting 80-100 Mpg with a Hydristor retrofit. And the 83 Chevy will blow by any current supercar from a stoplight and especially the new hybrids. This will change everything; hence a Hydristor paradigm shift. All the existing vehicles on the road can be saved and retrofitted so the system will not be paying a huge penelty in scrapping all the old stuff and ravaging the Earth for new materials to make less than perfect hybrids. Besides, what about the person living 20 miles out of town in affordable housing and driving the $500 beater to get to a job in town where the money is? Where will they get the ?? $50,000 for a modern hybrid? To quote Dr. Phil, "what are they thinking"? All the vehicles worldwide could be retrofitted in 5-6 years if the World got off it's illogical bent. This would cut the World's use of oil in half and extend the lifetime of the oil from 25 years to 75+ years and there would be no oil wars. The EXISTING human creation of CO2 could start to roll back in time to save the future (ref: Dr. James Hansen of NASA). There's more.

The Hydristor also can function as a heat pump with greatly increased COP from the historical 3-4 range to 10+, especially with the enhancements in the ptovisional I just filed. The original US patent 6612117 is also filed in the EU and the provisional improvements will enable filing Worldwide in several years when I have to do it. The improved Hydristor heat pump/Stirling/generator will be self sustaining with power left over to operate electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic functions with a heat pump gain of from 10 to 20 and an overall self sustaining gain of 3.5 to 10. It is not perpetual motion because the heat energy comes from the Sun via air or water or the Earth via geothermal. I do however believe that this will cause a re-writing of the Second Law. This heat pump generator can harvest the heat in the overheated oceans to make free, true zero emission electricity to do Man's work with the result of returning the original solar heat energy back into the environment joining the natural flux of such heat radiating off into space at night. The cooling of the waters will help to calm the very serious and increasingly so weather which is wreaking havoc everywhere. Any remote location can install a Hydristor generator to provide free electricity with no fuel burning and we can shut down the air burning powergeneration and forget about the nuclear generation as well. The economy of the USA would flourish with people streaming to buy big SUVs and trucks, and all the engineering and manufacturing to go with that changeover. We make the parts here to make jobs for the USA. The technology must also go global because every whiff of CO2 generated in China or India ends up here eventually and vice-versa. BUT, we will find a way to make our own stuff here without regard to the vitus-type behavior (Mr Smith/ The Matrix). The hallowed bottom line is second in my world because all we are doing is borrowing from our kids and grandkids with this single focus on profit for investors.

Well, that's my 2 cents! If anyone wants to directly call me, my number is 607-2068960 GMT-5 or Skype/Hydristor. PLease Google Hydristor and see all the results.

I believe the Hydristor can change and fix the world for the better and your help is valued in doing this. I call it a 'technological creature of nature' but to paraphrase a

Steven Segal movie, 'The Hydristor is a lowly pump'.

Godspeed to us all Tom Kasmer, inventor

Congratulations Tkasmer! One: on your invention and Two: on thinking the concept through to a logical and very usable conclusion! The Hydristor coupled with sound ecological and economic reforms brought about by individuals working for Power with not Power over others of like mind can and indeed will change the world. It's guaranteed and inevitable.

Congratulations! Dragon

Will Work still equal force X displacement?

Will Power still equal force X velocity?

The regenerative capability of your hydraulic accumulator is a great asset. But hasn't there been hydraulic regeneration and launch systems available in Australia for more than a decade?

Also, if your prime mover is shutting down and not operating at a near constant output then are you optimizing the prime mover loading process? Doesn't a non-constant output result in excess mass and volume fraction dedicated to the prime mover?

As far as your accelerative performance? Are the limits tire / road adhesion or power?

Has the solar constant changed significantly since I last looked? How does this effect the collecting area needed to produce a given amount of power?

Does the Carnot efficiency apply to your ocean thermal energy process?

I want to get behind you and support you in your endeavours but would it be possible for you to be clearer in your explanations?

Gavilan

There are several hydraulic accumulator systems such as the HLA of Eaton/Ford/EPA and lately the UPS truck fleet. They are based on the variable axial piston unit, 2 of them back to back and using a 10 gallon accumulator.The problem with the accumulator is that the compressed volume of nitrogen under 5,000 psi shrinks to a coffee cup of volume; enough energy to accelerate a 7,000 pound Expedition from standstill to 60. And there is another 10 gallon accumulator full of oil which then gets pumped into the bladder accumulator to store the kinetic recycled energy. That is why I am adding a third Hydristor pneumatic stage and tank for an overlay system. A smaller hydraulic accumulator storage will handle bursts of power and the pneumatic system will handle long downhill gravity drops and enable the engine to remain off for many miles of driving. The energy storage capacity of the pneumatic system is 660 times that of hydraulics comparing the space taken up by the storage. Another problem with the hydraulic system is bladder osmosis of the nitrogen. High pressure will slowly force nitrogen molecules to travel through the bladder material and disperse in the oil. This adds to cavitation of the hydraulic pump/motors and eventually adding nitrogen charge.

If the prime mover shuts down, the losses associated with the engine running go away as do the emissions generated. An engine can be fine tuned to to run at a slow speed which further reduces losses and fuel efficiency. The losses in an IC engine are non-linear and increase exponentially as the speed goes up. That is why the auto industry has been getting better economy by slowing the engine down while making the required power to run at speed. Shutting the engine down will also greatly extend it's life and half million mile life is a real expectation along with extended maintenance. The recycling engine is routinely and efficienly restarted by the front Hydristor and the electric starter will rarely be used including initial startup. The pressure set points can be manipulated by GPS and a vehicle can be 'trained' to optimize the efficiency of operation because of the altitude information which equates to gravity considerations.

As far as the acceleration enehancement, I was making the point that the Hydristor retrofit converts any vehicle into a proverbial hot rod. That is a large motivation for potential buyers who are not enthused with hybrid performance. People will rush again to empty the large manufacturer's parking lots along I-75 in Michigan and the economy will perk up. An Expedition or Hummer getting 40-50 Mpg city and highway and going 0-60 in 3 seconds will be a really big seller and the largely superficial interest in CO2 emission reductions will happen coincidentally in the package. The limits are a dry, clean, good road and 4WD/AWD and a sufficient tank energy charge. During normal driving, passing, hillclimbing, etc the driver will marvel at the pedel response.

The Hydristor heat pump does not engage solar direct energy. The Sun delivers heat to the atmosphere and it is available day or night and in any weather. The use of the heat pump generator in a car will have the advantage of the headlong rush of the heat exchange of high speed airflow.

Carnot efficiency I believe applies to combustion energy conversion. The atmospheric and ocean thermal recovery will be self sustaining with converted energy left over for use. Entrophy is not violated here; merely confused by phase chane of the Freon or other medium. The Second Law says that I can't build a machine which can do what I claim for the Hydristor heat pump and I believe the second law as formulated in the 1800s is in need of a modern technology update such as is highlighted in the Hydristor technology.

If you have more questions, you can call me on 607-2068960 GMT-5 regards, Tom

Thank you for your thoughts.

In regard to various themes advanced so far:

1. Humankind cannot wipe life from the planet, and likely "civilization" would arise again no matter what consequences may ensue from our current dilemma. I, for one, have children: and wish to be responsible to the situation as I see it, for their sake, and the sake of your children. I am open to education, and appreciate the dialogue, particularly when aspersions and other extraneous material is left out.

2. The posed issue is "Possible Engineering Solutions to Atmopheric Warming".

We _{^{(readers & contributors)}} have become significantly redirected by the flow of posts to CO₂ issues.

These issues subdivide into two.

a. Is CO₂ really a problem;

and,

b. Is it caused by human's burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Earlier, I referred to the effect of increased carbonic acid, as had been introduced in another thread.

^{_{http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/15340/Why-you-should-by-stock-in-TUMS}}

My apologies for the lack of link, earlier.

However, this was an attempt to bring humor to a correlate issue, relating to the potential devestation to various sea-borne life types whose existance depends on the ability to make shells of various types.

Per the American Geophysical Organization

http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2006GL028605

^{"A new study concludes that ocean pH is declining (that is, becoming more acidic) as the seas absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide. Some portion of that absorbed CO2 becomes carbonic acid, a corrosive agent that dissolves calcium carbonate, the basic building block of corals and seashells, including the shells of phytoplankton. Those plankton are not only the base of the ocean food chain, they also play an enormous role in climate regulation by removing carbon from the atmosphere."}

Further, per Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,

_{http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726}

_{"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are already 30 percent higher than just a couple of centuries ago. Most climate models project that they will reach 2 to 3.5 times pre-industrial levels by the end of this century unless dramatic steps are taken to reduce CO2 emissions."}

AND:

(You will note that this appears to support the contention made by others:)

^{"A warmer climate will also melt ice and increase rainfall near the poles, adding fresh water to the ocean. Fresh water is more buoyant than saltier water and "floats" on top of it, stratifying the ocean and slowing the mixing and circulation that transports anthropogenic CO2 away from the surface and into reservoirs in the deep ocean. The net effect will be even higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and a further acceleration of global warming."}

BUT:

^{"...The increasing amount of carbon in the ocean will cause another problem for marine life: ocean acidification. The 3-percent increase in dissolved carbon in surface water may seem small, but it is enough to significantly alter the chemistry of seawater and threaten whole groups of marine life.}

^{.....Especially vulnerable are small marine snails called pteropods and deep-water corals that live in high latitudes, where colder waters have already become more acidic. These species play critical roles in their ecosystems—as food or habitat for other creatures—so the impact of ocean acidification may soon extend to other marine life, including fish and marine mammals."}

THEREFORE, then, based on the above references and the following:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn4332

_{"Chemical processes in the sea that dissolve calcium carbonate deposits alter the acidity of the water. "}

and several others,

My conclusion is that yes, CO₂ is released from warmer waters, but the increasing CO₂ that is IN the water, as carbonic acid, shows that the equilibrium net effect is flowing more Co₂ INTO the ocean than OUT of the ocean. Therefore it follows that the source is NOT the ocean (in the current circumstance), but the atmosphere itself , and whether or not PAST Co₂ atmospheric concentrations derived from "temperature first" effects, it is clear that the current one is not so driven.

To refute this, either (1)the credentials of the referenced organizations must be disparaged, (an^{d several more whose citations are omitted..)}or (2) a THIRD source of CO₂ must be identified.

^{===================}

As regards the "Nuclear Solution", brought forth under the appellation

"OK, time to brainstorn. Ludicrous solutions acceptable..."

which has been SO disparaged: and perhaps rightfully so, though "ludicrousness" was explicitly defined AT THE BEGINNING:

There is, psychologically, a stronger aversion to horrors you can contemplate, to those which you cannot. We've all had drummed into us MAD stories, and pictures of 20 megaton blasts, and indeed, the aversion is well founded.

It is not my place to conjure up horror stories of equivalent impact, ^{(though the dynamics of the atmosphere of Venus may be informative..)} but I can close this post with the following truths:

1. The environment selects those qualities fit for survival.

2. Survival enures to those with a fitness for change.

Finally,

3. Disillusionment is a positive state of being.

We are each subject to our own illusions: I hope that this discourse has helped each of us to remove some degree of illusion which has stood in the way of the " truth of the matter".

PS: Still would like to see some ideas about shielding the earth from some of the sun's heat, as I think it is our best current possibility. ^{(Plus conservation..)}

Increase the planets albedo by putting tin foil on the deserts?

Replace the melting polar caps by more tin foil?

Invent a device that can scavenge the desert sand, convert it to a highly reflective material, and lay it back down?

Use jet contrails to increase the albedo?

What effect would this have on the thermal gradient between the equator and poles?

Is this warm up thing going to be self dampening as the heat engine shuts down? I mean, as the energy absorbed increases at the poles and stays about the same at the equator, wouldn't this reduce the gradient and slow down the thermal transfer causing the poles to cool again? Or will it run away as more H20 enters the atmosphere?

Do the scientists really understand all this stuff? Do their computer models actually consider all the variables or are they inclined to make the data fit the theories?

I don't know what to believe.

How much energy would we save if we put solar collectors on all the new houses for the next 3 decades? Or if we retrofit 20 percent of existing housing with solar hot water and space heating?

How come I can't buy a solar hot water/space heating kit at Home Depot?

What effect would one major volcanic event have on this debate? How about a 300 meter asteroid? Or a combination of the two?

Oh, and that idea that humankind cannot wipe life from the planet? What happens if we overlook something? What happens if we spend our human and physical resources in such a manner that we are unable to respond to some unforeseen natural event?

There is an important thing to remember about experts. Guys like me make mistakes, but it takes an expert to really screw things up.

Gavilan

Some food for thought there, but I think that if we (humans) intervene on a planetary scale, we should come up with a reversible process (if there is one).

You say that like we have a track record for schemes with unintended consequences, or something!

Bin there, done that, got the scars ..

Albedo Bots: Thats what we need.

We build these solar collecting wind and solar powered robots that turn the deserts to mirrored glass. Turn them loose by the thousands?

Can the salt in sea water, the water itself, and carbon dioxide from the air be processed robotically to lay a reflecting material on the surface? If the reflective material was layed down in small pieces and was less dense than water it would recover from storms and start reflecting again.

Hows that for ludicrous?

Gavilan

Gavilan, in all seriousness, you are correct: we do not understand the dynamics of the intricate web around us.

The CO₂ problem appears to have it's own well-launched trajectory of negative consequences which are unavoidable, unless the sun's effect can be attenuated.

Doing ANYTHING to mess with the sun's insolation would appear to be nearly blasphemous: but (in my view) it would be done with intent to counter what we as humans have brought around in ignorance.

I suspect that we will do nothing, which may be the wiser choice, in the long run.

There's many a dolorous speculation that can be made about what is coming up for us and our descendants: engaging in same, I project about 700 million people alive when the effects have become fully manifest.

^{There is an important thing to remember about experts. Guys like me make mistakes, but it takes an expert to really screw things up.}

^Gavilan

^{__________________
As greed and avarice begin to drive our collective imagination, we become blindered to the narrow path of our immediate pursuit and are no longer capable of referencing the bearings presented to us by our horizons.}

The solar wind has little measurable effect on satelites in orbit due to the mass of them. Such near zero mass mylar threads would likely last for 2 orbits due to the strands coming at the Sun being severely slowed dropping them from orbit and the ones going away fron the Sum will accelerate to escape velocity. A wasted effort at best. Tom

_{tkasmer states:}

_{The solar wind has little measurable effect on satelites in orbit due to the mass of them. Such near zero mass mylar threads would likely last for 2 orbits due to the strands coming at the Sun being severely slowed dropping them from orbit and the ones going away fron the Sum will accelerate to escape velocity. A wasted effort at best. Tom}

_{============================}

I think that is unlikely. should the idea be of no merit, this would not be the basis for it's failure, it seems to me. Consider one lonesome piece of mylar in orbit. The accelleration on one side of the orbit (relative to the sun..) would be essentially equal to the accelleration on the other, except for the direction.

Seems to me to be an offset.

The idea would be fairly cheap to test, with a single two ton deployment of mylar shards from the shuttle in an orbit that would decay within a year. The "travelling shadow" effect could be accurately measured.

===============================

There well may be some autogenous mechanism that will intercept the CO₂ generation "profile" and make efforts to limit it's principal consequence, (retained heat), moot:

however, since (1)the literature suggests that even with _{^{(human activity originated)}} zero additional CO₂ generation, the ocean's heat trend is upwards for the next few hundred years, and, (2) since it appears that another primary CO₂ "sink", shell-making marine animals, may be taken "off line" by the increasing acidity of the ocean, ...........it appears that we are "in for" significantly increased CO₂ for the next few hundred years no matter what we do.

Although I think that I refuted the claims (above) by some thread contributors that the current CO₂ problem arises from increased solar output (thereby making it a "natural" phenomenon ^{_{(as IF it made any difference in the absolute nature of the problem..........)}}

there is verity in the fact that increased temperatures cause outgassing from the oceans:

therefore it makes perfect sense to try to deflect some sunlight from the planet to both decrease the CO₂ "peak concentration" to be realized in the atmosphere in the (fairly) near-term future, and to mitigate the other consequences of rapidly melting ice...

============

I would be the first to admit that it appears to be a hare-brained idea, (mylar strips in orbit???), and I'm hoping to hear ( _{I mean read...)} a better one.

============

Thank you.

David_.