Searching \ for '[EE]:: Global Warmimg - sell your carbon credits *' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=global+warmimg+sell
Search entire site for: ': Global Warmimg - sell your carbon credits *'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Global Warmimg - sell your carbon credits *'
2007\02\12@225509 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Enter stage left - A "new" scientifically tested discovery that
demonstrates that the effect of the sun on global temperatures is far
greater than expected until now due to a hidden but by no means subtle
interaction between cosmic rays, the sun's magnetic field and cloud
formation. A model that takes account of the new information matches
for a number of major observations in global temperature behaviour
which are inconsistent with and not predicted by the current global
warming models. While nothing is certain, it appears that this new
information will play complete havoc with the current GW predictions
and throw the whole area into even greater disarray than at present.
Look for fireworks. [[* actually far from new - see below]]

       http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

       http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece

Note that not everyone buys this "new" theory which the proposer has
been pedalling for a decade or so.
Here's a contrarian view which questions their methodology and most
other things as well. Good reading.

   rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/svensmark-stumbles-into-smog-chamber.html
   Professor Eli Rabbet - sounds like a fun and useful guy.

   He calls himself an "anti global warming denier" (think about it)
and looks like a useful and
   reasoned  source of good solid PRO-GW material
   http://rabett.blogspot.com/

Contrarian, science based    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

Svensmark (the current man). 1998 paper claiming cosmic ray
correlation
   http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i22/p5027_1

Svensmark actual 1997/1998 paper
   http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

2003 discussion
   http://weekendpundit.blogmosis.com/lastweekend/013496.html

2006 "Junk Science" site - pro cosmic
   http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htm

Paper on calculating how great the "Svensmark factor" is
   http://www.john-daly.com/fraction/fraction.htm

______________

Notwithstanding:

Last week I strongly considered writing a rant about the junk science
implicit in the latest "Summary for Policymakers" issued by the
'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' and whose key summary was
parroted approvingly and unthinkingly by New Scientist.
The key thing that annoyed me was the conclusion for consumption that
" ... most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases ..." when the actual
science produced a result at the 90% confidence level. ANY reputable
study that produced a 90% result would produce a "not statistically
significant" conclusion in any normal circles. At 90% one may suspect
that there really is something to look further at, but the conclusion
of "very likely" is essentially a lie intended to hide vast
uncertainty. A quick look at the summary results they reported showed
that the actual confidence level varied greatly with the assumptions
made and that there are a number of models in play with some having
extraordinarily unrealistic assumptions.

Now I wish I had.

While the "new" theory may prove to have its brief day in the sun (pun
almost intended) and then fade into obscurity, it has the feel of
correctness that plate tectonics would have had in the early days when
it was on the outer, or that even "directed panspermia" has now vis a
vis the current mainstream evolutionary theory (even though DS is
probably wrong :-) ).

If these people has done their science as well as they ought, and if
aerosol production can indeed be shown to be well correlated with
cosmic ray levels and solar activity levels, and if the predictive
matches aren't just due to a cooked model, then one can expect to see
the current GW frenzy completely gone in 20 years time. Alas, its
expensive promise of less pollution and 'renewable' 'alternative'
energy sources and the rest are liable to be swept away as well. The
truth is sometimes a bit harsh and expensive. Alas, there seems to be
quite a lot of reasoned material suggesting that Svensmark and co are
on as much a bandwagon of their own as the GW feeding frenzy is at
present. We should know who's right within 100 years or so :-).



       Russell


OK
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0





___________

Not too much data here but a good read, from Jeremy Clarkson on GW and
related matters.

       http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article757025.ece

_______________________________________________________________________________________

2007\02\12@235057 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:52 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'

$25 million X-prize-like money for carbon scrubbing invention:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070205/full/070205-16.html

BillW

2007\02\13@010316 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
"William Chops Westfield"
wrote:

>> 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'
>
> $25 million X-prize-like money for carbon scrubbing invention:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070205/full/070205-16.html

When you look into it it's not quite as straight forward as it sounds.
You get $5M up front with the  balance after N years when it actually
works AND you have to do it and fund it yourself, whatever it is.
And it can't be mitigation at source - it must be climate based
reduction.

_________

One way to win $25M:

'My' modest proposal delivers CO2 rich water to ocean depths using a
reverse siphon driven by a head of water from eg river outflows. You
fill a "coffer dam" and the only exit is the plughole and the drain
pipe is long and goes VERY deep. With enough head the water will exist
at any desired depth with pipes of sensible size.

There are few places where the ocean deeps come to you conveniently
enough. In my country there are two. One is well known - it is at
Kaikoura* in the South Island where a long deep submarine valley comes
to within a few miles of the shore. Whales come up the channel from
their squid grazing far below, to take a (deep) breather and loll on
the surface a while before returning for afternoon tea. Tourist
operators know the spot well and it is the focus of NZ's most popular
whale watching operations.

The other site is less known and less convenient - it is on the East
side of Cook Strait where a similar submarine valley come sin from far
out. Probably has whales there too but I've not heard of it being a
tourist site.

You can find your own site for your $25M by looking marine maps for
tell tale fingers of deep spearing in towards the shore. Having one
near a major river outlet will help.

Get you CO2 deep enough and it stays there.
Remember where you heard it first


Good luck.


       Russell McMahon



* Kaikoura = "Sea food" in Maori. No wonder. As part of the food chain
there's lots of all such there. Seals, dolphins, shell fish galore.
It's a rugged coast and the keener fishing boats launch by aerial
cable from shore. More do this on the bottom of the North Island "just
across" Cook Strait - one of the world's wildest bits of sea when it
wants to be.

2007\02\13@033724 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'
>
> $25 million X-prize-like money for carbon scrubbing invention:
>
> www.nature.com/news/2007/070205/full/070205-16.html
>
> BillW


Someone suggested trees as a solution the other day.  Sounds good to me.

Tony

2007\02\13@040115 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 13, 2007, at 12:36 AM, Tony Smith wrote:

> Someone suggested trees as a solution the other day.

Ya know, if you breed or genetically engineer (or just FIND) a
tree that will grow in areas where there aren't trees already,
that grows fast enough to remove carbon from the atmosphere at
a moderately significant rate, you deserve the $25 million.
How about a WEED that grows in drought-level climate by going
direct from CO2 to fats and carbon fiber and skips those water
wasting carbohydrates, eh?

BillW

2007\02\13@044845 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Someone suggested trees as a solution the other day.

> How about a WEED that grows in drought-level climate by going
> direct from CO2 to fats and carbon fiber and skips those water
> wasting carbohydrates, eh?

Any solution must produce an output which is NOT subsequently
converted back to CO2. You could eg supply energy to 'crack' the CO2
in some way to carbon and Oxygen BUT the carbon must then be disposed
of in a place and form where it does not re-oxidise, purposefully or
by itself to CO2.

A tree is OK as long as it NEVER rots. Current trees are very
expensive as a solution as they produce these tall growy things that
take up room and which must be maintained in perpetuity OR when they
wear out must be replaced with equivalent units.

A plant based system that then encapsulates the CO2-trapping output in
some ultra long term stable casing may meet the need. Maybe plant
material that is then transported to ocean depths using my drainpipe
system. eg grow algae and then send it down the plughole to ocean
depths. Very doable. Just remember where you heard it first :-).


       Russell


2007\02\13@051050 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Someone suggested trees as a solution the other day.
>
> Ya know, if you breed or genetically engineer (or just FIND)
> a tree that will grow in areas where there aren't trees
> already, that grows fast enough to remove carbon from the
> atmosphere at a moderately significant rate, you deserve the
> $25 million.


Australia has trees almost like that.  A little GM here & there...  

Banksia trees grow quite happily in crap soil with little water, in fact
they tend to die if you fertilise them (don't like phosphates).  Tree is bit
misleading as they don't grow very tall, bush is more like it.  Not actually
all that useful to humans, so they'll just sit there.

A few other species are salt tolerant.

Acacia trees grow pretty fast, and make good paper pulp.  Help save the
planet by getting another bookcase (wooden, of course) and filling it full
of books.

There's the paulownia (from China) that's attacted a lot of attention lately
(where lately is defined as 10-15 years).  It can grow 4 or 5 metres a year,
so harvest is in 5-10 years, not like 25-40 for pine.  It's distinctive as
it has really really big leaves, and these can be used as fodder or
fertiliser.  It's a superb wood to work with too.  There's been a few trial
plantations in Western Australia, which is not exactly rainforest country.
Interesting site here: http://www.toadgully.com.au/paulownia.php, and yes:
http://www.toadgully.com.au/images/newlyn_montage01.jpg, those leaves really
are really really big.

Tony

2007\02\13@062326 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:14:29 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:

>...
> It's a rugged coast and the keener fishing boats launch by
aerial cable from shore.

Good grief, how on Earth do they recover them?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\02\13@072035 by Peter Todd

picon face
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:44:21PM +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

It's called landfilled paper... Just stop recycling the damn stuff so
much. Hell, it'd reduce the usage of a lot of nasty chemicals that are
needed to recycle paper. (mainly bleaching it)

Yeah yeah, it rots and produces methane, but the methane can be
recovered easilly and burned, and I'm sure overall there is a net
deposit of carbon in the ground.

Heck, come to think of, reverse climate change! Wipe your ass better!

--
http://www.petertodd.ca

2007\02\13@075910 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> It's a rugged coast and the keener fishing boats launch by
> aerial cable from shore.

> Good grief, how on Earth do they recover them?

One time use ? :-)
Nah - also aerial cable recovery.
Can't find a single web photo :-(.
I think I have some in my slides of old - will be computerising them
some time but not soon probably.

For now you'll just have to make do with some Kaikoura denizens.

   http://www.wyndonaviation.co.nz/content/images/51/550x550normal/1011.jpg

A bit small :-(
   http://www.totaltravel.co.nz/photos/whale-watch-kaikoura/whale.jpg

Severtal
   http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.world-guides.com/images/boston/whale1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.christchurch.world-guides.com/christchurch_whales.html&h=260&w=228&sz=21&hl=en&start=46&tbnid=TMFf__d7_BAbVM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkaikoura%2Bwhale%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN

Close
   http://www.world-guides.com/images/boston/whale1.jpg

Bigger image
   http://www.kemakama.com/7.29.03/sperm%20whale%20tail%20kaikoura%202%20CU%204x6.jpg

And another
Thar she blows
       http://salt.uaa.alaska.edu/kath/polepage/NewZealand2/WhaleBlow6.JPG

ALL the whale photos will be taken at the ame place, where the deep
valley comes in amost to the shore.


2007\02\13@101924 by Timothy Weber

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> 'My' modest proposal delivers CO2 rich water to ocean depths using a
> reverse siphon driven by a head of water from eg river outflows. You
> fill a "coffer dam" and the only exit is the plughole and the drain
> pipe is long and goes VERY deep. With enough head the water will exist
> at any desired depth with pipes of sensible size.

Reminds me of our local "Lake Source Cooling" project.  Cornell
University saves $ and coal-produced electricity by cooling the campus
using, essentially, a long heat exchanger that goes into nearby Cayuga
Lake, which is pretty deep and cold.

The big issue was minimizing environmental impact.  Even though the
cooling water stays in a closed loop, heat comes out, and can effect the
micro-ecosystem.  They try to minimize this by pulling cold water from
the deep part, and ejecting warmed water into the shallow part.
However, there have been some observed changes, I believe.  Zebra
mussels? Algae? Can't remember.  Cornell declares it a success and wants
to stop monitoring, but I'm not sure they've received approval for that yet.

In any case, the effort involved in monitoring the environmental impact
was significant.  (And many locals still fought it anyway, but part of
that has to do with traditional town-gown politics.)

So I would think if you're actually dumping water down there, you would
want to be very careful about what the effects would be.  What if the
warm water coming in drives the squid away, which drives the whales
away, ditto the rest of the fauna and the tourists?
--
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org

2007\02\13@131133 by David Minkler

flavicon
face
This isn't like you Russell!

Russell McMahon wrote:
<snip>

>... valley come sin from ...
>
</snip>


2007\02\13@133344 by David VanHorn

picon face
Do we even have a hope of getting ahead of the natural sources of CO2?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060830-carbon-lakes.html

At lake nyos, they are trying to vent the CO2 from the lake, to avoid
periodic inversion events that kill thousands.
http://perso.orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm

2007\02\13@171729 by gacrowell

flavicon
face


> At lake nyos, they are trying to vent the CO2 from the lake, to avoid
> periodic inversion events that kill thousands.
> http://perso.orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm

I wonder if they tried Mentos?

GC

2007\02\14@061655 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Someone suggested trees as a solution the other day.
>
> Ya know, if you breed or genetically engineer (or just FIND)
> a tree that will grow in areas where there aren't trees
> already, that grows fast enough to remove carbon from the
> atmosphere at a moderately significant rate, you deserve the
> $25 million.


Australia has trees almost like that.  A little GM here & there...  

Banksia trees grow quite happily in crap soil with little water, in fact
they tend to die if you fertilise them (don't like phosphates).  Tree is bit
misleading as they don't grow very tall, bush is more like it.  Not actually
all that useful to humans, so they'll just sit there.

A few other species are salt tolerant.

Acacia trees grow pretty fast, and make good paper pulp.  Help save the
planet by getting another bookcase (wooden, of course) and filling it full
of books.

There's the paulownia (from China) that's attacted a lot of attention lately
(where lately is defined as 10-15 years).  It can grow 4 or 5 metres a year,
so harvest is in 5-10 years, not like 25-40 for pine.  It's distinctive as
it has really really big leaves, and these can be used as fodder or
fertiliser.  It's a superb wood to work with too.  There's been a few trial
plantations in Western Australia, which is not exactly rainforest country.
Interesting site here: http://www.toadgully.com.au/paulownia.php, and yes:
http://www.toadgully.com.au/images/newlyn_montage01.jpg, those leaves really
are really really big.

Tony

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...