Human influence on the 21st century climate: 1 possible future for the atmosphere

Aug 05, 2011

New computer modeling work shows that by 2100, if society wants to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to less than 40 percent higher than it is today, the lowest cost option is to use every available means of reducing emissions. This includes more nuclear and renewable energy, choosing electricity over fossil fuels, reducing emissions through technologies that capture and store carbon dioxide, and even using forests to store carbon.

Researchers from the Joint Global Change Research Institute introduced the work, called the RCP 4.5 scenario, in a special July 29 online issue of the journal . The scenario is one of four that scientists will use worldwide to independently study how the climate might respond to different increases of greenhouse gases and how much of the sun's energy they trap in the atmosphere. It can also be used to study possible ways to slow climate change and adapt to it.

The team used the PNNL Global Change Assessment Model, or GCAM, to generate the scenario. GCAM uses market forces to reach a specified target by allowing global economics to put a price on carbon. And unlike similar models, it includes carbon stored in forests, causing forest acreage to increase -- even as energy systems change to include fuels generated from bioenergy crops and crop waste.

"The RCP 4.5 scenario assumes that action will be taken to limit emissions. Without any action, the emissions, and the heat trapped in the atmosphere, would be much higher, leading to more severe climate change," said lead author Allison Thomson, a scientist at JGCRI, a collaboration between the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., and the University of Maryland.

"This scenario and the other three produced in this project will provide a common thread for climate change research across many different science communities," Thomson said.

The Forested Future

Five years ago, the asked the climate science community to provide scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and land use change to guide computer models that simulate potential changes to the Earth's climate.

Researchers decided on four possible targets that span a wide range of possible levels of man-made greenhouse gas emissions over the next century. These future scenarios are currently being used by climate modeling groups worldwide in a coordinated effort to compare models and advance the science of climate projections.

The researchers assigned each of the scenarios a specific target amount of the sun's energy that gets trapped in the atmosphere, a property called radiative forcing. Because of differences between the scenarios, each one will produce slightly different degrees of warming.

The RCP 4.5 scenario shoots for 4.5 Watts per square meters radiative forcing in 2100 and lets economics reveal how to achieve that goal the cheapest way possible. The scenario's 4.5 W/m2 means roughly 525 parts per million in the atmosphere (currently, it hovers around 390 parts per million). It also means approximately 650 parts per million carbon dioxide-equivalents, which includes besides carbon dioxide.

Unlike the other three scenarios, RCP 4.5 includes carbon in forests in the carbon market. This affects how people use land, as cutting down forests emits carbon dioxide but expanding forests stores it. An earlier modeling study showed that without placing such a value, forests could get cut down for use as biofuels and the land on which they stood used for crops.

The Greenhouse Race

Starting with the world as it looked in 2005 and setting the endpoint at 2100, the team let the model simulate the greenhouse gas emissions and land use change over the next century. They also ran the model without any explicit greenhouse gas control policy or carbon price to compare how such a future might turn out.

Without any emission controls, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere doubled by 2100. By design, RCP 4.5 limits them to about 35 percent higher than 2005 levels.

The conditions to limit emissions did not specify how to go about doing that, only that carbon from all sources had economic value. Under limiting conditions, carbon dioxide prices rose steadily until they reached $85 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2100, in 2005 dollars.

In the scenario, the price of carbon stimulated a rise in nuclear power and renewable energy use. Also, it became cheaper to implement technologies that capture and store emissions from fossil- and bio-fuel based electricity than to emit carbon dioxide. Buildings and industry became more energy efficient and used cleaner electricity for their energy needs.

Additionally, carbon dioxide emissions from man-made sources peaked around 2040 at 42 gigatons per year (currently, emissions are at 30 gigatons per year), decreased with about the same speed as they rose, then levelled out after 2080 at around 15 gigatons per year.

Resolving Power

Also, the team converted the results of the scenario to match the resolution of the climate models that are using the results. That way, scientists can more easily integrate RCP 4.5 with climate models. Economies, for example, occur on national scales, but chemical reactions of gas in the air occur in much smaller spaces.

This change in scale to accommodate climate models reveals important regional details. For example, although globally methane emissions change little over the century, their geographic origins shift around. As the century wears on, South America and Africa put out more methane and the industrialized nations less.

In addition, the percentage of people's income that they're spending on food goes down even though food prices rise. The researchers attribute this result to a shift from agricultural practices with high carbon footprints to lower ones, as shown in previous work.

While introducing this scenario to climate researchers, the PNNL researchers provide comparisons to other scenarios with similar emissions limits, as well as to scenarios of the other three radiative forcing targets covered by this community activity. The special issue of Climatic Change features papers documenting those other three scenarios as well as several papers reviewing specific parts of the entire scenario exercise.

"It's very important that the climate community has this resource so that they all work from the same data. This common thread will help researchers and policymakers address the problems that climate change will bring us," said Thomson.

Explore further: German scientist starts four-week swim down Rhine river

More information: CLIMATIC CHANGE DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4

Provided by DOE/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

4.3 /5 (8 votes)

Related Stories

All the carbon counts

May 28, 2009

Cutting down forests for agriculture vents excess carbon dioxide into the air just as industrial activities and the burning of fossil fuels do. But whether policies to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ...

New carbon dioxide emissions model

Aug 02, 2010

Meteorologists have determined exactly how much carbon dioxide humans can emit into the atmosphere while ensuring that the Earth does not heat up by more than two degrees.

Long term strategy needed for reducing greenhouse gases

Oct 28, 2008

Carbon dioxide will continue to rise even if current national and international targets for reducing emissions are met, scientists warn. But, they say, strong action taken now – such as the 80% target recently ...

Recommended for you

Australia approves huge India-backed mine

12 hours ago

Australia has given the go-ahead to a massive coal mine in Queensland state which Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Monday could ultimately provide electricity for up to 100 million Indians.

User comments : 58

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Martian
2 / 5 (21) Aug 05, 2011
Why aren't these guys working on something useful like faster than light travel?
dnpate
2.9 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2011
1. a persistant global warming may or may not be true.
2. If true, man's effect not proven.
3. money should be spent not to combat the possible warming but coping with what actually happens as time progresses; that is increased efficiency of use of resources which will provide benefit whether global warming occurs or not.
Scottingham
4.4 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2011
Glad to see a climate model where nuclear power is considered a critical piece as it really should be. Renewables too of course, but nuclear power for the large base load.
Moebius
3.7 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2011
LOL 40% higher?

if society wants to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to less than 40 percent higher than it is today, the lowest cost option is to use every available means of reducing emissions.


They left out the word 'today' at the end of that sentence. Unbelievable that anyone can actually think that there won't be dire repercussions long before we approach 40% (if that isn't a mistake) higher CO2. My spider sense is screaming disaster.
lengould100
3.8 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
Scottingham: I give you a five for the comment, even though I'm convinced that solar thermal with thermal storage and LD HVDC transmission can do the same job faster, cheaper and safer.
Scottingham
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
@lengould100 while I would love to see such an outcome, I'm skeptical that such technologies could provide an exponential increase of power without requiring an exponential increase in land usage.

Addressing arguments of why we'd experience an exponential increase in demand, I'd like to point out that the '3rd world' would benefit profoundly given power at the rates and amounts we in the west enjoy.

Also, it is much harder to secure millions of acres of solar farms from natural disasters versus nuclear cores that are essentially bunkers the size of a small office building.

The energy density of nuclear power is really both its greatest advantage and greatest liability. Future designs will mitigate the liability while maximizing this advantage. Buried traveling wave reactors or something very similar will almost certainly have a large role in humanities future energy production.
Arkaleus
2.9 / 5 (20) Aug 05, 2011
This is nothing but a computer game. Give me your money now, I promise to protect you from the angry weather gods.

We need to control and ration the lives of the masses to make sure the weather stays the same as it was in 1990. . .

What makes the weather in 1990 special? Isn't it arbitrary and completely delusional to assume the climate in 1990 is earth's nominal climate condition? Maybe the earth has its own plan and runs on its own cycles, not ours?

Also, the unspoken assumption is that human emissions cause the total CO2 to increase, even when they are a very small fraction of the total CO2 produces by the planet each year. The rate of CO2 change given by this "computer game" haven't been seen on the planet since Carboniferous / Permian times and are completely unbelievable in the absence of global scale catastrophes like continent-scale volcanoes erupting.
Cave_Man
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 05, 2011
Also, the unspoken assumption is that human emissions cause the total CO2 to increase, even when they are a very small fraction of the total CO2 produces by the planet each year.


Are you simple? I'd like to see some credible sources on this but i would bet money its just leftover bs from you climate deniers that was said and never proven and now is a artifact that travels around the web spouted by people too lazy to learn for themselves.

The world uses 3,570,000,000 gallons of oil a day, considering anything you do to oil to process it will release carbon dioxide....well get a fucking clue.

And the USA alone uses 388m gallons of gas per day and at 18 lb of CO2 produced for every gallon then PER DAY THE USA ALONE PUTS OUT 7 BILLION LBS OF CO2 which equals ~2.5trillion lbs of CO2 per year.

Yeah I guess we are putting out a negligible amount since your oxygen deprived brain probably thinks anything less than 50% of our atmosphere is nothing since you round down right?........
axemaster
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2011
They left out the word 'today' at the end of that sentence. Unbelievable that anyone can actually think that there won't be dire repercussions long before we approach 40% (if that isn't a mistake) higher CO2. My spider sense is screaming disaster.

It's because many of the scientists who have been working on this issue have finally realized that probably nothing is going to be done about the problem. They are forced to helplessly watch the disaster approach. Wouldn't you be depressed?
Y8Q412VBZP21010
3.4 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2011
It is true that human are a small (not miniscule but small) fraction of natural CO2 emissions. Natural CO2 emissions are in a (rough) equilibrium -- they have to be, otherwise CO2 would a vastly greater proportion of the atmosphere than it is.

However, CO2 sinks work over, by human standards, the long term. The increment being added by human activity is outstripping the ability of sinks to soak up CO2. The estimated yearly increase in CO2 is half the estimated yearly human production of CO2.

Now ... there are legitimate (if not unarguable) criticisms that can be made of climate science. However -- this isn't one of them. This is Climate Science 101.
emsquared
5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2011
They are forced to helplessly watch the disaster approach.

Yeah, they're helpless. Just like you and everyone else, right??

Yeah, you're right. They can't plan ahead or delay errands or shopping trips to combine them all and economize drives. They can't wake up an hour earlier, get a bike and do something healthy for themselves at the same time, as they ride to work. They can't pay a little more and buy local products to reduce freight demand. They can't spend a little more and properly maintain their vehicles to increase their fuel economy. They can't run their thermostats at 78 summer, 60 winter. They can't air dry their clothes. They can't hand wash most of their dishes. They can't power-off their computers at night. They can't turn off their TVs and game consoles for a few hours and do something with their lives. They can't change our consumer culture at all.

Nope, they sure are helpless. We all are, aren't we? We can't do a god damn thing. Those fucking power plants.
Arkaleus
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2011
According to David J. C. MacKay, the burning of fossil fuels sends seven gigatons (3.27%) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, while the biosphere and oceans account for 440 (55.28%) and 330 (41.46%) gigatons, respectively... Burning fossil fuels, in contrast, writes MacKay, creates a new flow of carbon that, though small, is not cancelled.

So. . .

96.74% of all CO2 emissions are non human.

Humans are left with 3.26% of the total CO2 input. Since when is 3.26% a majority in any system? Isn't all CO2 alarmism founded on the concept that human CO2 inputs are driving the climate change process? Total fallacy!

How about we start being honest when talking about human CO2 emissions and present the true proportion of the total natural environment we are claiming to influence?

Even with zero human CO2, how do we "control" natural CO2 variations, which are inevitable? Do we expect climate variation to completely cease if fossils fuels are eliminated? Irrational!
Scottingham
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
I love how the anti-climate change people seem to come out of the woodwork whenever a story is posted. Second only to evolution articles I suppose.

To me, I don't really care where or how the rising C02 levels are coming from, just the fact that it is rising, and the net energy in our climate system is rising.

Does the beach house owner care why they are being flooded? Does the farmer care why one year their fields are dead due to drought and the next year their fields are underwater?

The climate IS changing. The 'why' is of secondary importance. We need to come up with better technology to mitigate these impending disasters. From nuclear powered desalination plants and sky scraper hydroponic farms to dam/levy systems that dwarf the Dutch Delta project in the 60's, engineering will have to save the day.

Skepticus_Rex
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
Scottingham: I give you a five for the comment, even though I'm convinced that solar thermal with thermal storage and LD HVDC transmission can do the same job faster, cheaper and safer.


Solar projects on massive scale likely will add additional heating to the atmosphere potentially as far as hundreds of kilometers from the facilities. Well, at least that is what a recent study showed. (That study was reported elsewhere on this site, by the way).

Just saying...
hush1
2.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
Huh?
Change=what
Cause=why
Engineering=how

How do you engineer a change without knowing the why of the what?

Do Indians have other dances besides the dance responsible for rain?
emsquared
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
How do you engineer a change without knowing the why of the what?

By engineering change that preempts the what.

Whether or not it's AG-CO2 that's the driver of climate change, there's a hundred other reasons to ween our (and other) culture(s) of fossils as much as we can (national security, regional security, sustainability, actual pollution/enviro-quality, oceanic acidification, etc.). The solution doesn't have to be so myopic as do something with this carbon. Do things that have wider benefits and also happen to reduce CO2. It's not difficult.
Y8Q412VBZP21010
3.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
Do things that have wider benefits and also happen to reduce CO2. It's not difficult.


I am in agreement to that extent. I think this "save the world from global warming" tale is counterproductive -- it's too Chicken-Littlish. We obviously need to have a more sustainable society over the long run, the only real argument is how long a run, and also obviously we're not going to get there overnight.

From what I see in the news, there's an increasing realization among leadership promoting a more sustainable future that they've got a bigger and better story than "climate change doomsday". OK, people might call that a sales job, but if we're stuck with a choice between one pitch and another, I'll pick the slicker one over the one that, right or wrong, sounds annoyingly crankish.
Dug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2011
What most climate change scientist and their bosses don't get is that long before climate change endangers humanity, our ability to produce food for ourselves due to the lack of phosphates that our entire food production technology is built upon - will have run completely out. We have less than a 100 year window to find new sources of phosphates either through re-capture or importing from the moon (oops, we essentially just canceled our poorly focused space program). Want to stop anthropogenic climate inputs? No problem, all you have to do is drop the world human population back to 1 billion. Pissing and moaning about climate change is ineffective as long as our population continues to increase, poor prioritization in problem solving, and clearly not our most pressing problem as a species.
Arkaleus
1.1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2011
@ Scottingham

Thanks for the 1!

No sane person "denies" climate changes or is changing now. So quit with the ad hominem and stick to the numbers.

The numbers being used to justify climate alarmism are continually misrepresented and manipulated with statistics that fail to provide a proper scale of proportion of the system they discuss in their "models".

The simple fact is 3% of any system is NOT a majority ANYTHING. Simple reason suggests the greater 97% object rules, and the fluctuations of this much larger object are more interesting than the fluctuations of the 3% object.

Human generated CO2 is not magical, it's the same as other CO2 molecules floating around. The earth doesn't magically react to human generated CO2 and somehow ignore others. So where is the rational causality in AGW?

Scottingham
not rated yet Aug 05, 2011
@Arkaleus

Those numbers look lonely without citations. (edit: I'm sorry, you did cite David J. C. MacKay)

Also, as I've said in previous posts, the 'A' in AGW isn't the issue, it's the other two letters that follow it.
kivahut
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
What's so bad about global warming? The planet supports more life during warm periods. When was the last time you had a picnic on a glacier.
Arkaleus
2 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
I think it reduces down to the question of whether nature revolves around man, or man around nature.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
We can geo-engineer the planet to avert perceived disasters. While we have to be careful in what we do, one of the biggest concerns to many is the potential of flooding and island nations disappearing. They say the cause will be the melting, and possibly the collapse, of the GIS and WAIS.

Easy fix. We harvest the ice from the GIS and WAIS (no need to touch the EAIS as it still appears stable) so there is not enough ice to collapse anywhere. We take that ice and drop it in the deserts of Africa and elsewhere. We end drought conditions on several continents in the process. Use and repeat as necessary.

It also would provide jobs subsidized directly by governments and international cooperative agreements.

As to phosphates, we waste a lot of material containing it every day. Urine contains phosphates. Places where a lot of urine is spilled tend to show burning of grass which then is followed by lusher plant growth. Urine can be processed for phosphates. No moon harvesting is necessary.
SemiNerd
4.5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011

Also, the unspoken assumption is that human emissions cause the total CO2 to increase, even when they are a very small fraction of the total CO2 produces by the planet each year.

Its hard to measure the exact place all CO2 is coming from by looking at different places on the globe. However its trivial to measure the c12/c13/c14 ratios of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 from biological sources has a different signature than that from volcano's and other natural sources. So its pretty easy to see that almost all of it is coming from burning organics. The evidence that your dead wrong is overwhelming.
Arkaleus
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2011
@ SemiNerd,

What are you trying to say? There is no chemical difference between the carbon my SUV vents out its exhaust and the carbon a volcano vents (Except the volume). What magical properties make "human greenhouse gases" more harmful than "natural" ones? How do AGW cultists justify a social policy based upon their differences?

"There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, i.e. making up as much as 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere.

The different isotopes of carbon do not differ appreciably in their chemical properties." (Wikipedia)

So no matter what the source, 99% of it is identical and all of it is chemically equivalent. Otherwise carbon dating and biological carbon tracing would not be possible.

Also, 1990's era estimates of volcanic activity is "dead wrong" and significantly underestimated. Undersea vulcanism is VAST.
Arkaleus
2 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2011
Just admit it guys, we've tried the kind of government the greenies want already. The Aztecs did it, and so did the Romans. You can't use the scientific method to lie and justify tyrannies, the data will become self-evident.

There just isn't any room for ideologies based on the suppression of human movement, transactions or liberty; especially ones designed to create a sham economy based on government regulation of carbon. We see who stands to profit from these rackets. The quack boffins behind these phoney press releases are funded by the very same "institutions" who stand to gain billions from manufacturing the crisis, then providing the "remedy." Just listen to some of their solutions.

Geoengineering? Are you high? It is not within our material ability to do these things, let alone our budget!

That kind of crap might fly in European prison-states but out west the only thing we want to bury and sequester these days are politicians and their corporate masters.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2011
Geoengineering? Are you high? It is not within our material ability to do these things, let alone our budget!

That kind of crap might fly in European prison-states but out west the only thing we want to bury and sequester these days are politicians and their corporate masters.


No, I am not high, and I have said nothing about doing anything with CO2. It is within our technological capability to harvest ice from Antarctic and Greenland. We already have done it to a degree in the form of ice cores. Yes, it would take quite a bit of time. Yes, it is very difficult to justify something on massive scale like this with budgetary constraints and resources of a single nation. But, it is doable.

Nearly every nation is going to find itself facing a stark reality when the water runs out. I merely mention that over 80% of earth's compliment of fresh water is locked up in Greenland and Antarctica. We can harvest at least some of that to supply needs. The alternative is desalination.
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2011
This is nothing but a computer game. Give me your money now, I promise to protect you from the angry weather gods.

We need to control and ration the lives of the masses to make sure the weather stays the same as it was in 1990. . .

What makes the weather in 1990 special? Isn't it arbitrary and completely delusional to assume the climate in 1990 is earth's nominal climate condition? Maybe the earth has its own plan and runs on its own cycles, not ours?

Also, the unspoken assumption is that human emissions cause the total CO2 to increase, even when they are a very small fraction of the total CO2 produces by the planet each year. The rate of CO2 change given by this "computer game" haven't been seen on the planet since Carboniferous / Permian times and are completely unbelievable in the absence of global scale catastrophes like continent-scale volcanoes erupting.


Hear, hear!

AGW is propaganda, not science.

Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Aug 05, 2011
However its trivial to measure the c12/c13/c14 ratios of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 from biological sources has a different signature than that from volcano's and other natural sources.


Theoretically, yes. Delta-14C ratios are irrelevant, though. It is the delta-13C ratio that matters. That said, one study done about a decade ago pointed out that a volcano in Japan emitted CO2 with a wide range of ratios. In some places the delta-13C ratio was very close to fossil fuels, one measurement being -26, which closely approximates fossil fuel emissions.

They found that the gases mixed there in the volcano and around the fumeroles and seeping up through the soil had three sources: biogenic, magmatic, and atmospheric. But, it was a shock to see delta-13C ratios from inside a volcano that looked like fossil fuel emissions at some of the testing sites.
UnlimitedRealms
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2011
@ arkaleus - The human footprint does not stop at burning fossile fuels , mankind has also stripped so much vegetation from the surface that it is hampering natures ability to absorb CO2 by about 32% . So when you drive your SUV down all thoses roads , huff and puff as you walk across acres of stripmall parking lots to your favorite "Fat Clothes for Men" store or order the fatburger at a drive thru that gets its burgers from ranches that have burned down thousands of sq miles of Amazon forest just for your convenience . You delute yourself thinking that mankind is not doing anything to our climate , and yes , if you would actually READ some good science instead of going to the liquor store drive thru , you will find that there are things coming down the road that will help our enviroment and meet the needs of the people . Some of us want a better tommorrow , not sit in our own stink .
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2011
@UReal, I could not have said it better myself.

"AGW is propaganda, not science." You see that mentality is the problem with the world right now, and the US in particular. Some people have become so extreme in their points of view that they need an outlet like Physorg to express them. But we need discussion and discourse; so I don't fault Omar for his posts.

I fault him for his flawed logic.

I want a better tomorrow also. It should be a basic human right. Oh.. I'm sorry, it is.

UnlimitedRealms
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2011
I have met a few like that , anything new and/or change in how things are done scares them into to thinking that they will be inconvenienced and/or have to work harder . 40 yrs ago , people thought going into space was a waste of time w/no benefit , but now if one looks real close , you can see all the things that came from that and are taken for granted .
Our enviroment is very complex and we as a species have done damage to many , many parts of it . We as a species can discuss and work out ways to correct that AND still provide for our selves and NOT hinder our standards of living ( they will improve actually)
He mentioned dictators , well it was dictators that did not want to be inconvenienced and enjoyed the best while the masses suffered , just like he wants to do . Sad .
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2011
The conditions to limit emissions did not specify how to go about doing that, only that carbon from all sources had economic value. Under limiting conditions, carbon dioxide prices rose steadily until they reached $85 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2100, in 2005 dollars.


It is about power and money. It is about social redistribution of resources. It is not about global climate, human or naturally mediated.

Arkaleus,
You can't use the scientific method to lie and justify tyrannies, the data will become self-evident.


True, but you can sell the snake oil for a long time before it stops being profitable. On the plus side, notice how frantic Chicken Little is getting? Huge chunks of sky are falling, but only Chicken Little is being hit by them and Chicken Little can't seem to produce a piece of sky ...
UnlimitedRealms
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2011
It was also mentioned that the earth has warmed up before and supported more life then . Yes it has but at a slower pace so that nature could keep up . There have been other times where it had heated up too fast and it had caused mass extinctions . We as a species are responsible for accelerating the warming happening now and it is our responsibility as sentient race and caretakers of our birth place to remedy this to a more natural pace .
UnlimitedRealms
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2011
http://www.physor...ngi.html
This was just posted today .
Neon
2 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2011
Why aren't these guys working on something useful like faster than light travel?


There's no money in it!

A far more interesting question:

If global warming is true, will Al Gore's fat face melt off?
UnlimitedRealms
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2011
@ neon ... There will be money inthat tech once it is dialed in and made cheap enough , not for the tech itself , but for the natual resources & real estate that that technology will take us to .
As far as Al Gore's face , we will have to watch , wait and see .
In the mean time , we need to focus on our planet and solar system
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2011
We face a seemingly bleak and uncertain future, but it appears that the plan to use AGW (anthropologic global warming) and the SSM (standard solar model) to bankrupt and subjugate the Free West to a tyrannical one-world government has been temporarily stopped.

The Bilderberg SSM of H-fusion in a Hydrogen-filled Sun was reasonable when adopted in April 1967:

http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G

But the US NAS (National Academy of Sciences), the UKs RS (Royal Society), and the UNs IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change):

a.) Ignored experimental data that falsified the SSM [1];

b.) Promoted AGW to avoid nuclear wars and unite nations;

c.) Promoted imaginary oscillation of neutrinos from solar H-fusion;

d.) Promoted the illusion that H-fusion will meet global energy needs in the future.

References:

1. Neutron Repulsion, The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011): http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Truth is victorious, never untruth.
UnlimitedRealms
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2011
It is not for climate change either , it is also dependence and national security . Many countries have programs up and running to develope fussion power generation to replace coal/oil/fission plants . Japan has been working on beaming energy from orbit to the surface ( have already been testing it) so solar energy can be harvested in orbit without massive land use . In other sections of Physorg ,physics , nanotech and applied materials are many articals on what they are discovering to make photonic collection/energy generation way more efficent . There is new applied materials for building that are being developed ( carbon nanotubes ) that are light weight and does not require cutting trees and vegetation to build . There is even private companies working on beating the gov'ts to moon and Mars (more resources & realestate) . Along w/better land/water management , things could be way better for our desendents .
Arkaleus
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2011
New energy ideas like Andrea Rossi's E-Cat are fascinating and hopefully by the end of this year we should see his generators on the market.

LENR reactors using nickel and monatomic hydrogen may be the solution to our energy dependence problems and all of the geopolitical problems that go with it. You might look at the 20th century nothing but the story of continual conflicts over resources and energy.

Corporate MSM is strangely (though understandably when you consider who owns them and why) silent about Rossi's invention, though Italy already issued a patent for it after some skepticism. I encourage those in this forum to fully educate themselves about the E-Cat so it can't be "erased" by some unfortunate accident and lost forever under the thumb of the energy tyrants.

Folks, it's not John and Suzy Suburban causing our problems. Stop conflating your social ideologies with climate science. You don't need to punish your neighbors and kinsmen to save the planet.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2011
The Bilderberg model of H-fusion in a Hydrogen-filled Sun was reasonable when adopted in April 1967:

http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G


Today the intriguing, sordid history of events that ended NASA's Apollo program and produced the current Economic Crisis and Chimategate were updated (back to the April 1967 Bilderberg Conference) and renamed - The Bilderberg Sun, Climategate & Economic Crisis It is available at these links:

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc
or
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

Comments would be appreciated.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2011
choosing electricity over fossil fuels . . .


Electricity supplied by UN's Big Brother!

AGW global warming concerns assume the validity of a foolish decision reached at the Bilderberg on 17-21 April 1967 [1]:

The Sun "is homogeneous and in hydrostatic equilibrium."

1. O. Gingerich and C. De Jager, Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968):

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

That foolishness is the fundamental assumption of AGW propaganda.

Every solar cycle, solar flare, and solar eruption falsifies Bilderberg's SSM and AGW.

Earth's heat source is obviously not constant [2], but Al Gore, Big Brother, UN, and associates pretend that their propaganda is "scientific."

They are getting desperate now because the public has realized that government scientists have manipulated data and observations for research funds.

2. "Earth's heat source - the Sun", E & E 20 (2009) 131-144

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2011
I encourage those in this forum to fully educate themselves about the E-Cat so it can't be "erased" by some unfortunate accident and lost forever under the thumb of the energy tyrants.


I actually am watching this very closely. If it works as well as is said and is efficient, I plan to adopt this technology to heat my house in the winter. I already have a radiant heating system in place and simply will replace the boiler with a reactor and branch some of the heat into my hot water heater as well, using a modified heat exchanger.

I will then be able to eliminate the need for the use of natural gas in my home (except for a Bunsen burner in a home laboratory, that is). :)
Arkaleus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2011
Right on, Skepticus.

I hope when the Ecat is available a whole army of us are able to mainstream it and develop a healthy online community of independent LENR applications.

I've suspected for a while that the most prolific and creative method of developing new ideas is from the online cloud, and something like this can be integrated with everything people want to do.

I wonder how the carbon cabals will treat this invention since it generates no carbon output and short circuits the centralized energy distribution model our corrupt grandfathers made?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2011
I do wonder how much the catalyzed nickel powder will cost, though. That is another deciding factor in my adoption of the technology. If it is cheaper to run natural gas than to purchase a supply of powder, I may need to rethink the plan and go another way.

I also have another idea but it only will work if the technology produces a viable steam output for a small-scale steam turbine. But, again, the cost factor is there, too. If it is more expensive to run than to use electricity, I will also need to rethink the plan. There still are a lot of unknowns to solidify anything yet.

I am looking toward October to tell me where to proceed next. In any case, I do plan to generate my own electricity in the near future. It is just a matter of what to use as my source of kinetic energy.

Solar is too inefficient for my needs, as is wind, but my plan will adopt a little of portions of both these latter technologies to do what I need, if this new technology does not work as needed.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2011
How will the carbon cabals react? I suspect that they will not be too happy with it should it work. I would expect those heavily invested in these schemes will do as the Quaker did when confronted with a bothersome dog--call it names and dismiss it out of hand while letting the public kill it for them.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2011
I did want to mention another potential way to go. It might be possible to turn this thing into a kind of RTG-based technology. That is another thought for the home.

The 'RTG' version of it might also have a use as a power source for an electric-type automobile, too. Imagine the usefulness of something like that! It might be possible for miles and miles of driving without stopping either for gas or recharging a spent battery. But, as I said, we shall see where things go in October.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2011
Scottingham: I give you a five for the comment, even though I'm convinced that solar thermal with thermal storage and LD HVDC transmission can do the same job faster, cheaper and safer.

The difference between solar thermal and molten salt gen 4 nuclear is merely the heat source. Nuclear heat sources are safer than they used to be by a statistically significant amount, and rival the safety of solar thermal with a more efficient and less expensive means of generation.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2011
The fact that there is so much disagreement should be a big red flag to anybody who feels very strongly about any given point of view. If you get emotional about it, then that should be a personal red flag for you.

This article lost me when they went from warming scenarios and climate models (which are good tools for thier intended purposes), then they jump to the conclusion that the "cheapest" solution is simply to "do everything", regardless of cost. I am not following their line of reasoning. If there's any scientific evidence for that claim, then they have not presented it here.

Since we clearly can't afford to "do everything" all at the same time, we are forced to make choices. It's going to make the most sense to do the things that give us the most bang for the buck, so that we can do more of the various things that are possible. Unless you can do things that are economically sound, you'll never get China onboard, for example.
Arkaleus
2 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2011
@ Skepticus:

My own research has found the nickel powder being used is of micron and sub micron size and the cost of the powder is not that high. A popular supplier of this size of nickel powder is Novamet, inc. Nickel powder is used in conductive coatings and is very commonly available. I was able to get a sample from ebay for less than $25 for 250 mg.

Rossi is being careful about his secrets, but I suspect it is some ratio of iron and titanium powder. This would fit his description of common, non toxic materials being used as a catalyst, and would be physically combined in the reactor disk.

If it were a Ni-Ti-Fe combination this would explain the pyrophoric runaways he's getting as Ti powder ignites at 700 C. You simply pipe H2 at 75 psi and the Fe-Ti mix cracks it into monatomic H @ 400 C or so, which then creates the LENR on the Ni surfaces (guess?). It's magical if true and easily duplicated.
Deesky
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2011
Rossi is being careful about his secrets

Yeah, coz it's a scam. International patents have been refused and peer-reviewed journals have rejected publication.

I suppose it's all a conspiracy by those ignorant mainstream scientists in the pockets of Big Oil trying to keep us from the Truth.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2011
The fact that there is so much disagreement should be a big red flag to anybody who feels very strongly about any given point of view. If you get emotional about it, then that should be a personal red flag for you.
THere's disagreement in everything within societies. The question is, how much disagreement is there within the expert circles, and that answer is very very little.
emsquared
3 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2011
The question is, how much disagreement is there within the expert circles, and that answer is very very little.

Actually the real question is how well is the entire system understood and able to be replicated and predicted, and to what lengths, and with what certainty. That answer is not fully, not very well and not with much certainty.
Arkaleus
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2011
Agreements and consensus mean nothing in science. Groups can favor a theory or model for any number of reasons, but we have seen many times where consensus endured for generations before being overthrown by new methods or discoveries. Perception is not reality, after all.

What bothers me about public debate of this issue is that the public treats claims of consensus among climate researchers as an equivalence of truth, and it just isn't so. This is made more offensive when consensus is used as a justification for punitive laws and social policies.

Folks that enter a debate on this subject without understanding the level of uncertainty and incompleteness of the climate model should probably take a less authoritarian tact.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2011
@Arkaleus,

You need to learn some basic arithmetic -- such as the kind used when computing a household budget. Net savings = income - expenses.

The natural "emissions" you cite are balanced out by natural sinks. Absent human activity, there is a rough balance between the two. The 3% human contribution you cite (I haven't checked your numbers, but let's assume you're correct) does not have a corresponding natural sink. Hence, that 3% tends to ACCUMULATE in the atmosphere (well, actually about 50% of it does -- the other 50% does get buffered by oceans and such... for now.) That means, with every passing year, slowly but surely, atmospheric concentrations continue to rise. And you get a graph like this:

http://en.wikiped...ng_Curve

^^ that's not 'theory' or 'alarmism': it's empirical measurement.

For perspective, current anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed natural global volcanic output by more than 100x:

http://hvo.wr.usg..._15.html
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2011
You know Pink, it is amazing how plain and obvious AGW is. Only paid for anti-warming cronies or foolish RW ideological simpletons would argue with well proven AGW science. But they stand up here to be counted. Amazing.

Social engineering at the max.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
The question is, how much disagreement is there within the expert circles, and that answer is very very little.

Actually the real question is how well is the entire system understood and able to be replicated and predicted, and to what lengths, and with what certainty. That answer is not fully, not very well and not with much certainty.

Heat seeking missles stand in direct contrast to this statement of yours.
Skepticus_Rex
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2011
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.

- Bertrand Russell