Carbon sequestration policy must balance private property, public good

Oct 11, 2011
The lack of a settled legal framework that balances private property rights while maximizing the public good ultimately hinders the large-scale commercial deployment of geologic carbon sequestration, according to research by A. Bryan Endres, a professor of agricultural law at Illinois. Credit: L. Brian Stauffer

The lack of a settled legal framework that balances private property rights while maximizing the public good ultimately hinders the large-scale commercial deployment of geologic carbon sequestration, according to published research by a University of Illinois expert in renewable energy law.

In order to justify the extensive up-front capital investment by firms, issues with the property rights of the subsurface pore space that would permanently house the captured must be resolved first, says A. Bryan Endres, a professor of agricultural law at Illinois.

"You have a new technology that requires a lot of upfront , but you don't have a for how you're going to be able to implement this technology with regard to property rights," said Endres, who also is the director of the university's European Union Center. "What's unique about property rights is they're usually pretty well settled, and yet here we are dealing with a situation where ownership isn't quite so clear. That's a key question, because a firm isn't going to invest money in a carbon sequestration plant before they are confident about who owns the area underneath."

According to the study, published in the University of Illinois Law Review, ownership of the pore space at the depths necessary for permanent geologic carbon sequestration is still an open question in the vast majority of states.

"Right now, only Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota have assigned the property rights of the pore space to the surface property owner," Endres said. "While that might make good political sense, I don't think that makes good policy sense because it creates a patchwork of small land-holdings. With carbon sequestration, the geology is going to determine the limits, not some grid-based property system. This is why we need to have legislative involvement to clarify the situation."

Endres says sequestration operations implicate a unique set of property rights issues, one that's analogous to a plane flying over a house at 30,000 feet.

"Do you own the airspace above your house?" he said "Well, no, and the reason we know the answer to that question is that there was a court case that settled the issue. And that was one of the things that allowed the airline industry to develop, so that planes didn't have to weave around an easement, like railroads do. Similarly, picture a really deep hole that may start on your land but goes down 7,000 feet. Who owns that? One argument is that a property owner does not have a reasonable expectation of ever using the pore space at such extreme depths."

Like air transport, carbon sequestration should be thought of as a public good – one that has the added potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and curb global climate change.

"It makes more sense to treat it as you would airspace for an airplane, in that it belongs to the state and they can decide who's going to access it," Endres said. "It would be a much more efficient system if the state had ownership of it."

Endres notes that there's also the potential for states to generate a significant amount of revenue from carbon sequestration, either through an auction or a royalty system.

Because of its unique , the Mount Simon formation, which makes up a large swath of the Illinois Basin that extends to parts of Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky, is a potentially ideal site for .

"It would behoove a state like Illinois to be a leader at settling these issues, and not just for climate change purposes but also for job growth and revenue generation," Endres said. "It's a resource the state should take advantage of so that it can become a center of innovation for this new industry."

While this isn't necessarily the silver bullet to reverse carbon dioxide emissions, Endres says it's one of many ready-made and already available tools that could slow the growth rate of global climate change.

"This is a technology that will allow us to utilize natural resources like coal while also shrinking its carbon footprint," he said. "So it's important to get this framework in place so the industry can really take off, because now you just have a lot of speculation, experimental labs and pilot projects. This is something that needs to get developed sooner rather than later."

Explore further: Risks from extreme weather are 'significant and increasing'

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists develop tech to track carbon dioxide

Jun 14, 2010

(AP) -- Scientists have developed a method for detecting and tracking carbon dioxide deep underground, giving the federal government an important tool as people look for ways to keep carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ...

Carbon sequestration field test begins

May 16, 2007

The U.S. Department of Energy says its Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium has started its first enhanced oil recovery field test in Illinois.

Farming commercial miscanthus

Aug 31, 2011

An article in the current issue of Global Change Biology Bioenergy examines the carbon sequestration potential of Miscanthus plantations on commercial farms.

Recommended for you

Gold rush an ecological disaster for Peruvian Amazon

6 hours ago

A lush expanse of Amazon rainforest known as the "Mother of God" is steadily being destroyed in Peru, with the jungle giving way to mercury-filled tailing ponds used to extract the gold hidden underground.

Australia out of step with new climate momentum

8 hours ago

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who rose to power in large part by opposing a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, is finding his country isolated like never before on climate change as the U.S., China ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Arkaleus
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
Oh wait, I have a better idea! Let's seize carbon charlatans and large money tricksters in the dead of night, apply a heaping dollop of hot tar to their pink parts, then deluge them with piles of good goose down.

I believe feathers belong best to chicken little, and carbon is securely sequestered in the application of bituminous tar.
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (55) Oct 11, 2011
"Hey, I don't agree with you so I'm going to mutilate your genitals and most likely kill you over it." - An average conservative

Maybe we should affix a DUNCE cap with tar just below your nose since you seem to prefer breathing out of your mouth.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
"One argument is that a property owner does not have a reasonable expectation of ever using the pore space at such extreme depths"
So?
Kelo had no resonable expection of building a hotel on her property so the city of Hartford could take it so someone else could?
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
The lack of a settled legal framework, . . .


Is no problem when Big Brother decides to act!

See George Orwell's book, "1984."

www.online-litera...ll/1984/

Hang in there!
Oliver K. Manuel
Environmentalist and
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

jsdarkdestruction
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2011
Oliver, do you not know of phase 2 of the plan? see kissinger and nixon knew about neutron repulsion and it being the main source of the suns and the universes power but chairman mao did not. as the world all followed their lead in the conspiracy they said it was to prevent nuclear war. however under the guise of that the united states had different reasons. as the climatoligists/scientists destroy our economy and power while funneling money to third world nations for supportung the scam the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated for anyone but the us to even have a chance of stopping the chinese from taking over the world, at that moment neutron repulsion will be officially "discovered" and cheap easy neutron repulsion energy will be used both to power production of weapons and supplies and as weapons of mass destruction themselves in neutron repulsion bombs. saving the united states and allowing us to finally take over the whole world without looking like the bad guys...
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2011
The lack of a settled legal framework, . . .


regarding climate change in the United States may have been solved by a report published by Sandia Labs last year:

http://prod.sandi...0039.pdf

The report suggests that climate change is a matter of National Security.

If so, it is almost treason to misrepresent information about:

a.) Earths heat source the Sun, and
b.) Earths global surface temperatures

That legal framework may help us get to the bottom climate disputes:

See Comment #53 on
http://noconsensu...ducated/

And Comments #5 and #13 on
http://noconsensu...hinking/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Arkaleus
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2011
Frank, you always seem really angry at strangers. Your ability to appreciate satire is autistic.

Everyone else, stop berating Omatumr, his theories are novel, not insane. I'm getting annoyed by those of you who go around vandalizing his posts. You guys have nothing to add to the community, so why don't you go find some animals to eat instead. Human beings are still immature and very ignorant of the nature of the cosmos. Listening to you berate each other for theorizing is like watching burros bite each other, or monkeys screaming at each other for god only knows what. Find some other place to satisfy your sociopathy.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2011
Ark, that's how modern science works today.
Any new theory must be ridiculed to protect the pet theories, and funding, of the established.
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2011
1. Over fifty years ago President Dwight D. Eisenhower solemnly warned of the danger to our democracy if a "scientific-technological elite" ever took control of public policy [Farewell address (17 Jan 1961)]

Document: http://mcadams.po.../ike.htm
Video: www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

2. Last week an editorial in Nature confirmed the danger of using consensus reports as scientific facts for government policy [Nature 5, 7 (5 Oct 2011)].

www.nature.com/ne...07a.html

3. Forty years (1971-2001) of using consensus reports to guide government policy have damaged:

a.) The vitality of government science,
b.) The integrity of government science, and
c.) The fragile self-governance we inherited in 1776!

http://judithcurr...scholar/

http://judithcurr...t-121893

"Cowards die a
Thousands deaths,
. . . A brave man
Dies but once!"
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Oliver you have made it quite clear that you think there is something you call neutron repulsion and it stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.

If it has the range to fragment galaxies and the strength and range to block the formation of ANY black holes then it not only is strong enough to stop the formation of neutron stars but also ANYTHING that is held together by gravity.

For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
Everyone else, stop berating Omatumr, his theories are novel, not insane
They are self contradictory. Note how is going to NOT answer my question despite its validity. At most he will repost the articles I have already read. Reading them, and then thinking about them, is how I noticed that Neutron Repulsion makes the formation of Neutron Stars, Galaxies, and even planets, impossible.

I'm getting annoyed by those of you who go around vandalizing his posts
We are annoyed by how pretends ANYTHING is an excuse to post his nonsense. We are giving them a low rank not vandalizing them.

You guys have nothing to add to the community, so why don't you go find some animals to eat instead.
That adds nothing except another personal attack. Why don't you eat a veggie instead?

Me, I can multi-task. I was eating a hamburger when I read this. With veggies.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
Find some other place to satisfy your sociopathy
You really don't have clue as to what goes on in science do you? Besides the only person here that is a proven sociopath is Oliver. Some of his attacks on others are astonishingly hypocritical.

The integrity of government science
For instance that is coming from a guy that lived a lie for decades.

"Cowards die a
Thousands deaths,
. . . A brave man
Dies but once!"
And that from a guy that is afraid to answer my questions. Even after I pointed it out that HE was the one that was running away when he spammed another article with that same quote. Indeed he quoted it in an attempt to hide behind it and not answer my questions.

Ethelred
Arkaleus
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
For Christ's sake Ethelred, you need to back away from the keyboard until you stop feeling the need to attack others for whatever off the wall theory they have. You are not an authority and we don't need a self-appointed thought policeman enforcing the scientific and political fads of this generation.

Assholes like you do nothing but pollute the forum and make friendly discussions impossible because of your infantile need to dominate, control and eliminate those you don't agree with.

This is a free thinking zone for all sorts of crazy ideas. If you want to join the gestapo, you were born 80 years too late.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
arkaleus, you dont have a clue man. Free thinking is great. lies about scientific conspiracies and shitty data are not. you are not half the man ethelred is.
Arkaleus
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
If you adore this hateful ideology so much that you attack any who shout against it, you have completed the betrayal of your country and kinsmen and hasten the miserable evils these lies will create.

AGW teaches us to loathe our own kind, preaching death and doom in place of human growth and life, tyranny in place of liberty, and chaos and confusion in place of the natural human right to direct our own destiny with consent.

It enthralls the foolish and wicked to tear down the limited forms of government our ancestors created out of love for their children, poisons our minds with totalitarian remedies for fabricated panics, and sets neighbor against neighbor with harsh judgments and lunatic causalities, all to destroy our social inheritance and erect itself as the supreme power over all human activity.

The outcome of this insidious subtlety is global war, and those who succumb to this madness hunt their own destruction.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
Advise from others:

1. I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him.

- Booker T. Washington

2. "To know that you do not know is best. To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."

- Lao Tzu

3. "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

- Albert Einstein

4. There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation

- Herbert Spencer

5. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformationage) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

- Michael Crichton

http://scienceand...hes.html

jsdarkdestruction
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
you guys are something else. lol, oliver. you would be wise to take heed of your own quotes and actually practice what they say instead of lying and making up conspiracy theories and attacking scientists integrity while you are a disgraced child molester who the scientific community has watched go from seemingly honorable scientist to a lying child rapist(according to 4 of your own children) who cant tell reality from his own hallucinations and refuses to accept data that proves hia ideas are not even self consistent and his theory falls apart.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
For Christ's sake Ethelred, you need to back away from the keyboard until you stop feeling the need to attack others for whatever off the wall theory they have.
I thank you for that attack.

You are not an authority and we don't need a self-appointed thought policeman enforcing the scientific and political fads of this generation.
Oliver is not an authority. I am NOT enforcing fads. I am asking Oliver to answer some questions. He refuses and instead responds with more rubbish and even more personal attacks. Would you like to replace ETHELRED with OMATUMR in that post? It would be ever so much closer to reality.

Assholes like you do nothing but pollute the forum
Speaking of assholes I think you just qualified.

This is a free thinking zone for all sorts of crazy ideas. If you want to join the gestapo, you were born 80 years too late.
That was a rather hypocritical post where YOU did exactly what you accused me of.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
If you adore this hateful ideology
That does fit Oliver.

AGW teaches us to loathe our own kind,
That is a lie.

It enthralls the foolish and wicked to tear down the limited forms of government
That is another.

Based on that I have to assume that you think it is wonderful that Oliver agrees with your bizarre thinking. OK. If you want to act like Oliver feel free. Just don't expect rational people to agree.

You clearly like hate filled posts that you agree with and hate people that disagree with you. Sorry but I will live with that and continue to ask Oliver questions he really should be able to answer with something besides the usual personal attacks.

I must admit that personal attacks by a convicted child molester don't really make me feel bad at all.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him.

- Booker T. Washington
You should practice that. I don't hate you. I just want a few questions answered and a lot less spam on the site.

"To know that you do not know is best. To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."

- Lao Tzu
That covers you exactly. As the poster child for those that pretend and attack the people that disagree.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

- Albert Einstein
He made a lot of mistakes. That is one since he wasn't religious. Science does NOT need religion.

that principle is contempt prior to investigation
I investigated. I found out that you are wrong.

The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda
So start with truth and stop pushing propaganda. The truth is the Sun does not have neutron star in it. Neutron Repulsion proves it

Ethelred
Arkaleus
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2011
Honestly Ethelred,

I could care less for your ego-centered judgments of Oliver, myself, or anything said, and I don't think many others here do either. This isn't the venue for you to posture as moderator and arbiter. We just don't care for your vanity.

You and others like you are obsessively driven by the misunderstanding that this is your privileged space for cross examination. Arrogance!

In truth, your moral allegiance is in question and your posts more for selfish gratification than any love of community. I've read many of your posts, mostly harassing other posters; expounding little and teaching naught.

I want to read intelligent, directed thoughts about important things, not petty ideological rants and pedantic diatribes upon whatever popular delusion you've chosen to adore.

We'll determine the value of information ourselves, but I supposed we will never be rid of childish posts from self-appointed brawlers and trolls.

Stun us with novel ideas, not childish fop.
Arkaleus
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2011
As an antidote to OCD line-quote trolling, here's Wiki to the rescue:

"A Man who has been brought up among Books, and is able to talk of nothing else, is what we call a Pedant. But, methinks, we should enlarge the Title, and give it to every one that does not know how to think out of his Profession and particular way of Life."Joseph Addison, Spectator 1711.

"Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgements of one another."Desiderius Erasmus

"The pedant is he who finds it impossible to read criticism of himself without immediately reaching for his pen and replying to the effect that the accusation is a gross insult to his person. He is, in effect, a man unable to laugh at himself."Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id.

"If you're the kind of person who insists on this or that 'correct' use... abandon your pedantry as I did mine. Dive into the open flowing waters and leave the stagnant canals be... Above all, let there be pleasure!"Stephen Fry

Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
I could care less for your ego-centered judgments of Oliver
That is your problem except that I am judging Oliver's bad science by actual science.

We just don't care for your vanity.
I am not pretending to be 'we' so the vanity is yours.

misunderstanding that this is your privileged space for cross examination. Arrogance!
I have no misunderstanding in this. The arrogance of claiming to speak for all is YOURS.

your moral allegiance is in question
This is a science issue.

mostly harassing other posters
Thank you for harassment and false judgment.

I want to read intelligent, directed thoughts about important things,
So start reporting Oliver for abuse.

not petty ideological rants
That is Oliver all right.

popular delusion you've chosen to adore.
So this is about you not liking my positions on Global Warming. Which is an unpopular position but I have to go on the evidence of the ice melting.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
We'll determine the value of information ourselves
There is that egomaniacal 'we' again.

but I supposed we will never be rid of childish posts from self-appointed brawlers and trolls.
I suppose it is true you and Oliver won't be banned.

Stun us with novel ideas, not childish fop.
I do that. For instance there is my novel idea that if Neutron Repulsion is real and strong enough to stop the formation of Black Holes then it would also stop the formation of Neutron Star. It has stunned Oliver into not answering any questions about it.

here's Wiki to the rescue:


http://en.wikiped...oss_post

Crossposting is the act of posting the same message to multiple information channels; forums, mailing lists, or newsgroups


And for you and Oliver
http://redwing.hu...etoo.htm

You are welcome to keep yapping. But your constant use of WE is clearly fraudulent.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
5. "For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule."

6. "The world does not know that we must all come to an end here; but those who know it, their quarrels cease at once."

www.dailybuddhism...ives/125
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2011
5. "For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule."
Nice hypocrisy. Also a meaningless platitude that has nothing to do with this discussion. I am not about to express nonexistent love for you Oliver. I leave the hate all to you. You can hate me all you want. Just answer the questions before you explode from apoplexy. Me, I don't do hate for people I discuss things with. Annoyed is as far as I go.

6. "The world does not know that we must all come to an end here; but those who know it, their quarrels cease at once."
So how about you quit telling those about people you don't know. Why are quarreling with me and others instead of answering the questions?>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2011
Quoting others to hide behind won't change reality. You show a great deal of hate in those lies you tell about other scientists. You keep claiming you are changed yet you keep spamming and ranting about scientists that actually have a clue. The Bilderburg Sun lie that you push is just pure hate with no reality in it.

http://en.wikiped...standing

That is the reality of how the standard model was developed not this paranoid delusion you are pushing.

Now since you seem to have forgotten that I have asked some very relevant questions I think it is to repeat some of them.

According to you Neutron repulsion stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2011
If it has the range to fragment galaxies and the strength and range to block the formation of ANY black holes then it not only is strong enough to stop the formation of neutron stars but also ANYTHING that is held together by gravity.

For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2011
The Bilderburg Sun lie that you push is just pure hate with no reality in it.

http://en.wikiped...standing



I push "the Bilderberg lie"?

No, I said the Bilderberg Sun is absolute nonsense !

Nonsense, cleverly concealed by the powerfully politically-correct "Bilderberg" wrapping.

Like the aggressive emotional defensive judgmental exterior that hides your Divine core and confuses rational thought!

H and He, elements #1 and #2, are the two most lightweight elements. They are therefore dominant species at the TOP of the atmosphere of most stars.

This external wrapping of H and He is waste products from the pulsar core, made by

a.) Neutron-decay into hydrogen (H), and
b.) Hydrogen fusion into helium (He), respectively.

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

The powerful pulsar core of the Sun is hidden beneath this exterior, just as your Divine core is hidden by an aggressive emotional defensive judgmental exterior.
omatumr
Oct 19, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jsdarkdestruction
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
you didnt answer the questions again oliver, more evasion and crazy ranting. its sad.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2011
I push "the Bilderberg lie"?

No, I said the Bilderberg Sun is absolute nonsense !
That is the Lie. The Bilderberg Sun Paper is a paper you don't seem to have read. Its about the photosphere and its 43 years old and made no definite conclusions, didn't claim the Sun was stable, and pretty didn't do anything you claimed except not go with a Neutron star. And your Neutron Repulsion proves that is impossible.

Nonsense, cleverly concealed by the powerfully politically-correct "Bilderberg" wrapping.
See you didn't read it. Go read it. This is just like that letter you linked to without reading. Neither was what you claimed to such a degree it is clear you didn't read either.

Like the aggressive emotional defensive judgmental exterior that hides your Divine core and confuses rational thought!
That is nonsense. At best you are confusing me with someone else.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2011
It is so jumbled it has no meaning even if any had applied to me. No wait, there is ONE WORD that applies to me. TWO. RATIONAL THOUGHT. Thats it, the rest seems to be you except the divine part which is no one at all. You especially.

Like the aggressive emotional defensive judgmental exterior that hides your Divine core and confuses rational thought!
No shit Sherlock.

They are therefore dominant species at the TOP of the atmosphere of most stars.
And anywhere else in them plus the entire Universe.

This external wrapping of H and He is waste products from the pulsar core, made by
Sorry but no. That is based on your idea that the Sun has a Neutron core and disproved that with Neutron Repulsion and pretty much no one else thinks your right even without Neutron Repulsion since the Sun isn't the size of New York City.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2011
a.) Neutron-decay into hydrogen (H), and
b.) Hydrogen fusion into helium (He), respectively.
The second part is sorta right, leaves out a lot of steps. The first part is dependent on a failed idea.

The powerful pulsar core of the Sun is hidden beneath this exterior,
Sorry but that is pure nonsense.

1 - If Neutron Repulsion wasn't utter nonsense it would stop the formation of Neutron Stars.

2 - You claim the Sun went supernova and the rocky inner planets are the result and the lack of metals farther out is because the metal didn't reach. Which is nonsense as Supernova blast metal out at a significant fraction of the speed of light. We can see this in EVERY supernova. The material LEAVES the system it came from.

3- The pulsars that SOMETIMES remain are all heavier than the Sun.

4 - All of the pulsars have a MUCH smaller diameter than the Sun.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2011
5 - The Standard Model of the Sun works. It does NOT predict the Sun is stable like you claim it does. Neutrinos oscillate. Kamiokande found enough Neutrinos to fit the Standard Model. Shouting that neutrinos don't oscillate won't make the evidence go away.

All you have ever had in the way of evidence proves two things.

A supernovas was involved in the formation of the Solar System and it could not have been the Sun since that would have blown the metals out of the system AND IF it had left a pulsar it would have outweighed the Sun.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle was pretty good work.

Now I keep answering your questions. Time for you answer mine.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
IMO The biggest problem of emissions trading is the fact, it virtualizes the main purpose of carbon tax, i.e. the providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants, the collection of money into introduction of green-house gases free technologies in particular.

Instead of it, the rich companies of western word are sponsoring the introduction of older fossil carbon technologies at the less developed countries and nothing forces them to limit their own production of green-house gases.

To put it briefly: the carbon tax is OK, the carbon tax trading not.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.
Please deal with this issue since it appears that your own attempt to support you theory of a Neutron in the Sun with Neutron Repulsion makes Neutron Stars impossible. Clearly some heavy duty math is likely to be needed. There are a number of people here that will be able to follow your math.

If you disagree, then offer a better interpretation of the experimental data:
Did it. Again. Been doing it for two years now. The Standard Model fits REAL experimental data. You model has magic supernova unlike any ever observed and two contradictory ideas on top of that.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2011
Data that you, the Bilderberg Group, Al Gore, and the UN's IPCC continue to ignore were posted above for your convenience.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2011
Saw the data. Responded to it. You have again only responded by ranking my truly excellent posts with a one, clearly out of pique and you have done your usual response.

None whatsoever.

I thank you for that clear admission that that you have nothing to support yourself or explain why you have two theories that are in clear contradiction of each other. Nor can you show how your evidence supports your magic supernova.

So how about some evidence that supernovae can dump all the new matter in the inner solar system when EVERY single observed supernova has blasted the stuff into interstellar space?

The Bilderberg group is pure bullshit on your part as it has nothing to do with the standard model or global warming or pretty much anything due to it not actually doing anything you claimed nor being used by anyone except you because it is obsolete.

That is the most inept response you have manage yet in a vast history of non-response to well reasoned replies.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
Ethelred:
...So how about some evidence that supernovae can dump all the new matter in the inner solar system when EVERY single observed supernova has blasted the stuff into interstellar space?

So the inner solar system is really not a part of interstellar space? So where did it come from? Help me out here.

...the standard model...is obsolete.

Is this the correct interpretation of what someone said? Do they think Newton's laws are also obsolete?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Ethelred:
...Albert Einstein
He made a lot of mistakes. That is one since he wasn't religious.
Science does NOT need religion.

Einstein probably didn't worship but he used God arguments to support his deterministic world views. So maybe science doesn't need religion but scientists are definitely not above using it to support their preconceptions.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
omatumr:
...The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. - Michael Crichton

For example:
jsdarkdestruction:
...the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated

That would be tricky with an average family size of 3.1 persons and a shortage on the female side of almost 20%.
Minor details, I suppose.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
So the inner solar system is really not a part of interstellar space? So where did it come from? Help me out here
No it isn't. The inner Solar System is SOLAR space. The asteroids on in. Interstellar is outside the Solar System. Out past the Kuiper Belt and if it exist past the Oort Cloud.

As for where the Solar System came from, if that was what you meant, we can see solar systems forming in nebulae. We see heavy metals created in supernovae and lighter stuff in novae from smaller stars that are too small to produce iron. Producing iron is what initiates supernovae.

Oliver does have evidence that a Supernova was involved in the formation of the Solar System. But for some strange reason Oliver insists OUR own Sun was the sun that went bang. He thinks the the heavy metals were somehow kept in the inner Solar System. If that was true the Crab Nebula would not exist as THAT is a real supernova and the heavy stuff was blown out of the system it started in.>>
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
http://en.wikiped...b_Nebula

it corresponds to a bright supernova recorded by Chinese and Arab astronomers in 1054.


the nebula has a diameter of 11 ly (3.4 pc) and expands at a rate of about 1,500 kilometers per second.
11 light years. Now THAT is interstellar. Yet somehow Oliver thinks in this sort of blast the heavier metals didn't get past the Asteroid Belt. He won't even acknowledge that it is a problem. He just repeats himself instead. Been repeating himself for two years here. And I keep finding new holes in his stuff. This supernova problem is just the latest I figured out.

...the standard model...is obsolete.
Really? And you can prove that by telling all of us here what it has been replaced by.

Is this the correct interpretation of what someone said
Who? What? Be a bit a more specific as to you are trying to say.

Do they think Newton's laws are also obsolete?
WHO? If you mean me then yes and no.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
It has been replaced by General Relativity but it is not obsolete as the math is still quite useful. GR is REALLY hard to calculate so even the multi-planet banking probes sent out by NASA had their paths plotted using Newton's math not Einsteins.

Einstein probably didn't worship but he used God arguments
No. He used HIS arguments and tacked on the word 'God' as in 'God does not play dice with the Universe'. Which was wrong even if there is a god. He did NOT have religion and his references to a god were rather Deist in nature but even less religious.

but scientists are definitely not above using it to support their preconceptions.
Einstein wasn't. And his preconception was wrong. Which supports my point pretty well. Science doesn't need religion. Some people may need it but the process doesn't.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Let for the moment assume there is a god. Should science assume a god is directly responsible for escorting the planets in their orbits. Till Newton that is EXACTLY what many thought. He was looking to prove that Jehovah did it with math. He managed to produce a mathematical system, The System Of The World, to show math is how it is done. IF he had assumed that Jehovah just made sure things happened by continuous intervention he never would have got anywhere in understanding how things worked.

Science MUST assume a god is not controlling every detail because that way lies just sitting on your ass and singing hosannas. And while Gregorian Chant is pretty good music it doesn't bank probes around Jupiter.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Ethelred:
...Science MUST assume a god is not controlling every detail

So the god is not a control freak. Credit where credit is due.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
So the god is not a control freak. Credit where credit is due.
What god am I supposed to give credit to?

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2011
So the god is not a control freak. Credit where credit is due.
What god am I supposed to give credit to?

Ethelred

Whatever god science is assuming not to control every detail.

I suspect Einstein believed in determinism - God does not throw dice. So there is actually no free choice. We aren't responsible for our actions - you can blame the Almighty for everything. This doesn't mean God can't perform miracles if he so chooses. But we are not automatons else we would have no purpose in this universe.

So I suppose you're going to ask what is our purpose? Go ahead.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2011
Seeker2
...we are not automatons else we would have no purpose in this universe

Except maybe for laughs.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2011
Whatever god science is assuming not to control every detail.
Better to just assume there isn't one. That way you don't have to keep remembering which god you are not assuming about.

We aren't responsible for our actions - you can blame the Almighty for everything.
I don't think free will was involved in his thinking. He just didn't like dealing with probabilities. He grew up with Newton's Mechanical Universe.

This doesn't mean God can't perform miracles if he so chooses.
Which god?

But we are not automatons else we would have no purpose in this universe.
We have a purpose. Reproduction. Other than that we don't have a purpose. If you think a god would give us one then what is the gods purpose? More to the point, why do you think there is a god?

So I suppose you're going to ask what is our purpose? Go ahead.
Don't need to. I KNOW what our, humans, purpose is. To continue to exist. The alternative is permanent. Just ask the Shakers.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Ethelred:
...I KNOW what our, humans, purpose is. To continue to exist.

Boring. Maybe you could think of something constructive.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 29, 2011
lol
Like "QM states are physical states" - Seeker2?

Yep. Constructive Nonsense. Boring.
Maybe you could think.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
Boring. Maybe you could think of something constructive.
Boring or not that is the purpose of humans. I said nothing about me or you. The question was really about life in general.

If you have some reason to believe there is vast purpose for humans please enlighten us. I find the geek answer of 42 to be a bit trivial. If the purpose you propose is dependent on another entity then I would have ask what is the entities purpose? And how would that make our purpose for this alleged entity to be more important than the continuation of the Human Race.

And frankly I don't find the idea of space travel to be boring.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
Ethelred:
...If you have some reason to believe there is vast purpose for humans please enlighten us

hush1:
...Maybe you could think.

You want me to think? How about nature? Does nature have intelligence? Dinosaurs were intelligent enough to survive much longer than we have. But they were'nt equipped to build telescopes and spacecraft or think about it. So there's a vast amount of U out there and if nobody views it or knows about it what good is it? Great performance but no audience. Just a waste of time? (pun unintended)

Ethelred:
...And frankly I don't find the idea of space travel to be boring.

Good point. We're all travelling on the same spaceship.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.