Branson Prize: $25M for removing 1 Gigaton CO2/year

[Viking Coder]

Brian H wrote: Read the paper.:coolmad:

I did. Here is the review of it for those who actually are skeptical, rather than just grasping at straws to support their beliefs.

The paper starts off with a misstatement – “The satellite record is the highest quality temperature data series in the climate record.”

The satellite records, RSS & UAH, are measurements of the radiance in various wavelength bands, and thus indirectly the temperature, of bands of the atmosphere – lower troposhere, mid-troposhere, stratosphere. RSS & UAH are not the end all & be all of temperature measurements. GISS & HadCRUT are equally relevant.

The text below Figure 1 is a good example of cherry-picking. Ignore the global data and eyeball local data, namely the Southern Hemisphere, to disprove the global data.

“If it doesn

[Brian H]

Speaking of mercenary motivation:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s

Nice work if you can get it.

[Viking Coder]

Brian H wrote: Speaking of mercenary motivation:

Quite. TGGWS is another piece of sophistic tripe. It was produced by Martin Durkin, who only ever produces science-free sophistic tripe. For instance, his piece on silicone breast implants being beneficial to women’s health.

My favorite part of that production is where Ball is identified to be in a department that never existed with a degree that his university never offered.

Carl Wunsch whose words were sliced & diced to make that production issued the following letter upon its release.
Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

…
[letter to Mr. Steven Green, Head of Production, Wag TV]

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film “The Global Warming Swindle.” Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled—please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change— in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?
…
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Channel 4

[Tasmodevil44]

Seeding the oceans with iron to encourage algal blooms in the ocean may indeed be one of the most practical and economic ways to remove vast quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. But I heard recently that some environmentalists oppose this approach ( just can’t win for losing ).

Physicist Alfred Y. Wong of UCLA has proposed a really far – out scheme of ionizing CO2 molecules with either microwave antennas or lasers so that the CO2 will then interact with the Earth’s magnetic field. The ionized CO2 will then be accelerated up into outer space never to return ! ! ! Sounds sort of wacky, I know. But Wong’s concept is all based upon sound physics.

Many years ago, I read about a strange phenomena where CO2 was attracted to magnetic fields. I’ve read about it a few more times over the years. This strange anomaly is indeed weird, because CO2 is NOT supposed to be magnetic. It will interact with magnetic fields only if first ionized.

But anyway, I once proposed the futuristic use of some kind of force field, tractor beam, or carbon dioxide magnet that could draw CO2 toward it. I also proposed the use of some sort of separation and extraction from other atmospheric gases by using some sort of porous membranes assisted by magnetic fields. The CO2 could then be used to synthesize renewable hydrocarbons by some kind of manmade duplication of photosynthesis. And it would all be nuclear powered.

However, I recieved all kinds of scoffing and ridicule for such an outlandish thing. I was called a crackpot and just about every other name you could imagine. As sci – fi futuristic as it may sound, I think such ideas warrant further investigation rather than being completely dismissed out of hand. What if CO2 really could be drawn out of the air by some kind of electrostatic field or something ?

But by far the most practical and economic way to deal with CO2 and global warming is to simply NOT burn fossil fuels and release it in the first place. Like Jolly Roger said, trying to sequester it or any other approach is like closing the door after the horse is gone.

[Jolly Roger]

Here is an interesting site on the Global Warming controversy.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

It takes the stance that the theory of Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming is based on bad science.

It is not certain that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming. It may be the other way around.

Millions of years ago, the global temperature was the same, but CO2 levels were 10 times higher. What’s up with that?

[Tasmodevil44]

Jolly Roger you are correct in stating that not all scientists have reached a consensus the way some people claim. Although I don’t get quite as nasty and nutty in bashing Al Gore the way the extreme right – wing sometimes does. There’s no scientific doubt whatsoever that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming. What is still questionable, however, is the fact that there are so many other factors and variables in a more complex equation that can influence the final outcome. Just as scary (if not more so) …… is the fact that a super volcano eruption like Yellowstone National Park could still cause an ice age …… and put the remaining survivors of humanity back into the stone age …… regardless of how much manmade warming we have.

Although the concept by Professor Alfred Y. Wong of UCLA to use the Earth’s own magnetic field to accelerate CO2 molecules into outer space sounds far – fetched, it is based on sound principles of physics. Although some people have considered the harmful environmental implications of such a large manmade construction project like that situated in polar regions of either arctic or antarctic.

To read more about this seemingly bizarre concept for CO2 removal by Professor Wong, check out this website :

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/venting_our_problems_away.php

It’s definitely an unusual and interesting approach to the problem regardless of whether it’s all that workable or practical or not.

[Jolly Roger]

Tasmodevil44 wrote: There’s no scientific doubt whatsoever that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming. What is still questionable, however, is the fact that there are so many other factors and variables in a more complex equation that can influence the final outcome.

The site I mentioned above states that contributing factors of Global Warming are: solar radiation, volcanoes, solar wind/cosmic rays, El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and human activity (in that order). The “scientific” “consensus” ignores the contribution of solar wind/cosmic rays, even though it is many times larger than El Nino’s, thereby overestimating the contribution of human activity.

Also, CO2 levels are estimated from measurements in Hawaii, which sits in the middle of the Pacific ocean, a major source of natural CO2 out-gassing.

The “consensus” also ignores absorption of man-made CO2 in polar seawater. There is no known difference between the absorption rates of natural and man-made CO2. Its environmental half-life is 3 – 8 years, so if all man-made CO2 production ceased tomorrow, most of it would be absorbed in a few decades, not the centuries the “consensus” would have you believe.

… a super volcano eruption like Yellowstone National Park could still cause an ice age ….

It wouldn’t take Yellowstone. Several Krakatoas could send us into a little ice age.

[Tasmodevil44]

You have a manmade forcing of climate with the steady buildup of anthropogenic CO2 …… and then you have all the other unexpected, random and unpredictable factors superimposed upon it. Such as a volcanic explosion here on Earth …… or an explosion on the surface of the violent Sun.

Take for example, the dust bowl years of the 1930’s. They had some of the hottest years on record. American agriculture simply dried – up and blew away, further compounding the severity of the Great Depression. The CO2 levels in ppm (parts per million) were certainly much lower then than they are now. What caused the severe heat waves and drought back then? Solar output variability? Changes in jet stream? Alteration of El Nino?

We are looking at a truly monumental task of trying to make the switch to non – carbon emitting sources of energy. Especially considering how wasteful and inefficient U.S. infrastructure is …… and the fact that some people have to commute to a job everyday as much as 100 miles from their home.

Even more daunting is how to drastically reduce CO2 emissions without harming the global economy. The energy appetite of humanity has reached far too much forward momentum to put the brakes on CO2 very fast anytime soon. And in spite of any efforts by the United States …… China and India and many other developing countries are still rapidly ramping – up CO2 emissions. The population of cars in Asian countries is growing even faster than people these days. Not to mention that China and India complete construction of another coal – fired plant just about every two or three days. Absolutely phenomenal growth.

Having said all that, I still don’t think we should just throw our hands up in the air and give – up the good fight. The continual, ongoing manmade forcing of climate by CO2 emissions will eventually reach a tipping point far greater than all the other random, intermittent natural causes. I think we should at least try to mitigate the damage so as not to be as severe (if we can’t stop it). Many developing countries will do nothing unless the United States sets an example for the rest of the world to follow

[Tasmodevil44]

FINAL CONCLUSION : WHICH IS ALL THE MORE REASON RESEARCHERS SUCH AS LERNER NEED TO GET TO CRACKING ON THINGS LIKE FOCUS FUSION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE ! ! !

[Brian H]

Viking Coder wrote:

Look closer to your own sources for that accusation of complicity. It should come as no shock, whatsoever, to discover that David Archibald is an oil exploration scientist who is the operator of a number of exploration permits in the Canning Basin, Western Australia.
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm?expertId=358
…

Yawn. The standard IPCC/AGW Troo Beleever canard that all opponents are shills for the oil companies.

Like Freeman Dyson, and the 700++ credentialed scientists who have publicly repudiated the IPCC’s methodology, structure, and conclusions.

The IPCC reports were written by a tight cabal of about 52 scientists, of whom a spokesman said 20 had “something to do” with climatology. 😆 😆 What a Gong Show!

[Viking Coder]

Brian H wrote:
Yawn. The standard IPCC/AGW Troo Beleever canard that all opponents are shills for the oil companies.

How about discussing the referenced information I provided that dismisses his claims rather than becoming indignant & providing puerile bluster about a closing comment?

Brian H wrote:
700++ credentialed scientists who have publicly repudiated the IPCC’s methodology, structure, and conclusions

Could you please reference that claim? Pointing to a blog post (which only listed 604 rather than “more than 650”, included many economists, TV weather forecasters & was full of quote-mining from actual climate scientists) by a politician’s PR flack is not sufficient, nor credible.
More on Inhofe’s alleged list of 650 scientists

Besides, the number of scientists supporting a conclusion is irrelevant. The only relevance is the science itself. Does a list of scientists presented by the Discovery Institute prove evolution through natural selection is invalid?

Brian H wrote:
The IPCC reports were written by a tight cabal of about 52 scientists

Incorrect. There were 619 authors of the AR4 wg1. There has been one, and only one, resignation. Christopher Landsea of the U.S. NOAA AOML, resigned from the IPCC AR4 wg1, in Januaty 2005; Landsea disagrees that projected warming will lead to increased hurricane risks.

Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), working group 1: the scientific basis (‘wg1’) authors

[vansig]

1 Gt CO2 is equivalent to 2.3e13 mol of native carbon, (as soot).

Sequestration in this form is possible because it’s biologically inert. Standard enthalpy change of formation for CO2 is -393.5 kJ/mol, so converting the whole 1 Gt CO2 corresponds to 8.9e18 J.

Assuming ~10% efficiency, this would take 10 years at 283 GW power, producing 0.27 Gt carbon and 0.73 Gt O2 as by-product.
Your mileage may vary.

If that wins the prize, that’s $.09 per kW·decade. Not a really great ROI for a fusion-based scheme.

I say mother Nature should definitely be involved.

[vansig]

So, take an area of ocean 2500 – 5000 km², depleted of phytoplankton, and fertilize with a mix of 100 parts volcanic ash to 1 part iron sulphate, and monitor it over a decade. if the ratio of 300,000:1 above is correct, then you’ll need 333 kt of fertilizer to yield your 1 Gt CO2 sequestration.

[Author]

Posts