[HermannH]

KeithPickering wrote:
It may turn out that you can get to theoretical breakeven, but not quite to practical breakeven … or just barely over the line, which would mean that the excess salable energy would be a lot more expensive than assumed.

That is the worry I have as well. According to Eric’s simulation results in the Technical Paper 1 the maximum reasonably achievable ratio of (Xray + Beam) / Input is 1.57.

If you assume a conversion efficiency of 80% for both and no other losses inside the system the net gain on each shot is 25%. This is certainly better than unity but not very comfortably so. Also, if you have low overall gain the waste heat that is generated is going to be very large compared to the net electrical output.

Of course several approximations and assumptions were used in the simulation. So the final result could turn out to be quite different.

[HermannH]

Brian: I am still amused by your characterization of Timothy Ball as one of the “world’s first and most prominent PhDs in Climatology“.

I dare you to compare his wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball with that of James Hanson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Ball’s page mainly consists of his “Views on environmental change”, a list of public appearances and a list of publications. Notice that there are a total of two entries after 1984, one of them is about “Houston, Mary (2003), Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay” and neither of the two is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Also notice that the longest section is labeled “Views“. Yes that’s right, his opinions are his claim to fame, not any significant scientific work he has done himself.

Hanson’s page is more than 5 times as long. There are long sections detailing his scientific work, all of it related to the study of climate. I don’t know whether he has received any death threats but he has been arrested while participating in a protest. Sounds to me like a man acting out of conviction not out of greed.

Oh, BTW, his list of publications can be found here http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
You may notice that by the time Ball received his PhD in Climatology Hansen had published dozens of papers on climate related topics. And all of them published in peer-reviewed journals.

When it comes to prominence in climatology, on a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate Hansen a solid 10 and Ball a 5; and that is mostly for notoriety, not original contribution to the field.

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:

Strawman attacks on a few hundred thou of funding by a few sources you disrespect are disingenuous, also, compared to the 10s of billions of dollars going to innumerable institutions and firms to bolster the AGW case. The very livelihoods of the principal proponents of the IPCC case depend on that massive flow of money. …

Strawman attack? I am pointing out that a major player in the global warming debate has a history of selling his science name for dubious research for tobacco companies. As you may recall tobacco companies countered real scientific findings that linked smoking to lung cancer with their own junk science and confused the public for years if not decades.

The very same strategy was used in the global warming debate and even some of the same scientists (e.g Seitz) and fake grassroots organizations were involved.

[HermannH]

I suppose you copied from this news group post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_thread/thread/fe1c81de19d19899?pli=1

The world’s first and most prominent PhDs in Climatology?
http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball:

… over the course of his career Ball published four pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

And there seems to be some controversy about his credentials. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php :

According to Ball’s website he was not a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years. And how could he have? He did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983, that would allow even Assistant Professor status. During much of the 28 years cited, he was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor.

Ball sued over the newspaper article where this comment was printed and later ended up withdrawing the suit:
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents
The world’s first and most prominent PhDs in Climatology? I think not!

Sorry to be so negative about an individual, but you asked for it. Back to the science. If you scroll down you will find this response to his post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2205be33438972f5
A quick web search comes up with this page that picks apart a similar argument here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/

The main points are these:
1. CLIMATE MODELS DO INCLUDE WATER VAPOR
2. If you remove all water vapor and clouds you still absorb about 34% of the long wave radiation, and conversely, if you only have water vapor and clouds you absorb 85%. Thus the effect of water vapor and clouds is between 66 and 85%, which is quite different from the often quoted 95%. And what is the ‘by volume’ qualifier all about, except to confuse the reader?

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
The modelling techniques used by the IPCC are seriously substandard, and there have been numerous major shortcomings in the data selected to feed into them. Recently, 31,000 scientists and others with specific qualifications in relevant fields signed a statement rejecting the validity of the procedures and conclusions reached, on the basis that they did not adhere to any recognizable standard of scientific inquiry or verification.

Politics and money rule the AGW movement. As I observed, it started when Margaret Thatcher offered to pay for “cooked” research discrediting coal as a power source because it would harm the climate, as she needed to knock the coal unions down a peg. The field and issue were basically bit players before that, but her funding brought volunteers into the arena in droves. It has been on that same track ever since.

If I remember correctly climate research wasn’t the major weapon that Maggy used in her clashes with the coal miners. Maggy was a trained chemist. This science background allowed her to see that perhaps there was a nugget of truth behind the concerns of climate researchers at the time.

But how about this ‘grassroots’ movement: Philip Morris wanted to discredit an EPA report that found that second hand smoke is harmful. The advice they got was to create the impression of a grassroots movement that fought against government over-regulation. They also got the advice to throw in a few other issues to make it look more authentic http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2:

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens’ group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, “to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors”; to “link the tobacco issue with other more ‘politically correct’ products”; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with “broader questions about government research and regulations” – such as “global warming”, “nuclear waste disposal” and “biotechnology”….

TASSC’s headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people. Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz, the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds shows, was to “refute the criticisms against cigarettes”. An undated note in the Philip Morris archive shows that it was planning a “Seitz symposium” with the help of TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would speak to “40-60 regulators”.

The same Seitz that circulated the above mentioned Oregon Petition:

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the “review” that followed Seitz’s letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson’s organisation – the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine – and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson’s 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

If you read the article in its entirety you may understand why I alternate between laughing and cringing every time I see you mentioning that politics and money rule in the AGW movement.

Brian H wrote: I will repeat the question I asked above; perhaps you will care to have a go at answering it:

“Examine again that geological image above ( http://www.biocab.org/Climate_Geologic_Timescale.html ) For literally hundreds of millions, indeed billions, of years CO2 and temperature went their separate ways. What changed when human CO2 release commenced? “

I did look at the graph and I cannot explain it, and neither can you. I do not know what other factors were dominant for the respective time periods. Perhaps some climatologists have explanations for some of the periods.

When human CO2 release commenced the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere started to increase. The extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about half of what was released in the last 200 years the rest ended up in the oceans. This has already led to increased ocean acidification: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314

Perhaps you show me the courtesy and read the links that I provided and comment on them. And I do hope your response is relevant and not just a one-liner.

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
There have been a sequence of posts; recapping the whole sequence every post is unworkable.

As I said, your interpretation of CO2 flux can be summed up in two sentences. But you couldn’t be bothered with that. Instead you came up with flippant one-liners and some numbers that only make sense in a very specific context.

Brian H wrote:
And “unconventional” is a matter of opinion.

No it’s not! When a vast majority believes something it’s ‘conventional’, regardless of whether that belief is right or wrong. When a small minority believes something fundamentally different and the majority is not even aware of that view it’s ‘unconventional’.

I wasn’t aware of your interpretation and neither was Eric Lerner. I fact he got involved for the sole purpose of telling you to get your math straight. That makes two out of two who participated in the discussion with you.

Usually people know whether their views on a particular topic are mainstream or unconventional. I am sure Eric doesn’t believe that his views on the Big Bang or on the feasibility of FF are conventional at this time. To be unaware that your views are unconventional may a sign of delusion.

Brian H wrote:
That data-based verification has become “unconventional” in climate science is the ultimate sign that it is off doing something else besides science. Milking a giant cash cow comes to mind.

Your favorite: its all a conspiracy!
Have a look at this http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/the-climate-cha.html and this http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482 for some alternate conspiracies.

[HermannH]

Brian. In an earlier post I stated this:

HermannH wrote:
… CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from 320 ppm to 380 ppm in the last 50 years alone. These are actual measurements not predictions or speculation. The pre-indusrial level has been estimated to have been around 280 ppm. The oceans also absorbed a significant amount of CO2 in that time frame. That is a 20% increase since 1960 and I don’t think that anybody seriously disputes the numbers nor the claim that the lion share (if not all) of the increase is the result of human activity. This number is 160 times higher than your stated value of 0.125% human contribution (unless you only count the air that we exhale). In the graph you can also see that seasonal swings are much smaller than the long term trend and diurnal variations are invisible. Where do your numbers come from? ….

From your subsequent quotes I have gathered that you fundamentally dispute the above statement. Let me try to paraphrase your beliefs as I understand them now:

The daily and seasonal flux back and forth of CO2 between air/ocean/biomass is so huge that the comparatively tiny flux from human activity can’t possibly make a difference. Therefore, the observed 20% CO2 increase in the atmosphere is the result of a (temporary?) fluctuation of that naturally occurring exchange.

If this interpretation does not reflect your views please set the record straight. If, on the other hand, it is a fair representation I hope you are aware enough of the global climate change discussion to realize that your view is not the generally accepted one.

In order to have a meaningful conversation you have to start from some common ground. If two people can’t agree that 2+2=4 there is no point in starting a discussion about higher algebra.

In my initial statement I presented what I thought was ‘common ground’. I even specifically stated that I thought it was ‘common ground’.

Instead of clarifying that you disagree with what I presented as a basic assumption your response was:

Brian H wrote:
The numbers don’t even begin to add up. The hooman output in toto is a minute fraction of that change in concentration. And the lab results don’t reflect atmospheric dynamics. …

And I was left scratching my head, wondering ‘what the heck does he mean?’ When I asked for clarification the response was this:

Brian H wrote:
3.5% of GH gas is CO2. 3.5% of CO2 fluctuation is hoomon (as the Ferengi say it) output. 3.5% of 3.5% is 0.125%. All covered in earlier posts.

Again: ‘What the heck… ‘

I went on a wild goose chase on the Internet and through dozens of your earlier posts on this forum trying to reconstruct where you are coming from. It took all this, two posts from Eric and another two from you until I finally began to understand your views on changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. At least I believe I understand them now; and it takes two sentences to summarize them.

So why the hell did you not clarify your (very unconventional) position from the start?

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
The numbers don’t even begin to add up. The hooman output in toto is a minute fraction of that change in concentration. And the lab results don’t reflect atmospheric dynamics. All the IR which can be absorbed by CO2 (actually, it’s delayed on its way to outer space, not absorbed, as it is re-emitted by the CO2 molecules it warms) is already, except for a fraction of a percent (the absorption curve is asymptotic, and is now moving out on the ‘long tail’ of that last tiny fraction). The point about CH4 is that it has more slack to take up, unlike CO2, which might help reduce the cooling now beginning.

‘The numbers don’t even begin to add up.’
Did you check the links that I provided? If so, what does not add up?
Where did you find your number of 0.125% human contribution? What exactly does it mean? (Why do you keep spelling it ‘hooman’?)

‘All the IR which can be absorbed by CO2 … is already’
This is from the IPPC report. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/044.htm

It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.

The other human-made greenhouse gases add to the effect of increased carbon dioxide. Their total effect at the surface is often expressed in terms of the effect of an equivalent increase in carbon dioxide.

Of course you probably won’t believe a word of it.

I found a more technical discussion here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=243619
The salient point seems to be embodied in this graph: The absorption bands get wider with increased densities of CO2.

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
The logic is: CH4 does the warming, CO2 does the plant growth. As for CO2 warming, my assertion is that EVEN IF it were true, it would be a good thing. But since hoomon CO2 contributions are about 0.125% of GH gas in the atmosphere, it is entirely irrelevant. Diurnal and seasonal swings are much wider than that, and so you could double-or-nothing all we do and not be able to detect the effect.

Interesting logic, but before we can apply it we need to agree on some underlying facts.

According to this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from 320 ppm to 380 ppm in the last 50 years alone. These are actual measurements not predictions or speculation. The pre-indusrial level has been estimated to have been around 280 ppm. The oceans also absorbed a significant amount of CO2 in that time frame. That is a 20% increase since 1960 and I don’t think that anybody seriously disputes the numbers nor the claim that the lion share (if not all) of the increase is the result of human activity. This number is 160 times higher than your stated value of 0.125% human contribution (unless you only count the air that we exhale). In the graph you can also see that seasonal swings are much smaller than the long term trend and diurnal variations are invisible. Where do your numbers come from?

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas the warming effect of CO2 is three times higher than that of CH4, given their current concentrations in the atmosphere. These are numbers that are based on well known chemical and physical properties of the molecules and their distributions in the atmosphere. These properties are measured in a lab, there is no climate modeling involved. So I don’t understand how you can postulate that CH4 does the warming, and CO2 does not.

I am glad to see you agreeing that global warming (or the reversal of a cooling trend) is the result of having increased concentrations of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. That is exactly what the climatologists are saying, except they also include CO2! So how come they are frauds?

[HermannH]

Brian, I am still confused. You propose that we we maximize CO2 and CH4 output to stop and reverse a global cooling trend that has been going on for centuries. And I understand that you believe the extra CO2 as a side benefit also enhances plant growth.

Let’s put aside for a moment discussions about the reality/severity of the cooling trend and the potential negative consequences of a warmer world.

What I like to point out here is that you imply that the greenhouse effect does work! So how are the climatologists frauds when they predict a couple of degrees global warming due to increased levels of CO2 and CH4?

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
Since reducing CO2 emissions will achieve nothing except hike costs and reduce local plant fertility, it seems rather brutal to put poor countries through the wringer.

I understand your reasoning about CO2, but I am puzzled by the suggestion of Maximizing CH4 output in your signature. What good does methane do in the atmosphere, except that it acts as a greenhouse gas? Does this mean you believe that the world would be better of if it was a couple of degrees warmer?

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
*Employees are not involved/the issue. There is no “IPCC research center” as such. These are people with day jobs that just happen to be fat and happy because of AGW alarmism, who submit papers for massaging and editing by the IPCC (WHICH IS A POLITICAL AGENCY of the UN). They do, I suppose, get paid for participation in the IPCC charade, but it’s the long-term economic and political benefits that are “drivers”–plus professional prestige and clout.
…
BTW, the most rabid of the AGW activists are demanding 80% reductions in CO2 production by 2050. Without FF, that would take us back to living standards from the 1800s, and probably also population levels from then. Which they’re quite OK with.

Brian – I am not going to try to convince you that AGW is real or that too much CO2 in the air and particualrly the oceans can be harmful for a large number of organisms. Nothing short of a Damascus Road Conversion will change your mind. But please reflect on this:

You seem to believe that more than 90% of all climate scientists fall in one of three categories:
A) Either they know that AGW is a hoax and they are milking it for all it’s worth.
B) or they are fools and have no clue what they are doing.
C) or they know that AGW is a hoax, but they are simply to scared to tell the truth; another version of A), really.

No doubt there are some climate scientists that enjoy their fame and the money and job security since GW has become a hot topic; who would not. No doubt there are some individuals that perform sub-par research; every group has a bottom 10%. But accusing 90% of either being fools or willingly compromising their research is a bit of a stretch. Even politicians and lawyers show more integrity than that. People usually don’t become climate scientists because they are lured by money or fame or power.

About the prestige and clout issue: I happen to believe that multinational oil companies and OPEC countries have a bit more economic and political clout than a bunch of windmill and solar cell producers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the net profits of the first group are larger than the total revenue of the second group.

At this time no one can declare with absolute certainty that AGW is a fact but no one can declare that it is a hoax either. If I was a gambler it would put the likelihood of it being real at least at 50% and the likelihood of some kind of worst-case scenario (Greenland melting completely within the next couple of hundred years, ocean acidification killing most corral reefs and a lot of marine life that depends on them, etc.) would be at least 5%. This is assuming that nothing significant is done to stop the growth in CO2 emissions let alone reducing them from current levels. All of the worst-case scenarios also result in large-scale human suffering and the economic cost would be in the trillions.

I don’t know about you, but I pay almost $1000 a year for house insurance alone. I never had a claim in 20 years, so the odds of something really bad happening are less that 5% in a year. Yet I still keep the insurance because the peace of mind of knowing that some disastrous event won’t wipe me out is worth it. And so it is with all insurance, a multi-multi-billion dollar industry: we pay dearly to mitigate the effects of some unlikely but potentially disastrous events. We even have insurance for events that are so remote we won’t even live to collect the money, it’s called life insurance.

So what is wrong with paying something upfront to reduce the probability of a GW catastrophe? Or are you so sure that you are 100% right and the vast majority of scientists that study climate professionally are wrong?

I fully agree with you that reducing CO2 emissions will be very painful for everyone. I also share your aversion to Cap and Trade, it is too complicated and therefore open to too much manipulation; a slowly phased in carbon tax would be much better. Unfortunately any proposal with the word ‘tax’ in it is doomed from the start.

In the end the question is: do we take our chances and delay action and risk the possibility that 10 to 30 years down the road we find out that GW is real after all? At that point we may have set something in motion that cannot be stopped and our children or grandchildren may also end up with living standards of the 1800’s with population densities to match. That is why I am interested in FF. If it worked it would provide a pain-free way to reduce human CO2 emissions; everybody would be a winner (well except oil and coal companies).

[HermannH]

It seems you are talking about something akin to the Brownian ratchet.
Unfortunately you can’t cheat the laws of thermodynamics; you won’t be able to extract any useful work with it.

[Author]

Posts