It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ausername
Sure, I'd love to see us make the switch to alternative energy and fuels immediately... The reality is that there really isn't a viable alternative, or combination that can meet the demands without an extremely painful and long transition period.
It is what it is.
Processing rare earths is a dirty business. Their ore is often laced with radioactive materials such as thorium, and separating the wheat from the chaff requires huge amounts of carcinogenic toxins – sulphates, ammonia and hydrochloric acid. Processing one ton of rare earths produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste; Baotou's rare earths enterprises produce 10m tons of wastewater per year. They're pumped into tailings dams, like the one by Wang's village, 12km west of the city centre.
Rare earth mining in China: the bleak social and environmental costs
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ausername
What is causing it? Has solar irradiance increased significantly? Have ocean currents dramatically changed? What has changed in the past 100 years to account for the increase in global temperatures? What's different now from 100 years ago, besides CO2 levels? What's changed besides the level of radiative forcing and its associated feedback effects?
It is rapid and accelerating change that we are not causing, nor can possibly mitigate that is the problem.
When has the development of new technology (as in alternative energy production) weakened any economy? When has increased efficiency in use of resources increased human misery?
Any efforts to do that now would serve to adversely impact already weakening global economies and dramatically increase the stress and misery for humanity needlessly...
What do you think it is that will make people more miserable? Not being able to burn all the fossil fuels they want? Why?
Why make people more miserable when it will not save them all in the end?
Sure the Sun will eat the Earth. Might as well kill myself.
On the whole, human misery has been reduced. On the whole people live longer, more productive lives even with an ever increasing population. I suppose you think the middle ages would have been a wonderful time to live?
Many many people lost their shirts during these technological revolutions.
Natural sources of CO2 are part of a cycle, they do not lead to increasing atmospheric levels because it is the same carbon being reused, there is a natural equilibrium reached. The combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon which was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. CO2 formed as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels has an isotopic signature due to the decay of carbon 14, its source is recognizable. Increasing CO2 causes increased radiative forcing which increases temperatures, this increase has feedback effects, causing increases in "catalysts" such as water vapor.
Also C02 from humans is a small percentage of the total production of C02 and is far weaker and less abundant than many other catalysts in the atmosphere.
Air is transparent to radio frequencies. Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation is not absorbed by the atmosphere. That is why long distance radio communications are possible. Radio frequencies do not warm air. Turn on your microwave oven with nothing in it for a while. Open it up. Is the air inside hot?
Honestly there have hardly been any studies on the effects of all the EM radiation being broadcast into the atmosphere from human communications.
"The model?" Which one? But, yes, predictions for cloud cover are difficult to model. What does that have to do with a relationship between increasing atmospheric CO2 and solar radiation being retained?
The assumptions accepted by the model are quite unclear regarding cloud formation.
Also difficult to model. What does that have to do with a relationship between increasing atmospheric CO2 and solar radiation being retained?
The papers cite deforestation as increasing c02 but also site the agriculture that pops up in its place as having increased reflective properties. The rates are not strongly quantified either.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the existence of humanity but I guess you can say that our technology is the driving force for our need for energy. Maybe we don't have to burn fossil fuels to obtain that energy, though for now it is the cheapest method of doing so.
Lets not forget that science is the reason for global warming threatening the existence of humanity in the first place, if you want to be honest.
Put a cup of water in the microwave. Organic has nothing to do with it. The point was, radio frequency radiation does not heat the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with global warming.
If you don't believe me the next time you take your food out of the microwave, stick one hand in the microwave and the other in your food . . . it reacts with organic material.
No. Microwaves do not excite electrons. They cause dielectric materials to vibrate. Molecules, not electrons.
Besides microwaves are not really just microwaves, they rely on the intersection of wavelengths to maximize coverage for exciting electrons.
Release of energy from what? What chemical reactions? Just how strong do you think communications microwaves (and other communications frequencies) are?
The signals could actually be lower the barrier for chemical reactions or assisting in preventing the release of energy by maintaining excited atoms across large swaths of inhabited areas.
I find much of the literature is readily available with a small amount of effort.
I agree that there are likely better ways, but just wanted to emphasize that much of the available literature concerning many of the variables of the current models is blocked behind pay walls (for the joe six-pack) or an atmosphere of dissent (ie do not challenge this).
Seriously, assumptions are being made provided no studies to control for other factors which are averaged by assumptions.
In practice, most dielectric materials are solid. Examples include porcelain (ceramic), mica, glass, plastics, and the oxides of various metals. Some liquids and gases can serve as good dielectric materials. Dry air is an excellent dielectric, and is used in variable capacitors and some types of transmission lines. Distilled water is a fair dielectric. A vacuum is an exceptionally efficient dielectric.
An important property of a dielectric is its ability to support an electrostatic field while dissipating minimal energy in the form of heat. The lower the dielectric loss (the proportion of energy lost as heat), the more effective is a dielectric material. Another consideration is the dielectric constant , the extent to which a substance concentrates the electrostatic lines of flux. Substances with a low dielectric constant include a perfect vacuum, dry air, and most pure, dry gases such as helium and nitrogen. Materials with moderate dielectric constants include ceramics, distilled water, paper, mica, polyethylene, and glass. Metal oxides, in general, have high dielectric constants.
A low-pressure rf plasma source has experimentally shown the capability of dissociating
CO2 to CO and O2. While the discharge can generate high conversion efﬁciencies near
90%, the energy efﬁciency is less than 3% for almost all operating conditions. Therefore
this plasma system is not a good candidate for CO2 emission reductions for either coal or
natural gas combustion processes. However, a plasma system that is capable of achieving
g[52% (e.g., microwave discharge) has the possibility to be apply this technology to
natural gas combustion while still achieving a net energy output.
Experimental results have
Plasma Chem Plasma Process 123shown that microwave discharges can achieve energy efﬁciency as high as 90% under
certain operating conditions . This high performance stems from the unique ability of
microwave discharges to excite the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule, which is the
most effective path to dissociation. The optimum operating conditions to excite vibrational
modes of CO2 include having a speciﬁc energy input of *1 eV/molecule, an electron
temperature of*1 eV, and an ionization degree (ne/no) C 10-6 . The rf plasma source
studied in this work did not meet this criteria, which explains the low energy efﬁciency.
However microwave sources operating at moderate pressures have shown that they can
meet these conditions and thus may be a good candidate for CO2 dissociation.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
So you're saying that communications microwaves are disassociating CO2 molecules in the air?
Then why are CO2 levels rising?
Or are you saying that they could be used to reduce CO2 emissions? Maybe so.
Show me where I did that. Show me where I said anything about microwaves affecting CO2 or not.
You basically denied the science of microwaves affecting c02 according to some members here.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer
If we really wanted to alter the climate on a permanent basis, what could humans do?
What could we do to alter the climate? We could burn all of the fossil fuels available and continue to release CO2 which was removed from the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. Or we could reduce the amount of fossil fuel use and slow the rate of change.
We could burn it in a very dirty manner, increasing pollution. This could actually have a cooling effect but the side effects are not so good.
We could dump stuff into the upper atmosphere to scatter light into space before it has a chance to reach the lower atmosphere. This would have a cooling effect but the side effects are another matter and the effect would only last as long as we kept dumping stuff.
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: beezzer
How about starting a nuclear winter? Is that aggressive enough approach?