It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Cravens
Fusion has already happened. The problem is it takes more power than it produces (called, “break even ”). That is what is being pursued. Progress leveled off in the 80s because magnets had not kept pace. That has/is changing right now.
EOR doesn’t “filter” anything. Read lumenaria’s response how the mixture all comes back out and is not being pursued in the real world (I thought SCO2 displaced residual oil and pushed it out... which is what the article nay-sayers were complaining about).
Nothing was said about natural gas being replaced let alone any mention of cold fusion (now called LENR, btw).
The whole point was about taking action not arguing minutiae about opinions or beliefs.
Cool thing is, nobody has to do anything but sit back and then argue their political viewpoints about results after the plant is built and runs for a while.
originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Anyone promising a magic bullet is a con artist or radically deluded.
CO2 measurement began in 1959. No one knows how much CO2 there was 100 years ago.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi
CO2 measurement began in 1959. No one knows how much CO2 there was 100 years ago.
Active measurements started then, but yes we do know how much co2 there was 100 years ago we know how much there was going back millions of years.
Paleoclimatology it is a science. The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before instrumental sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets but that isn't the only way to take measurements. The sedimentary record can be used to make co2 measurements which is in the video I posted.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi
Sure they count. It is science. testable, repeatable, and verified.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi
Yeah, I have a clue. By no means am I an expert on the subject, but I am informed. As for what I did... well, I laughed.
A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask. ... "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded in using a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2 levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows—while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.
"We know from the analysis of sediments on the bottom of our seas about past ocean temperatures and ice volumes, but so far the role of CO2 changes in shaping the glacial cycles has not been fully understood," says Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study now published in Science Advances. "It is a breakthrough that we can now show in computer simulations that changes in CO2 levels were a main driver of the ice ages, together with variations of how the Earth's orbits around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles. These are actually not just simulations: we compared our results with the hard data from the deep sea, and they prove to be in good agreement. Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2. As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying."
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: kulombi
Not even close to how it works.
For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded in using a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2 levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows—while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.
"We know from the analysis of sediments on the bottom of our seas about past ocean temperatures and ice volumes, but so far the role of CO2 changes in shaping the glacial cycles has not been fully understood," says Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study now published in Science Advances. "It is a breakthrough that we can now show in computer simulations that changes in CO2 levels were a main driver of the ice ages, together with variations of how the Earth's orbits around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles. These are actually not just simulations: we compared our results with the hard data from the deep sea, and they prove to be in good agreement. Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2. As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying."
phys.org, April 4, 2019 - Carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation.
Try 3 millions years worth of data. Ocean core samples drilled all around the globe show how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Using that data, they built a model where CO2 were driven upwards and it matches what was actually recorded in the cores. Levels drove the ice age. Who knows where we are heading.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: kulombi
Not even close to how it works.
For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded in using a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2 levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows—while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.
"We know from the analysis of sediments on the bottom of our seas about past ocean temperatures and ice volumes, but so far the role of CO2 changes in shaping the glacial cycles has not been fully understood," says Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study now published in Science Advances. "It is a breakthrough that we can now show in computer simulations that changes in CO2 levels were a main driver of the ice ages, together with variations of how the Earth's orbits around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles. These are actually not just simulations: we compared our results with the hard data from the deep sea, and they prove to be in good agreement. Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2. As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying."
phys.org, April 4, 2019 - Carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation.
Try 3 millions years worth of data. Ocean core samples drilled all around the globe show how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Using that data, they built a model where CO2 were driven upwards and it matches what was actually recorded in the cores. Levels drove the ice age. Who knows where we are heading.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Cravens
Fusion has already happened. The problem is it takes more power than it produces (called, “break even ”). That is what is being pursued. Progress leveled off in the 80s because magnets had not kept pace. That has/is changing right now.
EOR doesn’t “filter” anything. Read lumenaria’s response how the mixture all comes back out and is not being pursued in the real world (I thought SCO2 displaced residual oil and pushed it out... which is what the article nay-sayers were complaining about).
Nothing was said about natural gas being replaced let alone any mention of cold fusion (now called LENR, btw).
The whole point was about taking action not arguing minutiae about opinions or beliefs.
Cool thing is, nobody has to do anything but sit back and then argue their political viewpoints about results after the plant is built and runs for a while.