Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming

a reply to: LDragonFire

Good for them... If it is so great, being a chinese company, why hasn't China made the switch?

China's pollution makes the USA's seem insignificant.

a reply to: ausername

I showed you clear evidence that solar energy is not only affordable and competitive with fossil fuels after you said this:

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.

There is viable alternatives and you wish to deflect about China.

a reply to: LDragonFire

If we have the viable alternatives then there is nothing to discuss. Just do it.

I know the truth is not always welcome.... But reality is always true. In the real world we are unfortunately still for the most part dependent on fossil fuels to a large degree.

Worse yet, in my opinion, if we halted ALL use of fossil fuels tomorrow... It would not prevent climate change.

The solar energy and anything electronic comes with a very high pollution cost.

Especially in China where most the rare earth materials are mined out.

For every ton of usable material there's something like 2000 tons of toxic waste produced !!

Think about that.

How does that compare with the alleged CO2 problems?

google;

" rare earth mining pollution "

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

It is rapid and accelerating change that we are not causing, nor can possibly mitigate that is the problem.

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?

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...

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?

Why make people more miserable when it will not save them all in the end?

What do you think it is that will make people more miserable? Not being able to burn all the fossil fuels they want? Why?

Sure the Sun will eat the Earth. Might as well kill myself.

The industrial revolution destroyed entire sections of the economy and centralized control of the mercantile trade and reduced the independence of the average person. The computer revolution also destroyed entire sections of the economy and forced people to further conform to centralized control mechanisms. Many many people lost their shirts during these technological revolutions.

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. There are several assumptions including the actual 'radiative' properties of these elements in such a dynamic system as the atmosphere of the earth.

Honestly there have hardly been any studies on the effects of all the EM radiation being broadcast into the atmosphere from human communications. The assumptions accepted by the model are quite unclear regarding cloud formation. 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.

Instead of building simple models of large scale complex systems they dove right in and created an extremely complicated and highly partitioned modeling system that switches between laminas and reimann sums as if they were the same thing.

The big problem with the climate fiasco would be violent weather complicating the possibility of space travel, which we all know is the number one dream making its way through all cultures these days.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Many many people lost their shirts during these technological revolutions.

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?

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.

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.

Honestly there have hardly been any studies on the effects of all the EM radiation being broadcast into the atmosphere from human communications.

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?

The assumptions accepted by the model are quite unclear regarding cloud formation.

"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 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.

Also difficult to model. What does that have to do with a relationship between increasing atmospheric CO2 and solar radiation being retained?

The purpose of the models is to attempt to predict the future of warming. Things like clouds and surface albedo changes are certainly important in such models but even if they cannot be perfectly modeled estimates can be made. Even if those estimates are not ideal, it does not change the fact (yes, fact) that an increase in CO2 levels results in an increase in the amount of solar radiation being retained by the atmosphere. Increasing CO2 can only lead to more heat in the climate system.

a reply to: Phage

Amenities does not really mean better, convenient surely but better would be a much broader discussion.

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. It is also the reason for overpopulation which is in turn leading to the massive amount of pollution that is ruining the Earth.

Just to put it in perspective a little as you really seem to be establishing some sort of false dichotomy.

You realize the microwaves that heat up your food don't have to heat up the air to create a heat source which would diffuse into the surrounding air right?

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.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

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.

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.

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.

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.

a reply to: Phage

Radio frequency these days, concerning communications, includes micro and milli wavelengths which allow for better data transfer. Besides microwaves are not really just microwaves, they rely on the intersection of wavelengths to maximize coverage for exciting electrons. Something something dipole something right?

Who knows? 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 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). There is too much political and commercial interest for anything to progress without impediment.

Seriously, assumptions are being made provided no studies to control for other factors which are averaged by assumptions. The leads themselves discuss how they must research their own models more because they feel that they are getting the right answer but do not really know why.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Besides microwaves are not really just microwaves, they rely on the intersection of wavelengths to maximize coverage for exciting electrons.

No. Microwaves do not excite electrons. They cause dielectric materials to vibrate. Molecules, not electrons.

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.

Release of energy from what? What chemical reactions? Just how strong do you think communications microwaves (and other communications frequencies) are?

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).

I find much of the literature is readily available with a small amount of effort.

Seriously, assumptions are being made provided no studies to control for other factors which are averaged by assumptions.

Huh?
But by "assumptions" do you mean facts like CO2 traps infrared radiation? That heat doesn't just go away.

a reply to: Phage

dielectric material
whatis.techtarget.com...

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.

The above is for those unfamiliar with what is being talked about.

Distillation ( en.wikipedia.org... )

What effect can radio and micro length radiation have on c02?

Efficiency of CO2 Dissociation in a Radio-Frequency
Discharge
pepl.engin.umich.edu...

Conclusion
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 [12]. 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 [14]. 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.

Yeah, I guess we should only focus on infrared spectrum because it is abundant thanks to the sun advanced utilization for spectrum analysis.

-FBB

climate gate 1 turned out to be nothing, according to 6 different agencies and a study funded by the koch brothers, so i figure this will turn out to nothing as well.

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.

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.

You basically denied the science of microwaves affecting c02 according to some members here.

Just thought I should start by pointing that out.

I am just saying that such methods could be used to affect the warming but are considered conspiracy hoohoo for some reason.

Instead of doom porn it would actually be a solution to much of the c02 problem a certain group thinks must be controlled. I am rather curious where all the papers on these sorts of interactions are outside of industry.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You basically denied the science of microwaves affecting c02 according to some members here.

Show me where I did that. Show me where I said anything about microwaves affecting CO2 or not.

You know those experiments were conducted in a vacuum chamber, right? 3mtorr is 0.000004 atm. Not quite the same as the situation in the atmosphere.

Like I said, perhaps such techniques could be used but guess what, it wouldn't be cheap. It would make power generation more expensive, just like using alternatives to fossil fuels would. Isn't that what people are complaining about? Spending too much money to mitigate warming?

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Sorry, I just have to ask this question. Why do you keep typing C02 and not CO2? It's not C zero 2. It's C O 2.

If you can't even get that right....

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer

If we really wanted to alter the climate on a permanent basis, what could humans do?

Define permanent.
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.

Thanks for the reply and apologies for the delay.

My point should be clear in that it is very difficult to passively alter the climate to a point where there would be dramatic change.

In order to cause such a drastic change in climate that would affect mankind, an actual aggressive approach would need to be done.

a reply to: beezzer

How about starting a nuclear winter? Is that aggressive enough approach?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: beezzer

How about starting a nuclear winter? Is that aggressive enough approach?

en.wikipedia.org...

That, I believe, would fall under the category of "active" approach to affecting climate. Not "passive".

Though some might disagree even with that based on the amount (number) of bombs already detonated in the 50's and 60's.

a reply to: beezzer

Actually, nuclear winter is based on the idea that nuclear bombs would start 100's of firestorms, and it's the firestorms that would create the soot and smoke which gets lifted to the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and blocks the Sun.

So, we could also just manually start a bunch of firestorms. Just start a bunch of brush and forest fires and burn all our CO2 scrubbing bushes and trees in the process...

Why does it have to be passive?