Hydrogen is very flammable. It’s why we use helium in our blimps. Because using hydrogen is just too dangerous. As the Hindenburg disaster has shown us.
So hydrogen is a pretty dangerous thing to be messing with. Unlike gasoline. Which is pretty safe and stable in the liquid form. You could even put out a cigarette in a puddle of gasoline. It’s dangerous doing so. And you shouldn’t try it. But the most dangerous thing about gasoline is its vapor. Ignite that and there will be an explosion. Which is what happens inside our internal combustion engines. Where our cars first aerosolizes the gasoline, mixes it with air, compresses it and then ignites it. Of course that explosion is deep within our engines. Where it can’t harm us. Still, it isn’t advised to smoke while refueling. Because there are gas vapors typically where there is gas. And you don’t want you car exploding like the Hindenburg.
Fuel cells use hydrogen to make electric power. All you have to do is stop at your hydrogen fueling station and fill up your hydrogen tanks. Just don’t smoke while doing this. Because hydrogen in its natural state is an explosive gas. This danger aside the hydrogen fuel cell is about to give the all-electric car a run for its money. And last’s night meal may be providing the hydrogen (see POO-power comes to California: Orange County residents to trial SUVs fuelled by human waste by Mark Prigg posted 2/25/2014 on the Daily Mail).
The fuel-cell powered Tucson can drive for 50 miles per kilogram of hydrogen, and its two tanks hold about 5.64 kilograms (12.4 pounds).
Costs of compressed gas in California range from about $5 to $10 per kilogram, depending on the facility, and it takes around three minutes to fill the tank.
Hyundai says it hopes the technology will become popular – and will take on the electric car as the eco-vehicle of choice.
‘Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles represent the next generation of zero-emission vehicle technology, so we’re thrilled to be a leader in offering the mass-produced, federally certified Tucson Fuel Cell to retail customers,’ said John Krafcik of Hyundai Motor America.
‘The superior range and fast-fill refueling speed of our Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle contrast with the lower range and slow-charge characteristics of competing battery electric vehicles.
‘We think fuel cell technology will increase the adoption rate of zero-emission vehicles, and we’ll all share the environmental benefits.’
If you crunch the numbers and compare it to a gasoline-powered Ford Taurus the numbers aren’t so good. A Ford Taurus gets 29 miles per gallon on the highway. And has an 18 gallon gas tank. Which means one tank of gas will take you 522 miles on the highway. At $3 per gallon for gas that one tank of gas will cost you $54. By comparison the fuel cell gives you only 282 miles on a full tank. And costs between $28.20 and $56.40 for a full tank. Dividing cost per mile that comes to somewhere between $0.10 and $0.20 per mile. While the gasoline-powered Ford Taurus costs about $0.10 per mile.
So at best the fuel cell will have a fuel cost equal to the gasoline-powered engine. But it only has about 54% the range on a full tank. Meaning you’ll have to stop about twice as often to fuel up with the fuel cell. And good luck not blowing yourself up playing with hydrogen at the fuel pump. That is if you can even find hydrogen fueling stations along your drive. The only real good thing you can say about a fuel cell when comparing it to a gasoline-powered car is at least it’s not as bad as an all-electric car. And those zero-emissions? Sorry, that’s not exactly true. The hydrogen may be zero-emissions but making the hydrogen isn’t.
First, sewage is separated into water and biosolids.
The waste water is cleaned, filtered and treated for reuse, while solid waste is piped into airless tanks filled with microbes.
A byproduct of their digestion is a gas that’s 60 percent methane and about 40 percent carbon dioxide, which is burned at the plant for power generation.
However, some is filtered and piped into a unique, stationary ‘tri-generation’ fuel-cell device, designed by the Irvine team, that produces electricity, heat and hydrogen.
The hydrogen gas is then piped several hundred feet to the public pump where fuel-cell autos are refueled daily.
Almost half of the source gas is carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide has carbon in it. This is the same gas they want to shut down coal-fired power plants for producing. Oh, and methane? That’s a greenhouse gas. This is the gas coming out of the butts of cows and pigs that some are saying are warming the planet. And when you burn methane guess what you get? Water and carbon dioxide. More manmade carbon emissions. That’s a lot of global warming they’re creating in the effort to prevent global warming.
This is one thing fuel cells share with all-electric cars. They may be emission free. But the chemistry to make them emission-free isn’t. We’re still putting carbon into the atmosphere. We’re just doing it in different places. And if we are wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier just to keep using gasoline?
The head of the UN body tasked with delivering a global climate treaty broke down in tears at a meeting in London as she spoke about the impact of global warming on coming generations.
Christiana Figueres told the BBC that the lack of an agreement was “condemning future generations before they are even born”.
Ms Figueres said this was “completely unfair and immoral”.
You know we’ve been hearing about all the horrible things that will befall us if we don’t act right now since the Nineties. We did nothing then. Didn’t even ratify the Kyoto Protocol. And nothing happened. How do we know this? Because they’re still warning us if we don’t act right now horrible things will befall us. As late as 2007 after the predictions of the Nineties failed to happen Al Gore was still talking about the melting polar ice cap. And a study that said the Arctic would be ice-free by the summer of 2013 if we didn’t do something right then in 2007.
The summer of 2013 has come and gone. And the polar ice cap is still there.
They were wrong again. As they are always wrong. Because their science is flawed. Even their most basic premise that higher levels of carbon dioxide cause global warming. For temperatures rose first then the levels of carbon dioxide rose. As noted by esteemed economist and smart guy (that knows how to read empirical data) Thomas Sowell.
There is no manmade global warming crisis. It has been manufactured by intellectuals who make money from warning people of the impending crisis of manmade global warming. For even Al Gore got so rich from warning us about manmade global warming that he could afford a villa on the beach. Even though those melting polar ice caps will submerge all coastal cities as early as last summer. Apparently when it comes to an ocean view for Al Gore there is no such thing as manmade global warming.
Trees love carbon dioxide. They breathe it in. And exhale oxygen. Allowing us to breathe. The more carbon dioxide they breathe the more oxygen we get. The happier the trees are. And the happier we are. So this is no surprise (see Redwoods and sequoias thrive despite climate change posted 8/26/2013 on CBS News).
A four-year study by the Save the Redwoods League called “the Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative” found that due to changing environmental conditions, California’s coastal redwoods and giant sequoias are experiencing an unprecedented growth surge and have produced more wood over the past century than any other time in their lives.
Imagine that. Man made the trees grow faster. And here the global warming alarmists were wringing their hands over the deforestation of the rain forest. When there is nothing to worry about. For we are planting trees. And now we know we can make those trees grow faster. All we have to do is burn more fossil fuels.
The global warming alarmists can rest easy tonight. For man’s carbon footprint isn’t killing the planet. It’s making it grow like a son of a bitch.
The conservation of matter states that we cannot create or destroy matter. We can only rearrange it. Meaning everything on this earth has been on this earth since this earth became the earth. Except, of course, stuff falling out of space. And the few moon rocks brought back by our astronauts. But other than that if something is here today it means it was here yesterday. Last week. Last year. Last decade. Last century. And last millennium. Get the picture? For this process goes all the way back to the big bang theory. To the day this spinning planet became a planet.
The elements on the periodic table are the building blocks of everything around you. Even you. All we have ever done throughout time is find these elements. Combine these elements. And separate these elements. To make the things in our world. But we use the same old elements that have been here since the big bang and are still here. We dig atoms out from the earth and pull them out of the atmosphere and rearrange them in new forms. Then chemical reactions rearrange them yet again. And they return to the earth and to the atmosphere from whence they came. This remarkable closed system. Where we can neither create nor destroy matter. But only rearrange it. Yet today this matter that has been here since the beginning is now too dangerous to be in the earth or the atmosphere (see Cowper mutiny on carbon capture by Daniel Mercer posted 7/9/2013 on The West Australian).
Premier Colin Barnett is facing another backbench revolt from former minister Murray Cowper, this time over proposed carbon capture and storage legislation.
The State Government wants to amend laws to allow carbon dioxide to be injected into underground reservoirs as part of efforts to reduce pollution and tackle climate change…
Mr Cowper said they “trampled” on landowners’ rights by giving drillers unfettered access to property and betrayed Liberal policy.
He also attacked the proposal as environmentally reckless, saying it amounted to “pumping and dumping” waste and would put groundwater at risk.
The State and Federal governments and industry plan to sequester carbon from Kwinana, Collie, Pinjarra and Wagerup under- neath Mr Cowper’s South West electorate.
Yes, you can mix together some elements from the periodic table and make a substance that can contaminate the groundwater. Yes, you can mix some elements from the periodic table together that can be dangerous to breathe. But carbon? The very building block of organic chemistry. Of life itself? That stuff we exhale when we breathe? This element is now so toxic that it’s too dangerous for the atmosphere? And too dangerous for the earth?
It’s time we dial back the crazy. Before the global warming people proclaim all carbon toxic. Limiting the amount of breath we may exhale. And the carbon we may carry within our bodies that make up our life-forms. Which isn’t a far stretch with Obamacare charging obese people more for their health insurance because of their greater at-risk status of weight-related disease. What’s to stop these people from identifying them as dangerous life forms due the abundance of carbon they carry within them? Don’t be surprised if you see a carbon content blank to fill in on the Obamacare paperwork.
Crazy? That’s exactly what someone would have said a century ago about the idea of sequestering carbon by injecting it into underground reservoirs to tackle climate change. If these men of yesteryear were here today and heard people talking like this they’d probably spit at them with derision. Seeing the only danger to mankind being the feminization of men that allowed people to quake with fear over the carbon dioxide we exhale.
In the Seventies they were scaring kids about a coming ice age. And about air pollution so bad that we would one day have to wear gas masks when going outside. The planet is a lot cleaner now. And there is no talk about Americans one day having to wear a gas mask when going outside. And that coming ice age? Well, they were just wrong about that. For what they thought was global cooling was actually global warming. An easy mistake to make. Because they’re both about temperature. One just moves in one direction. While the other moves in the other. And unless you do something like record temperatures periodically how are you going to know which direction those temperatures are moving?
Remarkably, and we will argue importantly, the airborne fraction has declined since 2000 (figure 3) during a period without any large volcanic eruptions… The airborne fraction is affected by factors other than the efficiency of carbon sinks, most notably by changes in the rate of fossil fuel emissions (Gloor et al 2010). However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 to 3.1% yr-1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean’s upper layers).
A decrease in land use emissions during the past decade (Harris et al 2012) could contribute to the decreasing airborne fraction in figure 3, although Malhi (2010) presents evidence that tropical forest deforestation and regrowth are approximately in balance, within uncertainties. Land use change can be only a partial explanation for the decrease of the airborne fraction; something more than land use change seems to be occurring.
We suggest that the huge post-2000 increase of uptake by the carbon sinks implied by figure 3 is related to the simultaneous sharp increase in coal use (figure 1). Increased coal use occurred primarily in China and India… Associated gaseous and particulate emissions increased rapidly after 2000 in China and India (Lu et al 2011, Tian et al 2010). Some decrease of the sulfur component of emissions occurred in China after 2006 as wide application of flue-gas desulfurization began to be initiated (Lu et al 2010), but this was largely offset by continuing emission increases from India (Lu et al 2011).
We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks… Sulfate aerosols from coal burning also might increase carbon uptake by increasing the proportion of diffuse insolation, as noted above for Pinatubo aerosols, even though the total solar radiation reaching the surface is reduced…
Reduction of the net human-made climate forcing by aerosols has been described as a ‘Faustian bargain’ (Hansen and Lacis 1990, Hansen 2009), because the aerosols constitute deleterious particulate air pollution. Reduction of the net climate forcing by half will continue only if we allow air pollution to build up to greater and greater amounts.
Let’s review. The airborne fraction carbon dioxide has fallen since 2000. And, as a result, global temperatures did not rise as projected. Even though there were no large volcanic eruptions. Which cause global cooling. Tropical forest deforestation and re-growth are balancing each other out. So that’s not a factor in this decline of airborne carbon dioxide. Which leaves the sole remaining answer for the decline in airborne carbon dioxide levels as China’s and India’s explosion in new coal-fired power plants. Yes, the wonderful air pollution from burning coal apparently cools the planet. Like a volcanic eruption does.
Are you seeing the bigger picture here? For a hundred years or so the Industrial Revolution belched so much ash, soot, smoke, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the air that it left black clouds over cities. And a layer of soot and ash on everything. This is why we electrified trains in our cities. To keep coal-fired locomotives and their great black plumes of smoke out of the cities. Was there a global warming problem then? No. That didn’t come into vogue until Al Gore started talking about it in the Nineties. When the planet was doomed if we didn’t act immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite only a few years earlier the climate scientists were warning us of the coming ice age. Probably because of all that global cooling from our coal-fired power plants, steam engines and locomotives.
As oil, gas and electricity replaced coal-fired boilers everywhere (we even used coal in our home furnaces) all that pollution from coal went away. And then came the Nineties. And catastrophic global warming. Just as China and India began to incorporate some capitalism into their economies. Which they fed with electricity provided by more and more coal-fired power plants. And as they belched all that wonderful pollution into the air the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide as well as global temperatures fell. So I ask again, do you see the bigger picture here?
Yes, global warming is man-made. At least this is what one can conclude from this paper. And it is the climate scientists who made it. By telling us to reduce all of the cooling emissions from our coal-fired power plants. But, thankfully, the Indians and the Chinese still care enough about Mother Earth to pump those cooling emissions into the air. And gave us a reprieve from the global warming apocalypse. But if the climate scientists get their way they’ll bring on that apocalypse. By pressuring China and India to stop putting those cooling emissions into the air. And for the sake of the planet we can only hope that they don’t succumb to that pressure.
A Security System basically locks Doors while a Fire Alarm System unlocks Doors
Engineering is basically a study of compromise. Of tradeoffs. For solving one problem often creates another problem. For example, boiling water creates steam. And the pressure of steam is so strong that it can do useful work for us. However, the pressure of steam is so strong that it can also blow up boilers. Which was common in the early days of steam. So we install pressure relief valves on boilers. To safely dump excessive steam pressure. So they don’t explode violently.
We want steam pressure to do work for us. And the higher pressure the steam is the more work it can do for us. But the higher the pressure the greater the chance for a catastrophic explosion. So the engineering of steam systems is a tradeoff. We design them to produce the maximum steam pressure that won’t blow up any part of the system. Trading additional useful work for safety.
Then there are systems that come together with opposing design criteria. Such as security and fire alarm systems. A security system basically locks doors in a building. Preventing the free passage of unauthorized people. While a fire alarm system basically unlocks doors. To allow the free passage of everyone. Authorized and unauthorized. For example, few people can get into the maternity area of a hospital. Even the elevator won’t stop on that floor if you don’t have a security card to swipe in the elevator. But if there is a fire in the building, all the secured doors will release to allow everyone to get out of the building.
If the Duct Smoke Detector detects Smoke it will Break the Safety Circuit and Shut Down the HVAC Unit
Interfacing the fire alarm system to HVAC systems require additional compromises. The primary design criteria of a heating, ventilating and air conditioning unit (basically a big box with a supply fan and a return fan with filters, heating/cooling coils and air dampers to blend in a varying amount of outside air) is to move air. To prevent the dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide from our exhaled breath. They also cool buildings in the cooling season. And help to heat the building in the heating season. In addition to the floor-mounted perimeter hot-water heating system. Located under most exterior windows.
Keeping the air moving helps to keep the air safe to breathe. Which allows us to work safely within enclosed buildings. But this moving air can be a problem if there is a fire in the building. For in a fire it’s smoke inhalation that kills most people. So if there is a fire someplace in a building you don’t want the HVAC system to blow that smoke throughout the building. Especially in areas where there is no fire. Which is why we interface the HVAC system to the fire alarm system. When there is no fire alarm condition the HVAC system is free to operate to meet the HVAC design criteria. Keeping dangerous levels of carbon dioxide from building up. If there is a fire alarm condition the fire alarm system takes control of the HVAC system to meet the fire alarm system design criteria. Preventing smoke from spreading throughout the building. In exchange for a less dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide. For in a fire alarm condition people will be leaving the building. So they will be out of the building before any buildup of carbon dioxide can harm them.
Air moves through ductwork. There is a supply-air duct system. And a return-air duct system (or a ceiling plenum where all the airspace above the ceiling is the return-air pathway back to an HVAC unit). They both terminate to an HVAC unit. The return-air fan pulls air from the building and the supply-air fan blows air back into the building. Located shortly downstream of an HVAC unit in the supply-air duct is a duct smoke detector. We wire this into the safety circuit of the HVAC unit. Which is basically a lot of switches wired in series. They all have to close for the HVAC unit to start. Such as the freeze-stat on the heating coil. Which prevents the unit from blowing freezing air onto a cold heating coil to prevent the water from freezing and breaking the coil. Also in the safety circuit are end-switches installed on the air dampers. Which close when the unit isn’t running to prevent heated air from venting out and cold air from migrating in. Before the fans start these damper have to open. And once they fully open switches close in the safety circuit clearing these safeties. Also in this safety circuit is the duct smoke detector. When the duct smoke detector is powered it closes a set of contacts. The duct smoke detector safety runs through these contacts. When closed it clears this safety. If there is smoke in this duct (or if the duct smoke detector loses power) this set of contacts opens. Breaking the safety circuit. And shuts down the HVAC unit.
Providing Smoke-Free Routes out of a Building gives People the best Chance of Surviving a Fire
HVAC units may feed more than one zone in a building. And if the ductwork serving these units pass through a wall (i.e., a fire/smoke barrier) there will be a fire damper in the ductwork at this location. Either one with a fusible link that melts in a fire. And when it melts energy stored in a spring releases and closes the damper. Preventing smoke from crossing this barrier. Often times they will install a combination fire/smoke damper. That will have both a fusible link that will melt in a fire. And a duct smoke detector and a motor. When powered up the motor winds up a spring and holds open the damper. These will also have end-switches on them. And we will also wire these into an HVAC unit’s safety circuit. Either hard-wired. Or by computer programming. If the detector detects smoke or loses power the contacts open the holding circuit and the energy in the spring will close the damper. As well as shutting down the HVAC unit connected to that duct.
The reason why we tie these into the safety circuit is that if the HVAC units start up without opening these dampers first dangerous pressures will build up in the ductwork. And blow them apart. Which is why there are end switches on the air dampers at the unit. For if the unit starts with those closed they will blow the dampers apart. All of a building’s HVAC units and dampers are controlled by a building management system (BMS). Which makes all the components in the building work harmoniously together. Varying the speeds of the fans, the positions of the dampers, the position of the valves on the piping serving the heating/cooling coils, etc. Unless there is a fire alarm condition. Then the fire alarm system takes control. And sends a fire alarm signal to the BMS system. Which, upon receiving this, executes an orderly shutdown of all systems. So when the fire alarm condition clears it can begin an orderly and safe startup. Often staggering the starting of the HVAC units to prevent dimming the lights from the power surge if they all started at the same time.
These systems can be even more complex in large buildings. Stairwells may have a stairwell pressurization system. If there is a fire alarm condition a dedicated fan will start up and blow air into the stairwell. And shut down any HVAC units serving areas outside these stairwells. So there will be a higher pressure inside the stairwell than outside the stairwell. So air, and smoke, blow out of and not into the stairwell. Making them safe for people to use to leave a building during a fire. An even more complex fire alarm system will take over control of the fans and dampers of the HVAC system to ventilate smoke out of building. Smoke evacuation systems are very complex. And costly. But they can save a lot of lives. As most people die from smoke inhalation in a fire. So having the ability to provide smoke-free routes out of a building or venting it out of a building gives people the best chance of surviving a fire. Which we can do when we make some engineering compromises. And make some tradeoffs between the security, HVAC and the fire alarm designs.
Droughts are a sign of global warming. Excessive rains are a sign of global warming. Little snow fall is a sign of global warming. Powerful blizzards are a sign of global warming. Let’s see, what else? Meteorites threatening the planet are a sign of global warming. Gun violence is a sign of global warming. Obesity is a sign of global warming. And pretty much anything else is a sign of global warming. Because climate ‘scientists’ and journalists say so (see Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards by Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, posted 2/18/2013 on The Detroit News).
Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.
“Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature — warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Increasingly, it seems that we’re on that ragged edge.”
The ragged edge of temperature? So what this climate ‘scientist’ is telling us is that if it’s too warm it won’t snow. It will just rain. They’ve been telling us for DECADES that rising temperatures will melt the Arctic icecap. Raising the ocean levels. Swamping our coastal areas. Causing our farmlands to turn into deserts. And moving our warmer climes further north. Keeping the snow further north. So if temperatures have been rising and pushing the collisions of these hot and cold air masses further north we should be getting less snow in the mid latitudes and more snow in the higher latitudes. Burying them in snow. Especially in Canada around the Great Lakes. Because it’s the same amount of snow but in a smaller area. Building huge snow masses to provide a long snowmelt to fill those Great Lakes all spring and summer. Raising their levels to record highs. It’s a sound theory. Only one problem. The Great Lakes are at record lows.
But wait a minute, you say. What about rain? The reason it didn’t snow as much in the higher latitudes is because all that moisture fell out of the sky as rain before it got to those higher latitudes. An excellent point. Only one problem. North America suffered one of the worst droughts on record. Devastating our corn crops. And raising the price of food across the board.
But wait a minute, you say. That doesn’t prove anything. Because of rising temperatures it’s just not precipitating as much. Less moisture in the air because of higher temperatures means less rain AND less snow. Another excellent point. Only one problem. It has been raining. A lot. The UK suffered above average rainfalls this past year. Sending her rivers over their banks. And causing some of the worst flooding the UK has ever seen.
But wait a minute, you say. And I say, enough. Everything cannot be the result of global warming. Warmer temperatures and cooler temperatures cannot both be the result of global warming. Droughts and flooding cannot both be the result of global warming. Less snowfall and greater blizzards cannot both be the result of global warming. Every contradictory piece of empirical evidence cannot prove global warming. Real science doesn’t work that way. Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius. And boils at 100 degrees Celsius. These are distinct states of matter. And they cannot exist at the same time. For there are rules in science. And you can’t keep changing them to prove a theory.
Scientists won’t blame a specific event or even a specific seasonal change on global warming without doing intricate and time-consuming studies. And they say they are just now getting a better picture of the complex intersection of man-made climate change and extreme snowfall.
Then why have we been listening to you for close to three decades now? Why do we have laws that change the way we live going back decades when you’re only now understanding man-made climate change? If you were wrong decades ago how do we know you’re right now?
Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann points to the recent Northeast storm that dumped more than 30 inches in some places. He said it was the result of a perfect set of conditions for such an event: Arctic air colliding with unusually warm oceans that produced extra large amounts of moisture and big temperature contrasts, which drive storms. Those all meant more energy, more moisture and thus more snow, he said.
Do you know who Michael Mann is? He’s the guy that created the ‘hockey stick graph’ that supposedly proved global warming. Temperatures were relatively constant for 900 years. Then rose. Giving the shape of a hockey stick. He took data from tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores and calculated temperatures for the past 1,000 years. Giving us the hockey stick graph. But in 2010 some emails came to light showing other climate scientists, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others, were not all on board with the hockey stick graph. Despite the powers that be in climate ‘science’ adopting Mann’s hockey stick (see Controversy behind climate science’s ‘hockey stick’ graph by Fred Pearce posted 2/2/2010 on the guardian).
…Briffa…sent a long and passionate email. “It should not be taken as read that Mike’s series is THE CORRECT ONE,” he warned. “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’, but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”
What’s this? If you take the data beyond the starting point of Michael Mann’s data, back before man was creating any global warming, there was a matching rise in temperature? Or so said the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit. So Michael Mann is a guy that likes to look at limited ranges of data. Just enough to support his hypothesis. And not too much so it doesn’t refute his hypothesis. So one cannot help but to take whatever he says with a grain of salt.
So what does all of this mean? Global warming is more politics than science. Most of the accepted research was done by people funded by governments that want to take ever more control over the private sector economy. To increase the size of government. And to increase tax revenues. If you don’t believe this consider the volcano. When they erupt they tend to cool the climate. Because they put smoke, soot, ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The same things coal-fired power plants put into the atmosphere. Yet volcanoes cool the planet. While coal-fired power plants warm the planet. Go figure. Two things doing the same thing. Yet each producing completely opposite results. To understand this you have to enter the world where there are square circles. And intersecting parallel lines. A place where there are no scientific laws. Only wild imagination. For it is a wacky world when it comes to the field of climate ‘science’.
Early Submarines could not Stay Submerged for Long for the Carbon Dioxide the Crew Exhaled built up to Dangerous Levels
People can pretty much walk anywhere. As long as the ground is fairly solid beneath our feet. Ditto for horses. Though they tend to sink a little deeper in the softer ground than people do. Carts are another story. And artillery trains. For their narrow wheels and heavy weight distributed on them tend to sink when the earthen ground is wet. Early armies needing to move cannon and wagons through swampy areas would first build roads through these areas. Out of trees. Called corduroy roads. It was a bumpy ride. But you could pull heavy loads with small footprints through otherwise impassable areas. As armies mechanized trucks and jeeps with fatter rubber tires replaced the narrow wheels on wagons. Then tracked vehicles came along. Allowing the great weights of armored vehicles with large guns to move across open fields. The long and wide footprints of these vehicles distributing that heavy weight over a larger area. Still, nothing can beat the modern rubber tire on a paved road for a smooth ride. And the lower resistance between tire and road increases gas mileage. Which is why trucks like to use as few axles on their trailers as possible. For the more tires on the road the more friction between truck and road. And the higher fuel consumption to overcome that friction. Which is why we have to weigh trucks for some try to cheat by pulling heavier loads with too few axles. When they do the high weight distributed through too few wheels will cause great stresses on the roadway. Causing them to break and crumble apart.
Man and machine can move freely across pretty much anything. If we don’t carry food and water with us we could even ‘live off the land’. But one thing we can’t do is walk or drive on water. We have to bridge streams and rivers. Go around lakes. Or move onto boats. Which can drive on water. If they are built right. And are buoyant. Because if a boat weighed less than the water it displaced it floated. Much like a pair of light-weight, spongy flip-flops made out of foam rubber. Throw a pair into the water and they will float. Put them on your feet and step into the deep end of a pool and you’ll sink. Because when worn on your feet the large weight of your body distributed to the light pair of flip-flops makes those flip-flops heavier than the water they displace. And they, along with you, sink. Unlike a boat. Which is lighter than the water it displaces. As long as it is not overloaded. Even if it’s steel. Or concrete. You see, the weight of the boat includes all the air inside the hull. So a large hull filled with cargo AND air will be lighter than the water it displaces. Which is why boats float.
Early sail ships had great range. As long as the wind blew. Their range only being limited by the amount of food and fresh water they carried. Later steam engines and diesel-electric engines had greater freedom in navigation not having to depend on the prevailing winds. But they had the same limitations of food and water. And when we took boats under the water we had another limitation. Fresh air. Early submarines could not stay submerged for long. For underwater they could not pull air into a diesel-electric engine. So they had to run on batteries. Which had a limited duration. So early subs spent most of their time on the surface. Where they could run their diesel engines to recharge their batteries. And open their hatches to get fresh air into the boat. For when submerged the carbon dioxide the crew exhaled built up. If it built up too much you could become disoriented and pass out. And die. If a sub is under attack staying under water for too long and the levels of carbon dioxide build up to dangerous levels a captain has little choice but to surface and surrender. So the crew can breathe again.
Rapid Decompression at Altitude can be Catastrophic and Violent
Being in a submarine has been historically one of the more dangerous places to be in any navy (second to being on the deck of an aircraft carrier). Just breathing on a sub had been a challenge at times while trying to evade an enemy destroyer. But there are other risks, too. Some things float. And some things sink. A submarine is somewhere in between. It will float on the surface when it has positive buoyancy. And sink when it has negative buoyancy. But submarines operate in the oceans. Which are very deep. And the deeper you go the greater the pressure of the water. Because the deeper you go there is more ocean above you pressing down on you. And oceans are heavy. If a sub goes too deep this pressure will crush the steel hull like a beer can. What we call crush depth. Killing everyone on board. So a sub cannot go too deep. Which makes going below the surface a delicate and risky business. To submerge they flood ballast tanks. Replacing air within the hull with water. Making it sink. Other tanks fill with water as necessary to ‘trim’ the boat. Make it level under water. When under way they use forward propulsion to maintain depth and trim with control surfaces like on an airplane. If everything goes well a submarine can sink. Then stop at a depth below the surface. And then resurface. Modern nuclear submarines can make fresh water and clean air. So they can stay submerged as long as they have food for the crew to eat.
An airplane has no such staying power like a sub. For planes have nothing to keep them in air but forward propulsion. So food and water are not as great an issue. Fuel is. And is the greatest limitation on a plane. In the military they have special airplanes that fly on station to serve as gas stations in the air for fighters and bombers. To extend their range. And it is only fuel they take on. For other than very long-range bombers a flight crew is rarely in the air for extended hours at a time. Some bomber crews may be in the air for a day or more. But there are few crew members. So they can carry sufficient food and water for these longer missions. As long as they can fly they are good. And fairly comfortable. Unlike the earlier bomber crews. Who flew in unpressurized planes. For it is very cold at high altitudes. And there isn’t enough oxygen to breathe. So these crew members had to wear Arctic gear to keep from freezing to death. And breathe oxygen they carried with them in tanks. Pressurizing aircraft removed these problems. Which made being in a plane like being in a tall building on the ground. Your ears may pop but that’s about all the discomfort you would feel. If a plane lost its pressurization while flying, though, it got quite uncomfortable. And dangerous.
Rapid decompression at altitude can be catastrophic. And violent. The higher the altitude the lower the air pressure. And the faster the air pressure inside the airplane equals the air pressure outside the airplane. The air will get suck out so fast that it’ll take every last piece of dust with it. And breathable air. Oxygen masks will drop in the passenger compartment. The flight attendants will scramble to make sure all passengers get on oxygen. As does the flight crew. Who call in an emergency. And make an emergency descent to get below 10 thousand feet. Almost free falling out of the sky while air traffic control clears all traffic from beneath them. Once below 10 thousand feet they can level off and breathe normally. But it will be very, very cold.
Man’s Desire is to Go where no Man has Gone before and where no Human Body should Be
Space flight shares some things in common with both submarines and airplanes. Like airplanes they can’t fly without fuel. The greatest distance we’ve ever flown in space was to the moon and back. The Saturn V rocket of the Apollo program was mostly fuel. The rocket was 354 feet tall. And about 75% of it was a fuel tank. In 3 stages. The first stage burned for about 150 seconds. The second stage burned for about 360 seconds. The third stage burned for about 500 seconds (in two burns, the first to get into earth orbit and the second to escape earth orbit). Add that up and it comes to approximately 16 minutes. After that the astronauts were then coasting at about 25,000 miles per hour towards the moon. Or where the moon would be when they get there. The pull of earth’s gravity slowed it down until the pull of the moon’s gravity sped it back up. So that’s a lot of fuel burned at one time to hurl the spacecraft towards the moon. The remaining fuel on board used for minor course corrections. And to escape lunar orbit. For the coast back home. There was no refueling available in space. So if something went wrong there was a good chance that the spacecraft would just float forever through the universe with no way of returning home. Much like a submarine that can’t keep from falling in the ocean. If it falls too deep it, too, will be unable to return home.
Also like in a submarine food and fresh water are critical supplies. They brought food with them. And made their own water in space with fuel cells. It had to last for the entire trip. About 8 days. For in space there were no ports or supply ships. You were truly on your own. And if something happened to your food and water supply you didn’t eat or drink. If the failure was early in the mission you could abort and return home. If you were already in lunar orbit it would make for a long trip home. The lack of food and hydration placing greater stresses on the astronauts making the easiest of tasks difficult. And the critical ones that got you through reentry nearly impossible. Also like on a submarine fresh air to breathe is critical. Even more so because of the smaller volume of the spacecraft. Which can fill up with carbon dioxide very quickly. And unlike a sub a spacecraft can’t open a hatch for fresh air. All they can do is rely on a scrubber system to remove the carbon dioxide from their cramped quarters.
While a submarine has a thick hull to protect it from the crushing pressures of the ocean an airplane has a thin aluminum skin to keep a pressurized atmosphere inside the aircraft. Just like a spacecraft. But unlike an aircraft, a spacecraft can’t drop below 10,000 feet to a breathable atmosphere in the event of a catastrophic depressurization. Worse, in the vacuum of space losing your breathable atmosphere is the least of your troubles. The human body cannot function in a vacuum. The gases in the lungs will expand in a vacuum and rupture the lungs. Bubbles will enter the bloodstream. Water will boil away (turn into a gas). The mouth and eyes will dry out and lose their body heat through this evaporation. The water in muscle and soft tissue will boil away, too. Causing swelling. And pain. Dissolved nitrogen in the blood will reform into a gas. Causing the bends. And pain. Anything exposed to the sun’s ultraviolet radiation will get a severe sunburn. Causing pain. You will be conscious at first. Feeling all of this pain. And you will know what is coming next. Powerless to do anything about it. Brain asphyxiation will then set in. Hypoxia. The body will be bloated, blue and unresponsive. But the brain and heart would continue on. Finally the blood boils. And the heat stops. In all about a minute and half to suffer and die.
Man is an adventurer. From the first time we walked away from our home. Rode the first horse. Harnessed the power of steam. Then conquered the third dimension in submarines, airplanes and spacecraft. We are adventurers. It’s why we crossed oceans and discovered the new world. Why we climbed the highest mountains. And descended to the oceans’ lowest depth. Why we fly in airplanes. And travelled to the moon and back. When things worked well these were great adventures. When they did not they were horrible nightmares. While a few seek this adventure most of us are content to walk the surface of the earth. To feel the sand through our toes. Or walk to the poolside bar in our flip-flops. To enjoy an adult beverage on a summer’s day. While adventurers are still seeking out something new. And waiting on technology to allow them to go where no man has gone before. Especially if it’s a place no human body should be.
Calling for proposals for a wide range of engineering projects for CCS, including construction of a power plant, gas storage and pipelines, the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) notice of contract was published in the European Union’s official journal.
“DECC’s current intention is for the projects to start demonstrating the carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage by 2016-2020,” the document said.
Interestingly, carbon dioxide (CO2) is what makes the trees grow. And pretty much anything green that grows. So as they pull this CO2 out of the atmosphere the trees will have less CO2 to breathe than they have now. Poor trees. Even the people that are supposedly trying to protect them are killing them.
The government cancelled plans to fund a CCS demonstration project in October as costs spiralled higher than expected, leaving CCS developers concerned about where the 1 billion pounds ($1.59 billion) set aside by the government for a CCS pilot project would end up…
The European Union plans to raise money soon through the sale of 300 million carbon permits called EU Allowances (EUAs) to fund CCS or renewable energy projects through its New Entrant Reserve 300 (NER300) programme…
DECC also said in the notice document that it expected CCS projects could be built without government support from the early 2020s onwards as its power market reform proposals to reward low-carbon electricity production will allow CCS to compete with other technologies. ($1 = 0.6306 British pounds).
First the government will support them by taxing everyone. Then the market will fund these by taxing businesses (by making them buy carbon permits allowing them to emit carbon which will be nothing more than carbon taxes). And raising prices for everyone that buys from these businesses. But will this happen in China? India? Brazil? Or any of the other export countries? Probably not. Meaning their trees won’t be the only thing they’ll be killing. They’ll be killing their economies, too.
So if they’re going to kill their trees and their economies why are they doing it? I refer you to the European sovereign debt crisis. These governments need lots of money to support their burgeoning social democracies. And they can’t see anything beyond these new taxes they hope to collect. And I say ‘hope’ because the resulting fall in economic activity from these new taxes will decline tax revenue overall. Giving them nowhere near what they hope to collect in the end.
Global Warming: The Greenhouse Effect Raising Temperatures
If you look up global warming on Answers.com you get many different definitions. Some are more detailed than others. Here’s one of the definitions pulled from Wiley Book of Astronomy: greenhouse effect:
An increase in a planet’s surface temperature caused by the absorption of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Incoming short wavelength radiation passes through, but longer wavelengths reradiated from the surface are blocked by the greenhouse gases. Earth’s atmosphere is about 35 K warmer, on average, than if there were no atmospheric greenhouse effect. On Venus a runaway greenhouse effect massively increases temperatures by about 500 K over what they would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent. By contrast, the thin carbon dioxide atmosphere on Mars contributes only a 5 K rise in surface temperature.
If you’re into gardening you probably understand this. Or at least you’ll understand what a greenhouse is. In northern climes, nurseries start their seedlings before spring in their greenhouses. Why? Because it’s warmer inside a greenhouse in February than outside. And here’s why. The sun comes in through the glass to heat the space within. But because the greenhouse is enclosed, those heated temperatures can’t escape. Hence the greenhouse effect.
Global warming is supposed to work in the same way. Except carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor act as the glass in a greenhouse. So the more ‘man-made’ gases we put into the atmosphere, the warmer it will get on the planet. That’s why they’ve called it ‘global warming’ for so long. Because they said the planet was warming. Like inside a greenhouse. Hence the use of the term ‘greenhouse gasses’. We were destroying the planet by warming it.
And yet we continue to have cold wintery weather. In areas that don’t normally have cold wintery weather. But the climate scientists have assured us that this global cooling is happening because of global warming. Because that just sounds silly, they’re not using the term ‘global warming’ anymore. Or the definition. Or their earlier science. Now it’s climate change. And it’s a much more useful term to use. Because you never have to explain why it doesn’t get cold or snow inside a greenhouse.
Ice and snow in Dallas, Texas, may Curtail Super Bowl Festivities
Dallas has been hit with a one-two punch of an ice storm earlier in the week and six-to-eight inches of snowfall Friday — something Cowboys owner Jerry Jones couldn’t control. Win McNamee was shooting weather pictures for Getty Images at the stadium when an “avalanche of ice” struck him and other workers. “I had nowhere to go,” he said. “It hurt pretty bad.”
“Honestly, while it was hitting me, I was thinking I’m going to die here,” McNamee said. With his left shoulder broken in four places, he planned to return home for surgery. “It was pretty frightening.”
Ice and snow in Dallas, Texas. Imagine that. When I used to live in a northern state where snow and ice was normal during the many winter months, my friend living in Texas liked to rub that in my face. Figuratively, of course. While he joked, “Snowbrush? Hell, I don’t even own a snow shovel.”
Cold in Chihuahua, Mexico, Kills Zoo Animals
Okay, let’s head a little further south. Into Chihuahua, Mexico. In northern Mexico. Though it borders a desert, the temperatures aren’t as warm due to the higher elevation of the area. Still, the winters are, on average, above freezing. The winter months typically see temperatures in the mid to high 30s. Unless, of course, there’s global warming (see 35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico by the Associated Press published 2/5/2011 on The Washington Post).
Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region’s coldest weather in six decades…
Temperatures have dropped to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 Celsius) in the area, the coldest weather in 60 years.
Sixty years? Back then they were probably warning us about the impending ice age. Remember the ice age prognosticators? If you don’t you’re probably young. But they warned us then that cold temperatures indicated a new ice age. Today those same cold temperatures indicate global warming. Go figure.
Cold Weather can be Hazardous to your Health
Snow and ice in Dallas, Texas. Nine degree temperatures in Chihuahua, Mexico. Broken shoulders. And frozen, dead animals. You know, cold weather can be hazardous to your health. There’s a reason all those retirees head down to Florida and Arizona. They know something our global warming ‘scientists’ don’t. Cold weather sucks.
You know, we need to stop this dangerous cold weather. So perhaps we should try to reverse global warming. To make it colder. So it can get warmer. I don’t understand how that will work. Then again, I’m not a climatologist. I don’t have to know. I just have to believe. I guess.