Quote:So, on the global scale of things fossil fuel burning energy release is miniscule (8% of 0.07% = 0.006%).

Given all the fuss that is made about the present rate of fossil fuel burning (2010; 0.8 x 10^13 kg-C/y where 10^13 = 10,000,000,000,000 with thirteen zeros), it is important to keep in mind that this represents an amount of CO2 release comparable to or somewhat less than the CO2 released by simple breathing from humankind and its domestic animals. The combined biomass of humankind and its domestic animals (cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, pets, etc.) is in turn estimated to be only 0.04% of Earth’s living biomass (all expressed as kilograms of carbon, kg-C), which is a lot more CO2-producing breathing. (Ants, for example, are estimated to represent ten to one hundred times the biomass of humankind and ants can be argued to have “transformed” the planet and its ecology far more than humans.)

Quote:Authorization code mismatch

Quote:MyBB has experienced an internal SQL error and cannot continue.

SQL Error:
1054 - Unknown column 'remember' in 'field list'
Query:
SELECT uid,username,password,salt,loginkey,remember,passwordconvert,passwordconverttype​ FROM mybb_users WHERE username='goose52' LIMIT 1

Quote:© Copyright notice
I’ve noticed some websites have cut and pasted entire lists of gates at their sites in the past. Although I’m happy the lists are spreading and becoming more widely known, I kindly ask websites not to do this. Please post the first 10 or 12 gates of the list, and then followed by a link to this site. To post more, please send me an e-mail and I’ll do my best to accommodate specials requests. Thanks!

Quote:Harold Pierce Jr says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:12 am
Thr following is quite important so everybody pay attention.

After analysis, the concentration of CO2 or any gas in a sample of local air is reported for purified dry air (PDA) which does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen, the inert gases and CO2, often called the fixed gases. The composition (i.e, the relative amounts of the fixed gases) of PDA is fairly uniform through out the atmosphere and independent of site, elevation, temperature, pressure, and humidity except for minor local variations in particular with respect to CO2. This the origin of the phrase “well-mixed atmospheric gases”.

In real air, there is no uniform distribution of the masses of the constituents of the atmosphere in space and time as shown by a daily weather maps of the earth. High pressure cells have more mass of the atmospheric constituents than do low pressure cells, and these are always moving and their mass and composition is constantly changing. Real air is the term for local air at the intake ports of air separation plants and includes all types of particulate matter, reactive gases such as oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, ozone, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, water vapor, fog and the fixed gases. The composition of real air with respect to mass is always site specific but does vary slightly with changing weather.

PDA at STP (i.e., 273.15 K and one atmosphere pressure) is called standard dry air (SDA) and has 393 ppmv, 393 ml, 17.5 mmoles, 772 mg or 0.000772 kg of CO2 per cubic meter. As mentioned above the composition of PDA is fairly uniform through out atmosphere and will usually have 393 ppmv of CO2. However, the mass of the constituents in any unit volume of the atmosphere will depend m0stly on pressure, temperature and humidity. Clouds in any unit volume of the atmosphere will also lower the mass of fixed gasses.

Climate models apparently use the concentration of CO2 in ppmv. Not only is this incorrect but is the fatal flaw which greatly limits the skill and accuracy of climate model scenarios or projections. The metric that should be used for CO2 and the gases including water vapor is mass per unit volume. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is much less than is indicated by the current methods of analysis.

Clouds are micro droplets of water and will contain atmospheric gases, the amount of which will depend on pressure and temperature and on the number of droplets per unit volume. Clouds are always moving and can transport atmospheric gases and in particular CO2 in the liquid phase. Depending on the conditions the clouds encounter, they can release the atmospheric gases and in particular CO2 and water as vapor into the atmosphere or transport the gases to the ground in rain drops. This another reason why there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmospheric gases in space and time.

After visiting many climate website and blogs over the years, this chemist has concluded that the nearly 100% of the climate scientists and lay people are unaware of the above. Based on the above, climate modeling would be very difficult without making many simplifying assumptions and consequently the various scenarios or projections (i.e., computational speculation and conjucture) from climate models can not be used regulating greenhouse emissions.

Quote:Anonymous said...

how did HMS investigator get this far north at the end of the Little Ice Age?"

Quote:You are asking a difficult question, which might make some people a bit uncomfortable. If you're not careful, someone might mistake you for a climate denier, which of course is the same as a holocaust denier. Holocaust denier!!!

Quote:Five surgeons are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.

The first surgeon says, I like to see accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.

The second responds, Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.

The third surgeon says, No, I really think librarians are the best; Everything inside is in alphabetical order.

The fourth surgeon chimes in; You know, I like construction workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would.

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed; You're all wrong. Liberals are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable.

Quote:The fox cub caught lounging around on swimming pool lilo

By Beth Hale
Last updated at 10:03 AM on 11th August 2010

The covered paddling pool must have seemed an irresistible playground for an adventurous fox cub.
But it found itself in deep trouble after the cover gave way, plunging it into the cold water.
Homeowner John Barnes was awoken at 5am by splashing and found the shivering animal had managed to clamber aboard an airbed in the middle of the pool.

Mr Barnes, 52, took this picture before using a rake to push the lilo towards the edge, but the frightened fox snapped at it and toppled back into the water.
With a last despairing effort, however, it regained the airbed and managed to scramble over the edge of the plastic pool before disappearing into the undergrowth in Selsdon, near Croydon.
Foxes are reluctant swimmers and the temperature of the water would have rapidly affected the animal. Mr Barnes’s wife Ann said: ‘We’ve had the pool for two months and every time we’ve been in it the water has been just freezing.’
She added that by the time the fox was back on dry land, it was so tired it could barely walk. ‘It’s so lucky John was there.’
The kind-hearted couple have now installed steps into their pool in case any other animals decide to go for a late-night swim.

Trevor Williams, director of the Fox Project charity, said: ‘We have heard of foxes getting into water in gardens and before this case, all of them have ended with the fox losing its life.’
Appearances of the urban fox appear to be on the rise.
In June nine-month-old twins Lola and Isabella Koupparis, were mauled by an urban fox when they were sleeping in their cots at their home in Hackney, East London.

Quote:Even as environmental agendas delay well permitting and cause other headaches, new opportunities may loom for “green” drilling. Two areas in particular present themselves – CO2 geologic storage and geothermal drilling.

As Pritchard Capital somewhat breathlessly phrased it in a recent e-missive, “Geothermal is hot and getting hotter.” As previously reported herein, $90 million of US funding was designated for geothermal technologies. The funding is for work on conventional geothermal resources and for “enhanced” geothermal.

Longtime DC readers may recall “enhanced” geothermal from 1991, when Los Alamos invited IADC to organize a drillers’ delegation to tour the New Mexico facility and learn about “hot dry rocks” – now reborn with the rather more marketable moniker “enhanced” geothermal. In short, an injector and a producer are drilled into non-permeable, heat-bearing strata. The rock is fractured, tepid water pumped in and hot water produced to generate electricity.

A $500 million-plus annual bonanza in drilling and well services predicted in ’91 has yet to emerge. Even today, backed by fed funds, progress is shaky. One recent, well-publicized DOE-funded project in California’s Geysers by AltaRock Energy was suspended in early September after failures re-entering and deepening the first well. Each of AltaRock’s three redrill attempts ended in failure, the well collapsing and trapping the BHA. The company suggested several culprits – long-term injection, difficult geology, and the well rework itself. AltaRock would not comment to DC beyond the information on its website.

Quote:The other prospective green gusher for well services is CO2 geologic storage. Suggestions for CO2 disposal modes abound. Our industry has been injecting the stuff downhole in tertiary oil-recovery programs for decades. Kinder Morgan CO2 alone delivers some 1.3 billion cu ft through 1,300 miles of pipelines. Much of this is produced from domes in the western US, ironic in an age of CO2 terror.

Quote:Rob Z says:
August 7, 2010 at 12:14 pm
This is a valuable “Assume the horse is a perfect sphere” experiment. The blogger says: My statement is – CO2 does create a warming effect in the lower atmosphere.” is incorrect. The blogger merely proves that CO2 absorbs 15um wavelength radiation and relaxes. Whoop de doo. Congratulations!! The “physicist” fails in his “perfect sphere” experiment by failing to ask the question, “is there any way that CO2 would cause cooling to be faster or cause net cooling in general?” The answer is an emphatic YES! The second question is, “Will the cooling forces (excluding convection) overwhelm the radiative heating mechanism. The answer again is YES. How do we know this?

Convective cooling using air is substantially more effective than conductive cooling using air. It’s why we blow air on hot soup to cool it faster…more air…more cooling (CO2 at higher concentrations than 400ppm).

Conductive cooling using air is substantially better than radiative cooling with no air. Radiative transfers of energy are slow, it’s why things stay hot or cold in a vacuum. FOR A LONG TIME!!!

If you were to add a small amount of CO2 and only CO2 to the interstitial space (area between the surface contacting the coffee and the outside surface) of a thermos for your hot coffee… guess what …it get’s colder faster. Go do the experiment in a glass thermos or any thermos. Since your coffee is radiating at LWIR, the CO2 gas doesn’t keep the coffee warmer. That is basic physics and thermodynamics. Also, since there is more Oxygen than CO2 in the atmosphere…and replacing Oxygen with a CO2, a gas with a lower heat capacity at constant pressure, the atmosphere will be more conductive and cool faster.

Jeff hedges his bets…and says….”I’ve not said anything about the magnitude or danger or even measurability of the effect. I only assert that the effect is real, is provable, it’s basic physics and it does exist.”… This is disingenuous. The conductive effects of added CO2 to the atmosphere will outweigh the absorptive effects. The net effect is cooling. When the physical effect is not measurable in the real world, is it necessary to account for it? If a measured effect contains both mechanisms…and one outweighs the other, do you use the net effect in the calculation? If yes, do you make conclusions based on the net effect or the only one of the components? If CO2 can absorb heat and do conductive/convective cooling and the net result is cooling, do you claim that CO2 causes heating if the net effect is cooling?? The “green house effect” is bogus. Don’t believe me… convince a nursery to pump in CO2 (800ppm final concentration ought to be enough) to keep it warm at night in the green house instead of turning on the heat when the temperature approaches freezing outside. Should be able to bump the temp up by 5C. For good measure…have Jeff bring his laser.