Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Westwall]

Oh! Another instance of you denying you're doing A and doing nothing but A immediately.

You're doing nothing but manipulate, pal. You're changing the subject again. It sounds compelling that "You explain to me how that is justifiable vis a vis the scientific method." (vis a vis the scientific method ...), but no, it's you who create such elaborate smoke screens, plenty of factual confusions. One needs to have just a one-inch tall forehead to understand why someone says "wine production is an important economic sector that provides an enjoyable quality product" and another one says "wineaholism is an important public health issue" without any contradiction.

So you are jumping from lush past times to the bad use of the term empirical -you simply ignore what that means- and now to falsifiability. It looks like you just came across the terms you like to pontificate about.

Incorrect. I clearly know what empirical means. I also know that AGW supporters avoid empirical data whenever possible and alter that which does not conform to their models.

 

[Westwall]

- patronized by a foolish muddler in things he chooses to not understand ......
Is Popperism your find of the week??..

Cut to the chase

Its getting warmer
we're responsible in main due to the emission of GHG.


go ahead - falsify it. After all it's not hard - it deals with fundamental physics known for over a century....perhaps you need a primer to brush up on that
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm

Your refusal to answer my simple question is duly noted. I have presented you with 6 papers that show the underlying problem of a non testable hypothesis and as usual you run away from the subject. I can present you with a whole bunch more and you know what, you will likewise resort to insult, obfuscation, and non-sequiter.

Add to that a healthy dose of appeals to authority and of course the ever popular correlation equals causation that AGW "theory" is based upon and you are left with the usual pseudo scientific nonsense that you have resorted to here.

Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

 

[RandFan]

Add to that a healthy dose of appeals to authority...

Ahem...

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.

Both conditions are met.

source In the field of climate studies, which is informed by many different disciplines, the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped debating what is causing climate change—and that's nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed papers on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man-made. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods analysis instead (Oreskes 2004).

Scientific opinion on climate change

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of climate researchers that are actively publishing peer-reviewed research endorse the consensus position.

 

[lomiller]

There's a certain Hockey Stick I am sure you're familiar with that seems to lack evidence of both the MWP and the LIA.

False. Both are evident, they just aren't as prominent as you would like.

 

[bit_pattern]

Then I suggest you read some history books. Even wiki has a little bit on the LIA and its end. Amazingly enough the LIA occured after th MWP (who knew?) and the MWP followed on from the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe (don't get your hopes up, it was a period of intense cold that witnessed the Dark Ages...not a good time for man..in fact all periods of cold have been very bad for mankind in general) which of course followed the RWP. Notice how they run in cycles?

Below are a few links to the various times I mentioned. I have noticed an interesting phenomena, the sources who most vociferously deny the existence and global nature of the MWP and the LIA are the REVISIONIST scientists who like to revise history to suit their needs. It also fits quite nicely with how they are constantly revising their statements as regards the effects of warming and of course the constant revision of the raw data...well that data that they manage to not lose.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/flash/catastrophe1_script.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

That doesn't even begin to address my question. I know these events occurred & the fact that they did occur is a much less interesting question than asking WHY they occurred.

So, I put it to you again; if the world is just going through a natural recovery then what us causing said 'recovery'?

Because I've seen this particular non sequitur explained on the same denier blogs that you are clearly deriving your information & as far as they are concerned just saying it us 'natural' is cause enough. As if the climate system is governed by magic or divine intervention, saying it is 'natural' is just a means to hand wave away any need to come up with a plausible mechanism.

But the facts are clear, the LIA & MWP were not magical events, the forcings that triggered them are generally understood. And the fact if the matter is that these same forcings could explain global temperature trend right up until the mid-1970's when temperatures suddenly diverged from solar output.

And until the deniers come up with an alternative physical model that explains said divergence they will continue to be derided AS deniers. You can't just dismiss changes as 'natural' without explaining the actual cause. Its a cheap parlour trick that only the terminally gullible would swallow.

 

[bit_pattern]

Incorrect. I clearly know what empirical means. I also know that AGW supporters avoid empirical data whenever possible and alter that which does not conform to their models.

You clearly don't.

The empirical case for AGW is really quite clear cut:

1. GHG's trap heat, this is testable, measurable & repeatable. There is an imbalance between incoming & outgoing energy into the systems, satellites can measure this, they can also measure the spectrum of outgoing radiation to see which GHG's are trapping what portion of that heat.

2. Human activity has caused CO2 to rise by nearly 40%, again this is testable, measurable and repeatable. Isotopes within CO2 molecules can be tested for their age, CO2 from ancient carbon has a different isotopic signature to CO2 from the natural short term carbon cycle.

3. The planet is accumulating heat. Again, testable, measurable & repeatable. The vast majority of the trapped energy us going into the oceans, someone has already posted the graphic from Nutticelli (2012) a page or two back so won't repeat again here but it show's the rate of energy going into the ocean compared to how it reflects in the surface data.

So, there you have it, a clear cut empirical line of reasoning that does not in anyway rely on computer models. Any denier wanting to be taken seriously would have to offer up an alternative model to explain said observations.

Not only that they'd also have to develop a physical model to explain all if these other clear & empirical ovservations as well... it would be one hell of a mean feat were it to ever happen!

http://skepticalscience.net/graphics.php?g=32

Mods: image is hosted under a creative commons license and Skeptical Science allows hotlinking

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

 

[bit_pattern]

. You can't just dismiss changes as 'natural' without explaining the actual cause. Its a cheap parlour trick that only the terminally gullible would swallow.

This sums the up the point i ws making quite nicely

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/hadcrap4.html?m=1

Below I use HadCRUT4 to demonstrate remarkably precise natural cycles in the data which disprove man-made global warming. It turns out that once you've drawn a line through the middle of the data, some of the data is above the line and some is below. This sensational finding means I can draw an up and down thingy over it. Up and down thingies are called Cycles

 

[aleCcowaN]

Incorrect. I clearly know what empirical means. I also know that AGW supporters avoid empirical data whenever possible and alter that which does not conform to their models.

You just can't help contradicting yourself in the same paragraph! You clearly have no clue about what empirical means and its role in science.

Besides you haven't answered about the case of evidence related to immortal humans and now you have a chance to do it, tell me, what's an empirical equation? what's an empirical formula? how are both demonstrated? What's the empirical part of a warmer Eocene and how does it relate with the present conditions? What's the empirical evidence of medieval warm period, little ice age and little house on the prairie?

You are failing in things that are in books: primers, 101s biblio, etc. You use empirical just because "it sounds good".

 

[aleCcowaN]

Your refusal to answer my simple question is duly noted. I have presented you with 6 papers that show the underlying problem of a non testable hypothesis and as usual you run away from the subject.

C'mon, boyo! Two papers on similar subjects arrive to -slightly or strikingly- different conclusions and that makes the subject "non testable". Sure. My clinical thermometer says I got a slight fever but my girlfriend says I don't by touching my forehead, and suddenly my body temperature becomes "non testable" according to you. Cut the nonsense, pardiez!

I can present you with a whole bunch more and you know what, you will likewise resort to insult, obfuscation, and non-sequiter.

You can present a thousand of very different papers all of them in an equally wrong way. You just were wrong the first time, and a thousand wrongs won't make you a right. You would only be staging an act that only can impress uneducated people who are hardly to read this thread.

By the way, if you are to continue abusing of educated vocabulary like empirical, falsifiability and testable, at least write it right: it's non sequitur (it doesn't follow).

Again, cut the brainsores (why do you think you are treated that way? because you are """sceptical""" about AGW? Knock it off!)

 

[macdoc]

Excellent post bit-pattern.

You can add the diverse changes in the biome especially in the north as species move with the changes in the environment both on and in the ocean.

All of the biome changes are explained by AGW tho the impacts are not even across the globe.
The tropics tho have expanded north and south - there are many papers outlining the species changes and in some cases moved to higher elevations.
So a gold mine of empirical support independent of any manmade temperature measurements or instrument sitings. The biome moves as the temperature baseline of the planet warms due to our activity.

The warming effect of C02 being known since 1860 or so and even further back with Joseph Fourier discovering the greenhouse effect back in 1824.
http://wanttoknowit.com/who-discovered-the-greenhouse-effect/

The physical principles of this effect were developed over time to explain the observed phenomena and to chart the rise in C02
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html

All you have to do is falsify AGW is demonstrate that increased carbon dioxide does not in fact increase the heat absorption and retention of the atmosphere -
and then provide a testable alternative that explains the myriad of observed data.
Still waiting....

are those elephant hairs tickling your nose now?? Try removing the denier blinkers and you'll see an easy to comprehend beast.

it's getting warmer
we're responsible

at that point the real discussion and points of contention begin.
How fast will it unfold
What will be the impacts in various regions.
How to deal with it....from slowing it down with carbon mitigation, to simply coping with the changes to engineering the climate by way of S02 injection.
This is where the risk management needs to be discussed broadly and each nation has a different balance of priorities.

YOU however - need to wake up and admit to the reality of the problem.Not looking good on that front.

 

[lenny]

Your refusal to answer my simple question is duly noted. I have presented you with 6 papers…

OK. Am happy to look at the papers you suggested. I assume they are these:

Because empirical data is the only data that truly matters. Below is a list of peer reviewed papers (almost entirely derived via computer models) and they show one of the primary problems with denying the use of empirical data. You can get any result you ultimately wish.
This first set takes both sides of the drought issue in the Amazon basin...
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025583.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042154.shtml
This second set takes both sides of the sea level rising, (or is it dropping?) issue affecting the Indian Ocan islands.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818106000877
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013

the first one says:

“We analyzed Amazon vegetation phenology at multiple scales with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite measurements from 2000 to 2005.”

it seems to be an analysis of satellite data, not model output. The second one:

“Here, we report that the previous results of large-scale greening of the Amazon, obtained from an earlier version of satellite-derived vegetation greenness … are irreproducible, with both this earlier version as well as the improved, current version (C5), owing to inclusion of atmosphere-corrupted data in those results.”

is also an observational study, indeed one about the difficulties of using empirical data… the third:

“Here, we determine rates of sea-level rise from tide gauges in the region. We also examine sea-level data from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter and from a reconstruction of sea level in order to put the sparse (in space and time) tide-gauge data into context.”

is another data based study (the reconstruction mentioned is using a model to account for the rebound of the earth surface from the last glaciation, not a climate model, see section 2.1). while the fourth one:

“Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific.”

is also data based…

so while i agree with you that the empirical data are “the only data that truly matters”, the empirical data here suggests that the papers you offered us were not “peer reviewed papers (almost entirely derived via computer models)”. Perhaps these were not the links you intended to post? I would be happy to look at two more.

there is something to be said for the difficulty of modelling the distant future, it poses challenges to science not found, for example, in weather forecasting; but the evidence you suggest we look at does not seem to go there...

 

[Mikemcc]

Then I suggest you read some history books. Even wiki has a little bit on the LIA and its end. Amazingly enough the LIA occured after th MWP (who knew?) and the MWP followed on from the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe (don't get your hopes up, it was a period of intense cold that witnessed the Dark Ages...not a good time for man..in fact all periods of cold have been very bad for mankind in general) which of course followed the RWP. Notice how they run in cycles?

Below are a few links to the various times I mentioned. I have noticed an interesting phenomena, the sources who most vociferously deny the existence and global nature of the MWP and the LIA are the REVISIONIST scientists who like to revise history to suit their needs. It also fits quite nicely with how they are constantly revising their statements as regards the effects of warming and of course the constant revision of the raw data...well that data that they manage to not lose.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/flash/catastrophe1_script.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

Others have dealt with your choice of 'evidence' and conclusions, but your post shows a lack of understanding of history too.

'...not a good time for man'? Which men, the flourishing Arabic, Chinese, Khmer, and African civilisations? Or just your view of Northern Europe? Even then the spread of the Norsemen was good, for them.

 

[macdoc]

WW perhaps you should read up on volcanic events so you don't look so foolish.

http://www.eh-resources.org/volcanoes.html

let's look at one of your "cyclical events" - your catastrophe

Between 536 and 551 AD tree ring growth was very low throughout Europe and many other parts of the world, including North America, New Zealand and China. Contemporary writers in southern Europe described what modern climate scientists call a ‘dust veil event’ which sharply reduced solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. This depressed temperatures, disrupted weather patterns, reduced biological productivity, including food crops, and resulted in famine and social disruption during the 6th century. The consequences of the dust veil were experienced worldwide. In Britain, the period 535-555 AD experienced the worst weather of the 6th century. In Mesopotamia, there were heavy snowfalls and in Arabia there was flooding followed by famine. In China, in 536, there was drought and famine and yellow dust rained down like snow. In Korea, 535 and 536 were the worst years of that century in climatic terms with massive storms and flooding, followed by drought. It has also been suggested that the occurrence of the Justinian Plague, a pandemic that affected the Byzantine Empire in the years 541-42 is linked to the climatic events five years earlier.

Although historians have sought to explain the ‘dust veil’ in terms of a comet hitting the earth no evidence for this has ever been found.1 Only recently, with the help of earth scientists, is it becoming clear that we are dealing here with a volcanic event. I

No one denies that there are other climate drivers - in most cases changes are regional or temporary in nature.

These are all "mysterious" to you as you do not understand the planet you live on.

Rather they are the product of known physical processes....and volcanoes are not in the least cyclic.

What are cyclic are Milankovich cycles which used to drive the earth in and out of the ices ages indeed in a cyclic manner.

I say used to as we have effectively cancelled the next one by unbalancing the radiation from the atmosphere by extracting fossil carbon and burning it.

http://technology.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978628018

This will more than offset the slow tipping down of global temperatures that was occurring from the Holocene Optimum about 8000 years ago.

Regional events like ENSO can drive global temperatures high - deniers fav trick is to use an extreme El Nino in 97/98 as a start point to claim "no warming".

It's opposite LaNina is considered the global air conditioner impact temperatures in many areas towards the cooler end as more ocean heat is buried ( El Nino pools ocean heat ).

There are others like NAO that affect the local temperatures in the Atlantic region and northern Africa but none of those are global climate drivers as they do not increase the net retained heat of the atmosphere or the ocean. They do however move it around impacting the Australian outback with rain and the South American coast with enormous storms and a change in the ocean temperatures that kill the fishing in the area.

Indeed these oscillations are prime areas for study as they help determine how the truly global change of a retentive atmosphere will play out in different regions ( the monsoon is a real concern as a shift there in timing, intensity or region or all three means millions would face starvation.

AGW magnifies extreme events as we've seen around the world and particularly in the US of late.
So even if a region sees little warming it may see rainfall increases up to double and at the wrong time of year or decreases and extended crop killing periods of dry heat.
None my be unique - but they become more frequent.

So a wheat farmer in the US is facing a climate change making wheat ungrowable in the lower 48 states....and the same will go for India. within 3 decades or less.

These are real impacts occurring now - not some distant future - and the nations are fighting about the resources in the opening Arctic......and you are in denial.



You like principles?? ....try Occam's razor sometime.

It's getting warmer
We're responsible due to release of GHG gases.

it's really straightforward to those not practicing willful ignorance.

 

[metzomagic]

After a few years hanging around on these climate-related blogs, you know that the *AGW* deniers (being specific, just so the denialati out there can't opt for the sympathy vote by accusing us of conflating you with Holocaust deniers) never, ever read whatever is on the end of a science-based link that you send them to. I find this behaviour to be perplexing, if not understandable with regards to human nature. I mean, honestly, who really wants to read stuff that runs contra to your carefully constructed world-view, built up over oh so many years? However, I regularly read wattsupwiththat, clinmateaudit, climateetc, et. al. (mostly out of a morbid curiousity, and I must admit to silently cussing a lot of the commenters for how selfish and clueless they are). So why won't these people read anything at all that you point them at? Stangely, when it comes to climate contrarianism, the intellectual traffic all seems to be one-way.

Sites like Skeptical Science do a great job of shooting down the common AGW denier canards, but the fake skeptics (synonymous with AGW denier, just so you know) don't frequent it all that much because, you know, Anthony tells them not to. For one thing, people don't always use their real names, and that's a Bad Thing^TM according to Willard, because... just where is the accountability then?111!111

But I digress. Call it a form of 'warmist' dissembling, or what have you. Instead of pointing Malcom or Westwall here at that boring Skeptical Science place, I've decided to provide my own compendium of climate-related links that, over the past 3 years or so, have turned me into a person who was wondering what 'Climategate' was all about into someone who is deeply concerned about the profound negative effect mankind is having on our climate. In no particular order, first up is an eye-opening presentation concerning the favourite AGW denier talking points about sea-level rise by Jerry Mitrovica of Harvard:

The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change

Then, a concise explanation of how we know that mankind is causing the recent unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration:

Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?

Personally, though, I'm the most concerned with the effects that CO2 is going to wreak on rainfall and drought patterns, given that we are going to have about 9 billion mouths to feed come 2050 or so. As one of my favourite climate blog commenters Barton Paul Levenson so succinctly puts it (quoting from memory now): "100 years ago there was a column of 4kg of CO2 above every square meter of the Earth's surface. Now there is 6kg". Also from Real Climate, a fantastic guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, that explains why the greenhouse effect can never be saturated, as the AGW deniers are frequently wont to claim:

A Saturated Gassy Argument

To summarise: as the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises, long-wave IR radiation into space occurs from ever-inceasingly higher and colder altitudes, thus Earth cannot shed as much heat into space, and must warm as a result. Furthermore, two nail-it-to-the-mast articles that put to rest the misguided notion among AGW deniers that Steve McIntyre has 'debunked' the Mann/Bradley/Hughes 'hockey stick' of 1998:

Replication and due diligence, Wegman style

How Red are my Proxies?

And finally, one of my favourite climate-related articles of all time, by the distinguished statistician tamino:

Not Computer Models

A bit of historical data coupled with a simple two-box model tells it all.

 

[bit_pattern]

After a few years hanging around on these climate-related blogs, you know that the *AGW* deniers (being specific, just so the denialati out there can't opt for the sympathy vote by accusing us of conflating you with Holocaust deniers) never, ever read whatever is on the end of a science-based link that you send them to. I find this behaviour to be perplexing, if not understandable with regards to human nature. I mean, honestly, who really wants to read stuff that runs contra to your carefully constructed world-view, built up over oh so many years? However, I regularly read wattsupwiththat, clinmateaudit, climateetc, et. al. (mostly out of a morbid curiousity, and I must admit to silently cussing a lot of the commenters for how selfish and clueless they are). So why won't these people read anything at all that you point them at? Stangely, when it comes to climate contrarianism, the intellectual traffic all seems to be one-way.

Sites like Skeptical Science do a great job of shooting down the common AGW denier canards, but the fake skeptics (synonymous with AGW denier, just so you know) don't frequent it all that much because, you know, Anthony tells them not to. For one thing, people don't always use their real names, and that's a Bad Thing^TM according to Willard, because... just where is the accountability then?111!111

But I digress. Call it a form of 'warmist' dissembling, or what have you. Instead of pointing Malcom or Westwall here at that boring Skeptical Science place, I've decided to provide my own compendium of climate-related links that, over the past 3 years or so, have turned me into a person who was wondering what 'Climategate' was all about into someone who is deeply concerned about the profound negative effect mankind is having on our climate. In no particular order, first up is an eye-opening presentation concerning the favourite AGW denier talking points about sea-level rise by Jerry Mitrovica of Harvard:

The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change

Then, a concise explanation of how we know that mankind is causing the recent unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration:

Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?

Personally, though, I'm the most concerned with the effects that CO2 is going to wreak on rainfall and drought patterns, given that we are going to have about 9 billion mouths to feed come 2050 or so. As one of my favourite climate blog commenters Barton Paul Levenson so succinctly puts it (quoting from memory now): "100 years ago there was a column of 4kg of CO2 above every square meter of the Earth's surface. Now there is 6kg". Also from Real Climate, a fantastic guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, that explains why the greenhouse effect can never be saturated, as the AGW deniers are frequently wont to claim:

A Saturated Gassy Argument

To summarise: as the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises, long-wave IR radiation into space occurs from ever-inceasingly higher and colder altitudes, thus Earth cannot shed as much heat into space, and must warm as a result. Furthermore, two nail-it-to-the-mast articles that put to rest the misguided notion among AGW deniers that Steve McIntyre has 'debunked' the Mann/Bradley/Hughes 'hockey stick' of 1998:

Replication and due diligence, Wegman style

How Red are my Proxies?

And finally, one of my favourite climate-related articles of all time, by the distinguished statistician tamino:

Not Computer Models

A bit of historical data coupled with a simple two-box model tells it all.

Great idea! Add Spencer Weart's History of CO2, over at the American Institute of Physics to the list as well

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

 

[macdoc]

and this which is more detailed.

http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm
and this with lots of resources.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

 

[macdoc]

hmmm latest chewtoys seem to have retreated in disarray.

Moving on to more useful stuff......what are some of the techniques that might be employed to sop up some of the excess carbon.
The thread on cement got me thinking along those lines.

Seems there is some special rock in the middle east that is a huge sink.

The iron seeding idea is proceeding in an experimental phase despite a lot of concern by scientists.

Aside from using less carbon based fuels what other promising tech it near term.

Seems there was water and carbon to diesel announcement working on a lab level with a real life trial coming up.

That would be the holy grail - use C02 emissions to create liquid fuel.

 

[bobwtfomg]

Seems there was water and carbon to diesel announcement working on a lab level with a real life trial coming up.

That would be the holy grail - use C02 emissions to create liquid fuel.

The holy grail!!
No chance, English bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your water and carbon to diesel a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

Seriously this new technology is no panacea even if it can be scaled up because it uses electricity, so until all electrical generation is carbon neutral it will just mean emitting a lot more CO2 in order to turn some of it into liquid fuel which will then of course be burnt.

 

[Acleron]

The holy grail!!
No chance, English bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your water and carbon to diesel a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

Seriously this new technology is no panacea even if it can be scaled up because it uses electricity, so until all electrical generation is carbon neutral it will just mean emitting a lot more CO2 in order to turn some of it into liquid fuel which will then of course be burnt.

Seriously?

In many places, electricity production requires a large storage system because supply and demand do not match. Batteries are not economic for the purpose. Many techniques are being researched including better batteries, potential and kinetic energy storage, heat difference systems and chemical systems such as this.

At the moment, the efficiency of this appears very low but if it can be improved it will have an advantage of very high density of energy, ideal for transport.

 

[bit_pattern]

The holy grail!!
No chance, English bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your water and carbon to diesel a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

Seriously this new technology is no panacea even if it can be scaled up because it uses electricity, so until all electrical generation is carbon neutral it will just mean emitting a lot more CO2 in order to turn some of it into liquid fuel which will then of course be burnt.

Could it make "clean coal" more feasible if you could use the CO2 to value add to the process, get fuel & sell it on for a profit rather than just having the cost of sequestering what would otherwise be a waste product?