backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by spepper.. on Jan 16 at 8:19 AM


Unlike the standard charcoal brickette pictured, biochar, with properly utilized production, may help fight carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect.  (Source: iStock)
Low-tech solution could leave high-tech systems smoldering.

Carbon dioxide spews out of all sorts of modern mechanical marvels in gigatonnes per year. Most authorities believe man's contribution to global CO2 levels is having anywhere from a mild to adverse effect on the world's climate, and carbon sequestration is a hot area of science.

Carbon sequestration is simply the capture and indefinite storage of carbon, in a myriad of forms, to keep it safely out of the atmosphere where it could contribute to growing pollution concerns. There are many natural forms of sequestration, but they simply cannot keep up with the rate at which CO2 is being produced world-wide.

Centuries ago, Amazonian Indians used charcoal combined with organic materials as a fertilizer for their crops. This charcoal, now dubbed biochar has a very high carbon concentration and this intrigued scientists. Could biochar be used a modern carbon sequestration process?

It turns out that it does perform extremely well for this purpose. Not only does biochar capture a very large amount of carbon, gasses produced in its manufacture can be used to create energy.

The original biochar was likely produced by burning cornstalks, wood, grass or other organic matter in the absence of oxygen. The Cornell scientists studying the various economic and ecological impacts of the process used more modern materials such as yard waste, switchgrass and agricultural corn waste. They found that switchgrass returned the highest value, but both yard waste and corn waste also yielded a net reduction in CO2 emissions. Of these emissions, approximately 65% of the reduction was realized by the carbon sequestration in the biochar.

It's anyone's guess what kind of simple technologies or processes science may have been missing by looking only forward. This small look backwards has yielded impressive results. Everyone knows the rhetoric that studying history can prevent mistakes in the future and now another valuable lesson about history providing science for the future has been learned.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

First sentence, first mistake
By bug77 on 1/14/2010 7:44:08 AM , Rating: 5
Water vapor is the #1 green house gas and by a 3:1 margin.

Which makes it even weirder to blame the whole climate change on CO2, imho.




RE: First sentence, first mistake
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2010 7:46:06 AM , Rating: 5
But by blaming it on CO2, they have found a way to create more social engineering and wealth redistribution policies...in a such a corrupt way that it would take over 100 years for anyone to show they are full of crap. By that time, they'll all be dead and won't care about the consequences.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/14/2010 9:32:56 AM , Rating: 4
No, not a 100 years... It took less then 5 years. Now how long will it take to get the mass population to understand.

Going green is good if you want to save on your heating bills and such and/or respect the resources on this planet - get the most out of what we have... However, going green to show off, is just bad... It creates "Smug" I think that the correct name. South Park did a documentary on this subject. It is very bad...


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By PlasmaBomb on 1/14/2010 9:52:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now how long will it take to get the mass population to understand.


Since the mass population (US) still doesn't really understand evolution...
over 150 years...


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/14/2010 10:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Come on, someone convinced Al Gore he was smart and should lead the way in Global Warming. There must be better hope... Oh wait I just strengthened you point.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2010 11:15:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Since the mass population (US) still doesn't really understand evolution... over 150 years...


I love these off the wall slams of the United States. What does this even mean ? We understand Evolution just fine. I think you are referring to Creationism ? Are you actually suggesting that the US is the only country with a large predominantly Christian population ? Or EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world accepts that we came from apes except those in the US ?

I'm tired of these goddamn stupid comments about my country. Either explain what you mean, back it up, or shut the hell up. But these drive by comments add nothing to the discussion and just show how ignorant and childish you are.


By sweatshopking on 1/14/2010 11:31:39 AM , Rating: 3
relax baby! it is just a joke. but seriously though, in what is considered the "developed" or "western" world, the US does far and away have the highest % of creationists. im not going to reference. if you dont know you have the south, that aint my problem. google it if you're that concerned.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By meepstone on 1/14/2010 11:39:43 AM , Rating: 2
His comment made perfect sense, no need to spazz


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By GodisanAtheist on 1/14/2010 2:16:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Or EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world accepts that we came from apes except those in the US ?


- "... still doesn't really understand evolution..."


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By BruceLeet on 1/14/2010 9:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
"And the world is ruled by DAMNED DIRTY APES"


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By lco45 on 1/14/2010 7:54:10 PM , Rating: 3
What he means is that it's ironic that such a powerful, technologically advanced country like the US has so many people who believe the creation myth, even though their own educated class knows it to be false.

The human capacity for denying the obvious is of course an evolved trait itself.

Successful species are able to shut out realities that would prevent them having a productive (or specifically, reproductive) life. This allows us to merrily create families that live in earthquake zones (hi Tokyo) and flood zones (hi Bangladesh).

You can deduce the evolutionary advantage for religion on this graph. Compare the reproductive rates for 'no religion' and 'christian'. And the most devout would have to be the muslims, check their position on the graph:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/95553f4ed9...

Cheers fellow doomed accidental humans, chin up,

Luke


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By lco45 on 1/14/2010 8:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
RE: First sentence, first mistake
By feraltoad on 1/15/2010 2:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
We're next to Turkey. 'Nuff said. I hope someone stands up for Turkey.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/...


By cdwilliams1 on 1/14/2010 10:06:52 AM , Rating: 4
I found the whole water vapor thing explained very well in this article at New Scientist... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By Dreamwalker on 1/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: First sentence, first mistake
By bug77 on 1/14/2010 11:06:19 AM , Rating: 5
I see.

So water vapor can reflect both incoming and outgoing heat, but every other gas only reflects the outgoing type. Makes a lot of sense.

And besides water everything else just stays in the air, it's never consumed by living organisms. Ever.

</sarcasm>

BTW:
quote:
"Water vapor is the #1 green house gas..."
Well, this is relative and not really true.

This must be worth a logic award of some kind.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By JediJeb on 1/14/2010 11:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
One problem with your logic there. When it rains, CO2 and NOx will dissolve into the rain and fall out of the atmosphers somewhat not just remain there. If they remained we would never have acidic rain.

quote:
Well, this is relative and not really true...


Relative to what? If relative to all other greenhouse gasses then it must be true, not false. Simple fact I would say.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By JediJeb on 1/14/2010 11:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
atmosphere not atmosphers, ugh.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By Yawgm0th on 1/14/2010 11:05:36 AM , Rating: 3
First post, first mistake.

Global warming articles on DT exist only to troll you and make money. Angry AGW flame war = more page hits = more ad revenue.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By Mint on 1/14/2010 11:20:10 AM , Rating: 2
I really hate it when AGW skeptics make themselves look stupid with arguments like this. Water content in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on temperature. If you put more vapor in there at a given temperature, it will rain out. If you take it out, it will replenish itself through ocean evaporation. A higher temperature, however, increases the equilibrium amount of vapour. Same thing with clouds. Higher temperatures increase the equilibrium vapour content, but it also increases the point at which condensation occurs, so there's no simple argument to say that cloud cover would be greater.

What you should be arguing is how ridiculous it is to spend trillions fighting global warming when you can use those resources orders of magnitude more effectively to tackle other issues, especially in the third-world countries supposedly hit hardest by AGW.

Using the IPCC's own figures, spending 5 cents per kWh to displace coal (and believe me when I say that wind/solar cost way more when supply/demand is taken into account) works out to one trillion dollars per hundredth of a degree. Ridiculous.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By Keeir on 1/14/2010 6:32:41 PM , Rating: 3
To add a little extra meat to what you are saying

Germany and Spain have experience drastic increases in Solar Power Installation. In Germany, the Feed-in-rate given to any solar installation is ~51 US cents per kWh. Wholesale prices of Nuclear/Coal approach the 2-4 US cents per kWh and are pretty comparable to "Feed-in-rates". Germany's Wind Feed-in-Rate is much more relaxed and was in 2007 I believe closer to 20 US cents per kWh.

Spain apparently will pay upwards of 70 cents per kWh for Solar energy Wholesale. They have many different tiers and regulations apparently which make getting a more exact figure difficult to determine.

These costs do not include the additional grid leveling that will need to occur. High Wind Areas have already experienced the pain of having to turn off Wind Turbines because they simply can not use the excess power and have no way to store it.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By Mint on 1/14/2010 9:52:46 PM , Rating: 4
In Ontario we offer 13c/kWh feed-in tariff for wind generation (for 20 years!), and after three years we only got enough investment for it to total 1% of total electricity production.

The grid leveling is indeed a serious issue, especially for the majority of the world that doesn't have gobs of natural hydro storage. Even interconnecting wind farms does little to smooth out production, as lulls in wind activity are geographically enormous. When including the premium we pay for peaker plants (or in the future storage like compressed air), I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost to displace 1 kWh of coal generation is 20 cents right now.

So even $1 trillion per hundredth of a degree is a big underestimation of costs. And I'm assuming the IPCC is right...


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2010 12:05:28 PM , Rating: 5
They can't figure out how to tax water vapor.


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By kattanna on 1/14/2010 12:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
someone please make this a sticky post!


RE: First sentence, first mistake
By JediJeb on 1/14/2010 5:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
shhhh, don't give then any ideas.


By juserbogus on 1/14/2010 6:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
nice straw man.. bonehead, read some science before posting.


What a joke
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2010 7:41:14 AM , Rating: 3
This whole Climate Change fiasco is such a joke. First its Global Warming....and its going to uproot the entire earths existence unless we all ride bicycles, graze our front lawns like cattle, and hold hands while we dance around the fire to sing songs of world peace.

Now, the same scientists in the IPCC who touted Global Warming and the destruction of Capitalism are saying that we might be in the beginning stages of a 30 year mini ice age.

So basically, Global Warming theory has already been debunked so the name changes to Climate Change. CO2 is still be touted as the main culprit of rising temperatures because increase in energy and material wealth & consumption create high levels of CO2. They want to pass world legislation and create world government to keep temp levels from rising like 2 or 3 degrees. If we're starting a mini ice age with decreasing temperatures....maybe we should increase the amount of CO2 to keep temperatures as they are without going into an ice age....because the environuts like Gore seem to think the temperature today is what its supposed to be.

I surely cannot be the only who sees this all for what it is....a bunch of pure crap being fed to sheep in order to create larger government, more social control over our lives, increase taxes, and redistribute wealth while destroying capitalism for world socialism.




RE: What a joke
By safcman84 on 1/14/2010 8:32:04 AM , Rating: 1
You make me laugh.

quote:
and redistribute wealth while destroying capitalism for world socialism.


I think Climate Change is happening at an increased rate, a rate that is too fast, due to human activity. Do I want to create a new power regime of world socialism? no I dont. Do I want to "destroy" capitalism? no I dont.

Environmentalism has nothing to do with Socialism. Completely different things.

I am renovating a house. I just put in a wood boiler for central heating and solar panels. Why? 1) cos it helps reduce emissions 2) cos it saves me 2-3 thousand euros a year in heating costs.

How the F*** does saving myself 3000 Euros a year make me a socialist?

And why the f*** cant ignorant idiots like you realise that making a small effort, on the small chance (note sarcasm) that you are wrong and 90% of world scientists are correct, wont do you any harm? and hell, even if you are right, and humans arent making things worse, you can still save yourself 3000 euros a year (and breathe cleaner air, even if clean air doesnt mean less climate change).

I really dont get you people.


RE: What a joke
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2010 8:48:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think Climate Change is happening at an increased rate, a rate that is too fast, due to human activity.

There is no proof of that. Warming, Cooling, CO2...Polar Bears. Joke.
quote:
Environmentalism has nothing to do with Socialism.

I beg to differ. Take a look at all the protest signs outside of Copenhagen and tell me what percentage are really dedicated to "saving the earth" as opposed to destroying capitalism and singing koombayah.
quote:
How the F*** does saving myself 3000 Euros a year make me a socialist?

The fact that you want to make everyone else put that same stupid stuff in their house, and make everyone else pay to give that crap to the poor makes you a socialist.
quote:
And why the f*** cant ignorant idiots like you realise that making a small effort, on the small chance (note sarcasm) that you are wrong and 90% of world scientists are correct, wont do you any harm?

The harm is making everyone in the world change when the person touting the change really cannot prove anything. Not to mention it would take over 100 years to prove them wrong - more than enough time to destroy our current economical system.
quote:
and hell, even if you are right, and humans arent making things worse, you can still save yourself 3000 euros a year

I don't use euros (yet, ugh). And here in the US - putting on solar panels will not save you any money. We do not have nearly the bloated energy costs that you do due to taxation. You'd be losing your ass if they mandated you to put on solar panels.
quote:
and breathe cleaner air, even if clean air doesnt mean less climate change

Because climate change has nothing to do with air quality. In fact - more CO2 would help plants grow and provide more oxygen. I'd say thats a good thing.

Get off your high horse, and do what makes you happy. But once you start telling everyone what to do is when you'll get into big trouble.


RE: What a joke
By Mint on 1/14/2010 11:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
Take a chill pill. Fortunately, the world is not making a major commitment to reduce GHG.

In Canada, we had an election a couple years ago where one of the candidates came up with a revenue neutral carbon tax scheme that would REDUCE total taxes for most Canadians. However, even our "environmentally conscious" populace were so scared of taxes that they shot him down, and he lost a lot of seats for his party.

People in general will only make a small economic sacrifice to help the environment. Even when they do that, it's not going to hurt the economy but simply redirect where a small portion of capitalism will focus its product.


RE: What a joke
By sweatshopking on 1/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a joke
By Schrag4 on 1/14/2010 1:01:48 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for making this thread less-safe for work. I guess that's the default mindset for socialist liberals. Argue a point? Of course not. I suppose you think the government should be setting prices for everything? Ironically, that's the true definition of raping its citizens...


RE: What a joke
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2010 1:25:03 PM , Rating: 4
Please never breed.


RE: What a joke
By Nfarce on 1/14/2010 6:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
Always great to see the mindless, drooling, slobbering hate from the modern representative libtard left come oozing out on DT....


RE: What a joke
By sweatshopking on 1/15/2010 2:42:11 AM , Rating: 1
lol im hardly a libtard (...is that even a word). all im saying is markets dont solve ALL problems. there are plenty they are good at, just not all. oh, and other buddy is a dick.


RE: What a joke
By JDub02 on 1/14/2010 9:45:52 AM , Rating: 3
You "greening" your own house for your own reasons (be they accurate or misguided) is called the free market. You, the individual, are making choices for your own life. I think it's great.

The problem lies with government (and you) wanting to force me into a way of thinking and acting "green" regardless of my own choice. That's statism. The other problem is that the government wants to take my money in the form of taxes and give it to someone else so they can be "green". That's socialism.

Just because you feel a cause is worthwhile doesn't mean that the rest of the world is obligated to think that way.


RE: What a joke
By JDub02 on 1/14/2010 9:48:07 AM , Rating: 1
And for the record, man-made "climate change" is a hoax. Militant environmentalism is the new home of communism. All of their "policies" have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with controlling people's behavior.

CO2 is PLANT FOOD!!


RE: What a joke
By PlasmaBomb on 1/14/2010 9:53:33 AM , Rating: 3
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!


RE: What a joke
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/14/2010 10:16:35 AM , Rating: 2
Why do I now feel very hungry?


RE: What a joke
By DJMiggy on 1/14/2010 2:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Soylent cow pies is made out of people!


RE: What a joke
By Mint on 1/14/2010 12:07:03 PM , Rating: 5
The funny thing is that I'm a socialist (why the f*** is this such a bad thing, anyway?) and I think combatting AGW with wind and solar is a terrible waste of money.

I want to at least triple our foreign aid commitment from under 0.2% to 0.5%. It'll cost only $50B/yr, and save millions of lives.

Giving wind/solar production a 5c/kWh subsidy will be equivalent to, according to IPCC's own numbers, spending $1 trillion to reduce temperature by 0.01 degrees C. And that's under the assumption that each kWh of green energy diverts 1 kWh of coal, which simply isn't close to true.

First the envirotards create half of this AGW mess by killing nuclear power. Now they want to give money to third world nations to build solar/wind instead of using it to save 100x as many lives via clean water infrastructure, education, etc?


RE: What a joke
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2010 11:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe people like you are still around. Did you miss the fact that Climate Change is a man made hoax ?? Were you in a coma last month ?

quote:
I just put in a wood boiler for central heating and solar panels. Why? 1) cos it helps reduce emissions 2


Ok before I start I confess I had no idea what a "wood boiler" was. I use central air and heat because I don't live in a cave.

So I have done lots of Google searched and research, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, Ok ? I mean that with all honestly. But from what I can tell a "wood boiler" is far worst for the envioronment than central heating.

Trees trap carbon. What you are doing is releasing it back into the air. Please, if I'm wrong tell me. I can't find a single article on "wood boilers" that can explain how this is somehow better for the environment.

I can see how you are saving money. But don't tell me that burning trees in your wood boiler is somehow you being an environmental steward for the earth man. Come off it.


RE: What a joke
By Mint on 1/14/2010 2:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
What happened in the last month? The Lindzen paper? He just hid a sketchy assumption in his math and drew a conclusion from there. Even skeptics are questioning his methods.

As for the wood burning, basically he's saying that he pays for someone to grow trees that he can use for heat. It's carbon neutral.

What he fails to mention is that if everyone did that in his city then the particulate pollution would be a hundred times more deadly than the CO2 produced by using fossil fuels.


RE: What a joke
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2010 12:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Even the founder of Greenpeace admits the organization has been taken over by the socialist movement. The same is true for the vast majority of environmental movements. Why? Because its a feel good way for them to try and push their agenda. Give up your freedoms and down with big private companies in the name of the environment.

No there is nothing wrong with choosing to buy efficient appliances and what not to save water, energy, and money. It is wrong to force people to do it or force others to pay taxes so that those who can't afford them on their own can be given them.


RE: What a joke
By Nfarce on 1/14/2010 6:44:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Environmentalism has nothing to do with Socialism. Completely different things.


It damn sure does when it becomes a part of GOVERNMENT POLICIES through taxation (read: Cap & Trade legislation).


Now this!?
By Dean364 on 1/14/2010 8:10:01 AM , Rating: 3
In the 80's, I remember that everything was about the ozone layer, and how it was depleting and we were all going to get skin cancer. CFC were the enemy then.

We live in a culture of fear, plain and simple. There is always something just around the corner that is going to kill us all. So since we're going to die tomorrow, let's spend spend spend spend....feed the machine.




RE: Now this!?
By safcman84 on 1/14/2010 8:42:57 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah and since the scare about the ozone layer, the ozone hole has decreased (or at least isnt getting bigger) so we can relax about it. (since CFCs were banned)

If the USA government brought in a policy of equipping every house and building with solar panels and alternative energy solutions over the next 20-30 years (which would save the households loads of money in electricity and heating costs), it would create thousands of jobs (jobs building, fitting and maintaining) and the people who owned the factories (e.g. of solar panels) would get stinking rich. So the values of capitalism would be upheld. and hey, if you believe in it, at the same time extreme climate change would be averted. No one losses.


RE: Now this!?
By redbone75 on 1/14/2010 10:35:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If the USA government brought in a policy of equipping every house and building with solar panels and alternative energy solutions over the next 20-30 years (which would save the households loads of money in electricity and heating costs)...

Therein lies the problem: the energy companies do not want that solution. If even a quarter of the homes in the US were at least 50% energy independent the energy companies would lose massive amounts of money. Any technologies not controlled by the current petrochemical companies would be fought tooth and nail. Look how long it's taken for there to be any significant advances in solar energy, and that's been minimal at best.


RE: Now this!?
By Mint on 1/14/2010 10:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me? There have been HUGE advances in solar energy technology, and we really didn't have the semiconductor fabrication techniques to research things like CIGS a decade ago.

The problem is that solar energy fundamentally needs gobs of space. You can completely ignore the cost of solar cells and solely look at the glass and aluminum needed to track/reflect light (or even just support the solar cells) while withstanding weather, and the cost is still very big.

My hope is that thin film solar becomes cheap enough to deploy with maybe just a wire mesh. Otherwise it's hopeless.


RE: Now this!?
By Mint on 1/14/2010 10:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I forgot to mention that the energy companies wouldn't care if homes had solar panels, as they'd just charge more for the electricity needed to fill the gaps during cloudy days, evenings, and nights.

That's how it already works with natural gas peaker plants. They average maybe 10% of their total generation capability, but ramp quickly and meet energy demand as required during peaks. They place bids for like 20 cents per kWh instead of 2 for off peak hours.


RE: Now this!?
By Oregonian2 on 1/15/2010 1:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
So wouldn't one of the huge petro-companies like to get a leg up over it's competitors by investing in one or more of those other technologies?

Actually I suspect they all do.


RE: Now this!?
By DFSolley on 1/14/2010 10:47:07 AM , Rating: 1
The real reason the freon was banned was the DuPont was loosing its patent. The replacment R-134a is patented by DuPont.

R-134a has the same potential for ozone destruction, though the timing of the destruction was about 13 times slower. This slowness was touted as what made it better... but it stays in the atmosphere and destroys the same amount of ozone. It also has a higher tendency to corrode system components and leak, so overall ozone destruction will be increased.

But Dupont stays in control and makes money. Governments have a single source of control of this chemical for taxes and kickbacks. The environmentalists (those that understood the science) knew that having a single controlling entity would be safer than allowing anyone to start churning out refrigerant.

And they werent worried about the naturally occuring ozone holes, they were just to focus public opinion.


RE: Now this!?
By rett448 on 1/15/2010 12:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
Freon was replaced with R134a because it takes Freon about 10 times as long to dissapaite from the atmosphere as 134a. They have similar effects on ozone but because R134a stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time the destructive effect is less


RE: Now this!?
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2010 12:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
One problem, who is going to pay for it? Its easy to say equip every house with solar panels. But they're expensive. And they don't make sense in many areas of the country.


RE: Now this!?
By shaw on 1/14/2010 8:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
Weren't people complaining about global warming in the 50s? Then global cooling in the 70s? Then global warming in the 90s? And soon cooling again, haha!


RE: Now this!?
By Camikazi on 1/14/2010 9:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
You would think they would figure out it changes a lot by itself :P


RE: Now this!?
By GaryJohnson on 1/14/2010 9:25:43 AM , Rating: 3
It's more loacalized than that; it's my perception that people I talk to tend to complain about global warming in the summer and global cooling in the winter.


Anandtech Forum Warriors
By slash196 on 1/14/2010 7:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
They all have degrees in meteorology and supermodel wives.




RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2010 7:47:44 AM , Rating: 1
You don't need a meteorology or science degree to smell a shit sandwich when someone puts its on your plate.


RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By kattanna on 1/14/2010 10:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
while i get the gist of what your saying, do try to remember that this is a more tech oriented site and that in fact some of us do in fact have real science training.


RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By JediJeb on 1/14/2010 11:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
Chemistry and Physics with a minor in mathematics here.

What really bugs me about a lot of the AGW theories out there is how they violate the laws of thermodynamics and physics in general. Someone trained in Climatology may know more about climate, but they still are bound by the laws of physics, whether they understand them or not.


RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By Jalek on 1/14/2010 6:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
Embracing the Gorean theories just makes everything so much simpler.

No matter the question, carbon credit trading is the answer.


RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By Mint on 1/15/2010 10:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
Why do AGW deniers have to make themselves look so stupid all the time? There's lots of stuff to attack - especially the jump from science to policy - without making phony arguments about AGW violating the laws of physics.

Here is a post from well educated skeptic that you should read, JediJeb:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-...


RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By JediJeb on 1/15/2010 4:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well I agree with what your link says, and I still take offence with some theories that defy the laws of physics. What was mentioned in that article was not what I was refering to, instead I am refering to the amount of CO2 that is going into and out of the oceans and atmosphere where the theories go against the laws of gas solubility. The arguments are not phony, I am just asking for explainations of how to reverse these laws.

Also to be an AGW denier would mean that AGW is a completely proven and explained fact, which it isn't. There is a deference between doubting something and denying it. The Greenhouse Effect is a proven fact, man's effect on it isn't yet fully understood or proven. If I knew AGW existed for a solid fact and still said it didn't, then I would be a denier.


RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By Yawgm0th on 1/14/2010 10:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
We're all Internet lawyers, too.

The person with the highest comment rating at the end is either the winner of the Internet lawsuit or is the better Internet scientist.


RE: Anandtech Forum Warriors
By Omega215D on 1/14/2010 11:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
I am almost done in getting my degree in Forensic Science from a well known city college. The degree is basically learning almost every discipline of math and science so we can be better investigators and ideally without bias. From Gen. Chemistry to Toxicology we were also made to learn about earth sciences and meteorology because every bit of knowledge will help eventually.

So maybe I fulfilled the first half while the super model thing will never happen... *sigh*


Missing an opportunity
By dlapine on 1/14/2010 6:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Without being a troll, it sounds like you guys are missing an opportunity here. One that exists regardless of the status of climate change.

This article talks positively about a method to sequester carbon, but all the posts here just talk about the "hoax" of global warming and how it's fostered by socialists for some reason...

If you're all such real capitalists (save for those who have said they aren't), why aren't you starting businesses to make money off this new process? Given that Government will pass legislation to compliment the EPA's proclaimed right to regulate carbon, surely you guys have enough savvy to recognize the business potentials in selling carbon credits to large CO2 producers?

I mean it's hard to see why you are all complaining about the situation when there are buckets of money to be made. That's the point of capitalism, right? Nothing's stopping you guys from profiting from these circumstances, and if your "competitors" are all "socialists", surely you guys should be able to get the best of them?

If climate change is all a hoax, so much the better. There's no possibility of harm to planet and all you're doing is depriving stupid people of their money, something that is perfectly acceptable for capitalists.

Just saying.




RE: Missing an opportunity
By Nfarce on 1/14/2010 7:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations. In a snide attempt at wit and sarcasm, you win the idiotic blog post of the day cookie.

quote:
This article talks positively about a method to sequester carbon, but all the posts here just talk about the "hoax" of global warming and how it's fostered by socialists for some reason...


That's because most who are behind the draconian, fascist policy initiatives driven by global warming - excuse me - climate change, and that includes outlandish tax policies in money redistribution projects, it's mostly the socialists (the left).

quote:
If you're all such real capitalists (save for those who have said they aren't), why aren't you starting businesses to make money off this new process?...I mean it's hard to see why you are all complaining about the situation when there are buckets of money to be made. That's the point of capitalism, right?


Hate to break the news to you, bub, but most people ("real" capitalists or not) who start business ventures do so out of love and dedication to what they enjoy doing. Do you think a small computer repair business store owner, or a restaurant owner just woke up one day and thought he'd open up a store to make those big evil profits off the people? Go ahead and spit it out: people like you despise the very freedom of being able to make a buck in a free society (for now at least anyway).

quote:
There's no possibility of harm to planet and all you're doing is depriving stupid people of their money, something that is perfectly acceptable for capitalists.


I'll take capitalism over communism and socialism any day, any week, any lifetime, thanks. If you like to stifle innovation, success, and drive and reward apathy, mediocrity, and sloth, then you make a fine supporter of the latter two at the beginning of this paragraph.


RE: Missing an opportunity
By dlapine on 1/15/2010 10:35:27 AM , Rating: 3
Boy are you clueless. I AM a small business owner, I own and run a computer consulting firm in central Illinois. I AM a capitalist!

This isn't a post making snide comments because I'm a socialist, this is a post making snide comments about the wannabe capitalists here. Much hand wringing about how those evil socialists are doing things to us. Capitalists are the ones who do things to other people. Guess you guys aren't really into the whole profit cycle thing. No, making a profit based a fair exchange of value isn't evil. I provide a good value to all of my customers, and I enjoy the rewards it brings. Don't lecture me on what it means to a business owner. Been doing it for almost 10 years now.

I also notice that you completely failed to address the issue I raised.

It's a simple question. Why aren't you all out making money on this new technology? For the purpose of making money, it makes absolutely no difference whether climate change is real, fake or somewhere in between. If the government, which is no longer controlled by the conservative Republicans, is willing to pass legislation creating carbon caps, then anyone with a good carbon sequestration technique can profit from it. I give that future about an 85% chance of happening.

I can understand that you don't like the thought of having people who don't share your ideology make decisions that affect you. In this case, that's irrelevant, because you can still provide a profitable service that businesses will need.

In the possible case that climate change isn't a hoax, and that climate change is affected by the actions of humanity to a significant state, sequestering carbon might just be the best thing you could possibly do.


RE: Missing an opportunity
By Nfarce on 1/15/2010 5:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't a post making snide comments because I'm a socialist, this is a post making snide comments about the wannabe capitalists here.


No, that's your subliminal snide comment that if you don't want to start a business in what you believe in (no matter the topic), then you should shut up. I can read between the lines, bub.

What do YOU believe in? Do you believe that every household should be powered by windmills and solar panels? Then why don't you start a company and make it profitable and realistic technology for EVERYONE to have it? Solar power has only been around since the 1970s. Or battery powered cars? What do YOU believe in? Start it up man!

That's the premise of your argument, and it's moot.

quote:
I also notice that you completely failed to address the issue I raised. Why aren't you all out making money on this new technology?


Ditto.

quote:
In the possible case that climate change isn't a hoax, and that climate change is affected by the actions of humanity to a significant state, sequestering carbon might just be the best thing you could possibly do.


The last 10 years of history and "climate change", not to mention the last 100 years, says that it's junk science, and I'm no snake oil salesman, unlike Al Gore & CO. who's making BILLIONS off of it.


RE: Missing an opportunity
By Kurz on 1/15/2010 10:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between a Legitmate Business and a Business based on fraud.

Bernie Madoff anyone?


RE: Missing an opportunity
By dlapine on 1/15/2010 10:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
If carbon caps are put into law, there's nothing fraudulent about providing sequestration services. Even if you believe that climate climate is a socialist plot, that belief wouldn't affect the business model created a change in federal law.

In fact, given that "the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act", you might as well start raising capital now. See http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html


RE: Missing an opportunity
By Kurz on 1/15/2010 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Though in order to make Carbon Credit a reality its gotta be down to a science.

Example I buy stock of a company that is doing very poorly the stock would reflect that.

Though the measuring of Carbon and its effect is still... how should I say this. A bunch of non existant hot air makes it quite instantial. Since I am buying into a company that actually produces numbers. And there is something substantial behind it meaning it the performance correlates with stock usually (Lots of emotion in Stock).

There is all these scientists
We produce Gigatons of the stuff every year, but it hasn't shown measurable varrance in the past 11. Its been pretty stable this entire time.

Of course if you can sell it people probably will buy it Hence Derivatives.


RE: Missing an opportunity
By Kurz on 1/15/2010 3:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Crap... Dailytech needs an edit button >.>


The Choice
By HotPlasma on 1/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Choice
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2010 7:52:36 AM , Rating: 1
Bahhhhhhhh Bahhhhhhh


RE: The Choice
By jjmcubed on 1/15/2010 12:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
Insulting is always better than showing why someone is wrong with scientific data...


RE: The Choice
By AlexWade on 1/14/2010 8:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.petitionproject.org

The one revelation form climategate that really irks me is how these AGW scientists suppressed dissent and controlled the peer review process. This disgusts me because we have no true way of knowing what is the opinion of the majority of scientists. Anytime someone spoke out, their funding and thus their livelihood was threatened or they were called a shill of Big Oil or these scientists did something bad to them to silence them or make them fall in line.

True science has no overwhelming consensus, only religion does. True science doesn't silence dissent, only religion does.


RE: The Choice
By JediJeb on 1/14/2010 11:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with the first part, we definately do not know the true number of scientist who disagree with AGW theory. It is funny that most scientist I know do disagree while the media says most agree.

Religion isn't the only group to silence dissent, government is probably the worst offender there.


cleaner air= more sunlight
By drewsup on 1/14/2010 10:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone ever seen the old pictures of workers in the early 1900's building NY skyscrapers?? The air looks positively NASTY! The pollution back then was horrendous, now 70 years later, except for LA on some days, the air is pretty well crystal clear. Now follow this logic, if more sunlight is getting through because we have done a great job of cleaning up the atmosphere, would that not translate to more radiant heat hitting the earth? Also.. the amount of paved roads has increased by what, a factor of at least 20,(just a guess), so all that black asphalt around major city's is adding to the heat trap. It amazes me that no one has correlated the rise in city temps to this. Most of the AGW studies show that majority of temp rises are around major populations,(ie. city). my 2 cents worth..




RE: cleaner air= more sunlight
By Mint on 1/15/2010 10:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
People have looked at this. Roads are a non-factor. 70 million km of roads in the world, well under 100 ft wide on average, means less than 0.4% of the earth's surface, and only a third of that is paved.

Smog in cities is a non factor. It may look dark looking at a the skyline because you see tens of kilometers of it, but when you look up it's negligible. Just look at google satellite pictures. If anything, cities reflect more light than natural vegetation.

Global warming is real. However, its consequences are 100x cheaper to deal with than preventing. You don't spend $1000 for laser removal of hair that a $10 razor can do, especially when you're too cheap to spend $200 on insulin to manage your diabetes. There are bigger issues to worry about in the world.


Just you wait...
By Breathless on 1/14/2010 8:43:38 AM , Rating: 2
all its going to take is a few really cold winters in a row before people start laughing at this retarded man-made global warming crap. Then they will go back to saying "global cooling".




By Yawgm0th on 1/14/2010 11:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
On the Internet, we speak American. Take your gigatonnes back to Britain.




"most authorities"???
By spepper on 1/16/2010 8:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
would you care to specify exactly who are "most authorities"-- Al Gore, George Soros, or the Wizard of Oz? It has already been exposed that these "most authorities" have been proven fraudulent, via the discovery of the emails out of CRU that expose these so-called climate experts for what they truly are: nothing more than frauds who conspire with politicians such as Gore to extort money from everyone who exhales CO2---




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki