I started this blog because on what used to be my fun blog, Our Hydrogen Future, there were too many external influences on hydrogen as a transportation fuel and energy storage means that I had begun to discuss. A hydrogen economy is pretty complex. So I wanted to separate the physics from the politics and bring more of the physics portion to this blog. There was too much blending of issues which detracted from the issue, hydrogen.
Here, I can't get too far away from politics either. Politics is a major factor in every part of our lives, even science. The more complex the issue the more politics will be involved at some point. That is not good, bad or particularly unusual, it is just life.
This post on blending, could be on either blog. The advantage of hydrogen is it allows the blending of various technologies using one of the basic building blocks of the universe. Any form of energy can be used to manufacturer hydrogen. At differing efficiencies, but generally to improve overall efficiency if it is not the primary objective, but the catch all energy pigeon hole.
The fear of catastrophic global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions was an excellent motivation to look to hydrogen for future use, even if depleting conventional fuel resources and declining energy security was not.
It seems people don't think that way, for some reason, people have become much more binary, yes, no or good, bad in their thinking. Action will only result from one of three situations in that case, yes wins, no wins or some blend or compromise develops. I am a centrist or blender by nature. It is not difficult for me to read the writing on the wall and know that the truth is near the middle, at least initially.
The EPA MATS is a perfect example of "no" winning. A very caring and concerned group of people that want to protect the world selected one potential danger, coal, and attempted to sentence it to death with regulation. Their binary world believes in perfection and that by eliminating every perceived threat, one at a time, the perfect world will evolve. If a perfect energy source existed, they would be on the right path to realize their vision of perfection without upsetting the energy applecart. One of the darlings of the "kill coal" movement is biomass. Biomass is not without its ugly realities. So the EPA MAST will kill more biomass production, as a percentage of total production, that it will coal. I would think that is an undesired consequence.
The "yes" crowd, in the eyes of the "no" crowd only want more damaging coal to be used because the "yes" crowd are selfish, ignorant and mean people. The "yes" crowd may be all of that or they may not be, it does not really matter because the reality is if they have their way, the middle, blending would be missed.
From an engineering point of view, efficiency is the name of the game. Making more with what you have available. So as an engineer, I would not eliminate any tool for improving efficiency, that includes nasty coal.
Climate science has the same yes, no or good, bad conflict. The middle ground is lost on most other than the engineers and a few other groups. We know about blending.
From an engineering perspective, there are short term "solutions" that may lead to longer term "solutions" which may lead to even longer term "solutions". Solutions in quotes, because engineers know that there are likely no "true" "solutions" for the ultimate future because no one is that smart. We just know that improving efficiency can lead to more improvements. That is what we do, attempt to optimize efficiency within the constrains of the real world, physics, finance and political limitations. In other words, we are used to dealing with overly optimistic and overly pessimistic assholes.
Showing posts with label theme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theme. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Where Did Climate Science Go Wrong?
Where Did Climate Science Go Wrong?
Climate Science, specifically the Theory of Global Warming, is based on assumptions. If those assumptions are valid, the supporting work will be valid, if not?
The first assumption is that our world without greenhouse gases would be 33 degrees cooler. That assumption is based on the assumption that the Earth would reflect just as much sunlight as it does today. A valid assumption provided the surface absorbed all the sunlight or if the top of the atmosphere temperature is used consistently to determine warming. If the top of the atmosphere is used, then the assumption can be made that the atmosphere was so low, that the surface and atmosphere could be at the same temperature.
That’s what, three assumptions supporting one main assumption?
There is more to heat transfer than photons. If the Earth had nitrogen and oxygen in the same quantities as today, conduction and convection assure that the Earth would have an atmosphere even without greenhouse gases. With Oxygen in the atmosphere and ultraviolet energy emitted by the sun, the Earth would be assured of having a Tropopause, the temperature inversion in the lower atmosphere. That would mean the surface would be at least 2 degrees cooler than the top of the atmosphere if the Troposphere is assumed to be the top.
The Earth also has a wealth of water, water, temperature, equatorial sunlight and atmosphere ensure there would be latent cooling as water evaporated and is carried aloft by convection. That could produce nearly 10 degrees cooler temperatures at the surface than at the top of the atmosphere. That could result in a 30% error in the Greenhouse Effect portion of the overall atmospheric effect.
Assumption two, the greenhouse effect will uniformly warm the surface with most impact at the poles and upper troposphere. Unfortunately, this is also an incorrect assumption.
In the tropics, additional Carbon Dioxide has minimal effect on the surface due to the high concentration of water vapor. The Carbon and water vapor radiant effects are more strongly felt above this water vapor where its downward impact warms the water and clouds below it. This increases upper level convection promoting cooling which partially offsets the warming potential of the Greenhouse Effect. In the Northern polar region, were the air is less saturated with water vapor, the additional Carbon Dioxide enhances warming as predicted. In the Southern polar region where temperatures are much lower, water vapor does not increased significantly with the radiant forcing of additional CO2 reducing the impact of the Greenhouse Effect.
Trying to match observations with these faulty assumptions has led Climate Science down a path of attempting to “Force” data to match expectations instead of matching theory to observations. Not sound scientific practice.
Is the Earth warming due to Anthropgenic Greenhouse Gases? Yes, but it will also cool because of them. The additional greenhouse gases amplify natural variability in some regions and not others. More, proper, research needs to be done.
redneckphysics.blogspot.com
Climate Science, specifically the Theory of Global Warming, is based on assumptions. If those assumptions are valid, the supporting work will be valid, if not?
The first assumption is that our world without greenhouse gases would be 33 degrees cooler. That assumption is based on the assumption that the Earth would reflect just as much sunlight as it does today. A valid assumption provided the surface absorbed all the sunlight or if the top of the atmosphere temperature is used consistently to determine warming. If the top of the atmosphere is used, then the assumption can be made that the atmosphere was so low, that the surface and atmosphere could be at the same temperature.
That’s what, three assumptions supporting one main assumption?
There is more to heat transfer than photons. If the Earth had nitrogen and oxygen in the same quantities as today, conduction and convection assure that the Earth would have an atmosphere even without greenhouse gases. With Oxygen in the atmosphere and ultraviolet energy emitted by the sun, the Earth would be assured of having a Tropopause, the temperature inversion in the lower atmosphere. That would mean the surface would be at least 2 degrees cooler than the top of the atmosphere if the Troposphere is assumed to be the top.
The Earth also has a wealth of water, water, temperature, equatorial sunlight and atmosphere ensure there would be latent cooling as water evaporated and is carried aloft by convection. That could produce nearly 10 degrees cooler temperatures at the surface than at the top of the atmosphere. That could result in a 30% error in the Greenhouse Effect portion of the overall atmospheric effect.
Assumption two, the greenhouse effect will uniformly warm the surface with most impact at the poles and upper troposphere. Unfortunately, this is also an incorrect assumption.
In the tropics, additional Carbon Dioxide has minimal effect on the surface due to the high concentration of water vapor. The Carbon and water vapor radiant effects are more strongly felt above this water vapor where its downward impact warms the water and clouds below it. This increases upper level convection promoting cooling which partially offsets the warming potential of the Greenhouse Effect. In the Northern polar region, were the air is less saturated with water vapor, the additional Carbon Dioxide enhances warming as predicted. In the Southern polar region where temperatures are much lower, water vapor does not increased significantly with the radiant forcing of additional CO2 reducing the impact of the Greenhouse Effect.
Trying to match observations with these faulty assumptions has led Climate Science down a path of attempting to “Force” data to match expectations instead of matching theory to observations. Not sound scientific practice.
Is the Earth warming due to Anthropgenic Greenhouse Gases? Yes, but it will also cool because of them. The additional greenhouse gases amplify natural variability in some regions and not others. More, proper, research needs to be done.
redneckphysics.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)