It's a Wookie
Or a koala.
38 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Feb 2007
Hydrogen used for transportation would be stored as a hydride; not as a liquid. I recall work done in that area 20+ years ago. The big problem then, as now, remains getting enough storage onboard to allow a reasonable radius of travel.
As for electrolysis of seawater leaving chlorine and sodium hydroxide (lye), well, those are two of the most useful chemicals out there. Most medicines use chlorine chemistry, for example.
From a news release:
"Called the SkyMine process, Skyonic has created a new method that captures carbon dioxide and other pollutants and converts them to commercial-grade chemicals that are less harmful, such as hydrogen and certain forms of chlorine."
Now, wait a minute...
It "converts" Carbon Dioxide to "hydrogen and certain forms of chlorine."? There's only one "form" of chlorine -- unless you're counting isotopes.
And, how does it "convert" them? Do they wheel up a fusion reactor to the plant exhaust?
I smell a SCAM!
Notice how, in a fairly short time, CO2 has become a "pollutant"?
Time was, a "pollutant" was SO2, or NOx, or a VOC.
Now, it's something people exhale. Something that plants call "food".
Already, China has claimed that they should be given carbon credit for their population control program.
I suppose methane will be next, which means we can expect the US to declare war on Mexico -- to "save the planet".
How about suicide by wood chipper?
Many years ago, at a woodmill (used to make chips for pulping) in the beautiful Pacific Northwest, a fellow left his watch, wallet, and keys on the deck and jumped into a 30" log chipper.
One can only hope he went headfirst....
Gee, ExxonMobile spends $15 million over 10 years (less than the annual budget of GreenPeace), and that terrifies people.
Meanwhile, the US government spends $80 BILLION, and all we get is Mann refusing to share his data, Hansen claiming he's "muzzled", and ghost stories from the IPCC.
I bought a PET in 1979. Cost me about $1000 (US). 14K ROM and 8K memory (the OS used the first 1K).
I did my first serious programming on that machine: a DBM (in BASIC!) for a study I was doing where I worked. I remember a LOT of reads & writes to/from the cassette for that one.
The Assembler for that was a lot of fun, too.
Memories. Sometimes wish I still had that box.
60 feet off the deck? SAC B-52's did that as part of "lob bombing" practice.
I got to see it once.
Picture it: a B-52 doing 400 mph at 50 feet, black smoke rolling from the engines. Then the pilot turns the plane on its tail and kicks all 8 engines to rock-and-roll mode. The bomb is released at "nose up", and sails for miles. Amazing the rate of climb on a big bird like that.
BTW, it wasn't unusual for planes to return from practice with cornstalks in the bomb bay doors....
Considering the list of past “deserving” recipients (Arafat, Menchu, Annan, etc), Gore fits right in.
Should be renamed the Nobel “Piece-of-the-Action” Prize.
Al Gore did not "win an Oscar". The film's producers did.
Justice Burton's decision regarding the showing of AIT was anything but "daft", as anyone with a bit of common sense can see by reading it:
Reprocessing doesn't "produce" Plutonium.
Plutonium is the result of the decay of an isotope of Neptunium, which is formed in the reactor core.
However, in the case of current PWR and BWR technology, the Plutonium is Pu-241, not Pu-239.
Pu-241 decays through spontaneous fission, making it less-than-desirable as weapons material.
Plutonium can be burned in a mixed-fuel reactor, thus eliminating it from weapons production.
I wouldn't take one of my machines to Best Buy if you put a gun to my head.
The "problem" of nosy techs isn't limited to them, though, for example this local story:
The guy took his box to a shop called "Integrity PC" to have RAM installed. Why that would involve poking around the hard drive is beyond me. I know some will say it's a good thing if child porn is found, but what about the 1000 other innocent customers whose information is scanned?
"Integrity PC" my arse.
"...there is an even chance that global temperatures will be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record."
Sorry, but 1998 isn't/wasn't:
I know that that applies only to the US, but considering the US has the single largest climate data network, don't be surprised to find out it applies to the global record as well.
(Actually, I'd be surprised if the folks at Hadley owned up to any errors)
How could they look at "satellite data on solar radiation and surface temperatures over the past 50 years" when the satellite data only goes back 28 years?
As for the prediction "the planet would see an increase in temperature of between 2.3°C and 4.1°C", they are either over-estimating the forcing of water vapor, or discounting the increase in albedo, or (probably) both.
Finally, how does any of that article justify the statement "But climate change still down to humans"?
I think the 600-series ThinkPads will eventually achieve icon status. They're still good machines.
I have 3: 600, 600E, and 600X. When I needed to use Visio at work (and the company no longer supported it) I put it on my 600X. Worked fine.
Lenovo maintains support for them, and, as others have pointed out, they're durable as Hell.
Long Live the ThinkPad!
John, it weren't the judge what said that:
"Those images are not readily accessible without special software which he did not have, said the Secret Service expert."
(This "expert" must have gone to the same school that teaches that if an address is in the "Typed URL's" file, you must have typed it.)
He's wrong on 3 counts in that sentence alone: "not readily accessible", "special software", and "did not have".
Any file management utility can find them, like Windows Explorer.
God save us from "experts" like these!
A bit misleading, this article.
These aren't "the glaciers in Antarctica" so much as they are TIDEWATER glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula -- an area which extends outside the Antarctic Circle, and is not representative of the continent as a whole. The peninsula has been warming, unlike the rest of the continent, for example.
In an earlier paper ("Cryospheric impacts of climate change on the Antarctic Peninsula"), D. G. Vaughn of the BAS writes, "An estimate of the net imbalance of the northern Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet, suggests that it is now contributing around 0.16 ± 0.06 mm to global sea-level". This is a sizable fraction of the total contribution assigned to Antarctica by the IPCC (0.21 mm).
The WAIS and EAIS, where most all the ice is, are comparatively stable.
It's too early to panic, folks.
First off, thanks for calling me a "skeptic" as opposed to a "denier" (that word has acquired some ugly connotations).
If memory serves, ExxonMobil has given about $16 Million US in the last 10 years to various groups/individuals. In that time, the US government has spent something like $15 BILLION US on climate research -- most all of those funds going to people who have a lot more in common with Hansen & Mann than they do with Carter & Gray (please correct those numbers if I'm in error). Then there is the enormous amount in contributions from/to groups such as Pew, Sierra Club, WorldWatch, Greenpeace, etc, all of which goes to promote the concept of AGW.
Is ExxonMobil simply getting more bang for their buck, or is their argument more compelling?
It may surprise you to know that I agree that mitgation strategies need to be developed. People should not build in flood zones, for example. Nor should they build along coastlines subject to erosion -- erosion caused by sea levels which have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. Nor should people live in cities located below sea level (it is a true "environmental tragedy" that the effects of Katrina could have been negligible had environmental groups not prevented the Corps from improving flood control projects 10 years ago).
But, ethanol subsidies? Cap and Trade? These are enormous wealth transfers which would do little -- if anything positive. It's no surprise that Enron was in favor of Cap & Trade, for they saw the profit potential -- as have several other energy companies, ExxonMobil included.
How about mandating the use of CFL's? Well, lights are used during off-peak times, which means that there would be little reduction in CO2 production -- those generators have to keep running, after all. Further, who is making the CFL's? The Chinese. And they'll keep burning low-grade coal in unscrubbed power plants to make the CFL's.
You don't say where you live, so I won't be able to follow your weather to see if the "Early Warning" bears out. I've noticed that a lot of these are more hyperbole that hypothesis (Remember the record hurricane season from last year?). Two years ago, we in the Pacific Northwest were warned of possible summer brownouts because the snowpack in the Cascades was below normal. This was in spite of the fact that the dams which supply most of the power here are on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, which get their water from the Rockies -- which had almost record snowpack. There were no brownouts.
By the way, I earlier alluded to the difficulty in determining "Global Temperature". An interesting related thread has opened on ClimateAudit:
This may be my last post. I don't know how much longer el Reg will keep it open, and the coming week appears to be full. I'm taking early retirement on June 1, and my boss left last week to take another job -- leaving me with a pile of projects to complete.
I hope the above has softened some of your disappointment in me.
Institute for Public Affairs? Woodside Petroleum? Esso Australia?
Didn't you earlier make a comment about ad hominem?
(Full disclosure: in 1973 I had a 4-month contract at ARCO's Cherry Point refinery)
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the idea of "small government, low taxes", that being the model n the US Constitution -- pity how far it has strayed.
I see we're going to have to agree to disagree. Hopefully, we can continue to do that with a minmum of rancor. You write well, which indicates to me that you're intelligent, and therefore worthy of respect.(I don't suffer fools gladly, and I suspect neither do you)
All the best.
Spoken like a true RealClimate acolyte, Richard!
("Smug"? RealClimate has Smug in Spades)
For a more balanced view, try:
or, a big Hockey Team favorite:
While I believe that 32+ years working with absorption technology (ClO2, SO2, CO2, etc) have given me sufficient understanding of the physics and chemistry, I doubt that I can reply adequately in "400 words or less".
Instead, I'll offer this:
I hope you find it interesting.
So serious, I get my science from real science sources, and not a web site that's owned and operated by the Hockey Team.
("RealClimate" my arse)
In the last 150 years, the "Global Temperature" (whatever that is) has risen about 1 C. That compares very well with past temperature changes, and is anything but swift or sudden.
The last warming exceeded the current period, and polar bears, penguins, and people managed quite nicely.
Keep smiling, John.
"Oxygen isn't part of carbon dioxide, it's a separate gas."
Oh? Let's see...CO2 is Carbon and Oxygen. One Carbon and 2 Oxygen (O2), to be precise. A molecule of Oxygen -- the kind you breathe -- is O2.
"...algae (and all other green plants) produce CO2 as part of photosynthesis,"
Wrong again, John. You have it backwards. Plants take in CO2, use the Carbon (C), and release the Oxygen (O2).
Proud of that UK education, are you?
"Yes I know the Bible has some rather nasty scenes.... but they are in the context of 'Don't do this'"
Excuse me, but Lot did all that crap and was still called "a righteous man".
So, if you want to be "righteous", offer your daughters to mobs and/or rape them.
And don't let me get started on Elisha, "The Child Killer".....
The Cringe's reply to a poster who took him to task:
"If you are tired of thoughtful prose, by all means read something else."
Yeah, Bob, with bad puns, unsupported assertions, reports about what passes for your love life, etc, I've never considered your work to be "thoughtful prose". I guess that's why I read less and less of it.