[Daniel1960]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-September-27, 06:31, said:

AR5 is out and confidence (limits) rules!

Despite not as much warming as previously expected.

Despite observationally-based calculations of a lower climate sensitivity to [CO2].

Despite the continued failure of the models to provide similarity to real-world situations (hot-spot etc.).

The IPCC is even more sure that the warming climate (well, the "stalled" warming due to deep-ocean heat sequestration...) is even more confidently due to.....not greenhouse gases friends....but the filthy, evil, reprehensible....HUMAN INFLUENCE!

Oh the prevarication....it burns!!!

The report is out, and the fanfare is well, less than grandiose. We are more confident that the world has warmed over the past half century. That is good. The rest of us have known that for years. Mankind is responsible for more than half. Rather vague, but acceptable. Exactly how are we responsible? Does not say. But mankind contributing 0.3C to a 0.5C temperature rise is a bit of a yarner. The IPCC has finally admitted what most scientists have been saying about the recent warming hiatus. Hopefully, those in denial will drop their pretenses. The report has lowered the lower range on most predictions, without changing the upper, although I feel they should have lowered them further. The ranges are so wide, you could plow a bulldozer through them without scraping either end. Almost makes them meaningless. It would similar to a pollster saying that Obama will win 51% of the vote, give or take 10%. Expected, both sides are picking their favorite parts to show that their views are still correct. With any luck, this will be the final report, and we can go on to doing meaningful work.

[Al_U_Card]

The most interesting aspect is the "sausage-making" that went on to transform this latest report into the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers). Lots of commentary on that and how the science says one thing but the alarmists want to stick to their agenda...

I came across this while looking at recent Arctic ice recovery and some work on sea-level increase.



Hardly unprecedented, I would say.

[Al_U_Card]

Meanwhile, back at the range (of just what "unprecedented" things COULD happen depending on the refurbished definitions of abrupt and irreversible)

[Al_U_Card]

As hurricane errr.... tropical storm errrr....tropical depression Karen dissipates in dry air and wind shear in the Gulf of Mexico, one can only speculate on the beneficent effects of a warming world...

Meanwhile, the IPCC is doing backflips, trying to justify the billions that it has caused to be spent AND the trillions in damages that it has caused governments to inflict on their taxpayers.

We can only hope that the whole sorry mess will be defunded and disbanded.

[Daniel1960]

Articles like the following have appeared bemoaning the fate of the Pacific walrus:

http://www.salon.com...10000_walruses/

Unfortunately, the articles misses the most important point in that this indicates a rebound of the walruses after years of hunting and expanded sea ice. For whatever reason, an increase in the walrus population poses a problem. This appears similar to the increase in the polar bear population.

[Al_U_Card]

More perspective



Slowdown? Perhaps recycling would be more appropriate...

[PassedOut]

By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past, Scientists Say

Quote

If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers said Wednesday.

Scientists from the University of Hawaii at Manoa calculated that by 2047, plus or minus five years, the average temperatures in each year will be hotter across most parts of the planet than they had been at those locations in any year between 1860 and 2005.

To put it another way, for a given geographic area, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past,” said Camilo Mora, the lead scientist on a paper published in the journal Nature.

Seems like a good idea to hold onto property far from the equator.

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2013-October-10, 07:18, said:

By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past, Scientists Say


Seems like a good idea to hold onto property far from the equator.

While this sounds rather ominous, it is not different from that observed today. Starting from their temperature enddate of 2005, they are looking 42 years into the future. Going back 42 years from today (1971), the warmest years (CRU data) were 1944 (+0.121C), 1941 (+0.078), 1878 (+0.028), and 1940 (0.020). The last year cooler than the hottest year from 1880-1972 was 1993 (+0.106), so the past 20 years have all been hotter than the hottest year prior, and that is half the future timeframe stated in the article. Even starting from the previous warmest year, 1944, this was achieved after 50 years. So, it would not take much warming to accomplish this feat.

[Al_U_Card]

ESPECIALLY if they keep adjusting the past temperature record down and raising current values (Hadcrut3 vs. Hadcrut4 etc.)

Besides, they will have to make do with alarm from nothing since nothing that is happening is alarming...

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2013-October-10, 07:18, said:

By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past, Scientists Say


Seems like a good idea to hold onto property far from the equator.

Of course, some real science and understanding of how actual measurements and observations can go a long way.

The "pause" that refreshes...

[mike777]

Daniel1960, on 2013-October-10, 09:54, said:

While this sounds rather ominous, it is not different from that observed today. Starting from their temperature enddate of 2005, they are looking 42 years into the future. Going back 42 years from today (1971), the warmest years (CRU data) were 1944 (+0.121C), 1941 (+0.078), 1878 (+0.028), and 1940 (0.020). The last year cooler than the hottest year from 1880-1972 was 1993 (+0.106), so the past 20 years have all been hotter than the hottest year prior, and that is half the future timeframe stated in the article. Even starting from the previous warmest year, 1944, this was achieved after 50 years. So, it would not take much warming to accomplish this feat.

Can we recycle carbon dioxide into methanol for use as fuel as one viable option to reduce overall greenhouse emissions?

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2013-October-11, 12:28, said:

Can we recycle carbon dioxide into methanol for use as fuel as one viable option to reduce overall greenhouse emissions?

Mike....water vapor is THE GHG.

CO2 is the vehicle by which your tax dollars are being extricated from your wallet.

Time to focus on the pickpocket I would dare say.

[FM75]

mike777, on 2013-October-11, 12:28, said:

Can we recycle carbon dioxide into methanol for use as fuel as one viable option to reduce overall greenhouse emissions?

CO₂ + 3 H₂ → CH₃OH + H₂O


At the cost of 3 moles of Hydrogen gas for each mole of Carbon Dioxide.
Any guess as to whether we can generate Hydrogen, which does not appear in a free form naturally on earth, at 3 times the rate that we generate Carbon dioxide? (Hint, if the answer is yes, NiMH, Lithium Ion, and other standard electric batteries would be well in the rear view mirror of cars driving around with electric motors driven by fuel cells.)

[mike777]

FM75, on 2013-October-11, 14:25, said:

CO₂ + 3 H₂ → CH₃OH + H₂O


At the cost of 3 moles of Hydrogen gas for each mole of Carbon Dioxide.
Any guess as to whether we can generate Hydrogen, which does not appear in a free form naturally on earth, at 3 times the rate that we generate Carbon dioxide? (Hint, if the answer is yes, NiMH, Lithium Ion, and other standard electric batteries would be well in the rear view mirror of cars driving around with electric motors driven by fuel cells.)

thanks for the reply. I thought there are new developments in chemistry, a new way to convert carbon dioxide into methanol that now makes it profitable. For starters I thought there was a 2011 study The Future of Natural Gas by Ernest Moniz that concluded that methanol is the best use of natural gas or shale gas in transportation. Also work done by George Olah. Also I read Iceland is converting carbon dioxide from geothermal sources into methanol using cheap geothermal electrical energy.
-------------

Dr. Ernest Moniz’s views on methanol as a transportation fuel

By Alan Bryce on April 18, 2013 in Fuel methanol production, Methanol cars, Natural gas to methanol, Open Fuel Standard

Dr. Ernest Moniz, distinguished MIT professor and President Barrack Obama’s nominee for US Secretary of Energy, played an integral role in a 2010 MIT study that concluded that methanol is the ‘liquid fuel most efficiently and inexpensively produced from natural gas.’ A portion of the record from the April 9th Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources hearing on his nomination is featured below. This excerpt certainly supports the views of supporters of the Open Fuel Standard and the adoption of methanol as a transportation fuel.



SEN. CANTWELL: As I understand it, today the U.S. produces roughly 280 million gallons of methanol, primarily from the steam reformation of natural gas, and by 2015 that number will increase to one billion gallons. On the ground that means three methanol plants will be reactivated in Texas and a fourth will be moved from Chile to Louisiana to take advantage of today’s lower natural gas costs. In a study published in 2010, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that methanol was the ‘liquid fuel most efficiently and inexpensively produced from natural gas,’ and they recommended methanol as the most effective way to integrate natural gas into our transportation economy.

Dr, Moniz, I would appreciate knowing if you were involved with this study and your personal views as to the potential of using methanol to power our transportation system given America’s now abundant supplies of cheap natural gas. I understand that at today’s natural gas prices methanol costs about 35 cents a gallon to produce, and for the past five years the wholesale price for natural gas-derived methanol has ranged between $1.05 and $1.15 a gallon. How do you think the price of methanol will change over the next decade as the price of natural gas changes?

DR. MONIZ: I was the co-director of this study. Its findings and recommendations were achieved by the consensus of the 19 faculty and senior researchers involved in the study. The U.S. has significantly increased domestic natural gas and oil production over the last several years, with important implications and possible opportunities for diversifying the nation’s transportation fuel mix. This diversification remains an economic and national security imperative. The President’s All-of-the-Above Energy policy supports more choices for Americans among available modes of transportation and types of fuel.

There are many conversion routes for deriving liquid fuels from natural gas. Methanol is simplest and, like ethanol, needs modest engine modifications for flex fuel operation (possibly even tri-flex-fuel). More complex and costly conversion could yield “drop-in” fuels. If confirmed, I am committed to exploring the safe and environmentally sustainable development of all economically viable transportation fuels to increase consumer choice, reduce prices, improve our balance of trade, and enhance national security. Clearly higher natural gas prices would increase methanol costs, and conversely for lower prices. While I won’t speculate on the future price of methanol, I appreciate both the economic and diversity benefits of methanol as a transportation fuel, as well as the challenges it poses to both fueling infrastructure and vehicle design, especially in the context of ability to meet future environmental emissions standards over a wide range of tri-flex-fuel operation.

SEN. CANTWELL: The seminal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute report entitled “The Future of Natural Gas 2011” found that “methanol could be used in tri-flexible-fuel, light-duty (and heavy-duty) vehicles in a manner similar to present ethanol-gasoline flex fuel vehicles, with modest incremental vehicle cost. These tri-flex-fuel vehicles could be operated on a wide range of mixtures of methanol, ethanol and gasoline. For long distance driving, gasoline could be used in the flex-fuel engine to maximize range. Present ethanol-gasoline flex-fuel vehicles in the U.S. are sold at the same price as their gasoline counterparts. Adding methanol capability to a factory 85% ethanol blend (E85) vehicle, to create tri-flex fuel capability, would require an air/fuel mixture control to accommodate an expanded fuel/air range with addition of an alcohol sensor and would result in an extra cost of $100 to $200, most likely at the lower end of that range with sufficient production.” Dr. Moniz, were you involved with this study and do you generally agree with its conclusions? What can DOE do to promote greater adoption of tri-flexible-fuel vehicles?

DR. MONIZ: I was the co-director of this study. Its findings and recommendations were achieved by the consensus of the 19 faculty and senior researchers involved in the study. Flex fuel vehicles were also a topic discussed in detail at a MIT symposium last year. Such vehicles may help enhance US energy security by diversifying our sources of liquid fuels. If confirmed, I would recommend that this technology pathway be examined in the Quadrennial Energy Review.

[mike777]

Exploring the Methanol Economy: Here is a tape of the NPR talk.

http://www.npr.org/p...69301&m=5369302



This week, President Bush called for greater reliance on ethanol as a fuel source, along with increased use of alternative fuels such as biodiesel and hydrogen. Nobel Laureate George Olah says that the answer isn't ethanol or hydrogen — it's methanol.

Guests:

George Olah, Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1994; co-author, Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy; Donald P. and Katherine B. Loker distinguished professor of organic chemistry, University of Southern California

[Daniel1960]

mike777, on 2013-October-11, 12:28, said:

Can we recycle carbon dioxide into methanol for use as fuel as one viable option to reduce overall greenhouse emissions?

Mike,
Another options that has existed for quite some time is the Fischer-Tropsch process. Germany used it extensively in WWII due to their lack of petroleum resources. The basic reaction is:

CO + 3H2 + catalyst → CH4 + H2O

Recently, research has progressed in the following reation:

CO2 + 4H2 + catalyst → CH4 + 2H2O

Tweaking the catalyst and reaction conditions, changes what hydrocarbons can be synthesized.

[onoway]

I keep wondering when governments will start using the mountains of waste, sewage and other organic waste, to produce methane. A pig farmer in the States ran his entire operation, including fuel for his vehicles, from the methane produced by the pigs back in the early 1940s. In the 1960's Harold Bates was running his vehicle around on the production of a little chicken and pig manure. http://www.nfb.ca/fi...sweet_as_a_nut/ His adapter is no longer available.

Presently, it is possible in India to buy even residential size digesters to process kitchen waste for cooking gas. In the meantime governments look for ever more places to dump garbage.

[blackshoe]

You mistake, I think, the purpose of government.

[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-11, 22:43, said:

You mistake, I think, the purpose of government.

To "ensure" the "rights" of the individual citizen against the "will" of the "majority" rule.

Everything else is a boondoggle or an inflation of the needs to meet an end.

p.s. And once corporations become "citizens", we all become just a rather puny pawn in their end-game.

[FM75]

Daniel1960, on 2013-October-11, 17:48, said:

Mike,
Another options that has existed for quite some time is the Fischer-Tropsch process. Germany used it extensively in WWII due to their lack of petroleum resources. The basic reaction is:

CO + 3H2 + catalyst → CH4 + H2O

Recently, research has progressed in the following reation:

CO2 + 4H2 + catalyst → CH4 + 2H2O

Tweaking the catalyst and reaction conditions, changes what hydrocarbons can be synthesized.

Mike, Daniel.
The key missing part of the picture in both my chemical "equations' and these are the thermodynamic component - energy. Burning carbon, either semi-pure as in coal, or in a hydrocarbon form, methane, ethane, methanol, etc. is exothermic. You get out more energy than it takes to start the reaction - so you can boil water, or move pistons as a result of detaching the hydrogen creating water and carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

In practice, these reactions are usually very hot and are done with the oxygen in air, forming oxides of nitrogen, NOx, as well. Very costly "smokestacks" are used to control the emission of NOx. They are multi-million dollar engineering projects with stacks roughly 5000-6000+ feet long with cross-sections on the order of 15x20 feet. When they work well, they capture tons of gypsum. Design errors can cause them to fail, somewhat catastrophically.

The second law of thermodynamics rules out turning the carbon oxides back into fuel without supplying more than the energy gained from creating it in the first place. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that it is a fool's errand to try to envision ways of converting the waste into fuel. You can think of all of the earth's hydrocarbons as a store of some of the solar energy incident on the earth since it was formed.

The point about reactions in which hydrogen is a reagent is that free hydrogen just does not exist for a very long time. It reacts strongly with oxygen to form water (exothermically - so getting it back out costs more than what you got when it combined, whether "explosively" or in a controlled reaction as found in a fuel cell). So virtually all of the hydrogen on the planet is in the form of water - the majority, hydrocarbons, and metal hydrides.

What makes hydrocarbons so useful as fuels is the high energy density, whether you are measuring the density in volume or mass terms. That is why it is the fuel of choice for transportation.

What is sad is that it is so predominant for electric generation. This country built 25% of its generation capacity, for the most part in about 15 years - 1965-1980. Building at that rate for the next 33 even using the technology from 50 years ago, could have put us in a position of generating 75% of our capacity today (That is not just idle speculation, based on wild guesses - France actually did it). Then only a modest amount of peaking power would be required from hydrocarbons.