Global Warmists back off on prediction

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

tw, you're trying to make it seem like I've said something I didn't.

I you cannot correct how your post is interpreted, then I have clearly interpreted what you have posted correctly. Meanwhile, the numbers do not lie. Aliantha does not dispute the numbers.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. Those claiming otherwise - and that would include Aliantha because she does not dispute it - have no idea why hydrogen as a fuel is a promotion by the naive - such as George Jr and Rick Wagoner of GM - to the naive.

[Aliantha]

tw...you suggested that I was an advocate for hydrogen fuel. All I did was provide you with information. As I have previously mentioned, I'm not a scientist so can't argue the pros and cons.

The only thing I do acknowledge with regard to hydrogen as a fuel source is that human beings need to explore all options because we're running out of oil. That's it. The sum total of my point.

If you're some kind of oracle and can tell that in the future there'll never be a feasible way to use hydrogen as a fuel source, then I bow to your superior knowledge.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

The only thing I do acknowledge with regard to hydrogen as a fuel source is that human beings need to explore all options because we're running out of oil. That's it. The sum total of my point.

If you're some kind of oracle and can tell that in the future there'll never be a feasible way to use hydrogen as a fuel source, then I bow to your superior knowledge.

Basic science cannot be denied. Laws of thermodynamics don't change. There is no other fuel - even speculated - that can replace petroleum due to fundamental numbers such as energy per kilogram.

This time you posted what your point was; said something I can comprehend. Yes, alternatives must always be explored. But one does not go exploring by violating well proven concepts such as conservation of energy. We also cannot burn seawater no matter how many times fiction has claimed otherwise.

There are no miracle solutions. But obvious problems could be solved. For example, how much of 10 gasoline liters actually perform useful work? Probably less than 2. Automobiles are that grossly inefficient. Do we know how to improve these numbers? Yes, and without magic solutions. One technology stifled for so long that the Japanese finally refined it is the hybrid. Hybrids were even in pre-WWII locomotives. Stifled so long because fear of innovation has been especially strong in the American auto industry.

Solutions exist. So these same industry executives who stifled innovation suddenly proclaim a miracle solution in hydrogen? Not only is hydrogen not a viable fuel, but it is being used to protect executives who really need to be burned at the stake - with hydrogen.

Chrysler studied hybrids in the 1980s. It was too complex. Why? Well Chrysler, et al suffered through development of other technologies such as fuel injection. A technology found even in 1937 German WWII planes. It was not that hybrids were too complex. It was that Chrysler, et al had so stifled innovation as to not have time for the more innovative stuff. Fuel injection that finally became standard in the mid 1980 (and not properly implemented in GM until after 1990) was originally standard in German ME-109 fighter planes.

Numerous ideas exist that only require development. So instead we waste time on a technology that has near zero promise? Hydrogen?

What might be the next major advance in automobiles? A future generation hybrid may not even use piston engines. We use pistons today only because we know them - for the same reasons that transistors were once made of germanium. Hybrids now make practical tiny turbines in conjunction with new tech batteries. Turbines could even utilize 4 or 5 of those 10 gasoline liters in useful work. Theoretically, it is possible - which we cannot say about hydrogen as a fuel. Nothing here from an oracle. It is a simple technical possiblity. Hydrogen as a fuel - not. Hydrogen as a battery - maybe.

Notice how we solve global warming and energy problems. We get energy from 4 or 5 gasoline liters. Doing more with less.

Yes we need to explore viable possibilities. But that means we need executives who know what reality is - who come from where the work gets done - and therefore don't hype mythical solutions. Hydrogen is promoted where innovation is again being subverted. Did it ever bother anyone that GM's chief engineer was a student of graphics art - not a mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineer? Could he see fallacies in something that violates thermodynamics? Of course not. He would have never taken a thermo course. Therefore he would be a perfect reason why innovation is stifled - why hydrogen is promoted at the expense of innovation.

Bottom line: hydrogen is being promoted as a fuel by those who stifle innovation and have a history of doing so.

[HungLikeJesus]

GM has many chief engineers. Dr. Mohsen Shabana is chief engineer for the GM Sequel (fuel cell car) project (General Motors chief engineer: hydrogen as transportation fuel will shape the rest of the century).

You can read more about GM's fuel cells and advanced technology vehicles here.

Finally, AutoblogGreen has some interesting articles about technologies under development, including a 6-stroke cycle "steam" engine.

There are a lot of innovative projects going on around the world in the areas of energy efficiency, alternative fuels and CO2 reduction.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is no other fuel - even speculated - that can replace petroleum due to fundamental numbers such as energy per kilogram.

We have nothing else that can match it's performance, doesn't mean it can't be replaced. It just means the cost of replacing it would be astronomical right now. Politics, however, could force that expenditure, so it would be wise to continue working on as many options as possible.

[HungLikeJesus]

The AutoblogGreen site that I linked to above has an article about a process that makes hydrogen "by adding water to an alloy of the metals aluminum and gallium."

"Woodall says that the reaction of aluminum with water has the same energy content per unit weight of oil, about 20,000 BTUs or about 6 kWh per pound."

[tw]

Originally Posted by HLJ

The AutoblogGreen site that I linked to above has an article about a process that makes hydrogen "by adding water to an alloy of the metals aluminum and gallium."

Hydrogen has energy content, by weight, competitive with oil. And then it must be compressed. Suddenly all advantages are lost.

What is the source of energy when water is added to alunimum and gallium alloys? We also do this with carbon rods in water. But that also does not make hydrogen energy.

Hydrogen could be manufactured and stored in large low pressure tanks. Energy stored for short term use that is useless for transportation - in essence a battery. Hydrogen is not a fuel. No viable technology exists even in theory to make it useful. So what technology with promise is GM working on? Notice how its top management - business school graduates - have thrown most all their eggs into one hydrogen basket. How many other technologies are therefore sitting stifled?

But again, its about doing more with less. Where are the programs to increase thermodynamic efficiencies in their piston engines. Or where are their programs to replace piston engines with something that is even more thermodynamically efficient? Government gives them millions of dollars in 1994 to build a hybrid? Eleven years later they still don't have a hybrid? What genius did that R&D?

[Aliantha]

YOu might like to have a look at this site. It's a new way of running motors which use alternative fuel.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't see anything there after 2004.

[Aliantha]

Yeah, they couldn't get it to work. They're still working on it though.

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think the theory of changing the mechanics is probably a good one. Conventional engines need something to 'fire' to make them work (in general). Maybe that's the problem.

There's more info about it online if you care to do a search.

[tw]

Why Original SCT Failed

... read the original description of the SplitCycle engine. The performance claims made using the original design are not physically possible, and that is a fact now as it was a fact then. No speaking ability, no salesmanship, no force of will can change physical laws. I can certainly understand, in the beginning, people throwing money at this.

Was it sold using science or on some myth that throwing money at a problem can overcome fundamental thermodynamics? ....

I have to believe that, at the beginning, Rick Maynes believed in his idea, his invention. I also must believe that, at some point early on, he realized that he was good at raising money. And I truly believe that, at some point very early on, Mr. Maynes decided to spend a fraction of the $100,000,000 plus raised to keep up the window dressing, and keep the balance for himself and his associates. I believe that at some point, he made the decision that raising the capital and taking it was a hell of alot easier than taking the money, developing an engine, and throwing the dice. [/quote] That is also how hydrogen has been promoted as a fuel. As stated before, one most drive right in with belligerence at the irrefutable fact - IOW why everyone needs a science education to grasp reality:

Early on, it was pointed out that a low compression ratio and short stroke simply had no chance of succeeding, it was a physical impossibility.

What is immediately obvious in its design pictures? Massive surface area compared to combustion volume. This is also why the rotary engine was so difficult to operate efficiently - to do more with less. Maximizing volume per surface area even was an alegbra problem we had to solve in high school math class.

Nothing posted here is nay saying. The devil is in the details. Those details were immediately evident. Therefore the patent holder’s claims must address those obvious flaws. It does not. These realities are why innovation is so hard. These realities are why GM could be so innovative when separate divisions did the innovating rather than now - all innovation from two 'central bureaucracy' design centers. The split cycle engine was an admirable attempt to accomplish what the Sterling engine was also supposed to do. But to see what can and cannot work, one must first have a basic grasp of reality - such as Conservation of Energy. Burning seawater also will not work as a fuel. And yet some have also proposed that 'solution'. Again, it is why the world needs all students with basic science courses every year while in school. Otherwise people will even believe George Jr.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Solar System...

[Griff]

Darn cosmic rays!






They don't have clouds though do they? The martians that is... Still the sun is more active. Good article in Discovery this month on the Dane doing the ray research. Whether or not he's on to something, it shows that politics are not real good for science.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Solar System...

OK, that link is 4 years old. Seen any updates on the data?

Here is one

As early as 2001, articles appeared, based on photographic studies, indicating that the Martian poles were melting; estimates then were that if they continued doing so at their present rate, in 1000 years they would be gone. Exactly how long this apparent warming trend has been going on is currently unknown.
For the most part, the scientific community has collectively yawned and said “that’s nice”.

Then in 2006, it was revealed that Jupiter, too, may be undergoing a global warming trend. Photography from the Hubble Space Telescope indicates that a major storm, similar to the “Great Red Spot”, a storm that has been underway for at least 300 years, is gaining altitude indicating an increase in heat in that area. Scientists now believe that Jupiter is in the midst of some type of global event which is modifying temperatures by as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the planet.

and

It appears that Pluto, too, is experiencing a warming trend. Pluto is a strange bird. In fact, the scientific community in August 2006 stripped it of its “planetary” status; it is now known as a “dwarf planet”. Still, photographic evidence from 2002-2003 suggests that it is “significantly” warmer than it was in 1988, with atmospheric pressure twice what it was when last observed; this despite the fact that in 1989 it reached it’s closest approach to the sun and for the last 16 years it has been moving further away. Of course, “significantly” is a relative term when discussing a planet where the atmospheric temperature ranges from -274 degrees F to -391 degrees F, depending on the altitude.

and

But one thing is certain, of all the forces that may be involved in global warming on other bodies in our solar system, SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and gassy cows can definitely be ruled out as culprits. Unless you believe that by merely sending a space probe to observe, we have somehow triggered a man-made global warming event.

But there is one other body in the solar system that also appears to be experiencing “global warming”. And it is one that uniquely affects all other bodies as well. A new study of the Sun shows that solar radiation has increased by 0.05 percent each decade since the late 1970s. So what, you might ask. It is a tiny increase. It would take a hundred years or more for this to make a significant impact on Earth’s climate, and you just said it has only been since the late 1970s.

Not exactly. In actuality, the ability to make precise measurements of solar activity has only existed since satellite technology made it possible to gather the necessary observations. Such technology was not in place until the late ‘70s. In other words, the trend could go back further – we simply do not know, because we didn’t have the ability to directly measure it any further back.

Like everyone else, scientists are human too. And as is the case with most humans, it can be very difficult to change their minds on something once those minds have been made up. Of late, it has become fashionable to blame everything that happens with our climate (or anything else), on human activity. Thus, we hear from the liberals that scientists have established beyond a shadow of doubt that the Earth is experiencing global warming (despite dissent from some in the scientific community), that such warming is entirely caused by human activity (despite dissent from some in the scientific community), and that the principal culprit in such activity is the United States of America, who should, in the main, bear the responsibility for fixing the mess they created. Any who disagree, especially any who might be in the scientific community, are labeled as knuckle-dragging right-wing whackos, nut-jobs, and religious zealots with sub-room-temperature IQs.

It's worth reading the whole article. It's obviously bias but he makes some interesting points.

[yesman065]

Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate

One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.

"There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The influence of these plumes on climate is complex because they can have both a cooling and a warming effect, the scientists said. Scientists are convinced these plumes contain so many cooling sulfate particles that they may be masking half of the effect of global warming. The plumes may block more than 10% of the sunlight over the Pacific.

Asia is the world's largest source of aerosols, man-made and natural. Every spring and summer, storms whip up silt from the Gobi desert of Mongolia and the hardpan of the Taklamakan desert of western China, where, for centuries, dust has shaped a way of life. From the dunes of Dunhuang, where vendors hawk gauze face masks alongside braided leather camel whips, to the oasis of Kashgar at the feet of the Tian Shan Mountains 1,500 miles to the west, there is no escaping it. Only the dust escapes.

The team detected a new high-altitude plume every three or four days. Each one was up to 300 miles wide and six miles deep, a vaporous layer cake of pollutants. The higher the plumes, the longer they lasted, the faster they traveled the more pronounced their effect.

Until now, the pollution choking so many communities in Asia may have tempered the pace of global warming. As China and other countries eliminate their sulfate emissions, however, world temperatures may heat up even faster than predicted.