Some math about CO2

I love AboveTopSecret.  I’m not ashamed to admit it.  Some people enjoy soap operas, some people love sex crazed vampires, some people love Monty Python movies.  The difference with ATS is occasionally you get a gem of information.  This morning was one of those.  Running with the sudden debate over the accuracy of the math behind global warming climate change, some guy who calls himself theredneck took it to a level way beyond my comprehension.  And, from reading the East Anglia emails, beyond the guys who got Nobel Peace prizes for theirs.  Since it is way beyond my comprehension, I’m just going to lift the entire post. 

Thanks to buddhasystem, I have decided to finish some calculations I started some time back. I am posting them here. The following will be used:

  • Due to character limitations, I will be avoiding the use of exponential expressions. I apologize for any difficulty this may cause; it causes me difficulty as well, but is an inherent weakness in the font systems used on the internet and tends to cause confusion itself when used.
  • All values are given in metric units. The abbreviations used are:
    • m = meter
    • cm = centimeter (0.01m)
    • km = kilometer (1000m)
    • g = gram
    • kg = kilogram (1000g)
    • J = Joule
    • kJ = kiloJoule (1000J)
    • W = Watt
    • s = second
    • °K = degree Kelvin

    Calculations, due to the size of the values involved in planetary mechanics, will be based on the km/kg/kJ units. Other units are used for conversion of physical values.

  • The Kelvin temperature scale will be used. Remember that a degree Kelvim is equal to a degree Celsius; the two are interchangeable for purposes of temperature variance.
  • All sources will, of course, be linked. This will, however, be done through the use of footnotes at the end and reference numbers, rather than by links embedded throughout the text, in order to keep the calculations themselves as uncluttered as possible.

It has been theorized that the use of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be ‘safe and natural’, it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.

All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heatb reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of

r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km

A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²

We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere):

1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km²

1,366,000,000 W/km² · 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s)

175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s

That result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:

100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s

We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:

175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s · 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr

Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:

552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr · 0.0001 =
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2

Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:

V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³

V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³

V = V(tot) – V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ – 1,083,206,917 km³
= 8,694,154 km³

Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:

1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K

1.012 kJ/kg·°K · 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³·°K

1.2144 kJ/m³·°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³·°K

Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as
1,214,400,000 kJ/km³

1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ · 8,694,154 km³ = 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ

But to be accurate, the troposphere is not the only thing warming up. It has been often claimed (correctly) that the oceans are a major heat sink. So let us now calculate the amount of energy required to raise the ocean temperature by a single degree Kelvin. The volume of water on the surface of the Earth is an estimation, but several estimations are available and all of them are close. Therefore, in the interests of conservatism, I am using the smaller of the estimated values: 1,347,000,000 km³[8]. The specific heat capacity of water by volume is 4.186 J/cm³·°K[6] at 25°C. Thus, in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by a single degree Kelvin:

4.186 J/cm³·°K = 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K

4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K · 1,347,000,000 km³
= 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ/°K

As before, since we are considering a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, this is equal to
5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ

We now add the values for the troposhpere and the oceans together to obtain the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of these two areas combned by a single degree Kelvin:

5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ + 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ
= 5,638,532,558,180,617,600,000 kJ

Now, remember from earlier calculations the total amount of energy that is available from the solar irradiance that can intercept anthropogenic carbon dioxide:

55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ

So if we know the energy required to raise a single degree, and we know how much energy can be intercepted by the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, we can calculate how many degrees of temperature rise could possibly happen. Remember, please, that we are making the following assumptions in these calculations:

  • We only include the energy required to raise the temperatures of the troposphere (where the carbon dioxide is) and the oceans (climatic heat sink). No energy calculations are included to this point for land masses or for upper atmospheric levels, each of which would, in reality, contribute in some way to the amount of energy required.

  • We are assuming that 100% of the available solar irradiance is being absorbed by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This includes shortwave solar irradiation which is actually reflected back into space without being absorbed, and it also includes radiation that is absorbed through other means such as photosynthesis.
  • We are assuming 100% conversion of that intercepted energy by anthropogenic carbon dioxide into heat, and not calculating how much of that heat is dissipated back into space through emission.

All of the above are extremely conservative assumptions. Inclusion of them will only decrease the expected temperature increases due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Now, the actual calculation we have been waiting for:

Energy(required) / Energy(available) = Ratio

5,638,552,558,180,617,600,000 kJ / 55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ = 102.03

It would require 102 times as much energy as is available to raise the temperature 1°K in 100 years.

In other words, if ALL of the solar irradiance that the anthropogenic CO2 could intercept were converted into heat, and if it took no energy to warm the land masses and the upper atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would only warm by about 0.01°K in 100 years.

Ignorance denied.

Case closed.

Sleep well tonight. The sun will rise tomorrow.

TheRedneck

References:

  1. en.wikipedia.org…
  2. london-lez.org…
  3. science.nasa.gov…
  4. en.wikipedia.org…
  5. en.wikipedia.org…
  6. en.wikipedia.org…
  7. en.wikipedia.org…
  8. hypertextbook.com…

Wow.  Anyone care to rebut this math?  It’s out of my league for sure.

TV energy consumption

Here’s something I really did not know.  I fully ASSUMED that the newer technologies reduced energy consumption by a lot.  However, that’s not necessarily true.  Here’s a list of TV’s with their energy consumption ranked best to last:

Model HDTV type Screen size Default setting (watts)  ↑
Panasonic TH-65VX100U plasma 65 575.56
Panasonic TH-58PZ750U plasma 58 562.52
Panasonic TH-50PZ800U plasma 50 535.00
Samsung PN63A760 plasma 63 509.24
LG 60PG60 plasma 60 507.83
Vizio VP505XVT plasma 50 474.03
Panasonic TH-46PZ85U plasma 46 454.51
Panasonic TH-50PF11UK plasma 50 449.62
Samsung PN50A550 plasma 50 446.60
LG 50PG30 plasma 50 401.67
LG 50PG50 plasma 50 401.02
LG 50PS80 plasma 50 384.98
Samsung PN50A650 plasma 50 380.58
Hitachi P50H401 plasma 50 336.10
Pioneer PRO-111FD plasma 50 333.54
Pioneer PDP-5020FD plasma 50 293.33
Sony KDL-52XBR7 LCD 52 285.68
LG 50PG20 plasma 50 284.64
Vizio VP422 plasma 42 283.83
Panasonic TC-P54G10 plasma 54 282.85
Vizio VO47LF LCD 47 277.52
Sony KDL-46W4100 LCD 46 274.43
Sony KDL-52XBR6 LCD 52 272.63
Sony KDL-46Z4100 LCD 46 268.57
LG 47LG60 LCD 47 267.21
Mitsubishi LT-46148 LCD 46 263.78
Panasonic TH-42PX80U plasma 42 260.18
Olevia 252T FHD LCD 52 257.29
Panasonic TC-P50V10 plasma 50 255.61
Samsung PN50B650 plasma 50 252.04
Philips 47PFL9732D LCD 47 250.10
Westinghouse VK-40F580D LCD 40 246.81
Sony KDL-52V5100 LCD 52 242.62
Sony KDL-55XBR8 LCD 55 239.83
Vizio SV470XVT LCD 47 239.59
Sony KDL-52XBR9 LCD 52 237.52
Haier HL47K LCD 47 237.30
Vizio VF550XVT LCD 55 221.03
Samsung LN52A650 LCD 52 219.90
Mitsubishi WD-65735 RPTV 65 219.27
Toshiba 42RV530U LCD 42 218.08
Panasonic TC-P50X1 plasma 50 217.95
Insignia NS-PDP42 plasma 42 216.76
Sharp LC-52D65U LCD 52 210.35
Mitsubishi WD-65737 RPTV 65 208.45
Honeywell Altura MLX LCD 42 207.27
Samsung PN50B850 plasma 50 207.01
Panasonic TH-58PZ800U plasma 58 196.37
Samsung LN52B750 LCD 52 191.15
Panasonic TC-P42S1 plasma 42 187.17
LG 47LH50 LCD 47 186.55
Samsung LN46A750 LCD 46 184.62
Hitachi UT37X902 LCD 37 183.73
Sharp LC-46D85U LCD 46 182.32
Toshiba 47ZV650U LCD 47 181.26
Toshiba 46XV545U LCD 46 178.59
Toshiba 46SV670U LCD 46 174.87
Samsung LN46B650 LCD 46 174.10
Samsung HL61A750 RPTV 61 171.24
Sony KDL-46W5100 LCD 46 169.87
Panasonic TC-P46G10 plasma 46 168.78
Panasonic TH-50PZ850U plasma 50 163.80
Vizio VF551XVT LCD 55 161.95
Sony KLV-40ZX1M LCD 40 160.65
Samsung LN46A950 LCD 46 145.98
Vizio VOJ370F LCD 37 145.84
Insignia NS-LCD32 LCD 32 143.20
Panasonic TC-37LZ85 LCD 37 142.69
LG 47LH90 LCD 47 140.86
LG 42LH55 LCD 42 137.65
Samsung LN46A550 LCD 46 137.12
Philips 42PFL6704D LCD 42 136.80
Samsung UNB558500 LCD 55 136.16
JVC LT-46P300 LCD 46 132.78
Toshiba 32CV510U LCD 32 131.34
Samsung LN32A450 LCD 32 130.65
LG 42LH30 LCD 42 127.38
Sharp LC-32D44U LCD 32 126.25
Sony KDL-46VE5 LCD 46 125.31
Vizio VP322 plasma 32 122.97
Vizio VO32LF LCD 32 121.58
LG 32LG30 LCD 32 117.88
LG 32LG40 LCD 32 116.19
Samsung UN46B8000 LCD 46 114.48
Sony KDL-32M4000 LCD 32 112.94
Samsung UN46B7000 LCD 46 106.77
Samsung UN46B6000 LCD 46 106.40
Vizio VO32L LCD 32 104.90
Sharp LC-46LE700UN LCD 46 101.58
Panasonic TC-32LX85 LCD 32 97.79
Panasonic TC-L32X1 LCD 32 92.10
Philips 42PFL5603D LCD 42 91.23

You have to go all the way to #41 to get the older style rear projection screen.  Pretty amazing to me.  Guess it pays to double check what you take for granted sometimes huh?  This was brought to my attention because California is now regulating tv power usage.

Drake’s theory and why man may never be the aliens on another planet

Dang, that long title is guaranteed to screw up some formatting.  But, it addresses a whole bunch of my posts very well.  What got this post going was a recently released article written by Ian O’Neill for Universe Today.  In it, he cites scientists who conclude:

It is highly improbable that humans will ever explore beyond the Solar System. This downbeat opinion comes from the Joint Propulsion Conference in Hartford, Connecticut, where future space propulsion challenges were discussed and debated. It is widely acknowledged that any form of interstellar travel would require huge advances in technology, but it would seem that the advances required are in the realms of science fiction and are not feasible. Using current technology would take tens of thousands of years, and even advanced concepts could take hundreds. But above all else, there is the question of fuel: How could a trip to Proxima Centauri be achieved if we’d need 100 times more energy than the entire planet currently generates?

Now, I have breeched that topic here before.  Namely, the technology involved to travel with ease to other planets is profound by our standards today.  These scientists put it in even simpler context by basically saying it’s not there.  That no matter how powerful we make our thrust, it will still take hundreds, if not thousands of years to get there.  That’s been my point regarding UFO’s.  Why would they sacrifice the resources necessary, and the lives, to travel thousands of years to gut cows and taunt people in small towns? There’s just not been a logical argument to date made for UFO’s.

However, the assumption has always been made that the technology we need, as well as the aliens piloting UFO’s effortlessly throught the universe, is just not here yet.  We have the concepts down, we jsut haven’t mastered the technology.  One guy on the Universe Today post even puts the math there to assert it is feasible:

Essel Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:22 am

Very poorly researched article.

“According to Brice N. Cassenti, an associate professor with the Department of Engineering and Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, at least 100 times the total energy output of the entire world would be required for the voyage”

Assuming a cruising speed of c/10, the enregy required to reach that speed would be 1/2 mv^2, a payload of 10 tonnes would need an energy of 1/2 X (10,000) x (3 X 10^8/10)^2 = 4.5 X 10^18 Joules. Earth consumes more than 6 X 10^20 Joules every year. That is 1/133 rd of energy consumption p.a.

Considering a total roundtrip of 85 years and two accelration and deaccelration phases. The eneregy required would be 4 X 4.5 X 10^18 joules over 85 years that would be 1/2833 times the consumption of earth energy during comparable time.
If we send a compact probe of 100 Kgs the requirement would come down by 100 times……

Simple huh?  I don’t have a clue about math at that level, so I’ll just take his word for it.  All he’s proving is the energy required is actually available, maybe.  Problem is, we have never figured a way to generate that much energy in a concentrated situation.  When, and if, we do, all our energy issues will have been solved.  Then, once we’ve solved all our energy issues, the issue of time has to be addressed.  The most popular theory is some type of warp drive.  In essence, shortening the distance between to points.  That comes from Star Trek.  It makes too much sense to ignore.  Only problem is no one has a clue, mechanically, how to make it happen.  The laws of physics simply prevent it from happening as we understand them now.  The problem, as I see it, is if you reach the speed of light, you become light.  Your atoms spray all over the place and your energy goes flying in all directions.   Just doesn’t sound too good to me.  So, we have to get around that pesky issue.  However, since the fastest we’re going now is about 50,000 mph, and light, in regards to warping, travels at 670,616,629 mph, we’ve got a long ways to go before we have to worry about that.  And when we do get to that point, it would only take about 4.2 years traveling at the speed of light.  And, if you got there without hitting anything at all, not even a grain of dust, at over 670 million miles per hour, you probably see something like this:

And nothing else.  We’ve been pointing our telescopes at Proxima for a long time.  If that trip proves fruitless, then the trip starts getting a lot longer real quick:

Proxima Centauri 4.2
Rigil Kentaurus 4.3
Barnard’s Star 6
Wolf 359 7.7
Luyten 726-8A 8.4
Luyten 726-8B 8.4
Sirius A 8.6
Sirius B 8.6
Ross 154 9.4
Ross 248 10.4
Ross 128 10.9
Luyten 789-6 11.2
Procyon A 11.4
Procyon B 11.4

Once you get past the closest 15, it starts jumping pretty dang quick.  Within a very brief span, you’ll easily be past 100 light years.  In a not too lengthy list, you’re past 1,000.  So even if you’re travelling at warp 10, you’re still talking, as I understand warping, decades, if not centuries at the speed of light.  My main issue with warping tho is what do you do with all the stuff between point A and point B?  Dodging comets and asteroids at fifty times the speed of light just sounds real dicey to me.

OK, so now you’ve figured how to get more energy than mankind has ever generated, you’ve figured out how to bend matter, you’ve figured out how to travel faster than mass is known to exist, and you’ve figured out how to dodge stuff while traveling billions of miles an hour.  The question then becomes, why would you even want to?  The plausible explanations have always been that Earth was dying and man would be looking for new places to live.  That seems plausible enough other than if Earth were truly in that dire a situation, I doubt the technology would be available to do it.  In simpler terms, that technology would be used to fix the problems here on Earth.  If you can do all that, you can fix the planet.  Or, man’s curiosity just keeps expanding and the desire to explore strange new worlds kicks in.  That would be about the only one I would buy off-hand, but the technology would have to be there and ready to use before man could put the concept to practice.  In other words, why would a person be interested, and willing to finance the development of the technology involved in inter-stellar travel other than to do inter-stellar travel?  We developed rockets not for space travel, but to bomb other countries.  Once the tchnology was developed to destroy ourselves, we put men on them and went to the moon.  Even after fifty years, most rockets are still intended to do others harm.  If someone developed the technology necessary to generate the energy necessary to travel at warp speed, who’s to say it wouldn’t be used for destructive purposes initially?  And, if it is, man won’t have the resources to use it for much else.  So, to say the least, man, with the mindset man has right now, isn’t mature enough to deal with the power necessary for inter-stellar travel.  When man does develop that maturity, we won’t be the same animal we are now.

A lot of sci-fi movies have pondered alternative means of transportation.  I think my personal favorite has to be from the movie Contact:

contact

You got this huge magnetosphere and you drop someone into it while the turbines are spinning incredibly rapidly.  At that point, the pod is magically transported exactly where it was intended to go.  You never really know where it is she is, but she’s there.  Since it apparently distorts time as well, no one ever knows she was even gone.  Pretty cool huh?  All problems solved.  Distance becomes a non-issue entirely.  However, we’re not certain what exactly she goes to.  Even though she travels great distances, when she’s there she has no pod.  So, I’m too sure this concept is too well thought out.  I’m not sure I want to get somewhere and have nothing when I get there.  So, as neat as this concept is, it’s not terribly useful.  Other than Concept, most sci-fi just ignores all the issues of physics and just gives us inter-stellar travel with ease.

Bottom line, I tend to agree with the scientists who are skeptical of inter-stellar travel in man’s distant fufure.  Sure, technology has exploded in the last century, but it’s still bound by the very simple laws of physics.  None of those laws have been broken in any way.  They haven’t even changed.  The “next level” for science will be changing and breaking the current understanding of physics.  And, given man’s current fear, nay paranioa, over things he doesn’t understand, I don’t expect those laws of physics to be changed any time soon.

Recycling Nuclear Energy

This article is so good, I’m gonna plagiarize the entire article.  This article by Jack Spencer needs to be read word for word:

What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain?

What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources?

That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2-free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America’s 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, could be recycled for future use.

To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this “spent” fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled.

Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That “waste” contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it’s just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste!

The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since.

Other countries have not taken such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the 1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling used fuel central to their program.

Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.

Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions.

France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague’s capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries’ spent nuclear fuel.

Since beginning operations, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel—enough to power France for fourteen years.

Their success has sparked plenty of interest abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China.

The British, Japanese, Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing.

Of course, there is still waste involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively—placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain.

All is not perfect in France. They are still working to open a permanent geologic storage facility. But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage.

If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel.

A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca’s legal limit of 70,000 metric tons—subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater.

It would also put the United States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not.

Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of America’s nuclear energy program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why can’t oui?

 Surely, why can’t oui?

 

All that Arthur wants

Arthur C. Clarke made a birthday wish list for his 90th.  the list includes:

  • for the world to embrace cleaner energy resources,
  • for a lasting peace in his adopted home, Sri Lanka,
  • evidence of extraterrestrial beings.

You’d think by wishing for the second wish he’d have to be a little hesitant about wishing for the third wish.  Man has not been too terribly good about accepting different cultures.  Lord knows an an extraterrestrial would push that intolerance to new levels.  Secondly, man has not gotten along too well with the only truly “intelligent” lfe form on this one small planet.  Who’s to say we’d get along with ET?

I’m still waiting for an “intelligent life form” to completely evolve on this planet before looking elsewhere.  I mean, his first wish should tell him something.   In his movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, man learned how to burn things few hundred thousand years ago or so. 

What has changed since then?

Bio-fuels worse for the environment than gas?

Here’s the story:

Research findings published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics calculate that corn and rapeseed biodiesels produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels.

Now, this gets to the root of my problem with the global warming debate.  Yeah, I know, the debate is over.  However, the problem still exists whether the “debate is over” or not.  Anytime someone asks whether we’re doing the right thing or not, we get lambasted as being crazy.  It gets tiresome.  But, it keeps coming back that people like me are the ones that need to be listened to and not Al Gore.  My stance has always been we don’t know enough about what we are doing to commit the planet to a very specific path.  This isn’t the first article I’ve cited that says bio-fuels may not be the way to go.  Brazil has destroyed rainforests in the pursuit of bio-fuels.  This just isn’t working very well.  The problem I see with the bio-fuel situation is mankind wants its cake and wants to eat it too.  Combustion is the problem, not the fuel that supplies it.  As long as we’re burning something horribly inefficiently, we’ll have waste. 

If bio-fuels do more harm than good, then we need the Al Gores telling us that we may as well stick with oil for the time being.  And, for purely personal and political reasons, that will never happen.  Now, what WILL happen I’m sure is the global warmists will totally dismiss this research as bogus and keep hammering those that want to know why with rhetoric.  Never once stopping to question themselves as to whether we truly are making the Earth a better place, or destroying it faster than we were before.

Arthur Clarke and plasma life

Better turn down the lights and pour yourself a strong one, this post is DEEP.

OK, ready?

I have been a huge fan of Arthur C. Clarke, particularly of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Most people are familiar with the movie.  I consider it the greatest sci-fi movie ever made.  However, it is somewhat vague in what is going on.  However, the book does explain what’s going on.  Not in profound detail, but in little snippets that told us of our future.  Debit cards, video conferencing, using gravity to slingshot around planets, all kinds of little bits telling us what was to become.  And, in some cases, trying to explain where we came from.  He doesn’t say evolution is the rule, he just laid out how evolution occurred.  And, sometimes, when that evolution wasn’t progressing appropriately, how it got a little help from a god-like being.  The help was in the form of a simple shape.  It wasn’t a cross, but even simpler, an obolisk.  However, the “being” had more religious overtones.  Digressing a little, all of the main religions of the world today expect a belief in “God”.  This “God” can neither be seen, touched, or heard.  In other words, it is a being purely of energy and no matter.  When one communicates with “God”, it is purely by an energy force.  There is no audible sound.  This omnipotent “God” created our universe as we know it.  Clarke morphed this faith in a non-matter God into 2001 and gave it some definition:

And now, out among the stars, evolution was driving toward new goals. The first explorers of Earth had long since come to the limits of flesh and blood; as soon as their machines were better than their bodies, it was time to move. First their brains, and then their thoughts alone, they transferred into shining new homes of metal and of plastic.

In these, they roamed among the stars. They no longer built spaceships. They were spaceships.

But the age of the Machine-entities swiftly passed. In their ceaseless experimenting, they had learned to store knowledge in the structure of space itself, and to preserve their thoughts for eternity in frozen lattices of light. They could become creatures of radiation, free at last from the tyranny of matter.

Into pure energy, therefore, they presently transformed themselves; and on a thousand worlds, the empty shells they had discarded twitched for a while in a mindless dance of death, then crumbled into rusty

Now they were lords of the galaxy, and beyond the reach of time. They could rove at will among the stars, and sink like a subtle mist through the very interstices of space. But despite their godlike powers, they had not wholly forgotten their origin, in the warm slime of a vanished sea.

And they still watched over the experiments their ancestors had started, so long ago.

What Clarke states here is that “life” doesn’t have to have matter.  It can be pure energy.  Without the confines of matter, physics as we know it completely changes.  Being of matter, I don’t see how Man can travel at the speed of light.  Therefore, visiting far away galaxies is impossible.  However, without the confines of matter, traveling at the speed of light is simple.  Traveling throughout the universe is simple.  Manipulating matter is simple.  The power this entity would have is mind-boggling.  Convincing a very simple animal that you are God would be simple.

All of this ties into today’s events in two forms.

First, we have the creationist vs evolution fight going wild right now.  Neither side is in any mood to compromise or even try to understand the other’s reasons for believing what they do.  What they are both doing is struggling to understand how all this came to be.  Arthur C. Clarke I think struggled with those two concepts long ago.  He came up with a unique answer.  “Our” universe is limited by what we can see and understand.  For some people, “our” universe is limited to matter.  For other people, “our” universe is not limited to matter.  There are things beyond matter that they don’t want to try to understand.  They just know something is more powerful than matter.  That something to them is “God”.  That “God” to Arthur Clarke was a being no more wise than the average man.  He did however, have the power to change entire worlds simply to amuse himself.  He was however, a product of the universe.  He was both a product of evolution and subsequently creationism.  Since I read the book, I have been more a believer in Clarke’s understanding of “God” than probably any other.  Both the creationists and evolutionists expect me to believe they know the answer to a question that is extremely profound based on nothing but limited evidence and a faith in what they are saying is correct.  I don’t work that way.  I don’t think the two theories are totally exclusionary.  Neither did Clarke.  I’m in good company.

Secondly, all of this sounds pretty damn crazy I imagine.  I’m OK with that.  Start by reading the actual 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Then, read this:

Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations show.

But scientists are hesitant to call the dancing dust particles “alive,” and instead say they are just another example of how difficult it is to define life.

Put me on Arthur Clarke’s team on this one.

The heavy religious overtones continue throughout 2001.  Clarke definitely had “the Dawn of Man” on his mind when he wrote this.  So, I see no coincedence here at all.  However, what he did not have in 1967 was access to plasma. Maybe, if Clarke is correct, we’re getting our first glimpses at something we’ve never understood before.  And, it could get rather profound.

Nuclear Accidents kill brightly colored birds most?

Livescience ran with that headline. Note the plural of accidents. That kinda caught my eye as I’m sure it would most people. Given the phobia a lot of people have about nuclear plants, I’m sure a lot of those people just agreed with it and went on. They KNOW accidents happen all the time at nuclear plants and that’s why they’re not safe. However, if one reads into the article just a teeny little bit, you’d get this factoid:

The brighter the bird, the less likely it is to survive the devastating effects of radiation exposure, according to a new study that examined avian populations around the 1986 nuclear disaster site at Chernobyl, Ukraine.

That’s the opening paragraph. Fact is, the only accidents they’ve had to investigate are the one at Chernobyl. The reason they came to this conclusion was a lot of the animals they didn’t expect to be there for 10,000 years are already there. Some animals haven’t returned, I guess they would be the brightly colored birds. That doesn’t really surprise me too much, people have known that brightly colored birds don’t survive coal mines too well either.

Canaries die first

So, what is the real point of this Livescience article? Did they not read the previous research by the famous scientist who went by the name of Sting? Just a bit of his observations on said topic:

First to fall over when the atmosphere is less than perfect. Your sensibilities are shaken by the slightest defect…

Those damned “green” light bulbs.

I just built a new house.  It has geo-thermal heat, recycled plumbing, super-efficient hot water.  All the works for a perfectly green house, or as close as I could get.  After doing all that, the contractor went through the house sticking in those old time light bulbs that chew up energy, thereby ending the world a lot sooner than need be.  So, I went right behind them and replaced them all with super-efficient soft-white bulbs that look something like this:

Livescience image

So, image my dismay when I read this today:

Highly efficient fluorescent light bulbs are widely touted as environmentally friendly, but they have created a recycling headache for the EPA and local governments. More often than not, their toxic ingredients simply end up in landfills, where the chemicals can leach into soil and water and poison fish and other wildlife.

The bulbs contain mercury and should not be tossed in the trash like regular light bulbs.

For those that don’t read too well and like visuals better, they even included a picture.  Those Earth-destroying mercury filled light bulbs look something like this:

Mine's the one the right

See the one on the right?  I’ve got about 25 of those so far.

Now, this is why I have so many questions about the global warming rush to change everything.  Seems like about half the time they come up with something that saves the Earth because it’s “green”, it causes more harm than good.  If the whole world had rushed to be “green” as I did, we’d be in a world of hurt right now.

So, although it’s still a mostly unpopular position to take, how’s about we sit back and examine closely what we’re doing before we keep making things worse all in the name of reducing carbon footprints ( which this bulb does wonderfully )?

( OK, Al and Phil, you can taunt me some more for asking. )