Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 11021 - 11040 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Wade Icey

Trad climber
Dec 21, 2013 - 01:30am PT
The Chief I think this proves your point rather niiiicely.

By analysing the statistical properties of hydrologic records, such as rainfall or river flow, hydrologists can estimate future hydrologic phenomena. When making assessments of how often relatively rare events will occur, analyses are made in terms of the return period of such events. Other quantities of interest include the average flow in a river, in a year or by season.
These estimates are important for engineers and economists so that proper risk analysis can be performed to influence investment decisions in future infrastructure and to determine the yield reliability characteristics of water supply systems. Statistical information is utilised to formulate operating rules for large dams forming part of systems which include agricultural, industrial and residential demands.
Hydrological models are simplified, conceptual representations of a part of the hydrologic cycle. They are primarily used for hydrological prediction and for understanding hydrological processes. Two major types of hydrological models can be distinguished:[citation needed]
Models based on data. These models are black box systems, using mathematical and statistical concepts to link a certain input (for instance rainfall) to the model output (for instance runoff). Commonly used techniques are regression, transfer functions, and system identification. The simplest of these models may be linear models, but it is common to deploy non-linear components to represent some general aspects of a catchment's response without going deeply into the real physical processes involved. An example of such an aspect is the well-known behavior that a catchment will respond much more quickly and strongly when it is already wet than when it is dry..
Models based on process descriptions. These models try to represent the physical processes observed in the real world. Typically, such models contain representations of surface runoff, subsurface flow, evapotranspiration, and channel flow, but they can be far more complicated. These models are known as deterministic hydrology models. Deterministic hydrology models can be subdivided into single-event models and continuous simulation models.
Recent research in hydrological modeling tries to have a more global approach to the understanding of the behavior of hydrologic systems to make better predictions and to face the major challenges in water resources management.
Main article: Hydrologic transport model
Water movement is a significant means by which other material, such as soil or pollutants, are transported from place to place. Initial input to receiving waters may arise from a point source discharge or a line source or area source, such as surface runoff. Since the 1960s rather complex mathematical models have been developed, facilitated by the availability of high speed computers. The most common pollutant classes analyzed are nutrients, pesticides, total dissolved solids and sediment.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 21, 2013 - 01:35am PT
Just got back from seeing a movie with my wife. American Hustle-that Christian Bale plays a wide range of characters very well, he'll never be type cast.

Anyway, Ed says his intuition says the thermosphere has very little to do with climate yet he believes Anthro CO2 is supreme as the current driver. Doesn't the thermosphere intercept a good proportion of incoming UV, would we be around to effect the climate without it, or would we all be crispy critters. I would say that Ed could intuit this as a possible positive feedback effect.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
Dec 21, 2013 - 01:43am PT

The earliest references for vertical flight have come from China. Since around 400 BC,[7] Chinese children have played with bamboo flying toys.[8][9][10] The bamboo-copter is spun by rolling a stick attached to a rotor. The spinning creates lift, and the toy flies when released.[7] The 4th-century AD Daoist book Baopuzi by Ge Hong (抱朴子 "Master who Embraces Simplicity") reportedly describes some of the ideas inherent to rotary wing aircraft:[11]
“ Someone asked the master about the principles of mounting to dangerous heights and traveling into the vast inane. The Master said, "Some have made flying cars with wood from the inner part of the jujube tree, using ox-leather [straps] fastened to returning blades so as to set the machine in motion."[12] ”

Leonardo's "aerial screw"
It was not until the early 1480s, when Leonardo da Vinci created a design for a machine that could be described as an "aerial screw", that any recorded advancement was made towards vertical flight. His notes suggested that he built small flying models, but there were no indications for any provision to stop the rotor from making the craft rotate.[13][14] As scientific knowledge increased and became more accepted, men continued to pursue the idea of vertical flight. Many of these later models and machines would more closely resemble the ancient bamboo flying top with spinning wings, rather than Leonardo's screw.

Prototype created by M. Lomonosov, 1754
In July 1754, Mikhail Lomonosov demonstrated a small tandem rotor to the Russian Academy of Sciences. It was powered by a spring and suggested as a method to lift meteorological instruments. In 1783, Christian de Launoy, and his mechanic, Bienvenu, made a model with a pair of counter-rotating rotors, using turkey flight feathers as rotor blades, and in 1784, demonstrated it to the French Academy of Sciences. Sir George Cayley, influenced by a childhood fascination with the Chinese flying top, grew up to develop a model of feathers, similar to Launoy and Bienvenu, but powered by rubber bands. By the end of the century, he had progressed to using sheets of tin for rotor blades and springs for power. His writings on his experiments and models would become influential on future aviation pioneers.[13] Alphonse Pénaud would later develop coaxial rotor model helicopter toys in 1870, also powered by rubber bands. One of these toys, given as a gift by their father, would inspire the Wright brothers to pursue the dream of flight.[15]
In 1861, the word "helicopter" was coined by Gustave de Ponton d'Amécourt, a French inventor who demonstrated a small, steam-powered model. While celebrated as an innovative use of a new metal, aluminum, the model never lifted off the ground. D'Amecourt's linguistic contribution would survive to eventually describe the vertical flight he had envisioned. Steam power was popular with other inventors as well. In 1878 the Italian Enrico Forlanini's unmanned vehicle that was also powered by a steam engine, was the first of its type that rose to a height of 12 meters (40 ft), where it hovered for some 20 seconds after a vertical take-off. Emmanuel Dieuaide's steam-powered design featured counter-rotating rotors powered through a hose from a boiler on the ground.[13]
In 1885, Thomas Edison was given US$1,000 by James Gordon Bennett, Jr., to conduct experiments towards developing flight. Edison built a helicopter and used the paper for a stock ticker to create guncotton, with which he attempted to power an internal combustion engine. The helicopter was damaged by explosions and one of his workers was badly burned. Edison reported that it would take a motor with a ratio of three to four pounds per horsepower produced to be successful, based on his experiments.[16] Ján Bahýľ, a Slovak inventor, adapted the internal combustion engine to power his helicopter model that reached a height of 0.5 meters (1.6 ft) in 1901. On 5 May 1905, his helicopter reached four meters (13 ft) in altitude and flew for over 1,500 meters (4,900 ft).[17] In 1908, Edison patented his own design for a helicopter powered by a gasoline engine with box kites attached to a mast by cables for a rotor, but it never flew.[18]
First flights[edit]

Paul Cornu's helicopter in 1907
In 1906, two French brothers, Jacques and Louis Breguet, began experimenting with airfoils for helicopters. In 1907, those experiments resulted in the Gyroplane No.1. Although there is some uncertainty about the dates, sometime between 14 August and 29 September 1907, the Gyroplane No. 1 lifted its pilot into the air about two feet (0.6 m) for a minute.[5] The Gyroplane No. 1 proved to be extremely unsteady and required a man at each corner of the airframe to hold it steady. For this reason, the flights of the Gyroplane No. 1 are considered to be the first manned flight of a helicopter, but not a free or untethered flight.
That same year, fellow French inventor Paul Cornu designed and built a Cornu helicopter that used two 20-foot (6 m) counter-rotating rotors driven by a 24 hp (18 kW) Antoinette engine. On 13 November 1907, it lifted its inventor to 1 foot (0.3 m) and remained aloft for 20 seconds. Even though this flight did not surpass the flight of the Gyroplane No. 1, it was reported to be the first truly free flight with a pilot.[n 1] Cornu's helicopter completed a few more flights and achieved a height of nearly 6.5 feet (2 m), but it proved to be unstable and was abandoned.[5]
The Danish inventor Jacob Ellehammer built the Ellehammer helicopter in 1912. It consisted of a frame equipped with two counter-rotating discs, each of which was fitted with six vanes around its circumference. After indoor tests, the aircraft was demonstrated outdoors and made several free take-offs. Experiments with the helicopter continued until September 1916, when it tipped over during take-off, destroying its rotors.[19]
Early development[edit]
In the early 1920s, Argentine Raúl Pateras-Pescara de Castelluccio, while working in Europe, demonstrated one of the first successful applications of cyclic pitch.[5] Coaxial, contra-rotating, biplane rotors could be warped to cyclically increase and decrease the lift they produced. The rotor hub could also be tilted forward a few degrees, allowing the aircraft to move forward without a separate propeller to push or pull it. Pateras-Pescara was also able to demonstrate the principle of autorotation. By January 1924, Pescara's helicopter No. 1 was tested but was found to be underpowered and could not lift its own weight. The British government funded further research by Pescara which resulted in helicopter No. 3, powered by a 250 hp radial engine which could fly for up to ten minutes.[20][21]

Oehmichen N°2, 1923
On 14 April 1924 Frenchman Étienne Oehmichen set the first helicopter world record recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), flying his quadrotor helicopter 360 meters (1,181 ft). On 18 April 1924, Pescara beat Oemichen's record, flying for a distance of 736 meters (nearly a half mile) in 4 minutes and 11 seconds (about 8 mph, 13 km/h), maintaining a height of six feet (1.8 meters).[22] On 4 May, Oehmichen set the first 1 km closed-circuit helicopter flight in 7 minutes 40 seconds with his No. 2 machine.[5][23]
In the USA, George de Bothezat built the quadrotor helicopter de Bothezat helicopter for the United States Army Air Service but the Army cancelled the program in 1924, and the aircraft was scrapped.[citation needed]
Albert Gillis von Baumhauer, a Dutch aeronautical engineer, began studying rotorcraft design in 1923. His first prototype "flew" ("hopped" and hovered in reality) on 24 September 1925, with Dutch Army-Air arm Captain Floris Albert van Heijst at the controls. The controls that Captain van Heijst used were Von Baumhauer's inventions, the cyclic and collective. Patents were granted to von Baumhauer for his cyclic and collective controls by the British ministry of aviation on 31 January 1927, under patent number 265,272.[citation needed]
Arthur M. Young, American inventor, started work on model helicopters in 1928 using converted electric hover motors to drive the rotor head. Young invented the stabilizer bar and patented it shortly after. A mutual friend introduced Young to Lawrence Dale, who once seeing his work asked him to join the Bell Aircraft company. When Young arrived at Bell he signed his patent over and began work on the helicopter. His budget was US$250,000 to build 2 working helicopters. In just 6 months they completed the first Bell Model 1, which spawned the Bell 30, later succeeded by the Bell 47.[citation needed]
In 1928, Hungarian aviation engineer Oszkár Asbóth constructed a helicopter prototype that took off and landed at least 182 times, with a maximum single flight duration of 53 minutes.[24][25]
In 1930, the Italian engineer Corradino D'Ascanio built his D'AT3, a coaxial helicopter. His relatively large machine had two, two-bladed, counter-rotating rotors. Control was achieved by using auxiliary wings or servo-tabs on the trailing edges of the blades,[26] a concept that was later adopted by other helicopter designers, including Bleeker and Kaman. Three small propellers mounted to the airframe were used for additional pitch, roll, and yaw control. The D'AT3 held modest FAI speed and altitude records for the time, including altitude (18 m or 59 ft), duration (8 minutes 45 seconds) and distance flown (1,078 m or 3,540 ft).[26]
In the Soviet Union, Boris N. Yuriev and Alexei M. Cheremukhin, two aeronautical engineers working at the Tsentralniy Aerogidrodinamicheskiy Institut (TsAGI, the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute), constructed and flew the TsAGI 1-EA single rotor helicopter, which used an open tubing framework, a four blade main rotor, and twin sets of 1.8-meter (6-foot) diameter anti-torque rotors: one set of two at the nose and one set of two at the tail. Powered by two M-2 power plants, up-rated copies of the Gnome Monosoupape rotary radial engine of World War I, the TsAGI 1-EA made several successful low altitude flights. By 14 August 1932, Cheremukhin managed to get the 1-EA up to an unofficial altitude of 605 meters (1,985 ft), shattering d'Ascanio's earlier achievement. As the Soviet Union was not yet a member of the FAI, however, Cheremukhin's record remained unrecognized.[27]
Nicolas Florine, a Russian engineer, built the first twin tandem rotor machine to perform a free flight. It flew in Sint-Genesius-Rode, at the Laboratoire Aérotechnique de Belgique (now von Karman Institute) in April 1933, and attained an altitude of six meters (20 ft) and an endurance of eight minutes. Florine chose a co-rotating configuration because the gyroscopic stability of the rotors would not cancel. Therefore the rotors had to be tilted slightly in opposite directions to counter torque. Using hingeless rotors and co-rotation also minimised the stress on the hull. At the time, it was one of the most stable helicopters in existence.[28]
The Bréguet-Dorand Gyroplane Laboratoire was built in 1933. It was a coaxial helicopter, contra-rotating. After many ground tests and an accident, it first took flight on 26 June 1935. Within a short time, the aircraft was setting records with pilot Maurice Claisse at the controls. On 14 December 1935, he set a record for closed-circuit flight with a 500-meter (1,600 ft) diameter. The next year, on 26 September 1936, Claisse set a height record of 158 meters (520 ft). And, finally, on 24 November 1936, he set a flight duration record of one hour, two minutes and 5 seconds over a 44 kilometer (27 mi) closed circuit at 44.7 kilometers per hour (27.8 mph). The aircraft was destroyed in 1943 by an Allied airstrike at Villacoublay airport.[citation needed]

This section may be too long and excessively detailed.
Please consider summarizing the material while citing sources as needed. (May 2013)
Main article: Autogyro

Pitcairn PCA-2 autogyro, built in the U.S. under licence to the Cierva Autogiro Company.
Juan de la Cierva started building aircraft in Spain as early as 1912; in 1919 he started to consider the use of a rotor to generate lift at low airspeed, and eliminate the risk of stall.[29] To achieve this, he used the ability of a lifting rotor to autorotate, whereby at a suitable pitch setting, a rotor will continue to rotate without mechanical drive, sustained by the torque equilibrium of the lift and drag forces acting on the blades. This phenomenon was already known,[30] and was available as a safety feature to allow controlled descent in the event of engine failure. With de la Cierva's autogyro, the rotor was drawn through the air by means of conventional propeller, with the result that the rotor generated sufficient lift to sustain level flight, climb and descent.
Before this could be satisfactorily achieved, de la Cierva experienced several failures primarily associated with the unbalanced rolling movement generated when attempting take-off, due to dissymmetry of lift between the advancing and retreating blades. This major difficulty was resolved by the introduction of the flapping hinge. In 1923, de la Cierva's first successful autogyro was flown in Spain by Lt. Gomez Spencer. This pioneering work was carried out in de la Cierva's native Spain. In 1925 he brought his C.6 to England and demonstrated it to the Air Ministry at Farnborough, Hampshire. This machine had a four blade rotor with flapping hinges but relied upon conventional airplane controls for pitch, roll and yaw. It was based upon an Avro 504K fuselage, initial rotation of the rotor was achieved by the rapid uncoiling of a rope passed around stops on the undersides of the blades.
The Farnborough demonstration was a great success, and resulted in an invitation to continue the work in the UK. As a direct result, and with the assistance of the Scottish industrialist James G Weir, the Cierva Autogiro Company was formed the following year. From the outset de la Cierva concentrated upon the design and the manufacture of rotor systems, relying on other established aircraft manufacturers to produce the airframes, predominantly the A.V. Roe Company.
Avro-built C.8 was a refinement of the C.6, with the more powerful 180 hp Lynx radial engine, and several C.8s were built. The C.8R incorporated drag hinges, due to blade flapping motion causing high blade root stresses in the rotor plane of rotation; this modification, however, resulted in other problems such as ground resonance for which drag hinge dampers were fitted.
The resolution of these fundamental rotor problems opened the way for progressive improvements; confidence built up rapidly, and after several cross country flights a C.8L4 was entered for the 1928 Kings Cup Air Race. Although forced to withdraw, the C.8L4 subsequently completed a 4,800 km (3,000 mi) tour of the British Isles. Later that year it flew from London to Paris, extending the tour to include Berlin, Brussels and Amsterdam, thus becoming the first rotating wing aircraft to cross the English Channel.
A major problem with the autogyro was driving the rotor before takeoff. Several methods were attempted in addition to the coiled rope system, which could take the rotor speed to 50% of that required, at which point movement along the ground to reach flying speed was necessary, while tilting the rotor to establish autorotation.
Another approach was to tilt the tail stabiliser to deflect engine slipstream up through the rotor. The most acceptable solution was finally achieved with the C.19 Mk.4, which was produced in some quantities; a direct drive from the engine to the rotor was fitted, through which the rotor could be accelerated up to speed. The system was then declutched before the take-off run.
As de la Cierva's autogyros achieved success and acceptance, others began to follow and with them came further innovation. Most important was the development of direct rotor control through cyclic pitch variation, achieved initially by tilting the rotor hub and subsequently by the Austro-British engineer Raoul Hafner, by the application of a spider mechanism that acted directly on each rotor blade. The first production direct control autogyro was the C.30, produced in quantity by Avro, Liore et Olivier, and Focke-Wulf.
The production model, called the C.30A by Avro, was built under licence in Britain, France and Germany and was similar to the C.30P. The main alteration was a further increase in undercarriage track with revised strutting, the uppermost leg having a pronounced knee with wire bracing. There was additional bracing to the tailplane and both it and the fin carried small movable trimming surfaces. Each licensee used nationally built engines and used slightly different names. In all, 143 production C.30s were built, making it by far the most numerous pre-war autogyro.
Between 1933 and 1936, de la Cierva used one C.30A (G-ACWF) to perfect his last contribution to autogyro development before his death in a Douglas DC-2 (fixed wing) crash in late 1936.[31] To enable the aircraft to take off without forward ground travel, he produced the "Autodynamic" rotor head, which allowed the rotor to be spun up by the engine in the usual way but to higher than take-off r.p.m at zero rotor incidence and then to reach operational positive pitch suddenly enough to jump some 20 ft (6 m) upwards.[32]
Through creating his autogyros, Cierva built the first practical rotorcraft and established the theoretical basis of rotor dynamics and control applicable to all rotorcraft, which led to the modern helicopter.[33]
Birth of an industry[edit]

Igor Sikorsky and the world's first mass-produced helicopter, the Sikorsky R-4, 1944

First airmail service by helicopter in Los Angeles, 1947
Heinrich Focke at Focke-Wulf was licensed to produce the Cierva C.30 autogyro in 1933. Focke designed the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936. The Fw 61 broke all of the helicopter world records in 1937, demonstrating a flight envelope that had only previously been achieved by the autogyro. Nazi Germany used helicopters in small numbers during World War II for observation, transport, and medical evacuation. The Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri synchropter was used in the Mediterranean, while the Focke Achgelis Fa 223 Drache was used in Europe.[citation needed] Extensive bombing by the Allied forces prevented Germany from producing any helicopters in large quantities during the war.
In the United States, Russian-born engineer Igor Sikorsky and W. Lawrence LePage competed to produce the U.S. military's first helicopter. LePage received the patent rights to develop helicopters patterned after the Fw 61, and built the XR-1.[34] Meanwhile, Sikorsky settled on a simpler, single rotor design, the VS-300, which turned out to be the first practical single lifting-rotor helicopter design and potentially the best-flying one since the Soviet TsAGI 1-EA, which had flown nearly a decade before. After experimenting with configurations to counteract the torque produced by the single main rotor, Sikorsky settled on a single, smaller rotor mounted on the tailboom.
Developed from the VS-300, Sikorsky's R-4 was the first large-scale mass-produced helicopter, with a production order for 100 aircraft. The R-4 was the only Allied helicopter to serve in World War II, when it was used primarily for rescue in Burma, Alaska, and other areas with harsh terrain. Total production reached 131 helicopters before the R-4 was replaced by other Sikorsky helicopters such as the R-5 and the R-6. In all, Sikorsky produced over 400 helicopters before the end of World War II.[35]
While LePage and Sikorsky built their helicopters for the military, Bell Aircraft hired Arthur Young to help build a helicopter using Young's two-blade teetering rotor design, which used a weighted stabilizing bar placed at a 90° angle to the rotor blades. The subsequent Model 30 helicopter showed the design's simplicity and ease of use. The Model 30 was developed into the Bell 47, which became the first helicopter certificated for civilian use in the United States. Produced in several countries, the Bell 47 was the most popular helicopter model for nearly 30 years.
Turbine age[edit]
In 1951, at the urging of his contacts at the Department of the Navy, Charles Kaman modified his K-225 synchropter — a design for a twin-rotor helicopter concept first pioneered by Anton Flettner in 1939, with his own Fl 265 piston-engined design in Germany — with a new kind of engine, the turboshaft engine. This adaptation of the turbine engine provided a large amount of power to Kaman's helicopter with a lower weight penalty than piston engines, with their heavy engine blocks and auxiliary components. On 11 December 1951, the Kaman K-225 became the first turbine-powered helicopter in the world. Two years later, on 26 March 1954, a modified Navy HTK-1, another Kaman helicopter, became the first twin-turbine helicopter to fly.[36] However, it was the Sud Aviation Alouette II that would become the first helicopter to be produced with a turbine-engine.[37]
Reliable helicopters capable of stable hover flight were developed decades after fixed-wing aircraft. This is largely due to higher engine power density requirements than fixed-wing aircraft. Improvements in fuels and engines during the first half of the 20th century were a critical factor in helicopter development. The availability of lightweight turboshaft engines in the second half of the 20th century led to the development of larger, faster, and higher-performance helicopters. While smaller and less expensive helicopters still use piston engines, turboshaft engines are the preferred powerplant for helicopters today.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 21, 2013 - 01:51am PT
Why are the temperatures up to 1100 degrees in this several hundred kilometer thick layer if it is not intercepting incoming radiation? Where have all the UV's gone-reminds me of some song.
new world order2

Dec 21, 2013 - 02:04am PT
Is this true, Ed?
You support Geo-Engineered Food and a Geo-Engineered Climate?

Ed Hartouni, a pawn for Monsanto? Say it isn't so, Ed.
new world order2

Dec 21, 2013 - 02:25am PT
Crickets. Elvis has left the building.

Dec 21, 2013 - 02:33am PT
I haven't read about this lately, but CO2 scrubbing is a totally viable solution to reversing atmospheric build up. CO2 scrubbing is how the astronauts recycle oxygen in space so they can breathe. I believe carbonic acid is the main byproduct so that would be an issue from a storage standpoint. A really sharp chemical engineer told me we could solve the CO2 problem by constructing these scrubbers around the world in a matter of months and reverse the global concentration.

SF bay area
Dec 21, 2013 - 10:29am PT
We are already geo-engineering by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 21, 2013 - 10:50am PT
Science now states that it knows and can control everything.

Who is this Science guy? He sounds like a blithering idiot who doesn't know Jack Shet.
And he's a guy worth knowing!

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 21, 2013 - 10:56am PT
I'm laughing, The Chief!
such a clown you are!!

And The Chief's response?

It is good to see that you are laughing at yourself and all the insistent crap you post EDH.

This guy is such a jackass fool, it's almost impossible to believe.

I suppose the only thing one can do is laugh at the level of intellect The Chief possesses, and be amazed that he can even feed himself.

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 21, 2013 - 11:08am PT
The Chief, bring back your avatar of the boy telling the world to F' off.

It is such a perfect image of how I view you.

Gym climber
Great White North
Dec 21, 2013 - 11:10am PT
new world order2

Dec 21, 2013 - 11:16am PT
"Sunshade" to fight climate change costed at $5 bln a year

Transporting a million tonnes of particles to at least 18 km (11 miles) above the Earth every year to form a sunshade is "both feasible and affordable", U.S. scientists concluded in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Al Blood and Gore makes mention of spraying chemicals in the atmosphere here, and although he is against it,
simply introducing the subject, is a hint that it may be an option in the future. Think not?

You guys over you recall ever seeing the sky like this, when you were a child?
I sure don't. I remember seeing contrails from jets disappearing within minutes.
You can bet, that within an hour of this photo being taken, the sky appeared a milky white haze. Have a look up.
What a lovely day to chemtrail/geo-engineer the atmosphere.
What a lovely day to chemtrail/geo-engineer the atmosphere.
Credit: new world order2

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 21, 2013 - 11:50am PT
For once i must diverge from the tenets of Chuffian Darwinism to an extent and agree with Mimi to that same extent. If CO2 induced warming was ever the world shattering problem it was hysterically made out to be we would have seen some engineering to remove what we had placed as well as moving to more use of proven non CO2 producing technologies like new generation nuclear and hydro. The money wasted in studies trying to whip up hysterics would have been directed towards identifying and engineering new technologies like the storage problem that keeps solar and wind from being viable replacements. This was never about climate change, it was about control of an unruly populace made up messy "individuals", for the purpose of growing big government/big business which knows much better than us "individuals" how to spend the fruits of our labor. This populace control technique through manufactured fear is a failing policy of many western nations. The U.N.'s scheme of one world big government was always doomed to failure, you will never see even a minority of nations give up sovereignty. Those in power in the multitude of individual nations have their own visions and agendas driven by their own ego's. Look around, other than some idiotically governed western nations, the rest of the world is cooperating with the U.N. IPCC only to the extent of the financial gain that can be had from the stupidity of the western leaders driving their nations into the dirt. How many developing nations are demanding reparations? China and Russia are paying lip service to this stupidity while laughing with their hands held out for cash for their carbon credits.
Besides this, their is the problem of nature. The narrative is losing out to the reality of a cycle of natural cooling of the planet. No matter how much the media hypes the latest little storm, or the products of fudged data and tortured statistics, or the certainty of the majority of a minority of scientists playing with the latest super duper climate models, it is a big fat failure. People have eyes and ears and for the most part eventually wake up to exercise brains functioning well enough to separate the b.s. from facts. The climate change agenda, just like other ruinous agendas throughout history, will never be accomplished short of at the point of a gun.

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 21, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
Nice The Chief. I see you fit very well into the boyhood age group.

Dec 21, 2013 - 03:29pm PT
EPA is formally pushing sequestration as the future solution besides forcing industry and the power plants to produce less, and therefore, burn less fossil fuels. The underground injection wells previously used for hazardous waste disposal will now be used for CO2. We must all stop buying things and must put on more layers in the winter and sweat more in the summer.

EPA Rule Provides a Clear Pathway for Using Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies
Release Date: 12/19/2013

WASHINGTON - Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that helps create a consistent national framework to ensure the safe and effective deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies.

“Carbon capture and sequestration technology can help us reduce carbon pollution and move us toward a cleaner, more stable environment,” said Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “Today’s rule provides regulatory clarity to help facilitate the implementation of this technology in a safe and responsible way.”

CCS technologies allow carbon dioxide to be captured at stationary sources - like coal-fired power plants and large industrial operations - and injected underground for long-term storage in a process called geologic sequestration.

The new rule clarifies that carbon dioxide streams captured from emission sources, injected underground via UIC Class VI wells approved for the purpose of geologic sequestration under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and meeting certain other conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable transportation regulations), will be excluded from EPA’s hazardous waste regulations. Further, EPA clarifies that carbon dioxide injected underground via UIC Class II wells for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is not expected to be a waste management activity.

EPA concluded that the careful management of carbon dioxide streams under the specified conditions does not present a substantial risk to human health or the environment. EPA’s determination will help provide a clear pathway for the deployment of CCS technologies in a safe and environmentally protective manner while also ensuring protection of underground sources of drinking water.

Today’s rule is complementary to previous EPA rulemakings, including Safe Drinking Water Act regulations that ensure the Class VI injection wells are appropriately sited, constructed, tested, monitored, and closed.

EPA is also releasing draft guidance for public comment that provides information regarding transitioning Class II wells used to inject carbon dioxide for oil and gas development to Class VI wells used for carbon capture and sequestration. The comment period for the draft guidance is 75 days.

Information on the final rule –

Information on the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide:

Social climber
An Oil Field
Dec 21, 2013 - 06:22pm PT
CO2 is used for tertiary recovery in oil fields. It is hard to come by, meaning that you need to be close to one of the delivery lines. There are some CO2 gas fields in New Mexico that is pipelined into the Permian Basin of west Texas as well as to the Golden Trend in southern Oklahoma. There was recently a spur line being built to flood one of the oldest Oklahoma oil fields in NE Oklahoma.

Oil companies pay 5 to 10 bucks per mcf for CO2, so it is hard to get and expensive. Point being, it is in high demand for CO2 flooding of some of the giant oil fields. CO2 is miscible with oil at reasonably low pressures.

Once you put it down there, you recycle and re-inject it over and over again. Then when you are done, it safely stays there.

Yes, it sounds odd, but there is a market for the stuff. Capturing it will be the main expense. Even if you aren't doing a flood, there are zillions of depleted oil fields where you could safely store it until the end of time.

CO2 floods are expensive operations. Under pressure and temperature, it creates carbonic acid and is highly corrosive on downhole casing and also on pumps and rods. You have to use expensive alloys to keep the casing from turning to swiss cheese.

Sequestering is simple and old technology.

Dec 21, 2013 - 06:29pm PT
The Verm told me about this huge CO2 pocket in Texas somewhere. I'll have to ask him about it again. A giant underground deposit.

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 21, 2013 - 06:50pm PT
You have all the answers .

Dec 21, 2013 - 06:55pm PT
Chief, your blatant ignorance belies your pigheaded arrogance.
Messages 11021 - 11040 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews