Prime-Evil

I would like to better understand the dust that seems to appear at the end of glaciation periods according to the record gleaned from core samples.

What is the origin of this dust? I have some theories that it is volcanic and others that it is cosmic. I am wondering if it has more to due with weather, that at some point desert sand or dust from glacial till gets stirred up and deposited on top of the ice caps, which increases warming and thuse perhaps more melting and more stirring up of dust and a positive feedback cycle initiating or accellerating an interglacial period? Of course this dust ends up being buried under more snow and ice.

I don't think this has much relevance to what's happening at this time, the beginning of a super interglacial period, except perhaps to better understand why dust appears to precede CO2 rise at the end of glacial periods.

Any other thoughts on the dust found in ice core samples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Here is another problem with the melting of the ice on Antarctica. The ices has a lot of weight, and this weight is pushing the continent of Antarctica downwards. When the Ice melts this will allow Antarctica to rise, along with the seabed around it (continental shelf). This riseing of the seabed will also displace water and contribute to a further rise in sea levels.

1. Antarctic ice cap slides into sea and melts.

2. Sea levels rise, shifting center of gravity North.

3. Sea levels rise a little extra in North and a little less in South in response to shift in center of gravity.

4. Antarctic Crust rises some in response to loss of weight.

5. Equator tightens a bit under weight of extra water and in response to rising of antarctic, further increasing sea level rise closer to equator.

6. Changes in sesmic activity in response to shifts in pressure and contraction of crust at the equator and expansion of crust in Antarctic???

Not really sure. Just thinking out loud. I think you are right though in that there would be somewhat more sea level nearer the equator, and considerably less or even negative sea level rise nearer the Antarctic. As for the sesmic stuff I'm not sure as I think that stff gets really complicated. The other thing that gets weird is that if a mass of ice gets moving in a certain direction, like mostly towards Australia say, or mostly some other way, then wouldn't that change the Earths axis of rotation in some way, which might change our winters and summers in some way. Also if the distribution of heating and cooling of the Earths mantle changes that could change circulations within the mantle which might also change the Earths rotation and continental drifts and sesmic activity and so forth. Just as complicated as weather I should think, though a lot slower.

Coffee does make you open-minded. I know this for a fact.

But only if it is a Tim Horton's Extra-Large Double-Double.

Could you theoretically have more than one temporal dimension?

If so, I would like to call them Time, and Chime.

When Adam was created did he already have all of those micro-organisms in his body and crawling around in his skin? How gross, in a very cool sort of way. Evolution and/or Creation, God is one sick puppy.

OK I have a '92 Toyota Corrossion that is ready to pack it in and I have a replacement vehicle I am ready to switch the insurance to. Experiments?

Here are somes ideas:

1. Replace engine with electric motor and batteries.

2. Replace engine with lawn mower and weed wacker engines.

3. Replace engine with bio-hybrid (2 squirrels and a chipmunk).

4. Add some canola oil, alcohol, and water to the gasoline.

Here is what I am thinking. It is overpowered. I am a patient man. If I drive slow and am in no hurry to get up hills will I get more effciency if I have some water in the fuel? The alcohol is to help the water disolve evenly. The canola oil is to help protect the metal parts from corrosion and because I like the smell. Works in my lawn mower, sort of.

Thoughts?

It might be easiest to distill your own.

Would I ever be able to do this thermal depolymerisation in my basement? That would be so cool. Is there anyway to include electricity in the process, like from surplus wind power when I don't need the electricity? If I used wind power for both electricity and transportation fuel then I could have a larger wind turbine, and store hydrogen and avoid having so many batteries. I'm thinking about some process combining hydrogen and sewage and other waste to produce heat plus some useful transportation fuel. The gas produced could be stored and burned in a cogen process to produce heat and electricity on windless days. The liquid fuel could be used for transportation. With two vehicles you could have a commuter running on gas (methane and hydrogen) and the other car running on liquid fuel. Bit of a pipe dream, but it is always fun to think of technologies that lend themselves to decentralization.

If your kid really needs a time-out, this could be just the ticket.

Also, if you don't quite have enough saved up for their college education,

Or if you just want to take that vacation first.

It would be far better use the thermal depolymerisation process(or thermochemical conversion) to produce a fuel very much like crude oil from the waste potatoes you have mentioned. That's my opinion anyway' date=' what's the point in converting to ethanol, it's definitely not an ideal fuel anyway. In fact any organic waste would be suitable feedstock for the process, even human and medical. In fact, that's where i think the real potential for this technology is. If we could recycle all organic waste this way, we would produce a sizeable amount of fuel. If I've already done a thread on thermal depolymerisation, it's just a shame hardly anyone takes any notice of it...

I know this aint true but sometimes it seems like ppl would rather lament about their impending doom rather than look for ways to prevent it:-( ...[/quote']Would I ever be able to do this thermal depolymerisation in my basement? That would be so cool. Is there anyway to include electricity in the process, like from surplus wind power when I don't need the electricity? If I used wind power for both electricity and transportation fuel then I could have a larger wind turbine, and store hydrogen and avoid having so many batteries. I'm thinking about some process combining hydrogen and sewage and other waste to produce heat plus some useful transportation fuel. The gas produced could be stored and burned in a cogen process to produce heat and electricity on windless days. The liquid fuel could be used for transportation. With two vehicles you could have a commuter running on gas (methane and hydrogen) and the other car running on liquid fuel. Bit of a pipe dream, but it is always fun to think of technologies that lend themselves to decentralization.

.

Anyhow, I live in a potato growing region and they seem to dump a lot of potatoes every no and then. Does it make sense to turn these potatoes into ethanol, or compost them back into the soil?

Say I had my own potato field, say 1 acres, enough for 20,000 pounds/year. In addition say I had another acre of coppice for fuelwood at 1 cord/year. What if I ferment and distilled the poatoes into ethanol in my basement during the winter so that I could recover the heat for heating my house and hot water. Then used the ethanol to drive my car, and my tractor. Also, I would eat a lot of potatoes. Love potatoes. I could also do all my urininating in the potato fields. Not all in the same place of course.

Would this make any sense?

20,000 pounds potatoes = 4,000 pounds dry = 32,000,000 BTU

Add a cord of wood fuel = 2,000 pounds dry = 16,000,000 BTU

Say I could convert 50% to ethanol and 50% to heat and hot water.

24,000,000 BTU ethanol ~ 1000 litres of ethanol fuel = 20,000 km/yr

24,000,000 BTU heat and hot water = 200 days @ 1500 watts of heat

This would be an average production of 5 litres ethanol per day,

using on average 100 pounds of potatoes and 10 pounds (dry) of wood fuel.

The potatoes and wood fuel could be stored in the basement.

Together they would take up a space of about an 8'x8'x8'.

I'm not sure how much work this would entail. I'm think a wind turbine producing electricity and hydrogen fuel might be simpler. I could use passive solar to help with heat, and solar hot water in summer. Then the land would only be needed for growing trees and food.

10kw x 24h x 365d x 0.25 x 3412 BTU = 75,000,000 BTU

25,000,000 BTU for domestic electricity

25,000,000 BTU for hydrogen transportation fuel

25,000,000 BTU for battery losses and supplemental heating

Canada is going to 5% Ethanol by 2010.

Makes very little sense to me, like having orgies to promote safe sex.

Sure it's fun...

.

Not enough information, BUT...

Based on conservation of energy, the springy bumper car has the potential to go the farthest because all of the kinetic energy was transfered. What is not known is how much energy was transfer from the bumper to the car.

Perhaps if one was 'uncoordinated with both hands', it might be so.

Or perhaps if a person literally had two left hands, you might suspect a problem.

I suspect that I am more likely to be brain damaged because I am so extremely right-handed.

I even switch my knife to my right hand when I eat, and have a lazy left eye.

Interestingly enough, I think I was just as fast at sailing on both tacks.

Not at the same time of course.

.

Which would transfer heat to water more efficiently, a glass beaker or an aluminium can?

I wouldn´t think so. The maximum change in speed a particle can have is 2c (c left to c right).

c - - c = c

Not sure.

EDIT: Thinking some more. I am pretty sure I was wrong. Oops.

.

"assuming all conditions were exactly as they were 14 billion years ago"

Then the answer would be yes. Except that if all conditions were the same as 14 billion years ago, then it might actually have to be 14 billion years ago also, or would it? Not sure. It get's into the more metaphysical question of what causes the Big Bang, and whether that cause is part of the universe, or not. Hypothetically, if all the conditions that caused the universe were the same, then the universe would turn out the same. This also assumes that, by definition, there is no external intervention after the Big Bang. In my own way of thinking the Big Bang never actually occured at a distinct point in time. It exists as a theoretical point in time. Like absolute zero is a theoretical point in temperature, but not one that is actually achieved. Same with a perfect vacuum, and the speed of light, and the Big Freeze. The universe has a theoretical finite life span, but it never actually gets there.

Of course I am not certain of this. I would even say I have enough knowledge of this sort of physics to call it a theory, and I am not even sure I would call it a belief. Just a way of thinking that has evolved. Any one else think along these lines, or do you know of someone that does? There must be many ways to be wrong, huh? But only one way for me at this moment. Well, sometimes I am capable of having more than one idea in my head at once, and they can both be wrong.

I have done double all nighters on at least 2 occassions. Not sure about the third. Hard to tell sometimes if a cat nap is 10 seconds or 10 minutes when you are that tired. Once was in school. Once was for work. Once was during graduate school. Not healthy, especially when you are older. I think it causes brain damage. In the very least I think it makes you more prone to mental illness. Seemed like a good idea at the time though. Loads of fun.

Everything in moderation. Including moderation.

If you believe that humanity is part of nature, then you might first ask if the collective intelligence of all of humanity can be measured, or you might start with small groups even before that. Is all of humanity collectively more or less intelligent than an individual or small group? I believe that the answer is that collectively we are in some ways more intelligent, and in some ways less intelligent than individuals. It is the same with nature.

Is nature an under achiever? Compared to what? Our expectations?

.

Not a lot of biodiversity in the Sahara desert, last time I checked. I think whatever restores and maintains total biomass will most likely keep us on the right track. I don't see a problem with 400ppm and an extra degC or maybe even two, as long as we use the opportunity to restore and sustain forest and soil biomass, which we are not. It is where we are headed for at 500pm with less forest and soil biomass and 10 billion people than concerns me the most.

I would agree with much of you said if it wasn't so twisted.

We need to take major steps to increase forest and soil biomass rather than continue to reduce it. We have larger forest fires since we started logging, because our forests less moist. The changes we have caused are not creating new species, but are destroying existing species. Biomass and biodiversity are decreasing not increasing. I think the world could better handle higher temperatures if it had more biomass and natural habitat. Polar Bears could migrate south and depend more on caribou until the next cold period, but we do not allow them to do this. Cities can rebuild as ocean levels rise, but savanah turns into desert much easier than taiga turns into boreal forest. There simply isn't enough soil or sunlight in the near polar regions to make up for increasing desertifation in the near equitorial regions. We should not embrace 500ppm CO2 or even 380ppm because there is nothing natural about those levels of CO2 during this geological epoch and continental land mass configuration.

North Americans should not embrace change if they are a likely cause of it and it will causing problems in other countries. The other countries should have a voice. Furthermore, if we create conditions which are so unlike the past 100,000 years, how can we predict the future with any certainty based on the past. What is nature with fewer species and less life? What is to embrace?

To me the computer models are not neccessary to identify the problem. The rate at which fossil fuels are being burned and carbon dioxide is increasing is sufficient. Also population increase, deforestation, soil degradation and erosion, desertification, and decreasing biodiversity. You don't need a computer model to identify a problem. But in my opinion global warming is a threat, but not the greatest threat. The greatest threat is decreasing biomass and biodiversity as a result of human activity and population increase. It's a no brainer that our way of life and living must change dramatically this century, but our political futures are guarded just as carefully as our political histories. Most of us take comfort in this.

Personally, I would let the government do my taxes before I let them do my homework.

.

Can you name one government in the world that denies the facts of climate change as you do?

Prime Evil.

Sorry' date=' but I do not think you read my posting well enough. Kyoto is a BUST, and always has been.

 

Cthulhu.

You, at least appear to argue intelligently, and read what I have to say. Thank you for that. A few comments on your last posting.

 

Clouds and their importance. Clouds are made of water vapour and can have one of two possible effects.

First : They might dramatically increase the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the most potent greenhouse 'gas' of all. It has been estimated to make up 70% or more of the total greenhouse effect. Increasing clouds increases greenhouse effect.

Second : Clouds increase the Earth's albedo. Reflects heat out into space - a cooling effect.

Does the first effect or the second have the biggest impact? No-one knows.

 

Your reference suggesting a prediction of cooling effects from aerosol influence. Sorry. I read it carefully, and it does not say that.

 

Predictions of the next 100 years. Your suggestions are reasonably sensible. You suggest a 1 to 5 Deg. C. increase. I think a better suggestion is 0.5 to 1 Deg C., based on history (extend the line on the graph). However, though we disagree, yours is more sensible than most such suggestions I have seen.[/quote']I don't think you read your own postings well enough.

 

Whether or not Kyoto is bust is not the point of this forum.

This is not a political forum.

What is the defered cost of putting CO2 into the atmosphere? I am not sure if anyone really knows yet, but it cost something. The Kyoto protocol allows for this to be determined in a free market. In this way, CO2 reductions would be pursued where it is most economical to do so.

What is it about this that you disagree with?