Global Warming Solutions Wanted

Source: Ohio State University (http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/)
Date: Posted 6/15/2001

GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL, MAY END WITHIN 20 YEARS, SAYS OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
RESEARCHER

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.

The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society.


Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of
carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which
is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced
climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In
fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that, mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this scenario, atmospheric
carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an average rising
gradually, over the last one million years -- long before human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about 25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first appeared over 30 years ago
and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the cause behind the
retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again. Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to reverse, and the earth can
start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement
on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers."


Editor's Note: The original news release can be found at
http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/nowarm.htm
 
Equilibrium...

...that's an interesting and coherent view on the problem. It also serves to illustrate how difficult it is to figure out what is a huge system. I will add, however, that even if the researcher is spot on and man is responsible for "only" five percent this could still be a huge problem.

I spent ten years as a nuclear technician in the Navy. When we deployed to the Med it would take us about five days to get there. Our power plant was 550 megawatts and the Navy plants are not highly automated. The CO would get us moving at a steady speed and during the first 24 hours everything would settle out. We would tweak and adjust valves until the plant was finally "steady-state" and we didn't need to touch anything for the rest of the trip.

But, if we passed through the Gulf Stream (higher cooling water temperatures) or the CO decided he wanted to go a bit faster or slower (even as little as a 2% change) the entire system became unbalanced and we were back to tweaking this and adjusting that. If we didn't, bad things would happen.

My point is this. We exist as creatures only because conditions are precisely right. The earth is a much bigger system which means things change more slowly and with even more momentum than the simple system I was dealing with. I would also offer that it is infinitely more complex than the reactors wI worked with. The cost of being wrong or of finding out that that 5% will take too long to reverse or that it takes us outside the band of survival before the point-of-turning would be a very high price to pay for political debates which delay actions which we know will at least compensate for our involvement in the equation.
 
yes something I can agree on! We both have that military training and mindset. This is more like it! Love it! My favorite books growing up wer of course Doolittle's Raid (30 seconds Over Tokyo) and the Nautilus [corect me please] going under ice caps,

so cool....
 
One other factor that seems to be totaly ignored.

The solar constant(which isn't).

The energy output of the sun varies constantly. This happens in cycles that each take different time to complete. One is over one hundred years long , others from one week to over ten years.

A one percent change in solar output WILL cause corrisponding changes in our global temp. Whether we burn anything or not.
 
The 11 year solar cylces are one thing I kept trying to point out!


I need your help Old_Man,

I am th thickest brick here and I just cannot seem to make myself clear.

I hope you can do better!
 
My real point...

...is this.

Sure, there are natural cycles originating from solar variations, centuries old variations in deep ocean currents, the amount of CO2 produced by termites in Africa, and so on. We don't understand all these cycles nor how much impact they have. Still, to argue that man's additional influence on the system isn't important because it is smaller in magnitude (something I personally doubt) is a deadly mistake.

Too many people think in terms of absolutes, binary, either/or, yes/no when they should be thinking in more fluid terms. In a system, every parameter is affected to some degree by changes in other variables. Some of the changes in one variable can be magnified by degrees in another. To make matters more complex, when a change is made it doesn't settle out at some new level in a smooth fashion. In a science all its own, the system overshoots what would be equilibrium and continues to oscillate back and forth over the new equilibrium. Human operators have difficulty with this and will try to control the oscillations which, of course, upsets the system once more. Because a number of interacting systems are oscillating operators will try to control each of these systems independently, making the situation even worse. We used computers to control these types of oscillations and prevent catastrophes. In this case a mere machine could act with the foresight that a human was incapable of.

My point is this. Arguing about Global Warming may be a moot point because anything we do, breathe, fart, start the car, burn a forest, dam a river, fight a war WILL cause an effect. Period. How much and to what degree is the unknown. Be aware that just because things seem to be changing slowly doesn't mean that can't suddenly change. If, for example, the ocean is a major absorber of carbon dioxide, then be aware that its ability to accept dissolved gases doesn't happen on a straight line but on a curve and that the more you put in the slower it will accept it until it reaches saturation. This will increase the rate that it builds up in the atmosphere dramatically.

I believe all politics and arm-chair scientists aside there are people who are devoted to learning what is needed and proposing solutions. What they are doing is so far beyond the minds of any of us that it's ridiculous.

Military mindset? Not quite. My boss was Adm. H.G. Rickover, a man known for his tenacity, technical competence, arrogance, and obsessions. He hated military tradition and mindset, but was just as rigid in a different way. He controlled the US Navy's nuclear power program from its inception in the 1950's until his last cruise aboard CVN-70 for sea trials in 1983. I hated him and loved him at the same time. One of the things he taught all of us in his program was this:

"Always look at the big picture."
 
you see, but it is the rest of us, those who can be manipulated by the populists, that you gotta win over, and you never make that effort.

you just put yourself out, pronounce expertise and denounce anything else,

but I am smart enough to never go above a sixth grade level and will always be able to round up troops to support me,

HELL CARVILLE TAUGHT ME THAT AND I NEVER HAD TO MEET THE MAN!
 
Say...

...that's profound.

You don't get it do you? None of this is real which is why I could care less if I have any sixth grade "followers". I'm not interested in changing anybody's mind because it doesn't matter here. I've never catered to the lowest common denominator, but after seeing some of your elementary mistakes I can certainly appreciate why you would. I left the sixth grade many decades ago because there's only so much you can learn or do in the sixth grade. Apparently you're still in the stage where you want to rush out and pick a fight only to run away and hide behind your mother's apron and pitch childish taunts.

So far I've only made one denouncement and that was to call you a fraud. I still think you are a fraud and you're certainly not worth my time.
 
AJ is like Todd...

Completely wrong most of the time, but still thoroughly entertaining.

At least Todd asks most of his questions in earnest, and is not simply trying to fuck with people. Todd gets my respect in that area. I think Todd is honestly trying to stimulate debate.

AJ is pretty-much just a shit-stirrer.

As for the reason people use hot water to make ice cubes, it's this:

Hot water has less dissolved gas in it and when it's frozen the ice cubes come out clear, as opposed to ones made with cold water, which tend to come out more opaque.

As for me, I used to pooh-pooh global warming. I'm not so sure anymore. The weather seems to be changing radically.

One answer to the problem is nuclear power. I know environmentalists shudder at the thought, but the U.S. is already running on 20% nuke, and we haven't had a serious accident since three-mile island, which should never have happened anyway. It was a new system with new operators, and had mechanical design flaws. I seriously doubt it again would happen with todays safeguards. As far as I know, the U.S. nuclear industry has never had a death caused by a release of radiation.

France uses nukes for 75% of their power production. The Europeans are always talking about how much more enlightened they are than us. Wouldn't this be a prime example of their enlightenment?

And since I brought up the Europeans, let it be noted that for all their protests over Bush's policies, no European nation has signed the Kyoto treaty.

Face it folks, when it comes down to saving their jobs or reducing global warming that we still don't understand the mechanics of, folks are gonna vote for their paycheck every time. Even in Europe I would guess.
 
I've often wondered why Hydrogen isn't mentioned more often as an alternative fuel. When Hydrogen burns, you get water -- totally non-polluting.

Hydrogen could be produced at any hydro-electric plant where there is both electricity and water already, and transported by un manned hydrogen filled blimps carrying loads of compressed or liquid hydrogen to where it's needed.

Hydrogen can be generated chemically almost anywhere, although that method produces by-pproducts to dispose of.

I think the image of the Hindenburg falling in flames, and the unfortuante fact that Fusion Bombs are called Hydrogen bombs leads most people to believe that hydrogen is more dangerous than it actually is.
 
lavy-liscious

I saw a presentation on windpower on C-CPAN just the other day.

Besides the fact that it's non-polluting, it can provide a source of income for landowners, primarily cattle ranchers, who can make many times the amount on a per/acre basis than what they would make from raising cattle.

I think you are right about Denmark, primarily because its a very windy country. The prime area in the U.S. for wind development is the Great Plains for obvious reasons.

In California we have several areas that are dotted with these huge windmachines. They are actually pretty cool to look at.
 
Harold

I've been thinking about hydrogen engines, but don't know much about them.

Detroit is claiming the hydrogen fuel-cell engine is right around the corner, with some models ready for release as early as next year.

I wonder if the oil companies are fighting this, or getting ready to transition to hydrogen production?

If it can be made truly safe and cheap, I can't see how it wouldn't be the end of our hydrocarbon pollution woes.
 
That's a riot!!!

I never knew that about ice cubes. Truly, I've not fully appreciated the technical aspects of my favourite drink accessory. Tomorrow I'm definitely gonna check it out!

Todd? Usually disagree with everything he says, but thoroughly enjoy it anyway.

Amen on the paycheck. It doesn't matter what language you speak it seems most folks want a bit more than they've got and would rather save for a down payment on a house than a future. I'm not so sure I'm any different when it comes to the crunch.

Nukes...always one of my favourite topics. I was training at Knolls Atomic Labs in upstate New York back in the 70's when protesting was all the rage. It was always a bit ironic to see the protestors in their big cars heading toward a protest and away from the four nuclear reactors that were just a couple of miles away.

I've always thought it was a brilliant technology but usually keep my mouth shut in public because it's too hard to explain and so many people are rabidly against it. It's hard for most people to really get a solid grip on it. The first cruiser I was stationed on could cross the Atlantic on just over 4 grams of fuel (454 grams to the pound for you non-metric folk). Amazing. I was always comforted by the fact that you put 1,000 kg of fuel in a reactor and you take out 1,000 kg of waste. Yeah, it's poisonous, radioactive, and dangerous as hell, but it's all there. Not like a coal plant or automobile where all the fuel ends up floating around in the atmosphere.

TMI...because this happened while I was working in the business, so to speak, we got access to the reports and analysis of TMI. There's some good reports available that are not classified from the US Office of Technology Assessment. It was all required reading for us nucs. Some surprising things and some not so surprising.

The operators were mostly ex-navy and so actually pretty experienced, but not up to snuff on training (comm plants are designed to make money not train people). The good news was that the reactor protection network performed better than expected in spite of operators doing everything within their power to screw it up. A maintenance procedure had not been completed properly which sparked off the whole affair. The RO didn't believe his indication that Pzr level was falling and the supervisor ordered the charging pumps, which had automatically activated to restore the level, turned off. When the emergency core cooling system activated on an even lower level trip they attempted to circumvent that. The operators never believed it was actually happening. They thought their indications were mistaken. Make a long story short, human stupidity turned what would have been a minor accident, or even incident, into a "worst case scenario" accident of the sort the engineers plan for but hope never happens. The people really flunked, but the system did what it was supposed to do. The only releases, according to the reports I saw, were small quantities of xenon with a half life of just 7 seconds.

There have been a lot of changes in the years since. Last year I got a chance to go through a commercial plant in South Texas while they were undergoing SG replacements. What impressed me most was the training simulator which is simply incredible. I found it hard to believe I wasn't in the control room of an operating plant. The US Navy has operated for hundreds of reactor years without any accidents due to reactor system failures (Thresher and Scorpion did have breached reactor systems, but it wasn't their fault). I think is due to tight training programmes. If the commercial industry is run tight I don't see any reason why it couldn't be part of the solution for both growing energy needs and environmental concerns. Ah well, off my personal soap box.

I've got reports on Chernobyl as well, but you really don't want to hear about that. It's just too damn scary. Ok, well just one thing. At least TMI had a working ECCS system. The Soviets had never installed the diesal generators that drive the ECCS pumps. It's my understanding that they were still in a warehouse several hundred miles away. The ECCS pumps usually pump large volumes of Boron impregnated water into the reactor vessel and compartment. The boron absorbs thermal neutrons and helps shut down the reactor. What a tragic mess.

I think I'll go make those clear ice cubes now!
 
lavender said:
I know that NASA was considering hydrogen in the early 90s to fuel a new type of space travel device, NASP (National Aerospace Plane). However, they decided that it would actually cause incredibly amounts of ozone depletion. It woudln't cause as much as the shuttle but still a significant amount.

I thought the Shuttle main engines were fueled by Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen. The only difference the NASP would make is the loss of problems cause by the solid rocket booster exhaust.

Hydrogen is only slightly harder to contain and control than natural gas or methane are. (Smaller molecules mean you need tighter seals.)

Hydrogen Fuel cells are just expensive because they require rare metals to work efficiently. Synthetic materials to make them cheaper require them to be pput in service to gain an "economy of scale" in production. It's one of those Catch-22s where they're too expensive because nobodyw ill buy them, and nobody will buy them because they're too expensive.

The car you drive to the grocery store can be modified to run on Hydrogen for less than $1000. It will produce some Nitrous Oxides if it is, because the conversion uses ambient air in combustion under pressure, but not as much as gasoline or natural gas conversions do. Other pollutants are almost totally eliminated with a hydrogen conversion.

There are two problems with converting your car to run on Hydrogen -- availability of fuel, and fuel capacity. A typical conversion can only manage about a 100 mile range with compressed hydrogen.
 
Speaking of rocket engines...

...and cars.

I don't know about pollution but I read an article several months ago about a fellow out west who strapped Air Force JATO engines to his car and lit 'em up out in the desert. Now, the story I read said authorities were searching for the site of a plane crash because someone had reported a crater and crash debris on the side of a mountain. Turns out it was this fella and his old car, which had buried itself several feet into hill. Apparently, since you can't turn these things off, the car ended up airborne until terra firma interfered.

Three things to say about this...

1. I'd love to hear the cockpit recording on this one.

2. Hydrogen is fine, but solid boosters belong on a launch pad.

3. It's proof to me that evolution works.

(Now, I did read this story but whether or not it's any more credible than Todd's stories I don't know...but it's a whale of a tale don't you think?)
 
Back
Top