tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post7348678884446326184..comments2023-10-17T03:34:04.053-06:00Comments on Wizards of Oz: Climate Change: Reprisedeichmanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13358324721299617982noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post-407501961118068212008-05-23T02:50:00.000-06:002008-05-23T02:50:00.000-06:00Well, my complaint on water is mostly against the ...Well, my complaint on water is mostly against the hydrogen economy. Sure, by LeChaltie's principle, all we'd get is an eq. shift. But where that shift ends up can matter(which you get to via a different mental pathway apparently with "Would the curve for 288 K (near the median of earth's ambient temperature) shift it to the left"). Producing tons more atmospheric water with a hydrogen economy doesn't sound all that smart to me because of the eq shift. But I'm not an atmospheric guy, so I could be full of it. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, we blame J for everything. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post-4905971878451285312008-05-22T07:50:00.000-06:002008-05-22T07:50:00.000-06:00BTW, thx to J @ Armchair Generalist for the ry vec...BTW, thx to J @ <A HREF="http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/" REL="nofollow">Armchair Generalist</A> for the ry vector!deichmanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13358324721299617982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post-91841972907792548462008-05-22T07:49:00.000-06:002008-05-22T07:49:00.000-06:00ry, Welcome, and thanks for your great comments. ...ry, Welcome, and thanks for your great comments. I agree with your recommendation (go nuclear, plus solar / wind / geothermal until we get a working reactor, be it ITER or something else), and that the "shoulders" under the curve are significant.<BR/><BR/>Every solution has consequences: be it corn-based ethanol or the hydrogen economy you noted. Personally, I am not as concerned about water as a greenhouse gas -- largely due to the self-regulating nature of the water cycle. CO2 distribution is much more normalized, and its reclamation more demanding.<BR/><BR/>I will share one gripe I have about the graphic in the post. The curve for outbound IR emissions from the earth is labeled "255 K" -- or -18ยบ C. Would the curve for 288 K (near the median of earth's ambient temperature) shift it to the left, and therefore *AWAY* from the CO2 absorption peak? If so, then water would be a far more troublesome molecule....deichmanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13358324721299617982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post-56970637041629346702008-05-22T01:14:00.000-06:002008-05-22T01:14:00.000-06:00I've got a small quibble with your analysis that w...I've got a small quibble with your analysis that water is not that big in the 'C' range. That's not true at all, and your own data shows it. H2O bottoms out around 9-10microns but shoulders to both left and right of it in a non-insignificant amount. I'd have to get out my methodology text to do it right(being an O-chem guy instead of a quant or a p-chem) but you'd have to integrate under the curve to see how much it actually absorbs in said region to make that statement, with high accuracy. Like I said, it's a minor quibble. You can fine tune a laser or other detectors into very small ranges of wavenumbers(nanometers, microns, different disciplines use different names). So I don't think that FLIR works on a humid day is all that strong an argument. Again, quibble, not trying to genk the whole thing using the 'one brick in the wall is mishapped so the whole thing is faulty' fallacy. <BR/><BR/>Otherwise, put me in Dan's/Barnett's/"Skeptical Environmetalist" category. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, why is the water absorption important? We've got people saying we should move to a hydrogen economy. Well, water is about (approximate, and from memory) 80% as effective CO2(per mole (6.022x10^23 )of stuff))) at trapping heat. So, if we're generating more moles of water per kW are we actually saving anything? Those shoulders are not insiginificant. NOr is the fact that water absorbs in the other major region: incoming energy. <BR/><BR/>All those damn bond eneries and vibrational modes.(Gawd, I hated studying that stuff). <BR/><BR/>go nuclear, supported by geothermal, wind, and solar. At least until we get some kind of controllable and sustainable fusion reaction going(eh, in less than 500 years I bet). <BR/><BR/>Blame J over at Armchair for pointing me your way. Ask Dan, I'm waaaay annoying once I infest your joint. ;) --ryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post-37185846944648860522008-05-21T23:02:00.000-06:002008-05-21T23:02:00.000-06:00Vinay, I'm continuing to track your own blog (as w...Vinay, I'm continuing to track your own blog (as well as http://hexayurt.com ) to keep up with the "unplugged" marketspace.<BR/><BR/>Dan, Many thanks! You've been blogging up a storm while overseas - some outstanding posts of your own these past couple of days!deichmanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13358324721299617982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post-66831230305643828242008-05-21T20:05:00.000-06:002008-05-21T20:05:00.000-06:00Truly an excellent post. Detail-oriented, problem...Truly an excellent post. Detail-oriented, problem-oriented, solution-oriented. Really, it's quite wonderful.Dan tdaxphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07205344738190870766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541979398191373640.post-85848807635209612382008-05-21T10:58:00.000-06:002008-05-21T10:58:00.000-06:00I'm pretty sure that the panels from nanosolar and...I'm pretty sure that the panels from nanosolar and konarka are going to fix this presently. Electricity generation which is significantly cheaper than coal - and therefore much, much cheaper than nuclear - will stabilize and then cut CO2 emissions pretty rapidly.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why people aren't rallying around these companies and figuring out how to scale them as rapidly as possible. Nanosolar is supposed to ship 430 megawatts of panels this year... and we could really use two orders of magnitude more next year...<BR/><BR/>That, to me, looks like the solution. Kill coal first, then do gasoline as battery technology improves.Vinay Gupta - Hexayurt Projecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07260857744733288554noreply@blogger.com