AGW Theory - Discussion

This is kind of a side bar but something everyone here should be supporting is a plasma gassifier for waste disposal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification

The temperatures of the plasma arc are so high that all material gets disintegrated and turned into it's basic molecular components. Heavier elements then drop to the bottom and come out as molten slag while lighter elements go up and are turned into a hydrocarbon gas for producing electricity. There is a very small amount of toxic waste produced from stuff like mercury, and since this was already present in the trash to begin with you are really just extracting it for safe disposal.

The requirements are a large amount of electricity for startup, though it can usually produce enough syngas to power itself if there is an onsite generator. You also need a pretty hefty capital investment up front, these things aren't cheap and there is plenty of cheap land available. So even if we start to run out of room, there is already a permanent solution for the safe disposal of garbage.

There are some side bonus's, one being that the resultant slag can be used the same was gravel and asphalt is for construction. You can even convert the slag into concrete. The gas produced is high in energy content and can be used to produce electricity to either power the furnace or a local grid. The toxic elements are separated out and can be stored separately or chemically separated for reuse.

Of course again, because this solves an environmental problem without dramatic shifts of power or reduction of human consumption, the progressive folks won't push for it and so it's happening very slowly.

There is one kind of material you don't want to put inside it and that's highly radioactive stuff. Low level radioactive material can easily be processed but anything reactor grade or above would start to fission when it reached the arcs. This would likely cause an explosion that could destroy the incinerator, though released radioactivity would be very low. Well unless someone threw a huge wad of Plutonium down into it, but that would blow up any industrial furnace anyway.

It's really late here now, like almost 5am so I'll continue with the whole CO2 ice thing later, but this part reminded me of a large part of the how and why I got into metals for awhile.

After researching some of the aspects of recycling, one of the main points I remember sticking out was that recycling of [base] metals (versus plastic, glass, paper) was the only viable material worth doing in not only economic, but environmental terms as well.

At first I just did it to understand why and as I got more involved it became very obvious just how lucrative recycling metals was. So much garbage that people throw out, in particular electronics. Whether computers, CRT TVs/monitors, motors, and eventually everything made of metal.

It went from why are metals the only thing worth recycling to why doesn't everyone who needs money not doing this? So much trash that with a little work can make someone pretty decent money and if done thoroughly recovers almost all materials that many people just toss out that ends up in landfills. So not only does it reduce materials going to landfills, but also saves how ever much you recover from having to be mined from raw materials (minerals) to processed materials (metals, refined metals). Sure there is energy involved in recycling metals, but overall the benefit of recycling metals outweighs the energy and resources needed compared to starting from scratch. Plus there is money to be made as well, but now I know why, because how much cheaper it is than mining raw materials, etc.

The worst offenders are things like CRTs, but even those, the only thing wasted is the glass and lead mix, even enough of the plastic can be recovered. Plastic recycling is not really effective when everything is taken into account (by itself), but it's still better than letting it rot in a landfill. Also depends on the type from what I was told, but I never looked too much into it. I focused on metals.

There's plenty of electronic/metal garbage, and after becoming involved in it for awhile, it was like why isn't everyone doing this as it helps reduce environmental impact and creates what I experienced as money rightfully earned for putting in real work collecting, extracting, sorting, and properly disposing of every last bit of material. Yeah I can keep going on about this topic, lol, but to this day I'm still amazed at how more people should be doing this, especially during tough economic times vs. people who just laugh at or dismiss the whole process.

Okay Mr. Science, give us an explanation on what that all means. All I see is a graph that has a pretty stable climate, if what you say co2 does that sucker should be spiking like crazy from the 1950s onward. But it doesn't..(at all) "not even a little bit"..

I wish.. I live in Michigan.

He wasn't being serious with that comment, it was an insult aimed at you. Basically he's calling you ignorant just in a way that makes him look smart.

Yeah, I caught that. I had a bunch more typed up but I backspaced it since it would have more than likely gotten me banned.

I do believe that's his goal, to get people topic banned.

It's a sample graph created using data for a single city. Says so in the text right by it. There's information having to do with various models on the NOAA website. Care to evaluate their accuracy?

I see so you guys see conspiracies everywhere, not just on this topic. That makes sense.

You certainly see them everywhere.

Given that the NOAA is being sued by Judicial Watch for "shadiness"
Why exactly should I trust anything they say? I posted about this pages ago btw.. And this isn't the only time the NOAA has been accused or caught being shady, I like how you guys think otherwise its sooo cute.

Feel free to use data from these other non-NOAA models then:
Crutem: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov

He (and you) didn't understand my explanation about compacting snow in Antarctica, I was genuinely wondering if he just wasn't familiar with how snow works or if I worded everything poorly. If I wanted to get someone banned, I'd get myself banned so I wouldn't feel the urge to correct your massive, meandering triple posts riddled with misconceptions and inaccuracies.

It was poorly worded, unfortunately I understand way too well how snow works.


I know. How about you show me what was asked for.

You will never get an answer from him. He demands answers from us but never gives them himself.

Also, anyone else noticed that he referenced NASA, another source that uses numbers removed from reality?

Can't use the original data from NASA, it doesn't prove that global warming exists, so they got to "alter it" or, as Pleebo puts it, "correct it" so it does.

I gave you exactly what you asked for - climate models. You have no idea what to do with it.

If you want to talk science, then talk science. What level of accuracy is satisfactory? Accuracy is quantitative. How are you defining it? Measuring it? How do your standards compare to those defined by other organizations, like the IPCC perhaps?

The Crutem link has downloads for raw station data. How do these temperatures compare to corrected ones? The NASA link also contains their complete correction methodology as a peer-reviewed study (Hansen et al 2010). The background section explains the need for their corrections but what about this rationale is unreasonable to you? (Keeping in mind that corrections being necessary at all is not a valid answer. Without data corrections you could say goodbye to things like your cell service or satellite TV.)

I got asked for raw data I don't know how many pages back and still have yet to see any critical analyses. I have not shied away from providing information when it's available. It's all there. Here's a second chance, guys.

No, you did not.
The accuracy needs to be 100%, this is not my number it is the climate scientist. They want to claim .5-1 degrees, they cannot do this without 100% accuracy and be taken seriously by anyone with more than 2 brain cells.
Not by me. I asked you this.
For the 3rd time are you going to provide it or not?

You can admit defeat. We all know it does not exist. No amount of "talking science" is going to change that.

100% accuracy is outside the realm of any science. It's astounding to me that you feel like you can criticize something so clearly outside of your grasp.

Alrighty.

Toss up one that is 75% accurate, then say the earth is warming 1-2 degrees. Oh.. Wait.. You already have.. Good Job^^

And that is the problem. So far the best we can do is either ethanol or biomass, neither of which is terribly efficient, both of which produce CO2. (To be fair this is CO2 that the plant has removed and stored.)

This is why I consider the cyborg plant an interesting development. There was another recent breakthrough at mimicking chlorophyll's energy collection, transmission, and storage capabilities. I will see if I can find it later.

Your concept of accuracy is still vague but the HADCRUT4 model in the Crutem link has been shown to model the observed warming trend with a less than 20% error.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

Contains a link to the actual study but I imagine it's only accessible via subscription.

The east coast's Xmas as well.

But I get a white Xmas. As do our mountains, and oh boy do we need the snowpack. First time I can remember Snoqualmie Pass being closed for over 12 hours. Also ALL of our ski resorts being closed on account of snow.

I only hope California gets as much snow in the mountains as we do.

Thank you mega el nino.

Lets see. Things I trust that have a 20% error.
I was going to make a sarcastic list of stuff but,
I'm truthfully having a hard time coming up with anything.

1954 was warmer. Just sayin.

That's nice but what is statistically acceptable has nothing to do with your personal experiences and what you feel is good enough.

/magnussrage