Robert, you are in charge of the computer model that determines how to modify
the ocean currents in our favor. Can you imagine the controversy that will
arise if some group decides that this must be done to save the Earth? But of
course computers are becoming immensely more powerful as time progresses and
one day even the IPCC models will be honest.
Is it possible to read between the lines of your input to determine that we
should be seriously considering limiting the total waste energy originating
from future LENR devices to no more than 100 times the current energy
consumption with fossil fuels? What if we figure a way to sequester the bad
gasses now causing the problems with LENR devices to gain back much of what has
been lost up to this time?
I have noticed that nothing is generally discussed about the most important
green house gas, water vapor. It is also known that the tops of clouds can
reflect a lot of light back into space. Perhaps some serious study needs to be
directed toward using cloud modification to reflect incoming light as an
insurance policy
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
a 1°C increase in the earth's temperature increases the energy radiated away by
about 1.5%. Using your 6000:1 figure for current human energy releases we
could increase our energy consumption by about 100 times (ie 1/60th of suns
input energy) and only increase the Earths temperature by 1°C on average, and
at that sort of energy consumption we could all live permanently in aircraft
flying around the world.
1°C isn't very significant next to the 3°C temperature variation we have had
during the current interglacial (the Holocene over the last 10000 years, most
of which was hotter than today). Or next to the 8-10°C variation we get between
the normal ice-age state and the brief interglacials that we have had over the
last few million years.
Solar variation appears to be relatively minor, perhaps about 0.1% in terms of
total incident energy (though we don't have good information before the
satellite era - the sun could be long-term variable and we wouldn't know), but
is perhaps much more significant in terms of how the spectrum of that energy is
distributed, with possibly small variations in higher frequencies, solar
magnetic field and charged particles producing large effects via subtle changes
in atmospheric chemistry and cloud nucleation.
So there are obviously natural effects that massively overwhelm our present
ability to affect the earth's temperature, even if doubling CO2 does ultimately
increase temperature by 1-2°C
Luckily there are relatively subtle ways where we can input a small amounts of
energy and produce bigger effects on the earth's temperature. In particular
using distributed water turbines or erecting barriers in the ocean to modify
oceanic circulation and heat transport between poles and equator (can magnify
the effect of your input energy by 1000's of times). Or melting icecaps, or
growing them by pumping water onto them. Hopefully we will be able to use such
tricks to prevent the oncoming iceage that is otherwise due to start sometime
in the next 2000 years.
On 5 August 2012 20:14, David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
It seems apparent that the final global consideration is
that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of
the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels.
In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth
heating of X times the initial heat outlay.
I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the
energy incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used
globally (in 2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was
only the energy that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil
sourced energy).
Unknown to me is the added heat energy from "new" CO2
and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused by
(really wild guess) 1% more retention of solar energy than
"before", then that 1% is 60 times more than our total energy
consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable
and nuclear parts it won't be much different.
Hey, a wild guess is better than none.
So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by
LENR, no problem. But bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a
huge increase in total energy usage, exponential, year after
year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in
trouble.
Ol' Bab.
I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join
into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment
completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X
factor I am suggesting?
Dave
